[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 357, H.R. 562,
H.R. 631, H.R. 844, H.R. 1305, H.R. 1316,
H.R. 1402, A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``IMPROVING
JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR VETERANS ACT OF
2013,'' AND A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED TO
AMEND TITLE 39, UNITED STATES CODE, TO
EXTEND THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE WORK-STUDY
ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES
BY INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS''
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (EO)
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-452 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida Minority Member
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee CORRINE BROWN, Florida
BILL FLORES, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
JEFF DENHAM, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey DINA TITUS, Nevada
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas RAUL RUIZ, California
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
PAUL COOK, California TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (EO)
BILL FLORES, Texas, Chairman
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado Minority Member
PAUL COOK, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANN M. KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
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
__________
April 10, 2013
Page
Legislative Hearing On H.R. 357, H.R. 562, H.R. 631, H.R. 844,
H.R. 1305, H.R. 1316, H.R. 1402, A Draft Bill Entitled
``Improving Job Opportunities For Veterans Act of 2013,'' And A
Draft Bill Entitled ``To Amend Title 39, United States Code, To
Extend The Authority To Provide Work-Study Allowance For
Certain Activities By Individuals Receiving Educational
Assistance By The Secretary Of Veterans Affairs''.............. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Hon. Bill Flores, Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
(EO)........................................................... 1
Prepared Statement of Hon. Flores............................ 52
Hon. Mark Takano, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity (EO)...................................... 3
Prepared Statement of Hon. Takano............................ 53
Hon. Mike Coffman, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs........... 4
Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. 5
Hon. Brad Wenstrup, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Health......................................... 7
WITNESSES
Curtis Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs........................................................ 8
Prepared Statement of Mr. Coy................................ 53
Accompanied by:
Mr. Danny Pummill, Director, Veterans Benefits
Administration/Department of Defense Program Office,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Susan Kelly, Deputy Director, Transition to Veterans Program
Office, U.S. Department of Defense............................. 10
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kelly.............................. 58
Executive Summary of Dr. Kelly............................... 59
Hon. Keith Kelly, Assistant Secretary, Veterans' Employment and
Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor..................... 11
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kelly............................. 60
Charles Huebner, Chief of U.S. Paralympics, U.S. Olympic
Committee...................................................... 26
Prepared Statement of Mr. Huebner............................ 63
Executive Summary of Mr. Huebner............................. 65
Susan Aldridge, Senior Fellow, American Association of State
Colleges and Universities...................................... 28
Prepared Statement of Dr. Aldridge........................... 66
Col. G. Michael Denning (USMC) Ret., Director of Graduate
Military Programs, University of Kansas (On Behalf of
Association of Public and Land Grant Universities.............. 30
Prepared Statement of Mr. Denning............................ 68
Executive Summary of Mr. Denning............................. 71
Lt. Gen. Joseph F. Weber (USMC) Ret., Vice President for Student
Affairs, Texas A&M University.................................. 31
Prepared Statement of Mr. Weber.............................. 72
Executive Summary of Mr. Weber............................... 75
Alexander Nicholson, Chief Policy Officer, Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America............................................ 40
Prepared Statement of Mr. Nicholson.......................... 76
Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.................. 42
Prepared Statement of Mr. Gallucci........................... 79
Steve L. Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National Economic
Commission, The American Legion................................ 44
Prepared Statement of Mr. Gonzalez........................... 82
Executive Summary of Mr. Gonzalez............................ 87
Michael Dakduk, Executive Director, Student Veterans of America.. 46
Prepared Statement of Mr. Dakduk............................. 87
Executive Summary of Mr. Dakduk.............................. 89
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans..................... 90
VETSFirst........................................................ 92
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.................................. 92
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 357, H.R. 562, H.R. 631, H.R. 844, H.R.
1305, H.R. 1316, H.R. 1402, A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``IMPROVING JOB
OPPORTUNITIES FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013,'' AND A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED
``TO AMEND TITLE 39, UNITED STATES CODE, TO EXTEND THE AUTHORITY TO
PROVIDE WORK-STUDY ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES BY INDIVIDUALS
RECEIVING EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS''
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bill Flores
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Flores, Runyan, Coffman, Cook,
Wenstrup, Takano, Brownley, Kirkpatrick.
Also Present: Representative Miller.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BILL FLORES
Mr. Flores. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee will
come to order.
We have a total of nine bills before us and a host of
witnesses, so I promise to keep my opening statement brief.
Two of the nine bills before us today are bills I
introduced earlier this year. The first is H.R. 631, the
Service Members Choice and Transition Act of 2013, which I
introduced with Ranking Member Takano.
This bill is meant as a follow-on to the VOW to Hire Heroes
Act that would improve the Transition Assistance Program or TAP
as we call it for separating servicemembers.
The VOW Act made TAP mandatory for all but a very few
servicemembers and since the enactment of that bill, the
services and the Administration have nearly completed an
overhaul of the TAP Program for the first time in decades.
From what I have heard from veterans and my staff, though,
the new curriculum is much improved, but more can be done.
DoD has created several tracks or courses for
servicemembers that focus on some of the most common transition
paths the servicemembers take when separating. These tracks
focus on the following areas: Education, Vo-Tech, Employment,
and Entrepreneurship.
These tracks are meant to provide in-depth knowledge on
these topics and allow servicemembers the choice in picking
training that best fits their transition goals. Unfortunately,
that option is not included in the mandatory portion of TAP.
For example, if a veteran was planning to go to college and
use their Post-9/11 GI Bill, the education track would help
them decide whether they are ready for post-secondary education
and, if not, how to get ready. This will allow them to
determine what should be their education or training goal, what
schools would be best to meet their education or training goal,
how to complete the admissions process, and, finally, how to
finance their education or training.
[Slide]
Mr. Flores. As you can see from this slide on the screen,
the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit can provide over $270,000 over
four years at one of the most expensive schools in the country,
in this case Stanford University.
If taxpayers are going to provide this generous benefit, it
is our duty to ensure that our military men and women and our
veterans know how to make the best use of this benefit.
As I said, from everything we have heard from DoD and as
they will shortly testify to as well, they will not require
that these tracks be part of the mandatory portion of TAP.
As a non-mandatory option, servicemembers could take the
optional track only if their supervisor would allow them to
miss more days of work or if they do not meet the still
undefined career readiness standards.
Regarding these standards, how can we expect the commanding
officer to reasonably determine whether a servicemember's
individual transition plan accurately reflects the attainable
objectives given the infinite variations in a member's life.
Therefore, I believe that H.R. 631 would fill that gap by
making the optional tracks of the mandatory portion of TAP--
while making the optional parts--tracks part of the mandatory
portion of TAP while giving the services the flexibility to
meet these requirements.
As you can see on the screen, the model I am proposing
provides each servicemember with an executive summary of each
track followed by time to take the track of their choice along
with the classes on VA benefits and service-specific separation
counseling. The model shows five days, but it could be done in
seven or eight days, whatever it takes to get the job done.
It is important to note that this model is based off the
system that the Marines have been piloting with great success
for some time.
My second bill, H.R. 1316, seeks to codify the roles and
responsibilities of directors of Veterans' Employment and
Training or DVETs as they are known. DVETs are Federal
employees who represent the Veterans' Employment and Training
Service on the state level and whose primary responsibility is
to oversee the DVOPs and LVERs who are funded by the Jobs for
Veterans State Grant Program.
Curiously, Title 38 contains no specific responsibilities
for the DVETs. It only says that there shall be DVETs and
assistant DVETs.
The performance of the DVOPs and LVERs programs continues
to be a topic of concern for this Committee and by codifying
the responsibilities of DVETs, we will strengthen our position
with the state to improve the performance of the DVOPs and
LVERs, something I am sure that we agree must happen.
With that, I am happy to yield to the Ranking Member, Mr.
Takano, for any opening statement he may have.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Flores appears in the
Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK TAKANO
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
I would like to thank everyone for joining us and I would
like to thank our witnesses for taking the time to testify and
answer our questions.
We have a number of bills before us today which extend or
redefine important veterans' programs like the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation and Retraining,
Transition Assistance, Work-Study, and participation in U.S.
Paralympics programs, among others.
I have to take a breath after all that list of programs we
are going to cover.
I want to thank Chairman Flores for introducing H.R. 631,
which I have co-sponsored. I support this bill and I am
interested in making the optional tracks in the Transition
Assistance Program mandatory.
The bill requires that additional time be spent helping
warriors understand the educational training and employment
resources they have earned and how and where to access them.
Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight two bills that I have
sponsored. The first one is the VetSuccess Enhancement Act,
H.R. 844, which extends by five years the time period when
veterans with service-connected disabilities are eligible to
enroll in VA Vocational Education and Rehabilitation programs.
Veterans with traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury
often require years to complete rehabilitation and adjust to
the new realities of the basic activities of daily living. Once
this has been achieved, those who wish to return to work and
need vocational rehabilitative services have often passed the
12-year eligibility period and many other veterans do not
become aware of this program until they are no longer eligible.
My legislation will give these veterans five additional
years to receive this help.
The second bill I introduced is the Work-Study for Student
Veterans Act. It is a five-year extension of the Veterans Work-
Study Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
As an educator and community college trustee, I know how
important these programs are to students, allowing them to earn
a little extra cash to live on while they attend school. The VA
program pays veterans to assist other transitioning veterans in
navigating VA's claims and benefits system.
It is an important program to veteran students in my
district and to thousands of others in schools across the
country. Without my legislation, it will expire at the end of
June.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing to
review these bills. I look forward to the testimony and the
discussion we will have today.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Takano appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
I also am happy to co-sponsor your Work-Study Program bill
with you and I think it will be a great opportunity and improve
our veteran services.
Mr. Takano. Thank you.
Mr. Flores. We will now hear from any other Members who
wish to make opening statements about the bills they have
introduced or for anything else related to this hearing.
Any----
Mr. Coffman. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Coffman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COFFMAN
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Chairman Flores and Ranking Member Takano, for
holding this legislative hearing today. And I am pleased to
have my two pieces of legislation be a part of the discussion.
The first bill which I introduced along with Representative
Mark Takano is H.R. 1402, the Veteran Paralympic Act. The bill
would extend through the 2018 fiscal year a joint program
operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the
U.S. Olympic Committee that funds grants to a host adaptive
sports programs for disabled veterans across the country.
The Veterans Paralympic Act will ensure that disabled
veterans in local communities throughout the country continue
to have opportunities for rehabilitation, stress release, and
higher achievement through adaptive sports.
The U.S. Olympic Committee's Paralympic chief, Charlie
Huebner, who will testify today, has said he is proud to
support its reauthorization. I am proud to lead the effort to
extend and sup`port this important program.
Additionally, my bill, H.R. 1412, the Improving Job
Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013, seeks to increase the
availability of on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs
to help veterans make the transition to the civilian workforce.
This legislation will build on an existing yet little known
and underutilized on-the-job training program that assists
veterans by allowing them to use their educational benefits
that they have earned through their military service to learn a
trade or a skill by participating in an approved apprenticeship
or on-the-job training program.
There are three pillars of the legislation. First, this
bill will highlight this program by requiring the secretary of
Veterans Affairs to initiate a public information campaign
about the availability of on-the-job training programs for
eligible veterans.
Second, the bill will decrease the final percentage of the
veteran's salary paid by the employer from 85 percent to 75
percent as a means to further incentivize employers to
participate.
And, lastly, the legislation will expand this training
program by opening it up to agencies of the Federal Government
including the VA.
This bill will be a great tool for both private sector and
Federal employers to hire our veterans who are struggling to
make that transition from the military to the civilian
workforce.
I want to thank all the panelists and I look forward to
hearing their thoughts as well as those of the other Members of
the Committee on these important bills.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Coffman.
I ask unanimous consent that Chairman Miller, the Chairman
of the Full Committee, be permitted to sit at the dais and ask
questions. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I now recognize Chairman Miller to talk about his bill,
H.R. 357, or for any other purposes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity to talk
to you just a little bit.
With your permission, I would like to respond to some of
today's written testimony on H.R.s and 357 and 631.
And let me first begin by saying state schools, and I am a
proud graduate of a state college, really cannot have it both
ways.
First, the intent of my bill is to expand education
opportunities for veterans by making all public schools more
affordable and that Dr. Aldridge's testimony in my opinion is
factually wrong in stating that veterans already enrolled in an
institution would be denied GI Bill benefits through my bill.
The bill is really clear in stating that their benefits will
continue. The denial applies only to enrollments after the
effective date.
Second, while it may be difficult to change residency
requirements, it is an opportunity for the appropriate
governing bodies and those bodies that determine tuition rates
to recognize the contribution of the one percent who defend the
99 percent. And in my view, it is the least that the 99 percent
can do for veterans.
Thirdly, Dr. Aldridge's statement that veterans could be
forced to seek other likely costlier programs is exactly what
this bill is designed to prevent.
According to the College Board, the average nonresident
tuition rate at public four-year schools is $21,706 while
resident rates average $8,655. That is an average of 250
percent increase over in-state tuition rates and in many
states, the increase is about 300 percent for nonresidents.
My bill would reduce what is often a $24,000 tuition and
fee bill to under $9,000 on average.
Dr. Aldridge also expresses concern about confusion.
Confusion will only happen if the school does not make
residency requirements clear during the admissions process.
And, more importantly, the passage of H.R. 357 will remove
any such confusion. A school will either be approved or not
approved for new enrollments under the GI Bill.
Regarding how tuition is determined, Dr. Aldridge is
suggesting that veterans be treated less favorably than many
nonresident non-veterans. Take this for an example.
Forty-six of 50 states belong to one of four regional
compacts which give significant tuition discounts at state
institutions to nonresident students from states within that
very regional compact.
For example, the southern regional education board offers
in-state rates to students from the 16 states. Students from
the 15 states who are enrolled in schools in the western
undergraduate exchange program pay 150 percent of the in-state
rate.
Students from the nine state Midwestern student exchange
program also pay the 150 percent rate at participating state
schools and even get a ten percent discount at many private
institutions.
And, finally, students from the six states in the New
England regional student program receive an average tuition
discount of almost $7,000.
Also of note, some states have adopted legislation to allow
children of undocumented immigrants to attend at in-state
rates.
In its broadest application, my bill would simply encourage
a national approach to what many states are doing already on
their own. And in the end, it is the right thing to do for our
veterans.
So despite Dr. Aldridge's concerns about overreaching and
the states' rights, I would remind her that Federal dollars
usually come with requirements, whether mandating that states
provide in-state rates for active duty servicemembers, drinking
age of 21 as a condition to receive Federal highway funding, or
Federal contributions to states for Medicaid just to name a
few.
And, finally, while I really do appreciate Dr. Aldridge's
suggestions, two of the four proposals would require additional
Federal funds to the states, another example of wanting it both
ways.
Since the Post-9/11 GI Bill already pays full tuition and
fees at state schools, it eliminates the need for state schools
to participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program for most veterans.
I would note that VA is now already investing $11 and a
half billion, $11 and a half billion in post-secondary
education and training and I believe our colleges and
universities are benefitting just as much as are our veterans.
Briefly a couple of thoughts, if I might, Mr. Chairman, on
H.R. 631. I find the testimony from the three departments
really short-sighted to put it mildly.
The failure of the model imposed on the services to include
detailed training on the tracks as part of the mandatory
curriculum, especially the education track, is a disservice to
both the soon to be veteran and the taxpayer alike.
And, additionally, for an Administration that has made so
much about what they describe as schools preying on veterans, I
find the reluctance to include the tracks as part of the
mandatory curriculum totally inconsistent with those concerns.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support your
legislation and that legislation that is being heard today.
Thank you so much for letting me speak out of order and I yield
back my time.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for joining us today.
Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, any opening remarks?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. No.
Mr. Flores. Okay. And thank you.
Anybody else on our side? Mr. Wenstrup.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD WENSTRUP
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Takano.
I rise today in support of H.R. 1305 which is a bill to
help veterans gain access to vital job training programs.
Currently, homeless veterans are eligible for job training and
placement services under the Homeless Veterans Reintegration
Program.
Unfortunately, the Department of Labor concluded that
veterans who are participating in the HUD-VASH Voucher Program,
which is a Veterans Affairs' supportive housing voucher
program, are not considered truly homeless and, therefore, they
are ineligible for the very program that will help them reenter
the workforce and get them back on their feet.
Now, our troops are people of action and our veterans have
sacrificed deeply for our country. And we should not let
Washington bureaucracy stand in the way of assisting those who
need help the most.
This legislation will help homeless veterans find housing
and meaningful employment and elevate themselves out of poverty
into self-sufficiency, free from government dependence. So I
urge your support of this.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Wenstrup.
Mr. Cook?
Mr. Cook. No comment.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Runyan?
Mr. Runyan. No.
Mr. Flores. And I believe that is it, so I will thank the
Members.
And I will now introduce our first panel. Our first witness
will be Mr. Curtis Coy from the VA who is accompanied by Mr.
Danny Pummill. Next we will have Dr. Susan Kelly from the
Department of Defense. Finally, we will have Mr. Keith Kelly
from the Department of Labor. Mr. Kelly is the new Assistant
Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training.
Congratulations to you, Mr. Secretary, and welcome.
Each of you will have five minutes to summarize your
testimony and your complete written statement will be made part
of the hearing record. Thanks to each of you for being here,
and let's start with Mr. Coy.
STATEMENTS OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY DANNY PUMMILL,
DIRECTOR, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE PROGRAM OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
SUSAN KELLY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TRANSITION TO VETERANS PROGRAM
OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; KEITH KELLY, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY
Mr. Coy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and other Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss
VA's views on pending legislation.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, accompanying me this morning is
Mr. Danny Pummill, Director of the VBA/DoD Program Office.
We appreciate the Committee's attention to the important
subjects that these bills cover, particularly with respect to
TAP leveraging Post-9/11 GI Bill, changes to VRAP, vocational
rehabilitation programs, and the continuation of veterans'
Paralympics Program.
In the interest of time, I will highlight and summarize a
few points from my written statement.
VA is happy to support H.R. 844, the VetSuccess Enhancement
Act, which would extend to 17 years for enrollment in VA
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment services. That will
allow VA to provide those eligible individuals the help they
need over a longer period of time.
We are also pleased to support H.R. 1402 which will allow
VA to continue its support for adaptive sports programs for
disabled veterans and disabled servicemembers. These programs
offer remarkable and inspiring opportunities for those who have
sacrificed for our country.
Turning to other bills on the Committee's agenda, H.R. 357,
the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act, would direct VA to disapprove
courses of education provided by public institutions of higher
education that do not charge veteran students tuition and fees
at an in-state rate regardless of their state of residence.
While VA is sympathetic to the issue of rising educational
costs, it is difficult to endorse the proposed legislation
until we know more about the impact. We would be happy to work
with the Committee and our educational partners to better
understand how this might affect or limit veterans in their
course or school offerings.
H.R. 562 would extend VRAP for an additional three months
through 30 June 2014. It would also require an interim report
on the program not later than 30 days after the date of the
bill's enactment.
We support extending VRAP the additional three months to
give vets additional time to complete their degree or
certificate program. We do, however, recommend a longer period
of time to submit the interim report called for in the bill.
Allowing VA and DoL additional time to collect sufficient data
will ensure the most accurate reporting of VRAP's successes.
H.R. 631, the Servicemembers Choice in Transition Act of
2013, would amend the TAP Program which provides employment and
job training and assistance and related services for
servicemembers separating from the active duty and for their
spouses. It would add a new subsection imposing specific
requirements in statute for TAP's format and content.
We appreciate the strong interest and support from the
Committee to ensure departing servicemembers are given full and
effective engagement on their benefits and employment and
training opportunities as they separate from active duty.
However, we cannot offer VA's support for this legislation
as we believe current initiatives with the same aims including
the VOW to Hire Heroes Act and the Veterans' Employment
Initiative should be given the opportunity to be fully
implemented and assessed before embarking upon further
legislation.
We would be pleased to brief the Committee on the
implementation of TAP as part of VEI and to work with the
Members to continue to improve and enhance the program.
Public Law 107-103 established a five-year pilot program to
expand qualifying work-study programs to include outreach
programs with state approving agencies, administration
activities at national and state veterans' cemeteries, and
assisting with the provision of care to veterans in state
homes.
This program is currently due to expire on 30 June of this
year. This draft bill would extend authority for these
activities for an additional five years.
VA does not oppose this legislation, but would prefer the
legislation provide a permanent authorization for these work-
study activities.
Finally, the Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act
of 2013 would amend VA's on-the-job training programs. The
legislation would temporarily adjust the percentage of starting
wages an employer must provide by the end of the program from
85 to 75 percent.
VA believes this change could help increase training
opportunities for veterans. As well, the draft bill would
require VA to enter into agreements with other Federal agencies
to operate their own OJT programs.
VA supports the intent of this section. However, we do not
believe it is necessary as VA has been able to strike numerous
agreements with Federal agencies for OJT under the authority we
now have.
There are two other provisions in the bill which VA will
provide its views on in a follow-up letter to the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. We would be pleased
to respond to any questions you may have or other Members of
the Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Curtis L. Coy appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Coy.
Mr. Coy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Flores. Dr. Kelly.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN KELLY
Ms. Kelly. Good morning, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member
Takano, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today joined by my
colleagues from the Department of Veterans Affairs and Labor
and to share the Department of Defense's views on the
legislation being considered by the Subcommittee.
My remarks this morning will be limited to H.R. 631, the
Servicemembers Choice in Transition Act of 2013, which would
amend Section 1144 of Title 10, United States Code pertaining
to the Transition Assistance Program or TAP.
The department's cost estimate for this bill is currently
under development.
As you know, TAP is the cornerstone of the department's
transition efforts and is a collaborative partnership among the
DoD, the VA, and DoL. It is the primary platform used to
deliver an array of services and benefits information to our
separating servicemembers.
While we believe the intent of H.R. 631 is to improve the
transition process for separating servicemembers, we have
concerns over how it would if enacted contradict the
requirements of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 codified in
Chapter 58, Title 10, U.S. Code.
The VOW Act was intended to prepare transitioning
servicemembers to join and be competitive in the labor market
by using the skills, knowledge, and experience they have
acquired during military service.
The department is unable to support this bill as we believe
it would not only undermine the progress already made in the
redesign of the TAP, but would also potentially disadvantage
our servicemembers and our ability to ensure they are career
ready upon separation from the military.
The redesigned TAP including a new curriculum called
transition GPS, goals, plan, success, is aligned with the VOW
Act which requires all servicemembers discharged or released
from active duty after serving their first 180 continuous days
or more to participate in pre-separation counseling, VA
benefits briefings, and the DoL employment workshop.
With limited exemptions, the VOW Act requires the DoL
employment workshop to be a mandatory portion of the TAP. H.R.
631 conflicts with the VOW Act by making the employment
workshop an optional track for separating servicemembers.
The department agrees with the original intent of the VOW
Act that all servicemembers benefit from taking the employment
workshop regardless of their immediate plans upon leaving
military service because they will need job search skills at
some point.
The heart of the redesigned TAP is the career readiness
standards or CRS. The standards correspond to deliverables that
all servicemembers must meet prior to separation. The value of
the CRS in ensuring servicemembers have the tools they need to
become productive members of our labor workforce cannot be
overstated.
The employment workshop currently requires three full days
of adult learning instruction which would be limited to two
days under the optional election prescription of H.R. 631. The
shortened timeframe reduces the ability of the employment
workshop to provide the needed job search skills for our
servicemembers to meet the new CRS.
The prescriptive timeframe reduces the ability of the
entire redesigned TAP to evolve into the military life cycle of
TAP and mature to keep pace with changes in adult learning to
adjust to include skills building that our servicemembers tell
us they need and respond to developments in the job search
arena.
The DoD, military departments, and our interagency partners
are successfully implementing the redesigned TAP to enable our
servicemembers to meet career readiness standards. DoD believes
that the best course of action at this time is to continue the
implementation of the newly redesigned TAP in accordance with
the VOW Act and the recommendations of the veterans' employment
initiative task force.
We will continue to work with your staff to keep this
Subcommittee updated on our progress.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. On behalf of the
men and women in the military and their families, I thank you
and the Members of this Subcommittee for your steadfast support
and your leadership in this important area. I am happy to
answer any questions you or the other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Susan Kelly appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Dr. Kelly
Secretary Kelly.
STATEMENT OF KEITH KELLY
Mr. Kelly. Good morning, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member
Takano and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on the
pending legislation.
My name is Keith Kelly and I am honored to serve as the
Assistant Secretary for the Veterans' Employment and Training
Service at the Department of Labor. I look forward to working
with each of you to ensure that the brave men and women who
serve this country have the support they need to succeed in the
civilian workforce.
I will use my time here today to highlight some of the
department's views on the labor related legislation before the
Committee. I respectfully defer to my colleagues here at the
table from DoD and VA on the remaining pieces of legislation.
First, I would like to discuss H.R. 562, the VRAP Extension
Act of 2013, which would extend by three months an important
program created by the VOW Act.
DoL has been working diligently with the VA and others to
implement VRAP and specifically by conducting research,
developing guidance, identifying high demand occupations,
verifying applicants' initial eligibility, and providing
services to veterans before, during, and after they participate
in the VRAP.
The department supports this legislation. However, we
recommend limiting any interim report to include administrative
data only. We defer to the VA on the best elements and
timeframe for the submission of this report.
The next bill I would like to discuss is H.R. 631, the
Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act of 2013. This
legislation would amend the Transition Assistance Program as we
all refer to and commonly know as TAP under Section 1144 of
Title 10.
TAP is an interagency effort designed to provide
transitioning servicemembers and their spouses with the support
they need to successfully transition to the civilian workforce.
As part of TAP, the department provides a comprehensive
three-day employment workshop at U.S. military installations
worldwide.
The department has serious concerns with H.R. 631, and I
would like to highlight a few of them.
First, the Department of Labor is concerned that the
legislation would impede Labor's efforts to fulfill our
obligations under the VOW Act which made participation
mandatory for most transitioning servicemembers.
In addition, the VOW Act mandated that we transition to all
contractor facilitation to ensure a standardized curriculum
which we have just done.
DoL is also concerned that H.R. 631 would impede the
implementation of the new employment workshop, again working
with our fellow agencies, as well as the interagency transition
GPS training and delivery model.
The department has been working with our fellow agencies
and others for the past several years to completely redesign
the employment workshop, and during that process, the
department sought input from a variety of sources and conducted
numerous pilot programs, curriculum reviews, and surveys to
ensure that we develop the best possible product.
We also worked with the VEI task force to incorporate the
new curriculum into the GPS model as a three-day transition
program for separating servicemembers.
In the last few months, we rolled out the new curriculum in
all the military installations worldwide. While the preliminary
results have been very positive, Labor remains committed to
working with this Committee to continually review and update
the curriculum.
As a result, the department believes this legislation is
unnecessary and would negatively impact transitioning
servicemembers at this time.
The third bill I would like to discuss is H.R. 1305, which
would expand eligibility for the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program commonly known as HVRP to include
incarcerated veterans and veterans participating in the VA HUD
Supportive Housing Program.
The department supports this legislation which would allow
DoL to be responsive to the service needs for all these
populations.
And, finally, I would like to address H.R. 1316. This
legislation would amend Section 4103 of Title 38 and
legislatively prescribe the duties of our state directors for
Veterans' Employment and Training better known as DVETs.
The department appreciates the intent of this legislation.
However, the Department is concerned that as drafted, H.R. 1316
would unduly prescribe the duties of our DVETs and remove much
of the managerial flexibility.
Moreover, many parts of the bill are duties the DVETs
already perform which are assessed as a part of their annual
performance appraisal.
Finally, the department is concerned that this legislation
would be problematic to implement.
So in conclusion, as Members of the Committee and the
Subcommittee know, over the next five years, one million
servicemembers will transition from active duty to civilian
life and we do owe them the best possible services and benefits
our Nation can provide.
The Department of Labor is firmly committed to working with
this Committee and others to fulfill that sacred obligation.
That concludes my statement. I am pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Keith Kelly appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Secretary Kelly.
And I thank all of you for your testimony today. Let's
start with the questioning, if we can, and I will begin.
The first question is for Dr. Kelly. As we talked about in
my opening statement, the Marine Corps has a model that is
working fairly well and that is reflected in H.R. 631.
Are you saying that the model that has been successfully
implemented by the Marine Corps is less effective in preparing
servicemembers, the NAP that is being imposed by the DoD on the
services?
Ms. Kelly. Actually, DoD, you used the term imposing. The
services were at the table in developing this entire curriculum
and we started with the basics of what we wanted the
servicemembers to separate with as they became veterans.
That set the baseline for the career readiness standards.
So we started with career readiness standards and then we
developed the curriculum to provide the skills building that
the servicemembers needed to provide the deliverables to meet
the career readiness standards.
That is how all of the curriculum was developed and the
services were all engaged in that. So the imposition in
reference to the decision type memorandum was the curriculum
developed with the services, the services coordinated on the
decision type memorandum across the board, and that is the
format that they have been implementing.
As far as success, I do not think we are there defining
what model is successful yet. That is exactly my concern. We
are only in the middle or, actually, we are just starting
implementing the transition GPS. We have only piloted the
transition GPS core curriculum.
We have not fully piloted the three tracks that were
developed by the task force. We are going to be piloting those
across the next several months, assessing those just as we did
rigorously in the core curriculum, take the results of those
track pilots, modify those curriculums, and then launch them
fully. We have until October of 2013 to do that.
So the assessment of success of the marine model has not
yet been determined is the bottom line. So I just caution you
on that particular assumption. The curriculum with all of the
tracks as well as the capstones have not been fully assessed
yet.
We need time to do that which is exactly the point of my
concern. We need time to implement. We need time to fully
assess the curriculum across all of the services and how each
one of the services choose to implement the capstone also.
There are pieces that are not yet fully in place. So that is my
concern.
Mr. Flores. One of the things you mentioned was career
readiness standards. So the question is, what are career
readiness standards? And I have sort of a rhetorical question
to go with that and that is, would you consider a servicemember
who intends to attend college after separation but who has not
been allowed to attend the new education track as being ready
for transition? Does that fit the definition of career
readiness standards?
Ms. Kelly. That is a very good question and I thank you for
that.
The servicemember who is choosing to use their Post-9/11 or
who was planning or exploring that option to use their Post-9/
11 GI Bill either in higher education or in a technical
training institute chooses that path, that means they have
chosen those career readiness standards that they have to meet.
So we expect them to provide the deliverables to show that
they are career ready in the paths that they have chosen. They
choose the path that they are going to take. They provide those
deliverables.
But those are the paths that we are--the tracks that we are
talking about right now, higher education, technical training,
and entrepreneurship. Those tracks are in addition to the
mandatory employment career readiness standards.
So in following the VOW Act, the department and all of the
partners have implemented a program where you have core
curriculum and core CRSs. You have career readiness standards
that meet the employment requirements across the board.
Everyone has to provide those career readiness standards. And
if they choose another path, they have to provide those career
readiness standards also.
But it was the view of the task force and, of course, as
imposed by the VOW to Hire Heroes Act that everyone attend the
DoL employment workshop. And we agreed with that. Everyone,
whether they go into higher education, technical training, they
all are going to need those skills to join the labor force.
Mr. Flores. My time has expired. I am going to recognize
Ranking Member Takano for his questions.
Mr. Takano. For the Veterans Affairs Department, can you
talk a little bit about your Work-Study Program and its
successes?
Mr. Coy. Thank you very much, Mr. Takano, Congressman
Takano.
Our Work-Study Program is a pretty extensive program. The
extension on this is just for those pieces that expire this
year. We do a wide variety of other work-study type programs.
For example, we do outreach programs. We do preparation and
processing of paperwork at VA facilities, educational
institutions, hospitals, medical treatment centers, and a
number of those other things.
So our future outreach efforts that we are working on now
is, we are developing a communication plan in conjunction with
our state approving agencies and that association to help us
put that together so we can issue good and updated guidance
that will encourage that sort of outreach through the schools
for our Work-Study Program.
We are also looking at enhancing our call center scripts
for those students that are calling in. We are updating our
portfolio of outreach products to include brochures, our Web
sites on VetSuccess, as well as our GI Bill Web site.
We are also looking at displaying work-study products on
our e-benefits Web site. And we are also on a routine basis
promoting them through our social media channels meaning
Facebook and Twitter and some of those other things.
Mr. Takano. Great. Thank you.
Do you have any recommended changes for H.R. 357? I mean, I
know that you are a little cautious on what its effects might
be, but do you have any thoughts on any changes that you would
make?
Mr. Coy. I do not know that we have specific recommended
changes, Congressman Takano. We are looking at it and our
caution is, as we look at any proposed legislation or new
program, we sort of box it into sort of two key elements and
one is do no harm to veterans and what are we hoping to
accomplish with doing this.
As you know and as Chairman Miller pointed out as well, the
in-state tuition requirements vary across all 50 states and
within schools. And one of our concerns is could, or might, or
how would we help design a program that would not limit choices
to our veterans such that we could figure out a way for our
veterans to have as many choices and informed choices as
possible.
I think perhaps the other issue that we would like to look
into is currently it applies only to veterans as we read the
proposed legislation. It does not apply to spouses and
dependents and some of the other beneficiaries. And so we need
to understand that impact as well.
Mr. Takano. Help me understand the legislation. Does it
still require students to meet the residency requirements or
does it allow for waivers of residency requirements completely?
Do you know?
Mr. Coy. I am sorry. I----
Mr. Takano. I am wondering if this requires that veterans
who have access to education, education at state colleges, at
in-state tuition rates, not have to qualify for residency at
all?
Mr. Coy. It is my understanding, sir, and, again, each
state has its own residency requirements and then, of course,
each college has their own in-state tuition requirements as
they relate to those residency requirements, it is my
understanding that this bill would require that any school that
does not agree to provide in-state tuition rates to veterans
would not be eligible for GI Bill benefits or Post-9/11 GI Bill
benefits.
Does that answer your question?
Mr. Takano. I am trying to determine whether the residence
requirements are just waived for the veterans so that if they
move into a state, they do not have to meet the usual
requirements.
Mr. Coy. I would suggest that the legislation requires that
the school waive the residency requirements such that they
would be charged in-state tuition.
Mr. Takano. Okay.
Mr. Coy. I hope I answered that.
Mr. Takano. Yes, you did.
Mr. Coy. Thank you.
Mr. Takano. Thank you.
Mr. Coy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
I will comment here that 357 does not define residency, so
we are not interfering with any state law with respect to
residency. It really just says that the schools will charge the
in-state rate. So it does not mess with the definition of
residency.
With that, I will now recognize Mr. Coffman for five
minutes.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coy, in your written statement, you failed to take a
position on Section 2 of H.R. 1412, the on-the-job training
bill, which required the VA to undertake a public relations
campaign to promote the OJT apprenticeship program.
How does the Veterans Administration or Department of
Veterans Affairs currently promote this program?
Mr. Coy. Thank you. That is a very good question, sir.
We promote the program through a number of different ways,
many of them very similar to the kinds of things that I
mentioned earlier for the Work-Study Program.
Interestingly enough, we are working through many of our
SAAs to develop, you know, increased awareness in the program.
And so what we are doing is we are working with those national
associations, NASAA being the most prominent. We are working
with the president and vice president of NASAA to help us
formulate additional outreach campaigns and ways that we can
streamline the OJT program because we probably are not
leveraging it to the extent that we should or might.
Mr. Coffman. When did you start this process because the
participation rate has just been extraordinarily low in this
program? So are you just merely planning this process or are
you executing a plan at this point in time?
Mr. Coy. We started this process probably about six months
ago and had those discussions with the SAAs. I have given talks
at several of their conferences.
With respect to OJT, last year we had about 2,500 people
participate in the program. The year before it was about 5,600.
So you are right. It has dipped down in the last year.
Mr. Coffman. Mr. Coy, in your written statement on H.R.
1412, again, the OJT bill, you said that you did not need
additional authority to encourage other Federal agencies to use
the program.
How many Federal agencies use the VA OJT program to help
train new workers?
Mr. Coy. Yes, sir. There are sort of two parts to the
question or to my answer. The first part is right now we have
agreements with 15 other Federal agencies, and we will be happy
to provide you that list, for over 50 occupations on a national
level. In other words, if there is an occupation in Department
of Homeland Security, it applies to any of those occupations
throughout the 50 states.
What we do not have good information on are those local
agreements that we have OJT agreements with. But I will tell
you that we do have national agreements with 15 agencies for
about 50 different occupations.
Mr. Coffman. Okay. I understand you are going to supply
some additional written materials to the Committee on that. And
could you state where the statutory authority is for you to do
that because I do not read that in current law?
Mr. Coy. I will have to take that for the record, sir, and
we will get back to you on what that specific statutory
requirement and/or regulation that we are citing to be able to
do that.
Mr. Coffman. Very well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Coffman.
Ms. Kirkpatrick, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question is for each member of the panel. Do you
support making the additional specialized tracks mandatory?
And let's start with you, Mr. Coy.
Mr. Coy. I think right now, as I stated in my written
testimony, what we would like to do now is assess where we are.
We are currently running essentially three different TAPs
because TAP is now mandatory for servicemembers. So we are
still doing, if you will, old TAP the way we did it in years
past so we can make sure that we are doing TAP for those
individuals.
We are rolling out the new TAP Program and we are piloting
and building the TAP GPS Program. So we are sort of riding
these three bikes as we are going forward. And I would suggest
that probably what we would like to do is be able to implement
those programs before we have legislative requirements to do
something additional.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Dr. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. I think what I would like to have happen is to
give us time to roll out the redesigned program and to assess
that. But I would also like to have that considered in light of
our second phase and the end state for the Transition
Assistance Program.
And that is for this curriculum to be rolled out and
implemented across the military life cycle so that the issue of
time becomes less important and it is the outcome of the
curriculum that the services and our partners have determined
is most important for our servicemembers to ensure that they
are career ready. And we focus on the skills building as
evidenced by them meeting the career readiness standards.
I also would ask for the time consideration to be held back
because we are also developing a virtual curriculum. And all of
this curriculum is going to be provided virtually so that
members can go to that Web site and go through the training on
their own time, complete the activities on their own time, the
deliverables on their own time, and do that over and over and
over again as they want to and so that all of the tracks via a
virtual curriculum is available to everyone. But we need time
to do that.
We are now engaged with all of our partners, taking the
curriculum and modifying that into a virtual curriculum with
specific standards, and putting that on the Department of
Defense's joint knowledge online so that military members will
go to that Web site where they get their other military
training and preparation for separation after their military--
their military careers is a part of that military life cycle.
So I think what I would prefer is to give us time to make
this entire curriculum, this entire TAP redesign, and the
career readiness standards value added to all of our
servicemembers and they can explore multiple tracks and the
curriculum on their own time rather than mandating a specific
track for each one of them.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. So it sounds like you think that keeping
flexibility in the system is better for your students than
having a mandatory imposed track?
Ms. Kelly. I agree. I would say that I support the VOW Act
mandate of the Department of Labor's employment workshop track
because whether they choose higher education, technical
training, whatever track that they choose, they are going to
need the job search skills eventually to join the labor force.
And those skills that the Department of Labor is building
in their current employment workshop is very, very exciting and
eye opening for our servicemembers right now at the locations
where they are providing that new curriculum.
It is exciting to watch those servicemembers start to
document their experiences, translating those military skills
and experiences, practicing their elevator speeches, and
actually have the opportunity on that third day to watch
someone role play interviewing with an employer and a
servicemember, and then actually having to practice those
interview skills, very value added.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Dr. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. And that is what our focus is, value added.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
I have about ten seconds left. Secretary Kelly, I would
just like to hear your answer.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Congresswoman.
The department appreciates the intent of this legislation a
lot to provide more education and skills training for our
servicemembers. But we share the same concerns as my fellow
colleagues do here today.
We have just rolled this out on January of this year after
several years of pilots and after a lot of times spent working
with the agencies and the services, putting together the best
minds and the experts together to redesign the curriculum, so
respectfully look at let's try this walk before we run, see how
this core program curriculum really works going forward.
And as both of my colleagues have alluded to, Dr. Kelly
specifically said the value of the core curriculum helps you if
you want to be an entrepreneur. The value of the core
curriculum really helps you if you want to go to school. There
is a lot of self-assessment and training.
So we are pretty excited about what is going on here and
the reports have come back very positive----
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly. --on this new revised TAP. Thank you.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you to all the panel.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy in allowing
me to exceed my time.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Ms. Kirkpatrick.
Mr. Wenstrup.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to go back a little bit further in the whole
process of transition from being a member of the military to
being enrolled in the VA.
And perhaps that is a question for you, Mr. Pummill, is
what is the process, how do you become aware of someone who has
left military service and become part of the VA?
Mr. Pummill. Right now we will do it through the transition
program. Prior to the transition program that we have in place
right now because of the VOW Act, it was if a servicemember
went through their transition program and the VA provided them
the information at a briefing, I believe the marines had a
mandatory program, the other services, it depended on your rank
and your time and service and stuff, so there were some cases
where we did not find out about veterans.
Mr. Wenstrup. So you would like to have their service
record perhaps? Would that be helpful to you?
What I am getting at is it seems to me when I talk to
veterans, and I am a veteran, that there is a wall, that when
they leave the military that there is a wall and they have to
start over when it comes to transitioning into the Veterans
Administration.
Would anyone on the panel have any objection that if the
DoD would automatically electronically, rather than through
snail mail, get their service record to you, so you know who
these people are, so you can find them and get them engaged in
the process? Would that be helpful?
Ms. Kelly. That was one of the concerns of the VEI task
force. And one of the focuses of the career readiness standards
and the work of the task force to build those bridges between
our servicemembers to Veterans Affairs and to the Department of
Labor.
And one of the career readiness standards that is now in
place is that our military members have to register into VA's
e-benefits. So they are fully registered. They are VAs for life
after that. So they are registered in e-benefits.
But the other piece is that capstone that I alluded to
earlier and the capstone will be where commanders, the
representatives verify the career readiness standards. And if
there is a missed career readiness standard, there will be
hand-offs to both the Department of Labor and VA. So we have
very much focused on building that bridge.
Mr. Wenstrup. It has come to my attention that a lot of
this is done through like snail mail rather than you
automatically getting the servicemember's records, their skill
sets.
And my question to you is, would that be a benefit that
would automatically transfer to you so that you know who your
veterans are, what their skills are, and to get them more
rapidly into a program that fits their needs and also find jobs
for them that fit their skills?
Anyone can take it.
Mr. Pummill. Yes, Congressman.
I think that, you know, anything we can get is good. And we
are working several projects with Department of Defense right
now. One is this year, we will start getting their service
treatment records sent to the VA electronically. I believe the
turn-on date is October of this year. So they will be getting
all of those electronically.
We already get from several of the services now the DD-214s
electronically and I cannot remember which service we are not
getting it, but we are getting a download, an electronic
download so we can see the discharge date and the information
on the DD-214s.
We are still working on trying to compile that data so that
it is a fully electronic transfer to the VA. We are also
working with the Department of Defense on a task force for all
their records, the 201 files, dental records, et cetera. The
army has an electronic 201 file which we now have access to
through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The goal from in--VBA--my boss, Secretary Hickey, is that
she wants every record that she could get from the Department
of Defense in electronic format. And we have teams and
Committees working on that right now. The only one that we have
locked in is the service treatment record which will also be
certified as a full and complete record, too, so we do not have
to do additional searches and stuff like that.
I think we are on track to get most of those, but I think
it is a good idea.
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, I think that can streamline things and
very much help our troops through the transition process and
certainly I hope that we will be encouraging of that effort
from this end.
And I appreciate your approach of servicemember for life.
As our troops enter the service, it should not end on the day
they take off that uniform. It continues on through you and we
should make that very smooth.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Wenstrup.
Congresswoman Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have one question regarding the transition
situation. So I have heard from lots of veterans that, and I
know the current program is trying to address the situation,
but where vets are so anxious to get out that they are not
really focused on the programs that are being offered and then,
you know, six months down the road or a year down the road or
whatever, they are concerned and the resources are not there
available.
So I heard you mention virtual curriculum and I would
imagine that would address that one particular issue. I am
wondering if you have any other strategies to address that
problem.
Ms. Kelly. Well, one of the important strategies is within
the Department of Labor and that is at their American job
centers. And I will let Mr. Kelly speak to that.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Congresswoman.
To follow-up on that, what we are really looking at are
four touch points with that because you are correct when you
are coming and processing out, you are ready to go home and not
get slowed down on the way out.
One of those touch points would be, we made it as best as
possible, about 70 days out, to check in with those folks
through the American job center network of 2,700 offices
nationwide, how are things going, are you in school, do you
have a job, or are there some issues that have now kind of, as
you have settled down, that perhaps we want to revisit that and
plug them back into all of those services, the employment
training services available out there to them.
So we have reached it now, not just as they walk out the
door, you got a job or not, let's check back in up to 70 days
to see how things are really going on that. That is one of the
approaches used on that through, as I indicated, the 2,700
locations around the country.
Ms. Brownley. But there is not any access for veterans who
a year down the road are reconsidering what their future might
look like and rather than--a virtual curriculum is good in one
way, but really trying to determine what their future might be,
where their desires are.
Is there any way in which to interact to kind of discuss
what their potential career paths can be?
Mr. Kelly. Yeah. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think you raise a good point. The TAP Program itself is
really a lot of self-assessment to where do I really think I am
headed down life and what are the things that are important to
me. And that is mandatory to kind of do that. First, flesh
those things out.
Then, you know, if it is for an individual who is sitting
out there six, eight months, a year out still not quite sure
what they want to do ahead and perhaps decided not to do an
entrepreneurial track or not to go to some advanced education,
those American service centers are still there to give them
priority of service.
So they are available to them on an ongoing basis. It does
not just end after 30 or 60 days. They are out there. The real
estate is constantly out there to service those people.
Ms. Brownley. And do all of our veterans know that, that
that service is available to them?
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think that is a challenge. We are ramped up inside the
Department of Labor to make sure we get the word out better
that that is out there. That is a major outreach effort that we
have undertaken that it is out there. They will know that
through the TAP process of processing out in the capstone
program. They will know that.
Whether they can find that two and four and six months of
all of the things they process out, I do not know, but it will
be provided to them ahead of time.
Ms. Kelly. If I might add to that, one of the career
readiness standards is the gold card from the Department of
Labor that thoroughly explains to them there are job centers
available to you and you have priority status for six months
after you separate and report to the American job centers.
Again, that is part of that bridging.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Coy, it looked like you had a response.
Mr. Coy. I was just going to add one further comment,
Congresswoman, and that would be, VA is also engaged in doing
their own job fairs. We have done three rather large ones. And
in those large job fairs, we bring those veterans in. We help
them with resume writing. We connect them with employers who
are there specifically to hire veterans.
We are also partnering with the Chamber of Commerce's hire
our heroes efforts. They were doing well over 400 job fairs
across the country and we are partnering with them as well. And
many of those job fairs where we send VA representatives there
to help them, not only fill out their educational benefits or
any of their other benefits, but to make sure that they
understand that they logged into the e-benefits system, but as
well are aware of any education or other benefits they may have
coming to them.
Mr. Flores. Thank you.
If there is no objection, we will start a second round of
questions. I think we had a few issues that were left
unresolved.
Mr. Pummill, one of the things you said a minute ago is
that the DoD was going to begin the electronic records transfer
to the VA.
Now, is that a truly electronic interoperability or is it
just an electronic PDF?
Mr. Pummill. For the service treatment record, now it is
electronic PDF. It just gives us the record in electronic
format so that we do not have to get it mailed, express mail or
certified mail, whatever we are doing right now. And we make
sure we get one for every single servicemember that leaves.
But, yes, it is still a PDF.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Well, it is a better step in the right
direction. At least you have taken the mail out of the
equation. And it is not this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, but
what the whole Committee is looking for is true electronic
interoperability between DoD and VA.
Dr. Kelly, what if we just merely added the education and
entrepreneurship tracks to the current five-day program that
you talked about today?
Ms. Kelly. I am not sure I understand. We have the core
five-day curriculum in place now. We are piloting the other
tracks. So they are in addition to the five-day core. The
tracks for higher education, technical training----
Mr. Flores. Let me----
Ms. Kelly. --as well as entrepreneurship, I am not quite
sure I----
Mr. Flores. Let me be a little bit more specific then.
Ms. Kelly. Okay.
Mr. Flores. Maybe I was inelegant in the way I asked it.
What if we said that one of those has to be mandatory
should a servicemember choose to take one of those? In other
words, add a day or two to the program so that a young man or
woman that desires to go to school or wants to open up their
own business has that as part of their mandatory training?
Ms. Kelly. I think there are lots of opportunities for us
to look at the curriculum and how this might play out in the
long term.
And I would like the opportunity to discuss that with you
and all of the Members, but I would be hesitant at this time to
say what should be additional, what additionally should be
mandatory. I will leave it at that, but I would like to discuss
some of those options.
Mr. Flores. Okay. I am going to recognize Ranking Member
Takano for five minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly, in your testimony, you state the initial
implementation of VRAP was met by redirecting internal funds.
How much was the cost of this initial implementation?
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Congressman.
The Department of Labor's Employment and Training
Administration redirecred $5.4 million for the initial
implementation of the VOW Act, including VRAP. Funds supporting
the Department's VRAP responsibilities, such as providing
technical assistance and meeting additional IT needs, are
available through June 2013. In order for the Department to
continue fulfilling its responsibilities if VRAP were extended
throuogh June 2014 and to complete program closeout activities,
we estimate that $237,000 for technical assistance staff
support and $400,000 for additional IT, or a total of $637,000,
is needed. Since no funds have been appropriated for these
activities, the Department will again need to redirect funding
from other employment and training programs.
Mr. Takano. Okay. And how many reports is your department
required to submit to Congress at this time on an annual basis?
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I do not have that information
with me, but I will certainly get it for the record.
(DoL subsequently provided the following paragraph and
chart)
The Department of Labor reports to Congress each year on
the programs, training and enforcement responsibilities we have
to serve and protect our Veterans and transitioning
servicemembers. On an annual basis, the Department is required
to provide Congress with the folliwng reports:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Report Citation Information Required Due Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Veterans' Benefits Reporting the number of July 1st of each year
Labor Improvement Act of 2004 cases reviewed and
Report to Congress (P.L. 108-454) investigated by DOL, DOD,
Section 4332(a) OSC and the Attorney
General.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Veterans' Benefits Requires information on the 30 days after the end of
Labor Improvement Act of 2008 number of complaints and the each fiscal quarter.
Quarterly Report to (P.L. 11number of referral requests
Congress Section 4332(b) received by DOL on or after
October 10, 2008 that
exceeded the statutory
deadlines of 90 and 60 days,
respectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VETS Annual Report to 38, United States Code, The report describes the February 1 of each year
Congress Sections 8 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. programs and activities for
4107(c), 4212(c), and which the OASVETS has
4215(d) 4212(c), and primary responsibility and
4215(d)), and Title 38, US the number of veterans
4212(c)(d). receiving priority pursuant
to subsection (a)(2)(B).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advisory Committee on Title 38 USC Section The report is on the December 31 each year
Veterans Employment, 4110(f)(1) employment and training
Training and Employer needs of veterans, with
Outreach (ACVETEO) special emphasis on disabled
Annual Report veterans, from the previous
year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of LaborTitle 38 USC Section 4110(g) Submit to Congress a copy of 60 days after receiving the
comments to ACVETEO the Annual Report with any ACVETEO Annual Report
comments concerning the
reports the Secretary
considers appropriate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Takano. My next question is, were there any reports
that you would recommend eliminating? You can also get back to
me later as well.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Takano.
I will get back with you on that with regards to our
assessment from staff on those reports.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Coffman, any questions for you?
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coy, I stand corrected in terms of your statutory
authority to do the program. What the bill does that I was
referencing, House Resolution 1412, is that it requires you,
because this program in terms of allowing veterans to utilize
their educational benefits for on-the-job training and
apprenticeship programs, the fact that it is so poorly
utilized, again, the bill requires you to do an informational
program. It does not give you the discretion. It merely says
you shall do an informational program to raise the
participation rate among veterans.
And then, secondly, obviously lowers the requirements for
the employer in terms of salary which I believe you support
that, the Veterans Administration supports that provision.
And then, lastly, the third provision is not that you do
not have the statutory authority to reach out to other Federal
agencies. It says that you shall reach out to other Federal
agencies and enter into agreements in order to expand
participation, expand options for veterans in terms of
employment and training.
And so I just wanted to clarify that so there is no
requirement that I expressed to you. I expressed to you
earlier, asked you to come back to the Committee for your
statutory authority, but that is not required in further
reading of the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Coffman.
Ms. Kirkpatrick.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one question. This is a follow-up on Secretary
Kelly's statement that the initial implementation would cost
$273,000.
My question is to you, Mr. Coy, what is the overall cost
estimate for H.R. 1402, the Veteran Paralympic Act?
Mr. Coy. You want a cost?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Cost estimate.
Mr. Coy. Currently is $10 million. Two million goes toward
the athletes and many of their stipends and then $8 million
goes to the grant program.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Ms. Kirkpatrick.
Mr. Wenstrup.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to parlay on what you brought up about the electronic
transfer of records and how we are doing it, and I think that
you can weigh in on this a little bit, sometimes I think a PDF
is the important way to go.
What I have been made aware of is sadly some of the
prevalence of fraud when we have used snail mail, for example,
to send someone their DD-214 and then they submit it to the VA
and they have made changes on that.
You may want to address some of the prevalence of that
because I am not really aware of the numbers, but just want to
make the point that I agree with you that we should make it a
more smooth transition of electronic records. But sometimes a
PDF is important to cut down on the potential for fraud.
And maybe, Mr. Pummill, you could address that a little
bit.
Mr. Pummill. I do not have any figures on fraud. I am not
sure right now. But I do know that the PDF is good and it is
good because the quicker we get the information, it is
electronic information and it is certified by the Department of
Defense as accurate information, we can get services and
benefits to servicemembers faster and more accurately. And
there is no mistakes.
Sometimes we do get a lot of DD-214s right now that are
hard to read or have been destroyed or mangled, things like
this. This eliminates all that and makes it much easier for the
veteran.
More importantly, it gets a permanent record so you do not
have a situation where a veteran comes back 20 years from now
and wants to submit a claim and we are not able to find the
record because it did not get mailed to the right place or he
did not keep a copy or something like that.
The goal is to eliminate all of that. And the first step
for us is we will take the PDF. We will take whatever we can
get while they are working on the long-term interoperability of
records and stuff like that. But we want electronic official
files in every case that we can possibly get.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Wenstrup, thank you.
Ms. Brownley, no questions?
Ms. Brownley. No further questions. Thank you.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Well, thank you.
If there are no further questions, the witnesses are
excused with our thanks.
And I would ask the second panel to come to the witness
table. With us today are Mr. Charlie Huebner with the U.S.
Olympic Committee, next Dr. Susan Aldridge with the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities followed by
Colonel Michael Denning from the University of Kansas who is
testifying on behalf of the Association of Public and Land
Grant Universities, and, finally, we have Lieutenant General
Joseph F. Weber from my alma mater, Texas A&M University.
Thank each of you for being here and as soon as we are
seated, we will start with the testimony.
Okay. Thank each of you for joining us today, and we will
start with Mr. Huebner.
You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES HUEBNER, CHIEF OF U.S. PARALYMPICS, U.S.
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; SUSAN ALDRIDGE, SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES; G. MICHAEL
DENNING, DIRECTOR OF GRADUATE MILITARY PROGRAMS, UNIVERSITY OF
KANSAS ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC AND LAND GRANT
UNIVERSITIES; JOSEPH F. WEBER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDENT
AFFAIRS, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF CHARLES HUEBNER
Mr. Huebner. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Flores,
Member Takano, and Members of the Committee.
My name is Charlie Huebner and I am with the United States
Olympic Committee and also a proud alum of Northern Arizona
University.
Member Kirkpatrick, thank you for your service in a
beautiful area of the country.
It is an incredible honor to have the opportunity to submit
a statement and testify before the Subcommittee in support of
H.R. 1402 which extends the authorization for the highly
successful, innovative, and cost-effective, and that is the
word I am going to emphasize significantly throughout my
testimony, cost-effective partnership between the United States
Olympic Committee and the Department of Veterans Affairs to
provide Paralympic sports and sustainable physical activity
opportunities for disabled veterans at the community level.
Paralympic programs are sports for physically disabled
athletes founded by veterans post World War II as a significant
component of the rehab process using physical activity,
something that our servicemembers and veterans understand very
clearly, and also a little bit of competition.
Research has proven that Paralympic sport and physical
activity is an impactful aspect of successful rehabilitation
for disabled veterans.
Research-based outcomes from consistent physical activity
for disabled veterans include higher self-esteem, lower stress
levels, lower secondary medical conditions, and higher
achievement levels in education and employment.
At the beginning of combat operations, the U.S. Olympic
Committee expanded its services at its own cost to injured
servicemembers and veterans by providing training, technical
assistance, Paralympic ambassadors at installations, military
medical centers, and in communities throughout the United
States.
As combat escalated, Congress reached out to the USOC
asking us to do more. I applaud the leadership especially of
this Committee and the leadership in Congress which realized
that collaboration between the public and private sector,
between government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and
private business could expand expertise and capabilities and
program awareness in a cost-effective manner.
Legislation that was implemented in 2010 allowed the USOC
and the VA to significantly grow available program that today
is reaching more than 16,000 veterans in communities all over
the United States.
The authorization for this program expires at the end of
2013 and it is imperative to continue to not only deliver
programming but, more importantly, expand programming in
communities where there is a great need is absolutely critical.
Innovation, collaboration, and cost efficiencies are core
to the USOC as an organization. It is critical to our success
and this partnership is a great example of that.
Injured military personnel and veterans are the soul of the
Paralympic movement. When discussing the Paralympic movement,
we have two primary objectives. One, as Americans, we want to
pursue excellence.
And I passed out an article I just received about an hour
ago from Goldman Sachs. I had the great fortune of being with
Lieutenant Navy Brad Snyder, Navy Lieutenant Brad Snyder last
week in front of 500 Goldman Sachs' partners on a Veteran
Mentor Day.
Brad was injured a year ago in Afghanistan. He is totally
blind today. He used swimming as his rehab. He swam at the
Naval Academy and it was swimming that gave him confidence
again and made his family realize that he could jump back into
life. He went to London and won three medals for his country,
but, more importantly, today he is going through that
transition process. And sport has been a significant component
of his rehab.
Goldman Sachs hired 14 of the 15 mentors that are veterans
last year and they had 30 new mentors on the day that we were
there with Brad Snyder. And that is a specific example of how
important ambassadors are to what we do in this program.
In terms of highlights, and I will just focus on that, a
core component of what the U.S. Olympic Committee is focused on
are the more than 350 member organizations that we work with on
a daily basis that touch every single community in this
country.
Since 2010, the VA and the USOC have distributed more than
350 grants to community organizations with an emphasis on
developing sustainable physical activity programming, not just
elite Paralympic sport. As one veteran said, an army ranger who
lost both legs in Afghanistan, all he wanted to do was learn
how to run with his son. Our emphasis is both elite sport, but
the majority of our emphasis is daily physical activity for
veterans to be physically active with their friends and
families, simply skiing again with your buddies in Colorado.
More than 350 grants. Of those grants that we provided, the
organizations we provided those grants are providing the
majority of the funding to implement programming. That is a
core message that I wanted to emphasize to this Committee is
all the organizations we are working with are providing
staffing and funding much more significantly than what the
reauthorization is. And that is a critical component to the
cost efficiencies.
With that, I just wanted to thank the Committee again for
your leadership. Congressman Coffman, a marine, Ranking Member
Takano, thank you for introducing the bill, and thank you for
your support.
[The prepared statement of Charles Huebner appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Huebner.
Dr. Aldridge, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN ALDRIDGE
Ms. Aldridge. Thank you.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, my name is Susan Aldridge. I am
currently a senior fellow of the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities, commonly known as AASCU, and on
whose behalf I appear before you this morning.
Prior to AASCU, I served as president of the University of
Maryland University College and formerly as vice chancellor at
Troy University in Alabama. Both of these two state
universities serve a large population of active duty
servicemembers and veterans.
AASCU represents 420 state institutions and university
systems across 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. And the common foundation
for these institutions is their focus on students.
Thank you for holding this hearing and for providing me
with the opportunity to present testimony regarding H.R. 357,
the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act.
H.R. 357 would require the secretary of Veterans Affairs to
deny GI Bill benefits to veterans who are not charged tuition
rates equal to the in-state tuition rate. Moreover, this bill
would not allow any veteran or their dependent enrolled at
public institutions to receive GI Bill benefits if that
institution does not offer in-state tuition to all veterans,
thus cutting benefits to veterans in the future.
The VA's testimony this morning highlighted a number of our
concerns as well. AASCU supports the underlying promise of
treating veterans as in-state residents and strongly supports
the educational endeavors of our veterans.
However, passage of H.R. 357 will potentially result in
unintended consequences that I will address in more detail.
Most public colleges and universities do not set their
tuition policy. Currently ten states allow individual public
institutions to set tuition policy. Post-secondary tuition
policy in the remaining 40 states is set by state legislatures
or a statewide coordinating board.
In addition, many states have a very clear set of criteria
as to which students are allowed to be given in-state tuition
benefits.
This is further highlighted by a passage from the state
higher education executive officer's February 2011 report which
says, and I quote, states were asked to describe the process
through which tuition levels are set. The variety of answers
given underscores that there are as many processes for setting
tuition as there are states. In many states, the process is a
multi-step process involving many entities, unquote.
Given the complexity of relying on 40 different state
entities to change policies, it is quite likely that
institutions will not have the ability to charge in-state rates
even if they desire to do so.
Veterans wanting to enroll in public institutions in those
states would need to seek other costlier programs in order to
utilize their GI Bill benefit by moving to another state that
offered in-state tuition or attending a more expensive private
not-for-profit or for-profit college.
This creates a scenario of confusion since many veterans
arrive on our campuses with the full expectation of receiving
their GI Bill benefit.
Non-residency occurs for many reasons and in many
situations. If they are located in a state that is unable or
has yet to alter residency treatment for veterans, significant
disruption to the family unit can occur. A veteran would be
forced to move to a state that offers in-state tuition in order
to receive their benefits.
Passage of this measure would create a hodgepodge map of
eligible or ineligible states.
It is also instructive for the Committee to understand the
nature of in-state versus out-of-state rates. One way of
looking at an established out-of-state rate is to consider it
as the full cost or close to full cost to the institution of
educating a student.
Since public institutions receive support from the state in
order to provide its residents with an education, the in-state
rate reflects the cost to the institution after factoring in
the state subsidy. Thus, the in-state rate is supported by the
state taxpayers.
Passage of this bill would shift paying for the promise
established under the GI Bill of supporting the education of a
veteran from the Federal Government to the state specifically
and only for veterans attending public institutions.
In the written testimony, AASCU offered several suggestions
for improving the bill.
In closing, AASCU institutions are serving our Nation's
veterans well. Institution after institution has established
programs to provide quality service to the Nation's military
and veteran students.
Passage of this bill would limit the exposure of quality
support programs and the ability to pursue an education in a
desirable field from an otherwise affordable public institution
of higher education.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
speak today.
[The prepared statement of Susan Aldridge appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Dr. Aldridge.
Colonel Denning.
STATEMENT OF G. MICHAEL DENNING
Colonel Denning. Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano,
and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
holding this hearing and the opportunity to testify before you
on H.R. 357, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013.
My name is Mike Denning and I have the privilege of
representing the University of Kansas and also I serve as the
director for Graduate Military Programs.
Prior to joining KU, I served 27 years in the marine corps
and I retired as a colonel. I am here today representing both
the University of Kansas and the Association of Public and Land
Grant Universities, APLU.
KU and the public university community overall appreciate
the spirit of 357, H.R. 357, and I certainly do as a veteran.
This Nation's public universities like KU want to ensure that
our Nation's veterans are treated fairly and with the respect
that they deserve.
Public universities around the country are redoubling their
efforts to address the needs of veterans and servicemembers to
whom we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude.
I can also say that public universities were one of the
most engaged groups with respect to successfully restoring the
Tuition Assistance Program during the Senate floor debate on
the fiscal year 2013 Omnibus Continuing Resolution.
While we are supportive of the overall intent and spirit of
H.R. 357 to provide greater and more affordable access to
higher education for veterans, we do have an array of concerns
about the bill and believe that it may have unintended
consequences of limiting or even denying veterans access to
higher education institutions.
Specifically, the bill requires all public universities to
offer an in-state tuition to all veterans regardless of where
they live. We are troubled that this legislation imposes a new
unfunded mandate that would force states and/or public
institutions to find additional resources to fully support the
educational experiences of non-state veterans.
States, not higher education institutions, set residency
requirements. The state governments determine how best to use
their state tax revenues. Since states are already facing
budget crunches, many of them might simply be unable to afford
to change their residency requirements to allow all veterans
from across the country to receive in-state tuition.
As currently written, H.R. 357 imposes the penalty of
cutting off GI benefits to those states that cannot comply with
the in-state residency requirement. We are greatly concerned
that many states would be unable to meet the unfunded in-state
tuition mandate which potentially would lose veterans from
losing their benefit of the GI Bill.
For states that do adjust their residency requirements to
provide lower in-state rates for all veterans, universities
would be forced to make up the loss of out-of-state tuition
which could have a real impact on all students on campuses and
that they may be forced to cut services or programs to cover
the lack of additional resources or even raise tuition rates
across the board. This would impact all students including
veterans on the campus.
Despite these aforementioned problems with the current form
of the bill, we share your commitment to improving access for
veterans to quality, affordable higher education. We hope to
work with you to improve the effectiveness of the bill.
And particularly, we suggest that the state mandate and the
penalty be removed and replaced with incentives and
supplementary Federal funds for states and institutions that
broaden the scope of their in-state tuition rates for veterans.
On behalf of the APLU and the University of Kansas and from
a veteran standpoint, I thank you for the honor and privilege
of testifying before you and for your leadership on these
issues. I look forward to any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of G. Michael Denning appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Colonel Denning.
General Weber, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. WEBER
General Weber. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Joe Weber
and I thank you for allowing me to be here today to address
you.
I currently serve as the vice president for Student Affairs
at Texas A&M University. Prior to that, I was privileged to
serve our Nation 36 years as a United States Marine.
Before I get started, I just want to say this on the
record. Our Congress and my Congress it seems like every day
comes under a lot of criticism about what they do and what they
do not do. And I just want to go on the record to say that with
respect to our veterans and our military, there is no criticism
other than constructive and positive on what you have done for
our military and our veterans, particularly the last ten years.
The benefits you provided, the resources to the force, the
family programs for our families, the long, drawn-out, draining
war, all of that, and it is more unbelievable when you look
back compared to how our veterans were treated after Vietnam.
So I commend you for that and for that, we always hold you in
high honor and accord.
Texas A&M University has a history and a tradition of
support of the military and our veterans. It was started as a
land grant university in 1965. It was an all military school,
all male military school up until 1963. Today it is now a
flagship, tier one research university, a member of the AAU
with servicing over 600 veteran students.
Texas A&M University has not forgotten where it has come
from. Our state code of education in Texas is replete with
programs, policies, verbiage, great generosity in assisting our
active duty military, our veterans, and our veterans in their
pursuit of their higher education.
We have a governor and a state legislature that it is very,
very important to them that our two flagships and all our
public universities take care of our veterans and, yes, we do
have Members in this very distinguished body up here who keep a
close eye on us as well down there as well as up here
supporting our veterans. We are very appreciative for that.
But today, Texas A&M University has over 50,000 students
and serving the 600 veterans, but also 1,400 students
associated in drawing some type of veteran benefit be it state,
institutional, or Federal.
The point I am making is this particular piece of
legislation has to be viewed as all veterans' benefits, I
think, as truly a Federal, state, and institutional effort. We
are all in this together. It is collaborative.
Texas A&M University makes use of several programs of this
collaborative effort in servicing our veterans. One is our
Hazlewood Exemption Act which basically provides 150 hours of
tuition exemption for Texas residents and it has since been
extended to their spouses and children. It has been a very
effective program.
In 2007, we were serving 148 students. As of a month ago,
we are servicing almost 1,400 students. The cost of that 148
students was about $680,000. We are now paying over $10
million, the institution is, to support this effort for our
veterans and their families.
We also have several students on the Yellow Ribbon Program
which, as you know, is the co-share cost with the VA and the
university in assisting those students and paying for that
tuition above and beyond the in-state.
We also have a Military Waiver Program at Texas A&M.
Basically, any veteran that comes to school at Texas A&M
University and fills out this Military Waiver form with the
intent of becoming a state resident or staying in that state
after graduation or getting a degree from A&M, we provide them
in-state tuition.
Why do we do that? Well, I think the main reason we do that
is we are trying to look out into the future. This is about
recruiting. We want veterans. And if we can get veterans to
come to Texas A&M University, get a degree, stay in our state,
become successful leaders in their communities, successful
businessmen, they will not only give back to our state
financially and we will make up that difference, but they will
also be great donors to our university.
We have what is called a Competitive Scholarship Program.
Anyone that comes there gets a $1,000 scholarship,
competitively qualifies for in-state tuition.
Within our Texas code is a combat exemption. If you are a
nonresident at Texas and your father or mother is deployed in a
combat zone, during the time of deployment in that combat zone,
you do not pay tuition. You are tuition exempt.
So those various programs, and the bottom line, and I know
I am over time here, is we believe this is a good bill. It is a
Federal fairness issue, not just a state fairness issue.
When these young men and women raise their hand to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States, it is not the
Constitution of the State of Texas. They are subject to be
deployed to any state in the country, any place in the world
and in harm's way, so we need to look at that.
So we would ask you one thing. Just look at the timing of
the bill. State legislatures like Texas meet every two years.
So however we have to work this, they need to have some time to
sort it out.
I know, Mr. Chairman, it is not a state residency matter,
but some states, I think, view that and we need to make sure it
is clear of that too.
But I appreciate the time with you and thank you for all
you have done for our veterans and I am here to address you.
[The prepared statement of Joseph F. Weber appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. General Weber, thank you for your testimony.
Thank all of you for your testimony, and I will start with the
questions. I'll recognize myself for five minutes.
Mr. Huebner, let's knock out a couple of what I think are
easy ones first, so let's start with you. What affect has the
new grant program had on your ability to raise funds from
private sources?
Mr. Huebner. The grant program has----
Mr. Flores. Keep your voice up.
Mr. Huebner. --been significant in one, getting more
veterans involved, creating more awareness, which by extending
programming, creating more awareness, it's also helped us with
generating new private resources.
An example, a month from now, we will be hosting an event
in collaboration, and I talked about that in my testimony and
cost-effectiveness, an event with the Department of Defense,
Department of Veteran Affairs that was created by the U.S.
Olympic Committee. That event is two-thirds to 70 percent
privately funded. So I think it's an incredible example of, by
expanding programming and properties, we're engaging not only
we, the USOC but our partners at the local level are engaging
new private resources. And in my testimony, in my written
testimony, there was a second example of a partnership where
our partner at the local level is engaging new private
resources, that's primarily funding programming, and making it
sustainable. So it's not just new funding to the U.S. Olympic
Committee, it's also the funding to all those different
programs that we're working with at the local level, that are
garnering new private investment to make this program
incredibly cost-effective, but more importantly, more
impactful.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Huebner. General Weber, thank
you for your testimony today, and I want to compliment you on
the work that Texas A&M is doing on behalf of our veterans, and
I think it reflects what you and I both believe. And that is
that our governor and the leadership and our state legislature
in Texas get it right, when it comes to recognizing the value
of the service of our veterans to our country.
And thank you for your recommendations on H.R. 357. I think
those were particularly beneficial for the Committee. I don't
have a question for you. Unfortunately, I--just more of a
compliment.
This is for Dr. Aldridge and Colonel Denning. Let me talk--
when you look at the Morrell Act, and talk about land grant
universities, the whole purpose of the land grant universities
is to provide, and this is more for Colonel Denning I guess, is
to provide access.
So doesn't H.R. 357 really promote the same thing? Isn't it
sort of a great add-on to the Morrell Act to access to
education, public universities, particularly land grants?
Mr. Denning. Yes, thank you, Chairman. Sir, the--again the
University of Kansas, APLU absolutely appreciates the spirit
and intent of H.R. 357. And in this case, it's not--we didn't
see it primarily as access, we saw it as affordability, how are
we going to pay for this. And for those states that decide not
to go along with the bill, it actually does, in our opinion,
limit access because a state would opt out for it, and that
would leave a veteran from making a decision of paying for it
out of his own pockets, or being unable to--or not being able
to use GI benefits.
Mr. Flores. Let me--and I'm going to expand this to Dr.
Aldridge as well, as well as you, Colonel Denning. I mean,
y'all have made it clear of your opposition to H.R. 357, but I
mean, how do you explain your opposition to the students or
prospective students, that as General Weber said, held up their
hand and swore an oath to our Nation's Constitution, which
covers all 50 states, and not just to a particular state. How
do you defend your position when these young men and women have
agreed to defend all 50 states, and not just a particular
state?
Mr. Denning. Sir, from my standpoint and the University of
Kansas is, we actually do back everything you said by
participating in the Yellow Ribbon program, which has the exact
same benefit, or the intent and results of what H.R. 357 is,
and that is to providing veterans access to the university at
in-state rates. So basically they can come to KU or any in-
state--or any university in the State of Kansas for no cost to
them.
One of our requirements--I'm sorry, one of our
recommendations to expand the Yellow Ribbon program, which
again, would have the exact same affect of H.R. 357. The only
difference would be by cost sharing with VA.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Dr. Aldridge, any comments?
Ms. Aldridge. With my colleague, there are 109 AASCU
institutions that participate in the Yellow Ribbon program, are
very pleased to participate in that program and serve these
students.
The AASCU institutions are good value for money, in terms
of their tuition rates and providing access to first generation
students, minority students and veterans as well. The
difficulty with the bill is that the public institutions are
carved out, and the students, if they're not able to go to a
public institution because of state legislation that dictates
whether or not the tuition is allowed for out of state
residents who are veterans, then the students are going to end
up going to more expensive private for-profit institutions, or
more expensive private not-for-profit institutions.
So I think the issue for us is that we'd like to level the
playing field, and simultaneously at least have the opportunity
to work with state legislatures in a reasonable timeframe.
We're absolutely committed to serving these students, and want
to continue to do so.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Dr. Aldridge. I now recognize
Ranking Member Takano for five minutes.
Mr. Takano. Dr. Aldridge, do you know if H.R. 357 covers
community colleges as well, or is it only state colleges?
Ms. Aldridge. I don't believe it does.
Mr. Takano. So it does not?
Ms. Aldridge. That's my understanding.
Mr. Takano. Because in California, I was a former community
college trustee, and do have in-state and out-of-state tuition
with community colleges as well. But this bill does not cover
community colleges that you know of?
Ms. Aldridge. That's my understanding, but I would defer to
the staff.
Mr. Takano. Okay, thank you. Colonel, I've had the pleasure
of actually being at your university for a summer with the NEH,
the National Endowment for Humanities. Is there a disparity
among the different states as far as in-state tuition goes, and
how much of a disparity might there be?
Mr. Denning. Sir, it's my--representative, it's my
understanding that there are--that different states do make
different decisions. Some of the states that those decisions on
residency are made at the state level, either by the
legislation or by a board like the University--like Kansas with
the Board of Regents.
There are, as I understood from the testimony, there are
ten states that do set their own residency requirements at the
university level.
Mr. Takano. I know in California we subsidize community
colleges to a great extent. And so what a student will pay
there is significantly less than what a student will pay in New
York. So New York as well as those states that charge a lot
more for community colleges will capture more Federal aide for
those students who qualify for it.
And so I'm trying to understand what the disparity is among
state colleges, between the ones that are heavily subsidized
and those who are not.
Ms. Aldridge. The--thank you, sir, for the question.
There's tremendous disparity across all the different states
and the territories, in terms of tuition rates and in terms of
the amount of funding that the state legislatures provide to
the institutions. And it's been changing every year,
particularly in the last couple of years, which is why we have
seen tuition increases, there's a direct correlation between
the increase in tuitions, and the decrease in legislative
funding for state institutions.
In some of our states, they have lost 50 percent or more of
their state funding from the legislature over a period of two
to three years. So the issue about tuition is one that we all
must struggle with and work hard to try to contain for our
students, but as the state budgets have had a difficult time,
they have decreased the amount of funding for the----
Mr. Takano. But for a state that has a low in-state
tuition, because they subsidize it to a greater degree----
Ms. Aldridge. Right.
Mr. Takano. --would they not suffer some sort of inequity
here, because it stands to reason if, you know, we're funding
that student to go to school----
Ms. Aldridge. Yes.
Mr. Takano. --or the veteran in this case, that state
acts--really subsidizes their education, their college
education to a great degree, that state is actually kind of
being shorted, if you kind of compare it to a state that
subsidizes it less. So I'm just trying to get a sense of what
the disparity is between the states that subsidize a lot, and
the states that don't subsidize as much. Is there a number you
have on the top of your head?
Ms. Aldridge. No, I don't have a specific number for that.
Mr. Takano. Okay.
Ms. Aldridge. But we certainly can do some research on that
and get back with your staff.
Mr. Takano. Okay. Great. That's it, Mr. Chairman, I have no
more.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Mr. Coffman, you're
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huebner, first of
all, I think, could you restate--I think a lot of folks think
that this reauthorization for the Paralympics for veteran
participation in the Paralympics is managed by your
organization is just for the elite competitors. But I wondered
if you could give us some examples about how you are able to
take, you know, the average veteran that's been disabled, and
to be able to integrate them into some athletic events.
Mr. Huebner. Yes, thank you, sir. Thanks for your service,
too. You know, our focus, as I mentioned, we have two
objectives, one is the elite level, and one of the benefits of
having veterans participate at the elite level, in 2012, and it
goes back to a little bit of your question about investment.
Five of our partner organizations ran national television ad
campaigns, more than $40 million in value focused on veterans,
and focused on successful veterans that are contributing back
to their country.
So that is an important part, because having veterans as
incredible ambassadors that are at the elite level, allow us to
create education, awareness, and excitement at the grassroot
level for those families, and we live this every day. Those
families, and Brad talked about this last week, he came home to
his family, and he was totally blind, and it was swimming that
gave him confidence, but more importantly he said, it was
swimming that gave his mother confidence that he could jump
back in at life.
And we use the elite platform to grow the grassroot
platform, and our role specifically in this, the USOC was asked
by you, and by veteran and military organizations to lead this,
because we have humbly, most arguably, the most inspiring brand
in the United States, but we have expertise in sport, more than
50 different sports, as well as expertise in physical
disability. So we're utilizing in this collaboration in this
partnership, our technical assistance, our support and our
member organizations to train local organizations, whether it's
a parks and rec agency, 14 of them in Colorado in your state,
have been trained by us on how to implement a program for a
person with a physical disability.
Instead of going and developing a brand new program that
would be incredibly costly, we're taking existing programs,
parks and recs, USA Hockey, other entities and teaching them
how to implement or integrate a veteran with a physical
disability into their program, so they can participate in
physical activity with their family and friends.
Mr. Coffman. Okay. Can you also speak to the GAO's
recommendations on the Paralympic program, as it applies to
USOC?
Mr. Huebner. Yes. Actually in coming out with this program,
we emphasized to this Committee, we emphasized to the VA, and
we emphasized to the programs, our highest priority in 2010 was
meeting the need of programs. There were thousands of veterans
returning home that needed physical activity.
The GAO report focused on more oversight, and we were
working on doing that at the time, and we've implemented all
the recommendations from the GAO report. We have a couple of
examples of that, is we are doing, the USOC is doing
independent audits of all of our grantees. We have a monitoring
plan in place with the VA, we have weekly grant monitoring
calls, so we've aggressively implemented all the
recommendations, but it--as we stated to them, and to you, in
2010 and `11, our primary emphasis was programming. There was a
great need for thousands of veterans who returned home, and
rolling this program out, that's where we really emphasized our
focus.
Mr. Coffman. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Huebner, thank
you so much for all you do with the USOC and for veterans in
the paralympic program. And I'm certain excited about pushing
this legislation forward for the reauthorization of the
program, H.R. 1402. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. Ms. Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too had a question
for Mr. Huebner, and maybe you can't answer the question, I
don't know. But I was just wondering if there has been any
study at all to sort of look at the cost benefit ratios with--
in terms of a disabled vet participating in this program. You
mentioned all of the benefits one receives, including their own
personal health. And just wondering if there's been any study
vis-a-vis the cost savings, you know, into the future for
participating in the program today, and the cost benefit for
the future.
Mr. Huebner. That's an incredible question, and we are--
I'll be honest, we are having discussions at the VA about that
as we speak. Because in our initial grant, we had some research
components and impact components and evaluation components in
the grant. There were so many studies that are out there by
many government organizations, some of which talked today,
Labor, VA, DoD, independent organizations so that the
conversation we're having right now, is do we need to use
resources in this grant to go do another study, because there
are numerous studies out there. And after this session, I can
provide you a study that we were involved in that talks about
the impact and primarily the most significant impact is lower
secondary medical conditions.
In terms of having the physically active involved disabled
veterans in their communities, that's probably the most
significant cost impact. No doubt there's numerous other things
when you add higher self-esteem and lower stress levels in
terms of what we're dealing with today. Those are positive
outcomes.
Higher education, higher employment achievement levels, no
doubt cost outcomes, but we are looking at that right now, but
in reviewing this, and reviewing with the director who's a
veteran, and a disabled veteran of the VA program, we're
determining, we need to spend more money on more research being
that there's--Google it today, and there's multiple factors of
research going on in this space.
Our position tentatively is we think we can develop more
programming to impact the research that's being done by so many
other entities. But we do have some initial components and
research that we can provide for you after this hearing.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. And just in terms of developing, I
think what you called the grassroots platform, can you give me
some idea of, you know, the larger population of disabled vets
and how many actually participate?
Mr. Huebner. Yeah, the majority, and I was going to add to
your first question with a specific example. The majority of
the disabled veterans, the more than 16,000 that we've touched
just in the program, and when I say we, I want to emphasize,
this isn't just the U.S. Olympic Committee, it's the USOC, the
VA, the DoD, but more importantly, it's those 50 member
organizations like Parks and Recreation, and USA Hockey, that
have--that touch every community. We're doing this in
collaboration with them, and they are bringing their own staff,
their own resources to the table.
So one specific example of a program that not only
implements cost, but also touches the number of veterans
participating, we were fortunate to have a disabled veteran
attend our national leadership training, where we teach people
how to do it.
He also attended a regional training, where he learned how
to implement a paralympic sport program. He implemented in
Harker Heights, Texas, right outside one of the largest
military installations in the country, with a huge veteran
population a physical activity program that's not sustainable.
We provided a $23,000 grant in this partnership. Twenty three
thousand doesn't create a program. Harker Heights, Texas Parks
and Rec raised the additional money, used some of their own
budget, and hired a veteran to run the program. They now have a
sustainable program, which 95 percent of the budget is being
funded by the local community.
But the majority of the people, I think the last number was
more than 800 veterans participating in that program, there's
not one person in that program that's on our paralympic team or
going to the paralympic games. That's just one specific example
in one community. That's happening all over the United States
where the majority of people participating, our primary focus
gets back to that Army Ranger. I want to be able to run with my
son.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. And one last question, I don't
have much time left, but I wanted to also compliment General
Weber also for what Texas A&M is doing for your veterans in
Texas. The Chair is an alumni, so you know, he's going to
compliment you, but I'm not, and I want to compliment you on
what you're doing. It's very, very impressive, and I think you
serve as a model for many other public universities across the
country.
You said that you're currently serving 600 I think veteran
students and 1,400 students who are getting some kind of
veteran benefits, in a student population of 50,000. So I'm
just wondering if you roughly have, you know, there's been
testimony about, you know, the unfunded mandate, the transfer
burdens to the states, in terms of costs, if you had any
estimations of what that looks like for your university.
Mr. Weber. Well, first let me begin by saying, A&M is
extremely blessed. We're in a state that the economic
conditions are much better than others. We have a large
population of students, and we probably can bear unfunded
mandates much better than some of our perhaps smaller public
universities, who may have proportionately more veterans than
we have. So I think that would be another comment when you
write the bill, if any wording you can, to provide incentives
or flexibility to all public institutions to handle that.
So I first must say up front that we can-- probably
positioned to handle it better. Now presidents of universities
are pressured from the state legislatures, the Board of
Regents, their budgets are being cut, ours was cut $36 million
over the last appropriation, a lot of pressure on them to
reduce costs, parents reduce costs of college.
So in order to do that--without--you know, they're
thinking, how do I generate revenue, not what programs do I
have to give up revenue, and so I just think that's one of the
issues right there that they're having to deal with.
But, you know, Texas A&M University has a $1.3 billion
budget, cannot we find $10 million to allocate to our veterans,
and when the economy is tough, and everybody has to tighten
their belts, it's good in a sense that it forces us to
prioritize and reallocate. And so that's how we're handling a
lot of ours right now, but we're very conscientiousness. We
don't want to take another $36 million cut, because that could
really put the pressure on the reallocation and the
prioritization.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the additional
time, I appreciate it.
Mr. Flores. Thank you. It depends on the institution,
sometimes I can be gracious.
In any event, with--the Ranking Member and I have
discussed, we're going to have a second round of questions, and
with unanimous consent, we're going to limit the questions and
answers to two and a half minutes for each of these, and I will
begin the second round.
Dr. Aldridge and Colonel Denning, again thank you for being
here, and thank you for your testimony, but let's talk some
real numbers. The VA has estimated that only 15 percent of the
students that attend--that 15 percent of the veterans that are
attending universities, or excuse me, 15 percent of the
universities have over a hundred veterans.
So what sort of financial impact are we talking about for
that 15 percent? It seems like 85 percent just have a small
handful of veterans of a hundred or less, so what's the impact
on that 15 percent that has more than a hundred?
Ms. Aldridge. I can give you an exact number for
institution by institution, but the difficulty with the policy
is that it would disallow students from participating in the
programs whether they're in-state or out-of-state at a certain
point in time, and we wouldn't want to see that happen.
The issue in terms of the financial impact will be
institution by institution. I think the broader issue is the
timeline for the implementation, and the need for state
legislation or state boards of regents to make decisions in
order to consider this.
The other issue is that the language penalizes state
institutions, but at the same time, doesn't address the fact
the private, non-profit universities and private for-profit
universities that usually charge significantly more than the
state institutions are not even addressed in this bill.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to--Colonel Denning.
Mr. Denning. Representative Flores, thank you, sir, I
really don't have anything to add to that.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you. Ranking Member Takano, you're
recognized for two and a half minutes.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further
questions. I yield back my time.
Mr. Flores. Okay. I want to thank the panel for your
testimony today. It has been very helpful as we consider these
important pieces of legislation, and it's hard to imagine Mr.
Huebner getting anymore excited about a program. With that,
this panel is excused, and while we're changing panels, we're
going to take a short biological recess, as the next panel is
being seated.
(Recess)
Mr. Flores. The hearing will come back to order. I want to
thank the Members for the last round of questions, and I would
like now to introduce our final panel.
First we have Mr. Alexander Nicholson, from the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America. Today is Mr. Nicholson's first
time testifying before the Committee, so congratulations and
welcome.
Next, we have Mr. Ryan Gallucci from the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, followed by Mr. Steve Gonzalez with the American
Legion. Finally, we have Mr. Michael Dakduk from the Student
Veterans of America.
Mr. Nicholson, let's start with you, and you are now
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ALEXANDER NICHOLSON, CHIEF POLICY OFFICER, IRAQ
AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA; MR. RYAN M. GALLUCCI,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF
FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; MR. STEVE L. GONZALEZ,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN
LEGION; AND MR. MICHAEL DAKDUK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STUDENT
VETERANS AMERICA (SVA)
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER NICHOLSON
Mr. Nicholson. Thank you, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member
Takano, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
On behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America,
IAVA. I'd like to thank you for this invitation to share our
organization's views on these bills, and for your continued
dedication to improving the lives of all of America's veterans.
IAVA is the Nation's first and largest non-profit, non-
partisan organization for the veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Founded in 2004, our mission is simple, to improve
the lives of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families.
With a growing base of over 200,000 members and supporters,
we strive to create a society that honors and supports veterans
of all generations. While our country's economic position and
the employment status of all Americans remains a grave concern
for everyone, it should distress each and every one of us that
America's newest veterans, those who have shouldered the burden
of fighting our recent wars are being hit the hardest.
In its most release on the employment status of veterans,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that nearly one out of
every ten post-911 veterans is unemployed. And although we are
focused here today on legislation to enhance opportunities for
veterans who are able to work, I would be remiss if I did not
remind the Committee Members that those who cannot seek work,
because of a service-connected disability continue to face an
unacceptably backlogged VA claims pipeline, which denies
veterans who cannot work with compensation they deserve to make
up for their loss of earnings.
But for those veterans who are able to work, and who want
nothing more to be able to transition back into civilian life,
get an education, find gainful employment, and build a better
life for themselves and their families, we owe it to them to
ensure that they have the tools, resources, and knowledge to
successfully take those next steps.
As a result, IAVA is supportive of all the legislation that
is the subject of this hearing today. For three of these bills
in particular, I would like to elaborate on why we believe they
are important.
First, H.R. 631, which would enhance, expand, and
standardize the content of the transition assistance program
constitutes a positive step in the right direction toward
equipping troops with the knowledge and skills they need to be
successful as new veterans.
A comprehensive substantive and consistent transition
assistance program is vital to ensuring servicemembers smooth
transition back into civilian life, and to ensuring the
stability and security of their families.
Second, the draft bill that would increase the availability
of on-the-job training and its apprenticeship programs for
veterans represents an important step--excuse me, represents an
important acknowledgment of the enormous benefit that can come
from practical learning and training experiences.
Sometimes and in some fields, there is simply no better way
to learn a job or trade, than to actually dive in and get
hands-on experience in that field. And finally, for those who
elect to return to school after completing their military
service obligations, it is obvious that the post 9/11 GI Bill
has been a tremendous boom for veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. But the need for various adjustments and fixes to
the program has also become obvious.
H.R. 357 would fix another benefit utilization issue by
allowing veterans to attend public universities at their
respective in-state rates and actually be able to afford to go
to school and live comfortably using their post 9/11 GI Bill
benefits.
Because of the nature of military service, servicemembers
are required to move around, according to the needs of the
force. Servicemembers who are stationed at a particular post or
base may live in that state for years, may buy a home in that
state, shop and pay local taxes in that state, raise a family
in that state, and generally become part of the community in
that locale. However, that servicemember may still not always
technically be considered a resident of that state for tuition
purposes.
The situation is not just hypothetical for IAVA members,
but rather reflects a real situation that many veterans of Iraq
and Afghanistan have found themselves in after leaving military
service. Veterans who wind up living in an area outside of
their home states through no fault of their own, should be
denied the opportunity to use their earned education benefits
to cover the full cost of education in an area where they are
already functional if not technical residents simply because of
their military service.
This bill would remedy that gap in tuition and residency
fairness, and ensure that all veterans could take advantage of
the promise of the new GI bill without undue hardship. We again
appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on these bills,
and we look forward to continuing to work with you, with your
staff, and with the Committee to improve the lives of veterans
and their families. Thank you for your time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Alexander Nicholson appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Mr. Gallucci, you're
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Chairman Flores. On behalf of
nearly 2 million members of the VFW and our auxiliaries, I want
to thank you for the opportunity to present VFW's stance on
today's pending legislation.
Unemployment among young veterans who served after 9/11
continues to out pace unemployment among civilians, which is
why the VFW, the Nation's largest organization of combat
veterans continues to champion veterans' hiring and legislative
initiatives.
I want to thank this Subcommittee for its hard work in the
last Congress passing laws like the Vow to Hire Heroes Act, and
improving transparency and education for Veterans Act, and
other initiatives that have helped today's--make today's
veterans more competitive in tough economic times. However,
with the wars drawing down, proposed reductions in the active
duty force, and plans to lean on the Guard and Reserve for
future missions, we must do more.
The VFW proudly supports each bill up for discussion today,
and I refer the Subcommittee to my prepared statement for VFW's
full analysis. For the balance of my remarks, I want to offer
our thoughts on three critical bills, H.R. 357, H.R. 562, and
H.R. 631.
As of 2011, Student Veterans of America reports that only
one out of every five veterans attending a public school is
eligible to attend at the in-state rate. Why? Because military
service precludes many veterans from satisfying residency
requirements for tuition purposes. The VFW regularly hears from
student veterans who say that financial uncertainty is the most
significant roadblock to finishing school.
To combat this, it only makes sense to allow our student
veterans to attend college at a reasonable rate when seeking to
use their earned post 9/11 GI Bill benefits, and we hope the
Committee moves quickly to pass the GI Bill Tuition Fairness
Act of 2013.
The post 9/11 GI Bill was intended to offer veterans a free
public education, and a modest living stipend, allowing
veterans to treat college as a full-time job without worrying
about financial stability. However, current law only allows VA
to reimburse veterans attending public schools for the cost of
an in-state education, meaning veterans who cannot qualify for
in-state tuition will only receive meager reimbursement for
college.
This oversight forces veterans to find other ways to pay
for college by tapping into other Federal aid programs, finding
full-time employment, or amassing student loans that even when
they make a good faith effort to legally reside in a state and
attend a public school.
An easy solution to this issue is for public colleges and
universities to allow post 9/11 GI Bill veterans to attend at
the in-state rate. Servicemembers already have similar
protections when using military tuition assistance at public
schools, with minimal impact on the ability of state colleges
to deliver a quality reasonable price to education.
Unfortunately, once the uniform comes off, veterans suddenly
become state-less for tuition purposes.
The post 9/11 GI Bill is a Federal program designed to help
our heroes acquire the skills necessary to build a successful
career after service. Our veterans serve the Nation, not a
particular state. They should not be penalized for that service
when they cannot satisfy strict residency requirements for
tuition purposes. The states know they can deliver a quality
education at the in-state rate, particularly for such a small
percentage of the student body. This is why ten states already
offer in-state tuition for veterans, eight offer conditional
waivers, and 16 others are considering legislation.
In states that offer in-state tuition, both Republican and
Democrat state leaders all agree that the financial benefits
for the state far outweigh the illusory financial burdens that
some in higher education believe would be detrimental to
institutional budgets. Simply put, graduates of public colleges
and universities traditionally pursue careers close to their
alma mater, and I'll refer you to my prepared statement for
quotes from some of the state leaders who support these.
Next on the VRAP Extension Act, the VRAP was proud to
support the establishment of VRAP as part of the Vow to Hire
Heroes Act. Unfortunately, enrollment is down, and the program
is set to expire before many veterans can fully use it. VFW
fully supports extending VRAP and reporting outcomes, but we
also ask the Committee to consider two improvements to the
program.
First, Congress should ease the restriction on institution
eligibility. The VFW understands why VRAP only pays for
programs no longer than two years in duration, but as a result,
four-years schools cannot participate. Unfortunately some
communities only offer four year schools.
An example, in Eerie, Pennsylvania, veterans will not find
an eligible community college nearby because the Penn State
Eerie campus serves as a de facto community college. Second,
Congress must make it easier for VRAP to cover remediation.
Recently the VFW heard from the student veterans
organization at Community College of Rhode Island, who report
that basic remedial skills, like math, composition, or computer
literacy cannot be covered through VRAP since they do not
correlate to an approved program. The VFW believes that
veterans must be able to easily use VRAP for remediation,
otherwise veterans will not be able to complete their programs.
And finally, on the Service Members Choice of Transition
Act, the VFW fully supports TAP redesign, and we thank the VA
Labor, SBA, and DoD for allowing us to evaluate their pilots.
That being said, the VFW believes that TAP is significantly
improved, but we have lingering concerns.
The VFW supports DoD's efforts to build the military life
cycle for professional development, but we prefer the
transition models in H.R. 631 which compresses TAP and allows
servicemembers to actively choose their unique transition plan.
This model acknowledges the finite timeframe services can
dedicate to delivering TAP.
Chairman Flores, this concludes my statement, and I'd be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ryan M. Gallucci appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Galucci. Mr. Gonzalez?
STATEMENT OF STEVE L. GONZALEZ
Mr. Gonzalez. All servicemembers and women returning from
Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as those from previous eras are
met with daunting challenges at home. Chairman Flores, Ranking
Member Takano, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
on behalf of Commanda College and the 2.4 million members of
the American Legion, I thank you and your colleagues for the
work you do in support of our servicemembers and veterans, as
well as their families.
We are pleased to see that the pending legislation before
us today addresses these challenges in productive ways. As the
largest organization of wartime veterans, the legion works
tirelessly to make a positive difference in the lives of our
Nation's active duty troops, Reserve, and Guard forces, and 22
million veterans and their families. We are looking forward to
working with you to ensure that the best benefits and services
are made available to them.
We have addressed each of the pending bills in our written
statement, but because of its importance, I would like to take
this opportunity to highlight just one of them now,
specifically H.R. 357, GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act.
The American Legion is synonymous with veterans' education,
being instrumental in the passage of both the original GI Bill
of Rights of 1944, and the most recent post 9/11 GI Bill, along
with helping the modern day veteran navigate the confusing
world of education benefits. The main reason for the post 9/11
GI Bill was that VA education benefits were no longer covering
fast rising tuition costs.
Working with Congress, we stress the need for a 21st
Century GI Bill that would provide benefits worthy of our
veterans and offer the same opportunities afforded to those who
fought in World War II. However, over the last couple of years,
we have heard from countless veterans, who because of the
nature of military service, often have a difficult time
establishing residency for the purpose of obtaining in-state
tuition rates.
Under current rules, 40,000 student veterans have to pay
the difference between in-state tuition, which is covered by
the post 9/11 GI Bill and out-of-state tuition if they're
attending school as a non-resident. Because of this, many of
our student veterans are unable to use their GI bill benefits
at a school of their choice, or are required to pay thousands
of dollars in out of pocket expenses at non-residential tuition
rates.
Furthermore, public schools--public colleges and
universities have significantly raised the cost of out of state
tuition to offset decreasing revenues due to state budget cuts.
Circumstances such as this post significant challenges to using
this important benefit.
To address this, the American Legion has led a state-by-
state initiative to introduce, advocate for, and support state
legislation that would fix this problem and we have seen recent
victories in Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, and North Dakota. As
a result, ten states have passed laws to waive the residency
requirement, another nine states have waived these for some
veterans and military family members through university
specific policy changes. However, this leaves too many veterans
in states which have not done so.
Unfortunately, though, not all states and schools seem to
recognize by their actions the necessity of fixing this
problem. We were therefore pleased to see Chairman Miller and
Ranking Member Michaud jointly introduce H.R. 357 bipartisan
legislation which would solve this problem by requiring public
colleges and universities as a condition for receiving GI Bill
funding, to give veterans in-state tuition rates.
Chairman Miller was absolutely right when he said in his
statement upon the bill's introduction, and I quote, ``The men
and women who served this Nation did not just defend the
citizens of their home states, but the citizens of all 50
states. As such, the educational benefits they receive from the
taxpayers should reflect that.''
Veterans shouldn't have to assume tremendous financial
burdens or go into deep debt for their education just because
the military has taken them away from their home state. Again,
the whole point of the post 9/11 GI Bill was to ensure student
veterans attending public schools, receive a reasonably priced
education at the public school of their choice.
Therefore, this legislation is absolutely essential to the
thousands of veterans who were promised this funding for their
college education when the post 9/11 GI Bill was originally
passed, and is vital to giving veterans an equal opportunity to
afford the school of their choice.
The American Legion pledges to put our full weight behind
this important legislation, and encourages this Committee to
aggressively pursue timely enactment.
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to present the
American Legion's views, regarding this legislation and believe
we are uniquely qualified to participate in this discussion. I
am looking forward to your questions, and thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Steve L. Gonzalez appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Dakduk, you're
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DAKDUK
Mr. Dakduk. Thank you, Chairman Flores, and Ranking Member
Takano, who's not here, and the other Members of the
Subcommittee, thanking for inviting Student Veterans of America
to testify on important legislation impacting current student
veterans and future student veterans that will undoubtedly take
advantage of generous VA education benefits, like the post 9/11
GI Bill.
The Student Veterans of America or SVA is the largest and
only national association of military veterans in higher
education. Our mission is to provide military veterans with the
resources, support, and advocacy needed to succeed in higher
education and after graduation.
We currently have over 800 chapters or student veteran
organizations at colleges and universities in all 50 states,
including a dozen or more in your home state of Texas, that
assists veterans in their transition onto the college campus,
and ultimately into meaningful employment.
Our network all across this country of veterans and
military family members organized at community colleges, four-
year institutions, public, private, non-profit and for-profit
schools, provide Student Veterans of America with the special
appreciation for the issues affecting military veterans in
higher education.
Regarding the pending legislation being heard today, I'd
planned on briefly covering two bills, and use the remaining
time to focus on H.R. 357, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act,
but given other testimony you've heard today, I'm going to
focus my remaining time on H.R. 357 exclusively.
The post 9/11 GI Bill pays the highest in-state tuition and
fees rate. Due to military obligations, many veterans are
unable to establish in-state residency for the purposes of
enrolling at a public university of college. Ultimately, this
becomes a financial burden that leaves veterans vying for
additional financial aide, due to out-of-state residency
status.
After conducting a state-by-state landscape analysis, using
all 50 state legislator's bill search engine, and the National
Conference of State Legislative databases, we have discovered
the following regarding in-state tuition residency waivers for
student veterans.
Twelve states passed legislation that waived the in-state
tuition residence requirements for all veterans. Three states
waived the in-state tuition residency requirement for some
veterans, including your home state of Texas, which was
referenced to Hazelwood Act in previous testimony. But it's
important to understand that the Hazelwood Act is unique, that
you have to have already been a resident of Texas, graduated
from a Texas high school. Now, there are other special
provisions in there.
Five state school systems passed policy that waives the in-
state tuition residency requirement for veterans. For example,
the State of Alaska, while the state legislature has not done
anything in the State of Alaska, the public university system
of Alaska has granted in-state tuition for all veterans.
Sixteen state legislatures are currently considering laws
that would waive the residency requirements for veterans to
receive in-state tuition. But it's important to note that the
climb into double digits of state legislatures looking at in-
state tuition for veterans has much to do with the American
Legion's led state-by-state grassroots effort, and our work,
Student Veterans of America, American Legion, and the Veterans
of Foreign Wars on raising the profile on this issue.
Prior to coming here, and before the start of the 113th
Congress, there was only roughly six states considering in-
state tuition for veterans. So I think it's incredibly
important to acknowledge my colleagues at the American Legion
and the VFW.
Sadly, now 14 states have not even broached the topic of
providing in-state tuition for veterans, including my home
state of Nevada, that's why I appreciate that Congressman Titus
has offered her name as a co-sponsor for H.R. 357.
Another interesting thing, it's troubling that we, as a
country, find no cost too great to send America's sons and
daughters off to war. Yet, when they return home, and remove
the uniform, some entities and national associations and
institutions search for reasons not to give them the full
support that they have earned.
Another interesting thing is that in the Higher Education
Act, there is a clause that provides in-state tuition for all
active duty servicemembers and spouses. Once again, when we
remove our uniform, we begin to raise issues on why we cannot
support military veterans that are student veterans currently
using GI Bill or other VA educational benefits.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to provide the
Subcommittee with SVA's views, and we look forward to answering
your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Michael Dakduk appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Dakduk, and I appreciate the
testimony of all of you. I appreciate each of your respective
service for our country, and I appreciate the support of our
veterans, that each of your organizations provide.
I will begin the questioning, and I'll recognize myself for
as much time as I may need.
First, this question would go to all of you, and I would
ask you to keep your individual answers as short as you can.
This has to do with H.R. 357. You heard some testimony by the
last panel, particularly by Dr. Aldridge and by Colonel Denning
in opposition to H.R. 357. What's your reaction to that, we'll
start with Mr. Nicholson and go to your left.
Mr. Nicholson. Sure, just to keep it brief, Mr. Chairman, I
would just reiterate the remarks actually of Chairman Miller at
the beginning of this hearing, that you know, number one, they
keep saying that it's an unfunded mandate, when it is not. I
would just basically offer up a reiteration of what Chairman
Miller offered in response to their opposition in the
beginning.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Mr. Gallucci?
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Chairman Flores. I think there's
something interesting at play here, when we hear some of the
comments that we heard from the previous panel. Now, in the
last Congress, it took a very concerted effort by the Veterans
of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and Student Veterans of
America to pass responsible consumer education reforms for our
veterans. It was the right thing to do, and we were willing to
speak to any stakeholder in higher education to make sure that
we got that done.
We echo that sentiment in this Congress, and we're willing
to come to the table to discuss issues like in-state tuition
with various stakeholders. But it's disconcerting to see that
these stakeholders come to the table believing that first, this
is an unfunded mandate, and that this is a burden on taxpayers.
We've seen in a number of budget battles that this Congress
is going through that our taxpayers believe in supporting our
veterans, that it's the right thing to do, that we have an
ethical obligation to support them.
We represent taxpayers, our constituents are all across the
country in all 50 states, the VFW, American Legion, and Student
Veterans of America. The taxpayers are willing to do this,
we've seen it from Republican and Democratic leaders in the
states.
We owe it to our veterans that since they cannot satisfy
their residency requirements, we need to offer them in-state
tuition.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Gonzalez?
Mr. Gonzalez. Sir, one other thing I would address, and I
guess I would add on to what Mike said about. There is a
precedence, the precedence is with the Higher Education
Opportunity Act that was passed in 2008, Section 135, which
actually indicates, if any servicemember whose domicile does
not reside within a state that they're actually sent to for
duty, and they're there for 30 consecutive days, they
themselves including the dependents and spouse, will be granted
in-state tuition within the state that they're stationed for
more than 30 days consecutively.
So there is a precedence that already--it's already been
implemented and put into play as of, you know, four or five
years ago. So to say there's not a precedence, it's actually
blatantly a lie.
And the other part I would address is for all the
universities that say they want veterans, they're willing to
help veterans, and I honestly say this, and we've learned this
as of 48 hours ago, within the State of Maryland, we actually
had a fight, the American Legion working with our other two
colleagues and organizations, had to fight against the
university system of Maryland within the State of Maryland, to
pass a state waiver of residency for veterans within the State
of Maryland, working with the governor's office and state
legislatures.
But to see this blatantly fight behind closed doors, where
they say we want to bring in more veterans, we want to help
veterans, but behind closed doors, they're the first ones to
say, you know, we don't want to grant this because it's going
to hurt our budget, it's not just economically detriment to our
country, but is also not sound policy by no means, Chairman.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Dakduk.
Mr. Dakduk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to
repeat what any of the other folks said here, especially my
colleagues from the VFW and American Legion, but you may have
heard in the previous testimony the Yellow Ribbon program, a
lot of folks can sign up for the Yellow Ribbon program, schools
do that.
Here's something where I don't think you should be fooled
on this. If you run a school, and you sign up for the Yellow
Ribbon program, you might be perceived to be veteran friendly
because you signed up for it, but let's say the difference
between out-of-state and in-state tuition is $10,000, and your
school signed up for the Yellow Ribbon program for a thousand
dollars, and then the VA matches it for a thousand, it's
$2,000. That difference still ends up being 8,000.
So they can say they're a Yellow Ribbon school and they're
supporting veterans, and they're veteran friendly, but at the
end of the day, if they don't fully support the Yellow Ribbon
program, which many institutions of higher learning do not, and
make a claim that they're veteran friendly, that's not fully
supporting the student veteran at the end of the day.
So that's one thing I want to clarify.
Another thing is that over the past couple of years,
there's been a lot of issues about for-profit schools looking
at veterans as dollar signs. I have traveled over half of the
country, 26 states, I've made with hundreds of university
presidents, CEOs, and most importantly student veterans.
Interestingly enough, I have always said we need to stop
talking about one sector, and talk about higher education as a
whole when we support military veterans.
And now we have an instance where public universities, non-
profit, private, and public are looking at veterans as dollar
signs as well with in-state tuition and not providing that with
them.
So I think that is very interesting over the last couple of
years, how the focus has been on the for-profits, and I've
always maintained that we need to look across the spectrum of
higher education.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Dakduk. Let's shift gears for a
minute, and talk about H.R. 631, the bill to improve TAP. Can
each of you tell me a little bit about what you think, I mean
if a servicemember is getting ready to further education, and
this education could cost up to--cost the taxpayers $250 to
$270,000 as you've shown as an example, we've put on the
screen, do you believe that it's important to give that
servicemember a thorough understanding of their benefits on the
educational track, so that they make the best use of these
pressure taxpayer dollars? And again, we'll start with Mr.
Nicholson and go the other way. If you don't have a response,
you can just pass, and we'll go to the next one.
Mr. Nicholson. Chairman Miller, we would--or excuse me,
Chairman Flores, we would completely agree with that.
You know, the investment that we're making in these
veterans, not only in education, but in some of the job
training programs, and some of the programs that the VA has for
transitioning servicemembers who are becoming veterans is an
extremely large financial commitment.
You know, I think anything we can do to ensure that we're
making the absolute best possible strategic investment allowing
them to make the most of their time, and their investment is
certainly worthwhile.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Gallucci?
Mr. Gallucci. Chairman Flores, thank you for the question.
Absolutely we want to see the tracks mandated. After we heard
from Dr. Kelly and the other witnesses on TAP mandate, I did a
little poking around on my phone on the internet, just looked
up the code in Title X where the Transition Assistance Program
is mandated. And it says for employment and training, and I
think that's a very important caveat to make and training, is
where we talk about the education benefits that our veterans
are going to be entitled to.
We agree with the military life cycle, we believe that you
should prepare your servicemembers for career, for civilian
career readiness as soon as they join the military, and it
should be a lifelong learning process. However, that doesn't
take into consideration the servicemembers that are near their
end of time in service, and that's who we're worried about.
We're worried that if you have to meet career readiness
standards within a finite amount of time as you approach ETS,
but you fail to meet those career readiness standards, what
happens? The military is obviously not going to retain you. To
build on that, we believe in a lot of what Dr. Kelly and
Secretary Kelly were talking about, with making these resources
available to veterans after they transition.
We fully support the Marine Corps model, which I believe
this legislation is based off of, which offers buy-end, that
the Marine Corps can demonstrate success in administering their
TAP program. So we're fully behind it, and we believe it's
something that DoD, VA, Labor can easily accomplish.
Mr. Flores. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gallucci. Mr. Gonzalez?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, Chairman. With the TAPs, the TAP program
is also essential to not just a transitioning servicemember,
but also to the country as a whole, to society as a whole,
economically, which is also seen with the post war World War II
veterans who created the long economic prosperity of this
country, who became business owners, who became tradesmen, who
became--went to higher education and gained another level of
education within themselves, regardless of social economic
class, we have not seen this amount of active duty
servicemembers transition to veterans since post World War II.
So as a country, we owe it to ourselves as all of us as a
society, to ensure that these servicemembers can be successful
as they transition out, and TAP is one of those vehicles to
ensure that their success, and they are successful coming out,
regardless of what the definition of success is, because that
is actually--that'll help our long economic prosperity for the
country as a whole.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Dakduk?
Mr. Dakduk. Chairman Flores, we fully support H.R. 631, and
my colleagues at the VFW and American Legion, and Student
Veterans of America, we've worked with the DoD and VA, and
we've seen what they're doing to a certain extent, but I fully
believe it's a step in the right direction. But H.R. 631, we
want to see that enacted, and we'd like to make the tracks
mandatory, especially the education track, I think that's
extremely important. The post 9/11 GI Bill is highly complex,
but applying to college, getting accepted, going through that
process is extremely complex as well, so I think it's
absolutely valuable as well as the entrepreneurship track and
the vocational track as well.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Dakduk, and I'll make one
closing editorial comment on 631 and 357. I think it's
important for everybody to know that the U.S. taxpayers,
according to the CBO, are going to invest $72 billion over the
next ten years in the post 9/11 GI program. So the American
taxpayers are in this fully with the states, when you look at
the potential impact of H.R. 357 on the states. We can't forget
the Federal taxpayers are there along side our veterans on this
issue.
And with respect to--and you can similarly extend that to
H.R. 631. If you want to get the best value of that $72
billion, it makes sense for the education track to be mandatory
for those servicemembers that would elect to forward that
track.
And with that, I want to thank each of you for being here
today. I'd like to remind the Subcommittee Members that
hopefully are going to find out about this, that we're going to
be holding a mark-up on some or all of the bills that we
discussed today on April 25th at 10 a.m. in the morning here in
344 Cannon. I ask unanimous consent that statements from the
National Coalition of Homeless Veterans and Vets First also be
made part of the record today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered. Finally, I ask unanimous
consent that all members have five legislative days to revise
and extend remarks, and include any extraneous material in the
record of today's hearing.
Hearing no objection, so ordered. And thank you, everyone,
for being here, and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Flores
Good Morning everyone and the Subcommittee will come to order.
We have a total of nine bills before us, and a host of witnesses so
I promise to keep my opening statement brief.
Two of the nine bills before us today are bills that I introduced
earlier this year. The first is H.R. 631 the ``Servicemembers Choice in
Transition Act of 2013'' which I introduced with Ranking Member Takano.
This bill is meant as a follow along to the VOW to Hire Heroes Act
that would improve the transition assistance program, or TAP, for
separating servicemembers.
The VOW Act made TAP mandatory for all but a very few
servicemembers, and since the enactment of that bill the services and
the administration have nearly completed an overhaul of the TAP program
for the first time in decades. From what I have heard from veterans and
my staff, the new curriculum is much improved but more can be done.
DoD has created several tracks or courses for servicemembers that
focus on some of the most common transition paths that servicemembers
take when separating. These tracks focus on the following areas:
education, voc-tech, employment, and entrepreneurship.
These tracks are meant to provide in-depth knowledge on these
topics and allow servicemembers the choice in picking training that
best fits their transition goals. Unfortunately, that option is not
included in the mandatory portion of TAP.
For example, if a veteran was planning to go to college and use
their Post 9/11 GI Bill the education track should help them decide
whether they are ready for post-secondary education and if not, how to
get ready, what should be their education or training goal, what
schools would best meet their education or training goal, how to
complete the admissions process, and finally, how to finance their
education or training.
As you can see on the slide, the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill benefit can
provide over $270,000 over four years at one of the most expensive
schools in the country, in this case Stanford University. If taxpayers
are going to provide this generous benefit, it is our duty to ensure
that they know how to make best use of this benefit.
As I said, from everything we have heard from DoD, and as they will
shortly testify to as well, they will not require that these tracks not
be part of the mandatory portion of TAP. As a non-mandatory option,
Servicemembers could take the optional track only if their supervisor
would allow them to miss more days of work or if they don't meet the
still undefined ``career readiness standards.''
Regarding those standards, how can we expect a Commanding Officer
to reasonably determine whether a Servicemember's Individual Transition
Plan actually reflects attainable objectives given the infinite
variations in a member's life?
Therefore, I believe H.R. 631 would fill that gap by making the
optional tracks part of the mandatory portion of TAP while giving the
services flexibility to meet these requirements. The model I am
proposing as you can see on the screen provides each servicemember with
an executive summary of each track followed by time to take the track
of their choice along with classes on VA benefits and service specific
separation counseling. The model shows five days but it could be seven
or eight days, whatever it takes to get the job done.
This model is based off a model that the Marines have been piloting
with great success for some time.
My second bill, H.R. 1316, seeks to codify the roles and
responsibilities of Directors of Veteran Employment and Training or
DVETS (Dee-VETS). DVETS are Federal employees who represent the
Veterans Employment and Training Service on the state level and whose
primary responsibility is to oversee the DVOPS and LVERS who are funded
by the Jobs for Veterans Sate Grant Program. Curiously, Title 38
contains no specific responsibilities for the DVETS. It only says there
shall be DVETS and Assistant DVETS.
The performance of the DVOPS and LVERS continues to be topic of
concern for this Committee and by codifying the responsibilities of
DVETS we will strengthen their position with their state to improve the
performance of the DVOPS and LVERS - something I am sure we can all
agree must happen.
With that I happy to yield to the Ranking Member for any opening
statement he may have.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Takano
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, I would like to thank everyone for joining us and I
would like to thank our witnesses for taking time to testify and answer
our questions.
We have a number of bills before us today which extend or refine
important veterans' programs like the Post 9/11 GI Bill, veterans'
vocational rehabilitation and retraining, transition assistance, work-
study, and participation in U.S. Paralympics programs, among others.
I want to thank Mr. Flores for introducing HR 631, and which I have
cosponsored. I support this bill and I am interested in making the
optional tracks in the Transition Assistance Program mandatory. The
bill requires that additional time be spent helping warriors understand
the educational, training and employment resources they have earned--
and how and where to access them.
Mr. Chairman I want to highlight two bills I have introduced:
1. The VetSuccess Enhancement Act, HR 844, which extends by five
years, the time period when veterans with service-connected
disabilities are eligible to enroll in VA vocational and rehabilitation
programs. Veterans with traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury
often require years to complete rehabilitation and adjust to their new
realities of the basic activities of daily living. Once this has been
achieved, those who wish to return to work and need vocational
rehabilitative services have often passed the 12-year eligibility
period. And many other veterans do not become aware of this program
until they are no longer eligible. My legislation will give these
veterans 5 additional years to receive thistraining.
2. The second bill I introduced, ``The Work-Study for Student
Veterans Act,'' is a five year extension of the Veterans' Work-Study
program at the Department of Veterans Affairs. As an educator, I know
how important these programs are to students, allowing them to earn a
little extra cash to live on while they attend school. The VA program
pays veterans to assist other transitioning veterans in navigating VA's
claims and benefits system. It is an important program to veteran
students in my district and to thousands of others in schools across
the country. Without my legislation, it will expire at the end of June.
I hope members from both sides of the aisle will support it along with
H.R. 844.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing to review
these bills. I look forward to the testimony and discussion we will
have today.
I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Curtis L. Coy
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and other
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) views on
pending legislation affecting VA's programs, including the following:
H.R. 357, H.R. 562, H.R. 631, H.R. 844, and H.R. 1402, as well as a
draft bill to authorize an extension of VA's work-study training
program for certain activities, and sections 3 and 4 of a draft bill to
improve and increase the availability of VA's on-job training and
apprenticeship programs. Other bills under discussion today would
affect programs or laws administered by the Department of Labor (DOL).
Respectfully, we defer to that Department's views on H.R. 1305, a bill
to provide clarification regarding eligibility for services under the
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, and H.R. 1316, a bill to
specify the responsibilities of the Directors and Assistant Directors
of Veterans' Employment and Training.
Accompanying me this morning is Mr. Danny Pummill, Director,
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)/Department of Defense (DoD)
Program Office.
H.R. 357
H.R. 357, the ``GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013,'' would amend
section 3679 of title 38, United States Code, to direct VA, for
purposes of the educational assistance programs administered by the
Secretary, to disapprove courses of education provided by public
institutions of higher education that do not charge tuition and fees
for Veterans at the same rate that is charged for in-state residents,
regardless of the Veteran's state of residence. The bill does not
address whether tuition and fee rates for Servicemembers or other
eligible beneficiaries of the GI Bill affect the approval status of a
program of education. H.R. 357 would apply to educational assistance
provided after August 1, 2014. In the case of a course of education in
which a Veteran or eligible person (such as a spouse or dependent who
is eligible for education benefits)is enrolled prior to August 1, 2014,
that is subsequently disapproved by VA, the Department would treat that
course as approved until the Veteran or eligible person completes the
course in which the individual is enrolled. After August 1, 2018, any
disapproved course would be treated as such, unless the Veteran or
eligible person receives a waiver from VA. While VA is always
supportive of States affording the best and most affordable possible
educational opportunities for Veterans, VA cannot offer support for
this legislation because of its uncertain impact on the availability of
educational choices for Veterans, Servicemembers, or their dependents.
It is difficult to predict what reductions in offerings by
educational institutions would result by this requirement. In-state
tuition rules are set by individual States, and are undoubtedly driven
by overall fiscal factors and other policy considerations.
Additionally, the bill creates ambiguity since it is unclear whether
institutions that charge out-of-state tuition and fees to other
eligible persons for a course of education, but that charge in-state
tuition to Veterans in the same course, would also be disapproved.
This bill may result in a decrease in program expenditures by
reducing the number of individuals who participate in the Yellow Ribbon
program because either: (1) they would no longer be charged the out-of-
state tuition amount if they are attending a public school outside
their state of residence, or (2) they would choose not to participate
at all because of reduced educational choices. As noted above, it is
difficult to project the effect of this legislation on the courses
offered by public educational institutions.
VA estimates approximately 11.8 percent of Yellow Ribbon
participants attended public institutions since the program's
inception. Of those, an estimated 80.6 percent were Veterans during the
2012 fall enrollment period. VA applied these percentages to the total
amount of Yellow Ribbon benefits paid in FY 2012 and projected through
FY 2023, assuming growth consistent with the overall chapter 33
program. Based on those projections, VA estimates that enactment of
H.R. 357 would result in benefit savings to VA's Readjustment Benefits
account of $2.3 million in the first year, $70.3 million over five
years, and $179.9 million over ten years. VA estimates there would be
no additional GOE administrative costs required to implement this bill.
H.R. 562
H.R. 562, the ``VRAP Extension Act of 2013,'' would amend Title II
of Public Law 112-56, the ``VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011,'' to extend
for 3 months (through June 30, 2014), the Veterans Retraining
Assistance Program (VRAP) authorized by section 211 of that title. It
also would direct VA, in collaboration with DOL, to submit to Congress,
not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of H.R. 562, an
interim report on the retraining assistance provided under such
program. The report would include the total number of eligible Veterans
who had participated in the program as of the date of the enactment of
the bill, the total number of associates degrees or certificates
awarded to these Veterans, and other data relating to the employment
status of such Veterans.
VA supports legislation that would extend the VRAP program.
Extending VRAP by three months would offer Veterans more time to select
and complete their degree or certificate program.
While VA is prepared to provide an interim report regarding the
number of VRAP participants since inception of the program, we have
concerns about providing a report on degree and certificate outcomes
and employment status of participants because the program does not end
for another year. We recommend, in the alternative, that an interim
report be required no later than 90 days after enactment of the
proposed legislation, which would exclude the employment status of
participants. This change would allow VA and DOL an opportunity to
collect statistics regarding educational outcomes and provide
additional time for VRAP participants to complete their program of
education. Given the nature of employment data collection, there is a
significant time lag between when a veteran receives employment
services and when their employment outcome can be adequately tracked.
For example, for those who completed their VRAP training and received
DOL follow-up employment services by December 31, 2012, job-related
outcomes will not be available until November 2013, as there is roughly
an 11-month lag between the availability of State wage records and the
calculation of the Entered Employment measure. Collecting outcomes
before participants use a full year of their benefits would give an
inaccurate picture of the success of the program. VA also recommends if
the program is extended for an additional three months, the date of the
final report to Congress, which the bill currently sets as on or before
July 1, 2014, should also be extended for three months to October 1,
2014. VA would not be able to provide a full report to Congress on the
program participants on July 1, 2014 for the reasons stated above.
VA estimates no benefit costs to the Readjustment Benefits account
associated with this proposal. VA already assumes maximum participation
and usage for VRAP in its budget estimates. While this bill would
provide Veterans an additional three months to utilize their VRAP
benefit, there would be no increase or other change in Veterans'
eligibility or entitlements. GOE costs for this legislation would be
negligible and would be absorbed within existing resources.
H.R. 631
H.R. 631, the ``Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act of 2013,''
would amend section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, concerning
the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), which provides employment and
job training assistance and related services for members of the Armed
Forces being separated from active duty, and for their spouses, to add
a new subsection delineating the Program's format and content.
H.R. 631 proposes a curriculum similar to the Transition Goals,
Plans, Success (Transition GPS) curriculum currently being implemented
worldwide. This bill would require that TAP consist of at least five
days of instruction to include: (1) at least one day of service-
specific pre-separation training; (2) up to one day for instruction in
preparation for employment, preparation for education, career, or
technical training, preparation for entrepreneurship, or other options
determined by the Secretary of the military department concerned; (3)
at least two days of in-depth instruction of the participant's choice
in any of the subjects described under (2), above; and (4) up to one
day of instruction in benefits provided under laws administered by VA
and in other subjects determined by the Secretary concerned.
H.R. 631 also would require VA to submit to the Senate and House
Committees on Veterans' Affairs, not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment, the results of a study to determine the feasibility of
providing Veterans benefits instruction at all overseas locations where
such instruction is provided through a joint contract with DOL.
VA does not support this legislation. VA appreciates the strong
interest and support from the Committee to ensure that departing
Servicemembers are given full and effective engagement on their
employment and training opportunities, as well as the other VA benefits
they have earned. However, it is our view that the programs implemented
as a result of ``VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011'' and the Veterans
Employment Initiative (VEI) satisfy the intent underlying H.R. 631. We
believe those initiatives should be afforded the opportunity to be
fully implemented and assessed before further legislation in this area
is enacted. Allowing agencies to proceed under current plans would
provide greater flexibility in implementing improvements and making
adjustments based on accurate data analysis during assessment. We will
be pleased to brief the Subcommittee on the improvements and
enhancements that are currently being implemented as part of the VEI.
VA, with Federal agency partners, including DoD, DOL, the
Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and the
Small Business Administration (SBA), is currently participating in the
implementation of an enhanced TAP curriculum, known as Transition GPS,
which was developed under the VEI.
Current components of the Transition GPS curriculum include
mandatory pre-separation counseling, service-delivered modules, VA
benefits briefings, a DOL Employment Workshop, and tracks the
participant many choose to utilize, focused on technical training,
educational, and entrepreneurial information, resources, and
opportunities.
The Capstone event will be implemented by the end of FY 2013, and
it is intended to confirm that Servicemembers have met all the
objectives of the Career Readiness Standards and have a viable plan to
successfully achieve their transition goals. With the implementation of
this event by the end of FY 2013, the Transition GPS curriculum will
take approximately seven to eight days to complete.
VA has primary responsibility in the development and delivery of VA
benefits briefings and the technical training track, as well as
additional responsibilities to support partner agencies in the
implementation of the education track, the entrepreneurship track, and
the Capstone event. The Capstone event is intended to serve as a end-
of-career experience to verify, and bolster transition training and
services.
It is important to note that a key VEI recommendation is the
institution of a long-term military lifecycle transition model, which
would incorporate career readiness and transition preparation into the
entire span of a Servicemember's career, from accession to post-
military civilian life. If the military lifecycle model were to be
implemented, as is currently intended, the transition training
activities would not be limited to the end of a Servicemember's career.
Instead, preparation for transition would be a military career-long
focus.
The current VA TAP briefings take six hours, and the bill's mandate
for a full day of briefings, currently interpreted as eight hours,
would require VA to develop additional curriculum, train briefers on
this curriculum, and potentially hire additional briefers. VA does not
believe this mandate would represent the best use of its transition
resources.
The bill provides that the TAP program would include at least five
days of instruction. The current Transition GPS curriculum is
envisioned to take up to seven days (five days of mandatory and
Department of Defense modules, plus two days of optional tracks
delivered by the Services and partner agencies), with the potential for
additional hours required for pre-separation counseling and the
Capstone event. Moreover, the eventual move to a military lifecycle
model would involve supplementary instruction during Servicemembers'
careers.
As Servicemembers progress through the current Transition GPS
program, they focus part of their efforts on beginning to identify
their next steps for transition (e.g., pursue employment, higher
education, technical training, or self-employment). This is
accomplished through both the Military Occupational Classification
Crosswalk module and the DOL Employment Workshop. Additionally,
existing VA programs, such as the Educational and Vocational Counseling
program (Chapter 36), already provide such supplemental assistance for
eligible transitioning Servicemembers. While additional time may be
dedicated to assist Servicemembers in making an informed decision on
which path to choose, dedicating a whole day to this topic may be
excessive and duplicative given the recommendation for a long-term
military lifecycle transition model, which would incorporate career
readiness and transition preparation throughout a Servicemember's term
of enlistment or career.
Furthermore, the Transition GPS curriculum makes a distinction
between education and technical training tracks. VA has responsibility
for the technical training track of Transition GPS and has devoted
resources to curriculum development and piloting of this module. It is
not clear how this module would fit into the curriculum as mandated by
H.R. 631. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that Servicemembers
would benefit from the option of choosing either the education or
technical training tracks, as planning for these career choices
somewhat differs. The current curriculum model enables such
specialization and differentiation in the curriculum, thus improving
the quality of the Servicemember's experience.
As noted, VA is in the process of fine-tuning delivery and content
to best meet Servicemembers' needs, and additional legislation at this
stage may hinder those efforts.
VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 631 would result in
administrative costs to VA of $8 million for the first year (including
salary, benefits, travel, rent, supplies, training, equipment, and
other services, to include curriculum development), $39.3 million for
five years, and $83.8 million over ten years. VA estimated IT costs for
the first year are $300,000 (including the IT equipment for FTE,
installation, maintenance, and IT support), $800,000 for five years,
and $1.9 million over ten years.
H.R. 844
H.R. 844, the ``VetSuccess Enhancement Act,'' would amend section
3103 of chapter 31, title 38, United States Code, pertaining to
training and rehabilitation for Veterans with service-connected
disabilities, to extend, from 12 to 17 years after discharge or release
from active-duty service, the authorized period for such Veterans to
enroll in certain VA vocational training and rehabilitation programs.
This amendment would be effective with respect to Veterans applying for
assistance under chapter 31 on or after the date of enactment of the
Act.
Provided that Congress finds funding offsets, VA supports extending
the basic period of eligibility for vocational rehabilitation and
employment (VR&E) services. Individuals may need vocational
rehabilitation services during the transition from military to civilian
life, during mid-life when disabilities worsen or a career change is
needed, or later in life when independent-living concerns may appear.
By extending the period of eligibility, VR&E staff would be able to
provide individuals who meet the eligibility and entitlement criteria
for services under Chapter 31 with the services and assistance they
need within a wider window of time.
VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 844 would result in benefit
costs to VA of $2.7 million for the first year, $15.3 million over five
years, and $35.3 million over ten years. There are no administrative
costs associated with this bill because the caseload increase would be
minimal.
H.R. 1402
H.R.1402 would amend section 322 of title 38, United States Code,
to extend for 5 years (through FY 2018) the yearly $2 million
appropriations authorization for VA to pay a monthly assistance
allowance to disabled Veterans who are invited to compete for a slot
on, or have been selected for, the U.S. Paralympic Team in an amount
equal to the monthly amount of subsistence allowance that would be
payable to the Veteran under chapter 31, title 38, United States Code,
if the Veteran were eligible for and entitled to rehabilitation under
such chapter. H.R.1402 also would amend section 521A of title 38 to
extend for 5 years (through FY 2018) VA's appropriations authorization,
with amounts appropriated remaining available without fiscal year
limitation, for grants to United States Paralympics, Inc. (now the
United States Olympic Committee) to plan, develop, manage, and
implement an integrated adaptive sport program for disabled Veterans
and disabled members of the Armed Forces. These Paralympic programs
have experienced ongoing improvement and expansion of benefits to
disabled Veterans and disabled Servicemembers, to include 115 Veterans
qualifying for the monthly assistance allowance, and over 1,900
Paralympic grant events with over 16,000 Veteran participants during
FY2012. Under current law, both authorities will expire at the end of
FY2013.
VA supports extension of these authorities, but recommends further
revisions, to improve the accessibility and equity of these programs,
by extending monthly assistance allowances to disabled Veterans who are
invited to compete for a slot on, or have been selected for, the United
States Olympic Team (not just the Paralympic Team) or Olympic and
Paralympic teams representing the American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico,
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, by
authorizing grants to those Olympic and Paralympic sports entities, and
by clarifying that the current authority to award grants is to promote
programs for all adaptive sports and not just Paralympic sports.
VA estimates there would be no costs associated with implementing
this bill.
Draft Legislation Affecting Work Study
This draft bill would amend section 3485(a)(4) of title 38, United
States Code, extending for five years(through June 30, 2018) VA's
authority to provide work-study allowances for certain already-
specified activities. Under current law, the authority is set to expire
on June 30, 2013.
Public Law 107-103, the ``Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion
Act of 2001,'' established a five-year pilot program under section
3485(a)(4) that expanded qualifying work-study activities to include
outreach programs with State Approving Agencies, an activity relating
to the administration of a National Cemetery or a State Veterans'
Cemetery, and assisting with the provision of care to Veterans in State
Homes. Subsequent public laws extended the period of the pilot program
and, most recently, section 101 of Public Law 111-275, the ``Veterans'
Benefits Act of 2010,'' extended the sunset date from June 30, 2010 to
June 30, 2013.
VA does not oppose legislation that would extend the current
expiration date of the work-study provisions to June 30, 2018. We would
prefer that the legislation provide a permanent authorization of the
work-study activities, rather than extending repeatedly for short time-
periods.
Benefit costs are estimated to be $178,000 during FY 2013 and $5.14
million for the five-year period beginning on June 30, 2013 through
June 30, 2018.
Draft Legislation Affecting OJT/Apprenticeship
Section 2 of this draft bill, the ``Improving Job Opportunities for
Veterans Act of 2013,'' would require VA to carry out a public
relations campaign to promote VA on-job training (OJT) and
apprenticeship programs available to Veterans as highly efficient and
cost-effective ways of obtaining jobs. Section 3 of the draft bill also
would reduce, during the 3-year period beginning on the date that is
one year after the date of enactment, the amount of wages paid the
eligible veteran or person in an OJT program not later than the last
full month of that training period from 85 percent to 75 percent of the
wages paid for the job for which such individual is being trained.
Section 4 of the draft bill would require VA, not later than one year
after the date of enactment, to enter into agreements with other
Federal departments and agencies to operate their own OJT programs
under section 3677 of title 38, United States Code, to train eligible
Veterans or persons in skills necessary to obtain employment by those
entities. Finally, section 5 of the draft bill would extend until
January 31, 2017, the reduced pension for certain Veterans covered by
Medicaid plans for services furnished by nursing facilities.
VA does not object to the provision in section 3 that would
temporarily reduce the requirement under section 3677 that wages paid
the eligible Veteran or person must be 85 percent of the full wages
paid for the job near the end of the training program. This amendment
may increase the number of job-training programs for Veterans in the
future.
VA supports the intent underlying section 4; however, we do not
believe legislation is necessary since VA currently has authority to
approve federal OJT and apprenticeship programs under section 3672(b)
of title 38, United States Code.
We will provide views on sections 2 and 5, and cost estimates for
all sections of this draft bill at a later date.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to respond
to questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have
regarding our views as presented.
Prepared Statement of Dr. Susan Kelly
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and other Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on
the Department of Defense views (DoD) on legislation currently being
considered by the subcommittee. My testimony this morning will be
limited to H.R. 631, ``Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act of
2013'', which would amend section 1144 of title 10, United States Code,
pertaining to the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). I defer to the
views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of
Labor as appropriate, on the remaining bills.
The Department appreciates the continued interest and support of
this subcommittee for all members of the armed services but in
particular for those preparing for their transition from military
service. While we believe the intent of this bill is to improve the
transition process for separating Service members, we have concerns
over how it would, if enacted, contradict the requirements of the VOW
to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-526), codified in Chapter
58, title 10, United States Code. The VOW Act was intended to prepare
transitioning Service members to join, and be competitive, in the labor
market by using the skills, knowledge, experience and benefits they
have earned. After a thorough review of this legislation, the
Department is unable to support this bill as we believe it would not
only undermine the progress already made in the redesign of the
Transition Assistance Program, but would also potentially disadvantage
our Service members and our ability to ensure they are ``career
ready''.
In compliance with the VOW Act and in accordance with the
recommendations of the Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force, the
Department of Defense, Military Departments and our interagency
partners are successfully implementing the redesigned TAP. The
redesigned TAP, including the new curriculum called Transition GPS
(Goals, Plans, Success) is aligned with the VOW Act, as codified in
Chapter 58, title 10, United States Code, which requires all eligible
Service members discharged or released from active duty after serving
at least 180 continuous days or more (including National Guard and
Reserves) participate in Pre-separation Counseling, Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Benefits Briefings and the Department of Labor
(DOL) Employment Workshop. Although some Service members may be
exempted from attending the DOL Employment Workshop, every Service
member is required to attend Pre-separation Counseling and the revised
VA Benefits Briefings.
Additional components of the redesigned TAP include specialized
tracks developed for Service members to tailor their transition program
to correspond with their expressed interest in achieving their future
employment goals through Higher Education, Career Technical Training,
or Entrepreneurship. These specialized tracks are being piloted now to
collect critical feedback and Service member assessment in order to
develop the curriculums that will be phased in by fiscal year 2014. The
cornerstone of the redesigned TAP is the concept of Career Readiness
Standards. These defined standards correspond to deliverables that all
Service members meet prior to separation, like a 12 month post
separation budget. The value of the Career Readiness Standards in
ensuring the Department equips our Service members with the tools they
need to become valued, productive and employed members of our labor
workforce cannot be overstated. The Department and our partners have
been fully engaged in implementing the redesigned program.
The VOW Act requires the DOL Employment Workshop to be a mandatory
portion of TAP. H.R. 631 conflicts with the VOW Act by making the full
employment workshop one of a number of optional choices for
transitioning Service members. As the VOW Act intended, Service members
benefit from the employment workshop regardless of their immediate
plans upon leaving military service because all separating Service
members will need these critical employment, resume, and interview
skills at some point in their future.
Additionally, under H.R. 631, the DOL employment workshop
curriculum would need to be significantly redesigned to fit into the
bill's mandated structure, curriculum, and delivery schedule. By giving
the Department a defined time to educate these Service members, the
proposed legislation undermines the adult learning principles, intended
learning objectives, and curriculum design that forms the underpinning
of the Transition GPS curriculum. For example, the Department of Labor
currently requires three full days of adult learning instruction, which
would be limited to two days under the optional election prescription
of H.R. 631. The prescriptive timeframe reduces the ability of the
entire redesigned TAP to evolve into the Military Life Cycle (MLC) TAP
and mature to keep pace with changes in adult learning, adjust to
include skills-building that our Service members tell us they need, and
respond to developments in the job search arena.
As previously mentioned, at the heart of the redesigned TAP are the
Career Readiness Standards. The learning objectives for the Transition
GPS curriculum component, as well as a robust, portable, virtual
curriculum, build the skills needed to develop the concrete
deliverables required to meet the new Career Readiness Standards. The
Department believes that the best course of action at this time is to
continue the implementation of the new redesigned TAP in accordance
with the VOW Act and the recommendations of the Veterans Employment
Initiative Task Force. We will continue to work with your staff to keep
this subcommittee updated on our progress.
In summary, the changes to the redesigned TAP as proposed by H.R.
631 would be a setback to the current program implementation and would
undo months of collaborative, interagency progress. It would impose an
additional fiscal burden in redesign, piloting, potential classroom
space and would generate implementation challenges for the Military
Services. Finally, we feel this legislation would decrease the quality
of the overall curriculum and reduce the effectiveness of the
redesigned TAP. Ultimately this legislation would stymie the current
progress and prevent our program from meeting the intended outcome,
which is to prepare Service members to effectively transition to valued
employment in communities across our country.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. On behalf of the men and
women in the Armed Forces and their families, I thank you and the
members of this subcommittee for your continued steadfast support.
Executive Summary
While the Department believes the intent H.R. 631 is to improve the
transition process for separating Service members, we have concerns
over how it would, if enacted, contradict the requirements of the VOW
to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-526), codified in Chapter
58, title 10, United States Code. The VOW Act was intended to prepare
transitioning Service members to join, and be competitive, in the labor
market by using the skills, knowledge, experience and benefits they
have earned. After a thorough review of this legislation, the
Department is unable to support this bill as we believe it would not
only undermine the progress already made in the redesign of the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP), but would also potentially
disadvantage our Service members and our ability to ensure they are
``career ready''.
In compliance with the VOW Act and in accordance with the
recommendations of the Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force, the
Department of Defense, Military Departments and our interagency
partners are successfully implementing the redesigned TAP. The
redesigned TAP curriculum, including the new curriculum called
Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success), is aligned with the with the
VOW Act, as codified in Chapter 58, title 10, United States Code, which
requires all eligible Service members discharged or released from
active duty after serving at least 180 continuous days or more
(including National Guard and Reserves) participate in Pre-separation
Counseling, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Benefits Briefings and
the Department of Labor (DOL) Employment Workshop. Although some
Service members may be exempted from attending the DOL Employment
Workshop, every Service member is required to attend Pre-separation
Counseling and the revised VA Benefits Briefings.
The cornerstone of the redesigned TAP is the Career Readiness
Standards. These defined standards correspond to deliverables that all
Service members meet prior to separation, like a 12 month post
separation budget. The value of the Career Readiness Standards in
ensuring the Department equips our Service members with the tools they
need to become valued, productive and employed members of our labor
workforce cannot be overstated. The VOW Act requires the DOL Employment
Workshop to be a mandatory portion of TAP. H.R. 631 conflicts with the
VOW Act by making the full employment workshop one of a number of
optional choices for transitioning Service members. As the VOW Act
intended, Service members benefit from the employment workshop
regardless of their immediate plans upon leaving military service
because all separating Service members will need these critical
employment, resume, and interview skills at some point in their future.
Additionally, under H.R. 631, the DOL employment workshop
curriculum would need to be significantly redesigned to fit into the
bill's mandated structure, curriculum, and delivery schedule. By giving
the Department a defined time to educate these Service members, the
proposed legislation undermines the adult learning principles, intended
learning objectives, and curriculum design that forms the underpinning
of the Transition GPS curriculum. For example, the Department of Labor
currently requires three full days of adult learning instruction, which
would be limited to two days under the optional election prescription
of H.R. 631.
The Department believes that the best course of action at this time
is to continue the implementation of the new redesigned TAP in
accordance with the VOW Act and the recommendations of the Veterans
Employment Initiative Task Force.
Prepared Statement of Keith Kelly
Introduction
Good Morning Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the Department of
Labor's (DOL or Department) views on pending legislation. I commend you
all for your tireless efforts to ensure that America fulfills its
obligations to our returning servicemembers, veterans, and their
families.
President Obama, Acting Secretary of Labor Seth Harris and I are
committed to serving these brave men and women as well as they have
served us by ensuring they have the opportunities, training and support
they deserve to succeed in the civilian workforce. The Department will
continue to work with the Members of the Subcommittee to provide our
returning servicemembers, veterans, and their families with the
critical resources and expertise needed to assist and prepare them to
obtain meaningful careers, maximize their employment opportunities, and
protect their employment rights.
While this hearing is focused on numerous bills before the
Subcommittee, I will limit my remarks to those pieces of legislation
that have a direct impact on DOL, including the following: H.R. 562,
the ``VRAP Extension Act of 2013,'' H.R. 631, the ``Servicemembers
Choice in Transition Act of 2013,'' H.R. 1305, a bill to provide
clarification regarding eligibility for services under the Homeless
Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP), and H.R. 1316, the ``Directors
of Veterans' Employment and Training Accountability Act.'' DOL
respectfully defers to the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans'
Affairs (VA) on the remaining pieces of legislation.
H.R. 562 - VRAP Extension Act of 2013
The first piece of legislation that I will address is H.R. 562, the
VRAP Extension Act of 2013. H.R. 562 would amend Section 211 of the VOW
to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 (VOW Act) to extend the Veterans Retraining
Assistance Program (VRAP) for an additional three months from March 31,
2014 to June 30, 2014. In addition, the bill would require the VA, in
collaboration with DOL, to submit an interim report on the program,
including the employment status of program participants, within 30 days
of the bill's enactment. The Department supports the three month
extension of VRAP, but we have concerns about the new requirement for
an interim report, which I will discuss in more detail.
The Department is committed to the success of VRAP, an important
program that provides retraining assistance to unemployed veterans aged
35 to 60 to pursue an associate degree or certificate in a high-demand
occupation. The Department fully supports the intent of Section 211 and
has been working diligently with the VA to carry out the VRAP
provisions since the VOW Act was enacted in November of 2011.
DOL has assisted in the administration of VRAP, by, among other
things, conducting outreach to veterans, developing guidance for the
workforce system, identifying high-demand occupations, and verifying
applicants' initial eligibility based on age, employment status, and
previous participation in other job training programs. In addition, the
Department works to support veterans before, during, and following
their participation in VRAP with employment services, such as resume
development, job referrals, and case management through the national
network of approximately 2,700 American Job Centers, and a suite of
online tools.
DOL's responsibilities under VRAP have required, among other
things, modifications to current reporting systems, approval of new
data collections, and development of processes and data management
tools to ensure states and local areas can contact VRAP participants as
they exit the program, offer employment services, and track their
employment outcomes. Since the public workforce system is designed to
be decentralized and locally-driven, these ongoing responsibilities
present unique administrative challenges for the Department and the
workforce system as a whole.
Initial implementation costs during the first year of VRAP were met
by redirecting Departmental funds that had been appropriated for
research and demonstration projects. These implementation costs
included providing modest grants to states to help with VOW Act costs,
including VRAP reporting, and contractor support to assist with ongoing
technical assistance to states' outreach to VRAP participants, IT
needs, and performance reporting requirements. While DOL will continue
to fulfill the requirement under the VOW Act to contact veterans
following their participation in VRAP to offer them employment
services, and veterans will continue to receive priority of service in
the public workforce system, the level for employment services
available for VRAP participants may be affected by the availability of
Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser Act funds to provide such
services through American Job Centers.
In addition, the Department has serious concerns with the
requirement that the VA submit an interim report within 30 days after
enactment that will include program outcomes. Employment outcomes will
not be available 30 days after enactment because of the 11-month lag
time between when a veteran receives employment services and when data
on their employment outcomes can be sufficiently tracked. Therefore,
the Department supports the three month extension of VRAP, but
recommends limiting any interim report to administrative data and
defers to VA on the best data elements and timeframe for submission of
the interim report.
H.R. 631 - Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act of 2013
The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) under Section 1144 of Title
10 (10 U.S.C. 1144) is an interagency effort between DOL, DOD, VA,
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies aimed at
providing separating servicemembers and their spouses with the training
and support they need to successfully transition to the civilian
workforce. As part of TAP, DOL utilizes its extensive expertise in
employment services to provide a comprehensive three-day employment
workshop at U.S. military installations around the world.
H.R. 631, the ``Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act of 2013,''
would amend TAP to require it to consist of at least five days of
instruction as follows: (1) at least one day of service-specific pre-
separation training; (2) up to one day for instruction in preparation
for employment, preparation for education or career or technical
training, preparation for entrepreneurship, or other options determined
by the Secretary of the military department concerned; (3) at least two
days of in-depth instruction of the participant's choice in any of the
aforementioned subjects; and (4) up to one day of training in VA
benefits provided and in other subjects determined by the Secretary of
the military department concerned.
The Department has serious concerns about H.R. 631 because we
believe it would seriously impede DOL's efforts to fulfill our
statutory obligations under the VOW Act and provide separating
servicemembers with the training and support they need to successfully
transition to the civilian workforce. H.R. 631 would undermine the
implementation currently underway of the redesigned DOL employment
workshop and the new Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) training
and delivery model that DOD, VA, DOL and other agencies have been
working together to execute.
Section 1144 of Title 10 requires the Secretary of Labor to
``establish and maintain a program to furnish counseling, assistance in
identifying employment and training opportunities, help in obtaining
employment and training and other related information and services to
members of the armed forces . . . .'' Congress, through the VOW Act and
other legislation, also mandated that DOL include certain elements in
the TAP employment workshop. The VOW Act further enhanced TAP by
requiring mandatory participation for all transitioning servicemembers
and requiring contractor facilitation of the employment workshop to
ensure a standardized curriculum. As the VOW Act intended,
servicemembers benefit from taking the DOL employment workshop
regardless of their immediate plans upon leaving military service. Even
servicemembers who intend to enroll in school or start a business will
need the skills that are provided during the DOL employment workshop,
such as translating their military skills and building a resume of
their accomplishments.
Moreover, as the Members of the Subcommittee know, the Department
just completed a major effort aimed at redesigning the employment
workshop curriculum to align it with emerging best practices in career
development and to make it more engaging and relevant in light of the
unique challenges facing transitioning servicemembers. The redesign of
the employment workshop was an extensive process that evolved over
several years involving many federal agencies, pilot programs and
curriculum reviews. DOL wanted to ensure it was providing the best
possible product.
After extensive review and consultation with experts on training,
education and the military services, DOL determined that the optimal
delivery was a three-day format. This decision was based on the amount
of time it would take to properly deliver all the material required
under Section 1144 of Title 10 and to meet the learning objectives and
ensure an effective and efficient program to prepare our
servicemembers. Over the past few months, the Department completed the
transfer to contract facilitation and full implementation of the new
employment workshop curriculum at all military installations worldwide.
I am happy to report that the new curriculum has been well received as
demonstrated by preliminary feedback from over 2,000 attendees during
January and February of this year, who gave the employment workshop an
overall rating of 4.4 on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest
rating. While the data strongly suggests that the Department's revised
employment workshop is headed in the right direction, H.R. 631 would
significantly undermine these efforts.
Under H.R. 631, the Department would have to completely redesign
the new curriculum in structure, content, and delivery and in
consultation with numerous other agencies. Further, the legislation
would be very difficult to administer and would significantly increase
program costs. Moreover, the Department would likely have to re-compete
and renegotiate the facilitation contract. The Department also has
serious concerns about the feasibility of implementing all of these
proposed changes in only six months.
Most importantly, however, the overall impact of this legislation
would negatively affect transitioning servicemembers. These men and
women deserve the best possible services we can provide, and this bill
would undermine such efforts. The Department looks forward to working
with the Subcommittee to ensure that our transitioning servicemembers
have the resources and training they need to successfully transition to
the civilian workforce.
H.R. 1305 - To Provide Clarification Regarding Eligibility for Services
under the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP)
DOL fully supports this legislation, which would expand eligibility
for the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP) to include
veterans participating in the Department of Housing and Urban
Development/Department of Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-
VASH) program, while continuing our commitment to the Administration's
goal of ending veteran homelessness by 2015.
H.R.1305 also expands HVRP eligibility to include incarcerated
veterans. As this subcommittee is aware, the HVRP currently serves
incarcerated veterans through Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program
(IVTP) demonstration project grants. The IVTP grants are designed to
support incarcerated veterans ``at risk'' of homelessness by providing
referral and career counseling services, job training, placement
assistance and other benefits. Eligible IVTP participants include
veterans who have been incarcerated for at least one (1) day and are
within eighteen (18) months prior to release, or within six (6) months
after release from a correctional institution or facility.
Data from the IVTP demonstration program in Program Years 2010 and
2011 shows that grantees have made a remarkable performance improvement
in placement rates (up 9.5%) and employment retention rates (up 17%),
while decreasing their cost per participant (down 20%) and cost per
placement (down 32%). DOL supports this bill as currently drafted. Both
changes to the HVRP--the inclusion of incarcerated veterans beyond the
current demonstration projects and veterans participating in the HUD-
VASH program--will allow the Department to be responsive to the service
needs of these populations.
H.R. 1316 - Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training
Accountability Act
H.R. 1316 would amend Section 4103 of Title 38 and legislatively
prescribe the duties of our state Directors for Veterans' Employment
and Training, commonly known as ``DVETs.'' The Department appreciates
the intent of this legislation; however, DOL has serious concerns with
this bill, as it: (1) unduly prescribes the duties of our DVETs and
removes much of the managerial flexibility possessed by the Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training; and (2) would
be administratively difficult to implement.
Many parts of the bill are duties that DVETs already perform, which
are assessed as part of their annual performance appraisal and are
subject to other managerial oversight by the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training. For example, our DVETs
have performance standards that include the responsibilities noted in
Sections 1(b)(3) - (5), and (8) - (14) of this bill. In addition,
Section 1(b)(9) is essentially repeated in Section 1(b)(14).
As for the performance monitoring portions of the bill in Sections
1(b)(1) and (2), I would note that, per Section 4107 of Title 38, DOL
already has a statutory mandate to monitor the performance of state
employment and training programs and to report on such performance to
the Congressional Committees on Veterans Affairs.
Other parts of H.R. 1316 would be problematic to implement. For
example, Sections 1(b)(6)-(7) of the bill would require our DVETs to
perform duties that are already being performed by DOL's Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Section 1(b)(7) is
especially troubling because it would require our DVETs to investigate
alleged violations of state veterans' preference laws, but even if a
DVET investigation found a substantiated case, DOL would lack the legal
authority to take any remedial actions.
Conclusion
Americans know of the tremendous sacrifices made by our
servicemembers and their families. We at the Department of Labor know
this too, and that is why we are working diligently to provide them
with the best possible services, protections and programs our Nation
has to offer.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the
Subcommittee - this concludes my statement. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify today on these bills. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Charlie Huebner
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the
committee, my name is Charlie Huebner and I am the Chief of
Paralympics, for the United States Olympic Committee (``USOC''). Thank
you for the opportunity to submit a statement and testify before this
Subcommittee in support of H.R. 1402, which extends the authorization
for the highly successful, innovative and cost effective partnership
between the USOC and the Department of Veteran Affairs to provide
Paralympic sports and sustainable physical activity opportunities for
disabled veterans at the community level
Paralympic programs are sports for physically disabled athletes. It
was founded and exists because of Veterans from World War II. Research
has proven that Paralympic sport and physical activity is an impactful
aspect of successful rehabilitation for disabled Veterans.
Research-based outcomes from consistent physical activity for
disabled Veterans include higher self-esteem, lower stress levels and
secondary medical conditions and higher achievement levels in education
and employment.
At the beginning of combat operations the USOC expanded its service
to injured members of our Armed Forces and Veterans by providing
training, technical assistance and Paralympic ambassadors to
installations and military medical centers. As combat escalated,
Congress reached out to the USOC asking for us to do more!
I applaud the leadership in Congress, which realized that
collaboration between the public and private sector, between Government
agencies, non-profit organizations, and the private business sector
could expand expertise and capabilities, and program awareness in a
cost effective manner.
The legislation you created in Fiscal Year 2010, allowed the USOC
and VA to significantly grow the capabilities and reach of physical
activity programming to more than 16,000 disabled Veterans today in
communities throughout America.
The authorization for this program expires at the end of Fiscal
Year 2013. It is imperative that Congress act to extend the
authorization for this program to ensure there is no interruption in
the services being provided to our disabled veterans, and just as
importantly, develop enhanced programming in collaboration with the
private sector where there are significant needs.
The USOC, which itself was created by Congress, is one of only four
National Olympic Committees that manage both Olympic and Paralympic
sport. We are one of only a handful of National Olympic Committees that
are 100% privately funded, with our major competitors outspending us
often as much as 5-to-1. Innovation, collaboration and cost
efficiencies are core to our organizational success and critical to
this continued USOC and VA partnership.
Injured military personnel and Veterans are the soul of the
Paralympic movement. When discussing the Paralympic Movement, we have
two primary objectives. One: pursue excellence at the Paralympic Games.
As a result of Paralympic Veteran role models and ambassadors such as
Navy Lt. Brad Snyder, Army Veteran Melissa Stockwell, and Marine
Veteran Oz Sanchez, the USOC and VA have been able to reach millions of
Americans with stories of Veteran achievements and excellence. Second,
and more importantly, the VA and USOC collectively have reached
thousands of disabled Veterans and their families with stories of hope,
and a roadmap to being healthy, productive and contributing members of
society.
With partners such as PVA, IAVA, Disabled Sports USA and USA Hockey
to name a few, the VA and USOC have created significant, sustainable
and cost effective regional and local physical activity opportunities
for disabled Veterans to pursue competitive excellence, but most
importantly, for a majority of the thousands of physically disabled
Veterans in the US to simply re-engage into society by being physically
active with their sons, daughters, families, and friends.
It is as simple as skiing with your buddies again, or as one double
amputee Army Ranger stated ``I want to be able to run with my son.''
This Committee, Congressional leaders, and Veteran and Military
organizations asked the USOC to lead this effort due to our powerful,
iconic, and inspiring brand; our expertise in physical activity and
sport for persons with physical disabilities; and our significant
infrastructure of member organizations. We have accepted the
responsibility and opportunity to serve those who have served us. And
because of your leadership in developing and providing funding for this
USOC and VA partnership, we are able today to report the first phase of
significant program success and expansion in less than three years of
this legislation. Since June 2010, the VA and USOC have:
Distributed more than 350 grants to community sport
organizations to develop sustainable physical activity programs for
disabled Veterans returning to their hometowns.
These community programs are investing millions of
dollars in private resources, combined with grants from the VA - USOC
grant pool, to reach thousands of Veterans with a focus on sustainable
and consistent physically activity at the local level.
The VA and USOC have emphasized and led an effort to
promote collaboration between the DOD, VA and community sport
organizations to recognize and enhance programmatic and financial
efficiencies. To date, grant recipients have collaborated and partnered
with 85 VA Medical Centers in 39 states and military treatment
facilities across the country.
Created the Paralympic Resource Network, an online
database of Paralympic programs nationally which is designed to link
individuals with physical and visual disabilities to sports programs in
their communities. There are now 340 organizations listed. This is over
35% more than the targeted goal of 250 organizations.
Created consistent national and regional training,
technical assistance and sharing of best practices to expand
availability of sustainable programming at the community level
Distributed training stipends to over 115 Veteran
athletes; 43 of these athletes have met the national team standard in
their respective sports.
Implemented regional and national public relations and
communications strategies resulting in major national media campaigns
and news stories that have reached millions of Americans with stories
of Paralympic Veterans as national ambassadors
Significantly expanded and implemented, accountability
and oversight processes that include USOC-led internal audits of
grantees, upgraded reporting and monitoring of sub-grantees, consistent
USOC site visits and weekly USOC-VA grant monitoring calls
Two staff members implementing this program are
individuals with physical disabilities, one being a Veteran
Humbly, we work for an organization that has one of the most
inspiring brands in the world. A brand that motivates people and
organizations to get involved and to collaborate. I can't emphasize the
collaboration point enough, because collaboration also leads to
significant cost efficiencies and impact!
Today, more than 350 USOC partner organizations in 46 states and
the District of Columbia are investing millions in private resources,
staff and facilities to cost effectively implement these programs.
One specific new example of USOC - VA innovation, impact, cost-
efficiency, collaboration and enhanced awareness was the development of
the regional and local Valor Games series in Chicago. Through
partnership with a USOC leadership organization - World Sport Chicago -
the USOC and VA identified a partner that could plan, implement,
provide a majority of the funding and promote the importance and impact
at a regional event for physically disabled Veterans with the primary
objective and outcome being the connecting of these Veterans to
everyday physical activity programs in the region. This was done with
limited VA- USOC financial investment and only one USOC, and one VA
staff member involved.
In closing, the need in this Country is great. More physically
disabled members of our Armed Forces are returning to America's
communities, urban and rural, as heroic Veterans. Many of them are
simply trying to reintegrate with their friends and families. Some want
to compete.
The power of sport is one tool in the rehabilitative process that
allows for our Nation's heroes to take a small step to normalcy.
Research has proven that!
I would like to thank the Committee, the VA leadership,
particularly Secretary Eric Shinseki; Assistant Secretary Tommy Sowers,
Mike Galloucis, Executive Director of the Department of Veterans
Affairs Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs; I would like to
especially commend Marine Veteran and VA leader Chris Nowak, a
physically disabled Veteran who is driving change in collaboration with
the VA and USOC with a primary focus on impacting Veterans in a cost
effective manner. Mr. Nowak is a Marine Veteran making a difference!
Congressman Coffman, a Marine from Colorado, and Ranking Member
Takano, thank you and other members of the Committee for introducing
H.R. 1402.
I can simply say, you have led a collaborative and cost effective
effort. You too are making a difference! A difference in the lives of
those that have given our Nation so much!
I am available to take any of your questions.
Executive Summary
The Paralympic Movement began shortly after World War II utilizing
sports as a form of rehabilitation for injured military personnel
returning from combat. The USOC, which itself was created by Congress,
is one of only four National Olympic Committees that manage both
Olympic and Paralympic sport. As one of only a handful of National
Olympic Committees that are 100% privately funded, there is evidence
that our major competitors outspending us often as much as 5-to-1.
Because of the extraordinary need to provide Paralympic sports
activities to our nation's disabled military service members and
veterans, since 2008 the USOC has accepted federal funding for these
programs, while continuing to expend considerable private resources in
support of these efforts.
In 2008 Congress passed the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act,
which authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs to award grants to
the United States Paralympics to ``plan, develop, manage, and implement
an integrated adaptive sports program for disabled veterans and
disabled members of the Armed Forces.'' The program did not commence
until Fiscal Year 2010 and the authorization expires at the end of
Fiscal Year 2013.
H.R. 1402 will extend the authorization for the highly successful
partnership between the USOC and the Department of Veteran Affairs to
provide Paralympic sports activities for disabled veterans in their
communities. Paralympic programs are sports for physically disabled
athletes. These adaptive sport activities have become an integral part
of their recovery to a full and healthy life after completing their
service to our country. The U.S. Olympic Committee is supportive of
H.R. 1402 and believes that it is imperative that Congress act to
extend the authorization for this program to ensure there is no
interruption in the services being provided to our disabled veterans.
When discussing the Paralympic Movement, it is not just about a
small number of elite athletes that will make future Paralympic teams.
Rather, it is a reference to the thousands of disabled active duty
military personnel and veterans that have participated in the growing
number of physical activity programs created throughout the United
States under the leadership of the VA, USOC and our innovative and
tireless community partners that allow Veterans with physical
disabilities an opportunity to re-engage in the daily activities of
life.
Prepared Statement of Dr. Susan Aldridge
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, my name is Susan Aldridge. I am currently a Senior
Fellow at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities,
commonly known as ``AASCU'', and on whose behalf I appear before you
this morning. Prior to AASCU, I served as president at the University
of Maryland University College and as Vice Chancellor at Troy
University in Alabama. UMUC and Troy are two state universities each
serving a large population of servicemembers and veterans.
AASCU represents 420 institutions and university systems across 49
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin
Islands. These institutions represent the diversity of higher education
institutions from small liberal arts institutions to large research
institutions and from open enrollment institutions to selective
institutions. The common foundation of AASCU institutions is their
focus on students. In addition, AASCU is the contracting agent for the
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges designed to expand and improve
voluntary postsecondary education opportunities for servicemembers
worldwide.
Thank you for holding this hearing and providing me with the
opportunity to present testimony regarding H.R. 357, The G.I. Bill
Tuition Fairness Act, introduced by the Honorable Jeff Miller of
Florida. I ask that my written testimony be entered into the record.
H.R. 357 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to deny GI
Bill benefits to veterans who are not charged tuition rates equal to or
less than the in-state tuition rate. Moreover, this bill would not
allow any veteran or their dependent enrolled at a public institution
to receive GI Bill benefits if that institution does not offer in-state
tuition to all veterans, thus cutting benefits to our veterans. AASCU
supports the underlying premise of treating veterans as in-state
residents and strongly supports the educational endeavors of our
veterans; however, passage of H.R. 357 will potentially result in
unintended consequences that I will address in more detail.
Most public colleges do not set their individual tuition or control
the policies associated with tuition. Currently, ten states allow
individual public institutions to set their own tuition policy.
Postsecondary tuition policy in the remaining forty states are set by
state legislatures, a statewide coordinating board or other state
entities with authority to set tuition for institutions. In addition,
many states establish clear criteria for who is eligible to receive in-
state tuition benefits. Currently, only nine states offer in-state
tuition to qualified veterans immediately upon locating within the
state. Thus, state legislatures will ultimately be required to change
the residency treatment of veterans. This is a potentially difficult
obstacle in many states.
This is further highlighted by a State Higher Education Executive
Officers February 2011 report entitled ``State Tuition, Fees, and
Financial Assistance Policies for Public Colleges and Universities
2010-2011.'' Page seven of this report cites that ``States were asked
to describe the process through which tuition levels are set. The
variety of answers given underscores that there are as many processes
for setting tuition as there are states. In many states, the process is
a multi-step process involving many entities.''
Given the complexity of relying on forty state entities to change
policies, it is quite likely that institutions will not have the
ability to charge in-state rates even if they so desired. Veterans
seeking to enroll in public institutions in those states would need to
find other, more-than-likely, costlier programs in order to utilize
their GI Bill benefit. Veterans would be forced to either move to a
state that offered in-state tuition, go to a more expensive private
institution, or attend a for-profit college.
This creates a scenario of confusion since many veterans arrive on
campus with the full expectation of receiving their GI Bill benefit.
Institutions would be forced to inform veterans that they would not be
eligible to bring their benefit to the public institutions in states
where in-state tuition hasn't been approved. Further, no new additional
veterans whether designated in-state or out-of-state could use their GI
Bill benefits in the state without legislative change. Thus, AASCU
envisions further confusion which could potentially discourage the
veteran from pursuing post-secondary education altogether and creating
a negative atmosphere toward a veteran-friendly institution.
Non-residency occurs in many situations due to the conclusion of a
servicemember's end of duty in a specific location. These veterans
decide to remain in that local community due to a variety of reasons -
children established in local schools, spousal employment, the
individual or family members have integrated into the community, etc.
If they are located in a state that is unable or has yet to alter
residency treatment for veterans, significant disruption to the family
unit could occur. A veteran would explore options at a campus, not be
able to use their GI Bill benefits and be forced to move to a state
that offers in-state tuition in order to receive their benefits.
Passage of this measure would create a hodge-podge map of eligible and
ineligible states.
Further, has the Committee considered the treatment of a veteran
who is forced to move to another state as a result of family
obligations? If a veteran is attending classes at an institution within
a state that has in-state treatment for veterans, but moves to one that
does not, the veteran will no longer be eligible to use their GI Bill
benefits in order to complete their coursework.
It is also instructive for the Committee to understand the nature
of in-state versus out-of-state rates. One way of looking at an
established out-of-state rate is to consider it as the full cost to the
institution of educating a student. Since public institutions receive
support from the state in order to provide residents with an education,
the in-state rate reflects the cost to the institution after factoring
in the state subsidy. Thus, an in-state rate is supported by state
taxpayers. Passage of this bill would shift paying for the promise
established under the GI Bill of supporting the education of a veteran
from the federal government to the states specifically and only for
veterans attending public institutions.
The following is a list of suggested improvements to the measure
that preserve the bill's underlying goals while not adversely impacting
our nation's veterans.
1. Delay implementation of the bill beyond 2014. State entities
will need time to alter policies. As noted tuition setting policy is
complex and 2014 is too soon even for states that are ready and willing
to do this today. This would also allow time to educate our current and
future veterans on these changes.
2. Treat out-of-state veterans in the same manner as veterans
attending private institutions, rather than establishing a special
class of citizens of veterans attending public institutions. This
principle is in line with the tenants of the original Post 9/11 GI
Bill.
3. Require states to develop a clearly articulated, straightforward
policy informing veterans on how to qualify for in-state tuition. This
would preserve state rights and establish a transparent process for
veterans.
4. Develop an incentive-based system that would reward those states
already providing in-state tuition to veterans. This would reward
states that are doing what they should be doing and encourage other
states to update their polices. Incentives could include additional
funds for veterans' support services and benefits.
Finally, this bill is government overreach. Various state entities
have traditionally had the right to establish tuition policy. This
authority is a clear state right. This bill opens the door for federal
intervention and dictates tuition policies for public institutions
around the country. While it is appropriate for the federal government
to be a partner in higher education, it should not be an overreaching
manager.
In closing, AASCU institutions are serving our nation's veterans
well. Institution after institution has established programs to provide
quality service for our nation's military students from providing
assistance and counseling for veterans transitioning from combat to
college, separate orientation courses, and peer-to-peer support
networks to name a few. In addition, some public colleges offer niche
programs that build off of a veteran's military training. These
programs are not offered by every institution or in every state, but
are highly-selective and desirable programs. Passage of this bill would
limit the exposure of quality support programs and the ability to
pursue an education in a desirable field from an otherwise affordable
public institution of higher education.
As a grateful Nation, we are committed to providing our veterans
with the maximum benefits they rightly deserve. Let's make sure we also
are providing the flexibility our veterans need to use them. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak today.
AASCU Federal Grants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement # Department/Agency Grant/Contract Description Performance period Funded Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10LHADC001 Corp Nat'l Service Grant Civic Minor in 9/2010 - 8/2013 433,874
Urban Ed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N00189-08-C-Z001 (Option Yr Exercise) DOD/Navy Contract Servicemembers 09/2010 - 10/2011 5,897,227
Opportunity
Colleges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N00189-08-C-Z001 (Option Yr Exercise) DOD/Navy Contract Servicemembers 10/2011 - 10/2012 5,743,773
Opportunity
Colleges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N00189-12-C-Z112 DOD/Navy Contract Servicemembers 10/2012 - 10/2013 4,899,982
Opportunity
Colleges
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of Col. G. Michael Denning, (USMC) Ret.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to
testify before you on H.R. 357, the ``GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of
2013.'' My name is Mike Denning, and I currently have the privilege to
serve as Director of the Office of Graduate Military Programs at the
University of Kansas (KU). Prior to joining KU, I spent 27 years in the
Marine Corps, and retired as a Colonel. I am here today representing
both KU and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
(APLU).
The University of Kansas is justifiably proud of our history in
serving the U.S. Armed Forces and veterans. The population of students
using veteran benefits at KU has increased nearly 40 percent since
2010, and our admission statistics for students using veterans benefits
for the Fall 2013 semester reflect a continued increase. We attract
veterans and their families for several reasons, not the least of which
is our academic reputation. Some look to KU because of programs like KU
Veterans Upward Bound, an education and skills bridge program designed
to help first-generation military veterans prepare to enroll in a
postsecondary school. Some, like Anthony Schiedeler, come to KU through
our Wounded Warrior Scholarships, which provide not only for those with
physical injuries, but for those who suffer from the invisible wounds
of war. These veterans come because of the great educational value of
KU, and they stay and graduate because of the supportive atmosphere
they experience on campus. We recognize that because of their Service
commitments, most veterans are ``non-traditional'' students and most
have been away from a formal academic setting for several years. We
understand the complexities and challenges of transitioning and provide
veterans with a host of programs, like the Veterans Learning Community,
which is designed to facilitate the transition from military service to
college. Veterans and their families at KU acquire a ``special trust
and confidence'' in their university and they find additional support
through student organizations, like the KU Collegiate Veterans
Association (CVA), which is a non-partisan group of military veterans
dedicated to supporting veteran/military students, current service
members, and their families. And as these veteran students approach
graduation, they find meaningful job contacts through University Career
Center, which maintains a specific veterans outreach effort and the KU
Veterans Alumni Chapter, which has 15 general officers on its advisory
board. It is programs like these that resulted in KU being recognized
nationally as the ninth overall ``Best for Vets'' university and 14th
among the ``Best for Vets'' Business Schools by Military Times.
APLU's membership includes 217 members, consisting of state
universities, land-grant universities, state-university systems and
related organizations. APLU institutions enroll more than 3.5 million
undergraduate students and 1.1 million graduate students, employ more
than 645,000 faculty members, and conduct nearly two-thirds of all
academic research, totaling more than $34 billion annually. KU is a
proud member of APLU.
KU, and I personally as a veteran, deeply appreciate the interest
in and support of student veterans that the Subcommittee has
demonstrated. I assure you that this nation's public universities,
including KU, want to ensure our veterans are treated fairly. Public
universities around the country are redoubling their efforts to address
the needs of veterans and service members. I can also say that public
universities were one of the most engaged groups with respect to
successfully restoring the Tuition Assistance (TA) program during the
Senate floor debate on the FY2013 omnibus/continuing resolution. As you
recall, the programs were slated for elimination by a number of the
branches as a result of the sequester.
While we are appreciative of the Subcommittee's support for student
veterans, we are seriously concerned about H.R. 357 as drafted. As
such, we cannot support it in its current form. We hope that there will
be opportunities to further discuss the bill and make changes as the
legislative process moves forward.
I want to reiterate that our public universities, including KU,
strive to ensure that our nation's veterans have access to quality
education and that they are treated fairly. With that as the
overarching framework for my comments, I would like to highlight some
of our philosophical concerns as well as potential practical and
operational pitfalls in the bill. Ultimately, if implemented in its
current form, we are concerned that the legislation could
unintentionally have negative consequences for veterans and their
families and on their education experiences.
Philosophical Concerns
An underlying concern with the legislation is that it costs more to
educate a student, regardless of where the student is from, than the
amount of in-state tuition. The gap between costs and in-state tuition
is a critical reason that states for generations have provided
substantial state taxpayer resources to their state institutions. State
taxpayers generally subsidize students from their own state because
families and students from that state pay taxes there, and often, those
families have done so for decades. Note that the subsidy of in-state
students is one of the most compelling arguments of universities when
they ask for state support. The additional tuition charged for out-of-
state students is generally to cover educational costs not subsidized
by the state. If this additional out-of-state tuition is not paid, the
money would need to come from somewhere. As written, at the risk of a
state making all veterans and beneficiaries attending its public
institutions ineligible for the G.I. Bill, the legislation is
attempting to force the reallocation of state taxpayer resources.
We are troubled that the bill would, in effect, impose a federal
definition of a ``resident'' on all states. Individual states have long
determined who qualifies as a resident of their state and who therefore
receives state benefits.
State governments are the best equipped for setting and determining
their own policies with respect to state residency and allocating their
taxpayer dollars. The State of Kansas is responsible for setting the
rules on who is considered a Kansas resident based on its needs.
Residency requirements for veterans are relaxed at the University of
Kansas. Whereas non-veteran students must reside in the state at the
time of enrollment, service members or veterans have three scenarios
where residency requirements are relaxed: (a) the service member must
have been stationed in Kansas at some point and returned to Kansas
within the last months after military discharge or retirement; (b) the
service member is currently on active duty stationed in Kansas or
formerly have been on active duty stationed in Kansas; or (c) the
service member is a member of the Kansas Army/Air National Guard and
residing in Kansas.
Many states have equally, if not more generous policies in place
regarding residency rules for veterans e.g. Texas.
Please keep in mind that these decisions were made by the states
themselves, after assessing their own state needs, and goals. We
believe the federal imposition of residency rules on states violates,
at a minimum, the spirit of the historical relationship between the
federal government and the states and would be a very bad precedent.
Through the various state policies, state governments are deciding
to spend their state tax dollars in the most appropriate manner,
according to their needs. Ultimately, the legislation in its current
form proposes to impose federal mandates on how state taxpayer funds
are used and allocated and how states choose to direct their own
resources.
In addition, the legislation as currently drafted would impose a
new unfunded mandate on both states and public higher education
institutions, which would be a very unfortunate precedent. In essence,
the bill would force states and/or public institutions to find
additional resources to fully support the educational experiences of
non-resident veterans, costs that are not budgeted for by the state or
the institution. The implications of that mandate will be discussed in
greater detail below.
Practical and Operational Concerns
Our concerns about the bill are not just philosophical. We believe
that there are significant practical and operational challenges as
well. Ultimately, we are concerned that veterans could be
unintentionally harmed by the legislation.
As previously noted, there already are states and institutions that
charge all veterans the in-state rate. However, most public
institutions do not set state residency rules and policies; those
decisions are generally made by the states themselves, including
Kansas. Therefore, should those states not currently offering in-state
benefits to all veterans fail to make changes to their statutes and
policies by the deadline imposed in the bill, public institutions in
those same states would lose their eligibility to participate in the GI
Bill. This would mean that all veterans and other beneficiaries would
no longer be able to use these benefits at any of the public
institutions in that state. Even veterans who are recognized by a state
as residents would lose their benefits at those institutions. If
veterans and other beneficiaries at these public institutions wish to
continue their education at the same institution, they would be forced
to rely on other sources for financial support. This would greatly hurt
veterans.
States that do decide to provide in-state tuition rates to veterans
from across the country would face significant challenges. Depending on
the size of the population using the GI Bill, an influx of students not
budgeted for by the states would have a real impact on all students.
Universities and colleges may be forced to cut services and programs to
cover the lack of additional resources. This would impact all students,
including veterans on our campuses.
Furthermore, as a last resort, some states, and by extension public
institutions in those states, may be forced to increase tuition -
again, affecting all students--just to maintain the current offerings
and level of quality. Despite a decrease in state appropriations,
public universities have worked to hold down costs and tuition
increases. Depending on the size of the population using the GI Bill
benefits, the State of Kansas, and by extension public institutions in
Kansas, could be forced to absorb unbudgeted costs. This could lead to
increases in tuition for all students, including veterans. This is a
very likely unintended consequence of the proposed legislation.
We must highlight the fact that, as a result of the changes to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill, there is a program for qualified veterans designed
to achieve the same ends of H.R. 357, without the ``unintended
consequences'' - the Yellow Ribbon Program. Our understanding of the
``Yellow Ribbon'' Program is that it is intended as a partnership
between participating institutions - both public and private - and the
federal government that would make higher education more affordable for
veterans. The program allows institutions of higher education to
voluntarily enter into an agreement with the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) to fund tuition expenses that exceed the in-state tuition
and fee rates. Under the Yellow Ribbon Program, institutions can
contribute up to 50 percent of those expenses and the VA will match the
same amount as the institution. KU participates in the Yellow Ribbon
Program so that veterans, residents or non-residents, have their
tuition and fees covered if they are recipients of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. H.R. 357 as drafted removes the financial responsibility from the
VA and shoulders it squarely on individual states.
Moreover, H.R. 357 as drafted could even create unintended
consequences for the Yellow Ribbon Program. Under the Yellow Ribbon
Program, qualifying veterans attending private institutions, both non-
profit and for-profit, are currently eligible to receive up to
approximately $18,000 this year to pursue their education. States that
do not currently treat all veterans as in-state residents for the
purposes of tuition, or do not grant that authority to make such
decisions to their state institutions, would find their institutions as
ineligible to accept students who are using veteran benefits. At best,
they would qualify for the in-state tuition rate. With the federal
mandate being proposed in this legislation, veterans pursuing their
education at public institutions of higher education would become
eligible for even less support from the federal government. Equity is a
real concern. Additionally, by requiring public institutions to charge
in-state rates for veterans from anywhere in the country in order to
remain eligible for the different variations of the GI Bill - a
decision that most public institutions do not have the authority to
make - the Yellow Ribbon could become a program geared primarily toward
private higher education. Such a move creates another disadvantage for
veterans at public institutions.
I must also point out that the deadline of 2014 for states to make
changes may not be workable even in states that are interested in
making those changes. In a number of states, the state legislature
meets only every two years. In some states, the residency issue may
become a state constitutional matter, and thus require more time. Other
states, for a host of legitimate reasons, may refuse to make changes.
The potential practical consequences of the failure to meet the
deadline for whatever the reason have been described above.
Having expressed concerns about the deadline, I want to be very
clear that delaying the deadline does not deal with our fundamental
concerns about this legislation.
Possible changes for consideration
With the inclusion of the federal mandate on state residency
requirements in the legislation, KU and APLU cannot endorse H.R. 357 as
written. At the same time, we would like to work with you during the
legislative process to bring about positive changes that would assist
veterans as they pursue a postsecondary education.
Promote equity between veterans attending public and
private institutions
To ensure equity between veterans attending public institutions and
private ones, we request that you consider changing the language to
allow veterans attending public institutions to also be eligible for
the same level of benefits that are available to those attending
private institutions
Create financial incentives for states to adopt similar
policies.
Instead of imposing an unworkable federal mandate on states and
state institutions, we suggest that you consider creating a financial
incentive for states to adopt policies similar to those called for in
the legislation. Such financial incentives should address the cost gap
of out-of-state students described above.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the University of Kansas and APLU believe that
veterans should have vast federal support to access and complete a high
quality postsecondary education experience and should be treated fairly
during their educational careers. We appreciate this Subcommittee's
support and interest in student veterans. Unfortunately, for the
philosophical and operational concerns highlighted above, we cannot
support the legislation as drafted. However, we look forward to working
with you to strengthen the legislation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I'd now be
happy to answer any of your questions.
Executive Summary
Thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to
testify before you on H.R. 357, the ``GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of
2013.'' My name is Mike Denning, Colonel (Retired), United States
Marine Corps and I currently serve as Director of Office of Graduate
Military Programs at the University of Kansas (KU). Prior to joining
KU, I spent 27 years in the Marine Corps, and retired as a Colonel. I
am here today representing both KU and the Association of Public and
Land-grant Universities (APLU).
KU and the public university community overall appreciate the
spirit of H.R. 357 and I certainly do as veteran. This nation's public
universities like KU want to ensure that our nation's veterans are
treated fairly and with the respect they deserve. Public universities
around the country are redoubling their efforts to address the needs of
veterans and service members to whom we all owe an enormous amount of
gratitude. I can also say that public universities were one of the most
engaged groups with respect to successfully restoring the Tuition
Assistance (TA) program during the Senate floor debate on the FY2013
omnibus/continuing resolution.
While we are supportive of the overall intent and spirit of H.R.
357 to provide greater and more affordable access to higher education
for veterans, we have an array of concerns about the bill and believe
that it may have the unintended consequence of limiting or denying
veterans access to higher education institutions.
Specifically, the bill requires all public universities to offer
in-state tuition to all veterans regardless of where they live. We are
troubled that, in this case, the federal government would, in effect,
impose a federal definition of a ``resident'' for a given state.
Additionally, this legislation imposes a new unfunded mandate that
would force states and/or public institutions to find additional
resources to fully support the educational experiences of non-resident
veterans. States, not higher education institutions, set residency
requirement rules, and state governments determine how to best use
their state tax revenues.
Since states are already facing budget crunches, many of them might
simply be unable to afford to change their residency requirements to
allow all veterans from across the country to receive in-state tuition.
As currently written, H.R. 357 imposes the penalty of cutting off GI
benefits to those states and schools that don't comply with the in-
state residency requirement. We're greatly concerned that many states
would be unable to meet the unfunded in-state tuition mandate, which
potentially would lead to veterans losing the benefit of the GI bill.
For states that do adjust their residency requirements to provide
lower in-state rates for all veterans, universities will be forced to
make up the loss of out of-state tuition, which could have a real
impact on all students as campuses may be forced to cut services and
programs to cover the lack of additional resources or even raise
tuition rates across the board. This would impact all students,
including veterans on our campus.
Despite the aforementioned problems with the current form of the
bill, we share your commitment to improving access for veterans to
quality, affordable higher education. We hope to work with you to
improve the effectiveness of the bill. In particular, we suggest that
the state mandate and penalty be removed and replaced with incentives
and supplementary federal funds for states and institutions that
broaden the scope of their in-state tuition rates for veterans.
Financial Disclosures
VA funds to Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
(APLU):
APLU has not received any funds from the VA in the last
two fiscal years.
Prepared Statement of Lt. Gen Joseph F. Weber, (USMC) Ret.
Chairman Flores and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, my
name is Joe Weber and I have the privilege of serving as Vice President
of Student Affairs at Texas A&M University. In addition, I am a retired
LtGen with 36 years of service in the US Marine Corps.
I want to begin by thanking you for the chance to come before you
today to present testimony on important issues relating to supporting
veteran's success in pursuing higher education. At Texas A&M, and
indeed in the state of Texas, we deeply value the sacrifice and service
of veterans and their families. We appreciate this committee's desire
to reflect the fact that these men and women have served all states in
the nation by providing them with in-state tuition benefits regardless
of residency.
Texas A&M agrees that it is critically important to provide access
to higher education for our veterans. With thousands of commissioned
officers and seven Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, no
university in the nation outside of the service academies has
contributed more to military service than Texas A&M. Texas A&M is
undeniably veteran friendly; hence the large number of active duty
personnel, and veterans on campus. Currently, the veteran enrollment at
Texas A&M is approximately 600 students.
We offer numerous programs and resources that benefit veterans.
There are two offices designed specifically to support veterans--
Scholarships and Financial Aid Veteran Service Office (VSO) and the
Veteran Resource and Support Center (VRSC). These offices strive to
``serve well, those who have served'' through a unique and powerful
partnership to ensure veteran and military dependent success from
``application to vocation.''
The VSO offers streamlined processing of all federal and state
educational benefits, deferred tuition pending Veterans Administration
(VA) funds, veteran new student orientation, faculty and staff mentor
training and cross campus referrals that reach campus wide. The VSO
also identifies and awards scholarships for veterans. We are a partner
school with the Pat Tillman Foundation and currently have recipients on
campus that benefit from that scholarship. Recent procedural
improvements in the VSO have significantly improved military
educational benefit processing to ensure the best possible financial
support for both veterans and military dependents.
The VRSC was established in September 2012 to provide additional
student support and programming for veterans. The office has developed
and implemented a variety of new programs that enhance veteran
recognition, improve health service access, increase academic support
opportunities and connect students with local community veteran
organizations and resources. The VRSC was designed to ensure that Texas
A&M can continue to provide the highest quality of support as our
student veteran population increases.
The VRSC facilitates a cross functional university committee called
the Troops to College Committee which identifies and addresses areas
for improvement in veteran success. Two subcommittees have been created
to improve data collection for Veterans and to oversee assessment of
veteran needs and programs. The Troops to College Committee is
comprised of key leaders from offices across campus including
admissions, disability services, career center, counseling center,
academic offices, Office of the Registrar, Student Veteran Association,
Student Government, ROTC departments, Office of the Commandant, Student
Business Services and others as needed to better support our student
veterans.
The VRSC launched the Aggie Veteran Network (AVN). It is designed
to connect Aggie student vets, dependents, military families, and
veteran faculty/staff with each other and with external organizations.
The mission of the AVN is twofold: First, to connect those who are
providing, or are willing to provide, resources and support to our
students. Second, to link our military affiliated students with high-
impact opportunities to support each other and the local community. The
AVN will link with the new Association of Former Student Aggie Veteran
& Military Constituent Network next year.
Each veteran student who graduates from Texas A&M wears a red,
white and blue Veteran Graduation cord at their commencement ceremony,
as a visible sign of our respect and honor for them.
The Texas A&M University System hosts a Military Symposium
annually. System schools, other Texas schools and community
organizations attend every year. There are informative veteran related
sessions, ``best practices'' discussions and networking opportunities
at the event. Veteran students are invited to share their experiences
in college and transition challenges to provide attendees with a better
sense of how to prioritize their efforts to improve programs and
support. The system wide document on best practices for military and
veteran support and services is also attached for you information.
Texas A&M is home to the Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans
with Disabilities (EBV), which is a collaboration between the Center
for New Ventures and Entrepreneurship, and the Center for Executive
Development and Mays Business School. The EBV initiative offers cutting
edge, experiential training in entrepreneurship and small business
management to soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines disabled as a
result of their service supporting operations Enduring Freedom and
Iraqi Freedom.
Texas A&M University is a member of the Servicemembers Opportunity
Colleges (SOC) Consortium of approximately 1,900 college and
universities. SOC Consortium members subscribe to principles and
criteria to ensure that quality academic programs are available to
service members, including members of the National Guard and Coast
Guard, their family members, reservists, and veterans of all Services.
As a SOC Consortium member, we ensure that military students share in
appropriately accredited postsecondary educational opportunities
available to other citizens. Flexibility of programs and procedures,
particularly in admissions, counseling, credit transfer, course
articulations, recognition of non-traditional learning experiences,
scheduling, course format, and residency requirements are provided to
enhance access of service members and their family members to higher
education programs.
Indeed, Texas A&M was ranked #11 Best for Vets in Military Edge
magazine in 2011. In 2012 Texas A&M was an honoree in Top Military
Friendly Colleges and Universities by Military Advanced Education.
Clearly these examples demonstrate that Texas A&M greatly values
our veteran student population. In addition, Texas A&M sees the veteran
student population as bringing this value back to the state of Texas.
States offering higher education benefits to veterans benefit greatly
from veterans' presence in the state both during and after their
enrollment in college. Veterans contribute to the state economy and
local community through a variety of means. Indeed, high-quality public
colleges and universities improve states and communities by attracting
veterans, scholars, students and researchers who lay down roots, pay
taxes, buy property, and contribute to the community in countless
immeasurable ways. The opportunity to draw more veterans to a state
often provides a strong rationale for adopting policies to extend in-
state tuition eligibility to veterans.
As a case in point, student veteran expansion has dramatically
increased in Texas, bringing an estimated $1 billion in educational
benefit revenues to the state in FY 2012 alone. Nationally the total GI
Bill expenditure approaches $26 billion since 2009. Texas has
demonstrably embraced our veteran population and I believe that a
discussion of the Texas state benefits for veterans can help inform the
policy this committee desires to enact.
The most prominent program which benefits the veterans of Texas is
the Hazlewood Act. This program provides qualified veterans, spouses
and dependent children with an education benefit of up to 150 hours of
tuition exemption, including most fees at public institutions of higher
education in Texas. It does not include living expenses, books or
supply fees. The Hazlewood Act is also extended to spouses and
dependent children of eligible active duty, Texas National Guard, and
Air National Guard Veterans who died in the line of duty or as a result
of injury or illness directly related to military service, are missing
in action, or who become totally disabled for purposes of employability
as a result of service-related injury or illness.
The use of the Hazlewood provision has exploded in the past several
years. In 2007, the program at Texas A&M included 148 veteran students,
totaling $679K tuition and fees benefit. In fiscal year 2012, the
number rose to 285 veteran students, totaling $1.6M. With the expansion
of Hazlewood benefits to dependents, the total benefit to veterans and
their families at Texas A&M stands at $9.4M. Statewide public
universities provided this benefit to 4,549 veteran students in 2007,
totaling $14.6M. In 2012, that number grew to 8,444 veteran students,
totaling $37.3M in tuition and fees benefit.
Texas A&M wholeheartedly supports these exemptions and the students
who use them. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention the
growing financial consequences of this program to our University,
especially with the expansion in 2009 to allow dependents to receive
the Hazlewood Act benefits. In short, the exemption results in foregone
revenue to the institution in what is typically considered an unfunded
mandate, since there is currently no state reimbursement or other
payment. Given that the growth in this program comes at a time when
funding for state universities across the nation is being cut,
sometimes drastically (Texas A&M was cut by 14% in state general
revenue funding for FY12 and FY13), it is difficult for universities to
maintain services and programs without this revenue. The Texas
Legislature is currently considering ways to address this issue to
ensure that Texas universities can continue to offer these benefits.
Also relevant to H.R. 357 are two programs through which Texas A&M
currently provides resources specifically for non-resident veterans;
the Military Personnel Waiver and the Yellow Ribbon GI Education
Enhancement Program (Yellow Ribbon Program).
The Military Personnel Waiver is provided through Texas Education
Code section 54.058. Current members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and
their spouses and children who meet certain eligibility requirements
may receive the waiver. Veterans must intend to establish residency in
Texas to receive this waiver.
The Yellow Ribbon Program is a provision of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
This program allows institutions of higher learning to voluntarily
enter into an agreement with VA to fund tuition expenses that exceed
the in-state tuition and fee rates. The institution can contribute up
to 50% of those expenses and VA will match the same amount as the
institution. Texas A&M University participates in the Yellow Ribbon
Program because we want to ensure all veterans, even those who are non-
residents, can have their tuition and fees covered if they have the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
To quantify, Texas A&M has 56 non-resident veterans for the spring
2013 semester, which represents less than 10% of our total veteran
student population. Twenty of these students are eligible for the
Military Personnel Waiver, 16 for a competitive scholarship waiver, and
2 for the Yellow Ribbon Program. Thus, 20 students for spring 2013 are
paying out-of-state tuition. We are fully aware that the numbers of
non-resident veterans vary across the state and nation, and that other
states and possibly other schools in Texas may not be in a similar
situation. We also note that there is a greater impact on institutions
with extensive distance education programs.
In summary, Texas has numerous policies in place that generously
benefit veterans, which Texas A&M has embraced. The spirit of H.R. 357
runs parallel to the spirit of support Texas A&M has provided its
students who are veterans. We have examined the bill in detail and
offer some suggestions for your consideration, which we believe will
improve the ability for universities to provide this benefit to the
veteran.
First, residency for tuition purposes at public universities is
usually under the purview of state legislatures; this is certainly true
in Texas. The proposed implementation date of the bill provides
insufficient time for states to address this issue if they choose to do
so given the timing of state legislative cycles. As a result, public
institutions will not be able to comply and all veterans (and their
dependents) will lose the ability to utilize their benefits, not just
those classified as a non-resident. At Texas A&M, 100% of the veterans
would be negatively impacted when only 3.3% are currently not receiving
in-state tuition rates. A potential solution is to simply delay
implementation another year or two to enable states to comply through
established legislative procedures.
Another option would be to change the language from `` . . . unless
the institution charges tuition and fees for a veteran at the same rate
as the institution charges for residents of the State . . . '' in
section 2, subsection (c) to ``unless the institution's net charges to
a veteran, after federal veteran benefits, waivers, scholarships, and
grants are applied, is at the same rate as the institution charges for
residents of the State . . . ''. This would allow institutions
flexibility in how to meet this requirement through other means. By
making this change, an institution, even in a state that does not grant
residency for tuition purposes, could provide other financial
assistance to the student to accomplish the same effect. While this may
cost institutions some funding, it would preserve the ability to
receive funding from the VA to cover the tuition charges to provide
better overall veteran educational benefit support.
It should be noted that private institutions are not impacted by
this bill. In essence, it only requires public universities to provide
a lower tuition rate for veterans and results in additional forgone
revenue. Public institutions want to do their part to serve the
veteran. Providing a mechanism to allow funding currently being
received by public institutions through the VA to continue will lessen
the impact of another unfunded mandate that either shifts the costs of
higher education onto other students, or drives up the overall cost for
everyone in order to recover lost revenue.
The overarching concern is to ensure that the veteran receives the
maximum benefit while not placing institutions in a position of
shifting costs throughout the university that would hinder the
educational mission including current or expanded veteran services.
Thank you again for providing this opportunity for me and Texas A&M
to discuss this important legislation and for your leadership in
support of our veterans.
Executive Summary
Chairman Flores and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, my
name is Joe Weber and I have the privilege of serving as Vice President
of Student Affairs at Texas A&M University. In addition, I am a retired
LtGen with 36 years of service in the US Marine Corps.
Thank you for the chance to present testimony on important issues
relating to supporting veteran's success in pursuing higher education.
At Texas A&M, and indeed in the state of Texas, we deeply value the
sacrifice and service of veterans and their families. No university in
the nation outside of the service academies has contributed more to
military service than Texas A&M. Currently, the veteran enrollment at
Texas A&M is approximately 600 students and we offer numerous programs
and resources that strive to ``serve well, those who have served.''
Texas also has demonstrably embraced our veterans, providing
several benefits programs. The most prominent of these programs is the
Hazlewood Act, which provides qualified veterans, spouses and dependent
children with an education benefit of up to 150 hours of tuition
exemption, including most fees at public institutions of higher
education in Texas. The growth in this program has exploded in the past
several years at Texas A&M and across the state. Texas A&M also makes
use of state and federal programs to address out-of-state residency.
The spirit of H.R. 357 runs parallel to the spirit of support Texas
A&M has provided its students who are veterans. We have examined the
draft bill in detail and offer some suggestions for your consideration.
One possible change is to consider delaying the implementation
date, because residency (for tuition purposes) at public universities
is usually under the purview of state legislatures. The proposed
implementation date of the bill provides insufficient time for some
states to address this issue, given the timing of state legislative
cycles. As a result, public institutions will not be able to comply and
all veterans (and their dependents) will lose the ability to utilize
their benefits, not just those classified as a non-resident. Another
option would be a small language change in the bill to allow
institutions some flexibility in how to meet this requirement through
other means.
The overarching concern is to ensure that the veteran receives the
maximum benefit while not placing institutions in a position of
shifting costs throughout the university that would hinder the
educational mission including current or expanded veteran services.
Prepared Statement of Alexander Nicholson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill # Bill Name Sponsor Position
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R 357 The GI Bill Tuition Fairness Miller Support
Act of 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R 562 The VRAP Extension Act of Miller Support
2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R 631 Servicemembers' Choice in Flores Support
Transition Act of 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R 844 VetSuccess Enhancement Act Takano Support
of 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R 1305 To Provide Clarification Wenstrup Support
Regarding Eligibility for
Services . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R 1316 Directors of Veterans' Flores Support
Employment & Training
Accountability Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R 1402 The Veterans Paralympic Act Coffman Support
of 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft 1 The Improving Job Coffman Support
Opportunities for Veterans
Act of 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft 2 To Extend Authority to Miller Support
Provide Work-Study Allowance
. . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, & Distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee:
On behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, or IAVA, I
would like to thank you for convening a hearing on these bills, and for
your continued dedication to improving the lives of and opportunities
available to America's veterans. We also appreciate this invitation to
share our organization's members' views on these particular bills
before us here today.
IAVA is the nation's first and largest nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and their
supporters. Founded in 2004, our mission is critically important but
simple - to improve the lives of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and
their families. With a steadily growing base of over 200,000 members
and supporters, we strive to help create a society that honors and
supports veterans of all generations.
While our country's economic position and the employment status of
all Americans remains a grave concern for everyone, it should distress
each and every one of us that America's newest veterans - those who
have shouldered the burden of fighting our recent wars - are being hit
the hardest. In its most recent release on the employment status of
veterans, the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that one out of every
ten post-9/11 veterans is unemployed. Alarmingly, the rate rises even
higher for female veterans.
And although we are focused here today on legislation to enhance
opportunities for veterans who are able to work, I would be remiss if I
did not remind the committee members that those who cannot seek work
because of a service-connected disability continue to face an
unacceptably backlogged VA disability claims pipeline, which denies
those veterans who cannot work the compensation the deserve to make up
for their loss of earnings. This problem, which has seen astronomical
growth since 2009 despite a 40% increase in the VA's budget over that
period, needs your urgent attention as well.
But for those veterans who are able to work and who want nothing
more than to be able to transition back into civilian life, get an
education, find gainful employment, and build a better life for
themselves and their families after faithfully and honorably carrying
out their service obligations, we owe it to them to ensure that they
have the tools, resources, and knowledge to successfully take those
next steps in life. As a result, IAVA is supportive of all of the
legislation that is the subject of this hearing today. We believe that
these bills provide important improvements upon existing programs that
serve these purposes.
H.R. 357
IAVA supports H.R. 357, which would grant in-state status for all
veterans using the GI Bill. For those who elect to return to school
after completing their military service obligations, the GI Bill has
been a remarkable personal development and economic mobility tool for
our nation's veterans, and a tremendously successful investment for our
country. The new, Post-9/11 GI Bill in particular has also been a
tremendous boon for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who
deserve the same opportunities and adjusted benefit levels as were
afforded to veterans of previous generations.
But with the entry of millions of new veterans into the ranks of
those now utilizing their earned education benefits, the need for
various adjustments and fixes to the program have come to light over
the years. Given that Congress and the American people agree that all
veterans deserve a fair opportunity to be able to utilize their
benefits without undue hardship, this body has generally been amenable
to quickly addressing these various issues as they have come up. H.R.
357 would fix another one of these benefit access and utilization
issues by allowing veterans to attend public colleges and universities
at their respective in-state rates and, thereby, actually be able to
afford to go to school and live comfortably using their Post-9/11 GI
Bill benefits.
Because of the nature of military service, service members are
required to move around according to the needs of their service.
Typically that means they are forced to settle down and reside for
years in communities outside of their original state of residence.
Service members who are stationed at a particular base or post may live
in that state for years, buy a home in that state, shop and pay local
taxes to that state, raise a family in that state, and generally become
part of the community in that locale. However, that service member is
technically still not considered a resident of that state. So if he or
she retires or ends his or her term of service in that state and wants
to stay local and go back to school as a new veteran in the place where
he or she has already functionally settled, that service member would
nevertheless be considered a non-resident as a new veteran there and
would be forced to pay the often-exorbitant out-of-state tuition rates
for his or her education there.
Veterans who wind up living in an area outside of their home states
through no fault or choice of their own because of the obligations
associated with serving their country in uniform should not be denied
the opportunity to use their deserved and earned education benefits to
cover the full cost of their education in an area where they have
already become functional - but not technical - residents simply
because of their military service. This bill would remedy that gap in
tuition and residency fairness and ensure that all veterans can take
advantage of the promise of the Post-9/11 GI Bill without undue
hardship.
H.R. 562
IAVA supports H.R. 562, which would extend the Veterans Retraining
and Assistance Program for an additional three months. This program
continues to provide need practical and vocational training to tens of
thousands of veterans who are not eligible for any other VA education
benefit program. In today's employment climate, this type of support
for struggling veterans constitutes a worthwhile investment.
H.R. 631
IAVA supports H.R. 631, which would enhance, expand, and
standardize the content of the Transition Assistance Program for
service members who are preparing to reintegrate into the civilian
world, go back to school using their VA education benefits, and/or
enter the civilian job market, constitutes a positive step in the right
direction toward equipping troops with the knowledge and skills they
need to be successful as new veterans.
We cannot simply turn new veterans loose into the civilian world
and expect them to be successful, just as we would not release them as
new troops onto a battlefield without proper acculturation and
training. A strong, comprehensive, substantive, and consistent
Transition Assistance Program is vital to ensuring service members'
successful transition back into civilian life, and to ensuring the
security and stability of their families.
We need to remember that many of these men and women go into the
military right out of high school, shortly after college, or early in
their professional lives, and although they have shouldered great
responsibilities and successfully advanced in their careers within the
military system during their period of service, the requirements,
expectations, and unspoken rules of the civilian employment landscape
can be quite different.
H.R. 844
IAVA supports H.R. 844, which would extend the eligibility period
for vocational rehabilitation programs. Those who have sacrificed their
ability to work in service to our nation deserve all the tools and
resources we are capable of providing in order to help rehabilitate and
equip them for future employment opportunities.
H.R. 1305
IAVA supports H.R. 1305, which clarifies eligibility for services
under the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. Ensuring that all
veterans who quality for this program receive these benefits is
critical to helping remedy the veterans homelessness epidemic and to
helping these veterans become self-sustaining.
H.R. 1316
IAVA supports H.R. 1316, which would clearly delineate certain
duties and responsibilities of Directors and Assistant Directors of
Veterans' Employment and Training. Prudent supervision and oversight is
important to ensuring accountability, and Congress is right to help
ensure that the departments and agencies it oversees have sufficiently
explicit standards and expectations promulgated.
H.R. 1402
IAVA supports H.R. 1402, which would extend VA support for disabled
veterans' participation in the Paralympics. The promotion of
therapeutic and rehabilitative initiatives for veterans has always been
a priority of the VA, and competitive programs such a the Paralympics
that foster both recovery and national pride are worthy of our support.
DRAFT BILL 1
IAVA would support Draft Bill 1, which would improve and increase
the availability of on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for
veterans. This bill represents an important acknowledgement of the
enormous benefits that can come from practical learning and training
experiences. Sometimes, and in some fields, there is simply no better
way to learn a job or trade than to actually dive in and get hands-on
experience in that field. And in today's highly competitive job market,
getting an initial foot in the door and being able to effectively
network can make the difference between finding a job and spending
months or years more searching. We should encourage veterans entering
the civilian job market to develop and hone these types of practical
skills to help them compete with their civilian job-seeking
counterparts who may have more experience on the civilian side of their
respective industries and fields.
This bill not only expands opportunities for veterans to do just
that, but it also smartly focuses on requiring the VA to widely
advertise the availability of such programs. After all, the VA can have
the best benefits and programs the world, but if no one knows about
them and knows how to take advantage of them, then our investment in
them and the return on that investment is significantly diminished.
DRAFT BILL 2
IAVA would support Draft Bill 2, which would extend the
availability of work-study allowances for certain veterans receiving
educational benefits from the VA. For those veterans pursuing higher
education who need additional assistance to help finance the cost of
their education and living expenses while in school, work-study
programs provide a relevant and positive way to earn income while
supporting the ongoing work of eligible work-study partners.
We again appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on these
bills, and we look forward to continuing to work with each of you, your
staff, and the Committee to improve the lives of veterans and their
families. Thank you for your time and attention.
Statement on Receipt of Federal Grant or Contract Funds
Neither Mr. Nicholson nor the organization he represents, Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, has received federal grant or contract
funds during the current or two previous fiscal years.
Prepared Statement of Ryan M. Gallucci
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the nearly 2 million members of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I want
to thank you for the opportunity to present the VFW's stance on
legislation pending before this Subcommittee.
Though the economy continues to slowly recover, unemployment among
young veterans who served after 9/11 continues to outpace unemployment
among civilians. Over the last few years, the VFW has prioritized
veteran-hiring initiatives and championed legislation before this
committee in an effort to help our service members and veterans secure
meaningful careers after military service.
I want to first thank the subcommittee for its hard work in the
112th Congress, championing legislation like the VOW to Hire Heroes
Act, the Improving Transparency in Education for Veterans Act, and
dozens of other initiatives that have helped make today's veterans more
competitive during difficult economic times.
However, with the war in Iraq over, drawdown in Afghanistan
imminent, proposed reductions in the active duty military and plans to
rely heavily on the Guard and Reserve for future missions, we must
continue to do more. The bills we are discussing today will help
veterans of all eras remain competitive in the workforce; improve
transitional resources for separating service members; foster
rehabilitation among severely wounded veterans; and enhance services to
homeless and at-risk veterans.
H.R. 357, GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013:
Over the last few years, the VFW, American Legion and Student
Veterans of America have worked closely to improve educational
resources for veterans, ensuring potential student-veterans are
academically and financially prepared for the rigors of college life. A
major roadblock that prevents student-veterans from receiving a
quality, reasonably-priced education through the Post-9/11 GI Bill is
the inability to qualify as in-state residents for tuition purposes
while attending public colleges and universities. Specifically,
recently-separated veterans who may be legal residents of a particular
state, but who have been stationed on a military installation in
another state, will not qualify as residents when they seek to attend a
public college or university because they have not been physically
present in the state long enough to qualify as a resident for tuition
purposes. As of 2011, Student Veterans of America reports that only one
out of every five veterans attending a public school is eligible to
attend at the in-state rate.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill was intended to offer veterans a free, public
education and a modest living stipend, allowing veterans to treat
college as a full-time job, without worrying about financial stability.
Current law only allows VA to reimburse veterans attending public
schools for the cost of an in-state education, meaning veterans who
cannot qualify for in-state tuition will only receive meager
reimbursement for college. This clerical oversight forces veterans to
find other ways to pay for college either through other federal aid
programs, finding full time employment or amassing student loan debt
even when they make a good faith effort to legally reside in a state
and attend a public school.
An easy solution to this issue would be for public colleges and
universities to allow Post-9/11 GI Bill-eligible veterans to attend at
the in-state rate. Service members already have similar protections
when they use military Tuition Assistance at public schools, with
minimal impact on the ability of state colleges and universities to
deliver a quality, reasonably-priced education.
Ten states already offer in-state tuition to veterans, eight states
offer conditional waivers for veterans in certain circumstances, and 16
states have legislation pending. Of the states that have passed in-
state tuition initiatives for veterans, both Republican and Democrat
state leaders have all agreed that the financial benefits for the state
far outweigh the illusory financial burdens that some in higher
education believe would be detrimental to institutional budgets -
particularly since graduates of public colleges and universities
traditionally pursue careers close to their alma mater.
When Ohio passed its in-state tuition waiver in 2009, then- Gov.
Ted Strickland said of in-state tuition, ``It delivers real support to
veterans while helping strengthen Ohio's strategic plan for higher
education, which calls for attracting and keeping talent in the state.
Who better to have as part of Ohio's colleges and universities,
workforce and communities than the veterans who have served, led, and
protected our country?''
When Virginia passed its law in 2011, Gov. Bob McDonnell said
``These men and women have served our country; it is essential that we
continue to work to better serve them. Veterans are the kind of
citizens we want in the Commonwealth and that we want as part of our
workforce.''
When Louisiana passed its law in 2012, Gov. Bobby Jindal said,
``This new law encourages members of the U.S. military - who are the
best trained professionals in the world - to pursue an education in our
state, which will be an economic boost, but most importantly, it's yet
another means for us to thank these brave men and women for their
service.''
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a federal program designed to help our
nation's heroes acquire the skills necessary to build a successful
career after military service. Our veterans served the nation; not a
particular state. They should not be penalized for their honorable
service when they cannot satisfy strict residency requirements for
tuition purposes. The VFW regularly hears from student-veterans who
confirm that financial uncertainty is the most significant roadblock to
persistence and graduation. To combat this, it only makes sense to
allow our student-veterans to attend college at a reasonable rate when
seeking to use their earned Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and we hope the
committee moves quickly to pass this legislation.
H.R. 562, VRAP Extension Act of 2013:
The VFW was proud to support the establishment of the Veterans
Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP) as part of the VOW to Hire Heroes
Act on 2011. To date, more than 93,000 veterans between the ages of 35-
60 have certified eligibility for the program. Unfortunately, fewer
than 41,000 eligible veterans have enrolled in an eligible program to
date. The original VRAP program is set to expire on March 31, 2014,
meaning that veterans who did not enroll as of April 1 will not be able
to use all 12 months of eligibility for the program. The VFW supports
extending this deadline to June 30, 2014 to ensure that eligible
veterans can enroll in an academic program and use their full year of
benefits.
However, the VFW echoes the concerns of this committee that
enrollment remains too low. We fully support a report to Congress on
the outcomes of VRAP, but we also ask the committee to consider two
critical improvements to the program.
First, Congress should ease the restriction on institutional
eligibility for VRAP. The VFW understands that VRAP will only pay for
programs no longer than two years in duration. As a result, four-year
institutions are ineligible to participate. On the surface, this makes
sense. Unfortunately, quality four-year institutions that offer
certificate and two-year programs are locked out of VRAP, and veterans
are told to enroll at community colleges or online schools.
However, not all communities offer community colleges. For example,
in Erie, Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State University Erie Campus
serves as a de facto community college, even though the school also
offers four-year programs. Veterans who wish to use their VRAP benefits
will not find an eligible community college nearby. They simply do not
exist in Erie.
Second, Congress must make it easier for VRAP benefits to cover
remediation training. Recently, the VFW heard from the Student Veterans
Organization at the Community College of Rhode Island, which boasts
significant enrollment from VRAP-eligible veterans. By the very nature
of the program, many eligible veterans require significant remediation
in areas like math, composition and computer literacy. Unfortunately,
CCRI's student-veterans report that these basic remedial skills cannot
be paid for through VRAP since they are not part of the core curriculum
for VRAP-approved programs. The VFW believes this sets up eligible
veterans for failure. Veterans must be able to use VRAP for basic
remediation. Otherwise, we cannot reasonably expect veterans to have
the skills necessary to complete their approved programs in a timely
manner.
H.R. 631, Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act of 2013:
The VFW fully supports the redesign of the military's transition
assistance programs (TAP), and we thank VA, Department of Labor, the
Small Business Administration, and Department of Defense for allowing
VFW to audit and evaluate pilot curricula for redesigned TAP and the
new Transition GPS model.
While we acknowledge that TAP has significantly improved through
this latest redesign, we have concerns that the program will still fail
to adequately prepare service members for civilian life, since
participation in individualized tracked curricula will not be
mandatory.
Rather than mandating participation in one of three new tracks
focusing on education, vocational/technical careers or
entrepreneurship, DoD has instead decided that service members will
need to meet ``career readiness standards'' in the track of their
choice. To the VFW, this is not what we envisioned when we suggested
that DoD develop curricula from which a transitioning service member
could choose prior to separation.
Instead, the VFW envisioned a model similar to Marine Corps TAP,
through which a service member would attend service-specific training,
the VA benefits briefings, then choose from one of four tracks:
Employment, education, entrepreneurship, and vocational/technical.
Chairman Flores, your bill clarifies that the intent of the TAP
redesign was to offer this kind of transitional training, and we are
proud to support it.
The VFW supports DoD's efforts to build a life cycle model for
military professional development, but we are concerned that the new
model will still fail to adequately prepare service members for
civilian life. We prefer the model set forth in H.R. 631, which allows
service members to actively choose their unique transition plan, but
also acknowledges the finite time frame services can dedicate to
preparing separating service members for civilian life.
H.R. 844, VetSuccess Enhancement Act:
The VFW has a long-standing resolution calling on VA to lift the
delimiting date for participation in the Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR&E) program, and we are proud to support H.R. 844, which extends the
delimiting date by five years.
The VFW has long held that if disabled veterans need additional
skills to be employable, then VA has a duty to offer these resources
regardless of how long a veteran has been separated from the military.
Over time, service-connected disabilities can limit veterans in their
career choices. Veterans limited by their disabilities may need VR&E
services later in life to remain competitive in an ever-changing
workforce, and the VFW believes it is our obligation to offer those
resources without arbitrary time restrictions.
VA already has some regulatory flexibility in how it can administer
VR&E benefits, but the VFW prefers to see the delimiting date lifted in
code.
H.R. 1305, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide
clarification regarding eligibility for services under the
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program:
The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) offers
tremendous transitional resources to homeless veterans seeking to
reenter the workforce. Unfortunately, due to the rigid definition of
``homeless veteran,'' many formerly homeless, formerly incarcerated, or
transitioning veterans who could benefit the most from the program are
ineligible. By expanding the definition to include these categories of
at-risk veterans, HVRP will offer more veterans the opportunity to
successfully reenter the workforce.
H.R. 1316, To amend title 38, United States Code, to specify the
responsibilities of the Directors and Assistant Directors of
Veterans' Employment and Training:
The VFW is proud to support H.R. 1316, which will finally codify
the specific responsibilities of Directors of Veterans Employment and
Training (DVETS) and Assistant Directors of Veterans Employment and
Training (ADVETS) in state workforce development agencies. The VFW
understands that many DVETS and ADVETS already fulfill these
responsibilities, but we echo Department of Labor Veterans Employment
and Training Services that federally-funded directors responsible for
managing veterans' employment resources on the state level must have
consistency in mission. The VFW is also concerned that DVETS and ADVETS
must be protected should the SKILLS Act (H.R. 803) gain momentum in
Congress, transforming how state workforce development programs are
funded and structured. Our goal is to ensure that veteran-specific
resources continue to be available in every state and that services are
rendered consistently. In order to do this, the House Veterans Affairs
Committee must be able to provide direct funding and continue to have
direct oversight of DVETS and ADVETS.
H.R. 1402, To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the
authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled
veterans training or competing for the Paralympic Team and the
authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to provide assistance to United States Paralympics,
Inc.:
The VFW believes that rehabilitation through sports fosters healthy
living, physical fitness, and a competitive spirit for our disabled
veterans, many of whom have suffered catastrophic injuries in the line
of duty. VFW Posts and Departments around the country consistently
support rehabilitative sports in their communities, which is why we are
proud to support extending VA's collaboration with United States
Paralympics, Inc. through 2018.
By supporting responsible rehabilitative sports initiatives like
those provided by the U.S. Paralympic Team, the VFW believes that
combat-wounded veterans will not simply overcome their injuries, but
also discover new personal strengths and abilities.
Draft bill, Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013:
The VFW believes that the intent of the GI Bill is to allow
veterans to acquire the necessary skills to compete in the civilian job
market. For many veterans, the simplest path to acquiring these skills
is through higher education. However, we must stress that college is
not for everybody, which is why GI Bill-eligible veterans can also
acquire highly-marketable job skills through VA-approved apprenticeship
and on-the-job training programs (OJT).
The National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA)
consistently touts the merits of approved OJT programs, but admittedly
has trouble informing eligible veterans that the programs exist.
Through this draft legislation, VA will be able to readily
publicize the availability of OJT and also make the program more
attractive to potential employers by offering greater flexibility in
compensation for trainees. To take this one step further, the VFW would
suggest restoring outreach funding to State Approving Agencies, which
play a critical role in informing veterans of OJT opportunities.
The VFW would proudly support this initiative to increase the
visibility and viability of VA-approved OJT programs.
Draft bill, To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the
authority to provide work-study allowance for certain
activities by individuals receiving educational assistance by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs:
This draft bill is a simple extension of VA's authority to offer
work-study allowances for student-veterans. The VFW has long supported
the VA work-study program and we would proudly support this initiative
to extend the program to 2018.
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my testimony and I would be happy to
answer any questions you 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, VFW has
not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2013, nor has it
received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
Prepared Statement of Steve L. Gonzalez
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, on behalf of Commander Koutz and the 2.4 million
members of The American Legion, I thank you and your colleagues for the
work you do in support of our service members and veterans as well as
their families. The hard work of this Subcommittee in creating
significant legislation has left a positive impact on our military and
veterans' community.
In the last Congress alone, The American Legion was pleased to
support and advocate for the passage of legislation out of this
Committee that included the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, the Veteran Skills
to Jobs Act, and the Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities
for Veterans Act. These bills, and others passed into law during the
112th Congress, show the commitment and determination of members of
this Committee to improving the lives of those who have served our
country.
As you know, our servicemen and women returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan are met with daunting challenges at home. These soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines are greeted by a soft economy that has
resulted in an alarmingly high unemployment rate among our highly
skilled veteran community. What our veterans need are jobs, business
opportunities or education pathways that can help support a successful
transition from military service to prosperous civilian careers.
As the largest organization of wartime veterans, the Legion's voice
is representative of more than 4 million veterans and patriotic
Americans. Our positions are guided by nearly 100 years of consistent
advocacy, and resolutions that originate at the grassroots level of the
organization - the local American Legion posts and veterans in every
congressional district of America. The Headquarters staff of the Legion
works daily on behalf of veterans, military personnel and our
communities through roughly 20 national programs, and hundreds of
outreach programs led by our posts across the country.
We appreciate the opportunity to present The American Legion's
views regarding this legislation, and believe we are uniquely qualified
to participate in this discussion.
H.R.357: GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013
Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), for purposes of the
educational assistance programs administered by the Secretary, to
disapprove courses of education provided by public institutions of
higher education that do not charge tuition and fees for veterans at
the same rate that is charged for in-state residents, regardless of the
veteran's state of residence.
The American Legion is synonymous with veteran's education, being
instrumental in the first and most recent GI Bill's passage and helping
the modern-day veteran navigate the confusing world of education
benefits. The main reason for the Post 9/11 GI Bill was that VA
education benefits were no longer covering fast-rising tuition costs.
Working with Congress, we stressed the need for a ``21st century GI
Bill'' that would provide benefits worthy of our veterans and offer the
same opportunities afforded to those who fought in World War II.
However, over the last couple of years, we have heard from
countless veterans who, because of the nature of military service,
often have a difficult time establishing residency for purposes of
obtaining in-state tuition rates. Under current rules 40,000 student-
veterans have to pay the difference between in-state tuition, which is
covered by the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and out-of-state tuition if they are
attending school as a nonresident. Because of this, many of our
student-veterans are unable to use their GI Bill benefits at an
institution of higher education of their choice or are required to pay
thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses in nonresidential
tuition rates. Furthermore, public colleges and universities have
significantly raised the costs of out-of-state tuition to offset
decreasing revenues due to state budget cuts. Circumstances such as
these pose significant challenges to using this important benefit.
Therefore, The American Legion has led a state-by-state initiative
to introduce, advocate for and support state legislation that would
make all student-veterans eligible for in-state tuition at public
colleges and universities, regardless of their residency status.
We were also pleased to see Chairman Miller and Ranking Member
Michaud cooperate to introduce this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 357,
which would require public colleges and universities to give veterans
in-state tuition rates even though they may not be residents. The
requirement would apply to state schools which have programs which are
eligible for the GI Bill.
Veterans shouldn't have to go into deep debt for their education
just because their permanent residence is in another state or assume
tremendous financial burdens due to the recent change in law which
often capped GI Bill benefits far short of high out-of-state rates.
Therefore, this legislation is absolutely essential to thousands of
veterans who were promised this funding for their college education
when the Post-9/11 GI Bill was originally passed and is vital to giving
veterans an equal opportunity to afford the school of their choice.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R.562: VRAP Extension Act of 2013
Amends the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 to extend through June
30, 2014, the veterans retraining assistance program (VRAP). Directs
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to submit to Congress an interim
report on the retraining assistance provided under such program.
The American Legion has worked with thousands of veterans who need
to update their skill sets in order to be competitive in today's
workforce, which is why we actively supported passage of the VOW to
Hire Heroes Act of 2011. As part of the VOW Act, VRAP provides up to 12
months of education benefits to unemployed veterans between the ages of
35-60, a group comprising nearly two thirds of all unemployed veterans.
As the law currently stands, VRAP is scheduled to expire March 31,
2014, and The American Legion supports this extension which will allow
veterans using VRAP to continue to receive funding through what is
considered the traditional spring semester of 2014 at the institution
where they are enrolled, making it possible for participants to
complete training while receiving VRAP benefits. The American Legion
works closely with many of these program participants and can testify
to the need for them to be able to complete the programs they started
through this new initiative. As such, The American Legion supports
extending this deadline to ensure that participating veterans can use
their full year of benefits.
The bill would also require an interim report to Congress to
measure VRAP's success in helping unemployed veterans find jobs.
Understanding the program's effectiveness would give Congress and
stakeholders monitoring this program, like the Legion, the information
needed to decide whether extending VRAP makes sense for our veterans as
well as American taxpayers.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 631: Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act of 2013
Amends provisions concerning the Transition Assistance Program of
the Department of Defense (employment and job training assistance and
related services for members of the Armed Forces being separated from
active duty, and for their spouses) to require such Program to consist
of at least five days of instruction as follows: (1) at least one day
of service-specific pre-separation training; (2) up to one day each for
instruction in preparation for employment, preparation for education or
career or technical training, preparation for entrepreneurship, or
other options determined by the Secretary of the military department
concerned; (3) at least two days of in-depth instruction of the
participant's choice in any of the subjects described under (2), above;
and (4) up to one day in benefits provided under laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) and in other subjects determined
by the Secretary concerned.
The American Legion works with transitioning veterans through a
variety of programs, including job fairs and resume writing workshops.
Over the past several years, The American Legion has attended and
audited many of the Transition Assistance Programs (TAP) that are
administered nationwide. Recognizing the importance TAP plays in the
lives of separating service member and their families, The American
Legion heartily supported the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 which, in
relevant part, makes TAP mandatory for most service members
transitioning to civilian status, upgrades career counseling options,
and job hunting skills, as well as ensures the program is tailored to
individuals and the 21st Century job market.
Transition Goals Plans Success, known simply as Transition GPS,
replaces the 20-year-old Transition Assistance Program and takes
military members through a week-long class, compared to the original
TAP's mandatory two to four hours of separation counseling. In the
course of five days, service members develop an individual transition
plan that maps out financial planning and a budget to follow the first
12 months after separating from the military. It also covers how to
write a resume and how to interview for a job, along with exploring how
military skills can be carried over into the civilian work force. In
addition to the DOL workshop, a Veterans Affairs representative goes
over benefits.
The new curriculum also includes optional two-day capstone courses
which cover an educational track, a technical and skills training track
and entrepreneurship track, and allows the separating service members
to hone in on the field they intend to pursue after service. However,
these capstone courses are not recognized by DOD as being a part of the
core curriculum.
The American Legion has been hosting veterans Small Business
Training programs for almost 10 years, and understands the critical
need for transitioning service members to have a variety of post-
military choices that best suit their individual employment goals and
particular family needs. Therefore, we share the concerns of this
Subcommittee, that mandatory training must include those alternative
paths, and that forcing every service member to sit through 3 days of
job-hunting skills at the expense of training that tailored to their
post-discharge intentions is a poor use of resources. A program of
providing a core instruction summarizing the highlights of the detailed
tracks, followed by allowing the servicemember to choose a track as
part of the mandatory coursework, is a superior approach to meeting the
needs of TAP participants. H.R. 631 clarifies that the intent of the
TAP redesign was to offer this kind of transitional training, and we
are pleased to support it.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 844: VetSuccess Enhancement Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the eligibility
period for veterans to enroll in certain vocational rehabilitation
programs.
The number of service members, National Guard, and reservists who
separate from active duty with service-connected disabilities has risen
as a result of the engagement of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
Program provides comprehensive services and assistance to enable
veterans with service-connected disabilities and employment handicaps
to achieve maximum independence in daily living, to become employable,
and to obtain and maintain suitable employment.
However, the basic period of eligibility for VR&E benefits is
limited to 12 years from the date of separation from the military or
the date the veteran was first notified by VA of a service-connected
disability rating. Based on American Legion case studies, several years
ago The American Legion passed a resolution calling on VA to lift the
delimiting date for participation in the program. We have found that
many service members and veterans do not understand their eligibility
to VR&E services and the benefits of the program until later in life
when they become so disabled that their disabilities create an
employment barrier. Because this legislation would extend the
delimiting date by five years, we can support it as a step in the right
direction, but The American Legion would prefer to see the delimiting
date eliminated altogether.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 1305
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide clarification
regarding eligibility for services under the Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program
The American Legion has taken a leadership role within local
communities by volunteering, fundraising, and advocating for programs
and funding for homeless veterans, as well as hosting workshops and
roundtables in Washington, D.C. and around the country. In doing so,
we've seen and heard from homeless veterans and their families that
obtaining meaningful employment is absolutely key to their transition
back into mainstream society.
Currently, homeless veterans are eligible for job training and
placement services under the Homeless Veteran Reintegration Program
(HVRP), the only nationwide program focused on assisting homeless
veterans to reintegrate into the workforce. Unfortunately, the U.S.
Department of Labor has determined that some homeless veterans are not
eligible to participate in this existing program. Specifically, the
Department of Labor has concluded veterans who are participating in
another program, known as the HUD-VASH voucher program, are not
considered truly ``homeless'', and are therefore ineligible for the
very programs that will help them re-enter the workforce and get them
back on their feet.
While it's true that some veterans in the HUD-VASH Program do not
actively seek employment due to serious mental illness, substance use
disorders, physical disabilities or co-occurring disorders, many others
are in need of the job placement and retention services provided by
HVRP. Access to HVRP while being housed with a HUD-VASH voucher will
allow many formerly homeless, formerly incarcerated, or transitioning
veterans to leverage the available federal resources that will
strengthen their financial stability and independent living. The HUD-
VASH Program does not alleviate a veteran's need for the employment
support provided by HVRP.
Finally, in our view HVRP is a highly successful grant program and
needs to be fully funded at $50 million. Currently, HVRP is funded at
$38.26 million.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 1316
To amend title 38, United States Code, to specify the
responsibilities of the Directors and Assistant Directors of Veterans'
Employment and Training.
The Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) is an
independent agency within the Department of Labor (DOL) created
specifically to assist veterans in making the transition from military
to civilian life, train for and find good jobs, and to protect the
employment and reemployment rights of veterans, Reservists and National
Guard Members. VETS maintains a network of State Directors and
Assistant Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(DVETs/ADVETs).
The American Legion has long supported Labor's VETS program. We
have worked closely with the Department of Labor and the program since
it was introduced, we are a member of the Department's Veterans
Advisory Committee, and Legionnaires have worked at all levels of the
organization. VETS leadership actively consults with the Legion to
ensure their work is in keeping with Legion views and we believe
strongly in the agency's expertise and experience to manage the program
effectively.
We have reviewed the current position descriptions for the DVETs
and note the almost total overlap between them and the proposed duties
outlined in the bill.
For these reasons, The American Legion does not see the need at
this point in specifying in the code the responsibilities for these
positions. Further, we believe VETS, which has responsibly managed
these positions heretofore, should retain the authority and flexibility
to define the positions.
The American Legion is unable to support this bill at this time.
H.R. 1402
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization
of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a
monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing
for the Paralympic Team and the authorization of appropriations for the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to United States
Paralympics, Inc.
Public Law 110-389 (2008) authorized VA to award grants to the U.S.
Olympic Committee to plan, manage and implement an adaptive sports
program for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces.
In addition, it authorized a monthly subsistence allowance to
qualifying disabled veterans in training or competing for the
Paralympics to help them more easily take part in competitive sports.
Further, both were authorized during fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
H.R. 1402 would extend these authorizations through 2018.
Since its foundation in 1919, The American Legion has identified as
its most important issue the rehabilitation and reintegration of the
disabled veteran. We have been working intimately with the Paralympic
program since 2005 and are also strong believers in the physical and
psychological benefits that come from involvement in sports and
recreation. Thus, we support such programs of the U. S. Olympic
Committee that facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration of our
disabled veterans and service members. We know that sports and physical
activity can have a transformative effect on those with a physical
disability and the continued provision of funds will help to expand and
provide greater access to sports programs for injured veterans and
disabled members of the Armed Forces.
The American Legion supports this bill.
Draft bill: Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013
To improve and increase the availability of on-job training and
apprenticeship programs carried out by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
On-the-job training is still the predominant form of job training
in the United States, particularly for non-managerial employees and
numerous studies indicate that it is the most effective form of job
training.
The VA's On-the-Job & Apprenticeship Training Program offers
veteransor currently serving guard or reserve an alternative way to use
their GI Bill education and training benefits if they would rather not
utilize them through higher education. Unfortunately, The American
Legion has found that most veterans are not aware they can use their GI
Bill benefits for on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs with
many businesses.
This draft legislation would mandate VA promote this program to
veterans in national media outlets as highly efficient and effective
ways of obtaining jobs, as The American Legion has been promoting this
program locally through our posts. It would also lower the costs to
companies who participate in the program making it more attractive for
them to participate.
The American Legion works closely with the State Approving Agencies
(SAAs) to ensure they correctly administer on-the-job and
apprenticeship programs and understand both their value and importance.
They have historically also been at the forefront of promoting and
marketing these programs through their outreach efforts, so we believe
VA should partner with SAAs in any public relations campaign they
undertake and we furthermore recommend that VA restore outreach funding
for SAAs so they can more effectively promote these and other GI Bill
educational programs.
The American Legion supports this bill.
Draft bill
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority to
provide work-study allowance for certain activities by individuals
receiving educational assistance by Secretary of Veterans Affairs
This draft bill is an extension of the Department of Veteran
Affairs authority to offer certain work-study allowances for student-
veterans due to expire mid-year. The American Legion has long supported
the Department of Veteran Affairs work-study program and supports this
initiative to maintain as many of these work-study opportunities as
possible.
This program provides a valuable benefit to student-veterans and
that benefit is often multiplied many times over when, for example,
they are allowed to perform outreach services to service members and
veterans furnished under the supervision of a State approving agency
employee. This is just one instance of the important work that is
accomplished by these student-veterans.
The American Legion supports this bill.
As always, The American Legion thanks this Subcommittee for the
opportunity to explain the position of the over 2.4 million veteran
members of this organization.
For additional information regarding this testimony, please contact
Mr. Jeffrey Steele at The American Legion's Legislative Division, 202-
263-2987 or [email protected].
Executive Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 357 Legion supports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 562 Legion supports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 631 Legion supports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 844 Legion supports, suggests improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1305 Legion supports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1316 Legion cannot support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1402 Legion supports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013 Legion supports, suggests improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft bill to extend the authority to provide work- Legion supports
study allowance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of Michael Dakduk
Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America to participate
in this hearing to discuss pending legislation intended to increase
support for military servicemembers and veterans.
Student Veterans of America (SVA) is the largest and only national
association of military veterans in higher education. Our mission is to
provide military veterans with the resources, support, and advocacy
needed to succeed in higher education and after graduation. We
currently have over 800 chapters, or student veteran organizations, at
colleges and universities in all 50 states that assist veterans in
their transition to and through higher education. SVA chapters are
organized at four-year and two-year public, private, nonprofit, and
for-profit institutions of higher learning. This diverse and direct
contact gives SVA a unique perspective on the needs and obstacles faced
by our nation's veterans as they utilize education benefits in
preparation for their future transition into the civilian workforce.
H.R. 357, GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013:
The Post-9/11 GI Bill pays the highest in-state tuition and fees.
Due to military obligations, many veterans are unable to establish in-
state residency for the purposes of enrolling at a public university or
college. Ultimately, this becomes a financial burden that leaves
veterans vying for additional financial aid due to out-of-state
residency status.
According to a state-by-state landscape analysis conducted by our
organization, 11 states waive the residency requirement for any veteran
to receive in-state tuition. They include Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,
Utah, and Virginia.
Eight states waive the residency requirement for some veterans to
receive an in-state tuition waiver or the state's public university
school system offers the waiver. They include Alaska, Delaware,
Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Texas.
16 state legislatures are currently considering legislation that
would waive the residency requirement for veterans to receive in-state
tuition. Those currently reviewing state legislation include Alabama,
California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Washington.
However, the nuanced policies and variability between states and
university systems are highly complex.
For example, the board of regents of the Alaska higher education
system decided to waive the 12 month residency requirement, a virtually
universal waiting period in higher education to gain in-state residency
status, to all veterans and dependents.
In contrast, Maryland offers in-state residency only to those
veterans that graduated from a Maryland high school. They currently
have pending legislation to provide in-state tuition to all veterans.
There are many other unique examples across the spectrum of higher
education related to veterans and residency status for the purposes of
gaining in-state tuition.
We are proud to be working with the American Legion on a state-by-
state initiative to see in-state tuition granted to all veterans. We
are also very proud to be aligned with both the American Legion and the
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in seeing this issue resolved in
Congress. SVA fully supports H.R. 357 and we encourage Congress to
recognize that veterans served our nation in its entirety, not just one
state.
H.R. 562, VRAP Extension Act of 2013:
Many student veterans do not follow a traditional path toward
college completion, which makes it very difficult to enroll in and
complete programs of higher learning based on a set time block. For
this reason, SVA fully supports this bill to extend the VRAP program by
three months. SVA is also in favor of quality measures to determine the
success of this program in order to make data-driven decisions for VRAP
and future veteran employment initiatives.
SVA, however, shares the same concerns as the VFW with regard to
institutional and remedial course restrictions. The VRAP program should
be expanded to include four-year institutions of higher learning. They
too provide critical certificates and two-year degree programs designed
to combat veteran unemployment. Additionally, remedial courses have
been omitted from VRAP. We cannot reasonably expect veterans to succeed
in a program of higher learning after being removed from the college
classroom for several years and one or more combat deployments.
Remedial coursework is critical to a student veteran's academic
success.
H.R. 631, Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act:
SVA has long supported the reform of the military transition
assistance programs (TAP). While we believe the improvements to TAP are
a step in the right direction, we support formally linking TAP tracks
to the mandatory curriculum.
Currently, there exist three optional tracks administered at the
tail-end of the TAP course. The three optional tracks include
education, entrepreneurship, and vocational training. However, none of
the aforementioned tracks are truly integrated into the mandatory TAP
program, leaving servicemembers at-risk of losing valuable information
during their transition.
SVA supports institutionalizing tracks as a mandatory component of
TAP as written in H.R. 631.
H.R. 844, VetSuccess Enhancement Act:
Student Veterans of America fully supports any initiative to extend
the life of meaningful veteran programs. Veterans are nontraditional
students, meaning some will return to school or other training programs
later in life. By extending Vocational Rehabilitation programs from 12
years to 17 years, many wounded veterans would have more flexibility in
using their benefits. Ultimately, SVA would like to see the delimiting
date fully lifted.
H.R. 1305, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide
clarification regarding eligibility for services under the
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program:
We understand this bill would clarify rigid language currently
written in the law for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. We
stand with the American Legion and VFW in offering our support for this
bill, which would ultimately increase employment support for veterans.
H.R. 1316, Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training
Accountability Act:
SVA supports accountability and consistency across the state
workforce development agencies as it relates to Veterans' Employment
and Training. However, SVA respects the American Legion's reservations
in supporting this legislation. Before fully endorsing this bill, we
will work with our colleagues at the American Legion and the VFW to
better gauge the full range of issues addressed by this bill.
H.R. 1402, To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the
authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled
veterans training or competing for the Paralympic Team and the
authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to provide assistance to United States Paralympics,
Inc.:
Generally, SVA does not endorse legislation outside of education
and employment unless such legislation has a clear link to education
and employment. Therefore, SVA cannot endorse this bill. However, SVA
stands in support of the VFW and the American Legion in recognizing
that initiatives like the Paralympics remain a major part of many
wounded veterans' whole-life improvement, ultimately leading to greater
success in academia and the labor force.
Draft Bill, Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013:
SVA supports increased awareness for on-the-job training (OJT) and
apprenticeship programs. We remain a strong proponent of the OJT
provisions in the Post-9/11 GI Bill and understand that some veterans
seek better futures through apprenticeships and other OJT programs that
may not be found in a traditional college classroom setting. We also
support incentivizing employers to hire more veterans, especially now
as the military force is projected to downsize.
Draft Bill, To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the
authority to provide work-study allowance for certain
activities by individuals receiving educational assistance by
Secretary of Veterans Affairs:
Many student veterans use the work-study program as a supplement to
pay for their bills and other costs not covered by primary VA
educational programs. SVA strongly supports the VA work-study program.
Thank you Chairman Flores, Ranking Members Takano, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee for allowing Student Veterans
of America to present our views on legislation focused on supporting
veterans, military servicemembers, and their families.
Executive Summary
H.R. 357: Currently, 11 states have passed laws providing
in-state residency status to student veterans. Another eight states
provide some or limited support to veterans or have university-based
policies granting in-state residency status to veterans. 16 states have
pending legislation to grant in-state tuition to veterans. Given that
the Post-9/11 GI Bill pays the highest in-state tuition and fees, SVA
fully supports granting in-state tuition to veterans as proposed in
H.R. 357.
H.R. 562: SVA support extending VRAP by three months and
measuring the success of the program. SVA supports H.R. 562 and
encourages Congress to loosen some institutional and remedial
coursework restrictions in the VRAP program.
H.R. 631: While we believe the improvements to TAP are a
step in the right direction, SVA supports formally linking the optional
TAP tracks to the mandatory curriculum that is reflected in H.R. 631.
H.R. 844: SVA supports extending the life of Vocational
Rehabilitation programs by five years. Ultimately, SVA would like to
see the delimiting date fully lifted. We support H.R. 844.
H.R. 1305: We stand with the American Legion and VFW in
offering our support for this bill, which would ultimately increase
employment support for veterans.
H.R. 1316: SVA supports accountability and consistency
across the state workforce development agencies as it relates to
Veterans' Employment and Training. Before fully endorsing this bill, we
will work with our colleagues at the American Legion and the VFW to
better gauge the full range of issues addressed by this bill.
H.R. 1402: Generally, SVA does not endorse legislation
outside of education and employment unless such legislation has a clear
link to education and employment. We support our colleagues at the
American Legion and VFW, but SVA cannot endorse this bill.
Draft Bill Entitled ``Improving Job Opportunities for
Veterans Act of 2013'': SVA supports increased awareness for on-the-job
training (OJT) and apprenticeship programs as described in this draft
bill.
Draft Bill Extending Work Study Allowance: SVA fully
supports the VA Work Study program.
Statements For The Record
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
Chairman Bill Flores, Ranking Member Mark Takano, and distinguished
members of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity:
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) is honored to
present this Statement for the Record for the legislative hearing on
April 10, 2013. On behalf of the 2,100 community- and faith-based
organizations that NCHV represents, we thank you for your commitment to
serving our nation's most vulnerable heroes.
This written statement will focus on NCHV's strong support for Rep.
Brad R. Wenstrup's H.R. 1305, ``To amend title 38, United States Code,
to provide clarification regarding eligibility for services under the
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program.'' If signed into law, this
legislation would immediately impact veteran service providers and
their clients.
H.R. 1305 serves a simple purpose: to clarify eligibility for the
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP). Specifically, the bill
would ensure that the following two subgroups of homeless veteran are
able to access HVRP:
1. Veterans who participate in the interagency supportive housing
program known as HUD-VASH, and
2. Veterans who are transitioning out of incarceration.
While current law could potentially be construed in such a way as
to render H.R. 1305 unnecessary, this bill would eliminate any
uncertainty. Therefore, NCHV strongly supports its swift passage.
Background on Federal Programs Impacted by H.R. 1305
Administered by the U.S. Department of Labor-Veterans' Employment
and Training Service (DOL-VETS) for more than two decades, HVRP is the
nation's largest employment program wholly dedicated to serving
homeless veterans, most of whom have serious and multiple barriers to
re-entering the workforce.
HVRP is authorized by Title 38, U.S. Code, Sec. 2021, which
instructs the Secretary of Labor to conduct such programs ``to expedite
the reintegration of homeless veterans into the labor force.'' The term
``homeless veteran'' is defined in Title 38, U.S. Code, Sec. 2002 as:
``a veteran who is homeless (as that term is defined in section 103(a)
of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a))).''
A veteran who is housed through the HUD-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-
VASH) Program - jointly administered by the U.S. Departments of Housing
and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs - does not meet the
definition of ``homeless veteran'' as described above. However, a
veteran possessing a HUD-VASH voucher and actively searching for
housing is not prohibited from enrolling in HVRP. If a veteran resides
in a shelter while searching for permanent housing, for instance, he or
she would be considered homeless. Only once that veteran moves into
permanent housing with a HUD-VASH voucher would he or she no longer
meet the McKinney-Vento definition of ``homeless.''
The HUD-VASH Program was revamped in fiscal year (FY) 2008, when
the U.S. Congress appropriated $75 million for approximately 10,000
HUD-VASH vouchers. Through FY 2013, Congress has appropriated at least
$50 million for new vouchers each fiscal year. Today, about 57,000
vouchers are funded by Congress.
Why Does HVRP Eligibility Need to Be Clarified?
The modern-day version of the HUD-VASH Program did not exist when
HVRP was introduced, and the rapid advancement of homeless persons into
permanent housing was not necessarily an expected outcome for clients
in VA-funded transitional assistance programs. There is mounting
pressure to reduce inefficiencies among federal homeless assistance
programs, yet HVRP is constrained by regulations conceived in a bygone
era of limited homeless veteran services.
Certain realities for veterans have not changed over the past two
decades, however. Income supports remain a critical need for veterans
searching for and working to remain in permanent housing. While some
veterans in the HUD-VASH Program do not actively seek employment due to
serious mental illness, chronic substance abuse, physical disabilities
or co-occurring disorders, many others need the specialized job
preparation, placement and retention services offered by HVRP.
It can take up to 120 days for a veteran who receives a HUD-VASH
voucher to secure and move into permanent housing. In theory, this is
an ideal opportunity for voucher-holders to become enrolled in the HVRP
program. But if the veteran client and his or her case manager have not
identified employment services as a priority early in the housing
search process, or they are unaware that the veteran is only eligible
for HVRP before moving into permanent housing, the opportunity is lost.
The ``Housing First'' strategy adopted by the federal government
under the ``Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness'' in
June 2010 fundamentally changed the nation's homeless services delivery
landscape. This strategy calls for rapid re-housing of homeless persons
and families - including veterans - and waives many of the requirements
veterans had to satisfy to participate in the HUD-VASH Program.
As the name Housing First implies, placement in permanent housing
as rapidly as possible with sound case management is the top priority,
with additional services provided on a case-by-case basis according to
client preferences. Considering the multiple challenges faced by
veterans eligible for the HUD-VASH Program, the intense focus on
successful housing placements can delay or preclude referrals to
employment assistance programs.
H.R. 1305 Provides an Immediate Resolution to This Issue
The permanent supportive housing provided through the HUD-VASH
Program does not reduce a veteran's need for the employment supports
provided by HVRP. Helping veterans increase their earning potential and
employment security hastens their advancement off the rolls of those
who depend on subsidized housing. This, in effect, makes those vouchers
available for other veteran families in desperate need of housing
assistance.
Knowledge of HVRP is not uniform among HUD-VASH case managers, and
there is no mandate in place to ensure that voucher-holders are
considered for HVRP enrollment while they are still eligible. Even if
these veterans are able to apply in time, local HVRP programs may be
operating at capacity, which could prevent them from utilizing this
resource or require them to postpone their move into permanent housing
until their enrollment is effected.
In light of these possibilities, and to ensure that homeless
veterans are able to make full use of the federal assistance available
to them, NCHV urges the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity to help
shepherd H.R. 1305 to the president's desk.
In Summation
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this Statement for the
Record for today's hearing. It is a privilege to work with the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
to ensure that every veteran in crisis has reasonable access to the
employment supports they earned.
Matt Gornick
NCHV Policy Director
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
333 \1/2\ Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-546-1969
NCHV Disclosure of Federal Grants
Grantor: U.S. Department of Labor
Subagency: Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Grant/contract amount: $350,000
Performance period: 8/13/2012 - 8/12/2013
Indirect costs limitations or CAP limitations: 20% total award
Grant/contract award notice provided as part of proposal: Yes
Grantor: U.S. Department of Labor
Subagency: Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Grant/contract amount: $350,000
Performance period: 8/13/2011 - 8/12/2012
Indirect costs limitations or CAP limitations: 20% total award
Grant/contract award notice provided as part of proposal: Yes
Grantor: U.S. Department of Labor
Subagency: Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Grant/contract amount: $350,000
Performance period: 8/13/2010 - 8/12/2011
Indirect costs limitations or CAP limitations: 20% total award
Grant/contract award notice provided as part of proposal: Yes
VETSFirst
April 10, 2013
The Honorable Bill Flores
Chairman, Economic Opportunity Subcommittee
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Mark Takano
Ranking Member, Economic Opportunity Subcommittee
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Flores and Ranking Member Takano:
VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal Association, wishes to
express our strong support for the Servicemembers' Choice in Transition
Act of 2013 (H.R. 631). We ask that our below comments be submitted for
the record of the April 10, 2013, Economic Opportunity Subcommittee
hearing on pending legislation.
The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) plays a critical role in
ensuring that separating servicemembers have the information they need
to prepare for future education and employment opportunities. The
content requirements detailed in H.R. 631 will ensure that these men
and women receive a well-rounded program that includes the types of
information they need throughout their transition process. Requiring
information on service-specific pre-separation requirements, different
pathways to employment, and the types of benefits available through the
Department of Veterans Affairs will provide them with a strong
foundation for future success.
Although we fully support, H.R. 631, we believe that it would be
strengthened by amending it to ensure that information about disability
related employment and education protections is included in the TAP
curriculum. Veterans who have acquired disabilities as a result of
their military service need a basic understanding of the protections
available to them under the law as they return to the workforce or seek
out education opportunities. To ensure that this information is
received by all those servicemembers who need it, we believe that it
should be integrated into the curriculum about preparing for employment
or education opportunities. Including this information in the TAP
curriculum will provide disabled veterans with the specialized
knowledge they need to ensure their success in navigating their future
career goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments regarding
H.R. 631. Please do not hesitate to contact Heather Ansley, Vice
President of Veterans Policy for VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal
Association, at (202) 556-2076, ext. 7702 or by e-mail at
[email protected], if we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Tobin
President and CEO
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc
Chairmen Flores, Ranking Member Takano and Members of the House
Veterans Affairs Committee Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, Gold Star
Wives of America, Inc. is grateful for the privilege of presenting
testimony for the record on issues pertaining to surviving spouses of
our Nation's veterans.
Gold Star Wives of America (GSW), founded in 1945 and
Congressionally Chartered in 1980, is an organization of surviving
spouses of veterans who died while serving on active duty or died of a
service-connected cause. Current members are survivors of military
members who served during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam
War, the Gulf War, the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and
every period in between. GSW is an all-volunteer organization
encompassing approximately 8,500 members.
GSW's primary mission is to support survivors after the death of
their spouse and provide a place for them to connect with each other.
GSW also provides information about survivor benefits and assists
survivors in obtaining these benefits. We strive to raise the awareness
of Congress, the public, the veterans' community and the military
community to the many inequities existing in survivor benefit programs.
Recent proposed legislation (H.R. 357 and S.257) requires states to
provide in-state tuition rates for Veterans using Federal education
benefits. To ensure that Federal education dollars are spent most
effectively and efficiently, surviving spouses and dependents using
Chapter 35 education benefits should be included in legislation to
require that states provide in-state tuition rates. Further, such
protections should be extended to all VA Education Chapters.
Gold Star Wives of America has additional concerns regarding VA
educational benefits for surviving spouses and children and would
welcome the opportunity to discuss them. It is difficult to determine
how many surviving spouses of active duty and service-connected deaths
are using education benefits because the VA is unwilling or unable to
provide that information.