[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                         LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
               H.R. 491; H.R. 3874; H.R. 3848; H.R. 3933;.
             H.R. 3898; H.R. 3981; H.R. 3943; AND H.R. 3900

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-20

                               __________

       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                    
53-079                     WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                      
                    
                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking 
    American Samoa, Vice-Chairwoman      Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               JULIA BROWNLEY, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           MIKE LEVIN, California
MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE, SR., Montana   CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina    SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, 
C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida               Florida
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO, 
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas                   Pennsylvania
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona                DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas                    GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia        NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois

                       Jon Clark, Staff Director
                  Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                 DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin, Chairman

NANCY MACE, South Carolina           MIKE LEVIN, California Ranking 
C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida               Member
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona              FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona                MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
                                     DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois

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

                              ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Derrick Van Orden, Chairman........................     1
The Honorable Mike Levin, Ranking Member.........................     2
The Honorable Mark Takano, Ranking Member, Full Committee........     3

                               WITNESSES
                                Panel 1

Mr. Joseph Garcia, Executive Director of Education Service, 
    Department of Veterans Affairs (See Prepared Statement Under 
    Appendix)

        Accompanied by:

    Ms. Melissa Cohen, Deputy Executive Director of Outreach, 
        Transition, and Economic Development, Department of 
        Veterans Affairs

    Ms. Monica Diaz, Executive Director, Office of Homeless 
        Programs, Department of Veterans Affairs

Mr. James Rodriguez, Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment 
    and Training Service, Department of Labor (See Prepared 
    Statement Under Appendix)

        Accompanied by:

    Mr. Paul Marone, USERRA Policy Chief for Veterans' Employment 
        and Training Service, Department of Labor

                                Panel 2

Mr. Patrick Murray, Director, National Legislative Service, 
    Veterans of Foreign Wars (See Prepared Statement Under 
    Appendix)

Mr. Ricardo Gomez, Employment & Education Policy Associate, The 
    American Legion (See Prepared Statement Under Appendix)

Mr. Matthew Schwartzman, Director, Legislation and Military 
    Policy, Reserve Organization of America (See Prepared 
    Statement Under Appendix)

Ms. Meredith M. Smith, Government Relations Deputy Director, 
    National Military Family Association (See Prepared Statement 
    Under Appendix)

Mr. Kevin Hollinger, Legislative Director, Enlisted Association 
    of the National Guard of the United States (See Prepared 
    Statement Under Appendix)

                                APPENDIX
                    Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

Mr. Joseph Garcia Prepared Statement.............................    21
Mr. James Rodriguez Prepared Statement...........................    30
Mr. Patrick Murray Prepared Statement............................    36
Mr. Ricardo Gomez Prepared Statement.............................    41
Mr. Matthew Schwartzman Prepared Statement.......................    52

                          APPENDIX--continued

Ms. Meredith M. Smith Prepared Statement.........................    61
Mr. Kevin Hollinger Prepared Statement...........................    70

                       Statements For The Record

New England Center and Home for Veterans.........................    75
Operation Dignity................................................    79
U.S. Vets Inglewood..............................................    80
U.S. Vets Inland Empire..........................................    81
U.S. Vets Long Beach.............................................    82
U.S. Vets Prescott...............................................    83
Veterans Education Success.......................................    84
Veterans Integration Centers.....................................    93
Volunteers of America............................................    94
Alston Wilkes Society............................................    95
The American Legion..............................................    96
Disabled American Veterans, Department of California.............    98
Family & Community Services, Inc.................................   103
Helping Veterans and Families of Indiana, Inc....................   104
The Honorable Morgan McGarvey (KY-3).............................   106
Nation's Finest..................................................   108

 
                         LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
               H.R. 491; H.R. 3874; H.R. 3848; H.R. 3933;
             H.R. 3898; H.R. 3981; H.R. 3943; AND H.R. 3900

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2023

             U.S. House of Representatives,
              Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
                            Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:28 p.m., in 
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Derrick Van Orden 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Van Orden, Crane, and Levin.
    Also present: Representatives Takano, and Rosendale.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF DERRICK VAN ORDEN, CHAIRMAN

    Mr. Van Orden. The subcommittee will come to order. Our 
Nation made a promise--what? Oh, I am sorry. Please be seated. 
The worst chairman ever. Our Nation made a promise to our 
veterans long ago that if they were to protect and defend our 
freedoms, we would do our best to honor their efforts and their 
sacrifice recognizing that this is a debt that we can truly 
never repay.
    The Committee on Veterans Affairs was established to ensure 
that the government is held accountable to that promise. As I 
have said before, and I am going to say this every time I chair 
one of these meetings, this is not a bipartisan committee. This 
is a nonpartisan committee. I do truly appreciate all the 
members, my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for 
honoring that. It is remarkable, and I appreciate it greatly.
    Congress must be diligent in our efforts to continuously 
explore ways to improve the lives of veterans. Through our 
oversight of the Federal agencies that were established to 
benefit veterans and their families and developing legislation 
that improves these benefits, we seek to honor the commitment 
we have made to those who have served our country.
    Today, we are meeting to listen to the perspective of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labor. We 
will also hear the views of numerous organizations that exist 
to assist veterans, service members, and military families. We 
are interested in their perspective on legislative proposals 
that have been introduced to improve their experiences with the 
Federal Government programs that were designed to benefit them.
    I have introduced a bill that will help service members 
connect with veteran service organizations as they move through 
the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) at the Department of 
Defense. The TAP program is a well intended program that is 
supposed to ensure that service members have resources as they 
transition out of military life. However, as the hearing we had 
just a month ago revealed, there are many missing links in the 
TAP process, and it often misses the mark.
    TAP needs to be much more focused on ensuring that a 
service member leaves the military with a plan in place for 
work, housing, and for social engagement. We continue to 
explore ways to improve this TAP program in Congress, but my 
bill will take a step in the right direction by connecting 
service members with a community that is there to assist them 
after transition.
    As we work to improve the transition program, we also 
recognize that many veterans do not have a sufficient safety 
net after their transition to civilian life and may fall into 
homelessness. While the number of homeless veterans has 
decreased over the last few years, it is still essential that 
we provide services to support these veterans in a fiscally 
responsible way. Today, we will hear testimony on legislation 
that seeks to improve the housing and support services offered 
to veterans. We will also hear testimony on bills that are 
intended to provide employment protections for reservists and 
members of the National Guard that are called upon to deploy 
and their families. One bill seeks to make service members 
whole if they need to take their cases to court. We will also 
hear comments on a few bills that were introduced to improve 
the education benefits that are available to veterans.
    While all of these bills are well intended, as always, the 
devil is in the detail, and I look forward to hearing the 
thoughtful perspectives of the witnesses on these proposals 
here today. I now yield to the ranking member for his opening 
comments.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, RANKING MEMBER

    Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, Chairman Van Orden, for 
holding this legislative hearing, and thank you for your 
leadership of this subcommittee. Thank you to everybody for 
being here, and I appreciate your working with us. As we have 
the congressional baseball game this evening, I hope many of 
you will be out there. I was asked in the elevator, am I on 
team red or team blue? I said I am on team red, white, and 
blue. This is a great event tonight.
    The best way we can show veterans that we take our work 
seriously in Congress is by advancing policy that provides them 
with the benefits and the services they have earned. I would 
like to highlight a few of the bills on the agenda that deliver 
on that promise. First, I would like to thank Representative 
McGarvey for introducing the Veterans Education Oversight 
Expansion Act. I proudly sponsor the Isakson-Roe Healthcare and 
Benefits Improvement Act. While it has been a great boon for 
veteran education oversight and quality, there is always more 
work to do. Representative McGarvey's legislation, which I 
serve as a co-lead on, makes some commonsense improvements to 
the law, including benefit restoration, school oversight, and 
implementation of the law.
    Next, Representative Deluzio, another baseball player. 
These are all by baseball players. Has offered the Job Security 
for Military Families Act. The very first hearing this 
subcommittee held this year was on Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protections. We 
heard repeatedly about the need to strengthen employment 
protections for service members and their families. Our 
military is in a recruitment crisis, and we need to remove 
barriers for individuals who choose military service.
    Military spouse unemployment is three times the civilian 
rate. That is a stunning statistic. The number one reason 
individuals leave the military is because of how it impacts 
their family. Representative Deluzio's bill provides new job 
protections for military spouses, making it easier for service 
members to stay part of the world's greatest military.
    Finally, as we have discussed on multiple occasions in this 
subcommittee, I remain deeply concerned about the effects of 
last month's expiration of pandemic era flexibilities and 
funding on our ability to end and prevent veteran homelessness. 
On May 11, the maximum rate at which a grant and per diem, or 
GPD provider, can be reimbursed for providing transitional 
housing and services to veterans experiencing homelessness 
decreased from 300 percent of the state home domiciliary rate 
to 115 percent overnight. That is huge.
    These percentages can get confusing, so I am going to talk 
about these numbers in dollars and cents for just a second. The 
maximum per diem rate went from over $150 to just $64 a day. 
That happened literally overnight. I am pleased that we are 
considering H.R. 491 today, which I am proud to cosponsor, 
which would raise the maximum per diem rate to 200 percent of 
the State home rate, which is $112. We are also considering a 
Republican proposal that would raise the maximum per diem rate 
to 133 percent of the state home rate, or $74, with potential 
waivers for 10 percent of providers, up to that $112 a day 
level.
    There is clearly a significant difference between these two 
proposals that needs to be addressed. I hope the chairman 
shares my commitment to continuing to work together to find a 
per diem rate that we can all agree meets the needs of 
providers and the veterans in their care. Thank you again to my 
friend, Chairman Van Orden, for considering these bills, and I 
hope we can find a way to advance them all to the full 
committee as quickly as possible. And I yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you very much Ranking Member Levin. I 
now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Takano.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK TAKANO, RANKING MEMBER, FULL 
                           COMMITTEE

    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairman Van Orden. Today, this 
subcommittee is considering two bills, Congresswoman Nikema 
Williams' H.R. 491, the Return Home to Housing Act, and 
Congresswoman Chavez-DeRemer's, H.R. 3848, the HOME Act of 
2023.
    I am bothered by the delay in getting here today, as it is 
now been over a month since the emergency authorities for 
homeless veterans expired. We have lost time and ground in our 
fight to end homelessness, for me, the key consideration of any 
bill is going to be this, does the bill do the maximum amount 
to help homeless veterans get off the street and into permanent 
housing?
    On May 11, the maximum rate at which VA GPD providers can 
be reimbursed for the cost of caring for homeless veterans 
dropped from over $150 a day to a mere $64 a day. We are 
already hearing about the stress this is putting on providers. 
Many are faced with choosing between paying for security or 
staff and reducing the number of beds they can keep open for 
homeless veterans. Now, some providers are leaving the grant 
and per diem program entirely due to this financial strain. 
Congresswoman Nikema Williams' bill would raise the maximum per 
diem rate to $112 a day. Congresswoman Chavez-DeRemer's bill 
raises the maximum per diem rate to $74 a day. There is a large 
delta between these two numbers, $38 a day per veteran served. 
That $38 matters to providers and veterans.
    With that additional funding, providers can afford to keep 
clinical staff that can provide the treatment and services 
these veterans need. They can continue to operate training 
programs so that unhoused veterans can gain skills and 
opportunities to get back on their feet.
    We received a number of statements for the record from 
grant and per diem providers. One indicated that failure to 
raise the per diem rate will result in over $1 million budget 
shortfall for their facility this year. Another reported that 
they will have a $60,000 a month shortfall. That is a month 
shortfall at the current per diem rate. I believe this is 
unacceptable, considering the tremendous responsibility we 
place on these providers to care for our most vulnerable. The 
chairman, ranking member, and our staffs should work together 
with our Senate counterparts to quickly find a solution that 
adequately supports transitional housing providers and gives 
them more predictability with their funding.
    Now, I want to turn to another provision in H.R. 3848. I am 
deeply concerned about the language that amends the West Los 
Angeles Leasing Act of 2016. It is unclear to me why this is 
being considered alongside provisions related to ending veteran 
homelessness. The language proposed here is counter to what we 
intended in passing the law in 2016. I was there. I know. 
Everything done at the West LA must be focused on benefiting 
veterans. Veterans need more housing, they need more services, 
and we must not impede the oversight necessary to continue the 
process of getting West LA away from its long and difficult 
history and continue it on the right path in service to 
veterans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Thank you 
for the courtesy.
    Mr. Van Orden. Absolutely. I will now introduce our witness 
panel. Our first witness, Mr. Joseph Garcia, the Executive 
Director of Education Services at the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Mr. Garcia is accompanied by Ms. Melissa Cohen, Deputy 
Executive Director of Outreach, Transition, and Economic 
Development, and Ms. Monica Diaz, the Executive Director, 
Office of Homeless Programs at the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.
    Our second witness is the former Marine, Mr. James 
Rodriguez, the Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and 
Training Services at the Department of Labor. Mr. Rodriguez is 
accompanied by Mr. Paul Marone, the USERRA Policy Chief for 
Veterans Employment and Training Services at the Department of 
Labor.
    I ask the witnesses to please stand and raise your right 
hand.
    [Witnesses sworn]
    Thank you very much. Let the record reflect that the 
witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Please sit down.
    Hey, before we get rolling here, this is really painful for 
me to say this, but I would like to wish the Army happy 
birthday today. Happy birthday, guys. I am going to say this 
one time, okay? One time only. Hooah. There you go.
    Mr. Takano. Preface that?
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes, we could. Hey, in the interest of time, 
and because I know that there are several members that have 
some previous commitments, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
taking of oral testimony and proceed directly to questioning 
the witnesses. All witnesses' written statements will, of 
course, be included in the record. Without objection, so 
ordered. We are now going to proceed with questioning. I am not 
going to ask members to please respect the 5-minute rule, I am 
going to tell you that is how much time you got to talk, me 
included. The clock is running. I now recognize myself for 5 
minutes.
    I want you to know that I read your testimony in detail. I 
read every single line of every word when it comes to these 
panels. I do not want you to think that I have not taken this 
incredibly seriously. I take detailed, ask my staff, it is 
detailed notes then I get with this staff, which is excellent. 
This is an incredibly important thing what we are dealing with 
here, I want you to understand that.
    Ms. Diaz, the VA expects to increase the grant and per diem 
rate. They estimate it would cost $1.56 billion over 5 years 
and $3.31 billion over 10 years. This would be an increase of 
38 million for Fiscal Year 2024, and approximately 272 million 
over 5 years, and approximately 737 million over 10 years.
    The VA also indicates that it is awarding fewer beds based 
on needs expressed by the community. Can you please explain to 
me why the VA needs more money for the program if the number of 
beds needed has decreased?
    Ms. Diaz. Thank you for the question. When we did the 
estimations for budget when it comes to the numbers that you 
mentioned, we actually averaged those not on bed capacity, but 
on the average occupancy rate, which is 77 percent of what we 
are seeing. For any increase in per diem rate, we would need an 
increase based on our budget because there is an increase. The 
tabulation of the numbers that you got was based on the 200 
percent number, based on that 77 average occupancy rate. We are 
not using capacity, right, in terms of all the beds that we 
have, and the total amount for that it ended up being those 
totals.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Let us maybe figure out a better way 
to express that, because it seems like we are given more money 
and getting less bang for the buck. Obviously, this is my 
ranking member's number one priority is veterans' homelessness. 
The end state is every veteran that would like to be housed 
should be housed.
    Mr. Rodriguez, thank you very much for bringing your staff 
by my office. I appreciated that meeting. It was fantastic. In 
your previous testimony before the committee, you have 
indicated that you expect 1 million spouses to be eligible for 
USERRA if the law were expanded to include military spouses. A 
couple of things. How do you collect the data on military 
spouse employment? We are going to keep this staccato answers, 
please. How do you, first of all, collect the data, and how did 
you arrive on that estimate of 1 million persons?
    Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you again for 
meeting with us. I thought we had a great conversation about 
the protection for military spouses. We have various sources of 
data. One of the things is we know that the data, though, I 
would admit, is not 100 percent accurate. One of the reasons 
being is because a lot of military spouses do not self 
identify. Through a few of the surveys that----
    Mr. Van Orden. Again, for brevity's sake, because I want--
--
    Mr. Rodriguez. Sure.
    Mr. Van Orden.--two answers, not one. You use a bunch of 
different variables. What is your figure of merit, meaning how 
accurate do you think that 1 million is?
    Mr. Rodriguez. I think it is pretty accurate.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. All right. Now, do you because we 
talked about this, do you see the potential of abuse of this 
program? Let us remember, I have been married to a Navy wife 
for 30 years, so my respect for our Navy spouses is more than I 
can express in this period of time. I want to make sure we do 
them right. I just want you to be able to articulate whether or 
not you believe that there is potential for waste, fraud, and 
abuse in this program if we extend USERRA protections to 
spouses?
    Mr. Rodriguez. If I could say one more thing. Out of those 
1 million right now, we anticipate only 568,000 who are 
actually in the labor force would even be eligible for USERRA 
protections.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
    Mr. Rodriguez. Based off of the 1 million veterans who 
are--1 million service members who are Guard Reserve active 
duty, we only get about 1,000 cases a year.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
    Mr. Rodriguez. If you take that number.
    Mr. Van Orden. I got you.
    Mr. Rodriguez. Right.
    Mr. Van Orden. What about the potential for waste, fraud, 
and abuse in this program?
    Mr. Rodriguez. I do not believe military spouses would take 
advantage of a system that is there to support them.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
    Mr. Rodriguez. Wholeheartedly, I believe that they actually 
want to work. I think they are looking for opportunities to 
work. I think they are looking for opportunities to keep their 
job so they can support their families. I think that is a 
misrepresentation of the military spouse honestly.
    Mr. Van Orden. I am asking you. Do you think that the U.S. 
Government should be reaching into private industry when it 
comes to a spouse and not a direct service member who has 
signed a contract with the United States Government?
    Mr. Rodriguez. I would be the first one to say I think 
military spouses serve alongside their----
    Mr. Van Orden. Hey, dude----
    Mr. Rodriguez [continuing]. their boots, right, so.
    Mr. Van Orden.--listen, 30 years, pal.
    Mr. Rodriguez. I got that.
    Mr. Van Orden. You do not have to tell me anything. I am 
asking you a real specific question.
    Mr. Rodriguez. I think it is important for us at the 
Federal Government to help work with our private industries to 
get them to understand why spouse's retention and employment is 
so valuable to the service of the individual.
    Mr. Van Orden. All right. With that, my time has expired. 
In accordance with the Committee Rule 5(e), I ask unanimous 
consent that Representative Rosendale be permitted to 
participate in today's subcommittee hearing. Without objection, 
so ordered. I now yield to my Ranking Member, Mr. Levin, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you my friend, the chairman, and I thank 
all of you for all the work you are doing for our veterans. Ms. 
Diaz, when we think about the GPD program, we often equate it 
solely with transitional housing. In reality, GPD providers do 
much more than just give veterans a safe place to sleep. Can 
you please speak to the treatment and services that GPD 
providers deliver to veterans in transitional housing?
    Ms. Diaz. Thank you for that question. Definitely GPD 
providers provide that transitional housing as you mention, but 
besides that, we provide the comprehensive supportive services 
which cost and funding, right, to provide that includes case 
management. The frequency of that case management sometimes is 
geared to substance use disorders, treatment, to mental health 
treatment. We also provide housing navigation services to help 
the veteran find housing placement. That includes as well, 
services such as job training, financial management, and 
training, and much more. There is very intentional, supportive 
services to make sure that a program is successful and the 
services that the veteran is receiving as well provide the 
sustainability of the housing.
    Mr. Levin. As I said in my opening, I am very interested in 
coming to an agreement on a per diem rate that adequately 
reimburses providers for the cost of shelter and care for those 
veterans who are most vulnerable. How long has VA been hearing 
from providers that the per diem rate is too low?
    Ms. Diaz. We have been hearing this for a while, years, I 
would say, but more recently, within the last decade. I have 
been on the program myself for 5 years, and I have been hearing 
this myself directly for 5 years.
    Mr. Levin. Did any providers drop out of the GPD program in 
anticipation of the public health emergency ending and the rate 
reverting to $64 a day?
    Ms. Diaz. We have heard of some providers letting us know 
that they decided to not reapply because of the GPD rate being 
low to meet the operational costs and services. Granted, I 
would like to add that they are not required to tell us so 
there might be other stories that we have not heard about it.
    Mr. Levin. How does the lower per diem rate affect a 
provider's ability to adequately staff and secure their 
facility?
    Ms. Diaz. It impacts them significantly because based on 
having reliable funding, then you can plan, right? You can plan 
all the staffing that you need, the services that you can 
provide, and provide the needs that that community and that 
veteran needs. Without having that, then you have to compromise 
those services. When you compromise the services, then you 
compromise the care and the outcomes.
    Mr. Levin. Very good. Mr. Rodriguez, I will turn to you. 
Good to see you again. This is not related to a bill before us, 
but I want to take just a quick opportunity to ask you while 
you are here, the budget agreement recently passed into law, 
which was a result of brinkmanship, I think you could say, 
regarding our Nation's ability to pay its bills and protected 
VA from many cuts. However, other agencies that provide 
services for veterans, like, for example, Department of Labor-
Veterans Employment and Training Services (DOL-VETS), were not 
spared from these cuts. Can you briefly describe some of the 
cuts to veteran services you are expecting because of the debt 
limit agreement?
    Mr. Rodriguez. Congressman, it is always great to see you 
and thank you for that question. One of the most important 
challenges we are going to have is cuts to our personnel. The 
reduction of our personnel is one of the most important things 
to me because of the fact I need personnel to execute programs, 
to have oversight of programs, to ensure we are eliminating 
risk in the execution of our programs. That is the first and 
foremost the most important thing that is going to be affected 
by cuts.
    Also, the ability to not fund specific grants like the 
Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program. Not having the ability 
to fund grantees who can actually be providing those services 
to our veterans who are experiencing homelessness. The ability 
to not have oversight of our USERRA programs, for example, we 
look to expand that program. We need additional investigators 
to go out and be able to support someone who is submitting a 
claim. Being able to not have up-to-date administrative systems 
to capture all the data to capture all the information we need 
to make a well-founded decision in the claims process. I could 
go on and on, but those are some of the highlights.
    Mr. Levin. I think it is important that as we talk about 
the ongoing appropriations and getting to an agreement, as we 
have said, you know, through the whole debt limit situation, 
that we were not going to have any cuts to veterans. I was 
really pleased to see that we did not have any cuts to VA. 
However, the other whether it is DOL-VETS, whether it is 
Department of Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs 
Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH), the other programs that veterans 
rely on, veterans who are at risk rely on, are very much at 
risk of being cut if we do not stand up as the House Veterans 
Affairs Committee, across the aisle as well, and say no cuts to 
veterans really means no cuts to veterans, whether that is 
directly VA programs, or whether it is HUD programs, or whether 
it is DOL programs. I hope we all can get with our respective 
sides and make sure that happens in the coming months. With 
that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin. I now 
recognize Mr. Crane from Arizona, my friend, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you all for coming. At this time, I have 
no questions.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Crane. I now recognize 
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Takano, for 5 minutes 
after he sits down. Just wait a minute. All right. You got it?
    Mr. Takano. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have 
a few questions for Ms. Diaz. Ms. Diaz, the VA's testimony 
states that Representative Williams' bill H.R. 491 is more cost 
effective--is a more cost-effective approach to grant and per 
diem. Why is that?
    Ms. Diaz. When we were looking--thank you for the question. 
When we were looking at the 200 percent and looking at cost 
effectiveness, the reason why we stated that was that a lot of 
our veteran--a lot of our providers did not request it. We saw 
this through the last 3 years, did not request at the higher 
per diem rate during that time. What we foresee is that if we 
go to a lower per diem rate, a lot of the providers would go to 
the cap of that lower per diem rate because they need more of 
that resource.
    When we are looking at the 200 percent in itself, and we 
look at the utilization of those and how many grantees utilize 
that, it was an average, you know, depending on the time of the 
data obtained. It was an average of 70 grantees programs 
requesting that. We foresee that looking into a rate that 
really meets the needs of those grantees will actually be more 
cost effective because not all of them will go into the cap of 
that per diem rate.
    The other piece that we found that to be cost effective is 
the fact that it meets the needs of our veterans. It allows us 
the flexibility to be able to utilize the per diem rate to meet 
all veterans' need, not some, by having the flexibility to 
utilize, you know, onto that cap in itself.
    Mr. Takano. Does the provision in H.R. 3848, amending the 
West LA Leasing Act do anything to end veteran homelessness in 
the West LA region?
    Ms. Diaz. In that particular section of the bill, we did 
recognize a position in favor for that, but we also recognize 
that it does not have a big impact when it comes to homeless 
programs and operations. Our position as well is that 
regardless that there is a favorable position to move forward, 
we do not see a big impact when it comes to the homeless 
programs at this immediate moment for operations.
    Mr. Takano. Do veterans in the Los Angeles area support 
this proposal?
    Ms. Diaz. Thank you for that question. There have been 
veterans in the area that had voiced that they are not in favor 
necessarily with that position. We also acknowledge that we 
have not heard all veterans' voices, and we honor all veterans' 
voices, right? There might be veterans that are in support or 
others that maybe are in a neutral state of that approach.
    That said, I do want to affirm again that even though our 
position is to support it and we are grateful for that, we also 
recognize that this does not have a bigger impact when it comes 
to homeless programs and services. We are happy to look at this 
separate from the bill if that is necessary.
    Mr. Takano. All right, well, thank you.
    Ms. Diaz. You are welcome.
    Mr. Takano. Appreciate it. I yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Takano. I now 
recognize Mr. Rosendale for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Chairman Van Orden, for holding 
this hearing and allowing me to participate in it today. I do 
appreciate that. My bill, the Veterans Education Assistance 
Improvement Act, H.R. 3877, cuts red tape for student veterans 
when receiving their benefits. My bill will make the VA's 
decisions that could be harmful to student veterans less likely 
to occur going forward. My bill would also allow Congress to be 
proactive instead of reactive by being able to solve potential 
problems before veterans are negatively impacted.
    Under the current law, veterans are required to take a full 
course load to receive their military housing allowance, 
regardless of how many classes are actually needed to graduate. 
This places an unnecessary burden on the veterans by requiring 
them to take on additional classes that are not necessary for 
their degree. It also costs the taxpayers more money. My 
legislation would remove this provision and provide veterans 
the choice of how many classes they wish to take in their last 
semesters. Veterans should be able to make the best decisions 
for themselves and for their families.
    Moreover, my legislation would require the VA to notify 
Congress, educational institutions, and students of any rule 
changes not subject to the Congressional Review Act that would 
impact the student veterans 180 days in advance. For example, 
in 2021, VA officials updated a series of definitions 
surrounding the 85/15 rule. Many schools expressed alarm how 
the new guidance would make it more difficult to accept student 
veterans and their beneficiaries. I heard from schools across 
the Nation about this 85/15 rule and had to make many, many 
personal calls to the Veterans Administration and to the 
educational institutions to help try and sort these things out. 
Without a fix, there was a fear that these educational 
institutions would shut down and student veterans would be left 
without any good options to continue their education, or they 
were just being told that they were not going to be able to 
resume those classes again.
    I worked in a bipartisan fashion to fix this problem. My 
legislation would stop future problems before they become full 
blown crisis for the student veterans by requiring sufficient 
notice to allow stakeholders adequate time to weigh in. Section 
1015 of the Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act 
of 2020 requires an institution receiving VA funding to either 
be approved and participate in at least one program under Title 
IX or receive a waiver from this requirement each year. This 
disproportionately impacted religious institutions by making 
them apply for a waiver each year without a guarantee for more 
than 1 year, reducing administrative burdens for religious 
institutions. It should not be more difficult for religious 
educational institutions than secular ones to serve veterans 
and their families.
    First established in 1944, the GI bill has resulted in 
millions qualifying veterans and their families receiving money 
to cover some or all cost of school training. We owe it to our 
veterans to have an education system that is easy to use and 
understand and works for them. My legislation cuts red tape and 
moves our country closer toward showing veterans the compassion 
and respect that they deserve. I hope that the administration 
and all of my colleagues can support this legislation. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale. Before I dismiss 
the panel, I would like to remind all persons present that 
Congress sets a top line budget and then the departments 
dictate policy. If DOL-VETS, meaning you, Mr. Rodriguez, decide 
to put bureaucrats and fund them over homeless veterans, that 
would be your choice. I will be pulling you up here to this 
committee and you will explain to the American public, why you 
made the intentional choice to fund bureaucrats as opposed to 
homeless veterans. Is that crystal clear, Mr. Rodriguez?
    Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, they are not 
bureaucrats, they are actually government employees who are 
working to support----
    Mr. Van Orden. Is that crystal clear, Mr. Rodriguez? I 
asked you----
    Mr. Rodriguez [continuing]. the veterans, so.
    Mr. Van Orden. I asked you yesterday.
    Mr. Rodriguez. That is clear.
    Mr. Van Orden. Very well. Thank you very much. The 
witnesses are now excused. I hope you will stick around for the 
second panel.
    On our second panel we will hear from the following 
witnesses: Mr. Patrick Murray, Director of National Legislative 
Service for Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). Sorry. Okay. Mr. 
Ricardo Gomez, Employment and Education Policy Advocate for the 
American Legion. Sorry about that. Mr. Matthew Schwartzman, the 
Director of Legislation and Military Policy at the Reserve 
Organization of America (ROA), and Ms. Meredith M. Smith, the 
Government Relations Deputy Director for the National Military 
Family Association, and Mr. Kevin Hollinger, Legislative 
Director for the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of 
the United States. Happy birthday by the way.
    I would like to welcome you guys here at the witness table. 
Please stand and raise your right hand.
    [Witnesses sworn]
    Thank you very much. Let the record reflect that the 
witnesses have answered in the affirmative. We will now proceed 
directly to questions, and I will recognize myself for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Smith, you stated in your testimony that expanding 
USERRA. to military spouses would have unexpected consequences 
to the workforce. What do you think these unexpected 
consequences would be?
    Ms. Smith. Thank you for the question. One of the questions 
that we have about the version of the legislation that we have 
seen is what is defined as military necessity or a reason to 
take time away from work. Without understanding kind of the 
details of that particular provision, we have questions about 
what the impact to the workforce would be.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Honestly, I do have deep reservations 
about this because I really do not think it is the United 
States Government's place to exercise these mandates on 
companies when the person that is involved did not sign the 
contract. I mean, we all sign contracts with the government, 
and the USERRA protections have got to be ironclad. We can 
never muck about with that. I know we have been, and Mr. 
Takano's been working really hard to make sure that these 
USERRA protections, and I agree with him completely need to be 
ironclad. I do have reservations about this.
    Do you think that there is a chance that this proposed 
legislation could backfire and remove years of progress that we 
have made in Congress that we have talked about in reducing 
military spouse unemployment?
    Ms. Smith. I do not know if backfire is exactly what I 
would----
    Mr. Van Orden. Unintended consequences.
    Ms. Smith. We are concerned about unintended consequences. 
I mean, we think that the spirit of the legislation is good----
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
    Ms. Smith [continuing]. to ensure that military spouses are 
able to find and maintain employment. We have questions about 
whether or not USERRA is the appropriate tool to ensure that 
that is a reality for military families.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. I used to be on the board of directors 
for a thing called the Rosie Network. It was started by 
Stephanie Brown. She is the widow of a retired Navy Seal named 
Tom Brown. Admiral Brown he was a friend of mine. 
Unfortunately, he is dead now but. Now, what she does, is she 
helps military spouses, both men and women, start their own 
companies that they can travel with, essentially. That is a 
really good solution, but it is not for everybody. Let us see 
if we can get this right to make sure that we have--they are 
the most highly educated and highly unemployed demographic in 
the country. If we can do something, I am more than happy to do 
that. I just want to make sure that we get it correct. Thank 
you, ma'am.
    Mr. Murray from the VFW, under TAP Promotion Act, what 
would VFW talk about during their 1-hour TAP curriculum? How 
would the VFW ensure that there would be no recruiting of 
transitioning service members from those teaching the class?
    Mr. Murray. What we really see the role of accredited 
representatives, veteran service officers as a key tool in the 
whole TAP toolbox. What we want to be is a complementary asset 
for the VA benefits briefings. Accredited representatives can 
sign you up for your benefits right there on the spot. VA 
briefers are just not allowed to. That is what we can bring to 
the table and actually get the care and benefits process 
started right there in TAP. The last time they drive out the 
gate, they have got their healthcare, they have got their 
mental healthcare, they have got their prescriptions, and 
potential economic opportunity benefits ready to go that very 
first day.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. That is why I want this to happen. I 
also want to make sure that there is the appropriate oversight 
from your organizations because there has been a history of 
this not going well.
    Mr. Murray. I can tell you that the VFW in our Memorandum 
of Understandings (MoUs) with every single base that we are 
operating on, it is close to maybe two dozen, that is part of 
our agreement. We do not recruit on Federal property while 
doing benefits assistance. We have no problem ensuring that 
that is even further reinforced. We know that our services are 
done correctly. They are valuable. If membership comes from 
that, we will be happy. We are not there to recruit. We are 
there to help people set up claims and benefits.
    Mr. Van Orden. I get it. I want a friendly face in front of 
our veterans before they are out of the military. I want an 
active-duty serviceman or woman who has still got shiny shoes 
on to look at you guys because you are hometown folks. I do 
eventually want them to join your organizations and other 
various organizations because when we sit together as brothers 
and sisters, we look each other in the eye, and we know when 
someone is having a problem and that is critical to prevent 
veteran suicide.
    I support you guys. You know, I mean, I did not borrow 
these hats, dude. They are mine. My time is expiring here. 
Thank you very much for coming out here. I appreciate it 
greatly. With that, I yield back. The chair now recognizes Mr. 
Takano for 5 minutes. Ranking member of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Takano, for 5 minutes. That is a long title.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a short 
title. Ms. Smith, your testimony pointed to the need for 
additional data on military spouse employment, and I could not 
agree more with you. While the Department of Defense conducts a 
survey every 2 years, it is only a snapshot, and it is not 
really useful for comparing unemployment over time. 
Understanding the scope of military spousal employment is 
important for us to effectively tackle it, which is why I have 
worked with the Appropriations Committee to push the Department 
of Defense and Bureau of Labor Statistics to collaborate on 
better capturing this data. Can you discuss the limitations of 
the existing data on military spouse employment?
    Ms. Smith. Thank you for the question. Right now, as you 
stated, the Department of Defense does survey military spouses 
every 2 years on unemployment rates. That is point in time 
data. That is not data that reflects changes in regions or 
changes in, you know, the time of year, monthly fluctuations, 
things like that. That would be incredibly helpful information 
to target solutions for military spouse unemployment.
    As an example, we do not know if military spouse 
unemployment is worse in some regions of the country compared 
to others. We do not know where we may be able to find 
solutions that are working from one region or one installation 
of the country that could be scaled out to another installation 
or region. Without that kind of data, it makes it really hard 
to target solutions in an effective, efficient manner.
    Mr. Takano. Well, great. How do these limitations hinder 
the development of targeted solutions, would you say?
    Ms. Smith. We know, for example, that, you know, there are 
supportive community members in every defense community around 
the country. When they come to support military spouse 
employment needs, one of the things we see is an inability to 
communicate exactly what those needs are in certain localized 
areas. If we were able to more specifically talk about the 
talent that existed in the community, with community support 
that wanted to help leverage or support it, we would be able to 
have, I think, a much more productive conversation about 
solving our unemployment problem.
    Mr. Takano. I see. Can you tell us what kind of authorities 
the Department of Labor would need to reliably measure military 
spouse unemployment?
    Ms. Smith. Some of the things that we have studied or kind 
of gathered information around really more as an appropriate 
way of phrasing it, is that we do think that there would have 
to be data sharing agreements between and among different 
departments in the Federal Government in order to ensure that, 
for example, Department of Labor could measure military spouse 
unemployment. It could not be measured the same way that other 
subpopulations are measured simply because Department of 
Defense is the one that holds that data.
    There could be other Federal agencies that would need to be 
engaged to ensure that kind of the number is accurate and able 
to be reported out in a way that is sensitive to Personal 
Identifiable Information (PII) information. We do think that 
there would probably have to be some sort of information 
sharing or data sharing authorization to make that happen.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. That concludes my questioning, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. With the consent of my ranking member, 
we will do a second round of questionings because we did not 
get to get everybody. The chair now recognizes myself for 5 
minutes. Mr. Gomez. I have got this other hat here. Okay. I am 
getting old. I just want to ask all of you individually, I know 
that you looked at this legislation. There is a whole bunch of 
it out there. I want to know if there is any part of any one of 
these bills that you are concerned about, that goes too far, or 
it does not go far enough. I am just going to start with you, 
Mr. Gomez.
    Mr. Gomez. Yes, and thank you for the question. The only 
thing that I would add is for grant and per diem, one bill 
suggested 200 percent increase. Another bill, 140, and I 
believe 133 is the difference. I think something needs to be 
done fast, because veterans are in need of services. Whatever 
that percentage is, I would just urge Congress to make a 
decision.
    Mr. Van Orden. Well, we are working on it, Mr. Gomez. 
Unfortunately, one word I would not associate with Congress is 
nimble. I will just throw that out there. Mr. Schwartzman?
    Mr. Schwartzman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. ROA is 
a strong supporter of H.R. 3943. This is the USERRA legislation 
on the docket today that does not have to do directly with 
military spouses. ROA supports the legislation as currently 
written, but also would support some minor amendments to ensure 
its enforceability. Specifically, with Section 2, Subsection 
(B), which has to do with the awarding of prejudgment interest 
rates and then also liquidated damages, as well.
    As a general rule of thumb, although it is subject to a 
case-by-case basis, ROA would prefer that legislation has 
strong language, such as shall, as opposed to may, to ensure 
its enforceability and to ensure that those enforceability 
standards are pretty close to universal across the board. 
Again, it is subject to a case-by-case basis.
    Regarding the awarding of prejudgment interest rates, under 
the current construct of our Federalist system of government, 
states actually have the capacity to set a mandated prejudgment 
interest rate. The way that the legislation is currently 
written is that it would provide courts with the ability to 
award a prejudgment interest rate that is lower than what is 
currently afforded at the state level.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay, Mr. Schwartzman, I saw that. I want to 
parse that. I want you to parse that out and give it to our 
staff.
    Mr. Schwartzman. Okay, absolutely.
    Mr. Van Orden. I tell you here is how I work. If it makes 
sense, we will do it. I do not care what. I do not attach any 
political calculation to any of the decisions made on this 
subcommittee. None. If it makes sense, we will do it.
    Mr. Schwartzman. Absolutely.
    Mr. Van Orden. Very well. Ma'am, I am going to skip right 
over to Mr. Hollinger because he has been sitting here very 
patiently.
    Mr. Hollinger. Thank you, sir. The Enlisted Association is 
here predominantly to support USERRA for spouses. We believe 
that there was a contract that was signed with the U.S. 
Government. It was called IDO. Our spouses, we know that as 
Reserve service members, especially on the enlisted side, that 
there is three avenues that have to be in place for us to be 
successful. We have to have strong employment, we have to have 
strong service members, and we have to have strong spouses. 
Without the combination of those three things and all three of 
them being protected equally, we will not be successful.
    The National Guard is coming off unprecedented use. Over 
380,000 service members have been activated since March 2020, 
for everything underneath the sun. We have absolutely become 
the Nation's 911, and we are very proud of that. To have that 
ability for us to be the push button answer, we have to be able 
to support our spouses at home. They support me. My spouse has 
always supported me. Unfortunately, could not be here today. 
She is supported me 100 percent and I am only as good as she 
allowed me to be.
    Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Hollinger, I want you to know I 
appreciate your comments and your sentiment. I do. As I said, I 
have had a Navy wife for 30 years now. We just got to find the 
right way to do it. We have to balance fiscal responsibility 
with also making sure the civil liberties of individual 
companies are not violated because they are entities and they 
are people too. We got to make sure that we do not upset the 
apple cart with the workforce by creating unintended 
consequences, by trying to do something that is good.
    My intent, obviously, is to have a robust military. I had 
50 Pennsylvania National Guard guys work for me in Iraq. I 
would take those mugs right now. They were awesome. I have a 
tremendous amount of respect for what you guys are doing. I 
just want to figure out how to do it the right way. That is 
all. With that, my time has expired. I now yield to Ranking 
Member Takano for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you. My question is for Mr. Hollinger. 
Mr. Hollinger, do you know of any of your members or know of 
Guard or Reserve who wanted to exercise their USERRA rights 
when they return back from their deployments to return to their 
employment? My understanding under USERRA, a Guardsman or 
Guardswoman or Reservist, when they are called up for duty, 
they have a right to return back to employment. Their employer 
is supposed to keep their job open. Do you know what I am 
talking about?
    Mr. Hollinger. Yes, sir. I believe you are asking me have 
we seen problems with Guardsmen returning home and having 
problems with their job or getting their jobs back?
    Mr. Takano. Yes.
    Mr. Hollinger. Absolutely. I think Mr. Diaz spoke about 
that earlier where he, you know, resolved over 1,000 cases and 
I think there is even more through State and Federal 
Governments. I think we hear about USERRA problems more than I 
hear about any other problem on my legislative portfolio.
    Mr. Takano. USERRA with respect to gaining access, getting 
employment back when they return?
    Mr. Hollinger. Right. Right.
    Mr. Takano. It is their right under the law, right, under 
USERRA.
    Mr. Hollinger. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Takano. Can you tell me what we need to do in order to 
make sure that our service members come back and they get the 
jobs that they should have the right to under law?
    Mr. Hollinger. I think education. I think, you know, all of 
us that are sitting here on the panel are just as responsible 
for that as anybody else. We need to educate our employers, 
educate our employees, and our service members so that they do 
not make small mistakes that cause big issues. I think almost 
every single time that I have been involved in a USERRA case, 
it is somebody that had a misinterpretation of the law and 
believed that they were doing the right thing. I think 
employers tend to violate due to just fatigue, I think.
    Mr. Takano. Have you ever run into situations where a 
forced arbitration clause in an employment contract hindered an 
ability of a service member to be able to exercise their USERRA 
rights? Is that an issue?
    Mr. Hollinger. Well, yes, sir, that happens constantly. You 
know, we have, I can share many, many cases. I prefer not to 
put names out in public.
    Mr. Takano. You do not need to put names out, but I think 
it is important for this committee and for members to know and 
the public to know that this is a real problem.
    Mr. Hollinger. Sir, I agree that it is absolutely a real 
problem. We recognized that problem when it came to sexual 
assault and sexual harassment cases, and we got rid of the 
forced arbitration in there. Forced arbitration, you are asking 
somebody that gets paid by a company to rule against who is 
feeding them dinner. I know I am smart enough not to do that 
very often.
    Mr. Takano. It does not seem right to me that somebody who 
has been deployed maybe many times, and I have seen what our 
Guard and our Reserve do, and the chairman has, you know, has 
his own testimony here about what they have done on deployment. 
They come back and they try to get their job back, but they 
cannot go to court because in order to enforce their right, 
they should be able to go to court and get a judge to say, 
well, you know, USERRA says you have a right to your job back. 
Your company should have held that job open for you.
    I actually did that as the chairman, when I was chairman of 
this committee, when my staff director went off to Syria for 
several months, we all knew, we should have known, and we did 
know that we had to keep that position open. We had two people 
go off, right?
    Mr. Hollinger. I think I know their names.
    Mr. Takano. Right. There are companies that, there are 
companies instead of like welcoming that service member back, 
they use their legal right in an employment contract, because 
that employment contract has a forced arbitration clause and it 
goes to arbitration instead of the court, and as you said, the 
arbitrator is often slanted toward the employer. I think it is 
high time that Congress address this issue because I think it 
is a travesty that we treat our service members this way.
    Mr. Hollinger. I have one more thing to point out on that. 
I think that forced arbitration is one of the very few spots in 
law that allows you to waive your rights. That and the 517 
Waiver, that is a totally different topic. There are very few 
instances as an employee that you are allowed to waive your 
employment rights, and this just happens to be one of them, and 
I think we are always going to see negative impact from it.
    Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Takano. I yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you. Thank you all for attending this 
meeting, this hearing rather. I appreciate the discussion today 
and your written testimony again, I have read it in its 
totality about how to improve several of the bills. We have got 
to continue to work together to solve these issues for the 
veterans and service members, the issues that they face today.
    However, we have to do this in a fiscally responsible way. 
As my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand, we have 
very limited offsets because we are under the PAYGO system, and 
we have got to find ways to reduce the cost of bills while 
delivering the original intent of the bill. I want that to be 
exceptionally clear with everyone. We are here to serve you. I 
look forward to working with Ranking Members both Levin and 
Takano and the rest of the folks on this committee to get that 
done serving you. With that, I yield to the Ranking Member 
Takano for any concluding remarks you may have, sir.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairman Van Orden. I do not have 
any further comments, and I yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Takano. Again, 
thank you very much for your participation in today's hearing. 
I have received a number of statements for the record which 
will be submitted into the record as long as they meet 
submission requirements.
    I ask for unanimous consent that all members may have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend the remarks and include 
extraneous materials. Without objection, so ordered. This 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
  
      
=======================================================================


                         A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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


                    Prepared Statement of Witnesses

                              ----------                              


                  Prepared Statement of Joseph Garcia

    Good afternoon, Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and 
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 
before you today to discuss several bills that would affect the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) programs and services. Accompanying 
me today is Melissa Cohen, Deputy Executive Director, Outreach, 
Transition, and Economic Development and Monica Diaz, Executive 
Director, Homeless Program Office.

H.R. 491 Return Home to Housing Act

    H.R. 491 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2012(a)(2)(B) to clarify that 
VA can adjust per diem rates under the Homeless Grant and Per Diem 
(GPD) program as the Secretary considers appropriate, including in 
response to an emergency. It would also increase the maximum cap on per 
diem rates to 200 percent of the rate authorized for State homes for 
domiciliary care (an increase from the current limit of 115 percent for 
Veterans experiencing homelessness and 150 percent for a Veterans 
experiencing homelessness who are placed in housing that will become 
permanent).
    VA supports this bill, if amended. Specifically, VA recommends 
amending 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2016 to increase the authorization of 
appropriations for the GPD program from $257.7 million to $ 400million 
for FY 2024 and such sums as may be necessary in each subsequent fiscal 
year. This amendment would provide VA the clear authority to provide 
necessary resources to assist Veterans experiencing homelessness 
through the GPD program and would align with VA's FY 2024 legislative 
proposal.
    VA estimates the bill, as amended, would cost a total of 
approximately $296.0 million in FY 2024, $304.0 million in FY 2025, 
$1.56 billion over 5 years, and $3.31 billion over 10 years. Compared 
to the authorized level of $257.7 million, this would be an increase of 
$38 million for FY 2024, approximately $272 million for the 5-year 
period from FY 2024 through FY 2028 and approximately $737 million for 
the 10-year period from FY 2024 through FY 2033.
    The projected costs estimated here are lower than the projected 
costs estimated in VA's FY 2024 legislative proposal because 
adjustments are made to align with the new transitional housing grants 
scheduled to start on October 1, 2023, when VA will be awarding fewer 
beds compared to previous projections. The decrease reflects actual 
needs in communities as expressed by applicants. This information was 
not available before now. Additionally, VA anticipates a modest 
decrease in authorized beds over time consistent with recent 
utilization trends. The costs projected here also have been updated to 
include the most recent State Home rate for domiciliary care, effective 
April 2023.
    VA appreciates the goals of the legislation and is grateful for the 
attention that is being given to ensure that Veterans have access to 
the highest standard of transitional supportive housing and services. 
As written, VA expects to be able to fully implement this bill, as 
amended, immediately upon enactment.

H.R. XXX HOME Act of 2023

    Section 2 of the draft HOME Act of 2023 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
2012 to clarify that VA can adjust per diem rates under the Homeless 
GPD program in certain situations; it would establish the maximum per 
diem rate for all Veterans experiencing homelessness at 140 percent; 
this would represent an increase from 115 percent for some Veterans 
experiencing homelessness, but a decrease from 150 percent for others. 
The HOME Act of 2023 also would allow VA to waive the maximum per diem 
rates and provide such payments at a rate that does not exceed 200 
percent of the rate authorized for State homes for domiciliary care 
under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1741(a)(1)(A) if VA notified Congress and 
determined the grant recipient or eligible entity furnished services to 
Veterans experiencing homelessness in a rural or highly rural area, an 
area with a high rate of suicide among Veterans, or an area with a high 
rate of homelessness among Veterans. VA could not waive the maximum 
rate for more than 10 percent of all grant recipients and eligible 
entities in a fiscal year, and VA could not provide more than 10,500 
payments under this section in a fiscal year.
    Section 2 would also add a new subsection (f) to 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
2012 requiring VA to submit to Congress a report within 90 days of 
enactment and not less frequently than twice each year thereafter on 
the rate for per diem payments under this section for each Veterans 
Integrated Service Network (VISN). VA would have to report the average 
rate for such a payment, a list of locations where the rate for such a 
payment is within 10 percent of the maximum rate for such a payment, 
and the average length of stay by a participating Veteran.
    VA does not support section 2 of the bill. The provisions of this 
bill are not aligned with current implementation structures and VA 
projects, and as such, they risk disrupting progress toward our shared 
goal of removing barriers to housing stability for the Nation's 
vulnerable Veterans. Moreover, placing this level of prescriptive 
detail in statute imposes unnecessary restrictions on VA's resources 
and limits VA's ability to adapt to changes in circumstances quickly 
and effectively.
    To implement the level of detail included in section 2, VA would 
likely need to promulgate regulations, which could significantly delay 
VA's ability to implement this rate increase efficiently and fully if 
enacted by Congress. Community providers of transitional supportive 
housing and services, as well as the Veterans they serve, urgently need 
the increased support as quickly as possible. Additionally, reducing 
the maximum rate of payments from what VA requested recently (200 
percent) to what is proposed in the bill (140 percent) is insufficient 
to meet the needs of many grantees in communities that experience a 
high cost of care, grantees who provide decongregated housing, and 
grantees who have limited ability to secure alternate sources of 
funding to support their operations.
    Because VA increasingly expects grantees to provide more and better 
staffing and services, the President's FY 2024 Budget request included 
a VA proposal to raise the maximum rate of per diem for the GPD program 
to 200 percent. Reducing the maximum rate of payments from 150 percent 
to 140 percent under clause (ii) for approximately 600 authorized 
transitional housing beds that become the Veteran's permanent housing 
could result in grantees withdrawing from the program due to 
insufficient funding. This housing model provides the most 
individualized accommodations (private apartments) for Veterans of any 
of the housing models offered by VA. Private facilities like these 
protect Veterans' safety, health and dignity better than congregate 
facilities. They are well-suited to serve distinct populations, such as 
women, families and those with minor dependents. Private accommodations 
are precisely what VA, Congress and communities have been requesting 
and supporting. In section 711 of the Jeff Miller and Richard 
Blumenthal Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2016 
(Public Law 114-315), Congress incentivized this housing model by 
establishing a higher reimbursement rate than for other transitional 
housing. By cutting this established rate, the bill would risk a 
further decrease in supportive housing resources needed for Veterans 
and communities.
    VA does not support the limited waiver authority for rates this 
bill would establish. Specifically, the stated criteria (rurality, 
suicide rates and homelessness rates) do not necessarily relate 
directly to a particular community's need for transitional supportive 
housing or the cost of that housing. To the extent that they cause or 
are correlated with higher costs, the existing requirements for 
calculating a per diem rate already allow adjustments for the actual 
cost of care and for locality. VA recommends allowing for such criteria 
to influence its per diem rate decisions but not requiring that they be 
the only and necessary factors for waiver requests. Criteria such as 
performance results, cost-effectiveness and local demand continue to be 
foundational criteria when making decisions about limited resources. We 
note that grantees are not automatically eligible to request the 
maximum per diem rate--they are only eligible to request the actual 
cost of care up to the maximum rate.
    Moreover, the criteria in the bill are not defined by readily 
available tools, are continuously fluctuating targets, and would not 
necessarily parallel with the geographic boundaries of a VISN, VA 
medical center catchment area or grantee service area. The natural 
occupancy and vacancy levels in transitional supportive housing 
projects ebb and flow from day to day and month to month during any 
given year as Veterans enter and discharge from the program. Some 
localities experience seasonal variations in bed demand. Establishing a 
limit in statute would not allow VA to be agile in responding to 
fluctuating community needs over time. Implementing these criteria 
would be unduly burdensome and detract from resources needed for 
veteran care.
    Limiting per diem to 140 percent instead of 200 percent is not 
expected to result in proportional cost savings because a higher 
percentage of grantees are expected to request at or near the maximum 
per diem rate (to meet their costs needs). Comparatively, if the rate 
limit were set at 200 percent a lesser percentage of grantees are 
expected to be at the maximum rate. Historically, GPD grantees have not 
requested the maximum available per diem rate; they request the rate 
needed to support their actual costs of care. For example, at the 
beginning of this fiscal year when the maximum per diem rate was 
approximately $157, the average GPD rate was closer to $84, with rates 
ranging from $34.11 to $156.71. During this time more than 150 grantees 
had rates above $78.54, which is what the maximum per diem rate would 
be if per diem was limited to 140 percent. Experience shows that 
grantee funding needs are variable depending on a variety of factors. 
For some grantees, providing insufficient funding can negatively impact 
the scope of services, quality of care, or even their ability to 
continue operations. Therefore, a higher rate of 200 percent is cost-
effective and necessary to ensuring that Veterans have options 
available nationwide when they find themselves in a housing crisis.
    Other provisions of concern are only authorizing rate waivers to 10 
percent of grant recipients per year and limiting VA to providing not 
more than 10,500 payments per fiscal year, as these limits could 
negatively impact resources for Veterans; the latter limit (not more 
than 10,500 payments) also is unclear, as we think this is intended to 
refer to 10,500 beds. Including a bed limit in statute is not necessary 
as the numbers of Veterans experiencing homelessness naturally limits 
the appropriate number of beds. VA adjusts bed capacity in an 
intentional and strategic way to support the demand. The flexibility to 
respond to an increased demand for bed capacity within the limits of 
funding availability is an essential authority to avoid the risk of 
Veterans being unhoused.
    VA has announced funding opportunities for Per Diem Only (PDO) and 
Transition in Place (TIP) grants that will begin in FY 2024 and expects 
to award approximately 10,500 PDO beds and 600 TIP beds. These 
anticipated awards are expected to exceed the bed limits proposed in 
section 2. Regarding the limits on rate waivers, we are concerned these 
could create implementation barriers that would make operation of the 
program more difficult without achieving any clear or apparent goal. As 
written, grantees may require a waiver for a portion of a year, but if 
they do not require a waiver until later in the year, the 10 percent 
cap may have already been reached, leaving VA no flexibility and 
Veterans experiencing homelessness at risk. VA is also concerned about 
the requirement to notify Congress of the need for a waiver, as this 
would create undue delay in operating the programs and serving 
Veterans. It is unclear from the bill language if congressional 
approval is required prior to approving the waiver. Codifying this 
level of specificity regarding bed limits would hinder VA's ability to 
respond to community needs.
    VA identified several technical issues with section 2 and 
appreciates the opportunity to further discuss how to best support this 
initiative with the Committee.
    Section 3 of the draft HOME Act of 2023 would amend section 2 of 
the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016, as amended, as it relates to 
VA's ability to enter into or renew any lease or land-sharing agreement 
at the West Los Angeles Campus. Specifically, if VA's Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) determined, as part of an audit report or 
evaluation, that VA was not in compliance with Federal laws relating to 
leases and land use at the Campus, or that significant mismanagement 
has occurred with respect to leases or land use at the Campus, VA could 
not enter into any new lease or land-sharing agreement, or renew any 
such lease or land sharing agreement, until VA submits to Congress 
notice in writing of whether VA concurred or not with each 
recommendation included in the audit report or evaluation and, in the 
case of a non-concurrence, the reason for such non-concurrence. 
Further, section 3 of the draft HOME Act would add a new subsection (n) 
to section 2 of the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 that would 
provide that notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 1302, 38 U.S.C. 8122, or any 
other provision of law, consideration for a lease made pursuant to the 
West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 may include consideration other 
than money.
    VA supports this section 3 of this bill. Since enactment of the 
West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 (West LA Leasing Act; Public Law 
114-226), VA has made significant strides in the multi-year plan to 
redevelop the West LA Campus into a thriving community for homeless and 
at-risk Veterans and their families, consistent with VA's West Los 
Angeles Campus Master Plan. VA continues to work to restore the trust 
of Veterans and local stakeholders and ensure that all activities on 
the West LA Campus benefit Veterans. As a natural extension of that 
progress, VA believes the ability to make final determinations to renew 
or enter into new land use agreements and leases on the West LA Campus 
should be within the Secretary's authority.
    VA and VA OIG have differed in their interpretation of several 
provisions of the West LA Leasing Act. As a result, there are currently 
five land use agreements that are at an impasse due to outstanding VA 
OIG recommendations with which VA cannot concur because we do not agree 
with the underlying legal analysis. Without a statutory amendment, 
these recommendations will remain open until the agreements expire. 
This section would grant VA the autonomy to interpret and implement its 
authorities and make land use decisions consistent with those 
authorities. While VA will continue to make those determinations in 
consultation with VA OIG and remain accountable to Congress, this 
section would allow VA a greater degree of control in the future 
development of the West LA Campus.
    VA also supports the addition of the proposed subsection (n) that 
would explicitly permit in-kind consideration for land use agreements 
on the West LA Campus. While VA has not interpreted the West LA Leasing 
Act or other authorities as prohibiting the use of in-kind 
consideration for land use agreements on the West LA Campus, the VA OIG 
has. This amendment would clarify that in-kind contributions are 
permissible and help VA derive the greatest benefit for Veterans from 
all land use agreements on the West LA Campus.
    This section does not directly impact VA homeless program 
operations, and is not urgently needed to support VA homeless services. 
This stands in stark contrast to some other sections in this package, 
which share broad support, and which are urgently needed if VA is to 
continue its progress in reducing Veteran homelessness. While VA 
supports this section, VA would support de-coupling this section from 
the other sections in this package to expedite progress on this bill.
    Section 4(a) of the draft HOME Act of 2023 would authorize VA to 
use amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to VA to carry out 
38 U.S.C. 2011, 2012, 2031, or 2061 to provide to covered Veterans: (1) 
assistance required for the safety and survival of the Veteran (such as 
food, shelter, clothing, blankets, and hygiene items); (2) 
transportation required to support the stability and health of the 
Veteran (such as transportation for appointments with service 
providers, the conduct of housing searches, and the obtainment of food 
and supplies); (3) communications equipment and services (such as 
tablets, smartphones, disposable phones, and related service plans) 
required to support the stability and health of the Veteran (such as 
through the maintenance of contact with service providers, prospective 
landlords, and family members); and (4) such other assistance as VA 
determines necessary. Covered Veterans would be defined in section 4(e) 
to mean Veterans experiencing homelessness and Veterans participating 
in the Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive 
Housing (HUD-VASH) Program under section 8(o)(19) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(19)).
    VA supports section 4(a), if amended. This subsection is very 
similar to a VA FY 2024 legislative proposal #75 (Flexibility in the 
provision of assistance to Homeless Veterans). VA recommends, 
consistent with its legislative proposal, this authority be codified in 
title 38, for example in a new section 2069, to ensure that it is 
easily referenced and clearly identifiable for the public in the 
future. This proposal would continue the authority VA was able to use 
during the COVID-19 public health emergency to provide additional 
assistance and support to homeless Veterans experiencing homelessness 
and Veterans participating in HUD-VASH to great effect.
    Section 4(b) of the draft HOME Act of 2023 would authorize VA to 
collaborate, to the extent practicable, with one or more organizations 
to manage the use of VA land for Veterans experiencing homelessness for 
living and sleeping. Collaboration that would be authorized by this 
provision could include the provision of food services and security, by 
either VA or the head of the organization concerned, for VA property, 
buildings, and other facilities.
    VA supports section 4(b) of this bill. VA recommends codifying this 
authority in title 38. VA's FY 2024 legislative proposal proposed by 
sections 4(a) and (b) of the draft HOME Act of 2023 would be codified 
at 38 U.S.C. Sec.  2069(a) and (b), respectively.
    Section 4(c) of the draft HOME Act of 2023 would require VA, not 
later than one year from the date of enactment of this Act, to submit 
to Congress a report that includes a statement, disaggregated by each 
VA medical center (VAMC), of the amount of funds under this section 
each VAMC requested and the amount provided to each VAMC, data 
(disaggregated by VAMC) relating to how each such VAMC used amounts 
provided by VA, the total amount of assistance VA provided to covered 
Veterans for ridesharing, the number of covered Veterans who received 
such assistance, and a description, for each rideshare used by a 
covered Veteran with such assistance, of the reasons such covered 
Veteran used such rideshare.
    VA supports section 4(c) of this bill, with amendments. VA 
recommends changing the reporting requirements of this provision to 
include aggregated data only to avoid unnecessary administrative 
burdens.
    Section 4(d) of the draft HOME Act of 2023 would provide that the 
authority under this section would terminate on September 30, 2024.
    VA does not support section 4(d) of this bill. We do not believe a 
statutory time limit would provide stability and assurance to Veterans 
experiencing homelessness and Veterans participating in HUD-VASH. VA 
suggests a permanent authority instead, since this would provide 
assurances for Veterans and likely would result in lower per capita 
costs to the Department, as VA could negotiate contracts that could 
cover multiple years (provided appropriations are available for such 
purposes). Operating with a shorter statutory authority would prevent 
VA from such long-term arrangements and would likely result in higher 
costs. VA already has several years of experience exercising the 
authority that would be granted by section 4(a) and (b) and does not 
believe another short-term extension is necessary.

HR XXX Authorizing representatives of VSOs to promote membership in 
such organizations during TAP counseling.

    The proposed legislation would amend title 10, United States Code, 
to authorize representatives of Veterans Service Organizations to 
promote membership in such organizations during pre-separation 
counseling under the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) of the 
Department of Defense (DoD), and for other purposes.
    Section 2(a) would add an additional paragraph under 10 U.S.C. 
Sec.  1142(b) for a presentation during TAP on promoting the benefits 
of joining a Veterans Service Organization (VSO). This presentation 
would be offered by a national representative of a VSO recognized under 
38 U.S.C. Sec.  5902 and will include information on assistance in 
filing claims for benefits under laws administered by the Secretaries 
of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Section 2(a) would prohibit the VSOs 
from encouraging a transitioning Service member to join a particular 
VSO and limits the presentation to no more than one hour in length. 
Section 2(b) would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, not less 
than once each year after enactment, to submit a report that identifies 
each VSO that presented under section 2(a); contains the number of 
transitioning Service members that attended the presentation; and 
presents any recommendations regarding changes to the presentation.
    VA does not object to this bill but offers several amendments for 
consideration. The inclusion of VSOs in TAP recognizes the importance 
of providing access to information on community resources for a 
successful transition to civilian life. VSO partnership is critical in 
assisting transitioning Service members and Veterans in navigating VA 
benefits and services. Utilizing a trained VSO to advocate on a Veteran 
or Service member's behalf is vital to our success as a department.
    VA strives to provide valuable information to transitioning Service 
members during the ``one day of instruction regarding benefits under 
laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs'' per P.L. 115-
232, Section 552. Specifically, the one-day VA Benefits and Services 
course provides Service members and their families the skills, 
resources and tools needed to support emotional and physical health, 
career readiness, and economic stability in civilian life. In order to 
continue providing a standardized, measurable, and high-quality 
experience for all transitioning Service members participating in the 
VA Benefits and Services course, VA recommends the following amendments 
to this bill and welcomes the opportunity to provide further assistance 
to the Committee, if requested.

Recommended amendments:

      Sec. 2(a) ``(20)'' Line 8: Strike ``joining'' insert 
``utilizing/using''

      Sec. 2(a) ``(20)(B)'' Lines 11-12: Strike ``shall be 
previously reviewed and approved by the Secretary of Affairs;'' and 
insert ``shall be reviewed by an appropriate program office for 
accuracy and approved through the Transition Assistance Interagency 
Working Group;''

      Sec. 2(a) ``(20)(G)'': Strike ``length.''.'' and insert 
``length;''
      Sec. 2(a) ``(20)'' INSERT: ``(H) Such presentations will 
be provided at no monetary cost to the Government;
      Sec. 2(a) ``(20)'' INSERT: ``(I) is subject to Veteran 
Service Organization staffing, availability, and access to DOD 
installations; and''
      Sec. 2(a) ``(20)'' INSERT: ``(J) will be scheduled for 
times and dates as determined by the Department of Affairs.''.

    VA recommends Department of Defense (DoD) review and respond on 
proposed legislation, as this changed Title 10 legislation and TAP is 
owned by DoD, and DoD is responsible for granting access to 
installations and bases.

    General Operating Expenses (GOE) for this bill are estimated at 
$1.2 million for FY 2024 (estimate includes salary, benefits, rent, 
travel, supplies, other services, and equipment), $3.5 million over 5-
years and $3.5 million over 10-years.

H.R. XXX Making digital transcripts available to eligible persons at 
educational institutions

    The proposed legislation would amend section 3675(b) of title 38, 
United States Code, by adding a new paragraph that would require 
educational institutions to make available to each eligible person or 
Veteran a copy of their official transcript in a digital format.
    VA supports this bill, if amended. While the proposed legislation 
would make it easier for certain and eligible persons to obtain their 
transcripts, VA notes that the placement of this requirement, solely in 
38 U.S.C. Sec.  3675, means it will not be applicable to accredited 
public institutions of higher learning (IHLs), accredited private (not-
for-profit) IHLs, or non-accredited programs because the approval 
requirements for these institutions and programs are located in 38 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  3672 and 3675. Therefore, many eligible beneficiaries 
would not benefit from this change. All GI Bill students enrolled in 
standard college degree programs should benefit from this change. 
``Transcripts'' are only applicable to standard college degree 
programs. While having records of training, non-college degree programs 
(including certificate programs) do not produce documents considered 
``transcripts;'' therefore, this provision is inapplicable to courses 
other than standard college degree programs. VA recommends the 
following amendments for consideration:

      Amend section 3672(b)(2)(A) by striking ``3675(b)(1) and 
(b)(2),'' and replace it with ``3675(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(5),'' and;

      Amend section 3676(c) by adding, at the end, a new 
paragraph (17) to read as follows: ``In the case of a course that leads 
to a standard college degree, the course satisfies the requirements of 
section 3675(b)(5) of this title.''

    VA also notes that the proposed legislation would be effective the 
date of enactment. VA recommends Congress consider a transition period 
for schools to comply with the new requirement. VA welcomes the 
opportunity to work with the Committee to provide technical assistance 
to ensure the legislation meets its intended goal.

H.R. XXX Making certain improvements in the administration of the 
educational assistance programs

    The proposed bill would amend title 38 of the United States Code, 
to make certain improvements in the administration of VA educational 
assistance programs, and for other purposes.
    Section 2 of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3680(a)(3) by 
striking language that referenced the monthly housing stipend in 38 USC 
Sec.  3313(c) and VA educational assistance under Chapters 30, 31, 32, 
33, 34, or 35 of title 38 or under Chapter 1606 of title 10. This 
section would also add a new subparagraph (B) to 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3680(a)(3) that would require VA to treat an eligible Veteran or 
eligible person as enrolled on more than a half-time basis for purposes 
of providing the monthly housing stipend during a period that is the 
last semester, term, or academic period.
    VA does not support section 2 of this bill. The monthly housing 
allowance (MHA) provided by the Post-9/11 GI Bill is a critical 
advancement in our Nation's commitment to providing Veterans with the 
necessary support to succeed in obtaining their educational goals after 
completing their honored service to our Nation. Congress recognized 
that full-time students need an MHA as a means of subsistence to 
alleviate a full-time student's stress - a student can concentrate on 
studying without having to worry about how they can afford to keep a 
roof over their head. VA has always been and remains committed to the 
importance of the MHA and is supportive of any initiatives from 
Congress to improve the MHA benefit.
    Unfortunately, this bill may decrease the MHA for many Veterans 
during their final semester, quarter, or term. The monthly housing 
allowance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is based on a student's actual 
rate of pursuit - the number of credit hours a student takes during the 
term divided by the number of credit hours needed to be considered 
full-time. Therefore, a student taking 9 credit hours as an 
undergraduate will have a rate of pursuit of 80 percent (9/12 = 0.75; 
VA rounds up to the nearest 10 percent). VA will pay the student 80 
percent of the full-time MHA. This bill, however, would have VA replace 
80 percent with ``more than half-time.'' There is no payment rate for 
``more than half-time'' and the bill's intent is unclear where the 
language directs VA to ``treat the veteran or person as pursuing a 
program of education on more than a half-time basis.'' VA suggests 
clarifying language on how this instruction would translate into a 
percentage of the MHA and therefore a dollar amount. As written, it is 
unclear if the intent of proposed 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3680(a)(3)(B) is to 
authorize students the minimum housing rate in their final term. If 
this is the intent, this section would be detrimental to all students 
with a rate of pursuit greater than 54 percent as this section would 
reduce their MHA payments down to 50 percent of the full-time MHA (VA 
rounds rate of pursuit to the nearest 10 percent; a student with a rate 
of pursuit ``more than half-time'' may be presumed to have a rate of 
pursuit of 51 percent which would then be rounded to 50 percent). The 
above example student would only be paid 60 percent of the MHA instead 
of the 80 percent they are currently entitled to receive.
    Additionally, the provisions of this bill could create inequity 
between participants in the Chapter 31 program and participants in 
other VA education programs. The proposed bill allows for participants 
in Chapter 31 to be treated as attending the last term or semester as 
full-time students; however, it does not provide Chapter 31 the 
authority to pay a monthly subsistence allowance under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3108. VA would propose to remove Chapter 31 from the statutory 
authority as VA already has the authority to provide what is necessary 
for a Veteran to achieve a successful rehabilitation program.
    Mandatory costs would be associated with section 2 of this bill, 
but VA is unable to estimate costs due to the ambiguity of the 
legislative text. This section states that VA, ``shall treat the 
Veteran or person as pursuing a program of education on more than a 
half-time basis.'' VA does not have a payment rate for ``more than 
half-time.'' It is therefore unclear what rate of pursuit these 
individuals should be categorized as.
    Section 3 would add a new 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3699C, which would 
prohibit VA from implementing a rule that relates to any VA educational 
assistance program that is not subject to notice requirements under 
section 553(b)(A) of title 5, prior to the date that is 180 days from 
that date of notifying and providing justification to students, 
educational institutions, and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of 
the Senate and House of Representatives on the rulemaking.
    VA does not support section 3 of this bill. Our stakeholders, 
including students, educational institutions, and Members of Congress, 
are critical partners in the development of sound, practical policies 
that achieve our goals in the most efficient ways possible. VA is 
committed to transparency and active engagement and communication with 
our partners. We will continue to communicate when it comes to changes, 
including the development and implementation of new policies. This bill 
would decrease VA's ability to make changes efficiently to improve the 
administration of VA educational assistance programs as it would add 
unnecessary delays in VA's implementation of necessary rule changes and 
improvements that provide more immediate support to students in their 
educational pursuits.
    No mandatory costs are associated with section 3. This would not 
change entitlement to benefits, and VA cannot predict what regulatory 
changes would be delayed by this change.
    Section 4 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3673A(d) to require the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or a State-approving agency to provide 
not more than two business days of notice to an educational institution 
before conducting a targeted, risk-based survey of the institution.
    VA supports section 4 of this bill.
    There are no mandatory costs associated with section 4 of this 
bill. This would not change entitlement to benefits.
    Section 5 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3679(f)(1) to remove 
subparagraph (A), which requires the State-approving agency or the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, when acting in the role of State-
approving agency to take certain adverse actions if an educational 
institution did not provide information about the costs to attend the 
institution, financial aid available and student debt upon graduation, 
rates of graduation and job placement, ability to transfer credits, and 
other relevant information that students may consider when selecting a 
course of education at an institution.
    Section 5 would also make two technical corrections in subsection 
(e) of 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3679 by removing ``chapter 31 33'' both places 
it appears and inserting ``chapter 31, 33'' and in 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3679(f)(4)(A)(iii) by adding a period at the end.
    VA does not support section 5 of this bill. This provision would 
remove valuable consumer protections for Veterans and their dependents. 
Per Sec.  3676(f)(1)(A), schools are required to provide information 
(essentially data points) to students which allow them to be well-
informed consumers on how to make the best choice on how to build their 
future. Importantly, the data points contained in subparagraph (A) are 
ones that can only be provided by the school (e.g., cost of the 
program, graduation rates, job placement rates for graduates, transfer 
policies). If the school does not provide this information, the Veteran 
student is unaware of potential drawbacks in selecting their choice of 
school until after it is too late. Though portions of this information 
may be available from other sources, VA does not support placing any 
burden and cost associated with gathering this information on the 
Veteran. It is far more efficient and less costly to require schools to 
gather and package that information and provide it directly to the 
Veteran as is currently required by subparagraph (A). Therefore, VA 
values retaining subparagraph (A) and does not support its removal as 
proposed in section 5 of this bill.
    There are no mandatory costs are associated with section 5 of this 
bill. This would not change entitlement to benefits.
    Section 6 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3675(b) to authorize the 
State-approving agency, or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs when 
acting in the role of a State-approving agency the right to waive the 
requirement that an educational institution be approved and participate 
in a program under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 for 
multiple years.
    VA supports section 6 of this bill. However, VA does not anticipate 
any substantive change due to this amendment; the Secretary's current 
waiver authority is not limited to 1 year, and thus VA currently has 
the statutory authority to issue waivers for multiple years.
    There are no mandatory costs associated with section 6 of this 
bill. VA already has statutory authority to issue multi-year waivers.

H.R. XXX The Native American Direct Loan Improvement Act of 2023

    This proposed bill would amend title 38 of the United States Code 
to improve the program for direct housing loans made to Native American 
veterans and to authorize the Secretary to make loans to Native 
community development institutions to relend those funds to qualified 
Native American Veterans, and for other purposes.
    Section 2(a) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3762(a) and (b) by giving 
VA more flexibility when working with Tribal organizations that want to 
participate in the Native American Direct Loan (NADL) program. Where 
current law requires VA to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU) with the Tribal organization having jurisdiction over a Veteran 
before VA can make a NADL program loan, discretion the bill would 
authorize the Secretary to make a NADL program loan under a variety of 
agreements, including an MOU, which would essentially make the MOU 
discretionary.
    VA supports section 2(a) of this bill, subject to cost offsets and 
appropriations. The change would help VA overcome current statutory 
barriers to NADL program loans in Alaska, where a Regional Corporation 
or Village Corporation does not have legal jurisdiction over the 
Veteran. It would also decrease the amount of time and frustration 
Tribal organizations, Veterans, and VA personnel encounter during the 
MOU process, which can take months or sometimes even years due to the 
administrative burdens associated with MOUs.
    Section 2(b) would amend section 3762(h) by giving Native American 
Veterans on trust land more opportunity to refinance their home loans. 
Current law restricts refinances under the NADL program, such that 
Native American Veterans on trust land are only allowed to refinance 
other NADL program loans.
    VA supports section 2(b) of this bill, subject to cost offsets and 
appropriations. Section 2(b) would allow VA to offer a range of 
refinance options to Native American Veterans living on trust land, 
including certain cash-out and construction refinances of loans that 
were not originated by VA. The change would provide more parity with 
Veterans who benefit from a variety of refinances in the guaranteed 
loan program and would help Native Americans on trust land move from 
less advantageous loan products into NADL program loans that better fit 
their financial needs, often with a lower-than-market interest rate. 
(For example, the current interest rate for a NADL program loan is 2.5 
percent, including refinances, compared to non-NADL interest rates, 
which are currently around 7 percent.)
    Section 2(c) would amend section 3762(i) by improving VA's ability 
to help Native American Veterans on trust land qualify for NADL program 
loans.
    VA supports section 2(c) of this bill. This provision would allow 
VA to draw from the expertise of Tribal organizations, Tribally 
designated housing entities, Native community development financial 
institutions, nonprofit organizations, and other local service 
providers to help Native American Veterans with financial counseling, 
homebuyer education, and post-purchase education. VA could also rely on 
the organizations for technical assistance and attend conferences 
sponsored by Native community development financial institutions and 
other Native American homeownership organizations to provide 
information and training.
    Section 2(d) would add new section 3762(k) to ensure that VA 
assigns adequate personnel to the NADL program. The new subsection 
would specifically address the need for assigning construction and 
valuation specialists to assist with issues unique to new construction 
and renovations on trust land.
    VA supports section 2(d) of this bill, subject to cost offsets and 
appropriations. VA estimates that the provision would require VA to 
assign at least six new personnel to fulfill anticipated increases in 
workload and outreach associated with section 2 of this bill. Six of 
the new personnel would be to fulfill anticipated increases in workload 
and outreach associated with section 2 of this bill. The cost estimate 
for section 2 of this bill also incorporates three additional NADL 
personnel requested in the FY 2024 President's Budget needed to ensure 
adequate personnel are assigned to the NADL program.
    Section 2(e) would amend section 3765 by adding new definitions and 
revising current definitions, for the purpose of carrying out the 
various provisions of the bill.
    VA supports section 2(e) of this bill. The new definition of trust 
land would help eliminate some of the statutory restrictions that have 
prevented Native American Veterans in places like Alaska from obtaining 
NADL program loans.
    Section 2(f) would make a conforming amendment to section 3729, the 
section that directs the Secretary to charge a statutory loan fee for 
VA home loans.
    VA supports section 2(f) of this bill. This provision would be 
necessary to ensure the proper statutory loan fee is charged, based on 
the type of refinance the Native American Veteran would obtain under 
subsection (b) of this bill.
    Section 2(g) would require VA to prescribe regulations to carry out 
the NADL program authority under subchapter 37, title 38 of the United 
States Code.
    VA supports section 2(g) of this bill.
    VA estimates section 2 would result in $0.2 million in benefits 
savings in the first year, $1.2 million over 5 years, and $2.3 over 10 
years. VA also estimates $1.6 million in new administrative costs in 
the first year, $8.0 million over 5 years, and $17.2 million over 10 
years.
    Section 3(a) would create a new 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3762A to authorize 
a new relending program and outline the program's purpose, standards, 
relending requirements, repayment terms, and oversight requirements.
    Section 3762A(b) would require VA to establish standards to 
evaluate whether to make a loan to a Native community development 
financial institution. The standards would, at a minimum, include VA's 
determination that the Native community development financial 
institution (NCDFI) is able to originate loans that align with the 
purpose of the NADL program and will operate the relending program in a 
manner consistent with VA's mission. The provision would also limit the 
NCDFI's use of VA's loan funds to relending to Native American 
Veterans.
    Section 3762A(c) and (e) would establish minimum requirements on 
the relending activities of the NCDFI and provide an oversight 
component. The requirements would ensure the NCDFIs' relending is 
consistent with the NADL program.
    The requirements would also mandate that VA carry out VA's 
oversight responsibilities in a manner similar to its oversight of 
lenders in the guaranteed loan program. VA agrees that participant 
oversight is a necessary function of any Government agency entrusted 
with the administering government funds and that the responsibility is 
even more heightened when carrying out the mission of serving Veterans, 
their families, and their caregivers. Nevertheless, VA views NCDFIs as 
valued potential lending partners and looks forward to solidifying 
strong relationships with NCDFIs if the relending program is enacted.
    Section 3762A(d) would require that the NCDFI repay the loan upon 
such terms and conditions as the Secretary prescribes in regulations. 
The provision would also set the interest rate on VA loans to NCDFIs at 
1 percent.
    VA supports section 3(a) of this bill, subject to cost offsets and 
appropriations. VA appreciates the proposed language of new section 
3762A(b), which aims to balance expanded access to NADL program funds 
with appropriate protections. VA also welcomes the minimum requirements 
and oversight components in proposed sections 3762A(c) and (e). These 
requirements would ensure the NCDFIs' relending is consistent with the 
NADL program. The requirements would also mandate that VA carry out 
VA's oversight responsibilities in a manner similar to its oversight of 
lenders in the guaranteed loan program. VA agrees that participant 
oversight is a necessary function of any Government agency entrusted 
with the administering government funds and that the responsibility is 
even more heightened when carrying out the mission of serving Veterans, 
their families, and their caregivers. Nevertheless, VA views NCDFIs as 
valued potential lending partners and looks forward to solidifying 
strong relationships with NCDFIs if the relending program is enacted. 
As for proposed section 3762A(d), As for proposed section 3762(d), VA 
believes that a dynamic interest rate could help mitigate costs of the 
new relending program, especially if the cost to the Government of 
borrowing funds increases, VA does not object to the 1 percent cap.
    Section 3(b) of the bill would direct that a clerical amendment be 
made to the table at the beginning of chapter 37, title 38 of the 
United States Code.
    VA supports section 3(b) of this bill. The change would be 
necessary to insert the reference to the new section 3762A.
    Section 3(b) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3763 to authorize the use 
of the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account to carry 
out the relending program. In FY 2024, VA would be authorized to use 
not more than $5,000,000 for relending to NCDFIs, and in any year after 
FY 2024, an amount determined necessary by the Secretary to meet loan 
demand.
    VA supports section 3(c) of this bill subject to cost offsets and 
appropriations. Section 3(c) would authorize the funding to help carry 
out the program. VA estimates that section 3 of the bill would result 
in $4.2 million in benefits costs in the first year, $20.2 million over 
5 years, and $41.9 million over 10 years. VA also estimates $.9 million 
in new administrative costs in the first year, $4.6 million over 5 
years, and $9.8 million over 10 years.

H.R. XXX Establishing Certain Employment and Reemployment Rights for 
Spouses of Members of the Uniformed Services

    This proposed bill would amend certain sections of title 38 of the 
United States Code to establish certain employment and reemployment 
rights for spouses of members of the uniformed services. VA defers to 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor regarding this 
bill.

H.R. XXX Improvements to Reemployment Rights of Members of the Armed 
Forces

    This proposed bill would amend certain sections of title 38 of the 
United States Code to improve the reemployment rights of members of the 
Armed Forces, and for other purposes. VA defers to the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Labor regarding this bill.

Conclusion

    This concludes my statement. We appreciate the committee's 
continued support of programs that serve the Nation's Veterans and look 
forward to working together to further enhance delivery of benefits and 
services.
                                 ______
                                 

                 Prepared Statement of James Rodriguez

                              Introduction

    Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and distinguished Members 
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. 
Accompanying me today is Paul Marone, Senior Compliance Policy Advisor 
for the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 
(USERRA) program. I again commend the Subcommittee for its continued 
efforts to promote economic opportunities for America's veterans and 
for exploring enhancements to workforce protections for service members 
and their spouses. As I previously testified in March, USERRA has 
protected the employment and reemployment rights of our Nation's 
uniformed service members for over 25 years and has played an important 
role in the recruitment, retention, and readiness of the All-Volunteer 
Force. I also appreciate meeting with you and your staff, Chairman Van 
Orden, to further discuss how USERRA could affect military spouses in 
the workplace. I look forward to future conversations with you and 
continuing the amicable relationship between the Chair and Ranking 
Member of this Subcommittee and the Department of Labor's (DOL) 
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS). VETS proudly 
administers USERRA, with the support of our interagency partners at the 
Department of Defense (DoD), Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve 
(ESGR), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Office of Special 
Counsel (OSC). I welcome the opportunity to offer technical assistance 
on two draft bills seeking to amend USERRA to enhance and expand its 
protections: the first, to provide additional enforcement and 
remediation tools not currently available under the existing statute, 
and the second, to expand USERRA's employment and reemployment 
protections to military spouses. These draft bills contain a workable 
framework to increase USERRA's ability to protect those who serve our 
Nation.
    It has been an honor to lead DOL VETS for the last two years. My 
wife Vanessa and I both served on active duty in the Marine Corps, and 
we have two wonderful daughters who in many ways grew up having to 
serve with us. So, this isn't just a job for me, it's my life's 
mission. Enhancing USERRA's employment and reemployment protections for 
service members and military spouses is a top priority at DOL VETS, and 
one that is informed by my own military family's lived experience and 
stories that I have heard from military spouses while traveling in my 
current role.
    I have been truly impressed by the talent, dedication, and 
commitment of our DOL VETS team, as well as by the high level of 
cooperation and collaboration with our interagency partners. The vision 
of VETS is to enable all veterans, service members, and military 
spouses to reach their full potential in the workplace. Living up to 
full potential does not just mean getting a job; it means maximizing 
the value of one's unique capabilities. By improving access to the 
employment and reemployment rights under USERRA and harnessing 
America's collective support for our military and their families, we 
help our veterans, transitioning service members, and military spouses 
reach their full potential. Achieving this vision not only helps 
veterans, service members, their families, and the organizations they 
serve, but it is also good for America's prosperity and security. 
Veterans, service members, and military spouses comprise some of the 
most capable, committed, and resilient talent pools in the Nation, and 
they have much to contribute to the national labor force and economy as 
we continue to emerge from the pandemic.

 The Importance of USERRA to National Security and Maintaining the All-
                            Volunteer Force

    When Congress enacted USERRA in 1994, it did so with three purposes 
in mind. First, to encourage service in the all-volunteer uniformed 
services by eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian 
careers and employment which can result from such service. Second, to 
minimize the disruption to the lives of persons performing such 
service, as well as to their employers, their fellow employees, and 
their communities, by providing for prompt reemployment of such persons 
upon completion of such service. Third, to prohibit discrimination 
against persons because of their service in the uniformed service. 
Congress has also stated its sense that the Federal Government should 
be a model employer in carrying out the provisions of USERRA.
    USERRA prohibits discrimination in employment based on an 
individual's prior service in the uniformed services; current service 
in the uniformed services; or intent to join the uniformed services. An 
employer is also prohibited from retaliating against a person because 
of such person's attempt to enforce their rights, or the rights of 
others, under the Act. In addition, an employer may not retaliate 
against an individual for filing a USERRA claim, testifying, or 
otherwise aiding in any proceeding under the Act. USERRA also provides 
reemployment rights with the pre-service employer following qualifying 
service in the uniformed services. In general, the protected person is 
entitled to be re-employed with the seniority, status, and rate of pay 
as if they had been continuously employed during the period of service. 
USERRA applies to private employers, the Federal Government, and State 
and local governments. It also applies to United States employers 
operating overseas and foreign employers operating within the United 
States.
    There were more than 1 million service members eligible for USERRA 
protections at the end of March 2023.\1\ This sum included 264,237 
members of the Reserve Components (RC) that are comprised of Reserve 
and National Guard troops and 862,921 members of the Active Components 
of the U.S. Armed Forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Total number of U.S. Armed Forces and Selected Reserves for 
March 31, 2023, reported by Department of Defense, Defense Manpower 
Data Center, in Armed Forces Strength Figures for March 31, 2023, and 
Selected Reserves by Rank/Grade for March 31, 2023, accessible at 
https://dwp.dmdc.osd.mil/dwp/app/dod-data-reports/workforce-reports. 
Note that the Army did not submit Personnel data as of March 2023, so 
these statistics are not all of DoD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USERRA provides fundamental support to our All-Volunteer Force. 
USERRA's reemployment protections ensure that our service members will 
not be penalized for temporarily leaving their civilian careers and 
employment when activated to defend our Nation. USERRA's anti-
discrimination provisions protect our veterans and service members from 
adverse employment actions motivated, at least in part, by their 
protected status as a past, present, or future member of the uniformed 
services. USERRA's anti-retaliation provisions ensure that anyone, 
regardless of their status in the uniformed services, can assert their 
own rights or defend the rights of others under USERRA, and be 
protected against retaliatory employment actions. The existence of 
these important rights, as well as Federal authority to investigate, 
resolve, and enforce violations of those rights, removes barriers to, 
relieves stress from, and recognizes service in, the uniformed 
services. By doing so, USERRA's employment and reemployment protections 
encourage and facilitate the recruitment, retention, and readiness of 
the All-Volunteer Force.

H.R. XXXX, to amend Title 38, United States Code, to Establish Certain 
   Employment and Reemployment Rights for Spouses of Members of the 
                           Uniformed Services

    This bill would amend multiple sections of USERRA to expand 
employment and reemployment protections under the statute to eligible 
military spouses. The President also proposed this policy in his Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2024 Budget \2\, and DOL VETS whole-heartedly supports the 
expansion of USERRA employment protections to eligible military 
spouses, and welcomes the opportunity to provide detailed technical 
assistance on the many nuanced and complex aspects of the bill where 
employment and reemployment protections for military spouses are 
derived from their service members qualifying service in the uniformed 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/general/budget/2024/CBJ-
2024-V1-10.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Barriers to military spouse employment negatively impact national 
security. Support for military spouse employment is important to the 
retention and readiness of the All-Volunteer Force. Maintaining 
traditional employment and advancing in careers while relocating every 
few years has historically been a hardship that military spouses have 
found extremely difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Extending 
USERRA's anti-discrimination and reemployment protections to eligible 
military spouses would limit barriers to military spouse employment.
    When a military spouse can build a successful career, it can also 
bolster a family's financial stability during the time when a service 
member transitions out of the military into civilian employment. 
Similarly, spouses' inability to find employment or their own job 
dissatisfaction can also increase family and relationship stress, lower 
overall satisfaction with the military, and affect retention decisions 
for service members. Military spouses also face economic challenges in 
qualifying for job-related benefits like career development 
opportunities and vesting of employer contributions to retirement 
funds. This can lead to lower lifetime earnings and inhibit the long-
term financial stability of the family.
    Service members' spouses' ability to obtain and retain appropriate 
employment is often integral to service members' decisions to reenlist 
in the uniformed services, and the Federal Government should be seeking 
additional ways to minimize disruptions to that ability and ensure 
readiness of the All-Volunteer Force. The impact of military spouses on 
retention and readiness of the all-volunteer force should not be 
minimized.
    Removing barriers to military spouse employment by extending anti-
discrimination and reemployment protections under USERRA to eligible 
military spouses would alleviate a significant stressor on military 
families and recognize the vital role of military spouses in the 
retention and readiness of the All-Volunteer Force. USERRA protections 
would also help military spouses build successful careers without 
frequent interruption and re-starts; bolster the financial stability of 
their families, especially during their service member's transition 
from military service to civilian life; and promote long-term financial 
stability for military families. Service members' spouses are critical 
to ensure military members' readiness, and this should not be 
forgotten.

   H.R. XXXX, to Amend Title 38, United States Code, to Improve the 
   Reemployment Rights of Members of the Armed Forces, and for Other 
                                Purposes

    This bill would amend multiple sections of USERRA to enhance and 
expand employment and reemployment protections under the statute, as 
well as various enforcement and remediation provisions directed toward 
States (as employers), private employers, and Federal executive 
agencies. As of the time that we reviewed the draft bill prior to the 
hearing, it would:

      Section 1(a) of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
4323(e) to enhance USERRA's provision authorizing injunctive relief 
available under the statute;

      Section 1(b) of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
4323(d) to expand USERRA's provisions authorizing liquidated damages 
against States (as employers) and private employers by adding a new 
minimum amount for such damages;

      Section 1(b) of this bill would also add a new 38 U.S.C. 
Sec.  4323(f) and amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  4324(c) to establish that the 
failure of States (as employers) and private employers, and Federal 
executive agencies, respectively, to provide notice of USERRA's rights 
and benefits to their employees as prima facie evidence of willfulness;

      Section 1(c) of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec.  4324(c) and 4323(h) to make the award of reasonable attorney 
fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses mandatory to 
the person prevailing on their USERRA complaint before the Merit 
Systems Protection Board or the court, respectively;

      Section 1(d) of this bill would repeal 38 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec.  4315 and 4325 to provide the same substantive and procedural 
rights and benefits to reemployment under USERRA, and enforcement of 
those rights and benefits, to employees employed by certain Federal 
agencies of the intelligence community referred to in 5 U.S.C. Sec.  
2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) as other eligible employees under the statute;

      Section 1(e) of this bill would amend 5 U.S.C. Sec.  
2302(b)(11)(A) to identify violations of USERRA as prohibited personnel 
practices by Federal employees who are authorized to take, direct 
others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action;

      Section 1(f) of this bill would add a new 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
4312(g) to provide employment protections in performance reviews for 
employees absent from civilian employment for the performance of 
service in the uniformed services;

      Section 1(g) of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
4303(13) to expand the definition of ``service in the uniformed 
service'' to include periods of absence from civilian employment for 
medical or dental treatment for a condition, illness, or injury 
incurred or aggravated during the performance of uniformed service; and

      Section 1(h) of this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
4301(a)(1) to clarify that a purpose of USERRA is ``to encourage 
service in the uniformed services,'' without the limitation that the 
service be ``noncareer.''

    DOL VETS supports many of the goals of the draft bill, especially 
those provisions that expand USERRA protections by removing limitations 
on types of employees protected under the statute and eligible for 
assistance from DOL VETS. Additionally, the bill seeks to expand the 
types of remedies available through litigation under USERRA before the 
courts or the Merit Systems Protection Board when DOL VETS is no longer 
involved in the matter, including injunctive relief, liquidated 
damages, reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other 
litigation costs. We welcome the opportunity to provide detailed 
technical assistance on the many aspects of this bill and would like 
the opportunity to consult and collaborate with our interagency 
partners at DOJ and OSC, specifically relating to the bill's 
enforcement and remediation provisions relating to States (as 
employers) and private employers, and Federal executive agencies, 
respectively.
    Additionally, in its FY 2021 DOL USERRA Annual Report to Congress, 
DOL VETS identified the following further areas of potential 
improvement to USERRA to empower service members to exercise their 
USERRA rights which the Committee may wish to consider:

      Currently, the statute governing USERRA does not 
explicitly supersede mandatory arbitration agreements in employment in 
the same way that it supersedes any other agreement that reduces, 
limits, or eliminates any right or benefit under USERRA. Also, USERRA 
does not State specifically that it protects both substantive and 
procedural rights and benefits in employment, such as the procedural 
right of adjudication of USERRA rights. The absence of statutory 
language in USERRA that agreements to arbitrate are unenforceable 
unless all parties consent to arbitration after a complaint on the 
specific claim has been filed in court or with the Merit Systems 
Protection Board, and all parties knowingly and voluntarily consent to 
have that claim subjected to arbitration, has resulted in contrary 
court decisions and confusion for employees and employers.

      Because USERRA does not authorize the Attorney General 
independently to investigate and file suit to challenge employment 
policies or practices that establish a pattern or practice of violating 
USERRA, it also does not preserve the right of the aggrieved service 
member to intervene in pattern or practice suits, or to bring their own 
suit where the Attorney General has declined to file suit.

      USERRA does not yet codify the U.S. Supreme Court's 
decision in Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 597 U.S._(June 
29, 2022), which held that States may not invoke sovereign immunity to 
avoid liability under USERRA. The Torres decision stands to improve the 
enforcement of reemployment rights under USERRA with respect to a state 
employer by allowing aggrieved service members and veterans to file 
suits against State employers in state and federal courts.

    Finally, in its FY 2021 DOL USERRA Annual Report to Congress, DOL 
VETS also identified the following areas of potential improvement to 
USERRA to strengthen the United States' ability to enforce USERRA and 
ensure that the statute is consistent with other civil rights laws:

      Although USERRA is applicable to Federal, State, and 
private employers, the Attorney General, acting on behalf of the United 
States, is not currently authorized to serve as a plaintiff in all 
USERRA suits, only in those suits filed against State employers.

      Currently, USERRA does not authorize the Attorney General 
independently to investigate and file suit to challenge employment 
policies or practices that establish a pattern or practice of violating 
USERRA. Such independent authority would significantly strengthen DOJ's 
ability to enforce USERRA to address a systemic violation (such as a 
policy prohibiting extended absences, including absences for uniformed 
service) that could adversely affect the employment rights of multiple 
service members.

      Similarly, USERRA does not empower the Attorney General 
with civil investigative demand authority to compel the production of 
existing documents and unsworn answers to written questions from the 
custodian of such documents. While DOL VETS has subpoena power in its 
investigations under USERRA, the Attorney General currently has no pre-
suit investigatory authority.

                      H.R. XXXX--TAP Promotion Act

    This bill would allow Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) to 
promote participation in VSOs during time reserved for the Transition 
Assistance Program (TAP) curriculum. VETS recognizes the utility of the 
military community affiliating with VSOs. It helps rebuild the 
community that is lost during transition from military service, it 
allows the Federal Government to disseminate information to the overall 
veteran community with greater ease, and VSOs support veterans to 
connect with federal, state, and local resources that they have earned 
through their service. However, VETS defers to the Department of 
Defense on how the TAP program would be impacted by this bill.

               Other Bills Considered by the Subcommittee

    It is our understanding that this Subcommittee may consider a 
number of other bills during this hearing, including:

      H.R. 491--Return Home to Housing Act.

      H.R. XXXX--Isakson-Roe Education Oversight Expansion Act.

      H.R. XXXX--Native American Direct Loan Improvement Act of 
2023.

      H.R. XXXX--Housing our Military Veterans Effectively 
(HOME) Act of 2023.

      H.R. XXXX--To amend title 38, United States Code, to 
require, as a condition of approval under the educational assistance 
programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, that educational 
institutions make available to eligible persons and veterans digital 
copies of official transcripts.

      H.R. XXXX--To amend title 38, United States Code, to make 
certain improvements in the administration of the educational 
assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for 
other purposes.

    As of the time that we reviewed these bills prior to the hearing, 
DOL defers to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other respective 
Departments where their equities are impacted. If they are amended in a 
way that impacts DOL, we would be happy to further review them and 
provide technical assistance upon request.

  Delivering Positive USERRA Outcomes for Both Employees and Employers

    Under USERRA, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor, through 
DOL VETS, to assist any person or entity with the employment and 
reemployment rights and benefits provided under the statute. Congress 
also authorized DOL VETS to take such outreach actions as deemed 
appropriate to inform both persons entitled to rights and benefits 
under USERRA and employers of the rights, benefits, and obligations of 
such persons and such employers under USERRA. DOL VETS conducts a 
robust public outreach campaign to educate service members, employers, 
and others on their rights and responsibilities under USERRA. Since the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which resulted in the single 
greatest mobilization of the Reserve and National Guard, DOL VETS has 
briefed more than one million individuals on USERRA.
    When DOL VETS is unable to resolve a USERRA issue through 
compliance assistance, a servicemember or veteran can submit a claim to 
DOL VETS for investigation. When this occurs, DOL VETS assigns the case 
to a trained USERRA investigator. On average over the past three years, 
DOL VETS has closed 943 cases for investigation per year. When DOL VETS 
investigators find a violation of USERRA, the investigator works 
diligently with both the claimant and the employer to resolve the case 
to the satisfaction of both parties. Of cases in which DOL VETS found a 
violation of USERRA in FY 2021, DOL VETS resolved 87 percent of those, 
which is the highest resolution rate in the history of the program.
    Upon completion of the investigation, if DOL VETS does not resolve 
the case to the claimant's satisfaction, DOL VETS advises the claimant 
in a closing letter of their right to have the case referred to either 
DOJ or to OSC, as appropriate, for consideration of legal 
representation at no cost to the claimant. If a claimant requests that 
their case be referred, DOL VETS must refer the claim regardless of 
whether VETS has determined that the submitted complaint was 
substantiated by the facts and evidence obtained during the 
investigation. Each DOL VETS' case referral contains a memorandum 
analyzing the USERRA claim and providing an assessment of whether the 
complaint was substantiated.
    Since my testimony in March, DOL VETS has undertaken the following 
steps to answer questions and address concerns raised by the 
Subcommittee regarding USERRA:

      On March 21, 2023, DOL VETS established a recurring 
USERRA Outreach Event to bring USERRA stakeholders together on a 
regular basis. The first meeting was held on May 4, 2023, with the 
following Federal partners and Veteran Service Organizations in 
attendance: DOL VETS, DOL Office of the Solicitor, DOJ, OSC, DoD ESGR, 
Reserve Organization of America (ROA), National Guard Association of 
the United States (NGAUS), and Enlisted Association of the National 
Guard of the United States (EANGUS). The next meeting will be scheduled 
in September 2023.

      On March 24, 2023, DOL VETS provided a copy of the USERRA 
VEOA VP Investigations Manual (the Manual), with limited redactions, to 
the Subcommittee. Limited redactions were made to the Manual provided 
to the Subcommittee on the advice of counsel to avoid inadvertent 
disclosures of DOL VETS' investigative techniques and procedures. 
Pursuant to a follow-up request from Subcommittee majority staff, on 
April 5, 2023, the Department's Office of Congressional and 
Intergovernmental Affairs also provided an in camera review of the 
unredacted Manual to Subcommittee staff. On May 23, 2023, I provided a 
copy of the Manual, with limited redactions, and provided an in camera 
review of the unredacted Manual to the Chairman.

      On April 13, DOL VETS convened an intra-agency meeting 
with representatives from DOL partners to develop the mechanisms 
necessary to collect the data points required by 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
4212(a)(2)(B). This development requires a joint effort with the 
Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the various State 
Workforce Agencies throughout the country, as well as a change in how 
employment data required to be reported is collected and shared among 
the responsible agencies. My staff is required to provide me with 
monthly reports on our progress in implementing this requirement.

      On May10, 2023, DOL VETS provided responses to Questions 
for the Record from the Subcommittee that arose from the hearing held 
on March 9, 2023. They included substantive answers to questions from 
the Subcommittee on USERRA, USERRA case statistics, employer trend data 
with charts, and projected caseload and costs if USERRA was expanded to 
protect military spouses.

      On May 11, 2023, in honor of Military Spouse Appreciation 
Day, DOL VETS hosted an in-person and live-streamed event with a panel 
of four military spouses called Military Spouses in the Workplace to 
discuss their experiences and how DOL VETS is striving to increase 
employment protections for military spouses, including to update USERRA 
to expand employment protections to military spouses.

 USERRA Funding via the DOL VETS' Federal Administration Appropriation

    As I have previously testified, the USERRA program is funded 
through the DOL VETS' Federal Administration/USERRA appropriations 
account. In addition to funding all of our enforcement activities, it 
also provides funding for our performance accountability systems, 
outreach, employer engagement, research, and all DOL VETS staff. In FY 
2022, the President's Budget request for the DOL VETS' Federal 
Administration/USERRA appropriations account was just over $52 million, 
but Congress only appropriated $46 million. In FY 2023, the President's 
Budget request for Federal Administration/USERRA appropriations account 
was nearly $54 million, but Congress only appropriated $47 million. 
Appropriated funding below the Budget requests have negatively impacted 
DOL VETS' ability to hire and train enough investigators to conduct 
USERRA investigations and other agency staff which support veterans and 
provide or connect them to the services they need.
    Notably, appropriated funding below the Budget request levels have 
also negatively impacted DOL VETS' efforts to digitally modernize our 
paperless VETS' Case Management system, otherwise known as the VCMS, 
that will enhance the customer service experience of our veterans, 
service members, their families, and their employers. The VCMS allows 
DOL VETS to collect, organize, and analyze investigative material for 
USERRA investigations. VETS investigators rely on VCMS to: timely 
collect, organize, and follow up on documentary evidence and witness 
interviews; correctly analyze investigative material; and to make 
accurate, consistent, and equitable determinations.
    USERRA investigations involve both domestic and sometimes 
international employers and claimants and are investigated using DOL 
VETS staff that are located in each state and territory in the United 
States, making the electronic case management system like the VCMS 
important.
    Lack of funding also endangers DOL VETS' ability to provide ongoing 
support for the VCMS, such as meeting the Section 508 requirements of 
the Rehabilitation Act, which requires the equitable filing and 
processing of claims from claimants who have protected status, 
including claimants with service-connected disabilities. Specifically, 
claimants who have a service-connected disability make up a significant 
portion of the cases filed with DOL VETS. In FY 2021, of the 1,117 
investigations conducted under USERRA, 33 percent of claims filed came 
from persons who self-identified as a veteran or service member with a 
service-connected disability.

                               Conclusion

    DOL VETS welcomes the opportunity to provide detailed technical 
assistance on the two bills seeking to enhance and expand employment 
and reemployment protections under USERRA, as well as the enforcement 
and remediation provisions of the statute. DOL VETS looks forward to 
working with the Subcommittee to ensure that USERRA continues to 
support our service members when they are called to serve our Nation, 
which remains of fundamental importance to the recruitment, retention, 
and readiness of the All-Volunteer Force. DOL VETS is committed to 
continued collaboration with our interagency partners to provide 
positive USERRA outcomes to employees and employers to minimize the 
disruption to the lives of veterans, service members, their families, 
their employers, their fellow employees, and their communities. DOL 
VETS requests your support for the President's FY 2024 Budget request 
for Federal Administration and USERRA, so that DOL VETS may continue to 
provide the high level of customer service that our veterans, service 
members, their families, and their employers deserve.
    Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, distinguished members of 
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to highlight the 
important work DOL VETS is doing in support of our veterans, service 
members, and military spouses who have served our country. I am happy 
to answer any questions you may have.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Prepared Statement of Patrick Murray

    Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, 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 provide our remarks on legislation pending before this 
subcommittee.

H.R. 491, Return Home to Housing Act

    The VFW supports this proposal to increase the rate of per diem 
payments for furnishing services to homeless veterans. The purpose of 
the transitional housing component of this program is to promote the 
development and provision of supportive housing and services with the 
goal of helping homeless veterans achieve residential stability, 
increase their skill levels and/or income, and obtain greater self-
determination. We also believe amending the code to allow for usage in 
response to an emergency is a strong addition to this program. This 
change would allow programs to assist veterans whose needs may be 
exacerbated by emergencies or natural disasters.

H.R. 3848, Housing our Military Veterans Effectively Act

    The VFW understands the goal of this proposal, but does not fully 
support it at this time and has suggestions for improvements. We 
appreciate the rate increase for domiciliary care provided to State 
Homes but are concerned the rate for placement into permanent housing 
is reduced in this proposal. We recommend both portions be increased 
due to the rising costs associated with housing homeless veterans. We 
understand this proposal also provides a waiver of the maximum grant 
rate, but VA has not effectively utilized waivers in the past so we do 
not have confidence they would be applied correctly where needed. We 
believe a simplified change in the rates instead of providing waiver 
authority would be better for the program recipients who need 
additional resources.
    The VFW has questions about Section 3 of this proposal to modify 
the authority of Public Law 114-226 by removing the requirement for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to comply with all federal laws 
relating to leases and land use on the West Los Angeles Campus. At this 
time, we are unaware of a particular burden that prohibits VA or its 
lessees from following the law, and we do not have any reason to 
support overturning this requirement.
    The VFW supports Section 4 of this proposal to authorize the use of 
certain funds for improved flexibility in assisting homeless veterans. 
However, we believe this authority should be permanent rather than just 
temporarily extended into next year. At a hearing before this 
subcommittee on March 30, 2023, representatives from VA described how 
instrumental these authorities were for housing veterans in need. We 
recommend amending this language to mirror that of H.R. 645, Healthy 
Foundations for Homeless Veterans Act, which would provide the 
flexibility VA needs to effectively provide services for homeless 
veterans.

H.R. 3874, Veterans Education Assistance Improvement Act

    The VFW supports this draft legislation that would provide 
improvements to VA educational assistance programs. Section 2 of the 
proposal would permit a student veteran to enroll in courses during the 
final semester of a degree program for a less than half-time course 
load- referred to as rounding out-and continue to receive full VA 
housing benefits. Many student veterans register for nontraditional or 
irregular course loads during a semester to balance their various 
responsibilities. Others may begin a new course of study after military 
service with some academic credit obtained during prior attendance. 
Accordingly, some student veterans end up taking a less than half-time 
course load during their final semester. This legislation would allow 
student veterans to focus on the completion of their studies without 
the burden of additional unnecessary requirements to continue receiving 
full VA education benefits. Additionally, it could potentially save the 
government money by not requiring student veterans to receive 
additional credits in order to reach the threshold for full housing 
stipends.
    Section 3 of this proposal would provide schools with a six-month 
period to implement any new VA educational assistance program 
rulemaking. The VFW strongly supports this provision as it would allow 
schools to implement program changes outside of peak times such as 
enrollment and registration. Providing this flexibility may help ensure 
continued participation in the programs by eliminating the perception 
that implementing changes is too cumbersome and, therefore, not worth 
the time and effort.
    Additionally, the VFW suggests that VA adopts a ``Master Calendar'' 
similar to the calendar used by the Department of Education (20 U.S. 
Code Sec.  1089) for standard regulation changes. This would set dates 
for when certain changes would be implemented for education 
regulations, for example by June 1, or the changes would fall to the 
next year. We believe the relevant parts of the Master Calendar should 
be adopted for VA education-related benefits in order to ease the 
burden of regulation changes put upon schools.
    Section 4 of this proposal would extend the time from one business 
day to two business days that schools have to complete risk-based 
surveys. Such surveys provide VA and State Approving Agencies (SAAs) a 
way to review and mitigate potential fraud, waste, and abuse. A short 
turnaround is meant to avoid giving time for schools to fabricate data. 
School officials indicated that a timeframe of only one day is not 
feasible, but extending the period of notice to two business days would 
enable them to provide all the necessary information to VA.
    The VFW supports Section 5 of this proposal that would repeal the 
requirement for schools to provide students receiving VA education 
benefits with a personalized ``shopping sheet.'' Within the language of 
the Forever GI Bill, Section 1018 codified in the statute that schools 
must provide students with a timely personalized Financial Aid Shopping 
Sheet covering the total cost of an education program. The goal was to 
inform students who are eligible to receive VA education benefits of 
the potential eligibility for federal financial aid before turning to 
private student loans or alternative financing. While this was a well-
intended initiative, unfortunately, school officials have told the VFW 
that this requirement is too burdensome and often unrealistic. Schools 
may not be able to provide accurate estimates in the timeframe needed 
for veterans to make cost comparisons or to be in compliance with the 
law.
    In addition, financial estimates for students who receive Chapter 
35 benefits, as in VA education benefits for dependents and survivors, 
may not be accurate. Under Section 702 of the Veterans Choice Act (P.L 
113-146), public schools must offer these students in-State tuition, 
which is a requirement to receive GI Bill payments. For students 
applying out of State, their in-State status would not begin until they 
have moved to the school dormitory or other in-state housing. This is 
another example of a financial estimate that can be inaccurate and 
cause schools to be out of compliance, which is another reason to 
remove this requirement.
    Last, the VFW supports Section 6 of this legislation to provide 
educational institutions with multi-year waivers to have accredited 
courses and programs approved by VA. Yearly approvals are cumbersome 
for schools and a multi-year waiver would provide them the necessary 
flexibility to seek course approval periodically as courses change or 
evolve.

Discussion Draft, Transcript Assurance for Heroes Act

    The VFW supports the goal of this proposal to provide digital 
official transcripts, but we would like clarification language added to 
address what is considered a ``digital format.'' Student veterans could 
definitely benefit from digital copies of official transcripts, but 
depending on what is required, certain schools may not be able to 
accommodate that requirement with their existing resources. Ensuring 
students have access to records via a portable storage device such as a 
thumb drive is a reasonable requirement. However, requiring schools to 
enroll in online records management platforms such as the Parchment 
education verification system could be expensive and burdensome for 
smaller schools with a small number of VA beneficiaries in attendance. 
Most large schools that have numerous VA beneficiaries may already have 
certain digital records systems. However, smaller schools with fewer 
resources may not be able to take on the burden of expensive electronic 
platforms and may choose to withdraw from VA education programs instead 
of spending more money to meet additional requirements. For this 
reason, we would like clarification of congressional intent before 
fully supporting this proposal.

Discussion Draft, TAP Promotion Act

    The VFW supports this legislation to authorize accredited 
representatives to promote the enrollment in VA benefit programs as 
part of the military Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The VFW 
believes this proposal to direct VA to develop a tailored pre-
separation benefits course in which accredited representatives actively 
participate, and to incorporate representatives into its current TAP 
presentation would be substantive improvements to the current 
curriculum. We believe that VA must utilize accredited representatives 
as tools in their TAP toolkit to the maximum practical extent, ensuring 
veterans have access to competent, accountable, and free representation 
in the VA benefits process.
    One of the best resources at service members' disposal during 
transition is the VA Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD) program 
through which individuals can file expedited VA disability claims 
before leaving active duty. Service members can use the BDD pre-
discharge claims program to submit their compensation claims and 
complete associated medical evaluations before leaving service, thereby 
enabling VA to provide disability ratings upon or shortly after 
discharge. Individuals who participate in the BDD program are 
subsequently better positioned to engage VA benefits and services after 
leaving the military. This means transitioning service members can 
minimize gaps in essential care like mental health counseling and 
medication management upon discharge.
    The VFW believes there is incalculable value in incorporating VA-
accredited representatives into the TAP curriculum. Specifically, we 
would like to see these representatives utilized as complementary 
course instruments that cover VA benefits and services where practical, 
with a particular emphasis on those that can be applied for prior to 
separation or retirement. This approach would mitigate instances of 
service members missing critical benefits-related details while 
enabling more to act on information without needing to find a 
representative in their free time outside of TAP.
    Currently, there is a lack of equitable access for service members 
to utilize BDD services depending on which base they are stationed. 
Unequal access leads to fewer service members being connected to their 
benefits upon separation, thereby endangering connections to VA 
services like mental health care and economic opportunity benefits. The 
VFW proudly supports this proposal to enhance access to quality 
benefits information as well as competent accredited representatives 
across TAP, and we look forward to working with this subcommittee to 
advance this legislation.

Discussion Draft, Servicemember Employment Protection Act of 2023

    The VFW supports this draft legislation that offers several 
solutions to improve reemployment rights, including under the Uniformed 
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), for service 
members who temporarily leave their employment when called to active 
duty military service. USERRA shields National Guard and Reserve 
members from job loss and missed promotions when they are called to 
active duty or mobilized on federal orders for more than thirty 
consecutive days. While USERRA was drafted to be comprehensive in 
nature, that has not stopped bad actors from evading the protections it 
offers service members.
    The VFW appreciates that this draft bill includes removing the 
immunity clause for certain federal agencies, so they would also be 
required to comply with USERRA in the reemployment of any of their 
staff who serve in the National Guard or Reserve. This bill would also 
require a review of the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and 
Training Service Investigations Manual: USERRA, VEOA, and VP, and to 
report revisions to Congress. This would provide much-needed 
transparency and a better understanding of the changes made to these 
processes.
    One related issue that the bill does not address but that concerns 
the VFW is the continuing issue of forced arbitration clauses leveraged 
against service members in employment contracts. Forced arbitration 
clauses often require military personnel to preliminarily waive the 
protections afforded to them under USERRA. Frequently included in the 
fine print of contracts and electronic click-through agreements, these 
clauses force service members to agree to binding arbitration before 
any wrongdoing has occurred. As arbiters are generally hired and paid 
for by the entities with which service members enter contracts, members 
effectively submit blindly to proceedings that are biased in favor of 
the other party. Non-disclosure agreements are also employed, 
prohibiting those affected from seeking damages in civil court.
    The widespread use of forced arbitration clauses in service 
members' financial and employment contracts is alarming to the VFW as 
these devious practices endanger the financial well-being of our force. 
Financial security impacts service members' ability to satisfy their 
basic needs and those of their families, and is imperative for those 
working in sensitive positions that require security clearances. No 
military member should have to blindly accept arbitration as a 
condition of any contract. We urge Congress to pass legislation to make 
the use of binding arbitration optional for military personnel.

Discussion Draft, To amend title 38, to establish certain employment 
and reemployment rights for spouses of members of the uniformed 
services

    This legislation aims to provide a military spouse with certain 
reemployment protections in the event of absence due to a change in the 
permanent duty station of the service member. As a resolutions-based 
organization, the VFW does not currently have a position on this issue. 
However, we are concerned that this proposal may not be feasible and 
could have the unintended effect of deterring employers from hiring 
military spouses.

Discussion Draft, Isakson-Roe Education Oversight Expansion Act

    The VFW understands the goal of this proposal is to require schools 
to submit notifications of actions taken against them, but we feel this 
is unnecessary. Schools that are placed in heightened cash monitoring 
status by SAAs are already reported to VA by the SAAs themselves. 
Schools that have punitive actions taken against them by State 
Attorneys General are already reported by those entities. This proposal 
is redundant and duplicative. This is an example of requiring schools 
to agree to new requirements in order to receive GI Bill funds.
    In recent years many schools have voluntarily withdrawn from VA 
benefits programs because of the requirement to adhere to many 
cumbersome regulations. It is time we closely examine these burdens we 
have collectively placed schools that are already compliant. This 
proposal is the latest example of unnecessary requirements without 
consideration of the workload required to accomplish these tasks.
    Chairman Van Orden, this concludes my testimony. Again, the VFW 
thanks you and Ranking Member Levin 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.

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

    Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW 
has not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2023, nor has it 
received any Federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.

    The VFW has not received payments or contracts from any foreign 
governments in the current year or preceding two calendar years.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Prepared Statement of Ricardo Gomez
[[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Prepared Statement of Matthew Schwartzman

    The Reserve Officers Association of the United States, now doing 
business as the Reserve Organization of America, is a military service 
organization incorporated under Internal Revenue Service Code section 
501(c)(19), and comprising all ranks of servicemembers, veterans, and 
family members of our nation's eight uniformed services separated under 
honorable conditions. ROA is the only national military service 
organization that solely and exclusively supports the reserve 
components.
    ROA was founded in 1922 by General of the Armies John ``Black 
Jack'' Pershing, during the drastic reductions of the Army after World 
War I. It was formed to support a strong national defense and focused 
on the establishment of a corps of reserve officers who would be the 
heart of a military expansion in the event of war. Under ROA's 1950 
congressional charter, our purpose is unchanged: To promote the 
development and execution of policies that will provide adequate 
national defense. We do so by developing and offering expertise on the 
use and resourcing of America's reserve components.

Executive Director:

        Maj. Gen. Jeffrey E. Phillips, U.S. Army (Ret.)
                                       202-646-7701

Director, Legislation and Military Policy:

        Matthew L. Schwartzman
                                       202-646-7713

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

    DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL GRANTS OR CONTRACTS

    The Reserve Officers Association of the United States, now doing 
business as the Reserve Organization of America, has not received any 
grants, contracts, or subcontracts from the federal government in the 
past three years.

CURRICULUM VITAE

    Matthew Schwartzman serves as the legislation and military policy 
director for the Reserve Organization of America.
    Responsible for the development, management, and execution of ROA's 
government relations program and public policy portfolio, Matthew has 
more than five years of experience in government and legislative 
affairs, policy analysis, and membership services.
    Matthew is also a co-chair for The Military Coalition's Guard and 
Reserve Committee and Taxes and Social Security Committee, 
representing, on select issues, a consortium of more than 30 military 
and service organizations with approximately 5.5 million members 
collectively.

STATEMENT

    Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and distinguished members 
of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Economic Opportunity 
Subcommittee, on behalf of the congressionally chartered Reserve 
Organization of America (ROA), thank you for the opportunity to testify 
on legislation pending before the Subcommittee.
    ROA also thanks the champions of these proposals for their genuine 
desire to strengthen the education and training benefits provided by 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), reduce veteran homelessness, 
and enhance workforce protections for servicemembers, veterans, and 
military spouses.
    ROA's focus today aligns with our resolutions, which are authored 
and approved by our members, and congressional charter, ``... to 
support and promote the development and execution of a strong military 
policy for the United States that will provide adequate national 
security.''
    While I do not address each proposal provided for consideration in 
this statement, ROA stands ready to engage on these measures following 
this hearing.

H.R. 3943, the Servicemember Employment Protection Act of 2023.

    ROA strongly supports Public Law No. 103-53, the Uniformed Services 
Unemployment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994.
    Since its enactment, USERRA has made a significant impact on 
national security by protecting dual-career paths for members of the 
Reserve and National Guard. Yet, USERRA can be improved.
    ROA also recognizes the potential burden that USERRA places on 
America's employers. ROA seeks to identify and support law and policy 
that encourages companies to hire and retain members of the reserve 
components.
    Two examples are the RECRUIT Act \1\ and H.R. 3253, the Reservist 
Pay Equity Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Introduced in the 117th Congress, this legislation allows 
employers with less than 500 employees to claim a tax credit equal to 
the sum of $1,000 plus an additional amount up to $10,000 depending on 
the number of military duty days performed during the year.
    \2\ H.R. 3253, the Reservist Pay Equity Act, increases the 
differential wage payment tax credit from 20 to 50 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the reserve components constituting some 40 percent of the 
total force, the integrity of USERRA is essential to our Nation's 
military readiness.
    Properly resourcing the U.S. Department of Labor Veterans' 
Employment and Training Service (DOL-VETS) to effectively execute 
USERRA is also of critical importance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ President Biden's Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 budget requests $348 
million in funding, an increase of $12 million above the FY 2023 
enacted level, for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service's 
(VETS) core programs, $347,627,000 and 265 full time equivalents (FTE), 
an increase of $12,286,000 and 28 FTE over the FY 2023 revised enacted 
level, and $1,500,000 and 3 FTE to support the enforcement of the 
USERRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over time, certain USERRA provisions have been circumvented and 
inadequately enforced, leaving legal voids that weaken its protections 
and must be corrected.
    H.R. 3943, the Servicemember Employment Protection Act, fills many 
of these voids.
    ROA thanks Representative Scott Franklin for sponsoring H.R. 3943 
and supports this legislation as currently written and with a few 
proposed amendments.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
    FORCES.

        (a) EXPANSION OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    An injunction is a court order requiring the termination or 
compulsion of a specific action. One of the most significant 
protections afforded under USERRA is the right to be reemployed after 
performing military service. Unfortunately, injunctions to prevent 
firings or require reemployment are not normally available under 
current law.
    The conditions required for preliminary injunctive relief are a 
likelihood of success on the merits when the case goes to trial and 
existence of an irreparable injury if relief is denied.
    However, the act of terminating one's employment is not currently 
considered an irreparable injury. This is because providing 
reemployment with back pay, which sometimes happens months after the 
firing, is considered a repair. As a result, employees experience a 
greater likelihood of being placed in difficult positions 
professionally, legally, and financially.
    USERRA currently reads: ``The court shall use, in any case in which 
the court determines it is appropriate, its full equity powers, 
including temporary or permanent injunctions, temporary restraining 
orders, and contempt orders, to vindicate fully the rights or benefits 
of persons under this chapter.''
    Courts thus have broad latitude in determining whether to grant 
injunctive relief. However, as stated previously, courts have not 
widely recognized willful employment terminations under USERRA as an 
irreparable injury.
    H.R. 3943 SEC. 2. corrects this by amending USERRA to prohibit 
courts from denying a motion for injunctive relief on the basis that an 
employee may be awarded ``wages unearned'' following an unlawful 
termination of employment.
    This provides employees covered under USERRA with an additional 
layer of legal protection by ensuring the act of providing back pay 
does not diminish the likelihood of being granted injunctive relief.
    This will also influence employees to provide their employers with 
advanced notice of their military service, which is a requirement for 
relief under USERRA.
    H.R. 3943 SEC.2. (a) is a win for citizen-warriors and their 
employers. ROA supports.

        (b) EXPANSION OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

    Under current law, if an employer (State, local, or private sector) 
is established to have willfully violated USERRA, the court can award 
liquidated damages equal to the actual damages, effectively ``doubling 
the damages.''
    In some USERRA cases, the actual damages may be small if the fired 
or former employee denied reemployment has quickly found another job, 
with another employer, earning just as much or more.
    The incentive for employers to act within the tenets of USERRA may 
therefore prove inadequate, resulting in willful violations.
    Consider the following hypothetical case summary from ROA Law 
Review 15089 \4\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.roa.org/resource/resmgr/LawReviews/
2015/15089-LR.pdf

    Joe Smith works for Grapevine County as a deputy sheriff. After 
giving proper notice to the Sheriff, Smith leaves his job for voluntary 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
or involuntary service in the uniformed services.

    Smith serves on active duty and is released, without having 
exceeded the five-year limit and without having received a 
disqualifying bad discharge from the military. After release from 
service, Smith makes a timely application for reemployment with the 
Sheriff.

    The Sheriff says, ``I don't care what federal law says. I am the 
Sheriff of this county, and federal law does not apply to me. You can't 
work here and play soldier at the same time. No, I will not reemploy 
you.''

    After just one week of unemployment, Smith finds another job as a 
deputy sheriff in the neighboring country, which pays a little more 
than his previous one.

    Smith's damages, for 1 week of unemployment, are $600.

    Under current law, Smith can collect $600 in actual damages and 
$600 in liquidated damages.
    H.R. 3493 strengthens this protection by enabling courts to award 
employees with the greater of $50,000 or the amount of the actual 
damages.
    Smith could thus collect $600 in actual damages and $50,000 in 
liquidated damages.
    By providing courts with the flexibility to increase the liquidated 
damages awarded, H.R. 3493 strengthens deterrence against willful 
USERRA violations and enhances legal protections for wrongfully 
terminated employees.
    However, ROA respectfully requests amending the language of H.R. 
3493 SEC. 2. (1)(C), which currently reads: ``The court may require the 
employer to pay the person the amount referred to in subparagraph (B) 
and interest on such amount, calculated at a rate of 3 percent per 
year.''
    USERRA currently authorizes awards for prejudgment interest under 
Title 38 U.S.C. SEC. 4323 (D)(3). Prejudgment interest is an additional 
form of compensation for the plaintiff and requires the defendant to 
``relinquish any benefit that it has received by retaining the 
plaintiff's money in the interim.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Brandywine Smyrna, Inc. v. Millennium Builders, LLC, 34 A.3d 
482, 486 (Del. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is currently no federal prejudgment interest rate. Instead, 
different rules apply in different states, with 92 percent having laws 
mandating prejudgment interest awards.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.iadclaw.org/assets/1/7/
50_State_Prejudgment_Interest_Reference_Guide.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By providing courts with the ability to award a prejudgment rate of 
3 percent per year for USERRA cases, H.R. 3493 enables courts to award 
a lower prejudgment interest rate than potentially afforded at the 
state level.
    To better recognize state law and provide courts with clearer 
guidance for awarding prejudgment interest rates in USERRA cases, ROA 
recommends amending H.R. 3493 SEC. 2. (b)(1)(c) to charge courts with 
awarding plaintiffs with a prejudgment interest rate that is the 
greater of the state's mandated rate or 3 percent.

        SEC. 2 (A)

    Title 38 U.S.C. SEC. 4334 requires employers to provide a 
``notice'' of the rights, benefits, and obligations outlined in USERRA 
for all parties involved. This notice is commonly displayed publicly on 
a bulletin board at the employer's office location.
    However, plaintiffs are not as likely to receive relief and 
liquidated damages under Section 4334 (when compared to other USERRA 
protections) given the difficulties in collecting and presenting 
verifiable evidence of a wrongful and willful USERRA based offense.
    If a federal executive agency or the Office of Personnel Management 
has violated this USERRA protection, H.R. 3493 SEC. 2 (A) requires the 
violation be constituted as prima facie evidence \7\, subject to the 
awarding of liquidated damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Prima facie is Latin for ``at first sight.'' Prima facie 
evidence establishes a legally required rebuttable presumption and may 
be used as an adjective meaning ``sufficient to establish a fact or 
raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ROA supports.
        (2)(c) MANDATORY ATTORNEY FEES AWARD IN SUCCESSFUL ACTIONS FOR 
        REEMPLOYMENT
    USERRA cases involving federal executive agencies as employers are 
adjudicated by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), rather 
than federal district court. If desired, the plaintiff can appeal an 
unfavorable MSPB decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit.
    USERRA currently authorizes MSPB to award attorney's fees to a 
successful USERRA plaintiff in the MSPB, if the person proceeded with 
private counsel and prevailed. However, under current law, this is not 
mandatory, with discretion left to the Board.
    As Abraham Lincoln said, ``A man who represents himself has a fool 
for a client.''
    Having legitimate legal representation provides USERRA claimants 
with a greater likelihood of securing their rights. Title 38 U.S.C. 
SEC. 4323(d)(1)(B) was included to give attorneys an incentive to 
undertake USERRA cases.
    However, the value of the incentive is considerably lessened if 
there is no assurance in law or precedent that the MSPB will award 
attorney fees, even if the claimant prevails with the attorney's 
assistance.
    H.R. 3493 SEC. (2)(c)(1) amends USERRA to make awarding a plaintiff 
with ``reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other 
litigation expenses'' mandatory.
    This issue also arises if a USERRA case involving federal executive 
agencies as employers rises to the Federal Circuit.
    In Erickson v. United States Postal Service \8\, the Federal 
Circuit held that attorney fees cannot be awarded, by the MSPB or the 
Federal Court itself, for the portion of representation that occurred 
in the Federal Circuit, rather than the MSPB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://casetext.com/case/erickson-v-us-postal-serv-4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response, ROA filed an amicus curiae brief urging the court to 
grant a rehearing en banc \9\ and overturn the MSPB decision to not 
award attorney fees for the cases heard before the Federal Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ If a rehearing en banc had been granted, there would have been 
new briefs and a new oral argument, and the case would have been 
decided by all the active (not senior status) judges of the Federal 
Circuit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An excerpt from the brief is as follows:

        In the Panel's decision in Erickson v. U.S. Postal Service, the 
        Panel opined that on such appeal neither the Federal Circuit 
        nor the MSPB has the authority to award attorney fees for the 
        legal work done on two successful appeals before this Court... 
        Such a narrow construction of 38 U.S.C. 4324(c)(4) would make 
        it impossible for the service member to obtain counsel when 
        exercising his or her statutory right to appeal an MSPB 
        decision to the Federal Circuit (unless he or she is 
        independently wealthy or has a large claim, which is rarely the 
        case), effectively denying the right to appeal. This outcome 
        goes against the deeply entrenched precedent that ``this 
        legislation is to be liberally construed for the benefit of 
        those who left private life to serve their country in its hour 
        of need.'' Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 
        U.S. 275, 285 (1946). Depriving the service member of the right 
        to appeal, when bringing a claim against the Federal 
        Government, also goes against Congress' intent that ``the 
        Federal Government should be a model employer in carrying out 
        the provisions of this chapter.'' 38 U.S.C. 4301
    Ensuring claimants can pursue all legal recourses necessary to 
ensure their rights and be provided relief is an important condition of 
USERRA's integrity.
    Not permitting plaintiffs to be awarded attorney fees for USERRA 
cases heard by the Federal Circuit could deter further legal action 
that may have otherwise resulted in a positive outcome for the 
plaintiff.
    H.R. 3493 SEC. 2(c)(2) protects USERRA plaintiffs by ensuring they 
are awarded with ``reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees, and 
other litigation expenses'' if their case prevails and is not 
represented by the Special Counsel in the proceeding. ROA supports this 
provision.

        SEC. 2(d) REPEAL OF IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL INTELLIGENCE 
        AGENCIES

    Intelligence agencies are treated differently from all other 
federal employment entities under USERRA.

    The following excerpt from ROA LAW REVIEW 15089 describes the 
situation in more detail:

    In a July 1991 meeting at the New Executive Office Building, the 
intelligence agencies asked for and were granted an exemption from the 
USERRA enforcement mechanism, through the MSPB, but not from USERRA 
itself. The agencies promised to establish their own internal 
mechanisms for enforcement for USERRA rights within such agencies, and 
sections 4315 and 4325 require the agencies to establish these 
mechanisms. The agencies have failed to establish these mechanisms and 
have flouted USERRA. It is necessary to repeal sections 4315 and 4325 
in order to give intelligence agency employees, former employees, and 
prospective employees effective USERRA rights.

    USERRA Sec. 4315 prescribes that if an intelligence agency 
determines that the act of reemployment is ``impossible or 
unreasonable,'' the determination is not subject to judicial review and 
OPM shall ``ensure the offer of employment to a person in a position in 
a Federal executive agency . . .'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\  https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title38/
part3/chapter43&edition=prelim
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By eliminating the immunity shield currently provided to select 
agencies in the intelligence community, H.R. 3493 SEC. 2(d) ensures the 
full spectrum of federal employees are covered by USERRA.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ The Executive branch of the federal government is the nation's 
leading employer of veterans. As of 2019, nearly 6,000 veterans worked 
at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). According to the 2021 
Interagency Veterans Advisory Council annual State of Veterans in the 
Federal Workforce report, there are over 500,000 federal civilian 
employees who are veterans. The percentage of veterans in the federal 
workforce hired with veterans' preference has increased from 84 percent 
in FY 2014 to 86 percent in FY 2018. Because DoD limits many 
mobilizations to 179 days or fewer, many reserve component members 
complete their career without serving the 180 consecutive days needed 
for veteran status under Title 5 U.S.C. 2108, even when potentially 
aggregating several years of active service. ROA urges Congress to 
bolster employment opportunities in the federal government for veterans 
of reserve component service by conferring veteran status (to achieve 
federal hiring preference) on reserve component members after 180 
``cumulative'' days on active-duty, as opposed to 180 ``consecutive 
days.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ROA supports.

        SEC. 2(E) MAINTENANCE OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW RATINGS

    Section 4313 of USERRA provides that an employee who returns from 
uniformed service (whether for 5 hours or 5 years) and meets USERRA's 
eligibility criteria must be reemployed in the position that would have 
been attained if the employee had been continuously employed or 
alternatively put in another position that provides like seniority, 
status, and pay.
    However, neither Section 4313 nor any other part of USERRA contains 
an explicit provision ensuring employees are only evaluated for their 
performance while at their civilian job.
    This could potentially result in a willful termination of 
employment in specific industries and occupations (such as sales) where 
performance evaluations are weighed against an employee's sustained 
ability to meet certain criteria. Employees who are away from work for 
uniformed service should not suffer in their career progression because 
of this.
    Ensuring employees are only evaluated for their performance while 
at their civilian position is not currently protected under USERRA.
    From ROA's perspective, if an employee is away from work for 
uniformed service, or for travel to and from uniformed service, for 
part of the evaluation period, the employer must adjust the 
expectation(s) upon which the performance evaluation is based.
    H.R. 3493 SEC. 2(E) provides employees with additional legal 
protection by ensuring the time spent away from work for military duty 
is credited with the average of the efficiency or performance 
evaluations which the employee received for the three-years before the 
absence.

        SEC. 2(F) EXPANSION OF ELIGIBLE TIME AWAY FROM CIVILIAN 
        EMPLOYMENT

    Under USERRA, a person who leaves a civilian job to perform 
``service in the uniformed services'' and who meets USERRA's 
eligibility criteria is entitled to reemployment in the preservice 
civilian job, after release from the period of service.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ USERRA defines ``service in the uniformed services'' as 
follows: ``The term `service in the uniformed services' means the 
performance of duty on a voluntary or involuntary basis in a uniformed 
service under competent authority and includes active duty, active duty 
for training, initial active duty for training, inactive duty training, 
full-time National Guard duty, a period for which a person is absent 
from a position of employment for the purpose of an examination to 
determine the fitness of the person for any such duty, and a period for 
which a person is absent from employment for the purpose of performing 
funeral honors duty as authorized by section 12503 of title 10 or 
section 115 of title 32.'' 38 U.S.C. 4303(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, this does not currently enable the provision of employer 
sponsored leave to employees that may require a medical appointment 
necessitated by a wound, injury, or illness sustained in the line of 
duty.

    Here is the scenario as described by ROA LAW REVIEW 15089 \13\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\  https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.roa.org/resource/resmgr/LawReviews/
2015/15089-LR.pdf

        Joe Smith left his job at XYZ Corporation when mobilized. He 
        deployed to Afghanistan and was wounded. He has largely but not 
        fully recovered from his wounds. He has been released from 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        active duty and has returned to work at XYZ.

        Twice per month, he needs to travel to a military or Department 
        of Veterans Affairs treatment facility for follow-up care. 
        Appointments are available only on regular workdays, not on 
        weekends. Smith has exhausted his sick leave entitlement at 
        XYZ.

        He does not have rights under the Family Medical Leave Act 
        (FMLA), because XYZ is too small or because Smith has not 
        worked for the company long enough. Does Smith have the right 
        to time off without pay from his XYZ job for these medical 
        appointments?

        Under current law, the answer is no.

    H.R. 3493 SEC. 2(F) protects employees by covering any period for 
which a person is ``absent from a position of employment for the 
purpose of medical or dental treatment for a condition, illness, or 
injury sustained or aggravated during any such duty.''

    SEC. 3. REVIEW OF INVESTIGATIONS MANUAL OF VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND 
TRAINING SERVICE.

    DOL VETS' own internal USERRA Investigation Manual establishes 
procedures for the conduct of closed-case reviews.
    DOL's regulations (outlined under 20 CFR Sec. Sec.  1002.1 - 
1002.314) for implementing USERRA are the primary basis for training 
and providing references to DOL investigators, rather than the law 
itself.
    In testimony before this Subcommittee on March 9, 2023, ROA 
expressed that ``DOL should be compelled to update its regulations on a 
more regular basis to ensure investigators and staff are consistently 
trained on up-to-date USERRA provisions to completely fulfill their 
statutory responsibilities under USERRA.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR10/20230309/115444/HHRG-
118-VR10-Bio-PattonG-20230309.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3493 SEC. 3 requires the Secretary of Labor to review DOL-
VETS' USERRA enforcement manual on a biennial basis and make such 
revisions as deemed appropriate. ROA supports.

        SEC. 2. (h). REVIEW AND REPORT.

    At the aforementioned hearing on March 9, ROA also testified on the 
need to ``amend Section 4332 of USERRA to require the Secretary of 
Labor to additionally report the number of closed-case reviews 
conducted in each reporting period, the number of disposed cases found 
to have been originally closed by DOL VETS with substantive errors that 
affected a veteran's right and relief under USERRA, and summaries of 
every case that DOL VETS disposed of by deeming it without merit, and 
for which a court or other federal agency subsequently affirmed the 
merit of the veteran's complaint.''
    H.R. 3493 SEC. 2. (h) requires the Comptroller General of the 
United States to ``review the methods through which the Secretary of 
Labor . . . processes actions for [USERRA] relief'' and submit a report 
that includes the findings of the review, an identification of the 
actions for relief under USERRA initiated during the covered period, 
the number of actions for relief erroneously dismissed, the number of 
actions for relief referred to the Department of Justice, and an 
assessment of trends in such actions for relief.
    Without objection to H.R. 3493 SEC. 2. (h), ROA respectfully 
requests further consideration of and support for the reporting 
requirements outlined in our March 9 testimony (stated above).

H.R. 3900, to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish certain 
rights for spouses of members of the uniformed services.

    Both the benefits and consequences of military service are 
intensely felt by the servicemember and their family. ROA believes that 
``you recruit a service member, but you retain a service family.''
    Military spouses find themselves shouldering the burden that 
accompanies service. This is especially the case if a military family 
relies on two incomes.
    For a spouse, maintaining employment and advancing professionally 
while relocating every few years and caring for children - often done 
solo while the ``other half'' is deployed - is a serious challenge for 
these integral components of our military readiness.
    There is no acceptable reason for military spouses to lose 
opportunities for employment and career advancement because they are 
serving alongside a member of our uniformed services.
    Consistently, over the past decade, the military spouse 
unemployment rate has remained over 20 percent. Spouse employment is 
important to secure financial readiness for military families. 
Unfortunately, military spouses face additional barriers to employment 
and career advancement.

        MILITARY SPOUSE UNEMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL READINESS: FAST 
        FACTS

        According to the Blue Star Families 2023 Military Family 
        Lifestyle Survey, military families' financial well-being 
        ``lags behind'' civilian peers, financial pressures are ``top-
        of-mind'' for military families, and military spouse 
        unemployment remains the ``top concern'' for spouse respondents 
        for the sixth consecutive year.

    Specific to families of the National Guard and Reserve, 19 and 26 
percent of survey respondents said spouse employment was their ``top'' 
military family issue.

    According to the 2021 Active-Duty Spouse Survey:

      The military spouse unemployment rate is 21 percent.

      A Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move increased the 
odds of unemployment ``significantly.''

      31 percent of spouses had to acquire a new professional 
credential to work at or near the new duty location. Further, acquiring 
new career credentials after moving increased the odds of low financial 
well-being.

      41 percent of spouses reported not seeking employment 
after their last PCS move.

      Being unemployed and contributing less than 50 percent to 
household income increased the odds of low food security.

      According to the Military Spouse Employment Partnership, 
military spouses earn 25 percent less than their civilian counterparts 
and move 14 percent more frequently than civilian families.

    ROA thanks Representative Christopher Deluzio for introducing H.R. 
3900.

    Specifically, H.R. 3900 offers military spouses with rights and 
legal relief under USERRA by:

      Enabling entitlement to reemployment rights and benefits 
up to a period that does not exceed 5 cumulative years and/or 2 
consecutive years under Sections 4312, 4313, 4314, and 4315 of USERRA.

      Affording entitlement to rights and benefits determined 
by seniority (as are generally provided to employees having similar 
seniority status) plus the additional rights and benefits that would 
have been attained if continuously employed (as are generally provided 
to employees having similar seniority status).

      Extending access to employer sponsored healthcare for the 
lesser of the two-year period beginning on the date the spouse's 
military duty begins or the day after the date the employee fails to 
apply for or return to their position of employment.

      Providing continued and uninterrupted access to any plan, 
other than the Thrift Savings Plan, that provides retirement income to 
employees or defers payment of income to employees until after 
employment has ended.

    ROA believes this legislation is a commendable effort to reduce 
military spouse unemployment and enhance workforce protections through 
USERRA.
    ROA is encouraged by the level of attention and support the Biden 
Administration and DOL have given this proposal and looks forward to 
working with mission partners across all levels of government and 
industry to improve employment opportunities and outcomes for military 
spouses.
    However, ROA requires more information to determine whether USERRA 
like protections can be effectively adapted to the environment 
associated with military spouse education, employment, healthcare 
enrollment, and PCS patterns. Such information includes but is not 
limited to:

      How often active and reserve component families move back 
to a previous PCS location within 5 cumulative or 2 consecutive years.

      How often active and reserve component families move 
across state lines or to a different location within their current 
state of residence for a PCS or temporary duty assignment.

      The percentage of employed military spouses enrolled in 
their employer's healthcare plan.

      The percentage of military families that do not move 
across state lines for a PCS or temporary duty assignment with the 
servicemember.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ PCS moves are associated with a diverse set of disruptions 
that impact all members of a military family and the decision-making 
process for how to effectively manage a PCS. This may include a 
military family not moving to the new permanent or temporary duty 
location with their service member spouse. ROA's director of 
operations, U.S. Navy CDR (Ret.) Trey Criner, in 2008, received orders 
to move from Camp Pendleton, California to Newport, Rhode Island for 
follow on duty (for five months) and Jacksonville, Florida thereafter. 
Because of the 2008 housing crisis, strain from two moves in the 
previous six years, and his son beginning high school, CDR (Ret.) 
Criner's family did not move with him to Newport or Jacksonville. CDR 
(Ret.) Criner was stationed away from his family for 2 years.

      The percentage of employed military spouses that have 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
access to remote working.

    ROA looks forward to collaborating with the members and staff of 
this Subcommittee to obtain this information in a timely manner.
    From ROA's perspective, this data can also be used to accurately 
project the resource requirements for effective implementation of H.R. 
3900.
    In the meantime, ROA encourages the members of this Subcommittee to 
prioritize support for hiring incentives that reduce barriers to 
employment for military spouses (and reserve component servicemembers). 
One example is H.R. 1277, the Military Spouse Hiring Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Authorized until December 31, 2025 (under Public Law No: 116-
120, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021), the Work Opportunity 
Tax Credit (WOTC) is available to employers who hire job seekers that 
have consistently faced systemic barriers to employment. Currently, 
there are ten protected classes of job seekers under WOTC, including 
veterans. But despite fitting the criteria to receive federal 
protection under WOTC, military spouses are not currently included. 
WOTC has proven highly effective in incentivizing employers to make 
hiring decisions they may not otherwise seriously consider. Since FY 
2018, more than 10 million job seekers in any one of the 10 WOTC 
protected classes have secured employment. ROA strongly supports the 
Military Spouse Hiring Act, which is also supported by The Military 
Coalition, representing more than 5.5 million service members, 
veterans, families, and survivors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ROA believes more information is required to determine whether DOL-
VETS is best equipped to manage its current requirements under USERRA 
and able to absorb any increase(s) in demand for its investigative 
services.
    To better gauge DOL VETS' ability to effectively execute USERRA, 
ROA requested Subcommittee support for a study performed by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate performance, 
identify deficiencies, and propose recommendations for improvement.
    The desired end State of this study is better measurement of the 
capability and preparedness of DOL VETS to uphold its statutory 
obligations to servicemembers under USERRA. ROA respectfully requests 
further consideration of and Subcommittee support for this study prior 
to moving forward with H.R. 3900.
    On March 9, ROA also testified that ``you get what you inspect; you 
get what you measure.''
    Currently, the unemployment and labor market participation rates 
for military spouses and reserve component servicemembers are not 
included in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly 
Employment Situation report.
    ROA urges Congress to require BLS to track and publicly report on 
the unemployment and labor market participation rates for military 
spouses and members of the National Guard and Reserve \17\ as part of 
the monthly Employment Situation report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\  Our nation's citizen-warriors are also experiencing obstacles 
in obtaining and maintaining civilian employment. This burden on 
service places an undue strain on reserve component members and their 
families. According to the Commanders Strength Management Module 
(https://reservenationalguard.com/civilian-employers/civilian-
employment-army-reserve-partnership/), the unemployment rate is around 
23.8 percent in the Army Reserve.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3898, the Transcript Assurance for Heroes Act

    Both accredited and non-accredited institutions of education must 
meet certain requirements to validate the quality of education they 
provide. These requirements are generally focused on the institution's 
ability to meet their obligations to students and the VA under the law.
    H.R. 3898, the Transcript Assurance for Heroes Act, requires, as a 
condition of approval for participation in the VA's education and 
training programs, that educational institutions provide digital copies 
of official transcripts to students.
    Official transcripts are important to students and third parties 
seeking to validate the accuracy and authenticity of academic records. 
However, not all schools provide students with the ability to obtain a 
digital copy.
    Under certain circumstances, such as the abrupt closure of a 
school, this can be problematic for students, who are likely to obtain 
a copy of their official transcript through an alternatively arduous 
process.
    Since March 2020, at least 37 public or nonprofit colleges have 
closed, merged, or announced closures or mergers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/closed-colleges-list-
statistics-major-closures/
#:8:text=At%20least%2037%20public%20or,2020%20were%20for%2Dprofit%20scho
ols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to a study from the State Higher Education Executive 
Office (SHEEO) and National Student Clearinghouse Research Center 
(NSCRC), from a sample of 467 schools (that closed between July 2004 
and June 2020) and 143,215 students, seven in 10 students were impacted 
by an ``abrupt campus closure.'' \19\ The study also showed that 
students who experienced an abrupt campus closure had lower re-
enrollment and completion rates than students who did not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ https://sheeo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/
SHEEO_NSCRC_CollegeClosures_Report1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The integrity of VA's education and training program is a shared 
responsibility between the institutions of education, accreditation and 
oversight authorities, and students.
    ROA believes that providing students with a digital copy of an 
official transcript should be an industry best practice to ensure 
access to the resources required for verifying course enrollment status 
and/or VA benefit(s) restoration if a school or program has abruptly 
closed or lost its accreditation.
    ROA also believes that in the instances of an abrupt closure or 
loss of accreditation, schools or programs providing access to a 
digital copy of an official transcript put students in a better 
position to secure positive education and employment outcomes.
    ROA thanks Representatives Eli Crane, Nancy Mace, and Mary Miller 
for sponsoring this well-intentioned measure.
    Without objection to H.R. 3898, the Transcript Assurance for Heroes 
Act, prior to further action, ROA respectfully requests Subcommittee 
support for requiring the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to report on 
the institutions of education that currently do and do not provide this 
capability.
    Further, in the continued absence of the proposed requirement under 
H.R. 3898, ROA requests the report be conducted annually and posted 
publicly (or its findings be included as part of the VA's GI Bill 
Comparison Tool) to educate prospective enrollees prior to enrollment.

CONCLUSION

    ROA appreciates the opportunity to offer our expertise and insight 
on the proposals pending before this Subcommittee.
    All too often military and veterans' law and policy are developed 
without an understanding of or appreciation for the impact distinctions 
between reserve and active duty service. The members of the Reserve and 
National Guard invariably lose out. And so, too, their families. That 
means America's military readiness loses out. We cannot afford that 
loss.
    ROA also extends its sincerest gratitude for this hearing and 
stands ready to provide added support on the issues covered in this 
statement and on other areas of mutual interest.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Prepared Statement of Meredith Smith
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 Prepared Statement of Kevin Hollinger

    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States 
(EANGUS) was formally organized in 1972 to increase the voice of 
enlisted persons in the National Guard. As such, EANGUS is a non-profit 
organization dedicated to the principles of providing an adequate 
national defense and promoting the status, welfare, and professionalism 
of the men and women of the Army and Air National Guard by supporting 
legislation that provides adequate staffing, pay, benefits, 
entitlements, equipment, and installations for the National Guard. 
Beginning with twenty-three states, EANGUS now represents all 50 
states, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of 
Columbia, and has an association comprised of those who serve the 
National Guard on a national tour, with a constituency base of over 
450,000 Soldiers and Airmen, their families, and tens of thousands of 
retired members.
    EANGUS is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the 
status, welfare, and professionalism of Enlisted members of the 
National Guard by supporting legislation that provides adequate 
staffing, pay, benefits, entitlements, equipment, and installations for 
the National Guard. The Legislative Goals of EANGUS are published 
annually. The goals and objectives were established through the 
resolution process, with resolutions passed by association delegates at 
the annual conference. These resolutions include the issues that EANGUS 
will pursue in Congress and the Department of Defense. Resolutions stay 
in force for two years.

President:

        Master Sgt. Daniel B. Reilly, Air Force National Guard (ret.)
                                                       203-509-4381

Executive Director:

        Sgt. Maj. Robert Sweeney, Army National Guard (ret.)
                                                       253-686-7119

Director, Legislation and Military Policy:

        Kevin C Hollinger
                                                       202-670-1826

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL GRANTS OR CONTRACTS

    The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States 
(EANGUS) is a member-supported organization. EANGUS has not received 
grants, contracts, or subcontracts from the federal government in the 
past three years. All other activities and services of the associations 
are accomplished free of any direct federal funding.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Statement

    EANGUS was formally organized in 1972 to increase the voice of 
enlisted persons in the National Guard. As such, EANGUS is a non-profit 
organization dedicated to the principles of providing an adequate 
national defense and promoting the status, welfare, and professionalism 
of the men and women of the Army and Air National Guard by supporting 
legislation that provides adequate staffing, pay, benefits, 
entitlements, equipment, and installations for the National Guard.
    Beginning with twenty-three states, EANGUS now represents all 50 
states, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of 
Columbia, and has an association comprised of those who serve the 
National Guard on a national tour, with a constituency base of over 
450,000 Soldiers and Airmen, their families, and tens of thousands of 
retired members.
    EANGUS appreciates the opportunity to discuss the Uniformed 
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), VA Education, 
Veteran Homelessness, and Minority benefits. While we will not address 
every proposed act, this does not indicate EANGUS's support for or 
opposition to these other bills. EANGUS's focus today aligns with our 
By-laws, Articles of incorporation, and the resolutions brought by our 
members.

USERRA Protection For Spouses

    It is easy to see the sacrifice of the servicemember. Unless you 
have lived under a rock for the last 20 + years, everyone knows the 
gift of the Reservist and National Guard personnel. They know how they 
are pulled from their everyday lives and thrust into service of our 
country. The Reserves and National Guard have proven to be a critical 
part of our Nation's defense. But imagine if you were removed from your 
spouse at a moment's notice and if you still have or have small 
children. How hard would it be for your spouse to make up for your 
absents? Well, that's how being a National Guard spouse works. Civil 
unrest, natural disasters, filling in for teachers in your local area, 
or combatting these issues are only sometimes convenient for families.
    When a National Guardsman deploys, family hardships increase 
dramatically. Their lives are turned upside down, and the spouse must 
take time away from their employment to figure out new daily routines 
and schedules. At a moment's notice, they become the sole head of the 
house. Handling time off is often the only way for the spouse to get 
acclimated. Their dedication to our national defense is often 
overlooked but is more critical and complex than their National Guard 
Spouse.
    Spouses often must take time away from their employment to figure 
out new schedules. At a moment's notice, they become the sole head of 
the house. Handling time off is often the only way for spouses to get 
acclimated. Their dedication to our national defense is more critical 
and complex than their National Guard spouse.
    Army Gen. Raymond Odierno often said, ``Our country is great 
because of our military, our military is great because of our 
servicemembers, and our servicemembers are great because of our 
families.'' Putting these things together is the correct answer.
    EANGUS would urge the 118th Congress to legislate USERRA protection 
to spouses of activated Reserve and National Guard servicemembers.

Amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the reemployment rights 
of Armed Forces members.

    This legislation would expand the powers of the USERRA law. 
Expanding this law should allow for better and more predictable 
outcomes for servicemembers. It also empowers the court to approach 
USERRA cases aggressively by adding additional jurisdiction and 
monetary powers. This would force private, state, and federal employers 
to educate their management and ensure Service members are given their 
proper protections without court intervention.
    In Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, the Supreme Court 
considered whether the states, by ratifying the Constitution, gave 
Congress the power to authorize suits against states using its 
constitutional war powers. In the opinion authored by Justice Stephen 
Breyer, he stated, ``Congress's ability to build and maintain the Armed 
Forces fits the test outlined in PennEast's test. Thus, in joining 
together to form a Union, the States agreed to sacrifice their 
sovereign immunity for the good of the common defense.'' With that 
opinion, we now know it is something to be considered by the US 
Congress.
    This proposed legislation would be the first step to codifying the 
Supreme Court's decision in Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety 
and allowing for Outcomes that are more advantageous to servicemembers 
instead of relying on the opinion of judges at the state and federal 
level along with board members. By assigning a monetary penalty, it 
forces employers to become educated or pay the price for uniformed 
adverse employment decisions. Assessing mandatory attorney fees takes 
some of the burdens of servicemembers. They will now have the resources 
necessary to find and hire proper legal counsel to help them navigate 
the complex court systems. EANGUS would urge the 118th Congress to 
introduce and passes this legislation furthering the authorities of 
USERRA.

TAP Promotion Act

    Allowing MSO/VSO organizations to assist in the transition program 
will help our Servicemembers better understand not only their qualified 
benefits at the time of exiting their service but would also help them 
know that there are resources that will help them maneuver the 
sometimes hard-to-understand bureaucracies of the VA system.
    The government can implement this program effectively by ensuring 
the proper certification. It would also help the VA use the funding to 
further strengthen this program without developing it using all 
government funding.
    VSOs are predominantly run by veterans and understand what the 
needs of veterans are. Most often, they have board members who are 
veterans and actively serving the armed forces. This gives them the 
direction to assess the TAP program's decision properly. Furthermore, 
understanding the dynamic demographic of the military will help them 
develop a program better suited for multiple demographics.
    EANGUS supports using VSOs to help administrate the TAP program 
after proper certification.

Veterans Education Assistance Improvement Act

    Enlisted personnel do not attend college or secondary education 
before service to their State and country. This forces them to 
participate in secondary education once they are already serving and 
improving their ability to gain an education which is crucial to 
improving their well-being.
    Servicemembers often use education to improve their employment 
status. Employment status is often directly tied to continued service; 
ensuring their benefits can be used at their maximum intent is critical 
to positive outcomes.
    EANGUS urges the 118th Congress to legislate and pass the Veterans 
Education Assistance Improvement Act.

Amend title 38, United States Code, to require, as a condition of 
approval under the educational assistance programs of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, that educational institutions make available to 
eligible persons and veterans digital copies of official transcripts.

    Access to electronic transcripts will aid veterans in navigating 
the educational process. Servicemembers are often forced to use 
multiple educational institutions while in service. This usually has to 
do with deployments and activations. This legislation will give the 
servicemember more access to their transcript, therein giving them more 
access to education.
    Unfortunately, enlisted Guard and Reserve servicemembers are tasked 
with balancing their service in uniform, civilian employment, family 
obligations, and education. Often education has to take a back seat, 
which leads to our enlisted servicemembers attending multiple schools, 
and electronic transcripts speed up the process and help the 
servicemembers make the best educational decision for them and their 
families.
    EANGUS urges the 118th Congress to Legislate and pass mandatory VA 
electronic digital Transcripts to eligible veterans.

Isakson-Roe Education Oversight Expansion Act

    On January 5, 2021, the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe Veterans 
Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 was enacted. The law 
will have a transformative effect on the mission of the Education 
Service to provide ready access to and timely and accurate delivery of 
education benefits to Veterans, Service members, and their families, as 
well as further enable the VA to empower GI Bill beneficiaries to 
achieve their vocational and career goals.
    This new law features 32 provisions that impact the administration 
and oversight of GI Bill benefits, including new requirements for 
enrollment verification, expanded restoration of entitlement 
opportunities, the sunsetting of the Montgomery GI Bill, substantial 
changes to our oversight of GI Bill-approved schools, and other 
education-related issues
    In the past, we have seen educational institutions with bad 
intentions that have harmed veterans pursuing their education. It is 
often problematic for the VA to Identify and investigate all involved 
institutions and organizations claiming to benefit the servicemember.
    EANGUS believes allowing the VA to overwatch the programs and 
institutions is a good step. We have often seen policy and rule changes 
set to weed out the lousy actor, but what ends up happening is that 
good institutions are complex. Therefore servicemembers' educational 
goals are hindered. VA oversight allows the VA to identify issues, make 
well-thought-out policy changes, and adequately guide veterans using VA 
funds.
    EANGUS supports legislation giving the VA Secretary oversight for 
certain educational institutions as posed to creating new policy and 
urges the 118th Congress to introduce and pass this legislation.

H.R. 491, Return Home to Housing Act; and Housing our Military Veterans 
Effectively Act

    Combating veteran homelessness has always been and will continue to 
be a significant challenge due to the vast and changing reasons for the 
veterans' circumstances. EANGUS understands there is not and cannot be 
one answer to this problem, and we know there must be quite a few 
programs to address this issue.
    Ensuring all parties participating in the ongoing efforts are 
appropriately compensated is critical to maintaining a healthy working 
environment. Unfortunately, financial security is always a factor we 
decide on employment; we all wish to do what we love for free, but that 
is not reality. Giving all parties involved proper compensation and 
reimbursement is critical in developing new and existing programs and 
the key to continued success.
    EANGUS supports and urges the 118th Congress to introduce and pass 
these pieces of legislation, which we hope will further strengthen the 
VA programs to eradicate veterans' homelessness.

CONCLUSION

    EANGUS appreciates the opportunity to offer thoughts regarding 
these critical legislative issues. Military and veterans' laws and 
policies are often developed without an understanding of or 
appreciation for the essential distinctions between the reserve and 
active-duty service. The members of the National Guard invariably lose 
out. And so do their families.
    These past three years have shown America how important the 
National Guard is to everyday life. The National Guard has activated 
over 380,000 servicemembers since 2020 for missions including but not 
limited to, Pandemic assistance, Civil unrest, overseas direct combat 
assistance, and capitol security. These activations were often at a 
moment's notice, and the National Guard did not hesitate; they 
accomplished the mission.
    Ensuring that our National Guard veterans are adequately cared for 
after service is critical to the National Guard recruiting and 
retention problem. As stated above, ``the National Guard does not 
hesitate; they accomplish the mission.'' We are now asking the same 
from Congress; please do not hesitate. Ensure our Nation's heroes are 
adequately cared for during and after the service. Thank you for your 
time.

                       Statements for the Record

                              ----------                              


     Prepared Statement of New England Center and Home for Veterans
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Prepared Statement of Operation Dignity
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Prepared Statement of U.S. Vets Inglewood
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Prepared Statement of U.S. Vets Inland Empire
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Prepared Statement of U.S. Vets Long Beach
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Prepared Statement of U.S. Vets Prescott
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Prepared Statement of Veterans Education Success
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Prepared Statement of Veterans Integration Centers
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Prepared Statement of Volunteers of America Los Angeles
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Prepared Statement of Alston Wilkes Society
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Prepared Statement of The American Legion
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Prepared Statement of Disabled American Veterans, Department of 
                               California
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Prepared Statement of Family & Community Services, Inc.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  Prepared Statement of Helping Veterans and Families of Indiana, Inc.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Prepared Statement of The Honorable Morgan McGarvey (KY-3)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 Prepared Statement of Nation's Finest
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]