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


                      LESS IS MORE: THE IMPACT OF
                        BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE ON
                      VETERANS EDUCATION BENEFITS

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

                                 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, SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-31

                               __________

       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                    
54-152                     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, SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Derrick Van Orden, Chairman........................     1
The Honorable Mike Levin, Ranking Member.........................     3

                               WITNESSES
                                Panel 1

Mr. Joseph Garcia, Executive Director, Education Service, 
  Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans 
  Affairs........................................................     4

        Accompanied by:

    Mr. James Ruhlman, Deputy Director, Program Management, 
        Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. 
        Department of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Joseph W. Wescott II, Ed.D, Legislative Director, National 
  Association of State Approving Agencies, Inc...................     5

                                Panel 2

Mrs. Anne Meehan, Assistant Vice President, Government Relations, 
  American Council on Education..................................    18

Dr. Jan Del Signore, President, National Association of Veterans' 
  Program Administrators.........................................    20

Mr. Will Hubbard, Vice President for Veterans and Military 
  Policy, Veterans Education Success.............................    22

Mr. Joe Rasmussen, Director, University Veteran Services at 
  University Wisconsin-Madison...................................    23

                                APPENDIX
                    Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

Mr. Joseph Garcia Prepared Statement.............................    37
Mr. Joseph W. Wescott II, Ed.D Prepared Statement................    41
Mrs. Anne Meehan Prepared Statement..............................    46
Dr. Jan Del Signore Prepared Statement...........................    50
Mr. Will Hubbard Prepared Statement..............................    57
Mr. Joe Rasmussen Prepared Statement.............................    84

                       Statements For The Record

Charles Bernstein................................................    89
The American Legion..............................................    99

 
                      LESS IS MORE: THE IMPACT OF
                        BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE ON
                      VETERANS EDUCATION BENEFITS

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
                    Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Derrick Van Orden 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Van Orden, Franklin, Ciscomani, 
Levin, Mrvan, McGarvey, and Ramirez.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF DERRICK VAN ORDEN, CHAIRMAN

    Mr. Van Orden. You all right? Guess that was a little 
aggressive. Hey, good morning, everybody. I really appreciate 
you coming here. The subcommittee will come to order. It is 
very good to see you here again, and I am glad that you are 
here. I would like to preface this, as I do with everything, 
this committee is not a bipartisan committee. It is a 
nonpartisan committee. Anybody gets out of line either side of 
this aisle, I will bring them back in, because we are just not 
doing that. We are just not. That is for the record. We got our 
gear working this time, right, Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. I tell you what, we had some issues, 
and I do not mean you. I mean me and these guys. It is good. It 
is a pleasure to have you all here. Over the last 4 years, the 
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity has passed legislation 
that has greatly improved the veterans access to their GI 
benefits, which are earned, not given, and has protected them 
from fraud and other outside factors. Much of this legislation 
was passed under the leadership of my friend and colleague, Mr. 
Levin. I appreciate the ranking member and his staff for 
continuing to work with us in a nonpartisan way as we continue 
to work with improving the VA system that our subcommittee has 
jurisdiction over.
    Today, our subcommittee comes together to examine the state 
of the GI Bill and the Education Service. Let me make it clear, 
I believe this, Mr. Garcia, that your intentions are pure and 
your staff and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and I have a 
very good but somewhat complicated political relationship, as 
you do. I do believe that the Secretary's intentions are pure. 
I absolutely know that my ranking members' intentions are pure 
along with the rest of these folks. The sole stated intent and 
our purpose here today is to make sure that our veterans have 
the best possible access seamless to these educational 
benefits. Let us lock arms and march together.
    Last year, though, however, the subcommittee has also seen 
you guys getting in the way of yourself and making it harder 
for our veterans to access their earned benefits. That is an 
issue. That is what we are here to talk about today.
    Last Congress, the House and Senate had to pass an 
emergency legislative fix for the 85/15 Rule because you had 
altered their interpretation, your interpretation of the 
statute, without telling the schools or Congress. If a fix had 
not been made, thousands of GI Bill students would not have 
gotten their benefits.
    Earlier this year, our committee sent a letter to the 
Secretary asking for delay of the release of the Enrollment 
Manager because the VA decided to implement it at the beginning 
of the semester, when the majority of schools certify student 
veterans. We have heard additional concerns from the veterans 
and schools about how the VA interprets Section 1015 waiver 
authority and the VA's lack of communication with school 
certifying officials (SCO). This has become a pattern of 
behavior with the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), and 
it is increasingly frustrating to us and the schools and the 
veterans.
    VA's most recent example of getting in the way of itself is 
the risk-based surveys. Congress intended for risk-based 
surveys to be used when the VA and the state approving agencies 
believe there is an issue with concern. I am going to say the 
quiet part out loud. We screwed this up. I am using the word we 
because I have been in Congress for 5 minutes. We had really 
good intentions, and how we communicated them to you was just 
wrong. We set parameters that are not good. They are not 
reasonable. They are not realistic. We are taking that one on 
the chin. Time to do some truth telling, right?
    Unfortunately, you guys have mandated a certain number of 
risk-based surveys to be performed regardless of whether there 
is an issue with the number of schools, at that number of 
schools. This is completely unnecessary red tape and not at all 
the intent of the law when it was passed. Risk-based surveys 
were intended to be used as a tool to review schools providing 
questionable services to veterans and hold them accountable to 
the veterans they serve. I believe that the VA generally has 
done good work in the education space. There are many success 
stories in this area, and we applaud everyone for the work they 
have done to achieve the ability of our veterans to get 
education.
    However, we are going to hold you guys to the highest 
standard. That is just it as you try to do yourself. Congress 
should not have to continuously be called to intervene in your 
administration of educational benefits, especially when the 
number of Education Services staff has risen from 75 at the 
implementation of the post-911 GI Bill to 231 today.
    With more people working at the VA today, there should be a 
better level of service. Once again, I am very thankful that 
you are here today, and I am looking forward to getting this 
done. With that, I yield to the ranking member for his opening 
remarks.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, RANKING MEMBER

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all 
being here. Oftentimes, government regulations are written 
after misconduct and negligence lead to disastrous 
consequences. For our subcommittee, those consequences are 
usually wasted taxpayer dollars and broken promises to our 
veterans. I am proud that we have responded by establishing 
strong policies to prevent similar abuses in the future.
    To be clear, I think there are legitimate complaints 
regarding the way VA has implemented some policies, and we are 
here today to ask VA to refine some things. However, we are 
talking about refining process, not rolling back underlying 
protections for veterans. These protections were hard won after 
decades of fly by-night predatory schools targeting veterans 
for their earned benefits. It is critical that this 
subcommittee and VA continue to police bad actors because the 
GI Bill is a transition benefit. It is a key component of 
reintegrating service members into civil society and closing 
the opportunity gaps with their peers who did not serve.
    That being said, I have real concerns about how VA is 
implementing risk-based surveys, and I can empathize with the 
frustration coming from schools. I hope to learn more from VA 
today on how the Department plans to move forward with these 
protections and utilize risk factors to prioritize reviewing 
potential bad actors targeting veterans and their earned 
benefits. Congressional intent was that risk-based surveys 
should be used when schools have grossly failed at one of the 
standards in law, not that they should duplicate compliance 
surveys.
    I also look forward to hearing from our partners from the 
state approving agencies, the schools, the Veterans Service 
Organization (VSO) community, and the program administrators. I 
see some of them are already here. Glad you all could join us 
today. Thank you for the work that you do and for the direct 
impact you have on veterans and their families. The feedback 
from the people you all represent will help us review and 
refine GI Bill processes as we focus on serving veterans and 
protecting their earned benefits.
    Last, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I am excited to come 
to Wisconsin to join you for a field hearing in the coming 
months. I hope the weather is as good in Wisconsin as it was in 
San Diego when you came to visit us a few months ago.
    Mr. Van Orden. The chances----of that are zero.
    Mr. Levin. With that, I will yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin. I will now 
introduce our witness panel. Our first witness is Mr. Joseph 
Garcia, the Executive Director of Education Services at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Garcia is accompanied by 
Mr. James Ruhlman, the Deputy Director of Program Management at 
Education Services. Our second witness is Mr. Joseph Wescott, 
the Legislative Director for the National Association of State 
Approving Agencies.
    I will ask the witnesses to please stand and raise your 
right hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Very well. Thank you. Let the record reflect the witnesses 
have answered in the affirmative. Mr. Garcia, you are now 
recognized for 5 minutes to deliver your testimony on behalf of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs.

                   STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GARCIA

    Mr. Garcia. Good morning, Chairman Van Orden, Ranking 
Member Levin, and other members of the subcommittee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to discuss VA's education benefit programs. 
With me today is James Ruhlman, Deputy Director Program 
Management, Education Service. Today, I will highlight VA's 
partnership with the State approving agencies, SAAs, and the 
National Association of State Approving Agencies, NASAA, to 
provide program oversight, which is more important than ever 
before. There are more schools, more training programs, and 
more options for students.
    As part of our oversight efforts, VA works in collaboration 
with SAAs to perform risk-based surveys (RBS). Risk-based 
surveys have three principal objectives. First, they provide a 
mechanism for SAAs to review and mitigate potential fraud, 
waste, and abuse by using data and risk factors that are 
outside of the normal program approval and compliance survey 
process. Second, RBSs allow the SAAs to verify the propriety of 
benefits paid to education and training institutions under the 
provisions of the laws administered by VA. Third, if risks are 
confirmed, corrective action is promptly initiated.
    These surveys are an important tool in assuring that 
institutions are meeting and maintaining VA's approval 
requirements. The Fiscal Year 2023 cooperative agreements 
between VA and SAAs requires the completion of 1,308 RBSs. As 
of September 13, 2023, 1,195 have been conducted. Due to the 
RBS findings, 55 educational and training institutions have 
been withdrawn from GI Bill participating in the program.
    VA has worked with NASAA to adjust RBS thresholds and 
revise the Standard Operating Procedures Guide and worksheets 
for Fiscal Year 2024. Improvements in the RBS process are 
ongoing. An RBS workgroup was formed by NASAA and Education 
Service leadership to discuss best practices, gaps, and other 
areas of concern. The workgroup remains committed to continued 
improvement, refining the RBS model, guidance, and tools based 
on SAA feedback and data driven findings.
    I would like to take the opportunity to also highlight VA's 
ongoing focus on employment opportunities for veterans. The 
Veterans Employment Through Technology Education Courses, or 
VET TEC program, provide participants computer training through 
select providers to advance careers in high technology 
industry. Due to high demand, allocated funds tend to run out 
before the end of the fiscal year. However, as participants 
exit the program for various reasons, funds are de-obligated 
and become available for new enrollments. Past practice was to 
wait for the upcoming Fiscal Year to start new enrollment. 
However, the program is entering its final year of the 5-year 
pilot.
    VA wanted to ensure as many veterans as possible had the 
opportunity to train through this program. As such, VA 
developed and executed a plan and outreach campaign to allow 
new VET TEC participants to enroll through the use of the de-
obligated funds. In a matter of days, VA received over 6,000 
new applications and over 300 participants are now enrolled. 
These numbers exceed what typically occurs in a month, and over 
6 million of the 13 million that was de-obligated has been 
reallocated. Average salary for the VET TEC graduates is 
66,000, employment secured in an average of 57 days. The 
success of this initiative is proof of the importance of 
keeping the veterans first in mind.
    As a final point, I would like to express our thanks to 
NASAA and our SAA partners. Their ongoing commitment ensures 
accurate and timely delivery of high-quality educational 
benefits to veterans and their families. Mr. Chairman, VA looks 
forward to continued opportunities of working with Congress to 
provide the best possible GI Bill experience for our veterans. 
This concludes my testimony. My colleague and I look forward to 
answering any questions you or other members of the 
subcommittee may have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Joseph Garcia Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. The written statement 
of Mr. Garcia will be entered into the hearing record. Mr. 
Wescott, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver your 
testimony.

                  STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WESCOTT

    Mr. Wescott. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and 
members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am 
pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the 52-member 
state agencies of the National Association of State Approving 
Agencies. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to 
this committee pertaining to the impact of bureaucratic red 
tape on veterans' education benefits. I am accompanied today by 
NASAA President Frank Myers.
    Today, 52 SAAs in 49 states, as well as the District of 
Columbia and the Territory of Puerto Rico, composed of only 215 
personnel, are supervising over 13,000 active facilities and 
nearly 220,000 programs. SAAs work in collaboration with the VA 
and our other partners, such as National Association of 
Veterans' Program Administrators (NAVPA), to promote and 
safeguard quality education and training programs for veterans 
and to assist the VA in preventing fraud, waste, and abuse.
    NASAA believes the primary responsibility and focus of the 
SAAs is, and should continue to be, to review, evaluate, and 
approve programs at schools and training facilities utilizing 
State and Federal criteria. We do this through an approval 
process that allows us to carefully evaluate many factors, 
including curriculum, instructors, and the facilities 
themselves. We take this responsibility seriously and consider 
ourselves the gatekeepers of quality by ensuring only quality 
programs are approved.
    Congress rightly concerned that inadequate oversight 
allowed some bad actors to prey on veterans and too often 
closed their doors with little warning. Included in the Colmery 
Act of 2017, provisions that for the first time allowed SAAs to 
perform risk-based survey, NASAA, emboldened by congressional 
action and recognizing that compliance surveys alone could not 
address quality and risk, approached the Lumina Foundation in 
the summer of 2019 for a grant to provide funding to develop 
and test an oversight model. The end result was a model that 
looked at meaningful metrics, was programmatic in application, 
and most importantly, veteran centric. In other words, the 
model could determine if schools were offering quality programs 
which kept the promise of better jobs and opportunities.
    The key to the model's success was that it allowed SAAs to 
focus their risk-based survey visits on those institutions most 
likely to present risk. This is why a searchable and 
comprehensive data base that SAAs can access was and still is 
absolutely necessary for success.
    State approving agencies are adamant about only approving 
quality programs that provide good jobs and a better future for 
our veterans and their families. Unfortunately, in recent 
years, VA interpretation of certain laws have resulted in 
requirements that led to some schools deciding to withdraw from 
the GI Bill program or being unable to participate. An example 
of this is requiring accredited institutions to offer Title IV 
funding. Unfortunately, the requirement as interpreted and 
written has resulted in numerous seminary, pastoral, and 
religious training programs, as well as several medical 
training programs being withdrawn due to a situation where 
accredited facilities are unable to participate in the program 
but nonaccredited ones are.
    Likewise, the VA's interpretation that all institutions, 
including small Non-College Degrees (NCDs), apprenticeships, 
and On the Job Trainings (OJTs), must undergo hours of 
certification training and provide their personal Social 
Security numbers to gain access to the new VA certification 
software, has resulted in quality training establishments 
requesting to be withdrawn.
    In the past year, largely due to the leadership of Director 
Garcia, communications between the VA and state approving 
agencies have improved markedly. Likewise, we sense a renewed 
commitment to partnership. However, if we are to be successful 
in assuring the long-term success of the GI Bill educational 
program, there must be a renewed commitment to this historic 
State and Federal partnership. Mr. Chairman, today SAAs 
throughout this great Nation are diligently working with our VA 
partners, VSO stakeholders, and educational institutions to 
protect the quality and integrity of the GI Bill, and to ensure 
that our veterans and their families have unfettered success, 
access to quality training and educational programs. Thank you 
again for this opportunity, and I look forward to answering any 
questions that your committee members may have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Joseph Wescott Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Wescott. The written 
testimony or statement of Mr. Wescott will be entered into the 
hearing record. We are now going to proceed to questioning. You 
are going to see that clock in front of you. I see the same 
thing, and I am not going to ask you, I am going to tell you 
that 5 minutes is 5 minutes. That is for me, too. The chair 
will now recognize himself for 5 minutes. That is me.
    Mr. Garcia, Mr. Wescott has brought up a very salient point 
in that we seem to be having a declining number of schools 
participating in this program. The stated goal of this program 
and your job and mine and all of ours up here is to make sure 
we have well educated veterans. Can you like spit ball how many 
schools have self-selected out of this program recently?
    Mr. Garcia. Sir, I believe what Mr. Wescott is referring to 
is Enrollment Manager, which was a release as part of the 
Digital GI Bill in March 2023. We were very proactive with the 
Customer Experience Group to assist all schools, and it was 
very well received by the schools in the transition and we want 
to do more things permanently like that going in the future.
    It is a requirement to use id.melogin.gov for credentials 
to protect that information for both the school certifying 
official and the school. We have partnered and listened to 
NASAA. We have made an exception for 90 days to accept paper 
for OJT and apprentice programs because they may have issues 
getting in. We continue to work with them. We will reassess 
that after October 31 to see what needs to be done.
    Mr. Van Orden. I understand.
    Mr. Garcia. We are providing training for them.
    Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Garcia, I understand. Are there more 
schools now participating in this program than there were 
previously? Are there more or less? There are less. Let us, 
listen, man, regulations and programs are designed to make 
things better and more fluid and easier so you can accomplish a 
task. If the regulation is getting in the way of accomplishing 
a mission, then the regulation needs to be looked at. It is 
pretty simple.
    You guys have implemented a quota system? This is correct. 
So, X, so certain schools will have to do X amount of these 
risk-based surveys, right? Like school X has to do 10 of these 
and you assign that number. Is that correct?
    Mr. Garcia. We assign assignments of risk-based surveys and 
other supervisory visits to the states, yes, sir. That is being 
finalized now. That will go out effective 1 October.
    Mr. Van Orden. I get it. You were in the service. I respect 
your service, Mr. Garcia. You know that you send troops out to 
the pumpkin patch and you say, bring me back 10 pumpkins, they 
are bringing back 10 pumpkins. If you tell them to go out and 
pick pumpkins, they are going to come back with 100, right? My 
concern with establishing quotas is this, if you say school 
access to do 10 of these risk-based surveys, they are doing 10, 
when in fact they may only have to do nine or they should be 
doing 11.
    When you artificially impose these things on these 
different groups that have, you know, the real touch with their 
students and they understand the vibe that is going on there, I 
think that we are not serving our veterans well because we are 
either putting on too much an administrative burden on these 
institutions. Or on the other side, we are not making sure that 
we are preventing as much fraud as possible.
    I am going to ask you to really rethink what you are doing 
and have a much more open line of communications with these 
schools concerning the risk-based surveys. That we had the 
chance to talk about how these are implemented. You got 24 
hours to do this and that. I want to continue to engage with 
you and your staff and the schools to make sure that we work 
this out appropriately.
    Mr. Garcia. Yes.
    Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Wescott, I have 1 minute, 9 seconds. In 
your testimony, you indicated that NASAA and the Education 
Council undertook the pilot designed by convening an Advisory 
Council of 22 members representing student veterans, state 
approving agencies, schools, accreditors, states, and other 
experts. You also stated that the Advisory Council members 
developed a model of oversight. Did the VA utilize this model 
that you developed or some of its tenant in developing the 
risk-based surveys, to your knowledge?
    Mr. Wescott. They did not utilize the model as we developed 
it. Over the course of a year, they revised many elements 
within the model. Of course, we did not get a data base, which 
is critical, as I said earlier, to implementing that model, you 
know. That has been a personal concern of mine because I was in 
this from the beginning.
    Mr. Van Orden. You guys did a whole bunch of work, compiled 
a whole bunch of stuff. You gave it to some people and they did 
not act on it.
    Mr. Wescott. Well, and we gave them a finished product, 
basically.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
    Mr. Wescott. That worked, that we had data, that we had 
proven worked.
    Mr. Van Orden. Very well. Let us try that again. With that, 
my time has expired. I now recognize Ranking Member Levin for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Garcia, the 
Isakson-Roe Act set forth eight factors that would prompt a 
risk-based survey. Can you explain how VA is utilizing those 
eight factors?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. Two of those would trigger a risk-
based survey.
    Mr. Levin. Could you explain? I will repeat the question. 
Could you explain how VA is utilizing those eight factors?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. Like you say, they are identified and 
then based on the model and what looks like a potential risk 
association with the school, then if two of those factors are 
triggered, again, things like rapid increase in veteran 
enrollment, 90/10 violation, 85/15, there is a list that you 
know of. If at least two of those factors are identified or 
triggered, then that would be a risk-based survey.
    Mr. Levin. Got it. You brought up rapid increase in 
enrollment. Has VA selected the school with the largest 
enrollment increase over the last year?
    Mr. Garcia. Sir, I am not sure how the numbers play out, 
but you are right. We do not want to have a school that went 
from four to eight, right? That is a rapid increase of over 30 
percent, the same as a larger school that had a 35 percent 
increase. We evaluate based on that information.
    Mr. Levin. It would follow that if you are using the 
factors in Isakson-Roe that you would have in fact reviewed 
that school?
    Mr. Garcia. We would have looked at the information to 
start, but then there is judgment by the SAAs to determine if 
in fact that school had visited. There, to me there would be 
some qualitative data to assess.
    Mr. Levin. Okay. Maybe you can take that question back and 
figure it out. Isakson-Roe also set forth the requirement that 
educational programs need to either participate in the 
Department of Education Title IV programs or receive a waiver 
from VA. How does that waiver process work?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. As you know, we want Title IV and GI 
Bill delivery benefits to be used, right? If not, then the 
veteran does not have access to Federal loans, Federal grants, 
that kind of thing. If they do not have access to Title IV, it 
might be more expensive private loans. We would grant a waiver 
if the school could not participate for whatever reason, in 
Title IV. That would generate a waiver. We would not generate a 
waiver just because that school does not want to, okay? That is 
the difference.
    Mr. Levin. Mr. Wescott, can I get your input on the waiver 
process? How you think it is going?
    Mr. Wescott. Well, I, of course, disagree with that. I 
think that SAAS, when we approve programs, are very careful to 
make sure that those programs are quality. I will give you a 
quick example, sir, and that is in North Carolina, we had to 
withdraw Reform Theological Seminary because they simply did 
not wish to, you know, be involved with Title IV. A fine 
seminary, a seminary that had been approved for many years. 
There was no reason for that to be the case, and there should 
have been a waiver granted.
    Mr. Levin. Mr. Garcia, I will turn back to you. We have 
heard concerns from schools regarding a lack of transparency 
with the process by which complaints submitted via the GI Bill 
School Feedback tool are posted to the GI Bill comparison tool. 
First, the statute requires VA to publish, and I quote, ``only 
feedback that conforms with criteria for relevancy that the 
Secretary shall determine.'' Can you please describe this 
internal review process and most importantly, who is 
responsible?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. The complaints are reviewed and 
validated before they are submitted for the comparison tool. 
That is something that, in fact, James' section, Mr. Ruhlman's 
section looks at, and then they are provided to another section 
that actually uploads them. If there is an error or mistake, 
and that could happen, I have gotten emails from a school that 
says, hey, looks like that was posted erroneously, we deal with 
it and take it down if necessary. We are open to if something 
like that occurred by mistake.
    Mr. Levin. Who is responsible?
    Mr. Garcia. I would say I am responsible.
    Mr. Levin. You are responsible. Okay, good. Second, the 
statute requires VA to allow schools, and I quote, ``to verify 
feedback and address issues regarding feedback before the 
feedback is published.'' Same question what is the process and 
who is responsible?
    Mr. Garcia. It is going to be the same process. It would be 
me.
    Mr. Levin. You are responsible?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir, I am responsible.
    Mr. Levin. All right, that is good to know. You heard it 
here. Another question for you with the time I have left. 
Schools are given just a few days to prepare for risk-based 
surveys. Is this an appropriate timeline? Should the timeline 
be the same for all risk-based surveys? Or should higher risk 
or lower risk cases change the timeline?
    Mr. Garcia. There is a different timeline across compliance 
surveys, risk-based surveys, and targeted risk-based surveys. 
Targeted risk-based surveys, there is a known issue there, and 
that is the one that could be one day or less. I think there is 
legislation to make it 2 days, but they are quick notice on a 
targeted risk-based surveys where there are known issues to 
address.
    Mr. Levin. Thanks for your time. I yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin. The chair 
now recognizes Mr. Franklin from the great State of Florida for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. 
Appreciate you holding the hearing today. Thank you, gentlemen, 
for spending time with us this morning. Kind of reiterating 
what they had stated in opening comments. This is about 
veterans. This is about how to improve the product that we 
deliver. We are all inside this room deliberating it today, but 
this is all about those who are not in the room, so we keep 
that in mind.
    You know, we will often put in bureaucratic measures with 
good reason. Over time, it is inevitable, you need, at a 
minimum, course corrections. Sometimes, if there are problems, 
we need to really take a deeper look at those.
    Kind of piggybacking on that last question, I did want to 
ask Mr. Garcia, the risk-based surveys my understanding are 
limited to only providing one business days' notice. Is that 
correct as it stands now?
    Mr. Garcia. Sir, that is on targeted risk-based surveys?
    Mr. Franklin. Yes, targeted risk, okay.
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Franklin. The idea there, I guess, is the suspicion is 
they are doing something wrong. You do not want to have them 
cover their tracks, so you want to catch them in the act?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. Of the risk-based surveys that you have 
done, how many did you say you have done so far this year?
    Mr. Garcia. Close to 1,200.
    Mr. Franklin. How many of those are targeted versus just 
routine RBSs?
    Mr. Garcia. Targeted risk-based surveys, about 167 have 
been completed.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay.
    Mr. Garcia. Versus the roughly 1,200 for the risk-based 
surveys.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. But even the rest of those still have a 
day's notice for an RBS?
    Mr. Garcia. They should have more days' notice on an RBS, 
not the targeted risk-based surveys.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. Mr. Wescott, how many typically do you 
see for just a routine risk-based survey?
    Mr. Wescott. Well, I can tell you, sir, when we built that 
model, it was at least 30 days, because the idea was that they 
would send us the information that we would review advertising, 
financial stability, and those things prior to us getting 
onsite, so that when we got onsite, we could look at things and 
talk to veterans that were necessary.
    Mr. Franklin. So, in practice though, are they getting 30 
days?
    Mr. Wescott. I am sorry?
    Mr. Franklin. You said when designed they were supposed to 
give 30 days, but in practice----
    Mr. Wescott. Right.
    Mr. Franklin [continuing]. is that what routine risk-based 
surveys are getting now, 30 days?
    Mr. Wescott. Sadly, they are sometimes less than that.
    Mr. Franklin. Like how much less?
    Mr. Wescott. Twenty-something.
    Mr. Franklin. Because really, an institution, any 
organization that is not anticipating this basically has to 
stop in their tracks and accommodate that so, that is----
    Mr. Wescott. It should be 30 days.
    Mr. Franklin. Should be, okay. The 2023 cooperative 
agreement says that VA and SAAs must complete 1,308 RBSs. That 
is a very specific number. Mr. Garcia, can you tell me how you 
arrive at that specific a number?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. Every year we look at, again, the 
risk factors, the data base that shows past risk-based surveys 
to kind of predict what we are going to look at next year. I 
will say that for 2024, we are looking at about a 40 percent 
drop in risk-based surveys compared to the previous year. We 
are looking at things like a supervisory visit, a two-for-one 
ratio. If you do two supervisory visits, that would count as a 
risk-based survey. We are working to try and determine what the 
optimal number is.
    Mr. Franklin. That actually leads me into another question. 
We have gotten some feedback from those who are getting these 
inspections, these surveys, that oftentimes they feel that it 
really should be a compliance inspection, but instead the RBSs 
are being used instead. Would you agree with that? If we are 
changing the system now, are we changing because the system is 
so much better out there, or are you just overstaffed and 
overworked and it is let us just conveniently cut the target?
    Mr. Garcia. By statute, VA has to do the compliance survey 
every 2 years for a school that has more than 20, right? So 
that is by statute, we have to do the compliance survey. Then, 
of course, the new statute with Isakson-Roe mandates risk-based 
surveys either for a reactive notice of action, government 
action, right, that would prompt a survey. Or again, the 
proactive approach around the risk factors that might lead to a 
potential fraud, waste, and abuse, or a situation like that.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. Mr. Wescott, of those who have dropped 
out, in your experience, how frequently is it that someone 
drops out who has been subjected to one of these RBSs that 
really did not find any major compliance issues, but they 
dropped out anyway?
    Mr. Wescott. We often lose schools due to because 
scheduling, having compliance and risk-based survey coming in 
too close together, those egregious administrative 
requirements. I can get you that number, sir, and I will.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay.
    Mr. Wescott. It is not a large number. I can tell you I did 
find we only have 2 weeks now to notify schools. We need to 
double that on risk-based surveys.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. All right. I think that would be fair. 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Franklin. I now recognize my 
dear friend, Mrs. Ramirez from the great State of Illinois.
    Ms. Ramirez. Thank you, chairman and ranking member, for 
holding today's hearing. I also want to thank the witnesses for 
joining us today to talk about a critical issue, which is 
education and how we protect and we deliver on our promise of 
quality education for our veterans. Over the past several 
months, this subcommittee has convened on multiple occasions to 
discuss how vital education is for our veterans adapting to 
their life after service. I believe that education is one of 
the many pathways toward self-improvement, self-sufficiency, 
and provides communities the opportunity to better live their 
lives economically, socially, and professionally.
    That is why it is essential that when schools are being 
evaluated, the systems and processes in place are intentional 
about targeting bad actors like these for-profit colleges that 
see student veterans as a way to pad their pockets rather than 
seeing them as people, members of our community with dreams and 
aspirations. It is why I am so proud of my bill, H.R. 1767, the 
Student Veteran Benefits Restoration Act that passed through 
this committee with bipartisan support a couple of months ago. 
This bill will restore the GI education benefits for student 
veterans who are wrongfully defrauded by for-profit schools. 
While my legislation when signed into law will provide relief 
for many veterans, we still have to get to the root of the 
issue.
    As part of providing student veterans a quality education, 
I want to ask a couple of questions regarding the complaints. 
Mr. Garcia, can the VA explain why information about schools 
that have closed or lost approval disappears from the 
comparison tool without explanation? Then the follow up to that 
would be, what steps are you taking to correct the issue?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, ma'am. On the comparison tool question, as 
far as impact on a school that might have withdrawn from GI 
Bill benefits, you know, participation, I have to take that 
back to find that out. I can take that for the record.
    Ms. Ramirez. You will go ahead and take back the question 
about why information about schools that have been closed 
disappear from the comparison tool, is that correct?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Ramirez. Okay. All right. Well, I guess a follow up to 
that is, how does the VA plan to provide prospective student 
veterans with access to a school's history of complaints? I 
particularly am interested in knowing, especially for 
information that has hit beyond those most recent 2 years, 
which is obviously crucial for them making an informed 
decision.
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, ma'am. The comparison tool, I think, 
currently tracks 2 years. There have been requests to have more 
years, 7, 10 years of information. Coming from a higher 
education background myself before taking this job at three 
different colleges and universities, I think we should take a 
look at that, because if it goes back that far, let us say 10 
years, for example, all complaints I have heard as a 
recommendation, could that not potentially hurt the veteran 
because that is old, dated complaints that have been resolved. 
I think we need to look at both sides of that.
    Ms. Ramirez. What would you say would be the right number 
of years?
    Mr. Garcia. I like 2 years because I think that is fairly 
current. Presidents and administrations turn over. That is my 
experience. If you had something that is 10 years old and that 
was a problem, it is likely that that administration changed 
over. I think we need to be careful that you are hurting the 
veteran by having a complaint that had probably been addressed.
    Ms. Ramirez. When a student is looking into the schools and 
they are looking at complaints, is it easy for them to be able 
to access information that determines that these issues have 
been resolved, therefore, making it easier for them to make a 
decision if this is the right kind of school for them to go to?
    Mr. Garcia. I think that is part of it, right? The 
comparison tool shows a lot of information about what is 
offered, Yellow Ribbon, just not only the complaints that are 
part of the comparison tool, side by side in terms of tuition 
and fees and graduation rates, that information comes over from 
Department of Education. It is more than just complaints that I 
think a prospective student would look at.
    Ms. Ramirez. A good summary of the school.
    Mr. Garcia. Yes.
    Ms. Ramirez. Let me ask you now another question which is a 
little different. This is in regards to nonstudent complaints. 
Has the VA received anonymous or non-student complaints against 
a school? If it has, how are these handled?
    Mr. Garcia. What kind of complaint, ma'am?
    Ms. Ramirez. A nonstudent complaint. So, anonymous or 
nonstudent complaints against a school. This is not a student. 
Perhaps it is----
    Mr. Garcia. Oh.
    Ms. Ramirez [continuing]. a parent or a friend or someone 
that had some interaction with the school.
    Mr. Garcia. It could be anonymous, right?
    Ms. Ramirez. Correct.
    Mr. Ruhlman. I can answer that question, Congresswoman. We 
can and do accept both anonymous complaints as well as 
complaints from third parties against schools. We do forward 
that to----
    Mr. Van Orden. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Ramirez. I will follow up with you. Thank you, 
Chairman.
    Mr. Van Orden. Absolutely. I now recognize my friend Mr. 
Mrvan from the great State of Indiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Wescott, one of the concerns you raised in 
your testimony is the increased administrative burden placed on 
school certifying officials. How much is each individual 
utilizing the GI Bill benefits worth to a school?
    Mr. Wescott. Wow, I am not sure that I can give you that 
exact figure, sir, but I can tell you it is a very valuable 
benefit, especially underneath Chapter 33. I mean, that is 
basically tuition and fees. You are talking about 1,000-plus, 
you know, for living, basic housing allowance or basic living 
allowance. You are talking about 1,000 for books. It is great 
for the school when you sign up a veteran under Chapter 33 or 
35.
    Mr. Mrvan. If that is the case, there is a revenue benefit, 
why do schools not employ more certifying officials?
    Mr. Wescott. Well, and I am glad you bring that up, sir, 
because it is a concern of ours as well, and SAAs have gotten 
involved in that in the past. On the next panel, my friend, the 
president of NAVPA, will bring some information about that. The 
bottom line is lack of understanding sometimes of the true 
benefit of veterans, you know, who is the president? You know, 
there should be at least a school certifying official for, you 
know, 100 veterans or something, 200? I do not know. We have 
done surveys. The bottom line is I do not understand why they 
do not engage more.
    Mr. Mrvan. Okay, thank you. Then the follow up if you could 
finish the answer for my colleague's question.
    Mr. Ruhlman. Yes, thank you. We do accept anonymous and 
third-party complaints. Those are not published to the GI Bill 
comparison tool. One of the things that we do generally is 
ensure that the individual was attending a school. Really that 
is more of an informational type thing. However, we do share 
that information with our Federal agency partners, who can also 
search our data as well as data from other Federal agencies 
that is submitted to the Federal Trade Commission Consumer 
Sentinel data base. We do accept that and we do share that. 
However, if we cannot validate that someone was a student, then 
there is really no way to identify or validate or remediate it.
    Mr. Mrvan. Very quickly, what do you believe are the 
majority of the anonymous complaints?
    Mr. Ruhlman. I do not know off the top of my head. We would 
have to research that. Anonymous complaints tend to be a small 
portion of what we receive.
    Mr. Mrvan. Okay. I am going to give a hypothetical. In this 
instance, a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) school in Indiana 
is charging four times the amount for a GI participant than 
they would charge for a regular participant. Does that fall 
under the fraud, waste, and abuse category or are there 
exceptions to higher costs, because this has been brought to my 
attention. Same CDL license, four to five times the cost for a 
veteran GI Bill. If someone off the street who does not have 
the GI Bill pays significantly less. Where does that fall and 
how is that investigated?
    Mr. Ruhlman. Thank you for that question. That would be 
illegal. The law does require that program charges are the same 
for both GI Bill beneficiaries as well as non-GI Bill 
beneficiaries. That would be an overcharge of VA benefits. Even 
if we receive an anonymous complaint of that, because of the 
egregious nature, that is something that would generally, while 
not treated as a normal complaint, would cause us to take a 
look at that school, share that with our SAA partners, as well 
as Federal law enforcement partners. That is actually how a 
number of sort of high-profile prosecutions, Federal 
prosecutions, have started out, is because of anonymous 
complaints.
    Mr. Mrvan. Is there an educational process to the veteran 
who is using the benefit to look out for these types of things?
    Mr. Ruhlman. I do not think I understand the question.
    Mr. Mrvan. If I am a veteran and I am signing up for these 
classes or a school and I recognize myself that something is 
more expensive or there is something illegal, is there any kind 
of toolkit available to the veteran who is going out to apply 
for these classes of what is and is not legal and what their 
rights are?
    Mr. Ruhlman. No, sir, not that I am aware of.
    Mr. Mrvan. Yes, sir, 16 seconds.
    Mr. Wescott. I can tell you that in North Carolina, if we 
were to learn of such, that school would be immediately 
suspended and withdrawn. In the catalogs for the schools, 
particularly truck driving schools, there should be a statement 
in there about the SAA and getting in touch with them if they 
have concerns.
    Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you.
    Mr. Van Orden. We are going to proceed to a second round of 
questioning because I know that you guys you need some more in-
depth answers, as do I. We are going to do that. I now 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia, again, thank you for answering so many of these 
questions. We really have to talk about this error rate because 
I am concerned about it. We have been getting, us, the 
subcommittee, and our staff, have been getting complaints from 
VA employees about the extra workload of fixing errors in 
automated claims. I got to do this automated, air quotations. I 
am concerned about the government paying for claims that are 
not correctly automated. I understand that the automated error 
rate is nearly 50 percent. Is that correct?
    Mr. Garcia. Sir, I had 40 percent.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Well, you know, a 40 percent error 
rate is not good. I understand that the automated error rate is 
nearly 40 percent. Is that correct?
    Mr. Garcia. From reviews that I have seen, yes, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. I understand that you commissioned and 
received a report that studies automation in the Regional 
Processing Offices (RPOs). Is that correct?
    Mr. Garcia. As part of their review, yes, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
    Mr. Garcia. We asked them to do that.
    Mr. Van Orden. Very well. I understand that this is called 
the RPO Report. Do you commit to providing the RPO Report to 
the subcommittee by the end of this week?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir, be glad to do that.
    Mr. Van Orden. Dang. Thanks, man. Mr. Wescott, it was 
really interesting, can you elaborate on your testimony in 
reference to faith-based schools and their issues with the 10/
15 waivers for religious institutions?
    Mr. Wescott. Referring to the Title IV?
    Mr. Van Orden. That is correct, sir. I mean, this is 
something that the general public needs to understand.
    Mr. Wescott. Yes, exactly. Many of these schools just do 
not see the need to offer Title IV, nor do they want to go 
through the process of engaging with that. They do not really 
want the, you know, the Federal oversight into their religious 
instruction. These are, like I said, Reform Theological, we are 
not talking about schools in storefronts or church basements. 
We are talking about legitimate schools that are finding other 
sources to provide for their students and therefore see no 
reason to engage with Title IV.
    Mr. Van Orden. I mean, just as a side note, my grandson 
goes to kindergarten in a church basement. Just throwing that 
out there. Those are valid, too.
    Mr. Wescott. Yes, that was in no way to discredit.
    Mr. Van Orden. I know. I get you, man. Hey, do you think 
this is onerous? Are our veterans not able to attend 
religiously affiliated schools due to this onerous process, in 
your opinion?
    Mr. Wescott. Yes, I really do. I mean, the bottom line is 
we had a school call in North Carolina and say we would like to 
get accredited. We said, well, if you do, you are going to have 
to go for Title IV. They said, well, forget know. You know, 
they do not want to spend thousands to get accreditation. That 
is the wrong answer. We should encourage accreditation and we 
have the mechanisms in place to make sure that those are 
quality programs.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. What we are doing is what we do not 
want to do.
    Mr. Wescott. Exactly, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Let us just not do that, man. Let us 
do great things.
    Mr. Wescott. Totally agree.
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes, can you suggest a fix for this, please?
    Mr. Wescott. Well, yes, my personal preference would be to 
do away with that requirement.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
    Mr. Wescott. The second fix would be to find some realistic 
waiver that will allow those schools to be granted a waiver 
that does not involve applying for Title IV. I mean, you know, 
as long as SAAs say these are quality institutions, let us 
trust the SAAs. We have got the results from the schools and 
drive on. Requiring them to apply for and have Title IV is just 
unnecessary.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, sir. Mr. Garcia, can you noodle 
on this? Think about this with, again, the stated intent of our 
purpose here and your purpose really is to make sure that our 
veterans have the appropriate amount of educational benefits 
that they have earned. Can you sit down and can you guys talk 
about this, please?
    Mr. Garcia. Sir, but if, again, if the purpose is to 
provide support for veterans, if removing Title IV, though, 
removes financial aid that they could get, right? If we have 
schools choosing okay, I do not want to do Title IV, now you 
are limiting what veterans can get in terms of the educational 
goal pursuit, right? I think we need to look at that as well, 
look at the impact on the school. What is the impact on the 
student veteran? By removing Title IV opportunities, then you 
are driving veterans to private loans. They are more expensive. 
That actually hurts the veteran. They need to look at it both 
sides.
    Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Garcia, I really do not believe that is 
what Mr. Wescott was saying. I would just leave you with this. 
It is just not that, you know, cut and dry. This is not a 
conundrum. It certainly is a quandary. I would like you to work 
on it with Mr. Wescott. With that, my time has expired. The 
chair now recognizes Ranking Member Levin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to turn back to 
last Congress when we passed legislation to resolve issues that 
foreign based students were having using their GI Bill. What we 
are hearing is that these students, some of them anyway, are 
still having delays having their schools approved for the GI 
Bill. Can you provide us an update on where things stand 
ensuring foreign students can use their GI Bill?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. A couple of things at foreign 
schools. One is that we are also allowing for Enrollment 
Manager, paper based for them, just like the OJT and 
apprenticeship. That helps there. Another improvement is around 
the direct payment. We actually came up with a solution where 
the schools were not getting timely electronic funds transfer 
payments because there was a requirement to use a U.S. bank 
account. We found a way to get around that recently. That 
allows the payments to go through electronic means. Again, the 
enrollment part of accepting paper at least until October 31, 
so we can reevaluate Enrollment Manager participation.
    Mr. Levin. I appreciate that very much. Also, to your 
earlier comments about taking responsibility, I really 
appreciate that you stood up and you said that you take 
responsibility. It is really critically important. We will hear 
from our next panel as well about, you know, the work that they 
are trying to do to just make sure that we are all trying to 
share this burden to prevent bad actors. I think everybody 
wants the same thing here. We are going to continue to hold you 
to account and appreciate the input of our next panel as well. 
With that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin. The chair 
now recognizes my dear friend from the great State of Florida, 
Mr. Franklin.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mrvan is not 
here now, but I did want to add just to kind of put a point on 
a point he was making earlier about the economics for schools. 
I would just argue if the schools are voting with their feet 
and not participating, then for whatever reasons, and there may 
be varied reasons, the juice is not worth the squeeze for them. 
You know, schools are facing declining enrollments. They need 
students. They need every opportunity for revenue they can get. 
If they are not doing it, that needs to be a significant 
warning to us. As you, Mr. Garcia, as you had said in earlier 
things, we will find workarounds. We do not want to compromise 
our standards. I do think we need to sit down and think really 
hard about how can we make this more palatable to the 
institutions because we need them to serve the veterans.
    Mr. Wescott, we talked about the religious institutions, 
but whether it is a design, whether it is the way the system is 
designed, or if it is just misperception, sometimes the 
nonprofits and some of the online institutions feel like they 
are being unfairly targeted. Now, anybody that gets targeted is 
going to feel like they are being picked on. I understand that. 
Do you think either purposefully or inadvertently, the way the 
system is constructed, and actually, this question will be for 
both of you, because we have time. Is the system set up to 
unfairly penalize online and nonprofit institutions?
    Mr. Wescott. Well, thank you for that question, 
Congressman. I would consider it inadvertently. I do have some 
memory of when this requirement was placed into law. The 
concern was primarily of those schools that lost Title IV would 
then lose their approval. Not that, you know, that we would 
require them to have Title IV. At least that was my 
interpretation of what we were doing in the earlier days on 
this legislation. I would hope, and I believe it is 
inadvertent, but it certainly needs to be addressed----
    Mr. Franklin. Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Wescott [continuing]. because you are 100 percent 
correct.
    Mr. Garcia. Sir, real quick, I think you hit on perception. 
The term religious schools is not in the statutory language at 
all, right?
    Mr. Franklin. Right.
    Mr. Garcia. It is all accredited programs have to 
participate under the statute.
    Mr. Franklin. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Garcia. We would be willing to take a look at it, 
though.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Franklin. I want to thank 
everybody. The witnesses are now excused.
    Please stick around. I think you are going to get some good 
institutional knowledge from the next panel. Again, thank you 
very much. We will adjourn shortly while we get readjusted 
here.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Van Orden. Will the witnesses for the second panel 
please be seated? On our second panel, we will be hearing from 
the following witnesses: Mrs. Anne Meehan, Assistant Vice 
President of Government Relations at the American Council on 
Education (ACE), Dr. Jan Del Signore, President of the National 
Association of Veterans' Program Administrators. Mr. Will 
Hubbard, Vice President for Veterans and Military Policy at 
Veterans Education Success, and Mr. Joe Rasmussen, Director of 
the University of Wisconsin Veterans Services at the University 
of Wisconsin, Madison. I want to welcome you here for this 
panel, and I am going to ask you to stand and raise your right 
hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Let the record reflect the witnesses have all answered in 
the affirmative. Mrs. Meehan, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes to deliver your testimony.

                    STATEMENT OF ANNE MEEHAN

    Ms. Meehan. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
testify. My name is Anne Meehan with the American Council on 
Education. ACE represents 1,700 public and private colleges and 
universities and related associations. Colleges and 
universities recognize the important role that VA plays in the 
oversight of education benefits. Congress has made significant 
investments in these programs, and it is critical that 
safeguards are in place to protect against waste, fraud, and 
abuse, both to protect taxpayer dollars and to ensure veterans 
are receiving a high-quality education.
    At the same time, in our effort to root out problems and 
identify bad actors, we must be mindful that we do not 
inadvertently create unnecessary burdens on institutions that 
are serving veterans well. Risk-based surveys, when done right, 
provide a valuable and efficient oversight tool that allows 
regulators to focus limited resources on the areas of greatest 
concern. While we commend VA for its efforts developing the 
survey, we believe VA's model reflects a misunderstanding of 
how risk-based surveys are intended to work. Moreover, we are 
concerned that in several respects, VA's effort may be 
inconsistent with congressional intent.
    In recent months, ACE has heard several concerns from 
institutions regarding VA's risk-based survey. In general, 
these concerns fall into three areas. One, concerns related to 
the triggers VA uses to select an institution for a survey; 
two, concerns about the information that must be provided once 
selected for a survey; and three, concerns about information 
required as part of the Financial Soundness Review.
    First, regarding the triggers. Over the past year, VA has 
selected more than 1,200 institutions of higher learning and 
more than 600 colleges and universities for a risk-based 
survey. Given the large number of institutions selected, we 
questioned whether VA's model is sufficiently targeted to 
institutions posing a substantial risk of noncompliance. Many 
campuses report that they are unaware of the reason why they 
were selected for a risk-based survey. For colleges and 
universities who know why they were selected, the reason given 
is often limited and technical in nature, and not one under any 
reasonable standard that would be indicative of increased risk.
    For example, some campuses were selected based on a failure 
to satisfy VA's prior flawed interpretation of the 85/15 Rule, 
an interpretation which has subsequently been corrected through 
legislation. Some campuses were selected based on a single 
complaint. In one case, the complaint was decades old and had 
never been verified. In another case, the complaint was from a 
nonstudent. Some were selected based on a modest increase in 
the number of veterans enrolled in a program, which was common 
as we emerged from the pandemic. Finally, some campuses were 
selected due to nothing more than a standard tuition increase. 
None of these reasons are ones that suggest a heightened risk 
of noncompliance by the institution.
    I note that we did not hear from any institutions that were 
chosen for a risk-based survey based on one of the events 
listed in Section 3673(e) of the law. However, we strongly 
agree that any of those events should trigger a risk-based 
survey.
    Second, we have heard concerns about the breadth of the 
information required by VA's survey and the limited time given 
to respond. One large university reports providing tens of 
thousands of documents in response to VA's request. 
Coordinating this response across a university is a massive 
undertaking, requiring assistance from campus officials in 
multiple offices. While most offices are happy to help, others 
may not understand the immediacy or importance of this work, 
particularly when it requires them to drop other mission 
critical work in order to comply. As one example of the breadth 
of the required information, campuses are required to provide 
copies of any complaint received by the institution over a 3-
year period. Institutions are instructed to provide all 
complaints, even complaints about the dining hall. More 
problematic, institutions are required to allow the SAA to 
monitor a class in order to determine the quality of the 
instruction. While this requirement is well intentioned, it 
misses the mark, particularly at a large research university, 
where it is viewed as an inappropriate intrusion into academic 
matters.
    Third, we have heard concerns about VA's required financial 
soundness review, which appears to confuse the financial audit 
information that for-profit institutions report with financial 
audit information that public and nonprofit institutions 
typically report.
    To summarize, we support risk-based surveys and we believe 
they are an important oversight tool. However, we believe that 
VA's model needs further work to ensure it is meeting its 
intended purpose. We hope that Congress will help VA refocus 
its efforts on the institutions that pose a serious risk of 
noncompliance while shielding good institutions from an 
unnecessary compliance burden. We stand ready to assist in 
these efforts. Thank you. I would be pleased to answer your 
questions.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Anne Meehan Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mrs. Meehan. The written 
statement of Mrs. Meehan will be entered into the hearing 
record. Dr. Signore. I am pronouncing that correct, are not I? 
Signore, right? Dr. Signore, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes to deliver your testimony.

                  STATEMENT OF JAN DEL SIGNORE

    Ms. Del Signore. Thank you. Good morning and thank you for 
the opportunity to speak today representing the National 
Association of Veterans Program Administrators, or NAVPA. My 
name is Dr. Jan Del Signore, U.S. Air Force retired veteran. 
Today I am here to speak to you as the NAVPA President on 
behalf of the men and women who are conducting the daily 
operations of certifying and administering the GI Bill 
benefits.
    NAVPA is the only national organization comprised of SCOs, 
school certifying officials, and school administrators working 
to deliver educational opportunities for veterans since 1975. 
Our members have seen the SCOs--have been the SCOs who are in 
the trenches with boots on the ground serving student veterans 
daily while trying to maintain compliance. I am here to discuss 
two concerns: risk-based surveys and the impact of increased 
duties placed on the SCO.
    Our primary concern today is the risk-based survey, RBS, 
and the criteria the VA is using to select schools they deem as 
at risk. Schools welcome accountability and are proud to 
maintain compliance with reasonable regulation. However, there 
has been an unreasonable burden placed upon the institutions 
through an excess of well-intended oversight. NAVPA conducted a 
survey of SCOs nationwide and discovered most of the schools 
selected for our risk-based survey were for minor or unclear 
reasons. The top reasons these schools were identified for an 
RBS are student complaints, unknown criteria, an increase in 
student population, or an unwarranted 85/15 violation. There 
are examples nationwide of RBS being deployed against all types 
of institutions, including public and accredited schools. 
Several schools reported they received an RBS based on an old 
student complaint that was addressed by the institution and 
closed. Other schools reported they were identified for an RBS 
from a complaint that was never received by the institution and 
deemed as invalid by the VA. One school reported receiving 
complaints because of benefit processing errors by the VA, not 
the school, yet the school still had to respond and an RBS was 
triggered.
    Some institutions reported that they had no idea why they 
were identified for an RBS, as the state approving agency, SAA, 
did not or could not explain why this RBS was being conducted.
    A third top reason schools reported they were selected for 
an RBS was due to an increase in student population during the 
COVID recovery period when students were returning back to 
campus. The fourth top reason included schools with a 35 
percent exemption criteria for 85/15, as they had programs 
suspended by the VA during spring 2022, with no veterans 
enrolled because of the calculations implemented by the VA. The 
VA introduced these new methods during the pandemic and caused 
many programs to be erroneously suspended nationwide.
    None of these situations confirmed a school was at risk to 
close, nor were they guilty of exploiting or misusing veterans' 
benefits. NAVPA recommends correcting these measures by 
establishing an Advisory Council of Higher Education Officials, 
the SAA, and the VA to develop a model using public data to 
identify criteria that would trigger an RBS. In the spirit of 
today's hearing, less is more. The actual key players should be 
developing the criteria that would meet the intent of Congress. 
NAVPA respectfully requests outside agencies who have never 
worked in higher ed and have no understanding of daily 
operations of an institution not be involved, as this often 
leads to misleading advice, oftentimes a lack of experience.
    Our next concern involves the increased duties placed on 
SCOs. There have been several changes implemented by the VA on 
how to administer GI Bill benefits. This includes additional 
requirements for a catalog approval, less time to prepare for 
compliance reviews, and return of funding to the VA. Due to the 
insurmountable requirements for schools to obtain approval and 
maintain compliance requirements with limited time for 
preparation, institutions nationwide have withdrawn from 
administering the GI Bill because of the increased workload and 
regulatory demands. These schools include first responders, 
Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs), police and fire 
academies, truck driving schools, and religious orders. This 
creates an economic disparity for the veteran when trying to 
find needed instructional resources, but unable to use their GI 
Bill benefits for training.
    NAVPA would like to see legislation that would give relief 
of the many burdensome tasks placed on accredited institutions 
and recodify Public Law 117-333 to allow the institution 
sufficient time to prepare for reviews and provide a reasonable 
response. Additional information can be found in our written 
testimony. I thank you and I welcome your questions today.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Jan Del Signore Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Dr. Del Signore.
    Ms. Del Signore. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. The written testimony of Dr. Del Signore 
will be entered into the hearing record. Mr. Hubbard, you are 
now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver your testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF WILL HUBBARD

    Mr. Hubbard. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, 
members of the subcommittee, we thank you for the opportunity 
to provide testimony before the subcommittee today. Veterans 
Education Success is a nonprofit organization with the mission 
of advancing higher education success for veterans, service 
members, and military families, and protecting the integrity 
and promise of the GI Bill and other Federal education 
programs.
    Drawing from our team's experience and direct interactions 
with student veterans, their families, and stakeholders, we 
submit our observations for the subcommittee's consideration. 
We would like to express our general gratitude to the 
leadership and staff in Education Service at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. Their collaboration on many of these issues 
and commitment to serving veterans are worth highlighting 
specifically. However, we also feel it is important to 
highlight areas where we believe there is room for improvement. 
Since the very first GI Bill in 1944, there have been scammers 
looking to take advantage of veterans' benefits. In 1952, a 
House Select Committee led by Congressman Olin Teague of Texas 
exposed the trend of predatory schools targeting veterans for 
their GI Bill benefits. In 2012, the Senate Health Committee 
issued an alarming report that found widespread deception by 
predatory schools.
    Given the issues of the past decade and prior, including 
numerous sudden collapses of risky schools, Congress passed 
several significant bipartisan laws. These laws aim to combat 
fraud by bad actor schools and programs ultimately protecting 
veterans' benefits and taxpayer dollars. This includes the 
Isakson-Roe Act, the authorizing legislation for risk-based 
surveys. Risk-based surveys are important both for protecting 
veterans and taxpayers and for ensuring the efficient use of 
the limited resources of VA and state approving agencies.
    However, our testimony, along with our colleagues at this 
table, highlights a fundamental point, VA's current approach 
does not match the clear direction of Congress. As our 
colleagues at ACE point out, VA is currently selecting an 
overly broad set of schools for risk-based surveys, in contrast 
with what the statute had contemplated. Specifically, Congress 
established five triggers for risk-based surveys. Yet, VA 
continues to launch risk-based surveys even in the absence of 
one of these five triggers. As the University of Wisconsin 
rightly notes, increased enrollment is not a mandatory trigger, 
but instead listed in another section of the statute, which 
lays out the issues that the SAAs should consider during 
review, if and only if such review has been triggered by one of 
the five mandatory issues.
    We also strongly support NASSA's comments that the VA 
should follow the pilot model and implement the data base, 
which would result in a dramatically smaller number of schools 
being selected for review. In addition to risk-based surveys, 
persistent red tape, and VA statutory misinterpretations 
continue to hinder the potential of veterans' education 
benefits. As outlined in our written testimony, this includes 
first, school closures and GI Bill restoration policies, where 
VA continues failing to implement unambiguous statutory 
guidelines even after the committee clarified them in the Vets 
Credit Act. Second, a lack of necessary transparency on the GI 
Bill comparison tool. This harms veterans who should rightfully 
expect transparent information in their school search process. 
Third, VA's refusal to exempt Marines under the Excess Leave 
program from a newly revised interpretation, despite the legal 
obligation to do so.
    We believe there is a pattern to these issues. Time and 
time again, this body passes thoughtful, well positioned 
legislation based on stakeholder input with the intention of 
supporting veterans and their goals. Then VA executes a 
surprising interpretation, unsupported by law and inconsistent 
with congressional intent. Couple that with some schools under 
resourcing the appropriate offices on campus, and the result is 
that the laws put in place to safeguard hard earned benefits 
are not being properly executed. We hope to continue our 
efforts in collaboration with the VA and the committed people 
here in this room who simply want to do right by veterans, for 
they and their families should be VA's one and only focus. 
Thank you.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Will Hubbard Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. The written 
statement of Mr. Hubbard will be entered into the hearing 
record. Mr. Rasmussen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to 
deliver your testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF JOE RASMUSSEN

    Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking 
Member Levin, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 
the invitation. I am excited to share my testimony before the 
subcommittee on behalf of the veteran and military connected 
students at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and my staff 
that serves them. I have also consulted with my peers across 
the State of Wisconsin, as well as in the Big Ten.
    Hearing the conversation thus far, I can tell I am in good 
company. While I might be critical of this process, it is only 
because I care. I feel like we are all on the same team, Team 
Veteran. I would briefly like to share my background, as I hope 
it provides perspective. I get to serve as the director of 
Veteran Services at the University of Wisconsin. I am also the 
grandson of two World War II veterans, the son of a Vietnam 
veteran, and I proudly served 4 years in the Marine Corps right 
out of high school. The GI Bill was personally important to me. 
It helped me pay rent, buy food, and a little further down the 
road, it even helped pay for my father's gravestone. This 
program matters.
    I would like to introduce one of our student veterans, 
Eddie. Eddie's a senior who is studying finance. He grew up in 
Florida, served in California, and moved to Wisconsin, sight 
unseen. He is a first-generation college student, a first-
generation veteran, and a first-generation American. When I 
think about this process, I think about how it impacts Eddie.
    Today, my highlights are that risk-based surveys is a good 
idea, but we need more collaboration. In general, there is too 
much red tape, and the systems need to be updated, students 
like Eddie need to be centered in the conversation, and that we 
at the schools want to be partners. We need more of mes and my 
colleagues in the room when we are talking about creating new 
policies. When we cannot be there, we need trusted partners 
like my colleagues at the table and folks like the Association 
of Public Land Grant Universities, or APLU.
    Many of our student veterans like Eddie had a difficult 
time adjusting to campus. UW Madison research tells us that too 
many of our veterans are not making connections to their 
college peers or university staff or faculty. That same 
research shows that students who do connect with veteran 
service staff specifically rank higher in metrics we know that 
lead to student success. College veteran service staff have 
earned the trust of these students, but that trust is eroding 
as we focus more time on bureaucracy and less time on direct 
student support.
    Enrollment Manager is a great point. There is a lot that 
could have happened to make the administration on the school 
side much less time consuming. However, VA chose to build the 
process close hold, and there was very little in the way of 
partnering. Unfortunately, today, entering information into the 
new system takes longer than the old system, and we find too 
many errors that are leading to students being underpaid, paid 
late, and in some cases, not receiving payments at all.
    There are also longer standing issues with the VA rules 
that they outline in their handbook. One such rule says that 
undeclared juniors cannot use the GI Bill. This simply does not 
work. Most students at UW are transfer students and many come 
in close or already at the junior mark. Competitive programs 
such as engineering, computer sciences, and nursing require on 
campus prerequisites, because these rules run counter to how 
things work on campus, many student veterans cannot enjoy the 
same academic college experience as their nonveteran peers.
    Each breakdown in this system leads to worse outcomes for 
our student veterans, and as this process gets more burdensome, 
we see more veterans driven from our high-quality schools. I am 
not naive enough to think we can solve every issue overnight, 
but we are certainly not moving in the right direction with 
this status quo. It is time for VA Education Services to find 
real, meaningful ways to bring education partners into the 
fold. In my experience, GI Bill benefits are often the first 
place veterans interact with the VA. I often refer to the GI 
Bill and our schools as the front door to the VA. The GI Bill 
is a fundamental promise, something that many veterans are 
proud to earn and proud to use, and we owe it to them to create 
a system that honors that service and earns their trust. I 
invite you to come to campus and meet Eddie and our other 
student veterans. I thank you for the time today, and I look 
forward to working with you in the future.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Joe Rasmussen Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Rasmussen. Mr. Rasmussen's 
written testimony will be entered into the record. I am going 
to reserve my questions until the end. Now I recognize the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Levin, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Levin. I thank the chairman, and I told him I am ready 
to go to Wisconsin. I look forward to that. I want to make sure 
that just as we held VA to account in the first panel, that we 
make sure to talk to you and to schools and that we understand 
we all have a responsibility to make this work. I will start 
with Ms. Del Signore. I am empathetic to the struggles and the 
issues that schools are facing. VA can absolutely improve their 
processes. I think we made that clear. Should not some of the 
shared burden to prevent bad actors also fall on schools?
    Ms. Del Signore. I thank you for the question, sir. The bad 
actors, from my understanding, that in the past historically 
have not been accredited institutions. Many of the current 
risk-based surveys are being applied and focused on accredited 
schools instead of the unaccredited schools. It is going to 
take a partnership moving forward to make sure that these bad 
actors are not doing what they have done in the past. We can 
definitely provide the quality education to our veterans so 
they can have a successful academic goal and be able to 
transition effectively and satisfactorily back into the 
civilian sector.
    Mr. Levin. We share that objective. I think the key here is 
taking the time to have enough staff to do the preventative 
work, making sure that the burden that is being caused by VA 
regulations is being met by enough people on the ground at your 
campuses. Could you tell us the--actually, I will turn to Mr. 
Rasmussen for this. Could you tell us the ratio of veteran 
program administrator staff that you have compared to the 
number of student veterans that you serve and what you think 
that rough ratio should be?
    Mr. Rasmussen. Certainly, at the University of Wisconsin, 
we have four full-time positions in my office, including 
myself. Two of those folks, 100 percent of their time is 
dedicated to making sure that the GI Bill works. I would also 
add to this that we do not live in a vacuum. This is obviously 
a conversation about Federal benefits, but many states like 
Wisconsin also offer very high-quality State programs. Those 
numbers are larger than what they look like just when we 
examine these numbers.
    I agree. I heard earlier, you know, 1-to-100, 1-to-200, I 
think those are very great goals to work toward. We are not 
quite at 1-to-200, but we are pretty close. I will tell you, as 
a former student veteran, as somebody who works with students, 
I wish that number would be higher. I wish that we would have 
enough time to give every single student the time that they 
have earned.
    Mr. Levin. It is true that student veterans using the GI 
Bill are bringing full in-State tuition to the table, reducing 
the amount of aid that schools need to provide, correct?
    Mr. Rasmussen. If I understand the question correctly, it 
is, that the GI Bill then is taking the place of other school 
aid. I can tell you in Wisconsin, and specifically at UW 
Madison, we have Bucky's Tuition Promise. Student veterans who 
qualify for Bucky's Tuition Promise get 100 percent of that 
promise, plus their GI Bill. We do not change their package 
based on post-911 GI Bill one bit. I cannot speak for other 
institutions. We are lucky enough to be able to provide 
everything that we would give a non-GI Bill student to our GI--
--
    Mr. Levin. Is it fair to say that having more student 
veterans is good in every conceivable way for your campus and 
for every campus, and therefore, it would make sense to do the 
preventative work to make sure you have got enough support 
staff to deal with whatever VA throws your way. Is that fair?
    Mr. Rasmussen. Absolutely. I cannot agree more that we need 
to be able to rise and meet the needs.
    Mr. Levin. I appreciate that. With the time I have left, 
Mr. Hubbard, I think you knocked it out of the park with your 
comments, particularly at the end where you talked about that 
balance. We try to do the best we can in this subcommittee and 
throughout the House Veterans Affairs Committee to pass well 
intentioned legislation to try to improve the lives of our 
veterans and improve their educational opportunities. We often 
do not agree with how, you know, specifics are implemented at 
VA. Sometimes they do a fantastic job, on the other hand, but 
it is all a balancing act. What do you think the balance is 
between preventing bad actors from accessing GI Bill funds and 
making it easy and enticing for good actors to serve veterans?
    Mr. Hubbard. Thank you for the question, Mr. Ranking 
Member. I think it is an imperative one. I recognize the time 
has expired. I can answer perhaps at a later point or in 
writing.
    Mr. Levin. We will come back to you.
    Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair 
now recognizes Mr. Franklin from the great State of Florida.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hubbard, 
actually, I would give you the time now to answer that because 
that is something I am very interested in hearing about.
    Mr. Hubbard. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. In terms of 
incentivizing good schools to bring in student veterans, I 
think there is one important factor to consider, which is these 
are literally the best students in higher education today. They 
are nontraditional students. They often have families. They are 
a little bit older, typically, but they have world experience 
and they make the best alumni. They offer the most to the 
classroom and they offer the most by way of packaging. These 
are fully packaged students that come with full funding. I 
think any school would be lucky to have student veterans in 
their classroom and that is really what they should recognize.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you. Actually, I read all your 
testimony. There are a lot of great ideas and suggestions in 
there. I do recognize too, as the ranking member had said, that 
the reason that a lot of this oversight is in place now is 
because there were a lot of institutions, some rogue actors out 
there that did not do the right thing. There is a need and we 
got to strike a balance.
    Mr. Garcia had said earlier, where we had talked about ways 
that we could improve this process, I think, you know, in 
looking at this hearing today, you know, according to staff, 
you all were advised of this about a month ago. You have had a 
month to prepare for this. I would submit that the four of you 
and the institutions you represent could get together with the 
representatives of VA and in 30 days you could probably fix a 
lot of these problems we are talking about or at least have a 
good roadmap to move ahead. Just in the brief time, if you 
could each take about 30 seconds, if you had your way for a 
day, what would be the first and fastest things you would fix? 
Starting with you, Mrs. Meehan.
    Ms. Meehan. I think that a more collaborative process to 
sort of understand the differences between different types of 
institutions. You know, we have over 4,000 colleges and 
universities that are degree granting institutions and it is a 
very diverse group and so one size does not always fit all. I 
think that is one of the areas where risk-based surveys could 
be improved--by thinking about ways that we want to make sure 
we are identifying the greatest risk and figuring out what 
those factors are so that we are not putting a compliance 
burden on the other schools that do not have that level of 
risk. There is just such a variety when you think about the 
types of programs that VA provides. They are not all college 
degree programs, some of them are training programs. I think 
that is a challenge that VA has in a lot of areas, trying to 
make sure that we have an approach that is appropriate for the 
different types of institutions and addresses any challenges.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you. Dr. Del Signore.
    Ms. Del Signore. Thank you for the question, sir. Yes, I 
think communication is a key factor moving forward, looking at 
quality improvement. There is always processes in place that 
could be improved, whether from the institution, or from the VA 
or the SAAs. Coming together as a team, definitely working 
together to look at those triggers that may or may not be a 
true risk assessment of that institution based on the 
institution type, with their accreditation factors involved, 
but looking at all the moving parts and coming up with a solid 
data base for the VA to use the actual----
    Mr. Franklin. Well, thank you. I do want to hear from the 
others. You all have given a lot of very, very specific things 
that are more tangible than just we need to communicate better. 
I mean, there are a lot of specific things in your testimony. 
Mr. Hubbard.
    Mr. Hubbard. Thank you for the question. In our written 
testimony, we identify for every issue that has come up, an 
executive branch solution. I think all of these issues on the 
table today could be solved at the executive level. We believe 
it ultimately comes down to following the letter of the law. We 
believe the statute is clear and unambiguous and should simply 
be followed as stated.
    Mr. Franklin. Well, if it is clear and unambiguous, I do 
not know that the solution for fixing laws is more laws, but 
your point is noted. Mr. Rasmussen.
    Mr. Rasmussen. I hate to sound like a broken record, but it 
is communication. Earlier, I heard Mr. Wescott say that NAVPA 
is a partner, but I did not hear our colleagues at the VA 
mention schools as they talk about and think about this 
process. I would make there be groups. Dr. Jan mentions a 
committee. Ways in which information from people like myself is 
inserted into the process before it happens and not after it 
happens, and then we have to clean up the mess.
    Mr. Franklin. All right, thank you. I would like to note 
that you all had today far more time to prepare for this 
hearing than the institutions that you are saddling with these 
risk-based surveys that in many cases are having to provide 
tens of thousands of documents. It is not fair, and I can fully 
understand why a lot of them are not wanting to participate. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Franklin. The chair now 
recognizes my great friend, Mr. McGarvey from Kentucky.
    Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all so 
much for being here. It is good to see you again, Mr. Hubbard. 
Thanks to all of you for the work you do. One of the most 
important things to keep in mind while having this discussion 
today is to highlight what we are seeing on the ground and what 
is actually happening in the implementation and the 
administration of these benefits. I wanted to focus on the 
school certifying officials and their role. Mr. Rasmussen, I am 
particularly interested to hear your perspective as someone in 
an educational entity overseeing GI Bill education benefits. 
Mr. Rasmussen, how hard is it for you to hire and train up 
someone to work in your office as a school certifying official 
or GI benefits bill administrator? What are we seeing right now 
in terms of staffing?
    Mr. Rasmussen. I very much appreciate this question. Let us 
actually start with the school certifying official role. It is 
not something that naturally exists in higher education. The 
duties that a school certifying official does probably overlaps 
four or five different offices. It is extremely complex and it 
is very specific. It is rare that we could hire somebody who 
has worked in administration, or VA, or any other entity, and 
they can immediately be a productive school certifying 
official. The most recent hire I had, a retired lieutenant 
colonel, took him about a year from when he started until I 
would say that he can operate independently, not asking a bunch 
of questions. It is really complicated and it is, to get to 
your question, hard to hire good school certifying officials 
and even harder to train them.
    Mr. McGarvey. I do not know if there is an answer to this 
next question. Just so the question is sincere, right, is there 
anything we can do to help in that?
    Mr. Rasmussen. I do think about, and again, communication. 
There was a communication that went out several years ago from 
VA telling schools what an expected ratio of school certifying 
officials were. That went to a bunch of my staff. A bunch of 
school certifying officials got a note saying, we need more of 
you all.
    I think if it was a serious act, then that sort of thing 
should have been communicated in a way where our college 
presidents and chancellors can hear how important these roles 
are and they can take action. I put every year into my budget a 
request for more school certifying officials, but what I need 
is direction from the top.
    Mr. McGarvey. I appreciate that. You know, I like what you 
said when you said we are all on Team Veteran. I think 
everybody on this committee is on Team Veteran. One of the 
reasons we get along is to help our veterans get what they have 
earned and what they deserve. If you do think of anything, any 
of you all think of anything we can do to help in that regard, 
whether it is a legislative action or even it is whether using 
the platforms of our offices and letters in communication with 
people in charge to let them know how seriously we take that, 
you know, please do that. Mrs. Meehan.
    Ms. Meehan. I was going to mention in my--oh, excuse me. I 
was going to mention that a common repository for all of the 
training materials on the VA's website would be really helpful 
because school certifying officials, it is a relatively junior 
position on many campuses. The changeover rate may be high, and 
they need a quick way to come up to speed and have all those 
resources available for them. That is one thing you might 
consider.
    Mr. McGarvey. Thank you very much. Mr. Hubbard, just a 
similar question to you. We know Veterans Education Success 
highlighted in your testimony how schools are struggling to 
maintain enough school certifying officials. What do you see as 
some of the main barriers here and are seeing in terms of 
staffing, like, what more can we do? What thoughts do you have 
on this issue?
    Mr. Hubbard. Thank you for the question, sir. First off, I 
want to offer my congratulations on the recent passage of your 
Isakson-Roe Oversight Act. That is a huge win and obviously 
something that you have championed and led on for good reasons. 
One thing that I think is important is that schools are paying 
attention to the requirements of the administrative burdens 
that are associated with compliance and providing that relevant 
support.
    As we talked about earlier, the GI Bill is the most 
generous benefit out there when it comes to education, both 
providing for tuition and fees, but also housing. There is 
literally nothing in higher ed that is more generous. It is 
important that schools devote the appropriate resources to make 
sure that folks like our friends at University of Wisconsin on 
the ground doing the real work, are getting the right support 
staff.
    Mr. McGarvey. Cool, thank you. Just one last question in 
the very short remaining time. Do you guys have an idea of what 
you think the ideal ratio is, please?
    Mr. Hubbard. I believe VA recommends 1-to-125, but I 
certainly defer my colleagues currently.
    Ms. Del Signore. Currently, sir, in the SCO Handbook, it is 
1-to-200. It would be nice to have 1-to-100. Chapter 33 is a 
very complicated process, so any help would be greatly 
appreciated.
    Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. McGarvey. I appreciate that. I yield back.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey. The chair now 
recognizes my friend from the great State of Arizona, Mr. 
Ciscomani.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Chairman Van Orden, for giving me 
the time, but also for holding this important hearing. Thank 
you to the witnesses here today that are here today to help us, 
inform us, and to better understand how these risk-based 
surveys are utilized and how the subcommittee can look into 
streamlining the steps for universities, for colleges, and for 
veterans that are utilizing the GI Bill benefits.
    I represent Tucson, Arizona, and that area which includes 
the University of Arizona. As a University of Arizona alum, 
Bear Down, I know that the important work that the U of A does 
in providing students the tools for success, including with 
student veterans. Actually, earlier last month, I visited the U 
of A and I--no, it was this month, actually--and I visited the 
U of A and I toured their Veterans Education and Transition 
Services Center. I was very impressed by their work there. I 
learned about the important work they do in supporting veteran 
students, especially since the center is staffed by veterans 
and that are students at the U of A that have transitioned out 
of the military to the U of A.
    The university has over 5,000 military connected students 
with about 2,300 veterans in active duty, National Guard, or 
reserves. These numbers consistently increase every single 
year. I am proud of the support that they are providing to 
student veterans, but I also know we can do more. That is where 
my question leads into. Mr. Rasmussen, what type of factors do 
you believe should trigger a risk-based survey? Do you feel 
that the current risk-based surveys are focused on the right 
factors?
    Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you for the question. I think risk-
based survey, and I said in my testimony, the idea is solid, 
right, that there is limited amount of resources and that we 
need to focus those resources in the right place. I do not know 
that I have the best answer on exactly which factors. I think 
the factors need to be informed by people on the ground. I 
think that when we have prescriptive factors that come down 
from a central office here in Washington and it goes out to the 
states and it is you must visit these schools, that that needs 
to be also mixed with somebody in a state education capacity 
who can put real world context to whatever factors those are.
    Some rapid increases, you know, they can be easily 
explained by many different factors. I said in my written 
testimony, rapid increase could be because a bunch of post-911 
veterans now have kids who are college age. Also, thanks to 
Congress, those children get to get in-state tuition rates at 
public schools. I think instead of giving you good answers 
because I am not the guy who has the best answers on what 
should be risky, and I am also not at a school that is risky, I 
would say that they need to be informed by professionals.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you. Thank you for that. Then, Dr. Del 
Signore, did I pronounce that correctly? Okay, good, good. What 
are the biggest concerns schools have about risk-based surveys 
and bureaucratic red tape, and how can we help solve them?
    Ms. Del Signore. Thank you for the question, sir. The 
survey that NAVPA did to SCOs nationwide, the two biggest 
reasons that we received were student complaints that were 
normally old, and closed, addressed, taken care of, or not 
valid. Or they were not even sent to the institution prior to 
the risk-based survey, so the institution had the opportunity 
to read through and understand what the issue was prior to the 
risk-based survey happening.
    The second largest reason was the school was never told by 
the state approving agency as to what triggered the risk-based 
survey. They were just, you know, said, hey, you guys have a 
risk-based survey, give us all this information. We do not 
know, we cannot tell you why.
    Mr. Ciscomani. How much time do you feel is needed for a 
risk-based survey inspection to be conducted appropriately?
    Ms. Del Signore. Again, thank you for that question, sir. 
Having gone through that experience myself, it is probably 30 
days or more for the institution to prepare. In our testimony, 
we did say it takes a multitude of different departments to 
pull together this information. It is not something that is 
normally hands on. For example, the school is required to 
provide the last 2 years of all advertising to include all your 
social media. If you are a public institution, you have 
football season right now, those are all your football posts 
that have to be provided for the SAA. Thank you for the 
question, sir.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you. I yield back, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Ciscomani. The chair now 
recognizes the fact that my microphone's not up here. I now 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Hey, before I get going here, Mr. Hubbard and Mr. 
Rasmussen, I want to thank you very much for the herculean 
effort of getting yourself here from South Carolina after you 
recovered your lost F35. That was amazing. Thank you for 
getting up here. Yes, I just said that.
    Mr. Hubbard. I think I would get in trouble if I commented 
on that, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. That is okay. Let us work on that one later. 
Hey, the subcommittee, we have heard a lot about the Enrollment 
Manager from the VA in the last few months. Thank you, Mr. 
Ciscomani. However, we have not been able to hear from you 
guys. What has your experience been with the Enrollment 
Manager? To a greater extent, with the Digital GI Bill? I am 
going to throw that out to you, Mr. Rasmussen.
    Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr. Van Orden. I really 
appreciate the question. I think that is why I am here, right? 
I am representing the real on the ground experience.
    I said in my testimony, it takes longer. It takes longer to 
use. It is not accurate. The data that we see in that system is 
not the truth. It is very one way we submit things.
    Then there is things that happen outside of the system. The 
system is not adequate in capturing what we need it to capture 
in order for the process to work. Then we get secondary emails 
from processors at regional processing offices almost daily, 
asking for questions about what an individual certification 
means. Then because it is tied into this ID.me, or whatever, 
and my staff being veterans themselves, this last weekend, one 
of my staff members got an email from the VA processing office 
to his personal Gmail that contained data about a student 
enrollment. It is not working anywhere.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. I am going to ask you all real quick. 
Can we all agree or do you agree that there is the potential 
for, and more likely than not, fraud involved in this education 
system because of its size? Mr. Rasmussen.
    Mr. Rasmussen. I am sorry, sir, I did not hear the last 
part of your question.
    Mr. Van Orden. Because of the size and scope of these 
programs, do you agreed that fraud does exist?
    Mr. Rasmussen. Oh, absolutely, fraud exists.
    Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Hubbard.
    Mr. Hubbard. Yes, without a doubt.
    Mr. Van Orden. Dr. Del Signore.
    Ms. Del Signore. There is definitely opportunity there.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Mrs. Meehan.
    Ms. Meehan. Agreed.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay, good. We can clearly determine that 
some type of system has to be in place, right? Okay, so let us 
figure out how to do it better. What I get from your written 
testimony, which I have read and it is awesome talking to you 
guys, is what I have heard is that it seems to be a huge lack 
of communication between your institutions and the Veterans 
Affairs Administration. Did I characterize that accurately? It 
seems like you are just not talking. Do you have a way, Mr. 
Rasmussen? Do you have a formal way to get a hold of VA when 
you need to?
    Mr. Rasmussen. I am noisy enough that I have found a couple 
of contacts, but that is not common for my peers at other 
schools that are, you know, not quite as well received.
    Mr. Van Orden. How often do you talk to your Big Ten 
colleagues?
    Mr. Rasmussen. Well, almost daily in email. We meet on Zoom 
calls at least once a month, but more frequently.
    Mr. Van Orden. How often do you and your Big Ten colleagues 
speak to the Veterans Affairs Administration?
    Mr. Rasmussen. Almost never.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay.
    Mr. Rasmussen. There is no avenue in.
    Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Garcia, I have got a huge ask for you, 
man. Will you give Mr. Rasmussen your personal cell phone 
number?
    Mr. Garcia. I have got it right here.
    Mr. Van Orden. Is that your personal or is that the office?
    Mr. Garcia. It is my personal.
    Mr. Van Orden. Please do. That is a big ask because he is 
from Madison, so you may get some inappropriate phone calls 
about 2 in the morning. Here is what we want to do. We want to 
solve this problem. Do you have something you would like to 
say, ma'am? Please do.
    Ms. Del Signore. Yes, if I could, sir. At one point, the 
schools had access to our education liaison representatives, 
ELRS. We do not anymore. During the pandemic, emails went out 
unanswered from the VA, and those were our go-to people to 
receive those answers. We need our ELRS back. I know there has 
been a huge shortage. I know the VA has filled those for the 
most part, that shortage, but they are not ready to basically 
hit the ground running. They need to be trained to answer and 
help support the SCO in administering the GI Bill, because, as 
I said earlier, it is a very complicated process and any help 
you could give would be greatly appreciated.
    Mr. Van Orden. Okay. I found from personal experience that 
oftentimes we ascribe the worst intentions to people simply 
because we do not know what they are thinking. I think there is 
a case of that, because I talked to Mr. Garcia on the regular 
and his intentions are pure. They really are. It is just, you 
know, the bureaucracy is so huge. You are getting his number 
and you are going to talk. You got a group of Big Ten dudes 
together with, you know, 50-pound brains and whatnot to think 
about this stuff all the time. I want you to share your lessons 
learned with this cat. Mr. Garcia, I would love it if you would 
listen to them. This is awesome. My time has expired. Kate 
always wants one more. Okie doke. Let us get Mr. Levin. I now 
recognize Ranking Member Levin for his closing statement.
    Mr. Levin. I want to thank the chairman for helping to 
improve the communication between VA and our second panel. I 
think it is so critically important that it just does not stop 
there, but that each of you take the time and the effort to get 
to know one another. You are all here. You might as well stick 
around, get to know one another. I think that the eight risk 
factors in Isakson-Roe are not the problem, but I do think that 
they really should only be triggered when schools have grossly 
failed at one of the standards in law.
    I would hope that you would understand the intent at the 
time was not that we have this overwhelming administrative 
burden on these schools, but that we reserve, you know, for bad 
actors and, you know, try to make the best judgment that we can 
on that basis.
    Just the same, I would hope that the schools would do more 
to try to hire folks and to try to hit the 1-in-100. When I 
think about the revenue that--and forget about all the things 
that Mr. Hubbard said and that I agree with about all the 
reasons why you want more student veterans on your campuses, 
they are the best of the best. It is also a tremendous amount 
of revenue for your schools. That was the point that we were 
trying to make earlier. To that end, when you consider the 
amount that you are actually going to be spending that 
incremental cost of having one more person on your staff or two 
more people on your staff who can handle these matters 
regardless of how difficult, to Mr. McGarvey's question, how 
difficult it might be to find qualified people. Even just a 
couple more people would hopefully go a long way toward 
addressing the issue and really would be a drop in the bucket 
when you consider the amount of revenue that we are talking 
here to a school like the University of Wisconsin or anywhere 
else.
    I think there is plenty of criticism that can be levied. I 
do not think that is helpful or useful. I think to my friend 
the chairman's point, communication is really useful. I hope 
that you will take this opportunity. I hope VA will take the 
opportunity. I hope the schools will take the opportunity. I 
hope you will continue to communicate and that we get this 
right because our student veterans are caught in the middle. 
With that, I will yield back to my friend, the chairman.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin. Gosh, you 
know what? This is such a weird feeling because I think we have 
actually moved the ball down the field today in Congress. That 
is shocking to me personally. It is, man. I am just, just talk 
to each other and please, please try not to ascribe negative 
intentions to another party unless they prove it, man. Ronald 
Reagan, trust but verify.
    If you have noticed, we are a single unit moving forward, 
and that is not changing anytime soon. Mr. Garcia, if you have 
issues with these cats, I want you to come talk to us. 
Everybody at this panel, you have issues with that dude, get a 
hold of us and we will respond. The demand signal comes from 
you, Okay? That is why we are here.
    I want to thank you all for coming. Your testimony is very 
valuable and all the members that participated today. I believe 
that this hearing has helped illuminate some issues, and we are 
moving forward with a purpose. With that, I would like to thank 
you all for coming.
    I ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 
legislative days to review and extend their remarks and include 
any extraneous materials. Without objection, so ordered. This 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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


                         A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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


                    Prepared Statements of Witnesses

                              ----------                              


                  Prepared Statement of Joseph Garcia

    Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin and other Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 
to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA or the Department) 
education benefits programs. I will highlight the current partnership 
between State Approving Agencies (SAA), the National Association of 
State Approving Agencies (NASAA) and VA; risk-based surveys (RBS); and 
the status of VA's Digital GI Bill (DGIB) modernization effort. 
Accompanying me today is James Ruhlman, Deputy Director of Education 
Service.

NASAA and SAAs

    I would like to start by acknowledging and thanking our NASAA and 
SAA partners for their continued commitment to work with their 
respective educational institutions and VA, to ensure the accurate and 
timely delivery of high-quality educational benefits to the Nation's 
Veterans and their families. As you know, VA administers educational 
benefits to eligible Veterans and dependents, while SAAs ensure the 
quality of the educational and vocational programs pursued and monitor 
the institutions providing education and training to Veterans.
    SAAs are VA's vital frontline partners in ensuring Veterans receive 
the quality education and training they deserve. SAAs have a long 
history of serving Veterans dating back to when they were first created 
by Congress as part of the original GI Bill in the Servicemen's 
Readjustment Act of 1944. Although the DGIB program has evolved 
immensely since its inception, the need and function of SAAs have not 
diminished. Today, thorough oversight is more necessary than ever with 
the evolving programs available to Veterans. There are now more 
schools, many of which have multiple campuses spread across the country 
and more training programs and options, such as distance learning. 
Furthermore, online education has become a regular modality for 
Veterans and many fully accredited institutions have a majority of 
their students participating through online courses.
    Title 38 of the United States Code establishes the parameters for 
the relationship between VA and SAAs. Section 3671 requests that each 
state create or designate a state department or agency as the ``State 
Approving Agency.'' SAAs are charged with approving courses, including 
apprenticeship programs, in accordance with the provisions of chapters 
34, 35 and 36 of title 38. SAAs ensure that education and training 
programs meet approval requirements through a variety of approval 
activities, such as evaluating course quality, assessing school 
financial stability and monitoring student progress. SAAs provide data 
on all programs approved under their authority to VA's Education 
Liaison Representatives (ELR) who review the information and enter data 
pertaining to the programs into VA's approval system. VA also utilizes 
the services of SAAs to assist VA in conducting program oversight 
activities by performing RBSs at educational institutions with approved 
programs. The assistance of SAAs in the performance of these activities 
has been, and will continue to be, invaluable in ensuring that Veterans 
receive the highest quality post-secondary education in accordance with 
statutory requirements.
    VA currently has contracts with 52 SAAs in 49 states (with 2 in the 
State of Washington), the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico. VA does not have an SAA contract (during fiscal year (FY) 
2023) with the state of New Hampshire; in which case VA performs the 
SAA duties. SAAs continue to play a vital role in program approval, 
outreach, training and oversight of VA-administered education benefits. 
VA values its collaboration and partnership with SAAs and anticipates 
entering into contracts with all 53 SAAs, including the state of New 
Hampshire, for FY 2024.
    Currently, there are 18,623 domestic and international Institutions 
of Higher Learning (IHL) and Non-College Degree Programs (NCD) with 
programs approved for VA educational assistance benefits by the SAAs or 
approved by VA for foreign schools. Of the 18,623 approved, there were 
12,675 active IHL and NCD institutions in calendar year 2022. During FY 
2022 and FY 2023, VA and SAAs completed over 6,200 surveys, with just 
over 3,000 compliance activities completed to date in FY 2023. These 
activities include compliance surveys required under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3693, as well as Targeted Risk-Based Reviews and RBSs. VA anticipates 
completing a similar number of compliance activities in FY 2024.

Risk-Based Surveys (RBS)

    The Risk Based Survey is an onsite review conducted at educational 
and training institutions, with three principal objectives. First, the 
survey serves as a mechanism for SAAs to review and mitigate potential 
fraud, waste and abuse by utilizing data and risk factors outside of 
the normal program approval and compliance survey processes. Second, it 
allows the SAAs to verify the propriety of educational benefits paid 
under the provisions of the laws administered by VA, to education and 
training institutions on behalf of eligible individuals. Third, the RBS 
ensures SAAs initiate prompt action when risk factors and associated 
deficiencies are substantiated.
    There have been two influential pieces of legislation that directly 
address RBSs. First, section 310 of the Harry W. Colmery Veterans 
Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-48) amended 38 U.S.C. 
Sec.  3673(d) to allow VA to utilize the services of SAAs for 
conducting compliance and RBSs. Second, section 1013 of the Johnny 
Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits 
Improvement Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-315) established new requirements for 
the performance of RBSs at educational institutions. Section 1013 
amended title 38, United States Code, by adding 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3673A, 
which directs VA to develop, in partnership with SAAs, a comprehensive 
program to conduct RBSs and establish a searchable data base. In 
addition, section 1014 mandates the performance of RBSs by SAAs when 
notified or informed of certain actions or conduct concerning 
educational institutions.
    The RBS process allows for the identification of risk factors from 
continuous data collection and analyses gathered from various Federal 
and state sources. The data analyses are used to identify facilities 
with risk factors that indicate potential need for corrective action in 
order to remediate problems and ensure successful outcomes for GI Bill 
beneficiaries. In August 2021, VA added a module to its existing 
Salesforce-based application to capture institution risk-factor 
information from completed surveys, as required by P.L. 116-315 Sec.  
1013. Additionally, the information is searchable through data mining, 
allowing for research and revision of the RBS model in a data-driven 
manner. VA believes the requirements of the law, effective October 1, 
2022, have been met.
    VA continues to work collaboratively with SAAs in the execution of 
RBSs. Surveys are completed in accordance with legislative 
requirements, including identifying and measuring risk factors present 
at institutions and taking appropriate actions to mitigate risks that 
violate program approval requirements, jeopardize the integrity of the 
GI Bill or negatively impact the outcomes of Veterans and other 
beneficiaries.

Partnership

    During the first quarter of FY 2022, NASAA and VA's Education 
Service leadership established an RBS workgroup to discuss best 
practices, gaps and other areas of concern. The main purpose and focus 
of the workgroup were strategizing and formulating the future State of 
the RBS process by evaluating the results of the FY 2021 NASAA pilot 
model.
    The RBS workgroup refined the RBS job aids initially developed for 
the NASAA pilot to eliminate duplicative information and to streamline 
the risk-review process. The job aids are used during visits to 
schools, helping SAA staff by providing clear and concise step-by-step 
instructions, information or guidance. Additionally, a standard 
operating procedure (SOP) was developed to consistently execute RBSs in 
accordance with legislative requirements. The SOP \1\ identifies risk 
factors potentially present at institutions and provides direction on 
taking appropriate actions to mitigate any risks that jeopardize the 
integrity of the GI Bill and the outcomes of beneficiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://vaww.vrm.km.va.gov/system/templates/selfservice/
va_kanew/help/agent/locale/en-US/portal/554400000001048/content/
554400000220722/Standard-Operating-Procedure-Risk-Based-
Surveys?query=RBS percent20standard percent20operating 
percent20procedure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In June and July 2022, NASAA conducted two virtual training events 
and one in-person training session during the NASAA Summer Conference. 
The training provided an understanding of the RBS process from 
beginning to end. In addition, NASAA created an FY 2023 RBS Guide to 
assist SAA members in conducting RBSs. This guide addresses specific 
areas in greater detail and provides guidance and recommendations on 
how to address each step of the process.

FY 2023 RBS Results

    For FY 2023, educational institutions were identified for RBSs 
using a data-driven decision-making approach, as described above. This 
sought to find patterns or correlations between different data points 
indicating problems that may impact compliance with program approval 
requirements and/or the ability to effectively educate VA 
beneficiaries. It was determined that, apart from the statutorily 
specified RBS triggers, facilities need a minimum of two risk factors 
to trigger a review. The modifications were made based on feedback from 
SAA staff, reviews and analyses of data.
    Data are derived from public sites such as the Department of 
Education; extracts from the GI Bill Comparison Tool; and information 
from Education Service's Data Analytics Team. The risk factors and 
thresholds include but are not limited to:

      Rapid Increase in Veteran Enrollment. Evaluates prior 
Academic Years to determine a 30 percent increase or more in the 
Veteran population.

      Rapid Increase in Tuition and Fees. Reviews the facility 
as a whole and the total tuition and fees paid to the institution. The 
difference is calculated between successive years and is a function of 
the number of trainees and the total tuition and fees paid. The 
threshold for a 'rapid' increase is 30 percent.

      Volume and/or Severity of Student Complaints. Reviews GI 
Bill complaints or complaints received from Federal partners, consumer 
agencies and state partners. The GI Bill Feedback Tool is the primary 
source of this information.

      90/10 Rule Violation. The established threshold to 
trigger an RBS is established at 85 percent, prior to exceeding the 
Department of Education's requirement.

      85/15 Rule Violation. Reviews for compliance with 38 
U.S.C. Sec.  3680A(d), as outlined in 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3673A.

      Caution Flag. One or more flags displayed on the GI Bill 
Comparison Tool notifying users of issues that should be taken into 
consideration when choosing an educational institution.

    The FY 2023 Cooperative Agreements between VA and SAAs requires the 
completion of 1,308 RBSs over the course of the fiscal year. As of 
September 13, 2023, 1,195 (91 percent of the required 1,308) RBSs have 
been conducted. There have been 55 education and training institutions 
withdrawn from GI Bill participation due to RBS findings. The following 
discrepancies were identified by SAAs:

      Enrollment Certification Errors

        o Incorrect term dates;

        o Incorrect tuition and fees;

        o Graduation not reported;

        o Leave of absence not reported;

        o Incomplete grades not reported;

        o Operating on-line instruction and hybrid courses beyond June 
        1, 2022;

        o Non-compliance with Dual Certification, as required by 38 
        U.S.C. Sec.  3313(l);

        o Late report of enrollment certification;

        o Satisfactory academic progress not properly applied; and

        o 85/15 rule violation; multiple programs exceeded ratio.

      Approval Violations

        o Operating with unapproved catalog;

        o Inappropriate marketing and advertising;

        o Prior credit evaluation;

        o Lacking proper articulation agreements in place;

        o Discrepancy with grading policy;

        o Operating without business license;

        o Inconsistent attendance records;

        o Incomplete financial ledgers;

        o Certifying unapproved program; and

        o Enrollment agreement clause imposing penalties and/or denying 
        attendance or participation prior to the earlier of the date of 
        VA benefit payment for tuition and fees or 90 days from date of 
        certification of tuition and fee charges to VA; violation of 38 
        U.S.C. Sec.  3679(e).

      Miscellaneous Errors

        o GI Bill Trademark violation.

    During the last quarter of FY 2023, VA has been working with the 
SAAs to revise the RBS model, thresholds, procedures and job aids based 
on SAA feedback and the findings of the RBSs completed during this 
fiscal year as part of an ongoing process of continuous improvement. 
The revisions are being made in collaboration with VA's SAA partners, 
and updated materials will be released prior to October 1, 2023. In 
addition, ELRs and supervisory staff have held meetings with the SAAs 
to discuss the selection of RBSs for completion during FY 2024. Each 
SAA is expected and encouraged to take advantage of the opportunity to 
identify any RBS candidate(s) and priorities at the beginning of the 
fiscal year, and any that may arise throughout the year, based on data 
that support risk factors and align with RBS objectives.

Regulatory Changes

    VA has also taken the initiative to reduce burdens on schools and 
improve customer service to Veterans by modernizing several regulatory 
requirements.
    Stakeholders have expressed confusion regarding VA's regulations 
when it comes to which SAA they should apply for program approval of an 
online course. In October 2021, VA published a proposed rule to clarify 
SAAs' jurisdiction for approval of online distance learning courses.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/14/2021-
21496/state-approving-agency-jurisdiction-rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VA proposed that the SAA with jurisdiction over the school's main 
campus would be the only SAA to which the school needs to apply for 
approval of any of its solely online courses. Additionally, the rule 
seeks to clarify the adjudicatory outcomes available to an SAA when 
reviewing an approval application (i.e., an SAA may approve, deny, 
suspend or withdraw approval. VA proposed to remove the option for an 
SAA to simply not act on an application). Furthermore, VA proposed that 
when an SAA denies an application for approval, suspends a program or 
withdraws a program, the SAA must provide schools with a notice of 
decision outlining reasons for the denial, suspension or withdrawal. VA 
believes the proposed rule would make the program application process 
simpler for schools and SAAs to understand. VA also believes that 
student Veterans would be positively impacted by more expedient 
approvals, resulting in faster additions of program choices for 
training. Additionally, certain online and distance learning modalities 
that may have been previously denied may be able to be approved.
    In October 2022, VA published a proposed rule to simplify the rules 
and clearly state that aid provided by the educational institution is 
considered institutional aid.\3\ This would reduce the administrative 
burden on schools in calculating the ``85/15 rule'' where statute 
requires that no more than 85 percent of the students in a program of 
education can have all or part of their tuition, fees or other charges 
paid to or for them by their educational institution or VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/12/2022-
22107/8515-rule-calculations-waiver-criteria-and-reports.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital GI Bill (DGIB)

    As discussed during the July 2023 ``Reviewing the Digital GI Bill'' 
hearing, VA is modernizing the GI Bill's Information Technology (IT) 
platform to deliver benefits faster and enhance customer service. The 
goal of this effort is to develop a modern digital platform, leveraging 
cloud-based automation, digital service transformation, human-centered 
design, world-class communications, analytics and other important IT 
services. The improvements will provide world-class customer and 
benefit services to Veterans and VA's partners, enabling more timely 
and accurate delivery of education benefits, providing near real-time 
eligibility and benefit information and allowing for first contact 
resolution.
    Since March 2021, when VA awarded a contract to Accenture Federal 
Services (AFS) to develop the DGIB, there have been 6 major releases 
and several smaller releases to modernize GI Bill services. Notably, VA 
incorporated legislative updates from the Johnny Isakson and David P. 
Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 
(P.L. 116-315); activated the DGIB Managed Service platform; deployed 
capabilities to make enrollment-related processes faster and simpler, 
such as verifying enrollment status via email or text message; migrated 
Veteran Employment Through Technology Education Courses claims into the 
DGIB Managed Service platform; improved the application process for 
first-time applicants by automating portions of the Post-9/11 Bill 
application experience and launching Enrollment Manager to modernize 
the system for School Certifying Officials (SCO). VA received positive 
feedback from SCOs and its customers, and these systems are continuing 
to improve the Veteran experience every day. For instance, VA is 
pleased to note that Enrollment Manager has just reached its 2 
millionth enrollment just 5 months after its initial release and 1 
month after it reached 1 million enrollments.
    VA currently fully automates 33 percent of original and 62 percent 
of supplemental GI Bill claims \4\ and is targeting December 2024 to 
automate 35 percent of original and 70 percent of supplemental claims. 
VA is further targeting July 2025 to automate 50 percent of original 
and 80 percent of supplemental claims. To achieve this, VA has 
scheduled the following five upcoming automation deployments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ As of 31 July 2023.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1. October 2023: Enrollment Manager Custom Remarks

        2. December 2023: My Education Benefits Transfer of Entitlement 
        (TOE)

                o Non-College Degree Enrollment Received for Claimant

        3. February 2024: A Change in VA Defense Information Repository 
        (VADIR) TOE Data Has Been Detected

                o Claimant Disagrees With Service Data From VADIR

        4. March 2024: A Change in VADIR Service Data Has Been Detected

    5. October 2024: Reserve Officer Training Corp/Service Academy/Loan 
Repayment Plan Discrepancy

                o Validation of Initial Active-Duty Training/Entry 
                Level Skill Training Time Requirement

    VA continues to leverage a human-centered design to inform its 
conceptualization and development of the future state of DGIB. VA has 
worked with AFS and VA stakeholders to develop a schedule that takes 
DGIB through 2025 when VA's major deployments in the modernization 
effort will come to an end.
    Major deployments planned include Enterprise Management of 
Payments, Workload and Reporting Release, Business Manager, Benefits 
Delivery Network-C and Approval Manager. VA has made tremendous strides 
in the administration of VA education benefits in recent years through 
modernization efforts. Many lessons have been learned along the way, 
and VA continues to seek feedback from partners and find ways to 
improve education benefits delivery through modernization. VA looks 
forward to continued opportunities of working with Congress to address 
Veterans' concerns to provide a better GI Bill experience.

    Conclusion

    VA will continue working closely with NASAA, SAAs, AFS and VA 
stakeholders as we deliver the accurate and timely educational benefits 
the Nation's Veterans have earned. VA remains committed to ensuring 
proper oversight of those benefits and that VA systems are modernized 
in a customer-centric way while remaining effective stewards of 
taxpayer dollars. VA appreciates the support of this Committee and 
looks forward to continued opportunities to work with Congress to 
address Veterans' concerns and provide a better VA experience. Mr. 
Chairman, this concludes my testimony. We would be happy to answer any 
questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Prepared Statement of Joseph Wescott

Introduction

    Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin and members of the 
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am pleased to appear before you 
today on behalf of the fifty-two member State agencies of the National 
Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA). I appreciate the 
opportunity to provide comments to this committee pertaining to ``Less 
is More: The Impact of Bureaucratic Red Tape on Veterans Education 
Benefits,'' and particularly how we can work together with federal and 
state agencies to ensure unrestricted access to quality education and 
training, while continuing to protect students from substandard 
programs and predatory practices. I am accompanied today by NASAA 
President Frank Myers.

         Role of the State Approving Agencies: Past and Present

    State Approving Agencies (SAAs) play a critical role in the 
administration of GI Bill benefits. Shortly after passage of the 
Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, or the GI Bill of Rights, 
Congress, recognizing it was the responsibility of the states within 
our federal system of government to oversee the education of its 
citizens, required that each state establish a ``State Approving 
Agency.'' In response, the Governor of each state designated a state 
bureau or department as the SAA. The SAA was to be supported through 
reimbursement of its expenses by the US Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA). Thus evolved a truly cooperative federal-state partnership that 
maintains the rights of the states while monitoring and protecting a 
federally sponsored program administered under the terms and conditions 
of federal law.
    The original GI Bill, as enacted in 1944, relied on state agencies 
to establish standards for and to approve programs of education in 
which eligible individuals could use GI Bill benefits. Over time SAAs 
have evolved to become the primary means of assuring institutional 
accountability. Federal law is clear in that SAAs are the primary 
governmental body through which approval of education and training for 
Veterans' educational benefits is to occur. With specialized 
authorization under the Code of Federal Regulations and State statutes, 
they exercise the state's authority to approve, disapprove and monitor 
education and training programs. The SAA brings to this mission 
knowledge of state law and regulations as well as knowledge of the 
local environment and needs of the state. SAAs also assist the states 
and VA with exposing fraudulent and criminal activity involving the 
payment of Veteran's benefits.
    In 1948, SAA representatives met to form a professional 
organization to promote high professional standards, create a forum for 
the exchange of best practices, and promote uniformity of purpose and 
practice. For more than seventy-five years, NASAA has worked with our 
VA partners, VSOs, and all agencies to ensure the greatest numbers of 
quality programs are available to those eligible for education and 
training benefits. We do this through our primary mission of program 
approval and our related efforts-compliance, oversight, training, 
liaison and outreach. Indeed, with the exception of federal facilities, 
the State Approving Agencies are the sole authority responsible for the 
approval of all programs of education and training within the nation. 
We take this responsibility seriously and consider ourselves the 
``gatekeepers of quality'' to protect the integrity of the GI Bill by 
ensuring only quality programs are approved.

                        Practice and Partnership

    Today, fifty-two SAAs in 49 states, as well as the District of 
Columbia and the territory of Puerto Rico (One state has two SAAs), 
composed of approximately 215 professional and support personnel, are 
supervising over 13,000 active facilities and nearly 220,000 programs. 
The Subcommittee is no stranger to our fundamental role as it is the 
same today as when we were created by Congress. SAAs work in 
collaboration with the VA and our other partners, such as the National 
Association of Veterans Program Administrators (NAVPA), to promote and 
safeguard quality education and training programs for Veterans and 
other eligible persons and assist the VA in preventing fraud, waste, 
and abuse in the administration of the GI Bill. NASAA believes the 
primary responsibility and focus of the SAAs is, and should continue to 
be, to review, evaluate, and approve programs at schools and training 
facilities, utilizing state and federal criteria.
    It is critical that, as Congress intended, each state has an 
adequately resourced SAA to protect the integrity of the GI Bill. In 
2022 alone, SAAs across our nation completed over 304,000 approval 
actions for all of NASAA's Core Functions: Approval, Compliance, 
Technical Assistance, Outreach, and Liaison. Almost 220,000 programs of 
education and training at universities, colleges, training 
institutions, vocational flight schools, and correspondence schools 
were approved. We do this through an approval process that allows us to 
carefully evaluate many factors including curriculum, instructors, 
policies, facilities, equipment, and advertising. At new facilities, 
after a careful review of the completed application, we schedule an 
inspection visit to the facility to ensure the institution understands 
federal and state requirements and has the capability to oversee and 
administer the program. If we find that they do, we provide training on 
the remainder of the approval process and the continuing expectations. 
After our initial approval, we continue to review the facilities on a 
recurring basis as schools and training providers add or change 
programs and policies. Also, as a part of this approval process, where 
applicable, we ensure that schools are in compliance with Public Law 
112-249 and are not providing any ``commission, bonus, or other 
incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing 
enrollments or financial aid to any persons or entities engaged in any 
student recruiting or admission activities.'' For schools who are 
signatories of the ``Principles of Excellence (POE),'' we provide 
training and information to them as well. We also explain important 
requirements such as the 85/15 rule, notification to us if there are 
negative accreditation findings, and other areas of concern.
    In 2011, with the implementation of Section 203 of Public Law 111-
377, the Post-911 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act, we 
began assisting VA with their requirement to perform compliance survey 
visits at SAA-approved institutions. By 2018, we were conducting over 
2,000 compliance survey visits. An unintended consequence of Section 
203 was the diminution of the ability of SAAs to devote adequate time 
to approvals and robust oversight to ensure student veterans were being 
provided quality education and training. P.L. 111-377, specifically 
Section 203, established ``deemed approved'' programs that do not 
require an in-depth review because another agency with an established 
process and related mission has approved them. As interpreted and 
implemented by VA, an unfortunate and unforeseen consequence was all 
programs at institutions meeting such ``deemed approved'' criteria did 
not receive the rigorous oversight required by the SAA approval 
process. This hindered our oversight of these approvals, in some cases 
to the extent that certain contracted programs, particularly flight 
training, became approved costing taxpayers millions and graduating 
Veterans who were hard pressed to find meaningful employment. 
Furthermore, the increased focus on compliance surveys adversely 
impacted the SAA's ability to dedicate time and personnel to our 
critical approval and oversight functions, as codified by law. Prior to 
2011, SAAs generally visited more than 80 percent of all institutions 
with approved programs in their states annually. Today, most SAAs visit 
less than 50 percent of these institutions. All of these factors, and 
those addressed below, called for change. Congress recognized the need 
for a new day in compliance and oversight.

                           Risk Based Surveys

    The House and Senate Veterans Affairs committees watched with 
growing bipartisan impatience as inadequate oversight allowed some 
schools to prey on veterans, capture millions in taxpayer dollars, and 
too often close their doors with little warning. In response to this 
situation, in 2017, they included in the Harry W. Colmery Veterans 
Educational Assistance Act (also known as the Forever GI Bill) 
provisions that for the first time would allow SAAs to evaluate the 
risk of these programs: the risk of poor finances, of harming student 
veterans, and of leaving taxpayers holding the bag when schools 
consistently fail students or abruptly shut down. The Colmery Act also 
authorized a modest, and much needed, funding increase for SAAs and 
mandated the Government Accountability Office issue a report on SAA 
capacity and performance. That GAO report found that a focus on risk 
was indeed warranted. Recognizing that compliance surveys were 
insufficient as a tool to address low-quality education leaving 
students worse off or the use of misleading and deceptive practices, 
the Colmery Act required for the first time that SAAs begin evaluating 
the risk that schools approved to disburse GI Bill funds posed to 
veterans and their families. This was the first time such a robust 
requirement for risk-based reviews was passed in any higher education 
context. Yet in the first two years following passage, VA and the SAAs 
did not have either the resources or the experience required to design 
and create a risk-based system, and there was no publicly transparent 
precedent to use as a model.
    In late 2020, the Colmery Act's focus on risk-based surveys was 
reinforced with the passage of P.L. 116-315, the Isakson and Roe 
Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (Isakson-
Roe), which was championed by veterans' service organizations (VSOs). 
Isakson-Roe further strengthened the SAAs' risk-based survey authority 
and required that SAAs exclusively conduct risk-based reviews beginning 
in October 2022. The law would further specify minimum criteria that 
must be examined during risk-based reviews. NASAA, aware of the intent 
of Congress and recognizing that compliance surveys alone could not 
address questions surrounding quality and risk, sought to establish a 
new model of oversight. We approached the Lumina Foundation in the 
summer of 2019 for a grant to provide funding to develop and test that 
model. That early effort would lead to a dedicated effort to design, 
build, pilot, and scale a model that could be effectively used by all 
SAAs, from those in small states with only one full-time employee, to 
large states that must oversee hundreds of GI Bill recipient 
institutions. This process resulted in the development and 
implementation of a quantitative model that evaluated programs based on 
risk to veterans and taxpayers and focused limited resources on those 
programs evincing the highest level of risk--with attendant 
requirements for improvement or risk of loss of GI Bill eligibility. A 
report produced by the American Legion in January 2022 entitled 
``Lessons from a Risk-Based Oversight Model Designed to Protect 
Students and Taxpayers'' summarized the collective efforts to design, 
build, and pilot these statutorily required risk-based surveys, learn 
from the pilot and make any needed adjustments, and in the coming year, 
scale to all 50 states by October 2022 consistent with the law.
    With funding from Lumina Foundation and pro bono support from 
Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough, a total of almost half a 
million dollars, NASAA and EdCounsel undertook the pilot design by 
convening an advisory council of 22 members representing student 
veterans, State Approving Agencies, schools, accreditors, states, and 
other experts. These advisory council members--along with many others 
who were consulted throughout this process--provided regular and 
invaluable guidance on the overall structure and principles of the 
model. NASAA and EdCounsel also worked closely with six pilot SAAs (in 
addition to the two non-pilot SAAs serving on the advisory council) to 
understand their capacity and perspectives on risk. Research was 
conducted on precedents and examples of risk-based surveys in other 
contexts, such as higher education oversight models from other 
countries and models predicting housing foreclosure risk and financial 
oversight of publicly traded companies; and previous work on risk-based 
surveys. During the design of the initial risk filter and deeper review 
tools and forms, the focus was intentionally on feasibility of 
implementation and scaling across SAAs as well as other federal 
contexts. The end result was a new model of oversight that looked at 
meaningful metrics (graduation and retention rates, advertising, 
financial security, increases in veteran's enrollment, etc.), was 
programmatic in application and oversight, and most importantly, 
veteran centric. In other words, the model would determine if the 
schools were offering quality programs which kept the promise of better 
jobs and opportunities.
    The key to the model's success was that the risk-based survey 
system seeks to separate low-risk schools from high-risk schools using 
quantitative measures, and to then prioritizes further data requests 
and site visits to those schools showing the highest levels of risk 
within a specific state. The system uses publicly available data to 
automate the process of ranking programs in a state from higher to 
lower risk. This allowed SAAs to focus their risk-based survey visits 
on those institutions most likely to present risk to students and 
taxpayers. This is why a searchable data base that SAAs could access 
was and still is absolutely necessary for the success of the nationwide 
rollout. The risk-based model had received positive responses from VA, 
the SAAs, and lawmakers on the Congressional veterans authorizing 
committees. With a data base to guide them to potentially troubled 
institutions, SAAs could then conduct an extensive review of detailed 
data and documents furnished by schools prior to a site visit that 
looked closely at curriculum, instructors and veteran support services. 
In the end, schools are evaluated on the opportunities and outcomes 
provided for and to student veterans. The model proved that SAAs were 
able to better identify schools that were at risk of closure due to 
substandard programming, fraudulent advertising and/or improper 
practices.
    So, what went wrong? As already stated, the absence of a data base 
as required by law, resulted in the VA assigning schools for a risk-
based survey that were not actually at risk. SAAs spent valuable 
resources reviewing accredited institutions that had experienced minor 
increases in veteran enrollment but were otherwise operating sound, 
quality programs. The time spent conducting unnecessary reviews created 
a waste of SAA, school official, and ultimately taxpayer resources. In 
addition, due to an inordinate interest in process and being able to 
perform quality assurance at some future time, VA insisted that SAAs 
upload almost all documents produced during a Risk Based Survey. While 
the intent of the model had been a focus on outcomes with a final 
comprehensive report to detail the findings, SAAs were instead required 
to direct their time toward cataloguing and uploading survey materials. 
Finally, the VA took several months reviewing and revising the model, 
which would have been better spent developing a searchable data base or 
preparing for and providing training for SAAs and institutions. 
Thankfully, Director Garcia and his team are attempting to move in the 
direction of the original model with a more streamlined process for the 
coming year, and I believe they understand the critical necessity of 
the searchable and comprehensive data base.

                  Red Tape and Bureaucratic Overreach

    State Approving Agencies are adamant about only approving quality 
programs that provide good jobs, opportunities and a better future for 
our veterans and their families. This consists of ensuring that all 
veterans, including those in rural areas, have access to quality 
education programs and job training. Unfortunately, in recent years, VA 
interpretation of certain laws have resulted in requirements which led 
to some schools deciding to withdraw from the GI Bill program. In fact, 
in the last year alone, almost 500 schools have requested that their 
approvals be withdrawn due to SCO certification training requirements, 
audits performed too close together, too many requirements for 
reapproval, and ID.Me requirements. Sadly, the impact of these 
withdrawals has been more severe on small but high-quality programs, 
often serving rural areas or programs of specialty training that are 
not housed at a large school where interaction with student-veterans is 
more frequent. The result of this is that veterans in rural America are 
losing access to essential training and quality education aimed at 
serving those who are not attending a large college or university. With 
the loss of these in resident programs, there is concern that veterans 
from rural areas may be driven to lesser quality online education or 
worse, not even be able to utilize the benefits they have rightfully 
earned. Equally troubling are the VA plans to redefine ``independent 
study'' and ``online education'' in such a way that there will no 
longer be a regulatory barrier to offering online training at 
unaccredited Non College Degree (NCD) programs. While SAAs are 
generally welcoming of a change to approving online education and would 
welcome additional language in law surrounding this modality of 
learning, there is some concern that implementation of these changes 
could create a perfect storm of approving a plethora of inadequate 
education and training programs. As we are witnessing these small in-
residence facilities withdraw due to administrative burdens, we 
hesitate to open the flood gates to larger online facilities that may 
have more capacity but offer asynchronous instruction that is difficult 
to regulate or monitor for quality.
    Another example of unnecessary bureaucratic red tape is requiring 
accredited institutions accepted by the US Department of Education to 
offer Title IV funding. P.L. 116-315 Section 1015 implemented this 
requirement, and as I recall from the drafting of the statute in this 
area, the intent was to create a mechanism allowing SAAs to suspend or 
withdraw approval from institutions that lost the ability to offer 
Title IV due to actions that would indicate a concern with a facility 
being able to continue offering high-quality education. Unfortunately, 
the requirement as written has resulted in numerous institutions, 
particularly those offering strictly religious education, medical 
residency, EMT, and paramedic programs, feeling forced to withdraw from 
the GI Bill program. These are programs and facilities that are 
accredited by regional accrediting bodies that oversee other colleges 
and universities large and small, but because these facilities do not 
participate in the Federal Title IV program, they are no longer 
eligible for GI Bill benefits. The VA's restricted reading of their 
waiver authority, as allowed by the law, has resulted in numerous 
seminary, pastoral, and other religious training programs, as well as 
several medical training programs being withdrawn due to a law change 
that creates a situation where accredited facilities are unable to 
participate in the program, but nonaccredited ones are.
    Likewise, the VA's interpretation that all institutions, including 
small NCDs, Apprenticeships and OJTs, must undergo hours of 
certification training and provide their personal SSN information to 
gain access to new VA software that certifies veteran attendance 
participating in education programs, has resulted in quality schools 
requesting to be withdrawn. An example of the impact of this 
requirement is that today, there are NO private truck driving schools 
approved in the State of Illinois. Until recently, the VA offered low-
bar online methodologies for small facilities to submit accurate 
enrollment information in a quick and efficient manner but that is no 
longer an option. While many of these affected programs had small (1-2) 
veteran enrollments, NASAA firmly believes that every veteran should 
have access to use their entitlement. The VA should work in partnership 
with the State Approving Agencies to find meaningful ways to address 
these areas if we are to assure continued veteran access to quality 
training and education, particularly in rural America.
    While SAAs always believe in strong approval criteria and oversight 
of training programs accepting GI Bill benefits, some specialty areas 
of training who wish to become approved are subject to undue burdens 
that often duplicate the efforts of other State or Federal agencies 
that oversee and approve their curriculum. For example, public criminal 
justice, fire, and rescue academy programs which lead to certification 
as a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, sheriff, 
firefighter, or first responder are subject to the same approval 
criteria and mechanisms as colleges, universities, and trade-schools. 
These criteria are often unnecessary given the type of training 
provided at these facilities, such as providing a financial aid 
shopping sheet or designating to the VA that specific employees are 
providing academic or career counseling. In addition, accredited 
medical residency and fellowship programs, and Part 141 and Part 142 
pilot schools and flight training centers, are subject to approval 
criteria that is poorly defined in US Code and often subject to 
confusion by veterans, facilities, SAAs, and the VA. NASAA supports 
efforts to formally move these programs as being approvable under 38 
USC Sec.  3672's ``deemed approved'' criteria, as another agency with 
an established process and related mission has accredited or approved 
them. It is our belief that these programs meet the spirit of the 
reason the deemed approved law was created, and formalizing these 
facilities approval criteria would continue strong oversight by SAAs 
while also allowing access to a wide variety of career and technical 
training opportunities.

        Real Partnership and a Renewed Focus on Veteran Success

    In the last year, largely due to the vision and leadership of 
Director Joseph Garcia, communications between the VA and State 
Approving Agencies have improved markedly. Likewise, we sense a renewed 
commitment to partnership in formulating policy and process. However, 
if we are to be successful in assuring the long term success of the GI 
Bill educational program, there must be a renewed commitment to this 
historic State and Federal partnership as well as an undiminished focus 
on ensuring that there are limited or no negative impacts on our 
veterans and their families. We can begin this new partnership with the 
VA, as it did for many years, by sharing the funding model for SAAs 
with the NASAA Cooperative Agreement Committee so we can better 
understand what governs the distribution of funds allocated to each SAA 
and States can better plan how to best use resources to protect our 
Veterans. Likewise, regulatory and policy/process changes should not be 
made in a vacuum. SAAs should be at the table, early on, so as to help 
the VA make practical changes which avoid unpleasant and unforeseen 
consequences for our student veterans. Finally, enhanced communication 
with SAAs and particularly the educational and training institutions we 
serve will go far to renew trust and ensure quality service for our 
veterans. The recent late great unpleasantness surrounding complex and 
confusing 85/15 requirements, which eventually required congressional 
intervention, is an example of how real partnership and meaningful 
communication could have avoided a painful process for all.
    State Approving Agencies desire to perform robust risk-based 
surveys, combined with less comprehensive but equally important 
supervisory visits, as part of the approval and oversight function of 
the SAAs. SAAs are committed to protecting Veterans by identifying high 
risk activities at the institutions we approve through the completion 
of these visits in addition to our equally important focus on approval. 
Both of these activities will help proactively identify red flags at 
the institutions and entities we oversee and thus enable SAAs to 
properly identify systematic issues so as to prevent educational or 
financial harm to our veterans and loss of taxpayer funds. As such, 
NASAA strongly believes the VA and SAAs must remain committed to the 
more proactive approach provided by risk-based surveys and enhanced 
approval requirements. We must continue to look rigorously at 
accreditation issues, enrollment practices and where possible, 
employment data. As trained educators, we are best suited to provide 
this important rigorous oversight and in-depth evaluation. Though we 
maintain the approval of non-Federal programs is properly vested in the 
States, we believe the VA should ensure states are adequately 
protecting the integrity and independence of SAAs and ensuring Federal 
funds are properly expended. In the long term, this proactive approach 
will continue to protect the integrity of the GI Bill and taxpayer 
interests in our combined efforts to serve Veterans and their families.

Conclusion

    Mr. Chairman, today, SAAs throughout this great nation as well as 
US territories and the District of Columbia, are committed to ensuring 
that our Veterans and their families have unfettered access to quality 
training and educational programs while utilizing their earned benefits 
provided to them by the GI Bill. We are extremely grateful for the 
opportunity to once again appear before this committee to share our 
positions on the important topic of protecting our veterans and the GI 
Bill from unnecessary red tape that restricts veteran access to the 
benefits they need for better lives. We remain committed to working 
closely with our VA partners, VSO stakeholders and educational 
institutions on these and other initiatives designed to protect the 
quality and the integrity of the various GI Bill programs and the 
Veterans and family members who have sacrificed so much for this great 
Nation. They are truly our greatest treasure. I thank you again for 
this opportunity and I look forward to answering any questions that you 
or committee members may have.
                                 ______
                                 

                   Prepared Statement of Anne Meehan

    Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    Thank you for inviting me to speak at this hearing on ways to 
remove bureaucratic red tape and streamline the administration of 
veterans education programs. My name is Anne Meehan, Assistant Vice 
President of Government Relations at the American Council on Education 
(ACE). ACE represents approximately 1,700 public and private colleges 
and universities and related higher education associations.
    I would like to highlight for the Subcommittee some of the issues 
that have arisen with the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) recent 
implementation of a ``risk-based survey'' compliance tool.
    Colleges and universities recognize the important role that 
Congress and the VA play in the oversight of veterans education 
benefits. Congress has made a significant investment in these programs, 
and it is critical that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect 
against waste, fraud and abuse - both to protect taxpayer dollars and 
to ensure veterans are receiving a high quality education. At the same 
time, in our effort to root out problems and identify bad actors, we 
must be mindful that we do not inadvertently create unnecessary 
compliance burdens on colleges and universities that are serving 
veterans well.
    We commend the VA for its efforts to develop and implement a risk-
based survey model, as required under the Johnny Isakson and David P. 
Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 
(``Isakson Roe''). We recognize VA's commitment to ensuring oversight 
of all institutions approved to receive veterans education benefits. At 
the same time, we believe VA's tool, both in design and practice, 
reflects a misunderstanding of how a risk-based, or risk-informed, 
compliance tool is intended to work. Further, while we recognize that 
portions of the statute could be clearer, we believe that VA's model is 
inconsistent with the statutory requirements and Congressional intent.
    To be clear, the higher education community is not opposed to the 
concept of risk-based models.\1\ To the contrary, we believe that risk-
based surveys, when done right, can be a valuable and efficient 
oversight tool. The goal of a risk-based survey model is to identify a 
limited number of institutions exhibiting certain ``red flags'' on 
readily available public metrics. Based on these flags, the institution 
is then subject to further scrutiny to determine if there is a risk to 
students or taxpayer funds and to allow the regulator to take further 
action as needed. A risk-based model is a way to target finite 
oversight resources to address the areas of greatest concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A risk-informed approach to regulation and oversight is not a 
new idea in higher education circles. In fact, as part of a 2015 
bipartisan task force on regulation, ACE commissioned a white paper 
examining a risk-informed approach to reduce regulatory burden while 
maintaining adequate safeguards for federal dollars. See Appendix III 
of the task force's report at https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Higher-
Education-Regulations-Task-Force-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ACE has heard from a number of institutions who have been subject 
to VA's risk-based survey over the past year. In general, concerns have 
fallen into three areas: (1) concerns related to the triggers VA uses 
to select institutions for a risk-based survey; (2) concerns about the 
information required once selected for a risk-based review; and (3) 
specific concerns about the ``financial soundness review'' required as 
part of a risk-based survey.

    1. Concerns related to the triggers used to select an institution 
for a risk-based review.

    Over the past year, VA has selected more than 1,200 institutions of 
higher learning--including more than 600 public and private, degree-
granting college and universities - for a risk-based review. The large 
number of institutions selected suggests that VA's model is not 
sufficiently focused on the institutions of greatest concern. We have 
heard that some State Approving Agencies (SAAs) have been required to 
conduct risk-based surveys at hundreds of institutions. This raises 
questions about whether, despite their best efforts, SAAs will be 
spread too thin, and unable to focus on institutions that pose the 
greatest risks.
    Many campuses report they are unaware of the reason why they were 
selected for a risk-based review, and we would urge the VA to be more 
transparent about these triggers. In cases where institutions know what 
has triggered the review, the purported reason often appears 
insufficient to suggest a heightened risk of non-compliance.
    For example, some campuses were selected on the basis of having a 
program fail the 85/15 rule during a period when VA had drastically 
changed its policies around compliance and before Congress overrode 
these policies through legislation. In one case, the 85/15 ``failure'' 
occurred in a program without a single veteran at an institution that 
qualified for the 35 percent exemption and had a total veteran 
population below 5 percent.
    Some campuses were selected based on a single complaint on matters 
unrelated to the quality of the education program. In one case, the 
complaint was decades old and had never been verified. In another case, 
the complaint was from a non-student.
    Some campuses were selected due to nothing more than a standard 
tuition increase. Some were selected because of a slight increase in 
the total number of veterans in a program - which was common in 2021 as 
we emerged from the pandemic and a positive sign, not a sign of 
risk.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Some of the reasons given sound similar to items listed in 
section 3673A, which defines the ``scope'' of the risk-based surveys. 
While parts of this section could be clarified, it is clear that the 
items listed were not intended as a second list of mandatory triggers. 
Rather, these appear to be items that considered together or in 
conjunction with other information might form the basis for the SAA to 
conclude, in its discretion, that a risk-based survey is warranted at a 
particular institution. Further clarification to distinguish the 
specific purposes and goals of sections 3673(e) and section 3673A may 
be instructive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are unaware of any cases where the risk-based survey was 
triggered by one of the events listed in section 3673(e), even though 
we believe those situations are ones that should trigger a risk-based 
survey.

    2. Concerns about the information required once selected for a 
review.

    Campuses also have expressed concerns regarding the large amount of 
information they must provide to their SAA - typically within 10 days 
or less. One large university was required to produce ``tens of 
thousands of documents'' in response to the survey. Coordinating this 
response is a massive undertaking requiring assistance from campus 
officials across multiple offices. While most offices are happy to 
help, many may not understand the immediacy or importance of the 
response and it is difficult to ask them to drop everything when they 
are busy assisting students and engaged in other essential tasks. When 
one campus raised concerns about their ability to gather the necessary 
documents in time to meet a two-week deadline, the SAA noted that they 
were only required to give the school two days' notice.
    To some, the risk-based review appears to be ``a large fishing 
expedition'' resulting in a massive information dump that would be 
impossible for the SAA to review in any meaningful way.
    Among the requirements, campuses must provide:

      complaints received over a three-year window on virtually 
any topic (e.g., complaints about the dining hall or complaints to 
information technology that a server was down);

      all advertising for the prior 24 months including 
digital, print and video aids, student handouts and brochures, a list 
of entities paid for advertising or marketing, and websites created or 
used by third party contractors for purposes of advertising, marketing 
or recruiting; and

      detailed student information for selected students 
including admissions documents, test scores, attendance records, 
student transcripts, and student financial records.

    In addition, institutions must permit the SAA to monitor a class in 
order to ``determine the educational quality of the instruction.'' As 
one campus put it:

        ``This is another item which, while well-intentioned, severely 
        misses the mark when put into practice at a major research 
        institution. It is insulting to both the faculty and the [SAA] 
        to put them in a position to determine the suitability of the 
        instruction.''

    This level of intrusion into institutional academic and curricula 
matters is highly inappropriate, which is why Federal statute 
specifically prohibits the U.S. Department of Education (ED) from 
engaging in this type of interference.

    3. Concerns about VA's ``financial soundness review.''

    Campuses also raised concerns about the information required under 
the ``financial soundness review.'' The balance sheet and income 
statement categories requested on this form oversimplify financial 
information on audited financial statements. It also fails to comport 
with definitions in U.S. GAAP promulgated by the Financial Accounting 
Standards Board (FASB) and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board 
(GASB) used for nonprofit and public higher education institutions, 
respectively. The requested financial information appears to confuse 
what business entities, such as for-profit institutions, report in 
their audited financial statement as compared to what nonprofit and 
public institutions are required to report. In short, the financial 
information requested appears to parallel for-profit financial 
reporting but does not work for nonprofit and public institutions. We 
question the need for public institutions to complete this survey, 
given that they are backed by the full faith and credit of their 
respective states, and they do not receive a financial composite score 
from ED.
    By requiring institutions to provide additional financial 
information from audited statements directly to the VA, the financial 
soundness review runs contrary to the intention behind the Single Audit 
Act. Nonprofit and public institutions are subject to the Act, and 
annual federal audits are conducted using a regularly updated Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Compliance Supplement, with related audited 
financial statements submitted through the clearinghouse to OMB. Such 
financial statements are available upon request. Duplicating audited 
information already submitted to the federal government creates an 
additional and unnecessary burden for nonprofits and public 
institutions.
    If the current risk-based survey remains in place, VA runs the risk 
that some colleges and universities will begin to question their 
continued participation in VA's education programs, particularly at 
institutions where veterans make up a small percentage of the student 
population. We hope that Congress will encourage the VA to narrow its 
risk-based survey to focus on institutions that pose a serious risk of 
non-compliance, while shielding other institutions from an unnecessary 
compliance burden. We stand ready to work with the Subcommittee and 
with the VA to help VA improve its current risk-based survey protocol.

    Other Issues:

    In addition to our concerns around risk-based surveys, I would like 
to mention three other issues for the Subcommittee's consideration:

    1. A dedicated webpage for all VA's Education Service policies, 
guidance, and training:

    We have long recommended that VA create a website that provides 
links to all policy guidance, email notices, electronic announcements, 
webinars, and training modules related to the administration of veteran 
education benefits. We believe that the Department of Education, Office 
of Federal Student Aid's ``Knowledge Center'' provides a useful model 
in this regard. See https://fsapartners.ed.gov/home.

    2. 85/15 Reporting:

    Despite passage of the Ensuring the Best Schools for Veterans Act, 
we continue to hear concerns about VA's oversight of 85/15 rules at 
traditional college and universities. 85/15 reporting continues to be 
tedious, as it is calculated by program and academic term. It is also 
required even when there are no VA students enrolled in a given program 
and term. Further, schools with a 35 percent exemption are still 
required to maintain calculations, despite having a waiver in place. 
Finally, the definition of a supported student includes students 
utilizing a payment plan, unless that payment plan is offered to all 
students. Some schools within an institution may not allow payment 
plans, which brings the payment plan into the calculation as support.

    3. School Catalogs:

    When administering veterans' benefits, one of the most significant 
roadblocks schools encounter is the annual catalog process. There is no 
standard catalog checklist to help school certifying officials compile 
their catalog and often, the SAA and VA disagree on the requirements 
for program approval. These issues, in addition to the volume of 
catalogs the VA must review, can cause delays (often years) in catalogs 
and new programs being approved, which has negative financial 
implications on veterans and eligible dependents.
    For accredited schools with Title IV eligible programs, it would be 
prudent for the VA to mirror the ED's requirements, removing the 
cumbersome program approval process if a program is listed on the 
Program Participation Agreement and the school has a valid Eligibility 
and Certification Approval Record, allowing standard degree programs to 
be deemed approved as laid out in 38 U.S. Code 3672(b)(2). For non-
accredited programs, the VA should focus on a clear and consistent 
catalog approval process.

    Conclusion

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee, 
and for your efforts on behalf of our nation's veterans. I would be 
pleased to answer any questions.

                 Prepared Statement of Jan Del Signore
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Prepared Statement of Will Hubbard
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Prepared Statement of Joe Rasmussen
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                       Statements for the Record

                              ----------                              


                Prepared Statement of Charles Bernstein
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                 [all]