    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                                    OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                           THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-54

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Available via http://govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    48-959                        WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                       MARK TAKANO, California, Chairman

    JULIA BROWNLEY, California           DAVID P. ROE, Tenessee, Ranking
    KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York               Member
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Vice-      GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
        Chairman                         AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,
    MIKE LEVIN, California                   American Samoa
    MAX ROSE, New York                   MIKE BOST, Illinois
    CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia            JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
    SUSIE LEE, Nevada                    JIM BANKS, Indiana
    JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina       ANDY BARR, Kentucky
    GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, JR.,           DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
        California                       STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
    COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota        CHIP ROY, Texas
    GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
        Northern Mariana Islands
    COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
    LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
    ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York

                     Ray Kelley, Democratic Staff Director
                     Jon Towers, Republican Staff Director

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                        MIKE LEVIN, California, Chairman

    KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York           GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida Ranking
    ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York               Member
    CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
    ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia            JIM BANKS, Indiana
    SUSIE LEE, Nevada                    ANDY BARR, Kentucky
    JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina       DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania

    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

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Honorable Mike Levin, Chairman...................................     1
    Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, Ranking Member.......................     6
    Honorable Kevin McCarthy.........................................     2
    Honorable Elaine G. Luria........................................     4
    Honorable Susie Lee..............................................     4
    Honorable Joe Cunningham.........................................     5
    Honorable Ben Ray Lujan..........................................     8

                                   WITNESSES

    Ms. Charmain Bogue, Executive Director, Education Service,
      Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
      Affairs........................................................     9

            Accompanied by:

        Ms. Laurine Carson, Deputy Executive Director, Policy &
            Procedures, Compensation Service (VBA)

    Mr. Patrick Murray, Deputy Director, National Legislative
      Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.........    11

    Mr. John Kamin, Assistant Director, National Veterans Employment
      and Education Division, The American Legion....................    13

    Mr. Justin Monk, Policy Associate, Student Veterans of America...    15

    Mr. Morgan D. Brown, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed
      Veterans of American...........................................    16

                                    APPENDIX
                        Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

    Ms. Charmain Bogue Prepared Statement............................    29
    Mr. Patrick Murray Prepared Statement............................    37
    Mr. John Kamin Prepared Statement................................    40
    Mr. Justin Monk Prepared Statement...............................    54
    Mr. Morgan D. Brown Prepared Statement...........................    58

                           Statements For The Record

    Veterans Education Success.......................................    63

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020

                  U.S. House of Representatives
                   Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
                                  Committee on Veterans Affairs
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m., in
    room 210, House Visitors Center, Hon. Mike Levin presiding.
        Present: Representatives Levin, Brindisi, Pappas, Luria,
    Lee, Cunningham, Bilirakis, and Meuser.
        Also present: Representative Lujan and Representative
    McCarthy.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, CHAIRMAN

        Mr. Levin. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. I
    request unanimous consent that the chair is authorized to
    declare a recess at any time.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        I would also like ask for unanimous consent for Leader
    McCarthy and Mr. Lujan to join the subcommittee today for the
    purpose of making opening statements.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        I want to welcome everyone to today's Subcommittee on
    Economic Opportunity hearing where we are reviewing 14 pieces
    of legislation, and I am very pleased to tell you that all of
    them are bipartisan. I commend our teams for working together
    in service of our veterans.
        I am also happy to say that this subcommittee is hosting
    the Veterans Affairs' Committee first legislative hearing of
    the year and I am particularly glad to continue our bipartisan
    work with the ranking member and my republican colleagues,
    something I consider a hallmark of this subcommittee.
        Today our subcommittee will consider bills and drafts that
    cover the spectrum of our jurisdiction and reflect the work
    that has been occurring in hearings and behind the scenes.
    Nearly 2 years after the passage of the Forever GI Bill, we
    have several proposals that look to refine both, the Veterans
    Technology Education Courses (VET TEC) and Edith Nourse Rogers
    Science Technology Engineering Math (STEM) programs that the
    law created.
        We have also proposals today to allow the automobile
    assistance program to provide new vehicle adaptations to
    disabled veterans as their vehicles age out of usage.
        We have proposals from both sides of the aisle on these
    issues and the feedback from VA and the veteran service
    organizations today and I thank them all for being here with
    us. Will help us refine and consolidate these bills going
    forward.
        We also have several more bills that work to improve
    education benefits more broadly, including proposals to adjust
    the timing of Post-9/11 G.I. Bill tuition payments to schools
    in order to reduce overpayments, match Work Study Program wages
    to local minimum wages to provide parity for student veterans,
    add meaningful outcome data to the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool,
    institute more oversight on the conversion of for-profit
    education institutions to non-profit, limit the liability of
    transferred benefits to the veteran, and a bill that Ranking
    Member Bilirakis and I introduced yesterday that requires VA to
    provide all veterans eligible for education benefits with
    electronic certificates of eligibility.
        Finally, we will be looking at the VA Home Loan Program and
    how to reduce the burden for veterans whose homes are destroyed
    by natural disasters. There is no question we are covering a
    lot today and that we have been and will continue to be a very
    active subcommittee.
        I can tell you that we intend to stay busy as we continue
    to address veteran homelessness, employment, and education
    issues.
        I appreciate the hard work of every member of this
    subcommittee and our great staff on both sides of the aisle who
    have assisted and who have worked together in getting these
    bills ready for review and I thank the expertise of all of our
    witnesses in the room and elsewhere who help participate as
    well.
        I am hopeful that the feedback we receive today will lead
    to many of the bills moving through the committee, the full
    House, and then the Senate, before being signed into law.
        With that, I will recognize Leader McCarthy for his opening
    statement. Thank you, sir.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF KEVIN MCCARTHY

        Mr. McCarthy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    you holding this hearing and I appreciate all the organizations
    before us today.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today and discuss legislation that Congressman Ro Khanna
    and I introduced, the VET TEC Expansion Act. In 2017, after
    visiting Udacity, an innovative, non-traditional educational
    provider, I was struck by the potential of non-traditional
    education courses for today's evolving workforce.
        Following that visit, I thought about how these types of
    courses could benefit our Nation's veterans, the brave men and
    women who often re-enter civilian life with highly specialized
    skills and experience. I was very surprised to learn, though,
    at that time, there was no existing VA programs allowing
    veterans to use their benefits to take non-traditional
    education courses as a means to achieve gainful employment upon
    leaving military service and those veterans that I met at
    Udacity and other organizations, such as itself, already went
    to a 4-year degree, could not get hired, and found, having left
    there, they were making much more money and had greater
    employment.
        I introduced the original VET TEC Act in early 2017 and
    President Trump signed it into law that summer. The VET TEC
    pilot program went live in May of last year and for the first
    time, the VA had the authority to contract with non-traditional
    educational providers to give veterans the opportunity to
    access technology-oriented classes.
        Since being implemented, the VET TEC pilot program has
    provided several success stories and has provided veterans with
    more freedom decide what and how they would like to learn. I am
    encouraged by this, but also have considered feedback on the
    program from veterans and providers who have participated in
    it.
        This is why I have introduced the VET TEC Expansion Act, a
    bill to expand on the VET TEC pilot program. This bill would
    allow the VA to accept more course providers into the VET TEC
    program by reducing the amount of time that a provider must
    successfully operate a course from 2 years to 1 years, because
    what is happened is, I will take an example like Udacity. They
    are in Denver. They have expanded and they opened up another
    part of the State. Even though the courses have already been
    provided in one entity with each satellite office, it has to
    stay--be open 2 years, instead 1, even though the facility
    already knows how to provide it; it is just an expansion
    facility.
        The intent of the VET TEC pilot program was always to match
    veterans with educational providers who are innovative,
    responsive to industry demands and this change will better help
    the VA to succeed while preserving the VA's authority to
    contract only with quality education providers. The bill would
    also allow the VA to accept education providers that offer
    part-time courses such as night classes into the VET TEC pilot
    program.
        Education is not one-size-fits-all and I believe that the
    VET TEC pilot program should be expanded to accommodate working
    veterans who are looking to make a career change or add to
    their resume. Last, the bill would allow active-duty
    servicemembers who are on terminal leave to get a jump-start on
    their lives as veterans by enabling them to apply and to
    participate in the VET TEC pilot program.
        By allowing transitioning servicemembers to utilize the VET
    TEC pilot program, more servicemembers will have the
    opportunity to transition to veteran life with a job already
    secured.
        At the end of the day, the intent of the original VET TEC
    Act is to provide veterans with greater choice when it comes to
    their well-earned benefits. The VET TEC Expansion Act builds on
    the success of the original law by expanding choice for
    veterans in a dynamic, technology-centric economy.
        With over four years remaining in this pilot program, these
    necessary changes will actually give the VA and my colleagues
    in Congress a better look at what does and does not work for
    the American student veterans. As I have often said, you can
    tell a lot about the character of our Nation by how we treat
    our veterans, and so I believe this is the best step forward--
    greater choice, more opportunity, and greater advantage for
    those who serve and transitioning into a veteran's life, and I
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Leader McCarthy. I appreciate you
    being here with us today.
        I have a number of my colleagues who are introducing and
    speaking the legislation that they are led and I will defer to
    a few of them for opening statements and I would like to start
    with Ms. Luria.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF ELAINE G. LURIA

        Ms. Luria. Thank you and thanks for allowing me to
    introduce this draft legislation and to speak today.
        I thank all the Veterans Service Organizations (VSO) and
    representatives for the VA who are appearing today to discuss
    our ideas for legislation to improve service to our veterans.
        My bill, the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool Data MOU Act, would
    help veterans get the information they need to choose the best
    educational option for them. My bill would direct the VA to
    enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or MOU with the
    Department of Education and the IRS to share student outcome
    data for inclusion in the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool website.
    This is a website that veterans can use to compare different
    educational choices. This would give prospective student
    veterans access to critical data like graduation rates,
    transfer rates, and post-graduation employment statistics.
        This information will help veterans understand how other
    students using the G.I. Bill have succeeded in the schools that
    they are considering. We an all agree that we want veterans to
    have all relevant data before committing to use their G.I. Bill
    benefits.
        I have the privilege of representing more than 92,000
    veterans in our district and it is among my top priorities to
    ensure that the veterans have the support they need and the
    benefit that they have earned.
        Thank you to Ranking Member Bilirakis for working with me
    on this bill, and I look forward to introducing this bill and
    bringing it before the committee before for a vote very soon.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Luria.
        I would now like to recognize Ms. Lee for her opening
    statement.

                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SUSIE LEE

        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for
    including my bill, the Class Evaluation Act, in today's
    hearing.
        Before I get started, I want to thank the Veterans
    Education Success, Student Veterans of America, Veterans of
    Foreign Wars, American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America
    for the feedback you all provided to both, myself and the
    committee on this bill.
        I am proud to have worked closely with my colleague,
    Representative Bilirakis, to incorporate your feedback into our
    bipartisan bill we are discussing.
        Put simply, the Class Evaluation Act is a common sense
    solution to an incredibly salient problem facing student
    veterans: G.I. Bill overpayments. G.I. Bill overpayments occur
    when the VA puts out more in tuition and fees than a student's
    semester course load ends requiring. This may be due to change
    of schedule, a dropped class, a school closing, or a myriad of
    factors that cause course loads to change at the start of a new
    semester after the VA has already sent over their G.I. Bill
    payments.
        In these cases, the student veteran is caught holding the
    bag and left responsible for reimbursing the VA for any
    overpayments. It is estimated that G.I. Bill overpayments
    affect 1 in 4 student veterans and cost American taxpayers
    hundreds of millions in wasted Federal funds each year.
        Put simply, G.I. Bill overpayments are a waste of taxpayer
    funds and an added burden to student veterans. To address this
    issue last October, I introduced Student Veteran Protection
    Act, a bill that would shift the financial burden of the G.I.
    Bill overpayments from the veteran back to the school; in
    short, ensuring that the responsibility lies on the school to
    reimburse the VA, not the student.
        I am pleased that this bill passed the House in November as
    part of the Protect the G.I. Bill Act, a clear step in the
    right direction. Now, today, I am excited to be here to take
    our efforts to address G.I. Bill overpayments a step further.
        My bill we are discussing today, the Class Evaluation Act
    is a bipartisan, common sense solution to prevent these
    overpayments from happening in the first place. The Class
    Evaluation Act works to prevent G.I. Bill overpayments by
    mandating that VA waits 7 days into a term before paying
    schools. By delaying G.I. Bill payments for 1 week, students
    will have the flexibility and the peace of mind to make
    necessary changes to their class schedule and course load
    within the first week of a semester, without worrying about
    being held personally responsible for any overpayments by the
    VA.
        In addition, the bill also ensures that student veterans
    are not charged for late fees during this period. It is also
    important to note that this bill also works to address cases we
    have seen where schools in financial distress that collected VA
    funds at the beginning of a term then abruptly close, leaving
    the VA out of thousands of dollars and more importantly,
    leaving students left holding the bag.
        It is estimated that the net savings to the VA from this
    bill would be roughly $120 million over 10 years. These are
    taxpayer funds, that if not wasted on overpayments, could be
    put toward a number of other critical VA programs supporting
    student veterans.
        Put simply, the Class Evaluation Act is a common sense,
    bipartisan fix that would protect student veterans from
    financial burden and save American taxpayers millions of
    dollars in critical VA funds.
        I would like to thank you all again for being here to
    discuss this bill today and I look forward to hearing your
    feedback. Thank you.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF JOE CUNNINGHAM

        I would now like to recognize Mr. Cunningham for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Cunningham. I want to start by thanking Chairman Levin
    and Ranking Member Bilirakis for holding this hearing and for
    including the Veteran Home Loan Disaster Recovery Act in this
    slate of bills under consideration today.
        I also want to thank our distinguished panel for joining us
    here today, especially The American Legion, the Veterans of
    Foreign Wars, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America for
    offering statements in support of my bipartisan legislation
    that would help veterans in the wake of natural disasters.
        As you all know, South Carolina is no stranger to natural
    disasters and veterans in the Low Country, as well as across
    the Nation, should not be penalized for living in the path of
    hurricanes. When disaster strikes, every American and
    especially our veterans and servicemembers deserve to know that
    their country is behind them.
        The bipartisan, Veteran Home Loan Disaster Recovery Act
    would help veterans by reducing VA home loan fees so that they
    have more money in their pockets to recover and rebuild.
        Under the VA Home Loan Program, veterans and servicemembers
    are eligible for loans backed by the Federal Government with
    lower interest rates than traditional mortgages. This
    legislation would reduce the loan fees for veterans who have
    been affected by Presidentially declared natural disasters by
    enabling them to qualify for a second home loan using the
    initial VA funding fee, instead of the higher subsequent-use
    fee.
        Our veterans should not be forced to pay higher fees for a
    second home loan if their first home was destroyed in a
    disaster through no fault of their own. The absolute least that
    we can do for veterans who are struggling to put their lives
    back together after a storm is a make sure they do not face
    additional barriers to access the benefits that they deserve.
        In closing, I want to thank Senator Hirono for her work as
    the lead sponsor of this legislation in the Senate and my
    colleague, Congressman Brian Mast for co-leading this
    legislation with me in the House.
        I would also like to thank the VA for providing their
    suggested revisions to improve this bill; we will certainly
    take those into consideration moving forward.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues on the
    committee and the members of this distinguished panel to get
    this bill across the finish line and ensure that our veterans
    who lose their homes to natural disaster have the support that
    they have earned.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.
        I would now like to recognize my friend, the ranking
    member, Mr. Bilirakis.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF GUS M. BILIRAKIS, RANKING MEMBER

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I apologize for my tardiness. I was at the prayer breakfast
    and I missed the bus, so the story of my life. I had to take a
    cab back. I actually did not know where the bus was.
        Anyway, whatever. I am here now and I know you do not want
    to hear any more, but I do have an opening statement. Thank
    you, again, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
        Okay. Thank you for continuing, again, Mr. Chairman, the
    bipartisan tradition of this subcommittee by bringing 14 bills
    that are before us today, including several Republican bills,
    so we appreciate that.
        Since you have become chairman of the subcommittee, both
    you and your staff have been nothing but fair to me and my
    colleagues, in my opinion, on this side of the aisle. I really
    it and, again, I appreciate your efforts.
        While I am supportive on most of the bills on today's
    agenda, I am concerned that a few of the draft bills may have
    unintended consequences. One of the draft bills on the agenda
    would extended new rules to accredited and G.I. Bill-approved
    schools that convert from a for-profit tax status to a non-
    profit tax status.
        While I believe that the VA should be more aggressively
    targeting schools that are not providing value and education to
    veterans--and I proposed legislation in the past on this
    particular subject a few years ago--I agree with many of our
    witnesses today that there are better approaches available to
    solving this problem. These include many of the bipartisan
    proposals in H.R. 4625, the Protect the G.I. Bill Act that
    both, you and I, introduced, and I supported, back in October.
    We should be focused on protecting students from bad schools,
    regardless of their tax status, and I look forward to working
    with the chairman and others to address my concerns with this
    proposal.
        Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank you for including
    my bill, H.R. 5750, the streamlining G.I. Bill Processing Act
    of 2020, which would require VA to modify their IT systems so a
    G.I. Bill student would be able to access their Certificate of
    Eligibility (COE) for G.I. Bill benefits online. The need to
    allow students to access their certificate of eligibility
    online has been brought to this subcommittee's attention by,
    again, the field hearings, staff, as well. We have had the
    regional hearings and we have also talked to the processing
    offices.
        Subcommittee staff was told that this has been a continual
    request from VA field staff, but the changes have
    understandably been delayed due to the Forever GI Bill IT
    updates. I am confident that while there are IT costs
    associated with making this change, my bill will end up saving
    the Government money in mailing and staff costs.
        Most importantly, this, functionally, would, again, provide
    better service to veterans who currently must call a hotline
    and wait on hold only to ask that a piece of paper be sent to
    them.
        I am also supportive of the bills that make changes to
    provisions of the Forever GI Bill, especially Leader McCarthy's
    bill on expanding access to the VET TEC pilot program, and
    Representative Barr's bill, to improve the STEM Scholarship.
        I am also supportive of Representative Bost's bill to
    address a loophole related to the G.I. Bill--the overpayments,
    as well as Representative Mueser's bill to provide service-
    connected veterans an opportunity to receive a second grant to
    help provide funds to purchase an adaptive automobile.
        Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, as always, for including
    these and other bills on the agenda for today's hearing. I look
    forward for hearing from our colleagues and the panel about the
    bills before us today.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Levin. I thank the ranking member and always appreciate
    the opportunity to work together on the subcommittee in a
    spirit of bipartisan collaboration.
        Our last opening statement, certainly not our least, is
    from my friend from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan.
        Thank you for joining us.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF BEN RAY LUJAN

        Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Bilirakis
    for the opportunity to speak on my legislation, the Wage
    Adjustment for Veterans Enrolled in School Act, also known as
    the WAVES Act.
        I want to join each and every one of my colleagues of
    thanking the members of the panel for being here today,
    representing the United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
    the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, Student
    Veterans of America, and Paralyzed Veterans of America. Thank
    you all for being here today.
        Congressman Jimmy Gomez and I introduced this legislation
    to provide a simple, but necessary fix to the Department of
    Veterans Affairs Work Study allowance. Our legislation, which
    has bipartisan support, will ensure veterans, reservists, and
    their family members, are paid fairly for their work when using
    education benefits and the VA Work Study Program.
        Today, the program requires that student workers receive
    the State or Federal minimum wage, whichever is higher, but the
    law does not take into account that many local areas set their
    own minimum wage. As a result, there are 44 localities in 11
    states where student veterans are paid below the local minimum
    wage, 5 of which are in my home State of New Mexico. This just
    is not right. It does not make sense.
        Veterans, reservists and their families sacrifice for our
    country and I think we can all agree that when they return home
    to get an education, they should be paid fairly as part of this
    program.
        Mr. Chairman, my constituents are frustrated and we have
    heard from constituents across the country. How can student
    veterans afford to work in their school's veterans office when
    it pays less than any minimum wage job in town?
        That is what this, this comes down to. This is not a
    minimum wage issue. This is veteran-equality issue and there is
    a precedent.
        Students participating in the Department of Education's
    Federal Work Study programs are paid at least the Federal,
    State, or local minimum wage, whichever is higher. Veterans
    using the VA's Work Study Program deserve no less. We just want
    equity and parity hear.
        The VA Work Study Program is vital to the successful
    transitioning of veterans to civilian life. It gives them
    civilian job experience and a steady source of income while
    allowing them to remain in school and focus on their studies
    and take advantage of the VA Work Study Program.
        Let us ensure that veterans have the students that they
    deserve and that they have earned to build a successful future.
    It is time that Congress close this loophole and ensure student
    veterans are being paid fairly for their work.
        Thank you for considering the WAVES Act here today and I
    ask all my colleagues for their support and for our student
    veterans.
        Thank you very much and I yield back.
        Mr. Levin. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for
    joining us today. I appreciate all of my colleague's opening
    statements and their leadership on these issues.
        With that, it is my pleasure to introduce today's
    witnesses. First, we have Ms. Charmain Bogue, executive
    director for education services in the Veterans Benefits
    Administration (VBA).
        Nice to see you.
        Ms. Bogue is accompanied by Laurine Carson, deputy
    executive director for public policy and procedures--actually,
    policy and procedures in the compensation service at VBA.
        Thanks for being here.
        Next, we have a Patrick Murray, deputy director of the
    National Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
        Always good to see you.
        Next is John Kamin, assistant director of the National
    Veterans Employment and Education Division for The American
    Legion.
        Thanks for being here.
        Followed by Justin Monk, policy associate for the Student
    Veterans of America.
        Good to see you. Mr. Monk, I understand it is your first
    time testifying before Congress, so I welcome you to the
    subcommittee. It is great to have you here.
        Finally, we have Morgan Brown, national legislative
    director for the Paralyzed Veterans of America. He has an
    experienced subcommittee member by now.
        Thank you for being here.
        Thank you all for joining us today. As you know, you will
    have 5 minutes, but your full statement will be added to the
    record.
        With that, I now recognize Ms. Bogue for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF CHARMAIN BOGUE

        Ms. Bogue. Thank you.
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and
    other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to be here today to discuss legislation pertaining
    to the programs and services offered by VA.
        Accompanying me today is Laurine Carson, deputy executive
    director of policy and procedures of Compensation Service.
        We are pleased to see several draft bills on the agenda
    that would make changes to VA's high-technology pilot program
    VET TEC. Since launching the program, we have issued more than
    7,000 certificates of eligibility.
        VA supports the proposed bills that would require VA to
    give preference to providers that offer tuition reimbursement
    to apprenticeship and Reserve members and expands eligibility
    to members of armed force on terminal leave.
        VA supports the intent, but has significant concerns with
    the draft bill that would expand eligibility to an individual
    who would become an eligible veteran within 180 days of VA
    making such a determination. VA would be happy to work with the
    committee staff in order to ensure that the bill is clear and
    accomplishes the desired intent.
        VA supports the draft bill to clarify certain eligibility
    requirements and expand eligibility for the Edith Nourse Rogers
    STEM Scholarship. Since launching the STEM program this past
    August, we have received more than 10,000 applications and
    awarded almost 800 scholarships.
        VA also supports legislation that would expand eligibility
    under the STEM Scholarship to certain individuals enrolled in a
    medical residency program; however, there appears to be an
    error in the bill. As written, the bill would grant eligibility
    to an individual who is earned a post-secondary degree in a
    STEM field and is enrolled in a program of education or medical
    residency program leading to a teaching certification.
        We interpret the intent to be to grant eligibility to
    individuals either enrolled in a program of education leading
    to a teaching certification or a medical residency program. VA
    requests that bill language be admitted to provide
    clarification.
        H.R. 5052 would change the definition of the term
    applicable hourly minimum wages to include the hourly minimum
    wage, under comparable law, of the local government. Provided
    that Congress appropriates necessary funding, VA supports this
    bill as it would ensure Work Study students receive the highest
    possible wage.
        Another bill would require VA to enter into a memorandum of
    understanding with the Department of Education and Internal
    Revenue Service that would require both agencies to provide VA
    with student outcomes. VA believes this bill is unnecessary, as
    it merely would codify existing requirements that were set
    forth in the Executive Order 13607 and does not impact VA's
    approval criteria.
        VA would need to establish a data-transfer connection and
    make modifications to our IT systems. This would take about 18
    months from enactment to implement this legislation.
        Provided that Congress appropriates the necessary funding,
    the VA supports the proposed bill that would require to VA to
    ensure that individuals entitled to VA education assistance are
    able to access an electronic version of their certificate of
    eligibility; however, VA estimates it would require 18 months
    to make these necessary changes.
        VA has a number of concerns with the draft bill which would
    require VA to treat for-profit schools that convert to non-
    profit schools as for-profit schools for 10 years. It is
    unclear on what 10 years is considered the appropriate length
    of time, also the bill needs clearer language regarding who
    determines a school's profit status.
        The proposed class action bill would prohibit VA from
    making lump-sum payments prior to 7 days after the first day of
    a term or semester, unless VA provides a waiver. VA cannot
    support this bill, as drafted, due to the potential negative
    impact on G.I. Bill beneficiaries.
        VA does not support the bill that would require joint
    liability for overpayment, in cases involving transferred
    entitlement because it was make transferors solely liable for
    all overpayments, even those created by actions of the
    dependant under Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, such as a reduction in
    course load.
        The VA welcomes the opportunity to work with the committee
    to provide technical assistance.
        Another bill would reduce the loan fees paid by certain
    veterans who have been affected by a major natural disaster and
    are obtaining a new loan guaranteed or made by VA. VA supports
    enactment of this bill, subject to technical limits.
        Two bills on the agenda would make changes to VA's
    automobile allowance. VA would be happy to discuss our
    technical concerns with the committee.
        This concludes my testimony. We appreciate the opportunity
    to present our views on these bills and to answer any question
    the committee may have for us. Thank you.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Charmain Bogue Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Bogue.
        I would now like to recognize Mr. Murray for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF PATRICK MURRAY

        Mr. Murray. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis,
    members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of
    the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), I
    would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our
    views on these important pieces of legislation.
        For years, the VFW has had a resolution to amend VA's
    Automobile Grant for Disabled Veterans. The Automobile Grant
    Program is an incredibly valuable benefit that disabled
    veterans need to purchase or upgrade their vehicles; however,
    the grant is a one-time benefit and cannot be utilized again,
    no matter how many vehicles the veteran may purchase.
        The VFW supports the proposal to increase the number of
    times the VA's Automobile Grant Program can be utilized by
    disabled veterans. The Automobile Grant proposal seeks to
    increase eligibility for once every 10 years. The VFW feels
    this proposal is a step in the right direction; however,
    ultimately, the VFW would like to see VA's Automobile Grant
    Program available for veterans to use for each new lease or
    purchase or every 5 years, whichever comes first.
        With the rapid advancement of automobile efficiency and
    safety technology, the VFW feels disabled veterans should be
    able to utilize these grants in order to stay up with emerging
    automobile advancements.
        The VFW is a strong supporter of G.I. Bill Comparison Tool
    and supports this proposal to add information to this valuable
    platform. While the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool has important
    information for students on it, and it could always use more
    information, such as student loan debt and accurate graduation
    rates, the tool, itself, we feel, needs significant overhaul
    before it could be truly reliable.
        The current comparison tool and complaint system does not
    have the best current information about schools displayed on
    the tool. Old information and complaints exist on the tool and
    there is no formal process for removing negative information.
        Even if VA enters into multiple data-sharing agreements
    with other agencies, the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool will never
    be fully accurate unless there is a system in place to remove
    old data to ensure the most current information is the most
    accurate. In order to do this, the VFW recommends a thorough
    review of the entire comparison tool and proposes to overhaul
    the platform with proper IT resources in order to make the tool
    a living comparison tool that student veterans can rely on at
    any time.
        Regarding VET TEC, the VFW supports all three proposals to
    make changes and improvements for the Veterans Affairs high-
    technology education pilot program, known as VET TEC. Expanding
    VET TEC eligibility for servicemembers still on active-duty,
    but on terminal leave, would hopefully decrease the number of
    veterans who face employment gaps after transitioning off of
    active service.
        Servicemembers are allowed to participate in certain
    employment training while in the SkillBridge program before
    separation and adding VET TEC to an option like that should
    benefit servicemembers looking for careers in high-technology
    jobs.
        The VFW also supports the change regarding employment 180
    days after VET TEC completion for Reserve-component personnel
    only if activations disrupt their path toward employment. We
    understand that an individual might have difficulty obtaining
    employment if they are being activated and we do not think a
    VET TEC program they participate in should be negatively marked
    because of involuntary orders; however, the VFW does not want
    to see this as the beginning to ease some of the success
    requirements of the overall VET TEC program.
        The entire pilot program is still very new and we need to
    be careful that changes such as these are made only if they are
    absolutely necessary for the veterans or for the
    servicemembers.
        Finally, VFW also supports the proposal to alter the
    requirements for students looking to participate in this
    program on a part-time basis. The VFW sees this as an important
    proposal for participation and views this solution as an
    opportunity for a larger discussion about veteran education and
    employment programs. Student veterans sometimes face challenges
    typical students traditional do not face while attending
    school.
        Large numbers of student veterans have families, are
    employed in some capacity, or are facing multiple other hurdles
    in default life that may not be realized yet for a lot of
    traditional 18-to-22-year-old students. Student veterans are
    largely non-traditional students who tackle school in a
    different way, including their class schedules and
    participation rates.
        We, veteran advocates, along with our friends at VA and
    Congress, have recognized for a while now that these student
    veterans are more often than not, a non-traditional student,
    yet we keep building education and employment programs based on
    traditional full-time models. Then, after feedback and
    discussion, these programs are frequently altered to allow for
    non-traditional students to partake in these programs.
        We think now is the time to look at all student veteran
    programs to begin the discussion about opening all of them to
    non-traditional students, particularly with an eye on part-time
    participation. We also suggest that any new programs should be
    built with at least non-traditional students in mind and
    possibly with the thought of these students in the forefront.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, the VFW
    thanks you and the ranking member for the opportunity to
    testify on these important issues before the subcommittee. I am
    prepared to take any questions you or the subcommittee members
    may have. Thank you.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Patrick Murray Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Murray.
        I would now like to recognize Mr. Kamin for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF JOHN KAMIN

        Mr. Kamin. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis,
    Congressman Brindisi, on behalf of the national commander, Bill
    Oxford, and nearly 2 million members of The American Legion, we
    thank you for the opportunity to testify in this first
    legislative hearing of the year.
        Before addressing the pending legislation, we would like to
    extend a sincere thank you to Representative Susie Lee for
    helping to spearhead the passage of H.J. Res. 76 to overturn
    the Department of Education's 2019 borrower defense rule. We
    had one request when the rule was being created, which was to
    provide veterans group borrower relief in the case predatory
    schools like ITT and Corinthian, which categorically targeted
    veterans.
        When the rule did not include this, it enforced veterans to
    individually prove schools' misconduct, we had to stand up in
    opposition and we appreciate Representative Lee's leadership in
    look forward to taking this case to the Senate.
        Due to the allotted time available, I will briefly discuss
    two pieces of legislation and also go into a little bit about
    the VET TEC improvements. We will begin with the draft
    legislation that assigns the liability of a G.I. Bill
    overpayment from the dependant to the veteran who initially
    transferred the benefit.
        We believe this is an important distinction to make and
    like to illustrate how difficult this can be on families. The
    American Legion was recently made aware of a case of a
    servicemember who completed the transfer of G.I. Bill to his
    daughter with his chain of command sanction prior to discharge.
    His daughter then used the G.I. Bill for her fall and spring
    freshman semesters.
        Unbeknownst to her, VA determined that her father did not
    meet the eligibility to transfer his benefits, due to a
    technicality of service dates down to the month. As a result,
    VA revoked his daughter's G.I. Bill and sent a debt-collection
    notice for the previous fall and spring tuition. Before her
    eighteenth birthday, she owed tens of thousands of dollars to
    the Department of Veterans Affairs.
        Problems with transferability for the G.I. Bill will remain
    as long as DOD administers a program in which VA holds the
    pursestrings. Unfortunately, some servicemembers will continue
    to be deprived for transferability that they have earned
    through service, due to technical misunderstandings between
    their chain of command and VA. These are problems we face
    today, but is unacceptable that such burdens be borne by our
    children. This draft bill would establish that veterans assume
    financial liability for G.I. Bill overpayments, instead of
    their dependants, which we believe is common sense.
        Another important piece of draft legislation defines the
    treatment by the VA of for-profit education institutions that
    convert to non-profit schools. The American Legion believes
    that all sectors of education should be held to a high standard
    of quality and administration, but agrees with the conventional
    understanding that precipitous failures and poor outcomes in
    the for-profit sector have warranted additional oversight
    protections.
        We have seen more than one case for the past 5 years of
    for-profit schools avoiding these oversights by converting to
    non-profit status. We do not believe that it is necessary to
    completely eliminate the ability for these types of conversions
    to happen, but it is prudent to increase oversight for an
    additional period of time.
        In an ideal environment, we would be in favor of 10 years
    of additional oversight; however, in the present condition,
    given the costs that oversight and the other Federal and State
    agency categorization--that means the creditors, Department of
    Education, IRS--request in the capability of maintaining this
    oversight for 10 years. Until a greater resource inventory can
    be calculated, we believe that a 5-year period of oversight is
    more practical.
        Finally, I would like to provide some brief remarks on the
    improvements proposed on both sides of the aisle regarding the
    VET-TEC program. First and foremost, the American Legion
    supports all of the VET-TEC improvement bills listed, and
    encourages the committees to keep working together with the VA
    to identify improvements that can be made to the program. We
    believe these improvements should have the effect of expanding
    eligibility pools, lowering red tape for employers, and
    increasing occupational pathways.
        We understand the concerns expressed about the program
    regarding quality controls. If it has not been clear over the
    past few years, quality controls are the No. 1 concern of the
    American Legion regarding the GI Bill.
        However, there are distinctions with VET-TEC that lower the
    priority of present oversight concerns for that specific
    program. No. 1, VET-TEC is employment driven. The GI Bill is
    not. With VET-TEC training, providers must prove that veterans
    have secured meaningful employment in prospective fields of
    study. That is not the case with the GI Bill, but it is
    arguably more important and more stringent criteria for
    technical pathways.
        With that in mind, there is a question of where traditional
    oversight measure for education would fit into it. Second, VET-
    TEC is not entitlement. It is a pilot program. After 5 years,
    there is going to be an assessment period about whether or not
    the program warrants reauthorization or expansion. That is the
    time when prudent judgment calls should be made on program
    accountability and oversight. Until this completion, the
    American Legion leans more in favor of legislation that expands
    eligibility pools, lowers red tape, and increases occupational
    pathways.
        Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, Congressman
    Brindisi, thank you for the time, and I would be happy to
    answer any questions you have. Thank you.

        [The Prepared Statement Of John Kamin Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Kamin. I now recognize Mr. Monk
    for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTIN MONK

        Mr. Monk. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting Student
    Veterans of America (SVA) to submit our testimony on pending
    legislation before the subcommittee.
        With more than 1,500 on campus chapters, Student Veterans
    of America is committed to the empowerment of yesterday's
    warriors. Through a supportive network of chapter leaders, SVA
    works to transform the skills and experience of student
    veterans to ensure they achieve their greatest potential.
        We appreciate the opportunity to share our views on many of
    the bills, which will directly impact student veterans, their
    families, and survivors. While many of the proposed bills being
    discussed today are technical fixes or adjustments to existing
    benefits, many would require significant changes to the
    Department of Veteran Affairs existing IT infrastructure.
        In addition to considering the substance of these bills, we
    strongly encourage consideration of the requisite funding needs
    to ensure there is successful implementation. There are several
    topics I would like to cover and brief, and I look forward to
    any questions the subcommittee may have afterwards.
        The first item I would like to discuss is the VET-TEC
    program. Three of the draft bills propose improvements to the
    new pilot program for both individuals and program providers.
    Generally, SVA is supportive of efforts to expand and clarify
    language underlying veterans' programs. Obvious solutions, such
    as expanding the 180 day deadline after program completion for
    Reservists who are called up to active duty are welcome
    adjustments. However, we have concerns when the proposed
    adjustments weaken safeguards or seek to change the program
    before meaningful data can be gathered.
        In one instance, a draft bill removes the requirement that
    providers operate for at least 2 years before being approved.
    While we understand the desire to bring more providers into the
    program quickly, opening the door to unproven programs may
    cause more problems than solve. In light of Leader McCarthy's
    testimony, we would be open to discussions about ways to meet a
    need for approved providers expanding to satellite campuses
    without weakening the broader protection the 2-year requirement
    offers.
        We would also like to encourage Congress to take care when
    amending pilot programs. It stands to reason that there may be
    some common sense adjustments that need to be made following
    the enactment of these programs. However, doing so may
    introduce noise into the data set. We would encourage Congress
    to consider the impact of the results of a study before
    amending the pilot.
        The second item I would like to discuss is the non-profit
    conversion draft bill. Thanks to tireless advocacy from student
    and consumer rights groups, leaders in Congress, and a growing
    awareness by the public of predatory practices of some
    institutions, many of the worst providers in higher education
    have come under increased scrutiny in recent years.
        In response to this increased awareness and scrutiny, there
    is a worrying trend to proprietary institutions converting to
    non-profit status to avoid some of VA's requirements, while
    maintaining the same profit-seeking and predatory behavior.
        This draft bill addresses an important topic, and we
    appreciate this subcommittee's continued efforts to discuss
    this issue in open forums. We strongly support the bill's
    intent, largely out of recognition of the need for greater
    oversight of the conversion process, but also because in a
    vacuum, this bill would likely be a positive net change
    overall.
        Be that as it may, we believe this bill fails to address
    the root cause of the problem, which would be VA's general lack
    of authority to act on an institution's bad behavior. Other
    bills, including the recently House passed H.R. 4625 the
    Protect the G.I. Bill Act, provide broader authorities to VA,
    which allow them to act based on the wider context of an
    institutions misbehavior.
        It is important to note that some of the responsibility
    does not lie with VA or this subcommittee. Some of it rests at
    the feet of the Department of Education and the Internal
    Revenue Service. These agencies and the associated committees,
    must look at what is required of institutions that convert to
    non-profit status in a comprehensive manner.
        The last item I would like to discuss is the draft bill on
    Liability for Transferred Benefit Overpayments. Our full
    support of this bill hinges on recent discussions with
    subcommittee staff to limit the scope of these changes. The
    revised language should provide a solution to an unusual, but
    serious situation, which a dependent, typically a spouse, is
    held liable for a debt resulting from the transferring
    individual's failure to complete the required service agreement
    in order to transfer said benefits.
        As this debt is caused entirely from the behavior of the
    veteran, and the Dependent used the benefit in good faith, as
    well as cannot possibly fulfill the obligation themselves, the
    liability should rest wholly on the shoulders of the veterans.
        We would like to thank subcommittee staff for their
    willingness to listen to our concerns and revise the language
    to more accurately apply only to a specific subset of
    dependents.
        We would also like to recognize the overarching need for
    increased VA IT resources to enact many of the proposed
    solutions here today. We cannot pound on the table for change
    with our left hand, while our right withholds the money
    required to achieve it. We hope to work with this subcommittee
    and any relevant stakeholders to better meet the needs of
    student veterans and VA.
        Thank you for your time, attention, and devotion to the
    cause of veterans in higher education. I look forward to your
    questions.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Justin Monk Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Monk. You are now a pro at
    testifying. With that, I would like to recognize Mr. Brown for
    5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MORGAN D. BROWN

        Mr. Brown. Thank you. Chairman Levin, Chairman Levin,
    Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the subcommittee,
    Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for
    the opportunity to discuss views on pending legislation that
    impacts the Department of Veterans Affairs today.
        My written statement covers our positions on several bills,
    so I am going to limit my comments to the ones that directly
    affect our membership.
        Beginning with the discussion draft that would reduce home
    loan fees paid by certain veterans. This bill reduced fees paid
    by those affected by major disasters and allows a veteran's
    next home loan following the disaster to be treated as an
    initial loan.
        PVA wholeheartedly supports this effort to help veterans
    who have lost their homes to a natural disaster. We are
    particularly pleased that this committee is considering
    legislation that could help catastrophically disabled veterans
    meet their transportation needs.
        We thank Representatives Cisneros and Meuser for drafting
    the two pieces of legislation being considered today that allow
    eligible veterans to receive more than one automobile grant, so
    they can purchase reliable transportation that ensures their
    safety, maintains their independence, and helps them get to
    medical appointments.
        We would also like to recognize Mr. Meuser for his
    introduction yesterday of H.R. 5761, the Auto for Veterans Act,
    which also would provide a--it is a cleaner language providing
    an automobile grant for these veterans.
        We believe that the ideal legislation is similar to H.R.
    5761, that would aid veterans who receive their first grant 10
    years or more ago to receive a grant for a new automobile as
    soon as possible, and allow for additional grants after a
    requisite period has lapsed.
        We would be more than happy to work with Representatives
    Cisneros and Meuser, as well as the committee staff, to craft a
    single bill that captures the positive aspects of all of these
    bills into one.
        The rate of VA's current one-time grant for eligible
    veterans to purchase their initial vehicle is presently
    $21,488.29. Unfortunately, the cost to replace a modified
    vehicle is very high and the veteran bears much of this cost
    themselves.
        I want to give you a quick example. A PVA member bought a
    replacement vehicle late last year. They traded in their
    previous vehicle, which they bought in 2011 for $38,000. They
    received 14,000 in trade-in value toward the purchase of a new
    vehicle. The make and model that they purchased was very
    practical, and had a base sticker price of $33,000. They ended
    up spending around $49,000 with all of the add-ons, that
    included some of the modern assistive technologies that you see
    on TV When they subtracted the amount they received from the
    trade-in, as well as the adaptations that were reimbursable by
    VA, this catastrophically disabled veteran wound up paying
    about $32,000 out of their pocket toward this vehicle.
        Fortunately, they had the means to do so, but many of our
    members do not. These substantial costs, coupled with
    inflation, present a financial hardship for many veterans who
    need to replace their primary mode of transportation once it
    reaches the end of its serviceable life.
        Since vehicles do not last a person's lifetime, veterans
    should have the ability to purchase a vehicle once every 10
    years without having to shoulder the burden of the entire cost
    themselves.
        Another factor to consider as you deliberate, if more than
    one grant is warranted, is a veteran's physical condition.
    Younger veterans who are injured may retain or be able to
    recover a fair degree of their strength and mobility after the
    injury that makes them eligible for the grant program.
        A car may be suitable for these veterans at this point in
    their lives, but the reality is that eventually their physical
    condition will deteriorate and their transportation needs will
    change.
        There are safety aspects in the need for additional grants
    as well, because the high cost to procure replacement vehicles,
    many veterans retained vehicles well beyond the reliability
    point, which places them and those around them at risk, when
    the vehicle they are operating is unsafe or unreliable.
        If given the chance for a second or subsequent grant,
    veterans may be inclined to take advantage of some of that new
    assistive technology that is currently being developed with
    great regularity.
        In closing, we ask Congress to establish multiple
    automobile grants for veterans to use once every 10 years,
    equaling the current grant maximum in effect at the time of the
    vehicle replacement.
        We thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to express
    our views, and I welcome any follow-up questions you may have.

        [The Prepared Statement Of Morgan D. Brown Appears In The
    Appendix]

        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Appreciate your testimony
    and the testimony of all of our witnesses. With that, I would
    like to turn to the question portion of the hearing. I would
    like to recognize myself for 5 minutes to begin.
        I would like to start by again thanking Ranking Member
    Bilirakis for partnering with me to introduce the Streamlining
    G.I. Bill Processing Act, which I am glad each of today's
    witnesses support. Ms. Bogue, you noted that implementing this
    legislation would require modifying VA's existing IT systems. I
    just want to reiterate my commitment to you and to my
    colleagues to make sure that we do make those necessary
    investments in the VA's IT infrastructure to improve and to
    deliver benefits efficiently. Also looking forward to working
    with my colleague, Ms. Lee, who is here, who chairs the
    Technology Modernization Subcommittee.
        In your testimony, you mentioned that it could take
    approximately 18 months to provide electronic certificates of
    eligibility. As far as I know, and I have been to Muskogee,
    Oklahoma and taken the tour, and seen how some of this works,
    the date of who is eligible currently exists. The data of those
    eligible for those benefits in the data base. Why would it take
    18 months to increase the functionality to allow electronic
    copies of certificates when you already have all the data?
        Ms. Bogue. Thank you for that question. One aspect of that,
    it does include the acquisition process as well. We would need
    to make sure that we have a vendor in place in order to build
    in that functionality.
        The other aspect is the way that particular bill is
    written, it applies to all of our education programs. When you
    are talking all education programs, only the post-9/11 G.I.
    Bill is managed through the long term solution. All of the
    other education programs are managed in other systems across
    that space. There are 23 systems. You will need to be able to
    build the rules across those systems in order to feed into one
    avenue, in order to spit out that certificate of eligibility.
        Yes, you are correct. We have the information, but we will
    need to build the rules, and build that centralized source in
    order to spit out that certificate of eligibility for someone.
        I would also like to State that today we do provide
    something similar to the certificate of eligibility. It is
    called the statement of benefits. That is available on VA.gov
    for students. They can download that information today without
    calling us. They will be able to get the latest information of
    how much entitlement they have remaining associated with their
    education benefits.
        Mr. Levin. Appreciate that. If there is anything that we
    can do to work with you to try to speed that up, obviously I
    think it is in the interest of our veterans to get that
    certificate without delay. I look forward to working toward
    that.
        I wanted to shift gears to the for-profit conversions
    discussion draft. In your written testimony, you State, Ms.
    Bogue, that there is some ambiguity regarding when institutions
    convert from for-profit to non-profit, and that the Department
    of Education and IRS have different standards regarding when
    and how these institutions are classified. Would it be easier
    for VA to mirror the determinations of the Department of
    Education when determining an institution's for-profit or non-
    profit status?
        Ms. Bogue. Thank you for that question. When it comes to--
    we are still doing research in terms of which is the better
    option of IRS or Department of Education. We do know it is
    important to pick one as the authoritative source. We have seen
    in the past where there has been a definite conflict between
    the two agencies when it comes to the authoritative source.
        The other aspect that I want to pivot to as it relates to
    this particular bill, it does not change our compliance
    requirements as it relates to oversight for that 10-year
    period. Our compliance requirements are the same for for-profit
    schools and non-profit schools. There is nothing also in there
    as it relates to disapproval of a program if they are in
    violation of anything along the way during that process. There
    are some other aspects of this bill that we would like to be
    able to work with you and your staff on to get it to the place
    that you would like it to be.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you. I appreciate that. We look forward
    for the opportunity to do that and working with your team at
    the VA.
        Mr. Brown, in your testimony, you expressed a need for
    automobile adaptive equipment grants to be renewed every 10
    years. I appreciate that. Can you elaborate on the necessity
    for these adaptations in relation to a veteran's mobility and
    health as they age?
        Mr. Brown. Sure. Certainly. In fact, I would like to refer
    back to the individual that I spoke of that purchased the
    replacement vehicle, because he is actually an ideal example.
    He is currently confined to a wheelchair. He is a paraplegic.
    He has upper body strength, which allows him to get in and out
    of the vehicle. But because he is pulling himself up and into
    and out of the vehicle, as well as lifting the chair in and out
    of the vehicle, it ultimately will do damage to his shoulders
    and to other parts of his upper body. His strength will
    eventually diminish and he will not be able to do that, and
    that would force him to perhaps move into a vehicle with like a
    side entry.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Brown. That is a very good example of the type of
    condition that we are talking about.
        Mr. Levin. I appreciate that. I have just a couple more
    questions. I apologize to my colleagues. I have heard reports
    that accessing these grants can be cumbersome, since veterans
    must go through processes at both the Veterans Health
    Administration (VHA) and VBA. Can you speak to how long the
    process generally takes from submitting a claim until the
    installation of the adaptive equipment, and how quickly the
    invoices for vehicle adaptations are paid?
        Mr. Brown. It is true that both VHA and VBA are involved.
    That is by necessity because VHA will be the one that will
    actually determine that the condition exists. They are the
    initial certifying authority. From there, to just kind of
    quickly walk you through the steps, you would have eligibility.
    They would have to apply for the benefit. There would be a
    rating decision. They would notify the veteran. That would be
    VA's responsibility. There is processing. There is pain
    eligibility requirements issuing the certificate of
    eligibility, and then processing any disagreements that might
    arise as a result of this approval process.
        To speak to the exact timeframe, VA is probably in a better
    position to answer that question. I can tell you that in some
    cases, the veteran may dictate or determine how long that
    process is, because they may go through all of these steps and
    be approved for that automobile loan. Then they may not
    necessarily go out and purchase that vehicle right away.
        Mr. Levin. Fair enough. When VA updates its regulations on
    automobile adaptive equipment, what new technology would PVA
    like to see included on that list and why?
        Mr. Brown. It is true. They are in the process of updating
    the regulation and I understand as of yesterday that it could
    be forthcoming very soon. I think first and foremost, what I
    should note is that in terms of the list, and the items that
    are currently on the list, the one thing that we would
    absolutely want to make certain is the items that are currently
    there, that we would want them to remain there, and those items
    to remain reimbursable.
        I identified in my written statement two or three of the
    type of assistive technologies that we would recommend be
    added. The VA secretary does have the ability to add these
    items. It is pretty much what you see on TV now that would
    enable you to remain in your lane, to prevent you from running
    into another vehicle. Those types of technologies are certainly
    available and would----
        Mr. Levin. Thank you. My last question is for Mr. Murray,
    and this is regarding the Waves Act. As you know, this will
    allow VA to pay higher wages to students in the work study
    program. Can you elaborate on how this bill would impact your
    members who take on debt, going to school full time.
        Mr. Murray. With the work study program, a lot of what we
    have heard is the prompt payment and the processing are the
    issues. The issue of State wages, Federal wages, things like
    that versus work study, the only thing that we would caution is
    as was mentioned, there are states that have different
    municipality rates as well. If we would have gone back and
    rewound the tape 2 years ago and talked about changing Basic
    Allowance Housing (BAH) payments toward zipcodes, how it would
    sink VA's IT system, we probably would have laughed that off.
    There is no way that changing for zipcodes would crash their
    entire program.
        If we are going to now start paying different wages toward
    different municipality minimum wages, it is just something that
    we caution that going forward, that is kept in mind.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you for that. I have more questions, but
    we will have to end there for now. I would like to recognize
    Mr. Bilirakis, the ranking member.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Mr.
    Chairman.
        First of all, I want to ask the VA, Ms. Bogue, do you all
    plan to implement an electronic COE if this legislation does
    not pass? Even though I have confidence that it will pass.
        Ms. Bogue. Yes. Sorry, I did not mean to cut you off. Thank
    you.
        Basically, we can do this without legislation. It really is
    an IT change that needs to transpire. It is something that we
    were actually trying to go down that path prior to Colmery Act.
    It is still on our roadmap to do so.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Now, do you plan to do so?
        Ms. Bogue. Yes. Our plan is to do so.
        Mr. Bilirakis. When?
        Ms. Bogue. I do not have a timeframe, because right now we
    are still implementing the last stages of Colmery, as well as
    the retroactive piece for the monthly housing allowance
    changes. We are still in that process with Colmery. We do not
    have a timeline as it relates to implementing certificates of
    eligibility.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I recommend
    we still go forward with the legislation, just to be on the
    safe side. I appreciate that.
        Ms. Bogue. No problem.
        Mr. Bilirakis. In your written testimony, you voiced
    concerns with the current drafting of the bill to close the
    G.I. Bill loophole that changes the liability of education
    debts if a service member has transferred their G.I. Bill
    benefits but does not complete their service obligation. This
    question is for Ms. Bogue again.
        If the bill text was altered to clarify that the service
    member would only be eligible for all of her payments that were
    created solely because they did not complete the service
    obligation, as opposed to overpayments created by dropping a
    class, would VA support that change?
        Ms. Bogue. We would support that change. When we look at
    that particular program, we see that that is the No. 1 issue
    when it comes to our dependents is that the service member has
    not completed their service obligation time. Now that debt
    falls on the student.
        The law is actually silent right now on that issue, and we
    were trying to work with our general counsel on how to
    implement something by policy in order to transfer that debt to
    the service member versus the dependent.
        We would appreciate a statutory fix in order to make that
    clear.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Murray, please tell us
    more about why you believe we should ease some of the
    restrictions on those who can use the VET-TEC pilot and the
    legislation, of course, that the minority leader McCarthy spoke
    of this morning.
        Mr. Murray. Thank you, sir. The part-time participation we
    think is one of the biggest changes that can come along with
    this, because what we have recognized for years now that
    student veterans go back to school, they are doing so at
    different rates than the traditional student. We think that
    opening up different eligibility, different opportunities for
    the non-traditional student, for part-time students, for folks
    working, single parents, things like that, opening up all these
    programs for that student veteran. Especially because it turns
    out if you look at the numbers, that is actually the majority
    of them.
        Building and designing these programs for traditional
    Monday through Friday, 9 to 5, full-time students is not what
    the student veteran is. We think that this aligns the
    eligibility expansion with the population we are trying to hit.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Agreed. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Kamin,
    again from the Legion, can you please tell us why you believe
    the Class Evaluation Act could hurt schools who currently use
    the dual certification system?
        Mr. Kamin. Thank you, sir. Again, we do appreciate the
    intent of the program and oversight being a focus that we can
    collectively come up to some solutions on.
        What dual certification is before this semester even
    begins, I get the student's credits and I put that into the
    certification, but I leave the tuition blank. Then during the
    add/drop period, I can amend the tuition based on any--if there
    was any changes in credits to exactly what it is.
        This is a strategy that VA has endorsed. It is on their
    website and it poses it as a way to alleviate these
    overpayments. It is a way to distribute the workload so that
    you can, in advance of the semester, get a lot of the legwork
    done and are not scrambling 2 weeks into the semester to start
    from scratch.
        We worry that this act would eliminate that possibility and
    force school certifying officials 2 weeks into the middle of
    the first semester to certify everything all at once.
    Additionally, most schools begin 4 year programs in the last
    week of August. It might not seem like much, but that one or 2
    week period at BAH you get at the beginning of September
    matters a lot. If schools have to wait 2 weeks before doing it,
    that would effectively be eliminated in terms of that first
    increment of BAH.
        Again, we support the intent, but as long as dual
    certification is a best practice, we would like that to be
    maintained.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much. Yes, that is
    why we have you here. I appreciate what you are doing. You tell
    us how the veteran--how it truly impacts the veteran so that we
    can write good legislation to their benefits. Everyone has good
    intentions. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Levin. I thank the ranking member, and I would like to
    recognize Mr. Brindisi for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Brindisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
    Chairman and the ranking member for holding this hearing today.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for testifying. I think it
    is essential that we hear from our VSOs when considering
    legislation to help our Nation's veterans. Thank you all for
    being here.
        I would also like to thank Congressman Meuser for
    introducing the Advancing Uniform Transportation Opportunities
    for Veterans Act with me. Our bill will expand the VA's
    automobile grant program to allow eligible veterans to receive
    $20,000 or more in assistance every 10 years to replace their
    vehicles, which are often outdated with adaptive equipment.
        We believe this is a worthy program that assists veterans
    every year who have sacrificed so much for our country. These
    vehicles are adaptive equipment and are essential for these
    veterans to go to work, attend school, visit family, and
    maintain a life of mobility.
        Expanding this grant program to allow these veterans to
    replace their vehicle after a 10-year period to me is just
    common sense. Just a few brief questions.
        Mr. Brown, perhaps, can you speak more to the importance of
    this grant program and special adaptive equipment grants in
    helping veterans with disabilities?
        Mr. Brown. Sure. I think one of the most important things
    that we need to consider in regards to this legislation is that
    we have younger veterans who are injured. They have suffered a
    catastrophic injury, and they are confined to a wheelchair.
    They have transportation needs. It is going to be a lifetime.
    This is a lifetime event for them.
        Because they are younger, that means that they are going to
    have to replace that vehicle multiple times. The gentleman that
    I spoke of in my oral statement, that was his third vehicle
    since his injury. As conditions change, as to the adaptive
    technology changes in the vehicle, you can not continue to take
    older technology and apply it to a newer vehicle. At some
    point, you have to upgrade everything. That is a tremendous
    cost that is coming out of the pocket for these individuals for
    a service connected disability.
        I just believe that as a Nation, we should not be putting
    veterans into a position of financial hardship for a service
    connected disability that we really should be taking care of
    them for.
        Mr. Brindisi. Thank you, sir. Mr. Kamin, could you tell us
    what these grant programs can mean to a veteran with
    disabilities, getting to work or attending school.
        Mr. Kamin. Well, we think it is--when you look at schools
    right now, we have come a long way when it comes to disability
    support services and being able to be 508 compliant, and making
    sure facilities are met to meet the needs of traditional
    students with disabilities. There is an enormous chasm between
    what a traditional student's disabilities are and what a
    veteran's are.
        Often times, veterans come into schools with a full belief
    that this is a problem that I have. It is with the VA. The
    school has nothing to do with it. There is a lot of work that
    needs to be done to bridge that so that they can feel just as
    empowered as your traditional students coming with
    disabilities. At the very least, not having them have to take
    public transportation to go to their hospital for
    rehabilitative services.
        When I was at American University, a close friend of mine
    was in that case, where he would walk to the bus that would
    take him to Walter Reed from American University. We know that
    even though this is a minority of the overall disability
    population, that it matters--for student veterans.
        Mr. Brindisi. Thank you. Thank you all for being here
    again. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Brindisi. Now, I would like to
    recognize Mr. Meuser for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Meuser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member for
    including my legislation in today's hearing. Thank you all very
    much. Very nice to see you.
        This legislation will increase----
        Mr. Levin. Mr. Meuser, microphone. Sorry.
        Mr. Meuser. My apologies, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Levin. No problem.
        Mr. Meuser. I will start from the beginning. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman and the ranking member, for including my legislation
    in today's hearing, which will increase access to the VA's
    automobile grant program.
        I certainly want to thank Mr. Brindisi very, very much and
    the PVA for leading this effort with me. The VA is, as you were
    just stating, Mr. Brown, the VA's auto grant is narrowly
    tailored, approximately 2,500 recipients likely, yet vitally
    important, extremely important, and will serve our country's
    most severely disabled veterans by providing them an allowance
    to purchase a new or used vehicle beyond the scope of the
    first. It certainly makes a lot of sense.
        Safe, reliable transportation is absolutely essential
    component to veterans leading healthy lives, getting to work,
    and interacting with the community, and getting to the Veterans
    Administration. I have discussions with our VAs. The one in my
    district, the Lebanon VA, who does the best job that they can,
    and the Wilkes-Barre VA, which is slightly outside my district,
    but I have thousands of veterans in my district that go there,
    and transportation is a problem that we continue to need to try
    to solve.
        Increasing this frequency to veterans to use this grant
    program will help ease a large financial burden for the
    vehicle, as well as any assistive devices, and continue to
    provide an important benefit for those most in need who have
    earned such benefits and our support.
        Mr. Brown, you pretty much just answered my first question,
    but this program has not evolved over 60 years, more or less,
    perhaps as long as that. Do you think that this is enough? Do
    you think that this bill will do the job necessary that will
    truly help thousands of veterans receive the funding they need
    to get the second car 10 years out?
        Mr. Brown. We do, sir. Just to kind of parlay a little bit
    onto your comment, a couple of your comments. At a minimum,
    your legislation addresses a key safety issue. It also
    addresses an important quality of life issue as well. Because
    the individuals, the majority of them that we are talking
    about, certainly the majority of the members that I represent,
    they can not afford--if they can not afford to modify or
    purchase another vehicle to modify, then they risk losing their
    independence. Then it becomes an issue of where you are talking
    about issues of isolation, and then potentially depression, and
    it is a downward spiral from there.
        Your legislation would provide, I believe, what our
    veterans need the most. That is real help, immediate help, and
    will keep them--preserve their independence and keep them on
    the road.
        Mr. Meuser. That is great.
        Mr. Brown. We thank you. Thank you and thank Representative
    Brindisi as well.
        Mr. Meuser. Thank you as well. I am very happy to be
    sponsoring and introducing this.
        Rural areas, clearly even high impact than more suburban
    and certainly city dwellings. It is important elsewhere. I am
    very, very, again, pleased to be introducing this legislation.
        What else can we do? What else would the Paralyzed Veterans
    of America feel, or any of you in my limited time here, what
    else can we do to make ease of access to work, to the
    community, to the VA, to society for our veterans?
        Mr. Brown. Well, your legislation opens the door, I think,
    for the first critical part, and that is to authorize the
    second grant. We still feel very strongly that vehicles should
    be replaced. They should be given the option to replace a
    vehicle at a certain period. Average wear out of a vehicle is
    about 11, 11 and a half years according to I guess you could
    say some Federal sources. The reason why we chose 10 is because
    much a vehicle's usable service life falls within that
    timeframe.
        There are potentially, as the chairman indicated, the
    possibility of including some of the modern assistive
    technologies that are available. I think that is a discussion
    that we need to have with VA, and perhaps when the new
    regulation comes out here in the very near future.
        Mr. Meuser. All right. Terrific. It is an honor to work
    with all of you, and it is certainly an honor to serve our
    veterans. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Meuser. With that, if there are
    no more questions, we can conclude this hearing.
        I want, again, to thank the ranking member and every member
    of the subcommittee, as well as the respective staff, for
    working together on this package of bills today in a continued
    spirit of bipartisan collaboration.
        I want to thank our witnesses for their expertise, and my
    other colleagues Leader McCarthy, Mr. Lujan for their interest
    as well.
        All members will have 5 legislative days to revise and
    extend their remarks and include extraneous material. Without
    objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    ?

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

                             A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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

                        Prepared Statement of Witnesses

                                  ----------

                      Prepared Statement of Charmain Bogue

        Good Morning Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members
    of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss 14 bills--11 on Veterans' educational assistance, 2 on
    VA's automobile allowance, and 1 on loan guaranty. Accompanying me
    today is Ms. Laurine Carson, Deputy Executive Director, Policy and
    Procedures, Compensation Service (VBA).

                             H.R. 5052 - WAVES Act

        H.R. 5052, the Wage Adjustment for Veterans Enrolled in School Act
    (WAVES), would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3485(a)(6) to change the
    definition of the term ``applicable hourly minimum wages'' for purposes
    of work-study allowance to include consideration of the hourly minimum
    wage under comparable law of the local government with jurisdiction
    over the area in which the work-study services are to be performed.
    Currently, the hourly minimum wage for the work-study allowance is the
    greater of the hourly minimum wage under section 6(a) of the Fair Labor
    Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. Sec.  206(a)) or the hourly minimum
    wage under comparable State law. Under the bill, a work-study student
    would receive an hourly minimum wage equal to the Federal, State, or
    local government minimum wage, whichever is greatest. The amendment
    would apply to a payment of work-study allowance made on or after
    January 1, 2021.
        Provided that Congress appropriates the necessary funding, VA
    supports the proposed legislation because it would ensure work-study
    students receive the highest possible wage available for the location
    in which they are providing services. VA cannot estimate costs
    associated with H.R. 5052 because limited data are readily available
    comparing Federal, State, and local government minimum wages.

                     Unnumbered Bill - Comparison Tool MOU

        This unnumbered bill would add a new paragraph (4) to 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  3698(c) to require VA to enter into a memorandum of understanding
    with the Department of Education and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
    that would require both agencies to provide VA with student outcome
    information for students who are Veterans, members of the Armed Forces,
    or dependents of Veterans or members of the Armed Forces at educational
    institutions. The student outcome information would include the
    following: persistence rate; course and program completion rates;
    transfer-out rate; graduation rate; number of completed degrees and
    certificates; average number of years to complete a degree or
    certificate program; unemployment rates of graduates and of individuals
    who attended but did not complete a degree or certificate program;
    average salary for graduates; average salary for graduates with each
    major or certificate available at the institution; median amount of
    Federal student loans; and student loan default rate.
        In addition, this proposed bill would require VA to provide such
    student outcome information for each institution of higher learning,
    for the most recent academic year for which information is available,
    in the GI Bill Comparison Tool.
        VA believes this bill is unnecessary, as it merely would codify
    existing requirements that were set forth in Executive Order 13607,
    ``Establishing Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions
    Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members.''
    Recently, VA has implemented a Joint Higher Education Interagency
    Agreement with the Department of Defense, Department of Education, and
    the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in response to the executive
    order. This agreement enables VA and the other signatories to leverage
    decision support tools created by each agency in an effort to ensure
    educational institutions are transparent about financial costs and
    performance outcomes and that quality academic and student support
    services are provided to military and Veteran students in accordance
    with E.O. 13607. While VA already collects certain student outcome
    information on veterans, we still are in the beginning stages of
    coordinating this with other agencies to determine what matching data
    is possible. Based on previous experience, the Department of Labor is a
    critical partner in such agreements as it provides valuable information
    regarding things such as unemployment rates of graduates and of
    individuals who attended but did not complete a degree or certificate
    program.
        VA would need to establish a data transfer connection with IRS in
    order to receive the required student outcome data. VA would also need
    to make modifications to the VA-Online Certification of Enrollment and
    Web Enabled Approval Management computer systems. VA estimates that it
    would require 18 to 24 months from the date of enactment to make the
    information technology (IT) changes necessary to implement the proposed
    legislation, pending funding availability. No mandatory or VBA General
    Operating Expenses (GOE) costs are associated with this unnumbered
    bill. However, VA estimates IT costs to be $8 million. Implementation
    also may result in costs to other agencies that we are not able to
    estimate.

         Unnumbered Bill - Availability of Electronic Certificates of
                                  Eligibility

        This unnumbered bill would require that, not later than August 1,
    2021, VA ensure that any person who is entitled to educational
    assistance under chapter 30, 33, or 35 of title 38, U.S.C., or section
    1606 of title 10, U.S.C., is able to access an electronic version of
    the certificate of eligibility showing the person's entitlement to such
    assistance.
        Provided that Congress appropriates the necessary funding, VA
    supports the proposed legislation as it would give all VA education
    beneficiaries access to their eligibility and entitlement information
    in an electronic format. However, VA would have to make modifications
    to its existing IT systems to implement this proposed legislation. Due
    to competing priorities in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 and a lack of a
    contract vehicle, VA estimates that it would require 18 months from the
    date of enactment to make the IT changes necessary to implement the
    proposed legislation, pending funding availability. No mandatory or VBA
    GOE costs are associated with this unnumbered bill. However, VA
    estimates IT costs to be $15 million.

             Unnumbered Bill - For-Profit Conversion to Non-Profit

        This unnumbered bill would add a new 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3699B that
    would require VA to treat for-profit educational institutions that
    convert to non-profit educational institutions as for-profit
    educational institutions for 10 years after the date the educational
    institution is converted. This provision would be effective on the date
    of enactment but would apply to conversions that occurred on or after
    January 1, 2016.
        VA has a number of concerns with this proposal. First, it is
    unclear on what basis 10 years is considered the appropriate length of
    time before an institution can be considered a non-profit after
    converting from a for-profit status. Second, the bill needs clearer
    language regarding who determines a school's profit status. Currently,
    both IRS and the Department of Education independently make
    determinations regarding a school's for-profit status. There have been
    several recent occasions when IRS and the Department of Education
    disagree over a school's status. For example, in 2018, Grand Canyon
    University (GCU) (a for-profit school) completed a sale and
    restructuring transaction with Gazelle University (a non-profit
    corporation). Notwithstanding Gazelle's nonprofit 501(c) status with
    IRS, the Department of Education determined that GCU would continue to
    be considered a for-profit educational institution for the purposes of
    its continued participation in the Title IV, Higher Education Act
    Programs (i.e., Federal financial student aid). The bill is unclear as
    to which agency's - IRS's or the Department of Education's -
    adjudication of ``profit status'' would be determinative for purposes
    of determining profit status under the bill.
        Additionally, the bill pegs the transitional period as beginning on
    ``the date the educational institution is so converted.'' However, it
    is unclear to what action or decision this corresponds. The date the
    educational institution considers itself ``converted'' (i.e., the date
    of the business transactions that may accompany a conversion) may be
    different from the date of any adjudicative decisions by either IRS or
    the Department of Education. VA is available to provide technical
    assistance to ensure that the proposed bill is clear and accomplishes
    the desired result.
        Last, VA would need to update its IT systems and processes to
    gather and track information on each school that converts from a for-
    profit educational institution to a non-profit educational institution.
    Because the proposed change would be effective on or after January 1,
    2016, VA would have to manually identify and account for these schools
    until an automated tracking system is available. No mandatory or
    discretionary costs are associated with this unnumbered bill.

     Unnumbered Bill - Reducing Loan Fees for Certain Veterans Affected by
                                Major Disasters

        This unnumbered bill would reduce the loan fees paid by certain
    Veterans who have been affected by a major disaster and are obtaining a
    new loan guaranteed or made by VA. Specifically, if a Veteran has
    obtained a loan guaranteed under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3710 or a loan made
    under section 3711, and the dwelling securing such loan is
    substantially destroyed or damaged by a major disaster declared by the
    President under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
    and Emergency Assistance Act, VA would be required to treat as an
    initial loan the next loan VA guarantees or makes to such veteran. VA
    supports enactment of the bill subject to the recommended technical
    amendments discussed below and subject to Congress identifying
    appropriate cost offsets for the increased benefits costs, if
    significant.
        Prior to obtaining a chapter 37 loan, non-exempt \1\ Veterans must
    pay a statutory loan fee under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3729. Under section
    3729(b), the loan fee amount is expressed as a percentage of the total
    loan amount. The loan fee table set forth by section 3729(b)(2) lists
    the requisite percentages according to loan type, closing date, amount
    of down payment, nature of service, and whether a loan is an ``initial
    loan'' or a ``subsequent loan.'' Section 3729(b)(4)(D) defines an
    ``initial loan'' as a chapter 37 loan ``to a Veteran...if the Veteran
    has never obtained'' such a loan. (Emphasis added.) Section
    3729(b)(4)(E) defines a ``subsequent loan'' as a chapter 37 loan ``to a
    Veteran...if the Veteran has previously obtained'' such a loan.
    (Emphasis added.) For example, under the current statute, a non-exempt,
    active-duty Veteran, who closes on a VA-guaranteed purchase loan, with
    no down payment, on or after January 1, 2020, would need to pay a 2.30
    percent loan fee for an ``initial loan'' or a 3.60 percent loan fee for
    a ``subsequent loan.'' If the total amount of the loan was $200,000,
    such a Veteran would pay a $4,600 loan fee for an ``initial loan'' or
    $7,200 for a ``subsequent loan,'' a difference of $2,600.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Under section 3729(c), certain Veterans are exempt from the
    loan fee, e.g., a Veteran who is receiving compensation for a service-
    connected disability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under the current statutory definitions of ``initial loan'' and
    ``subsequent loan,'' VA must collect the higher ``subsequent loan'' fee
    from all non-exempt Veterans obtaining, for example, their ``next'' VA-
    guaranteed loan, i.e., the next loan such a Veteran obtains where the
    prior VA-guaranteed loan was secured by a home that was substantially
    damaged or destroyed by a major disaster. This loan fee framework does
    not align with VA's effort to ease financial burdens for Veterans who
    have been affected by major disasters. For example, under 38 U.S.C.
    Sec.  3702(b), VA can disregard a Veteran's prior use of loan guaranty
    entitlement for purposes of determining the aggregate amount of
    entitlement available if the Veteran's property is destroyed by fire or
    other natural hazard, and VA is given broad discretion to restore a
    Veteran's entitlement one time, if the VA determines circumstances
    warrant (e.g., a disaster). This can help increase the likelihood that
    such Veterans can obtain additional VA-guaranteed loans, in larger
    amounts, perhaps without having to make a down payment. Also, VA has
    discretion under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3703(d)(3)(A) to allow for a
    guaranteed loan to be subordinated to a superior lien created by a
    covenant in favor of a public entity that has or will provide
    assistance in response to a Presidentially declared major disaster.
    Additionally, under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3720(f), whenever such a disaster
    causes loss, destruction, or damage to a property securing a chapter 37
    loan, VA provides counseling and other services to Veterans, e.g.,
    helping such Veterans obtain disaster assistance from Federal, State,
    and local agencies. Under section 3720(f), VA can also extend other
    forms of disaster assistance on a case-by-case basis, e.g., forbearance
    relating to a direct loan. VA does not, however, have authority to
    treat a ``subsequent loan'' as an ``initial loan'' for determining loan
    fees in disaster cases.
        The bill, if enacted, would ensure that Veterans are not required
    to pay a higher loan fee in replacing a home that was substantially
    damaged or destroyed by a major disaster. Whether an affected Veteran
    rebuilds an affected home or chooses to relocate due to the trauma of a
    major disaster, this bill, if enacted, could help Veterans ``reset''
    their home loan guaranty benefit at a difficult time in their lives.
    The current version of 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3729(b)(4)(D) defines an
    ``initial loan'' as a chapter 37 loan ``to a Veteran...if the Veteran
    has never obtained'' such a loan. The bill would, in part, create two
    new clauses in subparagraph (D). Proposed subparagraph (D)(i) would
    retain the current definition of ``initial loan.'' Proposed
    subparagraph (D)(ii) would require VA, in cases where a Veteran's home
    secured a prior chapter 37 loan and such home was ``substantially
    damaged or destroyed'' by a Presidentially declared major disaster, to
    ``treat as an initial loan[as described in proposed subparagraph
    (D)(i)], the next [chapter 37] loan the Secretary guarantees or makes
    to such Veteran.'' The bill would also amend the current definition of
    ``subsequent loan'' set forth by section 3729(b)(4)(E). Current
    subparagraph (E) defines a ``subsequent loan'' as a chapter 37 loan
    ``to a Veteran...if the Veteran has previously obtained'' such a loan.
    The bill would amend subparagraph (E) to define a ``subsequent loan''
    as a chapter 37 loan ``to a Veteran...that is not an initial loan.''
        While supportive of Congress's intent, VA notes that the bill, as
    drafted, may inadvertently provide windfalls to Veterans who may not
    need disaster relief. For example, proposed section 3729(b)(4)(D)(ii)
    would allow for a reduced loan fee in the case of a Veteran (i) whose
    home was destroyed in a major disaster; (ii) who rebuilt the home using
    insurance proceeds; (iii) who continued to repay an existing VA-
    guaranteed loan; and (iv) who, many years after the disaster, sold the
    home, and purchased a new home with a VA-guaranteed loan. In this
    example, under the current bill text, the Veteran would pay the
    ``initial loan'' fee for the next loan even though the Veteran received
    an insurance payment shortly after the disaster and moved out of the
    home long after the disaster.
        To address this concern, VA recommends an edit to proposed section
    3729(b)(4)(D)(ii) that would limit the loan fee disaster relief to
    cases where a Veteran obtains a next chapter 37 loan not later than 3
    years from the date that the Veteran's dwelling was substantially
    damaged or destroyed. In recommending a 3-year timeframe, VA recognizes
    that a Veteran will need time to assess an affected property and
    consider all recovery options. Insurance data reveal that the average
    recovery period for 11 major hurricanes that occurred between 2000 and
    2018 was 10.7 months. However, this period varied widely depending on
    the storm.\2\ Furthermore, experts have estimated longer recovery
    periods for more recent storms.\3\ As such, VA recommends providing
    Veterans with a 3-year recovery period to ensure that Veterans have
    ample time to consider all options and, perhaps, to take advantage of a
    reduced funding fee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ BuildFax U.S. Hurricane Recovery Report Reveals a Nearly 25
    Percent Increase in Preventative Upgrades to Properties in 2018,
    BusinessWire (Mar. 27, 2019), available at https://
    www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190327005152/en/BuildFax-U.S.-
    Hurricane-Recovery-Report-Reveals-25.
        \3\ The Recovery Timelines for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, Inman
    (Oct. 9, 2017), available at https://www.inman.com/2017/10/09/the-
    recovery-timelines-for-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to setting a timeframe in which a Veteran could receive
    disaster relief relating to the loan fee, VA also recommends
    prohibiting such relief in connection with certain refinance loans. VA
    understands that the purpose of this bill is to enable Veterans to
    repair a damaged home or to construct a new home, without having to pay
    an increased loan fee. The bill, as currently drafted, could be
    construed to allow for certain Veterans to obtain, for example, a VA-
    guaranteed cash-out refinance loan, at the lower loan fee rate, without
    any requirement that the Veteran use the cash proceeds to repair or
    construct a home.
        VA welcomes the opportunity work with the Committee to provide
    technical assistance relating to this bill. Due to several constraints
    relating to disaster forecast data, VA is unable to provide costs at
    this time.

               Unnumbered Bill - STEM Clarification and Expansion

        This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3320, governing
    the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship (STEM Scholarship) Program, to
    clarify that individuals enrolled in a dual post-secondary degree
    program as well as individuals enrolled in a standard post-secondary
    degree program are eligible for STEM Scholarship benefits. The bill
    would also extend eligibility for STEM Scholarship benefits to
    individuals who have earned a post-secondary degree in a STEM field and
    are enrolled in a nursing residence program. The bill would eliminate
    VA's current authority to extend eligibility for STEM Scholarship
    benefits to individuals enrolled in undergraduate medical residency
    programs and clarify that an individual enrolled in a medical residency
    program must have already completed a graduate degree program in a STEM
    field to be eligible.

        VA supports the proposed legislation to clarify certain eligibility
    requirements and expand eligibility for the STEM Scholarship. No
    mandatory or discretionary costs are associated.

                       Unnumbered Bill - STEM Improvement

        This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3320(b)(4)(B) to
    expand eligibility under the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship
    program to individuals who have earned a post-secondary degree in a
    STEM field and are enrolled in either a program of education or a
    medical residency program leading to a teacher certification.
    Currently, the Rogers STEM Scholarship is available for individuals who
    are enrolled in a STEM degree program and have completed 60 semester
    (or 90 quarter) credit hours or have earned a STEM degree and are
    enrolled in a program of education leading to a teaching certification.
        The bill would also amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3320(c) to change how VA
    prioritizes and selects individuals who can receive additional funds.
    Currently, priority is given to individuals who are entitled to 100
    percent of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits and those who need the most
    credit hours. The bill would allow VA to determine the priority for
    eligible individuals if VA determines there are insufficient funds
    available in a Fiscal Year to provide additional benefits to all
    eligible individuals.
        Finally, this bill would add a new paragraph (4) to 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    3320(d) to ensure that individuals who receive benefits under the Edith
    Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship are not subject to the months of
    entitlement limitations under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3695.
        VA supports legislation that would expand eligibility under the
    Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship to certain individuals enrolled in
    a medical residency program; however, there appears to be an error in
    the proposed draft language that would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    3320(b)(4)(B). As written, the bill would grant eligibility to an
    individual who has earned a post-secondary degree in a STEM field and
    is enrolled in a ``program of education or a medical residency program
    leading to a teaching certification.'' However, since medical
    residencies do not lead to teaching certification, we interpret the
    intent to be to grant eligibility to individuals either enrolled in a
    program of education leading to a teaching certification or a medical
    residency program. VA requests the bill language be amended to provide
    clarification if this is, indeed, the desired intent.
        VA has no issues with the proposed changes to how individuals would
    be prioritized. However, legislation is not needed for prioritization.
    We awarded the first Rogers STEM Scholarships in November 2019.
    Currently, VA is using a Prioritized Matrix (Job Aid) that has all the
    rules for prioritizing individuals based on the current law. VA reviews
    this matrix quarterly since VA has not reached the funding limitation
    threshold. VA will continue to accept applications and award
    scholarships in January, March, July, and October 2020.

                     Unnumbered Bill - Class Evaluation Act

        This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3313(d)(1) to
    limit when VA can issue payment of educational assistance for pursuing
    an approved program of education, other than an amount payable for
    pursuing a program of education exclusively by correspondence.
    Specifically, it would prohibit VA from making a lump sum payment prior
    to 7 days after the first day of the quarter, semester, or term, unless
    VA provides for a waiver. Additionally, it would prohibit VA from
    making a payment if an individual withdraws during the first 10 days of
    the quarter, semester, or term.
        The bill would also add a new subsection (f) to 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    3679 that would require the Secretary or the State Approving Agency to
    disapprove a course of education unless the educational institution
    providing the course of education agrees not to charge any individual
    entitled to educational assistance under chapter 31 or 33 a late
    payment fee due to the timing of the payments under 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    3313(d)(1). The amendments made by the bill would apply to a quarter,
    semester, or term that begins on or after the date that is 1 year after
    the date of enactment.
        VA cannot support this bill, as currently drafted, due to the
    potential negative impact on GI Bill beneficiaries. While the proposed
    changes could possibly decrease some overpayments and debts owed to VA,
    we believe such changes would merely shift the tuition and fee debt to
    the student, as certain schools would still require payment for the
    period of a student's enrollment and the student would owe the school.
        VA also notes other significant concerns with the bill as drafted.
    First, the proposed change to section 3313(d)(1) would require VA to
    issue all payments (tuition and fees, monthly housing stipend, books,
    and supplies, etc.) under section 3313 for approved programs, other
    than correspondence programs, for the entire quarter, semester, or
    term, as applicable. Currently, VA issues certain payments, such as
    housing payments under section 3313(d)(2), on a monthly basis. This
    bill would conflict with VA's practice in this regard.
        Second, the bill would require that VA not make payment for tuition
    and fees if an individual withdraws from a program of education during
    the first 10 days of the quarter, semester, or term. As drafted, it is
    clear that VA should not pay retroactive benefits for individuals if
    they withdraw during the first 10 days of the term and benefits have
    not yet been paid. However, VA notes that it is unclear how the
    statutory provisions in 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3680(a), which are generally
    applicable to benefit payments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and this
    bill would interact. Specifically, the bill is arguably inconsistent
    with section 3680(a)(1)(C), which creates an exception to the general
    prohibition on payment for withdrawals (regardless of timing) if
    mitigating circumstances exist. Section 3680(a)(1)(C)(ii) dictates that
    mitigating circumstances shall be considered to exist for initial
    withdrawals from courses totaling not more than 6 semester hours.
        Third, the bill would require VA or the State Approving Agency to
    disapprove a course unless the educational institution agrees to not
    charge a chapter 31 or 33 beneficiary a late payment fee by reason of
    the timing of payments under section 3313(d)(1). This provision appears
    to overlap with section 3679(e)(1)(B), which prevents an educational
    institution from imposing any penalty, including the assessment of late
    fees, the denial of access to classes, libraries, or other
    institutional facilities, or the requirement that the covered
    individual borrow additional funds due to the inability to meet his or
    her financial obligations to the institution, as a result of delayed
    payments for educational assistance from VA under chapter 31 or 33.
    Section 3679(e)(1)(A) allows a State Approving Agency or VA (when
    acting in the role of the State Approving Agency) to disapprove certain
    courses of education unless the educational institution puts a policy
    in place that allows an individual to attend or participate in a course
    of education if the individual provides a certificate of eligibility
    for entitlement to educational assistance under chapter 31 or 33. The
    policy must permit any covered individual to attend the course of
    education beginning on the date the individual provides a certificate
    of eligibility until the earlier of the date VA provides payment to the
    educational institution or 90 days after the date the educational
    institution certifies for tuition and fees following receipt of the
    certificate of eligibility from the individual.
        Finally, VA's Post-9/11 GI Bill claims processing system, the Long-
    Term Solution, is currently programmed to release awards for tuition
    and fees no earlier than 14 days prior to the beginning of an
    enrollment period. As such, VA would need to modify the Long-Term
    Solution business rules and apply a blended set of rules to prevent the
    release of a tuition and fee payment prior to 7 days after the
    beginning of the term and ensure that tuition and fee payments are not
    released in the event an individual withdraws from a program of
    education during the first 10 days of the term. The bill would give VA
    1 year to implement these major changes that would apply to most Post-
    9/11 GI Bill claims. VA would need 18 months from the date of enactment
    of the proposed legislation to complete these modifications.

       Unnumbered Bill - Sole Liability in Transfer of Entitlement Cases

        The unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3319(i)(1),
    regarding liability for overpayments in cases of transferred
    entitlement, to remove joint liability for overpayments. Currently, a
    Servicemember or Veteran (transferor) and his or her designated
    dependent (transferee) are held jointly liable for overpayments of
    Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance when a transferor transfers
    unused education benefits to a dependent. The amendments would impose
    on the transferor sole liability for any overpayment of educational
    assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
        VA does not support the bill as drafted because it would make
    transferors solely liable for all overpayments created by their
    dependents under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Under the bill as drafted, VA
    would be required to establish debts for tuition and fees, monthly
    housing allowances, and books and supplies payments against the
    transferor for changes in enrollment made by their dependents. VA does
    not believe that it is reasonable to hold the transferor solely liable
    for debts resulting from somebody else's actions, which may be outside
    of the transferor's control. Additionally, schools are required to
    refund tuition and fee payments to the student in accordance with their
    established refund policies. VA has no authority to require schools to
    refund payments to the transferor, and schools may well be prohibited
    from making refunds to parents or spouses of students. We believe that
    it would be easier for a dependent to resolve overpayments caused by a
    change in enrollment.
        VA also has concerns that the proposed legislation does not address
    section 3319(l), which allows an eligible dependent to transfer
    entitlement to another eligible dependent if the transferor dies before
    the transferred entitlement has been used. The draft legislation does
    not include language regarding whether or how VA should apply section
    3319(l) and assign debts when the transferor (Servicemember or Veteran)
    has passed away. No mandatory or discretionary costs are associated
    with this unnumbered bill.

         Unnumbered Bill - VET-TEC Apprenticeships and Reserve Members

        The unnumbered bill would amend section 116 of the Harry W. Colmery
    Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017, P.L. 115-48 (Colmery Act),
    requiring the establishment of a high technology pilot program (VET-
    TEC). When offering contracts to providers of high technology programs
    while establishing the VET-TEC program, VA is required to give
    preference to providers that offer tuition reimbursement for students
    who complete a program and do not find meaningful employment in the
    field of study of the program within 180 days of completion of the
    program. This bill would also require VA to give preference to
    providers that offer tuition reimbursement for students who complete an
    apprenticeship program and do not find meaningful employment in the
    field of study of the program within 180 days of completing the
    apprenticeship and to providers that offer tuition reimbursement for
    reserve component members who serve on active duty during the 180-day
    period following completion of a program and do not find meaningful
    employment in the field of study of the program within 180 days of
    completing a program plus the number of days the reserve member served
    on active duty during the 180 day period.
        VA supports the proposed legislation, which would expand the
    preference for qualified providers that offer tuition reimbursement and
    certain VET-TEC students, thereby providing expanded safeguards to
    program participants. No mandatory or discretionary costs are
    associated with this unnumbered bill.

            Draft VET-TEC Terminal Leave from the Armed Forces Bill

        The bill would amend section 116 of the Colmery Act, requiring the
    establishment of the VET-TEC program, to expand eligibility for the
    VET-TEC program to members of the Armed Forces on terminal leave who
    are entitled to educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 30, 32,
    33, 34, or 35 or 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606 or 1607. Under the draft
    legislation, members of the Armed Forces who are eligible for the VET-
    TEC program would not qualify for a housing stipend while in receipt of
    the basic allowance for housing from the Department of Defense. In
    offering contracts to providers of high technology programs, VA is
    required to give preference to providers that offer tuition
    reimbursement for students who complete a program and do not find
    meaningful employment in the field of study of the program within 180
    days of completion of the program. In the case of VET-TEC participants
    who were members of the Armed Forces on terminal leave who are serving
    on active duty when they complete a program, this bill would require VA
    to give preference to providers who offer tuition reimbursement for
    these VET-TEC participants if they do not find meaningful employment in
    the field of study of the program within 180 days of discharge or
    separation from active duty.
        VA supports the proposed legislation. However, VA would need to
    work with the Department of Defense to establish a data feed to provide
    the additional information that would allow VA to identify individuals
    on terminal leave or individuals who are in receipt of a basic
    allowance for housing from the Department of Defense. Currently, VA
    receives military service data and eligibility information from the
    Department of Defense for determining a Servicemember's and Veteran's
    eligibility for VA educational assistance; however, these data do not
    include the information necessary to implement the changes proposed by
    the draft legislation. No mandatory or discretionary costs are
    associated with this draft bill.

                   Unnumbered Bill - VET-TEC Improvement Act

        This unnumbered bill would amend section 116 of the Colmery Act to
    expand eligibility for the VET-TEC program to an individual who VA
    determines will become an eligible Veteran within 180 days of VA making
    that determination. The individual, however, would not qualify for a
    housing stipend under the VET-TEC program prior to becoming an eligible
    Veteran.
        The proposed legislation would also eliminate the requirement for a
    qualified provider to be operational for at least 2 years; expand the
    definition of a high technology program of education to include a part-
    time program shorter than 6 months in duration; and exclude enrollment
    in the VET-TEC program for purposes of the limitation on period of
    assistance under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3695.
        VA supports the intent of the draft legislation to provide
    eligibility to transitioning Servicemembers and accelerate the
    transition process, but we have significant concerns. First, the bill
    would expand eligibility to the VET-TEC program by requiring VA to
    treat an individual as an eligible Veteran if VA determines that the
    individual shall become an eligible Veteran fewer than 180 days after
    the date of such determination. The draft language does not specify
    what should happen if the individual fails to become an eligible
    Veteran within 180 days for any number reasons, including separation
    with a less than fully honorable character of service, extension of
    active duty orders, or reenlistment.
        It is unclear if VA would lose the authority to make any future
    payments to the beneficiary or the school, or whether past tuition
    payments would become debts against the beneficiary, the school, or
    neither. Also, if VA were to lose the authority to make future
    payments, it would prevent the training provider from receiving full
    reimbursement for tuition and fee charges through no fault of its own;
    especially in the case of an individual continuing to serve on active
    duty who may not be available for full-time employment in the field of
    study in the foreseeable future. VA would be happy to work with
    committee staff in order to ensure that the proposed legislation is
    clear and accomplishes the desired intent.
        Second, VA is not aware of any issues regarding the requirement for
    qualified providers to be operational for at least 2 years. By removing
    this requirement, providers without a proven track record could apply
    and be accepted as approved providers which may result in a heightened
    risk to Veterans' learning and employment opportunities because of
    financial instability resulting in school closure or a bad reputation
    due to subpar or inconsistent performance.
        Precluding VA from considering enrollment in the VET-TEC program as
    assistance under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3695 is unnecessary because the VET-
    TEC program is not one of the programs listed in that section and,
    accordingly, VA does not charge a Veteran's entitlement for
    participation in the VET-TEC program. No mandatory or discretionary
    costs are associated with this unnumbered bill.

                 Unnumbered Bill - Second Automobile Allowance

        This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3903 to authorize
    VA to provide an eligible person with a second automobile or other
    conveyance if 10 years have elapsed since the date on which the
    eligible person received his or her first such automobile or conveyance
    or assistance under chapter 39, and such date was after January 1,
    2014.
        VA does not object to the proposal to provide eligible service-
    disabled Veterans with a second automobile or other conveyance assuming
    Congress appropriates the necessary funding for this provision.
    Currently, the law only allows Veterans to receive a second automobile
    or conveyance if the vehicle is destroyed as a result of a natural
    disaster or other disaster, as determined by the Secretary, and the
    Veteran does not otherwise receive compensation for the loss from a
    property insurer. Under the bill, all eligible Veterans who received
    their first allowance after January 1, 2014, would be allowed to
    receive a second automobile allowance if 10 years have elapsed since
    receipt of their first allowance.
        According to IHS Markit Company, the average age of light vehicles
    in the United States in 2019 was 11.8 years.\4\ When considering the
    average age of vehicles in the United States and the significant level
    of disability experienced by Veterans who qualify for this allowance,
    VA considers this proposal as fair and equitable. Mandatory costs
    associated with this unnumbered bill are estimated to be $0 in 2021,
    $98.7 million over 5 years, and $387.4 million over 10 years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 2018-19: IHS Markit Co., Average Age of Cars and Light Trucks
    in U.S. Rises Again in 2019 to 11.8 Years, IHS Markit Says, available
    at https://news.ihsmarkit.com/press-release/automotive/average-age-
    cars-and-light-trucks-us-rises-again-2019-118-years-ihs-markit-as of
    Sep. 17, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Unnumbered Bill - Automobile Allowance Increased Frequency

        This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3903 to increase
    the frequency of the automobile allowance for eligible service-disabled
    Veterans. VA appreciates the apparent intent of Congress to increase
    the frequency by which eligible service-disabled Veterans may receive
    the automobile allowance under section 3903. However, it is unclear
    whether section 3903(a)(1) as proposed to be amended and proposed new
    paragraph (a)(3) are intended to prohibit a beneficiary who received an
    allowance before January 1, 2031, from receiving any further allowances
    during any later period or whether such persons would be eligible for
    additional allowances after January 1, 2031, if at least 10 years had
    passed since the prior award. If the former is intended, VA would
    strongly oppose the bill, as the result of such provisions would be
    inequitable and would not reflect VA's core values. While we suspect
    the latter, more Veteran-friendly reading is intended, we recommend
    clarifying the statutory text if that is the case and would be happy to
    provide technical assistance.
        VA opposes the provision of the bill that affects Veterans'
    eligibility to receive a second allowance under 38 U.S.C. Sec.
    3903(a)(2) if their first vehicle was destroyed as a result of a
    natural disaster. While the newly proposed subsection (a)(3) would
    allow such Veterans to receive a second allowance before January 1,
    2031, during ``any period,'' i.e., at any time, if the conditions under
    subsection (a)(2) are satisfied, it appears to only allow a second
    allowance for eligible Veterans on or after January 1, 2031, during
    ``any 10-year period.'' Thus, it appears that a Veteran who is eligible
    to receive a second automobile allowance under section 3903(a)(2) on or
    after January 1, 2031, must not have received the first allowance
    within 10 years prior. VA does not view the results from this provision
    as fair or equitable.
        VA also notes that this bill would allow an eligible Veteran to
    receive more than two automobile allowances under proposed section
    3903(a)(1) after January 1, 2031, as long as the Veteran does not
    receive more than one allowance for any 10-year period. However,
    section 3903(a)(2) would allow an eligible Veteran to receive a second
    allowance if an automobile or other conveyance previously purchased
    with assistance under chapter 39 was destroyed due to a natural
    disaster but, by its current language, would not seem to allow an
    eligible Veteran to receive a third allowance if an automobile
    purchased from a second allowance under proposed section 3903(a)(1) was
    destroyed due to a natural disaster. In other words, a Veteran may be
    limited to only two allowances under section 3903(a)(2), even though a
    Veteran may receive multiple allowances under section 3903(a)(1). It is
    not clear if this was the intent of Congress.No mandatory or
    discretionary costs are associated with this unnumbered bill because
    the effective date is beyond the 10-year timeframe for costing.

                                   Conclusion

        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. My colleagues and I are
    prepared to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
    Subcommittee may have.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of Patrick Murray

        Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the
    Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
    Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the
    opportunity to present our views on these important pieces of
    legislation.

    H.R. 5052, Wage Adjustment for Veterans Enrolled in School (WAVES) Act

        Most of the feedback the VFW receives regarding the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA) Work-Study program is centered around processing
    and timely payments. The VFW does not have a specific resolution
    regarding equitable VA Work-Study wages and State minimum wages,
    however, we would definitely not oppose a proposal such as this to
    increase the amount of money in the pockets of student veterans.

    Stem Eligibility Extension

        As part of the Forever GI Bill, the VFW strongly supported the
    provision to grant additional months of GI Bill eligibility for student
    veterans pursuing degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
    (STEM). Our nation is making a push to encourage more students to
    pursue STEM degrees in order to be competitive and outpace other
    nations around the world. Student veterans should be at the forefront
    of this initiative. In order to make this a possibility, there needs to
    be some additional eligibility granted for those pursuing these
    degrees, because STEM programs often take longer than the traditional 4
    years to complete a bachelor's degree. The VFW wants to see student
    veterans succeed at the highest levels, and extending school
    eligibility in this case may be necessary to complete these highly
    important degrees.
        The STEM provision when crafted was not perfect and needed some
    additional amendments since its enactment. The STEM fields identified
    as eligible were never meant to be a final list, because as time passes
    additional programs will be identified and added to the list. Medical
    residency and nursing residency programs are vitally important to help
    increase the number of health care professionals serving our country.
    Adding these programs to the STEM eligibility is a common-sense
    proposal that will ultimately add to our number of health care
    professionals.

    VA Auto Grant

        For years the VFW has had a resolution to amend VA's automobile
    grant for disabled veterans. The auto grant program is an incredibly
    valuable benefit that disabled veterans need to purchase or upgrade
    their vehicles. However, the grant is a one-time benefit and cannot be
    utilized again no matter how many vehicles a veteran may purchase. The
    VFW supports the proposals to increase the number of times the VA's
    auto grant program can be utilized by disabled veterans.
        The average American replaces a car approximately every 5 years,
    and while these proposals seek to increase eligibility for once every
    10 years, the VFW feels these proposals are a step in the right
    direction. Ultimately, the VFW would like to see VA's auto grant
    program available for veterans to use for each new lease of a vehicle,
    or every 5 years, whichever comes first.

    GI Bill Comparison Tool

        The VFW is a strong supporter of the GI Bill comparison tool and
    supports this proposal to add information to this valuable platform.
    While the GI Bill comparison tool provides important information to
    students, and could always contain more information such as student
    loan debt and accurate graduation rates, but the tool itself needs a
    significant overhaul before it can be truly reliable. The current
    comparison tool and complaint system does not have the most up to date
    information about schools displayed. Old information and complaints
    exist on the tool and there is no formal process for removing negative
    information. Even if VA enters into multiple data-sharing agreements
    with other agencies, the GI Bill comparison tool will never be fully
    accurate unless there is a system in place to remove old data to ensure
    the current information is the most accurate. In order to do this, the
    VFW recommends a thorough review of the entire GI Bill comparison tool
    and a proposal drafted to overhaul the platform, with proper IT
    resources, in order to make it a living comparison tool that student
    veterans can rely on at all times.

    Class Evaluation Act

        Going back to school after military service may be a challenging
    task for many veterans for a variety of reasons. Student veterans may
    be juggling school responsibilities in combination with other demanding
    factors such as work, or families, and worrying about accurate VA
    payments is a burden we should lift off their shoulders. The VFW
    supports this proposal to make a requirement related to the payment of
    VA money in order to standardize payment schedules, potentially lessen
    overpayments, and remove unnecessary worries of student veterans while
    they complete their educational endeavors. Simplifying the payment
    schedule from VA to schools and students is a smart step in rectifying
    VA payment issues.

    Disaster Relief

        The VFW supports the proposal to reduce the loan fees paid by
    veterans affected by major disasters. The VA Home Loan program is an
    incredibly valuable benefit utilized by millions of veterans during its
    75-year history. The home loan program is an earned benefit for
    veterans, and it should not be diminished due to unforeseen natural
    disasters. Major disasters strike various areas of the country every
    year, devastating entire communities. A major hurdle in these
    communities is the effort of rebuilding, and allowing VA to wipe the
    loan fees slate clean for certain veterans affected by these disasters
    will help speed up the recovery process for these families, and
    hopefully help their surrounding communities. Allowing veterans who
    lost homes due to devastating natural disasters to revert fees back to
    the original home loan buyer level, as opposed to a subsequent buyer,
    is a small measure of relief for veterans in areas hit by disasters.

    VA Certificates of Eligibility

        The VFW has supported the proposal to make Certificates of
    Eligibility electronic for years. The option of having the certificate
    at a veteran's digital fingertips is an option that is long past due.
    If VA's IT systems cannot make this option a reality, then proper
    funding for a simple solution should be requested, authorized, and
    appropriated to make this common-sense fix for a 20th-century problem.
    Certificates of Eligibility for programs all across VA are requested by
    outside parties constantly, and an electronic solution is needed. There
    are certain VA forms that can be accessed through eBenefits, but then
    those forms need to be sent to various parties. Veterans should be able
    to log on and see all the benefits and programs to which they are
    entitled, not only Disability and Compensation eligibility.

    Transferability Liability

        GI Bill transferability often seems like a fairly straightforward
    option for service members, but occasionally a recipient of this
    incredible benefit gets caught up in unintended bureaucracy. The VFW
    agrees that the transfer recipient of the GI Bill should not be held
    financially liable if the original service member fails to fulfill his
    or her service obligation. Once discovered, the use of the benefit
    should cease, but the dependent should not be held accountable for
    repayment, as they were not the party who did not complete an
    obligation.

        To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the treatment
    by the Department of Veterans Affairs of for-profit educational
    institutions converted to non-profit educational institutions.

        The VFW feels this proposal could set up future conflicts between
    the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Education. The
    VFW is concerned this could lead to unintended consequences if the two
    agencies intentionally set up different rules.

    VET-TEC Improvements

        The VFW supports all three proposals to make changes and
    improvements for the Veterans Affairs High Technology Education (VET-
    TEC) Pilot Program. Expanding VET-TEC eligibility for service members
    still on active duty but on terminal leave would hopefully decrease the
    number of veterans who face employment gaps after transitioning out of
    active service. Service members are allowed to participate in certain
    employment training while in the SkillBridge program before separation,
    and adding VET-TEC to their options should benefit those service
    members looking for careers in certain high technology fields.
        The VFW supports the change regarding employment 180 days after
    VET-TEC completion for reserve component personnel only, if activations
    disrupt their paths to employment. However, the VFW does not want to
    see this as beginning to ease some of the requirements for the overall
    VET-TEC program. The entire pilot program is still very new, and we
    need to be careful that changes such as these are made only if they are
    absolutely necessary for the veterans or service members.
        The VFW also supports the proposal to alter the requirements for
    VET-TEC students looking to participate in this program on a part-time
    basis. The VFW also sees this as an important proposal that opens up a
    larger discussion about veteran education and employment programs.
    Student veterans sometimes face challenges typical traditional students
    do not face while attending school. Large numbers of student veterans
    have families, are employed in some capacity, or are facing multiple
    other hurdles of adult life that may not be realized yet for a lot of
    traditional 18-22-year-old students. Student veterans are largely
    ``non-traditional'' students who tackle school in a different way,
    including their class schedule times.
        We veterans' advocates, along with our friends at VA and in
    Congress, have recognized that the student veteran is more often than
    not a non-traditional student, yet we keep building education and
    employment programs based on a traditional full-time model. Then, after
    research and discussion, these programs are altered to allow for non-
    traditional students to partake in these programs. Now is the time to
    look at all student veteran programs to begin the discussion about
    opening all of them to non-traditional students, particularly with an
    eye on part-time participation in programs. Any new programs should be
    built with at least non-traditional students in mind, and possibly with
    these students in the forefront.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, the VFW thanks
    you and the Ranking Member for the opportunity to testify on these
    important issues before this subcommittee. I am prepared to take any
    questions you or the subcommittee members may have.
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of John Kamin
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Prepared Statement of Justin Monk

        Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America (SVA) to submit
    our testimony on pending legislation before the subcommittee.
        With a focused mission on empowering student veterans, SVA is
    committed to providing an educational experience that goes beyond the
    classroom. Through a dedicated network of more than 1,500 on-campus
    chapters in all 50 states and 4 countries representing more than
    750,000 student veterans, SVA aims to inspire yesterday's warriors by
    connecting student veterans with a community of like-minded chapter
    leaders. Every day these passionate leaders work to provide the
    necessary resources, network support, and advocacy to ensure student
    veterans can effectively connect, expand their skills, and ultimately
    achieve their greatest potential.
        Edward Everett, our Nation's 20th Secretary of State, and the
    former President of Harvard University was famously quoted as stating,
    ``Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.''
    While we have the finest military that the world has ever known, the
    sentiment remains; the importance of education to our Nation's national
    security remains paramount.
        We appreciate the opportunity to share our views on many of the
    bills which will directly impact student veterans, their families, and
    survivors. While many of the proposed bills being discussed today are
    technical fixes or adjustments to existing benefits, many would require
    IT changes to Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) existing IT
    infrastructure. In addition to considering the substance of these
    bills, we strongly encourage consideration of the requisite funding
    needs to ensure successful implementation.

        Draft legislation, To amend title 38, United States Code, to make
    an individual eligible for educational assistance under chapter of such
    title and who transfers such educational assistance to a dependent
    solely liable for any overpayment of such educational assistance

        This proposed legislation would remove liability for overpayments
    made by VA for transferred education benefits in cases of the
    transferring individual not completing the agreed upon service contract
    granting transfer authority.
        SVA supports this draft legislation. It addresses an uncommon but
    serious situation that may arise from the existing statute. To
    illustrate, consider the circumstance where a dependent, typically a
    spouse, is using transferred education benefits in good faith, but due
    to the transferring individual's failure to complete the necessary
    service agreement those benefits are revoked. Any unused benefit is
    returned to the veteran and any used benefit is considered an improper
    overpayment by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA).\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 38 U.S. Code Sec.  3319--Authority to transfer unused education
    benefits to family members, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/
    3319
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Based on current law, the scenario above would result in both the
    transferring individual and the dependent being held ``jointly and
    severally liable'' for the debt.\2\ In our view this is unreasonable.
    The dependent used these benefits in good faith and the overpayment is
    caused through no fault of their own. Obviously, but importantly, there
    is way a dependent can fulfill the necessary obligation to maintain
    those benefits. They are wholly at the mercy of the behavior of the
    transferring individual. Thus, the responsibility should be left with
    the transferring individual.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We appreciate Subcommittee staff incorporating our earlier concerns
    regarding the removal of all liability for overpayments from
    dependents. Scenarios such as the above are distinct from the more
    common occurrences, such as enrollment changes at a school causing an
    overpayment. In those cases, and similar ones, the liability should
    rest with the person using the benefit. We appreciate committee staff's
    willingness to address this and look forward to final text.

    Draft legislation, the VET-TEC Improvement Act

        This draft legislation proposes to make certain eligibility
    expansions to the ongoing Veteran Employment Through Technology
    Education Courses (VET TEC) pilot program for both individuals and
    program providers.
        SVA is supportive of this draft legislation and, generally, of
    efforts to expand VET TEC to meet the demands of veterans across the
    country. The program is an excellent opportunity for veterans to
    develop their skills in some of the most high-demand fields today and
    we are supportive of Congress' efforts to improve the field of
    offerings for veteran education and training.
        With that stated, our one concern is the trend of establishing new,
    innovative, and exciting pilot programs only to adjust or amend them a
    year or two later. We understand these pilots are typically for new
    ideas, so it stands to reason there may be some common-sense
    adjustments that need to be made following their enactment. However,
    doing so necessarily introduces noise into the data set. Once the pilot
    has run its course, and we begin to parse through the results to
    determine whether to continue the program, it becomes difficult - and
    sometimes impossible - to separate the original design from the
    amended. We would encourage Congress to consider the impact to the
    results of a study before amending a pilot.

    H.R. 5052, the Wage Adjustment for Veterans Enrolled in School, or
        WAVES Act

        This bill proposes to bring aspects of VA's work-study program into
    parity with the Federal work-study (FWS) program by ensuring student
    veterans are paid the prevailing wage among Federal, State, or Local
    law.
        SVA fully supports this draft bill. According to Federal Student
    Aid Handbook, ``FWS employers must pay students at least the Federal
    minimum wage in effect at the time of employment. If a State or local
    law requires a higher minimum wage, the school must pay the FWS student
    that higher wage.'' \3\ This draft language would simply bring VA work-
    study into wage parity with existing FWS guidance and provide student
    veterans the same economic opportunities already given to other
    students.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\  The Federal Student Aid Handbook, Chapter 2, Federal Work-
    Study Program, p. 6-49. https://ifap.ed.gov/fsahandbook/attachments/
    1920FSAHdbkVol6Ch2.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, based on feedback we received at our last two Leadership
    Institutes, a leadership training program for the top student veteran
    leaders, there are a few areas of improvement we would like to see
    addressed as VA continues to modernize their work-study program. The
    feedback repeatedly discussed the paper-based model as antiquated,
    cumbersome, and lethargic on getting paychecks to student veterans. The
    method is an unreliable source of income. Transitioning to a web-based
    system that mirrors some of the successes of ED's work-study program is
    overdue. In fact, we would like to thank this Subcommittee for their
    efforts to address this specific issue with last year's H.R. 3535, the
    GI Bill Work-Study Improvement Act of 2019.\4\ We hope to see renewed
    discussion around this bill's merits as we see it as a bipartisan,
    common-sense solution to this issue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Congress.gov, H.R. 3535-the GI Bill Improvement Act of 2019,
    https:// www.Congress.gov/ bill/116th-congress/ house-bill/3535?q=%
    7B%22search% 22%3A% 5B%22h.r.+3535% 22%5D% 7D&s=1&r=1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, the lack of parity between ED work-study employment
    options and options under VA work-study, which are limited to positions
    directly related to VA, is a source of frustration to SVA chapters. It
    is understandable there is a propensity to have VA funds spent on VA
    needs, but Congress should examine ways student veterans can take part
    in opportunities available to other students under ED work-study that
    better align with career goals.

    Draft legislation, the Class Evaluation Act

        This legislation proposes to delay GI Bill payments to schools
    until 7 days after the start of a school term.
        As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from October
    2015 makes clear, VA has an ongoing issue with overpayments made on
    behalf of the GI Bill.\5\ This report illustrates how significant these
    debts are, how negatively they impact student veterans, and how quickly
    they must be addressed to avoid further disruption of veterans' lives.
    Compounding this problem is VA's method of correcting these
    overpayments. VA recoups GI Bill overpayments directly from students,
    even though the school received the tuition money.\6\ In previous
    testimony, we outlined the 200,000 overpayment notices VA sends out
    each year and the significant financial burden it places on veterans
    and their families.\7\ SVA fully supports the structural and procedural
    changes that must take place within VA to prevent these overpayments
    from occurring.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ POST-9/11 GI BILL: Additional Actions Needed to Help Reduce
    Overpayments and Increase Collections, https://www.gao.gov/products/
    GAO-16-42
        \6\ Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. 38 U.S. Code
    Sec.  3680. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/3680
        \7\ Student Veterans of America. Testimony for Legislative Hearing
    on the Topic of ``Pending Legislation'' May 22, 2019. Senate Committee
    on Veterans' Affairs. https://www.veterans.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
    5.22.19%20-%20SVA.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While SVA supports this bill's intent, we believe mandating a delay
    in GI Bill benefit payments might compound VA's ability to make timely
    benefit payments to students and schools. We encourage this
    Subcommittee to host additional conversations with ED on the
    feasibility of implementing a batch payment model like ED has been
    using for decades. The Department of Education processes payments to
    schools prior to the start of the semester based on historical
    enrollment data from previous years. It is an effective process that
    allows schools and ED to operate without jeopardizing the financial
    situation of schools or students.
        We suggest studying the feasibility of incorporating lessons
    learned from ED and its use of batch payments as a potential way of
    alleviating some of the front-end work VA must to do certify both MHA
    payments and tuition payments. We acknowledge there are foundational
    differences between how the ED and VA function, and that batch payments
    may not be the correct solution, but greater cross-agency communication
    and collaboration can still provide valuable insight.
        Overpayments are a significant issue with the current model of
    payment VA employs and SVA encourages Congress and VA to continue
    discussions on how best to serve our student veterans and educational
    institutions while still meeting the needs of VA.

        Draft legislation, To amend title 38, United States Code, to
    provide for the treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs of for-
    profit educational institutions converted to non-profit educational
    institutions

        This bill proposes a 10-year window for VA to conduct oversight of
    for-profits institutions that convert to non-profit status.
        Thanks to tireless advocacy from student and consumer rights'
    groups, leaders in Congress, and a growing awareness by the public of
    predatory practices of some institutions, many of the worst providers
    in higher education have come under increased scrutiny in recent years.
    In response to this increased awareness and scrutiny, there is a
    worrying trend of proprietary institutions converting to nonprofit
    status to avoid some of VA's requirements while maintaining the same
    predatory behavior. To better protect student veterans, Congress should
    enact standards of oversight to prevent bad actors from taking
    advantage of nonprofit status by creating protections against hiding
    fraud, waste, and abuse.
        SVA supports this draft bill's intent, but we believe there are
    better methods available to address our concerns. In fact, the House
    recently passed an example of this in H.R. 4625, the Protect the GI
    Bill Act, which includes robust language giving VA significant
    authority across all institution types to act when institutions operate
    outside of the best interests of their students. It establishes higher
    requirements for approval of title 38 benefits, broader approval and
    disapproval authority, and improves communication between ED and VA. It
    echoes our position that any adequate response to the clear need for
    greater oversight of the conversion process will include expanded
    authorities for VA to act in conjunction with and independent of other
    agencies.
        To better explain the need for greater authorities at VA, consider
    that there are two issues at hand: the regulatory weakness that
    currently exists between ED and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and
    VA's long-standing lack of authority to act on bad actors in the
    nonprofit space.\8\ Solving the former is treating the symptoms of the
    problem, solving the latter is treating the root cause. Inserting VA
    directly into the void between ED and IRS narrowly addresses one issue,
    but not the other.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Shireman, Robert. The Covert For-Profit: How College Owners
    Escape Oversight Through a Regulatory Blind Spot. The Century
    Foundation. Retrieved from: https://tcf.org/content/report/covert-for-
    profit/'agreed=1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Existing statutes governing VA's approval process hamstring the
    agency from acting on bad actors in the public and not-for-profit
    proprietary space because, once these programs are accredited by an ED-
    approved agency, VA must deem them approved for title 38 benefits.\9\
    Short of an accreditor withdrawing accreditation from an institution,
    VA is largely prohibited from acting on bad behavior. In turn, this
    creates a haven for bad actors in the for-profit space seeking to get
    out from under VA's more-stringent regulations - especially the 90-10
    rule.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. 38 U.S. Code
    Sec.  3672. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/3672
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Meanwhile, the Department of Education currently relies on the IRS
    label in determining nonprofit status. It is unreasonable to expect ED
    to be able to rely wholly on the IRS to improve their monitoring of the
    nearly 1.5 million organizations they exempt.\10\ According to the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO), the IRS reexamines less than 1
    percent of nonprofits annually.\11\ Beyond the IRS designation, there
    is no routine effort to ensure a school is following the basic
    expectations of nonprofits after a conversion.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics,
    Core Files (2005, 2010, and 2015); and the Internal Revenue Service
    Business Master Files, Exempt Organizations (2006-16)
        \11\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``Tax-Exempt
    Organizations: Better Compliance Indicators and Data, and More
    Collaboration with State Regulators Would Strengthen Oversight of
    Charitable Organizations,'' December 2014, http://www.gao.gov/assets/
    670/667595.pdf.
        \12\ Shireman, Robert. The Covert For-Profit: How College Owners
    Escape Oversight Through a Regulatory Blind Spot. The Century
    Foundation. Retrieved from: https://tcf.org/content/report/covert-for-
    profit/?agreed=1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We encourage Congress to continue looking for ways to provide
    additional oversight of the conversion process and look forward to
    working with members of this Subcommittee on furthering protections for
    student veterans.

        Draft legislation, To amend title 38, United States Code, to
    require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to collect and include
    certain student outcome information in the GI Bill comparison tool of
    the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes

        This draft legislation proposes VA enter into an agreement with the
    Department of Education (ED) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to
    provide additional student outcome data for veterans and dependents.
        SVA supports this draft legislation. We strongly believe improving
    the quantity and quality of information available to veterans allows
    them to make more-informed decisions about where to use their education
    benefits.\13\ There are, however, improvements that would make the
    process of considering education options significantly better.
    Additionally, increased IT budget resources should be devoted to
    implementing important congressional mandates, and the GI Bill
    Comparison Tool is no exception.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Student Veterans of America. Testimony for Legislative Hearing
    on the Topic of ``Pending Legislation'' March 07, 2019. Senate and
    House Committees on Veterans' Affairs. https://www.veterans.senate.gov/
    imo/media/doc/5%20-%20SVA%20Testimony%2003.07.19.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since inception in 2014, the GI Bill Comparison Tool has proved to
    be an invaluable source of information for veterans trying to
    understand the value of their GI Bill as they considered different
    education options. However, there is a lack of coordination between ED
    and VA with the College Navigator, College Scorecard, and GI Comparison
    Tool, reducing the overall delivery of powerful data to
    veterans.\14\, \15\, \16\ The Comparison Tool has
    unique and important data, necessitating a separate tool from ED's
    current options, but the underlying data is not being shared
    effectively, leaving prospective students an incomplete view of their
    options.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ College Navigator, National Center for Education Statistics,
    US Department of Education, https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/,
    Accessed 01 March 2019
        \15\ College Scorecard, US Department of Education, https://
    collegescorecard.ed.gov/, Accessed 03 February 2020
        \16\ GI Bill Comparison Tool, US Department of Veterans Affairs,
    https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/, Accessed 03 February 2020
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The data running the Comparison Tool are largely restricted to VA's
    internally available data, which are also limited, notably excluding
    many student veterans who run out of benefits prior to graduation or
    elect alternative funding sources. Noting those current limitations,
    SVA appreciates the continued availability of the raw data powering the
    GI Bill Comparison Tool, which affords external entities to run
    complementary research and analysis to support additional feedback to
    VA and policymakers.
        There are several additional improvements we believe would make the
    tool a more effective and complete information source for students. SVA
    fully acknowledges the proposed improvements will require dedicated IT
    funds and we hope to see dedicated funds included for these projects in
    future budgets.
        The tool currently lacks an effective side-by-side comparison
    function. Students primarily use the tool for its ``look up'' function
    for familiar institutions as that is effectively the best option the
    tool currently offers. Student veterans should also be able to rate
    their schools, thereby affording future student veterans direct
    consumer feedback like Amazon's verified user rating system. In 2013,
    Public Law 112-249 mandated the statutory requirement for VA to launch,
    ``centralized mechanism for tracking and publishing feedback from
    students,'' like `Amazon reviews,' yet this functionality is still
    missing.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Public Law 112-249, ``Comprehensive Veterans Education
    Information Policy'', https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
    PLAW112publ249/pdf/PLAW-112publ249.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, we encourage VA to develop a mechanism to maintain closed
    schools within the tool, versus having them merely disappear. This
    disappearance of schools from the tool also applies to the associated
    data, leaving significant gaps in the overall picture.

        In addition to the legislation above, SVA supports the draft
    legislation amending title 38 to clarify and expand eligibility for the
    Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship, and the draft legislation
    requiring electronic certificates of eligibility be provided to those
    entitled to VA educational assistance. We echo the stated benefits
    extolled by VA about this change in their Fiscal Year 2020 Budget
    Submission and, as we have stated previously, request any additional IT
    update be accompanied by a matching funding increase. It is
    unreasonable to hold VA accountable for the numerous updates and
    improvements demanded of them while simultaneously failing to provide
    the resources necessary to complete them.\18\ We encourage Congress to
    continue working with VA and others to better understand the IT
    requirements for these proposed bills and future changes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Department of Veterans Affairs, Fiscal Year 2020 Budget
    Submission, Volume III. https:// www.va.gov/ budget/docs/ summary/
    fy2020VA budget volumeIII benefits Burial Programs AndDeptmental
    Administration.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The success of veterans in higher education is no mistake or
    coincidence. Research consistently demonstrates this unique population
    of non-traditional students is far outpacing their peers in many
    measures of academic performance.\19\ Further, this success in higher
    education begets success in careers, in communities, and promotes
    family financial stability, holistic well-being, and provides the all-
    volunteer force with powerful tools for recruitment and retention.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Cate, C.A., Lyon, J.S., Schmeling, J., & Bogue, B.Y. (2017).
    National Veteran Education Success Tracker: A Report on the Academic
    Success of Student Veterans Using the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Student
    Veterans of America, Washington, DC, http://nvest.studentveterans.org/
    wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NVEST-Report_FINAL.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the Subcommittee members
    for your time, attention, and devotion to the cause of veterans in
    higher education. As always, we welcome your feedback and questions,
    and we look forward to continuing to work with this Committee and the
    entire Congress to ensure the success of all generations of veterans
    through education.

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

        Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, Student
    Veterans of America has not received any Federal grants in Fiscal Year
    2018, nor has it received any Federal grants in the two previous Fiscal
    Years.

    Justin Monk, Policy Associate, Government Affairs

        Justin advocates on behalf of student veterans, their families, and
    military-connected students to empower them through higher education
    and beyond.
        After graduating from Wake Forest University in 2010, and
    Appalachian State University in 2012, Justin moved back home to Texas
    to work and be closer to family. In 2016, he accepted an offer to come
    to Washington, DC and pursue his dream of policy work on Capitol Hill.
    He started as an intern and worked his way up to a Legislative
    Fellowship before leaving Capitol Hill to lead the Federal policy
    portfolio for an environmental startup. Later, having come from a
    family of veterans, Justin took the opportunity to work on behalf of
    those who have served by joining Student Veterans of America.
        In every position, he has advocated for more responsible
    stewardship of taxpayer funds and common-sense, proactive solutions for
    infrastructure and investments. He now brings his desire to help others
    to SVA where he works to improve student outcomes and preserve earned
    benefits for student veterans everywhere.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Morgan D. Brown

        Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the
    Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to discuss our views on pending legislation
    impacting the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that is before the
    Subcommittee. No group of veterans understand the full scope of
    benefits and care provided by VA better than PVA's members--veterans
    who have incurred a spinal cord injury or disorder. Several of these
    bills will help to ensure veterans receive much needed aid and support.
        PVA provides comment on the following bills included in today's
    hearing.

        Discussion Draft, ``to amend title 38, United States Code, to
    reduce the loan fees paid by certain veterans who have been affected by
    major disasters and are obtaining a new loan guaranteed, insured, or
    made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.''

        As written, this legislation reduces VA loan fees paid by those
    affected by major disasters. The bill also allows a veteran's next home
    loan following the disaster to be treated as an initial loan. PVA
    wholeheartedly supports this effort to avoid unwarranted VA loan fees,
    especially among those whom have lost their homes to a natural
    disaster.

        Discussion Draft, ``to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
    provide electronic certificates of eligibility to persons who are
    entitled to educational assistance under certain educational assistance
    programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs.''

        This pending legislation would require by August 1, 2021, anyone
    who is eligible for VA education benefits to be able to obtain an
    electronic copy of their eligibility. PVA supports this effort to
    update the current process and reduce the amount of time eligible
    students wait for their school to receive proof of eligibility status.

        Discussion Draft, ``to amend title 38, United States Code, to
    provide for a requirement relating to the timing of the payment of
    educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance
    Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other
    purposes.''

        This draft bill requires VA to make payments to schools no sooner
    than 7 days after the first day of the quarter, semester, or term. PVA
    supports this effort to reduce overpayments to schools by allowing
    students to adjust their schedules during the add/drop period and
    receive their syllabi to help determine if their course load is
    appropriate. It will also deter predatory school practices of
    convincing student veterans to just attend 1 day of class in order for
    payment to be received rather than focusing on the academic success of
    their students. We also support the requirement for VA to disapprove a
    course of education unless the school agrees to waive any late fees due
    to payment timing.

        Discussion Draft, ``to amend title 38, United States Code, to
    provide for the treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs of
    forprofit educational institutions converted to non-profit educational
    institutions.''

        This draft measure directs the VA Secretary to treat for-profit
    schools that have converted to no-profits after January 1, 2016, as if
    they are for-profits for the next 10 years following the change. PVA
    supports this effort to ensure those using VA educational benefits are
    protected from educational institutions who convert to non-profit
    status to evade certain regulatory requirements and operate in the
    interest of their shareholders rather than the interest of their
    students.

    H.R. 5052, the ``WAVES Act''

        This legislation requires students using VA work-study to be paid
    the higher of the hourly wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
    1938, the law of the State where the work is performed, or a comparable
    local law. PVA supports this effort to ensure students using VA work-
    study programs receive fair compensation for their work.

        Discussion Drafts, ``to improve and expand eligibility for the
    ``Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship Program.''

        These two drafts clarify, improve, and expand the eligibility for
    the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM scholarship for students pursuing these
    degrees. We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in improving this
    program. These bills would help ensure VA education users are able to
    receive additional tuition to support degree completion and expand the
    program to cover medical and nursing residencies. We suggest that these
    drafts by merged into a single piece of legislation to facilitate
    passage.

        Discussion Draft, ``H. R._, To increase the frequency of benefits
    under the automobile assistance program of the Department of Veterans
    Affairs.''

        Discussion Draft, ``H. R._, To authorize the Secretary of Veterans
    Affairs to provide or assist in providing a second vehicle adapted for
    operation by disabled individuals to certain eligible persons.''

        VA's Automobile Assistance Grant program was originally established
    in August 1946 to assist severely disabled WWII veterans with the
    purchase of an automobile or other conveyance. Changes were made in
    subsequent years to include similar veterans from other eras or allow
    modest increases to the grant itself, but little has been done to
    ensure the program, as it currently exists, is meeting the needs of
    disabled veterans--particularly those with catastrophic disabilities
    whom PVA represents. The draft bills before the Subcommittee would
    provide what catastrophically disabled veterans need most--financial
    help to ensure they can purchase and maintain safe and reliable
    transportation to sustain their independence and get to medical
    appointments.
        Representative Cisneros' draft bill would allow a second automobile
    grant beginning January 1, 2031, and subsequent grants in 10-year
    increments thereafter.
        Representative Meuser's draft legislation would provide a second
    automobile grant. As written, veterans who received their original
    grant on or after January 1, 2014, could receive a second grant once 10
    years had elapsed. It is our understanding that Representative Meuser,
    plans to introduce a modified bill that does not include the ``look-
    back'' provision and sets October 1 of this year as the first date of
    eligibility for all catastrophically disabled veterans who received
    their first automobile grant 10 or more years ago.
        PVA believes that the ideal legislation would aid veterans who used
    their first grant 10 or more years ago to receive a grant for a new
    automobile as soon as possible and allow additional grants after a
    requisite period has lapsed. We recommend 10-year increments because
    government agencies and industry standards place an average vehicle's
    useful life in that timeframe. Additionally, vehicles that have been
    modified structurally, including modifications to accommodate the
    weight of veterans and their wheelchairs, can have a decreased
    lifespan.
        Current law allows VA to provide financial assistance to eligible
    veterans through an automobile grant as indexed for inflation. For
    Fiscal Year 2020, the amount of the grant is $21,488.29. This one-time
    award is used toward the purchase of a new or used automobile to
    accommodate a veteran or service member with certain disabilities that
    resulted from a condition incurred or aggravated during active military
    service.
        However, on average, the cost to replace modified vehicles is more
    than double the value of the current auto grant and several thousand
    more when the vehicle is used. These substantial costs, coupled with
    inflation, present a financial hardship for many disabled veterans who
    need to replace their primary mode of transportation once it reaches
    the end of its useful service life.
        The cost of replacing modified vehicles purchased through the VA
    automobile grant program presents a financial hardship for veterans who
    must bear the full replacement cost once the adapted vehicle has
    exceeded its useful life. The divergence of a vehicle's depreciating
    value and the increasing cost of living only compounds this hardship.
        Since vehicles do not last a person's lifetime, veterans should
    have the ability to purchase a vehicle, once every 10 years, without
    having to shoulder the burden of the full cost of a vehicle themselves.
    Therefore, we ask Congress to establish multiple automobile grants, for
    veterans to use once every 10 years, equaling the current grant maximum
    in effect at the time of vehicle replacement.
        Another factor to consider as you deliberate if more than one grant
    is warranted is a veteran's physical condition. Younger veterans who
    are injured may retain or be able to recover a fair degree of their
    strength and mobility after the injury that makes them eligible for the
    grant program. A car may be suitable for these veterans at this point
    in their lives. In time, however, their physical condition will
    deteriorate. A car purchased for transportation by a manual wheelchair
    user eventually becomes useless for the veteran who is now forced to
    purchase a minivan or similar transportation that can accommodate a
    motorized wheelchair.
        Access to an adapted vehicle is essential to the mobility and
    health of catastrophically disabled veterans who need a reliable means
    of transportation to get them to and from work and their medical
    appointments. There is a safety aspect in the need for additional
    grants as well. Because of the high cost to procure replacement
    vehicles, many veterans retain vehicles beyond their reliability point
    which places them, and those around them, at risk when the vehicle they
    are operating is unsafe or unreliable. The thought of a
    catastrophically disabled veteran stranded on the side of the road in
    an inoperable vehicle should concern us all.
        If given the chance for a second or subsequent grants, veterans
    might also be inclined to take advantage of some of the new assistive
    technologies that have recently become available like backup cameras,
    lane assist, and adaptive cruise control. These assistive technologies
    would help some veterans maintain their driving independence and make
    all eligible veterans and those with and around them much safer.
        PVA would once again like to thank the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to submit our views on some of the legislation being
    considered today. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on
    this legislation and would be happy to answer any questions.

      Information Required by Rule XI 2(g) of the House of Representatives

        Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g) of the House of Representatives, the
    following information is provided regarding Federal grants and
    contracts.

                                Fiscal Year 2020

        Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$253,337.

                                Fiscal Year 2019

        Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$193,247.

                                Fiscal Year 2018

        Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
    Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports
    activities--$181,000.

                         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.

                            Statement for the Record

                                  ----------

                Prepared Statement of Veterans Education Success

        Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        Veterans Education Success is a non-profit organization with a
    mission to advance higher education success for veterans, service
    members, and military families, and to protect the integrity and
    promise of the GI Bill and other Federal education programs.
        In addition to research, providing free case work to students
    having trouble with GI Bill or impacted by predatory schools, and
    elevating the voices of students to share with policymakers both their
    positive and negative experiences in higher education, we are focused
    on addressing ways to increase the continued academic success of
    military-connected students in their pursuit of their academic goals.
        We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on the
    pending legislation before the Subcommittee:

    H.R. 5052: WAVES Act

        We support this amendment to the WAVES Act which mandates that
    student veterans participating in a VA work-study program earn the
    higher amount between the Federal, State, and local minimum wage laws
    where the student goes to school and works. It is a sensible provision
    that allows students to receive the proper compensation.

    Draft Legislation ``Class Evaluation Act''

        Veterans Education Success strongly supports this bill, which would
    require VA to wait at least 7 days after the first day of each quarter,
    semester, or term to make payments of Post 9/11 Educational Assistance
    payments to a school and denies payment to a school if the student
    withdraws within the first 10 days. This important bill would allow
    students to settle their schedule and class load before payments are
    made to the school, thereby mitigating many overpayment issues due to
    schedule changes and other reasons. It would also provide a grace
    period for military-connected students as they navigate the ``add/drop
    period'' at the beginning of a term giving them the chance to figure
    out how many classes they can manage during a semester, rather than
    signing up for too many credits.
        As we testified on July 17 of last year, \1\ this bill represents a
    critical step needed to stop the rampant problem of GI Bill
    ``overpayments,'' in which VA has paid out more in tuition and fees
    than the student's course load requires. The US Government
    Accountability Office reported that GI Bill overpayments cost $416
    million in Fiscal Year 202014, affecting 1 in 4 GI Bill students.\2\ A
    major cause of GI Bill overpayments is the way VA pays out the full
    term of GI Bill after a veteran sits for just 1 day of class. Should a
    student using GI Bill benefits withdraw from classes after that first
    day, the school has already accrued the entire term of GI Bill funds,
    creating an ``overpayment'' of GI Bill funds by VA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Testimony of Col. Robert F. Norton, USA-Ret., Senior
    Advisor, Veterans Education Success, before the House Veterans Affairs
    Committee (July 17, 2019), available at https://vetsedsuccess.org/our-
    testimony-for-july-17-house-veterans-economic-opportunity-subcommittee-
    hearing-on-proposed-legislation/.
        \2\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Post 9/11 GI Bill:
    Additional Actions Needed to Help Reduce Overpayments and Increase
    Collections, October 2015, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/
    673230.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Moreover, by disbursing the entire term of GI Bill tuition to a
    school after a student sits for just 1 day of class, VA inadvertently
    incentivizes predatory schools to use deceptive tactics to convince
    military-connected students to sit for just 1 day. This ``Just 1 Day''
    mentality leads unscrupulous schools to focus primarily on convincing a
    veteran to enroll, rather than on the academic success of their
    students. Many such schools explicitly adopt a business model called
    ``churn,'' in which they plan for students to drop out quickly, so they
    focus on quick and short enrollments. This causes significant waste,
    fraud, and abuse of a student's hard-earned education benefits and
    taxpayer dollars. Passage of this bill would stop schools from
    receiving a veteran's entire term of GI Bill benefits after just 1 day
    of classes.
        This Act also prohibits schools from fining students due to this
    change, which we agree is correct; schools should not be allowed to
    assign students any late fees based on VA's processing. We note the
    Committee previously enacted Section 103 of Public Law 115-407, which
    forbids schools from forcing GI Bill students to pay penalties or late
    fees and from denying students' access to classes, libraries, and
    facilities if the VA payment is late.

        Draft legislation to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
    provide electronic certificates of eligibility to persons who are
    entitled to educational assistance.

        We strongly support this provision. It will update the current
    process and allow for eligible student veterans to easily access
    information that is vital to them furthering their education.

        Draft Legislation to make an individual eligible for educational
    assistance under chapter 33 of such title and who transfers such
    educational assistance to a dependent solely liable for any overpayment
    of such educational assistance.

        Veterans Education Success supports this bill, which clarifies that
    the original recipient of the educational benefit is responsible and
    held liable for any overpayment debt that may occur after transferring
    the benefit to a dependent. We have seen, firsthand, dependents who
    have utilized the GI Bill, only to be hit with thousands of dollars of
    debt due to issues with the original beneficiary's qualifications for
    the GI Bill.
        One student we are currently helping is an ex-spouse of a service
    member who transferred his benefits to her while they were still
    married. After they had separated and divorced, he was kicked out of
    the military for bad behavior, ultimately impacting his GI Bill
    benefit. She was unaware and believed her GI Bill was in good standing.
    Through no fault of her own, she now owes a large debt to the VA which
    she was not aware of until it went into collections because the notices
    were being sent to her ex-spouses' house and not to her. This provision
    protects other military-connected students in similar situations from
    receiving life-altering overpayment debts due to no fault of their own.

        Draft Legislation to provide for an extended timeframe for certain
    students to find employment following completion of Department of
    Veterans Affairs high technology education program

        AND

    Draft Legislation ``Vet-Tech Improvement Act.''

        We have concerns with these bills in their present form, which
    would weaken the bipartisan bicameral consensus agreement in the 2017
    Colmery Act (the ``Forever GI Bill''), enacted with unanimous support,
    on minimum quality controls for programs that wish to be eligible for
    VA educational funds for high technology programs, like coding boot
    camps. The bipartisan bicameral agreement on minimum quality controls
    for coding boot camps and other high technology programs must be kept
    in place and not weakened. A coding boot camp that cannot place its
    graduates in anything better than an unpaid apprenticeship is not
    serving students well. Nor is it wise to open up VA funding to new,
    unqualified programs that have not demonstrated they can provide
    quality training. Similarly, approving part-time short-term programs
    runs counter not only to the bicameral bipartisan agreement of 2017 but
    to reams of research that demonstrate that short-term programs produce
    substandard student outcomes. For example, student outcome data at
    Title IV-participating trade schools that enroll GI Bill beneficiaries
    in certificate programs showed that less than half of the students
    earned more than a high school graduate 10 years after enrolling.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See Veterans Education Success, ``Weak Return on Investment at
    Trade Schools that Enroll GI Bill Beneficiaries'' (2019), available at
    https://vetsedsuccess.org/weak-return-on-investment-at-trade-schools-
    that-enroll-gi-bill-beneficiaries/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are a wide range of coding boot camps and other high-tech
    programs available. Some are well-respected and well-regarded by high-
    tech employers. And some are widely considered to be ``jokes'' by these
    employers. During the 2017 negotiations, Committee staff consulted with
    several high-tech employers who explained the great disparity in
    quality among high tech education programs. It is not fair to students
    to approve their participation in programs that are not well-respected
    and well-regarded by the industry they are hoping to be employed by.
        We urge the Committee not to undermine the bipartisan bicameral
    agreement of 2017 on quality controls for coding boot camps and other
    high-tech programs. We look forward to working with the Committee staff
    to amend these bills.

    Draft Legislation to provide for the eligibility of members of the
        Armed Forces on terminal leave for the Department of Veterans
        Affairs high technology education program, and for other purposes.

        We do not oppose expanding the eligibility for the high technology
    program to members of the Armed Forces who are on terminal leave. For
    all intents and purposes the service member has finished her/his
    service and this allows her/him to start her/his training at an earlier
    date that to support a smooth transition from military service into the
    civilian workforce.
        If a veteran is on terminal leave and receiving a basic allowance
    from the Department of Defense, then it makes sense that the veteran
    would not also receive BAH from the VA while attending a VET TEC
    program during this timeframe.

        Draft Legislation to clarify and expand eligibility for the Edith
    Nurse Rogers STEM Scholarship

        AND

        Draft Legislation to improve the Edith Nurse Rogers STEM
    Scholarship program.

        We appreciate the Committee's work to ensure that students pursuing
    STEM degrees who need additional years of tuition support are able to
    receive it.
        We further appreciate the Committee's work to clarify that the
    program includes students pursuing dual degrees as well as covers
    medical and nursing residencies in both of these draft bills. Student
    veterans pursuing their medical residencies or nursing degree are
    extremely valuable to the community and including them as eligible for
    this scholarship is vital to ensuring their success.
        We urge the Committee to merge these two bills.

        Draft Legislation to provide for the treatment by the Department of
    Veterans Affairs of for-profit educational institutions converted to
    non-profit educational institutions.

        We support this legislation that would direct the Secretary to
    treat for-profit schools that convert to nonprofit status as if they
    are for-profit for a number of years following their conversion.
        Veterans Education Success has spoken to whistleblowers from for-
    profits schools who have shared how some are converting to escape
    regulatory requirements - like the 90/10 rule. Additionally, schools
    that convert sometimes use their new status to mislead their students
    by advertising that they are nonprofit when in actuality they are
    operating as a covert for-profit entity. Grand Canyon University, for
    example, was just recently denied its non-profit status by the
    Education Department because it operates in the interest of its
    shareholders and not the students.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Department of Education's Determination Letter of Nonprofit
    Status for Grand Canyon University, November 6, 2019, available at
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6548639-GCUDecision.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This bill would help monitor the conversion process of for-profit
    entities looking to avoid some of the regulations put in place to
    protect students. It would ensure that schools do not set up their
    nonprofit in a way that allows for regulatory avoidance and financial
    conflicts of interest similar to what happened with Grand Canyon
    University.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\  Bob Shireman, The Century Foundation, ``The Covert For-
    Profit,'' September 22, 2015, available at https://tcf.org/content/
    report/covert-for-profit/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We note that the Senate is also considering similar language in the
    bipartisan S. 2857, Protect Veterans' Education and Taxpayer Spending
    Act of 2019, \6\ which concerns closing the 90/10 loophole and includes
    a period of oversight of for-profit schools converting to nonprofit or
    public status.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\  S. 2857--Protect Veterans' Education and Taxpayer Spending Act
    of 2019, available at https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/
    senate-bill/2857/text.

        Draft legislation to require VA to collect and include student
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    outcome data on the GI Bill Comparison Tool.

        The GI Bill Comparison Tool can and should be a key resource for GI
    Bill eligible individuals to be able to consider their options and make
    an informed college choice. We supported the creation of the Comparison
    Tool in 2012, including its inclusion in Executive Order 13607 and
    Public Law 112-249, and have worked over the years to help VA improve
    this critical tool.
        At the moment, students using the Comparison Tool face a key lack
    of knowledge because the Tool provides almost no data for students to
    understand the basic facts about a school and whether it serves
    students well or not. We support this bill and offer several
    suggestions below to improve the bill. These suggestions involve
    disaggregating some of the data because (1) the needs and
    characteristics of the three cohorts differ, (2) individuals are
    seeking and earning different types of credentials (certificates,
    associate's, bachelor's, and advanced degrees), and (3) some
    individuals complete while others do not.
        We have also identified additional metrics that provide useful
    data, including repayment rates, the percentage of completers and non-
    completers in deferment or forbearance, median Pell Grants received,
    and Federal student loan repayment plans in which GI Bill beneficiaries
    are enrolled. Finally, the MOU should specify that the data be provided
    on an annual basis.
        For the data to be meaningful, it will have to take into account
    the fact that each type of credential takes a minimum of up to 9
    months, 2 years, or 4 years to complete and often times longer. Thus, a
    GI Bill beneficiary who enrolled in 2011-12 would likely not earn a
    bachelor's degree until at least 2015 or even later.\7\ The Secretary
    of Education and the IRS Commissioner will have to determine how best
    to account for these differences in order to show the progression of GI
    Bill students over time. Simply knowing that the graduation or non-
    completion rates in a given year would not allow the information to be
    used to evaluate the return-on-investment from this hard-earned
    benefit.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ For example, research by Veterans Education Success found that
    about 41 percent of veterans graduated in 2015-16 enrolled for the
    first time in 2005 or earlier. These proportions varied based on the
    degree pursued. For example, 50 percent of veterans who earned
    Bachelor's degrees in 2015-16 first enrolled in 2005 or earlier,
    compared to 36 percent of Associate's degree and 33 percent of
    certificate program graduates. See pp. 12-13 of Ochinko, Walter and
    Kathy Payea, Veterans Education Success, Postsecondary Non-Completion
    Among Veterans: Contributing Factors and Implications (Nov. 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We believe the following recommendations would strengthen the
    utility of outcome data on veterans, servicemembers, and eligible
    family members using the GI Bill.

        Page 2 of Draft Bill:

          Line 12: require that the information be provided
    annually and strike ``shall provide the Secretary the following
    information . . . :'' Replace with: ``...shall provide to the Secretary
    annually outcome information about individuals using the GI Bill.''

          Line 15: specify that the data shall be reported
    separately for each cohort. ``The following data shall be provided
    separately for each cohort--veterans, members of the Armed Forces, or
    dependents of veterans or members of the Armed Forces:''

          Line 16: after line 16 insert ``Retention rate.''

          Line 20: require reporting separately on the number of
    each type of degree. ``Number of completed credentials, disaggregating
    certificates, associates, bachelors, and post-baccalaureate degrees.''

          Line 22-23: revise to make consistent with line 20.
    ``Average number of years to complete each type of credential.''

          Line 24: Since unemployment is defined as those seeking
    work, revise to require data on employment rates. ``Employment rates
    of...''

        Page 3 of Draft Bill:

          Line 1: revise to read ``Median earnings for graduates''
    because some individuals don't earn wages on a salaried basis.
          Line 4: require median debt data separately for graduates
    and individuals who did not complete. ``Median amount of Federal
    student loan debt, separately for graduates and for individuals who
    attended but did not complete.''
          After line 4: insert new measure--``Median amount of
    Federal Pell Grants, separately for graduates and individuals who
    attended but did not complete.''
          Line 5: revise to read--``Student loan cohort default
    rate.''
          After line 5: insert two new measures----

                    o ``Student loan repayment rate and the proportion in
                    deferment or forbearance, separately for graduates and
                    individuals who attended but did not complete''

                    o ``Student loan repayment plans, separately for
                    graduates and individuals who attended but did not
                    complete.''

        It is also worth noting that information of GI Bill student
    outcomes will be more valuable if Congress enacts the College
    Transparency Act because this bill will provide a frame of reference to
    understand how outcomes of GI Bill students differ in comparison to
    non-veteran students or other subgroups of students such as
    ``independent'' students who, like most veterans are older and no
    longer financially dependent on their parents.
        We would like to State that in order to ensure these vital pieces
    of legislation to be implemented in an effective and expeditious
    manner, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) must have a
    functioning modern IT-system. We hope Congress will continue to put at
    the forefront the importance of giving the VBA the necessary funding to
    address and update its IT-system to ensure student veterans are put
    first and not needlessly harmed by old IT infrastructure.
        Veterans Education Success sincerely appreciates the opportunity to
    express our views on legislation before the Subcommittee today.
    Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, Veterans
    Education Success has received no Federal grants in Fiscal Year 2020
    nor in the previous two years.

                                       [all]