[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2942; H.R. 3056; H.R. 3614; H.R. 4031; H.R.
4037;
H.R. 4038; H.R. 4147; H.R. 4150; AND H.R. 4151
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-59
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
87-672 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Minority Member
Chairman CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MARK TAKANO, California
BILL FLORES, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
PAUL COOK, California TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
DAVID JOLLY, Florida
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Nancy Dolan, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
BILL FLORES, Texas, Chairman
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado Member
PAUL COOK, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
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.
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2942; H.R. 3056; H.R. 3614; H.R.
4031; H.R. 4037; H.R. 4038; H.R. 4147; H.R. 4150; AND H.R. 4151 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Hon. Bill Flores, Chairman....................................... 1
Hon. Mark Takano, Ranking Member................................. 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic
Opportunity, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 30
Accompanied by:
Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, U.S.
Department of Labor
Hon. Keith Kelly, Assistant Secretary, Veterans' Employment and
Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor..................... 10
Prepared Statement........................................... 39
Accompanied by:
Ms. Demetra Nightingale, Chief Evaluation Officer, U.S.
Department of Labor
Mr. Steve Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National Economic
Commission, The American Legion................................ 17
Prepared Statement........................................... 43
Mr. Pete Hegseth, Chief Executive Office, Concerned Veterans for
America........................................................ 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 50
Mr. Ryan Gallucci, Deputy Legislative Director, Veterans of
Foreign Wars................................................... 21
Prepared Statement........................................... 52
Mr. William Hubbard, Vice President of External Affairs, Student
Veterans of America............................................ 23
Prepared Statement........................................... 58
MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Wounded Warrior Project.......................................... 62
Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Paul R. Varela, Director....... 67
VetsFirst........................................................ 73
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, (APSCU). 77
Senior Executive Association..................................... 80
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2942; H.R. 3056; H.R. 3614; H.R. 4031; H.R.
4037; H.R. 4038; H.R. 4147; H.R. 4150; AND H.R. 4151
----------
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:17 p.m., in
Room 340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bill Flores
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Flores, Cook, and Takano.
Also present: Representatives Miller, Bilirakis, and
Reichert.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BILL FLORES
Mr. Flores. Good day, everyone. The subcommittee will come
to order. Before we begin I would like to ask unanimous consent
that our colleagues Chairman Miller, Mr. Gus Bilirakis, and Mr.
David Reichert be allowed to sit at the dais, make opening
statements, and ask questions. Hearing no objections, so
ordered.
I want to thank all of you for joining us here today to
discuss legislation pending before the subcommittee concerning
education benefits and employment programs for our returning
servicemembers and veterans.
This afternoon we have nine important pieces of legislation
before us. I will focus my remarks on two of these bills which
I introduced earlier this year. The first is H.R. 4037, the
Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Act of 2014. This bill would streamline VA's
vocational rehabilitation and employment, known as the VR&E
program. This program helps disabled veterans become employment
ready and also assists the most severely disabled veterans
reach a point of maximum independent daily living. As I have
said multiple times, I believe this program is one of the
greatest resources our VA has to help our veterans with
disabilities overcome many challenges they encounter when
trying to find employment. However, I believe improvements need
to be made to ensure that our most disabled veterans do not get
lost in the shuffle while enduring long wait times to see a
counselor.
My bill would authorize the Secretary to prioritize VR&E
services based on need so that they are able to triage cases as
they come in based upon the severity of the veteran's
disability or on other factors as determined by the Secretary.
It would also require that any education or training courses a
veteran pursues through the VR&E be approved for G.I. Bill
benefits and would allow for home adaptations that are
currently being completed for VR&E participants to be completed
under specially adapted housing rules to ensure that our
veterans are receiving high quality adaptations to their homes.
The bill would also redefine eligibility for voc rehab for
veterans with a ten percent disability. This provision would
further streamline this benefit and help severely disabled
veterans get the benefits and services they are qualified to
receive in an expedited fashion.
My second bill is H.R. 4038, the Veterans Benefits
Administration Information Technology Improvement Act of 2014.
This bill would require the VA to improve and finish the IT
systems that adjudicates G.I. Bill and VR&E claims. At this day
and age veterans should not have to endure long delays in
receiving their earned education and VR&E benefits due to a
lacking and/or outdated IT system. Through this legislation VA
would be able to adjudicate to the maximum extent possible all
G.I. Bill claims in a paperless environment and would be able
to accurately track services and outcomes provided by the VR&E
program to veterans.
Through multiple GAO reports and hearings during this
Congress the subcommittee has been shown the need to improve
these systems. I know the ranking member also has a bill on
this as well and I look forward to working with him to combine
our two pieces of legislation to ensure these IT programs are
improved to better serve America's veterans. I believe that
both of these bills are critical to VA's successes and will
allow the VA to more efficiently and thoroughly assist our
veterans as they work toward a successful life following their
service.
With that being said, I am eager to discuss each of the
nine pieces of legislation before us today and I am grateful to
my colleagues who have introduced these bills, and to our
witnesses for being here to discuss them with us. I look
forward to a productive and meaningful discussion.
I will now yield to my colleague Ranking Member Takano for
any opening statement he may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK TAKANO, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairman Flores. Good afternoon. I
would like to thank everyone for joining us and to thank the
witnesses for taking time to testify and answer our questions.
We do have a number of bills before us today which seek to
reauthorize the VA Advisory Committee on Credentialing;
prioritize VR&E services; help veterans obtain their license or
credentialing through legislation; require a longitudinal
study; and create a survey for users of the G.I. Bill. I
support my colleagues' bills that aim to improve the lives of
our veterans and of the nine pieces of legislation I have
sponsored two bills which seek to help our veterans attending
college.
My first bill, H.R. 3056, the Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot
Program Act, would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
carry out a three-year pilot program on the provision of
outreach and support services to veterans pursuing higher
education. I see this program as supplementing VetSuccess On
Campus, which uses credentialed and experienced vocational
rehabilitation counselors to provide services to student
veterans. The Warriors' Peer-Outreach Program will provide peer
to peer services by employing veterans who have used the G.I.
Bill. The VA will train veterans to assist individuals who may
have a difficulty in adjusting or may need services or support
that the institution is not equipped to provide.
Again, this pilot program is designed to explore a new
approach to on campus services for veterans and to act as a
supplement to other federal programs with similar goals. I
believe it has the potential to help many veterans across the
country and I hope all our stakeholders will support it.
Today we will also be discussing H.R. 4147, the Student
Veterans IT Upgrade Act, which would require the VA to report
on the current status of the long term solution for education
claims processing, provide an action plan to improve it, and
outline the anticipated cost of upgrading the system. I find it
unfortunate that the VA has not completed this system and want
to know when and how they plan to do so. Complete automation
would provide the VA a more powerful system that is more
responsive to the needs of our veterans. I may add that I look
forward to working with Chairman Flores on combining our bills,
I believe they are complementary, with regard to the Student
Veterans IT Upgrade Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing to
review these bills. I look forward to the testimony and
suggestions from our panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Chairman Miller of the
full committee will be joining us to discuss his bill, H.R.
4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014. We will yield to Chairman Miller
when he arrives.
In the meantime it is an honor to be joined by my friends
and colleagues to discuss their bills. I thank each of you for
being here. Mr. Cook is not here yet. We will have him speak as
soon as he gets here. Ms. Kirkpatrick is not here but she
submitted a statement for the record. Hearing no objection, we
will enter hers into the record.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Bilirakis, you are now recognized.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it and
thanks for allowing me to sit in on the panel today. Again, I
want to thank you for holding this legislative hearing. And I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on my bill, H.R. 4151, the
G.I. Bill Survey Act.
Members of the committee understand the many challenges our
veterans have in transitioning into civilian life after service
to our great nation. America has always been the land of
opportunity and it is our responsibility that our veterans are
equipped with the necessary resources to pursue that happiness.
The brave men and women in our military services have answered
the call to protect the liberties we are entitled to. Likewise
we must answer the call for our veterans, I am sure you all
agree. Through the G.I. Bill veterans can use these benefits to
cover tuition, housing, books, and supplies, testing, and
certification fees, and other education related expenditures.
Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Act of 2008 over one million of our nation's
veterans have participated in this program. By fiscal year 2011
the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill had the largest number of participants
and highest total of obligations when compared to previous G.I.
Bills since 1984. The VA provided nearly $10 billion for that
fiscal year in education benefits for veterans and
beneficiaries with the majority of these benefits applied to
the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill program. One of the biggest problems we
continue to encounter when discussing the G.I. Bill is the lack
of data available regarding its participants. This goes beyond
simply performance and outcome measures but it also includes
basic demographic information.
In May of 2013 the Government Accountability Office, the
GAO, conducted a study on the challenges student veterans
pursuing higher education and the obstacles regarding VA's
management on the program that also affects veterans' academic
success. The GAO reported the following, and I quote, ``it is
unclear the extent to which veterans are achieving successful
academic outcomes and VA lacks a plan for using student
outcomes data from its new data collection efforts to improve
its education programs.'' And I quote again, ``current data on
student veterans are outdated or incomplete.''
The GAO recommended the VA to create a plan to use new data
on student outcomes to improve program management. The VA
agreed with the recommendations and noted a number of actions
it was taking to address these issues. Although that is
progress this committee has not received any information
regarding their efforts or progress on this initiative. Without
objection from the chairman, I would like to submit the summary
of the GAO report for the record.
Mr. Flores. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. To safeguard this important
resource and to ensure our nation's veterans that their success
into civilian life is a top priority of ours, I have introduced
H.R. 4151, the G.I. Bill Survey Act. This comprehensive study
would encompass several elements to better understand the
effectiveness of the Transition Assistance Program, known as
TAP, and what improvements can be made to VA education
benefits.
The first step in making the positive changes to a program
is to fully understand its benefits and drawbacks. H.R. 4151
would require the Secretary of VA to contract with a third
party entity to conduct a survey of G.I. Bill users. The survey
would be a comprehensive study of veterans' experiences when
using their education benefits. The survey would prove
beneficial to both the VA and Congress by providing a better
understanding of a veteran's experience from the processing end
of VA to their experiences with the school certifying official
and how their education benefits and this program have
benefitted them.
I appreciate the support for H.R. 4151 by the American
Legion, the VFW, and the Student Veterans of America who came
to testify before this committee, as well as the support from
the Association of Private Sector Colleges, Wounded Warrior
Program, and then also the VetsFirst. They all submitted their
testimonies for the record.
I encourage my colleagues on this committee to support this
bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope we can come together to
keep our promise to our veterans and ensure that the men and
women who dedicated their lives to serving our nation have the
viable resources to successfully transition into civilian life.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the balance
of the time.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Reichert, you are
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Ranking Member Takano and other members of the subcommittee,
thanks for having me here today at this legislative hearing.
And I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Military
Skills to Careers Act, which is H.R. 3614.
I introduced this legislation to help our veterans
transition their military skills and expertise into long term
civilian jobs. And it sounds like from listening to the
description of other bills, these are all really going to fold
nicely and neatly together. And that is, hey, it is happening
here in Congress so that is shocking, right? Also there is
Senate support for this bill so that is exciting, too. The
Senate and the House of Representatives working together, and I
understand veterans issues bring people together and that is a
good thing.
Some examples of the jobs included in this act, some of the
skills that some of our military folks will learn that are
compatible with this act are inclusive of electricians, truck
drivers, healthcare professionals, IT workers. I have a nephew
who just got out of the Marines and he is a, will soon be
getting out of the Marines, and he is a diesel mechanic. So
those professions, all taught, all performed within the
military, are really applied to our public life. And we have
got to make it easier for our veterans to transition into those
jobs. So by making licensing and credentials in those chosen
fields more accessible we can do this. This legislation would
open opportunities to those veterans struggling to find
employment.
Additionally I want to mention that Senator Richard Burr,
as I kind of alluded to, ranking member of the Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committee has been an outstanding partner in this
effort and I am pleased to have his leadership on this
legislation in the Senate.
When our veterans return from active service the last thing
they should have to fear is unemployment. After all, they
sacrificed to keep us safe. We have responsibility to ensure
their security when they return. And a big part of that is
being able to find a job and provide for themselves and their
families. I am sure you all know families that are wondering,
what am I going to do? What is my family going to do? How are
we going to feed our kids? Where are we going to live? How are
we going to pay for this? Those are worries we need to remove.
We have to remove those. It is up to us to be their champions.
According to figures released last week by the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistic the unemployment rate for
veterans who served on active duty since 9/11 was nine percent
in 2013. Although this represented a decline from 2012, newly
separated veterans are still entering the toughest civilian
labor market in a generation.
In my own State of Washington we have 675,000 veterans, Mr.
Chairman, and the largest military base on the West Coast. Some
people do not realize that, right in Washington State, the
large military base on the West Coast in the Seattle-Takoma
area. And over the next few years the Joint Base Lewis-McChord
is set to discharge 6,000 troops per year, 6,000 per year just
out of one base looking for work. I want those troops to know
that we have a bright future waiting for them. That we are
working for them and they do not have to worry.
All too often recently separated veterans are facing
hurdles transitioning their military skills to civilian
employment, or identifying occupations in which they are
interested that lead to long term employment and security. As
our servicemembers and their family reintegrate back into
communities we have the opportunity and the duty to guarantee
the success for our greatest generation. As a part of this most
important mission I introduced the Military Skills Act as a
step to ensuring we are helping to secure bright futures for
our men and women.
I often hear from members of the business community in
Washington State seeking highly qualified candidates with
expertise compatible with skills gained in the military. Our
challenge in Congress is to find ways to help veterans seeking
employment. One way that this can be done is through reforms to
the state license and certification process for veterans.
Generally private sector businesses are looking for specific
licenses and certifications to determine the most qualified
candidate to fill the job position. Even though a veteran may
have the qualifications and skills necessary for the job they
are too often turned away because they lack the documentation.
To address this many states including Washington have led
through example by passing laws allowing veterans to obtain
licenses or certifications in their training from the military
so that they meet state standards. This helps streamline the
application process, eliminates the need for veterans to go
through redundant and sometimes costly training. In turn
businesses are able to hire veterans who have the necessary
credentials to proficiently get the job done. This legislation,
Mr. Chairman, simply all it does is say let the veterans take a
test. If they pass the test, they get a job. I should have just
said that instead. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Reichert. Mr. Cook, you are
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. H.R. 4150, the
Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study
Act, there is a mouthful, ensures that veterans are receiving
effective and successful employment training services. This
bipartisan bill authorizes an independent organization to
collect, analyze data on the effectiveness of the Department of
Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service.
The study will focus on veterans who have received
intensive services from two programs under VETS, excuse me that
acronym I just referred to, the Disabled Veterans Outreach
Program and the local veterans employment representatives,
LVER. The study will track the employment status of veterans
who receive these services, determine if the program
contributed to their employment, monitor the employment
retention rate, and determine if the services provided helped
them increase their average earnings. A report on the findings
will be presented to the Committee on Veterans Affairs in the
House and Senate every year for the next five years.
Congress has a duty to provide our veterans with the best
employment services possible. Simply authorizing these program
is not enough. We have to follow up and ensure that they are
working as intended. An analysis of long term outcomes is
precisely the type of oversight Congress needs to determine the
effectiveness of these programs and to ensure their success.
I think today you are hearing a lot of similar programs, as
my distinguished colleague had mentioned earlier. It is all
about follow up. If it is not working, we have got to change.
To bottom line is the success rate should be much higher. I am
a veteran and I am very, very passionate about people that have
served. That is one of the things that we have as an ingredient
of military service. When you go out on a patrol in a combat
situation, you want to follow up that everybody has got enough
water, that you have protection, that you have the codes, the
radio frequencies. If you called in a preposition bombardment,
mortars, what have you, that you have it. That is your job. And
with such a poor record in getting these people into the right
position, I think it is incumbent upon us in keeping with the
philosophy and taking care of our troops that we find out how
we can make it better, if we have got to make changes, and the
appropriate funding hopefully will follow that out.
I want to thank Congresswoman Titus for the support on this
important bill. And once again, the follow up and the feedback
when we get on this can hopefully help us achieve better
results and take care of our men and women. Thank you very
much. I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Cook. And again, as a reminder
to everyone, when Chairman Mill arrives we will allow him to
speak to support his legislation.
I now want to recognize our first panel of witnesses today.
Joining us is Mr. Curtis Coy, the Deputy Under Secretary for
Economic Opportunity at the Department of Veterans Affairs. We
also have with us the Hon. Keith Kelly, Assistant Secretary of
the Veterans' Employment and Training Service at the Department
of Labor who is accompanied by Ms. Demetra Nightingale, if I
messed that name up, I am sorry, the Chief Evaluation Office of
the Department of Labor. I thank all of you for being with us
today and for your service during your time on active duty with
our armed forces. Before I recognize Mr. Coy, I would like to
point out again the Department of Labor was again late with its
testimony. We would ask you to exercise appropriate diligence
in providing that on time in the future. So Mr. Coy, let us
begin with you. You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS COY
Mr. Coy. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Takano, who just left. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to provide VA's views on seven pending legislative bills
affecting VA's programs. Other bills under discussion today
would affect programs or laws administered by the Department of
Labor and respectfully we defer to DOL on those bills.
We are encouraged seeing so many legislative proposals
aimed at improving the Education and Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment Program for our nation's veterans. VA supports
H.R. 2942 that reestablishes the VA's Professional
Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee. This
legislation would allow VA to receive recommendations and
receive advice from the committee with regard to licensing and
certification programs.
While VA appreciates the intent of 3056, which would
establish a three-year pilot program to provide outreach
services to veterans using the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, VA does not
believe this legislation is necessary as it would create a
program similar to our existing VetSuccess on Campus Program.
H.R. 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014 would enable the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to remove any individual from the senior
executive service if the Secretary determines the performance
of the individual warrants such removal. VA is committed to
continuing our dialogue with the committee about effective
accountability throughout VA but believe the Secretary has the
tools under current law and regulations to address performance.
VA appreciates the committee's focus to improve aspects of
the Vocational, Rehabilitation and Employment Program through
H.R. 4037. VA is unable to support the provisions of the bill
but agrees with the intent to redefine the employment
rehabilitation rate and note our own internal efforts to
improve our performance measure calculations. We are also
working to establish whether policies needed to further
restrict the approval of courses approved for Chapter 30 or 33.
We would request clarification on Section 4 of this bill which
would expand the eligibility for specially adapted housing
grants to Chapter 31 veterans but agree that modifications to
adapt veterans' homes are best managed by SAH personnel with
expertise and experience. While we are unable to support
Section 6, which redefines serious employment handicap, we are
happy to work with the committee on drafting technical language
to ensure qualified veterans receive necessary services.
VA is unable to support H.R. 4038, which makes IT
improvements to reduce redundancy and process educational and
vocational rehabilitation and employment claims more
efficiently. VA recognizes the committee's efforts to improve
our IT processes but notes that with competing resources
affecting all veterans served at VA, we need the flexibility to
prioritize resources based on the needs of the entire
department.
VA requests clarification on the ``system'' being
referenced in H.R. 4147, which requires the Chief Information
Officer and the Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity
to develop an annual report detailing VA's plan for the system
used to administer VA educational benefits. We would be happy
to provide information to the committee on the areas of
interest once clarified.
Finally, VA supports the intent behind H.R. 4151 which
would require VA to administer a survey to individuals who have
used VA education benefits. We are currently administering a
similar survey with the assistance of a private contractor and
will investigate the feasibility of combining the requirements
of H.R. 4151 with VA's current resources.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would
certainly be pleased to respond to any questions you or the
other members of the subcommittee may have regarding our views
as presented today.
[The prepared statement of Curtis Coy appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Coy. Chairman Miller, we have
reserved five minutes for you for your bill, or such time as
you may need.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask
unanimous consent that I can revise and extend my remarks.
Mr. Flores. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. And thank you for letting
me speak out of order. And I am not going to use my entire
time, nor use the entire statement that I have prepared. But I
want to emphasize that H.R. 4031 in no way is meant to
disparage the SES employees that are out there, the hardworking
employees. It is really meant to help them. Every day well over
300,000 employees at the VA go to work to do the right thing
and I think most of the members here would agree with that. But
more than a dozen examples of a very shocking trend have
actually now arisen and we have listed them on our House Web
site at veterans.house.gov/accountability. In fact, if you look
at the recent VA preventable deaths that have been linked to
mismanagement in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Columbia, South Carolina,
Augusta, Georgia, and Memphis, Tennessee, the VA executives who
presided over the negligence are more likely to have received a
bonus or a glowing performance review than any type of
punishment. And I think it is past time to end this
complacency.
Now some have said that this bill would erode employee
rights. To them I asked, why should government executives who
are paid extremely well to serve the veterans of this country
have the right to fail in their jobs with little threat of
serious punishment? Not a single member of Congress would allow
their staff to do the same. And those seeking VA healthcare,
should they not have the right to know that VA executives who
preside over mismanagement and negligence will be punished
swiftly and accordingly?
There are those who will say VA already has the necessary
tools to properly discipline and fire failing executives. And I
ask, if that is the case why have we not seen evidence in
support of that particular argument? The reality is to those
who closely follow that we see something very differently. And
in instance after instance where mismanagement has led to
veterans suffering, department officials have repeatedly
pointed to non-disciplinary actions such as employee
retirements, transfers, or bureaucratic slaps on the wrist such
as a temporary written warning in a disingenuous attempt to
create the experience of accountability.
It is common knowledge within VA and throughout the
government that it is easier to transfer a failing executive or
leave them unchecked than it is to fire them. And I do not
think that is what the citizens of this country want to do.
So I would ask all members to consider the primary mission
of our committee. We are here to support veterans and
everything else should take second place. Mr. Chairman, thanks
for your time. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Jeff Miller appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Chairman Miller. Mr. Kelly, you are
now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEITH KELLY
Mr. Kelly. Good afternoon, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member
Takano, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing. As
most of you know, my name is Keith Kelly and I am the Assistant
Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training at the
Department of Labor. Today I am accompanied by the department's
Chief Evaluation Officer Demetra Nightingale. I will use my
time here to highlight some of the department's views on DOL-
related legislation.
The first bill I would like to discuss is H.R. 3614, as we
have already heard from one of your colleagues, the Military
Skills to Careers Act. This bill would require each state to
administer an exam and issue a credential or license to a
veteran without requiring any veteran should that veteran meet
the certain criteria. H.R. 3614 would require the State to
establish this program as a condition of receiving funding to
employ disabled veteran outreach program specialists and local
veteran employment representatives, more commonly referred to
as DVOPS and LVERs. The department supports the intent of the
legislation. However, we do have serious concerns about
withholding DOL funding from states if they do not comply
because it is those very DVOPS and LVERs that provide the
critical intensive employment service to veterans, the
transitioning servicemembers, and their families. This
legislation would jeopardize these services and penalize the
very people this bill is aimed at helping.
What is more, DOL is concerned that the administrative
burdens on the states in complying with this legislation would
be very significant. The reality is that some states have
hundreds of different credentials and licenses that are issued
by dozens of different state agencies and this bill would apply
to them all. In fact, the majority of states have already
adopted legislation aimed at streamlining credentialing and
licensing for veterans.
There are a variety of legislation and regulatory
approaches that have proven successful in different states and
DOL is already working with the Department of Defense and the
states to assist them in these efforts. For instance, we are
working on a pilot program to analyze and compare transferrable
skills. In addition the department is providing technical
support to certain states to award credit for military training
and experience.
Now to the second piece of legislation that we have also
have heard about from one of your colleagues. I would like to
discuss H.R. 3150, the Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act. H.R. 4150 would give the Secretary of
Labor access to the National Directory of New Hires
Information. At this time DOL does not have authority to
readily access these earnings data from state unemployment
agencies and as a result of that we strongly support this
provision. Without such authority the process of obtaining
earnings data is time consuming, costly, and burdensome.
Moreover, the bill directs the Secretary to conduct a study of
veterans and the long term impact of DOL services. We estimate
the cost to successfully complete this longitudinal study will
be about $10 million over five years.
Ultimately the department welcomes the opportunity to
better understand the current impact of the services we provide
for veterans so that we may continue to further enhance our
programs and therefore improving veterans' quality of life. We
are ready to ensure that the legislation and the resulting
study are well crafted. Thus we do look forward to working with
the committee on clarifying the goals and objectives of that
survey.
The Department of Labor sincerely appreciates the support
of the committee and we strive to provide higher quality,
better targeted services to our nation's veterans. Chairman
Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the subcommittee,
this concludes my statement. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Keith Kelly appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I will now recognize
myself for five minutes for questions. Mr. Coy, let us begin
with you. You heard Chairman Miller's opening comments a few
minutes ago. Would you agree that there have been an alarming
number of instances where the VA's SES employees have acted
improperly?
Mr. Coy. As a 14-year senior executive in the government, I
have heard of some of those stories but I am not familiar with
the individual ones. So it would be irresponsible for me to
comment on any one of those individuals. Most of those were,
from what I understand, on the VHA side of VA.
Mr. Flores. Can you tell us if any of VA's SES employees
have been fired or disciplined over the past year because of
problems like this?
Mr. Coy. What I do know, Mr. Chairman, is that the
Secretary has, to use your term, fired or removed 6 SESs in the
past two years. Three of them were senior executives in their
first year or probation, and three were senior executives that
were career senior executives outside of the probationary one-
year period.
Mr. Flores. Okay. We have heard that mentioned in earlier
hearings. Can you, actually during a February 26th Subcommittee
on Health hearing Dr. Benishek asked Under Secretary for Health
Dr. Petzel to provide a list of everything VA has done to hold
employees accountable in response to the preventable veteran
deaths in Pittsburgh, Augusta, Columbia, Memphis, and Atlanta.
And Dr. Petzel at that hearing, I saw this myself, said that he
would provide that by the end of the week. It has been almost a
month since that information was requested. So do you have, can
you tell me when the VA will provide that information to Dr.
Benishek's Health Subcommittee?
Mr. Coy. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with specifics on
what is holding up that information. But I will most certainly
take that for the record and take that on.
Mr. Flores. Okay. We would appreciate that. There are also
reports that the IG has laid out for us that there is evidence
that the VA was complicit in multiple preventable deaths in
those same locations and that managers in those locations still
received bonuses. Can you tell us how that would, how that
situation would occur?
Mr. Coy. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with those
very specific cases. I will take that for the record and ensure
that you get a response back.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you. It is also, one of the things
that the subcommittee noted, and I think is one of the things
that frustrates Chairman Miller. I am not putting words in his
mouth, but it frustrates him, it frustrates me, and that is
that all but one of VA's SES employees in fiscal year 2012
received high performance ratings. And it just seems like, you
know, here we are. We have had these preventable deaths. We
have got a backlog that, while it is coming down is still
unacceptably high, and only one person get something less than
a high rating. That just does not seem like the way the real
world would treat these types of issues. So do you find that a
little strange? That all but one SES employee wound up with a
superior rating?
Mr. Coy. Well Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, I have
been a senior executive for 14 years. So I have hired and
managed many, many senior executives. Before that I spent about
seven years as a managing associate at PricewaterhouseCoopers,
where I was on the annual board of evaluation. And for 24 years
before that as a naval officer. I would suggest that while I am
not familiar with the exact cases that you are referring to,
one of the things that separates the Senior Executive Service
from other entities is the bar for admission is incredibly
high. That process to become a senior executive is outlined in
very stringent requirements by the Office of Personnel
Management.
One of the things that I take very, very seriously is I try
and hire the very, very best. I think I have done that in the
time I have been at VA and in my 14 years as a senior
executive. I would also suggest that one of my key
responsibilities as a senior executive, as a leader in VA, and
as a key manager, is to ensure that those people, those SESs
that work for me, performance is not only acceptable but above
acceptable. And it is my responsibility to ensure if I see them
veering off course five or ten degrees to bring them back to
the straight and narrow. I think I have been very successful in
doing that and I think many, many senior executives at VA also
would reflect that.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Coy. We will, obviously we are
going to continue the debate on this particular question. We do
look forward to your responses to the questions that we
propounded to Dr. Petzel.
Mr. Coy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Takano, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Coy, you write that VetSuccess on Campus,
VSOC, and the pilot program in the Warriors' Peer-Outreach
Pilot Program Act are similar. How are the programs similar
when the VSOC personnel have more experience and the
participants in the pilot program will not be equally
experienced or trained?
Mr. Coy. Thank you, Mr. Takano. There are some unique
differences from your legislation and the VetSuccess on Campus
program. One of the things for the VetSuccess on Campus program
is over the past number of years we have grown that program
from about eight pilot sites to now 94 sites with 71 different
counselors. One of the things that we have established in the
last couple of years is a mentoring program and we are doing
that on two fronts. Actually, we are doing it on three fronts.
The one front is leveraging work study students which are
veterans at each of those campuses to engage fellow veterans
that help them in that process. We are also working with VHA's
programs in what we call our PAVE program, which is VHA's Peer
Advisors for Veteran Education, to provide also a model to
enable VR&E to do that.
We are also establishing a pilot program that we are hiring
16 AmeriCorps volunteers. Those AmeriCorps volunteers are 6
veterans, five spouses of veterans, one civilian, and then two
pending hires that we think will be veterans as well. So we
think between those three programs, the AmeriCorps program, and
our AmeriCorps volunteers that we are hiring are going to help
us be the boots on the ground at those VSOC sites such that
they will be engaging with those veterans on campus and we hope
to have those veterans be expanded such that they are recent
college graduates similar to your piece of legislation.
I would also suggest that the work study program students,
those are students who have been in school. They have been
through the, sort of the initial piece of their freshman year,
early years, and they have seen what you need to do to get
through those things. So we have those work study students as
well. And then finally we also are developing the PAVE program
in conjunction with our VHA partners and their behavioral
health and psychologists.
Mr. Takano. Well along those lines, since VSOC is currently
found at 94 campuses, do you think that the Warriors Peer-
Outreach Pilot Program Act can be a supplement that could
quickly extend to a great number of campuses?
Mr. Coy. I think it could very well be. And if enacted we
could leverage that program and take pieces of that program and
also use it across the other 94 campuses as well.
Mr. Takano. And similarly the Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot
Program is currently limited to three campuses. Would the VA be
more inclined to support it if it included more campuses
instead of just three?
Mr. Coy. Congressman Takano, I would suggest that we would
take all the help we can certainly get and we would love to do
all the schools we can get. One of the interesting things is as
I look at the number of schools that have for example over
1,000 beneficiaries, or 1,000 folks going to school using G.I.
Bill, that number is 135 right now today. It could change
tomorrow to 136 or 134. But it is right around there. And that
accounts for less than two percent of all the G.I. Bill
campuses. So any efforts that we could expand the program,
whether it be by three or by 50, we would certainly love to do
that. My concern would be, however, that resources would come
with that. In other words, we take our current VSOC program and
we hire, we take an experienced VR counselor and put them on
campus full-time. And we think that is incredibly valuable. And
then we backfill that individual with an entry level VR
counselor. We did the AmeriCorps program at VSOC sites because
we thought it was critical that we had that VA person, that
experienced counselor, to sort of see that program though.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired.
Mr. Flores. Ranking Member, if it is okay with you I would
like to go ahead and have a quick second round?
Mr. Takano. Sure.
Mr. Flores. If that is okay. Secretary Kelly, I did not
want you to leave unquestioned so we will have a second round.
You had a recommendation for H.R. 3614 that DOL should provide
only the states technical assistance instead of requiring that
the states submit all licensing and credentialing exams to DOL.
Can you expand on that recommendation?
Mr. Kelly. Thank you. Yes, I would be happy to. First I
would like just to share with the committee because this is as
of last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Report on
Veterans Employment that just came out last week, there is
significant improvement with regard to veterans unemployment
dropping over this last year from 2012. And actually in fact
both for the most recent Gulf War era veterans, it has been
almost a ten percent drop. And just to share that improvement
is being made. And I want to thank the committee, the
administration, and all of us that are implementing the
programs and the changes you have made. Some things are working
and they are working in the correct direction.
Mr. Flores. May I interrupt you for a minute? Do you have
that by age cohort?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, I do.
Mr. Flores. Particularly 18 to 29.
Mr. Kelly. What is used in there the Gulf War II era
veterans which takes it all the way back, I think, from
September 12th forward. And I think that takes it all the way
up 35. I do have the data. I will definitely get it
specifically to you by the age cohort.
Mr. Flores. Okay.
Mr. Kelly. But that one has made almost the largest gain in
the drop of unemployment almost to ten percent, from 9.9 down
to nine percent.
Mr. Flores. Okay.
Mr. Kelly. With regard to your specific question, you know,
that we do have concerns about this. We do, let me reiterate,
appreciate the intention of the bill. And the concerns we have,
we are first and foremost opposed to withholding the state
funding to hire the DVOPS and the LVERs. Our result is we see
this would penalize the very people that this legislation is
aimed at helping, and hopefully even help drive down those
unemployment numbers. The DVOPS and LVERs are the individuals
at the state level that do provide the critical employment
services.
There is a second part with the concern with this bill and
it is too broad as it is currently written in that all licenses
and credentials issued by a state would be included in that.
And I do have numbers on some of the states on the hundreds of
licenses and credentials that are offered out there by various
state agencies, it is almost overwhelming sometimes.
And finally many states are already working to streamline
the licensing process for veterans and transitioning services.
Every year a legislature meets more are getting on board to do
that. So it is for those reasons that we have concerns with the
bill as it is written.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you, Secretary Kelly. Mr. Coy, one
last question for you. In your written testimony on Section 5
of H.R. 4037 you stated that the VA has the authority that it
needs to prioritize voc rehab services. So if you already have
this authority, the two-part question is A, how does VA
prioritize those? B, what is the filter that they use for the
prioritization?
Mr. Coy. We currently are going through a change in two or
three or four things. Prior to this review we used to
prioritize those veterans who were Post-9/11 veterans would
get, if you will, head of the line privileges. We are now
looking across the board with respect to how we would set up a
priority system similar to VHA's priority one, two, three,
four, and laying those things out. As you know, most recently
our new Direction of Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment,
Jack Kammerer testified in front of this committee, I believe.
And one of his responsibilities he has been tasked with by me
is to sit down and establish a program to do just that. But we
do believe that we have the current authority to be able to do
that. The devil is in the details, most certainly. We need to
figure out, you know, this balance of fair versus priority. And
who gets head of the line privileges, but making sure that
nobody gets the back of the line privileges. And so striking
that balance is going to be a challenge.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Coy. Mr. Takano, I
recognize you for five minutes for a second round.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Coy, with regard
to H.R. 4031, what is the Secretary's general feeling about
this attempt to give him enhanced flexibility with regard to
the SES?
Mr. Coy. Thank you, Congressman Takano. That is a great
question. I believe the Secretary's views on this are pretty
clear that he believes that he has the authority to do that. I
have met very few individuals in my career, and that has been a
long one, that does not have any, or that has the moral
integrity and the honor that Secretary Shinseki does. He takes
SES performance incredibly seriously. I have been in his office
where he has ensured that everyone under his responsibility is
clear on what the goals and strategic intent of his office and
where the VA is headed. I would suggest that Secretary
Shinseki's views on this are such that he has the authorities
to do those things and he has in fact done that. He has removed
people. He has reduced people's pay. He has reassigned people.
He has suspended people. He has done all of those actions
specifically in the last two years I know.
Mr. Takano. So would he view the intent of this legislation
for H.R. 4031 as a helpful additional tool? Or is he saying
that he has enough authority as it is to provide the discipline
and order for the SES?
Mr. Coy. I believe that the view of the Department of
Veterans Affairs is that the Secretary currently has the tools
available to him or her to do, to ensure that senior executives
within the Department of Veterans Affairs are held accountable
and he has in fact used that tool on several occasions.
Mr. Takano. Is there any thought that providing this
flexibility for the Department of Veterans Affairs could be
used as an example for enhanced flexibility in other
departments of the federal government?
Mr. Coy. That is, if you will, an opinion question on my
part. And my opinion? This is Curt Coy's opinion. I would
suggest that it could have a detrimental effect on recruiting
and attracting candidates to the Department of Veterans Affairs
if the Department of Veterans Affairs had a different SES
system, if you will, than other departments in the government.
The SES system that is in place now has what is generally
considered adequate safeguards to ensure that senior
executives, if action has been taken, they can go to the MSPB
if necessary. That has happened at VA. And in fact MSPB at one
point reversed a decision, and then they went back as I
understand it. So there are those tools in place where SESers
have due process. And so there might be a concern from the
perspective of this particular bill that some of that due
process may not be available to senior executives.
Mr. Takano. Do you believe in your opinion that removing
these protections could in fact turn these SES positions into
expanded political appointees?
Mr. Coy. I do not know that I am qualified, sir, to make
that judgment. I would say again my experience as a senior
executive, before I came over here I laid out the, I looked up
the Senior Executive Service and refreshed myself and this is
what the Office of Personnel Management defines a Senior
Executive Service as comprised of men and women charged with
leading the continuing transformation of government. These
leaders possess well honed executive skills and share a broad
perspective of government and public service commitment which
is grounded in the Constitution. Members of the SES serve in
key positions just below the top Presidential appointees.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further
questions.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Ranking Member Takano. Well, I have
a parting comment on this particular issue. I was a senior
executive in the private sector for 30 years and I never went
to an organization and worried what the due process policies
were. I just worried about how well I was going to be able to
execute my position and the responsibilities under my
authority. And I hope that we can, my encouragement for the VA
is to embrace these reforms that we are proposing because they
are desperately needed, it sounds like.
With this the first panel is excused with our thanks. We
appreciate you joining us, Mr. Coy and Mr. Kelly. And we now
invite the second panel to join us.
Before you leave, Mr. Takano, without objection we are
going to change the rules so we can carry on with one member.
Okay? You do not object? Okay, good.
All right. With our second panel today we have Steve
Gonzalez, who is the Assistant Director for the National
Economic Commission at the American Legion; Mr. Pete Hegseth,
Chief Executive Officer at Concerned Veterans for America; Mr.
Ryan Gallucci, Deputy District Director of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars; and Mr. William Hubbard, Vice President of
External Affairs at Student Veterans of America. And I
apologize to those of you whose names I butchered. I thank all
of you for being here, for your service to our nation while you
were in uniform, and for your hard work and advocacy for
veterans today. Mr. Gonzalez, we will begin with you. You are
now recognized for five minutes.
Statements of Mr. Steve Gonzalez, Assistant Director,
National Economic Commission, The American Legion; Mr. Pete
Hegseth, Chief Executive Officer, Concerned Veterans for
America; Mr. Ryan Gallucci, Deputy Legislative Director,
Veterans of Foreign Wars; And Mr. William Hubbard, Vice
President of External Affairs, Student Veterans of America
STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ
Mr. Gonzalez. Good afternoon, Chairman Flores, Ranking
Member Takano, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
On behalf of the National Commander Dan Dellinger and the 2.4
million members of the American Legion, we thank you and your
colleagues for the work you do in support of our servicemembers
and veterans, as well as their families. The hard work of this
subcommittee in creating significant legislation leads a
positive impact on our military and veterans community.
H.R. 2942, enactment of legislation to reestablish the
Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee,
PCLAC, will benefit servicemembers as well as those who
eventually employ veterans in the civilian workforce, easing
the placement of qualified veterans in civilian careers and
matching civilian employers with skilled veteran employees. The
Department of Veterans Affairs currently lacks subject matter
experts that can provide knowledgeable recommendations to
improve VA's licensing and certification. Therefore the
American Legion believes that it is extremely important that
the PCLAC be reauthorized. The American Legion strongly
supports H.R. 2942.
H.R. 3056, the American Legion believes strongly in the
power of peer to peer support and has called for the
development of peer to peer rehabilitation programs. However,
we have several concerns with H.R. 3056. One, the commissioning
of the pilot on only three college campuses. Two, the
possibility of funding being diverted from existing programs
such as VetSuccess on Campus that already provides such
services. And three, the possibility of redundancy. For more
details on these concerns please refer to our written
testimony. The American Legion does not support H.R. 3056 as
written.
H.R. 3614, the American Legion's Resolution Number 52 holds
that we support action that will require Congress through the
Secretary of Labor to ensure that each workforce center in the
various states offering labor exchange services have sufficient
funding to provide at least one DVOP and LVER staff to provide
services to all veterans requiring employment and training
assistance residing within the state.
As such, the American Legion cannot support any legislation
which will withhold funding to these programs, even as a
penalty. The American Legion does not support H.R. 3614 as
written.
H.R. 4031, the American Legion is deeply concerned with the
lack of accountability within the VA. This legislation will
provide tools to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to better
manage senior executive service employees and hold them
accountable when they fail to perform their duties in a manner
that better serves the veterans entrusted to their care. The
American Legion supports H.R. 4031.
H.R. 4037, the American Legion does not have a resolution
or position on H.R. 4037.
H.R. 4038, the American Legion believes that in order to
ensure the continued success of the delivery of education
benefits and accurately track the outcomes of VA's VR&E system,
the VA will need to maximize the usage of paperless IT systems
and be proactive in this area to prevent any kind of backlog as
such, as has been seen with disability claims. The American
Legion supports the passage of H.R. 4038.
H.R. 4147, prior to the passage of the post-9/11 G.I. Bill,
the VA delivered education benefits were relying on a
combination of manual processes and legacy IT systems. However,
the Department also determined at the time that its legacy
systems were insufficient to support the demands for processing
the new benefit. This report will allow policymakers to assess
the status of the system, the plan of the system, the plan of
action with regard to the finalization of the system, and the
anticipated cost. The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 4150, Congress and other key stakeholders lack
essential information needed to assess the performance of many
programs in the Department of Labor's VETS. The American Legion
believes that a longitudinal study conducted by a third party
will help to identify lapses in program stewardship and will
allow for the Department of Labor's VETS to make improvements
to existing programs and services. The American Legion supports
this bill.
Lastly, H.R. 4151, since the 2009 implementation of the
post-9/11 G.I. Bill, education benefits have significantly
increased for service members, veterans, and their families.
However, the VA has yet to conduct an impact study--a survey or
a study to evaluate the experiences of those individuals using
the G.I. Bill benefit. In order to evaluate how such a robust
benefit has impacted the lives of veterans who are
transitioning from the military to civilian life, such an
assessment on return on investment for policymakers, advocates,
and taxpayers is much need. The Legion supports this bill.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the bills being considered by the Subcommittee. I will be
happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you,
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Steve Gonzalez appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Hegseth, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF PETE HEGSETH
Mr. Hegseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Takano, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
My name is Pete Hegseth, and I am the CEO of Concerned
Veterans for America. We are an organization of veterans and
military families dedicated to fighting for the freedom and
prosperity here at home that we fought for while in uniform.
We are a growing organization of veterans and military
families who refuse to accept the status quo in Washington. I
am an Army veteran myself, having served three tours since 9/
11--Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
And today I am speaking on behalf of the members of
Concerned Vets for America, and every veteran and their
supportive families who feel like second-class citizens in
their own system.
I am here for every veteran who has waited and waited and
waited for a disability claim, for every veteran who calls the
VA Hotline and then sits on hold, for every veteran who waits
weeks and even months for a medical appointment, every veteran
who receives substandard care, and tragically I am here for
every veteran who has died because they have not received the
care they needed when they needed it.
You have seen the stories, I have seen the stories, and it
is long overdue that things change at the Department of
Veterans Affairs. It is time for accountability, it is time for
transparency, and it is time for results.
These stories motivate my testimony here today, as well as
my organization's full support of the bipartisan House
Resolution 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014. No sober observer of VA's track
record, especially in the last few years, can look you, me, or
any other veteran in the eye and defend the status quo. The
status quo is simply unacceptable, and everyone knows it,
especially those to access or I should say attempt to access
VA's impenetrable, and woefully ineffective bureaucracy.
The answer for years has been to spend more money. But as
Secretary Shinseki says often, VA has all of the resources it
needs. Since 2009, the budget for VA has increased by $66
billion dollars. But what VA and many in its army of advocates
will not publicly admit is that VA's problem has nothing to do
with money, and everything to do with a calcified culture of
mediocrity.
At VA, nearly all employee performances rewarded,
regardless of outcome, poor employee performance is routinely
ignored or covered up, and veterans are left holding the bag--
wanting and waiting. What we have today is a VA that is very
good at protecting managers and staff, and not very good at
serving veterans.
Omar Bradley, of World War II fame and a former Veterans
Administrator, once said, ``We're dealing with veterans, not
procedures, with their problems, not ours.'' Bradley's creed
has been turned on its head. VA is obsessed with procedure and
so engulfed in its own cultural problems, they are not serving
veterans the way our Nation expects.
Now I am not saying VA leadership managers and employees
are bad people, they are not. Many of them are veterans and
many of them do an excellent job. But with any bureaucracy over
time, institutional incentives can distort human behavior in
ways that become self-serving and process driven as opposed to
customer service oriented and outcome driven.
This has clearly happened at VA, as not a single senior VA
manager has been fired under this Administration. Not one. To
the contrary, in 2011 and 2012 every SCS received a performance
rating of fully successful, while the back-load and other
problems exploded. Tell me this: if basic accountability is not
enforced at the top, how can performance be corrected
throughout and organization?
That is what House Resolution 4031 seeks to combat,
providing the VA Secretary with the tools necessary to bend the
incentive curve. The Bill would simply empower the VA Secretary
to fire under-performing managers, specifically members of VA
senior executive service. These are the folks who run the
hospitals, lead the regional offices, and run entire
departments. The ability to cut through red tape and actually
fire bad managers is the same power we give our Secretary of
Defense, which Secretary Gates used quite effectively in
cleaning up the 2007 mess at Walter Reed.
Why should the VA Secretary not have those same basic
tools?
Now, of course, VA has opposed this reform measure and is
peddling their own watered down version. That is to be
expected, as no bureaucracy would demand more accountability of
itself. Some in Washington also derived the Bill as an issue of
employee rights, saying it would undermine existing civil
service rules.
Critics mainframe the issue as a matter of employee rights,
but what rights are they defending? The right of a poor-
performing VA executive to fail at their job? The right of a VA
leadership to retaliate against whistle blowers, or the right
to continue granting extravagant bonuses to failing managers?
It takes a very expansive understanding of employee rights to
oppose the bill on those grounds.
Far from being an attack on dedicated public servants, H.R.
4031 would instead empower and attract better managers. This
bill would also bolster the best employees while sending a
clear message to poor performers, that results matter. We think
it would attract perform-minded individuals.
In closing, the key question before this Committee and this
Congress is simple--who will you stand with, under performing
bureaucrats who can't be fired, or veterans who are being
under-served? The answer to that question is crystal clear.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I welcome your
questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Pete Hegseth appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Mr. Hegseth, well said, and that is obviously a
YouTube that I would like to play over and over again. So, Mr.
Gallucci, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF RYAN GALLUCCI
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on
behalf of the VFW. I also want to thank this Subcommittee for
its hard work over the last year, advancing critical
legislation, like in-state tuition for veterans. We encourage
you to keep up the hard work and look forward to working with
you to accomplish our shared goals. For the VFW's full thoughts
on today's bills, I will refer you to my prepared testimony, as
I will only speak briefly to each of them.
First, on H.R. 2942, the VFW supports this bill and we echo
the sentiment of my colleague from the American Legion, who
laid out the case for why this Advisory Committee must be
extended.
Next, on H.R. 3056, the VFW supports Ranking Member
Takano's efforts to better understand the impact of peer
support for student veterans; however, we question the need for
a pilot program to do this. We worry that a pilot would
duplicate what already happens on the grounds, thanks to our
colleagues from Student Veterans of America, as well as through
VA work study and programs like VSOC, VITAL, and Veteran
Centers of Excellence.
Recently, I discussed the peer support with Kenneth
Wiseman, the VFW Student Veteran Outreach coordinator for
Virginia, and a graduate student at Old Dominion University.
Through his work around Virginia, Ken helps schools and student
veterans understand the programs and support available to them.
Just last week, Ken visited Virginia Western Community
College's new Veteran Center, which will soon host 6 VA work
study veterans to offer peer support. Ken's home campus, Old
Dominion, hosts nearly a dozen VA work study veterans to do the
same.
The VFW believes that in lieu of a pilot, Congress should
instead look to programs like those at Old Dominion to better
understand how schools, student veterans, and VA are working
together to deliver peer services.
The VFW agrees that we know far too little about the
student veteran experience and we should study peer support
models to identify promising practices and potential
shortcomings. However, to do so, the VFW recommends studying a
diverse selection of schools already implementing peer support
programs. The VFW fully supports the goal to report on the
efficacy of peer support for student veterans, and we look
forward to working with the Committee on this issue.
Next, H.R. 3614. The VFW supports the concept of this bill
to streamline licensing opportunities for veterans. Prior to
this hearing, I visited the Army's recruiting website,
goarmy.com, which touts the valuable career skills soldiers
receive. To the VFW, it seems unreasonable that these skills
would not easily translate to civilian jobs as we all know, and
we look forward to working with the Committee on ways to fix
this.
On H.R. 4031, the VFW shares Chairman Miller's concerns
over accountability for VA management. We support the intent of
this bill to give VA broader authority to remove SES employees
for poor performance, but have some concerns over the proposal
as it is written right now. Any changes must protect that
intricate link between political appointees and civil servants,
but the VFW agrees that the current system makes it nearly
impossible for VA to remove an SES.
As a result, the VFW recommends changing the disciplinary
procedures to ensure that SES employees must respond to notices
within 30 days, with some appeal rights intact, in lieu of
today's open-ended process.
Recently, VFW Commander-in-Chief Bill Thien testified that
it is a privilege to work for VA, not a right. We look forward
to working with Chairman Miller to reinforce this message.
H.R. 4037, the VFW supports the intent of your bill, Mr.
Chairman, to ensure that VR and E helps the veterans who need
it the most. VR and E is nearly at capacity for offering
rehabilitative services and as the military draws down, we
share your concerns that without responsible changes, VR and E
may be stretched too thin. However, the VFW worries that
restricting eligibility will cause some veterans to fall
through the cracks.
Although we cannot support this bill in its current form,
we do look forward to working with you on meanful reforms that
will ensure VR and E conserve those who need it without
restricting access.
On H.R. 4038 and 4147, the VFW supports both of these bills
and we thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Takano for
ensuring that VA invests in its education IT systems and can
report on potential shortcomings to make necessary
improvements.
H.R. 4151, the VFW supports Congressman Bilirakis' efforts
to understand the student veteran experience. Since we do not
know enough about today's student veterans, many draw
conclusions based on bad information. In my office, my
colleagues and I joke that by Department of Education
standards, none of us are considered a college graduate.
We need quality information to demonstrate veteran success,
coupled with Ranking Member Takano's report on peer services,
and SVA's recent report on student veteran outcomes, we believe
this bill will allow us to better understand the unique
experiences of student veterans, protecting our investment in
future veteran leaders.
Finally, on a longitudinal study on vets, the VFW believes
that the Department of Labor VETS can provide a critical
gateway to civilian employment for many veterans, particularly
through the DVOP and LVER network. Unfortunately, services vary
across the country and we struggle to evaluate what works and
what doesn't.
Recently, the VFW referred a small business owner in
Indiana to his local LVER, and we are proud to report that the
next day he had several interviews lined up with viable
candidates.
So, we believe that this system can work, but we must have
proper oversight to ensure that vets can deliver the services
veterans need. We support this draft concept, and we look
forward to working with the Committee to advance it.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes
my statement. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ryan Gallucci appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Gallucci. Mr. Hubbard, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HUBBARD
Mr. Hubbard. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting Student
Veterans of America to submit our testimony regarding pending
legislation intended to increase support for military service
members and veterans.
Student Veterans of America is the largest and only
national association of military veterans in higher education.
Our mission is to provide military veterans with the resources,
support, and advocacy needed to succeed in higher education and
after graduation.
We currently have nearly 1,000 chapters or student veteran
organizations at colleges and universities in all 50 states
that empowers veterans in their transition and through a higher
education. This on-the-ground perspective, which comes from
every corner of this Nation, and our experience in supporting
thousands of G.I. bill beneficiaries, provides the framework
for our testimony regarding these important issues.
The two bills we would like to address today are H.R. 4150,
and H.R. 4151 from the Offices of Congressmen Cook and
Bilirakis, respectively.
Looking at H.R. 4150, Veterans Employment and Training
Services Longitudinal Study Act of 2014, on March 24 we
released our initial findings of our Million Records project,
an SVA--lead research study of veterans in higher education in
collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
National Student Clearinghouse.
As we look at H.R. 4150, we find it to be complimentary to
our research, and within the spirit of seeking data-driven
decisions on programs to support veterans in higher education.
Since our organization's inception, we have held that the
life cycle of the veteran's transition from the military, to
school, and onwards to civilian careers, is a highly inter-
dependent process. Each component of this process builds on the
proceeding steps, and this legislation seeks to empower
veterans through several critical stages.
For example, the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment
and Training Service, VETS, builds bridges for millions of
veterans across--over the coming years as they pursue gainful
careers in post-graduation. However, the current lack of
coordination and understanding of the breadth of impact
surrounding this part of the transition process is a crucial
gap that must be addressed.
SVA applauds the interest and moving towards the goal of
gaining greater clarity on the impact of job counseling,
training, and placement of veterans. In 2012, a GAO report
noted that the Federal government has sponsored 6 different
programs, serving at least 880,000 participants at a cost of
$1.2 billion.
Such a broad variety of resources might be seen as a
positive attribute and certainly reflects the sea of goodwill
that has developed over the past decade. However, without
coordination, duplicative efforts and inefficiencies threaten
to stymie the full potential of these resources.
A study as this legislation proposes would enable decision
makers at multiple levels to understand what is working. As
well, the study would highlight areas for change. SVA is in
full support of H.R. 4150, and applauds the legislation for
being fully inclusive of all individuals of any kind in
educational assistance.
Turning to H.R. 4151, the Veterans Education Survey Act of
2014, SVA stands in strong favor of Congressman Bilirakis'
legislation, H.R. 4151. It is right for some Americans to ask,
what are we receiving for our investment in the G.I. Bill?
Indeed, this is a crucial question as more than $34 billion has
been spent on millions of veterans who have sought and are
seeking degrees in higher education.
As previously noted, our Million Records Project has sought
to answer that question. H.R. 4151 is an important piece of
legislation because it answers another key element of this
investment in our veterans--what motivates veterans to pursue
the paths that they do.
We know that a majority of service members elect to pursue
higher education as they transition out of the military. With
an expected one million new veterans to enter the civilian
population over the next several years, the importance of
empowering veterans in higher education will continue to
increase.
Through the Million Records Project there are several data
points that we have gained great insight on, and when paired
with the data that would be collected through a study directed
by this legislation, the picture will become even clearer. This
legislation will add another element to that picture, factors
that impact the past veterans' pursuit in higher education.
The more data available on these topics, the better. Since
2000, over 4 million veterans have benefitted from the use of
the G.I. Bill, and American taxpayers can expect that this
generation of veterans will positively impact the American
economy, in magnitudes that will continue for several
generations to come.
Student Veterans of America is appreciative of the
opportunity to provide this testimony. We thank the Chairman,
the Subcommittee members for their time and attention and
devotion the cause of veterans in higher education, and we look
forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee, the House
Veterans Affairs Committee, and Congress to ensure the success
of all generations of veterans through education.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing Student Veterans of
America the opportunity to participate in this important
hearing.
[The prepared statement of William Hubbard appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Hubbard, and I thank all of you
for your testimony. I now recognize myself for five minutes for
questions.
This is a question for all of Panel 2. If the VA is
resistant to reforming the SES employment protocols, what sort
of a message does that send to our veterans? Let us start with
Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, at this moment I am not pretty
much the person that would deal with this particular issue. My
colleague, who is not here today, would be more than happy to
follow-up with your staff with a written statement on the
record on your particular question, Chairman.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Mr. Hegseth, you were pretty passionate
about this subject. What message do you think this sends to our
veterans?
Mr. Hegseth. I think it sends a signal of detachment from
reality, that the bureaucrats or employees or those who--and
let me be clear. Most SES, use that word, ``bureaucrats,'' I
don't mean it pejoratively. These are folks that want to do
well by veterans, but are detached from the outcomes and the
realities that are actually coming down the pike and what
veterans are experiencing. And when they see failures and they
read the headlines and they wait in line, and then they do not
see anything change at the top and then they read about bonuses
for executives of failing departments, it tells them the very
department that was meant to serve them is actually serving the
interests of other people who can protect those interests
easily, because they've got access and lobbyists and
protections here in Washington, and it is the veteran who is
left hanging.
So I do think it creates a perception that VA is
disinterested and detached from what actually happens in the
lives of those veterans and reinforces the separation a lot of
veterans feel right now from a department that should be
serving them, and leaders who should be pounding the table for
reform, which is why we believe the argument the VA has pushed
forward, that this would discourage good managers is false--is
utterly false.
Why, as a good manager, would you want to enter a
bureaucracy where you cannot effect change, where you cannot
reform it so that it is better in the way it provides outcomes?
So, we'd like to believe that these changes would encourage
better employees.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Mr. Gallucci, what reflections do you
have?
Mr. Gallucci. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not want
to speculate on what VA's--on why VA would come out in
opposition to this. But from our perspective, one of the
concerns that we have is to keep the pendulum swinging too far
in the wrong direction, which is why we look forward to working
with the Committee to put forward good legislation that will
make sure we can hold senior executive service members
accountable for the decisions that they have made.
What we wrote about in our prepared remarks discussed that
the SES exists to bridge the gap between political appointees
and the career civil servants. What we would hate to see is
them to hold the SES to the same standard as political
appointees, in which you have just another level of political
appointee, where SES is going to be fired at the whim of
whoever is in that Administration.
We agree there needs to be a bridge between those two, and
that is why we look forward to working with the Committee and
Chairman Miller to make sure that have a responsible bill for
the SES accountability.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Hubbard, what sort of a message do you
think it sends to our veterans and front line VA employees if
we don't reform the SES system?
Mr. Hubbard. At this time, Student Veterans of America
finds it out of the scope of our mission to comment on this
bill.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gallucci, you had a
thoughtful suggestion on H.R. 4031 that I do remain concerned
that the approach that you have recommended remains too close
to the status quo, so we do look forward to working with you in
terms of trying to find a way to hold SES employees
accountable, but also we can't have a status quo. We have got
too many things that are not working at the VA that we would
like it to--bonuses being paid and veterans continue to suffer.
So we will keep working with you on that.
Continuing on to another question for Mr. Gallucci, you had
some testimony on my Voc Rehab bill about the need to
prioritize service and ensure the most severely injured
veterans receive care first. Can you elaborate on how you would
see that working?
Mr. Gallucci. This the discussion we look forward to
having. Obviously, the VFW, we would oppose restricting access
to the program for veterans who are currently eligible. We
worry that some veterans would slip through the cracks.
However, we certainly recognize that the program is getting
close to a point where it may not be able to deliver the
rehabilitative services that veterans need. By the very nature
of the program, it is designed to rehabilitate veterans who--
because of their service connected disability, need to find a
new career path. And that is why we look forward to working
with you on ways to come up with it.
One of the issues that I brought up in our written
testimony is the ratio of Voc Rehab counselors to Voc Rehab
participants. Right now the independent budget--veteran service
organizations report that at about 145 to 1, which is well
above VA's acceptable ratio of 125 to 1. So that demonstrates
to us that there is some stress on the system.
So, though we do have concerns about the bill as written in
restricting access to some veterans who may need it, who may
have a low service connected disability but a significant
barrier to employment, that is why we want to have an open and
ongoing conversation about the best way to do that.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Mr. Hubbard, I have got sort of a two-
part question, but I would like to start with how would you
define success for student veterans?
Mr. Hubbard. Sir, I would define success for our student
veterans in terms of them being able to make a clear transition
to educational institutions, for them to have a smooth process
which would consist of working with the administration at their
universities as well as their peers on campus, and then
translating that success over to a gainful employment; to be
able to find a career that is both fulfilling and also able to
pay the bills. You know, individuals can't just land jobs. That
is not the goal. The goal is to find careers for these veterans
if they can actually contribute to society in a positive way,
and frankly, really impact the American economy.
Mr. Flores. I like your definition. Based on that
definition, I have a question for you and Mr. Gallucci, both.
Can you talk a little bit more about the need for hard data
that truly shows success for student veterans? We'll start with
you, Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard. Sure. Absolutely. So a lot of speculation and
anecdotal evidence has been provided both ways about how
student veterans are faring, in both education and then beyond.
Without actual hard evidence data, this is just speculation.
There is no actual ability to create programmatic change or
effect policy.
So being able to look at that base line of data,
understanding how student veterans are faring in education,
from that point forward you can actually make data-driven
decision and you are basing your information on something that
you know, versus something that you think.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Mr. Gallucci, can you add to that?
Mr. Gallucci. I think it is very important. Like I spoke
about in my oral remarks, neither myself nor my colleagues at
the VFW are considered college graduates by Department of
Education standards. And that really comes from----
Mr. Flores. They include a bunch of us.
Mr. Gallucci. Exactly. I think probably everybody at this
table would not be considered a graduate by those standards.
And what we saw over the last couple of years is we were
creating a false narrative about student veteran performance
and higher education, and I have to thank my colleagues from
Student Veterans of America for putting out their report that
demonstrates that veterans are on par with their civilian
peers, and actually do better than their non-traditional peers
in higher education.
What worried me about that report yesterday, though, is
that the non-traditional data is more than 20 years old. So, we
have a responsibility to find quality data on veterans.
One of the things that I wanted to talk about is the
importance of studying peer-to-peer support in higher
education. This is one of the reasons why we encourage the
Subcommittee and Representative Takano to adjust fire on their
bill on peer-to-peer support. We think peer-to-peer support is
critical on college campuses, but one of the problems that we
see is that we know this is happening. We know it is happening
in droves around the country. But the problem with
commissioning a new pilot is that if these sites know that they
are being studied, those sites are going to behave differently.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Gallucci. We already have this happening in the
community and if we want to do it responsibly, I believe that
we should study what is already happening and then adjust
programs within VA and within the veteran's community
accordingly.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gallucci. Mr. Gonzalez,
can you go into more detail about the view that you expressed
related to the Department of Labor's current ability to track
outcomes, and how H.R. 4150 would help to address this problem?
Mr. Gonzalez. Well, we knew in the past that many of the
outcomes that the Department of Labor lacks has affected, or I
should say, the DVOPS and LVERS and how the resources are being
allocated or how the resources are being actually delivered to
the veterans, transitioning into whatever state that they are--
respective state that they are going back into, whether it is
their home state or the current state that they are stationed
at.
One of the problems we have seen in the past with a lot of
the inability for Department of Labor to even know what is
going on is how is money--how is the funding going into the
state, how DVOPS and LVERS are in some cases of being not just
allocated to help veterans look for employment, but also the
whole entire population which goes against their mandate.
The Department of Labor, through many past GAO reports have
shown the lack of Department of Labor's VETS program or
Department of Labor in general ability to actually acquire this
type of information. Now knowing and being able to acquire such
an information again will allow for advocates but also
policymakers like yourself, Chairman, and this Committee to
figure out is the money being used for the right reasons. And
the reason we say that is, as we all know, the draw downs are
coming. The Army alone will be shedding roughly about 140,000
soldiers within the next couple of years, where guess what?
Welcome to society. Here you go.
We know in the past that the Army's spending--and that is
the other part to this, is that this particular issue is not
just going to affect the Department of Labor, but it is also
going to affect the Department of the Defense. If we cannot
find those individuals employment, Department of Defense is on
the hook for paying unemployment benefits, and as we well know,
in the last--I don't know, ten years or so, the Department of
Defense has spent $9 billion in unemployment benefits.
Now that money, which people don't realize, comes out of
operating budgets of each respective service, which again, goes
back to our National security. It goes back to our readiness,
which that is a topic of conversation right now within the
public, is how do we continue to have readiness? And if we are
drawing down and we cannot find them employment, will DoD
better be able to cough up the money, because someone is paying
for it and DOD is on the hook.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Gonzalez. So, it has bigger implications, Chairman.
Mr. Flores. You did get into a vicious spiral, so--because
you hurt readiness more and then the budgets get tighter and
the more people----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Flores. You reduce the uniform strength. It does get to
that spiral that none of us want to see.
This is my last question to Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Gallucci, and
Mr. Hubbard. Assuming for a minute that H.R. 4038 becomes law
and the VA has upgraded its IT systems related to the G.I.
Bill. What are some of the positive things that you think would
happen by doing this, and Mr. Hubbard, we will start with you
first.
Mr. Hubbard. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Flores. Sure. Yes. Assuming for a minute that H.R.
4038--it is my bill related to having the VA upgrade its IT
systems with respect to the G.I. Bill to go to a rule space
processing system. What are some of the positive outcomes that
you think would happen and would be experienced by our student
vets?
Mr. Hubbard. Well, for starters, I think the ability to
have a clear system that they understand and can be responsive,
that is the number one outcome. Student veterans who put in for
the benefits who don't get them processed ultimately even just
one month being missed can have a detrimental impact long-term.
You might miss the first month of classes, university might
hold the degree, you might not be able to graduate. And the
lasting effects of this can range for years. You know, an
individual loses time on their G.I. Bill benefits and
ultimately it will effect their ability to graduate.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Mr. Gallucci, same question.
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. I
think the reason that we support this or we want to see VA
finish its IT resources for education is because we have
already seen significant progress on automation within
processing G.I. Bill claims. So they have reduced the wait time
significantly on initial claims, and then on supplemental
claims are almost fully automated. So veterans are not having
to wait months to receive their benefits.
We have seen some hiccups in the system; we want to prevent
those. We think it is a good thing if they finish their IT
resources because then we will have something concrete in
place, something that veterans can rely on, something that they
can work off of, and when they--as my colleague Will was saying
that when they show up to school they know that their check is
going to arrive on time, that they can pay the rent and pay the
bills.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Chairman, for the question and
again I will pretty much agree with my colleagues but also to
talk about that would be also is allowing it to streamline such
a system to ensure that we do not have the same mistakes we
have seen with backlog claims, is first of all.
Second, the other problem is making sure that by
streamlining it it allows for one less burden for an individual
who does have other issues. It can be taking of family, going
to school full-time. I use myself as an example. When I went to
school, I was a full-time student. I worked full-time, and I
was also in the Reserves.
Mr. Flores. Wow.
Mr. Gonzalez. So having that, that is one less burden as
myself, as a student veteran, as a drilling reservist, and as
well as a full-time employee, as a second job, it allows for
one less burden for myself to have to worry about and having
such a system will allow myself to, again, pay my bills, pay
the school on time, and not be held accountable for basically
the issues that VA has occurred, and again just also prevent
one other disaster, especially again with the draw-down
happening, you are going to see more and more student veterans
entering actual institutions of higher learning. So you want to
be proactive and not reactive in this situation.
Mr. Flores. Okay. I want to thank each of you for your
testimony today. Again, thank you for your service to our
country while you were in uniform and thank you again for your
advocacy on behalf of our Nation's veterans, one of our
Nation's most important resources for our future.
If there are no further questions, and I do not think there
are since we have a bunch of empty chairs, I want to thank each
of you for being here today and taking the time to share your
views on these nine bills. This is very important to the
Legislative process and we appreciate your insight and your
feedback and your passion.
We also want to announce that the Subcommittee will be
holding a markup on some or all of these bills on April the
8th. I ask unanimous consent that the following organizations
be allowed to submit testimony for the record: The Association
of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, Vets First,
Disabled American Veterans, Wounded Warrior Project, and the
Senior Executive Association. Without objection, so ordered.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five
Legislative days to revise and extend remarks and include
extraneous material on any bills under consideration this
afternoon. Without objection, so ordered.
Again, I want to ask you for your forbearance. We started
about an hour late in order to accommodate votes, but we
appreciate everybody in the audience. We appreciate the VA and
the Department of Labor for their forbearance, as well, and for
our current panel of witnesses.
The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:51 p.m. the meeting of this subcommittee
was adjourned]
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
be here today to provide VA's views on pending legislation
affecting VA's programs, including the following: H.R. 2942,
H.R. 3056, H.R. 4031, H.R. 4037, H.R. 4038, H.R. 4147, and H.R.
4151. Other bills under discussion today would affect programs
or laws administered by the Department of Labor (DOL).
Respectfully, VA defers to DOL on H.R. 3614, the ``Military
Skills to Careers Act,'' a bill to improve the recognition by
states of skills learned in the military by Veterans when
issuing licenses and credentials, and H.R. 4150, the ``Veterans
Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act of
2014,'' a bill directing DOL to enter into a contract for the
conduct of a longitudinal study of job counseling, training,
and placement services for Veterans provided by that
Department. Accompanying me this morning is Mr. John Brizzi,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
H.R. 2942
H.R. 2942 would amend section 3689(e)(5) of Title 38,
United States Code, to reestablish VA's Professional
Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee with a new
termination date of December 31, 2019. VA may appoint new
members of the Committee without regard to the individuals who
served as members before the date of enactment of this bill.
The Committee would advise the Secretary of the
requirements of organizations or entities offering licensing
and certification tests to individuals receiving VA education
benefits and other related issues as the Committee determines
to be appropriate.
VA supports this legislation. If reestablished, the
Secretary would be able to receive recommendations and seek
advice from the Committee with regard to licensing and
certification programs.
VA estimates that, if enacted, there would be no benefit
costs or savings associated with H.R. 2942. VA did not have
administrative costs available at the time of the hearing.
H.R. 3056
H.R. 3056, the ``Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot Program
Act,'' would direct VA to carry out a 3-year pilot program on
the provision of outreach and support services to Veterans
pursuing higher education under that Department's Post 9/11
Educational Assistance Program (chapter 33 of Title 38, United
States Code). VA would select three institutions of higher
learning at which the pilot program should be carried out, to
include: One 4-year public university, one community college,
and one private, not-for-profit college. To be eligible to
participate in the pilot program, the institution is required
to:
1) Provide office space to use information technology
equipment and appropriate support services for the individual
who will provide peer-outreach and peer-support services at the
institution.
2) Cooperate in providing data required to evaluate the
effectiveness of the pilot program.
Priority selection for the pilot program will be given to
institutions of higher learning with existing peer outreach
programs for Veteran students and institutions of higher
learning located in states with large Veteran populations.
In carrying out the pilot program, the Secretary shall
provide peer-outreach and peer-support services to Veterans of
Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
Operation New Dawn who are students at an institution where the
Secretary carries out the pilot program. Emphasis will be
placed on individuals who have difficulty adjusting to an
institution, or who need services or support that the
institution is not equipped to provide, by employing:
1) Veterans who are using chapter 33 benefits to pursue a
program of education leading to a degree at the institution of
higher learning;
2) Those who have used entitlement to educational
assistance under chapter 33 to complete a program of education
and graduate from such an institution during the 18-month
period preceding the date on which the Veteran is hired to
perform services under the pilot program; and
3) Veterans who have served on active duty in a theater of
combat operations (with special consideration given to Veterans
who have recovered or are recovering from a mental health
condition).
The Secretary shall provide training for Veterans hired
under the pilot program and develop requirements and measures
for assessing the impact and effectiveness of the services
provided, including:
1) Developing and disseminating an online survey;
2) Developing and disseminating (not earlier than 18 months
after the start of the pilot program) a follow-up online survey
instrument to gather data, including data to assess engagement
with peer support, experience-accessing services, and
adjustment to higher education; and
3) Tabulating the number of Veterans who meet on an
individual basis with peers, the number of referrals the
individual makes, and the outcome of the referrals.
The pilot program would terminate 3 years after the date of
commencement or the last day of the academic year that ends no
more than 180 days after the date that is 3 years after the
date of commencement.
H.R. 3056 would require the Secretary to submit a report to
the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House
of Representatives no later than months after completion of the
pilot program. The report would include a description of the
implementation and operation of the program and an evaluation
of the effectiveness of the peer-outreach services provided
under the program.
VA does not support this legislation because we do not
believe it is necessary. If enacted, it would create a pilot
program similar to VA's VetSuccess on Campus (VSOC) program.
The legislation also calls for VA to carry out the pilot
program on only three campuses, thus limiting the population
pool we would be reaching to effectively conduct outreach. The
VSOC program aims to help Veterans, Servicemembers, and their
qualified dependents succeed and thrive through a coordinated
delivery of on-campus benefits assistance and counseling,
leading to completion of their education and preparing them to
enter the labor market in viable careers. The VSOC program
provides a VA Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) at each
VSOC school, with requisite space for using information
technology equipment and in a private setting to discuss
matters specific to the individual's needs. In fiscal year
2013, the VSOC program expanded to 62 campuses, bringing the
total number of VSOC sites to 94.
The proposed legislation would require VA to employ
Veterans to provide peer outreach and peer support to certain
Veterans. However, VSOC VRCs partner with Veterans Health
Administration Vet Center Outreach Coordinators on many
campuses, to provide peer-to-peer counseling and referral
services. These individuals ensure Veterans receive the support
and assistance necessary to pursue their educational and
employment goals.
VA estimates that, if H.R. 3056 was enacted, there would be
no benefit costs. Administrative costs are estimated to be
$211,000 in the first year, and $652,000 over 3 years.
Information technology costs, which include information
technology equipment for full time equivalents, installation,
maintenance, and information technology support, are estimated
to be $6,000 in the first year, and $18,000 over 3 years.
H.R. 4031
H.R. 4031, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014,'' would amend chapter 7 of Title
38, United States Code, by adding a new section 713 that would,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, enable the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to remove any individual from the
Senior Executive Service (SES) if the Secretary determines the
performance of the individual warrants such removal. The
Secretary could remove the individual from Federal service or
transfer the individual to a General Schedule position at any
grade he determines appropriate.
The bill would require notice to the House and Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committees within 30 days after removing an
individual from the SES, and the reason for the removal. It
provides that ``[a] removal under this section shall be done in
the same manner as the removal of a professional staff member
employed by a Member of Congress.'' VA opposes this
legislation.
The purpose and principles Congress provided in 5 United
States Code Sec. 3131 to govern the SES include ensuring
employment conditions that attract and retain highly-competent
senior executives, protect them from arbitrary or capricious
action and prohibited personnel practices, ensure compliance
with the civil service rules, and secure protection from
improper political interference.
The SES is comprised of men and women charged with leading
the Federal Government. The leadership provided by those
serving in the SES is critical, as is the need for effective
performance management for the SES, and indeed all Federal
employees. VA is committed to continuing our dialog with the
Committee about effective accountability and performance
management throughout VA, including the SES within VA, but we
believe this bill would generate serious unintended
consequences that would prove counterproductive. Further, as
detailed below, under current law, the Secretary already has
tools to address the performance of SES managers who have not
met acceptable standards.
First, enactment of H.R. 4031 would have a chilling effect
on VA's ability to recruit and retain high-quality leaders and
managers, especially when VA is in competition with other
Federal agencies for those leaders. Enactment of the bill would
significantly diminish workplace protections for VA SES. This
would jeopardize VA's ability to recruit senior managers from
outside the Department as well as promising General Schedule
employees that VA hopes to advance to SES leadership (a
critical part of succession planning). We believe this change,
if enacted, would diminish VA's ability to best serve Veterans,
as well as be an effective steward for the U.S. taxpayer.
Second, we believe employees who are removed would (and
should) still retain due-process protections. Thus, actions
taken by the Secretary under the authority provided by H.R.
4031 could still lead to lengthy litigation, even if the intent
of the legislation was to make removal from the SES a non-
appealable action.
As noted above, the Secretary already has tools under
current law and established regulations to address executive
performance. SES statutes give agencies the authority to manage
executives and remove individuals from the SES who perform
unacceptably. A career executive can be removed if rated
unsatisfactory after an appraisal period. The law requires
certain procedural steps within the agency that promote
deliberation and fairness but cannot restrict the agency head's
final action. An executive removed for performance has no
appeal right. To encourage high performers to join the SES, the
statute provides fallback to a position of a level at which
they formerly excelled, which preserves the agency's long-term
investment in the employee. The Secretary also has the ability
to effect a reduction in pay as a response to poor performance,
as well as reflect that judgment in performance evaluations and
performance awards. Secretary Shinseki has utilized all of
these tools to address performance and accountability.
We believe restriction of this bill to VA executives will
not diminish the systemic threat it poses to the Government-
wide SES Corps. Should H.R. 4031 be enacted, it would set
precedent for other agencies. This could be viewed as a
fundamental abrogation of Federal commitments to senior
executives and should not be done without thorough
consideration of the implications for the SES Corps and
executive management of Federal programs throughout the
Government.
While VA believes H.R. 4031, if enacted, could have broad
negative effects on its ability to recruit and retain
managerial talent, we cannot estimate with any specificity the
budget impact of this measure.
H.R. 4037
H.R. 4037, the ``Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014,'' would make certain
improvements relating to training and rehabilitation for
Veterans with service-connected disabilities. Section 2 of H.R.
4037 would add a new section 3123 to chapter 31 of Title 38,
United States Code, for calculating the rate at which Veterans
are determined to be rehabilitated to the point of
employability during a fiscal year. Under this new section, the
Secretary would be required to divide the number of Veterans
who participated in a chapter 31 rehabilitation program and
those determined to have been rehabilitated to the point of
employability during a fiscal year by the sum of the number of
Veterans who participated in a chapter 31 rehabilitation
program during the fiscal year and the number of Veterans who
were entitled to participate in a chapter 31 rehabilitation
program during the fiscal year but did not complete the
program.
VA cannot support this section as drafted because the
required calculation would not validly measure the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program outcomes. VA
agrees that it is important to improve calculations to measure
success, however, the required calculation would not accurately
measure the percent of Veterans made employable and would only
account for VA's success at preparing individuals for jobs, not
VA's success at helping Veterans obtain jobs. VA is currently
improving performance measures and is ready to work with the
Committee to further refine its performance measures. No costs
would be associated with this section.
Section 3 of the draft bill would add a requirement to
section 3104(b) of Title 38, United States Code, that any
courses of education or training pursued by a Veteran as part
of a chapter 31 rehabilitation program be approved for purposes
of either chapter 30 or 33, unless this requirement is waived
by the Secretary as deemed appropriate. This new section would
apply with respect to a course of education or training pursued
by a Veteran who begins a program of rehabilitation on or after
the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act.
VA supports the intent behind this section and is examining
the need for a policy that would require the approval of the
Director, VR&E Service, for Veterans participating in a chapter
31 rehabilitation program to enroll in schools that are not
approved for purposes of chapters 30 and 33. VA has the
authority under section 3115 of Title 38, United States Code,
to approve any course of training at any facility if VA
determines that it will meet the unique rehabilitation needs of
a Veteran participating in a chapter 31 rehabilitation program,
and an approved course is not available for that Veteran. This
flexibility is necessary to cover the special needs of chapter
31 program participants in certain cases, such as when a
Veteran requires specialized, non-college degree training, and
an appropriate training facility is located near the Veteran's
residence but has not been approved for purposes of chapters 30
or 33 education benefits because it has not been in operation
for 2 years. Maintaining the flexibility to approve such
courses of training under section 3115 allows VA to provide
individualized services based on a Veteran's unique personal
needs. Before approving any course or training facility for a
chapter 31 program, VA ensures it meets the requirements of 38
Code of Federal Regulation Sec. Sec. 21.120 through 21.162 and
21.290 through 21.299. No costs would be associated with this
section.
Section 4 of the draft bill would expand eligibility for
specially adapted housing (SAH) to disabled Veterans who are
eligible for a chapter 31 vocational rehabilitation program and
are referred for assistance pursuant to section 2107 of Title
38, United States Code. VA cannot support the section as
written because it is not clear if Congress intends to
establish a new category of eligibility for the smaller SAH
grant, which would be provided in addition to chapter 31
assistance, or if Congress intends to move the authority for
the housing modification authorized under chapter 31 so that it
is only administered as a type of SAH grant under chapter 21.
If the latter, VA agrees that any significant modifications to
adapt Veterans' homes are best managed by SAH personnel with
extensive construction expertise and experience. Our VR&E
counselors work collaboratively with SAH personnel to meet the
adapted housing needs of chapter 31 Veterans. VA is ready to
work with the Committee on drafting technical language that
would ensure services are provided to Veterans in need of
assistance. VA is unable to estimate costs for this section as
additional clarification of this section is needed.
Section 5 of the draft bill would add a new section 3104(c)
to Title 38, United States Code, giving the Secretary authority
to prioritize the provision of chapter 31 services based on
need. The Secretary would be required to consider disability
ratings, the severity of employment handicaps, qualification
for a program of independent living, income, and other
appropriate factors in evaluating need. Section 5 would also
require the Secretary to submit to Congress a plan describing
any changes with regard to prioritizing the provision of
chapter 31 services not later than 90 days before making any
changes.
VA cannot support this section because VA does not believe
legislation is needed to prioritize vocational rehabilitation
services. VA currently has authority to provide vocational
rehabilitation services based on the rehabilitation needs of
individuals. In addition, under section 3120 of Title 38,
United States Code, VA is required to provide independent
living programs first to Veterans for whom the reasonable
feasibility of achieving a vocational goal is precluded solely
as a result of a service-connected disability. Furthermore,
income is not a factor used to determine VR&E services to be
provided to Veterans. No costs would be associated with this
section.
Section 6 of the draft bill would amend the definition of
``serious employment handicap'' in section 3101(7) of Title 38,
United States Code, to mean a significant impairment resulting
from the service-connected disability that is directly related
to the Veteran's ability to prepare for, obtain, or retain
employment consistent with the Veteran's abilities, aptitudes,
and interests. The current definition requires that the
employment handicap results in substantial part from a service-
connected disability rated at least 10 percent disabling that
significantly impairs the Veteran's ability to prepare for,
obtain, or retain employment consistent with his/her abilities,
aptitudes, and interests. A Veteran is currently entitled to
chapter 31 services if the Veteran has a service-connected
disability rated at 10 percent and is in need of rehabilitation
because of a serious employment handicap as currently defined
in section 3101(7). Under the legislation's new definition, for
a Veteran to qualify for chapter 31 services based on a serious
employment handicap, there must be a direct relation between
the service-connected disability that causes the impairment and
the Veteran's ability to prepare for, obtain, or retain
employment. In contrast, under the current definition, the
service-connected disability that causes the impairment need
only be a ``substantial'' cause of the impairment for a Veteran
to qualify for chapter 31 services based on a serious
employment handicap.
VA cannot support this section as written because its
meaning is not clear. VA is unable to determine whether the
change in the current definition of ``serious employment
handicap'' would establish entitlement to chapter 31 services
for more or fewer Veterans. VA would be pleased to provide
technical assistance to draft bill language that would ensure
qualified Veterans receive necessary services. VA is unable to
estimate costs that may be associated with this section.
H.R. 4038
H.R. 4038, the ``Veterans Benefits Administration
Information Technology Improvement Act of 2014,'' would make
certain improvements in information technology to help VBA
reduce redundancy and process claims more efficiently. Section
2 of H.R. 4038 would require the Secretary to ensure that all
original and supplemental claims, for chapter 33 educational
assistance, are adjudicated electronically, and that rules-
based processing is used to make decisions on such claims with
little human intervention. Section 2 would also require the
Secretary to ensure that payments of subsistence allowance for
Veterans participating in a chapter 31 rehabilitation program
are processed and paid out of one corporate information
technology system, and that the information technology system
supports more accurate accounting of services and outcomes for
Veterans participating in a chapter 31 rehabilitation program.
The Secretary would also be required to submit a report to
Congress on any changes made in information technology pursuant
to section 2, but not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
VA does not support this provision because VA needs the
flexibility to prioritize information technology needs and
resources based on the needs of the entire Department. VA has
deployed 6 major releases for the Post-9/11 GI Bill Long-Term
Solution (LTS), which provides an end-to-end claims processing
system utilizing rules-based, industry-standard technologies
for the delivery of education benefits. On September 24, 2012,
end-to-end automation of select Post-9/11 GI Bill supplemental
claims was activated in LTS. Since this deployment, over 4,600
claims are automatically processed per day with no human
intervention. Approximately 80 percent of all Post-9/11 GI Bill
supplemental claims are fully or partially automated. While VA
has rules and automation for processing Post-9/11 GI Bill
supplemental claims, VA would have to develop these mechanisms
for original claims. Eligibility determinations for original
Post-9/11 GI Bill claims are very labor-intensive. Currently,
LTS is in a sustainment phase with limited development. VA
would need development funding to enhance LTS with
functionality to process all original and supplemental claims
to the maximum extent practicable, with little human
intervention. Original claims currently are being processed in
an average of 19 days. VA would need a minimum of 24 months
from receipt of funding to report on the changes made under
this provision.
With respect to chapter 31, VA already has plans in place
to ensure claims are processed and paid from one system and is
actively planning for development of a new information
technology case-management system for chapter 31 claims. VA is
currently beta-testing a phased transition to one chapter 31
payment system using the Corporate Subsistence Allowance Module
(SAM). This phased approach enables VA to minimize the risks
associated with payments to Veterans during the transition. As
with any phased system change, there will be a transition
period in which some processing is accomplished in one system
and some in another. It is unclear whether this provision of
H.R. 4038 would restrict VA from continuing a phased approach
for this transition, potentially adversely affecting services
to Veterans. If beta-testing of CWINRS SAM continues as
expected, national deployment is expected to begin by November
2014. VA is also validating the business requirements for a new
information technology case-management system that will better
reflect the business and data reporting needs of the chapter 31
program.
VA estimates that, if enacted, no benefits costs would be
associated with H.R. 4038, however, VA estimates administrative
costs to be $3 million, and information technology costs to be
$30 million for section 2(a) and $15 million for section 2(b).
H.R. 4147
H.R. 4147, the ``Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act,'' would
require VA to submit to Congress a report regarding ``the
information technology system of the Department of Veterans
Affairs that is used in connection with the administration of
[VA] educational benefits . . . '' The bill also references a
plan ``with respect to such system that was submitted to
Congress prior to the date of the report,'' but VA is unclear
to which plan the bill refers.
The bill uses the singular ``system,'' but VA has a number
of different systems related to separate educational benefits,
many with differing rules and requirements.
H.R. 4147 also requires an annual briefing to be held by
the Chief Information Officer and the Deputy Under Secretary
for Economic Opportunity. We are unclear if this is in addition
to annual reports.
VA, thus, does not support the bill as drafted, but
recommends we discuss with Committee staff the specific areas
of interest. The Department will be glad to provide information
on those areas of interest, once identified.
H.R. 4151
H.R. 4151, the ``Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014,''
would require VA to work with a private contractor to
administer a survey to individuals who have used or are using
VA education benefits under chapters 30, 32, 33, and 35 of
Title 38, United States Code. The survey would collect the
following information:
Demographic information to include:
The highest level of education completed by the
individual;
The military occupational specialty or
specialties performed by the individual while they were
serving in the armed forces; and
Whether the individual has a service-connected
disability.
The individual's opinion of the Transition
Assistance Program (TAP), as well as the effectiveness
of TAP, including the instruction on how to use VA
education benefits.
The resources the individual used to support
the decision to go to school using his/her VA education
benefits.
The resources used to decide on the program of
study in which to enroll.
The individual's goal when he/she enrolled in
the program of education.
The nature of the individual's experience
using VA's education benefits computer-processing
systems.
The nature of the individual's experience
working with the certifying official at his/her school.
Services or benefits provided by the school to
the Veteran.
Type of educational institution the individual
attended.
Whether the individual completed his/her
program of study, how many credit hours he/she
completed, and any degrees or certificates he/she
obtained.
The employment status of the individual and
whether his/her employment status was different prior
to starting the program of study.
Whether the individual was enrolled on a full-
time or part-time basis.
The individual's opinion on the effectiveness
of VA's benefits program he/she used to complete the
program of study.
Whether the individual was ever entitled to or
used a rehabilitation program under chapter 31.
Any other matters VA determines appropriate.
The survey would be conducted electronically and by any
other means the contracting agency deems appropriate.
H.R. 4151 would require VA to enter into a contract not
later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, and the survey
would be completed 180 days after VA enters into the contract.
The survey would be submitted to the Senate and House
Committees on Veterans' Affairs not later than 1 month before
the survey is administered. VA would submit a report to
Congress not later than 90 days after completion of the survey,
as well as any recommendations related to the results of the
survey. VA would also submit an unedited version of the results
of the survey.
While VA supports the intent behind this legislation, the
Benefits Assistance Service (BAS) is currently administering a
similar survey with the help of a private contractor, J.D.
Power and Associates. BAS expects to receive fiscal year to
date results from the survey by September 30, 2014. The current
survey collects much of the information required by this bill,
although the survey would need to be modified to include
questions about military occupational specialty; whether the
Veteran has a service-connected disability; the effectiveness
of TAP; the Veteran's experience with the school certifying
official; the effectiveness of the Veteran's program of study;
the Veteran's experience with VA's computer systems; and
whether the Veteran has eligibility under VA's chapter 31
vocational rehabilitation program.
To prevent duplication of work, VA would investigate the
feasibility of combining the requirements in H.R. 4151 with
VA's current survey within available resources and would work
with the Office of Management and Budget to change the survey
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act as appropriate.
VA would save expenditures by using the currently existing
survey, as opposed to starting the process from the beginning.
VA expects to receive fiscal year to date results from the
current survey by September 30, 2014. VA would need 1 year from
the date of enactment to complete the required survey.
VA estimates that, should H.R. 4151 be enacted, General
Operating Expenses (GOE) would be $263,000 to enter into a
contract with a non-Government entity to create a new survey of
a statistically-valid sample of individuals who have used or
are using educational assistance under chapters 30, 32, 33, and
35 of Title 38, United States Code. Alternatively, to
incorporate the additional questions into the existing survey,
GOE are estimated to be $106,000.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased
to respond to questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have regarding our views as presented.
Prepared Statement of Keith Kelly
Introduction
Good afternoon, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. As the Assistant
Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)
at the Department of Labor (DOL or Department), I am honored to
testify before you. I am accompanied today by the Department's
Chief Evaluation Officer, Demetra Nightingale.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's
views on pending legislation and for your continuing support of
our Nation's veterans, transitioning service members, and their
families. The Department will continue to work with the Members
of the Committee to ensure that the men and women who serve
this country have the employment support, assistance, and
opportunities they need and deserve to succeed in the civilian
workforce.
While this hearing is focused on numerous bills pending
before the Subcommittee, I will limit my remarks to those
pieces of legislation that have a direct impact on DOL,
including: H.R. 3614, the Military Skills to Careers Act; and
H.R. 4150, the Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act of 2014. DOL respectfully defers to the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on the remaining pieces of
legislation.
H.R. 3614--The Military Skills to Careers Act
The first piece of legislation that I will address is H.R.
3614, the Military Skills to Careers Act. H.R. 3614 would
require that a State establish a program under which the State
administers an examination and issues a license or credential
to a veteran, without requiring any training or apprenticeship,
if the veteran: (1) Receives a satisfactory score on the
relevant State examination; (2) has been awarded a military
occupational specialty that is substantially equivalent to, or
exceeds, the State requirements; (3) has engaged in the
occupation for at least two of the five preceding years; and
(4) pays any fees required by the State. H.R. 3614 would
require the State to establish such a program as a condition of
a contract or grant from DOL to hire and support Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) Specialists or Local
Veterans' Employment Representatives (LVERs).
Each State would be required to submit a description of the
results of the exams administered to the Secretary of Labor
(Secretary), who would summarize those results in a report to
Congress and the Secretary of Defense at least once a year.
H.R. 3614 would also allow the Secretary to waive the
requirement to establish such a program if the State certifies
that, in issuing licenses or credentials, the State: (1) Takes
into account previous military training; (2) permits veterans
to completely satisfy, through examination, any training or
testing requirements for which a veteran has previously
completed military training; and (3) for any credential or
license for which a veteran is unable to completely satisfy
such requirements through examination, substantially reduces
the required training time based on the military training
received by the veteran.
The Department supports the intent of H.R. 3614 and looks
forward to working with Members of Congress to ensure that
separating service members and veterans are able to
successfully translate their military training and experience
to civilian occupations. DOL also supports efforts to encourage
States to apply consistent measures when awarding credit for
military training and experience towards certain occupational
licensing requirements. Greater uniformity will help enable a
comparison of military training and experience to nationwide
requirements for licensure.
However, withholding funding that supports DVOP and LVER
staff is not the right approach to achieve this goal. That
approach could have the unintended consequence of penalizing
veterans and States who rely on these critical personnel to
help them attain employment. A better and more practical
approach would be to provide assistance to States that are
working hard to make progress in streamlining licensing and
credentialing processes for veterans and disseminate best
practices to other States. At the same time, States should
continue to be funded by DOL to employ veteran-employment
specialists to provide services to veterans and conduct
outreach to employers to encourage the hiring of veterans.
In addition, the Department is concerned that, by including
all licenses and credentials issued by a State, H.R. 3614, as
currently drafted, is overly broad. Some States issue hundreds
of different licenses and credentials. For instance, Illinois
has close to 400 different occupational licenses and California
has 350 occupational licenses. In fact, more than half of the
States, thirty-four of them, have over 100 different
occupational licenses. As a result, the administrative burdens
could be significant. Moreover, State licensing boards use a
variety of mechanisms and methods that are specific to each
industry and State in establishing licensing criteria. As a
result, DOL recommends that the legislation authorize DOL to
provide Technical Assistance to assist the States and to
establish any necessary reporting systems.
The majority of States have adopted legislation aimed at
supporting service members who seek to qualify for licenses and
credentials based on their military education, training, and
experience. There are a variety of different legislative and
regulatory approaches that have been adopted and proved
successful in different States. The Administration will
continue to work with States to develop and implement solutions
that work at the State and Federal level to assist veterans.
The Department, in collaboration with the Department of
Defense, has been working with States to help improve their
licensing and certification practices. Two such projects are
currently under way: one to analyze and compare transferable
skills from military training to civilian credentials for a set
of key military occupations; and a second to provide
information and technical support to selected States to award
credit for military training and experience toward State
occupational licensing requirements. The latter demonstration
project provides assistance to efforts in 6 States to
facilitate and accelerate licensing of veterans for selected
occupations (EMT/Paramedic; Licensed Practical Nurse; Physical
Therapy Assistant; Registered Nurse; Police Patrol Officer; and
Commercial Bus and Truck Drivers).
We note that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has
worked with the States to obtain a waiver of the road test for
veterans, to facilitate the process of obtaining Commercial
Driver's Licenses. DOT also has responsibilities for Emergency
Medical Service occupations although other health occupations
would be relevant to the Department of Health and Human
Services. Results and promising practices will be disseminated
to assist the efforts of other States. We look forward to
sharing the results of the Department of Labor efforts with the
Committee as they become available.
H.R. 4150--The Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act
H.R. 4150, the Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act of 2014, would direct the Secretary to
enter into a contract with a non-government entity to conduct a
statistically valid longitudinal study of veterans and the job
counseling, training, and placement services for veterans
provided by the Department. In addition, H.R. 4150 would give
the Secretary access to the National Directory of New Hires
information.
I'll first note the provision that would make the National
Directory of New Hires available to the Secretary. At this
time, DOL does not have authority to readily access earnings
data nationally, and for that reason, we strongly support the
provision. Without such authority, the process of obtaining
earnings data involves timely and costly negotiation with
States and significant delays in studies often occur. The
Department looks forward to working with the Committee to
provide technical assistance. In particular, the Department
recommends that the legislation amend Section 453(j) of the
Social Security Act to provide DOL the same authority to access
the NDNH that other Federal agencies currently have.
The Department also looks forward to conducting the type of
longitudinal study called for in the legislation. The
Department welcomes the opportunity to have a survey to better
understand the impact of our services on the employment
outcomes of veterans. We look forward to working with the
Committee to ensure that the legislation, and the resulting
study, is appropriately crafted.
The Bill calls for a survey of the following groups: (1)
Veterans who received intensive services through the
Department's programs; (2) veterans who received services but
did not get an intensive service; and (3) veterans who did not
seek or receive services from the Department's programs. The
study could be done by either following the same cohorts of
individuals within each group over five years or conducting a
survey sample of these three groups of veterans each year.
Under both approaches, the Department recommends a mixed-method
study that uses a combination of administrative data and
surveys.
Based on DOL's conversations with Congressional staff, we
understand that the intent of this legislation is to create a
longitudinal study of the same veterans in each of these three
groups over five years. Therefore, a survey would be the
primary source of information. A nationally representative
sample of individuals in the three groups would be surveyed
each year over the course of the study, starting in year two.
This type of study would assess the short-, medium-, and long-
term outcomes of veterans, based on their responses to
questions about whether they had received these services at
specific times and would follow up on their employment,
educational activities, income, and other meaningful measures
of well-being.
The survey would also ask veterans their opinions about the
services they sought or received. A complementary statistical
analysis of program administrative data could be done to
analyze the characteristics of veterans served in the programs
and their outcomes, although it may not be possible to directly
link the program data to the longitudinal survey. The
Department would provide yearly reports to Congress on the
outcomes of the three cohorts of individuals in the survey
beginning after the first year during which the survey will be
developed and tested.
Another approach would be to create a cross-sectional study
that looks at a representative sample of veterans each year for
each of the three groups. This type of study would require a
slightly different mixed-method approach. The characteristics
and outcomes of veterans would come from program administrative
data and a survey would be conducted periodically, say every
two years, of samples of veterans in each of the groups. Again,
the survey would include questions about the veteran's use of
services and their opinions of the usefulness of the services
they received. In this type of study, it may be possible to
link administrative program earnings data to the survey data
for a richer analysis. We would deliver results to Congress
each year, based on the data-collection schedule.
Either approach to the survey has challenges that could
affect the timeline for reports to Congress. The Department
would need to determine whether it can obtain reliable contact
information to draw a representative sample from each group in
a timely manner, and whether the sample should select from the
entire nation or from selected States. Access to the National
Directory of New Hires and cooperation from States and partner
agencies with necessary information will be essential.
The estimated cost of the study is $10 million. This cost
includes a longitudinal study of outcomes across the above
dimensions for five years as well as three surveys of the same
12,000 veterans, 4,000 in each group, over the course of the
study. The cost also includes the production of yearly reports
to Congress, as well as a larger report that includes the
results of the survey.
The Department believes that this type of study could be a
tremendous opportunity to learn about the impact of the
Department's services for veterans. By studying the three
groups of veterans over time, the Department could obtain more
complete data on the long-term outcomes of veterans who receive
services from the Department and the key factors influencing
those outcomes. In addition, the study would allow the
Department to examine trends in program satisfaction and the
long term employment and standard of living outcomes. The
results would allow the Department to better tailor services to
services to assist veterans with their immediate and long-term
employment needs.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my Statement. Thank you again for
the opportunity to testify today on these Bills. I am pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Steve Gonzalez
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of National Commander
Dan Dellinger and the 2.4 million members of The American
Legion, we thank you and your colleagues for the work you do in
support of our service members and veterans as well as their
families. The hard work of this Subcommittee in creating
significant legislation has left a positive impact on our
military and veterans' community.
H.R. 2942
To amend Title 38, United States Code, to reestablish the
Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee of
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the past fifteen years, The American Legion has been
working with both Federal and State lawmakers, as well as
industry leaders, to streamline the military-to-civilian
licensing and certification process. Our research has shown
that licensing and certification (credentialing) requirements
for civilian employment pose a barrier to a smooth transition
from military service to civilian employment.
At our 2012 National Convention, The American Legion passed
Resolution No. 326: Support Licensure and Certification of
Active-Duty and Selected Reserve Personnel,\1\ which mandates
support for efforts to eliminate employment barriers that
impede the timely and successful transfer of military job
skills to the civilian labor market. Enactment of legislation
to reestablish the Professional Certification and Licensure
Advisory Committee (PCLAC) will benefit service members, as
well as those who eventually employ veterans in the civilian
work-force easing the placement of qualified veterans in
civilian careers, and matching civilian employers with skilled
veteran employees. The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA)
currently lacks subject matter experts that can provide
knowledgeable recommendations to improve VA's licensing and
certification, improve the quality of State Approving Agency
(SAA) approval process, review applications used by the SAA's,
and develop and update material on licensing and certification
for use in training SAA staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The American Legion, ``Resolution No. 326: Support Licensure
and Certification of Active-Duty and Reserve Personnel'', Ninety-Fourth
National Convention of The American Legion, Indianapolis, Indiana,
August 28 - 30, 2012, http://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/
123456789/2195/2012N326.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March 10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, The American Legion believes that it is
extremely important that the PCLAC be reauthorized. It will
bring in those subject matter experts to assist VA where they
lack expertise in assessing certification and licensing
programs, as well as assisting in the development of new
material to support SAA's in the field.
Legislative gains in veteran licensing and credentialing
have been made with the passage the Legion-supported Veteran
Skills to Jobs Act. However, its more work to be done, and as
such, The American Legion believes there is a definite need to
resume this independent body with expertise in matters relating
to licensing and credentialing which can present new solutions
to VA's senior leadership and congressional members as well as
other stakeholders.
The American Legion strongly supports H.R. 2942.
H.R. 3056: Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a
pilot program on the provision of outreach and support services
to veterans pursuing higher education under the Post-9/11
Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
The American Legion applauds Representative Takano and his
colleagues for their work in support of America's service
members, veterans, and their families, and for introducing this
legislation. However, The American Legion has several concerns
with H.R. 3056, Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act: (1)
The commissioning of the pilot on only three college campuses;
(2) the possibility of funding being diverted from existing
programs, such as VetSuccess on Campus (VSOC), that are already
providing such services; (3) the possibility of redundancy.
The American Legion believes strongly in the power of peer-
to-peer support, and has called for the development of peer-to-
peer rehabilitation programs, in Resolution No. 136, passed at
the 2012 National Convention. Similarly, The American Legion
recognizes the impact that peer-to-peer support has had on
currently attending service member and veteran students
throughout all levels and types of institutions of higher
learning (IHL). This impact has been evident through the
creation of American Legion posts on college campuses \2\
across spectrum of IHL. The American Legion has collaborated
closely with our partners in the VSO community and Department
of Veterans Affairs on the state and local levels in an effort
to bring peer-to-peer support to currently enrolled students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ List of American Legion Posts on college campus: University
Veterans Post 360, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
(IUPUI), Indiana; NDSU Post 400, North Dakota State University in
Fargo, North Dakota; Florida Post 397, Hodges University, Florida;
Lance Corporal Andrew ``Andy'' Nowacki Post 807, Lake Erie College,
Ohio; Colorado State University-Pueblo American Legion Post, CSU-
Pueblo, Colorado; Saddleback Valley American Legion Post 862,
Saddleback College, California; and UND Post 401, University of North
Dakota, North Dakota).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Veterans Affairs has commissioned VSOC to
provide a cross-cutting system designed to serve student
veterans attending college or university. One of VSOC mandates
is to provide ``peer-to-peer counseling'' \3\ to those
servicemembers and veterans currently enrolled in college. VOSC
began as a pilot program in 2009 at the University of South
Florida, and by fiscal year 2013, had expanded to a total of 94
sites. \4\ The American Legion through Resolution No. 27:
Veterans GI Bill Education Improvement \5\ believes that
Congress should look to existing programs like VSOC, in order
to ensure that we maximize this success and improve what has
already been accomplished through VSOC, rather than creating
new pilot programs that can have an adverse impact on the
success of such VA existing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ United States Department of Veterans Affairs, ``Welcome to
VetSuccess.VA.GOV'', https://www.vetsuccess.va.gov/public/vetsuccess-
on-campus.html (access March 16).
\4\ Ibid. For a complete list of VSOC locations and VSOC Counselor
contact information can be found at the following link: VetSuccess on
Campus Locations and Contacts.
\5\ The American Legion, ``Resolution No. 27: Veterans GI Bill
Education'', Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The American Legion,
National Executive Committee of The American Legion, Indianapolis,
Indiana, October 16 - 17, 2013, http://archive.legion.org/bitstream/
handle/123456789/2760/2013F027.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March 15,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To properly reflect the diverse experiences of veterans in
higher education and to produce a quality report on the success
of peer support in higher education, The American Legion
recommends examining and assessing VSOC's existing peer-to-peer
services, and IHLs that already have a successful peer support
program. This will give policymakers the opportunity to assess
the existing programs' barriers and to formulate solutions.
The American Legion looks forward to working with Rep.
Takano and the subcommittee to improve peer-to-peer programs
through existing initiatives.
The American Legion does not support H.R. 3056 in its
current form.
H.R. 3614: Military Skills to Careers Act
To amend Title 38, United States Code, to improve the
recognition by States of skills learned in the military by a
veteran when issuing licenses and credentials.
The American Legion's Resolution No. 52: Support
Legislation that Would Return Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans' Employment Representative
(LVER) Funding to a Staffing Grant holds that we ``support
action that would require the Congress through the Secretary of
Labor to ensure that each workforce center in the various
states offering labor exchange services have sufficient funding
to provide at least one DVOP/LVER staff to provide services to
all veterans requiring employment and training assistance
residing within the state''. \6\ As such, The American Legion
cannot support any legislation which would withhold funding to
these programs, even as a penalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The American Legion, ``Resolution No. 52: Support Legislation
that Would Return Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local
Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) Funding to a Staffing
Grant'', Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The American Legion,
National Executive Committee of The American Legion, Indianapolis,
Indiana, October 16-17, 2013, http://archive.legion.org/bitstream/
handle/123456789/2213/2012N052.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March 15,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion does not support H.R. 3614 as written.
H.R. 4031: Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014
To amend Title 38, United States Code, to provide for the
removal of Senior Executive Service employees of the Department
of Veterans Affairs for performance, and for other purposes.
The past several years have seen a growing number of
instances of troubled management within VA facilities, with
little visible administrative action taken by VA Central Office
(VACO) to address those responsible for the actions in
question. Whether the incidents were ``negligence and
mismanagement by Mental Health Service Line (MHSL) leadership
[that] contributed to the death of a Mental Health (MH) unit
inpatient at the Atlanta VA Medical Center'',\7\ or the more
widely publicized incident in the Pittsburgh, PA VA Medical
System where VA officials knew ``for more than a year it had an
outbreak of Legionnaires' disease, but failed to warn
patients'',\8\ the response, or lack of transparent response
has been consistent. The claims side of the picture is no
better, with service center managers at VA receiving large
bonuses and accolades despite presiding over Regional Offices
that have seen backlog figures soar to double or more the
previous figures, even in the midst of a concerted effort by VA
to finally tame and eliminate the backlog. When leadership in
these positions fails, there are little to no consequences
apparent to outside observers. Veterans need to have confidence
that the system will correct itself and weed out those outliers
contributing to a lack of confidence in the VA, an institution
ostensibly created to serve veterans. This legislation gives
the Secretary the authority needed to effectively run the
Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General
Report No. 12-03869-179 ``Healthcare Inspection: Mismanagement of
Inpatient Mental Health Care Atlanta VA Medical Center Decatur, GA-APR
2013.
\8\ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-hospital-knew-human-error-
caused-legionnaires-outbrea/k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion is deeply concerned with the lack of
accountability within the VA. This legislation would provide
tools to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to better manage
Senior Executive Service employees, and hold them accountable
when they fail to perform their duties in a manner that better
serves the veterans entrusted to their care.
When veterans see a Regional Office losing ground and wait
times increasing in the fight to reduce the claims backlog,
they grow frustrated when leadership continues as if nothing
was wrong. When veterans see mismanagement practices in their
healthcare system that put patient health at risk, veterans
want to see leadership change to show a commitment from the top
down that says their health and safety are the top priority of
VA. This bill gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the tools
he needs to help convey that message back to veterans and help
ensure veterans have faith and trust in the systems designed to
provide health care to them and to care for their wounds of
war.
The American Legion supports H.R. 4031.
H.R. 4037: Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014
To amend Title 38, United States Code, to make certain
improvements in the law administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs relating to training and rehabilitation for
veterans with service-connected disabilities, and for other
purposes.
At this time, The American Legion does not have an official
position regarding H.R. 4037. The American Legion's goal is to
ensure that veterans who incur an injury, illness or disability
during military service can properly receive quality assistance
in obtaining suitable employment once they leave the Armed
Forces. Therefore, as a general Legion policy, any legislation
passed that modifies the current rules for eligibility or
priority in a federal veteran program, should also ensure that
successful comparable programs are available to those veterans
who find themselves no longer eligible.
The American Legion does not have a resolution or position
on H.R. 4037.
H.R. 4038: Veterans Benefits Administration Information
Technology Act of 2014
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make certain
improvements in the information technology of the Veterans
Benefits Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs
to process claims more efficiently, and for other purposes.
Currently, veterans apply for enrollment in the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment (VR&E) through a combination of manual processes
and IT systems. It is true that the VA's handling of education
benefits claims seems to be generally successful, with $27
billion in benefits already provided nationally since 2009 to
about 938,000 veterans, service members, and their families.
However, The American Legion believes that in order to
ensure the continued success of the delivery of education
benefits, and accurately track the outcomes of VA's VR&E
program, VA will need to maximize the usage of paperless IT
systems, and be proactive in this area to prevent any kind of
backlog such as has been seen with disability claims.
The American Legion supports the passage of H.R. 4038.
H.R. 4147: Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act
To direct the Chief Information Officer of the Department
of Veterans Affairs and the Deputy Under Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for Economic Opportunity to submit to the Committees on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a
report regarding the information technology of the Department
that is used in administering the educational benefits
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for
other purposes.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), one of U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) three line administrations,
\9\ provides assistance and benefits, such as educational
assistance, through four veterans' regional processing offices.
\10\ According to a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Education Program Beneficiaries report released January 10,
2014, \11\ twenty-three states account for 80% of VBA
beneficiaries' workload with a 42% increase in VBA
beneficiaries' workload from 2009 to 2010 due in part to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill program being fully implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ VA's two other line administrations are the Veterans Health
Administration and the National Cemetery Administration.
\10\ The regional processing offices are located in Atlanta,
Georgia; Buffalo, New York; Muskogee, Oklahoma; and St. Louis,
Missouri.
\11\ National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics,
``Education Program Beneficiaries'', U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, January 2014, http://www.va.gov/VETDATA/docs/QuickFacts/
Education-Beneficiaries.pdf (accessed March 18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the passage of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Act of 2008, better known as the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
VA delivered education benefits by relying on a combination of
manual processes and legacy IT systems. However, the department
also determined at that time that its legacy systems were
insufficient to support the demands for processing the new
benefit. This report will allow policymakers to assess the
status of the system, the plan of the system, the plan of
action with regard to the finalization of the system, and the
anticipated cost. Under The American Legion's Resolution No.
27: Veterans GI Bill Education, \12\ we support the passage of
H.R. 4147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The American Legion through ``Resolution No. 27: Veterans GI
Bill Education Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The American
Legion, National Executive Committee of The American Legion,
Indianapolis, Indiana, October 16-17, 2013, http://archive.legion.org/
bitstream/handle/123456789/2760/2013F027.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March
15, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports the passage of H.R. 4147.
H.R. 4150: Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act of 2014
To amend Title 38, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Labor to enter into a contract for the conduct of
a longitudinal study of the job counseling, training, and
placement services for veterans provided by the Secretary, and
for other purposes.
The American Legion through Resolution No. 304: Support
Full Funding and Staffing for the Veterans Employment and
Training Services (VETS) \13\ has long championed full funding
and staffing for the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment
and Training (VETS) program, and believes that collecting data
and resetting performance metrics is integral to the wise
stewardship of a program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The American Legion, ``Resolution No. 304: Support Full
Funding and Staffing for the Veterans Employment and Training Services
(VETS)'', Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The American Legion,
Indianapolis, Indiana, August 28-30, 2012, http://archive.legion.org/
bitstream/handle/123456789/2171/2012N304.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March
10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report entitled, ``Veterans' Employment and Training, Better
Targeting, Coordinating, and Reporting Needed to Enhance
Program Effectiveness'', it is estimated that the Federal
government spends around $1.2 billion on 6 veterans' employment
and training programs, two of which are Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans' Employment
Representatives (LVER), which serve about 888,000
participants.\14\ The Department of Labor (DOL) has yet to
conduct impact evaluations that assess their program
effectiveness to determine whether outcomes are attributable to
program participation of veterans and not other factors. As a
result, Congress and other key stakeholders lack essential
information needed to assess each program performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ United States Government Accountability Office (GAO),
``Veterans' Employment and Training, Better Targeting, Coordinating,
and Reporting Needed to Enhance Program Effectiveness'', December 2012,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650876.pdf (accessed March 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crucial to properly administering the DVOP and LVER
employment services is collection and analysis of past
performance data in order to gauge the effectiveness of
federally-funded programs and services which the states
administer. DOL's inability to gauge the results and
effectiveness of their own programs, as well as their
inadequate oversight of performance measure at the state level,
is cause for concern of accountability.
The American Legion enjoys the unique benefit of having a
large contingent of members who are DVOPs and LVERs and who sit
on various commissions and councils which advise The American
Legion with regard to policy. Based on testimony supplied by
these members, The American Legion believes a longitudinal
study conducted by a third party would help to identify lapses
in program stewardship and will allow DOL-VETS to make
improvements to existing programs and services. The American
Legion supports the `Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act of 2014.'
The American Legion supports H.R. 4150.
H.R. 4151: Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into a
contract with a non-government entity to conduct a survey of
individuals who have used or are using their entitlement to
educational assistance under the educational assistance
programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and
for other purposes.
In 2012, the Department of Veterans Affairs has dispersed
nearly $11 billion of VA education benefits to almost 1 million
veterans.\15\ Since the 2009 implementation of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, education benefits have significantly increased for
service members, veterans, and their families. The Post-9/11 GI
Bill provides payments for tuition and fees at accredited
institutions of higher learning (IHL), as well as disbursing a
separate payment for housing expenses and a stipend for books.
The VA's education and training benefits are intended to
provide resources which afford opportunities to veterans which
they may have missed due to his or her military service, and to
ease transition from military service to the civilian
workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), ``VA
Education Benefits: Student Characteristics and Outcomes Vary across
Schools'', July 25, 2013, http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-567
(accessed March 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite this huge expenditure of funds, the VA has yet to
conduct an impact survey and/or study to evaluate the
experiences of those individuals using the GI Bill benefit, in
order to evaluate how such a robust benefit has impacted the
lives of veterans who are transitioning from the military to
civilian life. Such an assessment would ascertain the return-
on-investment for policymakers, advocates, and taxpayers. The
American Legion, as author of the Serviceman's Readjustment Act
of 1944, known as the GI Bill, continues to take a great
interest in veteran education benefits, and as such, supports
H.R. 4151 through Resolution No. 27: Veterans GI Bill Education
\16\ as sound legislation which will help to ensure that we are
able to examine the extent to which this benefit provides
effective transitioning tools to service members and veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The American Legion, ``Resolution No. 27: Veterans GI Bill
Education'', Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The American Legion,
National Executive Committee of The American Legion, Indianapolis,
Indiana, October 16 - 17, 2013, http://archive.legion.org/bitstream/
handle/123456789/2760/2013F027.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March 15,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 4151.
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.
Prepared Statement of Peter B. Hegseth
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. It's
a privilege to take part in these proceedings.
My name is Pete Hegseth and I am the Chief Executive
Officer for Concerned Veterans for America, an organization of
veterans and military families dedicated to fighting for the
freedom and prosperity here at home that we fought for while in
uniform. Our organization represents a growing number of
veterans, military families, and concerned Americans--young and
old--who refuse to accept the status quo in Washington,
especially as it pertains to our veterans, our military, and
our country's fiscal future.
I received my commission from Princeton University in 2003,
and have served three tours with the U.S. Army since 9/11;
first at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, second in Iraq, and most
recently in Afghanistan. I'm currently an infantry Captain in
the Minnesota Army National Guard, and recently graduated with
a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard University's John F.
Kennedy School of Government. I'm before this committee today
as a veterans advocate, and certainly do not purport to speak
on behalf of the military.
I am speaking, however, on behalf of the membership of
Concerned Veterans for America--and every veteran, and their
supportive families, who feel like second-class citizens in
their own system. I'm here for every veteran who has waited and
waited and waited for disability claims resolution, only to be
denied and thrown into an even longer appeals backlog. For
every veteran who calls a VA hotline, and then sits on hold for
hours. For every veteran who waits days, weeks, and even months
for basic health care appointments. For every veteran who
receives sub-standard care because, through no fault of their
own, they live near a poorly-run VA facility. And, tragically,
I'm here for every veteran who passed away because they didn't
receive the care they needed when they needed it. You've seen
the stories. I've seen the stories. And it's long overdue that
things change at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It's time
for accountability. It's time for transparency. And it's time
for results.
This context and these stories motivate my testimony today,
as well as my organization's full support of House Resolution
4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014. No sober observer of VA's track
record, especially in the past few years, can look you, me--or
any veteran--in the eye and defend the status quo. The status
quo is unacceptable--and everyone knows it; especially those
who access, or I should say attempt-to-access, VA's
impenetrable, unaccountable, and woefully ineffective
bureaucracy.
This situation, of course, is not for a lack of trying. The
Obama administration, this committee, legislators from both
sides of the aisle, and traditional Veterans Service
Organizations--of which I am a member--have made very well-
intentioned and repeated attempts to make VA work. Everyone
wants to help veterans; there is no doubt about that. For
years, and understandably so, the overwhelming answer has been
to spend more money, hire more staff, and fund more programs.
As Secretary Shinseki says repeatedly, VA has all the
resources it needs. Since 2009, VA's budget has increased by
over $66 billion, or 67%. But what VA and its army of advocates
will not admit publicly is that VA's problems have nothing to
do with money--and everything to do with a calcified culture of
mediocrity, as opposed to a dynamic culture of excellence. At
VA, nearly all employee performance is rewarded (regardless of
outcomes), poor employee performance is routinely ignored (or
covered up), and veterans are left holding the bag--wanting and
waiting.
What we have today is a VA that is really good at serving
and protecting managers, staff, and bureaucrats--and not so
good at actually serving veterans. Omar Bradley, of World War
II fame and former VA administrator, once said, ``We are
dealing with veterans, not procedures; with their problems, not
ours.'' Bradley's creed has been turned on its head; today's VA
is the exact opposite. VA is obsessed with procedure, and so
engulfed in it's own cultural problems, that they're not
serving veterans they way our nation expects.
I'm not saying VA leadership, managers, and bureaucrats are
bad people--they're not, and they're certainly not the enemy.
Many of them are veterans, and many of them do an excellent
job. But with any bureaucracy, over time, institutional
incentives can distort human behavior in ways that become self-
serving and process-driven, as opposed to customer-service
focused and outcome-driven. This has clearly happened at VA--as
not a single senior VA manager has been fired under this
administration. Not one. Tell me this, if basic accountability
is not enforced at the top, how can incentives--and therefore
behavior--be corrected throughout the organization?
That is what H.R. 4031 seeks to combat, providing the VA
Secretary with the tools necessary to bend the incentive curve.
The Bill would simply empower the VA Secretary to fire
underperforming managers, specifically members of VA's Senior
Executive Service. These are the folks who run the hospitals,
lead regional offices, and run entire departments. The ability
to cut through red-tape, and actually fired bad managers, is
the very same power the Secretary of Defense enjoys--which
Secretary Gates used quite effectively in cleaning up the 2007
mess at Walter Reed. Why should the VA Secretary not have the
same tools?
Of course, VA opposes this reform measure--and is peddling
their own, watered down versions. That's to be expected, as
it's rare that any bureaucracy would demand more accountability
for itself. Some in Washington also deride the Bill as an issue
of ``employee rights.'' They argue that H.R. 4031 would
eliminate key employment protections and undermine existing
civil service rules.
Critics may frame the issue as a matter of employee rights,
but what ``rights'' are they defending? The ``right'' of a poor
performing VA executives to continue failing at their jobs, at
great cost to veterans, their families and the taxpayers? The
``right'' of VA employees to retaliate against whistle-blowers
who report problems plaguing the department? Or the ``right''
to grant--and accept--extravagant bonuses for employees when
VA's performance is failing? It takes a very expansive
understanding of ``employee rights'' to oppose this Bill on
those grounds.
Far from being an attack on dedicated public servants, H.R.
4031 would instead empower them. By bringing greater
accountability to an underperforming organization, this Bill
would bolster the best employees, while sending a clear signal
to poor performers that results matter. If anything, these
reforms will finally attract reform-minded leaders to VA, where
they are desperately needed.
The key question before this committee--and this Congress--
is simple: who will you stand with? Underperforming bureaucrats
who can't be fired? Or veterans who are underserved? The answer
to that question is crystal clear. I urge you to consider this
question as you consider H.R. 4031. Thank you for the
opportunity to address this important topic, and I welcome your
questions.
Statement Of Ryan M. Gallucci
With Respect to H.R. 2942, H.R. 3056, H.R. 3614, H.R. 4031,
H.R. 4037, H.R. 4038, H.R. 4147, H.R. 4151, and a draft Bill
entitled the ``Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act of 2014''
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to present the VFW's
stance on legislation pending before this Subcommittee.
With deep proposed reductions in the military's active duty
force, the VFW believes that offering quality transitional,
educational and career-development opportunities for the men
and women slated to leave military service remains a national
imperative.
We thank this committee for its hard work in the first
session of the 113th Congress moving critical legislation to
make this possible--particularly the recently-passed in-state
tuition protection for college-bound veterans. The VFW
encourages you to continue your bipartisan work to improve
civilian training and career opportunities for our veterans,
and we look forward to working with you to accomplish this
critical mission.
H.R. 2942, to amend Title 38, United States Code, to
reestablish the Professional Certification and Licensure
Advisory Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs
The VFW supports Ms. Kirkpatrick's Bill, which will extend
a critical advisory committee on professional licenses and
certifications for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). At
a time when the Department of Labor anticipates a significant
influx of veterans into the civilian workforce, VA must have
the ability to evaluate professional licenses and
certifications for which veterans may choose to use their
earned education benefits. This advisory committee provides
critical expertise to VA with which to evaluate professional
licenses and credentials.
The VFW has long acknowledged that not all veterans
entitled to VA education benefits will choose to use those
benefits for a traditional college degree. This is why we fully
support allowing veterans to use these benefits for relevant
professional training, as well as licensure and certification
evaluations that will lead to quality careers.
H.R. 3056, Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act
The VFW supports Rep. Takano's efforts to better understand
the positive impact of peer support for student veterans going
back to college. However, we have concerns over this Bill's
proposal to commission a pilot program on peer-to-peer support
for student veterans.
The VFW already believes that peer support works and we
believe this can be demonstrated through the rapid growth of
nearly 1,000 Student Veterans of America (SVA) chapters on
college campuses around the country. VFW posts in college
communities have also helped to cultivate significant peer-to-
peer support for student veterans on college campuses with
tremendous success for future veteran leaders.
VA has also commissioned two unique programs designed to
serve student veterans on college campuses, VetSuccess on
Campus (VSOC) and Veterans Integration to Academic Leadership
(VITAL), which offer unique VA support services to veterans.
VSOC assists veterans on more than 90 campuses and VITAL was
recently expanded to 15 campuses. In 2010, the Department of
Education also awarded grants to 15 college campuses to
commission Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success
(CEVSS) to deliver support services to student veterans.
VSOC, VITAL and CEVSS all have the authority to hire
student veterans as VA Work Study participants, and many
campuses are already taking advantage of this resource to
deliver peer-to-peer services. The VFW believes that Congress
should look to these programs to better understand how to best
deliver peer-to-peer support services to veterans on campus.
Finally, the VFW supports Rep. Takano's goal to report on
the efficacy of peer-to-peer support services for veterans in
higher education. However, in lieu of commissioning three new
peer support programs, the VFW recommends identifying current
peer-to-peer support programs commissioned through the VA Work
Study program to support VSOC, VITAL and CEVSS, and reporting
on their efficacy.
To properly reflect the diverse experiences of veterans in
higher education and to produce a quality report on the success
of peer support in higher education, the VFW recommends
expanding the proposed report to reflect a geographically
diverse selection of four-year public schools, community
colleges, and private non-profit universities; as well as
examples of non-profit online programs, elite non-profit
schools, for-profit campus-based programs, and for-profit
online programs.
The VFW agrees with Rep. Takano that we know far too little
about the experiences of student veterans in higher education.
The first statistically valid report on student veteran
outcomes in higher education was released by SVA only earlier
this week. The VFW supports studying examples of current peer
support models to demonstrate success, and we look forward to
working with Rep. Takano and the subcommittee to make this
happen.
H.R. 3614, Military Skills to Careers Act
The VFW supported this Bill's Senate companion, S. 492, in
testimony last year, and we support Rep. Flores' efforts to
help close the civilian/military licensing and credentialing
gap. This Bill takes reasonable steps to ensure that states
will allow experienced military professionals to sit for
licensing exams, while still ensuring states have the autonomy
to issue professional licenses as they see fit. States will not
have to relax their standards for professionals operating
within their borders, but experienced veterans will not be
unnecessarily burdened with satisfying duplicative training
requirements.
However, the VFW has some concerns over the specific
language of this Bill, and we want to work with the
subcommittee to ensure that states will not be penalized for
holding military-trained professionals to standards established
by professional trade associations, but enforced by the states
through licensing procedures.
H.R. 4031, Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014
Chairman Miller's Bill would provide the Secretary the
authority to remove a Senior Executive Service (SES) employee
based on performance. Accountability within VA management is a
growing concern. Without defined authority to remove an SES
employee from a position or from employment, accountability for
poor performance will never be reached.
Section 7543 of title 5, U.S.C., provides the authority to
suspend or remove a member of the SES. This provision of law
provides for two things: First, an agency may remove or suspend
a senior executive only for misconduct, neglect of duty,
malfeasance, or failure to accept a direct reassignment.
Second, it provides that members of the SES are entitled to at
least 30 days advance written notice of why disciplinary action
is being proposed, at least 7 days to respond to the notice for
suspension or removal, representation by an attorney or other
representative, and a written decision with specific reasons.
The agency may also provide for a hearing to allow the SES
member a chance to answer questions. The problem with this
scenario is that it allows SES employees to engage in a
perpetual back-and-forth with their superiors through archaic
legal processes. This means that SES employees can rarely be
sanctioned or removed for poor performance, as Chairman Miller
has rightly pointed out.
This Bill will provide the Secretary the authority to
remove SES employees when the Secretary determines that poor
work performance warrants such removal. While it is important
for the Secretary to have the ability to quickly remove
employees, and specifically members of the SES, it is also
important to recognize that members of the SES are career
employees who serve as the link between political appointees
and the civil service employees of the department, and that
allowing removal without due process or the ability to appeal
could jeopardize the unique roll of the SES.
The VFW would support this legislation if it were amended
to place a 30 day limitation, with one opportunity for an
additional 30 day extension, on the title 5 provision that
allows at least 7 days for an SES employee to respond to the
notice of suspension or removal. This would force notified SES
members to quickly respond to their notification, thereby
decreasing the time it takes to remove an underperforming SES
member. SES members must also retain their appeal rights
through the Merit Systems Protection Board. These changes would
send a clear message to underperforming employees, but provide
needed protection for positions that were designed to provide
and retain institutional knowledge and reduce cronyism.
H.R. 4037, Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014
The VFW supports the intent of Rep. Flores' Bill to ensure
that VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
Program has the ability to provide rehabilitative services to
veterans who need it the most. The VFW also supports Flores'
initiative to more accurately measure success within the
program.
By design, VR&E is supposed to offer intensive
rehabilitative services to veterans who must be retrained in a
new civilian industry because of their service-connected
disability. Under current law, any veteran with a service-
connected rating of 10 percent or more is eligible for VR&E.
Through this legislation, Rep. Flores hopes to ensure that
VR&E can continue to meet an increasing demand for
rehabilitative services among veterans who need it the most--
specifically disabled veterans with significant barriers to
employment.
The VFW understands that VR&E in its current form is nearly
at capacity for offering rehabilitative services to disabled
veterans. According to VA's own data, VR&E counselors are
already working beyond a reasonable capacity, with counselors
serving veterans at a ratio of 145:1, when VA's standard of
service is 125:1. With more and more service members projected
to leave the military in the coming years, the VFW shares Rep.
Flores' concerns that VR&E may not be able to adequately serve
the veterans who will need it the most if changes are not made
to the current system.
However, the VFW worries that restricting eligibility for
VR&E will lead to some disabled veterans falling through the
cracks. Though the VFW cannot support this Bill in its current
form, we look forward to working with Rep. Flores to develop
meaningful reforms for VR&E that will ensure VA can deliver
quality rehabilitative service to veterans who need it without
restricting access.
H.R. 4038, Veterans Benefits Administration Information
Technology Improvement Act of 2014
The VFW supports Rep. Flores' Bill to ensure that VA
prioritizes the completion of its information technology (IT)
solution for processing VA education benefit claims. The VFW
acknowledges the significant progress VA has made in the
timeliness and accuracy of its GI Bill benefit processing.
However, we share the subcommittee's concerns that as Veterans
Benefits Administration sees success in education benefit
processing, they have now shifted resources to focus solely on
the disability claims backlog. The VFW understands VBA's
urgency in seeking to resolve the backlog, but we must not
neglect the mission to properly serve student veterans. By
completing the IT solution, we ensure that education benefits
can continue to be processed in a timely, accurate manner.
H.R. 4147, the Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act
The VFW supports Rep. Takano's Bill to commission a report
to Congress on the status of VA's education IT systems. Similar
to H.R. 4038, the VFW believes that VBA has an obligation to
process timely and accurate education benefits. Critical to
this is the
development and completion of VBA's education IT systems. This
report is a responsible way to demonstrate progress in IT
development, identify potential shortcomings and develop a
course of action to complete tasks. To the VFW, this Bill is
responsible governance and we support its quick passage.
H.R. 4151, the Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014
The VFW proudly supports Rep. Bilirakis' efforts to
commission a survey of student veterans currently using their
earned GI Bill benefits. Without statistically valid
information on the student veteran experience or student
veteran outcomes, these special interests groups in higher
education have been able to make vague assertions about the
student veteran population based off of assumptions drawn from
incomplete Department of Education data. While the VFW can only
speculate as to their motives, we believe this false narrative
does a disservice to the 1 million beneficiaries currently
enrolled in VA education benefit programs and threatens the
long-term viability of programs like the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
For example, some special interests point to low graduation
rates among student veterans at schools with high military
populations like American Military University and University of
Maryland University College as indications that these schools
fail to properly serve their student veterans. What is missing
from this narrative is that the graduation rate reported by
these schools to the Department of Education likely includes
very few, if any, veterans, since the Department of Education
counts only first time, full time students.
Student veterans--particularly student veterans who enroll
in non-traditional programs like those offered by AMU or UMUC--
usually start their studies on a part-time basis while serving
in the military, or they bring significant transfer credits
into their programs after completing military service, meaning
they are never considered first time, full time students, and
thus are never tracked by the Department of Education.
Moreover, when the Department of Veterans Affairs recently
launched its new comparison tool and the raw data used to
compile it, the VFW was surprised to learn of all the programs
across higher education that reported abysmally low graduation
rates. The VFW took a closer look at many of the schools who
reported graduation rates of five percent or lower, only to
realize on the Department of Education's College Navigator
website that each of these schools were likely comprised of
non-traditional students, like student veterans. Because of
these unique circumstances, we often joke that among all of the
veterans in our office, none of us are considered a college
graduate by Department of Education standards.
Only this week did we start to scratch the surface on
understanding how student veterans fare in higher education
when SVA released its 1 Million Records Project, tracking
outcomes for nearly 1 million veterans who attended college on
VA education benefit programs after 9/11. We applaud SVA for
its groundbreaking findings, which demonstrated that student
veterans fare well in higher education when compared to
traditional students as tracked by the Department of Education.
However, this report only scratches the surface and does not
capture attitudes and impressions of student veterans currently
using their GI Bill benefits. This is the gap in information
that Rep. Bilirakis' report would fill in.
The original GI Bill returned $7 to the American economy
for every dollar spent on a veteran. Historians credit the
original GI Bill for building the American middle class as we
know it. The VFW believes that the Post-9/11 GI Bill has the
potential to be a similarly transformative benefit for today's
college-bound veterans, but in times of fiscal uncertainty, we
have to be able to demonstrate this to the American public. We
encourage Congress to quickly pass this legislation to better
quantify the experiences of veterans in higher education.
Draft Bill, Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act of 2014
The VFW has long believed that the services provided by the
Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service
(VETS) could provide a critical gateway for veterans into
meaningful civilian employment after military service. The key
piece to providing career opportunities rests with Disabled
Veterans Outreach Program specialists (DVOPs) and Local
Veterans Employment Representatives (LVERs) located at American
Jobs Centers around the country. Unfortunately, the VFW has
seen that not all DVOPs and LVERs have the same capability, and
not all veterans and employers know what they have to offer.
Recently, the VFW was approached by a small business owner
in Indiana who was looking to hire a couple of veterans to
round out his company. We directed the business to the local
LVER. In less than a day the LVER had identified several
potential candidates and the business had lined up interviews.
The VFW believes that businesses want to hire veterans, and
DVOPs and LVERs stand uniquely poised to make these
connections. Unfortunately, we have not properly evaluated what
works and what does not work in communities around the country.
To better understand the veteran hiring experience, the VFW
supports the subcommittee's draft legislation to conduct a
longitudinal study on the outcomes for veterans who utilize
DVOP and LVER services. We look forward to working with the
committee to pass this legislation.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, this concludes my
statement and I am happy to answer any questions you 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 2013,
nor has it received any federal grants in the two previous
Fiscal Years.
Prepared Statement of Mr. William Hubbard
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America to
submit written testimony regarding pending legislation intended
to increase support for military servicemembers and veterans.
Student Veterans of America (SVA) is the largest and only
national association of military Veterans in higher education.
Our mission is to provide military veterans with the resources,
support, and advocacy needed to succeed in higher education and
after graduation. We currently have nearly 1,000 chapters, or
student veteran organizations, at colleges and universities in
all 50 states, that assist veterans in their transition to and
through higher education. This on-the-ground perspective, which
comes from every corner of this nation, and our experience in
supporting thousands of GI Bill beneficiaries, provides the
framework for our testimony regarding these important issues.
H.R. 2942, a Bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to
reestablish the Professional Certification and Licensure
Advisory Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
SVA supports the reestablishment of this Committee as it is
clear that this committee is a necessary entity. While the
Department of Veterans Affairs currently performs outreach and
auditing for licensing and certification programs, the
extension would streamline those efforts and contribute to
clear communication with State approving agencies presently act
in a similar capacity. For these reasons, SVA sees this as a
committee of necessity to address existing gaps by allowing
applicable military experiences to be translated to civilian
recognition.
H.R. 3056, Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act
SVA stands firmly with the intent behind the legislation
proposed by Rep. Takano in establishing metric-proven success
of peer-to-peer support networks for veterans in higher
education. With close to 1,000 chapters across the country
which operate on this model, SVA strongly believes in the
importance of peer-to-peer support in higher education--indeed
a core precept of our organization.
However, with ample evidence available already, both
anecdotal and data-driven, of the success of peer-to-peer
programs with regards to veterans pursuing postsecondary
degrees, SVA does not support H.R. 3056. At present, SVA
provides tools and resources for student veterans to act both
formally and informally to support their veteran peers
throughout their educational experience. In addition to a
breadth of day-to-day support provided by chapter leaders for
student veterans at the local level, SVA also provides an array
of programmatic training that encourages outcomes which mirror
the intent of this legislation. Our Leadership Institute Series
teaches practical skills that apply directly to supporting
effective peer-to-peer mentoring, as well as skills which
translate beyond school and focus on building fulfilling
careers.
Others have also seen this approach of peer-to-peer support
as a successful model, and have implemented it widely. In
Washington State, the VetSuccess AmeriCorps program has been an
excellent example of success, placing 64 AmeriCorps members on
as many as 32 college campuses for the 2013-14 academic year.
With rigorous reporting and metrics associated with that
program, SVA believes that no additional proof is necessary to
substantiate the positive impact that peer-to-peer support can
have.
SVA stands with the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the
American Legion in accepting that peer-to-peer support in
higher education is a known factor of success of veterans in
higher education, with no further legislation required to
execute additional study.
H.R. 3614, Military Skills to Careers Act
This Bill seeks to ensure that military professionals have
the opportunity to sit for licensing exams, allowing veterans
the opportunity to successfully translate their military
expertise and effectively integrate into the civilian
workforce.
The skills veterans learn in the military match those
required for civilian job licenses, and this legislation would
permit veterans to obtain only those licenses for which they
are qualified. We know there exists substantial overlap between
the training of veterans, state licenses that do not fully
credit military experience, and current labor market needs.
This legislation recommends allowing for the recognition of
the investment that our Department of Defense has made in our
service members, now veterans. It makes it possible for
economic needs for critical skills positions, which align
directly with veterans' prior training and experience, to be
addressed. SVA carries reservation in establishing this
legislation as a precursor to awarding grants or contracts to
states, which may ultimately inhibit the overall intent of this
Bill.
SVA would look forward to providing further input on this
legislation to achieve an outcome that we would fully support.
H.R. 4037, Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Act 2014
Vocational rehabilitation is a crucial component in the
transition process as veterans move from active service to the
civilian population. The Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills
provide notable examples of the role that education plays in
this transition process. American taxpayers have invested
billions of dollars in programs that empower veterans to seek
education that will allow them to attain gainful employment and
meaningful careers.
Chairman Flores' Bill seeks to ensure that the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Program is equipped to provide
rehabilitation programs to the veterans who have the greatest
demand for these services.
In the Bill's current form, SVA does not support H.R. 4037,
though we feel this issue should stay at the forefront of
discussion. With some changes to the language, which would
otherwise potentially lead to some veterans being caught in a
gap, SVA would support this legislation.
H.R. 4038, Veterans Benefits Administration Information
Technology Improvement Act of 2014
SVA is in strong favor of Chairman Flores' Bill, H.R. 4038.
Educational benefits claims processing is a persistent issue
for veterans who would benefit from spending their time on
their studies versus trying to manage a claim to an earned
benefit. Even a small percentage of claims going unprocessed or
delayed is unacceptable, as the impact is immediate and with
lasting effects.
For those who have experienced challenges in their claims
being processed, they know all-too-well what kind of chain
effect this can have on their ability to attend school and gain
the full value of their educational benefits. Electronic
adjudication of these benefits will greatly reduce user-error,
and speed up the processing time for these benefits. An
automated benefits processing of educational benefits should be
a top priority of the Department of Veterans Affairs and SVA
encourages the swift passage of H.R. 4038.
H.R. 4147, Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act
As with Chairman Flores' legislation, H.R. 4038, this
legislation proposed by Rep. Takano is a key component of
modernizing the technical capabilities of the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Public knowledge of the state of the IT
infrastructure is a critical first-step in being able to
address additional issues that stem from an inability to
clearly understand what upgrades need to be performed. This
understanding, along with an action plan to address finalizing
each system, will send a clear signal that the Department of
Veterans Affairs is actively seeking to follow-through on their
intent to bring these systems to full implementation.
SVA stands behind Rep. Takano on H.R. 4147 to pursue the
upgrade of information technology infrastructure necessary to
support the education benefits claims of veterans as they seek
higher education.
H.R. 4150, Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act of 2014
On March 24th, we released our initial findings of our
Million Records Project, an SVA-led research study of veterans
in higher education in collaboration with the Department of
Veterans Affairs and the National Student Clearinghouse. As we
look at H.R. 4150, we find it to be complementary to our
research, and within the spirit of seeking data-driven
decisions on programs to support veterans in higher education.
Since our organization's inception, we have held that the
lifecycle of a veteran's transition from the military, to
school, and onward to civilian careers, is a highly
interdependent process. Each component of this process builds
on the preceding steps, and this legislation seeks to empower
veterans through several critical steps.
The Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training
Service (VETS) can build a bridge for millions of veterans over
the coming years as they pursue gainful careers post-
graduation, for example. However, the current lack of
coordination and understanding of the breadth of impact
surrounding this part of the transition process is a crucial
gap that must be addressed. SVA applauds the interest in moving
towards the goal of gaining greater clarity on the impact of
job counseling, training, and placement of veterans.
In 2012, the GAO noted that the federal government has
sponsored 6 different programs serving at least 880,000
participants at a cost of $1.2 billion dollars. Such a broad
variety of resources might be seen as a positive attribute, and
certainly reflects the sea of goodwill that has developed over
the past decade. However, without coordination, duplicative
efforts and inefficiencies threaten to stymie the full
potential of these resources.
A study, as this legislation proposes, would enable
decision makers at multiple levels to understand what is
working. As well, the study would highlight areas for change.
SVA is in full support of H.R. 4150, and applauds the
legislation for being fully inclusive of all individuals
entitled to any kind of educational assistance.
H.R. 4151, Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014
SVA stands in strong favor of Rep. Bilirakis' legislation,
H.R. 4151, ``Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014''. It is
right for some American's to ask, ``What are we receiving for
our investment in the GI Bill?'' Indeed, this is a crucial
question as more than $34 billion dollars has been spent on
millions of veterans who have sought, and are seeking, degrees
in higher education.
As previously noted, our Million Records Project has sought
to answer that question. H.R. 4151 is an important piece of
legislation because it answers another key element of this
investment in our veterans, ``What motivates veterans to pursue
the paths that they do?''
We know that a majority of our service members elect to
pursue higher education as they transition out of the military.
With an expected 1 million new veterans to enter the civilian
population over the next several years, the importance of
empowering veterans in higher education will continue to
increase. As individuals gain degrees in higher education,
their earning power increases significantly. We also know that
veterans who earn an initial degree in higher education have a
much greater potential to pursue additional degrees, increasing
their overall opportunity to contribute to the economy.
Through the Million Records project, there are several data
points have gained great insight on, and when paired with the
data that would be collected through a study directed by this
legislation, the picture will become even clearer; a holistic
narrative will form, enabling policy makers to base their
decisions on accurate data. From the research of the Million
Records Project, we have identified what school sectors are
performing well, what graduation rates for veterans looks like,
and time-to-completion of degree, among many other critical
attributes.
This legislation would add another element to that picture:
factors that impact the paths veterans pursue in higher
education. As a customer satisfaction survey, policy regarding
what can be done to improve the effectiveness of the
educational benefits for veterans becomes increasingly
applicable. The more data available on these topics, the
better.
Since 2000, over 4 million veterans have benefited from use
of the GI Bill, and the American taxpayers can expect that this
generation of veterans will positively impact the American
economy in magnitudes that will continue for several
generations to come. SVA encourages the swift passage of this
important legislation, and applauds the efforts of all policy
makers who are making it clear that an investment in our
veterans and their education is an investment in this country's
future.
SVA finds the following Bill outside the scope of our
mission and does not wish to offer comment at this time:
H.R. 4031, Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014
Student Veterans of America is appreciative of the
opportunity to provide this testimony. We thank the Chairman,
Ranking Member and the Subcommittee members for their time,
attention, and devotion to the cause of veterans in higher
education. We look forward to continuing to work with this
Subcommittee, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the
Congress to ensure the success of all generations of Veterans
through education.
Thank you for allowing Student Veterans of America the
opportunity to participate in this important Hearing.
Wounded Warrior Project
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) to
provide views on pending economic opportunity-related
legislation. We welcome this opportunity to address several of
the measures before you today.
Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act
H.R. 3056 would require the Secretary of VA to carry out a
three-year pilot program to provide peer outreach and support
services at institutions of higher learning--with an emphasis
on assisting veterans who may have or be having, difficulty in
adjusting to such institution, or who may need services or
supports that such institution is not equipped to provide--by
training and employing fellow veteran students (or recent
graduates) as peer mentors.
With the Post 9/11 GI Bill, Congress has provided this
generation of veterans an especially valuable gateway to
economic success. Wounded warriors are using this benefit; in
fact, almost one third of the nearly 14,000 wounded warriors
who responded to our 2013 survey were enrolled in school.\1\
However, some of our wounded warriors are facing stark
challenges in pursuing higher education. In many instances,
their injuries--and particularly the invisible wounds they have
incurred--create obstacles their student-peers do not
experience or even understand. Some wounded warriors simply
need modest accommodations and supports. But without such
supports some are struggling, dropping out, or even failing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Franklin, et al, 2013 Wounded Warrior Project Survey Report, vi
(July 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies confirm the experiences our warriors have reported
to WWP education-services staff. For example, one study found
that the ``average'' student-veteran has experienced moderate
anxiety, moderately severe depression, and symptoms of PTSD.\2\
Specifically, nearly 46 percent of the sample experienced
``significant symptoms of PTSD,'' \3\ almost 35 percent
suffered from severe anxiety, and nearly 24 percent had severe
depression.\4\ Another study found that most of the student
veteran survey and focus group participants encountered
substantial transition challenges while adapting to life on
campus.A\5\ Among these students, one of the most
frequently discussed challenges was coping with service-related
disabilities and PTSD.\6\ Overall, about 68 percent of survey
respondents rated the extent to which they had to cope with
such disabilities, and of those, 55 percent reported it as a
moderate or major challenge.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ David Rudd, Jeffery Goulding, and Craig Bryan, ``Student
Veterans: A National Survey Exploring Psychological Symptoms and
Suicide Risk.'' 42(5) Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
354, 357-358 (2011).
\3\ Id. These exceed the cutoff score for PTSD in accordance with
the PCL-M score for OIF/OEF veterans, Dept. of Veterans' Affairs and
the National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet, ``Using the PTSD Checklist,''
available at: http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/assessments/
assessment-pdf/pcl-handout.pdf.
\4\ Rudd et al., supra note 6, at 357-358.
\5\ Jennifer Steele, Nicholas Salcedo, and James Coley, ``Service
Members in School: Military Veterans' Experiences Using the Post-9/11
GI Bill and Pursuing Postsecondary Education,'' RAND Corporation
(2011).
\6\ Id. at 36.
\7\ Id. at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is apparent from our own extensive surveying, peer
support and mentor relationships are vital in assisting
warriors in their transition and throughout their recovery
process. Particularly, peer support has played unique roles in
military/veteran populations in decreasing stigma associated
with seeking mental health care and improving adherence,
increasing knowledge of treatment resources, and augmenting or
teaching self-management. \8\ Notably, peer support
relationships tend to support and encourage self-advocacy \9\
and empowerment and they have been found to foster increased
stability in work, education and training.\10\ In some cases,
peer mentors are even more successful than professional
qualified clinicians because they promote hope and belief in
the possibility of recovery and their relationships with
mentees foster increased self-esteem and social inclusion,
engagement, and increased social networks \11\ all of which
are key for success in post-secondary education. Furthermore,
peer support relationships are mutually beneficial--employment
as a peer mentor adds to self-esteem, confidence, and personal
recovery and increases chances of further employment and
continued recovery.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Williams, et. al, ``A Scoping Study of One-to-One Peer
Mentorship Interventions and Recommendations for Application with
Veterans with Postdeployment Syndrome,'' 27 J. Head Trauma Rehab. 261,
270 (2012).
\9\ Id. at 272.
\10\ Repper & Carter, ``A Review of the Literature on Peer Support
in Mental Health Services,'' 20(4) J. of Mental Health 392, 396 (2011).
\11\ Id. at 400.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WWP was founded on the principle of warriors helping
warriors, and we pride ourselves on outstanding service
programs that advance that principle, including our own Peer
Mentor Program. Underscoring the benefit of warriors reaching
out to other warriors, our annual survey found that more than
one half of our alumni reported that talking with another OEF/
OIF/OND veteran was the most effective resource they have used
(and that has assisted them) for coping with their mental
health concerns.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Franklin, et al, 2013 Wounded Warrior Project Survey Report, v
(July 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having current or recent graduate student peer mentors on
campus to assist warrior-veterans--many of whom are battling
PTSD, depression, anxiety, or a combination of these disorders
would be an important step in assisting these warriors
successfully make the transition to an educational program and
increase their likelihood for success in such program. As such,
WWP supports H.R. 3056.
Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Act
H.R. 4037, the Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014 is aimed at making
certain improvements to VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program (VR&E), including steps would: (1) Direct VA
to revise the formula to calculate the rate of veterans who
were rehabilitated under the program; (2) make the approval of
courses for a VR&E education program more similar to that of
the GI Bill; (3) expand eligibility for specially adapted
housing to veterans who are permanent and totally service-
connected and are eligible to participate in VR&E; (4)
authorize VA to prioritize provision of VR&E services for
veterans based on need, as determined by reference to
disability ratings, severity of employment handicaps, income
and other factors, and (5) liberalize the definition of the
term ``serious employment handicap.''
WWP certainly appreciates the focus H.R. 4037 places on
VR&E and welcomes many of its provisions. We do have concerns,
however, regarding the implications of the proposed broad grant
of authority the Bill would give VA to set priorities for
providing VR&E services, and what that might portend for
disabled veterans who are not afforded priority under
regulations VA might then promulgate. Given the wide latitude
this provision of H.R. 4037 would give VA, it is conceivable
that such authority would be broadly exercised, with the result
that some veterans' applications for VR&E would get expedited
attention while others could face long waits. While one could
appreciate the benefit of establishing a limited ``compelling
need'' situation under which VA could, for example, expedite
consideration of a case presenting exceptional circumstances,
the language of H.R. 4037 invites a much broader approach.
Drawing priority distinctions based on disability ratings is
especially problematic, given the long waits many face in the
course of the adjudication and appeals processes. It bears
emphasizing that VR&E is an entitlement--an earned benefit.
Given its mission, the VR&E program itself should be a VA
priority, with funding commensurate with that priority. That
funding should be sufficient to ensure that veterans are
afforded timely service, and there should be no need to
consider setting priorities. Indeed, for Congress to grant VA
authority to set priorities could actually be read to signal
that the program need not be fully funded. While we do not
suggest that to be the intent of the provision, we would urge
the Subcommittee to reconsider this provision.
We would also urge the Subcommittee to address other
areas--including through legislation--where the VR&E program
needs attention, particularly with staffing levels and the need
for more staff training. With military careers often cut short
by life-altering injuries, it is particularly important that
this generation of wounded warriors be afforded the tools,
skills, resources, education, and support needed to secure
employment and develop fulfilling careers. Congress designed
the VR&E program to give disabled veterans the help they need
to gain success in the workforce and it should be a key
transitional pathway for wounded warriors. But too often the
program is failing them.
Wounded warriors and WWP's field staff--who work daily with
our wounded warriors across the country--report wide-ranging
variability in program administration and education/employment
plan approvals, counselor skills, experience, understanding of
battle-incurred TBI and PTSD, and interpretation and knowledge
of the program's services. Though some warriors report positive
experiences and have worked with dedicated counselors, this
represents the exception and not the norm.
Warriors have reported instances of VR&E counselors
challenging their employment aspirations by denying them access
to their program of choice and pressing them instead to pursue
``any job'' as a goal. In other instances, wounded warriors
seeking to go back to school to earn a second degree--to better
compete in the job market--have met objection from counselors
who view VR&E simply as a ``jobs program.'' Still, others,
particularly those with TBI and PTSD, have encountered VR&E
counselors who do not appear to understand those conditions.
Additionally, warriors report delays in receiving VR&E
services, difficulty communicating and scheduling with their
counselors, and reduced opportunities to achieve successful and
timely rehabilitation. The size of counselors' caseloads has
particularly limited their ability to provide adequate on-going
support and assistance to veterans throughout the course of
their education or training program, especially to those with
TBI and PTSD who need such supports.
The following comments are emblematic of the experiences of
many:
``In my experience working with Voc Rehab counselors, many
of my veterans were exasperated by their counselors and
oftentimes felt as though their counselors had such a large
caseload that they were not getting the attention needed. . .
and more often than not being brushed off when they asked for
assistance.''
``While many of the Voc Rehab staff are sensitive to the
veteran's needs, they do not seem to, as a whole, have an
understanding of where the veteran is coming from . . . they
are quick to write off a veteran's career choice due to their
disability rather than take into account things such as
passion, determination, and drive.''
``Many veterans have to justify why they want a specific
degree or [employment goal] and that doesn't always match up
with what the counselor believes that veteran can be successful
at based on their history or [medical] diagnosis.''
The recent Government Accountability Office Report on VR&E
highlights the program's workload management challenges and
gaps in VR&E staff training.\14\ The wide variability in
counselor caseloads among the regional offices is particularly
concerning, as is the fact that the program is just now--at the
end of 2013 and into 2014--providing new staff training courses
on mental health to improve counselors' ability to assist
veterans with PTSD and other mental health issues. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``VA Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment: Further Performance and Workload
Management Improvements are Needed,'' GAO-14-61 (2014).
\15\ Id. at 27 and 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VR&E counselors need to be sensitive and not only
understand the struggles, but also the strengths, of warriors
with TBI and PTSD so that they, in turn, can help warriors
recognize that they are not ``broken,'' but continue to have
great potential. They must be partners in the warriors'
rehabilitation, not critical gatekeepers who too readily
dismiss ``unrealistic'' aspirations. In working with this
generation, counselors must also understand the very profound
disorientation experienced by warriors whose lives and life-
plans have been upended and out of their control. As one put
it, ``For me the most difficult part [of the transition] is
finding purpose. [I] never really had to think about my purpose
when I was in the Corps.'' \16\ A VR&E counselor must have the
sensitivity, training and experience to help that warrior find
new purpose, or to link him to appropriate professional help.
But even the most capable, empathetic counselor--challenged
with 150 other ``cases'' to manage--is unlikely even to have
sufficient time to provide that warrior the needed level and
kind of support. More appropriate staffing levels must be a
component of refocusing and re-energizing this important
program. In all, we urge this Committee to make the VR&E
program a greater priority through budgetary, programmatic, and
outcomes-based action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Franklin, et al, 2013 Wounded Warrior Project Survey Report,
108 (July 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014
H.R. 4151 directs the Secretary of VA to contract with an
independent agency to conduct a survey of individuals, who have
used, or are currently using, their education benefits under
chapters 30, 32, 33, and 35 of Title 38.
WWP would welcome a comprehensive survey on warriors'
experiences using their earned educational benefits. WWP's
concerns regarding wounded warrior-student experiences on
campus and in educational programs has been raised before this
Committee.\17\ Such a survey would be invaluable in
determining the effectiveness of these education programs and
would shed light on veteran experiences in each of these
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See WWP statement for the record, House Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on ``The Value of
Education for Veterans at Public, Private, and For-Profit Colleges and
Universities,'' June 20, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, as we outlined above in our discussion on VR&E, we
urge this Committee to expand the scope of the Bill to include
users of VR&E in this survey to better understand veteran
experience with the program as an effort to remedy the
program's gaps. Simply asking whether the veteran was entitled
to VR&E and if he/she participated in the program, as this Bill
requires, would be to lose an important opportunity. In our
2013 annual survey--of those pursuing an education--only about
20 percent of our warriors were using VR&E while 54 percent
opted to use the Post 9/11 GI Bill to finance their
education.\18\ Given that VR&E provides counseling and other
supports and is limited to service-connected disabled veterans,
it is striking that the majority of our alumni are selecting
the Post 9/11 GI Bill--which does not provide the counseling
and assistance that VR&E offers. Some warriors and field staff
offer the reasoning that the Post 9/11 GI Bill is easy access
and a swifter means to get an education. Many others report it
is because they would have ``more freedom to pursue what they
want, not what the vocational counselor tells them.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Franklin, et al, 2013 Wounded Warrior Project Survey Report,
71 (July 2013). The percentage of alumni using the Post 9/11 GI Bill
has continued to increase (53% in 2012, some 46% in 2011, and nearly
28% in 2010) while the percentage of alumni reporting the use of VR&E
continues to decline (21% in 2012, down from almost 25% in 2011, and
some 36% in 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including survey questions on VR&E--particularly questions
focused on illuminating the reasons why service-disabled
veterans choose the Post 9/11 GI Bill over VR&E would better
assist VA in recognizing if more outreach and education is
needed on VR&E and the services it provides. More importantly,
questions related to veteran experiences with VR&E counselors
and other staff, and on the timeliness and adequacy of services
provided, are critically important to gain an understanding of
where critical gaps in the program lie so VR&E administrators
can begin addressing those gaps--whether through increased
staffing, staff training, and/or through greater programmatic
oversight or even program re-design.
Thank you for your consideration of WWP's views on these
issues.
Disable American Veterans (DAV), Paul R. Varela, Director
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting DAV to submit testimony for this
legislative hearing of the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity. As you know, DAV is a non-profit
veterans service organization comprised of 1.2 million wartime
service-disabled veterans dedicated to a single purpose:
empowering veterans to lead high-quality lives with respect and
dignity. DAV is pleased to be here today to present our views
on the Bills under consideration by the Committee.
H.R. 2942, To amend Title 38, United States Code, to
reestablish the Professional Certification and Licensure
Advisory Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
H.R. 2942 would reauthorize the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory
Committee and extend its operational authority to December 31,
2019.
The Committee would advise the Secretary with respect to
the requirements of organizations or entities offering
licensing and certification tests to individuals for which
payment for such tests may be made under chapter 30, 32, 33,
34, or 35 of Title 38 and such other related issues as the
Committee determines to be appropriate.
Members of the Committee would be appointed by the
Secretary, without regard to the prior composition of the
Committee.
DAV does not have a resolution on this issue and has no
position on this legislation.
H.R. 3056, the Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act
H.R. 3056, would direct the Secretary of Veteran Affairs to
carry out a three-year pilot program to place peer counselors
providing outreach and support services to veterans utilizing
Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits under Chapter 33. The pilot would
provide peer-outreach and peer-support services to students
veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi
Freedom, and Operation New Dawn at one four-year public
university, one community college and one private non-profit
college. Peer counselors must either be using, or have
successfully used, their entitlement to educational assistance
under Chapter 33.
The program also looks to pair veterans with peers of
similar service and educational pursuits to establish an
immediate relationship, someone not only familiar with the
military service, but with experience utilizing their own
Chapter 33 benefits. A preference would be given to those
potential peer counselors that have served in combat
operations, with special consideration given to veterans who
have recovered or are recovering from a mental health
condition. The Bill seeks to maximize supportive services to
post-9/11 veterans to ensure their successful completion of
their educational goals.
The Secretary would be required to provide training to the
veterans employed by the pilot program and to develop
requirements and measures for assessing the effectiveness of
program services. The program would also makes as a condition
of implementation at an institution of higher learning the
employment of a post-9/11 veteran that has used or is using
benefits under Chapter 33. For a school to be eligible to
participate, they would need to provide office space with the
capability for veterans to use information technology equipment
and appropriate information technology support services for the
individual who will provide peer-outreach and peer-support
services at such institution.
DAV does not have a specific resolution on this Bill, but
does not oppose its favorable consideration.
H.R. 3614, the Military Skills to Careers Act
H.R. 3614, the Military Skills to Careers Act, would make
grants to states that agree to adhere to certain standards in
how they implement their professional licensing and
certification programs.
In order to be eligible for a grant, a state would be
required to issue licenses or credentials to veterans without
requiring them to undergo any training or apprenticeship if the
veteran receives a satisfactory score on completion of the
state's required examination, has been awarded a military
occupational specialty that is substantially equivalent to or
exceeds the requirements of the state for the issuance of the
license or credential; has engaged in the active practice of
the occupation to be licensed or certified for at least two of
the five years preceding the date of application; and pays any
fees required by the state for the license or credential.
The legislation would allow the Secretary to waive some of
these requirements if the state certifies to the Secretary that
it already takes into account previous military training for
the purposes of issuing licenses or credentials; permits
veterans to completely satisfy through examination any training
or testing requirements for a license or credential with
respect to which a veteran has previously completed military
training; and for any credential or license for which a veteran
is unable to completely satisfy such requirements through
examination, substantially reduces training time required to
satisfy such requirement based on the military training
received by the veteran.
States would be required to submit annual reports to VA
about their licensing and credentialing programs for veterans
with a description of the results of these exams, disaggregated
by occupational field.
DAV supports H.R. 3614 in accordance of DAV National
Resolution No. 168, which calls for states to establish a clear
process so military training meets civilian certification and
licensure requirements once they leave the military.
H.R. 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014
H.R. 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management
Accountability Act of 2014, would provide the Secretary with a
new authority to remove any individual from the Senior
Executive Service if the Secretary determines the performance
of the individual warrants such removal. The Secretary would be
able to remove the individual completely from federal service
or transfer the individual to a General Schedule position at
any grade the Secretary determines appropriate.
DAV agrees that the Secretary must have the ability to hold
all employees accountable for performing their duties in order
to ensure that veterans receive all of the benefits and service
they have earned from their service. We have long advocated
that VA must place accountability at the core of its efforts to
reform the claims processing system and end the backlog. While
H.R. 4031 is intended to provide the Secretary with new tools
to remove employees, the Secretary recently testified that he
already has sufficient tools to hold all of his employees fully
accountable and it is not clear how this legislation would
interact with VA's existing accountability and due process
statutes affecting VA employees. DAV is also concerned about
the potential for adverse impact of this legislation on VA's
ability to hire and retain quality employees.
DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal and has no
position on this legislation.
H.R. 4037, the Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014
H.R. 4037, the Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014, would make changes
to eligibility and prioritization rules for veterans seeking
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Voc Rehab) services.
Section 2 of the Bill would create a new metric that
determines the percentage of veterans ``rehabilitated to the
point of employability.'' This percentage would be calculated
by dividing the number of veterans who complete their
rehabilitation plans each year into the number of veterans
participating in vocational rehabilitation programs during that
year plus the number entitled to participate in the program.
DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal but would
not oppose its favorable consideration. While this new metric
would provide information about the percentage of veterans
completing their rehabilitation plans, we would also ask that
VA refine its metric for assessing how many veterans are
``rehabilitated'' and gainfully employed as a result. Currently
VA's standard measure requires that a veteran retain employment
for just 60 days in order to be considered a successful
``rehabilitation;'' we would suggest that the length of
employment should be tracked and measured at long intervals,
such as 6 months or one year.
Section 3 of this Bill would require that all education and
training courses paid for by VR&E be approved courses for
purposes of existing VA education support programs under
Chapter 30 and 33. While this would remove some of the burden
facing VR&E counselors in determining appropriate courses and
providers for veterans, we are concerned that it could
unnecessarily limit the ability of veterans to receive
appropriate training and education at non-approved locations.
Although there is a waiver provision contained in this section,
it is unclear how and when waivers should be granted, as well
as whether the waiver would be authorized at the local level,
or whether Central Office approval would be required. This
additional administrative function has the potential to create
additional obstacles in efficiently administering the VR&E
program.
We have greater concerns about the impact of this provision
in relation to courses and training that would be considered
under the Independent Living (IL) program. Participants within
this program often require more specialized and unique services
that may fall outside those typically authorized by VA's
educational programs. This provision could significantly
restrict a VR&E counselor's ability to approve the unique
courses and training required by IL participants, who are not
anticipated to be looking for work anytime in the near future.
IL's goal is to improve the quality of their lives, and VR&E
needs wide latitude to accomplish this noble mission.
DAV recommends that the Committee work with VA and veterans
organizations to refine this language to ensure that VR&E
retains sufficient flexibility to meet both participants and
programmatic needs.
Section 4 of this Bill would allow veterans to receive
assistance under the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) program
when it is determined by VR&E that the veteran has need for
these services due to the disability or disabilities that
entitled them to vocational rehabilitation services. This
provision would leave the facilitation and implementation of
needed home adaptions to the VA office most familiar with the
administration of this program.
DAV has no resolution on this proposal but would not oppose
its favorable consideration.
Section 5 of the Bill would authorize the Secretary to
create a priority system for processing veterans applications
for vocational rehabilitation services. In determining
``priority processing,'' the Secretary would consider the need
of the applicant, including income, disability evaluations,
severity of employment handicaps, whether the veteran is
eligible for IL services and income. The construct of this
provision is similar to how VA provides priority to certain
claims for disability compensation and pension. While we
understand the desire to ``prioritize'' work, we would remind
the Subcommittee that VR&E has yet to reach its intended
counselor to client ratio of 1:125. Without adequate staffing
and resources, it is unlikely they will be able to keep pace
with current and future demands, regardless of any efficiencies
that might be gained through prioritizing their work-load.
DAV has no resolution on this proposal but would not oppose
its favorable consideration.
Section 6 of this Bill would change the definition of
``serious employment handicap,'' one of the criteria used to
determine if veterans are entitled to receive vocational
rehabilitation services. Under this new definition, the bar to
receive services would be raised for veterans with disability
evaluations rated 10 percent and veterans seeking access to
services beyond the 12 year eligibility period, resulting in a
significant number of veterans losing their entitlement to
receive this valuable assistance.
Essentially, this provision would restrict access to
vocational rehabilitation services by imposing more stringent
requirements upon those veterans necessitating a Serious
Employment Handicap (SEH) determination to receive access to
service. The current definition of ``serious employment
handicap'' is `` . . . a significant impairment, resulting in
substantial part from a service-connected disability rated at
10 percent or more, of a veteran's ability to prepare for,
obtain, or retain employment . . . '' If this section were
enacted, that definition would change to `` . . . a significant
impairment, resulting from the service-connected disability,
that is directly related to the veteran's ability to prepare
for, obtain, or retain employment . . . ''
In accordance with DAV National Resolution No. 001, DAV
strongly opposes this section because it would effectively
remove one of the most valuable benefits currently available to
thousands of disabled veterans seeking to transition into
civilian employment.
H.R. 4038, the Veterans Benefits Administration Information
Technology Improvement Act of 2014
H.R. 4038 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
to the maximum extent possible, to make improvements to VBA's
information technology (IT) systems to ensure that all original
and supplemental claims for veterans educational assistance are
adjudicated electronically, and processed using a rules-based
method. The Bill would require the Secretary to reduce
redundancy and inefficiencies by ensuring that payments of
subsistence allowance for veterans participating in this
program are processed and paid out of only one corporate IT
system. The Secretary would also be required to enhance the IT
system supporting veterans participating VA's educational
programs to ensure more accurate accounting of services and
outcomes.
Although DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal,
we are not opposed to its favorable consideration.
H.R. 4147, the Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act
H.R. 4147, the Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act, would
require VA to study and report on the current status and future
plans for the IT system used to administer educational
services. This provision would require VA's Chief Information
Officer, in coordination with the Deputy Under Secretary for
Economic Opportunity, would be required to submit this report
in 180 days to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the
Senate and the House of Representatives. The report would
include VA's current plan to update these IT systems, a
detailed implementation plan, and a financial analysis of the
costs involved.
DAV has testified on several occasions before the House
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
regarding the current state of VR&E's IT infrastructure, which
lacks adequate capacity and capability. In its present state,
it does not allow veterans to file claims for vocational
rehabilitation benefits and services electronically. We have
recommended that rather than continue to patch and upgrade the
current Corporate Winston-Salem, Indianapolis, Newark, Roanoke,
Seattle (CWINRS) system, that VR&E be integrated into the
Veterans Benefit Management System, and we would recommend that
any forward looking IT plan for VBA take this approach for all
business lines.
Although DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal,
we are not opposed to its favorable consideration.
H.R. 4150, the Veterans Employment and Training Service
Longitudinal Study Act of 2014
H.R. 4150 would authorize a long-term longitudinal study to
examine the effectiveness of the job counseling, training and
placement services for veterans provided by the Veterans
Employment and Training Service (VETS) in the Department of
Labor. The study would be performed by a non-government entity
over a period of at least five years, using a statistically
valid sample of veterans who have received services, as well as
those who did not seek or receive any services from VETS.
The provision specifies a number of questions that the
longitudinal study must address, and includes one question
about whether the veteran participated in a VA vocational
rehabilitation program. We would recommend that additional
questions be included about the effectiveness of the VR&E
program services in order to increase the value of this
research.
Although DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal,
we do not oppose its favorable consideration.
H.R. 4151, the Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014
H.R. 4151 would require the Secretary to contract with a
non-government entity to conduct a survey of individuals who
have received or are receiving educational assistance under one
of VA's many education programs under chapters 30, 32, 33, and
35 of Title 38, United States Code. The purpose of the survey
would be to provide insights into how veterans accessed, used,
valued and benefited from VA education programs. The survey,
which could be done electronically, must be completed no later
than 180 days after VA enters into the contract. We would
recommend that additional questions be included about the VR&E
education and training program services in order to increase
the value of this research.
Although DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal,
we do not oppose its favorable consideration.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony.
VetsFirst Testimony
Submitted by Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW; Vice President of VetsFirst
Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Act of 2014 (H.R. 4037)
This legislation would make changes to aspects of VA's
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program in an
effort to improve access to services for veterans with
significant barriers to employment. In general, we have
concerns about proposed changes that limit access to employment
services for any veterans living with disabilities.
Specifically, Section 5 of this legislation would allow VA to
prioritize the provision of VR&E services based on level of
need. We are concerned that establishment of such priorities
could lead to problems in accessing services for veterans who
could greatly benefit from VR&E services but who are not deemed
a priority for VA. Section 6 of this legislation would amend
the definition of ``serious employment handicap.'' VetsFirst is
concerned about limiting access to services and believes that
this legislation should be amended to provide access to
training, educational, or other benefits that could help
impacted veterans in returning to the workforce.
Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act
of 2014 (H.R. 4150)
We support this legislation. This survey will provide
important data that will help the Department of Labor and other
stakeholders determine the long-term impact of employment
services for veterans. Because it will include measures on
disability, this survey may also provide important information
about a disability's impact on long-term employment.
Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014 (H.R. 4151)
We support this legislation. The survey's requirement to
collect data including whether or not the individual has a
service-connected disability may be helpful in determining the
influence that disability had, if any, on an individual's
choice of school; goal for education or training; and the
services that the individual received from the school. We also
appreciate the inclusion of a question regarding VA's VR&E
program which we believe will help with efforts to determine
why veterans who are eligible for VR&E might instead pursue
other educational benefits.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and other
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit for the record VetsFirst's views on three
of the Bills under consideration today.
VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal Association,
represents the culmination of over 65 years of service to
veterans and their families. We advocate for the programs,
services, and disability rights that help all generations of
veterans with disabilities remain independent. This includes
access to VA financial and health care benefits, housing,
transportation, and employment services and opportunities.
Today, we are not only a VA-recognized national veterans
service organization, but also a leader in advocacy for all
people with disabilities.
Improving Veterans' Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Act of 2014 (H.R. 4037)
VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
services are critical to helping eligible servicemembers and
veterans with service-connected disabilities receive the skills
and training necessary to help them reintegrate into the
workforce and their communities. Without access to quality
vocational rehabilitation services, many veterans with
disabilities may be unable to successfully transition to the
workforce and a long-term career. This legislation would make
changes to aspects of VR&E's program in an effort to improve
access to services for veterans with significant barriers to
employment.
Section 4 of this legislation would allow veterans who are
receiving rehabilitation assistance through VR&E and who are
referred for assistance under Chapter 21 to receive assistance
for needed housing modifications. Specifically, this provision
would add to the types of disabilities that qualify for
assistance under Chapter 21 those that are disabilities for
which the veteran is eligible for VR&E and is referred by VR&E
for housing modification assistance. Access to housing
modifications is critical for the successful rehabilitation of
many veterans with significant disabilities. Thus, VetsFirst
supports efforts to increase accessibility to housing
modifications.
Section 5 of this legislation would allow VA to prioritize
the provision of VR&E services based on level of need.
According to the legislation, a determination about need for
services should include disability ratings, the severity of
employment handicaps, qualification for a program of
independent living, income, and any other appropriate factors.
VetsFirst supports access to services for veterans with
disabilities who have the most significant need for vocational
rehabilitation services. However, VetsFirst is concerned that
establishment of such priorities could lead to problems in
accessing services for veterans who could greatly benefit from
VR&E services but who are not deemed a priority for VA.
Any prioritization must include provisions for ensuring
that all eligible veterans receive needed services. Delays to
receiving services that result from wait lists would be
unacceptable and may impact long-term employment outcomes.
Congressional review of any prioritization and its
implementation would be helpful in ensuring continued access
for all eligible veterans. An alternative to prioritization
would be better workforce allocation within VR&E to ensure that
VA is better able to meet the needs of all eligible veterans.
Section 6 of this legislation would amend the definition of
``serious employment handicap.'' Currently, a serious
employment handicap is defined as ``a significant impairment,
resulting in substantial part from a service-connected
disability rated at 10 percent or more, of a veteran's ability
to prepare for, obtain, or retain employment consistent with
such veteran's abilities, aptitudes, and interests.'' \1\ This
legislation would modify that definition by requiring that a
significant impairment result from a service-connected
disability that is directly related to a veteran's ability to
return to work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3101(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If implemented, some veterans who are currently eligible
for VR&E services under the current definition would likely no
longer be able to receive these services. VetsFirst believes
that veterans who need assistance with vocational
rehabilitation should be able to access services if needed to
help them be successful in returning to the workforce. Although
these veterans may be eligible for programs that are available
to all Americans seeking employment, access to those programs
may be limited. VetsFirst believes that this legislation should
be amended to provide access to training, educational, or other
benefits that can provide impacted veterans with a pathway to
employment.
Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act
of 2014 (H.R. 4150)
This legislation would require the Department of Labor to
contract with a non-government entity to conduct a longitudinal
study of veterans who received job counseling, training, and
placement under Chapter 41 and those who did not seek the same
assistance. The survey will include information about the
disability ratings of individuals, their employment status,
whether services provided by disabled veterans' outreach
program specialist or local veterans' employment
representatives were helpful, and whether the individual
received VA educational assistance or participated in VA's VR&E
program.
VetsFirst supports this legislation. This survey will
provide important data that will help the Department and other
stakeholders to determine the long-term impact of employment
services for veterans. Because it will include measures on
disability, this survey may also provide important information
about the impact it has on long-term employment.
Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014 (H.R. 4151)
This legislation would require VA to contract with a non-
government entity to conduct a survey of individuals who have
used or are using VA educational benefits under Chapters 30,
32, 33, and 35. The survey will collect important information
about beneficiaries, including the services received from their
educational institutions, opinions about the effectiveness of
the VA programs through which they received benefits, and
eligibility for and use of VA's VR&E program. Upon completion
of the survey, VA will be required to provide Congress with the
results of the survey and resulting recommendations.
VetsFirst supports this legislation. The survey's
requirement to collect data including whether or not the
individual has a service-connected disability may be helpful in
determining the influence that disability had, if any, on an
individual's choice of school; goal for education or training;
and the services that the individual received from the school.
We also appreciate the inclusion of a question regarding VA's
VR&E program which we believe will help with efforts to
determine why veterans who are eligible for VR&E might instead
pursue other educational benefits.
We urge swift passage of this legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
concerning VetsFirst's views on these important pieces of
legislation. We remain committed to working in partnership to
ensure that all veterans are able to reintegrate in to their
communities and remain valued, contributing members of society.
Information Required by Clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the House
of Representatives
In fiscal year 2012 United Spinal Association served as a
subcontractor to Easter Seals for an amount not to exceed $5000
through funding Easter Seals received from the U.S. Department
of Transportation. This is the only federal contract or grant,
other than the routine use of office space and associated
resources in VA Regional Offices for Veterans Service Officers
that United Spinal Association has received in the current or
previous two fiscal years.
Heather L. Ansley is the Vice President of VetsFirst, which
is a program of United Spinal Association.
Ms. Ansley began her tenure with the organization in
December 2009. Her responsibilities include managing the public
policy advocacy, veterans benefits services, and veterans
outreach activities for VetsFirst. She also works to promote
collaboration between disability organizations and veterans
service organizations by serving as a co-chair of the
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Veterans and Military
Families Task Force.
Prior to her arrival at VetsFirst, she served as the
Director of Policy and Advocacy for the Lutheran Services in
America Disability Network.
Before arriving in Washington, D.C., she served as a
Research Attorney for The Honorable Steve Leben with the Kansas
Court of Appeals. Prior to attending law school, she worked in
the office of former U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof (R-MO)
where she assisted constituents with problems involving federal
agencies. She also served as the congressional and
intergovernmental affairs specialist at the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Region VII office in Kansas City, Missouri.
Ms. Ansley is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University
of Missouri-Columbia with a Bachelor of Arts in Political
Science. Ms. Ansley also holds a Master of Social Work from the
University of Missouri-Columbia and a Juris Doctorate from the
Washburn University School of Law in Kansas.
She is licensed to practice law in the State of Kansas and
before the United States District Court of Kansas.
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, (APSCU)
Executive Summary
On behalf of APSCU, our member institutions and the
military and veteran students we serve we welcome the
opportunity to provide our views on legislation that will
impact private sector colleges and universities and the
military and veteran students enrolled at our institutions.
H.R. 2942: We recognize the value of VA advisory
committees. The reestablishment of the Professional
Certification and Licensure Committee of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) allows key stakeholders to make important
recommendations to the Secretary which will assist the VA in
its efforts to better serve our veteran students.
H.R. 3056, Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act: While
we support the spirit of the Bill, we believe that other
government and nongovernment programs are already providing
peer-support and other similar services to veterans and we
encourage Congress to review the existing efforts before
creating a similar program. Additionally, the legislation makes
a glaring omission. As drafted, the Bill only provides for
piloting a peer-outreach program at public and private
nonprofit institutions ignoring the fact that private sector
colleges and universities educate more than 325,000 military
veterans, servicemembers, and their family members.
H.R. 4151, Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014: We
support gaining more information on the educational experiences
of student veterans at postsecondary institutions. APSCU is
committed to using strong data and evidence to strengthen our
sector's support of the military and veterans' community and
having good data will assist all institutions in their efforts
to improve services to students.
Thank you for allowing APSCU to present our views on
legislation impacting private sector colleges and universities
and the military and veteran students we support. We welcome
the opportunity to work with this subcommittee and members of
Congress to support student veterans and student
servicemembers.
Statement of Michael Dakduk, Vice President of Military and
Veterans Affairs, The Association of Private Sector Colleges
and Universities
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the
subcommittee, I am writing on behalf of the Association of
Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), our member
institutions, their faculty and the nearly four million
students who attend private sector institutions. Our
institutions provide a full range of higher education programs
to students seeking career-focused education. We provide short-
term certificate programs and diploma programs, two-and-four-
year associate and baccalaureate degree programs, as well as a
small number of master's and doctorate programs. We educate
students for careers in over 200 occupational fields including
information technology; allied health; automotive repair;
business administration; commercial art; and culinary and
hospitality management.
Since 2009, over one million veterans have used the Post-9/
11 GI benefits to pay for their education. Private sector
colleges and universities have educated more than 325,000.
Private sector institutions continue to grow as the education
choice for veterans because our schools offer focused academic
delivery and flexible schedules, which veterans favor.
We understand the challenges that arise when our military
men and women transition back to civilian life and enter into
postsecondary education. Our military and veteran students are
not the fresh-out-of-high school, first-time, full-time student
living on campus and attending college thanks to the generosity
of family. Our military and veteran students are like many of
our new traditional students--working, with a spouse and
children and paying for their education with money they have
earned.
Servicemembers and veterans attend our institutions because
we design courses to be relevant, concentrated, and suited to
the personal goals of our students. This education foundation
is of a particular benefit to military students and veterans
seeking a promotion, advance in rank or supplementing skills
attained during their service. This type of purposeful,
tailored education ensures that veteran and military students
nimbly move from the classroom onto their next academic or
professional goal. The ability to offer courses on-base,
online, and on the student's schedule is of tremendous value.
Because of our longer school days and year-round academic
programming, our students can often complete an associate's
degree in 18 months or a bachelor's degree in just over three
years.
Private sector colleges and universities are providing
skills that put Americans back to work. Today, in America,
there is a very real skills gap that is impeding job creation
and economic growth. Our institutions are working to bridge
this gap by combining postsecondary education and career skills
in ways that equip veteran students with workplace skills.
Of veteran graduates, 75 percent earned certificates and
associates degrees while 25 percent earned bachelor's and
graduate degrees.
Forty percent of all the veteran graduates earned
credentials in healthcare fields, one of the fastest growing
industries in the country. These occupations range from
medical, dental and veterinary assistants to nurses and
technologists of various types with weighted average annual
median salaries of $33,000 for certificate and associate degree
holders to $56,000 for bachelor and graduate degree holders.
Another 20 percent of veteran graduates earned credentials
in skilled trade programs, such as construction, maintenance
and repair, and engineering technologies. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States will need more
than 1 million additional workers to fill these jobs by 2020.
The weighted average annual median salary for graduates earning
their certificates and associate degrees in these fields was
$44,000.
Ten percent of veteran graduates earned awards in computer
and information programs like computer programming, computer
graphics, computer systems networking, and information
technology. The weighted average annual median salary is
$57,000 for certificate and associate degree holders and
$89,000 for bachelor and graduate degree holders. The U.S. will
need nearly 3 million additional computer and IT workers by
2020.
We want to work with you to provide our service members and
veterans, particularly young combat veterans, with the tools
and resources to make an informed, thoughtful decision about
which educational opportunity will best prepare them for the
workforce.
On behalf of APSCU, I welcome the opportunity to provide
our views on legislation impacting private sector colleges and
universities and military veterans enrolled at our
institutions.
H.R. 2942: Having previously served on the VA Advisory
Committee on Education, I recognize the value of VA advisory
committees. The reestablishment of the Professional
Certification and Licensure Committee of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) allows key stakeholders to make important
recommendations to the Secretary which will assist the VA in
its efforts to better serve our veteran students.
H.R. 3056, Warriors' Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act: The
VA has recently expanded the Vet Success on Campus program to
94 sites nationwide. Outside of the government, the nonprofit
group Student Veterans of America (SVA) has established over
900 campus-based veteran groups and is still growing. The
American Legion, too, has created posts on several campuses to
support student veterans. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
has created an outreach program where VFW posts engage and
support student veterans in their communities. Finally,
colleges and universities already utilize the VA work-study
program to support student veterans. While we support the
spirit of the Bill, we believe there are other government and
nongovernment programs that exist to provide peer-support and
other similar services to veterans and we encourage Congress to
review the existing efforts as it considers creating a similar
program. Additionally, the legislation makes a glaring
omission. As drafted, the legislation only provides for
piloting a peer-outreach program at public and private
nonprofit institutions ignoring the fact that private sector
colleges and universities educate more than 325,000 military
veterans, servicemembers, and their family members. If Congress
wants to reach a broad group of students, it needs to include
private sector colleges and universities in this endeavor.
H.R. 4151, Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014: We
support gaining more information on the educational experiences
of student veterans at postsecondary institutions. APSCU is
committed to using strong data and evidence to strengthen our
sector's support of the military and veterans' community and
having good data will assist all institutions in their efforts
to improve services to students.
Thank you for allowing APSCU to present our views on
legislation impacting private sector colleges and universities
and the military and veteran students we support. We welcome
the opportunity to work with this subcommittee and members of
Congress to support student veterans, student servicemembers,
and their families.
Senior Executives Association
March 24, 2014
The Hon. William Flores, and Hon. Mark Takano
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Flores and Ranking Member Takano:
The Senior Executives Association (SEA) represents the
interests of career federal executives in the Senior Executive
Service (SES), and those in Senior Level (SL), Scientific and
Professional (ST), and equivalent positions. On behalf of the
Association, and of SEA members who serve at the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), I am writing to oppose H.R. 4031, the
Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of
2014. This proposal not only sets the dangerous precedent of
politicizing the career executive corps, it will not achieve
the goal we all share--to provide the Nation's veterans with
the highest quality care.
The stated purpose of H.R. 4031 is to hold senior level
employees accountable by allowing the Secretary of the VA to
terminate Senior Executives ``in the same manner as the removal
of a professional staff member employed by a Member of
Congress.'' SEA questions the necessity of this Bill since
Senior Executives can already be removed for poor performance.
We will appreciate your considering the following points
since they speak to both the lack of justification for the
Bill, but also the danger of enacting this legislation.
Annually, VA Senior Executives are subjected to a multi-
step approval process before being granted their final
performance rating for the year. They are given initial ratings
by their direct supervisors which are then reviewed by
Performance Review Boards at the subcomponent (VBA/VHA/NCA)
level, and subsequently go to a VA-wide Performance Review
Board. At each level the Performance Review Board has the
option to increase, lower, or maintain the rating level based
on a review of the Senior Executive's performance. Senior
Executives are rated on a wide variety of categories based of
their individual performance plans and organizational
performance. Finally, the rating goes to the agency head for
review- in this case, Secretary Shinseki--who makes a final
decision whether to raise, maintain or lower the rating.
According to Secretary Shinseki (in a letter to Chairman
Miller, 1/31/14), ``Results, or lack thereof, for which
employees and executives are responsible and accountable, are
factors when evaluating performance. This includes levels and
outcomes of patient care, results of relevant investigations
and audits, as well as individual and organizational
performance and results.''
Should poor performance be evident based on the rating
process, an agency can take action to remove the Senior
Executive. By law, Senior Executives must be removed from the
SES if they receive two unsatisfactory ratings within five
consecutive years or two less than fully successful ratings
within three consecutive years.
In a hearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee in
February, Undersecretary for Health Robert Petzel stated that
in the past year 3,000 employees at the VA had been removed,
including fourteen Senior Executives over the past two years.
In the letter to Chairman Miller, Secretary Shinseki stated:
``I believe VA has sufficient authority to take swift action
and hold employees and executives accountable for
performance.''
Instead of ensuring strong performance (by which Senior
Executives can already be held accountable through consistent,
fair and transparent application of the existing performance
management system), this legislation could well have the
unintended effect of politicizing the career SES. Allowing the
Secretary to terminate Senior Executives would place the
Executives at the mercy of media and Congressional pressure,
rather than providing an honest assessment of performance and
accountability.
In the 19th century the federal service was
professionalized under the Pendleton Act to put an end to the
patronage system that had allowed the civil service to become
an arm of whichever political party held power at the time. To
guarantee fair treatment of employees and preserve the
integrity of the civil service, protections were put in place
to provide due process for federal employees and a barrier to
undue political influence so that federal employees could
fairly carry out the laws passed by Congress without fear of
political retribution.
As it currently stands, career Senior Executives enjoy far
fewer protections than other federal employees. The unfortunate
reality of the past few years has been that the rhetoric
surrounding federal employees is largely driven by optics
rather than the policy needs of the American people. SEA is
concerned that H.R. 4031 would allow Senior Executives to be
subjected to a trial by media that pressures political
appointees to remove them without cause. With fear of
retribution by an agency head, the career SES could well become
a politicized corps that bends with the political winds, rather
than serving the American people free from political influence.
SEA strongly supports holding employees accountable for their
performance. Should an employee need to be removed, then an
agency already has the means to do so. Federal employees are
routinely fired and red tape is not the problem.
SEA has become aware of some Veterans Service Organizations
that are advocating for providing the Secretary of VA the same
firing authority as the Defense Secretary. This is based on a
quote by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates where he talked
about firing people at the top to change the culture during the
Walter Reed scandal. However, the people that former Secretary
Gates fired in order to change the culture were political
appointees. Further, there appears to be confusion between
career Senior Executives and political appointees generally.
Across the government, and at the VA, there are non-career
Senior Executives who are political appointees, and, like all
political appointees, they serve at the pleasure of the agency
head. It is unclear to SEA that this distinction between career
and political appointees is being accurately applied in the
case of the VA.
In discussing this legislation with many Congressional
offices, it appears that the underlying concern has more to do
with the SES performance appraisal process than the
accountability process. SEA has long advocated for stronger
transparency and fairness for the SES performance management
system and stands ready to work with you to strengthen the
system, rather than unfairly punishing Senior Executives
through a measure that will do nothing to truly improve the
quality of care and service given to the Nation's veterans.
I look forward to answering any questions about the SES
system that you may have.
Sincerely,
Carol A. Bonosaro, President