[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
H.R. 6656; H.R. 7323; H.R. XXXX; H.R. XXXX;.
H.R. XXXX; H.R. 6225; H.R. XXXX; H.R. XXXX; AND H.R. XXXX
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-145 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, MARCH 20, 2024
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Derrick Van Orden, Chairman........................ 1
The Honorable Mike Levin, Ranking Member......................... 2
WITNESSES
Panel 1
Ms. Melissa Cohen, Executive Director of Outreach, Transition,
and Economic Development, Veterans Benefits Administration,
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 4
Accompanied by:
Mr. Nathan Sanfilippo, Executive Director of Multichannel
Technology, Veterans Experience Office, Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Thomas Alphonso, Assistant Director of Education
Services, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. James Rodriguez, Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment
and Training Service, Department of Labor...................... 5
Panel 2
Ms. Nadine Bullock-Pottinga, Chief Development Officer, Hire
Heroes USA..................................................... 11
Mr. Gregory John, Founder & President, Infinity Flight Group..... 13
Mr. Matthew Schwartzman, Director, Legislation and Military
Policy, Reserve Organization of America........................ 14
Ms. Kristina Keenan, Deputy Director, National Legislative
Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars.............................. 16
Mr. Marquis Barefield, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans..................................... 17
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements Of Witnesses
Ms. Melissa Cohen Prepared Statement............................. 31
Mr. James Rodriguez Prepared Statement........................... 38
Ms. Nadine Bullock-Pottinga Prepared Statement................... 43
Mr. Gregory John Prepared Statement.............................. 45
Mr. Matthew Schwartzman Prepared Statement....................... 45
Ms. Kristina Keenan Statement.................................... 57
Mr. Marquis Barefield Prepared Statement......................... 60
Statements For The Record
USAA Federal Savings Bank Prepared Statement..................... 65
Veterans Education Success Prepared Statement.................... 66
APPENDIX--continued
Disabled American Veterans Prepared Statement.................... 74
Joint Letter from RecruitMilitary, Orion Talent, Military Talent
Pipeline, LLC, Semper Forward, and ZeroMils.................... 75
The American Legion Prepared Statement........................... 77
The Honorable Ken Calvert, U.S. House of Representatives, (CA-42)
Prepared Statement............................................. 85
Questions for the Record Submitted by The Honorable Juan
Ciscomani for Melissa Cohen.................................... 86
Answers to Questions for the Record Submitted to Melissa Cohen... 87
Questions for the Record Submitted by The Honorable Juan
Ciscomani for James Rodriguez.................................. 90
Questions for the Record Submitted by The Honorable Juan
Ciscomani for Nadine Bullock-Pottinga.......................... 91
Questions for the Record Submitted by The Honorable Juan
Ciscomani for Kristina Keenan.................................. 92
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
H.R. 6656; H.R. 7323; H.R. XXXX; H.R. XXXX;
H.R. XXXX; H.R. 6225; H.R. XXXX; H.R. XXXX; AND H.R. XXXX
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:41 a.m., in
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Derrick Van Orden
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Van Orden, Levin, McGarvey, and
Ramirez.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DERRICK VAN ORDEN, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Van Orden. Subcommittee will come to order. I welcome
the witnesses and subcommittee members to today's hearing. As I
have often said in the subcommittee, this is not a bipartisan
committee. This is a non-partisan committee, and it will remain
as such. We owe that to the people that served our Nation.
We have got nine important legislative proposals to
consider here today. It is important note that not all of the
proposals will move forward in this process. The purpose of
this hearing is to hear from individuals with expertise on the
various legislative proposals so that we can make informed
decisions about whether to move these bills forward. The
valuable insight provided by these stakeholders and agencies is
essential to the work of the subcommittee, and a number of
these proposals seek to improve education programs for
America's veterans and ensure that GI Bill dollars are being
used responsibly.
One of the bills being proposed by the chairman of the
committee would expand the existing authorities of the Veterans
Affairs (VA) Secretary to disapprove schools that are guilty of
fraud or misrepresentation, and I strongly support this bill.
This expanded authority will allow the secretary to restore
benefits and recoup costs for veterans who are defrauded. We
have considered other proposals to restore benefits in
situations where there are allegations of fraud. However, this
is the first proposal that is rooted in the VA authority and
includes the necessary due process for schools.
I specifically want to highlight two bills that I am
offering for consideration as well. One bill would allow
individuals using their Montgomery GI Bill gained through
service in the Selective Reserve to utilize in-state tuition
waiver for attending schools in neighboring states. As of now,
they are not part of the waiver in the statute, and I think it
is a logical expansion of existing authority that allows
reciprocity between states. We have got to remember that our
Selective Reserves and our National Guard folks, the enemy does
not care. They see an American flag on your shoulder and they
will target you as such. We just learned this with our three
brave soldiers that were killed earlier in Jordan.
My other bill, up for discussion today, makes improvements
to the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for servicemembers
leaving the military. This legislation would require data
collection on the experience of transitioning servicemembers.
We need to have a better understanding of how we are preparing
our military members and their families for civilian life.
Certain branches are doing TAP better, and certain groups
within branches are doing TAP better. Naval special warfare has
an outstanding 24 month program, and I want to make sure that
we can leverage the lessons learned and promulgate the best
practices across the board.
At this hearing, we will also explore legislation that
would encourage VA to create a callback system instead of
putting callers on hold. This type of technology is widely
available and I do not know why we are not doing this now. It
is just silly. I have reservations about some proposals in the
agenda today, I will be frank.
The witness's testimony and questions to the members of the
subcommittee are very important that we hear those answers from
the questions asked by my fellow members. We look forward to
hearing from members who have introduced these proposals, as
well as our witnesses on how we can continue to improve these
bills and create more economic opportunities for veterans.
I will now yield to ranking member for 5 minutes for his
opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Levin. Thank my friend the chairman for holding this
legislative hearing on nine pieces of legislation. I would like
to start out by highlighting a few of the bills on the agenda
that illustrate our continued efforts to deliver more results.
That is what this is all about, is delivering results.
First, I would like to thank Ranking Member Takano for his
work-study expansion bill, which would provide more
opportunities for veterans to participate in work-study in
Congress.
Next, Representative Davis' Bill of Veterans Employment
Readiness Yield Act of 2024 will remove antiqued terms from the
Veterans Readiness and Employment (VR&E) program statutes. My
hope is that the change in language will encourage more
veterans with service connected disabilities to participate in
the VR&E program.
We also have legislation related to the VA Home Loan
program, which is a critical resource for servicemembers and
veterans wanting to own a home. The path to home ownership
should be more accessible with the goal of ensuring more
individuals can buy quality, affordable homes. Representative
Ryan's bill would do just, that by allowing National Guard and
Reserve members to access the program, and Representative
Meng's Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act would expand the
program to include residential cooperative housing.
Shifting to education I was surprised to see legislation
regarding restoration of GI Bill benefits on the agenda
considering this committee marked up a more comprehensive
restoration bill from Representative Ramirez last July, and
that bill is still awaiting for consideration. I want to be
clear. I support the text of this restoration bill, but I think
too many students may be left out. I hope the Ramirez text can
be incorporated and that we can bring it to the floor as soon
as possible.
Finally, I was excited to see a package focused on
servicemembers transition on the agenda, but disappointed that
Democratic proposals were left out. If the committee is
proposing changes within the Title 10 space, I would hope that
my transition improvement by estimating Risk Act or Tier Act
H.R. 6725 would be included.
I also have some newer TAP reform proposals based on the
oversight visits that my staff and majority staff conducted
last summer at Camp Lejeune, Naval Station Norfolk and Fort
Liberty. I would hope that this subcommittee takes a wide view
of what it considers transition related, to include my Guard
and Reserve GI Bill, Parity Act, H.R 7543, Mr. Takano's Justice
for Servicemembers Act, H.R. 5516, and Ensuring Veterans'
Smooth Transition (EVEST) Act, H.R. 5416, as well as proposals
on food insecurity, federal military leave days, and updates to
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), Vietnam Era
Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA), and the
SkillBridge program. On this bill specifically, I agree with
the spirit and the intent, but I have some concerns around the
content.
I believe this subcommittee has a treasure trove of bills,
Mr. Chairman, a treasure trove of bills ready for
consideration, ready to pass the House, be signed into law. I
would welcome more legislative hearings this year. I stand
ready to work with the chairman on his priorities. In addition,
I look forward to the field hearing in the chairman's district
next month and scheduling an upcoming oversight hearing I have
requested on homelessness programs. We have much to accomplish,
and time is running short. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin. Listen, you
are not going to get an argument out of me. You are right. This
committee has done incredible work, and it is time that we get
these things to the floor, get them voted on, give everybody a
chance to say yes or no. Let people see where they stand.
Support our veterans. I will speak to leadership again today
about getting this done because you are absolutely right. Hey,
man, we are here for them, not us.
I will now introduce the witness panel. Our first witness
is Ms. Melissa Cohen, the Executive Director of Outreach,
Transition, and Economic Development at the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Ms. Cohen is accompanied by Mr. Nathan
Sanfilippo. Did I get that right?
Mr. Sanfilippo. Yes.
Mr. Van Orden. Executive Director of Multichannel
Technology, and Mr. Thomas Alphonso, Assistant Director of
Education Services. Our second witness is Mr. James Rodriguez,
Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training
Service at the Department of Labor.
Now, unfortunately, while the Department of Defense (DOD)
was invited, and one of the main pieces of legislation is
primarily in their jurisdiction, the Department of Defense
declined to participate in this hearing. You know what? Someone
wrote here, this is embarrassing. It is not embarrassing. It is
pathetic. Either the Department of the Defense cares about
being able to transition someone from an Active Duty
servicemember-to a productive member of society and skipping
the whole stuff about becoming homeless, a drug and alcohol
addict, or committing suicide. They either care about that or
they do not.
Secretary Austin, if you are watching this, you have
2,077,630 members in the United States Military and you cannot
cut one person here to try to help prevent veteran suicide.
That is pathetic, Mr. Secretary. Get off your can, assign
somebody to come here to these committee hearings because we
are sick and tired of you not showing up. Is that clear, Mr.
Secretary? I am a member of a coequal branch of government and
will be treated as such. Actions speak louder than words.
I am going to swear in the first panel. I ask the witnesses
in our first panel to please stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Van Orden. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
have answered in the affirmative. I ask the witnesses and
members today to respect the 5 minute rule. I am not going to
ask you to respect it. You are going to. Thank you very much
for that.
Ms. Cohen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
your testimony on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
STATEMENT OF MELISSA COHEN
Ms. Cohen. Good morning, Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member
Levin, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
us here today to present our views on several bills that would
affect Department of Veteran Affairs programs and Services.
Joining me today, specifically from the VA are my
colleagues, Mr. Nathan Sanfilippo, Executive Director of
Multichannel Technology at Veterans Experience Office, and Mr.
Thomas Alphonso, Assistant Director of Education Service at the
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). VA offers support for
much of the proposed legislation before us today, and I will
highlight several in my opening remarks.
First, VA supports H.R. 7323, the disapproval of courses
due to a public institution of higher learning not charging in-
state tuition to in state veterans, as this bill would allow
chapter 1606 beneficiaries to receive the same protections
under the law as beneficiaries who receive benefits under other
VA educational programs.
Regarding the Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act of
2024, VA supports, if amended and supported with offsets to the
new benefit and administrative costs. We recognize that co-op
share purchase loans present a unique ownership framework as
compared to more traditional housing transactions, and we look
forward to successfully implementing a viable program with the
required level of expertise, authorities, funding, and
protections in place to do so.
Concerning Relating to Flight Training bill, VA would
support if amended. While VA supports establishing $100,000 fee
cap, it is unclear whether the lifetime cap would apply to both
degree and non-degree flight programs. VA welcomes opportunity
to work with the committee to provide technical assistance to
ensure that this bill meets its intended goal.
VA outlined a few concerns with the Title 10 TAP Reform
bill. While much of the equity of this bill lies with the
Department of the Defense, VA seeks clarification on section
2(k), which would prohibit the furnishing of a DD-214 to a
servicemember who did not complete the required pre-separation
counseling. Ultimately, VA wants to ensure unimpeded access to
earned benefits and services, such as to access to life
insurance when transitioning to the civilian sector.
Regarding H.R. 6656, Stuck on Hold Act, VA does not support
this bill. VA shares the goal of exceptional customer service
and closely monitors the quality of those calls. Average wait
times for major contact centers are less than 15 minutes, with
some significantly less. VA has callbacks systems functionality
in place, and for the contact centers that use it, they are
activated for wait time thresholds under 15 minutes.
Last, VA supports the following two bills, Restoration of
Entitlement to Educational Assistance and Terminology Regarding
Veteran Employment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you again
for the opportunity to discuss this important legislation to
improve benefits and services for veterans, servicemembers, and
their families. We look forward to working with you and are
prepared to answer your questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Melissa Cohen Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ms. Cohen. The written statement
of Ms. Cohen will be entered into the hearing record, which, by
the way, I read. It is outstanding. Thank you.
Assistant Secretary Rodriguez, you are now recognized for 5
minutes to deliver your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAMES RODRIGUEZ
Mr. Rodriguez. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the invitation to testify here today. It has been an honor to
lead Department of Labor Veterans Employment and Training
Service (DOL VETS) for the past 3 years.
One of the bills being considered today would codify the
Employment Navigator and Partnership Program, or ENPP, into
law. DOL is currently carrying out ENPP under our Transition
Assistance Program statutory authority. While we support
specifically codifying ENPP into law, we strongly oppose the
restrictive provisions in the bill. On April 1, VETS will mark
3 years since the integration of the ENPP into the TAP program.
Initially spanning 13 DoD on installationsites worldwide, we
have expanded to 30 sites, and established 59 partnerships with
veteran employment serving organizations.
Over the past year, we have leveraged Health and Human
Services (HHS) National Directory of New Hires data to match
transitioning servicemembers' data and monitor their employment
progress. Our preliminary data indicates promising results,
affirming that ENPP's one-on-one innovative approach is
effectively addressing veterans' employment challenges. Through
our full time employment navigator contractor staff and our
employment partners, ENPP clients receive assistance with their
resumes and career direction, as well as referrals to vetted
partner organizations and American job centers that provide
additional personalized support.
The 59 nongovernment ENPP partners offer vital services,
including job placement, hiring, events, training, and most
importantly, facilitating connections between transitioning
servicemembers and their new communities. Each partner brings a
unique resource to the table, ensuring a holistic approach to
meeting diverse needs of our transitioning servicemembers, and
this approach is aligned with VETS' vision of getting the
transition to civilian life right the first time.
The National Directory of New Hire research shows
preliminary findings that indicate a 10 percent increase in
median quarterly wages earned for enlisted transitioning
servicemembers who participated in ENPP, compared to their
counterparts who did not participate. Based on findings and as
funding allows, VETS will continue to expand ENPP and we hope
that we can continue to do so using our current program model.
In FY 2023, 5,747 transitioning servicemembers and 383
military spouses received support or services through ENPP.
According to participant surveys, ENPP has been a great
success. As of February 2024, 97 percent of ENPP survey
respondents reported positive feelings after meeting with their
employment navigators and would recommend ENPP to a friend or
colleague. Additionally, 97 percent felt ENPP partners met or
exceeded their employment related expectations. As one ENPP
survey respondent stated, the value of the employment navigator
is having a one-on-one conversation to go back over the
plethora of information you received in TAP classes and give
you guidance and recommendations specific to your situation.
Incorporating ENPP into legislation would secure its
future, which is something VETS strongly endorses. However, I
would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that extending ENPP's
reach globally to include all transitioning servicemembers and
their spouses necessitates further resources for VETS.
Financial implications of this bill would substantially
increase the resources needed for successful rollout.
Additionally, we are concerned that the notion of funding
ENPP partner organizations with taxpayer dollars and our
partners under an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with VETS
committed to bearing no costs to either veterans or the
government. ENPP grants organizations that are both funded
privately and publicly access to servicemembers in TAP which
assist them in meeting their metrics and their mission. The
intention was never to offer financial compensation to a select
few organizations, but rather to guide servicemembers toward
reputable resources outside of government aid that could
accommodate the unique and various needs of transitioning
servicemembers. Therefore, we strongly oppose the restrictive
measures in this bill that seem to favor only five to ten large
organizations for federal contracts. This would unfairly
sideline the 49 non-government, midsized, and smaller
organizations, as well as potential future partners.
As the lead federal agency on veteran employment, DOL VETS
looks forward to working with this subcommittee and our many
partners and stakeholders to create opportunities that ensure
all veterans, servicemembers, and their spouses can have a good
career and opportunities for advancement.
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, this concludes my statement. Thank
you for the opportunity to be part of this hearing, and I
welcome your questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of James Rodriguez Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Rodriguez.
The written statement of Assistant Secretary Rodriguez will be
entered into the hearing record. We are now going to proceed to
questions, and we will all adhere to the 5-minute rule.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Cohen, the Fair Access to Co-ops Act, can you maybe
delve a little bit deeper into that? Understanding that we are
a constitutional republic, not a democracy, as everybody says
on television, and each one of these states has individual
rules concerning a co-ops. Like even the definition changes by
state. How would we make sure that we have fairness across the
board, and we do not sign on to something that we will have
unintended consequences?
Ms. Cohen. Thank you for the question. Part of the
requirement of this bill is to work closely with Fannie Mae to
make sure that we align with their requirements. We recognize
that this is a very complex entity, and there will just be a
small pool of lenders that perhaps will participate in these
co-op loans. We are continuing to build the expertise to make
sure that we can handle these complexities.
Mr. Van Orden. Well, ma'am, please take this as intended,
but I have been on this committee now for, I do not know, 14
months or something like that, Mike, and I have noticed one
thing, that from my observation, the VA has not been really
great at being able to handle subtlety. The more complex an
issue, it seems like the more the VA screws it up, because it
is complicated and you get so many fingers in the pie,
eventually you got no dough left because it is stuck on
everybody's fingers.
When we are talking about the difference between the
definitions, we are talking about resale of co-ops, subletting
of co-ops, defaulting on the loans. I am very concerned, again,
that we are going to wind up signing up for something, and it
is going to have very negative unintended consequences, because
the definition of a co-op in the state of New York is different
than the definition of a co-op in several different states. As
opposed to working with a home that we can clearly define as a
single-family home, it is not investment property. That is what
the VA loans or loan guarantees are predominantly designed to
do. I am not quite sure how we are going to figure this out. I
need much more detailed analysis of this particular issue
before we sign on to anything, from my perspective.
Then the Stuck on Hold, seriously? Come on. I call Delta
Airlines, if it is going to be longer, then they call you back.
I do not understand what the heartburn is with, like, are we
putting people out of work? Is the Veteran Service Experience
going to be less enticing because they actually get to finish
making breakfast as opposed to waiting for that horrible--have
you called the VA? Dear God, fix your wait or your hold music,
please. How is this going to negatively affect veterans if they
are able to just have somebody call them back, I guess, is the
question?
Ms. Cohen. Before I turn it over to my colleague, Mr.
Nathan Sanfilippo, I will say in VBA, we have that technology
that you are talking about.
Mr. Van Orden. I get it. I get all my healthcare through
the VA system, all of it. I get it. I am just saying, is this
going to be negative or positive? Who is going to answer the
question?
Mr. Sanfilippo. Yes, no. Happy to answer that question. You
know, the bill, we 100 percent support reducing wait times and
enabling features that allow callbacks and other things. In
fact, we already have that capability in certain lines of
business. As Ms. Cohen was noting, our Veterans' Benefits
Administration recently implemented that feature to provide
callbacks for folks that have to wait longer than 5 minutes. It
is really just a matter of making that feature available to
more of our contact centers.
Mr. Van Orden. You want me to change the bill so it says 5
instead of 15? I will do that. Write that down. Good, thank
you. You already have the technology. You have implemented it.
There you go. Hey, well, this committee, is adjourned. No. Hey,
listen, man. No veteran, from my perspective, is going to get
less care. The line is not going to get longer for dialysis,
right? Is that true? Someone is going to be able to get their
rocking glasses in La Crosse, Wisconsin, like I did in the same
period of time. We are going to try to make sure they wait less
on the phone or even if they do not, because things happen,
they can just get a phone call later.
Mr. Sanfilippo. Yes. We are seeking to make advancements to
reduce wait times in all of our contact centers, whether they
are helpful----
Mr. Van Orden. Sir, but if you already implemented this in
different areas, just implement it across your entire universe,
and I think that would be great. We are going to change that.
We will drop for you from 15 to 5 minutes. Your input has been
very helpful, sir.
With that, I yield back and I yield to Ranking Member Levin
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Cohen, I will start
with you. Thank you for your feedback regarding the TAP bill.
Really appreciate it. While I have you want to discuss a couple
related issues. I have a prop here. It is VA's TAP participant
guide. I am sure many are familiar with this. It mirrors the
class curriculum. It includes content on the VA Home Loan
Guarantee program, specially adapted housing program,
homelessness programs. As I look through this, one of the
things that I do not see, and I hope I went through all of it,
but I think we did, there is no information on renting a home.
Reading and signing a lease, navigating expenses like
application fees, move in fees, security deposits, renters
insurance, and it seems that it is very critical information,
particularly if you have a transitioning servicemember who
joined the military straight out of high school, lived in the
barracks for their entire service, have never gone through the
process of renting a home, might be a higher risk for housing
insecurity. My question for you is, has VA considered
incorporating this content in its TAP curriculum, and why or
why not? If not, how else would you suggest we fill that gap?
Ms. Cohen. Thank you for your question. I do not have that
particular chapter in front of me. However, I will tell you
that we review our curriculum annually. We can be nimble enough
as needed to make changes and do inserts ensuring that that
information gets across to all of our VA classes. I will verify
to your point, if there is a gap, we will fix it.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. I think that would be a great insert
or a great addition to version 5.2 of this book. This is 5.1.
TAP cannot be the sole source of support for those in the
process of transition. It is an incredibly challenging and
pivotal time in a veteran's life.
I was proud to champion Section 4304 of the Isakson and Roe
Act, which directs VA to make grants to local organizations
that provide coordinated transition assistance services, such
as resume assistance, interview training, job recruitment
training for veterans and their spouses. In July 2023, VA
issued a proposed rule for implementation of the Veteran and
Spouse Transitional Assistance Grant Program, and earlier this
month, Congress enacted fiscal year `24 appropriations for VA,
including $5 million for this program.
Ms. Cohen, could you please provide the status of
implementation? Specifically, what is the timeline for
finalizing the rules, publishing a Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA), and awarding the first round of grants?
Ms. Cohen. I do not have that particular update here as it
was not part of the legislative bills. However, I understand if
I am recalling that we are waiting for Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval, but we are staged and ready to execute
as soon as the approval process is confirmed. I do owe you a
better answer, and I can get back to you on that.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. Well, we will look forward to that.
Another provision that I secured in Isakson and Roe is 4303,
which restarts DOL's Off-Base Transition Training program, or
OBTT. Ms. Cohen, VA told my staff in September 2022 that
Outreach, Transition and Economic Development (OTED) and DOL
had agreed to incorporate benefits and services information
delivered by VA benefits advisors into the OBTT curriculum.
However, the most recent update I received was that VA had not
yet provided staff to do so and instead OTED had developed a
single slide with VA contact information that is being
presented by DOL at all OBTT workshops. Ms. Cohen, is that
still the case, and if so, what is taking so long?
Ms. Cohen. I need to confirm the one slide you are
referencing, as I am not aware of that as part of OBTT. I
understand the intent. As we have looked for funding for future
years, we have talked about Off-Base Transition Training to
meet that population. I will look into that due out.
Mr. Levin. Okay, well, we have you on the record, and we
are going to follow up on all of the above, and we appreciate
your work in getting this off the ground. It has taken too
long. I remember when we passed Isakson and Roe, you know, what
our hope and expectation was, and all of these things have just
been taking, just, frankly, been taking too long. We really
appreciate speeding things up. We have got your words on the
record, and we are going to follow up with you. With that, Mr.
Chairman, happy to yield back.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin. Mr.
Sanflippo, I want to be very clear with you. There is going to
be one number that will be written into this, that this 5-
minute thing is not going to count with. That is 988 option
one. That is the veteran's crisis line. If they are waiting 5
seconds for someone to pick that up, it is wrong. To be
explicitly clear, we are going to change the language from 15
to 5 minutes to make it in line with what you guys want to do.
With the exception of the veterans' crisis line, 988 option
one. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
In accordance with committee rule 5(e), I ask unanimous
consent that the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Meng be
permitted to participate in today's subcommittee hearing.
Hearing no objection, we will proceed. Now, Ms. Meng is new to
the committee, so we do 5 minutes, not 5 minutes, in 1 second,
which is good.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms.
Meng, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. Chair Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin,
and distinguished members of the House Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. Thank you for allowing me
to testify today. I would also like to thank the panelists from
the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and the Veterans of
Foreign Wars (VFW) for testifying in support of my bill.
I am honored to speak in support of my Fair Access to Co-
ops for Veterans Act which would finally allow veterans to
purchase cooperative housing units, also known as co-ops,
through the VA Home Loan program. The VA Home Loan program has
been a transformative benefit for servicemembers for 80 years.
This program cannot be fully enjoyed by New Yorkers who served
in our armed forces.
In New York City, about two in three apartment buildings
are co-ops. If you have been to New York, you know that is a
lot of co-ops. Co-ops, on average, are more affordable in New
York than condos or homes. They offer a realistic option for
working class New Yorkers to own a home and build equity.
Currently, a veteran or servicemember can use their VA home
loan to purchase a condo, townhouse, mobile home, or
manufactured home, but not a co-op.
Last year, a recently married servicemember in the New York
Army National Guard reached out to my office asking why he
could not use a major benefit like the VA Home Loan on New
York's most affordable housing option. His story is common
amongst the roughly 200,000 veterans that call New York City
home, and to the countless other veterans in towns and cities
across the country where co-ops are present, like Palm Beach,
Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
It is our job to serve those who served us. Let us serve
them by increasing the accessibility of home ownership to more
veterans. Let us expand the American dream that the VA Home
Loan program helped define 80 years ago. Let us give veterans
and servicemembers access to co-ops.
Thank you again for your time and consideration of this
matter. I ask the chairman, ranking member, and distinguished
members of this subcommittee to please support my Fair Access
to Co-ops for Veterans Act. Thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ms. Meng. While you were
testifying, Ranking Member Levin and I decided that the next
time people are read onto the subcommittee that you will be
receiving a gift bag. Thank you for coming.
Ms. Meng. I will be here more often.
Mr. Van Orden. All right.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
Mr. Van Orden. We are encouraging. Thank you very much for
coming today, and the witnesses are now excused, and I hope you
are going to sit and listen to the second panel.
On our second panel, we will hear from the following
witnesses, Ms. Nadine Bullock-Pottinga. Did I get that? Man, I
am batting a thousand today. Chief Development Officer of Hire
Heroes USA. Mr. Gregory John, Founder and President of Infinity
Flight Group. Mr. Matthew Schwartzman, Director of Legislation
and Military Policy of Reserve Organization for America, and
Ms. Kristina Keenan, the Deputy Director of National
Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I do have
to tell you, that my cover, getting my paid up for life being
sewn on right now at my post 1530 in La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Normally I would be wearing that with you. Marquis Barefield,
Assistant National Legislative Director for Disabled American
Veterans.
I would now like to welcome the witnesses and ask you to
please stand and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Van Orden. Let the record reflect all witnesses have
answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Bullock-Pottinga, you are now recognized for 5 minutes
to deliver your testimony.
STATEMENT OF NADINE BULLOCK-POTTINGA
Ms. Bullock-Pottinga. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member
Levin, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak today on this pending legislation. My name
is Nadine Bullock-Pottinga, and I am the Chief Development
Officer with Hire Heroes USA, the nation's leading veteran and
military spouse employment nonprofit.
Many of the bills up for discussion today would greatly
impact employment outcomes and economic opportunity for our
Nation's transitioning servicemembers, veterans, and military
spouses. I would like to focus my remarks on proposed
improvements to the transition process, as I believe the period
of separation from military service to civilian life to be most
critical for a veteran's career success.
First, let me briefly describe Hire Heroes USA. Hire Heroes
USA was founded in 2005 and has secured employment for more
than 93,000 clients. We offer comprehensive one-on-one
employment services in all 50 states to over 20,000 individuals
annually at no cost.
Hire Heroes USA strongly supports H.R. 7732, which includes
comprehensive and sustainable reforms to the Transition
Assistance Program, or TAP. This bill would improve the
experiences of servicemembers nearing separation or veterans
who have recently separated. With approximately 200,000
servicemembers transitioning out of the military annually, TAP
must be designed and implemented in ways that maximize impact
and effectiveness. We believe that various provisions of this
legislation would address long standing concerns about the
structure and performance of TAP.
Hire Heroes USA is especially supportive of the bill's
proposal to codify and improve the Department of Labor's
Employment Navigator and Partnership program, ENPP. Initially a
pilot program, ENPP began at 13 military installations in April
2021 and has expanded to over 30 locations. The program is
intended to complement the standard TAP coursework by offering
more individualized employment services tailored to the unique
needs of each transitioning servicemember and their spouse.
Under the program, DOL staff work with employment partner
organizations, including Hire Heroes USA, to assist clients
with job placement, training and various other career or
wraparound services.
ENPP was originally established under DOL's authority to
provide employment and training opportunities as part of TAP.
However, this program has never been codified into statute, a
step that we believe is critical for ensuring the long-term
success of TAP. Beyond codifying ENPP, the bill language also
makes important improvements to the program's administration of
contracts with employment partners. To date, DOL has not
provided any compensation to ENPP partners and instead has
relied on voluntary participation, placing the financial burden
on Veteran Service Organizations (VSO).
However, the success of ENPP strongly depends on the
involvement of non-governmental partners. We deliver direct
assistance to transitioning servicemembers and military
spouses, while complying with all DOL regulations and
requirements around data management and program evaluation.
ENPP partners do this without any resources to support these
expenses, an approach that challenges the long-term
sustainability of this program.
Hire Heroes USA alone has supported over 2,000 client
referrals from this program since 2021. As the ENPP continues
to grow, especially if codified, it is essential that the
partners taking on a significant volume of referrals receive
the appropriate support to sustain their participation. This
would take the form of competitively awarded contracts for the
highest impact and farthest-reaching employment partners. To be
clear, we also support the continuation of voluntary ENPP
partnerships, in addition to those organizations selected for
contracts.
The language should further clarify this to ensure small
and local service providers can continue to participate
voluntarily. Together, these proposed changes to ENPP would
promote the long-term success of the program and ultimately
benefit tens of thousands of servicemembers every year.
Beyond ENPP, Hire Heroes USA also supports the bill's
provisions that would establish a DOD pilot program for
military spouses to receive one-on-one counseling services
based on the TAP curriculum. While some specific transition
resources exist, there is still a need for more comprehensive
programming covering the full range of topics relevant to
transitioning military families.
On behalf of Hire Heroes USA, I would like to thank again,
chairman, ranking member, and the members of the subcommittee
for your ongoing commitment to the cause of veteran and
military spouse employment. I welcome any questions. Thank you.
[The Prepared Statement Of Nadine Bullock-Pottinga Appears
In The Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ms. Bullock-Pottinga. The written
statement of Ms. Bullock-Pottinga will be entered into the
hearing record.
Mr. John, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY JOHN
Mr. John. Thank you, chairperson, honorable members of the
committee. My name is Gregory John. I am the president of
Infinity Flight, one of the largest flight training
organizations in the country based at the Trenton-Mercer
Airport in New Jersey. We collaborate with Mercer county
college to provide veterans with an opportunity to become
professional airline pilots, a lucrative, desperately in-demand
career path. Today, I stand before you to express my unwavering
support for the proposed language in H.R. 7613 that would
implement a lifetime cap of $100,000, adjusted for inflation,
on veterans' entitlement use for flight training fees at public
institutions of higher learning.
The proposed cap is not only a financial safeguard, but a
strategic move toward creating a more equitable, efficient, and
responsible system for utilizing the educational benefits
earned by veterans. By setting a clear limit, we are helping to
ensure these benefits are used in a manner that maximizes
veteran success in the civilian workforce, while protecting the
integrity of the GI Bill against exploitation.
Further, implementing a lifetime cap encourages training
programs to prioritize quality, safety, and effectiveness. In
the Mercer County College program, we have seen firsthand how
clear, defined boundaries foster an environment where every
single flight hour and every single training opportunity is
utilized to its fullest potential. This focus on quality over
the quantity of flight hours ensures that veterans receive the
best possible education and training, preparing them for
successful careers in aviation and at the airlines.
Additionally, the cap addresses a critical issue that has
plagued the system for far too long, the misuse of VA funds
through what has been termed ``blank-check loophole,'' which
has allowed bad-actor institutions to inflate the cost of
flight training, charging the VA far beyond the amount
necessary for a quality education. By setting a reasonable
flight fee cap, Congress will put an end to this exploitation,
ensuring VA funds are used responsibly, and more veterans have
access to flight training opportunities without the risk of
unnecessary financial waste.
In my opinion, establishing the inflation adjusted cap at
$100,000 is appropriate based on the actual cost of obtaining a
comprehensive flight education. Furthermore, applying the cap
exclusively to programs offered by public institutions of
higher learning encourages veterans to pursue their education
at institutions already benefiting from an array of existing
governance safeguards, ensuring financial protections for both
the veterans and the GI Bill, as well as the delivery of a
high-quality education.
In conclusion, I urge Congress to adopt this language into
law. It represents a balanced, thoughtful approach to
supporting our veterans' educational aspirations while
safeguarding the resources dedicated to their success. Let us
honor their service by ensuring that their path to a new career
in aviation is both secure and fruitful.
Thank you for considering my testimony on this critical
matter. I am confident that together we can make a positive
change that benefits our veterans, the aviation industry, and
the Nation overall. Thank you.
[The Prepared Statement Of Gregory John Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. John. Hey, I appreciate your
testimony, but I am going to go ahead and gender myself. I will
be addressed as Chairman Van Orden. Thank you. The written
statement of Mr. John will be entered into the hearing record.
Mr. Schwartzman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
deliver your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SCHWARTZMAN
Mr. Schwartzman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and distinguished
members of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, on behalf of
the Reserve Organization of America (ROA), the only National
Military organization that solely and exclusively supports the
Reserve and National Guard, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on pending legislation and on ways to improve military
to civilian transitions for our Nation's citizen warriors and
their families.
For this hearing, ROA is prepared to provide technical
assistance on most of the proposed bills. Our advocacy,
however, is focused on those measures that uniquely relate to
the needs of the reserve component community, are reinforced by
an ROA resolution, or are aligned with our congressional
charter.
Ladies and gentlemen, the days of Reserve and National
Guard servicemembers being weekend warriors, they are long
gone. They constitute close to 50 percent of the total force,
more than 50 percent of the army, and fight in our Nation's
wars. While these citizen warriors may not be widely referred
to as minutemen in the modern era, even today they must be
ready for duty at a minute's notice.
Despite being required to maintain the same readiness as
their active component counterparts, the reserve components are
often treated as a secondary class within their own military.
ROA is thankful that today's hearing includes several bills
that address these inequities head on. H.R. 7323, for example,
requires the VA to disapprove courses offered by a public
institution of education that are not charged at the in-state
tuition rate under the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve,
despite being the first VA educational program to directly
assist members of the Selected Reserve, it will be one of the
last to receive this important protection. ROA thanks you, Mr.
Chairman and Representative McGarvey, for sponsoring H.R. 7323
and urges the members of this subcommittee to advocate its
swift codification in public law.
Another example is H.R. 6225, the expanding Home Loans for
Guard and Reservist Act. This bill expands the VA Home Loan
program to Reserve and National Guard servicemembers that spend
30 or more consecutive days on Active Duty for training. From
ROA's perspective, this bill serves as a cost concern
compromise on similar legislation that passed the House in the
previous Congress. ROA thanks Representatives Jen Kiggans and
Pat Ryan for sponsoring this bill, which recognizes the
intensive nature of service during Active Duty for training and
provides a solvent pathway forward toward homeownership for
reserve component members and their families.
Another bill that ROA sees great promise in but cannot yet
lend its support to is the draft measure aiming to improve the
Transition Assistance Program. Unfortunately, in its current
form, TAP fails to meet the unique transition needs of Reserve
and National Guard servicemembers and their families. This fact
was recently validated by a Research and Development (RAND)
report published last year that even went as far as to
recommend establishing a reserve component curriculum track
within TAP, which ROA wholeheartedly endorses.
To resolve the current TAP dilemma, which is caused by its
one size, two components construct, ROA proposes a five step
action plan, which we refer to as the Delivering Reservist
Integration and Veterans Education plan, also known as the
DRIVE plan. ROA's DRIVE plan, if adopted by Congress, would
drive forward much needed reforms by increasing access to
component focused counseling and resources, while
simultaneously providing reserve affiliated participants with
additional flexibilities in navigating their respective TAP
track.
Support for these proposals, among others detailed in our
statement, would vastly improve military to civilian
transitions for reserve component members and their families,
who, unlike their active component counterparts, must make this
transition frequently during their time in service and may even
wait many years to receive their earned retirement benefits.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting ROA to testify
today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The Prepared Statement Of Matthew Schwartzman Appears In
The Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Schwartzman. Excuse me. Yes,
the record will reflect that Mr. Schwartzman's written
testimony will be entered into the record.
Ms. Keenan, you are recognized for 5 minutes to give your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF KRISTINA KEENAN
Ms. Keenan. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and
members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its
auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to provide our remarks
on legislation pending before the subcommittee. The views on
all the bills can be found in my written testimony. I will take
the opportunity to briefly highlight a few.
The VFW supports the Expanding Home Loans for Guard and
Reservist Act to expand the eligibility of the VA Home Loan to
members of the National Guard and Reserves who have performed
Active Duty for training for 30 consecutive days or more. The
VFW supports this expansion to ensure that these servicemembers
and their family have housing stability needed to perform
efficiently their duties as they balance military service and
their civilian lives.
Continuing on the topic of housing, the VFW supports the
Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act to extend the VA Home
Loan to veterans seeking to purchase residential cooperative
housing units or co-ops. Most of the co-op housing in the
United States is located in New York, which also has
statistically lower rates of veteran home ownership. We have
worked with the New York City Department of Veterans Affairs,
who brought this issue to our attention. Expanding VA home
loans to include co-ops would help provide long term housing
stability for more veterans around the country.
The VFW supports the Restore Act to ensure that
beneficiaries of VA education benefits are protected if an
educational institution is found to have violated certain
prohibitions regarding advertising, sales, and enrollment
practices. Schools found in violation would be required to
repay funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and VA would
restore entitlements to beneficiaries. Requiring schools to be
responsible for repayment would ensure that taxpayer supported
federal funding is safeguarded and student veterans are
protected. We hope the committee will consider combining the
Restore Act with the similar bill H.R. 1767, the Student
Veteran Restoration Act, which passed on a full committee.
Combining these would provide even more protections against
fraud for student veterans.
Last, the VFW supports the intent of the Enhancing
Servicemember Transition Act. The VFW strongly supports the
provisions which would improve the transition to VA, including
requiring accredited representatives be included in the
Transition Assistance Program. This would enable servicemembers
to have a point of contact to begin their pre-separation
claims. We also support the bill's inclusion of pre-enrollment
in VA medical care during transition. This would provide
veterans with their earned benefits the day they leave the
military. A warm handoff to the VA can potentially mitigate
risk factors for suicide during that critical first year after
service.
Also, regarding the bill, we suggest modifications to
certain provisions pertaining to Title 10. For example, we find
that screening for potential homelessness and food insecurity
to be a great addition, though it should also occur closer to
discharge because these factors may not be known yet one year
in advance during TAP. Additionally, including spouses in TAP
would be a great addition, but the bill also creates a separate
TAP specifically for spouses, which seems like a duplication.
We are also concerned about withholding DD-214s from
servicemembers who do not complete tap, as this could be
harmful to them as they seek housing, education, and
employment. We want to find effective ways to hold commanders
accountable. We would be happy to discuss our specific concerns
further to avoid any unintended consequences.
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, this concludes my
testimony. I am prepared to take any questions you or the
subcommittee members may have.
[The Prepared Statement Of Kristina Keenan Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ms. Keenan. I appreciate it
greatly. A vote has been called in another committee that I
serve on, so this subcommittee will stand a recess subject to
the call of the chair. I expect this to be a very short recess
and return as quickly as possible. Mr. Barefield, you should be
good to go. We will be back in a few minutes. This committee
stands in recess.
[Recess]
Mr. Van Orden. This committee is now in session.
Mr. Barefield, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
deliver your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARQUIS BAREFIELD
Mr. Barefield. Thank you. Chairman Van Orden, Ranking
Member Levin, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting DAV to testify at today's hearing of the Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity to consider the nine pieces of
legislation up for discussion this afternoon. My written
statement has been submitted for the record, and I will now
highlight a few of the bills that are important to DAV and our
membership.
In my early years of being a veterans advocate with DAV,
one of the things that I remember the most about helping
veterans, dependents, and survivors, was the time that they
would have to wait to speak with someone at VA about their
claims. Clients would tell me that they would wait for over 20
minutes to sometimes an hour on the phone before they were able
to speak with someone from VA about their claims. This was
frustrating as a representative, and I wanted to know what
could be done to resolve these long wait times for our clients.
H.R. 6656, the Stuck on Hold Act, which DAV supports, would
address these long wait time periods for all veterans,
dependents, and survivors, calling VA about the status of their
claims. This bill would give a waiting client the time it would
take before their call was answered and the option to receive a
callback if the wait time was over 15 minutes.
As of March 1 of this year, VBA has over 992,000 pending
claims. VBA has estimated that one claim generates eight
separate contacts to the call centers. This means that VA can
expect at least 8 million calls this year. With the increase in
claims and phone calls, VA must be prepared now. The Stuck on
Hold Act is a positive step in the right direction.
DAV supports H.R 7703, the Fair Access to Co-ops for
Veterans Act. The ability for service disabled veterans and
their families to have more options to obtain affordable
housing in some areas of the country is of extreme importance.
The provisions in this bill would give VA the ability to
advertise this type of loan through notification to eligible
veterans, participating lenders, and interested realtors of
such loans. In many places where affordable housing is scarce,
these co-ops offers families the opportunity to find housing
that meets their needs. Affordable housing options are one of
the top priorities for service disabled veterans, especially
those transitioning from Active Duty.
DAV also supports H.R. 6225, the Expanding Home Loans for
Guard and Reservist Act. This legislation expands the existing
eligibility to the VA Home Loan program and corrects gaps
identified in Public Law 116-315, which expanded the VA Home
Loan program eligibility to National Guard servicemembers who
perform full time National Guard duty for at least 90 days, of
which 30 were consecutive.
The draft bill to make improvements to certain programs for
a member nearing separation or for a veteran who recently
separated from service is mostly supported by DAV. We have
concerns with a section that deals with no members shall be
provided with their DD-214 until they have completed their
preseparation counseling. Besides the noted exceptions listed
in the draft bill, it is not clear how the program would handle
a situation that is beyond the servicemember's control that
would prevent them from finishing their required counseling. As
such, it appears this legislation would punish the
servicemember by not allowing them to receive their DD-214 in a
timely manner.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7653 would change the language
in the statute from employment handicap to employment barrier.
Words matter, and the word handicap has been perceived to have
a negative connotation. Word choices can either make people
feel included or excluded depending on the situation. Word
choices can either uplift or demean differences or sustain or
disperse stereotypes about persons with disabilities.
According to the National Education Association, we should
be conscious of antiquated words that have negative
connotations for people with disabilities. Advocates of person
first language believe that a person with disabilities is an
individual first and should not be identified by their
disability. DAV supports this change in the terminology in the
statute and believe it encompasses VA's VR&E programs and
removes obstacles for employment. Words matter.
This concludes my testimony, and I am happy to answer any
questions you or members of the subcommittee may have.
[The Prepared Statement Of Marquis Barefield Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Barefield. I appreciate it.
Mr. Barefield's written statement will be entered into the
record. By the way, I have a good family friend. Their name,
Marquez. That is how they pronounce your name, so please
forgive me, Marquis. I appreciate that greatly.
Now we are going to proceed to questioning. We are supposed
to have one more witness, Mr. Santo. Is it Mr. Santo or Mr.
Santos?
Ms. Bullock-Pottinga. I am witnessing in his place.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes, I understand he has a family emergency
and I hope that everything is going Okay. Please, will you just
follow up with the subcommittee staff so we know he is all
right and his family is Okay?
Ms. Bullock-Pottinga. Yes, absolutely will do.
Mr. Van Orden. It is not a personal thing. I think we need
to take a little time to take care of each other.
Ms. Bullock-Pottinga. Yes, agreed.
Mr. Van Orden. I appreciate that greatly.
The chair now recognizes myself for 5 minutes.
Okay, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Barefield you both brought up
issues with the DD-214. I am going to start with you, Ms.
Keenan. What do you think the gripe is with the DOD? Why they
do not want to issue these DD-214s in a timely manner?
Ms. Keenan. I cannot speak for them, so I am not sure why.
I guess our main concern is holding chain of command and
commanders accountable. I think that is what we want to try to
achieve. You know, we are just saying we are a little concerned
that servicemembers could get caught up in trying to enforce
the transition. I think we want every service member to go
through TAP, go through the transition properly. Any way that
we can work together to try to achieve that, we are definitely
willing to do.
Mr. Van Orden. Very well. Mr. Barefield, were you in the
service?
Mr. Barefield. Yes, United States army.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay. In the Navy we have got a term, it is
called ``scuttlebutt.'' It is a water cooler. That is what I
was asking, Ms. Keenan. Have you heard any scuttlebutt about
why the DOD would not want to do this? Have you heard any, Mr.
Barefield?
Mr. Barefield. No, not at this time. I have not heard
anything about it.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay. Well, I will tell you what. We are
going to try to make them do this because that is just silly.
Our veterans are waiting, and it is true our active and reserve
folks, they are on, they are off. They are on, they are off. To
have them sitting around waiting for a piece of paperwork so
they can get a home loan or whatever it is, that is just dumb.
I am sure that the ranking member and I agree on that.
We do have an issue with TAP, and that is under this
committee's purview. As you articulated, Ms. Keenan, I think it
is very clever the first 12 to 24 months is when our veterans
wind up committing suicide, and because they do not understand
what is going on and we are not equipping them well enough. I
want to have language written in for accountability. It is not
the first line supervisor. That is what they call them in the
Air Force, I think it is so funny. They have career fields and
dormitories as opposed to jobs and barracks. Just throwing that
out there, Air Force folks.
This needs to be part of an OER, which is an officer's
evaluation or a FitRep, that is in the Navy. I want to hold
commanding officers accountable for their troops going to TAP,
and we are going to try to figure out how to do that. That is
under the purview of House Armed Services Committee (HASC).
Until someone is held accountable, and until an officer, not an
Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO), until an officer does not get
promoted because their people did not go to TAPs, nothing is
going to change. That is from personal experience. I was in for
26 years, and you can throw a bunch of enlisted people in a
woodchipper and they are just going to give you another
enlisted person to throw in the woodchipper, until our officers
start getting held accountable. It is not going to change.
Mr. John, what is the average cost to get somebody
qualified to fly an airplane?
Mr. John. Today, from 0 hours, no experience, through
commercial and flight instructor license is about $85 to
$90,000.
Mr. Van Orden. Okay, so for essentially $90,000, we can get
someone like me. I mean, dear God, hopefully they are younger
than me. You do not want me flying a plane. Just throwing that
out there. You can get somebody that gets out of the service,
and for about $90,000, you can get them instrument rated,
multi-engine rated, and they can start at a regional airline
working in what period of time?
Mr. John. About 12 to 24 months. Within 24 months of the
day you start training, you could be at airline.
Mr. Van Orden. That is just tuition. That is not tuition
and housing and all that?
Mr. John. That is correct, that is just tuition
Mr. Van Orden. All right, let is do the math on this to
make sure that we get this right, because you are right. I do
not want people taking advantage of this. We do have a finite
amount of money to deal with, and I want to make sure it is
focused. I appreciate that, and I would hope that everyone
would support that, making sure that we have this geared, and
as long as it is tied to inflation and all the rest of the
stuff that is written in the bill.
By the way, I read everybody's testimony thoroughly, and it
is very good. Those are all the questions I have. In accordance
with committee rule 5(e), I ask unanimous consent that my good
friend, the representative from North Carolina, Mr. Davis, be
permitted to participate in today's subcommittee. Hearing no
objection, we will proceed.
I now yield back and recognize Ranking Member Levin for 5
minutes for his questions.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schwartzman, good
to see you. You stated in your testimony that you believe there
are issues with the current construction of TAP, especially for
reserve component servicemembers, and I completely agree with
that.
For example, while I understand the frustrations that led
to the proposal before us to allow Guard and Reserve
servicemembers to waive out of TAP if they have taken TAP
courses recently. I do not think it addresses the underlying
problem, which is that the current TAP curriculum is not
tailored to reservists. What can Congress do to address this?
Mr. Schwartzman. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Levin.
Let me also just say thank you for your long standing
leadership on the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act,
ensuring that every day in uniform counts toward eligibility.
As I stated in my oral remarks, and as I detail further in my
written statement, there are five steps that Congress can take
to improve the Transition Assistance Program as currently
constructed.
The first, is amend the eligibility criteria to participate
in TAP. Right now, the requirement is that servicemembers spend
180 consecutive days on Active Duty to qualify for
participation. Unfortunately for members of the Reserve and
Guard, they may be left behind with that requirement. ROA
recommends amending that to provide servicemembers with the
ability to participate if they spend 180 days cumulative of
active service, which would also include drill weekends and
Active Duty Training (ADT) as well.
The second, would be to provide those reserve component
members who may be taking TAP multiple times with diminishing
returns the opportunity to waive their mandatory TAP
requirements. Although ROA does believe it is important to
first ensure that the member and their spouse are properly
educated on any of the changes in TAPs elements that may have
occurred in the preceding period before following through on
such a waiver request. We also feel that consideration ought to
be granted for not providing that waiver in the instance of an
anticipated or unanticipated retirement or separation from
service.
The third step that can be taken is to add reserve
component specific matters to the TAP pre-separation checklist.
We have detailed these further in our written statement. One
example would include information, advice, and counsel for how
those reserve component members can receive separation of
service documentation, and then properly utilize that
documentation in order to ensure they have the best position
possible to obtain those service earned benefits.
Mr. Levin. If you could briefly summarize four and five.
Mr. Schwartzman. Establish a reserve component curriculum
within TAP, so a separate program entirely, but also ensuring
that those members meet those needs. Then the fifth is going to
be to integrate military spouses into the service spouses TAP
process entirely. Those are the plans.
Mr. Levin. Appreciate that. During our subcommittee's
hearing on transition in May, we discussed the disconnect
between DOD's mission statement and its authority over TAP.
Sadly, this disconnect has meant TAP is not prioritized by
those with the power to improve it, and while our committee
stands ready and is eager to tackle these issues as our primary
responsibility is to care for those who have served. TAP is
largely outside of our jurisdiction, and you have heard the
chairman's frustration, and I have shared that frustration over
the years with the lack of interest or focus at DOD on TAP.
My question for you, Mr. Schwartzman, would you be in
support of moving the jurisdiction of transition to House
Veterans' Affairs Committee (HVAC)?
Mr. Schwartzman. Unfortunately, Ranking Member Levin, ROA
does not have a resolution specific to that. If I were to ask
my members if they would be supportive of that, what I would
offer is this. Long as that was in accordance with the
constitution, so long as it is in accordance with the standing
rules and parliamentary procedure of the House, and so long as
that would lead to a more expedient passage of the proposals we
are asking for, then, yes, we would be in support of moving
that jurisdiction. We will work with anyone.
Mr. Levin. Do you, in your professional assessment, believe
that, in fact, moving the jurisdiction would be in accordance
with those criteria you just laid out?
Mr. Schwartzman. Unfortunately, I cannot answer that
question with finality. I would have to go back and check the
rules a little bit more.
Mr. Levin. Well, what is your gut tell you?
Mr. Schwartzman. My gut tells me yes.
Mr. Levin. Excellent answer. Thank you, appreciate that.
With the time I have left, Ms. Keenan, I will turn to you. Not
to embarrass you, but I was told by staff, your parents are in
the audience, and I hope that you are as proud of Ms. Keenan as
we are grateful to work with her. The Isakson and Roe Act
extended VA work-study to specific activities in the Offices of
Members of Congress, but there are some limitations there. One
limitation is that, as written, these activities would not be
permitted in member offices. Would you expand to member offices
as well?
Mr. Van Orden. The gentleman's time has expired. If you
would like to do----
Mr. Levin. Yes or no? Yes or no? Then I am done.
Ms. Keenan. We would be open to that, yes.
Mr. Levin. You would open to that. Excellent. Yield back.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin.
The chair now recognizes my great friend from Kentucky, Mr.
Morgan McGarvey, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGarvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
guys for your testimony. I am really glad we get to dive a
little deeper into these issues today, and I am happy to see
that most of them are strong bipartisan bills that we can just
polish a little bit here in this committee. I am also grateful
that two of the bills I am co-leading with Chairman Van Orden
and Rep. Kean are included in today's hearing.
I wanted to focus on the discussion draft of the TAP reform
bill, because I really want to make sure we get this one right.
I think I speak for a lot of my colleagues, and they have
spoken for themselves today, this is one where we do have some
concern. There are some major areas for improvement within the
Transition Assistance Program, and we need to make sure that
TAP is accomplishing its mission, that it is not just death by
PowerPoint. I appreciate the focus on TAP with this bill, but I
want to guarantee that any version that makes it to markup
seriously takes into consideration the views of the VSOs and is
truly a comprehensive reform that works in tandem with the
House Armed Services Committee to ensure smooth passage.
Deciding if and how to pursue education is a huge part of
any veteran's transition. We know that the Post-9/11 cohort is
quickly becoming the largest and most educated veteran
demographic in the United States. Yet the TAP reform bill in
its current form does not touch much on this subject. Mr.
Barefield, what educational elements would you suggest adding
to the TAP reform bill? Have your members expressed particular
concerns or items they would like to see in TAP regarding their
GI Bill education benefits and what their options are?
Mr. Barefield. Thank you for the question. When it comes
down to education and the TAP program, our members would like
to have someone be able to fully explain to them in a timely
fashion what their education benefits would be and how they
could utilize them to the best of their ability. Like you said,
death by PowerPoint. The TAP program, as it is right now, does
not have enough timeframe to adequately give that information.
We would like to see that education piece expanded just a
little bit more where they will be able to have a full
discussion of all their education benefits and how they could
utilize them to the best of their ability.
Mr. McGarvey. Thank you. Mr. Schwartzman, with the unique
position of your members, what are you hearing from those who
went through TAP or who will go through TAP regarding their
education and what are the biggest gaps in information for
their education options?
Mr. Schwartzman. Thank you very much. What I am hearing
from my members is that the biggest challenge is in the
presentation not accounting for those distinctions, those
differences that may negatively impact our members in relation
to accessing their service earned benefits. For example, there
is a complicated line of duty determination process that the
member must go through in order to qualify for certain service
earned benefits through the VA. That is just one example. What
we are hearing from those that do qualify, we are also hearing
from members that unfortunately do not qualify, is that the
curriculum just is not tailored to their needs.
Mr. McGarvey. Thank you very much. I appreciate those. Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. McGarvey.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
Ramirez, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ramirez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. First, let me
start by thanking every one of you that is here today, and
everyone also that has been listening to the hearing today. It
is really, really great to be able to hear from you and the
ways that you continue to do the work to support our veterans
and certainly our servicemembers as well.
When I came to this committee, it was my goal that every
veteran had access to benefits they rightfully earned. That was
a priority for me and continues to be. At the same time, it was
important that I was also advocating for policies that protect
veterans from being defrauded or exploited by bad-actors. It is
why I was so proud that my bill, H.R. 1767, the Student Veteran
Benefits Restoration Act, passed through this committee with
bipartisan support, something we do not do much in this
Congress.
This bill would restore the GI Bill benefits of student
veterans who are wrongfully defrauded by for profit colleges
and universities. I know, as you do, that education is one of
the many pathways toward self improvement, toward self-
sufficiency, and it provides communities the opportunity to
better their lives economically, socially, and professionally.
Access to a quality education is one of the promises we made to
our veterans, and we have to deliver.
Today, we have been discussing another restoration bill,
and while I am in support of any policy that protects our
veterans and helps improve their lives, we also have to make
sure we are not short-changing progress for our veterans by
advocating for smaller reforms.
That said, I have just a couple of questions I want to ask
in the time that I have. Some of these are yes or no. For each
of the witnesses here, could you answer the following questions
with a yes or a no? We are considering another restoration bill
today. Would this bill help students in the Department of
Justice brings action against a fraudulent school? Mr. Marquis.
Mr. Barefield. Can you repeat the question, ma'am?
Ms. Ramirez. My question is the bill that we are actually
taking up now, the other version of my bill, would that bill
help students when the Department of Justice brings action
against a fraudulent school?
Mr. Barefield. Yes.
Ms. Keenan. Yes, it would.
Mr. Schwartzman. Yes, it would.
Mr. John. I do not have knowledge of that, so I do not know
that I can answer.
Ms. Bullock-Pottinga. I am the same. I would have to look
more into that before answering. Thank you.
Ms. Ramirez. Actually, the version that we have will not be
able to bring justice against fraudulent schools in the way
that the bill that we passed out of here was doing. Thank you
for your answers. I know you have seen a lot of bills.
Let me answer another one for you here. The bill that we
have now will not be able to give state approving agency acts
to fraudulent schools. The question I have is, is it reasonable
to say that while the bill we are discussing today makes good
change, this bill is less comprehensive than my bill, which
this committee marked up and passed unanimously back in July? I
would like to ask this question to Ms. Keenan.
Ms. Keenan. Thank you for the question. The VFW supports
both bills. Whether passing them individually or combining them
into a larger bill, what we really want to do is protect
servicemembers, protect veterans and their benefits. We do not
want them penalized if a school is acting badly. We think, you
know, using provisions within both would give a wider range of
protections against schools that commit fraud.
Ms. Ramirez. Last, any witness can answer this. Should not
we prioritize bipartisan, bicameral solutions to ensure
veterans receive the restitution they deserve for education
fraud? Mr. John, Ms. Keenan, any of you can answer.
Mr. John. Perhaps within the scope of this committee, given
the chairman's opening remarks, I would offer we should endorse
nonpartisan reconciliation of the differences.
Ms. Ramirez. We should prioritize bipartisan bicameral
solutions to ensure that our veterans receive the restitution
they deserve for education fraud. Thank you so much. I just
want to put for the record that this is one of the committees
where we actually pass bipartisan legislation. I look forward
to working with Chairman Van Orden to make sure that we provide
the absolute most support and protection for our student
veterans.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ms. Ramirez.
The chair now recognizes my great friend from North
Carolina, the honorable Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes. Welcome
aboard.
Mr. Davis. Thank you so much, Chairman Van Orden, to
Ranking Member Levin. I really count it an honor to be here
today and to appear at this hearing held by the House Veteran
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity.
Before I go any further, I would like to just pause here as
I see the representatives of VFW, our Disabled American
Veterans, as well as Hire Heroes USA, and all those in the
audience, thank you, for those who have served our country,
that has worn the uniform, and those who have sacrificed. To
all veterans and especially our disabled veterans, I salute you
and thank you again.
As we come before you today, I wish to speak in particular
in support of bipartisan legislation that I introduced last
week with my colleague and House Veterans Armed Services
Committee member, Mr. Juan Ciscomani from Arizona. North
Carolina's first district is the home of 46,000 veterans who we
are fighting for every single day. H.R. 7653 is the 7th
Veterans affairs related bill that I have personally worked on
and sponsored in the 118 Congress. This piece of legislation
will make a technical fix to the Veteran Readiness and
Employment program to replace the term, as we mentioned,
employment handicap with employment barrier, and the term
serious employment handicap with serious employment barrier.
While leaving the definitions unchanged, the word handicap
is outdated and it does not adequately represent veterans. Our
disabled vets have given life, limbs, to preserve our most
cherished freedoms, and I believe we must do everything to
return dignity and respect to them. In any contact with the VA,
we must ensure they feel represented and heard. VA services
must not only remain available, they must be accessible, and to
all our heroes who have once worn the uniform of our Nation.
For those who have provided incredible service to our country,
they deserve in return quality service that considers them. As
it was said, and I add, words indeed matter.
Thank you so much for being here today. I come to join my
colleagues to urge support for H.R. 7653. May God bless each
and every one of you as you are advocating every single day for
those who served our country. May God continue to bless this
subcommittee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing this
opportunity. I would like to in particular, also thank Mr.
Ciscomani for helping and lead the way on this.
Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Davis, you are always welcome here. You
were not here earlier, but the ranking member and I decided to
give people read onto the committee gift bags in the future.
Come back. That is all I am saying. Very well.
I want to thank everybody for attending this hearing. I
appreciate the discussion today on these bills, and a lot of
them need improvement, and that is good. That is why we do
these things. This does provide a way for us to get feedback
from people that are affected by these and whose vocation
really is to protect our veterans. I appreciate everybody for
that. I thank the members of the staff, the subcommittees. I
think you guys are working very well together, and I know Mike
and I have had discussions about this. We are very thankful for
that. That you guys are putting aside partisan crap and just
focusing on the veterans. That is very impressive. I really
like to see that.
I just want to have a couple closing remarks. Mr.
Schwartzman do not let perfect be the enemy of great. When I
read your 14 pages of testimony here, you know what? I am just
going to give you some encouragement, make it eight pages of
stuff that is much more hyper focused. When we get down so far
in the granular level, you are weighing down the ability of
these subcommittee staff to actually get to what is really
pertinent, and the stuff you are saying is pertinent. I think
that if we really look at that sort of stuff, we are going to
see that we could have put a bunch of that aside and really get
something great going because nothing is ever going to be
perfect. I have only been in Congress for a little bit and
figured that out within 4 seconds.
During the TAP process, I want to make sure that we are
holding individual people accountable. The Army, the Navy, the
Air Force, the DOD, the VA, those are not individuals. Those
are organizations. Until, again, we hold commissioned officers
directly responsible on their FitReps or OERs for their
promotion or transfer their servicemen and--women are not going
to TAP until they are held personally accountable with a big
red check mark on that evaluation form, nothing is going to
change.
On that note, the Department of Defense show up. I am going
to speak directly to the Secretary of Defense again. Mr.
Austin, show up, so we know what is important to you by giving
the one thing back that you can never or giving the one thing
that you can never get back, and that is your time. Again, you
have over 2 million servicemen and--women that are underneath
your purview, and you could send one person here to show these
veterans that you actually care about them and the Active Duty
servicemen and--women that you actually care about them. I am
sick and tired of getting lip service from the Department of
Defense about our veterans. It has been statistically proven
that providing a good transition and off ramp to the civilian
community does not encourage people getting out of the military
earlier. Knock it off and show up, Mr. Secretary.
You know what? I am going to give you an invitation right
now, Secretary Austin. Mr. Levin, you okay with this?
Mr. Levin. Yes.
Mr. Van Orden. Good. The ranking member and I would like to
extend a formal invitation to the Secretary of Defense to take
one of those chairs and explain to us why apparently, he does
not care enough about the Transition Assistance Program to send
at least one of his subordinates.
With that, that ends my comments. I now yield to Ranking
Member Levin for his closing statements.
Mr. Levin. Well, I appreciate everybody's hard work. I
share the chairman's frustration that we have not gotten the
time and attention of DOD on TAP, and I have been at this now
for 5 years. We keep at it, though, and we just have to
continue to collectively request their participation. We all
have our different communication styles, but I certainly share
the sentiment. I just want to thank all of our VSOs, again, for
their tireless dedication and for their collaboration. I also
share the chairman's thoughts around staff working together in
a productive manner. That is critically important. We have to
keep that up. As I said at the outset, the time is running
short this Congress before it becomes a silly election season
again. We have got to get everything done we can as quickly as
we can.
With that, Mr. Chairman, yield back.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin. Again,
thank you all for your participation today in this hearing. I
have received a number of statements for the record which will
be submitted, again, for the record, as long as they meet
submission requirements.
I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
materials. Without objection, so ordered. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements of Witnesses
----------
Prepared Statement of Melissa Cohen
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin and other Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us here today to present our views
on several bills that would affect Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
programs and services. Joining me today is Mr. Nathan Sanfilippo,
Executive Director of Multichannel Technology at the Veterans
Experience Office; Mr. Garth Miller, Executive Director of Member
Services at the Veterans Health Administration; and Mr. Thomas
Alphonso, Assistant Director of Education Service at the Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA).
H.R. 6656 ``Stuck on Hold Act''
Section 2(a)(1) of this bill would require VA, for each VA customer
service telephone line, to implement an automated system that informs
callers about the anticipated wait time and automatically offers a
callback to any caller with an anticipated wait time of more than 15
minutes. Section 2(a)(2) would require VA to issue guidance as
necessary to reduce the average wait time of callers to VA customer
service telephone lines to not more than 15 minutes. This section would
also require all calls to be answered in the order in which they are
received.
VA does not support this bill. VA provides superior customer
service for Veterans and other stakeholders; and, currently, for all
major VA contact centers, average wait times are less than 15 minutes,
with some significantly less than 15 minutes. VA does not support
section 2(a)(1) as callback systems are already available, and
legislative authority is not required to obtain this functionality.
Furthermore, for certain contact centers that use them, VA callback
systems are activated for callers for wait time thresholds under 15
minutes.
VA's Enterprise Contact Center Council (ECCC) was established in
2018 to improve contact center customer experience with participation
from 22 VA single-leader contact centers. The ECCC is responsible for
VA contact center modernization, developing capabilities to enhance
touchpoints with Service members, Veterans, their families, caregivers,
and survivors. VA contact center modernization and enhancement
continues to be a multi-year journey, and the ECCC evolves as we move
forward in these efforts. In Fiscal Year 2023, VA contact centers
answered nearly 60 million calls with 77 percent of customers satisfied
with the experience.
VA does not support section 2(a)(2), as the section would require
VA to issue guidance necessary to reduce the average wait time of
callers to not more than 15 minutes. As previously mentioned, all major
VA contact centers have wait times less than 15 minutes, with some
significantly less. Therefore, changes to contact center guidance
aren't necessary and would not significantly impact wait times.
Creating a meaningful impact on wait times would require additional
resources to hire more contact center representatives. To do so, VA
would require additional funding.
Section 2(a)(2) would also require all calls to be answered in the
order in which they are received. VA currently provides preferential
queuing for certain call types, such as survivors or Veterans in
crisis, to service callers needing a quicker or more sensitive level of
customer service. Under this bill, VA would not be able to provide
preferential queuing to these vulnerable stakeholders.
Mandatory and discretionary costing have not been evaluated as VA
does not support the draft legislation.
H.R. 7323 (Disapproval of Courses Due to a Public Institution of Higher
Learning Not Charging In-State Tuition to In-State Veterans)
Under current law, VA must disapprove a course of education
provided by a public institution of higher learning if the institution
does not charge in-state tuition and fees for in-state ``covered
individuals.'' ``Covered individuals'' include beneficiaries under 38
U.S.C. chapters 30, 31, 33, and 35. This bill would amend 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3679(c) to include as ``covered individuals'' beneficiaries
receiving educational assistance under the Selected Reserve Service
Program pursuant to 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606.
The amendments would take effect on the date of the bill's
enactment and would apply with respect to an academic period that
begins on or after August 1, 2024.
VA supports this bill. This bill would allow chapter 1606
beneficiaries to receive the same protections under the law as
beneficiaries who receive benefits under other VA educational programs.
No mandatory or discretionary costs are associated with this bill.
H.R. XXXX ``Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act of 2024''
The bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3710(a)(12) to reauthorize VA
to guarantee certain loans for the purchase of stock or membership in a
cooperative housing (co-op) corporation. The bill would also revise
section 3710(h) so that VA could not guarantee a co-op loan until after
the Secretary prescribes regulations setting forth requirements for
underwriting, loan processing, project standards, share eligibility,
valuation, and other criteria the Secretary determines necessary.
Revised subsection (h) would additionally require the Secretary to
ensure that such regulations are consistent, to the extent the
Secretary determines suitable, with Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) requirements for the purchase or
securitization of co-op loans.
The bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3729(b) to require Veterans to
pay a fee of 2.03 percent of the total loan amount for any cooperative
loan, including an assumption of a cooperative loan, in addition to the
statutory loan fee required under the same section. The bill would also
require VA to use existing authority under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 532 to
advertise the availability of VA-guaranteed co-op loans. Last, the bill
would allow VA to issue guidance implementing the new authority prior
to the agency's promulgation of regulations.
VA would support this bill, if amended. VA supports the opportunity
for VA to begin guaranteeing co-op loans for Veterans. VA also believes
the Fair Access to Co-Ops for Veterans Act of 2024 could provide a good
start toward that opportunity; however, there are several amendments
that must be made before VA could implement the program successfully,
and this testimony highlights a number of them. VA would also need
resources to overcome operational challenges to success. Consequently,
while VA applauds the bill as a good starting point, VA could support
the bill if it were amended and supported with appropriations and if
Congress identified offsets to the new benefits costs and
administrative costs.
Perhaps the most significant concern is that the bill would not
give Veterans access to enough funding for the benefit to be of much
help, if any. This is because the bill would keep intact 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3703(a)(1)(A)(iv), which allows VA to guarantee a loan exceeding
$144,000, but that currently excludes co-op loans. By leaving the
provision unchanged, co-op loans would effectively be capped at
$144,000. This conflict alone would make the benefit unusable for most
co-op purchases.
VA is also concerned about a potential statutory conflict relating
to lien priority. Section 3703(d)(3) requires that, for the most part,
VA-guaranteed loans are to be secured by a first lien on the realty.
But a borrower in a co-op receives shares in a corporation (and a right
to occupy a specific unit), not a title to realty, meaning VA's
guaranteed loan would not be secured by the realty itself and, as a
result, could not be secured by a first lien against it. In short,
compliance with the plain language is not possible. Even if VA were to
consider the interest in the shares as tantamount to a lien on the
realty, Veterans would still be unable to meet the requirement in many
situations. This is because inferior lien positions are not uncommon
among co-op loans. Instead, co-op projects are often subject to
outstanding liens that take priority over the individual shareholder's.
Thus, if Congress intends for VA to assume the risk of guaranteeing an
inferior lien--which is a prospect VA could support in cases where the
project can demonstrate a strong enough financial undergirding--VA
believes a statutory change would be necessary.
It is also uncertain whether the occupancy requirements of 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3704(c) or the statutory loan assumption requirements of
38 U.S.C. Sec. 3714 would be enforceable for co-op loans. Those
sections apply to ``residential property.'' VA is concerned that the
plain language term ``residential property'' could be read to exclude
shares in a corporation, creating a loophole for the purchase of
investment properties or for circumventing assumption processing.
Another uncertainty relates to refinances. VA supports the bill's
authorization of purchases only, rather than further expanding to
include refinances. VA believes the focus should be on developing a
viable co-op purchase program before adding extra layers of complexity.
Nevertheless, the only way to ensure against legal challenges for VA
following the law (i.e., for VA refusing to guarantee a refinance of a
co-op loan) would be to insert a provision specifically excepting co-op
loans from qualifying for refinance.
Another issue requiring detailed attention involves procedures
around loan termination. The bill does not direct VA how to handle
complications that could arise from a default on a guaranteed co-op
loan. Generally, under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3732, holders that foreclose VA-
guaranteed loans have a statutory option to convey the liquidated
property to the Secretary, post-foreclosure, in exchange for VA's ``net
value'' payment. However, with co-op loans, borrowers typically receive
an ownership share of the corporate entity, not a title interest in a
particular housing unit. VA is uncertain how the liquidation,
possession, and resale of the fractional corporate shares would fit
within section 3732's prescribed procedures on default. At a more
fundamental level, VA does not support the concept of the Secretary
becoming a shareholder in co-op housing projects. There are several
reasons for VA's position, not least of which is that the Secretary is
an officer of the United States, but serving as a shareholder in a
cooperative housing unit could lead to conflicts with that role.
Therefore, VA believes it is essential to craft a unique loan
termination procedure specifically for co-op loans.
Relatedly, the bill does not address default by the corporate
entity when the co-op project becomes insolvent or is dissolved due to
no fault of the Veteran. For example, the bill provides no authority to
help a Veteran whose shares have been significantly devalued through
the corporation's bankruptcy or who lives in a co-op project that is
foreclosed. VA is concerned that the current statutory authority does
not offer the right tools to help Veterans who find themselves in such
a situation. VA has not had time to fully analyze how to address these
sorts of circumstances and believes that consulting experts in the co-
op industry is necessary.
A final legal concern for VA is the potential shortage of liquidity
for the program. While this bill would reauthorize VA-guaranteed co-op
loans, the availability of loans to Veterans would depend heavily on
the willingness of private lenders to make them. In large part,
cashflows for lenders that originate VA-guaranteed loans derive from
investors in mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The Government National
Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) is the principal entity that pools
VA-guaranteed loans into MBS. It is VA's understanding that, presently,
Ginnie Mae accepts only certain co-ops, i.e., Federal Housing
Administration co-op loans, into MBS. Therefore, VA recommends
consulting Ginnie Mae to address any changes they may see as necessary
for the authorization of VA-guaranteed co-op loans. Otherwise, without
a clear investment vehicle for the loans, and given the complexities of
co-op lending, VA anticipates lender participation may be low.
Co-op share purchase loans present a unique ownership framework as
compared to the more traditional ownership and housing credit
transactions VA currently oversees in its housing loan program. Given
that VA has not had authority to guarantee co-op loans for over a
decade and there have been significant changes in the housing market
since 2011, VA does not have personnel with the expertise needed to
implement this legislation. VA anticipates needing to hire at least 11
full-time employees, all of whom would need experience and expertise,
to help VA establish and maintain a world-class co-op housing loan
program for Veterans.
VA readily acknowledges that the list of statutory challenges is
long and complex, but VA is committed to working with Congress and co-
op housing stakeholders to ensure a viable co-op loan program. It is
for this same reason--that is, to ensure a viable program for
Veterans--that VA must also emphasize the importance of Congress
providing the agency with the adequate administrative resources.
Success depends on it.
VA estimates new benefits costs of $5,000 in the first year,
$15,000 over 5 years, and $80,000 over 10 years. VA also estimates $2
million in new administrative costs in the first year, $11.4 million
over 5 years, and $24.8 million over 10 years.
H.R. XXXX ``Combat Veterans Pre-Enrollment Act of 2024''
This bill would require VA to establish a pilot program that would
permit certain members of the Armed Forces to pre-enroll in VA's health
care enrollment system.
Section 2(a) of the bill would require VA, by January 1, 2025, to
establish a program to carry out, to the maximum extent practicable,
all activities necessary to permit a member of the Armed Forces
described in subsection (b) to enroll in VA health care on the date of
separation of the member.
Section 2(b) would define as eligible members of the Armed Forces
those who: (1) are performing active service; (2) served on active duty
in a theater of combat operations or in combat against a hostile force
during a period of hostilities after November 11, 1998; and (3) would
be eligible for enrollment in VA health care on the date of the
separation of such member.
Section 2(c) would require VA, in conjunction with the Department
of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to
establish a mechanism to permit a member of the Armed Forces to elect
to participate in the pre-enrollment program during the 180-day period
that precedes the date of separation of the member from active service.
Within 180 days of the date of enactment, and annually thereafter, the
VA-DoD Joint Executive Committee would be required to submit to
Congress a briefing on the efforts of VA and DoD to implement the
mechanism described above.
Section 2(d) would require VA to submit an annual report to
Congress that includes information on the results of this program,
including demographic data of participants.
Section 2(e) would require the Comptroller General to submit to
Congress an analysis of the effectiveness of this program and
recommendations with respect to methods to improve such program.
Section 2(f) would provide that the authority to carry out the
program described in subsection (a) ends on the date that is 3 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
VA does not support this bill. VA fully supports the intent of this
legislation and is working in a number of ways that would complement or
exceed the requirements of this bill, but VA does not believe this
legislation is necessary as it would provide no new authority in this
area.
Currently, there are 43 VA Liaisons for Healthcare located at DoD
installations and Military Treatment Facilities (MTF). In addition,
there are 5 Regional VA Liaisons for Healthcare who provide virtual
services to all other DoD installations and MTFs. The VA Liaisons
support pre-enrollment for transitioning Service members by
coordinating their transition of health care from DoD to VA and
facilitating access to VA care. The VA Liaisons, who are nurses and
social workers, educate Service members and their families about VA
health care with a focus on their specialized care needs. They also
connect Service members with their home VA health care facility prior
to discharge from the military. VA Liaisons for Healthcare coordinate
Service members' initial VA health care registration with their home VA
facility and secure health care appointments prior to military
discharge. Active-duty Service members who are not yet eligible for
enrollment into the Patient Enrollment System can be registered into
the Patient Enrollment System, and VA can proactively schedule
appointments pending enrollment once the Service member is issued a
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) and
VA verifies Veteran status. Engaging with transitioning Service members
while they are still on active-duty status reduces the gap between DoD
and VA immediately post-service and limits the potential for
disruptions or lapses in care. Most of VA's efforts are focused on
Service members who have known health conditions that will require
ongoing health care; these individuals may have been injured or
incurred an illness or disability during service, and such conditions
could have manifested outside of combat situations. In this regard, the
bill's focus on only combat Veterans would be narrower than VA's
current efforts. VA Liaisons for Healthcare also work with the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and with VBA outreach experts to
facilitate these transitioning Service members in applying for both
health care and benefits.
Additionally, VA has already established mechanisms with several of
the branches of the Armed Forces to facilitate transmission of
discharge documents (specifically, the DD Form 214) that establish a
Veteran's qualifications and military history; this information is
necessary to processing enrollment applications by ensuring that former
Service members meet the threshold eligibility criteria (such as a
qualifying discharge under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5303 and minimum duty
requirements under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5303A).
While there are fewer members of the Coast Guard who qualify for VA
health care based on combat status, the Regional VA Liaisons for
Healthcare that serve smaller DoD sites also serve Coast Guard
locations to provide a comprehensive transition into VA health care.
We note that under section 111 of the Honoring our Promise to
Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (Pub. L. No. 117-168), combat
Veterans now have 10 years from the date of separation or discharge to
qualify for VA health care under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1710(e)(1)(D). This
bill would seemingly further enhance this benefit by facilitating a
quicker enrollment process for these separating Service members.
VA has concerns with the timelines set forth in this bill.
Initially, it is not clear that VA could establish all of the
mechanisms required by January 1, 2025. Additionally, it is not clear
that VA could enroll every Veteran on the date of discharge or release,
as there could be delays in the receipt of key documents (such as the
DD Form 214), or such documents may be submitted too late in the day
for VA to process them on the same day. Delays with instances where the
Service member's character of discharge requires adjudication by the
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). VA recommends the bill be
amended to provide further flexibility in this regard.
VA does not believe the bill would result in a material change in
enrollment or utilization rates given current efforts to enroll
transitioning Service members. However, VA would require additional
staff and resources to facilitate this type of engagement for all
separating Service members and to provide the reports required by this
bill. Mandatory and discretionary costing have not been evaluated as VA
does not support the draft legislation.
H.R. XXXX [Title 10 TAP Reform]
Section 2(a)-(g), (i) and (n)(1) of this bill would require DoD to
establish a pre-separation counseling program provided by a third
party. VA defers to DoD regarding these provisions.
VA cites concerns with sections 2(h), 2(k), 5, and 6 of this bill.
Section 2(h) would require a presentation by a Veterans Service
Organization that promotes VA benefits available to Veterans. This
section would require VA to review and approve the presentation in
advance. This section would also require the presentation to be
presented by a national representative of a Veterans Service
Organization (VSO) recognized under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5902. VA cites
concerns with section 2(h), which would create redundancy with the 1-
day course already provided by VA as described below.
First, established in 1991, TAP consists of five core curricula
shared among the interagency partners (VA, DoD, Department of Labor
(DOL), and Small Business Administration (SBA)). These courses are
developed and maintained through these partnerships to ensure
continuity, consistency, and relevance while reducing redundancy for
the transitioning Service members. VA, DoD, DOL, and SBA collaborate
through an annual evaluation process by reviewing and approving the TAP
curricula through the interagency governance structure. Each agency is
responsible for the delivery or facilitation of its curriculum.
The 1-day VA Benefits and Services (BAS) course helps Service
members and their families understand how to navigate the resources
within VA, including how to access the benefits and services they have
earned through their military careers. More specifically, the BAS
course provides the skills, resources, and tools needed to support
emotional and physical health, career readiness, and economic stability
in civilian life.
Further, on January 2, 2024, VA launched VSO participation in the
BAS course. VA-accredited VSO representatives play an integral role in
assisting transitioning Service members and Veterans, as well as their
spouses, families, and caregivers, throughout pivotal stages in their
transition from military to civilian life. VA extended an invitation to
VA-accredited VSO representatives working on or near military
installations to directly connect with attendees during the structured
45-minute session at the end of VA TAP One-Day to:
Highlight the value of using a VA-accredited VSO
representative and how they can serve as a trusted advocate and
resource before, during, and after their transition.
Inform transitioning Service members that VA-accredited
VSO representatives help ensure they have access to responsible and
qualified representation during the VA benefits claims process.
Remind transitioning Service members that VA-accredited
VSO representatives provide services without charge and offer
professional assistance to help transitioning Service members, Veterans
and their families receive the benefits they have earned and deserve--
health care, disability, employment, education, financial benefits, and
more.
Provide information on the unique programs and resources
that are available from their respective VSO.
The goal of this collaborative effort is to educate, inform, and
empower attendees by providing valuable VSO information and resources,
fostering connections with VSOs, and increasing benefit utilization.
Section 2(j) would require DoD to transmit VA Service member
information to include contact information. VA defers to DoD.
Section 2(k) would prohibit DoD from providing a DD Form 214 until
the Service member receives the required pre-separation counseling. VA
cites concerns with this section.
Proof of separation is required to apply for Veterans' Group Life
Insurance (VGLI) or the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Disability
Extension (SGLI DE). Separating members have 1 year and 120 days to
apply for VGLI, but if they apply within the first 240 days after
separation, they can be approved without answering any health
questions. They can apply for the SGLI DE any time within 2 years
following separation to receive a free extension of their
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage for up to 2 years
following separation. Given these deadlines to apply and understanding
that there are extenuating circumstances that may prevent a member from
receiving a pre-separation briefing, withholding the DD Form 214 could
prevent a separating member from being able to obtain needed life
insurance coverage because they are unable to provide proof of their
separation from service.
DD Form 214 is often utilized by VA claims processors as a ready
means to determine whether a former Service member is eligible for VA
benefits. Former Service members may submit the DD Form 214 directly to
VA for that purpose as a means of expediting their claims. VBA is
concerned that withholding a DD Form 214 from former Service members
who do not complete required pre-separation counseling may needlessly
delay claims processing and could also impede automated claims
processing efforts.
VA notes that the use of the term ``provide'' in section 2(k)
allows for multiple interpretations. If a Service member did not
complete required pre-separation counseling, it is unclear if the
intent is for DoD to generate the DD Form 214 and withhold the Veteran
copy from the Service member, or if the intent is for DoD not to
generate a DD Form 214 and potentially maintain the Service member on
active duty. If the intent is the former, VA notes that when a Service
member separates from active duty, the Service Department provides a
copy of the DD Form 214 to VA. As such, if a DD Form 214 is generated
and provided to VA, Service members may request a copy of the form from
VA. VA believes such a process may diminish any meaningful incentive
withholding a DD Form 214 could provide to encourage Service members to
receive pre-separation counseling. VA recommends adding clarity as to
the intent of the provision. VA is also concerned that it may be an
inefficient use of administrative resources and be disrespectful to
Service members who were unable to avail themselves of pre-separation
counseling due to extenuating circumstances.
Section 2(l) would require DOL, in consultation with VA, DoD, and
DHS, to enter into contracts with public, private, and nonprofit
entities under which such entities would provide individualized
employment counseling for members of the Armed Forces and their
spouses. VA defers to DOL and DoD on this section.
Section 2(m) would require DoD, in consultation with VA and DOL, to
establish a curriculum based on TAP to support a pilot program for
spouses of Service members. This section would require counseling under
the pilot program. VA notes that DoD has equities involved and
recommend that the Committee solicit views from DoD.
Separating members receive a significant amount of information
about military and VA benefits at TAP briefings and having the spouse
participate would help to ensure that both the member and spouse are
aware of all the benefits and services available to them, particularly
life insurance benefits which have strict deadlines to apply. VA
anticipates additional resources would be required for implementation
of this section and looks forward to working with Congress.
Section 2(n)(2) would require VA to submit a report on VSOs that
presented, as would be required under section (h), the number of
Service members who attended the presentations, and any recommendations
regarding changes to the presentations. VA has no objection to this
section as it relates to VA reporting on VSO participation in our
Benefits and Services Course.
As stated above, VA has already approved and deployed a
standardized VSO presentation into VA's BAS 1-day course. VA is already
monitoring the program and looking for areas of opportunity for
continuous improvement.
Section 3 would require the Comptroller General to conduct a study
on the Skillbridge programs under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1143(e). VA defers to
DoD and the Government Accountability Office on this section.
Section 4(a) would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4101 by including a
Service member eligible for TAP in the definition of ``eligible
person'' for purposes of chapter 41, which governs job counseling,
training, and placement services for Veterans. Section 4(b) would amend
38 U.S.C. Sec. 4103A(a)(1) by including Service members eligible for
TAP as persons who may receive intensive services and placements from
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program specialists under chapter 41 to
meet their employment needs. VA has no objection to section 4.
VA does not support section 5. Under current 38 U.S.C. Sec.
6320(b)(1), VA Solid Start (VASS) employees conduct individualized
conversations tailored to the needs of recently separated Service
members to increase awareness and utilization of VA benefits and
services. VASS calls are not scripted and are driven solely by the
needs of the individual at the time of each interaction. VASS employees
have the necessary training and resources to provide information about
all VA benefits to interested Veterans. If amended, section 5(b) of the
bill would require the VASS program to provide TAP materials to all
VASS-eligible individuals, regardless of their interest in the
materials. This could overwhelm Veterans in their pursuit for specific,
individualized information as TAP materials cover all VA benefits. VASS
is designed to augment TAP by narrowing information specific to
individuals after they have transitioned from active service by
providing materials and electronic links specifically discussed during
the one-on-one call between the VASS representative and the Veteran.
This includes access to the online TAP curriculum, if appropriate or
requested. This requirement would undermine the goal of a personalized
experience.
Section 5(c) would require the VASS program to gather and analyze
data assessing the effectiveness of TAP, a program for which it has no
operational access or oversight. VA TAP already assesses the
effectiveness of the VA TAP program and seeks opportunities for
continuous improvement.
Section 6 would require VA to establish a pilot program that would
permit certain members of the Armed Forces to pre-enroll in VA's
healthcare enrollment system. This section is identical to the
unnumbered bill discussed above titled ``Combat Veterans Pre-Enrollment
Act of 2024. As noted above regarding the ``Combat Veterans Pre-
Enrollment Act of 2024'' bill, VA does not support section 6 of this
bill.
H.R. XXXX [Relating to Flight Training]
This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313(g)(3)(C) to limit the
amount of educational assistance payable for flight training under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. This bill would establish a $100,000 maximum total
amount payable for flight training fees for an individual first
pursuing a flight training program offered by a public institution of
higher learning (IHL) on or after August 1, 2025. For each fiscal year,
the Secretary would have to provide a cost-of-living percentage
increase in the maximum amount payable.
VA would support this bill, if amended. VA supports establishing a
$100,000 fee cap that is adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index
for flight training programs. This approach is consistent with VA's
published Fiscal Year 2024 legislative proposal that aimed to prevent
VA from providing unlimited amounts of payment for flight training at
public schools. However, it is unclear whether the lifetime cap would
apply to both degree and non-degree flight programs offered by public
IHLs. Additionally, VA has concerns with the effective date, as
implementation would require IT system changes and may significantly
impact the timeline for full implementation of the Digital GI Bill
initiative. VA welcomes the opportunity to work with the Committee to
provide technical assistance to ensure that this bill meets its
intended goal.
Mandatory savings to the Readjustment Benefits account are
estimated to be $0 in 2024, $2.2 million over 5 years, and $5.0 million
over 10 years. No VBA administrative costs are associated with this
bill. VA estimates the information technology costs associated with the
enactment of this legislation to be $3.2 million. VA would implement
the new rules into the Digital GI Bill (DGIB) platform solution and
make these changes within the current modernization effort.
Specifically, changes to the data interfaces and microservices for
Benefits Manager, My Education Benefits, and changes to our ``Rules''
and ``Letters'' standard requirements would be necessary. Due to
current DGIB priorities (retiring the Benefits Delivery Network and
increasing Automation), VA would not be able to start implementing this
solution until the last quarter of calendar year 2025. This estimate is
based on current priorities and funding levels staying as is.
H.R. XXXX [Restoration of Entitlement to Educational Assistance due to
Violation of Prohibitions]
This bill would restore entitlement to educational assistance to
individuals who pursue a course or program of education at an
educational institution found to have violated certain prohibitions on
advertising, sales and enrollment practices.
VA supports this bill. This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3696
to authorize VA to restore entitlement to individuals who received
educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapters 30, 31, 32, 33 or 35 or
10 U.S.C. chapters 1606 or 1607 at an educational institution when the
Under Secretary for Benefits determines that the educational
institution violated 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3696(a), (c), or (d). Those
provisions prohibit educational institutions from engaging in
substantial misrepresentation; limit certain commissions, bonuses, and
other incentive payments; and require educational institutions to
maintain records of all advertising, sales, or enrollment materials
utilized by or on behalf of the institution during the preceding 2-year
period.
Additionally, this bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3696(h) to
require that an educational institution or the owner of an educational
institution, upon a final determination by the Under Secretary for
Benefits, repay to VA all amounts of educational assistance paid to the
educational institution by or on behalf of an individual who pursued a
course or program of education at the institution during the time
period when the violation occurred. Educational institutions must agree
to this repayment as a condition of approval. Finally, this bill would
add a new 38 U.S.C Sec. 3679(g) that would permit VA to disapprove a
course or program of education offered by the educational institution
until the educational institution repays the amount of educational
assistance to VA. This bill would apply to a violation that occurs on
or after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment.
VA supports the protections this bill seeks to afford our Nation's
Veterans and believes this bill would help safeguard taxpayers' dollars
when violations are found. However, VA believes this bill should also
apply when disapproval actions are taken by the State Approving
Agencies (SAA) under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3679(f)(2). Doing so would expand
oversight and allow for the most expeditious process for safeguarding
the integrity of the GI Bill. VA is also concerned that, if a SAA were
to disapprove a program, this bill would not provide VA with the
authority to recoup educational assistance from the educational
institution. For this reason, VA recommends amending the bill to allow
for restoration of entitlement and recoupment of educational assistance
whenever there is a finding under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3696 by either the
SAA or the Under Secretary for Benefits.
Savings to the mandatory Readjustment Benefits account are
estimated to be $0 in 2024, $10.7 million over 5 years, and $29.1
million over 10 years. No discretionary costs are associated with this
bill.
H.R. XXXX [Related to the Work Study Allowance]
This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3485(a)(5) to include
employment activities at the offices of a committee of the Senate or
House of Representatives. The bill would also include, as qualifying
work-study activities, activities supporting casework, policymaking,
and oversight related to VA activities carried out at the offices of
the Senate or House of Representatives, the Congressional Research
Service, the Government Accountability Office, or the Congressional
Budget Office.
VA supports this bill. This bill would expand eligible activities
that qualify for the work-study allowance.
Mandatory costs to the Readjustment Benefits account are estimated
to be $348,000 in 2024, $4.7 million over 5 years, and $12.1 million
over 10 years. No discretionary costs are associated.
H.R. XXXX [Terminology Regarding Veteran Employment]
This bill would update terminology in title 38, United States Code,
by replacing the term ``employment handicap'' with ``employment
barrier.''
VA supports this bill. Additionally, VA recommends an additional
amendment to the bill to replace the term ``serious employment
handicap'' with ``serious employment barrier'' in title 38.
No mandatory or discretionary costs are associated with this bill
Conclusion
This concludes my statement. We would be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of James Rodriguez
Introduction
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. It
has been an honor to lead the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL)
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) for the last 3 years.
VETS' mission is to prepare America's veterans, service members,
and military spouses for meaningful careers, provide them with
employment resources and expertise, protect their employment rights,
and promote their employment opportunities. VETS administers programs
designed to address the employment, training, and job security needs of
over 196,000 military service members who transition to civilian life
each year,\1\ 8.6 million military veterans in the U.S. civilian labor
force,\2\ over 775,000 Selected National Guard and Reserve members,\3\
and nearly 920,000 military spouses (578,952 active duty and 344,716
Guard and Reserve spouses).\4\ Along with our partners, we are
committed to ensuring the best transition for our service members and
their families. Below, VETS provides its views on the legislation being
considered at this hearing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Department of Defense Congressional Report, Improvements to
the Transition Assistance Program, August 2022.
\2\ See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the
Current Population Survey, Household Data Annual Averages 2023, Table
48-Employment status of persons 18 years and over by veteran status,
age, and sex, available at: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat48.htm.
\3\ Department of Defense, Defense Manpower Data Center, Military
Personnel Report, Selected Reserve Personnel by Reserve Component and
Rank/Grade (Updated Monthly), July 2023, available at: https://
dwp.dmdc.osd.mil/dwp/app/dod-data-reports/workforce-reports
\4\ Military OneSource - Demographics Profile of the Military
Community, 2022, available at: https://
demographics.militaryonesource.mil/.
H.R. XXX, to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to make
improvements to certain programs for a member nearing separation, or
for a veteran who recently separated, from the Armed Forces, and for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other purposes.
Section 2 of the bill contains several amendments related to the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP). Subsection (l) of Section 2 would
amend 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1144 to codify the Employment Navigator &
Partnership Program (ENPP) into law. While we support the intent of
codifying the program, as drafted, this subsection would enact a
variety of highly prescriptive requirements that would limit which
entities could enter into contracts with DOL to provide
``individualized employment counseling for members of the Armed Forces
and their spouses.'' Further, the subsection would limit the number of
those partnerships to a minimum of five and a maximum of ten
organizations. And it would require that each entity be compensated
based on each individual who receives employment services provided by
the entity.
DOL is currently carrying out ENPP under our current TAP statutory
authority. While we support specifically codifying ENPP into law, we
strongly oppose the restrictive requirements in the bill, which seem
designed to ensure federal contracts for a limited number of large
organizations at the expense of other mid-sized and smaller
organizations. These anticompetitive requirements are not needed and
run contrary to the goal of providing ENPP to all service members and
their spouses through 59 (and growing) non-governmental partner
organizations in all parts of the world, including communities where
smaller and more local organizations may be better situated to provide
those services.
We have serious concerns about compensating ENPP partner
organizations for each individual who receives employment services
provided by the entity, as ENPP currently does not incur such costs to
the Federal Government or participants. Under the VETS program model,
Employment Navigator services are incorporated within the overall VETS
TAP contract. ENPP partner services (such as job placement, hiring
events, training services, and local supportive services) are provided
through no-cost agreements with the individual partner organizations.
Currently, for eligibility, organizations applying to be ENPP partners
need to demonstrate that their programs are mature, self-sufficient,
and at no direct cost to DOL, the Transitioning Service Members (TSMs),
or their spouses. For those eligible organizations, DOL enters into
agreements for ENPP partnerships. In effect, Employment Navigators are
referring TSMs to organizations, under ENPP voluntary partnerships with
DOL, to receive services that those organizations already provide. DOL
believes this current model is effective and allows the maximum
flexibility for ENPP partners and ENPP operations. On the other hand,
creating a payment structure as required by this subsection would
create a strong financial incentive for ENPP partner organizations to
serve as many TSMs as possible, regardless of how successful they are
in placing them into employment with good wages and job quality or
considering the service members' own satisfaction in the job
placements. Moreover, the subsection provides no direct mechanism for
DOL to improve those outcomes or otherwise hold those contractors
accountable. I would also like to highlight that scaling the ENPP
worldwide for all TSMs would require additional resources for VETS.
Moreover, incorporating the cost structure outlined in this subsection
would require additional resources for successful implementation.
ENPP is designed to provide an individualized approach for our
service members and their spouses, by taking the concepts of what they
learn in our TAP workshops and putting them into practice. Each TSM
served by ENPP may have differing needs, be at different stages of
career readiness, and could need different levels of assistance. For
example, some of our ENPP clients meet monthly with an Employment
Navigator over the course of their last year of service. During these
meetings, our Employment Navigators assist these individuals with
developing a career plan; reviewing their resumes; and connecting them
with apprenticeship and SkillBridge opportunities, hiring events,
mentorship and networking opportunities, and/or additional support such
as legal, health care, housing, or financial assistance in addition to
searching for employment opportunities through our partners. As an
individual's needs are identified, Employment Navigators facilitate
their connection to an approved ENPP partner organization(s) that can
assist them either where they are currently stationed or where they are
looking to transition. VETS believes all of the Employment Navigator
and partner services encompass the suite of employment-related services
that a TSM may require throughout their transition and believes this
flexible and holistic model should continue. As explained in more
detail below, there is clear evidence that ENPP is an innovative and
effective program.
In addition, subsection (m) of Section 2 would require the
Department of Defense (DoD), in coordination with the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) and DOL, to establish a 3-year pilot program to
provide counseling at military installations to military spouses of
TSMs on the benefits and assistance available to military families and
veterans from each Department. DOL supports this proposal and notes
that our Transition Employment Assistance for Military Spouses (TEAMS)
curriculum would form an excellent foundation for, and complement to,
this pilot. The TEAMS workshops are designed to help military spouses
plan and prepare for their job search in pursuit of their employment
goals. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, VETS provided 398 TEAMS workshops to
more than 2,075 military spouses and caregivers. We continue to work
with DoD to schedule and promote TEAMS events.
Section 4 of the bill would amend the authorizing language for the
Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) program to add members of the
Armed Forces eligible for TAP as persons eligible to receive priority
for DOL's intensive services and the placement service program
conducted by Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program specialists. DOL
supports the goal of expanding JVSG eligibility, as it will allow TSMs
to receive career services in American Job Centers from the staff who
are well qualified to help them navigate the wide range of services
available to them through the public workforce system.
We welcome the opportunity to provide detailed technical assistance
on these aspects of the bill and to work with the Subcommittee on our
shared goals, so that we can continue the success of the ENPP and JVSG
programs and build on the TEAMS pilot effort.
The bill would make a variety of other changes to the portions of
the TAP program administered by DoD and VA, and to other programs
outside of the purview of DOL. On these matters, VETS defers to the
respective Departments where their equities are impacted.
Other Bills Considered by the Subcommittee
As to the remaining bills under consideration for this hearing, DOL
defers to other respective Departments where their equities are
impacted. Of course, should these bills be amended in a way that raises
DOL equities, we would be happy to further review them and provide
technical assistance upon request.
TAP Overview
In considering this legislation, it may be helpful for the
Subcommittee to review the current structure of TAP, DOL's role in the
program, how we are working to transform employment opportunities
during the transition process, recent program data, and related
matters.
TAP provides training, resources, and assistance to separating and
retiring service members on active duty, Guard, Reserve, and their
spouses, as defined in 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1144. TAP is a cooperative
effort by VETS, DoD, the Department of Education (ED), the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), the VA, the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Congress originally established TAP in the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L. 101-510). This
enactment authorized the development of a voluntary program consisting
of transition assistance counseling and employment assistance for
separating service members and their spouses. In 2011, the Veterans
Opportunity to Work (VOW) to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-56)
mandated TAP participation for all TSMs - including pre-separation
counseling and completion of courses provided by the newly established
interagency partnerships - to start no later than 90 days prior to an
anticipated date of transition. DOL, DoD, VA, and SBA collaborated to
prepare new curricula and expand training, education, and transition
activities to include Career Readiness Standards, a set of common and
specified activities for service members to achieve.
The John S. McCain NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232)
requires TAP classes to occur no later than 365 days prior to an
anticipated date of separation or release from active duty or 24 months
prior to retirement. These requirements allowed TAP to evolve from a
one-size-fits-all program where service members had to transition to
civilian life in a condensed timeframe to an individualized program
tailored specifically to the needs of each service member under a more
suitable timeline.
VETS works with its interagency partners to provide program
oversight. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2024 (P.L. 118-31, Sec. 1805)
codified DOL as a Co-Chair with DoD and VA on the Joint Executive
Committee. This enhanced DOL's preexisting collaboration with DoD and
VA, with VETS co-chairing the Transition Executive Committee, Senior
Transition Steering Group, Transition Working Group, and six functional
working groups. Interagency members including DOL, DoD, VA, ED, DHS,
SBA, OPM, and the military services meet and coordinate on a regular
basis to ensure that the partners are supporting and advancing TAP, as
well as to reduce redundancy, better serve unique populations, and
improve coordination of services across program areas.
DOL TAP Employment Workshops
In Fiscal Year 2023, TSMs and military spouses attended VETS' TAP
employment workshops in significant numbers. TAP employment workshops
provided instruction to 242,984 participants.\5\ There are three core
VETS TAP employment workshops. First, VETS is responsible for the
delivery of the Employment Fundamentals of Career Transition (EFCT)
Workshop, which is a mandatory, 1-day course for employment
preparation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Note that an individual service member may attend more than one
workshop. References to the total number of TAP workshop participants
do not track unique participants.
One-Day EFCT Workshop: The EFCT lays the foundation for
transitioning from military to civilian life, introducing the essential
tools and resources needed to evaluate career options, gain information
for civilian employment, and understand the fundamentals of the
employment process. In Fiscal Year 2023, VETS provided EFCT workshops
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to 148,560 participants.
In addition, based on service members' individual needs, VETS
offers two elective tracks to acquire additional skills through a 2-day
workshop: (1) the DOL Employment Workshop (DOLEW), and (2) the Career
and Credential Exploration (C2E) Workshop. TSMs must elect one 2-day
track during their individual counseling; however, they are encouraged
to attend any additional track(s) and attend the courses more than once
(as their unit missions allow) to prepare them for their transition.
Two-Day DOLEW: The DOLEW is intended for those pursuing
the employment track and covers emerging best practices in career
employment, including in-depth training to learn interview skills,
build effective resumes, and use emerging technology to network and
search for employment. In Fiscal Year 2023, VETS provided DOLEW
workshops to 78,473 participants.
Two-Day C2E Workshop: For those on the vocational track,
VETS implemented an updated C2E workshop on January 1, 2024, which
provides guidance and assistance in conducting several self-assessments
to determine a career path to align with interests, aptitudes, and work
values. Further, this update includes guidance on tailoring a resume
for apprenticeships. Attendees will complete a comparison of technical
training institutions. In Fiscal Year 2023, VETS provided C2E workshops
to 15,951 participants.
VETS workshops are highly rated by attendees. Fiscal Year 2023
Transition Assistance Participant Assessment results indicated that 96
percent would use what they learned in their own transition planning,
and 96 percent reported that the EFCT enhanced their confidence in
transition planning.
Employment Navigator and Partnership Program
ENPP began at 13 military installations worldwide on April 1, 2021.
ENPP leverages the Secretary's authority (10 U.S.C. Sec. 1144) to
assist TSMs and their spouses with identifying and connecting to
employment and training opportunities. The pilot was designed in
response to feedback from veterans who stated that, while their TAP
classroom experience was educational, they desired a more personalized
approach. ENPP provides one-on-one, tailored services for TSMs and
their spouses. From April 1, 2021, to September 30, 2023, VETS
successfully piloted ENPP as a proof of concept. VETS implemented the
pilot in close coordination with the military services and initial
partner organizations. Employment Navigators were able to provide
value-added one-on-one career support services. VETS successfully
incorporated partner organizations into the pilot and implemented a
formal partner application process. Initial analysis of employment
outcome data indicates a positive impact from ENPP engagement. Based on
these factors, VETS established ENPP as a program on October 1, 2023.
VETS is prepared to make ENPP part of the regular DOL TAP established
under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1144. As funding allows, and in coordination with
the TAP interagency governance and military services, VETS will
continue to extend ENPP to serve as many TSMs and their spouses as
possible.
Through our full-time contract Employment Navigator staff and our
employment partners, ENPP clients receive assistance with their resumes
and career direction, as well as referrals to vetted partner
organizations and American Job Centers (AJCs), which provide additional
personalized support. ENPP Partners are required to select a primary
service from nine possible categories of services, which include:
digital employment opportunity matching, training services, employment
mentorship, hiring events, employment networking, Registered
Apprenticeship opportunities, referrals to employment opportunities,
placement services, and wrap-around services. A list of our current
partners can be found on the VETS ENPP Partner Page,\6\ and
organizations that are interested in partnership with us can submit an
application.\7\ In Fiscal Year 2023, 5,747 TSMs and 383 military
spouses received services through ENPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.dol.gov/agencies/vets/programs/tap/employment-
navigator-partnership/enpp-partnerships
\7\ https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/VETS/files/tap/
DOLVETSENPPPotentialPartnerApplicationForm.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, at ENPP sites, the lead Employment Navigators serve as the
initial points of contact for TSMs receiving a ``warm handover'', a
person-to-person connection between the TSM and an AJC. No later than
90 days prior to separating, TSMs will go through Capstone, a process
by which the military service branch evaluates whether service members
have met the Career Readiness Standards (CRS). To meet the employment
track CRS for employment, a service member must have either a completed
resume or confirmation of employment. If a service member fails to meet
the CRS for employment, they are provided a warm handover, which
connects them to designated services and follow-up resources as needed.
During a warm handover, at ENPP sites, Employment Navigators
connect TSMs to a designated AJC point-of-contact who verifies with DOL
that they have received the contact information and reached out to the
client to offer assistance. In addition to being connected with the
State AJC where they reside, many service members receiving a warm
handover also receive services from our Employment Navigators and
partners. VETS believes that providing TSMs with additional support
from Employment Navigators will enable more service members to meet the
CRS and lead to a reduction in the number of TSMs who are required to
receive a warm handover for employment.
According to participant surveys, ENPP has been a great success. As
of February 1, 2024, 97 percent of ENPP survey respondents reported
positive feelings after meeting with their Employment Navigators and
would recommend ENPP to a friend or colleague. Additionally, 97 percent
felt ENPP partners met or exceeded their employment-related
expectations. As one ENPP survey respondent stated, ``The value of the
Employment Navigator is having a one-on-one conversation to go back
over the plethora of information you received in TAP classes and give
guidance and recommendations specific to your situation.''
VETS is very proud of the progress that has been made through ENPP
and looks forward to continuing and expanding this initiative. To
better understand its success and effectiveness, VETS has initiated a
number of evaluations of the program. First, in December 2021, VETS
launched the TAP Employment Navigator System (TENS), a case management
system created for ENPP to be used by Employment Navigators (who are
contracted staff), ENPP partners, and VETS staff to capture data,
develop reports, and manage ENPP processes. TENS includes an integrated
client request meeting scheduler, program reporting, policy/guidance
storage, and client record management.
With DOL's TAP Evaluation and Employment Navigator (TEEN) Study,
VETS built a new one-of-a-kind dataset to better understand the role of
ENPP on employment outcomes for TSMs and their spouses. What's even
more notable about this dataset is that we will be able to follow
employment outcomes of TSMs longitudinally. This was a multi-year
effort to combine wage and employment information from the Department
of Health and Human Services-administered National Directory of New
Hires (NDNH), Armed Forces' administrative data through the Veteran
Data Exchange Initiative with DoD, and ENPP program data through TENS
from VETS. This effort included data-sharing agreements with the
aforementioned federal agencies, approval process with OMB, and
upgrading IT systems required to receive, store, and analyze the merged
data. VETS produced an initial NDNH-related analysis at the end of
Fiscal Year 2023 and identified employment outcomes, including wages,
to track in Fiscal Year 2024. VETS aims to establish a baseline year to
fine-tune the measurement tools and ensure accuracy.
Based on preliminary findings from early analyses in the TEEN
Study, we see that TSMs who received ENPP services have notably better
outcomes than those service members who did not receive those services.
For example, preliminary findings indicate an increase of 10 percent
(to $11,005) higher median quarterly wages earned for enlisted TSMs who
participated in ENPP compared to their counterparts ($9,993) who did
not participate. VETS will continue analyzing the data and will be able
to provide more nuanced information as data sets increase and analysis
matures.
Additionally, VETS' ENPP Evaluation is underway to understand how
Employment Navigators provide support to service members to find
employment faster and obtain higher wages. The key components of this
study are: 1) a rigorous implementation and outcomes evaluation; 2) an
evaluability assessment on the feasibility of an impact evaluation; 3)
a study to understand the customer experience through the eyes of
service members and military spouses; and 4) collaboration with other
DOL workforce navigator evaluations to synthesize findings on cross-
cutting topic areas, such as equity to access of services. The
evaluation is expected to be completed in Fiscal Year 2027.
Expanding Off-Base Transition Training Pilot
On January 11, 2022, VETS announced the launch of a 5-year Off-Base
Transition Training (OBTT) pilot program, in accordance with section
4303 of the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care
and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020 (P.L. 116-315), which was enacted
on January 5, 2021. Section 4303, which amended section 301(a) of the
Dignified Burial and Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012
(P.L. 112-260), directed DOL to provide TAP to veterans and their
spouses at locations other than active military installations for a
period of 5 years to improve employment-related outcomes in areas with
high veteran unemployment. The OBTT pilot launched in eight
metropolitan areas across five states (California, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas) and, by December 2023, VETS expanded
the pilot to 26 metropolitan areas in 10 states (adding Colorado,
Illinois, Nevada, New York, and Oregon). OBTT features ten 2-hour,
instructor-led employment skills and workforce development workshops,
provided in classrooms and virtually. In Fiscal Year 2023, 6,293
veterans or their spouses were provided employment-related training
through OBTT.
Conclusion
As the lead federal agency on veteran employment, DOL VETS looks
forward to working with this Subcommittee and our many partners and
stakeholders to create opportunities to ensure that all veterans,
service members, and their spouses, can have a good job and opportunity
for advancement.
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to be a part of this hearing, and I welcome your questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Nadine Bullock-Pottinga
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this
pending legislation. My name is Andrew Sandoe, and I am the CEO of Hire
Heroes USA--the nation's leading veteran and military spouse employment
nonprofit. As a former Marine helicopter pilot of 9 years, I have
experienced firsthand the challenges of transitioning from military to
civilian life and understand the support systems that are critical to
veterans and military families.
Many of the bills up for discussion today would greatly impact
employment outcomes and economic opportunity for our Nation's
transitioning service members, veterans, and military spouses. I'd like
to focus my remarks on proposed improvements to the transition process,
as I believe the period of separation from military service to civilian
life to be most critical for a veteran's career success.
First, let me briefly describe Hire Heroes USA and the essential
work that we do. Hire Heroes USA was founded in 2005 and has secured
employment for more than 93,000 clients. Hire Heroes USA offers
comprehensive, one-on-one employment services in all 50 states to over
20,000 individuals annually, at no cost to our clients.
The size and diversity of our client population provide us with
unique insights into ways that the Nation can better support veteran
employment and economic opportunity. It is my pleasure to share some of
these insights with the Subcommittee today.
Hire Heroes USA strongly supports the draft legislation that
includes comprehensive and sustainable reforms to the Transition
Assistance Program (TAP). This bill would meaningfully improve the
experiences of service members nearing separation or veterans who have
recently separated. With approximately 200,000 service members
transitioning out of the military annually, TAP and other related
federal programs must be designed and implemented in ways that maximize
their impact and effectiveness. We believe that various provisions of
this legislation would address long-standing concerns about the
structure and performance of TAP.
Hire Heroes USA is especially supportive of the bill's proposal to
codify and improve the Department of Labor's Employment Navigator and
Partnership Program (ENPP). Initially a pilot program, ENPP began at 13
military installations in April 2021 and has expanded to over 30
locations.
The program is intended to complement the standard TAP coursework
by offering more individualized employment services, tailored to the
unique needs of each transitioning service member or their spouse.
Under the program, DOL staff work with employment partner
organizations, including Hire Heroes USA, to assist clients with job
placement, training, and various other career or wrap-around services.
ENPP was originally established under DOL's authority to provide
employment and training opportunities as part of TAP. However, this
program has never been codified in statute, a step that we believe is
critical for ensuring the long-term success of TAP. Beyond codifying
ENPP, the bill language also makes important improvements to the
program's administration of contracts with employment partners.
To date, DOL has not provided any compensation to ENPP partners and
instead has relied on voluntary participation, placing nearly all of
the financial burden on VSOs. However, the success of ENPP strongly
depends on the involvement of non-governmental partners. We deliver
direct assistance to transitioning service members and military spouses
while complying with all DOL regulations and requirements around data
management and program evaluation. ENPP partners currently do this all
without receiving any resources to support these expenses, an approach
that challenges the long-term sustainability of this program.
Hire Heroes USA alone has supported over 2,000 client referrals
from the program since 2021. As ENPP continues to grow, especially if
codified, it is essential that the partners taking on a significant
volume of referrals receive the appropriate support to sustain their
participation. This would take the form of competitively awarded
contracts for the highest-impact and farthest-reaching employment
partners. To be clear, we also support the continuation of voluntary
ENPP partnerships, in addition to those organizations selected for
contracts. The language should further clarify this to ensure small and
local service providers can continue to participate voluntarily.
Together, these proposed changes to ENPP would promote the long-term
success of the program and ultimately benefit tens of thousands of
service members every year.
Beyond ENPP, Hire Heroes USA also supports the bill's provision
that would establish a DOD pilot program for military spouses to
receive one-on-one counseling services based on the TAP curriculum.
While some spouse-specific transition resources exist, there is still a
need for more comprehensive programming covering the full range of
topics relevant to transitioning military families.
As the bill's language ensures, counseling must be adequately
tailored to the unique needs of each participating military spouse,
including flexible scheduling arrangements. The creation of this pilot
program would yield long-term success much in the same way that TAP,
despite some of its shortcomings, has gradually improved civilian
outcomes for our Nation's veterans.
On behalf of Hire Heroes USA, I'd like to again thank the Chairman,
Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee for your ongoing
commitment to the cause of veteran and military spouse employment. I
welcome any questions you may have for me.
______
Prepared Statement of Gregory John
Chairperson, honorable members of the committee,
My name is Gregory John and I am the President of Infinity Flight,
one of the largest flight training organization in the country based at
Trenton-Mercer Airport in New Jersey. We collaborate with Mercer County
College to provide veterans with an opportunity to become professional
airline pilots, a lucrative, in-demand career path. Today, I stand
before you to express my unwavering support for the proposed language
in H.R. 7613 that would implement a lifetime cap of $100,000, adjusted
for inflation, on veterans' entitlement use for flight training fees at
public institutions of higher learning.
The proposed cap is not only a financial safeguard, but a strategic
move toward creating a more equitable, efficient, and responsible
system for utilizing the educational benefits earned by veterans. By
setting a clear limit, we are helping to ensure these benefits are used
in a manner that maximizes veterans' success in the civilian workforce,
while protecting the integrity of the GI Bill against exploitation.
Further, implementing a lifetime cap encourages training programs
to prioritize quality, safety, and effectiveness. In the Mercer County
College program, we have seen firsthand how clear, defined boundaries
foster an environment where every flight hour and every training
opportunity is utilized to its fullest potential. This focus on quality
over quantity of flight hours ensures that veterans receive the best
possible education and training, preparing them for successful careers
in aviation.
Additionally, the cap addresses a critical issue that has plagued
the system for too long: the misuse of VA funds through what has been
termed the ``blank-check loophole,'' which has allowed bad-actor
institutions to inflate the cost of flight training, charging the VA
far beyond the amount necessary for a quality education. By setting a
flight fee cap, Congress will put an end to this exploitation, ensuring
VA funds are used responsibly and more veterans have access to flight-
training opportunities without the risk of unnecessary financial waste.
In my opinion, establishing the inflation-adjusted cap at $100,000
is appropriate based on the actual cost of obtaining a comprehensive
flight education. Furthermore, applying the cap exclusively to programs
offered by public institutions of higher learning encourages veterans
to pursue their education at institutions already benefitting from an
array of existing governance safeguards, ensuring financial protections
for both the veteran and the GI Bill, as well as the delivery of a
high-quality education.
In conclusion, I urge Congress to adopt this language into law. It
represents a balanced, thoughtful approach to supporting our veterans'
educational aspirations, while safeguarding the resources dedicated to
their success. Let us honor their service by ensuring that their path
to a new career in aviation is both secure and fruitful.
Thank you for considering my testimony on this critical matter. I
am confident that, together, we can make a positive change that
benefits our veterans, the aviation industry, and the Nation as a
whole.
______
Prepared Statement of Matthew Schwartzman
The Reserve Officers Association of the United States, now doing
business as the Reserve Organization of America, is a military service
organization incorporated under Internal Revenue Service Code section
501(c)(19), and comprising all ranks of servicemembers, veterans, and
family members of our Nation's eight uniformed services separated under
honorable conditions. ROA is the only national military service
organization that solely and exclusively supports the reserve
components.
ROA was founded in 1922 by General of the Armies John ``Black
Jack'' Pershing, during the drastic reductions of the Army after World
War I. It was formed to support a strong national defense and focused
on the establishment of a corps of reserve officers who would be the
heart of a military expansion in the event of war. Under ROA's 1950
congressional charter, our purpose is unchanged: To promote the
development and execution of policies that will provide adequate
national defense. We do so by developing and offering expertise on the
use and resourcing of America's reserve components.
Executive Director:
Maj. Gen. Jeffrey E. Phillips, U.S. Army (Ret.)
202-646-7701
Director, Legislation and Military Policy:
Matthew L. Schwartzman
202-646-7713
=======================================================================
DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL GRANTS OR CONTRACTS
The Reserve Officers Association of the United States, now doing
business as the Reserve Organization of America, has not received any
grants, contracts, or subcontracts from the Federal Government in the
past 3 years.
CURRICULUM VITAE
Matthew Schwartzman serves as the legislation and military policy
director for the Reserve Organization of America. Responsible for the
development, management, and execution of ROA's government relations
program and public policy portfolio, Matthew has more than 5 years of
experience in government and legislative affairs, policy analysis, and
membership services.
Matthew is also a co-chair for The Military Coalition's Guard and
Reserve Committee and Taxes and Social Security Committee,
representing, on select issues, a consortium of more than 30 military
and veterans service organizations with approximately 5.5 million
members collectively.
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and distinguished members
of the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on
behalf of the Reserve Organization of America (ROA), the only national
military organization that solely and exclusively supports the Reserve
and National Guard, thank you for the opportunity to testify on pending
legislation and ways to improve military to civilian transitions for
citizen-warriors and their families.
Unlike their active duty counterparts, members of the Reserve and
National Guard (also referred to as the reserve components) and their
families must frequently transition between their military and civilian
lives throughout their time in service.
For reserve component service members, spouses, and families, this
presents unique challenges to overcome and additional responsibilities
to shoulder.
Unfortunately, current laws, policies, and programs intensify these
challenges and make such responsibilities more difficult to manage.
Examples of this include a TRICARE system that forces reserve
component service members and retirees to pay substantially more for
healthcare, inequities in accessing service-earned benefits such as
disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
and a Transition Assistance Program (TAP) that fails to meet the needs
of reserve affiliated participants.
While the reserve components are expected to provide an equal
capability to the active components, they are often not treated as
such. This is true within the armed forces and the uniformed services.
The days of seeing Reserve and National Guard service members as
``weekend warriors'' or ``draft dodgers'' must be put behind us.
They are citizen-warriors. Constituting 46.9 percent of the Total
Force, they are now more integral to national security than ever
before.
ROA is prepared to provide its technical assistance and expertise
on most of the proposed bills subject to this hearing.
However, most, if not all, of this written statement focuses on
measures that uniquely relate to the transition needs of reserve
component service members and their families, are reinforced by an ROA
resolution, or are aligned with our congressional charter, signed by
President S. Harry S. Truman on June 30, 1950, which reads:``. . . to
support and assist in the development and execution of a military
policy for which the United States shall provide adequate National
Defense.''
H.R. 6656, STUCK ON HOLD ACT
This bill, introduced by Reps. Ken Calvert (CA-41) and Henry
Cuellar (TX-28), directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the
Commissioner of Social Security to implement automated systems with
callback functionality for each customer service telephone line of the
VA and the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Such a functionality would inform any caller of the anticipated
wait time and offer a callback to those with an anticipated wait time
of more than 15 minutes.
Quality customer service is vital to meeting the customer's
need(s), which in turn is vital to institutional integrity.
I can personally attest that the only thing worse than being on
hold waiting for a customer service representative is the call being
abruptly and unexpectedly ended without ever speaking to the
representative.
In fact, I remember one time joking with my parents that ``I
understand what it means to be an adult, now that I've been on hold
with the IRS [Internal Revenue Service].''
Ironically, this legislation seeks to expand the callback feature
now scaled nearly enterprise wide by the IRS to the VA and SSA.
The IRS first began developing its Customer Callback System (CCB)
in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and has since expanded it to more than 100
telephone services, representing 95 percent of callers seeking live
assistance deemed viable for a callback.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In Fiscal Year 2019, the IRS started its CCB pilot program on
one telephone service. This expanded in Fiscal Year 2020 to five, in
Fiscal Year 2021 to 16, in Fiscal Year 2022 to 31, and in Fiscal Year
2023 to 43, with plans to increase to 116 services by Aug. 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to reducing the amount of time taxpayers spend
waiting on hold, this feature has proven highly effective. In Fiscal
Year 2022, for example, the IRS' CCB saved taxpayers an estimated 3.6
million hours of hold time (with an accepted callback saving an average
of 34 minutes of hold time per caller).
ROA supports the desired end-state of this proposal: improvements
in customer service and experience.
However, we recommend first providing the VA and SSA with the
opportunity to ``pilot'' their own CCBs \2\ and report to the House and
Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs on the successes and failures of
the pilot (prior to scaling enterprise wide).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The VA, for example, has existing software (Caller Elected
Callback) and technology (Avaya Callback Assist) that can allow callers
waiting on hold to elect to receive a callback from the enterprise
without losing their spot in queue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, ROA believes the metrics used to measure mission success
and failure should go beyond the amount of time on hold saved and
include:
The number of callers that elected to receive a
callback.
The number and percentage of callers that received a
callback.
The number and percentage of callers that answered
the callback.
The number and percentage of callers that had their
customer service need(s) met on the first callback.
The overall time it took for callers that requested a
callback to have their customer service need(s) met.
The overall time it took for callers eligible for a
callback but stayed on hold to have their customer service
need(s) met.
Any increase(s) in fraudulent or predatory
behavior(s) from scammers claiming to be affiliated with the
government.
Additional matters deemed relevant.
ROA asks for this because of lessons learned from the IRS' efforts
to bring its CCB to scale.
According to an analysis of call volumes of the IRS' telephone
system for Fiscal Year 2022 performed by the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration, of the 26 million calls considered for a
callback:
15 million were ineligible because of business rules
applied.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To receive a callback from the IRS' CCB: (1) the customer's
wait time must be between 15 and 60 minutes, (2) the call must be on a
telephone line with callback capacity, (3) the callback queue must be
at an acceptable level to minimize reconnect time, (4) a virtual port
is needed to route calls via a contracted telephone service provider,
(5) the call must arrive between 6:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. (CST), and (6)
the customer must not have another callback scheduled (https://
www.tigta.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-07/202310046fr.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 million callbacks were made.
5 million callbacks were not accepted.
While the Stuck on Hold Act protects against the business rule that
resulted in a large share of callers' ineligibility for a callback
(wait time exceeding more than 60 minutes), ROA urges the members and
staff of this Subcommittee to further ensure that any business rule
applied by the VA or SSA does not undermine the proposal's intent.
ROA also believes that an important part of this conversation ought
to include ensuring and validating safeguards against fraudulent
behaviors from scammers that claim to be affiliated with the
government.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://news.va.gov/92256/consumer-fraud-alert-tips-for-
avoiding-va-home-loan-scams/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under no circumstance should the time between the callback request
and the callback itself present increased opportunities for our
Nation's veterans or their spouses and caregivers to succumb to such
predatory practices, which are becoming increasingly sophisticated.
If the ``pilot'' proves effective in improving customer service and
fulfillment and ensures the security and privacy of sensitive
information, then ROA will endorse scaling the CCB enterprise wide at
the VA.
H.R. 7323, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO DIRECT THE
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO DISAPPROVE COURSES OF EDUCATION
OFFERED BY A PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING THAT DOES NOT CHARGE
THE IN-STATE TUITION RATE TO A VETERAN USING CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE UNDER TITLE 10 OF SUCH CODE
This bill, introduced by Rep. Van Orden (WI-03) and Rep. Morgan
McGarvey (KY-03) directs the VA to disapprove courses offered by a
public institution of higher learning not priced at the in-state
tuition rate to Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR)
enrollees, regardless of their state of residence.
The MGIB-SR is the first GI Bill to provide educational and
training assistance to eligible members of the Selected Reserve.
As of Fiscal Year 2023, the MGIB-SR program serves 39,849
enrollees, representing approximately 5 percent of the total GI Bill
population.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/abr/docs/2023-education.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 38, U.S.C., Sec. 3679(c) requires the VA to disapprove
programs of education for payments of benefits under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (MGIB-AD), and Survivors' and
Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) program if students are not
charged in-state tuition, regardless of their state of residence.
This protection was most recently extended in 2021 to DEA with the
signing of Public Law No: 117-68, the Colonel John M. McHugh Tuition
Fairness for Survivors Act.
However, it has not yet been extended to MGIB-SR.
The cost of attending public institutions of higher learning is
continuing to increase for most students. So too is the gap between in-
state and out-of-state tuition rates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/student-resources/in-
state-vs-out-of-state-tuition/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requiring these institutions to charge in-state tuition under MGIB-
SR, regardless of the student's state of residence, is essential to
ensuring the solvency and sustainability of the VA's educational
benefits program and the financial readiness of reserve component
enrollees.
H.R. 7323, the MGIB-SR Tuition Fairness Act, simply extends this
existing protection to citizen-warriors enrolled in MGIB-SR.
ROA thanks you, Mr. Chairman, and Rep. McGarvey for sponsoring this
bill and urges Congress to codify it in public law no later than the
conclusion of the 118th Congress.
As an aside, this is not the only bill pending before Congress that
addresses a federal loophole excluding citizen-warriors from receiving
educational benefits.
Title 20, U.S.C., Sec.1091(c) excludes Reserve and National Guard
service members on active duty orders of 30 days or less from ``prompt
readmission'' into their institution of higher learning (IHL) under 34
CFR 66.18(a)(2).
This means that if a reserve component member of the armed forces
is called to serve on active duty orders of 30 days or less, the member
may be forced to disenroll from their educational institution prior to
readmission. They must also reapply to their IHL through the standard
readmission process, prohibiting eligibility for the benefits of prompt
readmission, which include (but are not limited to):
Tuition at the same price as the semester they first
enrolled in.
Maintaining the same curriculum or degree program at
the time of forced disenrollment.
Preserving the same academic program at the beginning
of the next semester.
While 21 States have closed this loophole, ROA believes this must
be solved federally.
H.R. 4244/S. 2076, the Servicemember Enrollment and Readmission for
Valuable Education Act, simply amends Title 20 U.S.C. 1091c(a) to allow
all reserve component members of the armed forces called on active duty
for any amount of time to receive ``prompt readmission' under 34 CFR
66.18(a)(2).
ROA thanks Reps. Matt Cartwright (PA-08) and Mike Ezell (MS-04) and
Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) and Maggie Hassan (NH) for sponsoring these
bills and urges the members of the Subcommittee to co-sponsor H.R.
4244.
H.R. XXXX, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR A
LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT OF ENTITLEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PAYABLE FOR FLIGHT TRAINING UNDER THE POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
This draft bill places a $100,000 cap, subject to an annual
percentage increase, on the total assistance payable for flight
training under the Post 9/11 GI Bill to enrollees of public IHL's.
ROA does not oppose the draft bill.
However, prior to taking an official position, ROA requests
additional information on:
The total amount paid, every FY over the last 10 FYs,
in educational assistance for flight training under the Post 9/
11 GI Bill.
The average amount paid, every FY over the last 10
FYs, in educational assistance for flight training per enrollee
under the Post 9/11 GI Bill.
The number and percentage of enrollees who, following
the completion of their flight training under the Post 9/11 GI
Bill, were employed in a paid occupation related to their
flight training program (every FY over the last 10 FYs).
The number and percentage of enrollees who, following
the competition of their flight training, were never employed
in a paid occupation related to their flight training under the
Post 9/11 GI Bill program (every FY over the last 10 FYs).
The number and percentage of enrollees who used their
flight training under the Post 9/11 GI Bill to become a:
student pilot; recreational pilot; sport pilot; private pilot;
commercial pilot; flight instructor; airline transport pilot;
ground school instructor (every FY over the last 10 FYs).
ROA requests this information as part of a larger effort to ensure
there is no waste, fraud, and abuse within the educational programs
offered by the VA.
ROA also believes that legislation requiring similar reporting
requirements on all VA educational programs would be worthwhile of
consideration and support.
H.R.XXXX, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
RESTORATION OF ENTITLEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS ENTITLED TO EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE UNDER THE LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS WHO USE SUCH ENTITLEMENT TO PURSUE A COURSE OR PROGRAM OF
EDUCATION AT AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED CERTAIN
PROHIBITIONS ON ADVERTISING, SALES, AND ENROLLMENT PRACTICES
The draft bill allows the VA Under Secretary for Benefits to
restore and recapture educational assistance payments and entitlements
if an educational institution is guilty of violating Title 38, U.S.C.,
Sec. 3696.
ROA supports the draft bill as written and sees much value to its
desired end-state.
However, ROA also seeks further information on if or how this draft
bill conflicts with the future advancement of H.R. 1767, the Student
Veteran Benefit Restoration Act, which passed the House Veterans
Affairs Committee on July 26, 2023.
H.R.XXXX, TO AMEND TITLES 10 AND 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO MAKE
IMPROVEMENTS TO CERTAIN PROGRAMS FOR A MEMBER NEARING SEPARATION,
OR FOR A VETERAN WHO RECENTLY SEPARATED, FROM THE ARMED FORCES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
TAP has a significant role in ensuring service members and their
families are equipped to manage the transition(s) between military and
civilian life.
Unlike their active duty counterparts, reserve component members
and their families must frequently transition between their military
and civilian lives prior to separating from service.
Also, some reserve component retirees, referred to as ``gray area''
retirees, are required to wait many years before they begin receiving
their retirement benefits, including retirement pay and healthcare
under TRICARE Prime, TRICARE Standard, TRICARE for Life, and the U.S.
Family Health Plan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://themilitarywallet.com/gray-area-retirement-benefits/
> Read more about affordable ``gray area'' retiree healthcare on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
page 21.
This presents unique challenges for reserve component members and
their families to overcome and additional responsibilities to shoulder.
Despite this, TAP is not uniquely structured to meet the transition
needs of citizen-warriors and their families.
This fact was recently validated by a RAND report required by
Senate Report 114-255, which directed the Department of Defense (DoD)
to research the transition experiences of Reserve and National Guard
service members and make recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services on how to better meet their transition needs or,
alternatively, suggest a program specifically designed for the reserve
components (which it did).
ROA provides the following excerpts from the report for
Subcommittee consideration, which capture numerous challenges reserve
component members and their families face throughout their many
transitions between military and civilian life:
``Many reserve component members feel that, in its
current form, TAP does not adequately address reserve component
needs.'' (page vii)
``. . . research has demonstrated that some reserve
component members experience difficult transitions back to
civilian life after prolonged active military service of 180
consecutive days or more.'' (page 1)
``Unfortunately, for many reserve component members
heading back to college, their schools do not provide specific
guidance or programming to address their particular needs.''
(page 14)
``Research shows that reserve component members
desire more time than they received to readjust to their
civilian lives.'' (page 15)
``. . . service providers noted that reserve
component members need assistance in better understanding the
details of the GI Bill.'' (page 17)
``Service providers noted that TAP course content
could be better suited to address reserve component members'
needs.'' (page 19)
``. . . the needs of reserve component do not end
once they have fully transitioned from the military to civilian
world.'' (page 21)
``The retiring reserve component subpopulation is
more dispersed and less connected to their represented
services, especially for those members for whom there is a gap
in active service between meeting their 20-year service
requirement and reaching retirement age.'' (page 23) \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ www.roa.org/resource/resmgr/legislation/
rand_rc_tap_improvements.pdf
Also validated by the RAND report was TAP's ``one-size two-
components'' construct, which places reserve component members in a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
position where:
They may not qualify for TAP and must partake in an
unorganized, non-standardized out-processing.
They are required to participate in TAP many times
with diminishing returns.
Commanders question their readiness.
The information received through TAP is not tailored
to their needs.
The location and timing of TAP is inconvenient at
best and obstructive at worst.
ROA believes this must be solved--and it must be solved quickly.
While ROA believes this draft bill should be the legislative vehicle
for the 118th Congress to address these issues, ROA does not support
the draft bill in its current form.
Below is an analysis of many of the draft bill's sections with
ROA's recommendations to strengthen its prospects as it relates to
Reserve and National Guard service members and their families:
SEC. 1(b) PROVISION OF PRESEPARATION COUNSELING: THIRD PARTY
COUNSELORS; IN-PERSON TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE.
Preseparation counseling is vital to the transition and
separation process. Not only must the topics covered relate to
the needs of the service member and their family, but the
counselor(s) must also be equipped to understand those needs.
This is also true for TAP course instructors.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Multiple ``non-TAP service providers'' recommended to RAND that
``TAP instructors be ex-military members because they have firsthand
experience in transitioning from the military to civilian life and
personally understand the process.'' Further, it was suggested that
``effective'' TAP instructors have ``complementary employment
experience outside the military'' and ``would be individuals who have
successfully made the transition between from the military to the
civilian world.'' (page 20)
SEC. 1(b) as written outsources the entire preseparation
counseling process to a single third-party entity. Further, it
does so without offering any qualifications for the entity or
metrics to analyze the entity's capability and performance.
While ROA is not opposed to the idea of preseparation
counseling being staffed and executed by a third-party entity,
ROA believes this should first be ``piloted'' at installations
and locations deemed to have the most significant presepration
counseling inadequacies.
From there, ROA believes the successes and failures of the
pilot should be studied and reported to the House and Senate
Committees on Veterans Affairs and Armed Services prior to
scaling or standardizing the correct approach.
Such a study, ROA believes, must incorporate feedback from
reserve component members and their spouses as part of a focus
group, like the RAND report.
SEC. 1(c) WAIVER FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS.
SEC. 1(c) as written allows reserve component service members
to waive their preseparation counseling requirement(s) if they
received such counseling during the period of 3 years preceding
the date of the waiver request.
ROA appreciates the consideration this grants to those reserve
component members required to participate in TAP at an
inconvenient time and location and for a non-useful purpose.
However, ROA recommends amending SEC. 1(c) to require reserve
component service members seeking the waiver (and their
spouses) be properly educated and informed on any changes to
TAP's elements (since last receiving presepartion counseling)
prior to following through on the request.
Further, ROA urges consideration of not allowing the waiver in
the case of an anticipated retirement, unanticipated retirement
or separation, or a retirement or separation for disability.
One of the reasons that Reserve and National Guard service
members report diminishing returns on TAP is because its
curriculum and processes are not catered to their needs at the
time they exist.
A citizen-warrior going through TAP while coming off an
intensive deployment, for example, is likely not ``looking''
for the same thing(s) as a citizen-warrior seeking retirement.
This is why consideration must be granted to the timing of the
waiver request in relation to the circumstances triggering the
member's eligibility for TAP.
That said, what remains unaddressed by this proposal is a means
to ensuring adequate access to TAP.
Currently limiting access severely is Title 10, U.S.C.,
Sec.(a)(4)(a), which requires service members to spend ``180
continuous days'' on active duty to qualify for TAP.
Further limiting this is Sec.(a)(4)(c)(i) which bars inactive
duty for training (IDT, also referred to as a ``drill
weekend'') and active duty for training (ADT) as qualifying
duty days.
ROA recently spoke with a retired Air Force Master Sergeant who
described in detail their separation and retirement experience
in the absence of TAP:
``At the beginning of my out processing, I was given a bunch of
literature and told to ask questions if confused. If done
right, retirement is something you do only once. So, going in,
I didn't know exactly what questions to ask. Frankly, I only
really learned those questions when going through the motions.
I've been out for a little over a year now and I'm still
learning. It would have been nice to sit down in an auditorium
or seminar just to make sure I was doing everything I had to do
and to learn more about my benefits.''
To ensure adequate access to preseparation counseling and
instruction, ROA urges Subcommittee support for amending
existing law to allow reserve component members that serve 180
cumulative days of active service (which includes IDT and ADT)
to participate in TAP.
ROA submits its draft Delivering Reservist Integration and
Veterans Education (DRIVE) Act as an attachment to this
statement, which includes suggested legislative language (SEC.
3) for this action.
SEC.1(e) ELECTIVE INCLUSION OF THE SPOUSE OF A MEMBER.
SEC. 1(e) as written enables further integration of military
spouses in the TAP process.
ROA supports.
> Read more about the importance of integrating military
spouses into their service spouses' TAP on page 13.
SEC.1(h) PRESEPARATION BY A VETERANS SERVICE ORGANIZATION.
SEC. 1(h) as written allows Veterans Service Organizations
(VSOs) recognized under Title 38, U.S.C., Sec. 5902, to provide
a ``standardized'' presentation that promotes the benefits
available to veterans under laws administered by the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs and provides information on how VSOs can
assist service members in filing a claim.
ROA supports this provision and thanks those VSOs that provide
claims assistance to our Nation's veterans and their families.
However, ROA seeks clarity on whether the word ``standardized''
limits these VSOs to delivering a singular version of the
presentation regardless of the member's service component.
If this is the case, ROA recommends amending SEC. 1(h) to allow
recognized VSOs to provide a standardized version of the
presentation by the service member's component.
The reason for this is simple: reserve component members and
their families face systemic obstacles to accessing the VA and
having their claims approved.
This fact was validated by an Oct. 30, 2023, report from the
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) which found the VA
approved 11 to 20 percent fewer initial disability compensation
claims from Reserve and National Guard service members than
those in the active components.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24105400.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside, ROA believes systemic problems require systemic
solutions.
While the presentation provided for by SEC.1(h) would better
educate reserve component members and their families on VA
benefits and the claims process, ROA believes more can be done
to affect the ``core'' of the problem.
To that end, ROA urges the establishment of an Interagency Task
Force on Reserve Component Benefits and Resources through
legislation.
ROA envisions the Task Force, on a biennial basis, reviewing
relevant statutes, policies, regulations, programs, trainings,
and services to provide recommendations for ensuring uniformed
services reserve component members and their families have
adequate access to benefits available under the laws
administered by the VA.
ROA's DRIVE Act includes suggested legislative language (SEC.
2) for this action.
SEC.1(k) PROHIBITION OF PROVISION OF DD FORM 214 FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS
WHO DO NOT COMPLETE PRESEPARATION COUNSELING.
ROA wishes to gain a better understanding of the intent of this
provision, as it remains unclear.
However, on its facade, ROA strongly opposes it.
This provision, if implemented, would unreasonably restrict access
to necessary documentation and have unintended consequences, such as
delaying a reserve component service members return to their civilian
career.
Further exacerbating this issue is the fact that VA and other
federal, state, and local government agencies normally require veterans
to provide a copy of the DD 214 form to qualify for veteran benefits.
And despite the recent announcement of a new DD Form 214-1 for
reserve component members when they retire or separate from service,
that form is not expected until at least next year (it should be
available now).
SEC.1(m) PILOT PROGRAM FOR MILITARY SPOUSES.
SEC. 1(m), as interpreted by ROA (although it is unclear),
establishes a pilot program for military spouses to receive one-on-one
counseling on matters tailored to the spouse, with at least 1 hour of
counseling covering the benefits and assistance available to military
families and veterans.
ROA understands that military spouses have unique needs that must
be met throughout the transition process.
However, ROA and the National Military Family Association (NMFA)
believe military spouses (and by extension, military families) would be
better served if they were further integrated into their service
spouse's TAP experience, as opposed to having their own separate
counseling and curriculum.
SEC. 1(e) of the draft bill as written is a good step in the right
direction toward this end.
That said, consideration of this provision speaks to the
congressional recognition (and necessity) of ensuring TAP is as
narrowly tailored as possible to the needs of its participants.
That is why ROA and NMFA also support:
1) The establishment of a reserve component curriculum track within
TAP.
ROA and NMFA envision the curriculum track being structured around
the unique battle rhythm of reserve service and how it impacts the
member, spouse, and family.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Unlike their active duty counterparts, for example, Reserve
and National Guard service members and their families do not typically
move every few years for a permanent change of station. Rather, they
must prepare for yearly mandatory minimum service requirements (such as
IDT and ADT) and deployments (which have increased significantly in
length and frequency in the Post 9/11 era and often come as a
surprise). What makes this preparation even more challenging is the
changes in benefits that occur depending on the length of the order(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This includes consideration of curriculum elements being accessible
at the member and spouse's election and administered virtually.
More specifically, the curriculum would administer and provide
resources, services, counseling, and assistance for reserve component
members and their spouses:
Throughout each phase of the deployment cycle (as a
complimentary asset to DoD's Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
Program).
Prior to and upon separation or retirement.
Throughout retirement, including for ``gray area''
retirees.
ROA's DRIVE Act, endorsed by NMFA, includes suggested legislative
language (SEC. 5) for this action.
2) The addition of reserve component-focused requirements to the
presepration counseling ``checklist'' (DD Form 2468) and process.
SEC. 4 of ROA's DRIVE Act establishes additional matters to be
included on the DD Form 2468 and covered by TAP presepration counselors
for reserve component members and their spouses, including:
An explanation of the circumstances under which the
member may be subject to a retired recall to active duty.
Information on financial planning assistance,
including consumer protections afforded under the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and Military Lending Act.
Information, discussion, and counsel on pathways to
obtain and properly use military service records for the
purpose of accessing service earned benefits.
Information, discussion, and counsel on pathways to
report and document health conditions and duty status, during
time in service and following separation from service, for the
purpose of accessing service earned benefits.
Information and discussion on the Retirement Points
Accounting System, including verifying retirement point
calculations and retirement benefits to which the member may be
entitled to receive.
To be clear: ROA and NMFA are not ``married'' to the legislative
language proposed by these sections of the DRIVE Act.
We are, however, ``married'' to the core competency it establishes:
a TAP tailored to the unique needs of reserve component service members
and their spouses and families.
As such, ROA and NMFA urge your support for amending the draft bill
to include legislative language that:
Establishes additional matters to be covered by TAP
presepration counselors focused on the unique battle rhythm of
reserve service (ROA's DRIVE Act SEC. 4).
Establishes a reserve component curriculum track
within TAP (ROA's DRIVE Act SEC. 5).
H.R. 6225, EXPANDING HOME LOANS FOR GUARD AND RESERVISTS ACT
This bill, which passed the House last Congress, expands
eligibility to the VA home loan program for Reserve and National Guard
service members who spend 30 or more consecutive days on ADT.
ROA thanks Reps. Jen Kiggans (VA-02) and Pat Ryan (NY-19) for
sponsoring this bill and urges the Subcommittee to support it.
Public Law No. 116-135, the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D.
Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act, expanded VA Home
Loan eligibility to National Guard service members who perform ``full-
time'' duty for at least 90 days, of which 30 are consecutive.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.Congress.gov/116/plaws/publ315/PLAW-
116publ315.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, affordable housing is now a serious national problem.
And like most Americans, Reserve and National Guard service members
and their families are facing significant challenges in finding
affordable housing.
Unaffordable housing: fast facts
As of 2022, median home prices and rents in America
hit all-time highs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/10/us-housing-
market-prices-increasing
Data shows a 22 percent annual decline in the number
of mortgages originated to first-time homebuyers in 2022,
including a year-over-year drop in the fourth quarter (of 2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of nearly 40 percent.
Monthly payments on the U.S. median-priced home,
including taxes and insurance, increased from $2,200 in Jan.
2022 to $3,100 in Oct. 2022 after the annual interest rate on
30-year fixed rate mortgages increased from 3.4 percent to 6.9
percent (resulting in millions of renter households being
priced out of homeownership).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/
files/Harvard_JCHS_The_State_of_the_Nations_Housing_2023.pdf
Like drill weekends, time spent on ADT is no joke.
ADT's main purpose is to instill and ensure the skills most likely
required to support military operations or future mobilizations within
the first 30 days of deployment.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.dami.army.pentagon.mil/g2Docs/Foundry/r350_1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROA has long advocated that every day in uniform, including IDT and
ADT, should count toward eligibility for many benefits, including the
Post 9/11 GI Bill and TAP.
This call to action has intensified in recent times on pivotal
programs designed to maintain the integrity of the All-Volunteer Force.
It has also intensified as the responsibilities shouldered by the
Reserve and National Guard have increased in scale and significance in
relation to national security and the cost of reserve service has
increased, especially for junior enlisted service members.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In 2017, Public Law No: 115-97, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
made it impossible for drilling reservists and guardsmen driving up to
100 miles to their drilling location to deduct mileage and other travel
expenses when they file their annual tax returns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased access to the VA home loan program will help sustain
financial readiness and enable reserve component members and their
families to have a solvent pathway toward home ownership, which ROA
believes will help facilitate more favorable recruiting and retention
conditions.
H.R.XXXX, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE THE USE
OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WORK-STUDY ALLOWANCE TO CARRY OUT
CASEWORK, POLICY MAKING, AND OVERSIGHT RELATED TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
DEPARTMENT AT CERTAIN CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES.
This draft bill expands the Work-Study Allowance program to
eligible participants working in the offices of a committee of the
House or Senate.
ROA supports.
CONCLUSION
ROA appreciates the opportunity to testify on pending legislation
and ways to improve military to civilian transitions for citizen-
warriors and their families.
All too often military and veterans' law and policy are developed
without an understanding of or appreciation for the important
distinctions between reserve and active duty service.
The members of the Reserve and National Guard invariably lose out.
And so, too, their families.
That means America's military readiness loses out. We cannot afford
that loss.
ROA extends its sincerest gratitude for this hearing and stands
ready to provide added support on the issues covered in this statement
and other areas of mutual interest.
ADDITIONAL PENDING LEGISLATION FOCUSED ON RC TRANSITION NEEDS
As an aside, ROA urges the members of this Subcommittee to co-
sponsor the bills under this sub-heading. They all relate to improving
the transitions from military to civilian life for reserve component
service members past and present and their families.
Frankly, we believe this topic is worthy of a joint hearing between
both the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs and Armed
Services.
That said, we are thankful for the Subcommittee allowing an open
dialog on issues, benefits, and programs germane to Title 10 during
this hearing and look forward to engaging further on:
H.R. 7543/S. 3873, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill
Parity Act of 2024
ROA thanks Reps. Mike Levin (CA-49), Juan Ciscomani (AZ-06), Trent
Kelly (MS-01), Andy Kim (NJ-03), Mark Takano (CA-49), Frank Mvran (IN-
01), Mike Thompson (CA-04), Mike Lawler (NY-17), Derrick Van Orden (WI-
03), and Chris Pappas (NH-01) and Sens. Jerry Moran (KS) and Jon Tester
(MT) for sponsoring this legislation, which passed the House last
Congress.
Under current law, reserve component members can accrue
``qualifying days'' toward receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits if they
have served at least 90 cumulative or 30 continuous days on active duty
and are discharged with a service-connected disability or awarded the
Purple Heart for service after September 10, 2001.
Reserve component members must ``wear the uniform'' and perform
their duty responsibilities for a minimum of 39 days each fiscal year.
Unfortunately, these duty days cannot be accrued toward receiving
Post9/11 GI Bill educational benefits.
From ROA's perspective, this puts members of the reserve components
at a distinct disadvantage for receiving their service-earned Post-9/11
GI Bill educational benefits, subjectively values certain duty days in
higher regard, and does not reflect the modern-day battle rhythm of
reserve component service.
In many instances, for the same training day, it is possible for an
active component member to receive credit toward their GI Bill, whereas
a reserve component member serving shoulder-to shoulder would not.
H.R. 7543/S. 3873, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2024
resolves this disparity by allowing reserve component service members
to accrue all paid points days toward receiving the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
whereas ``all paid points days'' includes days for training, active
military service, inactive training, and general duty.
H.R. 5516, the Justice for Servicemembers Act
ROA thanks Ranking Member Takano for sponsoring this legislation
and urges the members of the Subcommittee to support it.
The Justice for Servicemembers Act simply prohibits the use of
forced arbitration of disputes covered by the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and the Servicemember
Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
Under USERRA, veterans and service members have some protection
from discrimination based on their military service; they have the
right to return to their civilian jobs once their active service ends.
However, arbitration is an alternate dispute resolution method that
can be very pro-employer and anti-employee.
As in many other areas of employment law, federal courts have
dismissed USERRA legal claims where the plaintiff has been forced to
sign an agreement requiring that employment-related legal claims to go
to arbitration.
Arbitration is a type of private proceeding that results in a
decision concerning a matter in dispute between the employee and
employer. Normally, the employer chooses an arbitrator or a panel of
arbitrators who sit as judge and jury. This creates an incentive for
arbitrators to decide in the employer's favor so they can make more
money handling future cases for the employer.
Depending on the wording of the agreement, the arbitration process
can present significant drawbacks for employees. In some cases, the
employer pays for the arbitration. In others, the parties could split
the costs, or the party losing the case could pay for the arbitration
and possibly the fees and costs incurred by the winning party.
In some cases, the parties are required to keep their dispute
private, so the proceedings cannot be disclosed. This means that an
employer can systemically and repeatedly violate the law, and no one
will know about it. The ability of the parties to obtain evidence can
be restricted. It can also be very difficult to have such an agreement
ruled invalid by a judge or have an arbitration ruling overturned in
the court system because arbitration is generally not appealable.
This practice undermines USERRA and negatively impacts the career
and financial readiness of those it seeks to protect. Eliminating these
forced arbitration requirements is common sense, from ROA's
perspective, and merely seeks to reinforce the integrity and
enforceability of USERRA and SCRA.
H.R. 4221, the Healthcare for Our Troops Act
ROA thanks the House National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus
Co-Chairs Andy Kim and Trent Kelly (MS-01) for sponsoring this
legislation and urges the members of this Subcommittee to ``sign on''
as co-sponsors.
Discontinuities in TRICARE can cause confusion and irreparable
injury to reserve component service members and their families.
130,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard, for example, are
presumably not enrolled in any health insurance plan right now because
of TRICARE Reserve Select's (TRSs) increasing prices.
These ``injuries'' are exacerbated during the transition process,
as reserve component members and their families must navigate between
different insurance plans depending on the orders they serve, which
often creates lapses in coverage.
According to the frequently cited RAND Report, ``Without careful
management, this constant state of flux can cause gaps in health care
coverage for service members and their families. Relatedly, reserve
component members may not be able to find local health care providers
that accept the military's health plans, especially if they live
farther from highly populated areas and military installations.''
The most effective way, within the current construct, to solve this
is to make TRS more affordable. The Healthcare for Our Troops Act
accomplishes this by eliminating the cost of medical and dental care
under TRS.
In alignment with Gen. Daniel Hokanson, Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, ROA urges the members of this Subcommittee to ease transitions
between military and civilian life for reserve component service
members and their families by co-sponsoring H.R. 4221, the Healthcare
for Our Troops Act.
This bill is also supported by The Military Coalition, representing
5.5 million service members, veterans, and their families.
H.R. 3668/S. 1670, the TRICARE Fairness for National
Guard and Reserve Retirees Act
ROA thanks Reps. Bill Johnson (OH-06) and Dean Phillips (MN-03) and
Sens. Rob Portman (OH) and Elizabeth Warren (MA) for sponsoring this
bill and urges the members of the Subcommittee to co-sponsor it.
Reserve and National Guard service members can retire after at
least 20 ``good years'' of service. A good year requires a minimum
number of points.
Members of the reserve components must wait until age 60 before
they can receive retirement pay.
However, there is a pathway to early age retirement. Public Law No:
110-181, the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act,
reduced the retirement age for certain eligible reserve component
servicemembers from age 60 to no less than 50.
Early age retirement recognizes the increased reliance on the
reserve components in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom and
rewards certain citizen-warriors who served - it only includes certain
active duty orders on or after January 29, 2008.
These reserve component servicemembers are commonly referred to as
``gray area'' retirees, as they have retired, but have not yet attained
the age required for benefits.
However, the Fiscal Year 2008 NDAA did not provide these gray area
retirees with access to the same subsidized healthcare benefit(s)
offered to all other military retirees under TRICARE Prime (Title 10
U.S.C. 1074(b)).
In 2009, Congress created the TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR)
program, which provides these retirees with access to non-subsidized
healthcare. As a result, TRR healthcare costs are substantially more
expensive than other TRICARE programs.
TRR is currently about 2,000 percent more expensive than TRICARE
Prime and close to 4,000 percent more than TRICARE Select (for both the
member and the member and their family). These costs are simply
unaffordable for too many of these retirees, who earned the right to
receive the same healthcare benefit(s) as their brothers and sisters in
arms.
The TRICARE Fairness for National Guard and Reserve Retirees Act
eliminates this unfair, congressionally created access barrier to
healthcare.
This bill is also supported by The Military Coalition, representing
5.5 million service members, veterans, and their families.
H.R. 3253, the Reservist Pay Equity Act
ROA thanks Reps. Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Brad Wenstrup (OH-02), Don
Beyer (VA-08), and Blake Moore (UT-01) for sponsoring this bill and
urges the members of the Subcommittee to sign on as co-sponsors.
USERRA affords many protections to members of the reserve
components.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.dol.gov/agencies/vets/programs/userra/USERRA-
Pocket-Guide#:8:text=The %20Uniformed %20Services %20Employment % 20and
%20Reemployment %20Rights %20Act %20of %201994,for %20all %20uniformed
%20service %20members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In several amicus curiae briefs and ``Law Review'' articles, ROA
has stated this includes paid military leave to an employee who is away
from his or her civilian job for training of service. Despite several
circuit court rulings, this is not widely recognized by adjudicators or
industry practices.
However, employers can help reserve component service members on
orders and their families by offering differential pay as a benefit of
employment.
There is currently a tax credit that seeks to incentivize the
offering of this benefit, which ``refunds'' employer's 20 percent of up
to $20,000 in differential wage payments made per reserve component
employee.
However, the incentive has not kept pace with the current rate of
inflation or the increased reserve component op-tempo.
By increasing the tax credit from 20 to 50 percent of up to $20,000
commensurate with economic conditions, this bill simply enhances dual-
career path opportunities for employees and incentives employer support
of the reserve components.
Further, it enhances the financial readiness of reserve component
members and families throughout their transition(s) from civilian to
military duty.
______
Prepared Statement of Kristina Keenan
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the
opportunity to provide our remarks on legislation pending before this
subcommittee.
H.R. 6225, Expanding Home Loans for Guard and Reservists Act
The VFW supports this legislation, which would expand eligibility
for the VA Home Loan Guaranty program to service members of the
National Guard and Reserves who have performed active duty for training
for thirty consecutive days or more. Currently, only full-time National
Guard service for ninety cumulative days, which includes thirty
consecutive days, qualifies for the home loan. The VFW supports this
expansion to ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserves
have the housing stability needed to effectively perform their duties
as they balance military service and civilian lives.
H.R. 6656, Stuck on Hold Act
The VFW supports this legislation to require the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to improve each of its customer service telephone
lines by implementing an automated system to inform callers of the
anticipated wait time, and to automatically generate a return call to
anyone waiting longer than 15 minutes. It would also require VA to
issue guidance on how to reduce overall caller wait times to 15 minutes
or less. The VFW recognizes the importance of this proposed improvement
to VA telephone lines to better serve callers and ensure they connect
with a VA professional to address their needs.
H.R. 7323, To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disapprove courses of education
offered by a public institution of higher learning that does not charge
the in-state tuition rate to a veteran using certain educational
assistance under title 10 of such Code.
The VFW supports this legislation to include the Montgomery GI Bill
Selected Reserve benefit to the in-state tuition waiver within title 38
of the United States Code. Currently, VA can disapprove programs and
courses offered by institutions of higher learning that do not offer
veterans in-state tuition rates. Chapter 30, 31, 33, and 35 benefits
are included in the law presently. This legislation would add Chapter
1606 of title 10, the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve. The Selected
Reserve is a key component of the Reserve forces. These service members
train regularly and can be called to active duty at any time. Their
education benefits should be equally protected as compared to other VA
programs, and they should be fairly charged in-state tuition rates.
H.R. 7613, Veterans Flight Training Responsibility Act of 2024
The VFW supports this proposal to set limitations on the use of the
GI Bill for certain flight training. Years ago, the GI Bill was
essentially a blank check to allow certain flight schools to charge
uncapped amounts of money. Flight training is expensive, and currently
pilots are in demand across the country. However, the VFW believes
there should be reasonable limitations on the amount of money spent on
flight training, and that this legislation is a fair balance for
veterans who pursue flight training through the GI Bill.
H.R. 7643, Veterans congressional Work Study Act
The VFW supports this proposal to expand the VA work-study program
to include work focused on VA-related casework, policy, or oversight in
a House or Senate committee, the Congressional Research Service, the
Government Accountability Office, or the Congressional Budget Office.
The program focuses on work entirely related to VA and veterans, and
currently allows for work in VA medical facilities, offices,
cemeteries, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals. The proposed expansion
would be consistent with VA's focus, while providing meaningful work
opportunities for student veterans in additional career fields.
H.R. 7653, Veterans Employment Readiness Yield (VERY) Act of 2024
The VFW supports this proposal to update terminology in United
States Code regarding the Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E)
program. Currently, veterans may be eligible for this benefit if they
experience an ``employment handicap'' due to their service-connected
disabilities. This proposal would change the language to ``employment
barrier.'' The VFW supports modernizing this terminology to more
accurately reflect the effects that service-connected disabilities can
have on veterans and their employment.
Discussion Draft, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
the restoration of entitlement of individuals entitled to educational
assistance under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs who use such entitlement to pursue a course or program of
education at an educational institution found to have violated certain
prohibitions on advertising, sales, and enrollment practices, and for
other purposes
The VFW supports this proposal to ensure that veterans and
beneficiaries of VA education benefits are protected if an educational
institution is found to have violated certain prohibitions regarding
advertising, sales, and enrollment practices. Schools found in
violation would be required to repay funds to the Department of
Veterans Affairs. VA would also restore entitlements to beneficiaries.
Requiring schools to be responsible for repayment if they engage in
unauthorized activities would ensure that taxpayer-supported federal
funding is managed properly.
The VFW also supports H.R. 1767, which would provide similar relief
to veterans as this proposal. We hope the subcommittee works to combine
these two bills to retain the best aspects of both to provide full
restitution for veterans who need their education entitlements
restored.
Discussion Draft, Enhancing Service Member Transition
The VFW supports the intent of this bill, but has some concerns
regarding the details of certain title 10, Department of Defense (DOD),
portions of this proposal. The VFW works with approximately 10 percent
of the separating force every single year, and has direct knowledge of
how TAP works and how it should work.
This bill contains many great elements such as language from the
TAP Promotion Act and the Combat Veterans Pre-Enrollment Act, both of
which the VFW strongly supports. This draft bill also includes reports
that would ensure regular updates on critical aspects of transition
such as timeliness, attendance, pathway participation, and frequency of
participation. The VFW has spoken about the elements in this proposed
legislation during numerous hearings before this subcommittee and
before the Senate.
However, we have concerns about some of the changes to the title 10
aspects of the bill that we know are well-intentioned, but may have
unintended consequences or are not clear enough. For example, we think
prohibiting a member of the armed forces from providing pre-separation
counseling is a good aspect, but believe prohibiting civilian employees
of the Department from doing so may force DOD toward outside
contractors, which would further distance counselors from congressional
oversight.
Addressing homelessness and food insecurity is a great addition to
pre-separation counseling, but pre-separation counseling should happen
365 days prior to separation. We believe adding this screening and a
subsequent one closer to separation would provide a more accurate
assessment of those needs upon separation. A service member may not be
facing homelessness 1 year from separation, and conducting screening
only at that moment may not give an accurate assessment.
We believe the prohibition of providing a DD Form 214 to service
members who do not complete counseling is a well-intentioned attempt to
force compliance. However, we have knowledge that most junior enlisted
service members who do not complete the Transition Assistance Program
(TAP) do not do so because they are limited by commanders. This could
potentially penalize troops for command failures. We strongly believe
there needs to be accountability for DOD to follow the law. Commanders
should be held responsible for ensuring their transitioning service
members attend TAP in a timely manner. We do not believe withholding a
DD Form 214 would accomplish that goal.
The VFW believes the private sector should be used to help improve
outcomes in TAP. The portion of this proposal that would incorporate
that into the program is potentially beneficial, but it may be too
restrictive. We believe the scope of the requirements for partnerships
with the private sector should be refined. Currently, there are not
many organizations that provide career services to at least 5,000
individuals. There are not enough organizations with a national
presence that meet this criteria and could offer services to the entire
separating force. Many organizations provide outstanding services to
separating service members, but operate at a slightly lesser scale than
what is proposed. We believe a pilot program with multiple mid-sized
organizations at various locations would be a good start to integrating
the private sector into TAP.
The waiver for Reserve Component members is a reasonable provision
for those who do not need the assistance, but lack of standardization
of resources is a major concern. Simply adding an attendance waiver for
certain Reserve Component troops without also adding standardized
resources addresses only half of the problem. The VFW believes this is
a great start to a transition reform bill, but the issues listed above
would need to be addressed before we fully support this language. We
hope this subcommittee engages with us to help refine this proposal to
ensure it provides the great resources it intends.
Draft Discussion, Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act of 2024
The VFW supports this draft proposal to extend the VA Home Loan
Guaranty program to veterans seeking to purchase residential
cooperative housing units (co-ops). Since the program does not
currently include co-ops, veterans who live in cities where these
housing options are prevalent are disproportionately affected. New York
City is the prime example. In that city alone, co-ops comprise almost
two-thirds of all multi-family housing, for which veterans cannot use
VA home loans. Veteran home ownership in New York City is significantly
lower than the rest of the country, which is concerning. Other cities
where co-ops are prevalent are Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami,
Minneapolis, Newark, Palm Beach, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and
Washington, DC. Expanding the VA home loan program to co-ops would help
fix an equity issue for veterans who live in these areas, and provide
long-term housing stability.
Chairman Van Orden, this concludes my testimony. Again, the VFW
thanks you and Ranking Member Levin for the opportunity to testify on
legislation pending before this subcommittee. I am prepared to take any
questions you or the subcommittee members may have.
Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW
has not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2024, nor has it
received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
The VFW has not received payments or contracts from any foreign
governments in the current year or preceding two calendar years.
______
Prepared Statement of Marquis Barefield
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin and Members of the
Subcommittee:
DAV (Disabled American Veterans) has a mission that includes the
principle that this Nation's first duty to veterans is the
rehabilitation and welfare of its wartime disabled. This principle
envisions vocational rehabilitation and/or education to assist these
veterans to prepare for and obtain gainful employment, enhanced
opportunities for employment, job placement and self-employment, so
that the full array of talents and abilities of disabled veterans are
used productively and to their greatest levels.
We are pleased to provide our views on the bills impacting service-
disabled veterans, their families and the programs administered by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that are under consideration by the
Subcommittee.
H.R. 6225, Expanding Home Loans for Guard and Reservists Act
The Expanding Home Loans for Guard and Reservists Act would amend
title 38, United States Code, Section 3701(b) for the term veteran to
include individuals who performed active duty for training for a period
of 30 consecutive days.
VA helps veterans, service members, and eligible surviving spouses
become homeowners. As part of VA's mission to serve, they provide a
home loan guaranty benefit and other housing-related programs to help
those that are eligible buy, build, repair, retain, or adapt a home for
their own personal occupancy.
The Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and
Benefits Improvement Act of 2020, signed into law Jan 5, 2020 (PL 116-
315) expanded the VA Home Loan program eligibility to National Guard
service members who perform ``full-time National Guard duty'' for at
least 90 days, of which 30 are consecutive.
Since then, gaps have been identified that makes it more difficult
for certain National Guard service members conducting Active Duty
training to receive the full credit for their time served and
subsequent access the VA home loan benefit. This legislation provides a
technical fix to ensure that each of our men and women in uniform can
earn the benefits they have earned through their full-time National
Guard duty and service to our country.
DAV supports this legislation as it expands the existing
eligibility to the VA Home Loan program and corrects the gaps
identified in PL 116-315. Veterans clearly know the price of protecting
the American dream and those who served should have access to achieve
it.
H.R. 6656, Stuck On Hold Act
The Stuck On Hold Act would require VA's telephone call line to
include an automated response system that would do two things: 1)
advise the caller of the anticipated wait time and 2) offer the caller
the ability to receive a callback if the wait time is over 15 minutes.
The goal of this bill is to keep veteran wait times to 15 minutes or
less.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for
processing veterans' claims and appeals for myriad benefits and
services. In 2022 alone, VBA completed more than 1.7 million disability
compensation and pension claims. As of March 1, 2024, VBA had 992,344
pending claims. With these high numbers, veterans should not have to
wait on the phone for an extended period of time to receive assistance
or the latest information about their claims or appeals. VBA has
estimated that one claim generates eight separate contacts to the call
centers. This means that VA could expect eight million calls yet this
year.
DAV proudly supports H.R. 6656, the Stuck On Hold Act, in
accordance with DAV Resolution No. 220, which calls on Congress and VA
to support significant and meaningful processes to reform VA's overall
workloads.
H.R. 7323, a bill to direct the VA Secretary to disapprove courses of
education offered by a public institution of higher learning that does
not charge the in-state tuition rate to a veteran using certain
educational assistance
H.R. 7323 would allow members of the selected reserve along with
individuals who receive benefits under title 38, United States Code,
Chapters 30, 31, 33 or 35, to be able to pay the in-state tuition rates
for educational benefits received by the VA. This legislation would
take effect on August 1, 2024.
Upon separation from service, many veterans do not always fully
understand the scope and breadth of their earned benefits and how to
access those benefits. Furthering their education and seeking gainful
employment to support themselves and their families becomes a veteran's
immediate focus upon leaving service.
By allowing a veteran to pay in-state tuition rates while pursuing
their post-secondary education would save them thousands of dollars as
opposed to them being subjected to paying out-of-state tuition rates.
In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 542, we support H.R. 7323, as
it opens the door for more veterans to be able to secure a benefit to
help them pursue their educational goals and at a more affordable rate.
H.R. 7613, Veterans Flight Training Responsibility Act of 2024
The Veterans Flight Training Responsibility Act would authorize the
VA to pay a public institution of higher learning up to $100,000 for a
veteran enrolled in flight training. An annual percentage increase
would be available over the maximum rate and tied to the Consumer Price
Index (CPI). The rates noted in this legislation would become effective
for those individuals who first pursue a program of flight training on
or after August 1, 2025.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were
142,000 jobs available for airline and commercial pilots in 2022.
Overall employment of airline and commercial pilots is projected to
grow 4 percent from 2022 to 2032. About 16,800 openings for airline and
commercial pilots are projected each year, on average, over the next
decade. Many of those openings are expected to result from the need to
replace workers who transfer to different occupations or exit the labor
force into retirement.
DAV fully supports H.R. 7613, the Veterans Flight Training
Responsibility Act in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 542, as it
would provide unique opportunities for service-disabled veterans to
become airline or commercial pilots and overcome their employment
barriers.
H.R. 7643, a bill to authorize the use of VA work-study allowance to
carry out casework, policymaking, and oversight at certain
congressional offices
H.R. 7643 would allow individuals in the VA Work Study program the
opportunity to work in the offices of the Senate and House of
Representatives, the Congressional Research Service, the Government
Accountability Office or the Congressional Budget Office. The
individuals selected for this program would be involved in supporting
casework, policymaking and oversight in those offices.
This legislation would increase the opportunities for individuals
in the VA work-study program. Currently, work-study students can only
work at VA facilities, educational facilities, state agencies or other
non-VA facilities. The work performed by work-study students must be
entirely related to VA and veterans.
In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 542, we strongly support H.R.
7643, as it would expand the VA work-study program and give service-
disabled veterans more career options to explore while meeting their
educational goals.
H.R. 7653, to update certain terminology regarding veteran employment
H.R. 7653 would change the language in title 38, United States
Code, from ``employment handicap'' to ``employment barrier'' and
``employment handicaps'' to ``employment barriers.''
There is perception that the word ``handicap'' has a negative
connotation. According to the National Education Association (NEA),
language matters. Word choices can either create inclusive or
exclusionary environments, create or disrupt barriers to inclusion,
uplift or demean differences, or sustain or disperse stereotypes about
persons with disabilities.
The NEA notes we should be conscious of antiquated words that have
negative connotations for people with disabilities (e.g.,
``handicapped'' or ``crippled''). Advocates of person-first language
believe that a person with disabilities is an individual first and
shouldn't be identified by their disability.
DAV was founded on the principle that this Nation's first duty to
veterans is the rehabilitation and welfare of its wartime disabled.
This principle specifically encompasses VA Vocational Rehabilitation &
Education programs and removing obstacles for employment. DAV supports
this change of terminology in the statute.
H.R. 7703, Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act of 2024
The Fair Access to Co-ops for Veterans Act would allow veterans the
ability to use their VA home loan certificates to help purchase
cooperative housing units. The VA would have to set forth the
regulatory underwriting requirements to allow this type of purchase.
This bill would also set the fee for the loan to 3.25 percent and
does not discriminate whether the loan is an original loan, loan
assumption, or other circumstance.
Provisions in the bill would give VA the authority to advertise the
availability of this type of loan through the issuance of guidance,
notification to eligible veterans, participating lenders and interested
realtors of such loans.
Cooperative housing, commonly known as a co-op, is a popular
housing model you'll find in major cities like New York city. Tenants
or members collectively own and share responsibility for an entire
building or property.
Co-ops are typically apartments in large buildings, particularly in
big cities. However, several other co-op housing types exist, including
the following: townhouses, duplexes, single-family homes or
manufactured homes. They are generally considered more affordable
housing in major cities. Co-op financing differs from financing for a
traditional home because co-op owners don't own the real estate. To
finance with a co--op loan, a lender will review a co-op's operations,
its board of directors and the property's underlying mortgage.
DAV strongly supports this legislation as it would provide service-
disabled veterans more options to obtain affordable housing for
themselves and their families. Affordable housing options are one of
the top priorities for service-disabled veterans, especially those
transitioning from active duty.
Draft bill to provide for the restoration of entitlement of individuals
entitled to VA educational assistance to pursue a course or program of
education at an educational institution found to have violated certain
prohibitions on advertising, sales, and enrollment practices
This draft legislation would restore any used portion or aggregate
period of educational assistance an individual would have lost due to
being enrolled in an educational institution that violated title 38,
United States Code, Section 3696 subsections (a), (c) or (d). This
covers individuals that are in the following educational programs:
Chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 or Chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10.
Once it has been properly determined that the owner of an
educational institution or the educational institution is in violation
of the statute, it will be required to repay the VA or the individual
all moneys received during the time period of the violation.
If the educational institution or owner of the educational
institution does not repay the individual or the VA, then the VA has
the ability to disapprove a course or program of education offered by
that school until the debt is repaid in full. Once the debt has been
repaid, the school can request reinstatement for that course or program
of education.
If an institution of higher learning has been caught in violation
of this statute due to no fault of the veteran, then the amount of
entitlement the veteran has should not be reduced due to the
circumstances of the school. This draft legislation would restore the
student veterans' benefits that would have been lost if the institution
of higher learning wasn't caught violating the statute.
DAV supports this draft legislation, in accordance with DAV
Resolution No. 542, because it will help student veterans maintain
their benefits if an institution of higher learning is caught in
violation of the statute due to no fault of the veteran.
Draft bill to make improvements to certain programs for a member
nearing separation, or for a veteran who recently separated, from the
Armed Forces
The transition from military service to civilian life is very
difficult for many veterans who must overcome obstacles to successfully
obtain employment. Current law authorizes comprehensive transition
assistance benefits and services for separating service members and
their spouses. The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) program was
created to help our separating service members successfully transition
to the civilian workforce, start a business or pursue training or
higher education and is now mandatory for active-duty personnel.
This draft legislation would make changes to the program parameters
of TAP. Based on certain criteria, a member may have up to three to 5
days of entitlement to the program. Certain members of the reserve
component can request a waiver for pre-separation counseling if they
have received pre-separation counseling during the 3-year period
preceding such request.
TAP counseling would not be given by a member of the armed forces
or a civilian employee. Pre-separation counseling must be provided in
person to the extent possible. If the member cannot appear in person
then counseling can be provided remotely. As part of the pre-separation
process, a member that is separating, retiring or is discharged from
service will have their contact information and a determination by the
releasing branch of service provided to the VA as part of the VA Solid
Start Program.
Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) are allowed to provide an
hour-long presentation during pre-separation briefings. VSO briefings
provide information on how the organization can assist the member
obtain benefits from the VA and are not permitted to encourage a member
to join their organization during the briefing. Participation by
veteran service organizations, like DAV and others in the TAP program
is essential for service members to gain a full understanding of
entitlements and free assistance and representation available to them
upon discharge from military service. An annual report is required to
be furnished for TAP participation and VSO presentations.
This legislation has a Department of Labor (DOL) portion that
encourages the use of its Employment Navigator and Partnership Program.
The DOL program has various components, to include private sector
culture, resume writing, career networking and opportunities for
spouses to use the program.
This legislation would also implement a 3-year pilot program for
military spouses. This program would be on a voluntary basis and
include a curriculum, counseling and be carried out on not less than
four military bases. At the conclusion of the program, a report would
be required by the Department of Defense on the success of the pilot
program and note if it should be made permanent.
An area of concern for DAV is the provision in this draft
legislation that mentions ``No member shall be provided with their DD
Form 214 [military discharge document] until they have completed their
pre-separation counseling. The only exceptions are for members who are
being retired or separated for disability and those who are receiving
discharges that are not characterized as honorable or general.''
Besides the noted exceptions, it is not clear how the program would
handle a situation beyond the service member's control that would
prevent them from finishing the required counseling. As such, it
appears this legislation would punish the service member by not
allowing them to receive their DD-214 in a timely manner.
In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 113, we support this draft
legislation and urge Congress to provide comprehensive oversight of the
TAP program, its workshops, training methodology and delivery of
services, and the collection and analysis of course critiques. We
recommend changes to the DD-214 section of this draft legislation as
noted above.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.
Statements for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of USAA Federal Savings Bank
On behalf of the United Services Automobile Association (USAA) and
our more than 13 million members of the U.S. military, veterans who
have honorably served, and their families, thank you for convening
today's hearing to discuss legislation to strengthen veterans' economic
security and financial well-being. We appreciate the opportunity to
provide this statement of support for H.R. 6225, the bipartisan
Expanding Home Loans for Guard and Reservists Act.
USAA is a membership association that serves members of the
military community, including active duty, guard, reserve, retired and
honorably separated and their families. Since our founding in 1922 by
25 U.S. Army officers, USAA has pursued a mission of empowering
financial security through competitive products, exceptional service,
and trusted advice. In our second century of service, we remain focused
on meeting our members' needs through every stage of life - from
joining the military to buying a home to retiring.
USAA employs approximately 37,000 people globally, and nearly 24
percent of our employees identify as veterans, servicemembers, or
military spouses. USAA's Military Affairs team, which has over 1,400
years of combined military experience, includes more than 40
representatives who operate on and near major military installations
and advocate for servicemembers' financial readiness.
Serving our members through the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program is an
important component of our mission to serve military families and has
allowed generations of veterans, servicemembers, and their families to
achieve their dreams of homeownership. The VA loan program provides
significant benefits for eligible borrowers, including 100 percent
loan-to-value for purchases and the ability to avoid Private Mortgage
Insurance.
However, there are opportunities for policymakers and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to address persistent obstacles
that challenge borrowers' ability to effectively take advantage of this
earned benefit. We commend the Committee's ongoing focus on these
issues. Last Congress, we were pleased to support P.L. 117-308, the
Improving Access to the VA Home Loan Benefit Act. By directing the VA
to consider improvements to its appraisal process and related
requirements, this new law will help level the playing field for VA
borrowers, who are often disadvantaged compared to conventional
borrowers.
In addition to appraisal-related improvements, there are also
opportunities to improve program eligibility challenges. We thank
Representatives Jen Kiggans (R-VA) and Pat Ryan (D-NY) for
reintroducing H.R. 6225, the Expanding Home Loans for Guard and
Reservists Act. This bill will expand eligibility for VA home loans by
enabling members of the Guard and Reserves to receive full credit
toward their entitlement for time served on active duty training.
Servicemembers in the National Guard and Reserves make significant
sacrifices to serve our country while balancing the demands of civilian
employment and family life. For many, reporting for duty may result in
reduced income. With deployments averaging between 6 and 12 months and
sometimes coming without notice, income reductions can impose financial
stress and make budgeting especially difficult. Navigating the
complexities of Guard and Reserve benefits can lead to additional
stress. As one of our retired Air Force Reservist employees aptly
stated, ``Part-time service often equates to full-time stress.'' And
regardless of time spent performing active duty service, Guard and
Reserve members make a full-time commitment to military readiness and
standards.
In some instances, Guard and Reserve members who have not met the
minimum active duty service requirements may be unaware that they lack
full entitlement for the VA home loan program until they are deep into
the homebuying process. This is a particularly devastating experience
that compounds the other inherent challenges of the dual military-
civilian lifestyle.
As Reps. Kiggans and Ryan note, H.R. 6225 will help ensure that all
men and women in uniform, including Guard and Reserve members, can
access the benefits they have earned through service to our Nation. We
look forward to consideration of H.R. 6225 during a future Committee
markup and urge your support.
______
Prepared Statement of Veterans Education Success
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
We thank you for the opportunity to share this statement for
consideration during this hearing, which includes several notable bills
addressing topics in higher education and veterans' education benefits.
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.
Draft Bill Addressing 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3696
This bill proposes restoring veterans' eligibility for education
benefits during any period in which an institution is found to have
violated 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3696, chiefly violations of advertising,
sales, and enrollment practices. The bill would also mandate recoupment
of those funds from the school, and adds an additional disapproval
clause for schools which have not repaid benefits for periods of
violation. We support this legislation, and believe it is long overdue.
However, we believe this bill does not go far enough to ensure student
veterans have the same rights as traditional students.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``traditional students'' indicates students who are
ages 18-24 years old, and generally reliant on U.S. Department of
Education Title IV grants or loans, or private funding, versus student
veterans frequently use Title 38 education benefits as their primary
source of education funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the bill's language limiting restoration to periods
``when the violation occurred'' may not allow for the restoration of
benefits in the most egregious circumstances, such as when a school
lured veterans into the program with substantial misrepresentations and
then ended the misconduct after getting caught by law enforcement.
Here are several examples that would not be covered by the draft
legislation:
A few years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seized the
bank accounts of the House of Prayer Christian Church - a purported
``bible school'' that we exposed and brought to VA's attention, as
veterans were being blatantly cheated out of their GI Bill and abused
by an alleged cult leader.\2\, \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ United States of America v. $115,800.00 in U.S. Currency Funds,
available at https://vetsedsuccess.org/us-attorney-action-against-
house-of-prayer-bible-seminary-january-2023.
\3\ Veterans Education Success, Our Letter to VA and Georgia SAA
Regarding House of Prayer Christian Church (Aug. 2020), https://
vetsedsuccess.org/letter-to-va-and-georgia-saa-regarding-house-of-
prayer-christian-church/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another example, the DOJ recouped more than $150 million from
Retail Ready Career Center and sent the owner, Jonathan Dean Davis, to
jail for 19 years after he had swindled thousands of veterans, taking
their GI Bill and their housing allowance but providing nothing of
value in return.\4\ But when the Federal Government recovered $150
million, the veterans did not get their GI Bill benefits back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ United States Attorney's Office, Northern District of Texas
Press Release, For-Profit Trade School Sentenced to Nearly 20 Years for
Defrauding VA, Student Veterans (Sept. 22, 2021), https://
www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/profit-trade-school-sentenced-nearly-20-
years-defrauding-va-student-veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider another example where traditional students have been able
to obtain financial relief, but student veterans have not. Students
with federal student loans from ITT Technical Institute have had their
loans discharged due to the evidence of widespread fraud uncovered by
the U.S. Department of Education (ED).
However, veterans who used their GI Bill to attend ITT Technical
Institute currently have no rights to restoration of their GI Bill in
cases of fraud. It seems an absolute betrayal to student veterans that
they cannot get back their GI Bill benefits when traditional students
get their loans discharged under Title IV rules.
The idea that veterans are defrauded out of their hard-earned GI
Bill is a blatant insult counter to Congress' vision for the impact of
the GI Bill. Student loans are forgiven if fraud is evident, but
student veterans have no parity with regard to their U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) education benefits.
As the Subcommittee is aware, there are now several bills on this
topic. The veterans community has always valued that the hallmark of
the House Veterans Affairs Committee is its longstanding commitment to
bipartisan work to protect veterans.
We encourage the Subcommittee to start work now on a bipartisan,
bicameral solution that the President will sign. A bipartisan bicameral
solution should ensure that student veterans have no fewer rights than
non-veterans already enjoy. We believe a bipartisan solution should
include the following elements:
Establish authority for the Secretary of VA to restore GI
Bill students if an educational institution faces punitive action from
a state approving agency or the Secretary at any time, including
seizure of property, disapproval of receiving educational assistance,
or a finding of violation of a law or regulation due to fraudulent
behavior and the GI Bill students were affected by the institution's
action that was the subject of the punitive action.
Establish authority for the Secretary of VA to restore GI
Bill students' eligibility when ED has made a determination that the
educational institution engaged in fraud entitling federal loan
borrowers to financial relief and the GI Bill students would have been
eligible for such financial relief had the GI Bill students had federal
student loans.
Establish authority for the Secretary of VA to restore GI
Bill students' eligibility if a court of competent jurisdiction has
found a school guilty of, or liable for, fraudulent behavior and has
ordered the educational institution to pay financial relief to a
student and the GI Bill student is in the same position as the student
receiving financial relief.
Establish authority for the Secretary of VA to restore GI
Bill students' eligibility in cases where a school is found to be in
violation of VA rules pertaining to fraud or misrepresentation, such as
38 U.S.C. Sec. 3696, and the GI Bill student was negatively affected
by such violation.
Establish authority for the Secretary of VA to recoup
funds from schools related to the aforementioned scenarios, but as a
separate process from the question of restoration of entitlement. In
other words, VA's recoupment of funds should not be a determining
factor in whether or not VA should restore GI Bill entitlement.
Establish the retroactive application of restoration not
limited to the date of enactment
We also would like to note for the Subcommittee's awareness that VA
has a long history of not enforcing 3696, and encourage close oversight
of VA's application of this statute, or any lack thereof.\5\ This
further underscores the importance of considering additional elements
for a more comprehensive restoration bill as outlined above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ochinko, Walter, ``VA Still Not Enforcing 1974 Ban on Schools
that Engage In Deceptive Advertising and Recruiting,'' Veterans
Education Success, (Oct. 2019), https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/10/Vets_Ed_Success_IB_3696-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are eager to work with this Subcommittee to finally provide
veterans with parity to their peers in higher education, and we thank
the Subcommittee for the continued commitment to make these students
whole.
Draft Bill Addressing Flight Training
This bill proposes amending 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313 to add subsection
(m) to establish a maximum total cost ceiling of $100,000 per
beneficiary on flight training at public institutions in order to bring
them in line with the cap on non-degree flight training programs at
private institutions.
Presently, there is no tuition cap for flight training programs
that are part of a program leading to a degree, other than the annual
cap on funding for private schools.\6\ There is an annual cap at all
types of institutions for flight training programs that do not lead to
a degree.\7\ The bill would also establish annual percentage cost
increases tied to the Consumer Price Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ If a flight training program is part of a program leading to a
degree at an institution of higher learning the payment amount is just
a part of the general provisions for standard college degrees covered
by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313(c). The specific provision for payment amounts
to a public institution is in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313(c)(1)(A)(i) and it
does not set a cap. If the degree is from a ``non-public or foreign
institution'' the payment amount is covered in (c)(1)(A)(ii) which sets
a cap at $17,500 per academic year with an annual percentage increase
mechanism. The cost for flight programs that do not lead to a degree is
specifically covered in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313(g)(3)(C). It provides a
$10,000 per year cap, with an annual percentage increase mechanism as
tied to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3015(h), at all types of institutions for
flight training that do not lead to a degree.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe this legislation would provide an important savings for
VA and represents a reasonable cap in line with industry requirements.
As one commercial pilot training school notes, ``becoming a pilot
doesn't require an exorbitant amount of money,'' and they estimate a
total cost ranging from $55,000 to $100,000.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pilot Institute, ``How Much Does It Cost to Become a Pilot?,''
(Feb. 26, 2023), https://pilotinstitute.com/pilot-license-cost/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed cap of $100,000, however, should not be limited to
public institutions. Because the total amount of GI Bill benefits paid
for flight training programs leading to a degree at non-public
institutions can exceed $100,000,\9\ the Subcommittee should apply the
proposed maximum total cost to non-public institutions as well. The
Subcommittee could accomplish this by amending subsection (c) rather
than subsection (g)(3)(C).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ VA Increase in Maximum Tuition and Fee Amounts Payable Under
the Post-9/11 GI Bill Notice, 88 Fed. Reg. 24665,24665-66 (published
Apr. 21, 2023), available at https://www.Federalregister.gov/documents/
2023/04/21/2023-08450/increase-in-maximum-tuition-and-fee-amounts-
payable-under-the-post-911-gi-bill. (``For the 2023-2024 academic year,
the Post-9/11 GI Bill allows VA to pay the actual net cost of tuition
and fees not to exceed the in-state amounts for students pursuing
training at public schools; $27,120.05 for students training at private
and foreign schools...'').
\10\ Section 2(a) of the bill adds the caveat, ``Subject to the
limitation under subsection (m)'' and amends subsection (g)(3)(C).
However, flight training programs that do not lead to a degree--
regardless of the institution--have an annual cap under (g)(3)(C).
Rather than amending subsection (g)(3)(C), Section 2(a) of the bill
should amend subsection (c) which provides the payment amounts for
programs leading to a degree at both public and non-public
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have previously provided testimony about our concerns regarding
the historical abuses of the GI Bill by flight schools. Former House
Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman, Rep. Jeff Miller, even famously
stated, ``The GI Bill flight school loophole is so big you could fly a
747 through it.''\11\, \12\ Veterans should have the
opportunity to pursue their passion for flying without facing excessive
costs from overpriced flight programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Veterans Education Success, ``LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON PENDING
AND DRAFT LEGISLATION,'' (Oct. 11, 2017), https://vetsedsuccess.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/VES-SFR-HVAC-Flight-Training-Schools.pdf.
\12\ Harress, Christopher, ``GI Bill Flight School Benefits Could
Be Slashed By Congress Amid Tuition Loophole Controversy,''
International Business Times, (Feb. 9, 2016), https://www.ibtimes.com/
gi-bill-flight-school-benefits-could-be-slashed-congress-amid-tuition-
loophole-2294612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Subcommittee has previously worked in a bipartisan fashion to
rein in the expenses of private flight training. This bill aims to
continue that effort, ensuring that veterans aren't unfairly burdened
by inflated costs. We do not want to hinder veterans from pursuing
their career goals; rather, we advocate for reasonable limits on costs,
especially considering past abuses by certain flight programs that took
advantage of loopholes.
We support this legislation, and thank the Subcommittee for its
work to make opportunities for flight training available to veterans,
while balancing the interests of taxpayers.
Draft Bill Addressing In-State Tuition for Montgomery GI Bill
This bill would make the in-state tuition rate apply to Chapter
1606 (Montgomery GI Bill - Select Reserve) as a precondition of a
school's eligibility to receive Title 38 benefits. We have been long-
time proponents of military-connected students' receiving the in-state
tuition rate due to the inability of these students to ``claim a home
state'' based on the transient nature of military duty. We support this
legislation offering this common sense technical change.
Draft Bill Addressing Expansion of Work-Study Authorities
This bill aims to expand the scope of the VA Work-Study program by
allowing veterans to engage in casework, policymaking, and oversight
activities at specific congressional offices within the Department. For
instance, veterans could assist in a Member of Congress's district
office or gain valuable experience on Capitol Hill.
This legislation not only provides beneficial opportunities for
veterans, but also contributes to better serving the American people.
The need for such expansion is underscored by the minimal
representation of veterans in Congress at the staff level, where less
than 2 percent have military experience.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Shane, Leo, ``Veterans welcome? Less than 2 percent of Capitol
Hill staffers have military experience,'' (Jan 10, 2019), https://
www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/01/10/veterans-
welcome-less-than-2-percent-of-capitol-hill-staffers-have-military-
experience/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill would create a pathway for veterans to offer constituent
support and bring a unique perspective to legislative matters.
Additionally, we acknowledge the importance and broad value of the VA
Work-Study program, particularly for student veterans seeking to
supplement their income while pursuing training and education goals.
We support extending the program's authorities to encompass various
public service roles related to the federal legislative branch and
endorse this legislation.
Draft Bill Addressing the Transition Assistance Program
For many veterans, they choose to enter higher education as their
next step on their career pathway.\14\ This should be no surprise,
given that a majority of veterans want to change career paths from the
jobs they were assigned in the military, which is also consistent with
the usage rates of the GI Bill.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Zoli, C., Maury, R. & Fay, D., ``Missing Perspectives:
Servicemembers' Transition from Service to Civilian Life--Data-Driven
Research to Enact the Promise of the Post-9/11 GI Bill,'' Syracuse
University Institute for Veterans and Military Families, (Nov. 2015).
https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ivmf.
\15\ Radford, A. W., Bailey, P., Bloomfield, A., Webster, B. H.
Jr., & Park, H. C., ``A first look at post-9/11 GI Bill-eligible
enlisted veterans' outcomes.'' American Institutes for Research.
(2024), https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/First-Look-
Post-9-11-GI-Bill-Outcomes-Enlisted-Veterans-February-2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We applaud the Committee's proposal to improve outcomes associated
with the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), and strongly encourage
consideration of the elements we propose below that focus on the issue
of higher education.
Section 2 of this draft legislation would add technical
requirements associated with pre-separation counseling, and prevent the
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) from separating someone who has not
received the proper counseling.
The bill proposes to mandate presentations by veterans service
organizations (VSOs), ``warm handoffs'' to VA's Solid Start Program,
and would also require VA to have the Member's contact information
before separation. The bill would also mandate a partnership with the
U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) and their Employment Navigator program,
and establish a TAP pilot specific to military spouses.
Finally, the bill would require several annual reports to monitor
progress associated with the proposed changes. We see all of these
proposals as common sense improvements that would enhance outcomes for
service members and their families as they go through the transition
process.
Section 3 proposes a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
study on the outcomes of DOD's SkillBridge program, and Section 4
proposes expansion of current job counseling and placement services.
Section 5 would mandate integration of VA's Solid Start Program into
the overall TAP curriculum, and Section 6 would establish a pilot for
VA Patient Pre-Enrollment. We also support each of these sections and
appreciate their thoughtful consideration of the complexities
associated with TAP.
We have the following suggestions to improve the legislation:
1. Align TAP Materials to Reflect the Education Pathway as the
Majority Pathway of Transitioning Service Members
We believe this legislation would be stronger if it incorporated
additional measures bolstering a stronger focus on education within the
overall TAP experience. In general, we find that discussion of higher
education as a transition pathway is underemphasized in both the
current TAP curriculum as well as the cultural focus of DOD.
The last significant improvements to TAP came in the Fiscal Year
2019 National Defense Authorization Act, in large part thanks to the
leadership of this Subcommittee and its staff.\16\ That legislation
established the mandate for DOD to create separate pathways based on a
service member's background and interests. The legislation also
established the various ``tracks'' of curriculum, including preparation
for employment, education, vocational training, and
entrepreneurship.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2019, (P.L. 115-232), https://www.congress.gov/115/statute/
STATUTE-132/STATUTE-132-Pg1636.pdf.
\17\ Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. ``TAP
CURRICULUM,'' (Oct. 2023), https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/1235/
dod-tap-curriculum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, most of the information and materials throughout the TAP
process are focused on immediate employment.\18\ Unfortunately, this
overemphasis on ``the resume'' and underemphasis on ``college
applications'' neglects the fact that the majority of transitioning
service members choose to go to school as their next immediate step
after the military. We believe service members would be better
positioned for success if discussion of higher education as a pathway
was not limited to a 2-day elective session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Aside from the topic of benefits, the ``Pres-Separation
Counseling Guide'' addresses employment as 75 percent of the topics
covered. https://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/67710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortunately, for those who do self-select to participate in DOD's
``2-Day Education Track: DOD Managing Your (MY) Education,'' there are
many helpful resources. For example, when discussing the differences
between using Tuition Assistance resources, and post-military resources
such as the GI Bill, we strongly applaud that the curriculum states,
``the institution that worked best for you while connected to the
military may not be the best choice for you after transition.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. ``2023 TAP
Curriculum: Managing Your (MY) Education,'' (Oct. 2023), https://
www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/65989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge the reality that service members often prioritize
flexibility over outcomes for Tuition Assistance classes due to the
demanding nature of military service. However, we believe material like
this is buried in the curriculum, and that the guide should include an
executive summary highlighting the importance of being an informed
consumer when approaching higher education.
The curriculum also lists several important factors to consider
when selecting a school. The first factor, however, is ``location'' and
the second and third factors, respectively, are ``quality,'' and
``student outcomes.'' \20\ While location is a major driver, service
members and veterans deserve to get the most out of their earned
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id, pgs 58-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would recommend moving quality and student outcome up as the
primary factors, as location will ultimately be a logistical
consideration regardless of school choice and is no more important than
other logistical considerations such as net cost (which is arguably,
more important).
We also recommend adding the consideration of net cost, as there
are some colleges that load up veterans with student loan debt in
addition to taking their GI Bill, and many veterans complain to us that
they were saddled with student loan debt they did not want or
authorize.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Veterans Education Success, ``Veterans With Student Loans They
Never Wanted or Authorized,'' (Oct. 2022), https://vetsedsuccess.org/
wp-content/uploads/2022/03/VES-REPORT-Veterans-with-Student-Loans-They-
Never-Authorized-or-Wanted_03-3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Subcommittee knows, the GI Bill covers the full cost of
public universities and colleges, but not at some private colleges,
especially for-profit programs. Sadly, too many veterans are not
informed of this significant difference, which would likely change
their college selection.
2. Share and Enhance Existing Resources to Help Transitioning
Service Members Make Informed Decisions
Unfortunately, the stark reality is that service members and
veterans are often targeted by predatory institutions for their
lucrative education benefits. Other service members and veterans end up
with loans for an education that was more expensive than they had
understood and more costly than their GI Bill would cover.
To help service members make better informed decisions related to
the use of their hard-earned GI Bill benefits, vital information,
including the typical earnings of graduates from specific schools - and
the accompanying potential risks of wasting their GI Bill benefits at
subpar schools - and the realities of net prices of private colleges,
must be shared. The current TAP education track curriculum contains
some information about warning signs service members and veterans
should pay attention to when choosing a college or university, but they
are not enough.
One example is the ``Know Before You Go'' campaign by VA.\22\ While
this video is shared during VA's portion of TAP, we believe this
resource should be shared sooner and more regularly throughout the
military lifecycle to educate service members on what to look for when
choosing a school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, ``Know Before You Go,''
(Nov. 2, 2015), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1ttkv9oRI4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the USAA Educational Foundation created an unbranded
video, available for use by any government agency, and could be
included in the TAP curriculum.\23\ The video explains how veterans can
avoid known efforts to defraud students and is an example of a resource
that is already available from a reliable source.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Awareness Video, (2020), https://vimeo.com/370920512.
\24\ The Department of Defense Office of Financial Readiness has
used other USAA Educational Foundation resources on its site https://
finred.usalearning.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subcommittee should also prioritize educating service members
and veterans about student loan debt and should also introduce
legislation to rename the ``Master Promissory Note'' as ``Student Loan
Agreement.'' Too many military-connected students wind up with student
loans they didn't understand or need.\25\ Additional loan debt
education should incorporate awareness of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau's ``Paying for College'' tool.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ U.S. Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid.
``Master Promissory Note (MPN),'' https://studentaid.gov/mpn/.
\26\ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. ``Paying for College,''
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/paying-for-college/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is imperative that the trainers and instructors leading TAP
classes provide transitioning veterans with neutral, objective
information, and with no vested interest in where the service members
choose to pursue higher education. For example, some non-profit
organizations sponsored by or representing for-profit colleges are
reportedly trying to secure roles leading TAP classes with the goal of
pushing veterans to use their benefits at these schools.
Having neutral advisors ensures the advice is focused on what is in
the best interest of the student. Only government representatives or
veterans service organizations taking no funding from colleges should
lead these classes.
Furthermore, much-needed improvements to the GI Bill Comparison
Tool would provide valuable information for transitioning service
members and improve their ability to make informed decisions related to
their education. The following recommendations would provide
significant improvements to the GI Bill Comparison Tool, and make it a
more effective tool for service members as they transition:
Enable searches by major or degree sought by geographic
area. The Comparison Tool is decidedly not user-friendly or modern.
Provide student outcome metrics from ED, especially
graduates' earnings (as reported by the IRS to ED) and the comparison
of an institution's tuition and graduation rates to the national
medians for that type of school (e.g., 2-year vs. 4-year), as well as
student loan debt levels and default rates. This information is readily
available at ED and could be accomplished simply by pulling data from
ED's College Navigator and College Scorecard.\27\,
\28\, \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 38 U.S.C. 3698 requires VA to maintain various metrics on the
GI Bill Comparison tool, such as (i) its public, private nonprofit, or
proprietary for-profit status; (ii) the accrediting agency's name and
contact details for student complaints; (iii) details on the state
approving agency and its complaint contact information; (iv)
participation in title IV programs under the Higher Education Act; (v)
tuition and fees; (vi) median federal student loan debt upon program
completion; (vii) cohort default rate; (viii) total enrollment,
graduation rate, and retention rate; (ix) provision of technical,
academic, and other support services; (x) policies on credit transfer
from other institutions; (xi) administration of priority enrollment for
student veterans; (xii) requirements for covered individuals under
section 3679(e)(4); (xiii) affiliation with a religion and its
denomination; (xiv) designation as a minority serving institution by
the Secretary of Education or federal agency; and (xv) whether the
institution is gender-specific.
\28\ U.S. Department of Education, College Navigator, https://
nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/.
\29\ U.S. Department of Education, College Scorecard, https://
collegescorecard.ed.gov/.
Establish a ``Risk Index'' to enable veterans to be aware
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the riskiest schools.
Improve ``Caution Flags'' by posting these warnings in a
timely manner so that prospective students have the information as soon
as possible. Currently, VA fails to update and accurately maintain
Caution Flags.
Display student veteran complaints in a timely manner, as
it can sometimes take several months, even after the complaint is
closed, for complaint information to show up in the Comparison Tool.
Show all student complaints received about a school on
the Comparison Tool. In 2019, reportedly at the behest of for-profit
college lobbyists, VBA adopted a policy to show only the complaints
received in the most recent 24 months. This is not a veteran-centric
policy and clearly benefits schools with a history of complaints. This
is especially true in comparison to how the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) operate, with the
goal of not limiting consumer information available to individuals. The
Comparison Tool should show the full history of complaints. The
history, volume, and nature of complaints is relevant information, and
veterans should be allowed to decide for themselves whether a school's
history of complaints matters in their decision-making. SAAs,
accreditors, other federal agencies, and academic researchers also
would benefit from knowing a school's history of student complaints.
Include whether the school responded to a complaint and
whether the complaint was resolved to the satisfaction of the veteran,
as is the practice of the Better Business Bureau and the
CFPB.\30\, \31\ It is important for student veterans to know
whether a school failed to respond to other student veterans'
complaints received through the Feedback Tool. Disclosing information
about school response rates and student satisfaction with the schools'
responses adds context to complaints and helps students make informed
choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Better Business Bureau, ``Complaints,'' (accessed Mar. 14,
2024), https://www.bbb.org/process-of-complaints-and-reviews/
complaints.
\31\ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ``Consumer Complaint
Data base,'' (accessed Mar. 14, 2024), https://www.consumerfinance.gov/
data-research/consumer-complaints/.
Maintain information about schools that close and/or lose
GI Bill approval on the historical data section (``data download'') of
the Comparison Tool for reference and research. For instance, student
veterans who may be entitled to restoration of their GI Bill when a
school closes or a program loses approval have difficulty locating
information about their school when it disappears from WEAMS and the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
historical data section (``data download'') of the Comparison Tool.
Allow student veterans who submit a complaint in the
Feedback Tool to upload attachments and have the option to make the
narrative portion of their complaint public on the Comparison Tool.
Automate the ED/VA data-crosswalk as it is labor
intensive for VA employees to update it manually and they fail to do
so. This is a simple process of aligning VA's facility codes with ED's
OPEID numbers for each school, but it is an essential alignment.
The GI Bill Comparison Tool is an important resource that is
already included in TAP, and making it reliable and comprehensive is
vital to veterans' long-term success. We also note that military-
connected students are understandably angry when they learn that a
school that cheated them is one the government already knew about.
Schools under law enforcement action have no place on military
bases or receiving the government's stamp of approval for the GI Bill.
This is something the Nation's leading veterans and military service
organizations called for in 2016 and 2019, as did VA's Inspector
General.\32\, \33\,\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Veterans Education Success. ``Twenty Three Veterans and
Military Organizations Ask VA for Better Oversight of the GI Bill,''
(May 16, 2016), https://vetsedsuccess.org/twenty-three-veterans-and-
military-organizations-ask-va-for-better-oversight-of-the-gi-bill/.
\33\ Veterans Education Success. ``36 Veteran and Military
Organizations Ask VA for Better Oversight of GI Bill Colleges,'' (Feb.
14, 2019), https://vetsedsuccess.org/36-veteran-and-military-
organizations-ask-va-for-better-oversight-of-gi-bill-colleges/.
\34\ U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs Office of Inspector
General. ``VA's Oversight of State Approving Agency Program Monitoring
for Post-9/11 GI Bill Students,'' (Dec. 3, 2018), https://
www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/VAOIG-16-00862-
179.pdf.
Provide service members with high quality counseling.
Many of the Armed Services are not hiring qualified counselors. Without
the appropriate guidance, service members will continue to elect
easier, low-quality programs at unacceptable rates and pseudo-
counselors are subject to the bias of industry and the entity that
trains them/hires them. DOD should require all counselors to meet OMB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
standards for grade GS-1740-09, Guidance Counselors.
Restrict base access for colleges that pose a significant
risk to service members, especially after the recent loss of the 20-
student rule for base access. DOD's MOU with schools has proved
insufficient; the Navy eliminated all base education offices; and the
Army has insufficient resources to monitor bases. It is also a security
risk. Job fairs and education fairs are dominated by predatory colleges
with outsized military marketing efforts and poor educational outcomes.
Whistleblowers tell us that representatives from these schools are on
base, giving presentations to entire units during mandatory duty hours.
DOD has significant leeway in statute to oversee bases and voluntary
education programs. DOD should immediately ban from military
installations any college that has been the subject of federal, state,
or local law enforcement action or punitive regulatory action within
the past 5 years.
3. Implement a Way for Stakeholders to Provide Timely Feedback
Many changes have been made to TAP over the past few years and
veteran groups such as Veterans Education Success have received useful
feedback from participants. Efforts to share this feedback and make
recommendations about improving the program, however, have been stifled
by the absence of an efficient and timely way to do so.
DOD's Transition to Veterans Program Office Curriculum Program
Manager directs stakeholders to provide their feedback and
recommendations for improvement to the DoL Advisory Committee on
Veterans Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO). ACVETEO
publishes recommendations only once a year in their annual report. The
annual report is addressed to the Secretary of Labor who then would be
required to share salient points with DOD.
By the time feedback and recommendations reach the relevant staff
member within DOD who can make improvements, over a year of time will
have passed and a great deal of relevant information likely will have
been lost along the way. Stakeholders have been told by DOD that
because the GI Bill program is managed by VA, VA has input into what is
included in the TAP curriculum. Similarly, however, there is no
efficient way for stakeholders to make recommendations and ensure they
will be considered by the TAP curriculum program managers. This is not
an efficient or timely means to address needed improvements.
Veterans, service members and stakeholders should have a more
efficient way to keep the TAP program as current, relevant and useful
as possible through timely feedback and recommendations.
Conclusion
Veterans Education Success sincerely appreciates the opportunity to
express our views before this Committee. As the higher education
industry continues to evolve in these very dynamic times, we emphasize
the importance of maintaining high standards of quality. Student
veterans, taxpayers, and Congress must expect the best outcomes from
the use of hard-earned GI Bill benefits. We look forward to the
discussion and review of these proposals, and we are grateful for the
continued opportunities to collaborate on these topics.
Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives,
Veterans Education Success has not received any federal grants in
Fiscal Year 2023, nor has it received any federal grants in the two
previous Fiscal Years.
______
Prepared Statement of Disabled American Veterans
[[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Joint Letter from RecruitMilitary, Orion Talent, Military Talent
Pipeline, LLC, Semper Forward, and ZeroMils
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of The American Legion
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Ken Calvert
Chairman Van Orden, Ranking Member Levin, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding today's hearing on my legislation,
H.R. 6656, the Stuck On Hold Act.
I believe all of us share a bipartisan belief that veterans,
seniors, and all Americans deserve the best customer service possible
when they call a federal agency looking for assistance. While most
agency leaders and employees share that goal, there are occasions where
they fall short.
One area that has been notoriously challenging for many federal
agencies is how they handle high volumes of telephone calls. Endless
hold times can often become a nightmare for callers. This is especially
true for older Americans who are less likely to be able to take
advantage of information or services available online.
Currently, most federal agencies have yet to develop any
governmentwide customer service standard when receiving calls from the
general public. Every government agency operates their call centers
differently, resulting in a wide variety of customer service standards
for the American people.
I introduced the Stuck On Hold Act to require both the Veterans
Administration and Social Security Administration to implement a more
robust, user-friendly call system. Both departments would be required
to inform callers of their estimated wait times and, if the wait is
estimated to be longer than 15 minutes, give the caller the option of
receiving an automated call back when it is their turn in line. With
the Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration
processing millions of claims a year, modernization will be the key to
maintaining satisfactory call standards that Americans have become
accustomed to in the private sector.
Veterans should not be left on hold praying that a federal employee
answer is their call. They deserve better for the sacrifices they've
made for their country. Let's give them some peace of mind.
Again, thank you for holding today's hearing. I look forward to
working with the committee to advance this legislation.
Questions for the Record Submitted by Juan Ciscomani for Melissa Cohen
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Answers to Questions for the Record Submitted to Melissa Cohen
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions for the Record Submitted by Juan Ciscomani for James
Rodriguez
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions for the Record Submitted by Juan Ciscomani for Nadine
Bullock-Pottinga
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions for the Record Submitted by Juan Ciscomani for Kristina
Keenan
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]