    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3329, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3610, H.R. 3670, H.R.
         3524, H.R. 4048, H.R. 4051, H.R. 4052, H.R. 4057 AND H.R. 4072

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (EO)

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-49

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    73-293                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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
    MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
    ROBERT L. TURNER, New York

                Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

                                     ______

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (EO)

                     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
    MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada

    Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
    hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
    published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
    official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
    both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
    of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
    unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
    current publication process and should diminish as the process is
    further refined.

                                C O N T E N T S

                                   __________

                                 March 8, 2012

                                                                       Page

    Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3329, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3610, H.R.
      3670, H.R. 3524, H.R. 4048, H.R. 4051, H.R. 4052, H.R. 4057 and
      H.R. 4072......................................................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Chairman Marlin A. Stutzman......................................     1
        Prepared Statement of Chairman Stutzman......................    38
    Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member..................     2
        Prepared Statement of B. Braley..............................    38
    Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis............................................     3
    Hon. Timothy J. Walz.............................................     4
    Hon. G. K. Butterfield...........................................     5
        Prepared Statement of G. K. Butterfield......................    39

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Richard F. Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and
      Government Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America................     7
        Prepared Statement of Mr. Weidman............................    40
    Mr. Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, National Legislative
      Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.........     9
        Prepared Statement of Mr. Gallucci...........................    55
    Mr. Steve L. Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National Economic
      Commission, The American Legion................................    11
        Prepared Statement of Mr. Gonzalez...........................    60
        Executive Summary of Mr. Gonzalex............................    65
    Mr. Jason R. Thigpen, Co-Founder and President, Students Veterans
      Advocacy Group.................................................    12
        Prepared Statement of Mr. Thigpen............................    66
        Executive Summary--Student Veterans Advocacy Group...........    68
    The Hon. Steve Gunderson, President and CEO, Association of
      Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU)...............    24
        Prepared Statement of Hon. Gunderson.........................    69
        Executive Summary of Hon. Gunderson..........................    72
    Dr. Allen L. Sessoms, President, University of the District of
      Columbia, On Behalf of: American Association of State Colleges
      and Universities (AASCU).......................................    26
        Prepared Statement of Dr. Sessoms............................    73
    Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic
      Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
      of Veterans Affairs............................................    30
        Prepared Statement of Mr. Coy................................    74
        Accompanied by:

          Mr. C. Ford Heard, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for
              Procurement Policy, Systems and Oversight Office of
              Acquisitions, Logistics and Construction
          Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office
              of General Counsel
    MG Ronald G. Young USA (Ret.), Director, Family and Employer
      Program and Policy, U.S. Department of Defense.................    32
        Prepared Statement of MG Ronald G. Young.....................    78
    Mr. Ismael ``Junior'' Ortiz, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
      Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of
      Labor..........................................................    33
        Prepared Statement of Mr. Ortiz..............................    79

                           STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

    Hon. Mike McIntyre (NC 07).......................................    83
    U.S. Transportation Security Administration......................    83
    Mr. Terry ``T.P.'' O'Mahoney, Chairman, Texas Veterans Commission    85
    Dr. R. Scott Ralls, President, North Carolina Community College
      System.........................................................    87
    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.........................    90
    Disabled American Veterans.......................................    93
    Paralyzed Veterans of America....................................    96
    Wounded Warrior Project (WWP)....................................   101

                       MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Letters to Hon. G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)........................   102
    Letter from Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans
      Affairs to The Honorable Marlin Stutzman.......................   105

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3329, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3610, H.R. 3670, H.R.
         3524, H.R. 4048, H.R. 4051, H.R. 4052, H.R. 4057 AND H.R. 4072

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 8, 2012

                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                        Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                          Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present:Representatives Stutzman, Bilirakis, Johnson,
    Braley, and Walz.
        Also Present: Representative Butterfield.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MARLIN STUTZMAN

        Mr. Stutzman. Good morning and welcome, everyone, to the
    Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, a Subcommittee of the
    Veterans' Affairs Committee.
        Today we will receive testimony on the following bills:
    H.R. 3329 introduced by our colleague, Ms. Linda Sanchez; H.R.
    3483 introduced by Congressman Butterfield; H.R. 3524
    introduced by our Ranking Member, Mr. Braley; H.R. 3610
    introduced by Ms. Fox; H.R. 3670 introduced by Congressman
    Walz; H.R. 4048 introduced by another EO Subcommittee Member,
    Mr. Johnson; H.R. 4051 and H.R. 4052, two bills that I have
    introduced; and H.R. 4057 introduced by Mr. Bilirakis; and H.R.
    4072, a bill introduced by Chairman Miller.
        So we have got a good list of bills today that we are going
    to be discussing.
        Briefly my first bill, H.R. 4051, sets up a pilot program
    to increase opportunities to attend the TAP, Transition
    Assistance Program, by expanding TAP to offer classes at
    multiple off-base locations.
        And my second bill, H.R. 4052, sets up a progam to identify
    through a list of criteria schools that do a good job educating
    veterans.
        While I understand that some of the bills on today's agenda
    would make significant organizational changes to the Department
    of Labor and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Committee,
    after it provided copies of these bills to staff several days
    prior, provided a formal hearing notice to both departments on
    Friday, February 17th, some 21 days ago.
        Yet, we did not receive VA's testimony until 6:38 p.m. last
    evening and Labor's testimony at 6:55 p.m. last evening and I
    personally find this unacceptable. And while I understand that
    it may have been out of the control of today's witnesses, I
    hope this situation is taken care of in the future.
        I also thank the sponsors for their bills and I look
    forward to hearing from our witnesses on each particular bill.
        I would also ask unanimous consent to allow Members with
    bills before us today to join us on the dais for the purpose of
    presenting their bills. Hearing no objection, I will recognize
    them shortly for their remarks.
        I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his
    opening remarks.
        Mr. Braley.

        [The prepared statement of Hon. Stutzman appears in the
    Appendix]

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY,
                       RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER

        Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing.
        Frank Capra made a great film during World War II called
    Why We Fight to give the American people some understanding of
    what was at stake in the Global War on Terror that existed at
    that time.
        Mr. Chairman, you have heard me talk on this Committee
    before about the profound impact that my father's service in
    World War II had on me. And that is why this hearing is so
    important today.
        Next week on Sunday, it will be the 31st anniversary of my
    father's death and I will be on the island of Guam that day
    escorting an 88-year-old marine from my hometown of Waterloo,
    Iowa back to Iwo Jima where my father served 67 years ago.
        And the reason this hearing today is important is because
    the same issues that faced my father and that 88-year-old
    veteran when they came home from World War II are facing
    today's veterans. And the bills in today's hearing seek to
    provide an improved veterans' benefits which is something we
    all care about.
        These bills will increase access to education, provide
    employment protection for disabled veterans, extend vocational
    rehabilitation and employment benefits, and improve contracting
    procedures.
        This Subcommittee has been committed to improving
    employment opportunities for our Nation's veterans. We have
    conducted oversight hearings and field hearings to examine the
    unemployment problems facing our Nation's veterans and passed
    legislation to try to mitigate those problems.
        Yet, few times have we discussed the unique needs of those
    with service-connected injuries. That is why I am pleased to
    have introduced H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment
    Protection Act, which seeks to provide service-connected
    disabled veterans with employment protections in the workplace.
        My bill would provide service-connected disabled veterans
    and protect them against employment discrimination while they
    seek treatment for injuries they sustained while in the service
    or aggravated due to their military service. It would provide
    up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a calendar year.
        Currently under the Family Medical and Leave Act,
    caregivers are provided with up to 26 work weeks of unpaid
    leave in a calendar year for up to five years to care for their
    spouse, parent, child, or next of kin who is a servicemember
    and sustained an injury or illness during service.
        While caregivers are given this much disabled protection,
    those that have been directly inflicted with an injury or
    service-connected disability do not enjoy similar protections.
    It is time to remedy this inequity.
        I am also interested in making sure our veterans have good
    information when deciding to go back to college. I appreciate
    that Chairman Stutzman has introduced legislation that would
    recognize educational institutions that provide superior
    service to veterans as well as improve the TAP Program to
    provide information about post-secondary education.
        I also appreciate Representative Bilirakis' legislation
    that would improve outreach and transparency for veterans
    regarding information about going back to school. I believe
    having clear and reliable information is absolutely essential
    in helping veterans make good choices about post-secondary
    education.
        I look forward to working with Members of the Committee to
    make sure our veterans are receiving unbiased advice on the use
    of their GI Bill benefits and adequate information about the
    schools they may want to attend. They have served our country
    and deserve to have the best education possible including
    ongoing support once they are enrolled.
        Common-sense legislation to provide employment protection
    for veterans who need medical treatment for their service-
    connected injuries or to provide complete information about
    educational opportunities is how we protect those who served
    and have volunteered to protect us.
        So thank you for holding the hearing. I look forward to a
    very robust conversation about these important bills and ways
    to improve them, and I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley appears in
    the Appendix]

        Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
        At this time, I am going to let any other Member who wishes
    to speak on their bill and we will start with, Mr. Bilirakis,
    if you would like to address or make any comments regarding his
    bills.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate it very much.
        I also want to thank the Ranking Member.
        I have H.R. 4057, the Improving Transparency of Education
    Opportunities for Veterans Act, in today's legislation hearing.
    What my bill boils down to is that the veterans need to be
    armed with information. They need to know what resources are
    available to them.
        They need to know the value of services provided by
    specific institutions of higher education and training, but
    most importantly they deserve to have the resources in place to
    enable them to decide how their hard-earned GI benefit can best
    be used to meet their individual needs.
        This is exactly what my bill aims to do. It would require
    the secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a
    five-pronged policy to improve outreach and transparency to
    veterans and members of the armed forces with regard to
    institutions of higher learning.
        Specifically the policy would include, one, how to advise
    veterans and servicemembers about current educational and
    vocational counseling available, the best way to track and
    publish feedback from students and state approving agencies
    about the quality of instruction and accreditation, recruiting
    practices and post-graduate employment at institutions, the
    merit of and the way that state approving agencies will share
    information with accrediting agencies about the state approving
    agencies' evaluation of the institution of higher learning, the
    way information about institutions of higher learning is
    provided to individuals participating in TAP, and the most
    important and effective way to provide veterans and members of
    the armed forces with information about post-secondary and
    training opportunities.
        Lastly my bill would require that the secretary of VA
    conduct a market survey to determine if programs exist that
    would allow veterans and servicemembers to assess their level
    of college readiness and what post-secondary and training
    opportunities would coincide well with their skills and
    interests.
        I appreciate the widespread support for this bill and I
    look forward to testimony on this bill and working with my
    colleagues to move it forward in the legislative process.
        I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Walz.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ

        Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
        And thank you to my colleagues for putting forward such
    great legislation.
        I would like to speak just a minute on my piece of
    legislation along with Mr. Bilirakis, H.R. 3670, again one of
    those you would find hard to believe that we would actually
    need to do this, but this is in relationship to USERRA,
    Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act.
        The idea of this was is just to guarantee and make sure
    that when our servicemembers, whether it be active forces,
    guard, or reserves, when they go to do their duty to this
    Nation, when they come back home, the one thing they can count
    on is that their employment rights would be there. They would
    be able to maintain their seniority. They would be able to get
    their job back. They would be able to leave off, if you will,
    right where they were and try and stay on equal with their
    peers in that community. That is a pretty easy thing to do.
        And the vast majority of our employers are good actors in
    this. Unfortunately, one of the ones that does not seem to
    think this applies is the TSA, the Transportation Security
    Administration. They do not.
        And I want to be very clear about this. The women and men
    who serve in the TSA do this Nation a great service every
    single day. They are on duty. They are on watch and they are
    providing security for our needs, from airports across this
    country.
        But with that being said, there have been far too many
    cases brought to my attention of TSA does not adhere to USERRA
    and that is the way they see it. And, unfortunately, they were
    invited here today to explain to me why it was so important
    that they not look like a model employer.
        If the U.S. Government cannot be the model employer in
    taking care of our veterans, who can be? And how in goodness
    gracious can we go to the private sector and demand when USERRA
    comes after them.
        This is a very simple and basic piece of legislation. I
    would encourage my colleagues to support this. And let's just
    ask TSA to play by the rules, honor the services of our
    veterans, and there are so many in that service, and make sure
    their jobs are guaranteed.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bilirakis. [Presiding] Thank you.
        Yeah, Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized, sir.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD

        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you.
        Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member,
    colleagues, thank you very much for letting me come by today
    and give you some information about a bill that I recently
    introduced. You have been very courteous in doing this.
        Mr. Chairman, I think all of us can agree that we owe our
    veterans every opportunity to get a quality education and enter
    the workforce with the tools needed to compete. These returning
    heroes face an inequity that forces those who attend public
    colleges to pay more out of pocket in tuition than veterans who
    attend private schools.
        This inequity has caused many veterans to drop out of
    college, transfer, or assume tremendous financial burdens to
    attend school. My bill, H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education
    Equity Act, addresses this problem by granting veterans equal
    benefits to attend any public or private institution.
        In January 2011, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
    Improvements Assistance Act became law reducing education
    benefits for veterans and separating education benefits for
    veterans who attend public institutions from veterans who
    attend private institutions.
        Before that act was passed, veterans could receive tuition
    and fee benefits up to the amount charged by the most expensive
    public institution in each state. Now, the education benefit
    for a veteran attending a private institution is capped at
    $17,500. The education benefit available to a veteran who
    attends a public institution is capped at the in-state tuition
    which is often less than $17,500.
        So often veterans who attend private institutions are
    eligible for more education benefits than those who attend
    public institutions.
        At East Carolina University, which is in my district, in-
    state tuition and fees are $5,300 per year. Out-of-state
    tuition and fees are $17,900 per year.
        Under current law, a veteran with North Carolina residency
    attending this school would have his full tuition covered. A
    veteran who is not a resident of my state would be charged
    $17,900, but would only receive $5,300 in education benefits.
        So he or she would owe $12,500 out of pocket. However, if
    that veteran chose to attend a private institution which costs
    $17,900, he or she would receive $17,500 in education benefits
    and only pay $400 out of pocket.
        That is unfair, Mr. Chairman. There are 516 veterans at
    University of North Carolina institutions and 715 veterans at
    North Carolina community colleges who would be immediately
    assisted by this law.
        Air force veteran Ed Bailey who attends ECU received GI
    benefits to cover full tuition and fees for his first academic
    year only to face $6,000 in charges in the fall of 2011 after
    the bill passed. With five semesters left, this young veteran
    must pay $30,000 over the next two years or continue his
    education elsewhere or discontinue it completely.
        If we do not correct this problem, up to 30,000 veterans
    could face paying as much as $75,000 in out-of-pocket tuition
    costs in a tough economy and at a time when 13 percent of
    veterans are unemployed.
        Finally, we must continue to invest in the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill to provide timely educational benefits to enable each
    veteran to attend the institution of his or her choice. Let's
    treat all of our veterans fairly by passing the Veterans
    Education Equity Act out of this Committee and helping it
    become law.
        I respectfully ask for bipartisan support on this bill.
    Thank you. I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Hon. G.K. Butterfield appears in
    the Appendix]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield. Appreciate that
    very much.
        With us today, we have Mr. Richard Weidman from the Vietnam
    Veterans of America.
        Welcome, sir.
        And also Mr. Ryan M. Gallucci from the VFW.
        Welcome, sir.
        And we have Mr. Steve Gonzalez from The American Legion.
        Of course, welcome.
        And, finally, we have Mr. Jason Thigpen from the Student
    Veterans Advocacy Group.
        Thank you very much for being here, for your testimony. And
    we will begin with Mr. Weidman.
        You are recognized, sir, for five minutes. Thanks so much
    for being here.

    STATEMENTS OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR POLICY
     AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; RYAN M.
       GALLUCCI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE,
        VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; STEVE L.
    GONZALEZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION, THE
     AMERICAN LEGION; JASON R. THIGPEN, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT,
                    STUDENT VETERANS ADVOCACY GROUP

                    STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN

        Mr. Weidman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
    present the views of Vietnam Veterans of America here this
    morning.
        I will work down through the list and summarize most of the
    major points.
        In regard to H.R. 3329, VVA does favor this bill and I will
    leave others to elaborate on reasons for it.
        H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, VVA
    has no objection to this bill.
        H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act,
    that was introduced by Mr. Braley, we believe that this is a
    strong bill and it is important that anything we can do to
    protect the rights of veterans and to extend periods
    including--because there are many reasons why people are not
    ready for school when they first come out.
        The PEW Charitable Trust recently, actually last week,
    published a report that showed the difficulty extending for
    years for some of those, particularly combat vets who return.
        H.R. 3610, Streamlining the Workforce Development Programs
    Act of 2011, let me comment that VVA staunchly opposes
    eliminating any of the tiny but effective worker training
    programs at the Department of Labor.
        Veterans comprise 14 percent of the labor force. Veterans
    receive .2 percent of the Workforce Investment Act monies.
        The myth is that VA does everything for everybody and the
    answer to that is it is not true. If you are not service-
    connected, they cannot even help you with voc rehab. So it is
    important that we have access to those programs.
        Particularly HVRP or Homeless Veterans Reintegration
    Program is far and away the most cost-effective, most cost-
    efficient grant administered by or through the Department of
    Labor. It is a results-oriented program where if they do not
    make the placements, they do not get the money. And it is more
    accountable and a cost per placement that is about a fifth of
    that which is the mean average of cost of placements in other
    programs at Labor.
        So we would be opposed to moving that because many of the
    recipients, most of the recipients actually of those HVRP
    grants are also multi-service agencies that help homeless
    veterans. And those 1,200 faith-based and community-based
    organizations are absolutely essential. Because they operate on
    a shoestring, the only way they can come up with a match for
    the VA's Grant and Per Diem Program is if they are successful
    in administering and scoring and then again getting the
    following year renewed HVRP.
        And if both of them are at VA, then they do not have any
    match and, therefore, would be frozen out of the game. So if we
    can circumvent that, we would not have exactly the same
    problems.
        The Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 supposedly gave veterans
    priority of service in all Workforce Investment Act programs.
    However, regulations implementing most of that act were not
    published until December of 2008. It took over six years for
    them to even promulgate the draft regulations. The regulations
    became effective in calendar year 2009, program year 2008.

        [The attachment appears in the Appendix]

        Mr. Weidman. And I just call your attention to a chart that
    we have put together because Labor does not put it together of
    the number of disabled vets who have participated in Workforce
    Investment Act.
        And in Iowa, there were a total of seven in that 12 months.
    That is seven out of 28,849 adults served with Workforce
    Investment Act.
        In the State of Minnesota, there were 29 veterans served
    out of 45,000 adults served.
        And the figures are even tougher for where the unemployment
    among vets is which is the young group of under 24.
        Under 24 in the State of Minnesota, out of 3,897, only
    three veterans were served in the whole state.
        For the State of Florida, for the same period, only four
    disabled veterans were served out of 18,686 adults served.
        That under anybody's definition does not qualify for
    priority of service and it is clear to us anyway that--and
    incidentally, the overall vet figure for the State of Florida
    was 77 veterans out of 207,000 adults served by Workforce
    Investment Act.
        My point is this. If we are going to have laws, then they
    need to mean something because these are not just stats of
    whether or not somebody scored in a game. This has to do with
    whether or not these veterans can have a shot at having a
    decent life and getting retrained for the job force that is
    available today in their area. And it has been a dismal
    failure.
        In addition to what is already contemplated being moved
    over to VA, if Labor cannot turn that around, then I would
    suggest that 14 percent of all Workforce Investment Act and any
    other training dollars at the Department of Labor be moved over
    under the deputy under secretary of VA for economic opportunity
    because clearly Labor does not care about us.
        Labor is not taking the actions they should be taking to
    make sure that the state workforce development agencies
    implement veterans' priority of service and, yet, the services
    are very much needed, particularly by our returning veterans.
        I see I am over time and I thank you for your indulgence.
    And I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very
    much for holding this hearing and your strong leadership of all
    the Members of this Committee.

        [The prepared statement of Richard F. Weidman appears in
    the Appendix]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Appreciate it very
    much.
        Now we will recognize Mr. Ryan Gallucci from the VFW.
        You are recognized, sir, for five minutes. Thank you.

                     STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI

        Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of
    the Subcommittee, on behalf of more than two million members of
    the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our auxiliaries, I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts on today's
    pending legislation.
        With Iraq drawing to a close, withdrawal from Afghanistan
    on the way, proposals to scale back the active duty and
    continued high unemployment among today's veterans, the VFW
    believes economic opportunity for today's war fighters remains
    a national imperative.
        I hoped to quickly discuss VFW's position on each of
    today's bills, but in the interest of time, my remarks will
    first focus on H.R. 3610, 4072, 4052, and 4057, and I invite
    the Committee to review my full remarks which have been
    submitted for the record.
        The VFW opposes H.R. 3610 and encourages the Committee to
    take the appropriate steps to preserve veterans' workforce
    development programs through H.R. 4072.
        H.R. 3610 seeks to effectively terminate DoL veterans'
    workforce development programs leaving states to carry out
    similar programs on an ad hoc basis. The bill would also reduce
    oversight of veterans' programs by limiting audits to once
    every four years rather than today's annual requirement.
        With this in mind, the VFW supports H.R. 4072 which would
    move current DoLVETS' programs to the jurisdiction of VA. The
    VFW believes by placing all veterans' services under a single
    authority, we will improve oversight and efficiency.
        However, the VFW has concerns regarding implementation
    should either H.R. 4072 or 3610 become law.
        First, VFW requests clarity on TAP inclusion within the
    jurisdictional shift. Next if DVOP and LVER positions should be
    consolidated, training must be modified to ensure that all
    employees are fully trained to the new standard.
        The VFW also seeks assurances that no jobs would be lost in
    combining DVOPs and LVERs.
        Congress must also protect funding for DoLVETS' programs
    through H.R. 4072 should H.R. 3610 gain momentum.
        The VFW believes the shift from DoL to VA will ultimately
    ensure better services for veterans. However, any transition of
    authority must happen with minimal interruptions for the
    veterans who rely on the services and the employees who deliver
    them.
        Next the VFW supports the concept behind H.R. 4052, but has
    some concerns about specific evaluation metrics and
    implementation.
        The VFW recommends that VA offer a comparison of degrees
    conferred by a school or transfers when applicable to its total
    student body rather than graduation rates.
        The VFW also has concerns over SOC membership and Yellow
    Ribbon which we outlined specifically in our prepared remarks.
        The VFW would need assurances that VA would not preclude
    quality schools which diligently serve their student veterans,
    but either do not wish to sign on to SOC for academic reasons
    or do not need to participate in Yellow Ribbon.
        The VFW would also recommend specific caps on the number of
    schools that VA could recognize in an effort to mitigate
    confusion.
        Next the VFW wants to thank Congressman Bilirakis for
    introducing H.R. 4057, a bill that reflects the ideas put forth
    by the VFW and a broad coalition of veterans' advocates and
    education stakeholders.
        In light of recent Senate investigations and threats to the
    GI Bill, the VFW believes it is a top priority for VA to ensure
    that potential student veterans are well prepared to make a
    responsible educational choice.
        Post-9/11 GI Bill stands to be a transformative benefit for
    our Nation's heroes which is why student veterans must have
    reasonable access to counseling on how to best use the benefit
    and have recourse should they become victims of fraud, waste,
    or abuse.
        In addition to mandating a VA action plan to improve
    consumer education, the VFW would prefer to see Section 3697A
    of Title 38 also amended to ensure counseling for student
    veterans changes from a labor intensive opt in to an opt out
    model.
        GI Bill success story Senator Frank Lautenberg is currently
    drafting legislation in the Senate to improve student veteran
    consumer education. We encourage the Subcommittee to work with
    the senator to build a comprehensive bill that can move quickly
    and help fulfill the promise we made to offer quality education
    to our Nation's heroes.
        The VFW supports H.R. 3329. However, the delimiting date
    for voc rehab must be eliminated altogether. The obligation to
    ensure our service-disabled veterans are employable has no
    expiration date.
        The VFW supports H.R. 3483 to ensure equitable
    reimbursement for all public school students, student veterans.
    Today's nonresident students deserve an equitable benefit
    without ridiculous out-of-pocket burdens.
        The VFW also supports H.R. 3524, but we have concerns about
    how employers may respond to the length of time outlined in
    this bill and ask the Committee to responsibly discuss an
    appropriate timeframe.
        We also continue to call on the VA to adapt its scheduling
    practices taking into account the life demands of today's
    veterans. Veterans who have earned the right to receive care at
    VA must not be punished in the workplace.
        The VFW supports H.R. 3670. After 9/11 standing up TSA
    required certain exemptions, but ten years later, it is time to
    close the USERRA loophole. Both our veterans and TSA stand to
    benefit from this bill.
        The VFW supports H.R. 4048 ensuring that VA and all Federal
    agencies comply with veterans' contracting preference.
        VFW also supports H.R. 4051. Servicemembers have no way to
    reasonably anticipate all of the challenges they may face once
    they transition into civilian life which makes TAP after
    separation critical.
        I think I was able to cover everything. Chairman Bilirakis,
    Ranking Member Braley, this concludes my statement, and I am
    happy to answer any questions you may have.

        [The prepared statement of Ryan M. Gallucci appears in the
    Appendix]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Gonzalez from The American Legion, you are recognized
    for five minutes, sir.

                     STATEMENT OF STEVE L. GONZALEZ

        Mr. Gonzalez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity
    for allowing me to present The American Legion's view on
    several pieces of legislation being considered by the Committee
    today.
        The Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011
    aims to consolidate and streamline redundant and ineffective
    Federal workforce development programs to increase
    accountability, reduce administrative bureaucracies, and put
    Americans back to work.
        The legislation consolidates 33 programs into four funding
    streams of workforce investment funds. One of great concern is
    the veterans' workforce investment fund which will provide
    formula funds to states for employment and training services to
    America's veterans.
        The bill authorizes $218 million annually for fiscal year
    2013 through 2018. In comparison to the other three investment
    funds, the veterans' workforce investment fund will be
    underfunded, ill-equipped, and a disservice to America's
    veterans utilizing this program to reenter the workforce.
        Even though the key provision of this legislation is to
    address the overlapping programs provided by the Federal
    Government, it does little, if anything, to address the
    differences in eligibility objectives and service delivery to
    their respective clients, in this case America's veterans. The
    American Legion opposes this bill.
        The American Legion, however, does support H.R. 4072,
    Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improvement
    Performance Act of 2012 which aims to improve employment
    services for veterans consolidating various programs in the
    Department of Veterans Affairs.
        Our country's economic and social environments have changed
    dramatically. However, the policy and operational direction
    governing the provision of employment services to veterans
    remain from an earlier era. Veterans' employment services as
    they are now organized and delivered will not be adequate or
    effective for helping servicemembers and veterans find jobs in
    the 21st century.
        If priority of service is intended to enhance a veteran's
    probability of securing gainful and meaningful civilian
    employment as he or she transitions from the military, then the
    emphasis must be placed on priority of delivering service at
    the time of transition.
        The American Legion supports placing all of DoL vets'
    programs dedicated to serving veterans under Department of
    Veterans Affairs, in turn increasing the coordination between
    the various education, rehabilitation, and employment programs
    whose sole goals are to enable veterans to successfully compete
    in the workforce.
        Veterans' employment services need to be totally
    reengineered to meet the new reality of a highly automated,
    integrated, and consumer focused environment.
        Lastly, The American Legion supports H.R. 4057, Improving
    Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act of
    2012. One of the biggest hurdles veterans face is the
    information that is disclosed is provided through so many
    formats and descriptors as it renders this information all but
    useless for consumers who wish to compare colleges. Higher
    education information has to be positively provided to
    consumers in a manner that explains both its meaning and how to
    use it.
        Second, state approving agencies are the boots on the
    ground in the area of oversight and outreach for the GI Bill.
    If the state approving agencies are to provide service in this
    area, VA must work with the SAAs to secure adequate funding to
    provide such services.
        Requiring the VA to report clear, concise consumer data to
    veterans is the minimum necessary action for policymakers to
    take if they want higher education information to have any
    impact on consumer choice. And H.R. 4057 does just that.
        This concludes my testimony. The American Legion
    appreciates the opportunity to comment on the bills being
    considered by the Subcommittee. I will be more than happy to
    answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much.

        [The prepared statement of Steve L. Gonzalez appears in the
    Appendix]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
        And now Mr. Jason Thigpen from the Student Veterans
    Advocacy Group.
        Sir, you are recognized for five minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF JASON R. THIGPEN

        Mr. Thigpen. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis and Ranking
    Member Braley and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to testify here in front of you today.
        Our efforts to assist and ensure veterans are able to
    utilize their earned education benefits as intended is an
    economical benefit to our local and national community.
        While the current economy causes us to make budget
    constraints, it would be short-sighted not to consider those
    who would be affected most when essentially taking educational
    opportunities and benefits away which are veterans, not
    foundations.
        This is simply not right, especially considering the only
    reason our Nation did not implement a draft on this War on
    Terror is because of the volunteer effort our servicemembers
    and veterans made.
        The unintended result of the adverse changes made to the GI
    Bill will most certainly be a detriment to the short and long-
    term economic success of our Nation, the United States of
    America.
        The detrimental impact suffered by student veterans across
    North Carolina and approximately 40 other states due to the
    change in Federal law, the Post-9/11 Veterans Education
    Assistance Act of 2010 on January 4th of 2011. As a direct
    result of this change in law, thousands of student veterans and
    prospective student veterans alike face a never before issue of
    in-state residency for tuition purposes.
        In a sense, our active servicemembers and current student
    veterans who by and large had no idea their state of residency
    for tuition purposes would invariably be the determining factor
    as to whether they could afford much less attain the
    educational benefits promised to them for their sacrifices they
    made to protect our Nation.
        One student veteran e-mailed me stating after proudly
    serving my country for more time deployed than home with my
    family, while losing friends in Iraq, then moving my family to
    North Carolina for a better tomorrow, it is just not fair for
    my country to take the educational benefits from me, leaving me
    to have to move my family back to Washington and in with our
    family just so I could afford to pay the $10,000 a year out of
    pocket just to use my GI Bill. This is not the kind of
    principles I was taught from my time of service.
        As student veterans attending UMC Wilmington and North
    Carolina, as supporters for both our active servicemembers and
    veterans and as a disabled American veteran myself, I was
    nearly brought to tears during another student veteran saying I
    am supposed to graduate in December of 2012 and may not be able
    to now.
        Another student veteran e-mailing stating had it not been
    for close friends and family in the last few months helping me
    out, I would be living out of my car. That is simply not right.
        I met with student veterans across North Carolina system
    and now across the Nation.
        Three-quarters into the semester, another states I may have
    to drop out of school by week's end. I received an e-mail from
    the school's finance office that said I have a week to pay the
    balance of $3,500 I owe to the school while using my GI Bill.
        According to Public Law 111-377, the Post-9/11 Veterans
    Education Assistance Act of 2010, the Congressional Budget
    Office estimates a potential cost savings of $1 million over
    the 2011 to 2015 period and a savings of $734 million over the
    2011 to 2020 period.
        From the inception of the GI Bill in the 1940s, nearly
    eight million servicemembers were transformed from the
    educational benefits never known before. The yield to this was
    a $7.00 yield for every $1.00 invested into our veterans
    getting their education.
        According to a working group comprised of UMC system
    officials named UMC Serves in their April 2011 report to the
    President, veterans earn better grades and have a 75 percent
    graduation rate. With the exception of white males, veterans in
    all other races and gender groups earn more money than their
    non-veteran counterparts.
        Veterans start more small businesses. In general, veterans
    outperform non-veterans.
        To realize this potential, our state must actively and
    Nation must actively support military affiliated students and
    its system of public higher education. We want these students
    to choose our university system schools.
        Additionally, one must consider the estimated economical
    impact on our Nation expected to be $26.5 billion in 2013 due
    to our veterans getting their education.
        Setting aside the simple fact that the educational benefits
    were promised as in signing a promissory note which is past
    due, veterans just wanted to collect what was promised to them,
    getting their education, the outcome of which, by changing this
    law is many of our veterans will no longer be able to achieve
    their educational goals, leaving more unemployed, whereby
    owning fewer businesses directly resulting in an inverse
    effect, contradicting the economical forecast previously
    researched and authored, yielding a now negative return.
        Now we have an opportunity. Our group has done research
    within the budget to help offset the cost that this bill has
    been scored to cost at $137 million a year for the first three
    years. We found nearly $311 million within our budget that
    could more than cover the cost to offset this. This would be a
    positive economical impact on our Nation.
        Would you rather have our veterans going to school or
    staying in the unemployment line? I think that is simple.
        I am going to quote Theodore Roosevelt here and state a man
    who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good
    enough to be given a square deal afterwards.
        Thank you so much.

        [The prepared statement of Jason R. Thigpen appears in the
    Appendix]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
        And now I will recognize myself for five minutes to start
    the questioning.
        To all the VSOs on the panel, when Congress passed the
    Post-9/11 fixed bill that was authored in the Senate, it left
    about $700 million in mandatory offsets on the table, money
    they will never be able to use.
        I believe nearly every VSO, correct me if I am wrong, with
    the exception, of course, of the VBA, supported the PI 111-275.
    It appears that H.R. 3483 will require about $1.4 billion in
    mandatory offsets, an amount that would clearly be a challenge
    for this Committee to identify.
        My question is, why did your organizations support, if it
    did, why did it support legislation that reduced the tuition
    and fee payments for out-of-state veteran students like Mr.
    Thigpen here without a grandfather clause in the first place?
        Whoever would like to begin.
        Mr. Weidman. VVA did not support that and we said at the
    time it was going to do a terrible disservice to the students
    who moved or in any, many cases returned to where their family
    was or where their wife's family was from where they had legal
    residence at the time that they separated. And we said this is
    short-sighted and we were shouted down by some of our younger
    colleagues.
        And there oftentimes is some value in knowing the history
    and the history of the Cold War GI Bill is something that we
    knew very well because we lived through it. And that is reason.
        All of the things that are in incidentally, the 4057, are
    things that did exist when your father participated in getting
    the Cold War GI Bill passed lo many years ago and then
    required, because the same thing happened after Vietnam as is
    happening today with some both for-profit and some not-for-
    profit schools, not being square with the veterans and putting
    out good information.
        So everything that that bill and more is asking for was
    done 40 years ago. So let's not go through a painful period
    where veterans are left with debt and/or have to drop out of
    school before we get to the point where we give people good
    intel.
        Without good intel, you do not make good decisions out in
    the battlefield and right now there is not good intel available
    to veterans about whether or not the school that is hustling
    them is, in fact, worth going to.
        But in any case, the fix on the tuition assistance, we said
    we had no objection, but it is more than that. We support it.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
        Anyone else?
        Mr. Gonzalez. Sir, I recently just came into this new
    portfolio, overtaking this portfolio of The American Legion,
    overseeing now education. My predecessor prior to me was one of
    the advisors and why The American Legion supported it.
        Coming into this new role, I have been able to literally,
    as Mr. Weidman so highly suggested, is understanding what the
    history is, what has been some of the implications from the
    actual GI Bill, and what is happening throughout history.
        And that is why we are kind of looking at this from a
    different perspective now and actually analyzing what will be
    the best outcome for actually veterans within entering post-
    secondary institutions, sir.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Anyone else want to comment?
        Mr. Gallucci. I want to build on what Mr. Gonzalez was just
    saying. At the time, I would have to look back through the
    VFW's testimony to see exactly what they said, but at the time
    I was working for another veterans' organization and I know
    that through our discussions, we were kicking and screaming
    about some of these changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
        I am a student veteran myself. I graduated before the Post-
    9/11 GI Bill went into effect. However, my brother uses the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill and is affected by these changes. And it is
    something that we need to be very vocal about and do the right
    thing now. And I think we have an opportunity to do that.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
        Yes, sir.
        Mr. Thigpen. Our organization formed as a result of this.
    Myself as a student veteran in my senior year doubling in
    accounting and finance, I tend to get a little involved with
    analysis of matters such as this.
        I think our organization wants to make it clear that we do
    not believe that this was an intended impact or result having
    signed that law. We feel truly that this is an un--there is no
    way to forecast that this was going to be the impact felt by
    this.
        But distinguished Members of the Committee, we have an
    opportunity to be heroes again to our servicemembers and
    veterans and I think we should take that opportunity with your
    help.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
        I do not want to go over my time because I believe we have
    votes at 11:30, so I will go ahead and recognize Mr. Braley for
    five minutes, the Ranking Member. Thank you.
        Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Weidman, thank you for the strong support that you
    and VVA have voiced for the Disabled Veterans Employment
    Protection Act.
        I want to come back to you and talk about the Disabled Vets
    Workplace Investment Act and specifically some of the
    observations you made about that.
        Mr. Gallucci, in our written remarks, you did address the
    VFW's support for my bill, but also raised some concerns about
    the potential effects on the businesses and corporations we are
    encouraging to employ veterans. So I just want to engage you
    briefly in that conversation because I get it. I know that
    employers are always concerned.
        But part of what we do in these legislation hearings is set
    the legislative history for bills that eventually get passed so
    that when people want to look back and divine the intent of
    Congress, they have a better sense of what we intended when we
    introduced this legislation.
        And what I am talking about in this bill is not a one-week
    vacation for disabled veterans for every month they have in the
    workforce. What we are talking about is the worst case scenario
    where disabled veterans like some of the ones I see at Walter
    Reed or at Bethesda with lifetime disabilities that are going
    to flare up at unforeseen moments when they are hopefully in
    the workforce and requires an accommodation for a worst case
    scenario that could take up to 12 weeks in a calendar year to
    accommodate.
        And I am assuming that you know people who are members of
    your organization who have had that exact problem occur to
    them.
        Mr. Gallucci. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman
    Braley.
        I do want to respond to that. You are absolutely right. I
    know personal friends who I deployed with who are affected by
    this and this has actually been a personal issue that I had to
    deal with in my own experiences as well.
        What the VFW is talking about here is to continue this
    discussion about what an appropriate period of time would be.
    We absolutely support your bill and we absolutely support the
    intent of what you are trying to do because this is a major
    problem for our veterans.
        What happens now is many times a veteran will go to a VA
    medical center and be prescribed with a long rehabilitative
    process. You need to come in once a week every week for the
    next six months in order to go through this intensive treatment
    program.
        For instance, one of the ones that comes to mind is
    prolonged exposure therapy for those who suffer from post-
    traumatic stress disorder. Some of these appointments are only
    available during the day, say, well, you can come in from ten
    a.m. to noon on Wednesdays for the next six months, just as an
    example.
        And that can put an incredible burden on a servicemember
    who has to hold down a job at the same time. You can exhaust
    all of your sick leave within that time and there has to be
    accommodations made to allow them to go to those appointments
    to get the treatment that they are entitled to which is why we
    do support your bill.
        But what we were really trying to express is that we have
    an open and candid discussion about what the period of time
    would be and where an appropriate level would be because at the
    same time what we are trying to do is make sure that we see the
    veterans' employment crisis now, particularly for young
    veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the last thing we would
    want is an unintended consequence where employers come back to
    this Committee and say, well, our veterans are not ready to
    enter the workforce, they come with all this extra baggage. And
    so we think it is an important discussion to have.
        Mr. Braley. And I welcome that conversation and want to
    thank you for your comments about your own personal experience
    and the people that you served with because one of the things
    we know is we want to encourage employers to do everything they
    can to address the alarming rate of unemployment among our
    veteran population.
        But at the same time, they deserve the protection for the
    sacrifices they have made and we should all be willing to have
    that conversation.
        Mr. Gonzalez, thank you and The American Legion for your
    support of this legislation.
        And, Mr. Thigpen, I want to talk to you about your
    observation because Mr. Walz and I represent states that were
    involved in the longest single deployment of any combat unit in
    Iraq and then their reward when they came home was to have the
    Pentagon cut their orders short deliberately by one, two,
    three, four, and five days so they would be denied the benefit
    of an additional measly $250 a month in additional educational
    assistance benefits under the GI Bill.
        And we went to war over that decision and got those orders
    changed and learned that nearly 20,000 National Guard members
    around the country had been denied that same benefit and were
    not even aware of it.
        So we appreciate your bringing light to this serious
    problem about how educational assistance benefits are impacted
    by the decisions we make and I want to thank you for your
    testimony.
        But before I leave, Mr. Weidman, I want to come back to you
    because can you tell us--you shared statistics from Minnesota,
    Iowa, and Florida about the low-level of participation rate for
    veterans in the Disabled Vets Workforce Investment Act.
        So based on your analysis of those rates, why is that? What
    is causing that to happen or not happen?
        Mr. Weidman. Well, there is a history behind why that
    particular clause made it into the Jobs for Veterans Act which
    was misnomered, by the way, in retrospect, of providing
    priority of service for veterans which means veterans go to the
    head of the line if they are otherwise eligible for that title
    or that program.
        And disabled veterans go in front of all the vets and the
    special disabled, meaning those with 30 percent or more
    service-connected disabled, go to the very end of the line.
    This is not rocket science stuff, but the states do not do it.
        OEO, the old Office of Economic Opportunity, was created
    because, frankly, racism in many of the job services and to
    reach populations who had been excluded. And it was not just in
    the southern states. And OEO transmogrified into MDTA or
    Manpower Development Training Act which transmogrified into
    SETA and which also then transmogrified in the Job Training
    Partnership Act and, hence, to today which is Workforce
    Investment Act.
        At the local level, even though they are starting to retire
    now, the people who ran those OEOs, MDTA offices were those of
    my generation who did not go. And you do not hear it much
    anymore, but people used to say to us, we asked them for their
    support, and they would say, well, you know, I mean, I oppose
    the war. I said what the hell makes you think that everybody
    who fought it supported it. Supporting the veterans is a whole
    different deal and that is why we had to start VVA.
        So the prejudice that was there within the society was
    strongest in ETA, Employment and Training Administration. That
    act of 2002 did many other things, many of which were really
    bad, only complicated and made worse a situation that was not
    very good, that led us to seek legislative remedy.
        So it is partly cultural and the other part of that is
    nobody has been checking for the last ten years. U.S. DoL does
    not do any checking, particularly the Employment and Training
    Administration.
        And the figures that I quoted to you, those have been
    brought to the very top or to the number two person who is the
    chief operating officer at U.S. DoL and it has been basically
    deep sixed and ignored and they are going to continue to ignore
    it until The Hill focuses their attention appropriately. Let me
    put it that way.
        Mr. Braley. Well, with that, I will yield back, Mr.
    Chairman, and I recommend to the Chairman that we conduct a
    future hearing on this important topic and that we see some
    significant change in those numbers.
        Mr. Weidman. That would be great. I also because there are
    so many important topics here today did not get a chance to
    point out the appendix to my statement. And I encourage you to
    look at that because not only did VVA sign that, but two of my
    colleague organizations, The American Legion and the VFW, also
    signed on to the Military and Veteran Students Educational Bill
    of Rights.
        And they are all simple things. They are all
    straightforward and it is information that should be required
    from every single educational institution that wants to receive
    government monies. If they do not want to comply, that is fine.
    Then you do not get any government money. But there should be
    standards that we hold people to and mostly it has to do with
    transparency and accountability.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Thank you.
        Now I will recognize Mr. Johnson for five minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would first like to say a few words about legislation I
    recently introduced, H.R. 4048, the Improving Contracting
    Opportunities for Veteran-Owned Small Businesses Act.
        This legislation is straightforward. It would clarify that
    small business provisions of the Veterans First Contracting
    Program, Public Law 109-461, pertain to contracts awarded
    through the Federal supply schedule or FSS for the purposes of
    meeting the percentage goal of contracting with service-
    disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
        Past VA statements regarding the application of the small
    business provisions in Public Law 109-461 now codified in Title
    38, Section 8127 of the United States Code have created
    confusion regarding FSS purchases.
        My legislation would clarify that these small business
    provisions do apply to FSS purchases. It is not intended to
    expand the original intent of the law. By law, all Federal
    agencies are required to contract with SDVOSBs.
        In 1999, Public Law 106-50 established a goal of awarding
    three percent of Federal contracts to SDVOSBs. Additionally,
    executive order 13360 which was issued by President Bush in
    2004 requests that Federal agencies increase Federal
    contracting and subcontracting opportunities for service-
    disabled veteran businesses. However, most Federal agencies
    have not reached this goal.
        Additionally, while the small business goal report for 2010
    reports 20 percent of VA contracts are with SDVOSBs, but Linda
    Fynn of VA OIG testified at the July 28th House Oversight and
    Investigation Subcommittee that, and I quote, although VA
    reported awarding 23 and 20 percent of its total procurement
    dollars respectively to VOSBs and SDVOSBs in fiscal year 2010,
    VA OIG projected that these figures were overstated by three to
    17 percent because of awards made to ineligible businesses.
        I strongly believe America would greatly benefit from
    contracting with more veteran-owned small businesses and I am
    hopeful that the clarification in H.R. 4048 will help to create
    more contracting opportunities for SDVOSBs.
        I would like to, in getting to my questions, I would like
    to thank the VFW and The American Legion for their support of
    my bill 4048.
        Mr. Weidman, I understand from your written testimony that
    the Vietnam Veterans of America are unsure of the intent of
    this legislation and which of your two interpretations may be
    correct.
        First question. Has my statement helped to clarify what the
    intent of H.R. 4048 is?
        Mr. Weidman. It does. And also, I had a long discussion
    with some of your staff about this and would be glad to discuss
    it directly with you, that if you do not make it abundantly
    clear in the Committee report that is referenced, if you will,
    in the black letter law, that then they give it to general
    counsel.
        And I do not know how much experience you have had in
    dealing with VA general counsel, but if they can goof it up,
    seemingly they do.
        Mr. Johnson. This is my first term, sir, and I can assure
    you that I have experienced that abundantly.
        Mr. Weidman. So what I am saying is in the Committee report
    to take out all the wiggle room in which case after having
    talked to Mike about the intent, we would strongly favor this
    bill.
        Mr. Johnson. Do you have any new concerns other than those
    you just stated about the legislation?
        Mr. Weidman. Well, it comes down to the biggest thing is
    not--I do not know how you address this, Congressman. The
    acquisition leadership believes it is not their mission to
    assist veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned
    businesses, meaning it is not their mission, meaning not VA's
    mission. And so----
        Mr. Johnson. Why do you----
        Mr. Weidman. Sir.
        Mr. Johnson. I am going completely off script now because
    that dumbfounds me. It absolutely dumbfounds me that the VA
    does not think that it should be part of their mission to
    assist these businesses.
        Why do you think that would be true? Does that come from
    the top?
        Mr. Weidman. That does not come from the 10th floor. That
    comes from the chief of acquisitions that it is not their
    purview.
        Mr. Johnson. Okay. I will look forward to asking him some
    questions then at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Weidman. That would be great.
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Thigpen, what other avenues--I am sorry
    for moving on, but I have got limited time--what other avenues
    has your group undertaken to resolve the out-of-state tuition
    issue for NC student veterans?
        Mr. Thigpen. Thank you, sir.
        We have been addressing this on a state level in North
    Carolina for approximately a year. Our organization formed in
    response to the change in law and we saw it was directly
    impacting our fellow student veterans actually at UMC
    Wilmington.
        Once we started to see further impact was actually felt on
    more than just a local level, actually throughout North
    Carolina, we had other student veterans reaching out to us
    seeking our assistance to help represent them with regard to
    their residency for tuition purposes which we have done. I wish
    we could get out there and represent every single one
    individually, but we simply cannot do it.
        We try to work with our state legislators. We have got a
    tremendous amount of support. Facts being what they are, we are
    here today trying to make sure that we do not leave any veteran
    behind. So to address this just on a state level in North
    Carolina, we would leave so many other states and so many other
    veterans nationwide behind in this. We want to see it happen on
    a Federal level. Let's take care of all of our student veterans
    in every state.
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I have additional questions, but
    I see my time is expired, so I will yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thanks so much.
        And I now recognize Mr. Walz.
        Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank each of you for being here again. This is one of the
    most enjoyable parts of this job is coming, learning. I
    appreciate the preparation that is put into this and it helps
    us understand and serve our constituents much better.
        And I kind of segue off to something Rick said. I also
    think this panel is very healthy for the way things are at. It
    is good to see a mix here of young veterans and slightly less
    young veterans, if you will.
        Mr. Weidman. I think you mean veterans who it is astounding
    that they stand up and take nourishment.
        Mr. Walz. Yes. I would include myself in that group. But I
    do want to thank you. I think it brings a real perspective and
    it brings a problem-solving ability to us that is sorely
    missing many times. So thank you for that.
        I wanted to get out and I struggle with this idea in how we
    make sure there is a fairness. My first concern is that
    fairness to those veterans to make sure they get the benefits
    they so richly earn, but making sure that we do get them a
    useable skill with their education, making sure we are
    investing all those dollars wisely for them and for the
    taxpayers so that they can take a place in society.
        And with that, I know that sometimes our blanket
    generalizations, there are some very good for-profit
    universities out there and there are some suspect ones. And we
    need to make sure that we are using a laser and a scalpel and
    not the ax, if you will, to make sure we are differentiating.
        And so I am really curious just maybe to hear, and I do not
    know, maybe start with you, Mr. Thigpen, and I know each of you
    have expertise in this across the board, just something as
    simple as how are we going to determine which institutions
    deserve awards for excellence in service because I am trying to
    get this all together and I love to be data-driven, but I would
    have to think my illustrious institution would probably be
    penalized because my undergraduate degree was the best six
    years of my life and I think they did a nice job.
        And I am wondering how when we make these determinations,
    how we did that. So, Mr. Thigpen, I know this is somewhat
    subjective, but just help me understand how you see it of how
    we would do this.
        Mr. Thigpen. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        And just for the record, I am on ten years right now, so I
    have got you beat there.
        With regard to H.R. 4052, 4057, we strongly support that.
    We cannot be here just to support our veterans in being able to
    properly use their GI Bill benefits through whatever
    institution they decide to go through. We need to make sure
    that there is transition not just in coming home and entering
    the college that they choose to get their higher education
    from, but we also need to make sure that there is further
    assistance in assisting them to transition into the working
    community alike. So these bills help ensure that that is going
    to be possible.
        I think what our organization has found by and large is
    that there needs to be a separate Committee for our
    institutions comprised of student veterans that are not
    accountable per se to an advisor or the institution itself for
    listening to their feedback and being bombarded with not being
    able to actually assist the student veterans that they purport
    to represent.
        You know, they need to represent the student veterans first
    and then so long as they are accountable to the system, doing
    things in the proper manner, I think that is going to be the
    only way we are going to actually be able to really service and
    assist our student veterans nationwide.
        In addition to that, our organization has started student
    vets and it is going to be a Web site portal to create
    consistency across the board nationwide for any veteran coming
    home wanting to go to school no matter what state they live in.
    It will be we call it a one-stop shop that they can submit
    every single form to whatever school they want to go to and
    have every opportunity to be able to see that.
        And that is going to create consistency across the board
    because that is going to be the last component that is left. If
    we can create consistency across the board for student veterans
    in Washington State, Ohio, Florida, Texas, Maine, we will
    ensure better success within the corporate community.
        Mr. Walz. Do you think, Mr. Thigpen, that we can get that?
    I want to be very clear. I would like to have this, you know,
    the good housekeeping seal of approval, if you will, that these
    are the places you can go. But I also want to be very fair as
    we put that stamp on folks because I think it could be very,
    very powerful on where it is at. And so I think you are right
    on how we get that.
        Rick, do you think it is VVA's, you know, ten principles
    here that you should adhere to and are graduation rates in some
    of these, you know, we want to be as objective as possible, but
    we also want to, and I know this, I hear from my veterans who
    say, you know, the reason I really like this school is their
    flexibility to work with us on this, they have been good about
    that?
        I mean, there are some intangibles here. And I see my time
    is up. If I could, maybe we will come back again. But, Rick,
    what do you think is----
        Mr. Weidman. Well, the statement that is appendix one was
    worked on by the veterans' organizations working with the White
    House and others over the course of about two months. So we put
    a lot of thought in it and a lot of work into it.
        And one of the things that is key is VA take the step
    forward. You can now go to www.va.gov and look up any hospital
    in the country, whether it is Minnesota or Indiana or any
    place, and you can look at all the various criteria about how
    this hospital is doing in each category. And you will get a
    yellow if it is caution, green if it is exceeding standards,
    and a red for that one if it is not meeting standards.
        There is no reason why that same technology, which VA
    already owns, cannot be applied and used on the VBA's part of
    the site and the educational services part of the site to make
    it clear and interactive.
        Right now if you look at that section, it is densely worded
    and it is like reading a credit card contract which if you have
    ever tried to do that, actually read it, I mean, you know, it
    will bore you to tears and you will fall asleep even though
    somewhere in there you know that you are getting the short end
    of the stick.
        And so they can make it appropriate to where younger
    veterans, and that is primarily who we are talking about, will
    have the information and then look further. And that is where
    it should happen.
        And VA's job is to make all of that disclosure readily
    available to any member of the veterans' community or their
    families because it is families can use the 21st GI Bill, 21st
    century GI Bill if a veteran does not want to and spouses also
    it would be available to.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Walz. No, I appreciate that.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Walz. I appreciate it very
    much. And thanks for the information and I know we will have
    further discussion on this.
        I welcome you to come to my office and discuss this with me
    and most of the Members have a lot of interest in this area. So
    it is a priority for us.
        Mr. Braley. Mr. Chairman, can I just make----
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yeah, go ahead.
        Mr. Braley. --one brief observation that came out of Mr.
    Thigpen's testimony? And that is in the State of Iowa right now
    any veteran is eligible for the in-state tuition. And you
    mentioned that this effort is ongoing in North Carolina. So
    while we have a responsibility to address this at the Federal
    level, there is nothing preventing states from taking action on
    their own to do the right thing by veterans.
        Mr. Thigpen. You are exactly right. We have been saying the
    same thing. If a state is going to purport and sell itself to
    be military friendly, we need to hold them accountable to that.
        Mr. Braley. Absolutely.
        Mr. Thigpen. We are still working on that. The facts speak
    for themselves. North Carolina has not done it yet. We are
    seeking your assistance. You guys get to be the heroes here.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
        I thank the panel and I ask the second panel to come
    forward. This panel is comprised of the Honorable Steve
    Gunderson who is a former Member of this body and is now the
    president and CEO of the Association of Private Sector Colleges
    and Universities.
        And we will also hear from Dr. Allen Sessoms who is the
    president of the District of Columbia who is representing--I do
    not know if that is right here in the script, but the president
    of the District of Columbia who is representing, I guess the
    University of District of Columbia. He is representing the
    American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
        And now we will begin with Congressman Gunderson. Thank you
    very much.
        And I know we are supposed to have votes around 11:30, so
    hopefully we can at least finish up with the testimony.
        You are recognized, sir.

     STATEMENTS OF STEVE GUNDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION
     OF PRIVATE SECTOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (APSCU); ALLEN L.
     SESSOMS, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON
         BEHALF OF: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND
                          UNIVERSITIES (AASCU)

                      STATEMENT OF STEVE GUNDERSON

        Mr. Gunderson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        And I want to begin with two personal comments, if I might.
    First of all, I have to say to you, Mr. Chairman, I had the
    honor and privilege of working with your dad. And you are
    continuing his legacy of service in this particular area and I
    just got to commend you. He was a dear, dear friend when we
    were both here and really think a lot of that.
        Second, I need to tell all of you, I need to say thank you.
    While I sit here, my 87-year-old father who is a veteran is
    being cared for in the VA hospital in Tomah, Wisconsin with
    pneumonia and congenital heart disease at this moment. And so
    on behalf of my family, we say to all of you thank you for what
    you do for these particular veterans.
        On behalf of the association and the roughly 230,000
    veteran students who choose to attend private-sector colleges
    and universities using their Post-9/11 GI benefits, I want to
    thank you for this opportunity to support all of the
    legislative issues that are in front of you.
        We have looked them over and there is only one concern that
    we have. And I have been motivated by listening and learning
    myself because the one issue that I think we have to look at on
    this issue that Congressman Walz brings up which is the
    graduation rates, it really indicates the problem.
        And I am veering totally off my prepared testimony here. It
    really indicates the issue and the challenge for serving
    veterans properly.
        If you would have your staff go to the Chronicle on Higher
    Education, this week's issue, it is focused on graduation
    rates. But when you look at that data, it is for all students.
        The Department of Education calculates graduation rates
    based on first-time, full-time students. Most of our veterans
    are not first-time, full-time students. They are veterans. They
    are returning to school after their military service. And so
    they do not even come into the calculations for what these
    graduation rates are.
        So we stand ready to work with all of you to find ways in
    which we can develop the information that is easily understood
    and correctly used by veterans to make the right determinations
    on where they should pursue their education.
        I would also like to recognize the VFW. And you have all
    been aware of the coalition that was brought together on this
    issue of veterans' education. The VFW needs a special
    commendation for bringing a rather diverse group of us together
    around a common issue. And I think that becomes important.
        It is important also, I think, to recognize something about
    the veterans and the ability of all post-secondary education to
    provide a quality education. It is meaningless if it does not
    also provide their objective which is job placement, one of
    those issues you have just been talking about.
        Today, as you know, our country has an 8.3 percent national
    unemployment rate, yet veterans' unemployment rates are much
    higher than that, especially for the younger veterans.
        The key to narrowing this gap and reducing veterans'
    unemployment has to be an all hands on deck approach from all
    post-secondary education. We must be part of the solution and
    accountable for national experience and outcomes for all
    students, especially the veterans.
        Policymakers, those of you on that side of the dais, are
    tasked with a critical imperative to ensure that all
    stakeholders work collaboratively to provide our veterans with
    the tools and resources that they need to make the right
    decisions.
        The pivotal transition period as soldiers become students
    is often wrought with challenges. As a result, many veterans
    fail to achieve their academic goals. We believe the
    legislation in front of you begins this effort.
        Specifically many of the bills direct the secretary of the
    VA to develop a comprehensive policy to ensure that veterans
    have the tools necessary to make informed decisions about their
    post-secondary education.
        We believe the academic success of our veteran students is
    a shared responsibility for the VA, the student, and all of our
    institutions. The VA should ensure the veterans are provided
    with the information and resources. The veterans should use the
    information to make informed education decisions. And our
    institutions should provide the quality of education veterans
    deserve through their benefits.
        In closing, I want you to understand that the veterans'
    education is often different than that of the typical 18 to 24-
    year-old who goes into college on a first-time, full-time
    basis. They appreciate, as you will see in my written
    testimony, the ability to have flexible and focused delivery of
    curriculum.
        I talked to this wonderful veteran, Alexander Garrido in
    Miami. He is returned from Iraq and he told me this story about
    the fact that he could have gone to the University of Miami, he
    could have gone to Florida International, USF. He chose one of
    the private-sector colleges. Why? Because it offered him the
    flexibility of scheduling and the focus of one course
    intensively at a time. And he said, Steve, he said, that is how
    I now learn. It is different than when I was in school.
        So we stand ready to work with all of you. We commend what
    you are doing, and I yield back the balance of my time or the
    28 seconds I exceeded.

        [The prepared statement of Steve Gunderson appears in the
    Appendix]

        Mr. Johnson. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman for yielding
    back.
        We will begin with questioning at this point. Oh, I am
    sorry. Dr. Sessoms, you have a statement. You are recognized.

                     STATEMENT OF ALLEN L. SESSOMS

        Mr. Sessoms. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished
    Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Allen Sessoms, president
    of the University of District of Columbia, the only public
    institution of higher education here in our Nation's capitol.
        I am testifying on behalf of the American Association of
    State Colleges and Universities, commonly known as AASCU. AASCU
    represents 420 institutions and university systems across 49
    states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
    Virgin Islands.
        Thank you for holding this hearing and providing me the
    opportunity to present testimony in support of H.R. 3483, the
    Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, introduced by the
    Honorable G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina.
        I ask that my testimony be entered into the record.
        If enacted, H.R. 3483 would remedy a serious inequity that
    currently exists under the Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits
    Program.
        The current structure of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Education
    Benefits Program provides a tuition assistance benefit to a
    veteran who attends one of our country's prestigious public
    colleges or universities that is equal to the in-state tuition
    rate charged by the institution. This benefit is worth on
    average about $8,244 per year.
        On the contrary, if one of our veterans chooses to attend
    an out-of-state private institution, he or she will
    automatically qualify for up to $17,500 per year. Simply put, a
    veteran who chooses to attend a public institution is entitled
    to on average less than half of the benefit a veteran who
    chooses to attend a private institution receives.
        In addition to the disparate treatment of our veterans
    attending public versus private institutions, the current Post-
    9/11 GI Bill benefit structure also asks our veterans to pick
    up the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition.
        This can amount to over $13,000 per year in some states and
    averages $4,282 across the country. Not only are we providing
    our veterans with different tuition benefits depending on the
    type of institution they choose to attend, we are also asking
    them to pick up the tab if they choose to attend a public
    institution in a different state.
        In a metropolitan area such as the national capitol region
    where students regularly travel across state lines to earn
    their degrees, this significantly limits the number of
    institutions our veterans may realistically choose from.
        For example, veterans attending the University of District
    of Columbia but living in Maryland or Virginia are required by
    District of Columbia law to pay the nonresident tuition rate of
    $13,380. This amounts to $7,000 per year for a full-time
    baccalaureate student.
        The Yellow Ribbon Program does provide a $500 tuition
    assistance benefit to our nonresident veterans. However, this
    is only a fraction of a nonresident tuition premium.
        The current GI 9/11 Bill structure also harms those who
    have recently relocated to a state and enrolled in a state's
    public institution but do not yet qualify for in-state tuition.
    Many states have enacted minimum residency requirements that
    students must meet to be eligible for in-state tuition rates.
        For example, in the District of Columbia to receive the in-
    state tuition rate, a veteran or any resident, citizen must
    reside in the District of Columbia for a full year to become
    eligible. This may cause a recently relocated veteran to put
    off pursuing a degree until he or she is eligible for a lower
    tuition rate.
        Passage of this bill is especially important at a time when
    unemployment for our veterans is extremely high. According to
    recent statistics from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Hire Our
    Heroes Program, unemployment for veterans age 18 to 24 is 30
    percent. For those in the national guard, it is 14 percent.
    These numbers are well above the national average.
        Our research has shown that individuals with more than a
    high school diploma are more likely to be employed. Passing
    H.R. 3484 will give our veterans a greater opportunity to
    select the post-secondary program and institution best suited
    for them and by doing so put them on a path to employment.
        As a grateful Nation, we are committed to providing our
    veterans with the maximum benefits they vitally deserve. Let's
    make sure we are also providing the flexibility our veterans
    need to use them.
        On behalf of the 420 members of the American Association of
    State Colleges and Universities, I urge Congress to pass the
    Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011 without delay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        [The prepared statement of Allen L. Sessoms appears in the
    Appendix]

        Mr. Johnson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
        We will now begin with questioning for this panel and we
    will go as long as we can.
        What steps have your members taken to improve the amount of
    data that is collected on veteran students?
        Mr. Gunderson. Mr. Chairman, each of our schools tries to
    do that individually. We do not yet have collective data for
    all of our schools across the country.
        The one thing I can share with you is that earlier this
    week at our board meeting, we looked at our operating plan for
    the next year and the board said will you please find ways to
    lift up the data collection, the information and the service to
    the veterans as one of your priorities in the next fiscal year.
        So within the next year, I might be able to come back to
    you and say we have one central data collection point, but we
    do not have that today.
        As I also indicated, that is going to take a major
    investment because the data under the National Center for
    Education Statistics, the first-time, full-time, that is not
    the data we need to accurately reflect what these veterans are
    doing and what outcomes they have.
        Mr. Johnson. Okay. I thank the gentleman for his answer.
        And for the sake of time, I am going to submit the rest of
    my questions written. And I hope that the panel would respond
    in writing to those.
        I am going to yield now to Mr. Braley if he has questions.
        Mr. Braley. Well, I want to thank you both for testifying.
        And I am glad to hear you say, Mr. Gunderson, that the key
    is job placement because I think when we look at the alarming
    problem of unemployment with our Nation's veterans, the thing
    that we want to see happen no matter what type of educational
    institution they attend is that they have a job waiting for
    them at the end of their educational journey, whether it is six
    years in the case of Mr. Walz or ten years in the case of our
    previous witness.
        But one of the things that I guess I am going to ask you
    both is why haven't more states done what my state has done and
    said this is an important enough priority, we are going to make
    in-state tuition apply to every veteran regardless of where
    they separated?
        Mr. Sessoms. Let me try to answer it for the public
    universities. Every issue related to the funding of public
    universities has become exceptionally political in states. And
    it requires significant political will on the part of state
    legislators to do that.
        I would argue that in the case of Iowa, there may be more
    political will than there is in the case of, say, the District
    of Columbia where we had discussions just the beginning of the
    week and there is resistence to that. There is resistence to
    subsidizing out-of-state residents.
        I think it is very important to do that. We are pushing as
    a university to do that in significant cases, certainly in the
    case of veterans, but others as well. It is just a very hard
    political nut to crack right now in this economic environment.
        Mr. Braley. Well, just in response to your question, I can
    tell you it is not because we do not face those same economic
    pressures.
        Mr. Walz just showed me a headline from today that the
    University of Northern Iowa which is a regents institution ten
    miles from my home in Waterloo is cutting 70 academic programs
    in response to those economic pressures while at the same time
    taking on this responsibility of giving veterans an affordable
    choice.
        So I think that is the answer to critics who are standing
    in the way of doing the right thing by our veterans.
        Mr. Sessoms. Well, let me comment, Congressman. I can only
    agree with you. I think we want to do that, but we are
    politically constrained.
        I think the University of Northern Iowa, I know it very
    well, I know the president there, is also reviewing another
    dozen programs for restructuring because of the pressures. We
    are all doing that.
        I think it would be very helpful if a clear message was
    sent from Congress that this is something that they, in fact,
    would like to see nationally. That would sort of help give us a
    political push. But I can only agree with you.
        Mr. Braley. Do you know whether most state universities'
    tuitions are set by a governing board of some type or the state
    legislature or do they have the discretion individually to make
    this opportunity available to veterans?
        Mr. Sessoms. It is rare that the institution can treat
    residents and nonresidents in the same way. There is a law in
    general defined by the state. In very many cases, in fact, I
    would guess in half the cases, the tuition and fee structure is
    actually set by the state legislature.
        It is rare that an institution can set it itself, but it
    can not violate state law when it comes to residents and
    nonresidents. There is nothing an institution individually can
    do about that. It requires the state to make a determination
    that that is for these particular classes of students something
    that they will agree to across the board.
        Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson. The gentleman yields back. We will go to Mr.
    Walz.
        Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you both for your testimony, as I said, helping
    us understand this.
        And, Representative Gunderson, I wish the best for your
    father. St. Tomah is in my sphere of responsibility, so I get
    over there and look at that. It is a beautiful institution with
    committed staff. And I assure you your father will get the best
    care anywhere as he deserves.
        Mr. Gunderson. Well, you do not have to worry. He has been
    well served throughout his aging process by the Veterans
    Administration and we have no doubt about that. But thank you.
        Mr. Walz. And I do appreciate these comments. I concur with
    my colleague from Iowa. Contrary to popular belief, we share a
    lot of commonality from Minnesota and Iowa. And of the things
    we share is that 34th Division and those soldiers.
        And I would have to say something. As we are getting at the
    heart of this, because I, too, will echo that sentiment on job
    placement and career potential, of not just providing all the
    options and then a hit and miss and take it and decide that a
    couple years at a post-secondary was not the right way and you
    used your GI Bill and now you are going somewhere else.
        We know some of that is going to happen. It is personal
    choice, but something I think we could use more around here,
    and I will commend the states of Iowa and Minnesota and public/
    private partnerships. We have got that same red bull division
    that Mr. Braley was talking about. They are deployed again.
    They are in Kuwait bringing the troops out.
        So they have been there on another year deployment, but
    this time we are not going to make the mistake we made last
    time. We already know that of that brigade combat team 511 of
    them are either going to go to school or unemployed. We are
    there matching them up right now in Kuwait this week as we
    speak with a job fair there, not once they get back, not once
    they had unemployment.
        Every one of those 511 will either be matched up with a
    proper institution and a proper track or they will have a job
    when they come back matched up with the employers. That
    database is there. It is a captive audience. The first
    sergeants and the commanders have assisted in that. That is the
    right proactive way to go.
        And I think the more information we push out trying to do
    that, as you are saying, and getting good data is certainly
    going to--well, it is to serve our veterans better, but let's
    just be brutally honest. It is going to save money in the long
    run too.
        And so I want to thank you both for being a part of this
    and helping. I think what I will do in the essence of time with
    the Chairman is submit questions if we have them and yield
    back.
        Mr. Johnson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
        And Members are encouraged to submit their questions in
    writing, and I thank the panel for being with us today.
        And you will get us answers to those questions, correct?
    Okay. Thank you.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I now call up our third panel which includes Mr. Curtis Coy
    from the Veterans Benefits Administration. He is accompanied by
    Mr. C. Ford Heard from the Office of Acquisitions, Logistics
    and Construction and Mr. Keith Wilson from VA's Education
    Service.
        We also have Major General Ronald Young from the Department
    of Defense and Deputy Assistant Secretary Junior Ortiz from the
    Department of Labor.
        Let's start with Mr. McCoy. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Coy. I
    apologize. Yes, Mr. Coy, you are recognized.

        STATEMENTS OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
     ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ACCOMPANIED BY: C. FORD HEARD,
     ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PROCUREMENT POLICY,
     SYSTEMS AND OVERSIGHT, OFFICE OF ACQUISITIONS, LOGISTICS AND
        CONSTRUCTION AND KEITH WILSON, DIRECTOR, VA'S EDUCATION
    SERVICE; RONALD G. YOUNG, DIRECTOR, FAMILY AND EMPLOYER PROGRAM
       AND POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ISMAEL ``JUNIOR''
      ORTIZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND
               TRAINING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                       STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY

        Mr. Coy. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee, good
    morning. I am pleased to be here today to provide the views of
    the Department of Veterans Affairs on pending legislation
    concerned with veteran education, employment, and small
    business contracting issues.
        Joining me today is Ford Heard, Associate Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Procurement Policy and Mr. Keith Wilson, our
    Director of Education Services.
        I apologize for the delay in providing VA's testimony. As
    noted in my written testimony, VA defers to other departments
    and agencies on several bills.
        In my oral statement, I would like to highlight VA's views
    on the remaining bills.
        I want to begin by stating that every initiative has the
    admirable goal of assisting our Nation's veterans and
    servicemembers.
        H.R. 3329 would extend the period during which a veteran
    may be afforded a rehabilitation program under Chapter 31. VA
    supports extending the period of eligibility. Individuals may
    need voc rehab services during mid-life when disabilities
    worsen or when changing careers or later in life when in need
    of independent living services.
        By extending the period of eligibility, VA's Vocational
    Rehabilitation & Employment Program will be able to provide
    individuals who meet those eligibility entitlement criteria
    under Chapter 31.
        In addition, by extending the period of eligibility, VR&E
    Program will be in line with the Post-9/11 GI Bill period of
    eligibility.
        H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equality Act, would
    revise the formula for the payment of tuition and fees for
    individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post-
    9/11 GI Bill and pursuing programs of education at public
    institutions of higher learning.
        While VA supports the intent to provide payment equality or
    equity to individuals training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA
    does not support this legislation as written.
        Separate rules for tuition and fee changes would add
    another level of complexity to the program for both
    beneficiaries and schools. We continue to receive complaints
    from beneficiaries regarding understanding exactly how much
    they will receive in tuition and fees under the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill.
        This bill would exacerbate that problem. We would be happy
    to work with the Subcommittee to satisfy what we understand to
    be the overall intent of the legislation.
        Although we regret we were unable to estimate cost of this
    proposal at this time, VA notes that any change in benefit
    levels would increase the total cost of the program and would
    necessitate the identification of offsets.
        H.R. 4048, improving contracting opportunities for veteran-
    owned small businesses would amend Section 8127 by adding a new
    subsection providing for the purposes of meeting under
    Subsection A, the Secretary shall include the acquisition of
    goods and services through the use of Federal supply schedule
    of GSA.
        VA is continuing to analyze this legislation and will
    provide its views to the Committee when we complete that
    analysis.
        VA respectfully defers to the Department of Labor on the
    merits of H.R. 4051, the TAP Modernization Program, but we
    would note, however, that VA, of course, will be a component of
    those TAP briefings and as a result, there is a cost impact for
    VA that is noted in my written statement.
        H.R. 4052, Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education
    Act, would establish an honorary education and veterans'
    education award to recognize institutions of higher learning
    that provide superior services to veterans.
        Mr. Chairman, we have seen some great examples of schools
    that have shown leadership and energy in providing great
    support and services to veterans. We think we should take
    opportunities to recognize those schools and that can be a
    model for others for what they provide to our veterans.
        We do have some concerns with some of the provisions of the
    bill as written, particularly the criteria with respect to
    Yellow Ribbon and the collection of graduation rates and some
    of that data. We would need additional resources as well to
    implement this legislation.
        4057, Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for
    Veterans, would direct VA to develop a comprehensive policy to
    improve outreach and transparency to veterans and members of
    the armed services.
        VA supports providing veterans with better information
    about their educational opportunities, but does not believe
    legislation is necessary because policies and programs are in
    place already at VA, the Department of Education, and DoD.
        And we will continue to work with these agencies to enhance
    that level of data sharing and information sharing. As well, we
    are in the process of also revising our TAP Program as an
    initiative for both VA and DoD.
        4072, Consolidating Veteran Employment Services, would
    transfer a number of functions performed under program----
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Coy, I apologize. We are going to have to
    take the rest of your testimony----
        Mr. Coy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. --written, your time has expired, for the sake
    of time so we get all the testimony in.

        [The prepared statement of Curtis L. Coy appears in the
    Appendix]

        Mr. Johnson. General Young, you are now recognized.

                      STATEMENT OF RONALD G. YOUNG

        General Young. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for your
    invitation to participate in this hearing and to share DoD's
    views on a number of pieces of legislation that have been
    introduced.
        In my capacity as the Director of Family and Employer
    Programs and Policy under the Assistant Secretary of Defense
    for Reserve Affairs, I have oversight into only one of the
    bills before your Committee today, but welcome the opportunity
    to provide you with the requested comments and concerns of the
    Department of Defense as a whole.
        The department has comments on four of the bills. The
    Department of Defense opposes a provision in House Resolution
    3610, a bill that would among other things repeal Section 509
    of Title 32, USC Code, the National Guard Youth Challenge
    Program of opportunities for civilian youth.
        Mandated by Congress since 1993, over 100,000 students have
    successfully graduated from the program with 80 percent earning
    their high school diploma or GED. On average, 26 percent go on
    to college, 20 percent enter the military, and the remainder
    join the workforce and career jobs. There are 33 youth
    challenge programs in 27 states and one territory across the
    country.
        The number of high school dropouts each year is a national
    security issue and can cost the American economy billions in
    lost productivity and earnings over the students' lifetime. The
    12 million students projected to drop out over the next decade
    will cost our economy more than $3 trillion.
        A recent RAND cost-benefit analysis study reported that the
    Youth Challenge Program generates $2.6 in benefits for every
    dollar spent on the program. The estimated return on investment
    in the Challenge Program is 166 percent. It is for those
    reasons that we oppose eliminating the Youth Challenge Program.
        H.R. 3670 would require the Transportation Security
    Administration to comply with USERRA. If legislation is passed,
    I am not aware of any cost the department would incur.
        Over the last three years, ESGR has handled about 20 USERRA
    cases that involve TSA. During this same period, 75 percent of
    all cases were resolved including administrative closures. In
    fiscal year 2011, eleven cases we handled and eight were
    resolved for a resolution rate of 73 percent.
        ESGR will continue to assess guard and reserve
    servicemembers employed by TSA in addressing all their USERRA
    issues.
        Furthermore, if 3670 were to amend Public Law 107-71, we
    are prepared to assist TSA with USERRA training materials and
    training opportunities for their supervisors and employees.
        Concerning H.R. 3524, the department does not oppose H.R.
    3524. However, we do suggest that the legislation further
    clarify the status of the persons that would be absent from
    positions with the Federal Government.
        My reading of the resolution speaks to them being in a
    furlough status or I believe a leave of absence status and
    perhaps a more appropriate status would be an administrative
    leave status that we would like to work with you on.
        Regarding H.R. 4072, the Department of Defense believes
    that the separating servicemembers including guard and reserve
    need effective services to help them successfully transition to
    the civilian workforce. However, DoD defers to Department of
    Labor and Veterans Affairs on the specifics of this bill.
        I thank you for this opportunity here today and for your
    support of our servicemembers, veterans, families, employers,
    and for the 4,800 ESGR volunteers across the country. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ronald G. Young appears in the
    Appendix]
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you for your testimony, General Young.
        Mr. Ortiz, you are now recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF ISMAEL ``JUNIOR'' ORTIZ

        Mr. Ortiz. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Braley, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today and to
    discuss the U.S. Department of Labor's view on pending
    legislation.
        I am Junior Ortiz, DoL's Employment and Training Service,
    and I would like to begin by apologizing to the Committee for
    the lateness of the department's testimony.
        While there are numerous bills on the agenda, my testimony
    will focus on H.R. 3524, 3610, 4051, and 4072.
        H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act,
    would extend certain protections under USERRA to individuals
    receiving treatment for service-connected disabilities.
        As directed or as drafted, the department has a few
    technical concerns regarding the bill's potential interaction
    with the Family and Medical Leave Act and USERRA's reemployment
    eligibility provisions.
        However, we look forward to working with the Subcommittee
    to better understand the intent of the legislation and to
    provide technical assistance.
        The next bill I would like to discuss is H.R. 3610. The
    bill repeals most of labor grants programs for veterans. These
    programs include the JVSG Program that funds DVOP's and LVER
    staff, the Transition Assistance Program, the Homeless Veterans
    Reintegration Program, and the Veterans Workforce Investment
    Program.
        In their place, the bill establishes a single veterans'
    workforce investment fund to provide states with resources for
    employment services to veterans.
        Disabled veterans currently get the intensive service they
    need from specialized DVOP staff. H.R. 3610 would repeal the
    DVOP Program without assuring that the same services will be
    provided by the remaining LVER staff that are included in the
    legislation.
        Similarly, repealing the HVRP programs could leave
    thousands of homeless veterans without the intensive service
    this program provides including veteran stand-downs, homeless
    female veterans, and Homeless Veterans with Families Program.
        If the bill is enacted, transitioning servicemembers and
    their spouses could also lose the valuable needed services
    provided by TAP.
        In 2011, DoL provided more than 4,200 TAP employment
    workshops generating 145,000 participants. This number is
    expected to increase dramatically as TAP becomes mandatory in
    the transition services under the VOW Act. However, this
    legislation would leave DoL without the authority or funding to
    fulfill the VOW Act mandate and to provide these needed
    services.
        In conclusion, the department has concerns of the potential
    impact H.R. 3610 has on veterans and looks forward to working
    with the Subcommittee to ensure that the veterans and others
    receive the high-quality service they need to succeed in the
    workforce.
        Next I would like to discuss H.R. 4051 which would
    authorize three-year grant program requiring DoL to provide TAP
    to veterans and their spouses on off-base locations. DoL has
    concerns with this legislation for the following reasons:
        To begin with, the current TAP employment workshops are
    designed specifically for transitioning servicemembers and
    their spouses. As a result, the curriculum is not appropriate
    for all veterans. However, one-stop career centers provide
    specific workshops for all veterans on resume writing,
    interviewing, and how to conduct job search.
        As such, the proposed legislation appears to be duplicative
    and we would look forward to working with the Subcommittee to
    identify any needed program improvements.
        Finally, I would like to discuss H.R. 4072 that would
    transfer most veterans' employment services and protection from
    the DoL to VA. Veterans' services are integrated into the
    larger DoL workforce system which includes over 2,500 one-stop
    career centers and veterans' services are provided by and with
    the support of numerous agencies within the department
    including ETA and OFCCP.
        In 2010, this system served over 1.7 million veterans
    ensuring priority of service were provided when doing so.
        Much of what DoL does for veterans and other eligible
    persons concentrates on maximizing the employment and training
    opportunities developed through our relationship with the state
    workforce agencies.
        DoL is also a worker protection agency with extensive
    experience protecting eligible veterans and servicemembers from
    discrimination under various statutes such as USERRA, VEOA and
    VEVRAA. The proposed legislation would transfer USERRA and
    VEVRAA responsibilities to the VA and would leave VEOA
    responsibility to DoL.
        The Veterans' Employment and Training Service in
    partnership with the Department of Labor agencies serves
    veterans and transitioning servicemembers by providing
    resources and expertise to assist and prepare them obtaining
    meaningful careers, maximize employment opportunities, and
    protect their rights.
        DoL looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and our
    partners to ensure that we provide effective assistance to
    veterans.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be
    happy to entertain any questions the Members may have. Thank
    you.

        [The prepared statement of Ismael ``Junior'' Ortiz appears
    in the Appendix]

        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.
        You know, I thank the members of the panel for their
    testimony. I find it astounding that with three weeks to
    prepare for this hearing the testimony of the Department of
    Labor and VA avoid taking a position on what is admittedly the
    most controversial bill on today's agenda, Chairman Miller's
    H.R. 4072.
        Mr. Coy says they are, quote, ready to discuss these
    organizational issues with the Subcommittee and our Department
    of Labor partners at any time.
        The Department of Labor after reciting a litany of
    services, VETS and other Department of Labor agencies provide
    to veterans, fails to identify any technical issue that would
    prevent a continuation of those services after VETS moves to
    VA.
        Secretary Ortiz concludes his testimony by saying the
    Department of Labor looks forward to working with the
    Subcommittee and our partners to ensure that we provide
    effective assistance to veterans.
        Gentlemen, that is exactly why we are here today.
        To summarize, VA fails to state whether they would like to
    assume responsibility for VETS and its programs and the
    Department of Labor fails to identify any substantive reasons
    why VETS and its Federal staff, programs, and funding would
    create havoc with veterans' employment programs under their
    auspices.
        Votes have just been called. For the sake of time, I am
    going to yield to the Ranking Member to ask a question. We will
    do one quick round and then we will submit additional questions
    for the record and ask the panel to respond in writing.
        With that, Mr. Braley, I yield to you.
        Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, General Young, thank you for your testimony in support
    of the bill that I have pending before the Committee today.
        And we look forward to working with you to address the
    concern you have raised that specifically impacts
    classification of Federal employees. And my staff will follow-
    up with you to talk about that.
        Mr. Ortiz, I appreciated your comments about that same bill
    in your written statement. And one of the things I was struck
    by in looking at the concerns you have identified is they seem
    very remarkably similar to concerns expressed before Congress
    passed the Americans With Disabilities Act, before Congress
    passed the Family Medical Leave Act.
        Anything that we do that impacts what employers do with
    their personnel, policies, and practices always sets off
    alarms. But I think that the purpose behind this legislation I
    have introduced is to stand up for veterans, disabled veterans,
    and make sure they are getting protections in the workplace
    that they have earned with their blood.
        So we look forward to working with your department as well
    and as we continue to work on this important legislation.
        With that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Johnson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
        Mr. Stutzman.
        Mr. Stutzman. Thank you.
        And I apologize I was not here for most of the hearing due
    to a budget meeting.
        But, Mr. Coy, I do have a question. When can we expect the
    final regulations for Public Law 11-275?
        Mr. Coy. That is the VRAP legislation, sir?
        Mr. Stutzman. The fix bill, the GI Bill.
        Mr. Coy. I am not prepared to answer that, sir. We will
    have to take that for the record and we will get back to you as
    quickly as we can.
        Mr. Stutzman. Okay. All right. And then in your testimony,
    you state that VR&E Service already has a commercial off-the-
    shelf system that assesses the servicemember's readiness to
    attend post-secondary training.
        Would VR&E consider making this tool available to veterans
    on their Web site and is the use of this tool going to be part
    of any TAP Program?
        Mr. Coy. That tool, sir, that we have now is an off-the-
    shelf product and we buy licensing for it for our VRE
    counselors. It is not really a good tool for someone to do a
    self-assessment or do it downloading from the Web.
        We are looking at a number of different sort of off-the-
    shelf tools, but that particular VR&E tool we are looking at
    right now and trying to figure out how we could possibly use
    that with respect to sort of a bigger Web-based situation.
        With respect to the TAP Program, we are working very, very
    hard with DoD and Department of Labor of completely revamping
    the entire TAP Program and tools like that in terms of
    readiness assessments for our veterans and servicemembers as
    part of that new TAP.
        Mr. Stutzman. Okay. And then finally, do you know
    approximately how many veterans does VR&E turn away every year
    due to delimiting date expiration?
        Mr. Coy. We went back and looked at our records and it is
    on average about 500.
        Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. I will yield back.
        Mr. Johnson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
        And I would remind the panel we will be submitting
    additional questions that because of time and the voting
    schedule we are not going to be able to get to at this point.
    And we would ask the panel to respond to those questions in
    writing.
        In addition to our panels, we have statements for the
    record from Congressman Butterfield, Congressman McIntyre, the
    U.S. Transportation Security Administration, the Paralyzed
    Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, the Texas
    Veterans Commission, the North Carolina Community College
    System, Congresswoman Sanchez, Wounded Warrior Project, and
    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
        I ask unanimous consent these statements be included in the
    record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.

        [The prepared statement of G.K. Butterfield appears in the
    Appendix]

        [The prepared statement of Mike McIntyre appears in the
    Appendix]

        [The prepared statement of U.S. Transportation Security
    Administration appears in the Appendix]

        [The prepared statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
    appears in the Appendix]

        [The prepared statement of Disabled American Veterans
    appears in the Appendix]

        [The prepared statement of Terry ``T.P.'' O'Mahoney appears
    in the Appendix]

        [The prepared statement of Dr. R. Scott Rails appears in
    the Appendix]

        [The prepared statement of Wounded Warrior Project appears
    in the Appendix]

        [The prepared statement of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
    America appears in the Appendix]

        Mr. Johnson. I would also ask that all members have five
    legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
    and include any extraneous materials associated with today's
    hearing. Again, hearing no objection, so ordered.
        I would like to recognize--well, we are not going to have
    closing remarks today for the sake of time.
        There being no further business before this Subcommittee
    today, we intend to hold a markup on some of these bills on
    March 29th, and with that, this hearing is adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin Stutzman, Chairman
        Good morning. Today, we will receive testimony on the following
    bills: H.R. 3329, introduced by our colleague, Ms. Linda Sanchez, H.R.
    3483, introduced by Congressman Butterfield, H.R. 3524, introduced by
    our Ranking Member, Mr. Braley, H.R. 3610, introduced by Ms. Foxx, H.R.
    3670, introduced by Congressman/Mr./Sgt Major Walz, H.R. 4048,
    introduced by another EO Subcommittee Member, Mr. Johnson, H.R. 4051
    and H.R. 4052, two bills I introduced, H.R. 4057, introduced by Mr.
    Bilirakis, and H.R. 4072, a bill introduced by Chairman Miller.
        Briefly, my first bill, H.R. 4051 sets up a pilot program to
    increase opportunities to attend the Transition Assistance Program by
    expanding TAP to offer classes at multiple off-base locations. My
    second bill, H.R. 4052 sets up a program to identify, through a list of
    criteria, schools that do a good job educating veterans.
        While I understand that some of the bills on today's agenda would
    make significant organizational changes to the Department of Labor and
    the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Committee, after provided
    copies of this bills to staff several days prior, provided a formal
    hearing notice to both Departments on Friday, February 17th, some 21
    days ago.
        And yet we did not receive VA's testimony under 6:38 PM last
    evening and Labor's testimony at 6:55 PM last evening. I find this
    unacceptable and while I understand that it may have been out of the
    control of today's witnesses I hope this situation is rectified in the
    future.
        I thank all the sponsors for their bills and I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses on each bill. I would also ask unanimous
    consent to allow Members with bills before us today to join us on the
    dais for the purpose of presenting their bills. Hearing no objection, I
    will recognize them shortly for their remarks.
        I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his opening
    remarks.

                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley,
                           Ranking Democratic Member
        The bills included in today's hearing seek to provide and improve
    veterans' benefits. These bills will increase access to education,
    provide employment protection for disabled veterans, extend vocational
    rehabilitation and employment benefits, and improve contracting
    procedures.
        This Subcommittee has been committed to improving employment
    opportunities for our nation's veterans. We've conducted oversight
    hearings and field hearings to examine the unemployment problems facing
    our nation's veterans and passed legislation to try and mitigate these
    problems. Yet, few times have we discussed the unique needs of those
    with service-connected injuries. That is why I am pleased to have
    introduced H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act,
    which seeks to provide service-connected disabled veterans with
    employment protections.
        H.R. 3524 would protect service-connected disabled veterans against
    employer discrimination while they seek treatment for injuries they
    sustained while in service or aggravated due to their military service.
    It would provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a calendar year.
    Currently Public Law 110-181, under the Family and Medical Leave Act,
    provides caregivers with up to 26 work weeks of unpaid leave in a
    calendar year for up to five years to care for their spouse, parent,
    child or next of kin who is a servicemember and sustained an injury or
    illness during service. While caregivers are given this much deserved
    protection, those that have been directly inflicted with an injury do
    not enjoy similar protections. It is time to remedy this inequity.
        I am also interested in making sure our veterans have good
    information when deciding to go back to college. I appreciate that
    Chairman Stutzman has introduced legislation that would recognize
    educational institutions that provide superior service to veterans, as
    well as improve the TAP program to include information about post-
    secondary education.
        I also appreciate Rep. Bilirakis's legislation that would improve
    outreach and transparency for veterans regarding information about
    going back to school. I believe having clear and reliable information
    is essential in helping veterans make decisions about post-secondary
    education.
        I look forward to working with Members of this Committee to make
    sure our veterans are receiving unbiased advice on the use of GI Bill
    benefits and adequate information about schools they may want to
    attend. They have served their country and deserve to have the best
    education possible, including ongoing support once they are enrolled.
        Common sense legislation to provide employment protection for
    veterans who need medical treatment for their service-connected
    injuries or to provide complete information about educational
    opportunities is how we protect those who have volunteered to protect
    us.

                  Prepared Statement of Hon. G. K. Butterfield
        Chairman Stutzman and Ranking Member Braley, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee.
        We owe our veterans every opportunity to get a quality education
    and enter the workforce with the tools needed to compete. These
    returning heroes face an inequity that forces those who attend public
    colleges to pay more out-of-pocket in tuition than veterans who attend
    private institutions. This inequity has caused many veterans to drop
    out of college, transfer, or assume tremendous financial burdens to
    attend school. H.R. 3483, the Veterans' Education Equity Act, addresses
    this problem by granting veterans equal benefits to attend any public
    or private institution.
        In January 2011, the Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Improvements
    Assistance Act became law, reducing education benefits for veterans and
    separating education benefits for veterans who attend public
    institutions from veterans who attend private institutions. Before that
    act was passed, veterans could receive tuition and fees benefits up to
    the amount charged by the most expensive public institution in each
    state. Now, the education benefit for a veteran attending a private
    institution is capped at $17,500. The education benefit available to a
    veteran who attends a public institution is capped at in-state tuition,
    which is often less than $17,500. So, often veterans who attend private
    institutions are eligible for more education benefits than those who
    attend public institutions.
        The table below illustrates how my bill would improve current law
    by showing its impact on Post-9/11 GI Bill education aid available to
    veterans at three institutions in North Carolina:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Total out of      Total out of
                                                     In-state       Out-of-state   pocket cost for   pocket cost for
                     Institution                  tuition and      tuition and      non-resident      non-resident
                                                fees  2011-2012  fees  2011-2012    under current    under H.R. 3483
                                                                                         law
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Elizabeth City State University (Public)             $3,828          $13,572            $9,744                $0
    Elizabeth City, North Carolina
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    East Carolina University (Public)                    $5,317          $17,896           $12,579              $396
    Greenville, North Carolina
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bennett College (Private)                           $16,794          $16,794                $0                $0
    Greensboro, North Carolina
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At Elizabeth City State University (ECSU), in-state tuition and
    fees are $3,828 per year and out-of-state tuition and fees are $13,572.
    Under current law, a veteran with North Carolina residency attending
    ECSU would have his full tuition covered. A veteran who is not a
    resident of North Carolina would be charged $13,572 but only receive
    $3,828 in education benefits, so he would owe $9,744 out-of-pocket. At
    East Carolina University (ECU), in-state tuition and fees are $5,317
    per year and out-of-state tuition and fees are $17,896, so a veteran
    with North Carolina residency who attends ECU would have his full
    tuition covered. A veteran who is not a resident of North Carolina
    would be charged $17,896 but only receive $5,317 in education benefits,
    so he would owe $12,579 out-of-pocket. However, if that veteran chose
    to attend Bennett College which costs $16,794, his education benefits
    would cover full tuition and fees.
        There are 516 veterans at University of North Carolina institutions
    and 715 veterans in North Carolina Community Colleges who would be
    immediately assisted by this law. In my District, Air Force veteran
    Edward Bailey, who attends ECU, faced $6,000 in charges before classes
    began in fall 2011 after the Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational
    Improvements Assistance Act became law. He was forced to take out a
    $5,000 loan and borrow $1,000 from friends to stay in school. With five
    semesters of college left, he must find a way to pay for $30,000 in
    tuition and fees or continue his education elsewhere. Marine Corps
    veteran Nan Lopata, who also attends ECU, received GI benefits to cover
    full tuition and fees for her first semester in spring 2011, only to
    face $6,800 in charges before her second semester in fall 2011. She was
    unable to afford to continue as a full-time student, potentially
    delaying her graduation. Two other students attending ECU--James and
    Mary Murtha--received full tuition GI benefits for their first three
    academic years before receiving bills in fall 2011 totaling $38,000 to
    complete their senior years. Their father, active duty Marine Corps
    Colonel Brian Murtha, was forced to withdraw $36,000 from his
    retirement funds. We owe it to veterans and their families to protect
    the benefits they were promised when they joined our military.
        Veterans have limited options when their Post-9/11 GI Bill
    education benefits do not cover their expenses. Veterans may
    participate in the Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement Program which
    can cover a portion of the tuition and fees that exceed the base Post-
    9/11 GI Bill benefit where it exists. However, the Yellow Ribbon
    Program is only available at institutions which opt into agreements
    with the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs Veterans' Administration
    to match the amount not already covered by the basic Post-9/11 GI Bill.
    In North Carolina, only 7 out of 74 public institutions participate in
    the Yellow Ribbon Program, forcing many veterans to pay out-of-pocket
    tuition and fees that are not covered by Post-9/11 GI Bill education
    benefits.
        For those reasons, this bill has broad support including 57
    bipartisan cosponsors. Additionally, veterans' service organizations
    (VSOs) including the Student Veterans Advocacy Group (SVAG), Iraq and
    Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW),
    the American Legion, American Veterans (AMVETS), American Military
    Retirees Association (AMRA), and the Armed Forces Foundation, have
    endorsed this bill. The bill is supported by the American Association
    of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the Association of Public
    and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), the Association of American
    Universities (AAU), the University of North Carolina System, and the
    North Carolina Community Colleges System.
        The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) preliminary cost estimate
    of H.R. 3483 is $1.4 to $1.5 billion over 10 years. When averaged, the
    annual cost would be only a 2 percent increase from the roughly $7.7
    billion spent on the Post-9/11 GI Bill in 2011. The CBO also provided a
    preliminary cost estimate if the bill were to include a 3 year sunset
    provision of $400 million over 3 years. The CBO's preliminary estimate
    also indicated that up to 30,000 veterans would benefit from this bill.
    I urge the Subcommittee to consider offsets based on efficiencies which
    do not compromise service or benefits for our veterans.
        Lastly, legislation to address inequities in tuition and fees
    benefits under the Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Improvements
    Assistance Act is not unprecedented. In fact, Chairman Miller
    introduced H.R. 1383, the Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act, which exempts
    certain veterans who were enrolled in private colleges from the $17,500
    tuition cap. That bill made private institutions more affordable for
    veterans and unanimously passed the House before being enacted in
    August 2011. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill in similar
    bipartisan fashion, and I look forward to your Subcommittee's approval.
    If we do not correct this problem, up to 30,000 veterans could face
    paying as much as $75,000 in out-of-pocket tuition costs in a tough
    economy, and at a time when 13.1 percent of veterans are unemployed.
        Let's treat all of our veterans fairly by passing the Veterans'
    Education Equity Act out of Committee and helping it become law.

                     Prepared Statement of Richard Weidman
        Good afternoon Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and
    distinguished Members of the House Subcommittee on Economic
    Opportunity. On behalf of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) National
    President John Rowan and our officers and members, we thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today to share our views on H.R. 3329, H.R. 3483,
    H.R. 3610, H.R. 3670, H.R. 3524, H.R. 4048, H.R. 4051, H.R. 4057 and
    H.R. 4072.
        I ask that you enter our full statement in the record, and I will
    briefly summarize some of the most important points of our statement.
        H.R. 3329, introduced by Representative Linda T Sanchez [D-CA],
    extends from 12 to 15 years after discharge or release from active-duty
    service the authorized period for veterans with service-connected
    disabilities to enroll in certain Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
    vocational training and rehabilitation programs.
        VVA favors this bill, as it is often the case that returning
    servicemembers have to spend a significant number of years readjusting
    and acclimating to civilian society after their return, especially from
    a combat zone. The Pew Charitable Trusts produced an excellent report
    on this very subject in 2011 that we recommend to the Members of the
    Committee. (A copy of same was provided to key staff on both sides of
    the aisle.) Anything that affords more opportunity for deserving
    veterans to be trained in marketable skills is a good thing in the view
    of VVA.
        H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, introduced by
    Representative G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), revises the formula for the
    payment by the Department of Veterans Affairs of tuition and fees for
    individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11
    Educational Assistance Program and pursuing programs of education at
    public institutions of higher learning to include, as an additional
    payment formula, the greater of: 1) the actual net costs for in-state
    tuition after applying the receipt of any tuition waivers, reductions,
    scholarships, or other assistance; or 2) $17,500 for the academic year
    beginning on August 1, 2012 (such amount to be increased each
    subsequent year by the average percentage increase in undergraduate
    tuition costs).
        VVA has no objection to this bill.
        H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act, is
    introduced by Representative Bruce Braley (D-IA). This legislation
    would entitle a person who is absent from employment by reason of the
    receipt of medical treatment for a service-connected disability to: 1)
    be retained by the person's employer; 2) the seniority and other rights
    and benefits determined by seniority that the person had on the
    commencement of such treatment plus the additional seniority and rights
    and benefits that the person would have attained if the person had
    remained continuously employed; and 3) be considered on furlough or
    leave of absence during such treatment and therefore entitled to other
    rights and benefits not determined by seniority as are other persons of
    similar seniority, status, and pay who are on furlough or leave of
    absence, and terminates such entitlement when a person knowingly
    provides written notice of the intent not to return to such position
    following treatment.
        This bill would also allow the absent employee to use any vacation,
    annual, medical, or similar leave with pay accrued before the
    commencement of the treatment.
        It also provides that an employer shall not be required to comply
    with the requirements of this Act if: 1) the employer's circumstances
    have so changed as to make such compliance impossible or unreasonable;
    2) such compliance would pose an undue hardship on the employer; or 3)
    the employment in question is for a brief, non-recurring period without
    a reasonable expectation of continuing indefinitely or for a
    significant period. This proposal limits the application of this Act to
    periods of absence of not more than 12 workweeks during any 12-month
    period.
        The bill applies health insurance continuation requirements to
    absences from employment described in this Act. It would prohibit any
    employer discrimination or acts of reprisal against an absent employee.
        Vietnam Veterans of America strongly favors enactment of this
    legislation to protect the rights of veterans who have service-
    connected disabilities from losing their jobs because they have to take
    time to properly address the wounds, maladies, injuries, and illnesses
    that are adjudged by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to be directly
    connected to and resulting from the individual's military service.
        Frankly, this is legislation that should have been enacted forty
    years ago to protect the veterans who served in Vietnam from reprisals
    from employers, including Federal agencies, because they had to take
    time to seek treatment for service-connected conditions. It was all too
    often a common story from Vietnam veterans that as they were all but
    felled from injuries such as PTSD and conditions resulting from
    exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides, tropical parasites,
    hepatitis C due to blood transmissions. Too many of these veterans were
    fired for seeking necessary medical help.
        Even though this will not be of widespread help to our generation,
    or the fine young Americans who have served since 9/11 who have been
    the subject of discrimination and/or firing because they had to seek
    and receive treatment for their service-connected conditions over the
    past decade, it will be of significant assistance to returning veterans
    in the future. We salute Mr. Braley for his bold leadership on this
    important issue, and urge early enactment of this legislation.
        H.R. 3610, Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011,
    introduced by Representative Virginia Foxx [R-NC], legislation would
    consolidate and streamline redundant and ineffective Federal workforce
    development programs to increase accountability, reduce administrative
    bureaucracies, and put Americans back to work.
        VVA staunchly opposes eliminating any of the (tiny but highly
    effective) Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs for veterans,
    including the VWIP program. Furthermore, VVA strongly believes that the
    Homeless Veterans Readjustment Program (HVRP) should stay at the United
    States Department of Labor (DoL), but needs to be funded at the full
    authorized level of $50 million per year. This program is far and away
    the most cost-effective, cost-efficient program administered by the
    DoL. The primary reason why it needs to be at DoL is so that it can be
    used as ``match'' funds by the highly effective, cost-effective
    community-based organizations (CBOs) and faith-based organizations
    (FBOs) which need to ``match'' VA Grant & Per Diem grant monies.
        For more than 40 years the veteran community-based organizations
    (VCBOs), although never properly funded, have continued to deliver the
    most cost-effective and cost-efficient services to veterans, especially
    veterans most in need.
        While we need a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that provides
    easy access to quality medical care, and we need other Federal and
    state entities, it has consistently been the community-based
    organizations, and (often) the veteran service organizations (VSOs),
    that have been there for the veterans most in need. Unless this match
    requirement can be met another way, or surmounted by other means, we
    will oppose any move toward transferring the HVRP program to the VA.
        Furthermore, it has been a decade since the inappropriately named
    ``Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002'' was enacted. (It was inappropriately
    named because the Employment & Training Administration (ETA) and the
    rest of DoL did everything they could to prevent ``priority of
    service'' from occurring at DoL or at the so-called Workforce
    Development Agencies. Sadly, for these reasons, not many veterans have
    ever gotten a job via this act, despite the noblest of intentions of
    the Congress.) Even though VVA repeatedly brought these failings to the
    attention of the top leadership of DoL, the previous Administration's
    appointees there seemingly did everything they could to keep from
    promulgating regulations to implement the provisions of this law until
    the very last month they were in office.
        The provisions have now been promulgated in regulation, but it
    appears from afar that the Chief Operating Officer at the Department of
    Labor in the current Administration has little or no interest in
    enforcing ``priority of service'' in Workforce Investment Act programs.
    It also seems to be the case that those inside of DoL who have tried to
    raise some very appropriate questions about this terrible (and some
    would suggest anti-veteran) record of non-achievement in regard to
    participation of military veterans being able to enter into WIA-funded
    programs at the state and local level, have been silenced and in some
    cases had their character besmirched unfairly.
        The absolutely abysmal record of veterans participating in WIA
    training is demonstrated by the charts of states in Appendix I to this
    statement.
        While we applaud the good intentions, strong leadership, and hard
    work of Representative Foxx, we would like to see some of that resolve
    applied to guaranteeing that returning veterans get a fair deal in
    seeking classroom vocational training programs or On-the-Job-Training
    placements. Right now veterans are not getting anything like a fair
    deal, much less ``priority of service'' in these programs. As bad as
    the participation of veterans in WIA across the country, we have good
    reason to believe that many state and Service Delivery Area (SDA)
    entities could not survive even a cursory audit of this paltry tax
    record. (In plain word, imagine how bad their record would look if they
    hadn't exaggerated veteran participation!)
        Whatever else this proposed legislation in its final form does, it
    must set aside a proportional amount of WIA funds in each state to be
    at least the proportion of veterans in the population of those who are
    unemployed or who have dropped out of the labor force solely because
    they are so discouraged by looking for work to no avail that they
    become clinically depressed and hence unable to continue to look for
    work.
        VVA also urges Congresswoman Foxx and her colleagues to reiterate
    ``priority of service'' as a requirement for any and all employment &
    training programs funded by or through the DoL. Further, VVA strongly
    urges creation of meaningful redress measures and sanctions for those
    states and for those SDA delivery areas which do not adequately
    demonstrate ``priority of service'' for veterans is occurring in all
    DoL-funded programs. As a last resort, the funding should be recaptured
    from the state and contracted out to entities (i.e., CBOs, VSOs, faith-
    based organizations, and other private or non-profit service providers)
    within that state who value veterans, and which have the expertise,
    creativity, and the will to assist veterans into jobs that will lead to
    a career.
        Mr. Chairman, VVA urges you to also ask the General Accountability
    Office (GAO) to look into this area to discern whether this public
    record of the participation rate of veterans in WIA programs in each
    state is either incomplete or inflated, why ``priority of service'' to
    military veterans is not occurring at the service delivery level as
    required by law, and recommend course(s) of action for both DoL (in
    cooperation with VA) and the Congress to correct any deficiencies
    found.
        VVA looks forward to working with the distinguished Members of this
    storied Subcommittee, and with the distinguished Members of the HELP
    Committee, to improve on the bill as introduced, so that VVA and others
    in the veterans' community can enthusiastically endorse this proposed
    legislation.
        H.R. 3670, To require the Transportation Security Administration to
    comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
    Act, introduced by Representative Timothy Walz (D-Mn), this legislation
    amends the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to require the
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to comply with the
    Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act when carrying
    out certain personnel decisions with respect to the employment of air
    transportation passenger and property screeners. (Please note that
    Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) has introduced a companion bill,
    S.1990.)
        As usual, Command Sergeant Major Walz is to be commended for his
    efforts to address a real problem for National Guard and Reserve
    personnel. VVA strongly favors enactment of H.R. 3670, to require the
    Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) to abide by the ``Uniformed
    Services Employment and Reemployment Act''(USERA). There is no reason
    for TSA, or any other Federal agency or entity, to not be subject to
    the requirements of USERA.
        VVA strongly favors speedy enactment, and expedited implementation,
    of this proposed law.
        It has come to the attention of VVA that there are parts of the VA
    and of DoD that have abridged the rights of returning veterans who are
    demobilized from active duty, and qualify for protection under USERA.
    VVA strongly urges this Subcommittee to work with the appropriate
    Subcommittee of the Government Oversight & Reform Committee to make
    violation or abridgement or threatened abridgement of a servicemember's
    rights under USERA a ``prohibited personnel practice'' that shall
    subject a manager or supervisor who commits such an act to immediate
    reprimand, up to and including suspension and possible dismissal in any
    and all Federal entities. At minimum, such an act should result in a
    two-year suspension of awarding a bonus for any reason to that manager.
        Further, VVA urges this Subcommittee to work with that same
    Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce of the Committee on Oversight &
    Government Reform to strengthen veterans' preference. There should be
    no exception of any Federal department, agency, or entity from being
    subject to veterans' preference in all hiring, at all grades.
        While the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998 (VEOA)
    strengthened veterans' preference in many ways, it is now way past time
    to correct a number of flaws in the VEOA. The statute made it a
    ``prohibited personnel practice'' to violate the rights of a veterans'
    preference-eligible person. First among those flaws is that the word
    ``knowingly'' was slipped into the law before ``violate a person's
    veterans' preference rights.'' This has enabled those same SES folks to
    avoid punishing managers and supervisors for the past fourteen years.
    Frankly, if a manager or supervisor does not know veterans' preference
    laws by the time he or she gets into a position of authority, then they
    should be removed and dismissal proceedings started for either
    misfeasance and/or incompetence. (Incidentally, the word ``knowingly''
    does not appear in the language that defines all other ``prohibited
    personnel practices,'' only in the veterans' preference clause.)
        It is also time to admit that the Senior Executive Service (SES) is
    a failure that has not met any of the supposed goals of the program
    that were used to justify exempting SES from veterans' preference laws.
    As it has played out at the VA, at DoD, and at other departments and
    agencies, this exemption has enabled ``Jody'' (those who avoided the
    draft or enlistment to serve our country in the armed forces) to make
    sure that there are very few veterans or surviving spouses in SES
    positions. There is a generally patronizing attitude toward veterans
    that has been allowed to flourish in many quarters of the Federal
    government. Even as the size of the Federal workforce shrinks, these
    outrageous abuses must end.
        I would be remiss if I did not note that the current Administration
    has tried very hard to increase the hiring of veterans and the use of
    tools for agencies to increase the employment of veterans, particularly
    disabled veterans. There has, as perhaps you might come to expect, a
    great deal of lip service and passive resistance from the careerists.
    It has however resulted in some gains for veterans, but we must not
    only keep the pressure on them to do better, but also move to
    strengthen the law. Frankly there are very few things that you can do
    to really assist veterans, particularly disabled veterans, and
    dramatically improve their lives while also strengthening the
    effectiveness of the Federal workforce that do not cost money in a time
    of both real and perceived austerity.
        Making the veterans' preference laws stronger is one of those few
    no-cost things you have the latitude to accomplish even in a tough year
    which can really improve the lives of disabled veterans. VVA urges you
    and your colleagues to seize this moment of opportunity, and act with
    alacrity and determination.
        H.R. 4048, Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned
    Small Businesses Act of 2012, introduced by Representative Bill Johnson
    (R-OH), would amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the
    contracting goals and preferences of the VA with respect to small
    business concerns owned and controlled by veterans.
        This legislation can be read in two very different ways with very
    different consequences: 1) that the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and
    the misnomered ``strategic sourcing initiative'' (which is not based on
    any statute we can locate, and which has less than nothing to do with
    national security) has precedence over small business in general and
    service-disabled veteran- owned small business ``Vets First''
    provisions of law in particular; or 2) that Service-Disabled Veteran-
    Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses
    (VOSBs) who are on the delegated (from the General Services Agency)
    Federal Supply Schedules shall have preference over all others on the
    VA-run FSS.
        If the intent is the second meaning, then VVA can enthusiastically
    support this proposed law.
        If, however, the intent is to let the VA continue to ignore much of
    small business law that has been on the books for years, and to ignore
    the ``Vets First'' contracting provisions of Title 38, then VVA must
    rigorously oppose this legislation. The Veterans Entrepreneurship Task
    Force (VET-Force) will also vigorously oppose this legislation if that
    is the case.
        As there was no summary on thomas.loc.gov that made clear the
    intent of HR 4048, and there were no remarks upon introduction that we
    could locate, the bill as written leaves us in a bit of a quandary. If
    we are in a quandary as to what was intended, we can only speculate and
    marvel at the mess the VA General Counsel's office (never mind the
    Acquisitions people) will make of this proposal should it become law as
    currently worded, with no clear and unequivocal Committee report. We
    urge that this be re-written and expanded for clarity, and a clear
    Committee report be written, no matter which way the Committee decides
    to proceed.
        H.R. 4051, TAP Modernization Act of 2012, introduced by
    Representative Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN), would direct the Secretary of
    Labor to provide off-base transition training.
        The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) has needed a significant
    overhaul for some time. The common vernacular description of the TAP
    program as it exists on military bases today is ``death by power-
    point.'' Many of those slides in the standard presentation date back to
    when some of the separating servicemembers were in elementary school.
    What is particularly needed is not only an up to date and interactive
    experience that will engage those separating, but also to deliver this
    program to those who are members of the National Guard and the Reserves
    demobilizing, and are nowhere near a military base where this program
    is currently offered.
        It is also true for many of the active duty servicemembers when
    they separate from the service and return home that they are not near a
    military base that offers TAP. Reportedly, this is the most rural Armed
    Forces we have fielded since World War I, with about 40% coming from
    towns of 25,000 or less. What this means is that we must alter our
    paradigm and shape these very important services in such a way that the
    service(s) and vital information for these veterans and their spouses
    can be delivered where the new veterans can seize this opportunity, and
    in such a manner that they will grasp this important set of services
    and information.
        Our Nation spends a great deal of time and treasure to train these
    young Americans to be effective soldiers, sailors, Marines, and members
    of the Air Force and Coast Guard. This prepares them to be not only the
    best trained and equipped armed forces in the world, but the best in
    the history of the world. Surely we can spend the time and resources to
    train these young Americans to successfully reintegrate into civilian
    life.
        VVA does favor enactment of this legislation at an early date, but
    urges that you and your colleagues consider speeding up the pilot to a
    much faster pace than three years in only five states. The services are
    needed now, not in the distant future.
        H.R. 4057, Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for
    Veterans Act of 2012, introduced by Representative Gus M. Bilirakis,
    (R-FL), would amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a comprehensive policy to
    improve outreach and transparency to veterans and members of the Armed
    Forces through the provision of information on institutions of higher
    learning.
        VVA commends Congressman Bilirakis for continuing the tradition in
    his family of bold advocacy for the men and women who have pledged
    their life and limb in defense of the Constitution.
        VVA favors enactment of this proposed legislation, but we strongly
    urge that it be strengthened. Let me be blunt: VVA has good reason to
    believe that some predatory for-profit schools set out to enrich
    themselves and their investors by taking the hard-earned GI Bill for
    the 21st Century dollars, and then arranging ``easy financing'' of
    additional costs from what turns out to be a finance company owned by
    the same investors that locks these brave young people into a debt
    structure that is a heavy burden at exorbitant (if not usurious in the
    biblical sense). Then it is only after wasting time and all of their
    benefits that these veterans discover that the schools are not really
    properly accredited, that their ``degrees'' are phony and worthless as
    said ``credentials'' are not accepted by employers or licensing
    agencies or graduate schools.
        In the most extreme of these cases, the future has literally been
    stolen from these veterans. These predators are practicing ``Stolen
    Valor'' in the extreme.
        Let me state that VVA does not believe that all distance learning
    is bad, nor that being a for-profit school inherently means that the
    school can't offer fair value for a fair price. They can - but the
    predatory for-profit schools do not.
        We ask that you take into account these considerations:

        (1) Basic Eligibility Threshold: No GI Bill or TA dollars if the
    graduate is not eligible to get licensed in that field. In the Military
    and Veteran Students Educational Bill of Rights, one provision is, ``If
    receiving a degree or certificate will fulfill the licensing
    requirements in a particular field.'' As our friend and colleague Ted
    Daywalt, founder and president of VetJobs always says, a program's
    graduates must be eligible for state licensing so that graduates can
    actually get a job in the area they studied for (for example, a nursing
    program must be approved so that its graduates can be licensed to
    practice nursing). You could also suggest basic eligibility thresholds
    for graduation and job placement rates (such as, no GI Bill dollars if
    a school has a terrible graduation or job placement rate).
        (2) Risk-Based Audits and Reviews: Senator Webb is proposing a
    risk-based review system where State Approving Agencies would be tasked
    with performing an audit if one of these triggers occurred: rapid GI
    enrollment, student complaints, high drop-out rates, high loan default
    rates, or legal action by a state or the feds against a particular
    college. To quote from the Military and Veteran Students Educational
    Bill of Rights: ``Review any institution that shows a rapid increase in
    student dropout rates or student loan defaults, an increase in student
    complaints, a state lawsuit or probation, etc. VA and DoD should
    decertify or terminate from TA and GI Bill eligibility any institution
    of higher education that has been put on probation or terminated by a
    state government from its student aid program, has been found by a
    government agency to have engaged in grossly deceptive recruiting
    practices, or has admitted fraud or been successfully sued for fraud.
    VA and DoD should share information with the Departments of Education
    and Justice, and communicate information on adverse findings by those
    agencies with the State Approving Agencies for institutions that may
    require additional inspections or remedial action.''
        (3) Data Collection, Student Disclosures and Reporting: Here's the
    applicable paragraph from the Educational Bill of Rights: ``Track the
    data on school performance and student outcomes under Tuition
    Assistance, Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills, and Top-Up. Currently
    DoD and VA track dollars out the door, but not what those dollars have
    bought. (No agency is currently tracking even dollars out the door
    under Top-Up.) At a minimum, DoD and VA should track the number of
    credits earned and whether students remain enrolled, have successfully
    completed a program, or have dropped out. Metrics should be regularly
    reported to Congress.''
        (4) Disclosures. You've got a serious list in the attached
    Educational Bill of Rights: ``Disclose relevant educational and
    financial information to DoD/VA and to prospective students in plain
    language and in easily accessible, obvious places on all materials and
    Web sites:

           i. The actual costs per credit hour and/or degree or other
    relevant measures, including all lab and student fees;
           ii. Whether or not credits are transferrable to that state's
    public universities and community colleges;
           iii. If receiving a degree or certificate will fulfill licensing
    requirements in a particular field;
           iv. If the institution of higher learning (IHL) has been
    accredited by what national and/or regional accrediting entity;
           v. That programs of study have been approved for GI Bill
    benefits by a State Approving Agency;
           vi. Whether the institution is a public, private non-profit, or
    private for-profit institution; and if it is a for-profit entity, it
    should be required to disclose its profitability, executive
    compensation, and shareholder return annually and semi-annually, as
    well as what percent of its budget goes to marketing and recruitment;
    to career placement; and to actual instruction;
           vii. What the overall graduation and job placement rates have
    been for the past five years, as well as in the specific field of study
    in which a prospective student is considering majoring;
           viii. What the dropout rates have been over the past five years;
    The student debt and default rates on loans at one year, two years, and
    three years after a student has graduated or has otherwise left the
    school;
           ix. Whether the college has dedicated support staff to assist
    students
           x. negotiate the educational terrain, especially support staff
    for military, veterans, and military families - in particular disabled
    veterans (it's one thing to get into a school; it's quite another to
    attain a degree while juggling family and work and studies); and
    whether or not the college has certified counselors available to assist
    students seek scholarships and other forms of financial aid;
           xi. The qualification level of the teaching and tutoring staff,
    e.g., what percentage of instructors have achieved a terminal degree in
    their field of discipline;
           xii. Whether or not the school has a career placement office
    with paid, dedicated staff to assist students in their job search upon
    graduation; or, in the case of online institutions, what is the
    availability of career placement services for students and alumni;
           xiii. What percentage of the institution's budget is spent on
    advertising, marketing, recruitment, commissions, and sales; how much
    has been taken as profit over an institution's past five fiscal years;
    and the total annual individual executive compensation package for the
    senior corporate or college staff over the past years, as well as
    shareholder returns quarterly and annually over the same period.''

        H.R. 4072, Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved
    Performance Act of 2012, introduced by Representative Jeff Miller (FL-
    1), would amend title 38, United States Code, to improve employment
    services for veterans by consolidating various programs in the
    Department of Veterans Affairs.
        VVA supports the part of this bill that would create the position
    of Deputy Undersecretary of VA for Veterans Employment and Economic
    Opportunities, and move the DoL Veterans Employment and Training
    Service (VETS) to VA. While this begs the question as to the lack of
    accountability of the state workforce development agencies in regard to
    the proper deployment of the veterans' personnel to work on assisting
    veterans, especially disabled veterans, to obtain and sustain
    meaningful employment at a living wage, it is at least a start in the
    right direction.
        VVA still strongly believes that all of the veterans' staff
    positions currently known as Disabled Veteran Outreach Program
    specialists (DVOPs) and Local Veteran Employment Representatives
    (LVERs) that are currently state employees should be federalized. VVA
    holds that this is necessary because there is presently no effective
    oversight of how the states are utilizing these personnel. Experience
    would suggest, however, that we are lucky if we are able to get the
    equivalent of one day a week of these half-time LVERs and DVOPs devoted
    to veterans. At minimum VVA strongly urges you to authorize only full-
    time positions as veterans' personnel, and ensure that there is a
    meaningful oversight system to ensure veterans get their money's worth
    of effort from each full-time position funded by DoL to serve only
    veterans. Lastly, we need more meaningful objective measures than the
    current mass scale manifestation of the ``post hoc, ergo propter hoc''
    logical fallacy. We need real placements, not the current phony system.
        However, VVA opposes the part of this bill that would move the HVRP
    grant program from DoL to the VA per VVA 2011 National Convention
    resolution: ``HV-7 Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program to Remain at
    the US Department of Labor (DoL) and be fully funded at $50M'';
    resolved, that Vietnam Veterans of America opposes the transition of
    the HVRP Program from the US Department of Labor and further, that DoL
    should be held accountable for this program's function, oversight, and
    performance. Additionally, VVA urges full funding to the authorized
    level for the HVRP program.''
        As noted above, the key issue here is that the very effective CBOs
    and faith-based organizations (FBOs), which operate on a very close
    margin, need the HVRP funds from DoL to serve as ``match'' funds in
    order to receive ``Grant & Per Diem'' funds from VA. Frankly, these
    CBOs and FBOs produce effective services to very poor and homeless
    veterans at much less cost than government can get the job done.
    Veterans tend to trust them more than the VA or other government
    agencies when beginning the process of trekking the long road back from
    the street to a productive role in society. If this ``match'' problem
    can be surmounted, then VVA would reconsider this position.
        Many thanks for the opportunity to appear here today to share the
    views of VVA.

                                   Appendix I
             MILITARY & VETERAN STUDENTS EDUCATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS

        The VSOs and MSOs indicated below urge the Administration to
    establish an interagency working group, from among the Departments of
    Defense, Veterans Affairs, Education, and Justice, to develop
    appropriate protocols to protect active duty servicemembers, reservists
    and members of the National Guard, veterans and family members who seek
    to use their GI Bill and Tuition Assistance benefits to pursue higher
    education from unethical and predatory institutions of higher learning.
    Several of our ideas on reining in the abuses that we know have been
    harming troops and veterans are offered below. We defer to the
    Administration on the appropriate agency or mechanism to implement
    these ideas, and are available to provide more specifics as needed. We
    have referred to the Military Student Bill of Rights developed by the
    Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges Consortium (SOCC) as a touchstone
    on this issue. We also encourage reference to section 559 of the FY'12
    National Defense Authorization Act.

        1. REQUIRE (either through strong Memoranda of Understanding from
    both DoD and VA or through Executive action) all institutions of higher
    learning that want to accept students under Tuition Assistance or the
    Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bills to:

        a. DISCLOSE relevant educational and financial information to DoD/
    VA and to prospective students in plain language and in easily
    accessible, obvious places on all materials and Web sites:

           i. The actual costs per credit hour and/or degree or other
    relevant measures, including all lab and student fees;
           ii. Whether or not credits are transferrable to that state's
    public universities and community colleges;
           iii. If receiving a degree or certificate will fulfill licensing
    requirements in a particular field;
           iv. If the institution of higher learning (IHL) has been
    accredited by what national and/or regional accrediting entity;
           v. That programs of study have been approved for GI Bill
    benefits by a State Approving Agency.
           vi. Whether the institution is a public, private non-profit, or
    private for-profit institution; and if it is a for-profit entity, it
    should be required to disclose its profitability, executive
    compensation, and shareholder return annually and semi-annually, as
    well as what percent of its budget goes to marketing and recruitment;
    to career placement; and to actual instruction.
           vii. What the overall graduation and job placement rates have
    been for the past five years, as well as in the specific field of study
    in which a prospective student is considering majoring.
           viii. What the dropout rates have been over the past five years;
           ix. The student debt and default rates on loans at one year, two
    years, and three years after a student has graduated or has otherwise
    left the school;
           x. Whether the college has dedicated support staff to assist
    students negotiate the educational terrain, especially support staff
    for military, veterans, and military families - in particular disabled
    veterans (it's one thing to get into a school; it's quite another to
    attain a degree while juggling family and work and studies); and
    whether or not the college has certified counselors available to assist
    students seek scholarships and other forms of financial aid;
           xi. The qualification level of the teaching and tutoring staff,
    e.g., what percentage of instructors have achieved a terminal degree in
    their field of discipline;
           xii. Whether or not the school has a career placement office
    with paid, dedicated staff to assist students in their job search upon
    graduation; or, in the case of online institutions, what is the
    availability of career placement services for students and alumni;
           xiii. What percentage of the institution's budget is spent on
    advertising, marketing, recruitment, commissions, and sales; how much
    has been taken as profit over an institution's past five fiscal years;
    and the total annual individual executive compensation package for the
    senior corporate or college staff over the past years, as well as
    shareholder returns quarterly and annually over the same period.

        b. REQUIRE institutions of higher learning to report data on
    graduation and dropout rates and other relevant measures of their
    commitment to providing quality higher education to the National Center
    for Education Statistics' College Navigator.
        c. MANDATE that any institution of higher learning that receives
    Tuition Assistance, Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill funds has a career
    placement office with dedicated, paid staff to assist students in their
    job search upon graduation; or, in the case of online institutions,
    provides career placement services for students and alumni.
        d. MANDATE institutions of higher learning provide support services
    for military, veterans, including disabled veterans, and their
    families.
        e. MANDATE under penalty that no institution of higher learning may
    provide incentive payments to recruit; and that no financial incentives
    may be offered to current or former students to recruit; nor may a
    school use GI Bill or TA dollars for recruiting or marketing.
        f. MANDATE under penalty that any institution of higher learning
    receiving GI Bill or Tuition Assistance dollars must be brought under
    the rules of Title IV of the Higher Education Act governing
    institutions that receive Pell grants and Federal student loans.
        g. ENSURE that currently enrolled students will be given sufficient
    notice if an institution of higher learning declines to sign the MOU.
        2. CLOSE the 90/10 loophole. A cornerstone of any effort must be
    closing the loophole in which GI Bill and Tuition Assistance funds are
    considered ``private'' funds, not ``federal'' funds in the 90/10
    equation. This has opened the floodgates to extreme targeting of
    military and veteran students by predatory for-profit colleges, and has
    led to the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars. (Note: The
    American Legion does not have a Resolution that supports this
    proposal).
        3. MANDATE counseling about educational benefits and the potential
    for abuse to the uneducated consumer student. Active duty troops should
    be informed by DoD and VA personnel about educational opportunities
    available to them - and their families - and the risks for abuse by
    predatory institutions, prior to receiving benefits. National Guard and
    military families should also receive counseling through appropriate
    avenues. Potential students should be told about the College Navigator.
    Those who are considering enrolling in an institution of higher
    learning, and those who are about to separate from service, should
    attend mandatory sessions that focus on what factors potential students
    need to consider when choosing a school. Similarly, all levels of
    command, from company commander through installation commander, should
    be alert to the risks of predatory institutions and take steps if
    necessary to bar these recruiters and their principals from coming onto
    their base. All levels of command should be encouraged to disseminate
    information through publications and periodic briefings by MSO and VSO
    representatives. Institutions of higher education should not themselves
    be given a platform to conduct education counseling under Chapter 36 or
    other avenues.
        4. DEVELOP an online college comparison tool (e.g., a mandatory,
    not a voluntary, College Navigator) that can assist students compare
    actual costs, transferability of credits, eligibility to get licensed,
    key indicators or measures of student success, e.g., drop-out rates,
    graduation rates, student loan default rates, and job placement
    successes. This tool would also catalog an online database of student
    complaints. And this College Navigator should allow for social media
    integration so that potential students can rate schools by learning of
    the experiences of students at these institutions.
        5. ESTABLISH an Ombudsman system at VA and DoD to take student
    complaints at a toll-free number, such as 1-800-GI BILL1, facilitated
    through existing infrastructure at the VA call center in Muskogee,
    Oklahoma. Student complaints could be made available online and
    connected to College Navigator, with all personal information redacted,
    so prospective students might see complaints about the schools they are
    considering. Require VA to develop an Education Benefits Customer
    Service portal, where student veterans can file complaints about
    benefits and report fraud waste and abuse. Veteran complaints should be
    assigned a case file and tracked as the VA works with agencies to find
    resolution to the problem.
        6. TRACK the data on school performance and student outcomes under
    Tuition Assistance, Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills, and Top-Up.
    Currently DoD and VA track dollars out the door, but not what those
    dollars have bought. (No agency is currently tracking even dollars out
    the door under Top-Up.) At a minimum, DoD and VA should track the
    number of credits earned and whether students remain enrolled, have
    successfully completed a program, or have dropped out. Metrics should
    be regularly reported to Congress.
        7. REVIEW any institution that shows a rapid increase in student
    dropout rates or student loan defaults, an increase in student
    complaints, a state lawsuit or probation, etc. VA and DoD should
    decertify or terminate from TA and GI Bill eligibility any institution
    of higher education that has been put on probation or terminated by a
    state government from its student aid program, has been found by a
    government agency to have engaged in grossly deceptive recruiting
    practices, or has admitted fraud or been successfully sued for fraud.
    VA and DoD should share information with the Departments of Education
    and Justice, and communicate information on adverse findings by those
    agencies with the State Approving Agencies for institutions that may
    require additional inspections or remedial action.
        8. ADDRESS access to military installations in CONUS and overseas.
    Installation commanders should utilize the rule against commercial
    solicitation on their base, as well as JAG procedures to ban predatory
    commercial entities. They should be encouraged to enter into MOUs with
    community and non-profit schools to teach on post; no national
    educational entity, e.g., Kaplan or Colorado Tech, should have entre
    into a national MOU with DoD or one of the services to have unfettered
    access to all bases. It should be in the province of a local commander
    and his/her educational officers to determine who is authorized to
    teach on campus, but there should be no limit to the number of MOUs
    they can sign. Access to bases by former servicemembers should be
    limited if they are paid by schools to recruit on base.
        9. TRADEMARK or otherwise protect such terms as ``GI Bill'' and
    ``Military friendly'' but provide a carve-out for recognized VSOs. (Web
    sites owned by for-profit lead generators include GIBillAmerica.com,
    MilitaryGIBill.com, GIBill.Com, GIBenefits.com, and US-Army-Info.com.)
    The Federal government has already trademarked terms such as ``Social
    Security,'' ``Medicare,'' ``No Guts, No Glory,'' ``PTSD Coach,''
    ``VetBiz,'' and ``MyFuture.com.''
        10. DESIGN a method of recourse for servicemembers and veterans who
    have lost their benefits because they were duped or tricked by a
    predatory practice by an institution of higher learning. If a troop or
    veteran has wasted his/her benefits on a worthless degree or
    certification because of misrepresentations made by unscrupulous
    representatives of predatory for-profits, they should be permitted to
    petition the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to have them
    reinstated.
        The undersigned organizations have endorsed this military and
    veteran students' educational Bill of Rights:

          John R. ``Doc'' McCauslin
          Chief Executive Officer
          Air Force Sergeants Association

          Rear Adm. (Ret.) Casey Coane
          Executive Director
          Association of the U.S. Navy

          Tom Tarantino
          Deputy Policy Director
          Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

          Vice Adm. (Ret.) Norbert R. Ryan, Jr.
          President
          Military Officers Association of America

          Joe Wynn
          Legislative Liaison and Regional Director
          National Association for Black Veterans
          President, Vets Group

          Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Gus Hargett
          President
          National Guard Association of the U.S.

          Carl Blake
          National Legislative Director
          Paralyzed Veterans of America

          Michael Dakduk
          Executive Director
          Student Veterans of America

          Peter Gaytan
          Executive Director
          The American Legion

          Raymond C. Kelley
          National Legislative Director
          Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.

          Ted Daywalt
          President
          VetJobs

          Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW
          Vice President of Veterans Policy
          VetsFirst, United Spinal Association

          Rick Weidman
          Executive Director for Policy &
          Government Affairs
          Vietnam Veterans of America

                          VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA
                               Funding Statement
                                 March 8, 2012
        The national organization Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is a
    non-profit veterans' membership organization registered as a 501(c)
    (19) with the Internal Revenue Service. VVA is also appropriately
    registered with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House
    of Representatives in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
    1995.
        VVA is not currently in receipt of any Federal grant or contract,
    other than the routine allocation of office space and associated
    resources in VA Regional Offices for outreach and direct services
    through its Veterans Benefits Program (Service Representatives). This
    is also true of the previous two fiscal years.
        For Further Information, Contact:
          Executive Director of Policy and Government Affairs
          Vietnam Veterans of America
          (301) 585-4000, extension 127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73293.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73293.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73293.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73293.004

    The State Of WIA Adult Priority Of Service
        During PY '09, WIA Adult (plus supplemental Recovery Act funding)
    was a $1.352 billion program for job training and intensive job search
    for low income adults. The Jobs For Veterans Act of 2002 (JVA) was
    written to guarantee veterans priority of service in WIA and all other
    Federal employment and training programs. A decade after the JVA, The
    percentage of veterans enrolled in WIA Adult has actually declined in
    the decade; 53% of the states saw a decline of less than 20% and 14%
    declined even more sharply. Only 16% have met priority of service.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73293.006

          Despite massive jumps in unemployment during PY `09, 35
    states and the District used over 20% of their WIA Adult slots for
    those already employed. 25% of the states allocated over 30% of their
    slots for those already employed with Florida allocating 85%. None of
    the 35 states met veterans' priority of service. In only three states
    did the percent of total veterans exceed the percent of non-low income
    non-veterans in a program Congress intended to address low income
    employment concerns.
          PY '09 WIA Adult was particularly disturbing in terms of
    providing services to veteran sub-populations with significant barriers
    to employment. If you remove from consideration the five states that
    co-enroll, in PY '09 there were 197, 839 non-low income non-vets
    exiting WIA Adult; the lowest priority group. There were only 1,295
    service disabled veterans served in those states; approximately one for
    every three counties. In PY '09, in the states without co-enrollment,
    there were 1,428 veterans recently separated in the Gulf War era who
    exited WIA. Contrast that to 60,199 non-low income non-veterans who
    already had jobs when they entered a program to help people find jobs.
          The first quarter of the present WIA Adult program year
    is just as bad. In the 46 non-co-enrollment states, there were 2,850
    veterans exiting contrasted to 29,521 non-low income non-vets (the
    lowest priority group). 61% of the Workforce Investment Areas exited
    nine or fewer veterans in the twelve week period. Only 36% exited more
    than nine veterans. 3% exited no veterans. 111 service disabled
    veterans exited nationally during the 1st quarter; roughly two per
    state in twelve weeks. Nothing looks any better during this program
    year.
    Required Federal Contractor Outreach Would Get Far More Veterans Into
            WIA Adult
    PL 107-288 (HR 4015) November 7, 2002 Jobs For Veterans Act
        2035 (a) (1) Any contract in the amount of $100,000 or more entered
    into by any department or agency of the United States for the
    procurement of personal property and non-personal services (including
    construction) for the United States, shall contain a provision
    requiring that the party contracting with the United States take
    affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified
    covered veterans. This section applies to any subcontract in the amount
    of $100,000 or more entered into by a prime contractor in carrying out
    any such contract.
        The Jobs For Veterans Act Of 2002, reacting to several GAO studies,
    most notably in September 2001,critical of the Federal contractor
    program's impact on One Stop life, for the first time formally gave a
    staff person in the One Stop employer relations responsibilities with
    an eye toward more closely integrating employers into One Stop life and
    linking LVERs with WIA for the purposes of facilitating priority of
    service:
    Expansion Of LVER Duties To Deal With Federal Contractors And WIA In
            Veterans
        ``(b) PRINCIPAL DUTIES.--As principal duties, local veterans'
    employment representatives shall----
        ``(1) conduct outreach to employers in the area to assist veterans
    in gaining employment, including conducting seminars for employers and,
    in conjunction with employers, conducting job search workshops and
    establishing job search groups; and
        ``(2) facilitate employment, training, and placement services
    furnished to veterans in a State under the applicable State employment
    service delivery systems.
        DoL reiterated the importance of a strong employer relations
    outreach program in 20 CFR Part 1010 RIN 1293-AA15 Federal Register of
    December 19, 2008 when they state DoL funded employment and training
    programs should work with employers to ensure that the value a veteran
    brings to the table is understood and to address any concerns that
    employers may have about hiring veterans.
    The Office Of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) Has Defined What
            Veterans Affirmative Action In Hiring Means For Federal
            Contractors
        In the Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 152 /Wednesday, August 8,
    2007 /Rules and Regulations, OFCCP formally defined Federal contractor
    responsibilities in providing affirmative action in hiring qualified
    veterans. They mandated active outreach not only with neighboring LVERs
    but also with many other entities as a term of maintaining compliance
    with their contract obligations.
        (1) The contractor should enlist the assistance and support of the
    following persons and organizations in recruiting, and developing on-
    the-job training opportunities (OJT) . . . to fulfill its commitment to
    provide meaningful employment opportunities to such veterans:
        (i) The Local Veterans' Employment Representative in the local
    employment service office nearest the contractor's establishment;
        (ii) The Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office nearest the
    contractor's establishment;
        (iii) The veterans' counselors and coordinators (``Vet-Reps'') on
    college campuses;
        (iv) The service officers of the national veterans' groups active
    in the area of the contractor's establishment;
        Federal contractors are not at all expected to be passive in their
    outreach to those serving veterans' needs:
        (2) Formal briefing sessions should be held, preferably on company
    premises, with representatives from recruiting sources. Plant tours,
    clear and concise explanations of current and future job openings,
    position descriptions, worker specifications, explanations of the
    company's selection process, and recruiting literature should be an
    integral part of the briefing. Formal arrangements should be made for
    referral of applicants, follow up with sources, and feedback on
    disposition of applicants.
    Federal Contractors Are An Under Tapped Resource In Every WIA Area In
            Every State
        There are Federal contractors contractually required to provide
    affirmative action in hiring to veterans in two thirds of the nation's
    counties. They are far from a small handful of major defense
    contractors. In March 2011, there were over 57,000. Federal contractors
    are found in rural America, in small town America as well as large
    cities. They represent every industry with over one third found in
    manufacturing which is important for the legion of mid-life veterans
    displaced from lifelong careers in manufacturing. Contractors are a
    valuable vastly underutilized resource for veterans in search of work.
    Federal contractors should be providing the link between the LVERs and
    WIA enrollment of far more veterans since WIA enrolls those they
    believe might find work and having LVERs aggressively working their
    core of Federal contractors and local veteran owned businesses provides
    veterans the job leads that would make WIA comfortable making the
    enrollment decision.
    Conclusions
        There is no shortage of veterans showing up at WIA to enquire about
    services. Besides their own outreach efforts, the LVERs and DVOPs of
    the nation's public Employment Service referred 129,855 veterans for
    WIA services during Program Year `09.
        There is no conspiracy in every part of the Nation to not serve
    veterans in WIA. It's simply a matter of habit in a program which is
    judged by its performance standards. Staff select to enroll those that
    they have had success with in the past and they don't have a
    familiarity with veterans. Linking the LVERs closely with WIA makes
    sense; targeting contractually obligated Federal contractors and
    veteran owned business to help WIA help veterans find work.
    Proposed
        A $4,000,000 Challenge Grant To The States To Integrate WIA/LVERs
    And Co-Enroll Veterans
        State and local WIA will only come to the table and enroll many
    more veterans when there is an incentive to make changes. Were moral
    persuasion the deciding change factor, priority of service would have
    been achieved years and years ago. State Veteran Service Organizations
    will not only pass resolutions of support and appear before the State
    Council. They will also lend a hand in the employer outreach effort.
        $40,000 Private Sector Grant To Strengthen WIA Intensive For
    Veterans In The 668 WIA Entities
        An innovative video/Internet based individualized job search
    workshop that integrates updated local Federal contractor information
    will be made available for free to all 668 WIA entities for use with
    LVER/DVOR coordinated workshops for co-enrolled veterans. Focusing on
    strengthening WIA Intensive provides a far less costly veteran
    participation experience for WIA entities.
        A $55,000 DoL Contract To Provide Enhanced Contract Information To
    LVERs/DVORs And WIA
        The Department of Labor will partner with the existing system for
    providing Federal contract information to bring the presentation online
    in a password protected environment. Central Contract Registry data
    will be integrated to allow LVERs access to the name and phone numbers
    of Contract contacts to make their outreach far more time effective.
        DoL Veterans Employment And Training Will Revise The VETS-100 Form
    For Federal Contractors
        The Department of Labor will simplify the annual required VETS -100
    form for Federal contractors. To facilitate employer compliance with
    the OFCCP required outreach requirement, the revised form will require
    the signature of an LVER for submission as well as the signature and
    contact information for the person responsible for the business'
    veterans affirmative action policy.
        States Will Be Allowed To Consider Veterans As An Acceptable
    Category For UC Profiling
        Since co-enrollment of claimants who are veterans would be
    encouraged and there would be additional targeted resources available
    in WIA Incentive for veterans provided by a private grant, veterans
    could be considered as a target population should states wish to do so.
    States would additionally be strongly encouraged to adopt the Wisconsin
    model and automate their UC systems to automatically WOTC pre-certify
    all UCX claimants on the fifth week of their claim as they will have
    met the requirements for the tax credit that week.

                     Prepared Statement of Ryan M. Gallucci
        MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
        On behalf of the more than 2 million men and women of the Veterans
    of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to
    thank you for the opportunity to testify on today's pending
    legislation. With the conflict in Iraq drawing to a close, withdrawal
    from Afghanistan on the horizon, and proposals to scale back our
    nation's active duty military, the VFW believes economic opportunity
    for today's war-fighters is a national imperative that continues to
    demand the kind of decisive action we saw with last year's passage of
    the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. Recent unemployment numbers indicate that
    veterans of the current conflicts remain unemployed at a higher rate
    than their civilian counterparts, with young veterans and female
    veterans experiencing unemployment rates well over twice the national
    average. The VFW is happy to see that this Subcommittee continues to
    take this situation seriously, and we are honored to share our thoughts
    on today's bills in an effort to ensure our veterans have the
    opportunities they have earned to succeed in a cut-throat economy after
    leaving military service.

        H.R. 3329, to amend title 38 United States Code, to extend the
    eligibility period for veterans to enroll in certain vocational
    rehabilitation programs:
        The VFW believes that our Nation has an obligation to ensure that
    our service-connected disabled veterans are employable, and this
    obligation has no expiration date. Unfortunately, today's service-
    connected disabled veterans are relegated to a 12-year window in which
    to receive vocational rehabilitation, or Voc Rehab, services. The VFW
    continues to believe that this delimiting date for Voc Rehab services
    is unacceptable and we will continue to advocate for Vocational
    Rehabilitation for Life. If our nation's recent economic downturn has
    taught us anything it is that industries constantly evolve. Job
    descriptions can alter drastically and some jobs can go away
    altogether, which is why service-disabled veterans must always have
    access to the training and career counseling services available through
    Voc Rehab. The VFW is proud to support H.R. 3329, as it extends the
    current delimiting date on Voc Rehab to 15 years. However, our
    organization believes that this delimiting date must ultimately be
    eliminated altogether.

        H.R. 3483, Veterans Education Equity Act of 2012:
        In 2008, the VFW played a key role in securing the Post-9/11 G.I.
    Bill, offering unprecedented educational opportunities for today's
    veterans. The purpose of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill was simple: Offer a
    free public education for those who served after 9/11. Unfortunately,
    since the bill was designed to reimburse student-veterans at the cost
    of an in-state public education, student-veterans who chose to attend
    private schools were subject to wildly disparate reimbursement rates
    for their academic programs based on geography. In an effort to offer
    an equitable benefit for student-veterans who wished to attend private
    schools, Congress established a reimbursement cap of $17,500 regardless
    of the state in which the program was administered. Unfortunately, the
    $17,500 cap only applies to students-veterans who enroll at private
    colleges and universities, meaning student-veterans attending public
    schools are still only entitled to receive the highest in-state tuition
    and fee payments, regardless of whether or not they meet residency
    requirements for the state. As a result, many student-veterans who do
    not qualify for in-state tuition face significant out-of-pocket costs
    to attend the public school of their choice, unlike their counterparts
    whose education at a private school may nearly be fully financed.
    According to the Congressional Budget Office, this inequity affects
    25,000-35,000 veterans each year; veterans who may not have been able
    to satisfy residency requirements due to the rigors of military life.
    H.R. 3483 will extend the $17,500 reimbursement cap for non-resident
    public school student-veterans, and the VFW is proud to support this
    bill. H.R. 3483 will ensure equitable reimbursement rates for all
    student-veterans regardless of the academic program they choose, as we
    intended.

        H.R. 3610, Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011:
        The ``Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011'' is
    an attempt to reduce bureaucracy and increase accountability across all
    federally-funded state workforce investments. For the purpose of this
    hearing, I will limit my comments to the sections that directly impact
    programs for military veterans.
        Currently 27 workforce initiatives receive Federal funding,
    including Chapters 20 and 41 of title 38 and Chapter 11 of title 10.
    These three programs provide funding for the Department of Labor
    Veterans Employment and Training Program (DoLVETS), which funds the
    operations of the disabled veterans outreach program (DVOP) specialists
    and local veterans' employment representatives (LVER), the homeless
    veterans reintegration programs, and military transition assistance
    program (TAP). The VFW is concerned with how the bill affects the
    implementation of these programs. The current veteran workforce program
    is not perfect, but it already supports an infrastructure to train
    workforce employees, provides employment outreach and training to
    veterans in local communities, offers $36 million in homeless veterans
    transitional housing grants, and provides resources for servicemembers
    to transition from military service to civilian life. H.R. 3610 seeks
    to effectively terminate these specific programs, leaving it to the
    discretion of the states to carry out veterans' employment and
    transition services on an ad-hoc basis.
        At a time when veteran unemployment is disproportionately high,
    tens of thousands of servicemembers are scheduled to leave military
    service, and veteran homelessness appears to be in decline, the VFW
    believes that ending these programs to reproduce them at a state level
    will be detrimental to the veterans who rely on the services. Unlike
    other workforce investment programs, Department of Labor's veteran-
    specific systems have strict annual reporting mandates, and frequent
    audits have demonstrated that the programs are cost effective in their
    current form. Not only will H.R. 3610 appropriate equal funding for
    fewer veteran services, but the bill will also reduce oversight of the
    quality and reporting of employment trends by requiring reports only
    every four years. The VFW opposes H.R. 3610 and encourages the
    Committee to take the appropriate steps to preserve veterans' workforce
    development programs, which we will continue to discuss with H.R. 4072.

        H.R. 3670, to require the Transportation Security Administration to
    comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
    Act:
        Currently, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
    Rights Act (USERRA) protects members of the National Guard and Reserve
    from employment discrimination based on military service obligations.
    Over the past decade, USERRA has become vitally important to our
    nations Reserve forces. Without it, regular deployments, both stateside
    and abroad, would greatly exacerbate unemployment problems for our
    Reserve Component servicemembers, who already face significant
    disadvantages in a competitive job market as a result of increased
    operational tempo. USERRA helps ensure that members of the Guard and
    Reserve who are called to active duty can return to their civilian jobs
    and their seniority when they return from military service. Today,
    USERRA protects all civilian and Federal employees with the exception
    of one Federal employer, the Transportation Security Administration
    (TSA). In an effort to quickly stand up a new and effective law
    enforcement agency to ensure security after 9/11, Congress created TSA
    with a specific exemption from traditional employment protections,
    including USERRA, for its employees. More than a decade later, TSA is
    still not required to hold positions and promotions for employees who
    are called away to serve. The VFW believes it is time for this loophole
    to be closed. The Reserve Component employees at TSA must receive the
    employment and reemployment rights they have earned, and TSA should
    come into compliance with the rest of the Federal government. Closing
    this loophole is not only beneficial for our servicemembers, but the
    VFW believes the TSA will also benefit by offering our military's best
    and brightest the opportunity to pursue a meaningful civilian career
    without the persistent threat of possible termination for service
    obligations. In discussions with TSA, officials have not indicated this
    change will have any adverse effects on security, so closing the
    loophole would not impact TSA's effectiveness in the field; it would
    simply offer Reserve Component employees the piece-of-mind they
    deserve. It is our hope that the passing of this legislation will send
    a clear message that veteran employment is an extremely important
    issue, and the Federal government must take a leadership role in its
    promotion. We thank the Committee for taking the lead on this
    initiative and offer the support of the VFW for H.R. 3670.

        H.R. 3524, Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act:
        The VFW supports H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment
    Protection Act, but also has concerns about potential effects on the
    businesses and corporations that we are encouraging to employ veterans.
        The legislation guarantees that a veteran who must be absent from
    work to receive medical treatment for a service-connected disability
    cannot be terminated from their job because they are seeking such
    medical attention. The VFW fully supports affording veterans employment
    protections as they receive care in conjunction with an injury incurred
    through their military service. Such protections are critical to
    helping veterans be productive in the workforce.
        This legislation outlines a limitation of 12 workweeks during any
    12 month period, and we understand that questions have been raised
    about the necessity for a protection that covers a full week per month.
    Though the perils of a life of military service often cause veterans to
    need regular visits as they work to overcome the visible and invisible
    wounds of war, we must achieve a balance that does not jeopardize the
    career potential of a veteran seeking medical treatment. Potential
    employers are cognizant of the struggles a veteran faces, and they
    often are willing to make limited sacrifices to employ a veteran. Over
    the years, the VFW has worked with companies to promote veteran
    entrepreneurship and employment. Congress must do everything in its
    power to ensure veterans have every career opportunity, and that effort
    must focus on eliminating unnecessary hardships veterans encounter
    while seeking care.
        To help ensure the partnership between veterans and employers is an
    enduring one, and to provide the best possible care while minimizing
    interference in the career endeavors of our disabled veterans, we
    strongly believe VA must reform their medical care appointment
    practices and procedures with an emphasis on efficiency for the
    veteran. VA must do much more to ensure timely access to high-quality
    and efficient care. Among other things, we believe VA must prioritize
    the consecutive scheduling of appointments, must begin open access
    scheduling and provide expanded hours for appointments, and must put in
    place measures to prevent the need to reschedule an existing
    appointment. We understand that VA aims to alleviate these concerns
    through the Patient-Aligned Care Team model of care, and we fully
    support these and other efforts to streamline the impact of a veteran's
    care regimen at VA on their daily lives.
        Veterans who have earned the right to receive care at VA must not
    be punished in the workplace as a result; yet these protections are
    critical to prevent medical conditions from being used as a precursor
    to termination from employment. Such practices must be eliminated
    wherever they are found, and this added protection is a welcome change
    for veterans. Veterans want to be productive members of society, and
    providing the tools and opportunities to that end must always be a top
    priority.

        H.R. 4048, Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned
    Small Businesses Act of 2012:
        H.R. 4048 clarifies provisions of the Veterans First Contracting
    Program (P.L. 109-461) as it pertains to contracts awarded through the
    Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) for the purpose of meeting the percentage
    goal for contracting with Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small
    Businesses (SDVOSBs), and the VFW is proud to support this bill.
        Sections 502 and 503 of P.L. 109-461 authorized a set of special
    contracting tools that make it easier for contracting officers to offer
    contracts to SDVOSBs. These tools include a statement of priorities
    relative to other set-aside groups, such as 8(a), as well as dollar
    thresholds for certain type of procurement actions such as sole source
    contracts. It also provides continuation of veteran-owned status for
    surviving spouses of 100-percent service disabled veteran owners for a
    period of 10 years.
        Past VA statements regarding the application of the small business
    provisions is P.L. 109-461, now codified in title 38 U.S.C. Section
    8127, have created confusion regarding FSS purchases, leading VA to the
    perception that they must first satisfy other contracting set-aside
    mandates before seeking out SDVOSBs for FSS contracts. VA has even
    admitted that under certain circumstances, SDVOSBs seemed to be last in
    line to receive FSS work. The VFW believes that veterans should come
    first, as outlined in P.L. 109-461. H.R. 4048 would simply clarify that
    the small business provisions of Section 8127 apply to FSS purchases
    and do not expand the original intent of the law. By law, all Federal
    agencies have a goal to award at least three percent of their contracts
    to SDVOSBS. We understand that VA awarded nearly $450 million last year
    to SDVOSBs through the Federal Supply Schedules and we believe this
    clarification will encourage SDVOSBs to qualify for VA procurements
    through the FSS, and ensure all government agencies play by the same
    rules with regard to veteran set-aside contracts.

        H.R. 4051, TAP Modernization Act of 2012:
        As the debate on whether or not to mandate participation in the
    military's transition assistance program (TAP) unfolded, the VFW
    learned that many servicemembers on active duty failed to understand
    why they would need to participate in the program. However, once
    servicemembers left the military, many wondered why they never received
    comprehensive training and information on how to access their earned
    benefits and successfully transition from military to civilian life.
    Unfortunately, a veteran has no way to reasonably anticipate all of the
    challenges he or she may face once out of the military, which is why
    the VFW believes TAP resources must be available to veterans after they
    have transitioned off of active duty. The VFW supports H.R. 4051 and
    its pilot program to offer off-base TAP to communities where veterans
    have been hit disproportionately hard by difficult economic times.

        H.R. 4052, Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of
    2012:

        The VFW supports the idea behind this bill, but has some concerns
    about the bill's specific criteria for the Secretary to determine
    Excellence in Veterans Education Awards. The VFW believes that VA would
    be interested in offering this kind of rating to schools that
    consistently go above and beyond to best meet the needs of their
    student-veterans, and we support offering this kind of easy-to-
    understand evaluation for student-veterans. The difficulty is
    determining quality criteria with which to evaluate institutions. The
    VFW believes student-veteran advisory boards, student-veteran services,
    and additional criteria determined by VA are good criteria. However, we
    are concerned that membership in Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges
    (SOC) and graduation rates would not effectively capture whether or not
    a school serves the needs of its student-veterans. Graduation rates are
    a flawed statistic as currently compiled by Department of Education
    since the department only tracks first-time, full-time college
    attendees. The VFW believes today's graduation statistics are nearly
    irrelevant for non-traditional students like student-veterans and could
    skew decisions when used to evaluate how schools best serve their
    student-veterans. The VFW recommends instead that VA evaluate schools
    on a ratio of degrees conferred compared to enrollment each year.
    Discussions with the National Center on Education Statistics indicate
    that schools must already report these data points to the Department of
    Education, meaning the data should be readily available.
        SOC membership poses the perpetual question about universal
    acceptance of credits and reduced residency policies. The VFW wholly
    supports the mission of SOC and we encourage schools to sign on, but we
    understand that some colleges and universities must reserve the right
    to evaluate transferred credits on a case-by-case basis, only award
    credit where appropriate, and hold fast to reasonable residency
    requirements for all students. The VFW would support criteria that a
    school is either a member of SOC or offers a clear policy on evaluating
    and accepting military college credits. Two examples of non-SOC schools
    that have excellent track records in serving today's veterans are
    Georgetown University and Columbia University. Both schools have
    dedicated considerable resources to attracting veterans to their
    campuses and offering the tools they would need to succeed. The VFW
    would need assurances that VA would not preclude schools like
    Georgetown and Columbia from recognition solely for failing to
    participate in SOC.
        The VFW also has questions over how VA will evaluate Yellow Ribbon
    participation. For example, many state schools do not necessarily need
    to sign Yellow Ribbon agreements since their enrollment policies
    already ensure that student-veteran costs are completely reimbursed
    through the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. For example, my alma mater, the
    University of Rhode Island (URI), is not a Yellow Ribbon participant,
    but Chapter 33 already covers the full cost of education. The VFW would
    need assurances that schools like URI, which have instituted proactive
    policies to best meet the financial needs of student-veterans, would
    not be penalized for non-participation in Yellow Ribbon.
        Finally, the VFW has questions over how many schools VA could
    recognize and whether VA should establish a reasonable threshold for
    its schools of excellence. We agree with the three-year evaluation
    model, but caution that recognizing too many schools could only lead to
    further confusion for student-veterans when choosing an academic
    program. The VFW suggests limiting the awards to one school from each
    of the following categories in each state: Public, 4-year; public, 2-
    year; private, non-profit; proprietary. The VFW would also suggest that
    VA develop a ``Top 10'' list for schools in each of these categories
    nationwide.

        H.R. 4057, Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for
    Veterans Act of 2012:
        Last year, a Senate investigation spearheaded by Sen. Tom Harkin
    (D-IA) indicated that veterans may not be receiving the quality
    education we had intended through the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. The VFW
    believes this investigation caught the attention of deficit hawks on
    Capitol Hill, who subsequently asked the Congressional Budget Office to
    score several scenarios on how to scale back the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill
    benefit. The VFW believes this is the wrong approach. The Post-9/11
    G.I. Bill stands to be a transformative benefit for today's veterans.
    The VFW believes it has the potential to mold our nation's next
    Greatest Generation of leaders, and any efforts to scale back the
    benefit are a disservice to the men and women who have fought in
    defense of our Nation for the last decade. With this in mind, the VFW
    sought to understand why numbers seemed to indicate that proven
    battlefield leaders were making potentially bad decisions on how to use
    their education benefits. The VFW discovered a critical gap in VA's
    efforts to provide quality information to potential student-veterans
    with which they could make an informed, data-driven educational
    decision. When we prepare our troops to go to war, we ensure they have
    the best possible training to make life or death decisions in a
    moment's notice. When we prepare our veterans for college, the VFW
    believes we must offer the same due diligence in preparing them to
    choose a quality school.
        Since VA implemented the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, the department has
    primarily focused on ensuring student-veterans receive timely, accurate
    payments to finance an education. The VFW agrees that this had to be
    VA's top priority for the fledgling benefit. Unfortunately, as more and
    more veterans sought to take advantage of their earned educational
    opportunities, VA was left without the proper resources to ensure that
    veterans knew how best to use their benefits. Under Section 3697A of
    title 38, VA is obligated to offer educational and career counseling to
    any separating servicemember or G.I. Bill eligible veteran.
    Unfortunately, this counseling is only offered through a meticulous
    ``opt-in'' process, and total available counseling is capped at $6
    million each year. In 2011, the VA proudly touted that nearly 1 million
    veterans were enrolled in G.I. Bill programs. However, during the same
    year, only 6,400 veterans received counseling on their benefits through
    Section 3697A.
        The VFW believes that Congress must remove the cap to VA's
    educational counseling and mandate that VA contact veterans at
    different touch points prior to utilizing their educational benefits in
    an effort to deliver this counseling. Veterans who do not wish to
    receive educational counseling must still have the option to refuse it,
    but the VFW believes that creating an ``opt-out'' system ensures that
    all potential student-veterans understand their benefit and understand
    the importance of their educational choice.
        Unfortunately, even with robust consumer education, student-
    veterans may still become the victims of fraud, waste, or abuse.
    Veterans may be coerced into choosing an academic program of little
    value to their career aspirations based on misinformation or dubious
    enrollment practices. If a veteran feels he or she has been a victim of
    fraud, waste or abuse, VA must offer a clear method of reporting and
    recourse through which to track student-veteran complaints. VA must
    then leverage the information gleaned from these complaints to find
    remedies for students by working with State Approving Agencies,
    accrediting bodies, the departments of Education, Justice and Defense,
    and all other pertinent stakeholders. If a veteran receives an
    overpayment in education benefits or files a fraudulent benefits claim,
    VA has the ability to quickly take action against the veteran. VA must
    have the same capability to protect its beneficiaries against schools
    that fail to deliver on their educational promises.
        The VFW proudly supports H.R. 4057, which offers a critical first
    step in ensuring that student-veterans are properly informed about
    their benefits and have proper recourse for fraud, waste and abuse.
    However, in addition to creating Section 3698 in title 38, the VFW
    wants to see Section 3697A amended to ensure that VA must contact
    veterans prior to delivering G.I. Bill benefits, ensuring they can
    ``opt-out'' of counseling. The VFW believes that VA is already taking
    proactive steps to ensure current service-members receive this kind of
    information through the transition assistance program (TAP) and that
    veterans who apply for G.I. Bill benefits are exposed to critical
    information before tapping into their benefits. We applaud these steps,
    but would prefer a legislative solution to ensure that policies remain
    consistent beyond VA's current administration. World War II veteran and
    G.I. Bill success story Sen. Frank Lautenberg will introduce
    legislation with many of these ideas to help improve consumer education
    and consumer protection for student-veterans. We encourage the
    Subcommittee to work with the Senator and his staff to discuss how to
    best implement the kinds of protections we know our veterans need.
        Since the original G.I. Bill of World War II, our Nation has seen
    time and again that educating our veterans helps ensure future
    prosperity. We have a unique opportunity today to ensure that our
    veterans can use the benefits they have earned to receive the quality
    education we have promised to them. The VFW looks forward to working
    with the Subcommittee on H.R. 4057 and other pieces of legislation to
    ensure that we keep our promise.

        H.R. 4072, Consolidating Veteran Employment Service for Improved
    Performance Act of 2012:
        H.R. 4072 will protect veterans' workforce programs by moving the
    agency authority from Department of Labor to Department of Veterans
    Affairs. The VFW supports this bill, believing that placing all veteran
    issues under a single authority will improve oversight and efficiency.
        However, the VFW has concerns regarding implementation of H.R. 4072
    should it become law by itself or in conjunction with H.R. 3610. First,
    the VFW requests that Congress gives clarity in scope of the
    jurisdictional shift by including Section 1144 of title 10, the TAP
    program, in Section 2, paragraph (a) of H.R. 4072, as well as including
    conforming amendments that will affect title 10. Also, if DVOP and LVER
    positions are consolidated, as recommended in H.R. 4072, National
    Veterans' Employment and Training Service Institute must be modified to
    ensure that all current and future employees are fully trained to the
    new standard. The VFW must also have assurances that no positions will
    be lost in combining the two job descriptions into one. Congress must
    also pay attention to H.R. 3610 to ensure that if both bills are
    enacted that H.R. 4072 is amended to prevent the defunding of the DoL-
    VETS workforce investment programs.
        The VFW believes that shifting responsibility for veterans'
    employment programs to VA will ultimately ensure better service for our
    nation's veterans. However, we must ensure that any legislation that
    passes ensures that veterans' workforce programs remain fully funded,
    and that any transition of authority happens with minimal interruptions
    for both the veterans who rely on DoL-VETS services and the highly-
    trained employees who deliver those services.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer
    any questions the Subcommittee may have.

        Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of
    Representatives

        Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, VFW has
    not received any Federal grants in Fiscal Year 2012, nor has it
    received any Federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.

                    Prepared Statement of Steve L. Gonzalez
        Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and distinguished Members
    of the Subcommittee:
        On behalf of the 2.4 million members of The American Legion I thank
    you for this opportunity to submit The American Legion's views on the
    legislation being considered by the 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. 3329
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the eligibility
    period for veterans to enroll in certain vocational rehabilitation
    programs.
        The number of servicemembers, National Guard, and reservists who
    separate from active duty with service-connected disabilities has risen
    as a result of the engagement of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. The program's purpose is to counsel and rehabilitate
    veterans, with an emphasis on employment and independent living. The
    program provides comprehensive services and assistance to enable
    veterans with service-connected disabilities and employment handicaps
    to achieve maximum independence in daily living, to become employable,
    and to obtain and maintain suitable employment.
        However, the period of eligibility for VA Vocational Rehabilitation
    and Employment (VR&E) benefits is 12 years from the date of separation
    from the military or the date the veteran was first notified by VA of a
    service-connected disability rating. Many servicemembers and veterans
    do not understand their eligibility to VR&E services and the benefits
    of the program until later in life when they become so disabled that
    their disabilities create an employment barrier and, by, changing
    section 3103 of title 38, United States Code, veterans will be given
    ample opportunity to pursue these benefits in a reasonable time frame.
    The American Legion supports this bill.
                H.R. 3483: Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide equity for
    tuition and fees for individuals entitled to educational assistance
    under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of
    Veterans Affairs who are pursuing programs of education at institutions
    of higher learning, and for other purposes.
        Currently, the Post 9-11 Veterans' Educational Improvements
    Assistance Act capped the education benefit amount for veterans who
    enroll in private schools at $17,500 and limited the education benefit
    for those who enroll in public schools to the amount charged for
    resident tuition and fees. The Veterans' Education Equity Act of 2011
    would remedy this inequality and allow all veterans to receive up to
    $17,500 in education benefits. However, if in-state tuition exceeds
    $17,500, the bill would cover the full cost of tuition.
        The current law unintentionally burdens a significant number of
    America's servicemembers and veterans, requiring them to pay out-of-
    pocket thousands of dollars in nonresidential tuition rates. This
    legislation is absolutely essential to thousands of veterans who were
    promised funding for their college education. Already numerous veterans
    have had to drop out, transfer, or assume tremendous financial burdens
    due to the recent change in law. This legislation is vital to give all
    veterans an equal opportunity to afford the school of their choice.
        The American Legion supports this bill.
       H.R. 3610: Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011
        The Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011 (H.R.
    3610), aims to consolidate and streamline redundant and ineffective
    Federal workforce development programs to increase accountability,
    reduce administrative bureaucracies and put Americans back to work. The
    legislation consolidates 33 programs into 4 funding streams or
    Workforce Investment Funds and, is as follows:

          A Workforce Investment Fund, which would provide formula
    funding to states for job training services to adults, unemployed
    workers, and youth seeking employment. The bill authorizes $4.3 billion
    annually for fiscal years (FYs) 2013-2018;
          A State Youth Workforce Investment Fund, which would
    provide formula funds to states to serve the nation's disadvantaged
    youth, with a focus on school completion. The bill authorizes $1.9
    billion annually for FYs 2013-2018;
          A Targeted Populations Workforce Investment Fund, which
    would provide formula funds to states for assistance to special
    populations, including Native Americans and migrant and seasonal farm
    workers. The bill authorizes $581 million annually for FYs 2013-2018;
    and
          A Veterans Workforce Investment Fund, which would provide
    formula funds to states for employment and training services to U.S.
    veterans. The bill authorizes $218 million annually for FYs 2013-2018.

        In comparison to the other three investment funds, the Veterans
    Workforce Investment Fund will be underfunded, ill-equipped, and a
    disservice to America's servicemembers and veterans utilizing this
    program to reenter the workforce. Even though the key provision of this
    legislation is to address the overlapping programs provided by the
    Federal government, it does little, if anything, to address the
    differences in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery to their
    respective clients, in this case, America's veterans.
        The American Legion opposes this bill.
                                   H.R. 3670
        To require the Transportation Security Administration to comply
    with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
        Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
    became law in 1994 in an effort to protect military reservists'
    civilian employment when they are called on to serve the Nation in a
    full-time capacity. In the Post-9/11 era, operation tempos have
    increased dramatically, and reserve forces, to include the National
    Guard, have been called on regularly to serve both at home and abroad
    as an operational force. USERRA is designed to protect the employment
    of these servicemembers as they serve by requiring employers to retain
    the positions of reservists who have been called to active duty.
    However, due to a loophole in the law, there is one employer who is
    exempt from these provisions: the United States Transportation Security
    Administration (TSA).
        As an agency of the United States government, TSA has a
    responsibility to fully comply with the law, and, according to USERRA,
    to be a ``model employer'' in the protection of employment and
    reemployment rights of our nation's veterans and Reservists.
        The American Legion supports this bill.
                                   H.R. 3524
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide certain rights
    for persons who receive treatment for illnesses, injuries, and
    disabilities incurred in or aggravated by service in the uniformed
    services, and for other purposes.
        During the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, more veterans are returning
    to the United States with disabilities such as traumatic brain injury
    and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD. While people with these
    disabilities do not necessarily show physical signs of injury, these
    conditions are still considered disabilities under the Washington Law
    Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60. The WLAD also prohibits
    discrimination based on disability.
        Reemployment rights have been a source of struggle between
    employers and returning servicemembers for a long time. The House
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs often hears about veterans' struggling
    to obtain employment. But for those who do have a job and are deployed,
    they often return to find themselves unemployed. Anecdotally, the House
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs has been informed that employers don't
    want to deal with deployments, have spent time and resources training
    temporary staff, and may not want to reemploy the servicemember for
    other reasons; USERRA enforcement helps alleviate these concerns.
        Veterans and military personnel face a number of issues when
    returning to civilian life. The Uniformed Services Employment and
    Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) is a Federal law designed to
    protect military personnel with respect to their civilian careers.
    Specifically, the Act intends to ensure that military personnel (1) are
    not disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their military
    service; (2) are promptly reemployed in their civilian jobs upon their
    return from military duty; and (3) are not discriminated against in
    employment based on past, present, or future military service.
        However, USERRA does not require employers to allow veterans with
    service-connected disabilities to be absent from the workplace to
    receive treatment for their disabilities and therefore may often be the
    target of employment discrimination. There is a need to clarify and
    strengthen USERRA to require employers to accommodate the absences of
    service-connected veterans for medical services.
        The American Legion supports this bill.
    H.R. 4048: Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned Small
                             Businesses Act of 2012
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the contracting
    goals and preference of the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect
    to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans.
        America has benefited immeasurably from the service of its 22
    million living veterans, who have made great sacrifices in the defense
    of freedom, preservation of democracy, and the protection of the free
    enterprise system. Due to the experience veteran's gain in the
    military, the success rate of veteran-owned businesses is higher than
    non-veteran-owned businesses. The current Global War on Terror has had
    a devastating impact on the Armed Forces and has exacerbated this
    country's veterans' unemployment problem, especially within the
    National Guard and Reserve components. According to the most current
    Federal data available, veterans owned 2.4 million businesses. Another
    1.2 million firms were at least 50 percent veteran owned \1\ within the
    fifty states and District of Columbia. According to this survey,
    veteran-owned and co-owned firms accounted for 13.5 percent of all non-
    farm businesses in the United States, employed 11 million people (4.9
    percent of total U.S. employment) and generated $1.655 trillion in
    receipts. \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24
        \2\ Survey of Business Owners - Veteran-Owned Firms: 2007. U.S.
    Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/get07sof.html?17
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The barriers to entry for small businesses are numerous: weak
    policies and rules that limit the effectiveness of tools that are
    supposed to facilitate contracting opportunities; inadequate workforce
    training to help contracting officers, small business advocates, and
    program offices to successfully use contracting tools; and a lack of
    coordination among and accessibility to agency training and outreach
    events designed to help small businesses navigate the contracting
    system. Action must be taken to remove these barriers and ensure small
    businesses get access to Federal contracts. The American Legion fully
    understands and support Title 38 section 8127 and 8128 does not
    automatically award VA government contracts to SDVOSB / VOSB; however,
    when qualified SDVOSB / VOSB are being overlooked or ignored by the VA
    this is cause for great concern.
        VA and SBA should develop a comprehensive partnership to assist
    veterans who are interested in participating in Federal procurement,
    with each department utilizing their resources to ensure proper
    implementation. As interpreted by Federal Court, the VA is mandated by
    law to purchase all products and services from SDVOSB / VOSB as
    mandated by the Veteran First law, as long as those SDVOSB / VOSB meet
    both the legal and contract requirements. Any regulations, policies,
    and procedures disseminated by the VA that deny SDVOSB / VOSB their
    contracting preference and priority as defined by the United States
    Court of Federal Claims is a violation of law.
        The American Legion supports this bill.
                    H.R. 4051: TAP Modernization Act of 2012
        To direct the Secretary of Labor to provide off-base transition
    training, and for other purposes.
        Unfortunately, many of the thousands of servicemembers who are
    currently leaving the service are from combat arms and non-skilled
    military specialties. These military acquired skills are not readily
    transferable to the civilian labor market. However, these individuals
    do possess significant skills in the areas of leadership, strategic
    planning, risk assessment, and management. These are skills that any
    employer would find beneficial to accomplishing their organizational
    goals.
        Annually, the Department of Defense (DoD) discharges approximately
    160,000 servicemembers. New delivery methods and innovative ways are
    needed to reach America's servicemembers through the Transition
    Assistance Program (TAP). H.R. 4051 allows for veterans and their
    spouses to be better informed on education, employment and business
    opportunities once they transition into the civilian workforce; as well
    as provide information on military occupations that require licenses,
    certificates, or other credentials at the local, state, or national
    levels.
        The American Legion supports this bill.
      H.R. 4052: Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2012
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs to establish an honorary Excellence in Veterans
    Education Award.
        The American Legion has no position on this bill.
       H.R. 4057: Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for
                              Veterans Act of 2012
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs to develop a comprehensive policy to improve outreach
    and transparency to veterans and members of the Armed Forces through
    the provision of information on institutions of higher learning, and
    for other purposes.
        In 1945, The American Legion helped pave the way for affordable
    post-secondary education with the passage of the first GI Bill. In
    2009, the Post-9/11 GI Bill brought a new era of assistance for a new
    generation of servicemembers and veterans to pay for post-secondary
    education.
        The Post-9/11 GI Bill has changed the role of an institution in
    administering benefits. Tuition and fee benefits under the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill are paid directly to the post-secondary institution, while the
    monthly housing allowance, books and supplies stipend, and rural
    relocation payment are paid directly to the student by the Department
    of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA determines student eligibility and
    works with the School Certifying Official (SCO) at each post-secondary
    institution to have the student's enrollment certified and administer
    benefits. Because the tuition and fee portion of the benefit is paid
    directly to the post-secondary institution, institutions have the
    information necessary to identify Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries.
        Since the Post-9/11 GI Bill went into effect in August 2009, there
    has been dramatic growth in both the number of beneficiaries and
    benefits payments under the program. In fiscal year 2010, over $5
    billion in education benefits were expended for the Post-9/11 GI Bill
    alone. An additional $3 billion supported the other remaining education
    benefit programs administered by the VA. The increase in beneficiaries
    and Federal dollars expended has led to demand for more information
    for: (1) veterans and military servicemembers looking to use their
    educational benefits; and (2) policymakers to assess the effectiveness
    of benefits programs and return on investment.
        Currently, there are some data collection mediums in its infancy
    stages (e.g., Scorecard); while there are others who have done
    extremely well at data collection (e.g., College Navigator and College
    Portrait) who has been able to capture total estimated costs; student
    demographics; student success and progress; and educational outcomes;
    allowing you to be an informed consumer when choosing your post-
    secondary institution. Contrary to popular belief, transparency is not
    a vile word, but rather a word and action that will provide enough
    information that the decision maker(s) can mitigate the adverse effect
    of potential decisions, in this case, choosing the appropriate post-
    secondary institution.
        The American Legion supports this bill.
       H.R. 4072: Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved
                            Performance Act of 2012
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve employment
    services for veterans by consolidating various programs in the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
        Many of the benefits and services provided to the men and women now
    leaving active duty are rooted in programs and organizations
    established in the closing days of World War II, more than half a
    century ago. Since that time, profound changes have occurred in the
    Nation and the armed services and in the individuals who served in
    uniform. Our country's economic and social environments have changed
    dramatically; however, the policy and operational direction governing
    the provision of employment services to veterans remain from an earlier
    era. Service members and veterans' employment services, as they are now
    constituted, organized, and delivered, will not be adequate or
    effective for helping servicemembers and veterans find jobs in the 21st
    century.
        If priority of service is intended to enhance a veteran's
    probability of securing civilian employment as he/she transitions from
    the military, then the emphasis must be placed on priority for
    delivering services at the time of transition.
        The American Legion supports placing all DoL-VETS programs
    dedicated to serving veterans under Department of Veteran Affairs; in
    turn, increasing the coordination between the various education,
    rehabilitation and employment programs whose goals are to enable
    veterans to successfully compete in the workforce. Veterans' employment
    services need to be totally reengineered to meet the new reality of a
    highly automated, integrated, and customer-focused environment.
    Components of Federal programs must be better integrated and
    consolidated to better serve transitioning veterans, as well as those
    dealing with disabilities or facing employment barriers. Furthermore,
    The American Legion finds that divided responsibility for employment
    assistance of veterans leaves neither DoL nor VA fully and completely
    accountable because neither has ultimate control over program success
    or failure. As such, veterans will be served better if DoL-VETS were
    placed under the management of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
        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 you might have. Thank you.
    Executive Summary
        The American Legion supports H.R. 3329. The American Legion
    believes servicemembers and veterans do not understand their
    eligibility to VR&E services and the benefits of the program until
    later in life when they become so disabled that their disabilities
    create an employment barrier and, by, changing section 3103 of title
    38, United States Code, veterans will be given ample opportunity to
    pursue these benefits in a reasonable time frame. The American Legion
    supports H.R. 3483. The American Legion believes the current law
    unintentionally burdens a significant number of America's
    servicemembers and veterans, requiring them to pay out-of-pocket
    thousands of dollars in nonresidential tuition rates. This legislation
    is absolutely essential to thousands of veterans who were promised
    funding for their college education. The American Legion opposes H.R.
    3610. Key provision of this legislation is to address the overlapping
    programs provided by the Federal government to veterans; however, it
    does little, if anything, to address the differences in eligibility,
    objectives, and service delivery to their respective clients, in this
    case, America's veterans.
        The American Legion supports H.R. 3670. The American Legion
    believes as an agency of the United States government, TSA has a
    responsibility to fully comply with the law, and, according to USERRA,
    to be a ``model employer'' in the protection of employment and
    reemployment rights of our nation's veterans and Reservists.
        The American Legion supports H.R. 3524. The American Legion
    believes there is a need to clarify and strengthen USERRA to require
    employers to accommodate the absences of service-connected veterans for
    medical services. The American Legion supports H.R. 4048. The American
    Legion believes any regulations, policies, and procedures disseminated
    by the VA that deny SDVOSB / VOSB their contracting preference and
    priority as defined by the United States Court of Federal Claims is a
    violation of law; furthermore, enforcement of the rule of law is vital
    to Department of Veterans Affairs compliance. The American Legion
    supports H.R. 4051. The American Legion believes H.R. 4051 allows for
    veterans and their spouses to be better informed on education,
    employment and business opportunities once they transition into the
    civilian workforce; as well as provide information on military
    occupations that require licenses, certificates, or other credentials
    at the local, state, or national levels.
        The American Legion has no position on H.R. 4052. The American
    Legion supports H.R. 4057. The American Legion believes that
    transparency which provides enough information to the decision maker(s)
    to allow servicemembers and veterans to make fully-informed decisions
    about institutions of higher learning can help to mitigate some of the
    issues associated with this choice, and help to ensure that their
    choice which is in line with their goals and objectives. The American
    Legion supports H.R. 4072. The American Legion supports placing all
    DoL-VETS programs dedicated to serving veterans under Department of
    Veteran Affairs; in turn, increasing the coordination between the
    various education, rehabilitation and employment programs whose goals
    are to enable veterans to successfully compete in the workforce.

                     Prepared Statement of Jason R. Thigpen
        Distinguished Committee members - My name is Sergeant Jason R.
    Thigpen of the U.S. Army National Guard. I am the Co-Founder and
    President of the Student Veterans Advocacy Group. Thank you for
    allowing me the opportunity to testify here today, on a bill we helped
    draft, HR 3483 - ``The Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011''.
        The Student Veterans Advocacy Group is an organization run by
    student Veterans, for student Veterans and their dependents. Our
    mission is to ensure all Veterans, and/or their dependents, are
    provided the full educational benefits intended and promised to them
    upon the completion of their time-in-service, under conditions other
    than a dishonorable discharge.
        The detrimental impact suffered by student Veterans across North
    Carolina, and approximately 40 other states, due to the change in
    Federal law, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2010
    (Public Law 111-377) on January 4, 2011. As a direct result of this
    change in law thousands of student Veterans, and prospective student
    Veterans alike, faced the never-before issue of in-state residency for
    tuition purposes.
        In a sense, our active-servicemembers and current student Veterans
    whom, by-in-large, had no idea their State of residency for tuition
    purposes would invariably be the determining factor as to whether they
    could afford, much less, attain the educational benefits promised to
    them - for the sacrifices they made to protect our nation.
        One student Veteran emailed stating,

        ``After proudly serving my country for more time deployed than home
    with my family, while losing friends in Iraq, and then moving my family
    to North Carolina for a better tomorrow . . . it's just not fair for my
    country to take the education benefits from me, leaving me to have to
    move my family back to Washington and in with our family just so I
    could afford to pay the $10,000 out of my pocket, for something
    promised to me of which I sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears for. It's
    just not right. This is not the kind of principles I was taught from my
    time in service.''

        As student Veterans attending UNC-Wilmington, as supporters for
    both our active-servicemembers and Veterans, and as disabled American
    Veteran - I was nearly brought to tears when hearing another student
    Veteran say,

        ``I'm supposed to graduate in December 2012, and may not be able to
    now.''
        Another student Veteran emailed stating,

        ``Had it not been for close friends and family, in the last few
    months, helping me out, I would be living out of my car. I'm not quite
    sure how these sudden changes in the GI Bill happened, but it's not
    what I was promised when I signed up. It's almost like being tossed in
    the deep in of the pool with a ruck-sack full of boulders.''
        I met with a student Veteran, also attending UNC-Wilmington,
    regarding this issue. He was literally crying, preventing him from even
    speaking for nearly five minutes. I was so affected by his pain tears
    came to my eyes. Three-quarters of the way into the semester he states,

        ``I may have to drop out of school by weeks-end . . . I received an
    email from the school's finance office that said I still have a balance
    of about $3,500 owed to the school, which must be paid within one week
    in order to not be dropped by the school.''
        According to Public Law 111-377, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
    Assistance Act of 2010,

        ``The Congressional Budget Office estimates a potential cost
    savings of $1 million over the 2011-2015 period, and a savings of $734
    million over the 2011-2020 period.''
        From the inception of the GI Bill in the 1940s, nearly 8 million
    servicemembers were transformed from the educational benefits, never
    known before. There was nearly a 7-dollar yield per 1-dollar investment
    into our Veterans, due to the GI Bill. Not only did the GI Bill allow
    the military to become competitive with respect to many other jobs
    available nationwide, but it created an advantage for servicemembers to
    attain a college degree. This invariably lead to them getting better
    grades, better jobs, owning more businesses, and thusly paying more
    taxes, leading into one of the greatest investments, providing economic
    success for both a short and long-term basis.
        According to a working group comprised of UNC system officials
    named UNC SERVES, in their April 2011 Report to the President:

        ``Veterans earn better grades and have a 75 percent graduation
    rate. With the exception of white males, veterans in all other race and
    gender groups earn more money than their non-veteran counterparts.
    Veterans start more small businesses. In general, Veterans outperform
    non-Veterans.''
        ``To realize this potential our state must actively support
    military-affiliated students in its systems of public higher education.
    We want these students to choose a UNC education and we want them to
    live and work in North Carolina. The UNC SERVES Working Group believes
    that educating servicemembers yields a high return on investment for
    North Carolina and the nation. And, in doing so the University makes a
    significant down payment on the promise of UNC Tomorrow to be more
    demand-driven, relevant and responsive to the needs of North
    Carolina.''

        Additionally, one must consider the estimated economic impact on
    the state, expected to be nearly $26.5 Billion in 2013. Setting aside
    the simple fact that the educational benefits were promised, as in
    signing a promissory note, which is past due, Veterans just want to
    collect what was promised to them. It stands to reason that when
    changing such key variables, which have such a strong bearing on the
    economical prosperity of Our State and/or Nation's economy - when
    taking away Veterans educational benefits - the forecasted models
    previously used are no longer valid. As a result, our Nation has
    sacrificed the Billions of dollars, previously forecasted, for a ten-
    year savings plan of about $734 Million.
        The outcome of which - is many of our Veterans will no longer
    achieve their educational goals, leaving more unemployed, whereby
    owning fewer businesses, directly resulting in an inverse affect,
    contradicting the economic forecasts previously researched and offered,
    yielding a negative return.
        Without change, there is no savings of $734 Million, due to the
    detrimental affects, both societal and economical alike, Our State and
    Nation will suffer.
        We now have an opportunity to resolve this, without the worry of
    seeking the estimated $137 Million per year needed to fund this bill.
    By utilizing the following cost-saving measures with respect to the
    current Federal budget, we can more than fully fund this bill . . . .we
    can save nearly $175 Million more at a time our Nation could use it.

           1. Based on the 2010 figures of over 75.6 Million outpatient
    visits to VA medical treatment facilities - reports of over-mailing,
    most likely due to a software printing error, of medical appointment
    reminders with blank pages following the actual reminders being mailed
    out to the patients, sometimes up to four per patient per month.
    Conservative estimate of this occurring 1.5 times per outpatient visit
    yields a saving of: (Office of VA, Veterans Health Administration)
            75.6 (# of outpatient visits in 2010) * 1.5 (occurrences) =
    $113.4 Million * .75 (total cost estimate per mailing) = $85.05 Million
           2. Transportation of brokered claim files among VA Regional
    Offices - Which could easily be done electronically from one
    centralized location saving: = $740,000 (est. spent by VARO each year)
           3. Overpayments of near $85 Million in transportation costs to
    VA Health Facilities, which could be recaptured by offering competitive
    awarding bid contracts, at a savings of: (Veterans Health
    Administration - Audit of Oversight Patient Transportation Contracts,
    '10) = $85 Million
           4. By creating more competitive contract administration in the
    VHA's Home Resp. Care Program, the cost could be reduced substantially
    and prevent overpayment of nearly $17 Million, saving: = $17 Million
           5. Through more stringent oversight of the acquisition
    processes, all inclusive, of medical equipment and supplies, there
    could be savings of: = $ 41 Million
           6. Through the utilization of better controls in clinical
    sharing agreements for both monitoring and negotiated practices when
    using non-competitive of the same for professional personnel, could
    save: = $ 60 Million
           7. Rather than making ``market'' purchases of heart-related
    items/replacements, using national contracts through competition would
    yield a substantial savings of nearly: = $ 22 Million
        TOTAL POTENTIAL SAVINGS FOUND: = $ 310.79 Million (per year)

        TOTAL YEARLY OFFSET TO SIGNING OUR BILL, HR 3483 = $137 MILLION
    LEAVING A DIFFERENCE REMAINING FOR OTHER VA PROGRAMS OF $ 173.79
    MILLION.
        Signing this bill into law would equalize education benefits for
    Veterans who attend public or private institutions of higher learning.
    In addition, the bill would reduce or eliminate the financial burden
    Veterans must pay out-of-pocket for their education. Currently,
    Veterans who enroll in private institutions are eligible for more
    benefits than Veterans who enroll at public institutions, including
    both community colleges and universities alike. This legislation would
    enable all veterans, regardless of whether they choose to attend a
    public or private institution, to be eligible to receive up to $17,500
    in education benefits per academic year.

        The result is a better future economical outlook and investment in
    our Nation, for now and tomorrow. With your help and sponsorship of HR
    3483 - ``The Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011'' . . . .you have a
    true chance to be heroes for thousands of our student Veterans across
    this great nation.

        Thanks so much for your time and consideration.

        Authored and advocated by:

        Jason R. Thigpen
        Co-Founder/President
        Student Veterans Advocacy Group
        Web site: www.mysvag.org
        Email: jasonthigpen@studentveteransadvocacygroup.org
        Phone: (910) 392-5936
    Executive Summary--Student Veterans Advocacy Group
        Distinguished Committee members - My name is Sergeant Jason R.
    Thigpen of the U.S. Army National Guard. I am the Co-Founder and
    President of the Student Veterans Advocacy Group. Thank you for
    allowing me the opportunity to testify here today, on a bill we helped
    draft, HR 3483--``The Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011''.
        The detrimental impact suffered by student Veterans across North
    Carolina, and approximately 40 other states, due to the change in
    Federal law, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2010
    (Public Law 111-377) on January 4, 2011. As a direct result of this
    change in law thousands of student Veterans, and prospective student
    Veterans alike, faced the never-before issue of in-state residency for
    tuition purposes.
        From the inception of the GI Bill in the 1940s, nearly 8 million
    servicemembers were transformed from the educational benefits, never
    known before. There was nearly a 7-dollar yield per 1-dollar investment
    into our Veterans, due to the GI Bill. Not only did the GI Bill allow
    the military to become competitive with respect to many other jobs
    available nationwide, but it created an advantage for servicemembers to
    attain a college degree. This invariably lead to them getting better
    grades, better jobs, owning more businesses, and thusly paying more
    taxes, leading into one of the greatest investments, providing economic
    success for both a short and long-term basis.
        According to a working group comprised of UNC system officials
    named UNC SERVES, in their April 2011 Report to the President:
    ``Veterans earn better grades and have a 75 percent graduation rate.
    With the exception of white males, veterans in all other race and
    gender groups earn more money than their non-veteran counterparts.
    Veterans start more small businesses. In general, Veterans outperform
    non-Veterans.''
        Without change, many of our Veterans will no longer achieve their
    educational goals, leaving more unemployed, whereby owning fewer
    businesses, directly resulting in an inverse affect, contradicting the
    economic forecasts previously researched and offered, yielding a
    negative return. We now have an opportunity to resolve this, without
    the worry of seeking the estimated $137 Million per year needed to fund
    this bill. By utilizing the following cost-saving measures with respect
    to the current Federal budget, we can more than fully fund this bill .
    . . .we can save nearly $175 Million more at a time our Nation could
    use it.
        Signing this bill into law would equalize education benefits for
    Veterans who attend public or private institutions of higher learning.
    In addition, the bill would reduce or eliminate the financial burden
    Veterans must pay out-of-pocket for their education. Currently,
    Veterans who enroll in private institutions are eligible for more
    benefits than Veterans who enroll at public institutions, including
    both community colleges and universities alike. This legislation would
    enable all veterans, regardless of whether they choose to attend a
    public or private institution, to be eligible to receive up to $17,500
    in education benefits per academic year. The result is a better future
    economical outlook and investment in our Nation, for now and tomorrow.
    With your help and sponsorship of HR 3483 - ``The Veterans Education
    Equity Act of 2011'' . . . .you have a true chance to be heroes for
    thousands of our student Veterans across this great nation.

        Authored by:

        Jason R. Thigpen
        Co-Founder/President

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Gunderson
        MR. CHAIRMAN. On behalf of the Association of Private Sector
    Colleges and Universities (APSCU), and approximately 230,000 veteran-
    students who choose to attend private sector colleges and universities
    (PSCUs) using their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, I want to thank
    Chairman Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) and Ranking Member Bruce Braley (D-IA)
    for the opportunity to further express support for legislation that
    would truly strengthen consumer protections for our veterans and ensure
    that every institution of higher education lives up to the standard of
    educating our nation's best and brightest. Please, also, allow me to
    briefly recognize the other organizations for their leadership on this
    issue, and in whose company we graciously joined in signing the recent
    letter to Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Ranking Member Bob
    Filner (D-CA). Most notably, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars who have
    been tireless advocates for our veteran-students and were responsible
    for bringing this broad coalition together to advocate good policy
    instead of politics-as-usual. Finally, Terry Hartle and the American
    Council on Education deserve recognition for their outstanding research
    and education efforts about military and veteran education.
        APSCU is the primary advocacy organization for our nation's private
    sector colleges and universities (PSCUs), sometimes referred to as
    ``proprietary'' or ``career'' schools. We represent 1,650 schools,
    2,000 members, and about one-half of the 3.8 million PSCU students
    nationwide. Mr. Chairman, the roots of our schools can be traced back
    to the early 1800s when Americans needed skills to succeed in
    burgeoning commercial trades and women aspired to work outside of the
    home yet were not welcome to attend most of the all-male traditional
    colleges. Throughout the centuries, as the educational needs of our
    global society evolved, PSCUs became early pioneers of a student-
    centric, flexible postsecondary delivery models. Today, our schools
    continue to break new ground by offering cutting-edge programming and
    technology to keep pace with the expectations of a 21st century student
    body and workforce. Our schools cater to the needs of our students by
    providing a veritable al la carte menu of educational options, which
    empowers each student to choose the delivery of education that best
    meets their needs and provides access to an education often otherwise
    beyond their reach. In the opinion of some, PSCUs are the ``schools of
    last resort,'' and for countless students and graduates, PSCUs are the
    only schools who open their doors to a population of Americans who
    desperately need a second-chance, such as a single-mom desperate to
    make a better life for her children or a high-school dropout who could
    use a helping hand to get back on track. The PSCU model of
    postsecondary inclusivity and access appeals not only to those in need
    of a second-chance, but also to working professionals eager to reach
    the next professional step, deployed servicemembers who use education
    as a portal from the front lines of battle, or veterans transitioning
    from soldier to civilian. We can also boast about the PSCU graduates or
    students who have used their education to reach professional heights
    most people only dream about achieving, such as: former Assistant
    Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and current
    Democratic candidate for Illinois' 8th Congressional District, Lt. Col.
    Tammy Duckworth (ANG); the first black, female American tennis star
    player to achieve a World No. 1 rank and Chief Executive Officer of her
    interior design firm, Venus Williams; and celebrity chef,
    restauranteur, author, and television personality, Bobby Flay.
        Today however, we shine the spotlight on the educational needs of
    our country's often unsung heroes: our veterans. Heroes like Cpl.
    Alexander Garrido (USN) who is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom
    (OIF) and is now working his way through his Bachelor's Degree in
    Criminal Justice after receiving his Associates Degree in 2011.
    Alexander is one of the two million veterans who enlisted in the
    military to serve in the Post-9/11 wars, OIF and Operation Enduring
    Freedom (OEF), and since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill have
    continued to alter the traditional perception of what a college student
    looks like, as the number of students who attend college or university
    immediately after high school, attend full-time, live on campus, and
    rely on their parents to pay for their education grows smaller and
    smaller. For many, being a wounded combat-veteran and not setting foot
    in a classroom in 15 years would have deterred the pursuit of a
    postsecondary degree, but Alexander discovered that Keiser University
    in Miami allowed him to learn at his own pace, one-class-at-a-time. The
    school was instrumental in Alexander's achieving Dean's List and
    finishing with high honors. Alexander is a wonderful example of the
    230,000 students PSCUs have educated under the new Post-9/11 GI Bill.
    Some on Capitol Hill, and even in this room, question the value of the
    education that PSCUs offer to veteran-students. Let me be clear: APSCU
    firmly believes in the fundamental right of our veterans to use the
    educational benefits they earned through their extraordinary service to
    our country at the school that serves their needs best, however every
    postsecondary institution must be held to the highest standard when it
    comes to educating America's ``New Greatest Generation.'' Every sector
    of higher education has dealt with individual episodes of abuse or
    misbehavior, and it is incumbent upon Congress to ensure that the
    actions of the few are not held against the many, and that fact and
    data preside over anecdote. So, what are the facts? The number of
    students who used Post-9/11 GI benefits to attend PSCUs almost doubled
    between the first- and second-year of the benefits, from 76,746 to
    152,130. The share of students who used Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to
    attend PSCUs also increased slightly from 23 percent to 25 percent in
    the same time-frame. It is critical to note that while there was growth
    in the number and percentage of students educated at PSCUs using Post-
    9/11 GI benefits, the percentage of the total amount of benefits
    received by PSCUs remained constant at 37 percent. In other words,
    PSCUs were able to educate more students with the same share of total
    benefits. About one-third, or 30 percent, of Yellow Ribbon Program
    participants are PSCUs. In addition, PSCUs represent 45 percent of all
    schools that offer the Yellow Ribbon Program to an unlimited number of
    veterans and that make the maximum Yellow Ribbon contribution. To truly
    appreciate the extent to which PSCUs participate in the Yellow Ribbon
    Program, 77 percent offer it to an unlimited number of veterans and 61
    percent make the maximum school contribution.
        Veterans have historically attended PSCUs because we have
    consistently offered flexible administrative and academic policies,
    career-focused curricula, credit for past training and experience, and
    support services that strive to meet their unique academic and personal
    needs. After being mission-focused, many veterans feel more comfortable
    in career-focused programs, which allow them to hone the skills learned
    in the military and receive the necessary training to transition into
    the workforce. PSCUs also know that veterans may require support with
    integration into the higher education culture, such as helping cope
    with service-related disabilities, assistance socializing with peers or
    instructors, or other creating a school-based veteran support network.
    According to a number of publications ranging from the RAND
    Corporation's ``Servicemembers in School: Military Veteran Experiences
    Using the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Pursuing Postsecondary Education'' to
    The Chronicle of Higher Education, veteran-students largely chose PSCUs
    and community colleges to pursue their postsecondary degrees, citing
    cost, convenience, geography, and support systems. PSCUs also know that
    veterans may require support with integration into the higher education
    culture, such as helping cope with service-related disabilities,
    assistance socializing with peers or instructors, or other creating a
    school-based veteran support network. In a February 9, 2012 Military
    Times commentary entitled, ``Colleges Can Learn From For-Profits
    Emphasis on the Consumer'' the author notes that, ``the consumercentric
    attributes of some for-profit schools offer lessons for their public
    and nonprofit counterparts regarding how higher education institutions
    best serve the needs of our troops and veterans.''
        But, the power to offer such a distinctive, viable postsecondary
    alternative is meaningless if it fails to achieve students' primary
    objective: job placement. Our country is currently experiencing an
    employment paradox: an 8.3 percent national unemployment rate yet
    hundreds-of-thousands of jobs remained unfilled. So, during our five-
    year long recession, sectors such as manufacturing, and jobs including
    electricians, plumbers, and medical technicians, have fallen victim to
    a widening skills gap, as the population ages and industries are
    transformed by the adoption of new technology, which outpaces the
    skill-sets of workers. Many prognosticate that our future workforce
    will likely endure an even wider skills gap if the K-12 educational
    system continues to focus largely on preparing students for college
    degree attainment without the adoption of meaningful academic
    standards, accountability for student outcomes, or recognition of the
    dichotomy between the skills necessary for academic success in
    postsecondary education and the skills demanded by the employers. The
    workforce of tomorrow will be comprised of the human byproducts of an
    educational system that has largely failed to teach the skills
    necessary to succeed in high-demand fields requiring specialized
    training. As Dr. Tony Carnevale Director of the Georgetown University
    Center on Education and the Workforce has noted, ``In a recession, the
    economy goes to sleep, but when it awakens, there will be a need for
    higher-skilled people to fill skill-intensive jobs.'' Who better than
    the men and women returning home from the Post-9/11 wars to translate
    the intensive training and preparation into a postsecondary degree and
    into high-demand jobs?
        As the previous panelists shared, veterans of OEF and OIF
    experience a higher unemployment rate than their non-veteran peers, and
    the unemployment rate for young veterans aged 18-24 stands at 20
    percent compared to 16 percent for their non-veteran peers. Post-9/11
    era veterans have returned to civilian life deserving employers to line
    up to hire them, but instead face the sad reality of the unemployment
    line. While the unemployment rate for young combat veterans is down
    from a staggering 31 percent in December 2011, some veteran employment
    experts predict that it could reach 50 percent in the next two years,
    especially for National Guard and reservists, who currently make up
    half of our current U.S. military force. The attacks on September 11th
    awakened a visceral sense of patriotism not felt by our country since
    the attack on Pearl Harbor, and for many young men and women it became
    the ``Call of Duty,'' which transformed recent high school graduates
    into soldiers fighting for the protection of our country's most
    cherished tenants. But while they were deployed, the economy and the
    employment climate deteriorated. Our returning heroes, many of whom
    enlisted immediately following high school, experienced hurdles finding
    meaningful employment because of a number of factors, including
    veterans' inability to translate their military skills into language
    employers understand, some employers' reticence to hire a veteran
    because of a perceived mental or physical impairment, and, notably, the
    recession. Afghanistan and Iraq veterans were more likely than non-
    veterans to be employed in recession-impacted job sectors, such as
    mining, construction, manufacturing, transportation and utilities,
    information, and professional and business services, and less likely to
    be employed in industries that experienced growth during the recession,
    such as health care and education. Again, two million veterans will
    have returned from the Post-9/11 wars once the drawdown is complete,
    and as the Department of Defense proceeds with a planned reduction in
    force, it is imperative that Congress work to ensure that our veterans,
    particularly young combat veterans, are not only provided with the
    tools and resources to access a postsecondary education through their
    generous benefits, but also the tools and resources to make an
    informed, thoughtful decision about which educational opportunity will
    best prepare them for the workforce.
        As part of a diverse coalition comprised of veteran service and
    postsecondary organizations, APSCU sent letters to the Chairman Miller
    and Ranking Member Filner, as well as to the Senate Veterans' Affairs
    Committee and the White House, affirming our commitment to protect
    every veteran who seeks to use his or her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits,
    regardless of which higher education institution they choose to attend,
    and enabling veterans to make informed decisions about their higher
    education options. APSCU appreciates the speed with which Congressman
    Bilirakis (R-FL) responded to the recommendations proposed in our
    letter by introducing H.R. 4057, the Improving Transparency of
    Education Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2012, and the priority
    given to H.R. 4057 by Chairman Stutzman and Ranking Member Braley
    during the hearing. The transition from soldier to student is often
    wrought with unexpected challenges for many veterans because
    institutions of higher education are unprepared to fulfill the unique
    needs of veteran-students and veteran-students are unprepared to
    navigate the wave of educational options before them. As a result, many
    veterans fail to achieve their academic goals. H.R. 4057 directs the
    Secretary of the VA to develop a comprehensive policy to ensure that
    veteran-students have the tools necessary to make informed decisions
    about their postsecondary education. Ultimately, there is a shared
    responsibility for the academic success of our veteran-students,
    including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the student, and the
    institution. It should be incumbent upon the VA to ensure that veterans
    are provided with the information and resources about their educational
    options, the veterans to utilize the information to make informed
    education choices, and the institutions to provide the quality of
    education veterans deserve with the benefits they earned.
        APSCU member institutions take great care and responsibility to
    ensure that the transition from servicemember to student-veteran,
    especially those entering postsecondary education fresh from the
    battlefields of the Post-9/11 wars, is tailored to meet the unique need
    of the student, and that the transition from student-veteran to
    employee is successful. Our veterans have earned their education
    benefits through their tremendous sacrifice to our country and
    subsequently, it is their choice to select the school and education
    that will lead to academic and professional success. We must ensure
    that our veterans are provided with every advantage when they are
    presented with the numerous and distinct postsecondary choices where
    they will ultimately invest their education benefits and invest in
    their futures. Additionally, every institution of higher education
    entrusted with a key transitional role in the lives of our veterans, as
    soldiers become students, must be held accountable for the outcomes of
    their veteran-students. APSCU supports the Subcommittee's efforts to
    ensure that our veteran-students are supported and protected at every
    institution of higher education.
    Executive Summary
        The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU)
    is the primary advocacy organization for our nation's private sector
    colleges and universities (PSCUs), sometimes referred to as
    ``proprietary'' or ``career'' schools. We represent 1,650 schools,
    2,000 members, and about one-half of the 3.8 million PSCU students
    nationwide. APSCU, and our member institutions, want to ensure that our
    veteran-students are well-prepared to enter postsecondary education and
    that every institution of higher education lives up to the standard of
    educating our nation's best and brightest. Our schools cater to the
    unique needs of non-traditional students by providing a wide range of
    educational options, which empowers each student to choose the type of
    education that fits their needs best and provides much-needed access to
    an underserved population.
        Today however, we shine the spotlight on the educational needs of
    our country's often unsung heroes: our veterans. Two million veterans
    enlisted in the military following September 11, 2001 to serve in
    Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
    Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, veterans have continued
    to alter the traditional perception of what a college student looks
    like, as the number of students who attend college or university
    immediately after high school, attend full-time, live on campus, and
    rely on their parents to pay for their education grows smaller and
    smaller. PSCUs have educated 230,000 veteran-students under the new
    Post-9/11 GI Bill, and APSCU believes in the fundamental right of our
    veterans to use the educational benefits they earned through their
    extraordinary service to our country at the school that serves their
    needs best. However every postsecondary institution must be held to the
    highest standard when it comes to educating America's ``New Greatest
    Generation.'' The number of students who used Post-9/11 GI benefits to
    attend PSCUs almost doubled between the first- and second-year of the
    benefits, from 76,746 to 152,130. The share of students who used Post-
    9/11 GI Bill benefits to attend PSCUs also increased slightly from 23
    percent to 25 percent in the same time-frame. It is critical to note
    that while there was growth in the number and percentage of students
    educated at PSCUs using Post-9/11 GI benefits, the percentage of the
    total amount of benefits received by PSCUs remained constant at 37
    percent. In other words, PSCUs were able to educate more students with
    the same share of total benefits. Additionally, about one-third, or 30
    percent, of Yellow Ribbon Program participants are PSCUs. In addition,
    PSCUs represent 45 percent of all schools that offer the Yellow Ribbon
    Program to an unlimited number of veterans and that make the maximum
    Yellow Ribbon contribution. To truly appreciate the extent to which
    PSCUs participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program, 77 percent offer it to
    an unlimited number of veterans and 61 percent make the maximum school
    contribution.
        Veterans have historically attended PSCUs because we have
    consistently offered flexible administrative and academic policies,
    career-focused curricula, credit for past training and experience, and
    support services that strive to meet their unique academic and personal
    needs. After being mission-focused, many veterans feel more comfortable
    in career-focused programs, which allow them to hone the skills learned
    in the military and receive the necessary training to transition into
    the workforce. PSCUs also know that veterans may require support with
    integration into the higher education culture, such as helping cope
    with service-related disabilities, assistance socializing with peers or
    instructors, or other creating a school-based veteran support network.
    PSCUs also know that veterans may require support with integration into
    the higher education culture, such as helping cope with service-related
    disabilities, assistance socializing with peers or instructors, or
    other creating a school-based veteran support network.
        Two million veterans will have returned from OEF/OIF once the
    drawdown is complete, and as the Department of Defense proceeds with a
    planned reduction in force, it is imperative that Congress work to
    ensure that our veterans, particularly young combat veterans, are not
    only provided with the tools and resources to access a postsecondary
    education through their generous benefits, but also the tools and
    resources to make an informed, thoughtful decision about which
    educational opportunity will best prepare them for the workforce. The
    transition from soldier to student is often wrought with unexpected
    challenges for many veterans because institutions of higher education
    are unprepared to fulfill the unique needs of veteran-students and
    veteran-students are unprepared to navigate the wave of educational
    options before them. As a result, many veterans fail to achieve their
    academic goals. H.R. 4057 directs the Secretary of the Veterans'
    Affairs to develop a comprehensive policy to ensure that veteran-
    students have the tools necessary to make informed decisions about
    their postsecondary education. Ultimately, there is a shared
    responsibility for the academic success of our veteran-students,
    including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the student, and the
    institution. It should be incumbent upon the VA to ensure that veterans
    are provided with the information and resources about their educational
    options, the veterans to utilize the information to make informed
    education choices, and the institutions to provide the quality of
    education veterans deserve with the benefits they earned.

                   Prepared Statement of Dr. Allen L. Sessoms
        Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished members
    of the Subcommittee. I am Dr. Allen Sessoms, President of the
    University of the District of Columbia, the only public institution of
    higher education here in our Nation's Capital. I am testifying on
    behalf of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities,
    commonly known as `AASCU.' AASCU represents 420 institutions and
    university systems across 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
    Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
        Thank you for holding this hearing and providing me the opportunity
    to present testimony in support of H.R. 3483, The Veterans Education
    Equity Act of 2011, introduced by the Honorable G.K. Butterfield of
    North Carolina. I ask that my testimony be entered into the record.
        If enacted, H.R. 3483 would remedy a serious inequity that
    currently exists under the Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits
    program.
        In short, The Veterans Education Equity Act addresses the harm to
    veterans enrolled at an out-of-state institution of higher education
    resulting from the passage of the Veterans Educational Assistance
    Improvements Act, Public Law 111-377. After passage of the 9/11
    Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, the Department of Veterans
    Affairs began the unenviable task of implementing the legislation in a
    very short period of time. The VA established a tuition and fee payment
    schedule for each state in order to do so. In creating this structure,
    the VA separately determined the highest amount in tuition and in
    required fees charged to a student attending a public institution
    rather than combining tuition and required fees into one amount. This
    structure resulted in veterans attending public institutions having all
    or nearly all of their tuition and fee charges paid via their Post-9/11
    GI Bill benefits regardless of whether they were an in-state or out-of-
    state student.
        In January 2011, this changed when the Veterans Educational
    Assistance Improvements Act was signed into law. The major focus of the
    legislation was to revamp the tuition and fee structure first
    established by the VA. The legislation established two criteria. Those
    students who attend public institutions receive benefits equal to in-
    state tuition and fee charges, while veterans attending private
    institutions receive the lesser of $17,500 or their actual charges for
    tuition and fees. Congress when drafting this legislation thus created
    an inequity that resulted in veterans who attend an institution located
    outside of their home state saw a tremendous reduction in their benefit
    amount. This benefit is worth, on average, about $ 8,244 per year. On
    the contrary, if one of our Veterans chooses to attend an out-of-state
    private institution, he or she will automatically qualify for up to
    $17,500 per year. Simply put, a Veteran who chooses to attend a public
    institution is entitled to, on average, less than half of the benefit a
    Veteran who chooses to attend private institution.
        In addition to the disparate treatment of our Veterans attending
    public versus private institutions, the current Post-9/11 GI Bill
    benefit structure also asks our Veterans to pick up the difference
    between in-State and out-of-State tuition. This can amount to over
    $13,000 per year in some States, and averages $4,282 across the
    country. Not only are we providing our Veterans with different tuition
    benefits depending on the type of institution they choose to attend, we
    are also asking them to pick up the tab if they choose to attend a
    public institution in a different State.
        In a metropolitan area such as the National Capital Region, where
    students regularly travel across State lines to earn their degrees,
    this significantly limits the number of institutions our Veterans may
    realistically choose from. For example, Veterans attending the
    University of the District of Columbia, but living in Maryland or
    Virginia, are required under District of Columbia law to pay the non-
    resident tuition rate of $13,380. This amounts to $7,000 per year for a
    full-time baccalaureate student. The Yellow Ribbon program does provide
    a $500 tuition assistance benefit to our non-resident Veterans; however
    this is only a fraction of the non-resident tuition premium.
        The current Post 9/11 GI Bill tuition structure also harms those
    who have recently relocated to a State and enroll in that State's
    public institution, but do not yet qualify for in-State tuition. Many
    states have enacted minimum residency requirements students must meet
    to be eligible for in-State tuition rates. For example, in the District
    of Columbia, to receive the in-State tuition rate, a Veteran must
    reside in the District for a full year to become eligible. This may
    cause a recently relocated Veteran to put off pursuing a degree until
    he or she is eligible for a lower tuition rate.
        Passage of this bill is especially important at a time when
    unemployment for our veterans is extremely high. According to recent
    statistics from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's ``Hiring Our Heroes''
    program, unemployment for veterans aged 18-24 is 30%. For those in the
    National Guard, it is 14%. These numbers are well above the national
    average. Other research has shown that individuals with more than a
    high school diploma are more likely to be employed. Passing H.R. 3483
    will give our Veterans a greater opportunity to select the
    postsecondary program and institution best suited for them and by so
    doing, put them on the path to employment.
        As a grateful Nation, we are committed to providing our Veterans
    with the maximum benefits they rightly deserve. Let's make sure we also
    are providing the flexibility our Veterans need to use them. On behalf
    of the 420 members of the American Association of State Colleges and
    Universities, I urge Congress to pass the Veterans Education Equity Act
    of 2011 without delay.

                      Prepared Statement of Curtis L. Coy
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    provide the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on pending
    legislation concerned with Veterans education, employment, and small
    business contracting issues. Joining me today are C. Ford Heard,
    Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement Policy, Systems
    and Oversight, Office of Acquisitions, Logistics and Construction, and
    Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefits
    Administration.
        VA is providing our insight on several bills on the agenda. Other
    bills under discussion today affect programs or laws administered by
    the Department of Labor (DoL), Department of Education (ED) and the
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS). Respectfully, we defer to those agencies'
    views with respect to the following bills: H.R. 3524 (rights for
    persons receiving treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities
    affected by service in the uniformed services - DoL), H.R. 3610
    (consolidation and streamlining Federal workforce - DoL and ED), H.R.
    3670 (requiring the TSA to comply with the Uniformed Services
    Employment and Reemployment Rights Act - DHS), and H.R. 4051 (providing
    for off-base transition training - DoL). VA regrets we did not have
    sufficient time to formulate costs for four measures, H.R. 3483, H.R.
    4048, H.R. 4052 and H.R. 4072. I want to begin by stating that every
    initiative has the admirable goal of assisting our Nation's Veterans
    and Servicemembers.
    H.R. 3329
        H.R. 3329 would amend section 3103, title 38, United States Code,
    to extend the period during which a Veteran may be afforded a
    rehabilitation program under chapter 31 of that title. Chapter 31
    entitles a person with a service-connected disability and an employment
    handicap to participate in a rehabilitation program depending on the
    degree of disability and severity of employment handicap. Under current
    law, a Veteran generally may be afforded such a program for up to 12
    years, beginning on the date of the Veteran's discharge or service-
    connected disability notification. H.R. 3329 would extend that period
    of eligibility to 15 years.
        VA supports extending the period of eligibility for vocational
    rehabilitation services, provided that Congress finds funding offsets.
    Individuals may need vocational rehabilitation services during mid-life
    when disabilities worsen or when changing careers, or later in life
    when in need of independent living services. By extending the period of
    eligibility, VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
    program will be able to provide individuals who meet the eligibility
    and entitlement criteria for services under chapter 31 with the
    assistance they need.
        VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 3329 would result in benefit
    costs to VA of $4.4 million for the first year, $25 million for five
    years, and $57.9 million over ten years. There are no significant
    administrative costs associated with this bill because the caseload
    increase would be minimal.
    H.R. 3483
        H. R. 3483, the ``Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011,'' would
    revise the formula for the payment by VA of tuition and fees for
    individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill and pursuing programs of education at public institutions of
    higher learning (IHLs).
        Currently, resident and non-resident students pursuing a program of
    education at public IHLs receive the actual net cost for in-state
    tuition and fees charged by the institution. This bill would allow non-
    resident students to receive an amount above the net in-state charges
    in some instances. H.R. 3483 would amend section 3313 (c)(1) of title
    38, United States Code, to require VA to pay individuals pursuing a
    program of education at public IHLs, the lesser of 1) the actual net
    cost for tuition and fees assessed by the institution for the program
    of education, or 2) the greater of either the actual net cost for in-
    state tuition and fees, or $17,500 (for the academic year beginning on
    August 1, 2011, with such amount to be increased each subsequent year
    by the average percentage increase in undergraduate tuition costs).
        VA would be required to implement these changes to the payment of
    educational assistance for the academic year beginning on or after the
    date of enactment.
        While VA supports the intent to provide payment equity to
    individuals training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA cannot support
    this legislation as written.
        Separate rules for tuition-and-fee charges would add another level
    of complexity to the program for both beneficiaries and schools. We
    continue to receive complaints from beneficiaries with regard to
    understanding exactly how much they will receive in tuition and fees
    under the Post-9/11 GI Bill program. This bill would exacerbate that
    problem.
        Furthermore, VA continues to work aggressively on the Long-Term
    Solution (LTS) to further enhance processing of Post-9/11 GI Bill
    claims. As of June 2011, VA and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems
    Center Atlanta (SPAWAR) have developed five major releases for the LTS
    system. VA's plans to achieve full automation of a subset of Post-9/11
    GI Bill claims is expected with release 6.0 in July 2012. This enhanced
    functionality, originally planned for June 2011, was delayed to
    accommodate changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill required by P.L. 111-377,
    the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010.
        The enactment of this legislation would severely hamper VA's
    deployment efforts and delay automation of claims. The changes made by
    this legislation would lead to very complicated processing scenarios in
    the LTS. Some of the major rules in the LTS system regarding payment
    amounts would need to be updated; as a result, and would cost
    additional money for system testers. Additionally, since the amount of
    educational assistance would be based on the actual net cost for
    tuition and fees versus the greater of the actual net cost for in-state
    tuition and fees and $17,500, VA would have to apply a blended set of
    rules to each claim that falls under these provisions.
        As written, the effective date for the proposed legislation would
    be the date of enactment. However, VA estimates that we would need one
    year from date of enactment to make the system changes necessary to
    implement the proposed legislation. VA would be happy to work with the
    Subcommittee to provide technical assistance.
        In addition, although we regret we were unable to estimate the
    costs of this proposal in time for this hearing, VA notes that any
    change in benefit levels that would increase the total cost of the
    program would necessitate the identification of offsets. VA will
    provide a cost estimate at a later time.
    H.R. 4048
        Section 8127 of title 38, United States Code, requires VA to
    establish annual acquisition dollar goals for VA contracts with small
    businesses owned and controlled by Veterans and service-disabled
    Veterans. In addition, section 8127 provides acquisition set-aside
    authority for such businesses and establishes priority for them over
    all other small business preferences in VA acquisitions.
        H.R. 4048, the ``Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-
    Owned Small Businesses Act of 2012,'' would amend section 8127 by
    adding new subsection (k) providing that ``[f]or purposes of meeting
    the goals under subsection (a), the Secretary shall include the
    acquisition of goods and services through the use of a Federal Supply
    Schedule of the General Services Administration.''
        VA is continuing to analyze this legislation, and will provide its
    views in writing once we complete that analysis.
    H. R. 4051
        H. R. 4051, the ``TAP Modernization Act of 2012,'' would direct the
    DoL to provide the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) during a three-
    year period to Veterans and their spouses at locations other than
    military installations in three to five states selected by DoL. DoL
    would select states that have the highest rates of Veteran unemployment
    and would provide a sufficient number of training locations to
    facilitate access by participants to meet the need in each state. DoL
    also would include in any TAP contract a requirement for experts in
    subject matters relating to human resources practices, including resume
    writing, interviewing and job searching skills, and the provision of
    information about post-secondary education.
        Reports to Congress would be required in each year of the training,
    and after the termination of the three-year period of TAP training
    required by this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States
    would submit to Congress a report on the training, to include the
    feasibility of carrying out off-base transition training at locations
    nationwide.
        VA defers to the DoL on the merits of the bill, however, VA is
    required to participate in TAP briefings. Therefore, we note the
    following impact on VA. Assuming the effective date of this legislation
    would be October 1, 2012, VA's estimated administrative expenses would
    be $1.3 million the first year and $4.5 million over three years.
    H.R. 4052
        H.R. 4052, the ``Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act
    of 2012,'' would add a new section 3698 to title 38, United States
    Code, directing VA to establish an honorary ``Excellence in Veterans
    Education Award'' to recognize IHLs that provide superior services to
    Veterans. The award would be valid for three years (however, it may be
    withdrawn at any time VA deems appropriate) and the IHL that received
    it would be noted on the list of institutions approved for Veteran
    education benefits, which is maintained on VA's Internet Web site. VA
    would grant the Award to IHLs only if: (1) the head of the IHL has a
    student Veteran advisory board or a student Veteran advisor from whom
    the head seeks advice; (2) the IHL participates in the Yellow Ribbon
    G.I. Bill Education Enhancement Program (Yellow Ribbon Program) under
    the Post-9/11 GI Bill, contributes the maximum amount under the
    program, and ensures that all such amounts are made available to all
    Veterans enrolled at the IHLs who qualify for the Yellow Ribbon
    program; (3) the IHL has a Veterans support program that provides
    services VA considers appropriate; (4) the IHL is a member of the
    Servicemembers Opportunity College; (5) the average graduation rate for
    all of the IHL enrolled students is at least as great as the average
    national graduation rate for all students enrolled in the same type of
    institution, as determined by VA; and (6) any other criteria VA
    considers appropriate.
        VA has concerns with some of the provisions in the bill as written.
        Implementing a program that awards IHLs for their service to
    Veterans will give them incentive to provide better service. By listing
    exceptional institutions on VA's GI Bill Web site, Veterans would have
    more knowledge regarding the best institutions available for them to
    attend. We are concerned, however, about the criterion regarding
    measurement of the graduation rates. The legislation would not require
    IHLs to measure the Veteran-graduation rates, and VA does not currently
    track them. VA recommends that language be included to require IHLs to
    track and report such rates.
        With regard to the criteria pertaining to the IHL participation in
    the Yellow Ribbon Program, it appears that a school would be required
    to provide Yellow Ribbon benefits to every Veteran attending more than
    = time in order to qualify for the Award. We note that currently there
    are few schools that provide Yellow Ribbon benefits to every eligible
    Post-9/11 GI Bill Veteran. Also, because Veterans' in-state costs are
    fully covered at most public schools, many public institutions do not
    participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program. Therefore, it appears these
    schools would be excluded from the excellence award although they may
    provide other forms of superior service to Veterans. Similarly, many
    institutions that are not IHLs would be excluded from this recognition.
        This legislation requires that VA determine if the IHL has a
    student Veteran advisory board and a Veterans support program that
    provides services VA considers appropriate. Since this information is
    not currently collected, tracking the availability of such information
    would be a significant administrative undertaking for VA and schools.
    VA would need additional resources to implement the legislation.
        VA will provide a cost estimate at a later time.
    H.R. 4057
        H.R. 4057, the ``Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities
    for Veterans Act of 2012,'' would add a new section to chapter 36 of
    title 38, United States Code, directing VA to develop a comprehensive
    policy to improve outreach and transparency to Veterans and members of
    the Armed Forces through the provision of information on IHLs.
    Specifically, the policy would include the following elements: (1) the
    most effective way to inform individuals of the educational and
    vocational counseling provided by VA, (2) a centralized way to track
    and publish feedback from students and State Approving Agencies (SAAs)
    regarding the quality of instruction and accreditation, recruiting
    practices, and post-graduation employment placement of the IHLs, (3)
    the value of and manner in which a SAA shares information regarding
    that agency's evaluation of an IHL with an accrediting agency
    recognized by the ED, (4) the manner in which information regarding
    IHLs is provided to individuals participating in the Transition
    Assistance Program, and (5) the most effective way to provide Veterans
    and Servicemembers with information regarding available VA
    postsecondary education and training opportunities.
        In order for VA to develop the aforementioned comprehensive policy,
    H.R. 4057 would direct the Department to conduct a market survey to
    determine the availability of a commercial, off-the-shelf, online tool
    that would allow a Veteran or Servicemember to assess whether that
    individual is academically ready to attend postsecondary education and
    training opportunities, or would need any remedial preparation before
    beginning such opportunities. The survey would also determine whether a
    similar tool would be available to provide Veterans and Servicemembers
    with a list of providers of postsecondary education and training
    opportunities based on criteria selected by those individuals.
        This measure also would direct VA, not later than 90 days after the
    date of enactment, to submit to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs
    Committees a report describing the comprehensive policy to improve
    outreach and transparency required by this bill, VA's plan to implement
    such policy, and the results of the market survey, as well as whether
    VA plans to implement the tools described in the survey, if available.
        VA supports providing Veterans with better information about their
    educational opportunities, but does not believe legislation is
    necessary because of policies and programs already in place at VA, ED,
    and the Department of Defense (DoD). VA has outreach programs within
    its Education Service, VR&E Service, and Benefits Assistance Service
    (BAS). These are proven outreach mechanisms that can easily emphasize
    this information.
        If the intent for this bill is to increase outreach efforts in a
    more targeted nationwide method, VA believes existing mechanisms would
    satisfy that intent. For example, ED currently provides information
    about the quality and accreditation of IHLs participating in the
    Federal student financial aid programs. The National Center for
    Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary Federal entity for
    collecting and analyzing data related to education. Section 1094 of
    title 20, United States Code, requires institutions to complete surveys
    conducted as a part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
    System (IPEDS). VA believes that ED is best-positioned to explain the
    informational resources available that fulfill the intent of the
    legislation. VA continues to work and coordinate with ED and can
    enhance the level of information sharing between agencies in order to
    simplify the information for Veterans and members of the Armed Forces
    to interpret and use.
        VA's improvement measures for the Transition Assistance Program
    (TAP) are in line with the proposed legislation. TAP is currently being
    revised and enhanced as an initiative for both VA and DoD.
        VR&E Service currently has commercial, off-the-shelf tools
    available to evaluate and assist Veterans and Servicemembers in
    determining academic readiness.
        In previous years, VA conducted customer satisfaction surveys with
    beneficiaries to determine if they are satisfied with the overall
    customer experience and determine which areas of service need
    improvement. To acquire the information for this legislation, a similar
    survey could be completed with students and SAAs about the quality of
    the instruction and accreditation, recruiting practices and post-
    graduation employment placement provided by the IHLs.
        VA has concerns with providing a report within 90 days of
    enactment, as would be required by H.R. 4057. Until VA has an
    opportunity to discuss the reporting requirements with ED, VA is unable
    to clearly identify what resources would be needed to meet the 90-day
    reporting requirement.
        It seems to us that each Department (VA, ED, DoL, DoD) would need
    to agree to share data through a central repository, make collection
    and presentation of such data consistent with student privacy laws, and
    develop a method to track and collect post-graduate employment
    information. Discussions must first take place between agencies to
    determine what systems can be integrated or if systems need to be
    developed to capture feedback from students and SAAs.
        Information sharing between agencies and a centralized tracking and
    feedback system regarding quality of instruction, accreditation,
    recruiting practices, and post-graduate employment will require
    extensive coordination between several Federal Agencies. A system
    meeting the criteria of this legislation does not currently exist to
    our knowledge.
        Assuming enactment on October 1, 2012, VA estimates the
    administrative costs associated with H.R. 4057 would be $2.3 million in
    FY2013, $4.3 million over five years, and $7.5 million over ten years.
    Information technology costs cannot be provided since it is unclear if
    systems could be integrated or if systems need to be developed to
    capture feedback from students and SAAs.
    H.R. 4072
        H.R. 4072, the ``Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for
    Improved Performance Act of 2012,'' would transfer a number of
    functions performed under programs relating to Veterans employment and
    all personnel, assets, and liabilities pertaining to such programs from
    the DoL to VA. Specifically, these programs from chapters in title 38,
    United States Code, would include: (1) job counseling, training, and
    placement services for Veterans under chapter 41; (2) employment and
    training of Veterans under chapter 42; (3) administration of employment
    and employment rights of members of the uniformed services under
    chapter 43; and (4) homeless Veterans reintegration programs under
    chapter 20.
        VA and DoL share a strong interest in providing Veterans with the
    information, education, and skills to transition successfully to
    civilian careers. VA is ready to discuss these organizational issues
    with the Subcommittee and our DoL partners at any time.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may
    have. Thank you.'

                    Prepared Statement of MG Ronald G. Young
        Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished Members
    of the Committee, thank you for your invitation to participate in this
    hearing and share the Department views on a number of pieces of
    legislation that have been introduced.
        In my capacity as Director of Family Programs and Policy for the
    Assistant Secretary of Defense, Reserve Affairs, I have oversight into
    only one of the bills before your Committee today, but welcome the
    opportunity to provide you with the requested comments and concerns of
    the Department of Defense as a whole.
        The Department has no comment regarding H.R. 3329 extending the
    period of eligibility, from twelve years to fifteen years, for veterans
    to enroll in certain vocational rehabilitation programs. This provision
    would not impact benefits provided by the Department of Defense.
        The Department has no comment on H.R. 3483, as the changes to the
    Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program would not impact benefits
    provided by the Department of Defense to Service members. All changes
    proposed in this legislation would solely impact benefits provided by
    other Federal agencies.
        The Department of Defense opposes a provision in H.R. 3610, a bill
    that would, among other things, repeal section 509 of title 32, United
    States Code, ``National Guard Youth Challenge Program (NGYCP) of
    opportunities for civilian youth.'' Mandated by the Congress since
    1993, over 100,000 students have successfully graduated from the
    program, with 80% earning their high school diploma or General
    Equivalency Diploma. On average, 26% go on to college, 20% enter the
    military, and the remaindered join the workforce in career jobs.

          There are 33 ChalleNGe sites operating in 27 states and
    one territory.
          The program design provides a framework and direction to
    intervene in the lives of high school dropouts.
          Findings for the ChalleNGe program indicate that its
    goals and objectives are being achieved.
          NGYCP graduates attained an average of a two grade
    equivalency gain in pre and post-testing of the Test of Adult Basic
    Education.
          72% of NGYCP graduates reported positive placement
    activities within 30 days of graduation.
          The ChalleNGe program continues to enable high school
    dropouts to become productive, contributing members of their
    communities.

        The high number of high school dropouts each year is a national
    security issue and can cost the American economy billions in lost
    productivity and earnings over the students' lifetime. The 12 million
    students projected to drop out over the next decade will cost our
    economy more than $3 trillion. According to a recent MDRC study, the
    National Guard Youth Challenge Program is one of the most effective
    intervention programs for youth. In addition, a recent RAND Cost
    Benefits Analysis study reported that the ChalleNGe program generates
    $2.66 in benefits for every dollar spent on the program. The estimated
    return on investment (net benefits divided by costs) in the ChalleNGe
    program is 166 percent. It is for these reasons that we oppose
    eliminating the ChalleNGe program.
        H.R. 3670 would require the Transportation Security Administration
    (TSA) to comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
    Rights Act (USERRA). If the legislation is passed, I am not aware of
    any costs the Department of Defense would incur. The Department's lead
    agency on USERRA, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR),
    currently handles inquiries and USERRA cases. Over the last three
    fiscal years, ESGR handled 20 USERRA cases that involved TSA. During
    this same period, 75% of all cases were resolved, including
    administrative closures. Eleven of the cases occurred in FY11, with 8
    of the 11, approximately 73%, resulting in resolution or an
    administrative closure. If this legislation is enacted, ESGR would
    continue to assist Guard and Reserve Service members employed by TSA in
    addressing all USERRA issues. Furthermore, if H.R. 3670 were to amend
    public law 107-71, the Department of Defense would provide the
    appropriate USERRA training resources and assistance in order to inform
    and educate TSA supervisors and employees on their rights and
    responsibilities under the Federal law.
        The Department does not oppose H.R. 3524, providing certain rights
    for persons receiving treatment for illnesses, injuries, and
    disabilities incurred in or aggravated by service in the uniformed
    services. However, the Department suggests the legislation further
    clarify that for persons absent from a position of employment in the
    Federal government by reason of receipt of medical treatment for a
    Service connected disability and who is entitled to be retained by the
    Federal employer, will not be on furlough, but rather placed in an
    appropriate administrative leave category.
        The Department does not have comment regarding H.R. 4048, which
    clarifies contracting goals and preferences with respect to veteran-
    owned small businesses. If passed into law, the Department would comply
    with these requirements.
        The Department does not have comments regarding H.R. 4051, which
    directs the Secretary of Labor to provide transition assistance
    training. This legislation would not impact the transition assistance
    programs currently being provided by the Department of Defense.
        The Department does not have comments regarding H.R. 4052, to
    recognize excellence in veterans education. This legislation would not
    impact Department of Defense programs.
        The Department concurs with the objective of H.R. 4057, to improve
    outreach and transparency of educational opportunities to Service
    members and veterans during the transition assistance program. However,
    the Department of Defense defers to the Departments of Veterans Affairs
    and Education regarding how best to provide greater information to
    these populations.
        Regarding H.R. 4072, the Department of Defense believes that
    separating service-members, including the Guard and Reserves, need
    effective services to help them successfully transition to the civilian
    workforce. However, the Department of Defense defers to the Departments
    of Labor and Veterans Affairs on the specifics of this bill. Thank you
    for the opportunity to be here with you today, and for your support of
    our Service members, veterans, their families, and employers. I look
    forward to your questions.

                       Prepared Statement of Ismael Ortiz
        Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and members of the
    Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
    Department of Labor (DoL or Department) on pending legislation aimed at
    helping Veterans and transitioning Service Members succeed in the
    civilian workforce.
        President Obama and Secretary Solis are committed to ensuring that
    the men and women who serve this country have the employment support,
    assistance and opportunities they deserve. As a result, the
    Administration has undertaken initiatives to train, transition and
    employ Veterans; encouraged the Federal hiring of Veterans; and called
    upon the private sector to hire and employ America's Veterans. DoL,
    through the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) and other
    agencies, is playing an important role in these and other initiatives
    by providing Veterans and transitioning Service Members with resources
    and expertise to assist and prepare them to obtain meaningful careers,
    maximize their employment opportunities and protect their employment
    rights.
        While this hearing is focused on numerous bills before the
    Subcommittee, I will limit my remarks to those pieces of legislation
    that have a direct impact on the Department of Labor, including H.R.
    3524, H.R. 3610, H.R. 4051, and H.R. 4072 and will provide the relevant
    cost estimates at a later time. I respectfully defer to the Department
    of Veterans' Affairs (VA), Department of Education (ED) and the
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) on the remaining pieces of legislation.
              HR 3524--Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act
        H.R. 3524, the ``Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act,''
    would amend the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
    Act (USERRA) of 1994 (P.L. 103-353) to extend USERRA protections to
    individuals with service-connected illness, injury, or disabilities by
    creating a new section 4320 in Title 38, United States Code (38 U.S.C.
    4320). The legislation would also amend USERRA's anti-discrimination
    provisions in section 4311 to define ``service-connected disability''
    as any injury, disease, illness or other disorder formally determined
    by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to have been incurred in or
    permanently aggravated by a period of active service in the uniformed
    services. Consistent with USERRA's existing language regarding persons
    absent from work while fulfilling military obligations, persons
    undergoing treatment for a service-connected disability would be deemed
    to be on furlough during such absence, and would retain all seniority
    and non-seniority benefits similar to current USERRA protections.
        This bill, as drafted, would have a significant impact on
    relationships between employees with past, present, or future military
    obligations and their current and prospective employers. Both parties
    would have to become familiar with their respective rights and
    obligations under the new law, in addition to making any necessary
    adjustments in work schedules or similar arrangements to comply with
    the law. As drafted, the bill raises technical concerns about its
    interaction with USERRA's reemployment eligibility provisions, as well
    as with the Family and Medical Leave Act. We look forward to working
    with the Subcommittee to provide any requested technical assistance and
    to better understand the intent of the legislation, to help ensure that
    it does not unintentionally harm Veterans' employment relationships.
        HR 3610--Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011
        H.R. 3610, the ``Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of
    2011,'' consolidates over two-thirds of current workforce programs and
    repeals several programs that target particular populations. We will
    comment here only on the parts of the bill that affect VETS programs.
    As part of this consolidation, the bill repeals the authorization for
    most Veterans grant programs, including the Transition Assistance
    Program, the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, the Homeless Veterans
    Reintegration Program, and the Veterans Workforce Investment Program.
    Instead, the bill establishes a single Veterans' Workforce Investment
    Fund to States that will serve as the primary resource for supporting
    the workforce system's services to Veterans. This funding will be
    allotted based on the percentage of each States' relative share of the
    Nation's unemployed Veterans.
        H.R. 3610 requires each local area to hire one or more Local
    Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) staff as part of its
    Veterans Workforce Investment Fund activities. LVER staff would conduct
    outreach to employers and facilitate services to Veterans, including
    disabled Veterans. Currently, the intensive services that are needed by
    disabled Veterans are provided by specialized staff as part of the
    Disability Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP). The passage of H.R. 3610
    would repeal the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program without assuring
    that the same services would be provided by the remaining LVER staff.
        Other provisions contained in H.R. 3610 would result in significant
    changes to current Veterans services, such as the elimination of HVRP
    program which provides an intensive, holistic case management approach
    to serving homeless Veterans with the critical component of placement
    into meaningful sustainable jobs that break the cycle of homelessness.
    This could leave thousands of homeless Veterans without the intensive
    services this program provides.
        H.R. 3610 would also repeal the Transition Assistance Program
    (TAP). During FY2011, VETS provided 4,203 TAP Employment Workshops to
    nearly 145,000 participants, at both domestic and overseas locations.
    If the bill were passed, the Department would not have the
    authorization or funding to provide these needed services.
        While DoL is committed to Federal fiscal responsibility and
    supports efforts to streamline the training and employment services
    provided to Veterans, the Administration is still reviewing this bill
    in light of its broader scope and significant implications for the
    workforce system. The Department believes it is absolutely critical
    that any reform allow for sufficient accountability and ensure that
    Veterans receive the services they need to obtain a job. DoL looks
    forward to working with the Subcommittee to ensure that Veterans and
    others receive the high-quality services they need to succeed in the
    workforce.
                     HR 4051--TAP Modernization Act of 2012
        H.R. 4051, the ``TAP Modernization Act of 2012,'' would require the
    Secretary of Labor to provide the Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
    under title 10, U.S.C., section 1144 (10 U.S.C. 1144) ``to eligible
    individuals at locations other than military installations in not less
    than three and not more than five States selected by the Secretary''
    during the three year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
    this bill.
        Unlike the TAP Employment Workshops currently provided to
    transitioning Service Members and their spouses under 10 U.S.C., 1144,
    an ``eligible individual'' for this program would be a Veteran or the
    spouse of a Veteran. The Transition Assistance Program Employment
    Workshop is designed specifically for transitioning Service Members and
    their spouses and as such, the curriculum is not appropriate for all
    Veterans. However, One-Stop Career Centers typically provide specific
    workshops on resume writing, interviewing, and how to conduct a job
    search. Thus, the relevant components of the Employment Workshop are
    already available to all Veterans.
        If the intent of the legislation is to increase outreach to
    unemployed Veterans, DoL is already involved in Veteran-targeted
    outreach initiatives. These include the Gold Card initiative, which
    provides up to 6 months of case management and intensive services to
    eligible Post 9/11 era Veterans, and an initiative with the Army to
    provide additional employment assistance to Army Veterans who are
    drawing unemployment compensation benefits.
        As workshops are already provided for job seekers at One-Stop
    Career Centers, coupled with the ongoing initiatives specifically
    focused on unemployed Veterans, this proposed legislation appears to be
    duplicative. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee to
    identify any needed program improvements.
        HR 4072--Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved
                            Performance Act of 2012
        H.R. 4072, the ``Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for
    Improved Performance Act of 2012,'' would transfer all
    responsibilities, functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the
    programs under title 38, Chapters 41, 42, 43 and 20 of the United
    States Code from the Department of Labor to VA by October 2013. The
    intent of this legislation appears to be to transfer all Veteran
    related services and programs from DoL to VA.
        Within the Department of Labor, VETS has primary responsibility for
    many of these programs, including the Jobs for Veterans State Grants
    (JVSG) Program, Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops
    (TAP), the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP) and the
    Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
    However, other DoL agencies, such as the Employment and Training
    Administration (ETA) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
    Programs (OFCCP), are also directly involved in the administration of
    programs that would be transferred by H.R. 4072.
        VETS' core mission is employment for Veterans. The agency's
    functions to meet that core mission fall into two categories: (1)
    employment and training services; and (2) labor law enforcement. In
    doing its work, it is of course essential that VETS coordinates its
    activities with other Federal agencies, such as the VA and DoD in the
    Transition Assistance Program, to ensure our men and women who served
    in the Armed Forces are taken care of.
        The ``One-Stop System'' is the cornerstone of the Nation's
    workforce system and is administered by DoL, along with partner
    programs funded by the Departments of Education, Health and Human
    Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture. The One-Stop
    system, which consists of over 2,500 One-Stop Career Centers throughout
    the country, ensures the coordinated delivery of employment and
    training services to employers and individuals seeking upward mobility.
        Much of what DoL does for Veterans and other eligible persons
    concentrates on maximizing the employment and training opportunities
    developed though our relationship with State Workforce Agencies. For
    instance, VETS offers employment and training services to eligible
    Veterans primarily through the Jobs for Veterans State Grant (JVSG)
    program. This program provides grants to State Workforce Agencies to
    hire, train, and support employment staff. The DVOPs and LVERs funded
    by these grants provide intensive services to those Veterans that face
    barriers to employment and reach out and educate employers on the
    benefits of hiring Veterans.
        DoL is not only an employment and training agency; it is also a
    worker protection agency with a vital role in enforcing the employment
    rights for Veterans and Service Members. VETS is responsible for
    promulgating regulations interpreting, administering, and helping
    enforce the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
    of 1994 (USERRA). USERRA provides employment and reemployment rights to
    eligible Service Members and Veterans by protecting those individuals
    from adverse discrimination due to their past, present, or future
    military service, status or obligations. VETS' professional
    investigative staff accepts and investigates complaints filed by
    individuals who believe that their employment or reemployment rights
    have been violated by public or private-sector employers. In addition,
    VETS staff provides technical assistance and briefings on the law to
    the public. Many employment disputes arise from misunderstandings on
    employee and employer rights and obligations under the law, and, as a
    result, VETS seeks to resolve issues at the earliest possible
    opportunity. Since September 11, 2001, VETS has received and
    investigated on average, approximately 1,375 cases per year. VETS
    conducts thorough and complete investigations, including obtaining all
    documentary evidence and witness statements. VETS also has subpoena
    authority and uses it when necessary.
        VETS works with the employers and claimants to achieve a
    satisfactory resolution. When VETS is unable to resolve the issue, the
    claimant may request that the case be referred to either the U.S.
    Department of Justice (for non-Federal employers) or the Office of
    Special Counsel (OSC) (for Federal-sector employers) for those agencies
    to determine whether they will provide representation in Federal
    District Court or before the Merit Systems Protection Board,
    respectively. In the alternative, the claimant may elect to pursue
    relief as a pro se litigant or through private counsel at his or her
    own expense.
        In addition to its USERRA responsibilities, VETS is also
    responsible for investigating complaints received pursuant to the
    Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA; 5 U.S.C. 3330a)
    from preference-eligible Veterans who have alleged that their Veterans'
    preference rights in Federal hiring or during a reductions-in-force
    (RIFs) have been violated. The proposed HR 4072 fails to include VETS'
    Veterans' preference among those functions to be transferred to VA.
        Another enforcement program that would be transferred to the VA
    under the bill is DoL's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
    (OFCCP) enforcement of Sections 4212 (a)(1) and 4212 (a)(2)(A) of the
    Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA).
    VEVRAA prohibits Federal contractors and subcontractors
    (``contractors'') from discriminating against protected Veterans \1\
    and requires them to ensure equal opportunity for protected Veterans in
    all aspects of employment, such as recruitment, including listing job
    openings with appropriate employment services, hiring, training, and
    promotion. \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Those with disabilities, those recently discharged, and those
    who served during a war, campaign or expedition for which a campaign
    badge is authorized.
        \2\ Coverage of contractors and Veterans varies according to when
    the contract was entered into. For contracts entered into before
    December 1, 2003, the contract dollar threshold is $25,000, and the
    Veterans covered are: (1) special disabled Veterans; (2) Veterans of
    the Vietnam era; (3) Veterans who served on active duty in the Armed
    Forces during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign
    badge has been authorized; and (4) Veterans separated from the service
    for one year or less. For contracts entered into on or after December
    1, 1993, the contract dollar threshold is $100,000, and the Veterans
    covered are: (1) disabled Veterans; (2) Veterans who served on active
    duty in the Armed Forces during a war or in a campaign or expedition
    for which a campaign badge has been authorized; (3) Veterans who, while
    serving on active duty in the Armed Forces, participated in a United
    States military operation for which an Armed Forces service medal was
    awarded pursuant to Executive Order No. 12985; and (4) Veterans
    separated from the service for three years or less.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OFCCP enforces two other laws that require nondiscrimination and
    affirmative action by contractors, in addition to VEVRAA: Executive
    Order 11246 (which covers race, national origin, color, sex, and
    religious discrimination) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973 (which covers disability discrimination). Today, OFCCP conducts a
    robust program that monitors the more than 179,000 contractor
    establishments (or facilities), with contracts totaling over $700
    billion - covering approximately one quarter of American workers--for
    compliance with all three of these laws.
        If enforcement of Sections 4212(a)(1) and 4212(a)(2)(A) of VEVRAA
    were to be moved from DoL to the VA, care must be taken to avoid
    adverse effects on contractors' compliance with those sections. Under
    its two other authorities, OFCCP already conducts thousands of
    investigations of contractors' employment practices every year, and
    practices related to the employment of protected Veterans is fully
    integrated into OFCCP's systems.
    Conclusion:
        VETS has a core mission of providing employment and reemployment
    services to Veterans and transitioning Service Members, as well as
    protecting their employment rights. In doing this, VETS partners with
    other DoL agencies as well as VA and DoD. DoL looks forward to working
    with the Subcommittee and our partners to ensure that we provide
    effective assistance to Veterans.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
    entertain any questions you or the other Members of the Committee may
    have.

                           Statements For The Record

                               HON. MIKE MCINTYRE
        Testimony to the House VA Committee
        March 5, 2012

        Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and Members of the
    Veterans' Affairs Committee:

        I submit this testimony in support of the Veterans Education Equity
    Act of 2011, H.R. 3483, legislation I sponsored with Congressman G.K.
    Butterfield. This important measure would equalize veterans' tuition
    benefits under the Post 9/11 G. I. Bill and change an inequity in
    existing law which allots more education funds to veterans enrolled in
    private colleges than those in public institutions. I would also like
    to highlight my constituent, Sgt. Jason Thigpen, who is testifying
    today, and the organization he started, the Student Veterans Advocacy
    Group at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, which was
    instrumental in formulating this legislation.

        As you know, the Post 9/11 Veterans' Educational Improvements
    Assistance Act capped the education benefit amount for veterans who
    enroll in private colleges at $17,500 and limited the education benefit
    for those who enroll in public colleges to the amount charged for
    resident tuition and fees. The current law unintentionally burdens a
    significant number of American veterans, requiring them to pay
    thousands of dollars out-of-pocket in non-residential tuition rates.
    This could add up to more than $100,000 in certain states.

        The Veterans' Education Equity Act of 2011 would remedy this
    inequality and allow all veterans to receive up to $17,500 in education
    benefits. However, if resident tuition exceeds $17,500, the bill would
    cover the full cost of tuition. The bill makes no changes to existing
    law for veterans who choose to attend private colleges and
    universities.

        This legislation is absolutely essential to thousands of veterans
    who were promised funding for their college education. Already,
    numerous veterans have had to drop out, transfer, or assume tremendous
    financial burdens due to the recent change in law. This legislation is
    vital to give all veterans an equal opportunity to afford the school of
    their choice. Therefore, I respectfully request your important
    consideration and support of this measure that will restore equal
    education benefits for all veterans.

        Mike McIntyre
        Member of Congress

                  U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

        MAR -6 2012

        The Honorable Marlin Stutzman
        Chairman
        Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
        Committee on Veterans' Affairs
        U.S. House of Representatives
        Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Stutzman:

        Thank you for your letter of February 17,2012, regarding the
    Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity's legislative hearing scheduled
    for March 8, 2012. I appreciate the opportunity to share the
    Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) views on H.R.3670.
        Enclosed for your consideration is the TSA's Statement for the
    Record regarding H .R. 3670, legislation which would grant
    Transportation Security Officers rights under the Uniformed Services
    Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. We share the Subcommittee's
    support of our Nation's veterans, and TSA is proud that more than
    15,000 veterans are counted among the Agency's employees. Representing
    nearly 25 percent of our workforce, veterans are working throughout TSA
    to provide the highest level of security for the traveling public.
        I hope this information is helpful. If we may be of further
    assistance, please call the Office of Legislative Affairs at 571-227-
    2717.

        Sincerely yours,

        Peter W. Hearding
        Deputy Assistant Administrator
            for Legislative Affairs

        Enclosure
        Thank you, Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit
    this written statement for the record about the ways the Transportation
    Security Administration (TSA) supports our military personnel in the
    employment process in addition to facilitating travel for soldiers and
    their families throughout the United States.
        TSA is proud to count many uniformed servicemembers among our
    employees. Over 10,000 veterans--or approximately 20% of the
    Transportation Security Officer (TSO) workforce--serve on TSA's front
    line securing our Nation's transportation sector. TSA has endeavored to
    ensure that our policies and procedures are consistent with the law,
    and structured to promote the substantive rights to which veterans' are
    specifically entitled under the Uniformed Services Employment and
    Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
    Employment Protection for Service Members
        TSA is authorized under the Aviation and Transportation Security
    Act (ATSA) to set the qualifications, conditions and standards of
    employment for TSOs, notwithstanding any other provision of law. ATSA,
    '111(d), 49 U.S.C. '44935, note. If enacted, H.R. 3670 would amend
    '111(d) of ATSA to expressly state that the TSA Administrator would be
    required to comply with USERRA. Specifically, if amended, '111(d) of
    ATSA would read as follows (new text added by H.R. 3670 is in bold
    font):

           (1) GENERAL AUTHORITY--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
    andnotwithstanding any other provision of law, the Under Secretary of
    Transportation for Security may employ, appoint, discipline, terminate,
    and fix the compensation, terms, and conditions of employment of
    Federal service for such a number of individuals as the Under Secretary
    determines to be necessary to carry out the screening functions of the
    Under Secretary under section 44901 of title 49, United States Code.
    The Under Secretary shall establish levels of compensation and other
    benefits for individuals so employed.
           (2) UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT--
    In carrying out the functions authorized under paragraph (1), the Under
    Secretary shall be subject to the provisions set forth in chapter 43 of
    title 38, United States Code.

        TSA's policies for veterans afford TSOs the same substantive rights
    enumerated in H.R. 3670. In 2006, TSA established policies and
    procedures for employment and reemployment of members of the uniformed
    service-consistent with the provisions of USERRA (38 U.S.C. '' 4301-
    4344) in the form of TSA Management Directive 1100.30-17, Uniformed
    Services Employment and Reemployment, which is supplemented by a more
    detailed Handbook and available to all TSA employees. The policy,
    updated and expanded in 2009, addresses: predeployment procedures for
    both the employee and management; leave and other benefits afforded to
    servicemembers; and the responsibilities of employees, human resources
    specialists and supervisors/managers regarding reemployment rights of
    servicemembers. The Handbook also addresses the special considerations
    that apply to returning employees who suffer a service-connected
    disability including reassignment to another position for which the
    employee qualifies if the employee can no longer perform the essential
    functions of the position held prior to his or her military service.
        Through the application of this policy, TSA demonstrates its
    commitment to treating both TSO and non-TSO uniformed service employees
    with equal respect. TSOs who believe their USERRA rights have been
    violated may contact the Department of Labor (DoL) for assistance and
    TSA works closely with DoL to address any disputes that arise. TSA has
    worked diligently to educate supervisors and human resources
    specialists policies related to uniformed services employment and
    reemployment while establishing relationships with the interagency
    partners. As a result, most issues are resolved before they reach the
    DoL complaint stage. Based upon the fact that TSA has these policies in
    place, we believe that H.R. 3670 is unnecessary.
    Facilitating Travel through Risk-Based Security Measures
        In addition to supporting our veteran employees by protecting their
    USERRA rights, TSA is also committed to expediting the screening
    process for our uniformed servicemembers. U.S. servicemembers are
    entrusted with the responsibility to protect our citizens with their
    lives. TSA recognizes that these members pose very little risk to
    security and has developed procedures at our security checkpoints to
    allow military personnel to move safely and expeditiously through our
    nation's airports.

        -- Military personnel traveling in uniform with a valid military ID
    are not required to remove their footwear unless it alarms the walk
    through metal detector at the checkpoint while family members who want
    to accompany a deployed military servicemember to the boarding gate, or
    greet them returning from deployment at the arrival gate, may receive
    passes to enter the secure area of the airport after being properly
    screened.
        -- To facilitate the screening of injured and wounded
    servicemembers, TSA has partnered with the Department of Defense (DoD)
    to develop a process to inform us when our injured military heroes are
    traveling through our Nation's airports.
        -- TSA will soon begin incorporating active duty U.S. Armed Forces
    members with a valid Common Access Card, traveling out of Ronald Reagan
    Washington National Airport into the TSA Pre 4 TM. If TSA is
    able to verify the servicemember is in goodstanding with the Department
    of Defense, they will receive TSA Pre 4 TM screening
    benefits, such as no longer removing their shoes or light jacket and
    allowing them to keep their laptop in its case and their 3-1-1
    compliant bag in a carry-on. Building on its initial success, TSA
    envisions expanding TSA Pre 4 TM benefits to active duty
    servicemembers at additional participating airports in the coming
    months.

        Of course, nothing will guarantee that a passenger receives
    expedited screening. To remain effective, TSA must retain the ability
    to employ random and unpredictable security measures at any point in
    the process. TSA's goal at all times is to maximize transportation
    security to stay ahead of evolving terrorist threats while protecting
    privacy and facilitating the flow of legitimate commerce.
        This Subcommittee plays a vital role in advancing legislation that
    assists our Nation's military personnel and enables us to repay the
    debt of gratitude owed to those who defend the rights and liberties
    enjoyed by all Americans. The Subcommittee's continued vigilance on
    behalf of veterans ensures that those who nobly defend our Nation are
    rewarded for their service. Thank you for the opportunity to submit
    this written statement to discuss how the Transportation Security
    Administration (TSA) supports our military personnel in the employment
    process in addition to facilitating travel for soldiers and their
    families throughout the United States.

                            TERRY ``T.P'' O'MAHONEY

        March 7, 2012

        The Honorable Jeff Miller
        Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
        2416 Rayburn House Office Building
        Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Miller:

        On behalf of the nearly 1.8 million veterans in Texas, I would like
    to thank you for the significant leadership, vision and hard work you
    have given to improve their lives and the lives of their families.
        As Chairman of the Texas Veterans Commission, and as a former
    member of the Texas Workforce Commission, I would also like to commend
    you for sponsoring House Resolution 4072. Your legislation very closely
    tracks the ``Texas Model'' of placing the veteran employment function
    within the state's veteran affairs agency.
        Since 2006, when those functions were combined within the Texas
    Veterans Commission, Texas has excelled at finding employment for our
    veterans. Today, we lead the nation, by far, in finding jobs for our
    Texas veterans. In the last fiscal year, 38,714 veterans found work
    with assistance provided by over 170 Veteran Employment Specialists at
    TVC. When veterans help veterans, amazing things happen: one of every
    three jobs created in the top 10 funded states were created in Texas;
    Texas spends one-third as much as the median cost to hire a veteran
    among the top 10 states; and, though Texas received 7 percent of the
    nation's veteran employment funding in the last year, it accounted for
    18 percent of the veterans entering into employment after receiving
    assistance from veteran employment specialists.
        It is with this experience in mind, and in the hope of assisting
    your effort to build on the success of this model, that I respectfully
    offer the following observations and principles for HR 4072:

        1. The ``one-stop'' concept should be preserved.When the veterans'
    employment function was combined within the Texas Veterans Commission,
    state legislators were careful to ensure that veteran employment
    specialists continue to work within the workforce centers.
        2. Remove the option allowing non-veterans to serve as veteran
    employment specialists.You may want to consider removing the language
    in HR 4072 (Sec. 4) that would allow states to hire a non-veteran to
    serve as a veteran employment specialist if no veteran is available. It
    has been our experience in Texas that qualified veterans are always
    available to assist their fellow veterans.
        3. Ensure that ``intensive services'' are preserved.Veterans who,
    for a variety of reasons, have significant barriers to employment
    should be accommodated. Accordingly, Texas Veterans Commission
    recommends that you consider including intensive services as part of
    the ``Principal Duties'' outlined in the consolidation portion of your
    bill (Sec. 4).
        4. Ensure that the legislation provides the flexibility necessary
    to the states to implement the changes by the most appropriate and
    effective means.
        Because Texas is unique, we have a unique interest in ensuring that
    HR 4072 preserves our effective model for combining veterans employment
    and allows other states to capitalize on the success we've enjoyed.
    Specifically, Texas Veterans Commission is concerned that language in
    HR 4072 (Sec. 4) requiring that consolidation occur ``in a state under
    the applicable state employment service delivery systems'' could have a
    severe unintended consequence for Texas. Without greater specificity,
    the clause might be misinterpreted as a requirement to return Texas'
    veteran employment functions back to the Texas Workforce Commission. We
    simply request that alternative language specifying that the
    consolidation occur ``in a state under the appropriate veterans'
    employment agency,'' be considered as an alternative.
        5. Preserve and enhance veterans' employment funding through
    performance outcomes.
        I know you are as committed as we are to being fully prepared to
    meet the increased needs of a military drawdown. The costs of defending
    freedom will not end with the withdraw of troops from Iraq and the
    impending drawdown in Afghanistan. At the same time, taxpayers must be
    assured that funding for veteran employment assistance is used
    effectively. To promote the greatest return on investment for veteran
    employment dollars, Congress should require performance outcomes in the
    annual funding formula for states. Such a measure will incentivize
    states to excel at training and employing veterans.
        I sincerely thank you, the Committee, and your staff for your
    leadership and consideration. I stand ready to answer any questions or
    provide any information you may need to assist your efforts.
        Thank you for all you do on behalf of our nation's veterans.

        Sincerely,

        Terry ``T.P.'' O'Mahoney
        Chairman, Texas Veterans Commission

        cc: Committee on House Veterans' Affairs

                               DR. R. SCOTT RALLS

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to enter testimony into the record regarding H.R. 3483, the
    Veteran's Education Equity Act of 2011. I represent a System of 58
    colleges that provides education and workforce training to almost
    900,000 North Carolinians annually--approximately one out of every
    eight adults in our state.
        Ours is a system that grew out of an innovation to foster statewide
    economic prosperity through workforce development. Founded on the
    concept of educating and training persons for jobs they had not
    previously performed, our colleges have transformed into centers of
    education and innovation, responsive to a 21st century knowledge-based
    economy whose employers not only demand - but expect - a highly
    skilled, highly trained workforce that we are called upon to provide.
    Our ``open door'' philosophy is rooted in the belief ascribed to by one
    of our founders, Dr. Dallas Herring, where we take every student from
    where they are in life and take them as far as they can go to be
    productive members of our society.
        Since 2008, our colleges have grown by over 33,000 students, or
    roughly the size of one of our flagship state universities, North
    Carolina State University. Whether it is due to job layoffs,
    constricting family finances, or persons with 4-year degrees coming to
    our colleges to be retrained for job-ready fields of work, more
    individuals are turning to our community colleges as the pathway to
    further their educational goals. Those returning in increasing numbers
    also include our nation's servicemen and women.
        North Carolina is proud to be the most military friendly state in
    the union. With major military bases at Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune,
    Seymour Johnson, and Cherry Point, our state takes tremendous pride in
    supporting members of our country's armed services and their families.
    Through partnerships like those at Coastal Carolina Community College
    in Jacksonville, Fayetteville Technical Community College in
    Fayetteville, Wayne Community College in Goldsboro or Craven Community
    College in New Bern, our colleges maintain close connections with our
    armed services to ensure that our military members are well served and
    equipped with the skills they need to be successful in their military
    careers and beyond.
        Equally important is the value we place on our United States
    veterans. Whether relocating in our state to begin retirement, or in
    many cases to begin a second career, our community colleges provide the
    instruction and training for our veterans to succeed in a new phase of
    their lives. As a System, we are concerned that changes made in the
    Post 9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2011 (PL
    111-377) caused unintended consequences to our non-resident veterans.
    While acting in good faith to contain the overall program costs, the
    bill had the net effect of reducing benefits for veterans who for
    tuition purposes are classified as out-of-state residents.
        The interpretation being made to limit tuition and fees at public
    institutions to the applicable institution's in-state tuition rate for
    both in-state and out-of-state Veterans unintentionally disadvantages
    out-of-state veterans who wish to attend public institutions in North
    Carolina. In the 2010-11 academic year, over 700 veterans attending
    North Carolina's community colleges were adversely affected by this
    interpretation. One student at Pitt Community College expressed the
    hardships she now faced in terms of deferring her education because of
    the inability to now afford tuition. ``I was told I had full benefits
    no matter where I lived . . . I feel this is (a) mistreatment to
    veterans who have served their country''. When discussing the plight of
    former military servicemen and women, another student-veteran remarked,
    ``They are now being told that their out-of-state tuition won't be
    covered as it once was, causing many of them to be unable to afford
    their education.''
        Fortunately, the bill you have before you for consideration, H.R.
    3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, will enable Veterans
    to receive this benefit that they previously enjoyed prior to changes
    to the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Due to the leadership of North Carolina
    Congressman G.K. Butterfield, and joined by Howard Coble, Walter Jones,
    Larry Kissell, Mike McIntyre, Brad Miller, David Price, Mel Watt and 50
    other Representatives, H.R. 3483 will allow the affected veteran
    population to receive the greater of (1) actual net costs for in-state
    tuition or (2) $17,500 for the academic year beginning on August 1,
    2011.
        University of North Carolina System President Tom Ross and I co-
    authored a letter to the state's congressional delegation respectfully
    requesting action to remedy this situation for our veterans. Recently,
    our college presidents, working in concert with our local college
    boards of trustees, endorsed H.R. 3483 as a part of our system's
    Federal agenda. Trustees had the opportunity to visit with our
    delegation last month to reiterate their support for this legislation.
    While this cannot be done without a cost, we sincerely believe that an
    educational opportunity for all of our servicemen and women is a price
    worth paying. It is in our state's best interest to educate
    servicemembers. As President Ross and I acknowledged last year,
    servicemembers are our best students--they graduate on time and they
    continue to grow our state's economy. With thousands of men and women
    set to return from tours of duty overseas, we owe it to them to
    reinstate this education benefit as recognition of their service to our
    country. This seems to be a small price to pay in exchange for what
    they have given to us.
        Thank you for the opportunity to express our system's support of
    this important piece of legislation.
        Please insert the total number of undergraduate military
    servicemembers using GI Bill grants charged out-of-state tuition rates
    for each of the following school years:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        College                        2006-07      2007-08      2008-09      2009-10      2010-11
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alamance                                                   *            1            0            0            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Asheville-Buncombe                                         6            8           10           19           27
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beaufort Co.                                               0            0            0            0            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bladen
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Blue Ridge                                                 0            0            0            1            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Brunswick                                                  0            1            0            0            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Caldwell                                                   2            1            0            2            5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cape Fear                                                n/a          n/a          n/a           49          108
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Carteret
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Catawba Valley                                             0            0            0            0            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Central Carolina
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Central Piedmont                                          16           12           11           15           29
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cleveland
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coastal Carolina                                           7           10           11           35           59
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coll. Of Albermarle                                       26           14           10            8            6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Craven                                                     *            *            *           22           69
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Davidson County                                            *            *            *            3            *
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Durham
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Edgecombe
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fayetteville                                               *            *            *           63          155
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Forsyth                                                    2            1            2            5           10
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gaston                                                     *            1            4            6            9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Guilford                                                  10            2            3            7           22
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Halifax                                                    0            0            0            0            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Haywood                                                    0            2            0            3            3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Isothermal
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    James Sprunt                                               0            0            0            0            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Johnston                                                   0            0            0            0            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lenoir                                                     0            0            0            2            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Martin                                                     *            1            0            0            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mayland
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    McDowell
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mitchell
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Montgomery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nash                                                       0            0            3            5            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pamlico                                                    0            0            0            0            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Piedmont                                                   1            0            0            3            4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pitt                                                      15           19           17           30           53
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Randolph                                                   4            2            8           13           22
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Richmond                                                   0            0            0            1            3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Roanoke-Chowan                                             0            1            0            1            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Robeson                                                    0            0            0            0            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rockingham
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rowan-Cabarrus                                             *            *            *            9           16
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sampson
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sandhills                                                  *            *            *            *            *
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    South Piedmont
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Southeastern                                               0            0            0            0            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Southwestern                                               1            0            0            2            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stanly                                                     0            0            0            3            4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Surry                                                      0            0            0            0            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tri-County
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vance-Granville                                            *            *            2            2            3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wake                                                      25           42           47           57           85
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wayne                                                      0            0            0            5           13
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Western Piedmont                                           *            *            *            1            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wilkes                                                     0            0            1            3            1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wilson                                                     *            0            0            0            0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              TOTAL                                          115          118          129          375          715
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        * no data available

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73293.005

                    IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA
        Testimony of Ramsey Sulayman
        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 submit this
    testimony and share the views of our members' on these important pieces
    of legislation.
        My name is Ramsey Sulayman and I am a legislative associate with
    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). I am a major in the
    United States Marine Corps Reserve, have seen life on active-duty and
    the reserves, and I deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom,
    serving as an infantry platoon commander and company executive officer
    with a reconnaissance unit operating on the western border with Syria.
    The view expressed in this testimony are those of IAVA and do not
    reflect any position held by the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps has two
    missions: winning battles and making Marines. The first mission is what
    we are known for: Marines have demonstrated their prowess in war for
    over 236 years. The second is a duty I believe continues throughout
    life. As the saying goes, there are no ex-Marines. I'm proud to
    continue to serve through my work at IAVA and to say to all members of
    our armed forces, past and present, ``I've got your back.''

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Bill #                                            Name/Subject                               Sponsor                Position
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3329                                                        Extend VocRehab eligibility to 15 years            Rep. Sanchez, Linda      Support
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3483                                                  In state tuition fix to the Post-9/11 GI Bill          Rep. Butterfield           Support
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3524                                                                                               Leave for veterRep. Braley treatment Supporturies
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3610                                                   Moving Vet employment services to the States                 Rep. Foxx            Oppose
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3670                                                        Extending USERRA protections to the TSA                 Rep. Walz           Support
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 4048                                                       Veterans preference to the GSA catalogue              Rep. Johnson           Support
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 4051                                                                         Extending TAP off base             Rep. Stutzman           Support
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 4052                                                           Recognizing GI Bill friendly schools             Rep. Stutzman           Support
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 4057                                                        Consumer education for student veterans            Rep. Bilirakis           Support
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 4072                                                                    Moving VETS program from DoL to VA        Rep. Miller           Support
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        H.R. 3329--IAVA supports H.R. 3329, extending veterans' eligibility
    to apply for VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment benefits from
    12 to 15 years. Given the experience from past wars, most notably
    Vietnam, we should lay the foundation to help veterans of Iraq and
    Afghanistan who may not show disabling conditions for years to come.
    Extending the eligibility to apply for Voc Rehab benefits is a prudent,
    low-cost step that can be taken before any need arises; which is to
    say, before it is too late to do much good.
        H.R. 3483--IAVA supports H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity
    Act of 2011, and its attempt to address an inequity with the Post-9/11
    GI Bill. Currently, GI Bill payments for out-of-state students are
    limited to the cost of in-state tuition. Veterans attending a private
    school in the same state can receive up to $17,500 in tuition and fee
    assistance. Veterans who choose to attend a public school in a state
    where they do not legally reside often incur a sizable debt burden to
    make up the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates.
    Ideally, we would prefer that all schools that receive GI Bill funds
    treat all veterans and their dependants as in-state residents. However,
    bringing the out of state tuition and fee cap on par with the cap for
    private schools is an acceptable compromise.
        H.R. 3524--IAVA supports H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans
    Employment Protection Act. The decrease in the rate of fatalities
    during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in comparison with historical
    levels has been a welcome development. However, many more
    servicemembers survive with either physical or mental health injuries.
    When these veterans re-enter civilian life and the workforce, their
    injuries still require treatment and this often entails extended
    absence from a veteran's place of employment. H.R. 3524, assures that
    veterans can more fully recover from their service-connected injuries
    while remaining employed.
        H.R. 3610--IAVA opposes H.R. 3610. IAVA recognizes that the intent
    of H.R. 3610 reflects valid concerns about tailoring employment help
    for veterans to local economies: the needs in Silicon Valley might
    differ substantially from the manufacturing centers in Michigan.
    However, IAVA opposes the methods H.R. 3610 proposes to meet this goal.
    We believe that transferring veterans employment funding and services
    to the states removes valuable Congressional oversight and risks
    lowering standards for these programs. Among our most pressing concerns
    is that states could choose not to receive grant funds, thereby
    eliminating services altogether. Our fears are not allayed by the
    argument that such a circumstance is ``unlikely.'' Furthermore, the
    fact that spending is now solely at the discretion of the states means
    the funds currently used to help veterans could be used for other
    purposes, thereby diluting their effect and lessening the help
    available for transitioning or displaced veterans. Additionally,
    programs that are now successful could have their funding cut or their
    focus shifted as states focus on other employment priorities.
    Therefore, IAVA opposes passage of H.R. 3610.
        H.R. 3670--IAVA supports H.R. 3670. USERRA is a critical
    reemployment safeguard for members of the Guard and Reserves. IAVA
    believes that USERRA protections should be extended to all state and
    Federal employees. H.R. 3670 addresses this gap in USERRA protection
    for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). In 2010, the
    Department of Homeland Security employed nearly 47,000 veterans, many
    of them in the TSA. It is only reasonable that Guardsmen and Reservists
    who are employed by the Federal government receive the same protections
    as their peers who are employed in the private sector.
        H.R. 4048--IAVA supports H.R. 4048, extending veterans preference
    to veteran-owned small businesses that wish to list services to the
    Federal government in the GSA catalogue. Extending contracting
    preference to veteran-owned business has historically been an effective
    and sensible method of ensuring that veterans find quality employment
    after leaving service. At a time where veteran unemployment is
    staggering, this bill will provide more opportunities for veteran
    business owners to offer goods and services to the country that they
    have fought to protect.
        H.R. 4051--IAVA supports H.R. 4051, the TAP Modernization Act of
    2011. It's smart policy to allow veterans who have already been through
    the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and their spouses the
    opportunity to retake the program. TAP is taken at the very end of a
    servicemember's time in service and during a transition that, even in
    the best of circumstances, is hectic. The opportunity to retake TAP as
    a refresher is a valuable resource. IAVA endorses H.R. 4051, but we
    believe that the pilot program should be scaled up quickly, ahead of
    schedule and to more locations if it proves successful. IAVA
    understands that limiting the scope and geography of the pilot program
    is necessary initially; however, we suggest incorporating a set of
    benchmarks to determine the efficacy of the program prior to the three
    and a half year deadline set in the current version of the legislation.
        H.R. 4052--IAVA supports H.R. 4052, the Recognizing Excellence in
    Veterans Education Act of 2012. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is the most
    significant veterans' benefits in the last half-century. One of the key
    obstacles for many veterans to effectively utilize the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill is the lack of good information available to help them make sound
    educational and job training choices. H.R. 4052, will help bring
    clarity to this process. This program will serve as a beacon marking
    veteran-friendly schools with the Excellence in Veterans Education
    Award. The criteria for awarding the Excellence in Veterans Education
    Award are excellent indicators that an educational institution places
    value on its student veterans, from the academic (graduation rates) to
    the financial (full participation in the Yellow Ribbon program).
        H.R. 4057--IAVA supports H.R. 4057, the Improving Transparency of
    Educational Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2012. IAVA's main
    priority is to ensure transparency and accountability in GI Bill
    benefits and their use. IAVA believes that the GI Bill is the most
    effective program available for transforming our generation of veterans
    into the ``New Greatest Generation.'' IAVA also realizes that, like the
    original GI Bill, unscrupulous actors whose goals are to take advantage
    of veterans by poaching their hard earned benefits is a threat to the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill. If we do not preserve the integrity and
    effectiveness of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, we will lose this
    transformational benefit. IAVA advocates a three-prong strategy to
    ensure that VA educational benefits are used wisely: 1) data
    collection, 2) consumer education, and 3) regulation enforcement
    through market means.
        H.R. 4057 stresses the first two and IAVA supports this approach.
    We believe that the availability of clear and equivalent data,
    available in an easily accessible and transparent format, is an
    essential element to ensure smart use of VA educational benefits. All
    schools, regardless of profit goal or government support, should have
    to provide this information so that students can assess how a given
    school meets their needs. IAVA believes that College Navigator, a site
    run by the Department of Education, is an excellent model. However, the
    data is inconsistent; not all schools report the same data. Mandating
    that all schools report the same data is crucial.
        While IAVA supports the goals of H.R. 4057, as well as the
    legislation itself, we would like to address some areas of potential
    concern. We are pleased to see a broad definition of post-secondary
    education and training opportunities, but are concerned that emphasis
    on ``commercially available off-the-shelf online tool(s)'' will have
    limitations. We are concerned that an existing tool currently in the
    government's toolbox (like College Navigator) might be bypassed for a
    commercial option, like GIBill.com or EducationConnection.com, which
    are a funnel sites for mostly for-profit schools.
        H.R. 4072--IAVA supports H.R. 4072, the Consolidating Veterans'
    Employment Services for Improved Performance Act of 2012. Given that
    the unemployment rate for OIF/OEF-era veterans has hovered around 25%
    higher than the civilian rate, IAVA continues to scan the horizon for
    innovative approaches to solve the veteran unemployment crisis. H.R.
    4072 takes a different tactic than most, focusing on a veterans' first
    point of contact when they leave service: veteran employment services.
    Two of the critiques we at IAVA hear most often from veterans is that a
    multitude of overlapping services cloud options rather than clarify
    them. Additionally, competing programs and services muddle rather than
    sharpen the focus on getting vets employed. By bringing the Department
    of Labor Veterans Employment and Training Service (DoL VETS) into the
    Department of Veterans Administration (VA), duplication of effort will
    be minimized by creating synergies and leveraging resources within one
    department while still maintaining the capability to leverage across
    executive branch departments.
        This idea is not new, but has never coalesced into action. Now is
    the time for action. Under the current system, DoL VETS receives
    funding from DoL to execute VA priorities. It is like having one member
    of the House of Representatives located in the Senate. Aligning the
    resources of VETS with the veteran-centric mission of the VA results is
    an obvious streamlining of control, communication and resources.
        IAVA recognizes that there are many questions to be answered and
    details to be considered. However, we feel that H.R. 4072 is thorough
    in its application and intent. H.R. 4072 transfers VETS on a one-for-
    one basis in funding and importance from DoL to VA and IAVA's support
    for H.R. 4072 is contingent on that point. VETS must remain well funded
    and maintained at the organizational rank at VA that it currently
    occupies at DoL.
        Caring for the men and women who defend freedom is a solemn
    responsibility that belongs to lawmakers, business leaders, and
    everyday citizens alike. In the past several years, we have seen a
    turning point in the way we care and provide for our nation's warriors.
    Despite critical successes, however, veterans' education and employment
    services are still not up to standard. We must remain ever vigilant and
    continue to show the men and women who volunteer to serve their country
    that we have their backs. Thank you for your time and attention.

                           DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

        On behalf of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), a non-profit
    organization comprised of 1.2 million service-disabled veterans focused
    on building better lives for America's disabled veterans and their
    families, I am pleased to offer our statement for the record on the
    bills under consideration today.
    H.R. 3329, Vet Success Enhancement Act of 2011
        H.R. 3329 would amend section 3103, title 38, United States Code,
    to extend the eligibility period for veterans to enroll in vocational
    rehabilitation programs from the current twelve-year period to fifteen-
    years.
        The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation
    and Employment's (VR&E's) VetSuccess program assists veterans with
    service-connected disabilities in preparing for, finding and keeping
    jobs suitable to their skill sets. For veterans with severe service-
    connected disabilities that impact their ability to immediately work,
    other services are offered to help them live as independently as
    possible. Veterans are eligible for VR&E's VetSuccess program if they
    have an other than dishonorable discharge as well as a service-
    connected disability rating of at least 10 percent, or a memorandum
    rating of 20 percent or more from the VA. The VetSuccess program is
    also open to active duty military who expect they will be separated
    with an honorable discharge and who also have a memorandum rating of 20
    percent or more from the VA.
        Under current law, the basic period of eligibility for VetSuccess
    cannot exceed 12 years from either the date of separation from active
    duty, or the date the veteran was notified by VA of their service-
    connected disability rating. This 12-year eligibility period can only
    be extended if a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor determines that a
    veteran has a serious employment handicap.
        We certainly appreciate the intent to extend the eligibility period
    offered by this legislation, but in accordance with DAV Resolution No.
    222, we would recommend it be amended to completely remove any time
    limit for eligibility to VR&E benefits for qualified disabled veterans.
    Despite efforts to keep veterans informed of their benefits, not all
    disabled veterans are aware of their possible entitlements to VR&E
    programs at the time they are awarded service-connection for
    disabilities. Many veterans do not necessarily see themselves as
    needing vocational rehabilitation until later in life, which often
    occurs after the 12-year eligibility rule excludes them from the
    benefit. Just as VA puts no time limit on when a veteran may submit a
    claim for disability compensation, we assert that there should be no
    time limit for access to VR&E benefits either. Moreover, removing the
    time limits on eligibility could also help reduce the backlog of
    disability compensation claims since veterans seeking VR&E benefits
    after 12 (or even 15) years have passed would not have to submit new
    claims, or reopen old ones, in hopes of being granted a new service-
    connection to once again make them eligible for VR&E benefits.
        Although passage of H.R. 3329 would be a positive step forward, DAV
    recommends that the legislation be amended to remove any delimiting
    period for eligibility to VR&E benefits.
    H.R. 3483, Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011
        H.R. 3483, the Veterans Educational Equity Act of 2011, would
    provide equity under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill to veterans attending
    college who do not meet residency requirements at public schools.
        The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill offers veterans of the current conflicts
    the opportunity to further their education. Recent changes allow
    veterans attending private schools to receive up to $17,500 in tuition
    and fee payments from VA. However, those attending public schools are
    only entitled to receive the highest in-state tuition and fee payments,
    regardless of whether or not they meet residency requirements for the
    state. As a result, many who do not qualify for in-state tuition face
    significant out-of-pocket costs to attend the public school of their
    choice, as opposed to those who chose education to attend private
    school that may nearly be fully financed. If adopted, this bill would
    extend the $17,500 reimbursement cap for student-veterans attending
    public schools who do not meet residency requirements for in-state
    tuition.
        Although DAV does not have a specific resolution pertaining to this
    legislation, we are not opposed to its favorable consideration.
    H.R. 3524, Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act
        H.R. 3524 would extend Uniformed Services Employment and
    Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protections--including retention,
    seniority and benefits--to covered individuals who are absent from
    employment for medical treatment of a service-connected disability. The
    bill would allow employees taking such leave to either take unpaid
    leave or they could choose to use any vacation, annual, medical, or
    similar leave with pay that accrued prior to their medical treatment.
    The bill would limit the application of this Act to periods of absence
    for not more than 12 workweeks during any 12-month period.
        Currently under USERRA, employers are required to make reasonable
    accommodations for disabled veterans; however, employers are not
    specifically required by law to allow veterans with service-connected
    disabilities to be absent from the workplace to receive medical
    treatment for them.
        DAV strongly supports passage of H.R. 3524, consistent with DAV
    Resolution 197, which calls for extending job protections under USERRA
    to cover employee leaves of absence due to medical treatments related
    to service-connected disabilities.
    H.R. 3610, Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011
        H.R. 3610 would consolidate Federal job training programs in an
    effort to improve their effectiveness and reduce costs. The bill would
    consolidate 33 of the 47 Federal job training programs into several
    block grant funds for distribution to the states. The Workforce
    Investment Funds would provide job training services to adults,
    unemployed workers, and youth seeking employment. The State Youth
    Workforce Investment Fund would assist disadvantaged youth with a focus
    on school completion. The Veterans Workforce Investment Fund would
    deliver employment and training services to veterans. Lastly, the
    Targeted Populations Workforce Investment Fund would assist special
    populations such as Native Americans and seasonal farm workers. The
    legislation would require state and local leaders to set ``common
    performance measures'' for all employment and job training programs and
    an independent evaluation of DoL programs every five years. Governors
    would determine the workforce areas that best serve their states and
    use the various block grants accordingly. States would then submit one
    statewide workforce development plan to the Federal government for all
    job training and related programs.
        DAV has concerns about the effect such a consolidation would have
    on veterans' jobs and training programs administered by the DoL
    Veterans Employment and Training Service. Although DAV has long been
    concerned about the effectiveness of the DoL's ability to effectively
    manage veterans' employment and training programs, we do not believe
    that H.R. 3610 would create a more effective or accountable program to
    help our nation's veterans find meaningful employment. Instead, DAV
    supports alternate legislation, H.R. 4072, which would move DoL's
    current veteran employment programs into the VA, in order to create
    greater collaboration and synergy with related VA programs, such as the
    Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment and the Education services. As
    such, DAV does not support passage of H.R. 3610.
    H.R. 3670
        H.R. 3670 would amend the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
    to require the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to fully
    comply with USERRA when making and carrying out personnel decisions.
    When TSA was established to address aviation security following the
    attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress allowed transportation security
    officers to be included in a select category of Federal employees
    considered vital to national security, and therefore exempt from
    USERRA. As a result, TSA employees who may be called up from reserve to
    active duty status do not enjoy all of USERRA's job protections to
    prevent them from suffering loss as a result of their service. Although
    TSA claims to have adopted some of the USERRA protections voluntarily,
    this legislation would apply the full USERRA protections to all TSA
    employees.
        Consistent with the intent of DAV Resolution 213, DAV supports
    passage of H.R. 3670 in order to ensure that veterans, including
    disabled veterans, do not suffer employment losses as a result of
    continued service in our nation's armed forces.
    H.R. 4048, Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned Small
            Businesses Act of 2012
        H.R. 4048 would amend Section 8127 of title 38, United States Code,
    to require VA to include the value of goods and services procured
    through the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) when determining whether they
    are meeting the goals established for contracting with veteran-owned
    and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses (SDVOSBs). The FSS is
    comprised of large contracts negotiated by the General Services
    Administration that allow Federal customers, including VA, to purchase
    more than four million products and services from over 8,000 commercial
    suppliers. Although VA as a matter of practice is currently including
    FSS purchases in its current annual reporting under Section 8127, this
    legislation would codify this practice for this and future
    Administrations.
        DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue; however, we
    are not opposed to the passage of this legislation as it could prove
    beneficial to disabled veteran business owners.
    H.R. 4051, TAP Modernization Act of 2012
        H.R. 4051 would direct the Secretary of Labor to establish a three-
    year pilot program to provide Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
    training at off-base locations within three to five states having the
    highest rates of veteran unemployment. The selection of locations
    within each of the chosen states would have to be done at a sufficient
    number of locations to meet the needs of the state's specific
    population. While the purpose of the pilot program is to offer TAP at
    locations other than military installations, and thereby eliminate some
    of the obstacles and restrictions inherent in such locations, it could
    be offered at a National Guard or reserve facility as long as that
    facility is not located on an active duty military installation. Annual
    reports from the Secretary of Labor would be required each year by
    March 1, and following completion of the pilot program, the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) would be required to evaluate and report to
    Congress on the feasibility of expanding the pilot program to other
    locations nationwide.
        DAV has long supported expanded access to TAP for all military
    personnel, including members of the National Guard and Reserves as
    detailed in Resolution No. 217. Consistent with the intention of this
    resolution, DAV supports passage of H.R. 4051 to further extend access
    to this important benefit.
    H.R. 4052, Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2012
        H.R. 4052 would establish an honorary award within the VA to
    recognize institutions of higher learning that provide superior
    services to veterans, based upon specified criteria established by the
    Secretary.
        DAV has no resolution on this matter and has no position on this
    legislation.
    H.R. 4057, Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for
            Veterans Act of 2012
        H.R. 4057 would direct VA to develop a comprehensive policy to
    improve outreach and transparency to help educate veterans and members
    of the Armed Forces about institutions of higher learning that they may
    be interested in attending. The legislation is designed to provide
    veterans considering enrolling in such institutions with information to
    guide their decisions, including the creation of a mechanism to allow
    veterans access to feedback from students as well as State Approving
    Agencies. The legislation would also require VA to conduct a market
    survey to determine whether an off-the-shelf online tool exists to help
    veterans in making decisions about postsecondary education and training
    opportunities.
        DAV has no resolution on this matter and has no position on this
    legislation.
    H.R. 4072, Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved
            Performances Act of 2012
        H.R. 4072 would essentially move the Veterans Employment and
    Training Service (VETS) from the Department of Labor (DoL) to the VA,
    placing it inside the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). The bill
    would transfer all current functions, personnel, assets, and
    liabilities under the following programs from DoL to VA:

          Job counseling, training, and placement services for
    veterans under chapter 41 of title 38, United States Code.
          Employment and training of veterans under chapter 42 of
    such title.
          Administration of employment and employment rights of
    members of the uniformed services under chapter 43 of title 38.
          Homeless veterans reintegration programs under chapter 20
    of such title.

        Funding for these programs, which is currently requested as part of
    DoL's budget, would become part of VA's annual budget request. A new
    Deputy Under Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training would be
    established within VA to oversee these functions, along with any other
    employment, unemployment, and training programs affecting veterans.
    This legislation would also consolidate the current positions of Local
    Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) and Disabled Veterans
    Outreach Program (DVOP) Specialist into a new position called Veterans
    Employment Specialist. Current LVERs and DVOPs, who are employed
    directly by states, would be retained and reclassified to these new
    positions. Although their basic job functions would remain the same,
    rather than having LVERs work only with non-disabled veterans and DVOPs
    work only with disabled veterans, all Veterans Employment Specialists
    would be responsible for assisting all veterans. However, in performing
    their work, Veterans Employment Specialists would provide priority of
    service to disabled veterans as required by current law. Further,
    states would be required to give hiring preference for these positions
    to disabled veterans first, then to non-disabled veterans before non-
    veterans.
        DAV has long been concerned about the effectiveness of the DoL's
    veteran employment and training programs. Both GAO and DoL's Office of
    Inspector General Office (OIG) have found numerous areas of concern
    over the years related to outreach, seamless transition, internal
    controls, and the measuring and reporting of performance goals and
    outcomes for veterans, yet such problems remain. Management problems at
    VETS and continuing high veteran unemployment rates further raise
    doubts about the effectiveness of DoL's VETS program. At the same time,
    VA has been expanding its focus on employment as evidenced by the
    Vocational Rehabilitation service's change to the Vocational
    Rehabilitation and Employment Service (VR&E), as well as the recent
    establishment of the position of Deputy Under Secretary for Economic
    Opportunity responsible for VR&E, Education and Home Loan Guaranty
    services.
        In this environment, DAV supports passage of H.R. 4072 with the
    following recommendation to strengthen the intent of the legislation.
    Rather than create a new Deputy Under Secretary within VBA, DAV
    recommends that a new Under Secretary for Economic Opportunities be
    created to oversee a new Veterans Economic Opportunities Administration
    (VEOA), consisting of the transferred VETS programs, along with the
    existing VR&E and Education services. Creation of this fourth
    administration with VA would help to increase collaboration and synergy
    amongst VA's employment, training and education programs benefiting
    veterans. In addition, it would allow VBA to keep its focus on the
    enormous challenge of transforming the broken claims processing system
    in order to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the staggering backlog of
    pending claims.
        In addition, DAV would urge the Committee to ensure that as this
    legislation moves forward, it retain and strengthen, whenever possible,
    the priority of providing services to disabled veterans, and the
    preference for hiring disabled veterans, within VA's employment
    programs and VA in general. Furthermore, it is vital that Federal
    funding for veterans employment programs be protected, which may
    require the creation of new line items within VA's budget submission.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.

                         PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA
        Chairman Stuzman, Ranking Member Bilirakas, 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 by the Subcommittee. 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 as they
    transition successfully back to the civilian world.
                                   H.R. 3329
        PVA supports H.R. 3329, legislation to extend the eligibility
    period for vocational rehabilitation programs from the current length
    of twelve years to the proposed length of fifteen years. Today's
    regulations require veterans to apply for Vocational Rehabilitation and
    Employment (VR&E) services within 12 years of the date of their
    military separation or upon notification by VA of a service-connected
    disability rating conferring eligibility. Although many veterans may
    not understand their eligibility or the value of VR&E services, other
    veterans who are initially eligible may not need the services until
    after the 12-year delimiting period has expired. Some service-connected
    injuries will have an aggravated effect on the veteran as they get
    older. This could create limitations on employment functions that a
    veteran once had at a younger age. Although the veteran still has the
    economic need and the desire to continue employment, their service-
    connected disability will require the veteran to modify or learn new
    employment skills.
        Although PVA supports H.R.3329, The Independent Budget (IB), co-
    authored by PVA, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of
    Foreign Wars, believes the time limit for accessing VR&E programs
    should be eliminated entirely. In fact, the FY2013 edition of the IB
    recommends that Congress eliminate the 12-year delimiting period for
    Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment services to ensure that
    veterans with employment barriers or problems with independent living
    qualify for services for the entirety of their employable lives.
            H.R. 3483, the ``Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011''
        PVA supports H.R. 3483, the ``Veterans Educational Equity Act of
    2011.'' This bill would change the existing law that allows for more
    educational funds to veterans who are enrolled in private colleges than
    those in public institutions. The current law unintentionally burdens
    some veterans by requiring them to pay additional fees not provided by
    the Post-9/11 GI Bill when attending some out-of-state public
    institutions. Many veterans that qualify for the Post-9/11 GI Bill do
    not live in their original home state. When these veterans attend a
    local institution they are penalized with a much higher tuition as an
    out-of-state student. This legislation will also allow the veteran to
    receive up to $17,500 in educational benefits; however, if the in-state
    tuition exceeds $17,500, this legislation would provide payment for the
    total tuition. Passage of H.R. 3483 will allow veterans to focus on
    obtaining their education without worrying about which state they must
    live in to avoid excessive unreimbursed tuition fees.
         H.R. 3524, the ``Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act''
        PVA supports H.R. 3524, the ``Disabled Veterans Employment
    Protection Act.'' Of the men and women that have honorably served both
    at home and abroad, many are exiting military service with lifelong
    injuries or disabling conditions as a result of their service.
    Unfortunately, some employers have discriminated against these men and
    women as they must take time away from work to address their medical
    problems. PVA supports this legislation that will protect those
    veterans that must take time away from work to attend to their service-
    connected injuries or medical conditions. We would also note that many
    of the same protections are already afforded to any individual with a
    disability under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
       H.R. 3610, the ``Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act''
        PVA opposes the provisions of H.R. 3610, the ``Streamlining
    Workforce Development Programs Act.'' At first glance, this legislation
    appears to be a response to the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    report that identified 47 job training programs throughout the Federal
    government that seemingly overlap or provide similar services. However,
    viewing these programs as simply duplicative and redundant undervalues
    the nature of many of these programs and ignores the full scope of
    objectives of these programs and the populations of people in this
    country that they serve.
        H.R. 3610 would consolidate 33 of those programs outlined in the
    GAO report into what are described as four ``flexible'' funds. These
    funds include:

          Workforce Investment Fund providing job training services
    to adults, youth, unemployed workers;
          State Youth Workforce Investment Fund focused on
    disadvantaged youth to encourage school completion;
          Veterans Workforce Investment Fund for employment
    services to veterans; and,
          Targeted Populations Workforce Investment Fund to assist
    ex-offenders, refugees, migrant and seasonal farmworkers and Native
    Americans.

        Additionally, the legislation would require the development of
    common performance measures for all employment and job training
    programs and would give states greater flexibility in determining
    workforce system service areas.
        PVA has the unique perspective of examining the proposed
    legislation both through the lens of a veterans' service organization
    as well as an organization that serves the broader community of people
    with disabilities. First, we oppose this legislation viewing it from
    the perspective of the disability community. While it seems that the
    legislation proposes to shore up some requirements of state workforce
    plans--plans which state governors are required to submit to the
    Department of Labor in order to receive funding under this
    legislation--to directly address the employment training and job
    placement needs of people with disabilities, it is unclear how those
    individuals with the most significant disabilities, such as PVA members
    with catastrophic spinal cord injury, would fare under this system. It
    is particularly troubling that this bill eliminates Title VI of the
    Rehabilitation Act--the Supported Employment program--created
    specifically for those individuals with the most severe disabilities
    who often face the greatest challenges in obtaining and retaining
    employment. Too often, under broad, generic job training programs,
    those who are hardest to serve become casualties of the performance
    measurement system.
        Second, we oppose this legislation viewed from the perspective of
    the veterans' community. We appreciate the fact that the bill
    eliminates the weaker phrasing of state plan provisions in current law
    that only requires ``an assurance that veterans will be afforded the
    employment and training activities by the State to the extent
    practicable'' and instead requires these activities to be ``in
    accordance with the Jobs for Veterans Act.'' Presumably, this provision
    is intended to draw the attention of state workforce plan developers to
    the specific requirements of the Jobs for Veterans Act. However, H.R.
    3610 excepts sections 4103A and 4104 of title 38--the provisions that
    govern the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans
    Employment Representatives (LVER) from the above stated provision. Of
    great concern is that the bill actually repeals the DVOP and LVER
    sections from law altogether.
        It appears that funds in the newly consolidated Veterans Workforce
    Investment Fun would be used to hire ``one or more local veterans'
    employment representatives to carry out employment, training, and
    placement services.'' Local workforce areas would be required to give
    preference in hiring to service disabled veterans, veterans or if none
    of the above are available to anyone with expertise in serving
    veterans. These staff would be ``administratively responsible'' to the
    director of the one stop center.
        In addition to repealing the DVOP and LVER programs, H.R. 3610 also
    repeals the Veterans Workforce Investment Program included in the
    Workforce Investment Act, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program
    (HVRP) as well as employment and job training assistance under Section
    1144 of Title 10. The underlying assumption of these repeals seems to
    be that these are duplicative and redundant programs identified by the
    GAO report and thus can be dealt with under the four consolidated
    workforce investment funds. However, we would highlight the fact that
    the HVRP is perhaps the most cost-effective, cost-efficient program in
    the Federal government. Every year the HVRP is funded well-below its
    authorized level, and yet, its outcomes reflect great success in
    serving homeless veterans.
        H.R. 3610 takes a broad swipe at consolidating programs deemed to
    be ``unnecessary and duplicative.'' Unfortunately, the bill flatly
    ignores the fact that many of these programs are the best option
    available for veterans and people with disabilities.
                                   H.R. 3670
        PVA supports H.R. 3670, legislation to protect the employment and
    reemployment rights of veterans and members of the Guard and Reserve
    who have taken time away from employment to fulfill their obligation to
    the nation. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
    Act (USERRA) was passed to protect the men and women that take time
    away from their place of employment to fulfill their military
    obligations. Every day veterans of the current conflict return to their
    home communities and to their jobs they left because of the protection
    provided by USERRA.
        The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created in the
    wake of 9/11 to strengthen the security of the nation's transportation
    system. In the rapid assembly and deployment of the TSA to provide
    needed transportation security, some of the existing Federal
    requirements were waived to expedite the formation of this new agency.
    The protection of workers provided by USERRA was one of those Federal
    requirements. It is unfortunate that this Federal agency has grown to
    more than 50,000 employees and is not required to comply with USERRA.
    As a result we have veterans that are returning from protecting their
    country (some in harm's way) and are not allowed to return to their
    chosen careers in the TSA. Perhaps the exclusion of Federal
    requirements was necessary in order to rapidly stand up this agency in
    2002, but it makes no sense to allow the agency to continue to be
    exempt from USERRA. PVA supports this legislation that will ensure that
    veterans have a job to return to after serving their nation.
      H.R. 4048, ``Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned
                         small Businesses Act of 2012''
        PVA supports H.R. 4048, the ``Improving Contracting Opportunities
    for Veteran-Owned Small Business Act of 2012.'' This legislation would
    ensure that proper priorities outlined in title 38 U.S.C, '8127 are
    followed when the VA chooses to initiate a contract under the Federal
    Supply Schedule. PVA has long been a proponent of contracting
    preference being provided to service-disabled veteran-owned and
    veteran-owned small businesses. This preference should be applied in
    any contracting activity that the VA conducts.
                H.R. 4051, the ``TAP Modernization Act of 2012''
        PVA supports H.R. 4051, the ``TAP Modernization Act of 2012.'' This
    legislation would require the Department of Labor (DoL) to conduct the
    Transition Assistance Program (TAP) training off military bases in
    locations away from current locations that have traditionally offered
    TAP. This legislation could prove particularly beneficial for Guard and
    Reserve members that are returning to their communities away from
    mobilization stations and major military installations after their
    deployment. A large number of these veterans are from rural areas and
    do not have the access to support programs for veterans that would be
    available in metropolitan areas. Additionally, not every Guard and
    Reserve member has had the benefit of the broad array of information
    that is provided through the TAP program. This legislation would
    require a three-year pilot program to be presented in three to five
    states selected by the VA. Considering the current unemployment rate of
    veterans, we believe that it is imperative that the VA make an effort
    to provide this service in five states. This effort will be evaluated
    by the Comptroller General to determine its value with assisting
    unemployed veterans.
        The expansion of TAP through this legislation would also coincide
    with the roll-out of the new version of TAP by the DoL's Veterans
    Employment and Training Service (VETS). After twenty years of
    presenting the same basic TAP program, VETS, in coordination with the
    VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) have created a new TAP to ensure
    its relevance and compatibility to today's job market. This new TAP is
    currently being evaluated after being tested in several locations and
    will be in use nationwide in 2013. Taking a new TAP program out to
    areas away from major cities or military bases will reach a new
    audience of veterans that critically need all information pertaining to
    support, programs and opportunities currently available for veterans.
     H.R. 4052, the ``Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of
                                     2013''
        PVA does not oppose H.R. 4052, the ``Recognizing Excellence in
    Veterans Education Act of 2013.''
                                   H.R. 4057
        PVA supports H.R. 4057, legislation to direct the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs to develop a comprehensive policy to improve outreach
    and transparency for effectively informing veterans about educational
    and vocational counseling opportunities and requires VA to create a
    central means for tracking feedback about the quality of higher
    education institutions. It also instructs the VA to examine the best
    ways in which state approving agencies share information about their
    evaluations of institutions of higher learning and the manner in which
    information about these institutions is provided to TAP participants.
    Finally, it requires the VA to include in this policy the most
    effective way to provide veterans and members of the military with
    information regarding postsecondary education and training
    opportunities available to them. The need for transparency of this
    information along with outreach to the veteran by the VA is critical.
        Although the VA should not be providing information to influence
    specific choices the veteran may make for their future, many
    educational and training programs are aggressively pursuing the veteran
    often with misleading promises. Without the latest information readily
    available and presented to veterans explaining the relevancy and the
    successful outcomes from the wide range of available career programs,
    veterans could make decisions that could be detrimental to their future
    success. However, this effort will require additional designated
    funding in order for it to receive priority in the VA. Without funding,
    it could become another attempt to help veterans that never
    materializes.
    H.R. 4072, the ``Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved
                           Performance Act of 2012''
        PVA supports H.R. 4072, the ``Consolidating Veterans Employment
    Services for Improved Performance Act of 2012.'' The proposed
    legislation would shift the organization and responsibilities of the
    Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) out of DoL and into the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Additionally, the legislation
    would consolidate the duties of the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program
    (DVOP) specialists and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives
    (LVER) into a single veterans employment representative. This
    legislation closely resembles a recommendation included in The
    Independent Budget for FY2012. The IB states:

           In order to achieve better outcomes for veterans, all veterans'
    programs designed to enhance economic security, such as those focused
    on employment, education, and business assistance, should be
    centralized into a single new administration inside the Department of
    Veterans Affairs.

        While the IB recommendation called for this alignment to be
    commensurate with the three administrations within VA, we support the
    plan outlined in this legislation that would place principle control
    for VETS under the Veterans Benefits Administration.
        Both Congress and the Administration have demonstrated their
    concern for the employment of veterans. With new initiatives from
    Federal agencies to assist veterans, and directions from the
    Administration to address unemployment among veterans, veterans still
    maintain an unemployment rate several percentage points above the
    national average. Combining the Federal government's efforts to assist
    veterans with employment, entrepreneurship, career counseling, and
    education and training programs should create a synergistic effect and
    at the same time eliminate any duplication of programs. This will
    maximize the combined Federal effort and as one united effort, should
    be easier to monitor results and make necessary modifications in
    programs if needed. Ultimately, the move of VETS to the VA will ensure
    that veterans receive the highest priority in these employment,
    education and training programs.
        Once again, PVA would like to thank you for the opportunity to
    comment on the proposed legislation. We appreciate the strong focus
    that the Subcommittee has placed on expanding opportunities for success
    of veterans in education, the workforce, and the business community.
    Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
        Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the
    following information is provided regarding Federal grants and
    contracts.
                                Fiscal Year 2012
        No Federal grants or contracts received.
                                Fiscal Year 2011
        Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal
    Services Corporation--National Veterans Legal Services Program--
    $262,787.
                                Fiscal Year 2010
        Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal
    Services Corporation--National Veterans Legal Services Program--
    $287,992.

                         WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT (WWP)
        Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and members of the
    Subcommittee:
        Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) welcomes this opportunity to share an
    important perspective on H.R.4057 and is pleased to offer our views on
    this legislation. This bill would require VA to develop a comprehensive
    policy to ensure better outreach and greater transparency by providing
    information on institutions of higher learning to veterans who consider
    accessing their educational benefits. Consistent with the important
    goal of establishing a comprehensive policy to foster transparency
    relating to veterans' higher education options, we recommend that the
    bill be revised, as discussed below, to help ensure that post 9-11
    warriors gain access to additional information critical to their
    academic success.
        As an organization dedicated to honoring and empowering Wounded
    Warriors, and appreciative of the critical importance of education in
    helping warriors achieve their goals, WWP welcomes this Committee's
    consideration of H.R. 4057 and the importance of developing more
    information to assist veterans in using their education benefits.
        The post-9/11 GI bill plays a vital role in enabling access to
    higher education for veterans who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq
    to advance their education, and achieve economic empowerment, and
    veterans are availing themselves of that valuable benefit. The FY2013
    budget projects post-9/11 expenditures will approach $10 billion. A
    2010 RAND study focused on veterans' experience using the post-9/11 GI
    bill found that close to a quarter of surveyed students identified the
    post-9/11 GI bill benefits as a major aspect of their decision to
    enroll in higher education. \1\ While institutions of higher education
    receive substantial Federal monies for their warrior populations, who
    often face injuries that hinder their academic success, the
    availability of specialized services to support those veterans has not
    kept pace with the program's growth.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ J Steele, N Salcedo, J Coley. ``Military Veterans' Experiences
    Using the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Pursuing Postsecondard Education.''
    RAND Corportation, November 2010. Accessed: http://www.rand.org/
    content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND--MG1083.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As returning veterans, and particularly Wounded Warriors, begin to
    make the often difficult transition from military service, the generous
    benefits available under the post 9/11 GI Bill offer a promising path
    to employment and new careers opportunities and advancement. With the
    increasingly large number of veterans taking advantage of their
    educational benefits, VA should be establishing metrics to measure
    veterans' success and to track the availability of appropriate campus-
    based support.
        In our experience, the road to higher education, and to making
    informed choices among often wide-ranging options, can be very
    difficult to navigate. For those without counseling options such as
    those provided through VA's vocational rehabilitation program, there
    may be little to guide the individual in making informed choices,
    particularly as it relates to the extent of pertinent support a school
    provides veterans. Even the most careful researcher would have great
    difficulty identifying the kinds and levels of support at most
    institutions. Student-veterans themselves are often uncertain of what
    specialized services, if any, are available. In a survey of over 500
    WWP alumni who have enrolled in courses of higher education, more than
    44% indicated that they were unsure if their campus had a dedicated
    disability services support staff member, over 55% were unsure if
    mental health services were offered on campus, and over a quarter of
    respondents did not know if the campus offered any type of academic
    support services such as tutoring. \2\ Veterans who may know of
    services they should be able to access on campuses often have trouble
    navigating the process of getting those benefits and lack a clear
    understanding of where to go for information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Wounded Warrior Project Policy & Programs Survey, November
    2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 2010 RAND study found that over 66% of veterans who were able
    to access a campus veterans program office found that resource to be
    ``quite helpful'' or ``extremely helpful'' in pursuing their academic
    goals compared with only approximately 29% of respondents rating the VA
    phone hotline the same way. \3\ These data underscore how important
    campus investment and involvement with their student veteran population
    really is. We believe VA must do more to require institutional
    recipients of post-9/11 GI bill funds to make such services available
    to the student-veterans who enroll and ensure that information is
    easily accessible so that warriors are able to make informed decisions
    before applying and enrolling.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Steele et al, 28.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We applaud the principle underlying H.R. 4057 that veterans
    availing themselves of benefits under the GI bill should have ready
    access to relevant information. This is an important starting point,
    but, as drafted, the measure falls short of ensuring that its impact
    would address in a systematic manner the critical issues post-9/11
    warriors face. As more and more veterans enroll in institutions of
    higher education, it is important that VA collect pertinent--and
    accurate--data that is easily accessible to student-veterans. Because
    campus-based support services must be tailored to meet warrior-specific
    injuries and academic needs, we recommend that H.R. 4057 be amended to
    include language that would make modest but important improvements,
    specifically to require institutions of higher education to provide
    information on the following:

           1. The size of their student-veteran population and student-
    veteran academic performance and retention and graduation rates; and
           2. The specific support services dedicated, and available to,
    student-veterans at such institution (and, as pertinent, at each campus
    of such institution).

        While we also appreciate the bill's effort to develop information
    on student-outreach, we recommend revising the language in new section
    3698(b)(5) that calls on VA to identify ``the most effective way'' to
    inform veterans of their educational benefits and post-secondary
    educational opportunities. Given the range of individual backgrounds
    and disabilities among warriors pursuing higher education, outreach
    strategies should be multi-faceted. We strongly advise against a one-
    size-fits-all approach, and recommend accordingly that the language be
    revised to refer to ``effective ways'' in lieu of ``the most effective
    way'' to conduct outreach. In essence, VA should be encouraged to
    pursue wide-ranging approaches to reach out to and engage veterans.
        We would be pleased to work with the Committee to draft language in
    advance of any markup to address the important issues discussed above.
    With such changes, WWP would be pleased to enthusiastically support
    H.R. 4057.

                       MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
                   Letters Submitted To Hon. G.K. Butterfield

        May 18, 2011

        The Honorable GK Butterfield
        United States House of Representatives
        Washington, DC 20515-3301

        Dear Mr. Butterfield:

        We write to bring your attention to an important and urgent matter
    for a select group of Veteransusing the Post 9/11 GI Bill benefit in
    North Carolina.

        On January 4, 2011, the President signed S. 3447, The Post-9/11
    Veterans EducationalAssistance Improvements Act of 2010 into law. The
    Act makes several improvements to theoriginal program and we are
    grateful for all that you did personally to strengthen it.
    Regrettably,the bill also has unintended consequences and we hope that
    we can work together to fix onespecific issue as expeditiously as
    practicable.
        Under Section 102 of the Act, Congress provides financial
    assistance to servicemembers for ahigher education at public, private
    and foreign institutions. The Act provides for a $17,500upper limit for
    tuition and fees for qualified servicemembers on an annual basis. The
    UnitedStates Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) interprets the Act to
    limit tuition and fees at publicinstitutions to the applicable
    institution's in-state tuition rate for both in-state and out-of-
    stateVeterans. This is certainly reasonable for Veterans who are
    residents of the state of NorthCarolina. However, because North
    Carolina's in-state tuition rate is sharply lower than the out-of-state
    tuition rate, this change unintentionally disadvantages out-of-state
    Veterans who wish toattend public institutions in North Carolina. The
    out-of-state Veteran seeking a public highereducation in North Carolina
    must pay the difference between the in-state and out-of-state ratefrom
    other sources of funds, select another college, or delay a higher
    education. This is not whatwas intended.
        We strongly urge Congress to correct this oversight quickly by
    permitting the $17,500 upperlimit without deference to an in-state
    tuition rate for out-of-state Veterans seeking a highereducation at
    public institutions. We estimate that as many as 1000 students in North
    Carolina areaffected for the 2011-2012 academic year. What makes this
    situation particularly troubling isthat the VA notified colleges and
    universities in late March of their interpretation - long afterstudents
    have applied for and received notice of their favorable admission. This
    group ofstudents gained admission under one set of rules but will
    enroll under new rules that require asubstantial out of pocket expense
    through no fault of the student. Again, this cannot be what
    youintended.
        It is in North Carolina's best interest to educate servicemembers.
    Service members are our beststudents - they graduate on time and they
    continue to grow North Carolina's economy--so longas they remain here.
    Many of the affected students have lived in North Carolina as active
    dutyservicemembers for quite some time regardless of their official
    residency. And, many of themdo not make the decision to get their
    degree until it is too late to establish residency for tuitionpurposes
    in North Carolina. Not only do we owe them the education that they seek
    but we needthem to help us build North Carolina's future.
        We are aware of other efforts to make ``technical corrections'' to
    the The Post-9/11 VeteransEducational Assistance Improvements Act of
    2010. Thus far none of the existing bills include asolution for our
    issue in North Carolina. We respectfully request your help as we try to
    resolvethis issue as soon as practicable. Please feel free to call us
    or our staff, Kimrey Rhinehardt(UNC) at 919-943-0381 or Jennifer Willis
    (NCCCS) at 919-807-6957, to discuss this issuefurther.

        Sincerely,

        Thomas W. Ros,
        President
        The University of North Carolina

        Scott Ralls
        President
        The North Carolina Community College System

                            November 17, 2011

        Honorable G.K. Butterfield
        United States House of Representatives
        2305 Rayburn House Office Building
        Washington, D.C. 20515

        Dear Representative Butterfield,

        Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is pleased to offer
    our support for your legislation to remedy the disparity between in-
    state and out-of-state tuition rates faced by some veterans using the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill. The Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011 will help
    bring fairness and parity to the benefits used by those who have fought
    for our Nation as they make the transition to civilian life.
        The GI Bill was intended to help veterans attend institutions of
    higher learning, particularly public institutions, but the difference
    between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates has proven to be an
    obstacle for many veterans. Veterans classified as out-of-state
    students are reimbursed for tuition and fees at in-state tuition rates,
    which are often significantly lower. Qualifying for instate tuition is
    made all the more difficult because servicemembers move frequently
    around the country and the world. This scenario means that tuition at
    some of the leading universities in our country is still out of reach
    for some veterans unless they accrue significant debt. IAVA believes
    that veterans have already paid their debt through service to our
    Nation in a time of war.
        The Post-9/11 GI Bill offers our nation's veterans an exceptional
    opportunity to gain the formal education which, along with the skills
    and decision-making abilities gained through their military experience,
    will allow them to take their place as America's New Greatest
    Generation. IAVA has been a staunch advocate for granting out-of-state
    students tuition benefits equal to at least what students attending
    private schools receive. The Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011 will
    achieve this goal, helping remedy the disparity and easing the burden
    on veterans. It will also guarantee parity and the efficient use of
    benefits.
        IAVA believes that our New Greatest Generation deserves the chance
    to contribute to our Nation in peace with the distinction they did in
    war. We are proud to offer our assistance and thank you for this
    important legislation. If we can be of help, please contact Ramsey
    Sulayman, IAVA Legislative Associate, at (202) 544-7692, or
    ramsey@iava.org.

                            Sincerely,

                            Paul Rieckhoff
                            Founder and Executive Director
                            Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)

                            February 21, 2012

        The Honorable G.K. Butterfield
        United States House of Representatives
        2305 Rayburn House Office Building
        Washington, D.C. 20515

        Dear Representative Butterfield:

        On behalf of the more than two million men and women of the
    Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our Auxiliaries, we
    thank you for introducing H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act
    of 2011, which provides equality in educational assistance for veterans
    using Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits. This bill will lessen the tuition
    disparity between veterans attending out-of-state public institutions
    and veterans attending private institutions.
        The VFW played a significant role in the original passing of the
    Post-9/11 G.I. Bill and consequently has a vested interest in a fair
    implementation of its benefits. The benefit was designed to offer
    veterans of the current conflicts the opportunity to receive a free
    education at the public school of their choice. Unfortunately, veterans
    who do not qualify for residency status at many public schools must
    bear the burden of the additional tuition and fees not covered by the
    current payment model. Furthermore, veterans who choose to attend
    private schools can now receive up to $17,500 in reimbursement. As a
    result, veterans without residency status at public schools can often
    carry a significantly higher tuition burden than veterans at private
    schools.
        We believe that this disparity is unfair to veterans who choose to
    attend public schools, as the benefit intended, yet cannot establish
    residency. Due to the nature of military life, obtaining residency
    status can often be difficult. Servicemen and women must constantly
    move across the country and even around the world, which can prevent
    them from establishing domicile in any one state. We must take these
    extenuating circumstances into account and offer an equitable benefit
    for veterans who choose to attend both public and private schools.
        Recognizing that the men and women who serve today are the future
    leaders of our great nation, the VFW helped pass the Post-9/11 G.I.
    Bill, and we will continue to work to ensure the benefit is
    administered fairly. The VFW thanks you and your staff for your
    attention to this issue, and we stand ready to assist in ensuring our
    brave servicemembers receive the quality educationalopportunities they
    deserve through their earned military and veterans' benefits. We are
    pleased tooffer our support for H.R. 3483 and urge you to move the bill
    in Congress.

                            Sincerely,

                            Raymond C. Kelley, Director
                            VFW National Legislative Service

                            December 20, 2011

        Honorable G. K. Butterfield
        United States House of Representatives
        2305 Rayburn House Office Building
        Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Representative Butterfield:

        On behalf of the 2.4 million members of The American Legion I would
    like to express support for H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity
    Act of 2011, which provides for the equalization of benefits for
    veterans who choose to attend public universities and colleges.

        Current law caps education benefits for veterans attending private
    institutions at $17,500 per year, while stipulating that veterans
    attending public colleges and universities receive only the amount
    charged for tuition and fees. The result of this is an undue burden in
    out- of-pocket expenses on some veterans who attend public colleges. By
    providing up to$17,500 for all veterans regardless of the institution
    they opt to attend, this measure remedies this issue while ensuring
    that educational benefits earned in service to our country are not
    undermined , but remain available and equitable for all veterans.

        Again, The American Legion fully supports enacting H.R. 3483 and
    applauds your leadership in addressing this critical issue facing our
    nation's veterans.

                            Sincerely,

                            FANG A. WONG
                            National Commander

       Letters Submitted To Hon. Marlin Stutzman from Eric K. Shinseki,
                    Secretary, Veterans Affairs, Washington

                                      THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
                                      WASHINGTON

                            April 2, 2012

        The Honorable Marlin Stutzman
        Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
        Committee on Veterans' Affairs
        U.S. House of Representatives
        Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Mr. Chairman:

        On March 8, 2012, Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Department of Veterans
    Affairs' (VA) Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans
    Benefit Administration, testified before your Subcommittee on numerous
    bills of interest to the Department. At that time, Mr. Coy indicated
    that we would like to provide the Committee our views and cost
    estimates on additional bills after having the opportunity for further
    review. By this letter, we are providing our costs on two of these
    bills, which deal with VA educational assistance benefit issues: H.R.
    3483, the "Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011" and H.R. 4052, the
    "Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2012," as well as
    our views and costs on H.R. 4048, the "Improving Contracting
    Opportunities for Veteran-Owned Small Businesses Act of 2012." The
    Administration's position on H.R. 4072 is still under development.
                                   H.R. 3483

        H.R. 3483 would change the educational assistance payable for
    certain individuals under the Post-9/11 GI Bill who are pursuing
    programs of education at institutions of higher learning. Specifically,
    the bill would change the tuition and fees payable for non-resident
    students attending a public institution that currently charges less
    than $17,500 annually for the comparable in-state tuition and fees at
    that institution.
        VA estimates benefits costs of enactment of H.R. 3483 to be $710.8
    million in the first year, $4.0 billion over five years, and $9.0
    billion over ten years.
                                   H.R. 4052

        H.R. 4052 would direct VA to establish the "Excellence in Veterans
    Education Award," to recognize institutions of higher learning that
    offer exemplary services to Veterans. The award would be valid for
    three years and institutions that receive such award would be annotated
    on the list of institutions approved to receive VA education benefits
    that appears on a VA Web site.
        VA estimates, that if H.R. 4052 were enacted, VA would need 11
    additional Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) for data collection, analysis,
    and communication with institutions of higher learning and the bill
    would cost $726 thousand for the remaining six months of FY2012, $6.3
    million over five years, and $14.9 million over ten years.
                                   H.R. 4048

        H.R. 4048 would require VA to report amounts associated with
    purchases from the Federal Supply Schedules in measuring VA's service-
    disabled Veteran-owned and Veteran-owned small business contracting
    achievements. As that already is VA's practice pursuant to the Federal
    Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR Chapter 1, Section 4.606, we consider
    this bill unnecessary. Enactment of H.R. 4048 would not result in any
    additional costs to VA.We appreciate this opportunity to comment on
    this legislation and look forward to working with you and the other
    Subcommittee Members on these important legislative issues.

                            Sincerely,

                            Eric K. Shinseki