[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
``LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 456; H.R. 473; H.R. 474; H.R. 475; H.R.
476; H.R. 643; H.R. 1038; H.R. 1141; H.R. 1187; H.R. 1313; H.R. 1382''
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-12
__________
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
98-629 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________
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 CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Minority Member
Chairman MARK TAKANO, California
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan DINA TITUS, Nevada
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas RAUL RUIZ, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana KATHLEEN RICE, New York
RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LEE ZELDIN, New York JERRY McNERNEY, California
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American
Samoa
MIKE BOST, Illinois
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Don Phillips, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio, Chairman
LEE ZELDIN, New York MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American Member
Samoa DINA TITUS, Nevada
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania KATHLEEN RICE, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois JERRY McNERNEY, California
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Page
.................................................................
``Legislative Hearing On H.R. 456; H.R. 473; H.R. 474; H.R. 475;
H.R. 476; H.R. 643; H.R. 1038; H.R. 1141; H.R. 1187; H.R. 1313;
H.R. 1382'' 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Brad Wenstrup, Chairman.......................................... 1
Mark Takano, Ranking Member...................................... 3
Prepared Statement........................................... 31
Jeff Miller, Chairman of the Full Committee...................... 10
WITNESSES
Hon. Patrick Murphy (FL-18)...................................... 6
Mr. Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.................. 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 33
Mr. Christopher Neiweem, Legislative Associate, Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America................................ 13
Prepared Statement........................................... 41
Mr. Steve Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National Veteran
Employment ` Education Division, The American Legion........... 15
Prepared Statement........................................... 46
Dr. Joseph W. Wescott, President, National Association of State
Approving Agencies............................................. 16
Prepared Statement........................................... 57
Accompanied by:
Timothy Freeman, Legislative Director, NASAA
MG Robert M. Worley II USAF (Ret.), Director, Education Service,
VBA, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs....................... 24
Prepared Statement........................................... 61
Accompanied by:
Mr. Tom Leney, Executive Director, Small and Veterans
Business Programs, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Ms. Kimberly McLeod, Deputy Assistant General Counsel,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
And
Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Ms. Teresa W. Gerton, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor...... 26
Prepared Statement........................................... 99
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
U.S. Department of Defense....................................... 105
School Advocates for Veterans' Education and Success............. 105
Paralyzed Veterans of America.................................... 108
Easter Seals, Inc................................................ 110
National Association of Veterans' Program Administrators......... 112
``LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 456; H.R. 473; H.R. 474; H.R. 475; H.R.
476; H.R. 643; H.R. 1038; H.R. 1141; H.R. 1187; H.R. 1313; H.R. 1382''
----------
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Brad Wenstrup
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Wenstrup, Zeldin, Costello,
Radewagen, Bost, Miller, Bilirakis, Takano, Titus, Rice, and
McNerney.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRAD WENSTRUP
Dr. Wenstrup. Good afternoon, everyone.
The Subcommittee will come to order. Before we begin, I
would like to ask unanimous consent that our colleagues,
Chairman Miller and Mr. Bilirakis, be allowed to sit at the
dais to make opening statements and ask questions.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I want to thank you all for joining us here today to
discuss legislation pending before the subcommittee concerning
education benefits and employment programs for our return
servicemembers and veterans. This afternoon we have 11
important pieces of legislation before us. I will focus my
remarks on three of these bills which I introduced earlier this
year.
The first is H.R. 474, the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration
Programs Reauthorization Act of 2015. The Homeless Veterans'
Reintegration Program, HVRP, provides grants to programs with
employment and training services for homeless veterans. H.R.
474 would reauthorize HVRP until 2020 and would ensure that
veterans who are homeless and participating in the HUD VASH
voucher program, as well as veterans who are transitioning from
incarceration are also eligible for services provided by HVRP.
My second bill, H.R. 475, the G.I. Bill Processing
Improvement Act of 2015 would make several changes to improve
processing of G.I. Bill claims. The centerpiece of this
legislation is to authorize additional funding for new IT
projects to ensure that all original education claims are
processed electronically. This is an issue the subcommittee has
been tracking for several years, and as I said at our hearing
last week, it is imperative that VA finish the job and complete
the long-term solution. This bill also has a provision that
would extend by a year, the July 1st deadline, for schools to
comply with the in-state tuition provision in the Choice Act.
VA, state legislatures and the SAA seem to be making good
progress as we approach this deadline in the coming months, but
I am interested to hear from our witnesses today as to whether
they believe this extension is needed. If it is not needed, I
would intend to remove this provision from the bill at our
subcommittee markup.
My final bill is H.R. 476, the G.I. Bill Quality
Enhancement Act of 2015, which makes several changes to the
role of the state approving agencies and how schools are
approved for G.I. Bill benefits. This bill was based on
legislative changes proposed by the National Association of
State Approving Agencies, and I want to thank Dr. Wescott and
General Worley for working together to bring this proposal
forward. The main focus of this bill would be to increase
oversight of G.I. Bill programs and strengthen the role of the
SAA for decades to come.
I understand that there have been concerns raised by some
related to the flight school provision in the bill that I would
like to address. While I believe that flight training is a
noble and worthwhile education, it was never the intention of
the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill to allow some schools to charge in some
cases, almost $900,000 in tuition and fees for one veteran. By
capping tuition and fees for public flight schools at the same
cap as other private, nonprofit schools, we would be leveling
the playing field for all student veterans.
I would also like to address the concerns that have been
raised regarding Section 3 of the bill relating to the States'
ability to set their own standards and criteria for G.I. Bill
approval. While I don't have any problem with States setting
their own reasonable criteria for approval of an educational
program, an authority granted to the States currently under
federal law, they should and must do so in a fair and equitable
way across all schools. Ensuring a fair and level playing field
for all schools, regardless of the type of school, is what this
section is striving to accomplish, nothing more.
Some may say that we are trying to protect bad schools and
undermining States' rights, and I would remind everyone this is
a federal benefit, not a state benefit, and if the SAA in that
state or the VA believes that a school is not providing their
student veterans with a quality education at a good value, then
they should withdraw that school's approval immediately. But to
impart one set of standards on one group of schools while
excluding another group of schools with a similar student
population, as well as similar student outcomes is not fair. It
is not good government, and is simply not right.
With that being said, I am eager to discuss each of the 11
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 and I look forward to a
productive and meaningful discussion.
I will now yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Takano,
for any opening statement that he may have.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MARK TAKANO
Today, we are examining 11 bills, five of which directly
relate to veterans education benefits. As a former educator, I
enjoy my time on this committee precisely because we all share
an interest as to how education helps veterans successfully
transition into civilian life. I believe that the majority of
these bills move us towards this subcommittee's purpose,
increasing economic opportunity for our nation's veterans.
The G.I. Bill Fairness Act, which I introduced, would close
a gap faced by our National Guardsmen and Reservists who have
been called and then recalled to war throughout operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I was shocked when I first heard that
brave men and women with combat injuries, who are receiving
medical treatment on active duty military orders, are not
allowed to count their recovery time towards earning education
benefits. This is a no-brainer, a cost of war, let's do the
right thing by these injured servicemen, servicemembers, and
give them the benefits they need and deserve. I am happy to
hear the Department of Defense agrees this is the right thing
to do.
I also want to recognize several of my colleagues' bills.
Ms. Rice has introduced her first bill as a representative, the
BRAVE Act, which requires VA to consider the number of veteran
employees a contractor has before giving them new work with the
VA. I am confident her legislation will result in the number of
jobs available to veterans and I applaud her efforts in getting
right to work for veterans on Capitol Hill--I am speaking about
you, Ms. Rice, as you are walking in. Mr. McNerney's bill, the
Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Relief Act, also
allows surviving spouses to retain their deceased spouses
preferred status of their businesses for three years. And Mr.
Murphy's bill, the Reducing Barriers for Veterans Education
Act, will help veterans pay for their college application fees.
I strongly support all of these pieces of legislation.
I generally agree with the legislation being offered for
scrutiny today, but there is one provision in H.R. 476, the
G.I. Bill Education Quality Enhancement Act that infringes on
States' rights to govern their educational institutions. I fear
that this provision will have serious negative impacts on our
veterans. Director Worley and I agree that States should retain
the right to implement additional standards for schools that
educate and train our veterans as they see fit, as is the case
under current law. In fact, I believe it was through these
additional standards that the California Department of Veterans
Affairs was able to suspend and ultimately withdraw approval
for Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a company that was shut down
after the Department of Education found widespread abusive and
deceptive practices. I am concerned that the provision in H.R.
476 would hinder our States' ability to protect veterans from
predatory schools, particularly those that take veterans' money
for the benefit of their shareholders and leave our heroes with
unsustainable debt and worthless degrees.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is otherwise important for veterans
and taxpayers, but on behalf of California veterans, I ask you
to reconsider this provision.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to a good
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Mark Takano
appears in the Appendix]
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
Next we have Mr. Zeldin to discuss his bill, H.R. 1187. You
are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is great to--I appreciate you bringing this bill up for
the Committee's consideration. In some parts of the country,
the real estate markets are a little bit higher than others. I
represent New York's 1st Congressional District on the east end
of Long Island. And what we are experiencing is that over the
course of the last several years, due to a change made as part
of the 2009 Stimulus Package, thousands of veterans were able
to qualify for VA home loans due to a change that then expired
at the end of 2014. This bill would eliminate the loan limit or
the maximum guarantee amount of a loan that the VA can
guarantee for a veteran.
There are several places around the country where a veteran
is not able to use their VA home guarantee benefits because of
the lower maximum guaranty amount that went into place January
1st of 2015, when the old higher loan limits statutorily
expired.
Thank you for bringing this bill to the Committee for
consideration.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin.
Next, we have Ms. Rice to discuss her bill, H.R. 1382, and
you are now recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member Takano, for holding this hearing.
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve on this
subcommittee, and I look forward to working together to solve
problems for all of our veterans and ensure they have the
opportunities they need to succeed in civilian life.
And one of the bills we will discuss today is H.R. 1382,
otherwise known as the BRAVE Act, the Boosting Rates of
American Veteran Employment Act, which I introduced last week.
This bill would authorize the VA secretary, when awarding
contracts, to give preference to companies with high
concentrations of veteran employees, reward companies that
actively employee veterans, and creating an incentive for other
companies to do so the same.
I want to thank my lead co-sponsor, Congressman Paul Cook
from California, for his support. I also want to thank our
original co-sponsors, Ranking Member Takano and Congresswoman
Radewagen, as well as our colleagues on the full committee,
Congressman Abraham and Congresswoman Kuster. It is very
important to me that the first bill I have introduced in the
House have balanced bipartisan support, and it is even more
important to our veterans that we work together in a bipartisan
way to solve problems for the men and women who have served our
country.
And one of the biggest problems facing our veterans right
now, especially those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is
finding good jobs in civilian life. We have seen progress in
event years, but the unemployment rate among post-9/11 veterans
is still higher than the national average and that is
completely unacceptable. Our veterans have received the best
training in the world. They have unique skills and experience
that can't be acquired, anywhere but in the United States
military. They have what it takes to excel in civilian
workforce and they don't need charity. They don't need a
handout; they just need the opportunity.
The BRAVE Act will reward companies that provide that
opportunity. It gives them an advantage in securing federal
contacts and that creates an incentive for other contractors to
step up and do the same, to make it a priority, to actively
invest in our veterans. And I have no doubt that as contractors
hire more veterans, they will realize that that is a smart
investment. That is really what all of this is about. We don't
just want to hire veterans because it is the right thing to do,
we want them to realize it is a smart investment. We want them
to recognize that it is in their own self-interest to actively
hire men and women who are highly trained, highly skilled, and
know how to get the job done, whatever the job is. That is the
goal. That is how we will solve this problem and ensure that
every single man and woman who served our country can find a
good job and succeed in civilian life. And passing the BRAVE
Act will help us get there.
I want to thank the witnesses who have taken the time today
to join us today. I look forward to hearing your testimony and
I am eager to work with you to advance this legislation and to
help advance our veterans' careers and education in any way
that we can.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Ms. Rice.
Next we have Mr. Costello to discuss H.R. 1038. You are now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, it is my pleasure
to testify on behalf of my legislation, H.R. 1038, the Ensuring
VA Employee Accountability Act. This is a commonsense effort to
ensure greater employee accountability within the Department of
Veterans Affairs and I respectfully request my colleagues here
today support the passage of this legislation.
We all agree that our veterans deserve the best service and
care possible and it is our responsibility to ensure that care
is being provided by the employees responsible. The VA's
disciplinary actions for their personnel are carried out in a
tiered system and the two most commonly used are the lower-
tiered actions, admonishments and reprimands. As the VA
continues to review the findings of the recent Inspector
General's investigation related to data manipulation, backlogs,
and wait times, it is apparent in the limited reports the VA
provides to Congress on adverse actions that a greater number
of admonishments and reprimands are being issued to at-fault
employees.
However, in the current policy, these disciplinary actions
remain in an employee's file for only three years and are then
deleted. This policy prevents the keeping of complete employee
files and does not allow the poor performers within the VA to
be tracked or be held accountable. Veterans expect that if an
employee's actions warrant a removal, then the correct
disciplinary action should be administered, not simply getting
a temporary written warning; therefore, as the VA continues to
issue these lower-tiered disciplinary actions more heavily than
others, it is important that the personnel actions remain in
the employee's record while employed at the VA. It is only
right to ensure that if a VA employee has illustrated a pattern
of disciplinary misbehavior, that a full and complete employee
file be considered when an employee is reviewed for bonuses,
promotions or advancements.
This will do just that. It will require all reprimands and
admonishments remain in the VA employee's file as long as they
are employed at the VA. That being said, nothing in this bill
imposes new employee penalties or would affect the existing
process for a VA employee to appeal a disciplinary action. This
is simply another tool for the secretary to hold employees
accountable throughout their tenure at the VA. It will ensure
that the VA maintains good complete employee records and holds
those who care for our veterans accountable. It will also
ensure our veterans receive the care they deserve and have
earned.
I would respectfully call on my colleagues to join me in
supporting this legislation to promote transparency and
accountability where it is greatly needed.
Thank you, I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
Next, we have Mr. McNerney to discuss his bill, H.R. 1313.
You are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the Chairman.
Just imagine the scenario, you are a spouse of a service
connected disabled business owner and you are doing well, you
are supporting your family, you are supporting a couple other
employees and all of a sudden your spouse dies in a car
accident or something that is not related to a service
disability, all of a sudden you lose your status; you are
laying off your employees; you are seeing your kids go without
decent meals, without clothes. I mean that is not acceptable.
What my bill does is it extends that disability rating for
three years which gives the spouse enough time to establish the
business without the rating. So that is what my bill does. I
urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. Murphy, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK MURPHY
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
Members of the Committee, for having me here. It is nice to be
on this side of things; it is a different view.
It is an honor to be here to discuss this important piece
of legislation that I introduced with my colleague, Mr. Luke
Messer. One of the greatest honors of my time here in Congress
was visiting our brave men and women in Afghanistan serving our
country. I had the opportunity to see firsthand the
extraordinary work they are doing for this country day in and
day out. These men and women are putting their lives on the
line for us.
Our grateful nation works to expand opportunities when they
return home. To that end, the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill changed the
lives of veterans across this country; however, veterans in my
district in Florida still tell me they face significant
challenges when they return home. One key obstacle to applying
to undergraduate, graduate and vocational colleges, while
tuition and fees are covered under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, the
application fees are not. According to the National Association
for College Admission Counseling, average fees for an
undergraduate institution are around $40. Graduate school
applications can be as high as $275. For a veteran returning
home after months or years of active duty service, covering
those costs can be extremely difficult.
Based on the incredible bipartisan work on this committee
here and its dedicated membership, I know you all share my
belief that we should look for opportunities to make the lives
of our heroes easier, not more complicated. And for this
reason, I have introduced the Reducing Barriers for Veterans
Education Act to address the issue of college application fees.
This legislation would make college application costs eligible
for payment under the Post-9/11 G.I., bill giving our veterans
the option to use up to $750 of their Post-9/11 G.I. benefits
to cover application costs.
This would open the doors for veterans in Florida and
across the country who are unable to cover these costs on their
own. When we talk about cutting spending and balancing the
budget, it is to protect key investments. The American people
entrust us with their hard-earned tax dollars with the hope
that we will give it a good return. That return on investment
that we get for facilitating access to college and graduate
school for our brave men and women couldn't be greater.
Even still, the costs of these application fees would be
offset, counting against the existing Post-9/11 G.I. benefits.
This isn't about creating a new entitlement; this is about
tearing down unnecessary barriers that stand between those
willing to give it all for their country and then go on to get
an education. This bipartisan legislation has the support of
over 100 members of Congress and veteran service organizations
including The American Legion, Student Veterans of America, and
the Military Officers Association of America.
This is legislation that should be signed into law. It is
the right thing to do and more than anything, it is something
that will make a real impact on veterans in every congressional
district. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this
legislation with you today and I look forward to continuing to
support your good work and improving the lives of veterans.
Thank you.
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Unless there are any questions for our colleague, you are
excused.
Dr. Wenstrup. I now invite our second panel to the table.
First we have Mr. Aleks Morosky, deputy director of the
national legislative service at the Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States; Mr. Christopher Neiweem, legislative
associate at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Mr.
Steve Gonzalez, assistant director of the national veteran
employment & education division at The American Legion; and
also Dr. Joseph Wescott, president of the National Association
of State Approving Agencies. I thank you all for being here,
for your service to our nation in uniform, and for your hard
work and advocacy for veterans.
Mr. Morosky, we will begin with you. You are now recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. ALEKS MOROSKY
Mr. Morosky. Chairman Wenstrup, 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 and our
auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify on today's pending legislation.
The VFW supports the Reducing Barriers for Veterans
Education Act. Believing that veterans should not face any
unnecessary barriers when accessing their benefits and that
allowing them to use a small portion of their entitlement to
defray college application costs is fully consistent with the
intent of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill.
The VFW supports the Increasing the Department of Veterans
Affairs Accountability to Veterans Act. No employee should be
able to commit a serious crime and then opt to retire without
consequence. We believe VA needs the authority to take quick
and decisive action against all senior managers who perpetuate
wrongdoing, while ensuring that all SES employees have proper
training and performance evaluation systems in place so that
they will be the leaders the VA needs them to be.
The VFW fully supports the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration
Program Reauthorization Act. VA has taken great strides in
achieving the goal of ending veterans' homelessness, but before
it can be realized, VA homelessness programs must continue.
The VFW supports all provisions of the G.I. Bill Processing
Improvement Act, except Section 3, which would delay the
implementation of in-state tuition protections for one year. At
this point, we are confident that most states should be able to
meet the July 1st, 2015 deadline. We also note that VA has the
authority to grant waivers to individual states with legitimate
reasons for needing more time. Considering these factors, we
now believe that the original implementation date should remain
in effect in order to encourage all states to continue to make
progress towards full implementation as quickly as possible.
The VFW supports the G.I. Bill Education Quality
Enhancement Act which would make important reforms to the way
state approving agencies and VA approve courses of education.
These reforms include codifying the authority of SAAs to
inspect and approve non-college degree programs at not-for-
profit schools; the requirement to apply uniform criteria when
approving all categories of educational programs; placing
reasonable caps on the amount of tuition and fees that may be
paid for flight training; and adjusting the way compliance
surveys are conducted. These are consistent with VFW
recommendations from previous hearings, and we thank Chairman
Wenstrup for introducing this bill.
The VFW supports the Veterans Education Survey Act to
commission a survey of student veterans currently using their
earned G.I. Bill benefits. Student veterans, particularly those
who enroll in non-traditional programs, usually start their
studies on a part-time basis while serving in the military or
they bring a significant number of 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. Without
statistically valid information on student veteran experience
or student veteran outcomes, it is impossible to know how
student veterans are actually faring in higher education.
The VFW fully supports the Ensuring VA Employee
Accountability Act. Currently an employee who is reprimanded
and is granted a transfer will start their new position with a
clean slate. This allows the bad mark to go unrecognized on
their next evaluation, which inhibits accountability and
passively condones poor performance. Employees must be held
accountable for their actions and this legislation goes a long
way towards achieving that goal.
The VFW supports the G.I. Bill Fairness Act which would
require VA to consider time spent by members of the Reserve
component receiving medical care for service-connected injuries
for the purposes of determining eligibility for the Post-9/11
G.I. Bill. We believe the time it takes to recuperate from
service-connected injuries is still time in service to this
country and that Reservists and Guardsmen should be recognized
for their sacrifice.
Furthermore, we urge Congress to address another inequity
that we have identified in Post-9/11 G.I. Bill eligibility
determination. The VFW believes that any member of the Armed
Forces who is wounded in action should be deemed 100 percent
eligible, regardless of how long they served on active duty.
The VFW supports H.R. 1187, believing that veterans should
not be limited by arbitrary caps when selecting a location to
purchase a home. Since the rate of default on VA-backed loans
is significantly lower than that of the national average,
approving mortgages for higher amounts will not adversely
affect veterans or financial institutions, but will help
veterans secure home loans in all geographic areas.
The VFW also supports the Service Disabled Veteran Owned
Small Business Relief Act. Current law only allows the
surviving spouse to temporarily continue operating a service
disabled veteran owned business if the veteran was 100 percent
disabled or died from service-connected disability. This is a
necessary protection that allows for a transition period for
the bereaved spouse to restructure the business as necessary.
The VFW believes that this protection should be extended to all
surviving spouses under the SDVOSB program.
Finally, the VFW supports the BRAVE Act, which would allow
VA to give preference to prospective contractors based on the
percentage of veterans their companies employ. Such a policy
would potentially incentivize companies to hire more veterans.
The VFW believes that such incentives are still necessary in
light of the fact that the unemployment rate for current era
veterans continues to outpace that of the nation at large.
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, thank you, and I
look forward to any questions you or any other members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aleks Morosky appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Morosky.
If I may indulge the panel for just a few moments here, at
this time, I would like to yield to Chairman Miller of the full
committee to discuss his bill, H.R. 473.
Chairman Miller, you are now recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for being late. I was in an intelligence
hearing on the defense intelligence budget and was asking some
questions that you and I both are very interested in. Thank you
for yielding to me for just a moment. I want to thank you and
the ranking member for allowing me an opportunity to speak on
behalf of my bill, H.R. 473, Increasing the Department of
Veterans Affairs Accountability to Veterans Act of 2015.
First, let me start by recognizing the tens of thousands of
people that work at the Department of Veterans Affairs that are
dedicated, that go to work every day that do what they do for
the right reason, both senior managers and rank and file
personnel. But the past year has been very tumultuous for VA
and I know that a lot of distrust has arisen between the
American public and the Department, and I want to emphasize
that H.R. 473 is in no way intended to disparage the hard-
working employees, as I said, that go to work every day to do
the right thing. In fact, my bill is meant to help them, as
well as the Department as a whole, by assisting the secretary
in his effort to turn around the VA, to turn a new page at the
Department, if you will.
Last Congress, we were successful in passing into law a
tool the secretary needed to weed out the bad managers within
the Department and hold senior executives accountable when
warranted, and I think we can all agree that this tool was a
very important and necessary one, but it is not the only means
to enhance accountability at the Department. True
accountability and a change in culture cannot happen over night
and cannot happen with just one piece of legislation, which is
why I introduced H.R. 473, to bring additional reform to VA.
Without a continued change in culture, the Department will not
become the agency that our veterans deserve.
My bill would do several things, but I am going to touch on
just a few important aspects of the bill at this time. First,
it would allow the secretary to reduce an SES employee's
retirement only upon their conviction of a felony that
influenced their performance at work. I believe that this is a
common sense measure, as it should not require an act of
treason or an act of terrorism before an employee's retirement
can be reduced, as the current law currently states.
H.R. 473 would also make changes to the performance review
system for SES employees and would require the secretary to
rate the senior executives in a tiered system, as opposed to
just placing everyone in the top two categories. Not a single
senior executive was placed in a category lower than fully
successful for the past couple of years, and I think that we
can all agree that after the scandal that arose last summer,
that is not an accurate depiction of the performance of all
senior managers within the Department.
And, Members, my bill would also reinforce the foundations
of the original intent of the Senior Executive Service by
requiring senior executives to move every five years to a new
position. This is to ensure that best practices are spread
throughout the agency and the country and to improve leadership
across all facilities.
Finally, my bill would limit the amount of time that a
senior executive employee may be placed on paid administrative
leave to 14 days. It is ridiculous that VA is paying employees
to sit at home for almost a year in some cases at the
taxpayers' expense; that should not be the common practice for
VA, but, unfortunately, we have seen it in far too many cases.
It is easier to send someone home indefinitely and continue
paying them instead of making a personnel decision.
The secretary has the authority to make great strides to
improve accountability following the biggest scandal in the
Department's history, but more needs to be done. We must
continue to work together to change the culture at VA. It is
what both veterans and the American taxpayers deserve. And I
know many are concerned that continuing to impose personnel
measures on VA employees that are not applicable to the rest of
the federal government will only disincentivize good workers
from coming to the Department, but I think the opposite is
true. Good workers want to work in good agencies with other
hard-working employees and want to know that bad actors will be
held fully accountable.
I believe that giving the secretary these further tools
will only enhance the culture at VA and ultimately improve the
care provided to our country's veterans. At the end of the day,
that is the job of this committee; our primary mission is to
support our veterans. Everything else should take second place.
I would ask my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Takano, the Ranking Member, for
including my legislation into today's agenda, and I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Next, Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for five minutes to
discuss your bill.
Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing and, obviously, hearing my
bill, H.R. 643, the Veterans Education Survey Act of 2015.
The challenges our nation's heroes face do not end on the
battlefield, but continue as they make their transition to
civilian life. 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 of our U.S. Armed Forces have answered the
call to protect the liberties that we enjoy on a daily basis.
Likewise, we must answer the call for veterans.
Through the G.I. Bill, veterans can utilize these benefits
to work towards college degrees and certificates,
correspondence courses, apprenticeships, on-the-job training
programs, and vocational flight training programs.
Additionally, these programs provide assistance in covering
costs from a myriad of education-related expenditures. These
education and training programs have been credited with
successfully transitioning and readjusting returning
servicemembers for generations; however, we must strive to do
more and find ways to improve this important program.
Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Education
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 GI Bill had the largest number of
participants and highest total obligations when compared to
previous versions of the GI Bill 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 GI Bill program.
An obstacle we continue to encounter when discussing the GI
Bill is a lack of data available regarding its participants. It
is critical to understand how these programs affect veterans,
so that we may continue to provide the best assistance we can.
Recently, the economic opportunities subcommittee held a
hearing titled, ``A Review of Higher Education Opportunities
for the Newest Generation of Veterans.'' In this hearing,
various veterans service organizations and witnesses
highlighted the value in presenting such benefits to our
transitioning service members.
For example, the School Advocates for Veterans Education
and Success, so it is called SAVES, they stated, ``In our eyes
the most important question is, how do we know how well
veterans are doing on our campus?'' To answer those questions,
we must measure the strengths and weaknesses, the successes and
failures of our programs, both quantitatively and
qualitatively. In order to give the best opportunities to our
veterans, we must be prepared to address new needs as they are
identified, and continue to find ways to improve both the
effectiveness and delivery of these resources.
Veterans service organizations seeing this firsthand have
stressed to Congress the necessity of collecting comprehensive
data. The American Legion stated before Congress that current
outcomes are based on incomplete data and recommended
redefining VA's data points in measuring success indicators
across the population.
To ensure that our nation's veterans' progression into
civilian life is a top priority, I have introduced the Veterans
Education Surveys Act of 2015. My bill, H.R. 643, would create
a pathway to continued success by surveying veterans using
their education-assistance benefits.
The survey would be an extensive study conducted by a
third-party non-government entity using a statistically valid
sample of individuals utilizing the educational programs. The
information would encompass all possible factors that could
contribute to the effectiveness of these programs. This survey
would prove beneficial to VA and Congress by providing a better
understanding of what improvements will be most impactful to
the success of these individuals using the education-assistance
programs.
I want to thank our witnesses today for being here, as well
as those that provided testimonies for the record. I want to
especially thank the American Legion, the VFW, the School
Advocates for Veterans' Education and Success, the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the Paralyzed Veterans of
America for their support of the Veterans Education Survey Act.
I encourage my colleagues on this committee to support this
bipartisan piece of legislation. Please co-sponsor the
legislation as well. We can all agree that those who dedicated
their lives to serving our country should have the resources
they need to successfully transition into civilian life. Let us
honor that commitment and get this done for our veterans, our
heroes.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Neiweem, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER NEIWEEM
Mr. Neiweem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America and our nearly 400,000 members and
supporters, we would like to extend our gratitude for the
opportunity to share with you our views and recommendations
regarding these important pieces of legislation. Specifically,
the following bills.
H.R. 475. This bill would provide the needed funding and
support to keep VA's administration of education programs to a
standard veterans will require over the next decade. Last week,
I appeared before this committee with survey data collected by
IAVA members that showed late payments continue to occur with
respect to the Post-9/11 GI Bill program. This legislation is
necessary to continue to improve and modernize the services
that VA is currently providing and will move toward preventing
these problems from occurring in the future.
Broadening electronic automation functionality and
enhancing technological capabilities are the only way to make
sure that the disbursement of education benefit checks keeps
pace with current technological capabilities. The timeliness of
benefit delivery to veterans over the next decade will greatly
depend on efficient IT technology platforms.
IAVA supports this bill and appreciates the resources it
will provide to VA to better assist in getting education
benefit payments right the first time.
In regard to H.R. 474, this legislation will extend needed
housing benefit programs for veterans for an additional five
years. Additionally, this bill will make needed changes
required to maintain support for veterans currently being
served by HUD-VASH vouchers.
Allowing veterans access to housing support and job
training programs greatly increases his or her chances for
success when transitioning to full-time work and a long-term
residential option. IAVA supports this bill.
In regard to H.R. 1141, this bill would consider time spent
by reserve components healing from injuries in DOD facilities
as good towards Post-9/11 GI Bill program eligibility. When
reservists who are deployed overseas return stateside and their
Title 10 orders expire, his or her time counted towards their
eligibility for Post-9/11 benefits is not counted. This would
fix this inequity. There is no reason that an injury should
reduce accrual of education benefits and IAVA strongly supports
the legislation.
In regard to H.R. 476, the chief solution this legislation
would provide is capping the payments that are currently being
provided to some private flight schools at $20,235.02. In the
last several months, it has come to our attention that some
student veterans have taken flight training and have been
charged excessive fees that have been paid under their GI Bill
benefits. This measure provides a commonsense cost control for
extremely high fees that upon examination are well above the
costs intended for the instruction received.
In learning more about some of these scenarios and in
working with the committee, we agree Section 4 is necessary to
protect VA education benefits from abuse. IAVA strongly
supports this legislation.
H.R. 643. This legislation would require a non-government
entity to conduct a survey of veterans' views and experiences
utilizing their education benefits. The information that the
survey intends to capture is broad and would go a long way to
identifying how support programs are working from the view of
the customers that matter most, the veterans.
Additionally, these surveys would solicit views on TAP
participation and potential barriers or obstacles that prevent
veterans from making use of their benefits for those that have
not participated in VA education benefit programs. The focus on
each person's individual experience is the best way to know how
many nations' programs are or are not helping them in achieving
their educational/employment objectives. And this survey would
be more comprehensive and go further than current survey
efforts that are underway currently at VA. IAVA strongly
supports this legislation.
In regard to H.R. 473, the accountability measure, Chairman
Miller's bill is of great interest to IAVA and we are
continuing to examine how its potential enactment could impact
the department and our members, more importantly. There is no
question of accountability failures at the Phoenix VA Medical
Center last summer and that this committee and VSO/MSO
stakeholders must aggressively promote policies that make
certain those actions that included the maintenance of secret
waiting lists for veterans who waited for care are never
repeated.
We support the intent of this bill and look forward to a
closer examination of how federal policy across the U.S.
Government compares with these recommendations for the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Additionally, IAVA will engage
with the VA to identify how its implementation would impact the
employment culture and retention mission of the department.
We strongly appreciate Chairman Miller's staunch commitment
to making sure our veterans are receiving the best care our
nation can deliver and we will continue to closely study and
monitor this measure. As such, while we support many of the
provisions of this bill, we require more time and study before
issuing full support.
Lastly, in closing, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1187. This bill
would adjust the VA Home Loan guarantee restrictions currently
set at 25 percent of the loan and allow more flexibility in VA
in determining its commitment. Providing VA this flexibility
and removing the cap could be the difference between a veteran
securing a loan to buy the home that they always envisioned.
I am a little over time here, Mr. Chairman. I will close by
saying IAVA supports these bills and I am happy to answer any
questions you or the members of the committee have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neiweem appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Mr. Neiweem.
Mr. Gonzalez, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ
Mr. Gonzalez. Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking
Member Takano, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
On behalf of our national commander, Mike Helm, and the 2.3
million members of the American Legion, we thank you for this
opportunity to testify regarding the American Legion's position
on pending legislation before the subcommittee.
In sum, we are generally supportive of the proposed
legislation. Here I will highlight two where we differ
somewhat.
We support H.R. 475, the GI Bill Processing Improvement Act
of 2015, sponsored by Chairman Wenstrup, except for Section 3.
The American Legion was gratified that the Veterans' Choice Act
contained among its provisions one which effectively requires
public universities and colleges that participate in the Post-
9/11 GI Bill to provide in-state tuition to veterans and
dependents using those GI Bill benefits. Many states either
currently assist all or certain veterans by recognizing them as
in-state students for purposes of attending a public education
institution or are in the process of making the rule changes
necessary to comply with the in-state tuition provision.
In addition, VA has the authority to waive for a year those
states which cannot meet the current July 1, 2015
implementation date to allow them additional time to become
compliant. Therefore, we don't see the necessity of delaying by
a year to July 1, 2016 the implementation of this important
change.
Turning now to Chairman Miller's bill, H.R. 473, Increase
in the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability to
Veterans Act. Reacting to the firing of Phoenix VA Healthcare
System director in November of last year, the national
commander of the American Legion, Mike Helm, noted, ``This is
one long overdue step in a journey that is far from over.''
Unfortunately, as we all soon discovered after the story
broke last April, this problem was not isolated to Phoenix, it
was widespread. And we expect to see additional consequences,
even criminal charges, if they are warranted, for anyone who
knowingly misled veterans and denied them access to medical
services. The American Legion believes it is important to
ensure there is accountability at all levels within VA and that
the process is completely transparent.
Where VA employees are found to have engaged in wrongdoing,
the American Legion supports the appointment of a special
prosecutor to be assigned to investigate and vigorously
prosecute any VA employees engaged in fraudulent practices
designed to improperly award bonuses or other financial or
meritorious awards to the perpetrator.
While those in the senior executive service can and should
receive performance bonuses when their performance is
exemplary, the American Legion believes any bonuses need to be
tied clearly to quantitative and qualitative measures. There
must be an open process for determining these awards that all
state quotas can examine to determine the propriety of the
awarded bonuses.
This legislation, while it is helpful towards achieving
these ends in some ways, has some sections which still raise
concerns about the manner of their implementation. The American
Legion supports increased accountability and those employees
found guilty of having committed crimes at the expenses of
veterans entrusted to their care should never profit from these
crimes. To achieve bonuses based on manipulation and lies
undercuts any trust with the veterans' community. Requiring
additional transparency about SES performance outcomes is also
laudable and supported by the American Legion.
Where this legislation dives into creating a specific new
performance appraisal system, the American Legion has concerns.
While the goal of reforming the performance system is admirable
and needed, their concerns at this level of specificity may
lead towards over management of this task. While VA can and
must reform this area, the American Legion is wary of dictating
the shape of that reform into too many and too detailed a
manner.
The American Legion does support open discussion on this
process and hopes this proposal can at least be a starting
point for working with all parties from VA to Congress until
the state quotas determine a system that enforces
accountability and fairness in the bonus system.
The American Legion recognizes the importance of reforming
the bonus system and indeed the management culture within VA,
and applauds the initial efforts by VA Secretary Bob McDonald
to begin that process, as well as the diligence of this
committee to direct oversight efforts towards that task.
This legislation has great intentions and the portions
related to adding transparency to the system and preventing
from profiting at the cost of veterans are strong. With further
work, perhaps more of the legislation could be supported and
the American Legion looks forward to working with this
committee to ensure impactful legislation is passed towards
this end.
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to present the
American Legion's views and look forward to any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Steve Gonzalez appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Dr. Wescott, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESCOTT. ACCOMPANIED BY: TIMOTHY
FREEMAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NASAA
Dr. Wescott. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am
pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the over 55
member agencies of the National Association of State Approving
Agencies and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on
bills pending before this committee.
I am accompanied today by Timothy Freeman, who is the NASAA
Legislative Director.
NASAA supports the provisions of H.R. 475, Section 2, that
would pay for changes and improvements made to VA information
technology systems, so that all original and supplemental
Chapter 33 claims are adjudicated electronically. Indeed, for
the last two years we have worked side by side with our VA
partners to redesign the compliant survey process, so that
corrections to claims generated during those visits would be
handled utilizing the VA automation system and not paper
referrals.
NASAA also supports the extension of the effective date of
Section 702(b) as set forward in Section 3 of H.R. 475. But we
are hopeful that the efforts of SAAs and other stakeholders in
this endeavor will result in full compliance by all schools
within the prescribed deadline. We do recognize the need to
account for those situations in which an extension of waiver
might be needed.
I am pleased to report to the committee that state
approving agencies through NASAA have taken a leading role in
assisting their individual states in becoming compliant with
Section 702. We have established a page in the member section
of our national Web site to continuously and closely monitor
the status of the adoption of Section 702 requirements within
the individual states.
Likewise, we have provided in our Web site language
approved by VA legal counsel and/or the legislative language
used to bring states within compliance. Though only seven
states were compliant with the requirements of the law as of
yesterday, states are working diligently to meet the
requirements of the federal law. NASAA is committed to working
with our VA partners to ensure that the waiver process which is
established is equitable and timely, and we will not shrink
from the responsibility or ignore the opportunity to help our
states become compliant.
NASAA strongly supports H.R. 476, which clarifies and
codifies state approval authority and oversight over all non-
federal facilities by identifying SAAs as the primary entity
responsible for approval, suspension and withdrawal. The bill
does not do away with the idea of deemed approved degree
programs at certain accredited institutions of higher
education. Rather, it would maintain the intent of the statute
by adhering to an expeditious list of approval criteria for
those programs.
In addition, this bill will expand 3675 to cover all
accredited programs not already covered under 3672, while
maintaining all previous approval criteria for private for-
profit institutions.
H.R. 476 also provides measures to improve cost control for
aviation degrees offered by colleges and universities. These
programs frequently involve a contracted flight school which
may or may not be approved by a state approving agency. This
section would limit Chapter 33 payments for flight programs at
public institutions to the prevailing cap, presently just over
$20,200.
Finally, the bill mandates appropriate changes to the
manner in which we perform compliance surveys. These changes in
the law allow for a manageable mission in which VA, with the
assistance of SAA partners, can conduct compliance surveys on a
regularly scheduled basis at the majority of approved
institutions while allowing for continued waiver of those
institutions with a demonstrated record of compliance. These
changes would allow for flexibility to adjust resources towards
specific high-risk educational institutions as needs arise,
allowing both VA and SAAs to be proactive to risks identified
through the new complaint system, and would allow SAAs to
provide needed technical assistance and training visits to
schools.
Mr. Chairman, last year's SAAs increased the number of
compliance visits we conducted by 17 percent over the previous
year and we conducted more than 50 percent of the visits
accomplished.
Mr. Chairman, I pledge to you that we will not fail in our
critical mission and in our commitment to safeguard the public
trust, to protect the GI Bill and to defend the future of those
who have nobly defended us.
Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Joseph Wescott appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Dr. Wescott.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for questioning,
but I want to thank you all for your testimonies and again for
being here today.
I would like to go back to what a couple of you did
discuss, which is the idea of a waiver for the in-state tuition
requirements. And I know that many of you were concerned that
the VA, and most state governments, they wouldn't be able to
meet the July 1st, 2015 deadline for implementation of that
provision of the Choice Act.
And so if each of you would just comment, and for some
again, comment on if you believe that there is a date that
needs to be pushed back, or will a combination of a waiver and
states coming into compliance be enough. And if we do proceed
with a waiver of the in-state tuition requirement, what should
the VA require from the state or school in order to receive a
waiver?
So, Mr. Morosky, I would like to start with you, if I
could.
Mr. Morosky. Mr. Chairman, we were initially a little
concerned about this when the bill was originally introduced.
It would have given two years when it was eventually signed as
a part of the VACA. There were only 11 months.
Since that time, we have met with the National Association
of Governors. We have met with the National Association of
State Legislatures. We feel like there is a lot of buy-in all
the way around. State legislatures are wanting to make this
happen and we feel like most, if not many, will be able to meet
the deadline. So in order to keep the momentum going, rather
than delay for another full year, just allow the waiver
processes in place to take place and keep the momentum going,
as I said.
Thank you.
Dr. Wenstrup. Mr. Neiweem.
Mr. Neiweem. I would just agree with our colleague from the
VFW. I think that one of our strategies has been to focus at
the state level to get the state legislatures to expedite it,
to look at it quickly and to keep the pressure on. In some of
our recent communication with members, we are still doing some
field work to get some information of members this would
impact. But we echo our colleague that state legislatures
should prioritize it and try to fix it now.
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, having been working on this
with a couple of my colleagues at VFW and SVA for the last two
and a half years, and SAAs, many states have had intent and
already have passed legislation, with the hopes of--but of
course, when I say passed legislation, most of them have
granted waivers already. The only hiccup was, I want to say is,
when we actually advocated to have the Federal Government pass
the actual legislation, dependents and children was included
into that piece of legislation, which kind of was not in line
with what we had asked the states initially to have passed. So
when we went to states and we testified, and I think in roughly
about 32 states that have passed some form of legislation, each
state had passed what we as organizations had asked them to
pass.
So this particular hiccup has kind of thrown a monkey
wrench, because in a lot of the states now we are back to
square one where some of them are adding now dependents and
children to meet the criteria of what the Federal Government is
asking of them.
So we would say and our suggestion to that is, the states
that already have passed have shown more than enough intent for
the betterment of the service members, especially those who are
transitioning into their respective states and going into those
institutions of higher learning, definitely making sure that
those individual states are provided waivers. And then states
who are in the process of course, again, showing intent where
they have legislation, have good momentum going within their
respective states, that the VA really consider providing them a
waiver. And then of course the states who have no intent
whatsoever, then that is more where the conversation needs to
happen with between, I would say, members of Congress who are
from those particular states, are part of the congressional
delegation, should go back and begin to have conversations.
Like our VFW colleagues here, we have presented along with
the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs,
to the National Conference of State Legislatures last year when
they had their D.C. conference. So we have been very much
engaged with them on multiple fronts to ensure that there is
some compromise between all the stakeholders from the local,
state and federal level.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Dr. Wescott.
Dr. Wescott. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We certainly appreciate the
option of the extension, but we are relatively certain that
with a fair and equitable waiver process, that will be worked
out with the VA, that we can have our states either compliant
or with a waiver in hand by July 1 or, the requirement of the
bill as it is. I know we only have, like I said, seven at the
present time. But we are committed that regardless of whether a
state gets a waiver or not, we will continue to push for those
states to come into compliance.
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you all for your responses. I
appreciate that.
I now recognize the ranking member for any questions he may
have.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will begin with Mr. Wescott. Mr. Wescott, you should know
I have concerns about H.R. 476. Do you believe that the states
should be able to have additional powers to regulate schools
with the state authorizing agencies?
Dr. Wescott. Certainly, Congressman Takano, I certainly do.
I think that additional reasonable criteria, as I have said
in my written testimony, is critical in allowing states to
protect the veterans, and certainly I am a strong believer in
state sovereignty. On the other hand, I do think we need to
have awareness that we are administering a federal program. And
it has always been our standard in NASAA that there would be
one high standard for individuals that come to seek approval
for their programs.
Mr. Takano. So you don't see this legislation as usurping
the authority of the states to be able to regulate? I mean, I
am concerned that my state of California, the state approving
agency was able to catch a bad actor, and I am concerned that
this bill would weaken California and other states' ability to
do that.
Dr. Wescott. Well, our position is certainly we do not
oppose this section. We are pleased that the requirement there
is that the secretary will have to consult with the state
approving agency before he would make a decision as to whether
that provision would be fair and equitable.
We also think that--we have always felt that there should
be one standard as much as possible across all sectors of
education in the state. We were never exactly wild about the
deemed approved provisions, but we understood the reason for
deeming approved accredited degree programs.
So that would be our position on that provision.
Mr. Takano. This is a question for any one of the panel who
care to answer. Do you think it is important for the Guard and
reservists to be able to accrue time toward their educational
benefits while they are hospitalized due to war-related
injuries?
Mr. Morosky. Congressman, absolutely. When a service member
gets deployed overseas and gets wounded, typically that should
be considered active duty time. There is no reason why it
shouldn't. The time spent in recovery should be considered
additional service to the country and that should be the same
absolutely between active duty and reserve component members.
Mr. Neiweem. We strongly support the bill, Ranking Member.
And for example in my case, being deployed as a reservist, it
would have applied to me had I been injured or something. The
time for the benefit that I accrued, I had 40 percent of the
maximum payable benefit, could have possibly been less.
So we strongly support the legislation and thank you for
introducing it.
Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Takano, we support it, but also what we
need to take into consideration is that that individual was
called up on Title 32 orders. So being under those orders and
being on active duty, all benefits that are applicable to you
as an active duty member should not be waived for the simple
fact that you were harmed in some way during your time under
those particular orders, which are federal orders, and while
you are in service to your nation. So we totally support the
legislation and ensuring that the individual has all benefits
afforded to them while under those federal orders and, of
course, in service to their country just like any other
individual who is in active duty and in that capacity.
Mr. Takano. Do----
Dr. Wescott. Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Yes. Go ahead, sir.
Dr. Wescott. I would also say that the National Association
of State Approving Agencies, though we did not speak to it in
our written testimony, would be strongly supportive of this
legislation as well. Certainly their service, and then the time
that they spend for medical recovery, should all be considered
toward eligibility for the GI Bill.
Mr. Takano. Thank you for that. And, Mr. Chairman, I will
yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
Ms. Radewagen, you are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Takano for holding this hearing today to review important
legislation that will affect our veterans. I want to thank the
panel as well.
I also want to thank my colleague on the other side,
Representative Rice, for asking me to join her as an original
cosponsor on her bill H.R. 1382, Boosting Rates of American
Veteran Employment Act or BRAVE.
This cost-neutral measure would allow the secretary of the
VA to give preference to companies that have high
concentrations of veteran employees when awarding VA contracts.
Currently, the VA gives preference for these contracts to
veteran-owned small businesses, but not to businesses that
actively employ veterans. The BRAVE act would allow the VA to
consider the percentage of veterans employed by a prospective
contractor when awarding federal contracts. The fact that this
isn't already a stipulation for the VA to consider when
awarding contracts is shocking, to say the least.
So I fully encourage my colleagues to join Representative
Rice and my fellow cosponsors on this commonsense legislation
that will further the committee's goal of ensuring that our
veterans have every opportunity to be gainfully employed
following their service to our nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Dr. Wescott. Can you please give us a
little bit of information on what you believe should be the
appropriate number of compliance visits completed in one year?
And in your estimation, are these compliance visits necessary
or are they unneeded exercises in paperwork shuffling?
Dr. Wescott. I very much appreciate that question and the
opportunity to respond to it.
Certainly one of what we have suggested in this
legislation, or in the chairman's bill, is that for those who
enroll at least 20 veterans that they receive a compliance
visit every other year. But at the same time we would suggest
that those schools that have a demonstrated record of
compliance be allowed to be granted a waiver. Because I
certainly believe that when you have schools that have
demonstrated year after year that they are compliant, even
though they would fall within the category of those that we
would say would possibly get a compliance every two years, it
is paper shuffling just to visit those schools.
If we could reduce the number of overall compliance visits,
but allow state approving agencies to step up and make
supervisory and technical assistance visits to help schools,
then we can on the front end prevent problems that might occur
and then become apparent during a compliance survey. We are
strong believers in preventative medicine, if you will, in this
area and we think our veterans deserve no less.
Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Ms. Radewagen. Mr. McNerney, you
are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really proud to
have introduced H.R. 1313, the Service to Disabled Veterans
Owned Small Business Relief Act, which allows spouses to retain
the status for three years. Mr. Morosky, do you have any idea
how many families that might benefit over the course of a year,
or what proportion of businesses that might help?
Mr. Morosky. No, I do not know, Congressman, but I would be
happy to take that for the record and get back to you on that.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. I would appreciate that. In your
testimony, you stated that the Service to Disabled Veteran
Owned and Small Business Relief Act only covers Section 38 of
the U.S. Code and that the contract is with the VA. So it only
applies to contracts with the VA. Why do you think that the
transfer of the SDVOSB status should apply across the entire
federal government, not just the VA, and how would we go about
doing that?
Mr. Morosky. Any veteran-owned small business, any veteran
who receives preference for contracting as a result of their
status, could fall into the same category that you are
describing. You know, imagine the situation. You have got a
veteran-owned small business, and one day something terrible
happens. The surviving spouse needs time to be able to
restructure the business accordingly. You know, we would be
supportive, and we would, you know, like to work with you on
extending that protection further.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Neiweem. Sorry. Do you think
the federal government should be able to say whether a state
like California can regulate for-profit schools? Now, Mr.--I am
following up with a question of Mr. Takano. He asked that
question about schools in general. What about for-profit
schools?
Mr. Neiweem. So we do not oppose the section that was
described, and we certainly support the intent of what is
happening here. You know, IAV has long raised flags among some
for-profit colleges that have aggressively recruited student
veterans. And we also support closing the 9010 loophole to
remove the oftentimes target on the backs of service members.
But we do feel in this instance--you know, we do not oppose
it--having standards across the board and if those
institutions, you know, do not perform to standard, that
students will stop going to them.
Mr. McNerney. Is there a special risk with for-profit
schools?
Mr. Neiweem. I think currently across the board in the
veteran community we are still looking at statistics and trying
to get better outcome data to be able to quantify these things.
But, anecdotally, there is numerous stories of students that
have gone to for-profit colleges that have had poor experiences
and--or been able to secure work afterwards. So we are still
looking at more data, but, you know, one thing I would say, and
it is not the jurisdiction of this committee specifically, is
to close the--have Congress close the 9010 loophole.
Mr. McNerney. One other question. You mentioned you
supported H.R. 473, the Accountability Act, but that was
introduced in January 22nd. You support it conditionally based
on further analysis. Do you--when do you believe that you will
have a complete response on that?
Mr. Neiweem. Yes, sir, thank you for the question. We
currently have no position until we can do further study on the
variety of the sections. We are relying on more of information
from our membership. But I will say, we support a lot of the
intent.
And a reading through VA's testimony today, some of the
content in there is kind of troubling how strongly they push
back. I mean, they--you know, the testimony says that they
believe that, you know, it could dissuade, you know, highly
talented SES employees from going to VA, because they could be
facing, you know, punitive action.
They also talk about the SES rating scale as problematic,
because it would prevent certain, you know, good grades, so to
speak, with the SESes.
Well, many of our members have been responding that they
are frustrated, that is happening right now, that great, you
know, ratings are being given and they are not seeing that. So,
you know, this--we cannot forget where we were at last summer.
And a lot of veterans are out there that are still very
frustrated that that could happen.
And so this is a measure that is trying to change the way
things occurred, and so we would look forward to more
conversations with VA to make sure we can have some
accountability and not, you know, push back so strongly when a
measure comes to correct that sort of behavior that we saw last
summer that we know now existed.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you. Ms. Rice, you are recognized now
for five minutes.
Ms. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I am going to be
bold and say that I speak for everyone on this panel in saying
that I think one of the greatest national disgraces we have in
this country right now is that we have such a high number of
homeless and jobless veterans. There--the number one is too
high.
Now, Congressman Zeldin and I have some of the most
expensive real estate in our congressional districts--New York
State, obviously, everyone knows it is impossible. And I have
actually heard some horror stories just in terms of the
difficulty in, specifically, in purchasing co-ops, just because
of the legal parameters that actually--that co-ops represent.
And this is just to everyone on this panel, because I think
this is a critical issue. I mean, how--I mean, I hope--I think
everyone supports Congressman Zeldin's bill, but any other
ways, any other stories that you have heard in terms of
difficulties, not just in your state, but across the country,
that might be able to inform ways that we can be better in this
field?
Mr. Gonzalez. Ms. Rice, I know currently--I definitely will
take that for the record, but just to also inform the
Committee, currently my colleague, Mark Walker, who actually
oversees all our homeless policy legislative initiatives for
The American Legion, is currently right now in Los Angeles. He
was flown out there yesterday morning. We are currently
launching at one of our Legion posts in Los Angeles, what is
called The Veterans Benefit Center.
Ms. Rice. Say it again.
Mr. Gonzalez. The Veterans Benefit Center. So we have right
now, as of currently, have already seen about 357 veterans to
help them adjudicate their process. But also the reason we flew
him out there yesterday was so he can put up a homeless
veterans, pretty much, task force. And bringing in all the
stakeholders within Los Angeles and also, of course, within the
State of California to ensure everything from HUD service
providers, community service providers, all the key
stakeholders that are involved in that particular holistic
approach, and helping the reintegration process.
So, unfortunately, I cannot answer that, but I can
definitely take it for the record, so when he does fly back in
on Friday, I can present this to him and I am sure that he can
give you a very big comprehensive, I guess, answer to your
question, of course. Not just in Los Angeles, but he has been--
we have been flying him around across the country in addressing
these issues. And as we do these programs, he is there putting
together everyone in the local communities and ensuring that we
can have the holistic approach and, of course, within the
reintegration process.
Ms. Rice. Well, I would love to--and as I am sure everyone
on the Committee would love to see the results, because it
would be great to, if they have success where they are setting
these up, to be able to export that everywhere else.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Rice. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Dr. Wenstrup. If there are no further questions for our
panel, you are now excused. And I want to thank you all very
much for your testimonies today. I believe it has been very
helpful to hear from each and every one of you, and I
appreciate it.
I want to now recognize our final panel of witnesses today.
First, I want to welcome back General Robert Worley, the
Director of the Education Service at the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and he is accompanied by Mr. Tom Leney, Executive
Director of the Small and Veterans Business Programs at the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Ms. Kimberly McLeod,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel at the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs; and Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General
Counsel at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. We also
have with us Ms. Terry Gerton, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Veterans Employment and Training Service at the Department
of Labor.
Thank you all for being here today. General Worley, let's
begin with you. Welcome, and you are now recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WORLEY, ACCOMPANIED BY: MR. TOM LENEY,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF VA SMALL AND VETERAN BUSINESS PROGRAMS,
MS. KIMBERLY MCLEOD AND MR. JOHN BRIZZI OF VA'S OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WORLEY
Mr. Worley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and other members of
the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss legislation pertaining to the Department
of Veterans Affairs programs. I am accompanied today by Mr. Tom
Leney, Executive Director of VA Small and Veteran Business
Programs and Ms. Kimberly McLeod and Mr. John Brizzi of VA's
Office of General Counsel.
One of the bills on the agenda today affects programs or
laws administered by the Department of Labor. Accordingly, we
respectfully defer to the Department of Labor regarding H.R.
474.
H.R. 456 would allow an individual entitled to educational
assistance under Chapter 33 to receive payment for the
application fee to apply to an approved program of education at
an institution of higher learning. We recommend H.R. 456 be
effective one year from enactment. The VA would need to make
modifications to the Benefits Delivery Network and the Long-
Term Solution to implement this legislation.
H.R. 473 would amend Chapter 7 of Title 38 by adding new
sections 715, 717, and 719. VA has numerous legal concerns
about Section 715. Several of the VA's concerns are shared by
the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management. VA also has policy concerns about the
implementation of Section 715, Section 717, and 719.
Section 2 of H.R. 475 would require VA to make changes and
improvements to the Veterans Benefits Administration
information technology systems and submit a report to Congress
on the changes made no later than 180 days after enactment. The
VA supports Section 2. However, we would require at least 24
months from the date of enactment to report on the IT changes.
VA IT costs are estimated to be $30 million, which matches the
amount the committee has proposed to authorize for VA.
VA has concerns about the provisions in Section 3. Section
3A would allow an additional year for state legislators to
enact laws and public educational institutions to make changes
in policy in implementing Section 702 of The Choice Act.
The changes in Section 3B would require additional
corresponding changes to states' statutory or policy provisions
governing tuition and fee charges at public IHLs. As such, VA
recommends Section 3B be effective for any quarter, semester,
or term as applicable that begins one year from the date of
enactment, or July 1st, 2016, whichever is later. The
Department is still working through the costs associated with
this provision.
VA also has concerns with Subsection H of H.R. 475. We
recommend specific criteria for a benefit election be added to
this legislation in order to eliminate subjectivity. While VA
supports Section 5 and the intent of Section 6, we do not
support providing the amount of an educational assistance to
which a Veteran is entitled through an internet Web site.
VA supports the provisions of H.R. 476 that would clarify
approval requirements, limit the amount of tuition and fee
payments for enrollment in flight programs, and improve the
compliance survey process. However, VA does not believe that we
should be interjected into the states' additional approval
requirements for non-accredited courses.
VA supports the intent behind H.R. 643, the Veterans
Education Survey Act of 2015. However, the Benefits Assistance
Service program office in VA is currently administering a
similar survey with the help of J.D. Power & Associates.
H.R. 1038 would amend Chapter 7 of Title 38 by adding
Section 714 to require VA to retain a copy of any reprimand or
admonishment received by an employee of VA in the employee's
permanent record as long as the employee is employed by the
Department. VA does not support H.R. 1038.
H.R. 1141 would amend the term ``active duty'' under
Chapter 33 of Title 38 to include certain time spent receiving
medical care from the Department of Defense as qualifying
active duty service performed by members of the Reserve and
National Guard.
VA defers to DoD regarding the change to qualifying active
duty service under the post-9/11 GI Bill. The Department is
still evaluating the benefit and IT costs associated with this
legislation.
VA does not oppose the provisions in H.R. 1187, H.R. 1313,
and the draft legislation that would amend VA's procurement
authorities to allow a preference for offerers that employ
Veterans as determined by VA. VA would be pleased to work with
a staff to provide technical assistance as requested.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today, and we would be
happy to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Robert Worley appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, General. And, Ms. McLeod, I
apologize for mispronouncing your name earlier. But at this
time, Deputy Assistant Secretary Gerton, you are now recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF TERESA GERTON
Ms. Gerton. Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking
Member Takano, and distinguished Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's legislative hearing. As
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Veterans
Employment and Training Service at the Department of Labor, I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss legislation to re-
authorize the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, or HVRP.
VETS administers HVRP to help homeless veterans re-enter
the labor force. The Agency provides grants to both public and
private entities to provide the services necessary to assist in
reintegrating homeless veterans into meaningful employment.
HVRP operates on the principle that when homeless veterans
attain meaningful and sustainable employment, they are on a
path to self-sufficiency, and their vulnerability to
homelessness is diminished.
Each HVRP participant receives customized services to
address his or her specific barriers to employment. Services
may include, but are not limited to, occupational, classroom
and on-the-job training, as well as job search, placement
assistance, and post-placement follow-up services.
Grantees under this program are competitively selected for
a one-year award. If additional funding is appropriated, VETS
may consider awarding an additional option year for up to two
successive years to eligible grantees. Grantees must be in
compliance with the terms of their grant. And DoL does not
guarantee option-year funding for any grantee.
The program succeeds not only because of the hard work and
local connections of our grantees, but also because of the
collaborative efforts of our government partners at the federal
and state levels. These efforts help ensure that homeless
veterans receive a robust, comprehensive network of support.
H.R. 474, The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program's
Reauthorization Act of 2015, would extend HVRP's authorization
to 2020. The current authorization is set to expire at the end
of fiscal year 2015. The Department supports the five-year
extension to the HVRP authorization. HVRP is one of the few
nationwide federal programs focusing exclusively on helping
homeless veterans to reintegrate into the workforce.
The Bill would also expand the eligibility for services
under HVRP to include not only homeless veterans but also
veterans participating in VA-supported housing programs for
which certain rental assistance is provided and veterans who
are transitioning from being incarcerated.
Under current legislative authority, veterans who
participate in the HUD-VASH program are ineligible for HVRP,
because they are not technically homeless. VETS believe housing
programs, such as HUD-VASH, are critical to the rehabilitation
and success of homeless veterans, because the availability of
housing and health services improves their job readiness and
employability.
Finally, under H.R. 474, veterans who are transitioning
from incarceration would also be eligible for HVRP services.
For veterans, having an arrest record is a major barrier to
employment, and can lead to homelessness. VETS believes that it
is critical to begin delivering employment support to
incarcerated veterans prior to their release in order to better
prepare them to secure civilian employment. While VETS support
the goals of this legislation, these changes could mean a
substantial increase in the eligible population. To accommodate
these changes within existing funds, VETS would need to
establish service priorities to reach those with the greatest
needs and avoid duplication. VETS look forward to working with
Congress to ensure that the goals of the Bill are met.
We at the Department of Labor remain committed to the
Administration's goals of ending veteran homelessness, and we
look forward to working with this subcommittee to ensure the
continued success of our efforts.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. Thank you again for
the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Teresa Gerton appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Ms. Gerton, for your
remarks, and I will now yield myself five minutes for
questions. I am going to go right to you General Worley. As a
manager, do you think it would be instructive for you to be
able to review an employee's file and see what type of
disciplinary issues they have had over their time with the
Department?
Mr. Worley. Mr. Chairman, as a manager, I would--with
respect if you are speaking specifically to admonishments and
reprimands, which I assume you are--we look at those as tools.
They are at the lower end of the disciplinary spectrum. We see
those as tools to help rehabilitate an employee to take care of
an activity or a mistake or some kind of behavior. Once that is
completed, of course, the goal is that we have a fully
productive employee that does not have any further problems in
that regard.
So from the perspective of keeping that in their record
permanently, it becomes much more of a punishment rather than a
rehabilitative tool. We see admonishments and the reprimands as
being in that category.
Dr. Wenstrup. Of course, if rehabilitation was part of the
record as well, you would have an understanding of that and,
you know, where they have come from and that seems to me that
would be fair enough in many situations, at least if I was the
manager, that would be my aspiration, is to be able to know all
sides of the person I am working with.
But another question too, as I understand the VA has some
procedural issues with the pension rescission and provision of
H.R. 473. Don't you think the average American would agree that
if you are convicted of a felony, not just a crime related to
your job performance, that the government should not
necessarily be providing you a lifetime annuity for that period
of service?
And do you think that the current standard of requiring
that a senior executive be convicted of treason or supporting
terrorism is really the standard that we should be employing?
That, to me, seems to be a pretty high bar.
Mr. Worley. Mr. Chairman, if I could defer that question to
Ms. McLeod to speak for the Department.
Ms. McLeod. I do think that the standard of treason is a
different standard, and you cannot really compare that to an
employee who may have been convicted of a felony.
It is difficult in a hypothetical situation to know what
type of felony that employee would be convicted of, so that,
you know, recouping a portion of their pension would be a
reasonable sort of response to that conviction. I think what
makes the legislation difficult are the practical application,
or the practical application of the legislation to include--
there would be some responsibility placed on other agencies to
both notify the VA.
OPM is the one that hands out annuities to employees. They
would have to be the ones to determine the percentage of that
annuity that that employee received during that time when that
conviction affected or--yeah, it affected their performance. VA
would need to receive that notice from either federal or state
law enforcement bodies. We would then have to review the record
of those convictions to determine what time period their
conviction affected their performance, in order to report that
to OPM to take back those annuities. There are also
constitutional issues that are at work here that we share with
Justice and OPM in terms of applying that legislation to senior
executives.
So there are some, you know, both legal and practical and
policy issues with carrying out that legislation. Of course, we
understand the intent. We just think that enforcing that intent
through applying it would be very, very difficult for the VA.
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, I appreciate your response. It just
seems to me if you are convicted of a felony relating to your
job performance then you should not be subsequently rewarded.
With that, I yield back my time, and I recognize the Ranking
Member for five minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Worley, I want
to ask a question related to H.R. 476 and the provision that
requires VA approval of additional state criteria. Do you
believe that this provision is necessary? And what I am getting
at is, are states now abusing the current law and are they
applying different criteria to different types of schools?
Mr. Worley. Thank you, Ranking Member Takano. First, I
would like to point out VA very much respects the authority of
the State Approving Agencies and the job they do in approvals,
as well as suspensions and withdrawals. We have, of course, a
very vested interest in that work. We monitor it, and we review
it. It is in statute and the regulations that they have the
authority to add criteria in their approval process that might
be tailored to their state.
By our calculation, and we are still looking at this, about
a third of the states have additional criteria that they use.
Most of it is administrative in nature. They might have
additional criteria for attendance or they might have
additional criteria to comply with additional state standards
for higher education. None of these have posed any issues from
VA's perspective so far.
So while we very much support the idea in this Bill that
standards be applied equitably, we do not see at the present
time, the need for VA to be in the middle of that process.
Mr. Takano. So, I mean, we--so you have not seen--I mean,
there is not really a problem being posed to change the law to
require that--to impose the additional requirement that the VA
approve any additional state criteria that you believe that the
current law with regard to state approving agencies is
adequate, there is no problem with it?
Mr. Worley. We have not seen any widespread problems to
date, Congressman Takano.
Mr. Takano. I am--I just do not understand why there is a
reason to change the current law. I am not seeing it justified.
I am somewhat comfortable with equitable application, but if
states--I mean, I think it would pose an additional layer of
federal review if states were to be subject to, you know, some
sort of an appeal of the criteria they set.
I want to switch gears here a little bit. I just want to
ask Ms. Gerton, Assistant Secretary Gerton, what does the
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program do to help veterans
obtain funds to cover their food and shelter costs as they
await their first paycheck?
Ms. Gerton. Thank you, Congressman Takano. We recognize
that that is often a real challenge, as most employers pay in
arrears. We do several things to work with our grantees to make
sure that they are able to provide intermediary support to
veterans who are participating in the HVRP program.
The first is that we actually provide them technical
assistance to understand all the variety of programs that they
could take advantage of. We make sure in both their grant
application and then in practice that they are well connected
into the community services network in their local communities.
And, particularly, that they are aware of other grantees who
may be receiving the VA grants for SSVF programs, and that they
are aware of Department of Transportation's supported
transportation mechanisms to help veterans get to and from.
We try to make sure that they are aware of all of the
community resources that can be brought to bear to help
veterans get through that transition period from when they
successfully obtain employment through the Program to when they
actually get their first paycheck and can pay those
intermediary bills.
Mr. Takano. Wonderful. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back my time.
Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Ms. Rice, you are
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Worley, I have a
question for you with respect to H.R. 1382. I think that--
correct me if I am wrong--but you made the suggestion that we
should include a provision that if someone contracting with the
federal government voluntarily came forward and said that they
miscalculated the number of veterans so that they did not--
there is a, however unintentional, false statement about that,
that they should not be subject to being debarred from any
future federal contracts. Is that--can you explain your
position on that?
Mr. Worley. May I defer to Mr. Leney on that----
Ms. Rice. Oh, sure.
Mr. Worley. Question.
Ms. Rice. Yes.
Mr. Worley. Thank you.
Mr. Leney. Thank you. Congressman Rice, with respect to
that section of the draft Bill, what we recommended there be an
allowance for mitigating the debarment if somebody who
recognizes they have made an error and had misrepresented and
comes forward and admits it, because we think that will promote
people doing so, as opposed to when they recognize they have
made an error, if there is no mitigation for reporting it, we
think their incentive will be to hide it.
Ms. Rice. Well, so maybe this is my prosecutorial
background, but what that, to me, what that is doing is giving
license to people to make an intentional false statement up
front and knowing that they can voluntarily at some later time
come forward and say, ``Oops, we made a mistake, and we don't
want to be debarred.'' Maybe I am not--maybe I am too cynical.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. Leney. Yes. I think the issue is timing. If we discover
it, and then they admit it, that is different than somebody who
comes forward and self reports. Federal acquisition regulations
currently allow for self-reporting as a mitigating factor in
debarment. And what we would suggest is we have consistent
rules across the, you know, acquisition spectrum.
Ms. Rice. I appreciate that input. I think it becomes--I
think it is less relevant when you look at how specific the
requirements are. I do not think that there is--we are building
in a lot of room for making mistakes or misstatements that can
be later corrected, self-corrected, or discovered by the VA.
I think there--one of the issues with the VA is that we do
not have enough built-in accountability. And I think that
Secretary McDonald is going a long way to address the issues of
a lack of accountability, whether it is, you know, the VA being
in the business of building hospitals and not being accountable
for $800 million and coming and asking for another $1 billion.
I mean, you have to have accountability. And I think that you
are begging the question. You are encouraging people to make a
misstatement rather than people to come forward when they
realize a mistake has been made.
So I could be jaded. But that is the way I see it. I
appreciate your input, and I do look forward to working with
you outside of this context on this Bill. Thank you.
Mr. Leney. We look forward to that as well.
Ms. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you. If there are no further
questions, the Panel is now excused. And if there are no
further questions, I want to thank everyone here today for
taking time to come and share your views on these 11 bills. It
is very important to the legislative process, and we appreciate
your insight and feedback very much.
I would also like to announce that the subcommittee will be
holding a markup on some or all of these bills on April 16th.
Now, I ask unanimous consent that the following
organizations be allowed to submit testimony for the record.
U.S. Department of Defense, School Advocates for Veterans
Education and Success, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Easter
Seals Incorporated, and the National Association of Veterans
Programs Administrators. Without objection, so ordered.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on any of the bills under consideration
this afternoon. Without objection, so ordered. This hearing is
now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
MARK TAKANO, RANKING MEMBER
Today we are examining 11 bills, 5 of which directly relate to
veterans' education benefits.
As a former educator, I enjoy my time on this Subcommittee because
we all share an understanding of how education helps veterans
successfully transition into civilian life. I believe that the majority
of these bills move us toward this subcommittee's purpose: increasing
economic opportunity for our nation's Veterans.
The GI Bill Fairness Act, which I introduced, would close a gap
faced by our National Guardsmen and Reservists who have been called,
and then recalled to war throughout operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I was shocked when I first heard that brave men and women with combat
injuries who are receiving medical treatment on active-duty military
orders are not allowed to count their recovery time towards earning
education benefits. This is a no brainier, a cost of war, let's do
right by these injured servicemembers and give them the benefits they
need and deserve. I am happy to hear that the Department of Defense
agrees: this is the right thing to do.
I also want to recognize several of my colleagues' bills. Ms. Rice
has introduced her first bill as a Representative, the BRAVE Act, which
requires VA to consider the number of veteran employees a contractor
has before giving them new work with the VA. I am confident her
legislation will result in an increase in the number of jobs available
to veterans and I applaud her efforts in getting right to work for
veterans on Capitol Hill. Mr. McNerney's bill, the Service Disabled
Veteran Owned Small Business Relief Act, allows surviving spouses to
retain their deceased spouses preferred status of their businesses for
three years. And Mr. Murphy's bill, the Reducing Barriers for Veterans
Education Act, will help veterans pay for their college application
fees. I strongly support all of these pieces of legislation.
I generally agree with the legislation being offered for scrutiny
today, but there is one provision in H.R. 476, the GI Bill Education
Quality Enhancement Act, that infringes on States' rights to govern
their educational institutions. I fear that this provision will have
serious negative impacts on our veterans.
Director Worley and I agree, States should retain the right to
implement additional standards for schools that educate and train our
veterans as they see fit, as is the case under current law. In fact, I
believe it was through these additional standards that the California
Department of Veterans Affairs was able to suspend and ultimately
withdraw approval for Corinthians Colleges, Inc., a company that was
shut down after the Department of Education found widespread abusive
and deceptive practices.
I am concerned that the provision in H.R. 476 would hinder our
states' ability to protect veterans from predatory schools,
particularly those that take veterans, money for the benefit of their
shareholders and leave our heroes with unsustainable debt and worthless
degrees.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is otherwise important for veterans and tax
payers but on behalf of California Veterans, I ask you to reconsider
this provision.
I yield back.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DoD) appreciates the opportunity to
discuss potential improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill as proposed in
H.R. 1141. Post service education benefits have been a cornerstone of
our military recruiting efforts since 1985, and a major contributor to
the continued success of the All-Volunteer Force. Money for education
has been and remains at the forefront of reasons cited by young
Americans for joining the military. We fully expect the Post-9/11 GI
Bill to continue to have this impact and we are seeing that happen in
the form of unprecedented recruiting success.
For today's hearing, the subcommittee requested that DoD comment on
H.R. 1141, the ``GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015.'' This Bill would
consider active duty performed under the authority of Title 10, U.S.
Code, section 12301(h) as qualifying active duty for the purposes of
Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits. Reserve component members wounded
in combat are often given orders to active duty under this provision to
receive authorized medical care; to be medically evaluated for
disability; or to complete a required healthcare study. However,
section 3301(1)(B), of title 38, U.S. Code, does not include active
duty performed under 12301(h) as qualifying active duty for purposes of
Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance.
Currently, when a member of the Reserve Component on active duty
sustains an injury due to combat operations, the Service member is not
discharged and instead returns to service--either deployed or Selected
Reserve; none of the time spent in recovery is qualifying time for
purposes of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In this case, the Service member
would return to Selected Reserve status with less qualifying time than
those who served an entire period of active duty without an intervening
injury. As a result, the Service member would not receive an
educational benefit equivalent to the other members of his or her
cohort. In effect, the Service member is being penalized for being
wounded or injured in theater. This legislation would correct this
inequity by simply extending eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill to
service under 12301(h).
DoD recognizes the inequity of not including this active duty time
for purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and has included a
provision similar to this Bill in our FY16 legislative proposal
package. However, although the DoD proposal would include only active
duty performed after enactment, H.R. 1141 would be retroactive,
categorizing all duty performed under 12301(h) since September 11,
2001, as qualifying active duty for purposes of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
We estimate that approximately 5,000 Reserve Component members
performed active duty under 12301(h) each year since September 11,
2001. Accordingly, we believe that H.R. 1141 would generate an
additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Given that both
the funding and administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill fall under the
purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs, we would defer to that
agency to determine the costs and effects of the Bill on their
Department. DoD does not object to this section, provided Congress
identifies appropriate and acceptable offsets for the additional
benefits costs. DoD has always supported equivalent benefits for
equivalent service and this change would meet that goal.
SAVES
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano and distinguished members
of the Economic Subcommittee, on behalf of the national association of
School Advocates for Veterans' Education and Success, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the bills that may directly affect the success
of our student veterans and the operation of Veterans' Centers on our
school campuses.
School Advocates for Veterans' Education and Success is a national,
non-profit association whose members are college and university
Veterans' Program and Service Managers. Our mission is to bring a
consolidated voice to the issues that affect veterans' education and
success by creating a strong network of partners to provide
communication, advocacy, and support for educational and training
institutions. Our perspective comes from all sectors: public, not-for
profit and for-profit private colleges and universities.
H.R. 456 Reducing Barriers for Veterans Education Act of 2015
H.R. 456 proposes to amend title 38, United States Code, to include
college application fees as part of the benefits under Post 9/11 GI
Bill Education Assistance Program. The admissions application fees for
colleges can create a barrier for recently separated veterans who are
balancing the transition process of supporting families, moving, and
reintegrating into the labor force or simply waiting to be accepted to
their school(s) of choice.
H.R. 456 allows payment up to $750 for application fees that will
be charged against entitlement according to Title 38, Section 3315A,
National Tests. This section addresses the dollar amount that equates
to a month of entitlement:
``(c) Charge Against Entitlement.--The number of months of
entitlement charged an individual under this chapter for a test
described in subsection (a) shall be determined at the rate of
one month (rounded to the nearest whole month) for each amount
paid that equals----
(1) for the academic year beginning on August 1, 2011, $1,460; or
(2) for an academic year beginning on any subsequent August 1, the
amount for the previous academic year beginning on August 1 under this
subsection, as increased by the percentage increase equal to the most
recent percentage increase determined under section 3015(h).''
SAVES supports the portion of H.R. 456 that allows payment of
Application fees to institutions under the Post 9/11 GI Bill however,
we recommend amending Title 38, USC, under section 3313 which includes
the payment of all mandatory fees for student veterans and dependents
using transferred benefits.
Section 3313 addresses the fees as follows:
``(a) Payment.--The Secretary shall pay to each individual
entitled to educational assistance under this chapter who is
pursuing an approved program of education (other than a program
covered by subsections (e) and (f)) the amounts specified in
subsection (c) to meet the expenses of such individual's
subsistence, tuition, fees, and other educational costs for
pursuit of such program of education.''
Completing a Bachelor's degree in 36 months is very difficult for
many student veterans. Indeed, according to the National Center for
Educational Statistics, ``the median time to earn a degree was 55
months for 2008 bachelor's degree recipients graduating from public
institutions, 45 months for graduates of private nonprofit
institutions, and 103 months for graduates of private for-profit
institutions'' (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=569).
According to the Principles of Excellence, Veterans Program and
Services Managers and their staff spend many hours assisting student
veterans with budgeting and financial matters to plan for the costs of
their programs. Subtracting entitlement for their application fees is a
tough beginning to their college careers.
H.R. 643 Veterans Education Survey Act of 2015
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.
Many Institutions of Higher Learning have dedicated departments
that are adept at defining data points, collecting data and measuring
outcomes. According to the Executive Order 13607, establishing the
Principles of Excellence ``The Secretaries of Defense, Veterans
Affairs, and Education shall develop a comprehensive strategy for
developing service member and veteran student outcome measures that are
comparable, to the maximum extent practicable, across Federal military
and veterans educational benefit programs, including, but not limited
to, the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the Tuition Assistance Program'' [Sec. 3.
(c)]. To fairly compare institutions, we must be asking the same
questions to ensure standardized data points, which must be clearly
articulated to our institutions and their Institutional Research
departments. A few institutions can't be using the metric system while
the rest are using yardsticks, and a yardstick is not a very efficient
way to measure a mile. As institutions, we're good at measuring
outcomes so, to the extent practicable, the student outcome measures
should rely on existing administrative data. This will minimize the
reporting burden on institutions participating in these benefit
programs. Student outcome measures should permit comparisons across
federal educational programs and across institutions and types of
institutions. To do so, it is time to establish a common set of
standards and a common measuring device that allows point in time
comparisons and trends.
Given the importance of data to inform and support evidence based
decisions, SAVES supports H.R. 643 directing 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 and conduct a survey of
Institutions of Higher Learning whose programs are approved by the
Department of Veterans Affairs for educational assistance.
H.R. 476 GI Bill Education Quality Enhancement Act of 2015
The State Approving Agencies (SAAs) play a critical role in the
approval process for veterans' education and training. SAVES believes
that the role of the SAAs should be brought into the 21st century by
providing a clear structure that emphasizes training and consistent
guidelines. State Approving Agencies are in a position to provide
optimal support for institutions of higher learning by providing
timely, consistent and clear summaries of VA policies, guidelines, and
best practices. SAAs should provide approval oversight in cases where
no other federal agency already has oversight. SAAs should also provide
on-the-ground training and assistance for schools, respond to inquiries
and questions, and clarify VA guidance to ensure accurate and
appropriate application by schools. Training must be a priority. The
support SAAs provide Non-College Degree (NCD) programs and
apprenticeship programs would be invaluable.
The formal definition of ``deemed approved'' as stated in PL 111-
377 remains unclear. We would recommend clear procedural guidance for
those programs that still require specific approval. We support the
continued approvals of NCD programs, apprenticeships, and new
institution or campuses. For those Institutions of Higher Learning that
have already been evaluated and approved by accrediting agencies and/or
federal and state agencies, no additional action on the part of the SAA
should be required. This will save time and money to build a stronger
training process for programs and educational facilities. NCD programs
at Institutions of Higher Learning and certificate programs that are
not vocational in nature should follow degree program approvals for
those institutions. In all cases we support the Secretary's authority
to approve/disapprove programs, and in no case should the Secretary's
authority be omitted from the approval process or to the administration
of federal veteran's education programs.
We support the expansion in scope of SAAs to provide training and
to collaborate with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide
thorough guidance for all educational institutions/facilities. We
recommend a best practice that focuses on consistent policies and
implementation among and between states as should be the processing
among and between RPOs.
We believe that combining compliance with training constitutes a
conflict of interest. The process of Compliance Surveys can be daunting
and confusing. Effective and consistent training and a clear process
will help institutions maintain compliance with the rules governing the
administration of these programs. The VA needs more staff to adequately
conduct compliance surveys; however, it should continue to be the VA's
responsibility. It would be beneficial for all partners to have written
official guidance on all changes included in PL 111-377. The lack of
regulatory guidance means schools have no official source document for
the administration of education and training programs. At a minimum,
schools must know the rules governing the administration of these
programs. What's more, the rules must be consistent nationwide. We
offer that high-volume schools with a solid track record of successful
compliance visits do not require surveys annually. Instead, we suggest
that the VA use risk-based scheduling for determining the need for
annual compliance surveys. We also recommend that the VA track their
findings and compile the overall findings, including the type of
discrepancies and payment errors. Additionally, as a basis for risk-
based scheduling, summarize the information to be used to identify
common errors among schools and evaluate trends over time as
recommended by the United States Government Accountability Office
report published in February 2011, titled VA Education Benefits:
Actions Taken, but Outreach and Oversight Could Be Improved.
SAVES supports the expansion of duties for SAAs but strongly
recommends their role be redefined to focus on training and approval of
new IHL programs, Non-College Degree programs, apprenticeships, and
vocational training and licensure/certification examinations.
Flight Training
Current legislation authorizes unlimited payment of tuition and
fees for eligible beneficiaries attending a public school. However, the
high cost of some programs, such as flight training, has become
unmanageable. The National Association of State Approving Agencies'
(NASAA) recommendation concerning flight training is reasonable as it
relates to capping the amount the VA will pay for flight course tuition
and fees each year. H.R. 476 will help level the playing field for
private IHLs with flight that have been offering approved flight degree
programs for decades.
In the interest of reducing the high cost of the Post 9/11
Education program, SAVES supports the portion of H.R. 476 regarding
capping the annual amount payable for flight training. SAVES agrees
that payment for flight training at institutions of higher learning be
limited to only those eligible individuals enrolled in degree programs
that require flight training for degree completion. Payment for flight
courses should not be permitted in the case of flight training that is
not specifically required as part of a standard college degree,
including undeclared, undecided, general studies, liberal studies, and
other similarly termed programs or statuses as it pertains to IHL
public or private.
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the
Subcommittee, the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) thanks you for
the opportunity to submit a statement for the record regarding the
proposed legislation. The bills introduced are intended to make
adjustments and corrections in existing programs and extend the
expiration date on several other important programs. We support your
effort to help the men and women that have honorably served their
nation and are in the process of successfully transitioning back to the
civilian world.
H.R. 456, the ``Reducing Barriers for Veterans Education Act of 2015''
PVA supports H.R. 456, the ``Reducing Barriers for Veterans
Education Act of 2015.'' This legislation will provide funds for
veterans using the GI Bill who are required to pay an additional charge
for application fees. Often the additional fees are not budgeted in a
veteran's college expenses. Some programs require additional fees that
can amount to several hundred dollars, placing an unforeseen burden on
the veteran before starting their college courses. This legislation
will eliminate the financial barrier that some veterans face when
pursuing educational programs that require additional application fees.
H.R. 473, the ``Increasing the Department of Veterans Affairs
Accountability to Veterans Act of 2015''
PVA generally supports H.R. 473, the ``Increasing the Department of
Veterans Affairs Accountability to Veterans Act of 2015,'' which would
give the Secretary more leverage as he continues his campaign to
improve the VA healthcare system. This legislation will allow the
Secretary to reduce benefits of Senior Executive Employees that have
been convicted of certain crimes. Section 3, the Reform of Performance
Appraisal System for Senior Executive Service Employees is troublesome
for our organization. This limits the recognition of employees that
have contributed more than a position requires while maintaining a
personal goal of improving service to veterans. The forced distribution
of bonuses paid to senior employees, although intended to sharply limit
the number of bonuses paid, can discourage those that are
overachievers.
H.R. 474, the ``Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Programs
Reauthorization Act of 2015''
PVA supports H.R. 474, the ``Homeless Veterans' Reintegration
Programs Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' which would extend through
FY2020 the VA's homeless veterans' reintegration programs. Many of the
programs that have been successful components of the effort to
eliminate homelessness among veterans will expire in FY 2015. These
programs have provided job training, counseling, and placement services
to homeless veterans to expedite their reintegration into the labor
force. Veterans that participate in these programs include: (1)
homeless veterans, (2) veterans who are participating in the VA
supported housing program which provides rental assistance through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and (3) veterans who are
transitioning from being incarcerated.
H.R. 475, the ``GI Bill Processing Improvement Act of 2015''
PVA supports H.R. 475, the ``GI Bill Processing Improvement Act of
2015'' which will make changes and improvements to the information
technology system of the VA. Section 2 places an emphasis on the
information technology solution for processing original and
supplemental claims and requires electronic processing of the claims
which will insure accuracy and eliminate delays in future claims.
H.R. 476, the ``GI Bill Education Quality Enhancement Act of 2015''
PVA supports H.R. 476, the ``GI Bill Education Quality Enhancement
Act of 2015.'' This legislation will clarify the process of approving
courses of education that are recognized for use by veterans using VA
benefits. The legislation will allow state agencies to approve certain
programs that meet criteria determined by VA to be a program which
shall be approved for VA educational benefits. The state approving
agency may qualify certain flight training programs as eligible for the
Post 9/11 GI Bill since they are required in a flight training
curriculum. The state approving agency may also approve flight training
programs in an institution of higher learning in which flight training
is required to earn the degree being pursued.
H.R. 643, the ``Veterans Education Survey Act of 2015''
PVA supports H.R. 643, the ``Veterans Education Survey Act of
2015.'' This legislation directs the VA 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 VA.
H.R. 1038, the ``Ensuring VA Employee Accountability Act''
PVA supports H.R. 1038, the ``Ensuring VA Employee Accountability
Act.'' This legislation requires VA to retain all records which
document any reprimands or admonishment received by VA employees. These
records must be retained as long as the employee is employed by VA.
Retaining records of employee reprimands is critical to evaluating an
employee's personal performance and determining if that performance is
part of a larger problem within a program of VA. This documentation is
necessary for the Secretary to evaluate problems and make changes
needed to correct ongoing problems in the VA.
H.R. 1141, the ``GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015''
PVA supports H.R. 1141, the ``GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015'' which
would include time spent receiving medical care from the Department of
Defense as active duty time for the purpose of eligibility for Post 9/
11 GI Bill. We have no doubt that this time should be considered active
duty time toward qualifying for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. This legislation
would be retroactive to the date of the enactment of the Post 9/11 GI
Bill.
H.R. 1187, Legislation to Modify the Loan Limit of the VA Loan
PVA supports H.R. 1187. This legislation makes adjustments in the
maximum amount of the loan guaranteed under section 3710 of title 38,
the VA Home Loan. Home prices vary from each region of the country,
from each metropolitan community within a region, and from each
neighborhood within a community. A fixed maximum limit on the VA loan
amount that a veteran can borrow limits where the veteran can live.
This legislation will give veterans who reside in high-cost areas where
average home prices exceed the VA Home Loan maximum greater flexibility
in the type and location of homes they can purchase using the VA Home
Loan.
H.R. 1313, the ``Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Relief
Act''
PVA supports H.R. 1313, the ``Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small
Business Act.'' This legislation will make changes in the law that
certifies Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) to
help with the transition of that business when the veteran passes away.
Currently if the veteran business owner is rated less that 100% when
passing away from a non-service connected illness or injury, the
surviving spouse only has one year to transition the business out of
SDVOSB status with VA. If the SDVOSB has contracts with any other
federal agency, the business immediately loses its SDVOSB status upon
the passing of the veteran and all business must stop. This legislation
will allow the business to retain the SDVOSB status for three years
upon the passing of the veteran to allow for a transition of the
business. This three year period would apply to SDVOSB contracts with
the VA and all federal agencies.
H.R. 1382, Legislation Addressing VA Procurement Contracts
PVA supports proposed legislation to authorize the VA to award
contracts for procurement of goods or services to businesses that
employ veterans. Unfortunately, employing veterans is not a high
priority for businesses. This is understandable since the goals of a
business are to pay bills, pay employees, buy necessary capitol
equipment and supplies, and attempt to make profit. However, some
businesses do make an effort to employ veterans and based on their
experience hiring veterans, continue to employ veterans. Those
businesses should be recognized, if not by all federal government
procurement, at least by VA. Legislation to authorize VA to award
contracts will not change the current pattern of awarding contracts to
favored businesses. Among businesses that submit proposals and meet the
requirements of the contact, the contract must be awarded to the
business that demonstrates an effort and successfully employs veterans.
Without Congressional oversight this requirement, if passed into law,
risks becoming simply another policy that is overlooked by the VA in
the procurement of goods and services.
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano and Members of this
Subcommittee, PVA appreciates the opportunity to comment the bills
being considered. We thank you for continuing the work in this
Subcommittee to ensure that veterans have the best available programs,
options, and opportunities as they transition to the civilian world.
Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of
Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the
following information is provided regarding federal grants and
contracts.
Fiscal Year 2014
No federal grants or contracts received.
Fiscal Year 2013
National Council on Disability--Contract for Services--$35,000.
Disclosure of Foreign Payments
``Paralyzed Veterans of America is largely supported by donations
from the general public. However, in some very rare cases we receive
direct donations from foreign nationals. In addition, we receive
funding from corporations and foundations which in some cases are U.S.
subsidiaries of non-U.S. companies.''
Written Statement Katy Beh Neas, Executive Vice President For Public
Affairs Easter Seals, Inc.
On Bill (H.R. 474) Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program
Reauthorization Act
Dear Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for holding this hearing on proposed legislation to help
increase access to critical employment and education benefits and
services for America's veterans. Easter Seals is a leading non-profit
organization that assists veterans, military families, and others to
reach their potential and succeed in their communities by providing and
connecting them to local services and supports. Easter Seals lends our
support to Chairman Wenstrup's Homeless Veterans' Reintegration
Programs Reauthorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 474) and we ask that the
Subcommittee consider minor changes to help improve delivery of
services to veterans who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness.
The U.S. Department of Labor's Homeless Veterans' Reintegration
Program (HVRP) helps to ensure veterans who are experiencing
challenges, including unemployment and homelessness, can access the
specialized job training and local supports they need to bounce back
and find meaningful employment. HVRP is the only federal nationwide
program focused exclusively on the employment of veterans who are
homeless. Through the program, community-based organizations, including
non-profits and faith-based groups, provide job training, counseling,
and placement services to help homeless veterans reintegrate into
society and the labor force. Easter Seals affiliates operating in six
states operate eight HVRP grants, including two focused on assisting
homeless female veterans. HVRP exemplifies the community-based, public-
private partnership required to help veterans overcome obstacles and
successfully reintegrate into civilian life.
Easter Seals has seen first-hand the transformational impact HVRP
and its federally-funded services have on Americans who have honorably
served our nation.
Shaneece, a young woman from New York who served in the U.S.
military, got her life back on track as a result of the support
services and employment assistance she received through HVRP. Shaneece
joined the U.S. Army in 2011 ``eager to serve'' and worked as a
generator mechanic. Her plan to temporarily move back in with her
parents after she completed her military service unraveled due to
complications at home. With no options, Shaneece used her car as a
home--using the back seat as her bed and the trunk as both a dresser
and filing cabinet to store clothes, blankets and her military papers,
including her DD 214 separation documents. Despite the sub-zero
weather, she slept in her car at night and filled her days looking,
unsuccessfully, for jobs. After many nights on the street, she visited
Easter Seals in New York City. She had run out of options and heard
Easter Seals could help. ``I felt so hopeless,'' Shaneece remembered,
``you feel like you have no more support. I was working hard but still
coming up short.''
Easter Seals specializes in person-centered services to help
individuals thrive in their communities. Our New York affiliate
operates HVRP grants in Syracuse and throughout New York City,
including one focused on helping homeless female veterans connect to
employment and other services. Through HVRP, Easter Seals New York
implements a team approach to provide each veteran with the wrap-around
services they need to return to employment. Shaneece came to Easter
Seals with multiple barriers. She was street homeless, had low self-
confidence, and had no prospects for employment. As part of the team
approach, an Easter Seals case manager immediately went to work to get
her situated for the night in a temporary shelter. At the same time, an
Easter Seals social worker helped her apply for and receive the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits she earned during her
military service and an Easter Seals employment specialist worked with
Shaneece to update her resume, including translating her military
experiences into civilian language. Shaneece received a call-back for
an interview for a job that she eventually won. She works full-time as
a program support assistant for a VA center in Brooklyn helping other
veterans during their reintegration. ``I feel like I'm a different
person. I'm a more improved individual,'' Shaneece said. ``I see myself
going places. I'm grateful for the help Easter Seals has given me.''
Shaneece is one of about 17,000 homeless veterans in nearly 150
communities across the country who benefit each year from HVRP
services. In addition to Easter Seals New York, Easter Seals operates
HVRP grants in Oregon (Jackson, Josephine, Marion & Polk Counties and
the cities of Medford, Grants Pass, and Salem), Indiana (eight county
area in central Indiana) and in Washington, DC and the surrounding
Maryland (Baltimore, Prince George's and Montgomery Counties) and
Virginia region (Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William
Counties). HVRP is successful due to the holistic, individualized care
coordination model that recognizes veterans face multiple barriers to
securing a job and maintaining stable housing. HVRP's intensive, hands-
on, veteran-centered approach is critical and not found in traditional
job training and employment programs. The Department of Labor noted in
a congressional budget justification that ``helping homeless veterans
requires a substantial amount of outreach and job development with
employers as well as the coordination of individually tailored support
services and training interventions.'' Nationwide, HVRP has been an
important tool in helping to decrease veterans' homelessness by 33
percent or 24,837 veterans since 2010 (HUD/VA report). H.R. 474 would
provide certainty that this proven veterans program will continue by
reauthorizing HVRP through FY 2020. In addition, H.R. 474 expands the
definition of who is eligible for the program to include veterans who
are transitioning from being incarcerated and veterans participating in
the VA supported housing program.
Easter Seals supports the changes proposed in H.R. 474 and
recommends other minor updates to help improve implementation.
Expand Eligibility of HVRP Services:
In addition to the eligibility expansions contained in H.R. 474,
Easter Seals recommends that HVRP eligibility be expanded to include
all National Guard and Reserve members who have honorably served,
regardless of their activation status. The current HVRP definition of
veteran only allows Guard or Reserve veterans who were activated or who
have a service-connected disability to access HVRP services. In 2014
testimony, Easter Seals shared a story of a homeless woman who
approached our local affiliate after honorably serving in the U.S. Army
National Guard. Because her Guard unit was never activated or deployed
during her six year military career, she could not access HVRP
services. Easter Seals was able to assist her through a separate
program we offer but she could have benefited greatly from the
supportive services available through HVRP.
Easter Seals Recommendation: As H.R. 474 advances, we encourage you
to amend Sec. 3 (Clarification of Eligibility for Services) to include
at the end of the section the following:
``(4) all veterans who have been honorably discharged from the
National Guard and Reserves.''
Include Greater Flexibility to Address Individualized Needs of
Veterans:
While HVRP has been successful in reducing veteran homelessness,
greater flexibility should be given to service providers, on a case-by-
case basis, to more effectively address the unique needs of homeless
veterans or veterans who are at-risk for homelessness. Easter Seals
appreciates the need for uniform program guidelines to better manage
and oversee a grant program. But the reality is that veterans who seek
help in finding stable housing or a job come to these programs with
very unique needs that don't always fit nicely within the parameters of
the program. Shaneece, the young woman living in her car in New York,
could have benefited from greater HVRP flexibility. HVRP can be used to
pay for temporary transportation expenses to help participants get to
job interviews and work. Shaneece was living in transitional housing on
Staten Island when she secured her job in Brooklyn. The quickest route
to get Shaneece to her job is by car. The program would not allow
Easter Seals to fill her E-Z Pass card to temporarily cover toll fares
along her route but would allow the purchase of transit cards to cover
ferry and subway fares, which would have greatly increased the length
of her work commute. In most cases, public transportation is the best
and preferred option. However, this was a unique situation where
driving to work was the better option. One delay in her car-boat-train-
bus commute could have impacted her ability to get to work on-time and
remain employed.
Easter Seals Recommendation: As H.R. 474 advances, we encourage you
to add the following report language:
``The Committee recognizes the individualized barriers and
unique challenges faced by veterans who are homeless or at-risk
of homelessness. As such, the Committee provides the Secretary
of Labor the authority to waive a rule, on a case-by-case
basis, if a waiver greatly improves the veteran's ability to
find stable housing and to become gainfully employed.''
Create Service Delivery Efficiencies Through Multi-Community and
Regional Awards:
The Department of Labor awards single community grants to non-
profits and faith-based organizations. Four Easter Seals affiliates
operate eight separate HVRP grants in individual service territories.
Despite the fact our affiliates represent the same Easter Seals family,
the current HVRP structure does not foster systematic collaboration or
coordination among these otherwise connected entities. The
organizations that operate on the same program cycle could find
themselves in competition with each other in future grant completions.
Easter Seals believes multi-community or regional grants would promote
service delivery efficiencies and best practice sharing. Demonstrating
the use of regional grants to national non-profits is consistent with
authority Congress recently gave to the Secretary of Labor in the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (Public Law 113-128). Section
169(b) of that law grants the authority to conduct regional projects to
develop and disseminate best practices and models for implementing
employment and training services and address the employment and
training needs of specialized populations. A similar model is in place
through the Department of Labor's Senior Community Service Employment
Program. The multi-community or regional grant model encourages and
fosters regular coordination while also maintaining local autonomy to
meet unique community challenges.
Easter Seals Recommendation: As H.R. 474 advances, we encourage you
to add the following report language:
``The Committee recognizes the role of HVRP in decreasing
veterans' homelessness by helping homeless veterans or veterans
who are at risk of homelessness through job training,
counseling, and placement services. The Committee directs the
Secretary of Labor to conduct a pilot to demonstrate the use of
regional, multi-community awards to national organizations to
test service delivery efficiencies and to improve outcomes.''
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 474, a bill to
improve and extend DoL's Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program.
Easter Seals is proud of its partnership with the Department of Labor
to create veteran success stories, like Shaneece, through job training,
counseling, and placement services. We urge this Subcommittee to
quickly advance H.R. 474 with Easter Seals' recommendations. Thank you
for your consideration. We look forward to working with the
Subcommittee on H.R. 474 and other legislation to increase access to
community-based services and supports for our nation's veterans.
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS (NAVPA),
SUBMITTED BY KEITH GLINDEMANN, VICE PRESIDENT
``Legislative Hearing on H.R. 456; H.R. 473; H.R. 474; H.R. 475;
H.R. 476; H.R. 643; H.R. 1038; H.R. 1141; H.R.1187; draft bill, ``To
amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of VA,
in awarding a contract for the procurement of goods or services, to
give a preference to offerors that employ veterans;'' and a draft bill,
``Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Relief Act'' ``A Review
of Higher Education Opportunities for the Newest Generation on
Veterans'' March 24, 2015.
Introduction
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, the National Association of
Veterans Program Administrators (NAVPA) is pleased to be invited to
provide written comments for this hearing. NAVPA is a nationally
recognized nonprofit organization founded in 1975 by school certifying
officials. Our organization represents close to 400 educational
institutions nationwide. We voluntarily serve NAVPA in an effort to
better serve the veterans on our campuses.
NAVPA recognizes the significant higher education opportunities
that are afforded this generation of veterans. We are committed, in
partnership with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, to ensure the
success of the programs funded to provide educational opportunities for
our veterans and their family members.
H.R. 475: SEC. 6. Ability for Schools to See Remaining Entitlement
NAVPA endorses SEC. 6. Provision of Information Regarding Veteran
Entitlement to Educational Assistance. This provision would give School
Certifying Officials the ability to see what remaining entitlement a
veteran student had remaining. With today's veterans often changing
between schools or needing to enroll in programs close to enrollment
deadlines the ability to see what GI Bill entitlements a student had
remaining would be beneficial to the student and the College/University
that they are wanting to attend. Students need to know prior to
enrolling how much entitlement they have remaining so that they can
make strong financial decisions. If a student does not have enough
entitlement they can look at other possible funding sources so that
they will not run out of funds prior to the end of term. This can help
them to make educated decisions rather than reactionary ones.
Additionally it can help schools to make determinations in the applying
of Yellow Ribbon funds, and the counseling of students on their
financial options.
H.R. 476: SEC. 5. Compliance Surveys
Current statutory requirements require that any institution with at
least 300 GI Bill recipients have a compliance survey conducted
annually. This requirement is mandated regardless of the results of the
prior year's survey. This requirement results in overburdened
inspectors revisiting schools that have proven to be good stewards, and
in full compliance. NAVPA fully supports H.R. 476 SEC 5. Here it asks
for the VA to waive compliance surveys for institutions and
establishments that have a record of compliance. This will allow the VA
and the State Approving Agencies to concentrate on the institutions
most at risk as well as providing more timely compliance surveys for
smaller schools. This will help strengthen the survey program as a
whole. Additionally this could also allow SAAs to be freed up to
provide additional technical assistance and training. We feel that
potential compliance issues could be avoided by having better trained
SCO's on the front end of the process.
H.R. 1141: SEC. 2. GI Bill Fairness
When our Service Members go to war their dedication to duty, and
the risk of life and limb know no separation between Active Duty and
Reservists. The missions are performed the same, and dangers are
equally faced. Therefore it is only fair that our Reservists who are
harmed in the performance of their duties are able to have the time
that they are receiving medical care for their injuries count towards
their qualifying time for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. What greater support
can we show these Service Members who have sacrificed so much that we
truly support them? They are not asking to be given anything other than
what they have earned. NAVPA urges that Congress look at this carefully
and do what is not only correct, but our duty.
Closing
In closing, on behalf of the membership institutions of NAVPA, we
thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on these very
important issues with the committee today. We look forward to working
with you on veteran education issues in the future.