[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]