[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 95, H.R. 444, H.R. 1718, AND VARIOUS
DISCUSSION DRAFTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-955 WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
MARK TAKANO, California, Chairman
JULIA BROWNLEY, California DAVID P. ROE, Tenessee, Ranking
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York Member
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Vice- GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
Chairman AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,
MIKE LEVIN, California American Samoa
MAX ROSE, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
SUSIE LEE, Nevada JIM BANKS, Indiana
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina ANDY BARR, Kentucky
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, JR., DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
California STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota CHIP ROY, Texas
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
Northern Mariana Islands
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York
Ray Kelley, Democratic Staff Director
Jon Towers, Republican Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
MIKE LEVIN, California, Chairman
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Ranking
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York Member
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia JIM BANKS, Indiana
SUSIE LEE, Nevada ANDY BARR, Kentucky
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Page
Legislative Hearing On: H.R. 95, H.R. 444, H.R. 1718, A
Discussion Draft ``To Amend Title 38, United States Code, To
Make Certain Improvements To The Educational Assistant Programs
Of The Department Of Veterans Affairs With Respect To Flight
Training Programs And Certain Other Programs Of Education, And
For Other Purposes,'' A Discussion Draft ``Justice For
Servicemembers Act,'' A Discussion Draft ``To Amend The United
States Housing Act Of 1937 And Title 38, United States Code, To
Expand Eligibility For The Hud-Vash Program, To Direct The
Secretary Of Veterans Affairs To Submit Annual Reports To The
Committees On Veterans' Affairs Of The Senate And House Of
Representatives Regarding Homeless Veterans, And For Other
Purposes,'' A Discussion Draft ``Homes For Our Heroes Act Of
2019,'' A Discussion Draft ``Veteran Employment And Child Care
Access Act,'' A Discussion Draft ``Brave Act,'' A Discussion
Draft ``To Clarify Seasoning Requirements For Certain
Refinanced Mortgage Loans, And For Other Purposes,'' A
Discussion Draft ``Navy Seal Chief Petty Officer William 'Bill'
Mulder (Ret.) Transition Improvement Act,'' A Discussion Draft
``Vet Opp Act,'' A Discussion Draft ``To Amend Title 38, United
States Code, To Adjust Certain Limits On The Guaranteed Amount
Of A Home Loan Under The Home Loan Program Of The Department Of
Veterans Affairs, And For Other Purposes,'' A Discussion Draft
``To Amend Title 38, United States Code, To Make Certain
Improvements To The Edith Nourse Rogers Stem Scholarship
Program Of The Department Of Veterans Affairs,'' A Discussion
Draft ``To Amend Title 38, United States Code, To Expand
Eligibility For The Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry
Scholarship To Children And Spouses Of Certain Members Of The
Reserve Components Of The Armed Forces Who Die From Service-
Connected Disabilities, And For Other Purposes,'' A Discussion
Draft ``To Amend Title 38, United States Code, To Improve The
Ability Of Veterans To Receive In-State Tuition Using
Educational Assistance Administered By The Secretary Of
Veterans Affairs.''............................................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable Mike Levin, Chairman................................... 1
Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, Ranking Member....................... 2
WITNESSES
Ms. Margarita Devlin, Principal Deputy Under Secretary for
Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs............................................... 4
Prepared Statement........................................... 35
Ms. Ashlynne Haycock, Senior Coordinator, Education Support
Services, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS)...... 6
Prepared Statement........................................... 43
Mr. Patrick Murray, Deputy Director, National Legislative
Service, The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).................... 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 46
Mr. John Kamin, Credentialing and Education Policy Associate,
National Veterans Employment and Education Division, The
American Legion (TAL).......................................... 10
Prepared Statement........................................... 49
Ms. Rebecca Burgess, Program Manager, Citizenship Project,
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)............................ 12
Prepared Statement........................................... 59
STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)............... 63
Disabled American Veterans (DAV)................................. 64
Department of Labor (DOL) - Mr. Sam Shellenberger, Deputy
Assistant Secretary............................................ 69
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS).................. 71
Veterans Education Success (VES)................................. 74
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 95, H.R. 444, H.R. 1718, AND VARIOUS
DISCUSSION DRAFTS
----------
Tuesday April 9, 2019
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U. S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Mike Levin
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Levin, Rice, Pappas, Luria, Lee,
Cunningham, Bilirakis, Banks, and Barr.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Levin. Good morning. I call this legislative hearing to
order.
Welcome to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity's first
hearing of the 116th Congress. It is exciting to be with you.
Before I touch on the legislative business before us today, I
would like to take a moment to speak about the work our
Subcommittee will be addressing this Congress.
I represent the 49th Congressional District of California.
As many of you know, my district and Southern California as a
whole is ground zero for many of the national issues facing our
veterans; that is why I am thankful for the trust my colleagues
have placed in me to serve as chair. This Subcommittee plans to
address issues like veterans' homelessness, predatory
educational institutions, and ensuring that our veterans
successfully transition from the military to careers that take
advantage of their unique and valuable skill sets.
That last point is of particular importance to me. We must
be sure that our veterans aren't just getting a piece of paper,
but a real plan of transition to civilian life.
There are over 46,000 veterans in the district I represent,
veterans that depend on the services they earned in proud
service to our country. Chair Takano has given our Committee a
great goal with his VA 2030 vision, and it will be the duty of
this Subcommittee to identify and carry out the objectives
within our jurisdiction. I plan to make this Subcommittee a
bipartisan and collaborative body, and I encourage my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to share with me their
thoughts and concerns. That brings me to the work before us
today.
Today, we are holding the first legislative hearing for the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the 116th Congress. We
will consider 16 pieces of legislation, including a discussion
draft of my legislation, the Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer
William ``Bill'' Mulder Transition Improvement Act. I look
forward to introducing this bill with my colleague from Texas,
Mr. Arrington, who was a friend of Mr. Mulder's and represents
his home district.
This bipartisan legislation will modernize how we assist
servicemen and women as they transition to civilian life by
placing a focus on what a career really means. The bill will
better allow the Department of Labor and the VA to track
veteran employment, evaluate the effectiveness of the
Transition Assistance Program, and set up a pilot program to
create up to five new job training locations that will be
independent from traditional military installations. These new
sites will test the viability of giving servicemen and women
the ability to train for jobs in new settings that better
reflect the challenges they may face in civilian life.
I also am pleased to serve as cosponsor on six other pieces
of legislation being considered today, including the VET OPP
Act. This legislation will elevate veterans' education, job
training, and transition assistance programs by creating a new
Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration at the VA.
Two of today's bills address the HUD-VASH program, which is
crucial for housing veterans across the country, including
those in San Diego, a city that ranks fourth nationwide in
homeless residents. The Homes for Our Heroes Act will require
transparency in the allocation of HUD-VASH vouchers and case
management services, as well as direct the VA to complete a
study identifying best practices for the program in high-cost
areas. And the Veterans' House Act will expand voucher
eligibility to veterans that were discharged under other than
honorable conditions or served less than 24 months.
Given that the issue of veteran homelessness is especially
severe in Southern California, I am pleased to collaborate with
another member from the San Diego delegation, my friend Mr.
Peters, on both of these bills.
I am proud of the work we are doing here today, and I am
especially proud of the way we are doing it, in a bipartisan
manner.
And, in closing, I would like to thank our witnesses for
appearing and I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Levin. With that, I would like to recognize my friend
Ranking Member Bilirakis for 5 minutes for any opening remarks
that he may wish to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF GUS M. BILIRAKIS, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so very
much.
Again, before I begin my comments on the bills before us
today, I want to welcome you, Mr. Chairman, and the new Members
to this Subcommittee. It is my honor to serve as the Ranking
Member and I look forward to working with you, all the Members
to continue this Subcommittee's strong record, as you said, of
bipartisan accomplishment for veterans, and this Committee, the
Full Committee as well have been extremely bipartisan and that
is why we are getting things done for our heroes. So I
appreciate it very much. I know you are going to do a great
job; I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure, again, to get to know
you since the Congress began, and it is clear to me that you
understand what it means to serve on this Committee, a very
important Committee. I look forward to working together to
improve economic opportunities for our veterans.
I also want to thank all the witnesses for joining us here
today to discuss these pieces of legislation pending before the
Subcommittee with the intention of benefitting the lives of our
servicemembers, our veterans, and their families.
The bills brought forth by our colleagues today would
improve the service and economic opportunities for our
veterans, and also would make changes to the GI Bill to expand
benefits and close a loophole related to flight training. It
also would strengthen the work we did last Congress to improve
the Transition Assistance Program; also would make necessary
reforms to the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
Program; and many other worthwhile policy changes.
I am interested in hearing from our witnesses about their
own views on the legislation before us, but I wanted to briefly
discuss the bill on the agenda that I am going to introduce
with Chairman Levin. My bill, the Fry Scholarship Improvement
Act, would expand eligibility for the Fry Scholarship to
certain survivors of members of the National Guard and Reserve.
The Fry Scholarship provides post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to
surviving spouses and dependent children of servicemembers who
have died while on Active duty.
While this benefit has provided millions of dollars to
eligible survivors, I am concerned that certain current
eligibility rules have left out deserving survivors from the
Guard and Reserve component.
To address this issue, my bill will expand eligibility for
the Fry Scholarship to survivors of servicemembers who are
serving in the National Guard and Reserve and who die of a
service-connected injury, but whose death did not occur while
they were on Active duty orders.
On our panel today, we will hear from Ms. Haycock--
welcome--with TAPS about several tragic situations where a
member of the National Guard or Reserve's death was determined
to be service-connected, but their survivors were ineligible
for the Fry Scholarship because they were not on Active duty
orders when they died, and this is an injustice we are going to
correct.
In one case, if the servicemember's death had occurred even
just a few hours sooner, the survivors would have been eligible
for the generous Fry Scholarship. We should not let a few
hours, and some would say chance determine eligibility for this
great benefit. If a death is service-connected and the
servicemember is still serving our country in the Guard or
Reserve, then I believe their family should be covered, and the
Chairman agrees with me. I appreciate TAPS bringing this
inequity to my attention and am proud to work with the Chairman
on this legislation, and the entire Committee.
I know that VA has some technical questions with how the
bill is drafted and I pledge to address those issues as we move
forward.
I would also like to express my support for H.R. 2045, VET
OPP Act, which would create a new fourth administration at VA.
We saw all too well the impact the difficulties with the
implementation of the Forever GI Bill had on student veterans
last fall. From this experience, it is clear now more than ever
before that more focus on programs that promote economic
opportunities are needed.
I applaud our colleague Dr. Wenstrup and the Chairman for
introducing this bill, and it has my full support.
I am also supportive of draft bills on today's agenda that
would make changes to in-state tuition rules for veterans, also
would ensure the STEM scholarship program in the Forever GI
Bill can be used by student veterans, and would close a
loophole related to GI Bill tuition and fee payments for flight
training at schools, public schools.
Again, these bills have a real impact on our veterans, and
we have had a real success rate, Mr. Chairman, over the last
few years working in a bipartisan manner, and get these bills
through and signed by the President as soon as possible. So I
look forward to discussing all of the bills before us today and
to hearing from distinguished witnesses.
With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time, if I have any. Thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. I am really
excited to work with you in that spirit of bipartisan
collaboration and I think we are going to get a lot done.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Mr. Levin. We have a really great panel joining us today
and I would like to just briefly introduce all of you, and I
will go from one end to the other.
I see Ms. Rebecca Burgess, Program Manager at the American
Enterprise Institute. Thanks for being with us.
Under Secretary Margarita Devlin, the Principal Deputy
Under Secretary for Benefits at the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs. There you are--oops, I got you out of order.
Ms. Ashlynne Haycock, Deputy Policy Director for TAPS, the
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors. Thank you so much for
being here.
Mr. Patrick Murray, who is here as the Executive Director
of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Hello, Patrick.
Mr. John Kamin, Executive Director at The American Legion.
I am grateful to all five of you for being here this
morning.
And with that I now recognize our Under Secretary,
Margarita Devlin, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARGARITA DEVLIN
Ms. Devlin. Good morning, Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be
here today to provide views for the Department of Veterans
Affairs on pending legislation impacting programs at the
Veterans Benefits Administration, or VBA.
Also on today's agenda are bills impacting the Veterans
Health Administration; any questions related to those bills I
will take for the record.
Since I am limited to 5 minutes for this statement, I will
provide a high-level overview of VBA's bills, which I am happy
to discuss in greater detail during the question-and-answer.
VBA's Office of Transition and Economic Development, or
TED, is the business line and side of VBA responsible for
administering VA's Interagency Transition Assistance Program,
the VA portion, or TAP. TED is embarking on a cohort-based
study to gain information and insights on the outcomes of TAP;
in fact, the survey was just approved by OMB last week. We
believe this study will meet the intent of two of the sections
of the bill.
We do support the provision which will allow us to access
the National Directory of New Hires to help VA understand and
better track employment outcomes for veterans. And we
appreciate, as always, the Subcommittee's interest in easing
the transition from military to civilian status.
VBA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program, or
VR&E, works with veterans with service-connected disabilities
and an employment handicap to help them obtain and maintain
suitable employment.
Two of the draft bills would impact the VR&E Program; one
provides child care assistance to veteran participants, which
is a benefit that VVR&E already provides through existing
regulatory authority; the other bill removes the program's 12-
year eligibility period. In 2017, the passage of the Forever GI
Bill made a similar change to the Post-9/11 GI Bill, removing
the eligibility period for veterans discharged or released from
Active duty on or after January 1st, 2013.
While VA supports the intent of the draft VR&E bill, we
suggest the bill incorporate the January 1st, 2013 discharge or
release date to create parity between the VR&E and Post- 9/11
GI Bill programs.
Five draft bills on today's agenda impact our education
program, including improvements for flight training programs
and the STEM Scholarship program; expanded eligibility for the
Fry Scholarship; expanded ability for tuition and fee charges
to be equivalent to those for residents of each state; and
clarification regarding transfer of entitlement of Post-9/11 GI
Bill benefits to children.
VA supports the intent of these bills, but we do have some
technical concerns and want to ensure the text is written to
capture the improvements Congress intended. For example, the
flight training bill removes the requirement to meet, on the
day flight training begins, the medical requirements necessary
for a commercial pilot certificate.
Our partners at the Veterans Service Organizations have
raised concerns to us that meeting the medical requirements
prior to entering the program is a barrier to entry; however,
VA sees this as in the best interests of veteran outcomes,
because it supports the veteran pursuing degrees, they will be
able to use in the workforce. If a veteran were to begin or
complete a flight training program and then not pass the
medical exam necessary for a commercial pilot certificate, the
veteran would be unable to work as a commercial pilot, thereby
having used their benefits for a purpose that doesn't lead to
employment. If the medical exam remains required prior to
program approval, the veteran would not be subjected to this
unfortunate outcome.
We look forward to continuing to work with our VSO partners
and the Subcommittee to ensure that this draft bill and others
impacting education benefits are producing positive outcomes
for veterans and their families.
VBA's loan guaranty program would be impacted by two bills
on the agenda. VA does not oppose the bill that clarifies
seasoning requirements for the refinanced homes, as this is a
straightforward technical fix. The bill containing the
provision to remove the effective loan limits on VA- guaranteed
loans is more complex and I can discuss this in greater detail,
although ultimately, given the uncertainty of the budgetary
impacts, VA cannot support this section of the legislation at
this time. However, the other sections the VA does not oppose;
one aligns the current loan limit for Native Americans direct
loans with the VA Guaranteed Loan Program, the other waives
funding fees for members of the Armed Forces serving on Active
duty who were awarded the Purple Heart.
The last bill, the VET OPP Act, would establish a separate
administration responsible for VR&E, education, home loans,
TAP, and verification of small businesses owned and operated by
veterans. VA does appreciate the Committee's focus on improving
services and benefits offered by these programs, but we do not
support this bill.
In 2018, VBA completed organizational restructuring by de-
layering oversight offices and concentrating resources on
veteran-facing positions. Additionally, with the creation of
TED, we prioritized transition services not just operationally,
but also in our budget. The current structure generates
efficiencies from close collaboration between VBA program
offices and appropriately reflects the Under Secretary's
overall responsibility for veteran benefit programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, for the
opportunity to present our views on these bills. This concludes
my testimony and I look forward to answering any of your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Margarita Devlin appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Under Secretary Devlin, and perfect
timing.
Without objection, to the extent that any of the witnesses'
full testimony is not given, we will add their statements to
the record.
With that, I now recognize Ms. Haycock for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ASHLYNNE HAYCOCK
Ms. Haycock. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and
distinguished Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity
to speak on behalf of the 85,000 surviving families of our
Nation's heroes that TAPS represents.
I am the surviving daughter of Army Sergeant First Class
Jeffrey Haycock, who died in the line of duty in 2002, and Air
Force Veteran Nicole Haycock, who died by suicide in 2011. In
2010, I was one of the very first recipients of the Marine
Gunnery Sergeant John Fry Scholarship and for that opportunity
I am incredibly grateful to this Committee.
TAPS would like to thank the Committee for all of the
provision in the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Education Assistance
Act of 2017 that assisted our surviving families, such as
Yellow Ribbon for Fry Scholarship recipients, the removal of
the delimiting date for Fry eligible spouses, and an increase
in Chapter 35 benefits.
This year, though, we are excited to see one of our long-
term priorities before this Committee, providing parity for
surviving children and spouses of those whose loved ones while
serving in the Guard and Reserve. Their service and sacrifice
are no different than those who died while on Active duty and,
while almost all other benefits are equal for those survivors,
the education benefits are not. It is time to make sure those
survivors have the same access to the Fry Scholarship as their
Active duty counterparts. TAPS estimate between 1,000 and 1,500
surviving spouses and children will benefit from these changes.
Some of the stories TAPS has heard are absolutely
heartbreaking, such as the story of First Sergeant John DuPont,
who served his country honorably for over 30 years, starting in
the Marine Corps and then the Army National Guard. During his
National Guard service, he was deployed multiple times. Upon
his return, he continued with the National Guard, and lost his
battle with PTSD and completed suicide in 2011. He had just
returned home from his drill weekend only hours before, where
he learned he was deploying again in a few months' time. Had he
died a few hours earlier, his children would have been eligible
for the Fry Scholarship, but because he made it all the way
home, he is not considered Active duty for Fry Scholarship
eligibility.
Then there is the story of Sergeant Anthony Tipps, who was
a member of the Texas National Guard. Sergeant Tipps was
activated in 2009 and had to leave his career for a deployment
to Iraq. When he returned a year later, his career was no
longer waiting for him. He died by suicide less than three
months after returning from Iraq and, because of his duty
status at the time, his daughter Brittany is not eligible for
the Fry Scholarship even though his death was service-
connected.
Finally, you have the story of Colonel David McCracken, who
served honorably in the Army and Army Reserves for over 20
years. During his military career, he was deployed multiple
times. During his last tour, he was activated as a Reservist,
where he developed headaches. Upon return from his deployment,
he was diagnosed with brain cancer, which was found to be
service-connected because of the link to burn pits in Iraq. He
was not on Active duty orders, nor training at the time of his
death due to his illness, so his children are not eligible for
the Fry Scholarship.
These are just three of the stories TAPS has heard with
families who do not have eligibility for Fry Scholarship due to
duty status at the exact moment of death. In the case of First
Sergeant DuPont, literally hours differentiate what benefits
his children receive. The families have no say in the duty
status of the servicemember; therefore, they should not be
treated differently.
Six months ago, I spoke with former Congressman Chet
Edwards, who wrote and introduced the original Fry Scholarship
in 2009. When I told him of this issue, he was stunned, because
his original intent was to include all of these families and he
had no idea that these families were being excluded. He has
offered his support in fixing this as well.
While access to the Fry Scholarship for Guard and Reserve
survivors is our largest priority in this hearing, we would
also like to express our support for the creation of a fourth
administration under the Department of Veterans Affairs. After
the complicated implementation of the Forever GI Bill, we see
this as a much-needed change in order to prioritize education
benefits in the VA.
We would also like to make a recommendation to include
Chapter 35 recipients in the in-state tuition bill. Chapter 35
recipients are often forgotten from legislation and, even with
the $200 increase provided by the Forever GI Bill, it is still
not even comparable with the Montgomery GI Bill. If we are
going to do in-state tuition across the board, let's make sure
we include those whose benefits are not enough to cover tuition
at a state school, let alone out-of-state tuition. Since the
financial burden for in-state tuition falls on the states, we
see this as an easy fix.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ashlynne Haycock appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Haycock.
I now recognize Mr. Murray for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK MURRAY
Mr. Murray. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis,
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its
Auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to present our views
on legislation being considered today.
For far too many years, homeless veterans have been a
regular sight on our Nation's streets. Ending veteran
homelessness is an attainable goal and some of these bills will
go a long way in doing just that.
Veterans with dependent children face diverse burdens with
access to homeless benefits. Providing child care for homeless
veterans so they can seek care and services while at VA is an
incredibly powerful tool to help these veterans in need. And
providing additional per diem for the children of homeless
veterans in the Grant and Per Diem Program would expand housing
options for these veterans.
The HUD-VA Supporting Housing Program is another critical
benefit for veterans facing homelessness. While we see the
great value in this program, we would like to see the benefit
enhanced, so that veterans can be sure they will be housed in
safe and secure areas. Additionally, we agree that HUD-VASH
eligibility should be expanded to veterans with other than
honorable discharges. Veterans with OTH discharge are at a
higher risk of dying by suicide and experience higher rates for
homelessness than those who receive an honorable discharge. The
VFW supports this provision, which would rightfully ensure OTH
veterans have access to the HUD-VASH Program.
One key area of improvement that could affect servicemember
is transition; it is the linchpin that could prevent negative
outcomes such as unemployment, homelessness, and veterans with
mental health conditions having to cope without proper
treatment. Transition is an example of where veteran groups are
the subject matter experts more so than anybody else.
Every single servicemember has to transition at some point,
so it is a shared experience that we have all gone through. We
are the military alumni and we think of our collective
experience and feedback as invaluable when making reforms to
the transition process. The VFW offers claims assistance to
transitioning servicemembers as they prepare to move into
civilian life.
Since 2015, our Benefits Delivery at Discharge Service, or
BDD, has worked with men and women transitioning out to make
sure they are well prepared for civilian life. Each
servicemember who goes to our offices is asked to complete a
survey on their entire transition experience. We have thousands
of responses and a phrase I have seen repeated over and over is
``drinking from a fire hose.'' Veterans have also stated in
surveys numerous times they wish they could go back and revisit
the TAP class over again. This is why VFW has called for the
reintroduction of the Off-Base TAP Pilot Program, in order to
provide centralized TAP-style classes to veterans after they
separate into civilian life.
We also think that formally adding to the curriculum groups
that specialize in community networking is a valuable tool to
enhance TAP. Connecting servicemembers to resources in the
communities where they are relocating to is an important step
that should happen during the TAP classes. Providing these
connections to organizations that offer employment training,
educational information, financial or legal assistance, is
beneficial in a seamless transition and must be part of the
formal TAP class, so servicemembers can begin to make these
connections before they separate and not afterwards.
Lastly, I would like to speak about our support for the
fourth administration within VA. Currently, the Economic
Opportunity programs are contained within the Veteran Benefits
Administration. Compensation, being the largest program,
dominates a significant amount of attention within VBA and it
makes it difficult for EO programs to get adequate attention,
specialized resources, and other prioritization. For example,
when the VBA has been focused on the modernization and
streamlining of the claims and appeals process, we feel other
important programs such as VETERANS AFFAIRS&E have seen a
stagnation of resources and oversight.
This Nation should have as much focus on the economic
opportunities of our veterans as it does their health and
benefits. The vast majority of veterans are looking for gainful
employment and/or education, and we feel that Congress should
recognize the value of these programs by separating them into
their own administration, focused solely on their utilization
and improvement.
The VFW supports this proposal to separate from VBA all
programs currently under the EO jurisdiction, create a fourth
admin within VA with its own Under Secretary whose sole
responsibility is EO programs. This new Under Secretary for EO
would refocus resources, provide a champion for these programs,
and provide a central point of contact for VSOs, other Federal
departments, and Congress.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, the VFW
thanks you and the Ranking Member for the opportunity to
testify on these important issues before the Subcommittee, and
I am prepared to take any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Patrick Murray appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Murray, for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Kamin for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KAMIN
Mr. Kamin. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of
National Commander Brett P. Reistad and the nearly two million
members of The American Legion, we thank you for the
opportunity to testify in the Subcommittee's first hearing of
the 116th session of Congress.
The 115th Congress was very productive in passing veterans
legislation, and the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity made
their mark in history by shepherding in the Harry W. Colmery
Veterans Education Assistance Act. Former Subcommittee Chairman
Jody Arrington and Ranking Member Beto O'Rourke presented a
rock-solid team that cut through political lines. With Dr. Phil
Roe and Mark Takano overseeing the Committee, we have come to
expect nothing less. Mr. Chairman, we welcome your leadership
in this island of bipartisanship. And, Ranking Member
Bilirakis, we are so happy for your steadfast support and
leadership.
Due to the allotted time available, I will limit my remarks
to the discussion drafts on Justice for Servicemembers Act,
Transition Improvement Act, and conclude with saved rounds on
the GI Bill.
The Justice for Servicemembers Act is a bill that
strengthens the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act by deeming forced arbitration motions unenforceable
for the purpose of wrongful termination complaints. Employment
law is complex, but the case of Marine Corps Colonel Michael T.
Garrett simplifies this. With an Active duty mobilization
pending, Colonel Garrett's employer allegedly terminated his
employment to avoid the inconvenience of having to replace him
temporarily. In accordance with Section 4323 and enforcement
rights with respect to a private employer, Colonel Garrett
filed a USERRA violation in District Court. His employer filed
a motion to compel forced arbitration. After much dispute, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that USERRA
is not a clear expression of congressional intent concerning
the arbitration of servicemembers' employment disputes; thus,
the Garrett precedent was established on USERRA violations, and
hence we ask for your support on the Justice for Servicemembers
Act.
I would be remiss not to inform you of a sobering reality.
This same language as this Justice for Servicemembers has been
introduced in no less than six sessions of Congress dating back
to 2008, all without passage. Let's not wait another session.
The next bill we would like to discuss is the Navy SEAL
Chief Petty Officer William Mulder Transition Improvement Act.
This bill marks a strong improvement of TAP, the largest
reorganization of which since 2011. Notable is its
authorization of a 5-year pilot program that would provide
matching grant funds to community providers that offer
wraparound transition services to veterans and servicemembers.
The necessity for this provision is consistent with a key
discovery from our Employment Innovation Task Force, which
conducted a survey of 550 exiting Active duty servicemembers
over the summer of 2018. When asked about if TAP helped me
identify community resources for ongoing support beyond
transition, only 16 percent agreed or strongly disagreed; this
is a wake-up call.
Additionally, we are pleased to see that language from last
sessions H.R. 4835 has been included in this bill. In 2012, The
American Legion helped to push the Off-Base Transition Training
Pilot Program that would extend the TAP programs to veterans
and their spouses in a community-based setting. Overall course
ratings by participants were high; however, the pilot program
expired in January 2015 and we look forward to see it
relaunched.
Finally, The American Legion supports all seven bills on
the docket today concerning the Post-9/11 GI Bill and
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program, but we
implore the Subcommittee to understand that the complications
with implementation of the Forever GI Bill are not of the past,
they are of the here and now.
In 2018, the VA faithfully attempted to meet the Forever GI
Bill deadlines. Congress and VSOs attempted to provide sound
oversight and support to ensure this outcome, but we failed,
and thousands of veterans paid the price in delayed GI Bill
payments this past fall semester.
In November, Secretary Wilkie officially named Under
Secretary for Benefits Dr. Paul R. Lawrence as the official
responsible for implementing the Forever GI Bill, and we are
encouraged by improved outreach and communication on GI Bill
implementation, but it is incumbent upon all of us to take
ownership in this success and support Dr. Lawrence in this
endeavor, because we have lost the right to disbelief in the
event of another GI Bill backlog. Oversight and support must be
in realtime and practical no matter the challenge. That means
being transparent about complications and forthright on
changes, open to school inputs and adaptive to recommendations;
this starts with trust. The American Legion for one will not
abide the implementation of the bill which bears our past
National Commander's name to be synonymous with VA failure. The
new deadline for implementation is December 2019, let's get to
work.
The Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
bills being considered by the Subcommittee, and I would be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of John Kamin appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Kamin.
Finally, I now recognize Ms. Burgess for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA BURGESS
Ms. Burgess. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today. It is an honor.
Caring for veterans' well-being has been the genuine
concern following every armed conflict in the United States;
recognizing how the Nation ought to deliver that care has
simultaneously been its most consistent challenge.
American's veterans face three significant challenges in
their post-service transition: procuring employment, accessing
the education or training associated with civilian occupations,
and overcoming the broken veteran narrative.
Veterans' transition stress is often mischaracterized as a
grave mental health disorder, feeding the broken veteran
narrative. Legislation geared only towards veterans' suicide
unconsciously perpetuates this image with the best intentions.
But reformulating veteran legislation in the positive language
of economic opportunity emphasizes post-service growth in a
whole-of-health model. Congress can instigate this through
creating a fourth Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration
with a dedicated Under Secretary, as highlighted by the VET
OPP. This would benefit veterans, but also the VA, Congress,
and the American taxpayer.
At the American Enterprise Institute, we work to present
solutions with teeth in them to improve the lives of flesh-and-
blood human beings. Here is what we see: the American public
respects the military and those who serve in the aggregate, but
they don't know anything about them. They call veterans heroes,
but believe they are broken. Even the best-intentioned
employers and educators labor under the false impression that
veterans are not experienced and educated candidates, that
veterans do not pursue a college degree or vocational training,
or that veterans don't have successful careers after the
military.
VA remains the Nation's most prominent recognition of
military service, and the millions who qualify for VA health or
other benefits drive the public narrative about former
soldiers. That dynamic translates to the public assuming that
VA serves any veteran and that every veteran is in need of
those services. Over time, this has adversely constructed a
veteran-as-deficit model that is particularly damaging to
veterans themselves.
For over a century, VA has delivered financial benefits or
pensions to veterans calculated from the premise that the
injured veteran will never enter the economy again. Despite
broad innovations that have shifted our economy from an
industrial age to an information age model, VA continues to
think in industrial age terms about especially injured and
disabled veterans. As society enlarges its definition of
disability, VA has grown haphazardly to be the second-largest
Federal agency with VBA making VA's largest financial outlays.
The increase of high disability awardees seems entirely
warranted, but the current disability schedule is also
problematic, as it appears to disincentive veterans from
entering the workforce or engaging in society. The levels of
veterans' sense of social isolation, not to mention rates of
suicide, are unacceptable outcomes for this policy model. VA's
failure to measure its program outcomes hamstrings its ability
to service veterans. As recent congressional hearings over VA's
bungled implementation for just the GI Bill shows, it directly
hurts veterans, and contributes to young men and women deciding
against joining the military and against being under the VA's
care in the future.
This is a terribly worrisome cycle, but we have a historic
opportunity to harness the power of congressional legislation
to reshape the veteran narrative. By rethinking the ability VA
has to be an active partner with Congress, and understanding
veterans as investments to be leveraged towards greater
individual growth with positive societal impact, the proposed
VET OPP Act champions the veterans-as-asset model. The VET OPP
Act champions the pathway to success for post-service veterans,
because VA's suite of educational assistance, VETERANS
AFFAIRS&E, and career counseling programs make accessible the
tools veterans need to progress from war to work, but these are
currently pushed toward the bottom of the program pyramid
within VBA.
With VBA's energies continually directed towards its
backlog of hundreds of thousands of disability claims, its
institutional resources are concentrated on the disability
system to the neglect of its education and economic programs.
Two small examples. In only 10 years, VA has failed five times
to implement the GI Bill; second, if you visit VA's Office of
Employment and Economic Impact Web site within VBA, it tells
you it is no longer available.
This systemic reason is why we consistently see VA's
failure to implement congressionally-mandated programs, no
matter who sits in the White House. Coincidentally, a majority
of veterans' report that their top challenge in transitioning
to civilian life is navigating VA's administrations and
benefits.
In the 21st century information age, education is key to
employment, and employment is the door to a successful
transition to civilian life. Education and employment combined
give veterans the crucial tools to reforge civilian identities.
The psychic rewards of work, productivity, and a career cannot
be underestimated, which is corroborated by the true veteran
narrative. Veterans, it turns out, are immensely successful.
Empirical data shore that up by showing how veterans with
increased level of education are wealthier, healthier, and more
civically engaged than even their civilian peers. This is the
veteran narrative that should predominate and the VET OPP Act
can trigger this shift.
VA's economic opportunity programs are truly different in
kind from the other operations VBA manages. Separating out
management of these programs honors that difference and creates
greater accountability, attention, and leadership over what
could be the Nation's most important instrument in partnering
with veterans in their civilian success. An outdated agency
model shouldn't be allowed to prevent veterans from investing
their talent and ability in the American economy. This matters.
Veterans are the unacknowledged permanent ambassadors of
military service; they are assets.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Rebecca Burgess appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Burgess. I appreciate your
testimony this morning.
With that, we will begin the question portion of the
hearing, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Murray, Mr. Kamin, and Ms. Burgess, questions generally
directed at any of the three of you. I appreciated hearing
today's testimony on the VET OPP Act, and I am proud to be the
Democratic lead of this Congress, picking up the torch from
Chair Takano.
I think it is clear that economic opportunity-related
business lines need an advocate at the Under Secretary level to
push forward decisions, funding, and IT system modernization.
However, I also believe we shouldn't rush into massive change
without proper planning. I want to understand how VA will
divide up personnel and office space should this bill become
law; change personnel structure; and ensure IT systems are
modernized and continue to communicate across agencies.
So, Mr. Murray, Mr. Kamin, and Ms. Burgess, what are some
of the top issues you believe VA should be reporting its plan
for should it be directed to create a fourth administration?
Mr. Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We feel that it is not
going to be an over-bureaucracy issue. There are already people
that cover these issues, we are just going to separate them out
into a different authority. There will probably be some
additional personnel needed, but this isn't going to become
some burdensome, you know, new buildings, hundreds, thousands
new employees, things like that. They are already doing the
work, it is just they are not represented with a seat at the
table as much as we feel they should be.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Kamin or Ms. Burgess?
Mr. Kamin. Yes, I would just first like to go on the record
as saying The American Legion is studying this issue very
closely and we currently don't have a position on it. That
being said, we share the Chairman's foresight that this
shouldn't be done in haste, that whatever decision is made is
done with careful planning, and we know with implementation of
the Forever GI Bill that that is the foremost challenge.
That being said, the VET OPP's implementation date, I
believe, is October 2020 for that fiscal year, so we don't see
any incongruence there that would hamper that implementation.
But, again, The American Legion is still studying the issue.
Ms. Burgess. And I would say that our interest in this is
not to grow bureaucracy, it is to streamline really how to
deliver the benefits, and that is what the point of this is.
And we also are studying VA as a whole to see where program
overlap happens and where we can actually simplifying and take
these out.
Thank you.
Mr. Levin. I would like to, if I might, switch gears and
talk for a minute about the Bill Mulder Transition Improvement
Act. To the entire panel, I appreciate the support you have
offered for this legislation. Transition is clearly a priority
for everyone on the Subcommittee and this bill is the start of
our work this Congress, but the issue is something we are going
to continue to work on. As I mentioned earlier, the bill would
create a pilot program to establish sites where veterans and
spouses might access transition training at locations other
than military installations.
My question is open to the entire panel. Could you explain
the importance of an off-base transition program or transition
programs to reaching veterans who have already separated from
the military? A question for any of you.
Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman, it is something that we hear time
and time again that folks while they were still wearing the
uniform maybe didn't recognize the value of the TAP class. Like
I said, drinking from a fire hose, it was just too much to take
for one week. Once they take off the uniform and they are back
in their community, they recognize the issues that are facing
them that they might not have known at the time while they were
still in service.
Having a centralized place where the Department of Labor,
VA, SBA, can come and give them, you know, a one-stop-shop
class is important. Once they take off the uniform, then they
recognize the challenges that they might not have known, you
know, 3 months ago, a year ago, whatever it might be.
Mr. Levin. Anybody else care to comment?
Ms. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, research shows that consistently
pre-leaving the service veterans don't think that they will
need soft skills, but immediately afterwards both employers and
veterans recognize that they need soft communication skills
especially, and therefore they need some type of a better
transition.
Mr. Levin. I would also ask, what do you think our next
steps should be? Specifically, what part of transition needs
the most attention and should be addressed as part of this
bill, or the next transition-focused legislation that our
Subcommittee should take up?
Again, open to anyone.
Ms. Devlin. Thank you for the question. I would suggest
that our study that we are about to embark on will give us a
lot of information about how veterans feel about the transition
program.
One of the challenges we typically face with questions such
as these is, we rely on our own judgment and experience, I
think we should rely on the experiences of those veterans who
have recently transitioned. The study we will be undertaking
will ask veterans, will survey veterans at 6 months post-
transition, 1-year post-transition, and 3 years post-
transition; it will be a cohort-based study for 5 years.
Why is this important? Because when I went out to military
bases and I talked to servicemembers who were about to
transition, they had no idea what they were about to embark on.
You can train them all you want, you can teach them about their
benefits, but it is not until the reality hits and they are on
the other side of the DD-214 that it really sinks in, and that
is when they realize what they really need. This survey will
help us understand what those experiences are post-transition,
so that we can then go back and make assessments about how to
improve the Transition Assistance Program.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Under Secretary.
With that, I would now like to recognize Ranking Member
Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it
very much. Good questions, by the way.
Ms. Devlin, last year we saw how the Voc Rehab Program and
the implementation of its new case management study did not
have the proper oversight in its execution, and saw with the
implementation of the Forever GI Bill that additional oversight
was clearly needed.
Regarding the Department's position on the fourth
administration bill, can you please go into greater detail
about how added oversight over these important economic
programs is unnecessary?
Ms. Devlin. Thank you for the question, I am happy to
address it. Up until recently, up until our restructuring, we
did have additional oversight over those programs with the
Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity. What we did in
fact was eliminate those layers of bureaucracy.
And somebody mentioned having a seat at the table. Whereas
in the past we might have had two Deputy Under Secretaries with
a seat at the table for their respective programs, every
program executive director, including the Acting Executive
Director for Education Service, the Director for Voc Rehab, the
Director for our loan guaranty, these programs that we are
talking about, they have a seat at the table with the Under
Secretary, with myself as the Principal Deputy Under Secretary.
When Dr. Lawrence and I entered into these roles that we
have now in May one of the first priorities we knew we had to
face was the issues with Colmery. We immediately began weekly
meetings on Colmery Act implementation, which is why we were
able to detect the issues and concerns when we did, and elevate
those concerns to the Secretary, so that the Secretary could
take action, which he did.
The other issue we knew was important is we watched the
hearing with the then Executive Director of Voc Rehab and
understood the issues with the case management system and the
staffing issues in VR&E, and we came to realize that the VBA
had never acted on the legislation from 2016 to increase the
hiring of Voc Rehab counselors to get to a 1-to-125 ratio. That
was immediate action taken on the part of our leadership and
that was immediate action taken because all those executive
directors had a seat at the table.
The other thing I just would like to point out is that the
inter-connectivity between all of the VBA programs, it is like
vital organs that are connected, and when you go to separate
them you can't see it as just taking a basket of benefits and
distributing it now across two baskets; they are
interconnected. When we talk about survivor issues, there are
parts of the disability compensation system and parts of the
education system that have to interplay.
The chain of command in a regional office is one chain of
command under one director. These division-level managers work
together to resolve issues together, they have synergies among
each other, that would be taken apart with the separation of
the programs.
And the last point I will make is that the 1-year
implementation is too tight. Creating this--taking this action
will create a huge distraction away from implementation of
things like Colmery Act and other transformations that we have
underway in VR&E, and other programs in the economic
opportunity suite.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Is there anybody on the panel that has
an opposing view that would like to comment on Ms. Devlin's
remarks?
Ms. Burgess. Mr. Ranking Member, I would say that the
American public believes that the core function of Congress'
oversight and, from that perspective, is there ever too much of
its core function that it can do.
Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. All right, why don't I go ahead and
ask my--well, we don't have a lot of time. I will get--is one
more question--
Mr. Levin. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay, I appreciate it. Mr. Kamin and Mr.
Murray, please share with us why it is important that we
improve a servicemember's transition from Active duty to
civilian life, and how the draft TAP bill proposes key changes
that will positively impact overall outcomes for individuals
separating from the military?
Again, just basically following up on the Chairman's
questions. These are really important bills today that we are
hearing about. Go ahead.
Mr. Kamin. Thank you, sir. And we agree that this is an
important issue in terms of how we can update and elevate TAP,
and I would say two things on this.
Number one, we have talked a little bit about community
providers being important and we could look at this as on-time
versus in-time delivery, where we recognize that when people
are approaching their EDS date from Active duty oftentimes the
last thing on your mind is tweaking your resume or learning
these soft skills. It is just not where most people's heads are
at and I can say that having transitioned twice from Active
duty.
And, as Ms. Burgess pointed out, that doesn't mean that
down the road you do realize, shoot, I wish I had paid
attention more. And by putting this information into the
fingertips of veterans, we see that as critical.
And, secondly, as our survey pointed out, there is a
problem where there are no community providers that are
represented on TAP and this takes active steps to re-engage
communities, because we know that civic association engagement
through peer-to-peer mentorship is a critical part and it is
one that is lacking right now.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Mr. Murray, briefly, can you comment, please?
Mr. Murray. Absolutely. I think providing grants to
organizations that provide the connections and the services for
transition is important. Also, connecting the servicemembers
with the community of where they are looking to move to. Not
everybody moves off of Camp Pendleton and moves to San Diego,
they might move back to the middle of the country or the East
Coast. So having the knowledge of what is actually in that
community before you get there is very important; it is
preventative, it is not something that we are looking to clean
up the mess afterwards.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, very helpful.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
I would now like to recognize Miss Rice for 5 minutes.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Burgess, can you expound on--so I think one of the
biggest issues is how we help members transition from Active
duty back to civilian life, and I know that there are a lot of
high-tech companies that are actually working with the VA to--
actually, you know, different branches of government to reach
out to people who are going to be separating with 6 months and
actually employing them and training them for the like 5
million jobs that are unfilled in that high-tech industry, and
it really works well. I mean, there literally is not one second
from the time that they separate from Active duty to the time
that they are employed in the private sector, literally, not a
second.
So can you--I mean, they know how to do it, but they are
not doing it enough. I guess it is not their fault, but tell us
how we can do it better. I mean, it just seems to be one of
those problems that should be--we should be able to address.
Ms. Burgess. Thank you for your question.
So, in transition, what happens is not only is there the
employment aspect of it, but there is also the psychological
aspects of it and the narrative aspects of it, and it is the
narrative that can also be the actual--the point of difficulty,
because the employers often don't understand what it means to
have been in the military and what it means to be a veteran.
And so they are coming at it also needing basically a narrative
in which to interact with the veteran, and if that narrative is
predominantly that veterans are broken and that they need a
suite of programs to help them to succeed no matter what, they
are already viewing veterans as a deficit that they have to
invest in towards a negative way.
So if the entire narrative overall is that veterans are
actually successful and that they actually succeed very well in
relation to their civilian peers, then the employers and the
entire suite of the community is already on a positive note
about veterans. And I think that is one of the most important
levels of success.
Miss Rice. Well, yeah, but the reality is that a lot of
them are dealing with issues that they need to deal with--I
mean, that need to be addressed.
Ms. Burgess. So one of the most important things that they
need is a sense of identity and it is the identity that helps
them to work through these particular issues. I would never say
that the increase in mental health programs has been negative.
This is an important step forward for Congress and the American
people to see and to recognize these, but this is recognizing
the veteran as an entire human being and a whole-health model.
And it is those three elements, education, employment, and a
sense of identity in the community that really bring that
forward.
Thank you.
Miss Rice. I totally agree with. I totally agree with you,
I am just writing down some notes. Okay, thank you so much.
Mr. Kamin, so one of the bills that passed in the last
Congress that I proposed was called the BRAVE Act and I
understand that you have some opposition to that, and you laid
that out very clearly in your written testimony. I just want to
make it clear that it was not the intent of the legislation to
disadvantage small businesses, but rather to incentivize
businesses both large and small to focus on and improve their
veteran hiring and retention practice; not just hiring for the
sake of getting business, but actually retaining veterans as
employees as well.
So do you have any--I would love your input as to how we
can in any way modify the legislation to meet that specific
intent, but also address your specific concerns.
Mr. Kamin. Thank you, ma'am, and I appreciate your
concerns. And I do believe we should qualify our position on
that, because it is more that we want to study the issue. We
take small business very seriously and the concern is, for
instance, if I start a small business and I don't have--it is a
family business and I have family members who are involved and
I am not employing any veterans, will this legislation in some
way affect the benefits that I receive.
So that is the only concern and it is something we are
happy to work with your office to kind of dive into details to
alleviate some of those concerns. So that is the only issue we
have.
Miss Rice. Wonderful. Thank you very much and I will follow
up with you on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Bergman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, as one
of the few members who is on both Veterans Affairs' and Armed
Services, you know, as we look at the service, if you will, for
a young boy or girl when they consider joining the military to
their Active duty and reserve time, and then their transition
to the Veterans Administration system, and many, many, many,
many decades later when we are dealing with them and serving
them as they close out to their next transition, it is
extremely important that we consider all of those strings and
all those threads that attach.
Ms. Devlin, is the VA including the individual Ready
Reserve in any of the pilot programs? Those, you know, men and
women who have served their initial obligation in their 8-year
contract, but yet they have transitioned from Active duty. They
still have a responsibility because of their contract to be in
the individual Ready Reserve, although now they are back in the
education world, the business world, the whatever. Anything,
any pilot programs reaching out through the services or the
Reserve components to make sure that that group understands
what transition--you know, what version of TAP might be
available to them while they are in there?
Ms. Devlin. That is a great question, thank you.
One of the things that we did in April of last year was we
revamped the Transition Assistance Program for Active duty and
in doing so we also considered the different needs of the
Reservists and also National Guard.
So one of the things that we learned from that population
is that their benefits are different in the sense of their
entitlement can be different based on whether they were called
up, whether they were not called up. So we do have a different
platform that enables them to understand their benefits and
their unique entitlements.
We also participate in many of the field-based activities
for outreach such as Yellow Ribbon Program activities to try to
reach individuals that may not have been a part of the TAP
program and may not be aware of their benefits.
Mr. Bergman. In your estimate, if you took 100 percent of
the people eligible for TAP, what percentage of them have
that--if you will, that 2 or 4 or 6 years of service and then
have transitioned, as opposed to those walking out the door
with 20-plus years and a retirement pension that is in their
pocket at that time?
Ms. Devlin. So, I don't have that data at my fingertips,
and I can take it for the record, but I can tell you that the
military services have been really great about offering
different classrooms for individuals who are leaving the
military and more of a senior leadership status versus their
junior enlisted individuals, because their lifestyles
circumstances are typically different. So, they have been very
good about that.
And I know Department of Defense isn't here to speak on
their own behalf, but we have a very close working relationship
with DoD and the military services and Department of Labor, and
we work on these issues together.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Ms. Burgess, you made a comment that you
mentioned about soft-communication skills, did I get that
right? Would you explain that, please?
Ms. Burgess. Yes. So, there is the hard skills of just the
technical aspect of a particular employment and the soft
skills, which are mainly communication skills--how do you
interact with your fellow employees, your employer, how do you
understand the workplace, those types of aspects.
Mr. Bergman. So, do you see a difference between, let's say
you had two brothers or two sisters that were twins--one went
into the military and one didn't--do you see a difference in
their soft communication skills that one might have versus the
other one?
Ms. Burgess. The veterans, themselves, say that they do,
because of the structures and hierarchy of military life and
then the various different structures and stresses of being in
a civilian employment where you can be more of an advocate for
yourself sometimes in relation with your employer or your boss,
say.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. And I know we are going to have a second
round. What I am going to do right now, rather than get into an
involved question, I am just going to yield back and then we
will go to the second round.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. With that, Ms. Luria is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Luria. Well, thank you.
And thank you all for being here today. I wanted to follow
up on both, the Chairman and the Ranking Member's question,
again, about the VET OPP Act.
And for Ms. Devlin, just going back to some of the comments
that you made in your opening statement. So, I can fully
understand the VA's position, I wanted to get more in-depth
details from you. You said that while the VA appreciates the
Committee's focus on improving services resources offered by
these programs, we do not support this bill. And, furthermore,
you say that you have accomplished organizational restructuring
that fundamentally changes the way the VA operates.
And one of my biggest concerns is that we change things and
we change them too rapidly to allow them to go into effect and
then evaluate them. So, can you talk about some of those
changes and how you think they affect these specific range of
things that fall economic opportunity and then what the metrics
will be by which you could measure them so we could have a
better opinion if those changes may actually already be
effective and this may be redundant.
Ms. Devlin. Absolutely. I am happy to address that. One of
the things that we realized in looking at the organizational
structure, first of all, was that every executive director for
each of these business lines did not have a seat at the table.
There was a filter between them and the Under Secretary, and
myself, as the Principal Deputy Under Secretary.
So, one of the things we did was make sure they all had an
equal voice--that is done. The other piece that we realized is
that our very important Transition Assistance Program, which,
by the way, is a passion of mine, I would like to see that we
make improvements before my son transitions out of the Marine
Corps in a few years.
One of the things we realized is that there was a lack of
transparency. So, if you looked at our budget up until the 2020
budget, we did not have a chapter in the budget specifically
speaking to transition or the Transition Assistance Program; in
fact, the information around how much we were spending on that
program was buried inside the Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program chapter, because it didn't have its own
chapter.
We not only created an operational office to lead that
program so that it had direct oversight over one executive
director who was responsible for that mission; whereas in the
past, the executive director responsible for TAP was always
responsible for other programs, as well. And so, it is
operational, but it is also in the budget. So, now we have very
much more transparency so that as we talk about programming
funds, it will be clear where those funds are going.
The other piece that we elevated is the Chapter 36, career
and educational counseling program. Over the course of many
years, there is a direct appropriation for contracting out
those services and it has been very underutilized. So we are
focusing efforts on actually talking to transitioning
servicemembers and veterans to identify what it is that they
think they would like out of that program and how could we
better tailor it to their needs and also market it better to
them so that they understand they can take advantage of it.
We also lead by example. Speaking to the issues of soft
skills and also employers hiring veterans, I am a
rehabilitation counselor by training, so my job, when I first
joined VA, was to help veterans with service-connected
disabilities get to an employment goal. So, I understand that
very, very well.
We did update our Web site, by the way, about a year and a
half ago. So, we do have information on there. But in terms of
employers, we lead by example. We have a program called WARTAC
and what we do is we go to military installations across the
country and we recruit servicemembers before they transition to
become veteran service representatives and work in our
disability compensation system, working the veterans' claims.
So, we lead by example in terms of making sure that we provide
employment opportunities to these veterans, as well.
Ms. Luria. Okay. Another thing that is cited in the
discussion of this particular topic is that the TAP program
requires an overlap with the Department of Labor, because the
Department of Labor actually has a lead. Three days of the
program are administered by the Department of Labor. And what I
have the impression that this seeks to do is improve that
relationship between the VA and the Department of Labor to make
that more smooth.
Do you feel like you currently have a good working
relationship with the Department of Labor to deliver this
content and are they willing to make adjustments, as both sides
determine that there is new things that need to be included in
the curriculum?
Ms. Devlin. We have an excellent relationship with our
Department of Labor partners at this time, yes, and we talk
frequently. In fact, we have a regularly recurring meeting at
various levels in the VA between various levels of Department
of Labor, including the interagency structure that is formal,
but also, we have informal conversations. We pick up the phone
and call each other and discuss ideas. So, we definitely have a
good collaboration.
Ms. Luria. And, lastly, you mentioned a survey that you are
doing at certain, post-separation, for veterans to collect
data. And do you feel that that will give you a continuous
feedback loop on how the process is working?
Ms. Devlin. Absolutely. We do. We are very excited to get
the survey started. We just got approval from OMB last week, so
we are now in the process of getting ready to start fielding
the survey.
Ms. Luria. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. Mr. Barr is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for holding
this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses.
And as we think about veterans' benefits and think about,
especially the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, I think of the statistic that we are confronted
with in Congress that there are more job openings in America
today than there are unemployed Americans. And I love what you
said, Ms. Burgess, about veterans being assets. They most
certainly are.
And in my experience in meeting veterans in the Sixth
Congressional District, especially those who have recently
separated from their Active duty, these are the best and
brightest our country has to offer. They most certainly are
assets because they exhibit qualities of teamwork. They exhibit
qualities of leadership, of a service to a cause greater than,
themselves. These are exactly the qualities that employers are
desperate for right now in this country. So, it is very, very
important that we get this right and we continue to offer our
veterans with greater opportunities to meet that need in the
labor market.
I did want to ask Ms. Devlin a question about the STEM
scholarships issue. The draft legislation that we shared with
you, we appreciate your feedback in improving or making some
suggestions on how we can improve the legislation. My district
does boast a number of colleges and universities that offer
STEM degrees, as well as a large veteran population. So, I look
forward to introducing an updated version of this draft
legislation with Chairman Levin in the coming days.
Ms. Devlin, in your testimony, you listed a number of
provisions in the draft legislation that may expand the Rogers
STEM Scholarship beyond its original intent and so, possibly,
that draft was an overcorrection to fix the too-narrow credit
hour requirement currently in law.
Would the VA support a narrowly tailored fix to the Rogers
Scholarship that only removes the hard-to-obtain 128- credit-
hour requirement and, instead, replace it with the much more
common, 120-semester-credit-hour requirement?
Ms. Devlin. We would definitely support an amendment that
wouldn't be quite as restrictive or as open as it changed. I
think the 120 hours, we would want to go back and do some
research on that to see if that is the right cutoff, but we
would definitely want to work with you on that.
We also would want to take a look at the two-year funding
and ensure that the funding is awarded by school year and not
by fiscal year, because that is how the programs operate at
colleges and universities.
Mr. Barr. Okay. Well, thanks for your perspective on that.
I mean, if we made those corrections, have you considered an
estimate of how many more veterans and STEM programs would be
able to take advantage of the scholarship?
Ms. Devlin. We think it will open it up much, much more. We
haven't had any start because it effectively goes into place in
August, but it is definitely very restricted right now with 128
credit hours. We are not sure if veterans will be able to
participate with that restriction in place.
Mr. Barr. Well, as I was alluding to before, there is a lot
of demand for skilled workers, and especially in the STEM
areas, where we see a deficiency in the labor market.
Ms. Haycock, Mr. Murray, and Mr. Kamin, a goal of the
Subcommittee is to produce legislation that sets up our
servicemembers for success in their transition to civilian
life. The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill is critical in allowing our
veterans to get the education they have earned.
In your work with veterans, what programs or fields of
study are you seeing veterans' trend toward using their Post-9/
11 G.I. Bill?
Mr. Murray. So, sir, there was a very informative study
done by our friends at Student Veterans of America called the
``Invest Study'' that showed that the majority were seeking
business degrees, the second was STEM. So, what we are seeing
is veterans are transitioning or servicemembers are
transitioning out and they are not using their skills in the
military; they are looking to do something entirely different.
The military, by and large, does not teach business; it
teaches much different skills. So, getting out and doing
something wholly different is something we really support.
Mr. Kamin. Yes, and I would echo Pat's mention of our
friends at Student Veterans of America and their study invest,
which also showed that veterans are graduating at a higher rate
than their cohorts and cohort, non-traditional students. So, we
are seeing them carry this legacy of success from the World War
II generation onward that we are proving and really
fundamentally changing the idea of a benefit to match what we
have always pathologized as investment. That is genuinely the
case here, where we are seeing the taxpayer money is being paid
back by what they are giving to the country.
Ms. Haycock. And I would like to also add that in survivor
space, we are seeing a huge uptake in survivors pursuing
degrees in the mental health space. The number one population
for or number two population for loss we have seen this year is
actually suicides. So, seeing the large numbers there, so many
of the families who lost a loved one to suicide, then want to
go in and work in suicide prevention and mental health and
counseling; the things that they felt like their loved ones
would have benefited from.
Mr. Barr. Thanks for your great work with TAPS. Thanks. I
yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Barr.
Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Pappas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to the Members of the panel here today. I
think we are all interested in the range of bills that are
before us and the opportunity to allow every veteran to reach
his or her full potential. So, I thank you for sharing your
thoughts.
I want to start with Ms. Devlin. I thank you for being here
and for the VA's work in partnering with HUD on the HUD VASH
program to combat veteran's homelessness. I understand that the
VA is still preparing a formal response on Representative
Peters' bill to expand eligibility for the HUD VASH program to
veterans who receive other-than-honorable discharges.
It is an issue of interest to me, I think, as we look at
the President's misguided transgender service ban, as we look
at the legacy of the ``don't ask don't tell'' era, where
thousands of veterans received other-than-honorable discharges
just for being who they are. I think there is a real issue
here.
So, I am wondering, given that, if you can speak on your
own impressions of this bill and if there is anything with the
proposed legislation that might be an issue for the VA.
Ms. Devlin. Unfortunately, I can't speak to that bill. That
falls under the Veterans Health Administration and as you
indicated, we haven't finalized our official views on that, so
I can't speak on my personal behalf on that.
I will tell you, though, homelessness is important to us in
VBA, as well, and I can speak to what we do in terms of having
veterans--we have coordinators in regional offices whose goal
is to conduct outreach for homeless veterans and to ensure that
if a veteran is homeless, that they get priority treatment,
with respect to getting any of their benefits awarded.
Mr. Pappas. Well, thanks for the response. You know, Mr.
Murray indicated before that veterans with other-than-
honorable discharges are more likely to experience
homelessness, to be a suicide statistic. I am wondering if you
agree with those status, as well?
Ms. Devlin. It is clearly a disadvantage for a veteran
leaving with an other-than-honorable. In some cases, they have
expedited exits as well and don't get the benefits of TAP. So,
we do recognize that this is a population that can sometimes be
at risk and that is why we have made some changes that we have
made in recent history, to enable them to have access to
certain care and benefits.
Mr. Pappas. Okay. Well, I hope you take a look at the
legislation.
Also some discussion about the Justice for Servicemembers
Act, and Mr. Kamin weighed in on that one. I appreciate your
comments. I don't know if the VFW has any position on this, in
terms of banning forced arbitration?
Mr. Murray. We support that provision and we are interested
in keeping the discussion going about adding SCRA protections,
as well. We think the law was meant there to protect our
servicemembers and we should be stopping every opportunity to
circumvent that.
Mr. Pappas. Yeah, I mean, I have seen this in my own
district. Heard about this quite a bit, specifically from the
National Guard and Reserve. We have folks who are returning
from mobilization to happy New Hampshire and are facing down
this challenge, and so I hope everyone agrees that we need to
ensure that servicemembers aren't disadvantaged for wearing the
uniform and for serving their country, especially when they are
coming back from a deployment.
I am wondering, Mr. Kamin, if you could address the issue
that Mr. Murray just raised about the Servicemember Civil
Relief Act and if you support including those disputes in
prohibitions on forced arbitration, as well.
Mr. Kamin. Yeah, absolutely. And it is worth noting, as we
examine a lot of these protection members across government
that SCRA and USERRA, that came from DoD saying, enough is
enough. This is affecting our readiness. This is affecting our
posture when servicemembers are being taken advantage of and
exploited by certain payday lenders and et cetera.
SCRA is an interesting one in terms of how we can strength
it. A landmark case that happened around 2010 was with JPMorgan
and they went into litigation with--over a SCRA violation and
ultimately that case was settled and JPMorgan actually, I
think, grew from that significantly where now they are a
tremendous supporter of military veterans. But because that
went into--because that got settled the question of whether
punitive damages are a part of SCRA was never answered.
And so, there is a risk that if another lawsuit happens and
it goes up the circuit and they determine that the
congressional intent does not include punitive damages, that
means that the best a veteran or a servicemember can get is
their money back, not their time, not their energy, not the
devastation that was inflicted upon them by, you know, asset
forfeitures, et cetera. So, we want to get ahead of the power
curve on here when it comes to SCRA and make sure that gets
taken care of and we can clarify congressional intent.
Mr. Pappas. Thanks for making that point. I hope we can
straighten this out. I appreciate your support for that
legislation.
And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Pappas.
We do have some time for some additional questions, and I
will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. I wanted to ask
broadly of the group about HUD VASH, following up on some of
the prior questions. There are a number of veteran homelessness
programs that do allow OTH discharges to participate in those
programs.
Do your organizations recommend that we bring eligibility
for HUD VASH in line with other veteran homelessness programs,
with regard to OTH discharges?
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. Just to make sure that we are taking
care of everyone we can, we think that the HUD VASH program is
a very valuable tool for our veterans facing homelessness.
Veterans with other-than-honorable discharges should be made
eligible for those just to keep them from some of these
negative outcomes that we see.
Mr. Levin. Anybody else care to comment? All quiet, okay.
Could--for VFW, could you walk us through the connection
that you see between the lack of HUD VASH vouchers for other-
than-honorable discharges and reducing veteran suicide.
Mr. Murray. Unfortunately, there are a lot of contributing
factors with veteran suicide--financial instability,
homelessness, not having the resources to be able to cope with
mental health issues. And we feel that, you know, putting a
roof over their head, getting them in a safe and secure area,
that is why we think adding additional funds for the HUD VASH
vouchers, so they don't have to be in low-income, possibly
high-crime areas, that they feel safe and secure. That is just
a step that we can help to mitigate the problem of suicide.
Mr. Levin. And lastly for the group as a whole, are there
any other reporting requirements that you think we should be
focused on or refine or include in relation to the HUD VASH
program that could help guide our oversight of the program in
the future?
Go right ahead. Not all at once.
Mr. Murray. So, one of the things that we think, you know,
to expand the program for oversight and expansion is things
like permanent funding. Helping this Subcommittee--helping to
redefine homelessness so that--and help de-stigmatize it--so
that the idea of couch-surfing is something that we hear a lot
of, that those folks are eligible for it. They are truly
homeless. To be preventive.
In terms of reporting, you know, finding out those folks
who might have been homeless and not known it, like I said, the
couch-surfing thing, sleeping on your friend's, you know,
basement, that is actually homeless. So, getting that kind of
reporting, how much veterans are affected by things like that.
Mr. Kamin. Yeah, I would also just add that there is a
coding term, garbage in, garbage out, where if you are not
measuring the best--I mean, the most accurate numbers or the
actual data, then we are getting a false positive. And we don't
want to be in a case where we are allotting homelessness being
gotten rid of because we are not taking into account, like Mr.
Murray said, people who are on their couch or people who don't
meet a certain criteria or OTHs or anything else.
So, in terms of reporting, being able to fine-tune and stay
ahead of the curve and getting real-time information on this is
definitely something that we look forward to working with your
office on.
Ms. Devlin. I would just add from the VA's standpoint, we
actually ask veterans on our certain applications for benefits
if they are homeless or about to be homeless so we can avert a
crisis-potentially situation for them by helping them with
their benefits, and we treat them both the same, in terms of
expediting their services.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Under Secretary. I appreciate that.
It is obviously a big concern in our entire country, but
particularly in Southern California and my district, Greater
San Diego, we have about 1,300 homeless veterans and you hear a
lot about the need for more VASH vouchers, the need for more
caseworkers. So, I really do hope that we are able to work on a
bipartisan basis to pass these two bills, and I really
appreciate your comments.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Bergman again for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Ms. Devlin, kind of a follow on what I asked last time
if you would please take for the record, my request for a
breakdown of the percentage--not necessarily total numbers--but
a percentage of TAP efforts, with regard to breaking it down to
first- and second-term enlistments, so those who have, you
know, served maybe 4 to 8 years and then transitioned out, and
the numbers who are 20-plus years, who are technically
retirees, at that point.
Because as we allocate our limited resources in focusing on
the different groups who, you know, have different needs, I
would really like to know what the VA sees, as far as that,
okay?
Ms. Burgess, in your written testimony, you discuss how
legislation that emphasizes post-service growth through a focus
on education and economic opportunity programs has the power to
shift the veteran's narrative towards a positive veteran's
image or veteran image. Can you discuss how we can do this and
why the reorganization at the department--the VA, that
Department would accomplish this.
Ms. Burgess. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the
question. So, the point is that all of the legislation--I did a
long history of the legislation around veterans' services and
benefits since the very beginning, even colonial times--and
what we see is that veterans' legislation has always had a
little bit of a negative aspect of fixing something--best
intentions--but what that has created over time is this idea
that veterans are a population uniquely in need of services and
uniquely not able to give back.
And so, if that is what legislation in and of itself can
do, then legislation can also be used positively, I believe.
Through the VET OPP Act, say, is one, obviously, piece of
legislation that I see right now that could completely shift
this, bringing it into a 21st Century narrative and model that
shows that veterans are assets and that we need to uplift them
and that we need to invest in them because we have already
invested in them and we need to make good on that investment.
And to also relate to veterans, themselves, that the American
people and Congress believe that they are assets.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. In fact, just hearing you talk reminded
me of a time back in the early '90s when then a commandant in
the Marine Corps, General Krulak, said what the Marine Corps
did is we make Marines and we win battles. And his successor,
General Jones, said we make Marines, win battles, and return
good citizens to our society. And I think that is what we are
talking about here; returning good citizens to be productive
members of society.
Again, Ms. Burgess and Mr. Murray, in VA's written
testimony on H.R. 2045, the VET OPP Act, they oppose the
creation of a fourth administration and express concern that
this would ``increase oversight for programs'' and would be
``contrary to the moderation efforts that took place.''
Can each of you please respond to that concern and why,
instead, the creation of a fourth administration is positive,
according to your organizations. Mr. Murray, first.
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. Thank you, General.
We welcome more oversight. We feel this is a great way to
help streamline and, you know, use these programs and benefits
more efficiently. As Ms. Burgess said, you know, a lot of times
we are thinking about fixing things. The areas under fourth
admin that we want to see are the forward- looking benefits,
the ones that can be progressive, can be transformative. They
are not fixing things; they are making things better for the
future.
That is why we want to see more oversight so these programs
are properly implemented so that the good citizens coming back
can continue to be productive members of society.
Ms. Burgess. Can I just say hear, hear, yes. I would say,
also, as I said before, that separating out the management of
the programs honors the difference between them and the
compensation programs and creates accountability, attention,
and leadership over what could be the Nation's most important
instrument in partnering with veterans in their civilian
success.
Mr. Bergman. And I see that I have got about 30 seconds
left. Thanks to all of you, because I know you are all--we are
all trying to do the right thing here, because as we think
about those young men and women who choose to serve in the
United States military and the most--the highest percentage of
those only serve one term. I mean, that is a reality. We are
not talking everybody going in and staying for 20 years.
And as we continue to populate our uniform forces, whether
it be active, guard, or reserve, we need to be able to focus on
those programs that allow men and women who transition and then
stay involved so when we need them and our country needs them
to deploy, whether it be individually or as part of a unit,
they are ready and they have felt that their service has always
been valued from beginning to end.
So, thank you all, and I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Bergman.
Now, I would like to recognize Ms. Luria, again, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Luria. Well, thank you. And, again, thank you for
participating in the hearing.
And I see these hearings having two roles: one is to make
sure that we are giving you the tools, as the VA, that you need
in order to do your job, as well as the oversight that we have
discussed. So, I wanted to ask an additional question. Are
there any barriers in the current legislation, as it stands
within your current organization, that prevent you from
providing the services that you need to provide to veterans in
those areas that are in the purview of this Committee?
Ms. Devlin. No, ma'am, there are no barriers. If I might, I
just want to point out that it kind of sounds like we are
trying to create two classes of veterans here; the veterans who
have economic opportunity and the veterans who have
disabilities. And I would make the case--again, I come from a
framework of a rehabilitation counselor--disabilities don't
define a person.
And what we have done by having all of these benefits
together is allow a veteran to not define him or herself by
their disability, but to combine any benefits they do get
because of their disabilities with the benefits to enable them
to overcome those disabilities through the robust education
benefits that we have, through the Vocational Rehabilitation
Employment Program, through the ability to buy a home. All of
those benefits being bundled together, to me, is a natural fit
versus trying to create two classes of veterans; one that goes
to the door of the disability benefits arena, which is what we
would, in fact, be creating, and one that goes to the door of
the economic opportunity suite of benefits. It just doesn't
seem to make sense to me.
Ms. Luria. I appreciate that analogy, as well, because I
think they feed on each other. The educational benefits are
then a tool for people to move beyond something that may be a
service-related disability, especially with rehabilitation-type
programs. So, thank you for sharing that.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. I would like to now recognize our
distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
think you have done a great job with this Committee so far in
our first hearing. Well, it is true, and I mean, it is your
first time chairing a Committee, correct, in Congress?
Mr. Levin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yeah, so, we have got a lot of work to do
and I look forward to working with you and getting it done.
So, the first question is for Ms. Haycock. And it says, can
you please go into detail about how the Fry Scholarship change
will help ensure degree completion for these students. So, we
are talking about the students or possibly their parents are
active-duty or reserve and the parent had a disability and
passed away, while not being on active-duty.
So, what difference will this make, this particular bill
that I am sponsoring with the Chairman, with regard to those
students? Will it help them complete their degrees? And if you
want to give us an example--I know of a few--so that people can
understand how important this bill is. Thank you.
Ms. Haycock. Sure. So, currently these families do fall
under the Chapter 35 program, which is just a stipend of about
$1,2000.
The Fry Scholarship is a much more exhaustive benefit with
the full in-state constitution, the BAH, the book stipend.
Currently, a lot of these children are not necessarily
attending the schools of their choice just because,
financially, they cannot afford to do so. Even though they are
eligible for so many of the other same programs, the family
gets the same DIC, the same life insurance policy, things like
that. This piece is different.
And so, for these families, it is not even so much about
the degree completion; though, if they can't afford to go to a
school, in general, then they are not going to be able to
complete a degree, but also giving them the ability to be able
to go to the school they want.
So, some of the kids we have seen choose to go to a local
community college just because they cannot afford to go to
their local four-year school or the degree program of their
choice. So, this will help get them into those schools,
financially, as well as allow them to complete the process.
The BAH portion allows students to not necessarily work
full time while in school, so that they have more financial
freedom to focus on their studies and graduate at a higher
rate.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you very much.
The next question is for Mr. Murray and Mr. Kamin, the VFW
and The American Legion. Are you concerned that eliminating the
ability for employers to use arbitration agreements that are in
place, all other employees could incentivize employers to not
hiring servicemembers in the first place, so--and we are
concerned about our servicemembers being hired and getting good
jobs? Are you concerned about this particular issue, with
regard to arbitration?
Mr. Murray. We are concerned about, essentially, losing
your rights and being forced into these things in order--as a
condition of employment. We would, obviously, discourage
employees from not wanting to hire a veteran with the thought
that they might deploy in the future or something like that.
That is--you know, that runs into discrimination issues, things
like that.
We want to encourage them that these veterans are assets
and if they do deploy and have to step away, you should not
force them into an arbitration as part of the condition of
employment. We would hope that employers don't, you know,
follow that type of practice.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, sir?
Mr. Kamin. And as a reservist right now, I am very
sensitive to that issue and I would be lying if I didn't tell
you that I know people in my unit who exclude their reserve
service on their resumes, because they believe that companies
will be less inclined to hire them if they know that they have
these duties.
That being said, we believe that the intent of USERRA is
clear in this regard and that if all a company should do is
compel a forced arbitration, then why did we begin this process
in the first place? We know the obligation that our country--
that these veterans give to their country and we need to honor
that, and we still believe that USERRA is the best way to do
that and arbitration shouldn't be a part of it.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Barr is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thanks once again, Mr. Chairman. And I concur
with the Ranking Member, great job on your maiden voyage as
Chairman of this Subcommittee, and I am honored to serve with
you on this Subcommittee.
I want to talk a little bit about a bipartisan bill that I
am proud to co-sponsor with Representative Scott Levin and
Zeldin, H.R. 1988. This is the Protect Affordable Mortgages for
Veterans Act of 2019.
And, obviously, as veterans are transitioning, our
servicemembers transitioning into civilian life, the goal of
home ownership is one of the ways that we can get those
veterans in a good financial position to have a very successful
future. This legislation would provide a technical correction
for about 2,500 VA-guaranteed home loans that are currently
ineligible for Ginnie Mae pooling, due to a seasoning
requirement issue that I think you are aware of.
I think that we can all agree that there is a problem that
Congress created, and I was part of the authoring the
legislation, S.2155 and some of the provisions in that from the
last Congress, but when we create a problem, inadvertently, we
obviously need to fix it, and H.R. 1988 will do that. I was
encouraged to see that all of you all who mentioned H.R. 1988
in your testimony, supported it.
This is open to any of you all. Can you speak to the
benefit of VA-backed home loans and the liquidity that is
provided by Ginnie Mae with these VA-backed home loans and what
that means for our veteran families?
Mr. Murray. Sir, we feel that the VA Home Loan Program is
one of the best benefits out there. It is hands- down, much
better than, you know, civilian counterparts. It is something
that we always want to see improved, protected.
With the seasoning requirement, we understand that there
were some unintended consequences and, you know, it was--the
intent was to try to protect and help veterans using that
program, not inadvertently hurt them. So, you know, we are
onboard with cleaning that up to make sure that those up to
2,500 veterans are taken care of the right way.
Mr. Kamin. Yes, and I would concur. And we are actually
approaching the 75th anniversary of the Servicemen's
Readjustment Act of 1944. The first home loan was actually
bought in a suburb in I think Northwest DC and I believe the
VBA is actually looking at putting a plaque there to
commemorate it. So, there is storied history of success. This
is the--it is the VA homeowners that really created the middle
class; more so, perhaps, even arguably, than the education
component, because we saw these vast suburban tracks develop.
And while the fixes are necessary, we have been very encouraged
and that is a fast--program and it is great to see that you are
focused on it.
Ms. Devlin. So, I have to say I concur with all that they
have said. We agree the technical fix will create--it will fix
it so that it is better for veterans, better for Ginnie Mae,
better for lenders, so that there is no concerns about VA-
backed loans. It is a great opportunity for veterans to buy
home loans, in many cases, without a--with a zero down payment
and it is a really great way for them to make an investment in
their future.
Mr. Barr. And, Ms. Devlin, I also appreciate the fact that
you recognize that there is a valued purpose for the seasoning
requirement, and you spelled out those arguments very well, I
think, in your testimony. But, obviously, there is an
unintended consequence to the legislation in the last Congress,
and we don't want these 2,500 orphan loans to be kind of a
victim of that unintended consequence.
What would happen, Ms. Devlin, to these particular veterans
if those 2,500 orphan loans were not fixed by this technical
correction?
Ms. Devlin. Well, I think the potential, right, exists that
any of these lenders could suffer consequences which could then
affect the veterans. I don't believe that the veterans, in
particular, are in any danger, absent the lenders having any
issues.
But I think the technical fix is important because it
doesn't create the potential for future lending opportunities
to be--the door to be closed on veterans because of the
potential risk.
And the loan seasoning is an important protection, too,
because we don't want veterans to just be, I will say targeted
for immediate and quick refinancing when that may not be in
their best interests.
Mr. Barr. In my remaining time, I am just going to quickly
comment to Ms. Haycock regarding the legislation that would
extend benefits to the Guard and Reserve components. I would
appreciate your support of that.
I represent the Kentucky Army and the International Guard
and the Boone Center in Frankfort and there is an inequity, as
those anecdotes that you shared in your testimony, and so we
appreciate your advocacy of that legislation.
I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Barr.
Before I make a few closing remarks, any final statement
from our distinguished Ranking Member?
Mr. Bilirakis. I am fine. I just wanted to let you know
that--well, thank you for the witnesses, for their testimony--
very informative. And these are very important bills and I
understand that we will mark them up next month when we get
back from our Easter recess; is that correct?
Okay. Very good. Thank you. Great job, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it. I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
I think this hearing has highlighted some important facts
and in particular, two things. First, we have a long way to go
until we uphold the promise we have made to our veterans. Many
remain homeless or are barely making ends meet, despite the
great work being done by many of you.
And then many more veterans and their families are unable
to access the benefits to which they are entitled. For me,
these benefits are not just about economic opportunities; they
are critical tools for reintegration and readjustment to
civilian life.
Secondly, today's hearing has shown that this Committee
leaves politics at the door. That is pretty refreshing. I wish
we did more of that around here. Democrats and republicans,
alike, are committed to improving the lives of American
veterans and I like the fact that if you are just listening to
today's hearing, rather than watching, you don't know which
side the folks speaking are on. I wish that all of our
Committees were more like that.
This Subcommittee is going to continue to work
collaboratively, and I am looking forward to working with our
distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Bilirakis, and all of our
Members this Congress.
I would also like to thank our witnesses for bringing their
expertise both, in their written testimony and their remarks.
And I would like to thank our staff for preparing, me,
exceptionally well today for my first hearing as the
Subcommittee chair.
With that, I will say that all Members will have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include any extraneous material that they didn't have an
opportunity to include in the spoken remarks today.
And, lastly, I just want to reiterate what an incredible
honor it is to get to chair this Subcommittee. It is a
responsibility that I take extremely seriously, and I am
confident that when we look back at the 116th Congress, the
work of this Subcommittee will stand out and will be something
that we can all be very proud of.
So, with, without objection, this Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Margarita Devlin
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and other
Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to provide
the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on pending
legislation, including bills pertaining to education and loan guaranty
benefits and transition assistance.
VA is unable to provide views on H.R. 95, the Homeless Veteran
Families Act; H.R. ----, a bill to amend the United States Housing Act
of 1937 and title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.), to expand eligibility
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive
Housing (HUD VASH) program, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to submit annual reports to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the
House of Representatives and Senate regarding homeless Veterans, and
for other purposes; the discussion draft H.R. ----, the Homes for Our
Heroes Act of 2019; and H.R. 2109, the BRAVE Act, at this time, but
will provide them at a later date.
H.R. 444 - Reduce Unemployment for Veterans of All Ages Act of 2019
H.R. 444, the Reduce Unemployment for Veterans of All Ages Act of
2019, would eliminate the eligibility termination date (ETD) for access
to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) benefits and
services by repealing 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3103.
VA does not support this bill; however, VA does support the
objective of this bill, which is designed to reduce unemployment for
Veterans of all ages. Currently
38 U.S.C. Sec. 3103(a) generally requires that VR&E benefits and
services must be utilized within 12 years of a Veteran being discharged
or released from active service. The last day of this 12-year period is
referred to as the ETD. Eliminating the ETD would streamline the
eligibility and entitlement process and would enable Veterans to
benefit from VR&E services at any time, if entitlement to the program
is established.
However, VA would prefer to amend Sec. 3103 as opposed to
repealing the section. Section 112 of the Harry W. Colmery Veterans
Educational Assistance Act of 2017, Public Law 115-48, eliminated the
15-year time limitation for Veterans to utilize their Post 9/11 GI Bill
benefits. This provision took effect for Veterans whose last discharge
or release from Active duty occurred on or after January 1, 2013.
Amending 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3103 to eliminate the 12-year ETD for Veterans
whose last discharge from Active duty was on or after January 1, 2013,
would create parity between VR&E and Post 9/11 GI Bill programs.
Benefit costs or savings that would be associated with this bill
have not yet been determined.
H.R. 1718 - GI Education Benefits Fairness Act
H.R. 1718, the GI Education Benefits Fairness Act, would amend 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3319(c) to expand the definition of a child applicable for
transfer of entitlement under the Post 9/11 GI Bill to include a ward
or foster child, by utilizing the definition of dependent in 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 1072(2)(l).
VA supports this bill subject to Congress finding appropriate
funding offsets. It would ensure that all dependents of individuals
eligible to transfer their Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement are treated
equally and are able to utilize VA educational assistance under the
transferability program. However, the intent and impact of the
applicability provision in section 2(b) is unclear. VA would welcome
the opportunity to assist the Committee with technical edits that could
remedy this issue.
Benefit costs or savings that would be associated with this bill
have not yet been determined.
H.R. 1988, Protect Affordable Mortgages for Veterans Act of 2019
H.R. 1988, the Protect Affordable Mortgages for Veterans Act of
2019, would revise statutory loan seasoning requirements applicable to
the origination and securitization of certain VA-guaranteed refinance
loans. Loan seasoning requirements set a minimum length of time during
which an initial loan cannot be refinanced. In VA's housing program,
well-tailored loan seasoning requirements help reduce the likelihood of
serial refinancing. Loan seasoning requirements can also help preserve
Veterans' home equity, which often proves to be a valuable and
sometimes crucial financial asset for Veterans.
In addition to protecting Veterans from predatory lending, loan
seasoning requirements can help safeguard the financial interests of
the United States. When a Veteran obtains a VA-guaranteed loan, VA
generally guarantees anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of the loan amount.
Thus, as questionable loans accumulate, taxpayers subsidize needlessly
risky Government-backed portfolios. Consequences include early loan
terminations, increased and guaranty claims for VA. The Government
National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantees mortgage-backed
securities (MNSMBSMNS) that include VA-guaranteed loans. Excessive loan
churning puts downward pressure on the price of Ginnie Mae securities,
which increases borrowing costs for veterans as well as borrowers with
loans from other government programs that are comingled with Ginnie Mae
securities.
On May 24, 2018, the President signed into law Public Law 115-174,
the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, a
statute that, in part, imposed new requirements on certain VA-
guaranteed refinance loans and Ginnie Mae MBS. One such requirement
included a loan seasoning period, applicable at two distinct stages:(i)
the date of loan origination and (ii) the date that a loan is pooled
into Ginnie Mae MBS. Specifically, a new section 3709, title 38,
U.S.C., provides that VA cannot guarantee certain refinance loans until
the later of (i) the date that is 210 days after the first monthly
payment is made on the loan being refinanced and (ii) the date on which
the sixth monthly payment is made on the loan being refinanced. The
National Housing Act was also amended to explicitly prohibit Ginnie Mae
from including unseasoned VA-guaranteed refinance loans in their
investment pools. The statute bars VA-guaranteed refinance loans from
Ginnie Mae MBS unless the loans being refinanced have seasoned for at
least 210 days, as measured from the date that the first monthly
payment was made and unless the borrowers have made six full monthly
payments on the loans being refinanced. The new seasoning requirements
on VA-guaranteed refinance loans and Ginnie Mae MBS went into effect
immediately upon enactment.
Shortly after Congress enacted Public Law 115-174, certain
stakeholders realized that the immediate imposition of the Ginnie Mae
MBS seasoning requirement inadvertently prevented some unseasoned
refinance loans, which were compliant at the time of origination, but
not by the time the loans were ripe for sale on the secondary market
from being sold into Ginnie Mae MBS. This held true for such loans
despite lenders' expectations at the time of loan closing that such
loans could be sold into Ginnie Mae MBS. For some smaller lenders, the
inability to sell such loans into Ginnie Mae MBS could force them out
of business, potentially harming current borrowers and curtailing the
availability of future VA-guaranteed loans for Veterans.
Section 2(a) of the bill would remove the statutory imposition of
the Ginnie Mae MBS seasoning requirement, thereby restoring Ginnie
Mae's authority to securitize what the lending industry is now
referring to as ``orphan'' loans (the approximately 2,500 loans that
were closed but not yet pooled when Public Law
115-174 was enacted). VA believes that the primary purpose of
section 2(a) of the bill is to make a technical correction to address a
discrete issue, one that would allow such loans to be sold into Ginnie
Mae MBS. VA does not oppose section 2(a) of the bill. VA has a
longstanding history of working with Ginnie Mae to ensure that Veterans
enjoy ready access to housing credit and that Ginnie Mae MBS containing
VA-guaranteed loans are sound investments. Ginnie Mae is a valuable
partner to VA and to Veterans who might otherwise face higher credit
costs without the liquidity that Ginnie Mae provides in the market. VA
anticipates continued collaboration with Ginnie Mae to ensure these
mutually beneficial outcomes.
Section 2(b) of the bill would amend section 3709(c)(2) to change
the date upon which the 210-day seasoning count begins. Under current
section 3709(c)(1), the 210-day count begins on the date on which the
first monthly payment is made on the loan being refinanced. Section
2(b) of the bill would start the count on the date the first payment is
due, not paid. VA does not object to this provision, as it would seem
when coupled with the six-consecutive-monthly-payment requirement, to
impose a more easily calculable 6-month seasoning requirement. VA does
not anticipate any costs associated with this legislation.
H.R. 2045, the Veterans' Education, Transition, and Opportunity
Prioritization Plan Act (VET OPP)
H.R. 2045, the Veterans' Education, Transition, and Opportunity
Prioritization Plan Act of 2019, or VET OPP Act, would establish in VA
the Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration (VEOTA)
to administer programs that provide assistance related to economic
opportunity for Veterans and their dependents and survivors. VEOTA
would be responsible for the following VA programs: vocational
rehabilitation and employment; educational assistance; Veterans'
housing loans and related programs; verification of small businesses
owned and controlled by Veterans, including the administration of the
database of Veteran-owned businesses; TAP; and any other programs
determined appropriate by VA.
The effective date of this draft bill would be October 1, 2020. For
FY 2019 and FY 2020, the number of full-time equivalent employees
authorized for the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the new
administration would not be allowed to exceed 23,692.
While VA appreciates the Committee's focus on improving services
and resources offered by these programs, we do not support this bill.
The current VBA structure appropriately reflects the Under Secretary
for Benefits' overall responsibility for Veterans benefit programs to
support economic opportunity and transition, by providing vocational
rehabilitation, education assistance, and housing programs, as well as
compensation, pension, survivors' benefits, and insurance.
In 2018, VBA created the Office of Transition and Economic
Development (TED) to support seamless transition from military service
to civilian life and accelerate economic empowerment and development
for transitioning Servicemembers, Veterans, and their families. TED is
leveraging enterprise-wide programs and services to prioritize military
to civilian transition and has oversight and management responsibility
for VA's transition services, including VA's portion of TAP.
Further, VA underwent modernization through the entire
organization. VBA accomplished organizational restructuring that
fundamentally changed the way it operates. This included delayering
oversight offices and concentrating resources on front line Veteran
facing and Veteran serving positions. The addition of another
administration would increase oversight for programs that are currently
in place, contrary to the modernization efforts that took place.
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU)
currently reports directly to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary.
OSDBU's mission is to advocate for the maximum practicable
participation of small, small-disadvantaged, Veteran-owned, women-
owned, and Historically Underutilized Business Zone businesses in
contracts awarded by VA and in subcontracts awarded by VA's prime
contractors. This bill would move OSDBU's Center for Verification and
Evaluation (CVE) program to the new administration. CVE administers the
verification program required for service-disabled Veteran-owned small
businesses and Veteran-owned small businesses and maintains the Vendor
Information Pages database. We are concerned that moving this major
aspect of the program from OSDBU to a new administration may result in
a redundancy of efforts.
Section 3(a) of the bill would add a new section 306A titled
``Under Secretary for Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition'' to
title 38, United States Code. New section 306A(a) would make the Under
Secretary for Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition a
Presidential appointee position, requiring the advice and consent of
the Senate. The Under Secretary would be appointed without regard to
political affiliation and solely based on demonstrated ability in
information technology and the administration of programs within VEOTA
or similar programs.
New section 306A(b) would state that the Under Secretary for
Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition is directly responsible to
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the operations of VEOTA.
New section 306A(c) would state that the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall establish a commission to recommend individuals to the
President for appointment to the new Under Secretary position when a
vacancy arises. The commission would recommend to the Secretary at
least three individuals for appointment to the position. The Secretary
would forward the recommendations to the President and the Committees
on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives and Senate with
any comments. The Assistant Secretary or Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Veterans Affairs who performs personnel management and labor relations
functions would serve as the executive secretary of the commission.
Section 3 would establish the same procedure used to fill the
positions of Under Secretary for Benefits, Under Secretary for Health,
and Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs. If this bill is enacted, VA
agrees this should be the procedure for selecting the new Under
Secretary for Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition.
No mandatory costs would be associated with the bill. While there
would be no benefit costs associated with the bill, the appropriation
language for the Readjustment Benefits account and the Credit Reform
account would have to change to reflect the title of the new
administration.
Discussion Draft, H.R. ----, Jumbo Loans and Waiver of Fees for Purple
Heart Recipients
Section 1(a) of H.R. ----, Jumbo Loans and Waiver of Fees for
Purple Heart Recipients, would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3703(a)(1) to
adjust the maximum guaranty amount available under the VA home loan
program. It would also make conforming amendments to entitlement
calculations to ensure the increase in guaranty amount would not
decrease the amount of entitlement currently available to certain
Veteran borrowers.
Under current law, the maximum guaranty amount for certain VA-
guaranteed loans is calculated as a percentage of the Freddie Mac
conforming loan limit. Lenders typically require VA's guaranty to cover
at least 25 percent of the loan amount before they will make a zero-
down payment loan. When VA's guaranty is less than 25 percent, lenders
expect Veterans to make a down payment to cover the difference. In
effect, the maximum amount a Veteran can borrow without a down payment
is capped at the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. This bill would
eliminate the effective cap and make the maximum guaranty amount 25
percent of the loan amount, subject to previously-used entitlement.
A Veteran's entitlement is generally limited to $36,000 for loans
amounting to $144,000 or less, or to 25 percent of the loan for certain
loans that exceed $144,000. A Veteran who is using the home loan
benefit for the first time or who has used the benefit, but has had all
previous entitlement restored (e.g., the Veteran has sold his/her
property and repaid the VA-guaranteed loan in full), enjoys the full
amount of entitlement. One who has an outstanding VA-guaranteed loan or
who has not otherwise repaid previously-used entitlement must subtract
from the full amount that which has not been restored. The amount of
entitlement available to a Veteran is important because it is another
factor, along with the maximum guaranty amount, in determining whether
a Veteran must contribute a down payment when obtaining a VA-guaranteed
loan.
The zero-down payment loan is a cornerstone of VA's home loan
program and provides an incentive for Veterans to choose VA's home loan
product. While VA generally supports efforts to preserve the zero-down
payment feature, VA has two major concerns with this bill.
The bill lacks a provision that would set forth how to calculate
entitlement for certain Veterans. Specifically, there is not any
instruction for calculating entitlement for Veterans who would use
their full entitlement to obtain a loan exceeding $144,000. The bill
does provide how to calculate entitlement for Veterans whose loans
would not exceed $144,000, both in circumstances where entitlement has
been used and when it has not. It also provides how to calculate
remaining entitlement for a ``covered Veteran,'' which would include
Veterans whose loans would exceed $144,000 and for whom their
entitlement is currently in use. It leaves a gap, however, with regard
to Veterans who do not fit into either of these categories, meaning
those Veterans who (i) are obtaining a loan of more than $144,000 and
(ii) have never used their benefits or have used them and had their
full entitlement restored (e.g., a Veteran who has repaid a loan in
full after selling his or her home). VA would welcome the opportunity
to assist the Committee with technical edits that could remedy this
issue.
VA also has concerns about costing section 1(a)(1) of the bill. Due
to limited loan data on non-conforming loans, VA's estimate of benefit
costs ranges anywhere from tens of millions of dollars to hundreds of
millions of dollars, depending on how quickly Veteran demand for the
new, higher loan amounts would outstrip the loan fees VA collects as a
result. A conservative estimate projects new benefit costs of $6.3
million, $33.6 million, and $77 million over one, five, and ten years,
respectively, based on loans to 64,594 new borrowers, representing
additional lending guaranty coverage of $9.3 billion.
VA also estimates that the coverage expansion could boost average
default claims by 54 basis points or 0.54 percent, compared with the
baseline workload of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 President's Budget
Submission. Given the uncertainty of the budgetary impacts, VA cannot
support the change in this section of the legislation at this time.
Section 1(a)(2) of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3762(c) to
remove the current loan amount limit applicable to Native American
Direct Loans (NADL). Under current law, VA cannot make a NADL with a
total loan amount that exceeds the maximum loan amount for VA-
guaranteed loans as set forth by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3703(a). Under section
1(a)(1) of the bill, certain VA-guaranteed loans would no longer be
capped at the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. Section 1(a)(2) of the
bill would allow Native American Veterans living on trust land to
obtain NADLs that exceed the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit,
provided they can afford the loan. This provision would help ensure
that Native American Veterans have similar access to zero-down payment
loans as Veterans participating in the VA-guaranteed loan program.
Section 1(a)(2) of the bill could slightly expand VA direct loan
lending, mostly in Hawaii. The expansion could result in approximately
$6.8 million in loan volume over 10 years, as compared with the
baseline workload of the FY 2020 President's Budget Submission. This
legislation would not alter the baseline workload volume or subsidy
rates in the future. The baseline direct loan program has negative
subsidy rates from the Budget model. Applying these assumptions to the
Budget model, section 1(a)(2) could result in first-year cost savings
of $55,000 and cost savings of $237,000 and $380,000 over 5 and 10
years, respectively. If Congress were to enact section 1(a)(1) of the
bill, VA would not oppose removing the loan limit for NADLs, as this
would align the NADL benefit with the VA-guaranteed loan program.
Section (b) of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3729 to exempt
certain recipients of the Purple Heart from paying the statutory loan
fee generally required to obtain a housing loan guaranteed, insured, or
made under VA's home loan program. Under current law, the loan fee,
which is based on a percentage of the loan amount, is waived for
certain Veterans and active-duty Servicemembers who have service-
connected disabilities. A loan fee is not required from a Veteran who,
for example, is receiving compensation as the result of a pre-discharge
disability examination or rating or based on a pre-discharge review of
existing medical evidence that results in the issuance of a memorandum
rating. Additionally, an active-duty Servicemember who is awarded the
Purple Heart and is eligible for VA home loan benefits can receive a
waiver of the loan fee if he or she would be in receipt of compensation
but receiving Active duty pay. The current exemption from the loan fee
is not available to a recipient of the Purple Heart unless his or her
injuries result in the receipt of disability compensation.
If section (b) of the bill were enacted, the Secretary would waive
the loan fee for a Purple Heart recipient, regardless of whether such
recipient's injuries are compensable by VA, as long as such recipient
is serving on Active duty, and the recipient's Purple Heart has been
awarded at the time the loan is to be guaranteed or insured. VA does
not oppose enactment of section (b) of the bill.
One question the bill presents is how to ensure that Purple Heart
recipients are adequately served when, according to a recent
Congressional Research Service report, the Purple Heart is sometimes
awarded without any formal reporting or recordkeeping. The same report
also states that the Department of Defense does not maintain a
comprehensive record of Purple Heart recipients. If section (b) of the
bill were enacted, a rulemaking would be necessary to establish various
ways a recipient could show eligibility for a loan fee exemption.
Therefore, unless the bill is amended to address evidentiary standards,
VA would recommend a delayed effective date to allow time for a
rulemaking.
Section (b) of the bill could increase by 2 percent annually the
number of VA-guaranteed loans that do not require a loan fee, compared
with the baseline workload of the FY 2020 President's Budget
Submission. VA estimates that the 2-percent increase of section (b)
could result in new benefits costs of $482,000 in 2020, $2.7 million
over 5 years, and $5.9 million over 10 years.
Discussion Draft, H.R. ----, Justice for Servicemembers Act of 2019
H.R. ----, the Justice for Servicemembers Act of 2019, would
clarify the scope of procedural rights of Servicemembers with respect
to their employment and reemployment rights under the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. Because this
bill concerns procedures and protections that largely fall under the
purview of the Department of Labor (DOL), VA defers to the views of DOL
and other agencies on this proposed legislation.
H.R. ----, Veteran Employment and Child Care Access Act of 2019
H.R. ----, the Veteran Employment and Child Care Access Act of
2019, would create a new section, 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3123, that would
require VA to provide child care assistance to certain Veterans
receiving certain training or vocational rehabilitation. Section
3123(a)(2) would limit the provision of child care assistance to once
per child, and not to exceed 6 months but would also allow the
Secretary to waive these limitations as appropriate. Section 3123(b)
would impose limitations on eligibility, including that the Veteran be
the primary caretaker and family adjusted gross income requirements.
Section 3123(c) would establish the four options for the provision of
child care services, and section 3123(d) would require VA to coordinate
with other agencies and entities when possible. Section 3123(f) would
define three terms applicable to the section, i.e., ``child,''
``licensed child care center,'' and ``primary caretaker.''
VA does not support this bill, as currently written. VA supports
efforts to provide access to or reimbursement of child care services to
Veterans receiving training or vocational rehabilitation. However, the
bill duplicates services already available to VR&E participants and
also contains ambiguities.
38 U.S.C Sec. 3104(a)(16) states VR&E may provide services
``necessary to accomplish the purpose of a rehabilitation program on an
individual basis.'' As such, VR&E currently allows reimbursement of
child care expenses for chapter 31 participants if the Vocational
Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) determines child care is necessary for
the implementation or continuation of the Veteran's rehabilitation
program. Child care assistance is generally limited to one semester, or
the equivalent, which is consistent with the language proposed in Sec.
3123(a). The VRC and Veteran work together to identify appropriate
long-term child care solutions. Part of this coordination is to explore
child care options that are available under other Federal, state, or
local entities, as outlined in Sec. 3123(d). Ordinarily, the cost for
child care assistance is limited to $1,250 per year, or 5 percent of
training costs for any 12-month period, based on 38 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Sec. 21.156. Therefore, the services and practices
outlined in Sec. 3123(a) and (d) are already available to and in use
for chapter 31 participants. Additionally, the waiver provision in
Sec. 3123(b) is also addressed in VR&E regulation and policy as any
authorization more than this amount requires higher level approval from
the VR&E Officer in the office of jurisdiction. Lastly, Sec.
3123(b)(1) would state a Veteran is eligible to receive this service if
he or she needs training on a full-time basis but cannot participate at
that level due to the lack of child care services. Since VR&E currently
can provide direct reimbursement for the cost of child care services on
a limited basis, it would be difficult to state that the lack of child
care services is the reason the Veteran is not attending training on a
full-time basis.
VA defers to DOL regarding the impact of these provisions on their
programs under 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2021, 2021A, and chapter 41.
VA is unable to estimate the readjustment benefit costs associated
with this proposal due to the inability to predict either the increased
utilization of this benefit or the average cost of child care due to
variance in the array of child care services offered, the number and
age of children, and the location of facilities. In addition, this
proposal does not specify whether funds shall be used for full-time
child care or child care only while the Veterans is attending class.
H.R. ----, Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer William ``Bill'' Mulder
(Retired) Transition Improvement Act
H.R. ----, the Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer William ``Bill''
Mulder (Retired) Transition Improvement Act, would provide additional
authorities that would help improve the effectiveness of the Transition
Assistance Program (TAP). Section 3 of the bill would mandate access to
the National Directory of New Hires for VA and DOL. This access would
allow the Departments to better track employment outcomes of
transitioned Servicemembers and understand the effectiveness of TAP. VA
further supports the other TAP partner agencies getting access as well.
Section 4 would reauthorize and expand DOL's pilot program for off base
transition training for Veterans who have already transitioned and
their spouses. VA defers to DOL with respect to this section of the
bill. Section 5 would authorize VA to make grants to eligible
organizations to assist transitioned Servicemembers and their spouses
in areas related to resume assistance, interview training, and job
recruitment training. VA notes that grant programs related to
employment are generally under the purview of the Secretary of Labor;
therefore, placement of this grant program at DOL would be most
appropriate. This would help to ensure that services are complementary
and not duplicative of those available through DOL's workforce system.
Finally, sections 6 and 7 would mandate studies of TAP. Section 6
would require a 1 year independent assessment of TAP effectiveness, and
section 7 would require a 5 year longitudinal study. VA has already
begun development of a post-transition longitudinal study which will
survey Veterans over time to gain detailed information about their
outcomes and their evaluations of how the TAP program helped them to
prepare for the transition to civilian life.
VA does not anticipate any cost implications related to sections 3,
4, and 5. For section 6, VA anticipates a cost of $2.2 million for FY
2020 based on estimated levels of effort using the existing contract
vehicle. For section 7, VA anticipates a cost of $2.2 million over 5
years, based on the total cost of a contract awarded by VA in October
2018 to conduct VA's 5-year longitudinal study.
Discussion Draft, H.R. ----, Flight Training
H.R. ----, Flight Training, would make certain improvements to the
use of educational assistance provided by VA for flight training
programs.
Section 1(a) of the proposed legislation would amend 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3034(d) to require that flight training be required for a course
of education being pursued in order to be approved for use of
educational assistance and to remove the requirement for an individual
receiving Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (or Chapter 30) benefits to
possess a valid private pilot certificate and meet the medical
requirements for a commercial pilot certificate before qualifying to
receive benefits for flight training. Therefore, individuals who do not
possess a valid private pilot certificate or meet the medical
requirement could qualify for flight training under chapter 30.
Section 1(b) of the proposed legislation would add a new subsection
(k) to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313, which would allow an individual receiving
Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to elect to receive accelerated payments for
tuition and fees for flight training pursued at institutions of higher
learning (IHL) when the flight training is a requirement for the degree
being pursued. The amount of each accelerated payment would be equal to
twice the amount for tuition and fees otherwise payable to an
individual. The amount of monthly stipends (i.e., monthly housing
allowance, kickers, etc.) would not be accelerated. Two months of
entitlement would be charged for each accelerated payment.
Section 1(c) of the proposed bill would amend subsection (c)(1)(A)
of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3313 to limit the benefits paid for pursuit of
flight-related degree programs at public IHLs. First, it would limit
the amount of tuition and fees payable for a program that requires
flight training to the same amount per academic year that applies to
programs at private or foreign IHLs. Second, it would prohibit the
payment of tuition and fees associated with non-required (i.e.,
elective) flight training.
Section 1(d) of the bill would further amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.
3313(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II), as added by subsection (c)(2)(E) of this bill,
to add a new item (cc) that would limit the amount of tuition and fees
payable for certain programs at IHLs, specifically those that involve a
contract or agreement with an entity (other than another public IHL) to
provide a program of education, or a portion of a program of education,
to the same amount per academic year that applies to programs at
private or foreign institutions.
VA supports the intent of section 1(a) concerning the requirement
that flight training be required for a course of education. However, VA
has concerns about removing the requirement for individuals to possess
a valid private pilot certificate and meet the medical requirements, as
this would allow certain individuals to pursue flight training as an
avocation versus a vocation. VA notes that this provision would also
apply to individuals pursuing flight training under both Chapter 30 and
Chapter 33, since the same approval criteria govern both education
programs.
VA does not support section 1(b). Under this provision, individuals
would exhaust their entitlement prior to completing their program of
education. This would specifically impact individuals who elect to
receive accelerated payments for flight training while pursuing a
standard 4-year Bachelor's degree program. Consequently, VA could pay
more funding than required for certain enrollments. In addition, the
proposed charge against entitlement is confusing since only payments
associated with tuition and fee charges may be accelerated. These
payments, however, are paid in a lump sum, not on a monthly basis.
This section would require VA to make changes to the current rules
for determining payment amounts that are programmed into the Long Term
Solution (LTS). LTS is not currently programmed to process accelerated
payments. VA estimates that it would require 1 year from the date of
enactment to make the necessary information technology system changes.
Lastly, VA supports sections 1(c) and 1(d), which would limit the
amount of tuition and fee payments for enrollment in flight programs
and certain programs at IHLs that are a part of a contract agreement
with other entities (other than another public IHL). However, VA is
concerned that this limitation would only apply to certain VA
educational programs and recommends that these sections be extended to
include programs offered under the authority of Chapter 31. VA is
concerned about high tuition and fee payments for enrollment in degree
programs, especially those involving flight training at public IHLs.
Education benefit payments for flight programs increased tremendously
with the implementation of Public Law 111-377.
There has been a significant increase in flight training centers,
specifically those that offer helicopter training, that have contracted
with public IHLs to offer flight-related degrees. Sometimes these
programs charge higher prices than those that would be charged if the
student had chosen to attend the vocational flight school for the same
training.
The proposed legislation would remedy this situation. VA would like
to note that information technology changes would also be necessary to
implement section 1(c) and (d). VA estimates that it would require 1
year from enactment to develop, test, and implement this functionality.
Manual processing would be needed in the interim. Benefit costs or
savings that would be associated with this bill have not yet been
determined.
Discussion Draft, H.R. ----, Improvements to STEM Scholarship
H.R. ----, the Improvements to Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Math (STEM) Scholarship, would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.
3320(b)(4)(A)(i) to eliminate the requirement for an individual to be
enrolled in a program of education leading to a post secondary degree
that, in accordance with the guidelines of the applicable regional or
national accrediting agency, requires more than the standard 128
semester (or 192 quarter) credit hours for completion in a standard
undergraduate college degree to qualify for additional months of Post
9/11 GI Bill educational assistance benefits under the STEM Scholarship
program.
VA supports, if amended the proposed legislation as a large number
of states do not have STEM programs greater than 128 semester hours.
However, as currently written, the proposed legislation would remove
the credit hour requirement for eligible STEM scholarship programs and
would open the program to individuals enrolled in a program of
education leading to a graduate degree instead of being restricted to
only individuals enrolled in an undergraduate degree. Additionally, the
proposed legislation would indirectly remove the selection priority
under section 3320(c)(1), which currently requires VA to select
eligible individuals to receive additional benefits under this section
by giving priority to individuals who require the most credit hours. VA
also has concerns as it relates to the authorized appropriation of
funding in section 1(b) because it would restrict VA with two-year
funding for the STEM program. Currently, VA has indefinite carryover
authority for funding within the STEM program, allowing any unobligated
balance from one fiscal year to be obligated in addition to the
statutory funding cap in a subsequent fiscal year, rather than each
academic year.
No costs or savings to the Readjustment Benefits account are
associated with this proposed legislation. However, VA would prefer
indefinite carryover authority, making funding available for the STEM
program until expended, rather than 2-year funding. This would greatly
simplify administration and financial management for the program.
Under the current statute, VA estimates the cost of the STEM
program would be equal to the full annual funding limitations currently
stated in 38 U.S.C Sec. 3320 ($25 million in FY 2019, $75 million for
FY 2020 through FY 2022, and $100 million for FY 2023 and each
subsequent fiscal year). While the proposed legislation may expand
eligibility to individuals whose program would not have otherwise
qualified, it would not increase the amount VA plans to obligate for
this program each year.
H.R. ----, Fry Scholarship Eligibility Expansion
H.R. ----, Fry Scholarship Eligibility Expansion, would amend 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3311(b)(9) to expand eligibility for the Marine Gunnery
Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to a child or spouse of a member of
a reserve component of the Armed Forces who dies from a service
connected disability not later than 4 years after the date of the last
discharge or release from Active duty. The proposed legislation would
apply to a quarter, semester, or term beginning on or after August 1,
2020.
VA supports the intent of the proposed legislation, subject to
Congress finding appropriate funding offsets, but notes several
concerns. First, the proposed legislation does not require the reserve
member to have served on or after September 11, 2001, which would
create an inconsistency with the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Second, the
proposed legislation could create disparate treatment of similarly
situated Veterans because it does not limit the service-connected
disability to only those incurred while on reserve status. While the
proposed bill would grant Fry Scholarship eligibility to children and
spouses of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who
die from service-connected disabilities, it does not extend this same
eligibility to dependents of non-reservist Veterans who die from
service-connected disabilities.
Therefore, two Servicemembers can sustain the same injury while on
Active duty and both separate from service at the same time. One
Veteran continues to serve in a reserve component while the other
Veteran does not. If, within the next 4 years, both Veterans die due to
their service-connected disabilities, the reserve Veteran's dependent
would receive Fry benefits while the non-reservist Veteran's dependent
would not simply because one Veteran chose to remain in the reserves.
The practical impact of the law would be an incentive for a Veteran
with a service-connected disability to remain in the reserves rather
than the law merely putting an injured member of the reserves on par
with an injured Active duty member. The proposed legislation would thus
create substantial inequity between dependents of reservist Veterans
and dependents of non-reservist Veterans when both Veterans die due to
conditions related to Active duty service unrelated to reserve duty.
Benefit costs or savings that would be associated with this bill
have not yet been determined.
H.R. ----, In-State Tuition
H.R. ----, In-State Tuition, would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.
3679(c)(2)(A) to change the definition of ``covered individual'' by
which VA must disapprove a course of education offered by a public IHL
if the institution does not charge the in state tuition and fees for
covered individuals who are training under Chapter 30 or 33. The
amendment would remove the current requirement that the covered
individual have been discharged from service less than 3 years before
the date of enrollment in the subject course. The proposed legislation
would also require VA to make publicly available online a database
explaining the residency requirements for each public IHL in order for
an individual to be charged the in-state tuition and fee rate and allow
VA to disapprove a course of education provided by a public IHL if the
institution does not provide VA certain information.
VA supports the intent of the proposed legislation, subject to
Congress finding appropriate funding offsets, but notes several
concerns. First, the bill would only allow VA to disapprove a program
of education at a public IHL for qualifying covered individuals under
Chapters 30 and 33. As such, the bill would not allow for the
disapproval of a program for beneficiaries receiving educational
assistance under other VA educational assistance programs, such as
those under Chapters 32 and 35.
Second, the bill outlines VA's authority to disapprove a course of
education provided by a public IHL if the institution does not
initially provide their ``residency requirement'' and update VA of any
changes or updates to their policy within 90 days. However, as written,
it does not provide VA the authority to waive the new disapproval
requirement as the Secretary considers appropriate. Additionally,
proposed subsection (c)(4)(B) refers to a public IHL having ``residency
requirements,'' but ``residency requirements'' are inconsistent with
the provisions of current subsection (c)(4) which limits additional
requirements to ``demonstrat[ing] an intent to establish residency in
the State. . . or to satisfy other requirements not relating to the
establishment of residency.'' The essential principle underlying the
safeguards in section 3679(c) is the fact that in many states a student
is prohibited by law from satisfying the residency requirements to be
charged in-state tuition; however, the current wording of proposed
subsection (c)(4)(B) implies that a school may require a student to
become a resident of the state in order to qualify for in-state rates
under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3679.
Benefit costs or savings that would be associated with this bill
have not yet been determined.
Conclusion
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We would be happy now to
entertain any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
ASHLYNNE HAYCOCK
The Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) is the national
nonprofit organization providing compassionate care for the families of
America's fallen military heroes. TAPS provides peer-based emotional
support, grief and trauma resources, grief seminars and retreats for
adults; Good Grief Camps for children; and casework assistance,
connections to community-based care, online and in-person support
groups, and a 24/7 resource and information helpline for all who have
been affected by a death in the Armed Forces. Services are provided
free of charge.
TAPS was founded in 1994 by Bonnie Carroll following the death of
her husband in a military plane crash in Alaska in 1992. Since then,
TAPS has offered comfort and care to more than 85,000 bereaved
surviving family members. For more information, please visit TAPS.org.
TAPS receives no government grants or funding.
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and distinguished members
of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the Tragedy Assistance Program
for Survivors (TAPS) thanks you for the opportunity to make you aware
of issues and concerns of importance to the families we serve, the
families of the fallen.
While the mission of TAPS is to offer comfort and support for
surviving families, we are also committed to improving support provided
by the Federal government through the Department of Defense (DoD), the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Education (DoED),
Department of Labor, state governments, government contractors, and
local communities for the families of the fallen - those who fall in
combat, those who fall from invisible wounds and those who die from
accidents, illness or disease.
TAPS was honored to enter into a new and expanded Memorandum of
Agreement with the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2017. This
agreement formalizes what has been a long-standing, informal working
relationship between TAPS and the VA. The services provided by TAPS and
VA are complementary, and in this public-private partnership each will
continue to provide extraordinary services through closer
collaboration.
Under this agreement, TAPS continues to work with surviving
families to identify resources available to them both within the VA and
through private sources. TAPS will also collaborate with the VA in the
areas of education, burial, benefits and entitlements, grief counseling
and other areas of interest.
Discussion Draft - Guard & Reserve
TAPS is excited to see our #2 priority before this committee:
Providing parity for surviving children and spouses of those whose
loved ones died while serving in the Guard and Reserves. Their service
and sacrifices are no different than those serving on Active duty.
While most survivor benefits are now equal, education benefits are not.
It's time to make sure Guard and Reserve surviving families have the
same access to the Fry Scholarship as their Active duty counterparts.
Some of the stories TAPS has heard from our surviving families
regarding this issue are absolutely heartbreaking.
First Sergeant John DuPont served his country honorably for nearly
30 years. He served in the United States Marine Corps and then the Army
National Guard. During his National Guard service, he was deployed to
Afghanistan. Upon his return, he continued with the National Guard but
lost his battle with Post Traumatic Stress (PTS) when he died by
suicide in 2011. First Sergeant DuPont took his own life just hours
after returning home from a drill weekend where he was preparing for an
upcoming deployment. Had he died a few hours earlier before coming
home, his children would have been eligible for the Fry Scholarship.
They were deemed ineligible because he made it home from his Guard
weekend, and once home was not considered on Active duty status.
SPC Anthony Tipps was a member of the Texas National Guard.
Specialist Tipps was activated in 2009 and had to leave his career for
his deployment to Iraq. When he returned home one year later, he
learned that his former employer had not held his job. He was unable to
find employment. Specialist Tipps died by suicide less than 3 months
after returning from Iraq. Because he was not considered on ``Active
duty status'' at the time of his death, his daughter Brittany was
deemed ineligible for the Fry Scholarship, even though his death was
service-connected.
Colonel David McCracken served honorably in the Army and Army
Reserves for over 20 years. During his military career he was deployed
multiple times. On his last tour he was activated as a reservist and
deployed to the Middle East. Upon return from his deployment, he was
diagnosed with brain cancer which was found to be service-connected due
to burn pit exposure in Iraq. Because he was not on active-duty orders
or training at the time of his death, his children are not eligible for
the Fry Scholarship.
These are just three of the stories TAPS has heard from surviving
families regarding eligibility for the Fry Scholarship. In the case of
First Sergeant DuPont, literally hours differentiate what benefits his
children receive. The families have no say in the duty status of the
service member, therefore they should not be treated differently. TAPS
firmly believes that we must honor the service and sacrifice of all
surviving families.
Six months ago, TAPS spoke with Former Congressman Chet Edwards who
wrote and introduced the original Fry Scholarship in 2009. When we
informed him of this issue he was stunned. His original intent was to
include all surviving families. He had no idea that some Guard and
Reserve families were being excluded, and has offered his support in
fixing this inequity.
TAPS estimates 1,000-1,500 surviving children and spouses would
benefit from this expansion. A vast majority are surviving families
whose loved ones died from service-connected illnesses or by suicide.
These families are in receipt of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
(DIC) at the same rate as Active duty losses, receive TRICARE and
almost all of the same benefits as Active duty losses.
Providing parity in education is long overdue and we look forward
to seeing this bill passed and implemented. This is part of a long-term
TAPS goal to bring all survivors into the Fry Scholarship and phase out
the Vietnam Era Dependents Education Assistance (Chapter 35).
Discussion Draft - In-State Tuition
TAPS is excited to see an expansion of In-State Tuition as a
priority for the committee. While all Fry Scholarship recipients
currently receive in-state tuition, thanks to the Choice Act, TAPS
recommends the inclusion of Chapter 35 recipients.
Chapter 35 recipients are often forgotten from legislation. The
$200 increase provided by the Forever GI Bill, is still not comparable
with the Montgomery GI Bill. If we are going to provide in-state
tuition across the board, we should include survivors whose benefits
are not enough to cover tuition at a state school. Since the financial
burden for in-state tuition falls on individual states, this should be
an easy fix for the committee.
Discussion Draft - Transition Assistance
Military-to-Civilian transition is a psychological and cultural
evolution that requires a new definition of wellness as service members
shift from a collectivist community into an individualistic one. VA
research indicates that veterans who are engaged in care are far less
likely to die by suicide. Such support increases the likelihood of a
positive transition into civilian life and is a significant protective
factor which reduces potential risks for serious issues facing this
population, such as suicide. Conversely, 14 of the 20 veterans who die
by suicide each day are not engaged in VA care.
Given the high stakes of helping our nation's service members make
a successful transition, TAPS is grateful to see such effort put into
overhauling the Transition Assistance Program. Our team of suicide
prevention and postvention subject matter experts is available to
support strategic planning efforts as the TAP program is re-envisioned.
While many key aspects were updated by the 2019 NDAA, there is still
much work to do. TAPS supported the Navy Seal Chief Petty Officer Bill
Mulder Transition Improvement Act last year, and we look forward to
seeing it pass this year.
Discussion Draft - Definition of dependents
TAPS supports the draft text to make sure the definition of
``dependents'' is the same for the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). At TAPS, we know that not all
family is blood related and applaud the committee for including this
definition.
Discussion Draft - 4th Administration, VETOPP Act
TAPS continues to support the creation of a 4th Administration
under the Department of Veterans Affairs. We understand and respect
that VA has concerns about this issue. TAPS agrees with our partner
organizations, Student Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, that it is imperative that Economic Opportunity have its own
under secretary.
Responsibilities of this new division at VA would include the
administration of housing loan guaranty and related programs,
vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E), education assistance
programs, and transition programs.
At present, these programs are buried within the bureaucracy of VA
and lack a true champion at the level of leadership these programs
warrant. Over the past century, VA has evolved to focus on compensating
veterans for loss. Yet realities and advances of the 21st century and
beyond demands the additional goal of empowering veterans to excel
post-service. Importantly, this will also advance our nation's goals of
enhancing economic competitiveness by focusing on veteran contributions
to be future economy, it is imperative we afford VA the opportunity to
enrich the lives of veterans through the primacy of VA's economic
opportunity programs.
The implementation of the Forever GI Bill last year highlighted
many concerns. With the passage of the VETOPP Act, the VA may be better
prepared for other improvements to EO programs and allow these
important programs to be a priority for the VA.
TAPS thanks the committee and the original sponsors of all this
important legislation. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful
consideration of the needs of our nation's veterans and surviving
families.
It is the responsibility of the nation to provide for the support
of the loved ones of those who have paid the highest price for freedom.
Thank you for allowing us to speak on their behalf.
PATRICK MURRAY
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the
opportunity to present our views on legislation being considered today.
H.R. 95, Homeless Veteran Families Act
Veterans with dependent children face diverse burdens with access
to homelessness benefits. The VFW supports this legislation, which
would ensure Grant and Per Diem providers are better able to provide
much needed housing to homeless veterans with dependent children. The
brave men and women who have worn our nation's uniform should never
have to worry about whether their children will have a roof over their
heads or food on the table. Providing additional per diem for the
children of homeless veterans in the Grant and Per Diem Program would
expand housing options for veterans and enable the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to reduce the rate of veterans who face homelessness.
H.R. 444, Reduce Unemployment for Veterans of All Ages Act of 2019
The VFW supports this proposal to remove the twelve-year limit on
utilizing the Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E) program.
Arbitrary cut-off dates for VA benefits and programs do not help
veterans who need to use these programs later on in life. Just like the
lessons learned from the removal of the delimitating date with the
Forever GI Bill, doing the same with VR&E removes a potential barrier
for veterans to acquire meaningful employment.
Discussion Draft, to amend title 38, United States Code, to make
certain improvements to the educational assistance programs of the
Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to flight training
programs and certain other programs of education, and for other
purposes.
The VFW supports this legislation, which would place a cap on the
amount of tuition and fees that may be paid under the Post-9/11 GI Bill
for programs of education in which a public institution of higher
education enters into an agreement with a private entity to provide
such education. However, the VFW would like to suggest a recommendation
to improve this legislation.
Currently, third party training programs that contract with public
schools are able to charge unlimited tuition and fees because the Post-
9/11 GI Bill covers the full cost of in-state tuition and fees,
regardless of amount, for public non-profit institutions of higher
learning. In the past two years, it has come to light that some
contracted flight training programs have charged exorbitant fees, which
far exceeded the cost of an average in-state education, to profit from
exploitation of this loophole. The VFW believes this loophole must be
closed by placing a reasonable cap on these flight training programs.
Still, we believe that veterans should have a path to receive the
training necessary to enter highly technical, high-demand fields like
aviation, which offer good paying jobs to those who are qualified. We
also recognize that it may not be realistic for certain flight schools
to provide that training under the private school cap per academic
year. To mitigate this concern, this legislation would authorize VA to
provide accelerated payments of twice the monthly entitlement amount
for tuition and fees.
Doing so would enable predatory institutions to continue to gouge
VA and force veterans to forego eligibility months simply because the
cap for such programs is not sufficient. For this reason, we urge this
subcommittee to authorize VA to determine reasonable caps for flight
training and similarly contracted training in other high-demand fields,
but ensure such programs offer transparency in their fee schedules and
cannot simply charge the government an arbitrary rate.
To ensure VA does not set unreasonable caps on contracted programs,
the VFW recommends requiring VA to seek congressional approval before
proposed caps are implemented. The VFW also continues to support strict
enforcement of standing VA policies, which ensures that third-party
contractors and their partner schools are charging appropriate fees,
while continuing to offer high-quality training to veterans.
H.R. 1718, GI Education Benefits Fairness Act
A discrepancy between VA and the Department of Defense (DOD)
definition of children precludes service members from transferring
their VA education benefits to their foster or ward children. DOD and
VA having separate eligibility requirements for the same benefit is an
unfair and confusing practice that must end.
While we support this bill, which would align the definitions of
children for the purpose of transferring VA educational benefits, the
VFW urges the subcommittee to consider changing VA's overall definition
of children to include foster and ward children. Making such a change
would be more comprehensive and could impact other beneficiaries who
might unintendedly be affected by these differing definitions.
Discussion Draft, Justice for Servicemembers Act
The VFW supports this bill, which would end the practice of making
service members waive protections in order to attain employment. The
Uniformed Services Employment Rights Act of 1994 was created to protect
service members' employment status, and we fully endorse any actions to
prevent employers from circumventing those protections.
Discussion Draft, to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and
title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for the HUD-
VASH program, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit
annual reports to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate
and House of Representatives regarding homeless veterans, and for
other purposes.
Veterans with Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharges are at higher
risk of dying by suicide and experience higher rates for homelessness
than those who receive an honorable discharge. The VFW supports this
bill, which would rightfully ensure OTH veterans have access to the
HUD-VA Supportive Housing (VASH) program.
Discussion Draft, Homes for Our Heroes Act of 2019
Veterans fortunate enough to obtain HUD-VASH vouchers often face
difficulty finding homes in safe neighborhoods. VFW service officers in
various cities have reported that homeless veterans sometimes prefer
sleeping under a bridge rather than living in the unsafe neighborhoods
for which their vouchers are eligible. The VFW supports this bill which
would review the HUD-VASH program to ensure vouchers put veterans in
safe and secure housing.
Discussion Draft, Veteran Employment and Child Care Access Act
Homeless veterans with dependent children often forego their earned
benefits because they have no means to afford child care. Currently, VA
has four pilot programs which offer on-site child care. These programs
have been successful in increasing access to services for veterans. The
VFW supports this bill, which would provide child care so homeless
veterans have the opportunity to complete the training they need to
obtain meaningful employment.
Discussion Draft, BRAVE Act (Boosting Rates of American Veteran
Employment Act)
The VFW supports this proposal to incentivize and reward companies
for employing veterans. We also support the proposed debarment of
companies contracting with VA that willfully and intentionally
misrepresent the percentage of veteran employees. Employing veterans
and working to serve veterans through VA should be a privilege and not
something to be taken advantage of.
Discussion Draft, to clarify seasoning requirements for certain
refinanced mortgage loans, and for other purposes.
The VFW understands there were unintended consequences affecting
upwards of 2,500 users of VA's home loan program who were seeking to
refinance their mortgages. We feel this correction should be made in
order to not unintentionally hurt those Ginnie Mae was trying to
protect.
Discussion Draft, Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer William ``Bill'' Mulder
(Ret.) Transition Improvement Act
The VFW proudly supports this proposal which would ease the burden
of transition for service members. The period of moving from Active
duty to civilian life can be challenging for transitioning service
members (TSMs). Leaving a structured life in the military and moving to
an entirely different atmosphere brings with it many difficulties.
Finding a new job, moving away from base, going to school, or leaving
friends and comrades are just some of the issues service members face
during the military to civilian transition.
Through the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), the Department of
Defense in cooperation with the Department of Labor, the Department of
Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration, ensures service
members have a seamless path to civilian life. TAP has improved
drastically over the past few years, but there are still many ways to
further improve this vital program.
The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2019 revised the structure of the TAP program to make sure TSMs
could attend the career track program they want, instead of providing
it as an additional option. The start date for beginning TAP class was
also revised so TSMs could take the class earlier and, if possible,
more than once before separation.
Connecting TSMs to resources in the communities where they are
relocating is an important step that should happen during TAP classes.
Providing connections to organizations that offer employment training,
education information, and financial or legal assistance is beneficial
in a seamless transition, and must be part of the TAP class so TSMs can
begin to make these connections before they separate.
Another key area that needs to be addressed is the ability for
veterans to access TAP-style information and resources after they leave
military service. Reopening a pilot program to offer TAP in the
community for veterans is an excellent way to provide such access. Once
veterans reintegrate into their communities, it is important for them
to be able to access specific transition resources that apply strictly
to their local communities. Veterans who participated in TAP in the
community pilot program were able to access information and resources
they may have missed during their initial TAP classes.
VET OPP Act
Currently, the Economic Opportunity (EO) programs are enmeshed with
the myriad of entities that make up the Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA). Compensation, being the largest program,
dominates the attention of the VBA which makes it difficult for the EO
programs to get adequate funding, specialized resources, and other
prioritization. For example, while the VBA has been focused on the
modernization and streamlining of the claims and appeals process, other
important programs such as VR&E have seen a stagnation of resources and
oversight.
Veterans service organizations (VSOs) agree that an under secretary
for EO programs would provide VA the ability to better manage EO
programs. This subcommittee, which focuses exclusively on EO programs,
further emphasizes the advantage of having a central point of contact
for accountability and oversight. VA, Department of Defense, and the
Department of Labor collaborate to manage the Transition Assistance
Program for out-processing service members, but efforts have been
hampered by the lack of an under secretary for EO to act as a
counterpart and coordinate efforts at VA. Since VA does not have the
primary role in TAP, we believe having an under secretary would help
ensure that VA's views on TAP initiatives and resources are enhanced.
This nation should have as much focus on the economic opportunities
of her veterans as it does on their health care and benefits. In
reality, not all veterans seek VA health care when they are discharged;
they do not need assistance from the National Cemetery Administration;
nor are they all seeking disability compensation. However, the vast
majority are looking for gainful employment and/or education. Congress
should recognize the value of these programs by separating them into
their own administration focused solely on their utilization and
improvement.
The VFW supports this proposal to separate from the VBA all
programs currently in the EO jurisdiction and create a fourth
administration under VA with its own under secretary whose sole
responsibility is EO programs. This new under secretary for EO would
refocus resources, provide a champion for these programs, and create
that central point of contact for VSOs and Congress.
Discussion Draft, to amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust
certain limits on the guaranteed amount of a home loan under the
home loan program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for
other purposes.
The VFW supports this bill, which would eliminate the current cap
on the amount VA is authorized to guarantee under the VA Home Loan
Guaranty Program. Since the 1940s, this excellent benefit has enabled
veterans to finance a low-cost mortgage to purchase a home and become
part of America's middle class. The price of real estate has
significantly increased in recent years, but the amount VA is able to
guarantee has not. Veterans in high cost-of-living areas are now forced
to contribute costly upfront down payments to guarantee their home
loans with VA. This barrier prohibits veterans from achieving their
dreams of becoming homeowners.
This bill would rightfully exempt service members who have been
awarded the Purple Heart from paying requisite VA home loan funding
fees. Veterans who have service-connected disabilities are exempt from
paying such funding fees. Service members who have illnesses or
injuries related to their service must also be offered the opportunity
to become homeowners without being required to pay a funding fee.
Discussion Draft, to make certain improvements to the Edith Nourse
Rogers STEM Scholarship program of the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
The VFW supports removing the specific credit hours language for
the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship. The VFW supported the
extension of entitlements for STEM students. If this specific
requirement is a barrier for students to receive the extension, then it
should be removed. Education for veterans is a top priority for the
VFW, and we especially want to see veterans succeed in high-demand
fields like STEM.
Discussion Draft, to expand eligibility for the Marine Gunnery Sergeant
John David Fry Scholarship to children and spouses of certain
members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who die from
service-connected disabilities, and for other purposes.
The VFW supports expanded eligibility of this scholarship to
children and spouses of members of the reserve component of the Armed
Forces. Any dependent or spouse of a service member who dies from
service-connected injuries or illness, regardless of activation status,
should be treated equally.
Discussion Draft, to improve the ability of veterans to receive in-
state tuition using educational assistance administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
The VFW supports this proposal to improve the ability of veterans
to receive in-state tuition. The VFW has called for in-state tuition
rates for years, and this change is long overdue. Offering in-state
tuition for all GI Bill users helps remove another barrier for student
veterans to pursue their educational goals.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, the VFW thanks
you and the Ranking Member for the opportunity to testify on these
important issues before this subcommittee. I am prepared to take any
questions you or the subcommittee members may have.
JOHN KAMIN
ON ``H.R 95, H.R. 444, H.R. 1448, H.R. 1718, AND DRAFT LEGISLATION''
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
H.R. 95, Homeless Veteran Families Act - pg. 2 Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 444, Reduce Unemployment for Veterans Act Support
- pg. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R 1488, To adjust certain limits on the Support with amendments
guaranteed amount of a home loan under the
home loan program of the Department of
Veterans Affairs - pg. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1718, GI Education Benefits Act - pg. 4 Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, To make certain improvements Support
with respect to flight training programs -
pg. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, To amend the United States Support
Housing Act of 1937 and title 38, United
States Code, to expand eligibility for the
HUD-VASH program - pg. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, Homes for Our Heroes Act of Support
2019 - pg. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, Veteran Employment and Child Support
Care Access Act - pg. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, Protect Affordable Mortgages Support
for Veterans Act of 2019 - pg. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, Boosting Rates of American Oppose
Veteran Employment (BRAVE) Act - pg. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, Justice for Servicemembers Support
Act - pg. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, Navy SEAL Chief Petty Support
Officer William ``Bill'' Mulder (Ret.)
Transition Improvement Act - pg. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, To amend title 38, United Support
States Code, to adjust certain limits on the
guaranteed amount of a home loan under the
home loan program of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes -
pg. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, to make certain improvements Support
to the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship
program of the Department of Veterans Affairs
- pg. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, Fry Scholarship Improvement Support with amendments
Act of 2019 - pg. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, to improve the ability of Support
veterans to receive in-state tuition using
educational assistance administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs - pg. 14
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and distinguished members
of the committee, on behalf of National Commander Brett P. Reistad and
our nearly 2 million members, we thank you for the opportunity to
testify before this committee.
The American Legion is a resolution-based organization directed and
driven by active Legionnaires who dedicate their money, time, and
resources to the continued service of veterans and their families. Our
positions are guided by 100 years of advocacy and resolutions that
originate at the grassroots level of the organization - local American
Legion posts and veterans in every congressional district across the
United States. The headquarters staff of The American Legion works
daily on behalf of veterans, military personnel, and our communities
through our roughly 20 national programs and thousands of outreach
programs led by our posts across the country.
H.R. 95: THE HOMELESS VETERANS FAMILIES ACT
To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that children of
homeless veterans are included in the calculation of the amounts of
certain per diem grants
The Homeless Veteran Families Act provides the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) the authority to reimburse Homeless
Providers Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program providers at a 50% rate for
the costs of housing minor dependent(s) of homeless veterans while the
veteran is receiving services from the grant recipient. Currently, 38
C.F.R. Sec. 61.33 only authorizes per diem payments to individual grant
recipients. \1\ Consequently, service providers are not reimbursed for
housing services provided to the veteran's dependents. The American
Legion supports the intent of this legislation to address the
unintended consequence of creating a disincentive for GPD providers to
serve homeless veterans with children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 38 C.F.R. Sec. 61.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GPD program allows VA to award grants to community-based
agencies to create transitional housing programs and offer per diem
payments. The purpose of the program is to promote the development and
provision of supportive housing and supportive services with the goal
of helping homeless veterans achieve residential stability, increase
their skills levels, income, and obtain greater self-management.
Through Resolution No. 24: Supporting Funding and Changes to the
Department of Veterans Affairs Grant and Per Diem Program, The American
Legion supports legislation that expands the criteria of per diem
payments for homeless veterans with specialized needs and veterans with
dependents. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Legion Res. No. 24 (2018): Supporting Funding and
Changes to the Department of Veterans Affairs Grant and Per Diem
Program
The American Legion supports H.R. 95.
H.R. 444: REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT FOR VETERANS OF ALL AGES ACT OF 2019
To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the period of
eligibility for the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program of
the Department of Veterans Affairs
The deployment of active-duty servicemembers, national guardsmen,
and reservists, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom, led to an increase of service-connected disabilities
after servicemember separation. VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (VR&E) Program provides comprehensive services and
assistance to veterans with service-connected disabilities and
employment handicaps. The goal of the program is to enable the service-
disabled veteran to achieve maximum independence in daily living,
become employable, and obtain and maintain suitable employment.
The standard period of eligibility for VR&E benefits is limited to
12-years from the date of separation from military service or the date
of notification by VA of a service-connected disability rating.
Unfortunately, not all disabled veterans are aware of their possible
eligibility when separating from their service and some may not need
VR&E until later in their career. This legislation eliminates the 12-
year limitation to participate in the program and extends opportunities
and resources to deserving veterans.
The American Legion recognized this in 2016 when it passed a
resolution asking Congress to lift the delimiting date for
participation in the program.
Through Resolution No. 336: Support Legislation that Would Change
the 12-Year Delimiting Date for Eligibility to Chapter 31 Benefits, The
American Legion supports eliminating the 12-year expiration date for
chapter 31 benefits. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Legion Res. No. 336 (2016): Support Legislation that
Would Change the 12-Year Delimiting Date for Eligibility to Chapter 31
Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 444.
H.R. 1448
To amend title 38, United States Code, to waive fees for Purple
Heart recipients serving on Active duty for loans guaranteed under the
home loan program of Department of Veterans Affairs
The Purple Heart is a symbol of the sacrifice made by a
servicemember to their country. Active duty Purple Heart recipients who
meet the 90-day continuous service requirement are eligible for the VA
Home Loan Guaranty Program. Current law waives the VA funding fee for
veterans with a VA rating for a service-connected disability. However,
Active duty Purple Heart recipients who have not initiated or received
their VA disability claim are required to pay the funding fee.
This legislation makes technical changes to the VA Home Loan
Guaranty Program. The American Legion supports legislation that closes
the loophole that requires payment of the funding fee for Purple Heart
recipients and their surviving spouses. The proposed legislation
further extends the VA home loan funding fee waiver to Active duty
Purple Heart recipients that have not received a VA disability rating.
The American Legion believes Active duty Purple Heart recipients
should not be penalized and required to pay the funding fee because
they continue to serve on Active duty. Furthermore, this draft
legislation also includes language that changes the characterization of
surviving spouses as stand-alone and independent recipients of the
funding fee waiver, thus removing additional explanations and ambiguity
related to their funding fee waiver eligibility.
While The American Legion applauds waiving this fee for Purple
Heart recipients, it holds that the VA Home Loan funding fee should be
removed for all veterans.
Through Resolution No. 314: Support Elimination of the VA Home Loan
Funding Fee, The American Legion strongly urges this committee to
remove the VA Home Loan funding fee requirement. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Resolution No. 314 (2016): Support Elimination of the VA Home
Loan Funding Fee
The American Legion supports this Draft Bill but requests the removal
of funding fee requirements for all veterans.
H. R. 1718: GI EDUCATION BENEFITS FAIRNESS ACT
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for clarification
regarding the children to whom entitlement to educational assistance
may be transferred under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program
One of the many innovations of the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the ability
for servicemembers to transfer their earned education benefits to their
spouses or children. However, incongruent statutory language resulted
in ward and foster children being denied the same privileges of
transferability as adopted child or biological children.
This policy on transferability is not explicitly stated in any VA
literature or guidance and only recently articulated in 2018 in The
Department of Defense's (DOD) Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB)
Beneficiary Guide. The guidelines state, ``wards and foster children
are not considered dependents by the Department of Veterans Affairs.''
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) Beneficiary Guide,
milConnect TEB Version 1.09, Pg. 27, Department of Defense Manpower
Data Center, November 9, 2018 https://milconnect.dmdc.osd.mil/
milconnect/help/pdf/teb--beneficiary--guide.pdf (accessed March 28,
2019)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD clarified the statutory discrepancy as under U.S.C. Title 10
authority, wards, and foster children meet the definition of an
eligible child for education benefits, however under 38 U.S.C. Sec.
101(4)(A), wards and foster children are excluded from the VA's
definition of the term ``child'' for the purpose of benefits delivery.
The American Legion urges Congress to correct the misalignment, and
H.R. 1718 would accomplish this by clarifying the definition of
``children'' to be consistent with DOD's statutory language.
Through Resolution 308: Amending the Eligibility for the Transfer
for the Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits, The American Legion
supports legislation that would authorize servicemembers to use
transferability entitlements towards their children, regardless if they
are wards, foster, or biological. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ American Legion Res. No. 308 (2016): Amending the Eligibility
for the Transfer for the Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational Benefits
The American Legion supports H.R. 1718.
DISCUSSION DRAFT
To make certain improvements to the educational assistance programs
of the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning flight training
programs and certain other programs of education, and for other
purposes
The American Legion supports legislation to improve cost control
measures for flight programs offered by colleges and universities. In
2015, The Los Angeles Times exposed how some institutions of higher
learning had instituted extreme costs for flight fees. Presently, no
caps exist for public schools. \7\ After exposure by the LA Times, VA
and State Approving Agencies (SAAs) increased oversight resulting in
lowered overall expenditures for flight training to $48.4 million in
2016, from a height of $79.8 million in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. taxpayers stuck with the tab as helicopter flight schools
exploit GI Bill loophole - March 15, 2015 http://www.latimes.com/
nation/la-me-adv-gibill-20150315-story.html#page=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the external factors responsible for this reduction was a
100% compliance survey conducted by SAAs in 2015. The survey resulted
in 12 suspensions and withdrawals; largely due to violations of the 85-
15 rule requiring that no more than 85 percent of flight-training
students at public schools can attend using GI Bill funds. However, the
mandate to micromanage flight programs is unsustainable, even as
institutions learn to adjust to requirements while hedging veteran
credit enrollment. For these reasons, The American Legion believes a
solution is still necessary to ensure Post-9/11 GI Bill dollars remain
an honorable investment by the public.
The obligation to protect from abuse must be measured against the
responsibility our nation has to veterans who aspire to careers in
aviation using the GI Bill. Legislation capping the maximum GI Bill
amount per year for flight schools would have the inevitable
consequence of discouraging pursuit of this vocation, with greater debt
incurred by veterans and servicemembers who remain committed to the
vocation.
This draft legislation accounts for both of these considerations.
The language sets specific caps, and provides the option for veterans
to elect to spend remaining months of entitlement to accelerate
payments at a rate of up to twice the amount for tuition and fees.
As a practical example: if a veteran enrolls in a flight program
costing $45,700 in tuition and fees, this draft legislation would cap
GI payment at $23,672 (the maximum 2018-2019 tuition reimbursement for
private schools). The veteran than has to pay half, but can then elect
to have the GI Bill cover the remaining tuition by accelerating GI Bill
payments for 12 additional months, covering the full cost of tuition.
This solution appears to alleviate concerns of discouraging
veterans from pursuit of a career in aviation, while putting the choice
in the hands of the veteran for how to appropriately allocate their GI
Bill. The American Legion commends the Committee for this measured
approach, and is encouraged by the cost savings made in aviation
programs.
Through Resolution No. 23: Close the GI Bill Flight School
Loophole, The American Legion supports legislation that aligns the cost
of Post-9/11 GI Bill Chapter 33 tuition and fees allowable for flight
training at a public institution of higher learning, provided that all
cost-savings projected by these measures be reallocated to Department
of Veterans Affairs education programs. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ American Legion Res. No. 23 (2018): Close the GI Bill Flight
School Loophole
The American Legion supports this Draft Bill.
DISCUSSION DRAFT
To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and title 38, United
States Code, to expand eligibility for the HUD-VASH program
Currently, HUD-VASH provisions in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437 do not define
the term `veteran.' As a result, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's interpretation of the statute limits the Department's
ability to provide the services expected of the HUD-VASH program. This
draft legislation defines the term `veteran' as it relates to the
staffing of VA Case Managers responsible for housing program services
set forward in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2003. Moreover, this draft legislation
increases oversight and promotes accountability for homeless veteran
programs.
Further, it removes 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437 and 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2003
`zone of ambiguities' thereby aligning the intent of the HUD-VASH
Program with the expected outcomes, and establishes the minimum
frequency and mandated reporting requirements of homeless veteran
program updates to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and
the House of Representatives. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Matthew C. Stephenson, ``Statutory interpretations by
agencies,'' Research handbook on public choice and public law, ed.
Daniel A Farber and Anne O'Connell, 288. http://www.law.harvard.edu/
faculty/mstephenson/2011PDFs/
Statutory%20Interpreation%20by%20agencies.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through Resolution No. 332: Support Funding for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Veterans Affairs (VA)
Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Homeless Program \10\, The American
Legion supports legislation that expands the criteria for HUD-VASH
eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Resolution No. 332 (2016) Support Funding for the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Veterans Affairs (VA)
Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Homeless Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this Draft Bill.
DISCUSSION DRAFT: HOMES FOR OUR HEROES ACT OF 2019
To provide for greater transparency in the HUD-VASH supported
housing program for homeless veterans, and for other purposes
Current law allows VA and HUD to authorize and determine the
formula and criteria used to allocate HUD-VASH vouchers in a given
geographical area. ``Other factors'' is the term used to characterize
the variables used to make voucher allocations. This legislation
increases legislative oversight and federal agency accountability for
the HUD-VASH program by requiring reports and hearings covering the
program's discretionary policies and priorities.
Through Resolution No. 332: Support Funding for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Veterans Affairs (VA)
Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Homeless Program \11\, The American
Legion supports legislation that improves HUD-VASH transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ American Legion Res. No. 332 (2016) Support Funding for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Veterans Affairs
(VA) Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Homeless Program
The American Legion supports the Homes For Our Heroes Act of 2019.
DISCUSSION DRAFT: VETERAN EMPLOYMENT AND CHILD CARE ACCESS ACT
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to provide child care assistance to veterans receiving
certain training or vocational rehabilitation, and for other purposes
In 2010, Congress established a childcare pilot program as part of
the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, signed
into law in 2011. The program established childcare for veterans while
receiving health care services at a VA facility.
The American Legion continues to advocate for making the child care
pilot program permanent through the Veterans' Access to Child Care Act
in the Senate. It is with the same conviction that we believe access to
childcare services must be granted to veterans participating in
workforce programs.
Many veterans possess the skillsets and experience to meet a wide
array of critical workforce requirements. The Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment (VR&E) program provides a training pathway to meet these
requirements. However, a lack of childcare often inhibits pursuit of
education and training by eligible veterans. Too often veterans settle
for low paying jobs to make ends meet because childcare is expensive
and subsidies are limited. Further, this lack of childcare
disproportionately disenfranchises women veterans as the primary
caretakers of dependent children.
The Veterans Employment and Child Care Access Act will provide
access to child care services to a veteran who is the primary caretaker
of a child; and participates in VA or DOL workforce or job training
program, to include VR&E. Eligible veterans will be provided a stipend
for payment of child care at a licensed provider or receive direct
childcare at an on-site facility at VA.
Through Resolution No. 43: Department of Veterans Affairs Child
Care Program \12\, The American Legion supports legislation to provide
child care services to veterans with children for the veteran to
receive access to the quality care they have earned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ American Legion Res. No. 43 (2016): Department of Veterans
Affairs Child Care Program
The American Legion supports the Veteran Employment and Child Care
Access Act.
DISCUSSION DRAFT: PROTECT AFFORDABLE MORTGAGES FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2019
To clarify seasoning requirements for certain refinanced mortgage
loans, and for other purposes
Predatory and exploitative non-bank lenders are targeting Veterans
and service-members with questionable home loans and home refinance
options. This tactic is known as loan churning. The American Legion
urges Congress to support legislation that will stop misleading and
illegal mortgage refinance advertisements directed at service-members
and veterans. This legislation attempts to reduce loan churning by
specifying a loan age requirement--loan seasoning--before a veteran can
refinance, thus disincentivizing questionable lenders.
American Legion Resolution No. 329: Support Home Loan Guaranty
Program \13\ supports legislation that ends predatory loan churning
targeting veterans with VA home loans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ American Legion Res. No. 329 (2016): Support Home Loan
Guaranty Program
The American Legion supports the Protect Affordable Mortgages for
Veterans Act of 2019.
DISCUSSION DRAFT: BOOSTING RATES OF AMERICAN VETERAN EMPLOYMENT (BRAVE)
ACT
To authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in awarding a
contract for the procurement of goods or services, to give preference
to offerors based on the percentage of the offeror's full-time
employees who are veterans
The American Legion supports veteran entrepreneurship programs
because small businesses form the backbone of the US economy. According
to SBA, small businesses were responsible for about 1.9 million new
jobs in 2018. \14\ One reason for outsourcing some federal functions to
the private sector is to create jobs. While The American Legion
supports programs that encourage federal contractors to hire veterans,
we refrain from supporting the proposed language, at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Small Businesses Drive Job Growth in the U.S. / The U.S.
Small Business Administration.'' Small Business Administration,
www.sba.gov/advocacy/small-businesses-drive-job-growth-us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inclusion of the proposed Sec. 8129 potentially gives higher
preference to large businesses over small veteran owned businesses when
a solicitation is released on an unrestricted basis. By sheer size and
capacity, large corporations with national footprint will always be
able to employ more veterans than small businesses. The American Legion
does not want veteran small businesses to be permanently disadvantaged
when competing against large corporations in the federal market space.
Until the impact to small businesses is clarified and this issue is
resolved, The American Legion withholds our support.
The American Legion does not support the BRAVE Act as currently
written.
DISCUSSION DRAFT - JUSTICE FOR SERVICEMEMBERS ACT OF 2019
To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the scope of
procedural rights of members of the uniformed services with respect to
their employment and reemployment rights, and for other purposes
As currently drafted, the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 fails to adequately support military
personnel returning to civilian employment. Countless employers violate
rules laid out in U.S.C. Title 38. This draft legislation strengthens
the protections in current law to ensure servicemembers' employment and
reemployment rights are effectively enforced under the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.
A notable lawsuit filed by Michael T. Garrett, a Lieutenant Colonel
in the Marine Corps Reserve, stated his employer violated the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4301,
by wrongfully terminating his employment. Lt. Col. Garrett chose to
file because his employer did not respond to his initial complaint. On
the contrary, the employer filed a motion to compel arbitration.
Servicemembers struggle daily to balance their dual military and
civilian lives, only to return and find their employers did not uphold
the same balance. The Justice for Servicemembers Act of 2019 is a
critical improvement to a ensure remedy for heroes such as Lt. Col.
Garrett.
Through Resolution No. 85: Support Employment and Reemployment
Rights of National Guard and Reservists Returning from Deployment, The
American Legion supports amending and strengthening USERRA to ensure
the National Guard and reservists receive the employment and
reemployment rights afforded to them through their dedicated service to
the country and as required under law. The American Legion supports
explicitly stating USERRA supersedes the Federal Arbitration Act of
1924, so servicemembers cannot be blocked from utilizing the court
system by arbitration agreements. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ American Legion Res. No. 85 (2017): Support Employment and
Reemployment Rights of National Guard and Reservists Returning from
Deployment
The American Legion supports the Justice for Servicemembers Act.
DISCUSSION DRAFT: THE NAVY SEAL CHIEF PETTY OFFICER WILLIAM `BILL'
MULDER (RET.) TRANSITION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2019
To amend the Social Security Act, to amend the Dignified Burial and
Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012, and to direct the
Secretaries of Veterans Affairs, Defense, Labor, and Homeland Security,
and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, to take
certain actions to improve transition assistance to members of the
Armed Forces who separate, retire, or are discharged from the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes
This legislation would make improvements to the Transition
Assistance Program (TAP) and the overall transition process for
servicemembers to include an increased focus on career opportunities
and entrepreneurship. This bill would represent the largest
reorganization of TAP since 2011.
The restructure would require servicemembers to choose specific
career-oriented tracks that best suit their post-service plans and
would require servicemembers take part in one-on-one counseling a year
before separation to evaluate which transition pathway suits them best.
It would authorize a five-year pilot program that grants funds to
community providers offering wraparound transition services to veterans
and transitioning servicemembers. Finally, the legislation would
require a third-party entity to conduct an independent assessment of
the TAP curriculum and require a separate longitudinal study on the
efficacy of TAP and long-term outcomes for veterans.
TAP is a joint program administered by the U.S. Departments of
Defense (DoD), Department of Labor (DOL), and Veterans Affairs (VA)
charged with providing veterans a successful transition from military
to civilian life.
The goal of TAP is to ease the adjustment of separating
servicemembers during the difficult transition from Active duty into
civilian life by offering job search assistance, medical/health
services, the advising of available benefits, and other related
counseling. The American Legion believes TAP represents an important
step towards providing transitioning servicemembers, and their
families, with the information they need to transition into civilian
life successfully.
Servicemembers are now mandated to attend TAP with an option for
their spouses. However, TAP provides a tremendous amount of
information, which at times can be extremely intricate, overwhelming,
or even excessive to a participant. DOL's portion is three-days long
and is responsible for most of that information. The American Legion
recommends the course be mandated for servicemembers at different
intervals of their careers prior to separation or transitioning into
the civilian sector, along with pre-counseling for servicemembers
intending to leave the military.
The American Legion supports the independent assessment of the
effectiveness of TAP. The purpose of this assessment is to ensure
transitioning servicemembers are receiving the adequate skills and
training needed to complete a seamless transition from the military to
the civilian sector.
There is a vast difference between a transitioning servicemember
who served one enlistment in contrast to a transitioning servicemember
who is retiring after 20 years of service. Differences include, but is
not limited to, servicemembers who separate for medical reasons and/or
other unexpected reasons.
Additionally Congress should require DoD and DOL to submit a report
of servicemembers who have attended TAP, branched into three cohorts:
1) attended TAP counseling as implemented on the date of this Act; 2)
attended TAP after the Secretaries of Defense and Labor implements
recommended changes; and 3) those who have not attended TAP counseling.
It is imperative this longitudinal study be conducted after each cohort
in order to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of each change made
to TAP.
Furthermore, The American Legion is pleased to see language from
H.R. 4835 included in this bill. In 2012, The American Legion helped
push for expansion of TAP to those who had already separated from
service. In response, Congress passed the Dignified Burial and Other
Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012. Provisions in the act
authorized an Off-Base Transition Training (OBTT) pilot program
extending the TAP programs to veterans and their spouses in a
community-based setting. The law required the pilot program be
established by DOL in a minimum of three states, with selection
favoring states with ``high rates of unemployment among veterans.'' DOL
ultimately conducted 21, three-day workshops in Georgia, Washington,
and West Virginia. Overall course ratings by participants were high.
The OBTT pilot program expired in January of 2015.
The inclusion of language from H.R. 4835 provides for a new five-
year pilot program and establishes 50 centers across the country to
expand access to job resources and ensure DOL provides classes with
job-training information. The expansion of this program will give our
veterans and their spouses the support they deserve.
Through Resolution No. 70: Improve Transition Assistance Program,
The American Legion supports legislation urging Congress to thoroughly
review TAP for maximum effectiveness in helping servicemembers
transition to civilian life and find gainful employment, while
encouraging cooperation and the inclusion of nationally accredited
service organizations in their program. \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ American Legion Res. No. 70 (2016): Improve Transition
Assistance Program
The American Legion supports the Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer William
`Bill' Mulder (Ret.) Transition Improvement Act of 2019.
DISCUSSION DRAFT
To amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust certain limits on
the guaranteed amount of a home loan under the home loan program of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes
Current loan regulations contain language lowering the guaranteed
amount of jumbo loans. Veterans purchasing homes in designated high-
cost areas receive less loan guarantee, resulting in stringent
underwriting criteria. In addition, Native American veteran home loans
require a memorandum of understanding with the tribal organization
before receiving a direct VA backed home loan. Purple Heart recipients
are required to pay the VA funding fee if they have not received a VA
disability rating.
Section 1 submits language that increases the amount of VA home
loan guaranteed by removing provisions permitting the government to
lower its liability to the maximum guaranteed amount if that amount is
less than 25 percent of the loan. The bill eliminates restrictions to
Native American veterans utilizing their VA home loan benefits. This
bill includes language that eliminates the VA home loan funding fee for
Purple Heart recipients.
The new bill increases the government's guarantee amount to 25
percent of the conforming loan amount, instead of, the guaranteed
amount limit. For example, a veteran purchasing a 1 million dollar home
would have 25% ($181,631.25) of the maximum guaranteed amount of
$726,525 backed by the government. This new bill introduces language
that removes the ``lesser of the maximum guarantee amount'' and
increases the guaranteed portion to 25% of the loan. In this example,
the guaranteed amount of a 1 million dollar home loan would be
$250,000.
The Veteran thus gets more of his/her loan guaranteed making them a
more attractive customer to lenders. Lenders get more money guaranteed
from the government minimizing risk. This bill reduces the guidelines
of the VA guarantee. Data suggests more expensive VA home loans have a
smaller default rate. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Ben Lane, ``Adding this one test could cut FHA default rates
in half,'' Housing Wire, July 2017, https://www.housingwire.com/
articles/30672-adding-this-one-test-could-cut-fha-default-rates-in-half
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill also removes provisions in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3762 that
requiring VA establish a memorandum of understanding with tribal
organizations before making a direct loan to a veteran. This
legislation also adds language to waive fees for Purple Heart
Recipients.
Through Resolution No. 329: Support Home Loan Guaranty Program, The
American Legion supports legislation ending predatory loan churning
targeting veterans with VA home loans, and American Legion Resolution
No. 314: Support Elimination of the VA Home Loan Funding Fee \18\,
supports the removal of the VA Home Loan funding fee requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ American Legion Res. No. 314 (2016): Support Elimination of
the VA Home Loan Funding Fee
The American Legion supports this Draft Bill.
DISCUSSION DRAFT
To make certain improvements to the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM
Scholarship program of the Department of Veterans Affairs
The American Legion wants all veterans to succeed and would like to
see more veterans enter Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
(STEM) fields. To support this, we successfully supported the creation
of the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship program, extending the GI
Bill for up to nine additional months of eligibility for eligible
veterans.
Unfortunately, feedback from schools indicates provisions of this
scholarship preclude the majority of education programs from
participation due to the requirement that eligible programs of study be
at least 128 semester credit hours. While 128 credit hours are a common
requirement to earn many Bachelor of Science Degrees, it is
exceptionally rare that the entireties of these credits are within one
course of study. This bill eliminates this arbitrary goal post by
striking the requirement for credit hours for completion in a standard
undergraduate college degree.
Through Resolution No. 318: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember
and Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Education,
The American Legion supports any legislative proposal that improves the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ American Legion Res. No. 318 (2016): Ensuring the Quality of
Servicemember and Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher
Education
The American Legion supports this Draft Bill.
DISCUSSION DRAFT - FRY SCHOLARSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2019
To expand eligibility for the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David
Fry Scholarship to children and spouses of certain members of the
reserve components of the Armed Forces who die from service-connected
disabilities, and for other purposes
Under current law, if an Active duty servicemember attends a
training exercise, becomes ill, returns home, and then passes away, the
branch of service considers this loss ``in the line of duty'' and
service-connected by VA. Fry affords the family much-needed death
gratuity benefits including the Fry Scholarship and Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP).
If a reserve servicemember attends the same training exercise and
suffers the same fate, the branch of service does not consider the loss
``in the line of duty'', and the surviving family is ineligible for a
line-of-duty investigation. This arbitrary difference eliminates the
eligibility for the Fry Scholarship, and while in some cases the death
may be deemed service connected for the purpose of SBP they are set up
to fail.
The Fry Scholarship Improvement Act of 2019 would establish long-
deserved parity between Active duty and reserve death gratuity
benefits, by amending the eligibility for Fry Scholarship to include
the child or spouse of a member of the select reserve who died not
later than four years after the date of the last discharge, or release
of that member from Active duty or Active duty training.
While The American Legion applauds this effort, it is concerned
that the statutes may be interpreted to exclude Reserve servicemembers
who die after attending inActive duty training (IDT) under Title 10
U.S.C. 10147 authority.
Resolution No. 318: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and
Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Education, The
American Legion supports any legislative proposal that improves the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ American Legion Res. No. 318 (2016): Ensuring the Quality of
Servicemember and Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher
Education
The American Legion supports the Fry Scholarship Improvement Act of
2019 but requests additional amendments to cover survivors of
persons who dies within 4 years of discharge or release from
inactive-duty training.
DISCUSSION DRAFT
To improve the ability of veterans to receive in-state tuition
using educational assistance administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
The American Legion believes that the commitment servicemembers
make to protect our country affords them the right in-state college
tuition rates at public universities for VA education benefits.
In 2014, the VA mandated that all student veterans be eligible for
in-state tuition at public colleges and universities regardless of
their residency status, eliminating the need for veterans seeking a
post-secondary credential to accrue student loan debt while attending a
public institution. While this was welcomed, it came with several
caveats:
Only applied to veterans who enroll in school within 3
years of discharge or their dependents
Fry Scholarship recipients must enroll within 3 years of
their parent's date of death
GI Bill recipients who were originally within the 3 year
time period when they started school before July 2, 2015, but are now
past their 3 year eligibility are not covered
In 2016 Public Law 114-315, also known as the ``Jeff Miller and
Richard Blumenthal Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act''
expanded these provisions further to:
Dependents using transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
who lives in the state where the school is located and the transferor
is an active-duty member of the military
Survivors using benefits under the Fry Scholarship who
lives in the state where the school is located (regardless of their
formal state of residence).
Now, we believe that it is time to amend statutes to recognize a
core truth: that veterans, military dependents and survivors are a
value-add to campuses regardless of their date of separation. Just as
the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act ushered in a
Forever GI Bill, forever in-state tuition should follow. This Draft
Bill assures this by striking the three-year separation cap from Title
38.
American Legion Resolution No. 318 supports legislation that
improves the GI Bill so servicemembers veterans, and their families can
maximize its usage. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ American Legion Res. No. 318 (2016): Ensuring the Quality of
Servicemember and Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher
Education
The American Legion supports this Draft Bill.
CONCLUSION
The American Legion thanks this subcommittee for the opportunity to
elucidate the position of the over 2.2 million veteran members of this
organization. For additional information regarding this testimony,
please contact Mr. Jonathan Espinoza, Policy Associate of the
Legislative Division at The American Legion, at (202-263-5756 or
[email protected].
Rebecca Burgess
From a Social Deficit to a Social Asset Model
How Congress and the VA Can Empower Veterans and Reverse the ``Broken
Veteran'' Narrative
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakus, and distinguished members
of this subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear here
today, as you consider how to leverage the tremendous power of Congress
and the United States toward uplifting our veterans in their transition
from war to work and successful civilian lives. It is an honor.
Caring for military veterans' well-being has been the genuine
concern of the American public, lawmakers, and veterans' advocates
following every armed conflict in which the US has engaged. Recognizing
how the nation ought to deliver that care has simultaneously been its
most consistent challenge.
America's veterans face three significant challenges in their post-
service transition: procuring employment, accessing the education or
training associated with particular civilian occupations, and
overcoming the ``broken veteran'' narrative.
Veterans' transition stress is often mistaken and mischaracterized
as a grave mental health disorder, feeding the ``broken veteran''
narrative. Legislation geared only toward veteran suicide unconsciously
perpetuates this image. Reformulating veteran legislation in the
positive language of economic opportunity, however, emphasizes post-
service growth. Congress can instigate this through creating a Veterans
Economic Opportunity Administration, which would benefit veterans, the
Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Congress, military recruitment
efforts, and all of society.
A Public Trust, Challenged
I would like to share two quotes with you, separated by nearly a
century, one from a US president and one from a Veterans Board of
Appeals lawyer. They express two distinctive but accurate sentiments
about America's enduring attitude toward veterans and the system of
laws that shape how America actually cares for veterans through the VA
and other related agencies.
In 1918, in a Christmas letter to soldiers at Walter Reed hospital,
President Woodrow Wilson echoed a long line of American sentiment,
stretching back to Abraham Lincoln's words in his Second Inaugural
(which later became the VA's motto) to ``care for him who shall have
born the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.'' Wilson intoned:
``The nation has no more solemn obligation than healing the hurts of
our wounded.'' \1\ Americans are conscientious-some may say even
sentimental-about the nation's duty and obligation to care for
veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``President Wilson's Message on Healing the Hurts of Our
Wounded,'' Come-Back, December 24, 1918, as recounted in Jessica L.
Adler, Burdens of War: Creating the United States Veterans Health
System (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2017), 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost as a corrective to that soaring rhetoric, in 2011, scholar
James Ridgeway observed in the Veterans Law Review: ``It should not be
assumed that historical artifacts of veterans' law-no matter how
entrenched-exist to benefit veterans. Rather every piece must be
examined in a historical context.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ James D. Ridgway, ``The Splendid Isolation Revisited: Lessons
from the History of Veterans' Benefits Before Judicial Review,''
Veterans Law Review 3 (2011): 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no two better quotes to illustrate how the American
public in general, and its elected politicians in particular, genuinely
feel about veterans-but also how and why that care seems so often to
fall short of the noble ideal in practice.
At the American Enterprise Institute here in DC, I work with the
Program on American Citizenship, which is focused on the fundamental
principles and challenges of a free society. We believe, in the words
of Walter Berns, one of our late, great scholars of the Constitution
(and a veteran), that, among other things:
Citizenship is an awareness of sharing an identity with others . .
. a sense of belonging to a community for which one bears some
responsibility. In a word, citizenship implies public-spiritedness,
which is akin to patriotism, and has to be cultivated. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Walter Berns, Making Patriots (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2001), II.
Understanding how public sentiment and public policies can go hand
in hand but so often be at loggerheads is something we investigate
deeply. We look at both the formal and informal institutions of
government, as well as how individuals are educated about them and how
they understand them, to grasp the dynamics of our cultural and public
policy challenges and to present solutions with ``teeth in them'' that
truly improve the lives of flesh-and-blood human beings.
We research civic education and the status of that in our schools,
but we also research civil society; the professions and civil society-
such as the medical, law, military, and musical professions-and how
they strengthen democracy; what they contribute to the virtues of a
free society whose disparate parts must still communicate with each
other; the civil-military divide; and, thus importantly, veterans and
society. This multidisciplinary approach gives us a wealth of insight
into the challenges of maintaining a professional all-volunteer force
in a diverse society, which increasingly has no connection to even the
idea of military service (because of the lack of K-12 civic education
and a geographically sparse ROTC presence), let alone know a current or
former member of the Armed Services.
A Damaging Veteran Narrative in Need of Reversal
What we see is well-known-but only in part-to this audience: After
40 years of the all-volunteer force, and despite nearly two decades of
war post-9/11, the American public respects the military and those who
serve in the aggregate, but they do not know anything about them. They
call veterans ``heroes'' but believe they are ``broken.'' \4\ Even the
best-intentioned employers and educators labor under the false
impression that veterans are not experienced and educated candidates,
that veterans do not pursue a college degree or vocational training, or
that veterans do not have successful careers after the military. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Rebecca Burgess, ``Beyond the `Broken Veteran': A History of
America's Relationship with its Ex-Soldiers,'' War on the Rocks, March
7, 2018, https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/beyond-the-broken-veteran-a-
history-of-americas-relationship-with-its-ex-soldiers/.
\5\ See, for example, Natalie Gross, ``Study: Companies Still Don't
Understand Veterans,'' Military Times RebootCamp, July 26, 2018,
https://rebootcamp.militarytimes.com/news/employment/2018/07/26/study-
companies-still-dont-understand-veterans/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the American public erroneously believes that the
overwhelming majority of veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) or other severe mental health conditions because of
their military experience and that veterans therefore may never be able
to take their place as healthy, happy, contributing members of society.
A majority of the public-71 percent-acknowledge that civilians do not
understand the problems faced by those in the military or by their
families; 84 percent of post-9/11 veterans agree. The cultural
narrative about veterans, compounded by Hollywood and the media, is so
strong that even veterans describe their transition stresses as mental
health disorders, for lack of any other narrative about the
difficulties inherent in returning to the civilian sphere. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Meaghan C. Mobbs and George A. Bonanno, ``Beyond War and PTSD:
The Crucial Role of Transition Stress in the Lives of Military
Veterans,'' Clinical Psychology Review 59 (2018): 137-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet, we have extensive, empirical documentation that ``PTSD
typically occurs in only a relatively small population of returning
veterans'' and that the range of PTSD prevalence in Operating Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans is actually between 4.7
and 19.9 percent. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Mobbs and Bonanno, ``Beyond War and PTSD.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general instinct that contemporary war veterans are a
population that requires services to function in civil society, rather
than a population that has any valuable services to offer back, is
particularly damaging to veterans themselves, as I have written about
in the attached report, ``Economic Opportunity, Transition Assistance,
and the 21st-Century Veteran: The Case for a Fourth VA
Administration.'' Psychologically, this is bound up in questions of
identity, described by researchers as social identity theory and
involving concepts of identity fusion, contingent self-worth, and
``stereotype threat,'' but complicated by the modern phenomenon of a
delayed ``emerging adulthood.'' \8\ Socially and culturally, this
public instinct damages veterans in how it shapes public policy and the
organs of government that deliver policy to veterans-the VA-by
reemphasizing (however well-intentioned) the supposed brokenness of all
veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Mobbs and Bonanno, ``Beyond War and PTSD.'' See also Claude
M. Steele, ``A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual
Identity and Performance,'' American Psychologist 52 (1997): 613-29;
Dan Pronk, ``Abandoning the Tribe: The Psychology Behind Why Veterans
Struggle to Transition to Civilian Life,'' NewsRep, January 10, 2019,
https://thenewsrep.com/112569/abandoning-the-tribe/; and Dan Pronk,
``Filling the Void: Maslow and Transitioning out of the Military,''
NewsRep, January 11, 2019, https://thenewsrep.com/112572/filling-the-
void-maslow-and-transitioning-out-of-the-military/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not all who have served in uniform qualify for health or
other benefits from the VA, the millions who do qualify drive the
public narrative about veterans because the VA is the nation's most
prominent recognition of military service. Additionally, the highly
visible and historic Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) place the VA
at the center of the veteran-federal government relationship. The VA-
VSO-veteran dynamic translates to the public assuming that the VA
serves any veteran and that each veteran is equally in need of those
services. Over time, this has adversely constructed a veteran-as-
deficit model, visible in how the federal government treats veterans
through the instrument of the VA and how legislators craft veterans
legislation in light of advocacy demands and agency dynamics.
A note about these dynamics: The VA has expanded haphazardly due to
political pressures for more than a century, to deliver financial
benefits or pensions to veterans, calculated from the premise that the
injured veteran will never enter the economy again. Despite broad
innovations that have shifted the economy from its 1917 Industrial Age
model to its current information age model, the VA continues to think
in Industrial Age terms about especially injured and disabled veterans.
As society enlarges its definition of disability in pace with
medical discoveries and politically advantageous welfare programs, the
VA has grown to be the second-largest federal agency, while the
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) now makes its largest financial
outlays. Between 2008 and 2016, VBA compensation outlays increased by
114 percent-according to the VA itself, because post-9/11 veterans have
a tendency to apply for their benefits and care before they transition
out of the military, in addition to their being awarded higher
percentages of disability compensation than previous cohorts of war
veterans. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ US Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Veterans
Affairs: FY 2018-2024 Strategic Plan, February 12, 2018, https://
www.va.gov/oei/docs/va2018-2024strategicplan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This increase of high disability awardees could be entirely
warranted. But the current disability schedule is also problematic, as
it appears to be acting as a disincentive to veterans to enter the
workforce and engage with society. The level of veterans' sense of
isolation from society, not to mention rates of suicide, are
unacceptable outcomes for this policy model.
These outcomes point to the fact that, for all its $200 billion
dollar budget, the VA does not track its programs' outcomes. At the
very least, it haphazardly documents outputs. It has hamstrung its own
ability to serve veterans by not measuring its programs. As the slate
of recent congressional hearings over VA programs and failed or
``delayed'' implementations illustrates, this undermines public
confidence in the VA. When the VA has bungled and delayed payments for
one program alone, the GI Bill, five times in only 10 years-2009, 2013,
2014, 2017, and 2018-it directly hurts veterans and contributes to
young men and women deciding against joining the military and against
being under the VA's care in the future.
This is a terribly worrisome cycle. Fortunately, it has also
created the historic opportunity present before us, to harness the
power of congressional legislation to reshape the veteran narrative. By
rethinking the tremendous ability the VA has to be an active partner
with Congress, and understanding veterans as investments that can be
leveraged toward greater individual growth with positive societal
impact, the proposed Veterans' Education, Transition, and Opportunity
Prioritization Plan Act of 2019 (VET OPP Act) can champion the veteran-
as-asset model. It recognizes that having a fourth high-level,
prominent institutional VA mechanism-a Veterans' Economic Opportunity
and Transition Administration, headed by its own under secretary-can
light the pathway to success for post-service veterans, similarly to
how Department of Defense mechanisms involving training, a sense of
purpose, and a shared community shape young civilians into successful
soldiers.
Identity, Education, and Employment: Pathway to Veteran Success
Currently, approximately half (50.3 percent) of active-duty
enlisted personnel are 25 years old or younger. Of the entire military
force, somewhat fewer (43.8 percent) are in that age bracket. \10\
Developmentally speaking, this is the ``emerging adulthood'' period-a
period of rapid development involving key struggles surrounding
personal identity. The military offers concrete answers to common
existential questions, reinforcing them through experience, during this
normative period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ US Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, 2015
Demographics: Profile of the Military Community, 2015, http://
download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2015-Demographics-
Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The positive self-regard cultivated during military service becomes
a focal point of the psychological changes that often distinguish the
period of transition out of the military. Research from Columbia
University reveals that veterans experience grief-like symptoms at the
loss of their previous military identity, which in turn augments all
the stressors of a life transition, when facing the initial instability
of civilian life and lacking the order and purpose that characterized
their service. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Mobbs and Bonanno, ``Beyond War and PTSD.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media and the public overwhelmingly call this experience of
veteran transition stress PTSD and erroneously believe that the
majority of all post-9/11 veterans have a mental health disorder.
Unfortunately, since funded research at the VA's military treatment
facilities prioritizes PTSD research, and since the preponderance of
well-intentioned veteran legislation post-9/11 emphasizes mental health
disorders, the public, potential employers, and veterans themselves are
trapped in the inaccurate and harmful ``broken veteran'' narrative
cycle.
As previously mentioned, currently, over half of employers believe
that veterans do not have successful careers after leaving the
military. Half do not think that veterans pursue a college or
vocational school degree, but 62 percent believe veterans need to
acquire more hard and soft skills before they are ready for nonmilitary
roles. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Edelman Insights, ``2017 Veterans' Well-Being Survey: Focus on
Employment, Education, and Health,'' October 27, 2017, https://
www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/2017-veterans-wellbeing-survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans themselves tend to agree that they need ``soft,'' or
communication, skills. Both veterans and employers nearly unanimously
agree on the benefit of internship or apprenticeship programs for
veterans as they seek to reenter the civilian workforce. And post-9/11
veterans especially see education as crucial to their continued
success.
The VA has a suite of educational assistance, vocational
rehabilitation and employment, and education and career counseling
programs, as well as broadly defined shared transition assistance
programs (with the Departments of Labor, Defense, and Homeland
Security), which make accessible all the tools veterans need to
progress from war to work. But these are at the bottom of the program
pyramid within the VBA.
The VA's nearly century-old structural design impedes its own
ability to help veterans achieve that success. Its outdated
manufacturing-economy outlook, which informs the VBA's 1917-based
disability model, sees a service-connected condition only through the
terms of a permanent earnings loss and works as a perverse incentive
against veterans entering the workforce. With all the VBA's energies
directed toward its backlog of hundreds of thousands of disability
claims, its institutional resources are concentrated on the disability
system to the unsurprising neglect of its education and economic
programs. This is one systemic reason why we consistently see the VA's
failure to implement the GI Bill, no matter who the VA secretary is at
the time or who sits in the White House.
One other small but illustrative example: If you visit the VA's
Office of Employment and Economic Impact website, within the VBA, it
tells you that ``it is no longer available'' and to maybe check out the
Department of Labor.
Coincidentally, a majority of veterans report that navigating the
VA's administrations and benefits is their top challenge in transition
to civilian life. \13\ The very VA economic opportunity programs
veterans stand most to profit by are operating with the proverbial
millstone around their necks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Corri Zoli, Rosalinda Maury, and Daniel Fay, Missing
Perspectives: Servicemembers' Transition from Service to Civilian Life,
Institute for Veterans and Military Families, Syracuse University,
November 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
In the 21st-century information age, education is key to
employment, and employment is the door to a successful transition to
civilian life. Education and employment combined give veterans the
crucial tools to reforge civilian identities stronger even than their
military ones. The psychic rewards of work, productivity, and a career
cannot be underestimated, which is corroborated by the true veteran
narrative: Veterans, it turns out, are immensely successful. Empirical
data shore that up by showing how veterans with increased levels of
education are wealthier, healthier, and more civically engaged than
even their civilian peers over the life course. Additional research
establishes the links between these outcomes and reduced rates of
dependence, disability, and criminality. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Zoli, Maury, and Fay, Missing Perspectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the veteran narrative that should predominate. The goal of
the nation's veteran economic opportunity programs should be to enable
soldiers to be fully functional members of society, animated by a
strong civilian identity. As early as the Revolutionary War, Gen.
George Washington had felt intuitively that veterans needed to maintain
a sense of self after military service, recommending in his Farewell
Orders to the Armies of the United States that veterans funnel their
energies as soon as possible into active pursuits and ``prove
themselves not less virtuous and useful as Citizens, than they [were]
persevering and victorious as soldiers.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ George Washington, ``George Washington to Continental Army,
Farewell Orders,'' November 2, 1783, Library of Congress, https://
www.loc.gov/resource/mgw3b.016/?sp=338&st=text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VET OPP Act can trigger this shift, as Congress elevates and
frees already existing VA economic opportunity and transition
assistance programs through shifting them structurally into a fourth VA
administration. The VA's education and employment programs are truly
different in kind from the other operations the VBA manages. Separating
out the management of the VA's economic opportunity programs not only
honors that difference but also creates greater accountability,
attention, and leadership over what should be publicly acknowledged as
the VA's most important instrument in partnering with veterans in their
civilian success.
Veterans are the unacknowledged permanent ambassadors of national
service. How we publicly portray veterans directly relates to how
society conceptualizes military service, including what happens to an
individual during that service. In an all-volunteer force, reputation
is key to the attractiveness of joining a profession that can end in
death or permanent disability. Those who choose to wear the nation's
uniform, as well as those who choose not to, are influenced by how well
Congress and the VA care for veterans' post-service reputations and for
their physical bodies.
Our nation ought to provide transitioning service members with the
means and opportunity to succeed in their civilian lives and to invest
their talent and ability in the American economy.
Empowering VA itself to invest in veterans, through creating a
fourth administration for economic opportunity and transition
assistance, directly benefit every veteran, present and future.
Thank you again for the honor of this opportunity. I look forward
to answering any questions from the committee.
Statements For The Record
American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE)
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) and
its National Veterans Affairs Council (NVAC) appreciate the opportunity
to submit a statement for the record for the April 9, 2019 hearing on
pending legislation. AFGE represents more than 700,000 employees in the
federal and D.C. governments, including over 250,000 front line
employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who provide vital
care and services for our veterans.
This includes serving as the representatives of staff who work
throughout the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) serving veterans
every day.
AFGE has serious concerns regarding H.R. 2045, the ``Veterans'
Education, Transition, and Opportunity Prioritization Plan Act of
2019'' (VET OPP Act) and cannot support it in its current form. AFGE
understands the intention of the legislation, but the bill as presently
constructed raises significant questions about the potential impact and
unintended consequences of shifting VBA employees into the proposed
``Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition Administration,''
(VEOTA). AFGE would like to take this opportunity to raise some of
these issues and hopes to work with the Committee to produce a
legislative solution that helps America's veterans and VA workers, many
of whom are veterans themselves. A critical part of the VA's mission is
assisting service members in making a successful transition out of the
military. Through critical programs including vocational rehab, the
Forever GI Bill, Home Loan Benefits and other programs, the VA plays an
essential role in helping veterans in their post military career. AFGE
agrees with Chairman Levin's statement upon the introduction of H.R.
2045, that ``We have a responsibility to provide America's
servicemembers with the best possible resources and opportunities as
they transition back to civilian life, and we must do more to meet that
responsibility.''
Labor Relations
AFGE has serious concerns on how this bill will impact the VA
workforce. The bill is silent on how employees who currently work for
VBA would be transferred to VEOTA and how their collective bargaining
rights would be affected. In AFGE's view, several questions must be
answered. Would existing collective bargaining agreements continue to
apply to all the employees currently in the bargaining unit
transferring from VBA to VEOTA? Would VA use this transition as a way
to reclassify workers to a lower grade and make other changes affecting
their compensation? Similarly, would the VA use this transition as an
opportunity to impose harsher performance standards that would be even
more difficult for employees to meet? AFGE strongly encourages that
text be added to the bill to protect VA workers, and make sure that any
potential transition interferes with their work as little as possible.
To this point, there is relevant and useful precedent for protecting
employees during a VA reorganization: AFGE was successful in winning
protections for employees affected by a workforce reorganization that
occurred as part of Navy and VA facilities in North Chicago, IL (See:
Pub.L. 111-84, Sec. 1703).
Cap on the Number of Full Time Employees
AFGE opposes any arbitrary cap that would limit the number of
employees in a federal agency without taking into consideration agency
resources and how such caps would affect mission fulfillment. H.R. 2045
calls for a Full Time Employee (FTE) Cap cited in the legislation as an
addition to Title 38, Chapter 80, Section 8003 (Page 4, Line 21). The
bill as currently drafted caps the number of FTE's at 23,692 through
the end of Fiscal Year 2020. AFGE strongly opposes any legislation that
will potentially limit the ability for the VA to hire the staff it
requires to fulfill its mission. Moreover, this provision is further
objectionable as the legislation is proposing to add significant
numbers of management positions to support the new Undersecretary. The
bill makes no mention of increasing the number of non-management
employees to perform the substantial work of this new administration.
This exacerbates the problem of the cap and could result in short
staffing for VEOTA. Lastly, while the cap in the bill may be temporary,
setting the precedent of artificially limiting the number of employees
that may work in a governmental department is shortsighted, and AFGE is
firmly opposed to such arbitrary limitations.
VA Infrastructure
Finally, AFGE is concerned with the lack of specific language in
the bill involving infrastructure changes that will be made to set up
the new administration. Important questions remain unanswered. Will the
VA keep all current VBA employees transferring to VEOTA in the same
location, or will this transition be used as an opportunity for
consolidation and force employees to relocate or lose their jobs? How
will Information Technology (IT) systems, which already give many VBA
employees significant problems, be affected by this realignment?
Despite all of these unknowns, AFGE can say with certainty from
past experience that every major change that has occurred within the VA
has been more successful when front-line employees and their
representatives have seats at the table alongside the VA and other
stakeholders.
AFGE appreciates the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and its
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity giving careful consideration to
the potential impact of this legislation and the issues raised here
today. We look forward to working with the committee to address these
problems.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important
issue.
Disabled American Veterans (DAV)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to submit
testimony for the record of this legislative hearing of the Economic
Opportunity Subcommittee of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. As
you know, DAV is a non-profit veterans service organization comprised
of more than one million wartime service-disabled veterans that is
dedicated to a single purpose: empowering veterans to lead high-quality
lives with respect and dignity. DAV is pleased to offer our views on
the bills under consideration by the Subcommittee.
H.R. 95, Homeless Veteran Families Act
This bill would modify the calculation of per diem payments the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) makes to homeless grant providers
to include partial payment for each of a homeless veteran's minor
dependents. This would ensure that a homeless veteran does not have to
choose between treatment and keeping her or his family intact. DAV
supports this legislation in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 173,
which calls for a provision of child care services and assistance to
veterans attending VA health care appointments or other rehabilitative
programs.
Each year, the CHALENG (Community Homelessness Assessment, Local
Education and Networking Groups) report surveys homeless veterans,
advocates and service providers to identify homeless veterans' greatest
needs. Once again in 2018, both male and female veterans rated child
care as one of their top 10 unmet needs. VA's Homeless Grant and Per
Diem (GPD) Program has long been an important source of transitional
housing for homeless veterans. VA states that, in 2017, 14,500 veterans
exited GPD to permanent housing. H.R. 95 would allow responsible
veterans who are parents to obtain the many benefits and services
available to them under the program while maintaining their duties as
parents.
H.R. 444, Reduce Unemployment for Veterans of All Ages Act of 2019
As stated in title 38, United States Code, Sec. 3100, the purpose
of the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program is to
provide all services and assistance necessary to enable veterans with
service-connected disabilities to achieve maximum independence in daily
living and, to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and to
obtain and maintain suitable employment. However, title 38, United
States Code, Sec. 3103, restricts eligibility into the program to only
those veterans who apply within 12 years of separation from military
service, regardless if they are even eligible within that period.
H.R. 444 would remove the 12-year period of eligibility. Many
veterans experience new disabilities or an increase of severity of
their service-connected disabilities throughout their life. By removing
the limited eligibility period, H.R. 444 would provide veterans the
flexibility to receive VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
services when they are actually needed and not based on an arbitrarily
imposed date.
In agreement with DAV Resolution No. 310, we support this
legislation to eliminate the 12-year period of eligibility provision.
DAV's mission includes the principle that this nation's first duty to
veterans is the rehabilitation and welfare of its wartime disabled.
This principle envisions vocational rehabilitation and/or education to
assist disabled veterans to prepare for and obtain gainful employment
and enhanced opportunities for employment and job placement so that the
full array of talents and abilities of disabled veterans are used
productively. H.R. 444 is in alignment with our mission and we fully
support its passage.
H.R. 1718, to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
clarification regarding the children to whom entitlement to educational
assistance may be transferred under the Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance Program
Per title 10, United States Code, Sec. 1072(2)(I), military
service members and military retirees can claim a dependent child that
is an unmarried person who is placed in the legal custody of the member
or former member as a result of an order of a court of competent
jurisdiction in the United States (or possession of the United States)
for a period of at least 12 consecutive months; and (ii) either:
has not attained the age of 21;
has not attained the age of 23 and is enrolled in a full
time course of study at an institution of higher learning approved by
the administering Secretary; or
is incapable of self support because of a mental or
physical incapacity that occurred while the person was considered a
dependent of the member or former member under this subparagraph
pursuant to subclause (I) or (II);
is dependent on the member or former member for over one-
half of the person's support;
resides with the member or former member unless separated
by the necessity of military service or to receive institutional care
as a result of disability or incapacitation or under such other
circumstances as the administering Secretary may by regulation
prescribe; and
is not a dependent of a member or a former member under
any other subparagraph.
H.R. 1718 would apply this definition of a child to title 38,
United States Code, Sec. 3319(c), ``Authority to transfer unused
education benefits to family members'' under the Forever GI Bill.
Including this definition in the Forever GI Bill would be consistent
with existing military statutory provisions and provide equity.
DAV fully supports H.R. 1718 as it is in agreement with DAV
Resolution No. 185, which supports legislation to amend the definition
of a child to include those placed into legal custody or guardianship
of the veteran, even if on a temporary basis.
Discussion Draft, Justice for Servicemembers Act
The Justice for Servicemembers Act would clarify the scope of
procedural rights of members of the uniformed services with respect to
their employment and reemployment rights. Under USERRA, veterans and
service members are protected from discrimination based on their
military service and given the right to return to their civilian jobs
once their service ends. In recent years, however, federal courts have
allowed employers to require service members and veterans to sign
mandatory arbitration agreements that prohibit them from going to court
to resolve an employment dispute. Under mandatory arbitration
agreements, companies can choose the arbiter and venue for a hearing
while denying an employee any right to appeal. The Justice for
Servicemembers Act will render null and void any forced arbitration
agreement between an employer and a current or former member of the
Armed Forces, consistent with the congressional intent behind USERRA.
DAV supports this bill in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 072,
which supports appropriate enforcement against systemic veterans'
preference discrimination in federal, state, and local employment and
greater enforcement provisions.
Discussion Draft, to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and
title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for the HUD-VASH
program, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of the Senate and
House of Representatives regarding homeless veterans
This draft bill would amend the United States Housing Act of 1937
to broaden the definition of homeless veteran to be consistent with the
definition under Section 2002(b) of title 38, United States Code.
Veterans eligible for homeless programs, unlike those eligible for
other veterans' programs, include those with other than honorable
discharges. VA has also agreed to provide emergency mental health care,
for a limited time, to veterans with other than honorable discharges.
DAV supports this draft legislation under DAV Resolution No. 109,
which calls for a more liberal review of other than honorable
discharges, particularly in cases of veterans who experienced post-
traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, military sexual
trauma, and other trauma for the purpose of eligibility for VA benefits
and services. DAV understands that there are many veterans with
administrative discharges who struggle with mental health issues that
may have contributed to their less than honorable discharge and support
this legislation that would give them access to VA case management
support while in HUD-VASH housing.
Discussion Draft, Homes for Our Heroes Act of 2019
This draft bill would establish new reporting requirements for HUD
and VA. DAV recognizes the intent of this legislation is to provide
effective oversight of HUD-VASH programs. Although we have no specific
resolution on this issue, we do not object to the bill's favorable
consideration.
Discussion Draft, Veteran Employment and Child Care Access Act
This draft bill would allow eligible veterans to receive short-term
child care assistance while receiving training or vocational
rehabilitation. Child care has been identified as one of the top 10
unmet needs by veterans experiencing homelessness. Likewise, child care
responsibilities have been identified as a barrier to accessing needed
care and other services for many women veterans. DAV supports this
legislation in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 173, which calls for
a provision of child care services and assistance to veterans attending
VA health care appointments or other rehabilitative programs.
Discussion Draft, Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer William ``Bill'' Mulder
(Ret.) Transition Improvement Act
This bill would make improvements to the Transition Assistance
Program (TAP) and the overall transition process for service members to
include a greater focus on career opportunities and entrepreneurship.
Specifically, the bill would restructure TAP to require service members
to choose specific career-oriented tracks that best suit their post-
service plans and would require that service members take part in one-
on-one counseling a year prior to separation to evaluate which
transition pathway suits them best.
It would also authorize a five-year pilot program that would
provide matching grant funds to community providers that offer
wraparound transition services to veterans and transitioning service
members. Finally, the bill would require a third-party entity to
conduct an independent assessment of the TAP curriculum and require a
separate longitudinal study on the efficacy of TAP and long-term
outcomes for veterans.
DAV supports this legislation in accordance with DAV Resolution No.
304, which urges Congress to monitor the Transition GPS program, its
workshops, training methodology and delivery of services in order to
confirm the program is meeting its objective; and to follow up with
participants to determine if they secured gainful employment following
such training.
Discussion Draft, VET OPP Act
The Veterans' Education Transition, and Opportunity Prioritization
Plan Act of 2019, or the VET OPP Act, would separate from the Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA) programs under the purview of the Office
of Economic Opportunity and elevate them by creating a new fourth
administration within VA, with a new Under Secretary for Economic
Opportunity and Transition. The new Veterans Economic Opportunity and
Transition Administration (VEOTA) would include critical programs such
as Vocational Rehabilitation, the Forever GI Bill, and the Transition
Assistance Program for transitioning service members.
At present, VA is comprised of three administrations: VBA, the
Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and the National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). VBA includes not only compensation and pension
programs for veterans, but also education, vocational rehabilitation
and employment, housing, and veteran-owned business programs, and the
broadly-defined transition assistance program, which is shared with the
Departments of Defense (DOD), Labor (DOL) and Homeland Security (DHS).
All of these programs are currently overseen by the Office of Economic
Opportunity (OEO), which is to be led by a deputy under secretary.
However, the position of Deputy Under Secretary for Economic
Opportunity has been left vacant for years and it does not appear that
the vacancy will be filled any time soon.
Currently, the OEO programs inside VBA must compete with the
Compensation, Pension and Insurance programs, of which Compensation is
by far the largest program and tends to dominate the attention of VBA
leadership and personnel. Because of the scale and scope of the claims
and appeals processing reforms in recent years, it has been difficult
for VA's economic opportunity (EO) programs to compete for adequate
funding, specialized resources, and other prioritization. For example,
while VBA has boosted resources to support the modernization and
streamlining of the claims and appeals process for the past several
years, other important programs such as VR&E have actually seen a
stagnation of resources and oversight. Between 2014 and 2018, VR&E
participation increased by approximately 17 percent while its funding
was raised less than two percent.
Because of the longstanding vacancy of the Deputy Under Secretary
for Economic Opportunity position, there has been a lack of leadership,
particularly in relation to key stakeholders, such as veterans service
organizations, and other federal partners. In fact, the House Veterans'
Affairs Committee specifically created a subcommittee focused
exclusively on EO programs, further emphasizing the importance of
creating a central point of contact to enhance accountability and
oversight. Furthermore, VA collaborates with DOD, DHS, and DOL to
manage the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for out-processing
service members, but often these efforts have been hampered by the lack
of a high-level VA counterpart to these agencies. Although VA does not
have the lead role in TAP, we believe creating the position of Under
Secretary of Veterans Economic Opportunity and Transition would enhance
VA's influence on TAP initiatives.
We understand that VA remains opposed to this legislation, the same
position taken at the May 2018 hearing before this subcommittee, at
which VA testified it was, ``.in the process of modernizing the entire
organization'' and that ``service delivery of Veterans benefit programs
related to economic opportunity has continued to improve year after
year under the leadership of the Under Secretary of Benefits.''
However, given the recent management and oversight issues involving
implementation of the Forever GI Bill and Vocational Rehabilitation IT
management, we believe the creation of the VEOTA could strengthen VA's
oversight of EO programs.
VA should have as much focus on the economic opportunities for
veterans as it has for their health care and benefits. When service
members are newly discharged, not all will seek VA health care or
disability compensation, nor will they be seeking services NCA.
However, the vast majority of new veterans will be looking for gainful
employment, educational or entrepreneurial opportunities. Congress
should recognize the value of these programs by separating and
elevating them into their own administration within VA, whose main goal
would be the economic empowerment of transitioning service members and
veterans.
However, we agree with Chairman Takano and others that this type of
transformation needs to be done prudently and carefully, and there are
a few concerns that still need to be addressed. We question the
arbitrary cap on staffing for the new VEOTA in the legislation. In
recent years, DAV has often joined other advocates calling for an
increase in the staffing levels of the VA's Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment (VR&E) Service to help achieve the 1:125 counselor-to-
client ratio mandated by Congress. While the bill's full-time employee
(FTE) cap of 23,692 may be sufficient, we believe staffing and funding
requests should be based on need, not arbitrary caps.
In addition, there are still questions about how VA should
reorganize the new VEOTA in order to maximize resource sharing between
VEOTA and VBA employees at VA Regional Offices, minimize duplication of
services and management, and ensure clear lines of authority and
oversight. We would recommend that VA be required to put forward a
comprehensive plan, with measurable milestones, prior to the change-
over in order to ensure a smooth transition.
Notwithstanding the above concerns, and in accordance with DAV's
Resolution No. 300, DAV supports the VET OPP Act to create a fourth
Administration and we look forward to working with this subcommittee
towards that goal.
Discussion Draft, to amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust
certain limits on the guaranteed amount of a home loan under the home
loan program of the Department of Veterans Affairs
This legislation would modify the loan limit of a loan that the VA
can guarantee for a veteran, also known as the ``maximum guarantee
amount,'' by providing VA with the authority to guaranty non-
conforming, or ``jumbo'' loans. The legislation would also waive loan
fees for Purple Heart recipients. Although DAV has no resolution from
our membership on this proposal, and takes no position on this bill, we
do want to remind the Subcommittee that last year a similar provision
was considered by the House as part of H.R. 299. The bill unfortunately
contained a provision to require loan fees for most service-disabled
veterans seeking a loan guaranty for a jumbo loan. We have and will
continue to oppose any such fees on benefits for men and women with
service-connected disabilities. Because this draft bill does not
contain such a fee provision, we have no opposition to this
legislation.
Discussion Draft, to amend title 38, United States Code, to make
certain improvements to the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship
Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs
This draft bill would eliminate credit hour requirements and
authorize funding for the STEM scholarship program available to post-9/
11 veterans for fiscal years 2020-2023. DAV has no resolution on this
matter, but appreciates the additional flexibility this legislation
would give veterans pursuing degrees in science, math and technology,
and thus has no objection to its favorable consideration.
Discussion Draft, to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand
eligibility for the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship
to children and spouses of certain members of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces who die from service-connected disabilities
The Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship (Fry
Scholarship) provides Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to the children and
surviving spouses of service members who died in the line of duty while
on Active duty after September 10, 2001.
The Discussion Draft proposes to allow eligibility to an individual
who is a child or spouse of a member of a reserve component of the
Armed Forces who dies from a service-connected condition not later than
four years after the date of the last discharge or release of that
member from Active duty.
DAV does not have a specific resolution on this issue. However, we
would not oppose the measure. To avoid a possible inequity, we would
recommend the children and surviving spouses of Active duty members who
die from a service-connected disability with four years of discharge or
release, be eligible as well.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes DAV's testimony. Thank you for
inviting DAV to submit testimony for the record of today's hearing. I
would be pleased to address any questions related to the bills being
discussed in my testimony.
Department of Labor (DOL)
Introduction
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide a
statement for the record of this hearing. I commend the Committee for
its tireless efforts to ensure that America fulfills its obligations to
its veterans, their families, and their caregivers. The Department of
Labor (DOL or Department) is the Federal government's focal point for
training, employment services, and information related to the economic
health of all workers. The Department has the expertise and a
nationwide network to provide skills training and employment support
for anyone who needs them, and veterans receive priority of service.
This integrated network and other DOL programs continue to generate
positive employment outcomes for the men and women who have served our
country.
While this hearing addresses numerous bills under consideration by
the Subcommittee, I will limit my statement to the following draft
bills: the ``Justice for Servicemembers Act of 2019;'' the ``Boosting
Rates of American Veteran Employment Act,'' or the ``BRAVE Act;'' the
``Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer William ``Bill'' Mulder (Ret.)
Transition Improvement Act of 2019;'' the draft bill that would ``amend
the United States Housing Act of 1937 and title 38, United States Code,
to expand eligibility for the HUD-VASH program, to direct the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to submit annual reports to the Committees on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding
homeless veterans, and for other purposes;'' and the ``Veteran
Employment and Child Care Access Act of 2019.''
Draft Bill-the ``Justice for Servicemembers Act of 2019"
This draft bill would amend the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) to specify that procedural
protections or provisions under the Act concerning employment and
reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services are to be
considered a right or benefit subject to protection under the Act. The
draft bill also would render unenforceable any agreement to arbitrate a
USERRA claim unless all parties consent to the arbitration after a
complaint on the specific USERRA claim has been filed in court or with
the Merit Systems Protection Board and all parties also knowingly and
voluntarily consent to have that particular claim subjected to
arbitration.
The bill would clarify Congressional intent regarding protections
for service members' procedural USERRA rights by treating such rights
in the same manner as other protections specified in Section 4303(2) of
USERRA-a treatment that recent court decisions have questioned. In
Section 4302(b) of USERRA, Congress prohibited any contract (and other
instruments) from reducing, limiting, or eliminating ``any right or
benefit provided by [USERRA]'', including any ``prerequisites to the
exercise of any such right or benefit.''
The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Assistant Secretary for
Veterans' Employment and Training, is responsible for administering,
interpreting, and enforcing USERRA. The Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS) promulgates regulations, provides guidance, and
investigates complaints from individuals who believe their USERRA
rights were violated.
Draft Bill-The Boosting Rates of American Veteran Employment Act,'' or
the ``BRAVE Act''
The BRAVE Act would add a new provision to title 38, U.S. Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide a
procurement preference for goods or services offered by vendors who
employ veterans on a full-time basis.
The Department defers to VA regarding the merits of this draft
bill. In the development of the legislation, the Committee could
consider adding, as a positive selection factor regarding the
employment of veterans, an employer's receipt of DOL's HIRE Vets
Medallion. In the HIRE Vets Medallion Program (HVMP), Congress and DOL
have set clear standards of eligibility for large, medium, and small
employers to demonstrate and be recognized for their efforts to hire
and retain veterans. DOL is currently accepting HVMP applications and
expects to award the Medallion to qualified employers on a date to
coincide with Veterans' Day. By adding receipt of the Medallion as a
positive selection factor for the preference, VA would grant preference
to a list of employers who have already been recognized for their
proven commitment to hiring and retaining veterans.
Draft Bill-Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer William ``Bill'' Mulder (Ret.)
Transition Improvement Act of 2018
At the outset, DOL notes that the recently-enacted John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (FY 2019 NDAA)
made changes to the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). In December
2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) provided Congress with its action
plan to implement the NDAA's requirements in full coordination with its
interagency TAP partners, and we are continuing work to execute the
plan.
Under the FY 2019 NDAA, DOL is responsible for three TAP workshops.
DOL is transitioning from its mandatory three-day Employment Workshop
to: (1) a mandatory one-day workshop for all transitioning service
members focusing on career exploration, (2) an elective two-day
Employment Workshop to provide instruction on the fundamentals of
transitioning to civilian employment, and (3) an adaptation of DOL's
currently-optional two-day apprenticeship/technical career workshop.
Additionally, the President's FY 2020 Budget Request for the
Department would further enhance the quality of employment services for
transitioning service members, with a focus on improved outcomes. With
the requested funds, VETS would provide additional employment related
services to transitioning service members beyond classroom instruction
to include career counseling, linkages to career resources, and other
career readiness assistance. The request also includes funds for the
development and implementation of a course curriculum specific to
military spouses relocating with their service member to another duty
station or transitioning out of the service.
The Department is currently administering a new apprenticeship
pilot program funded in FY 2019 to help identify the best methods to
prepare transitioning service members for, and assist in their
placement in, apprenticeship programs. Moving forward, DOL will improve
connections to industries that want to hire veterans, as well as
connections to state and community workforce partners that help new
veterans transition into careers and communities.
These recent changes to TAP are designed to help transitioning
service members make the best career choices among those available to
them, taking into account individual skills and high demand career
fields. Better matching veterans to career opportunities prior to
transition could reduce the high job turnover rate among recently-
transitioned veterans.
The draft bill under consideration is intended to further improve
the assistance provided to transitioning service members and veterans.
We highlight several provisions in the bill and address a few areas of
concern.
Section 3 of the draft bill would amend the Social Security Act to
authorize DOL and VA to access the National Directory of New Hires
(NDNH) for the purpose of tracking veterans' employment. This access to
the NDNH would aid both agencies by providing a more complete
understanding of post-transition employment outcomes. A detailed
analysis of these outcomes would greatly assist DOL in evaluating the
efficacy of our transition assistance efforts.
Section 4 would reauthorize the off-base TAP pilot program
originally authorized by the Dignified Burial and Other Veterans'
Benefits Improvement Act of 2012, Public Law 112-260, which required
the Department to conduct a two-year pilot program to provide the
Employment Workshop to veterans and their spouses at locations other
than military installations. Section 4 also would expand the number of
locations at which the Employment Workshop would be offered.
This pilot is duplicative of other Federally-funded employment
services for veterans and transitioning service members. A network of
state, local, and non-profit providers is already available to veterans
and transitioning service members in their communities as part of, or
in connection with, the States' workforce development systems where
veterans get priority of service, and they are often eligible for
individualized career services. Further, it would be challenging to
implement a pilot until the core TAP requirements of the FY2019 NDAA
have been implemented.
Section 5 would authorize grants to eligible community-based
organizations to provide certain employment services to veterans and
their spouses, and VA would be charged with administering the grant
program. Local community-based organizations are best suited to help
veterans navigate to the appropriate local government or non-government
service provider that can best influence veteran wellness outcomes.
DOL administers grant programs similar to that created under
Section 5 and could integrate it with existing programs if the
authority was given to DOL rather than VA. The Department recently
provided technical assistance on S. 666, the ``HUBS for Veterans Act of
2019,'' which is similar to Section 5 of this bill. Under S. 666, DOL
would administer similar local community grants. Based on the nature of
the grants proposed in Section 5 and the synergy with existing DOL
programs, including those that serve the veteran population, DOL is
well positioned to administer this grant program. The Subcommittee
could also consider codifying Section 5 under title 38, U.S. Code,
alongside other programs for service members and veterans.
Draft Bill-To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and title 38,
United States Code, to expand eligibility for the HUD-VASH program, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit annual reports to
the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of
Representatives regarding homeless veterans, and for other purposes
As written, this draft bill seeks to expand eligibility for the
HUD-VASH program, and would direct the Secretary of VA to submit an
annual report to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and
the House of Representatives regarding homeless veterans.
The Department defers to VA on the merits of this draft bill.
Draft Bill-the ``Veteran Employment and Child Care Access Act of 2019
This draft bill would create a new section, 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3123,
that would require VA to provide child care assistance to certain
veterans receiving certain training or vocational rehabilitation.
Specific to DOL, this draft bill would direct the VA Secretary to
provide child care assistance to an eligible veteran for any period
that the veteran receives training or vocational rehabilitation under
VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program; chapter
41 of title 38, U.S. Code; the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program
(HVRP); or the Homeless Female Veterans and Veterans with Families
(HFVVWF) Program.
For veterans served through the Jobs for Veterans State Grants
(JVSG), supportive services, such as child care, are available to
participants through co-enrollment with other DOL programs, such as co-
enrollment with Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
programs. This allows participants to successfully engage with career
and training activities, such as Registered Apprenticeships or
classroom training. Additionally, HVRP grantees serving veterans with
families may use funds to provide child care and other supportive
services.
Conclusion
The Department looks forward to working with the Subcommittee to
ensure that our transitioning service members, veterans, and their
spouses have the resources and training they need to be successful in
the civilian workforce. The improving employment situation for veterans
is a resounding testament to the nationwide recognition from
stakeholders-both public and private, at the national level and within
local communities-of the value that veterans bring to the civilian
workforce. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide this statement for the record.
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS)
The Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) is the national
nonprofit organization providing compassionate care for the families of
America's fallen military heroes. TAPS provides peer-based emotional
support, grief and trauma resources, grief seminars and retreats for
adults; Good Grief Camps for children; and casework assistance,
connections to community-based care, online and in-person support
groups, and a 24/7 resource and information helpline for all who have
been affected by a death in the Armed Forces. Services are provided
free of charge.
TAPS was founded in 1994 by Bonnie Carroll following the death of
her husband in a military plane crash in Alaska in 1992. Since then,
TAPS has offered comfort and care to more than 85,000 bereaved
surviving family members. For more information, please visit TAPS.org.
TAPS receives no government grants or funding.
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and distinguished members
of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the Tragedy Assistance Program
for Survivors (TAPS) thanks you for the opportunity to make you aware
of issues and concerns of importance to the families we serve, the
families of the fallen.
While the mission of TAPS is to offer comfort and support for
surviving families, we are also committed to improving support provided
by the Federal government through the Department of Defense (DoD), the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Education (DoED),
Department of Labor, state governments, government contractors, and
local communities for the families of the fallen - those who fall in
combat, those who fall from invisible wounds and those who die from
accidents, illness or disease.
TAPS was honored to enter into a new and expanded Memorandum of
Agreement with the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2017. This
agreement formalizes what has been a long-standing, informal working
relationship between TAPS and the VA. The services provided by TAPS and
VA are complementary, and in this public-private partnership each will
continue to provide extraordinary services through closer
collaboration.
Under this agreement, TAPS continues to work with surviving
families to identify resources available to them both within the VA and
through private sources. TAPS will also collaborate with the VA in the
areas of education, burial, benefits and entitlements, grief counseling
and other areas of interest.
Discussion Draft - Guard & Reserve
TAPS is excited to see our #2 priority before this committee:
Providing parity for surviving children and spouses of those whose
loved ones died while serving in the Guard and Reserves. Their service
and sacrifices are no different than those serving on Active duty.
While most survivor benefits are now equal, education benefits are not.
It's time to make sure Guard and Reserve surviving families have the
same access to the Fry Scholarship as their Active duty counterparts.
Some of the stories TAPS has heard from our surviving families
regarding this issue are absolutely heartbreaking.
First Sergeant John DuPont served his country honorably for nearly
30 years. He served in the United States Marine Corps and then the Army
National Guard. During his National Guard service, he was deployed to
Afghanistan. Upon his return, he continued with the National Guard but
lost his battle with Post Traumatic Stress (PTS) when he died by
suicide in 2011. First Sergeant DuPont took his own life just hours
after returning home from a drill weekend where he was preparing for an
upcoming deployment. Had he died a few hours earlier before coming
home, his children would have been eligible for the Fry Scholarship.
They were deemed ineligible because he made it home from his Guard
weekend, and once home was not considered on Active duty status.
SPC Anthony Tipps was a member of the Texas National Guard.
Specialist Tipps was activated in 2009 and had to leave his career for
his deployment to Iraq. When he returned home one year later, he
learned that his former employer had not held his job. He was unable to
find employment. Specialist Tipps died by suicide less than 3 months
after returning from Iraq. Because he was not considered on ``Active
duty status'' at the time of his death, his daughter Brittany was
deemed ineligible for the Fry Scholarship, even though his death was
service-connected.
Colonel David McCracken served honorably in the Army and Army
Reserves for over 20 years. During his military career he was deployed
multiple times. On his last tour he was activated as a reservist and
deployed to the Middle East. Upon return from his deployment, he was
diagnosed with brain cancer which was found to be service-connected due
to burn pit exposure in Iraq. Because he was not on active-duty orders
or training at the time of his death, his children are not eligible for
the Fry Scholarship.
These are just three of the stories TAPS has heard from surviving
families regarding eligibility for the Fry Scholarship. In the case of
First Sergeant DuPont, literally hours differentiate what benefits his
children receive. The families have no say in the duty status of the
service member, therefore they should not be treated differently. TAPS
firmly believes that we must honor the service and sacrifice of all
surviving families.
Six months ago, TAPS spoke with Former Congressman Chet Edwards who
wrote and introduced the original Fry Scholarship in 2009. When we
informed him of this issue he was stunned. His original intent was to
include all surviving families. He had no idea that some Guard and
Reserve families were being excluded, and has offered his support in
fixing this inequity.
TAPS estimates 1,000-1,500 surviving children and spouses would
benefit from this expansion. A vast majority are surviving families
whose loved ones died from service-connected illnesses or by suicide.
These families are in receipt of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
(DIC) at the same rate as Active duty losses, receive TRICARE and
almost all of the same benefits as Active duty losses.
Providing parity in education is long overdue and we look forward
to seeing this bill passed and implemented. This is part of a long-term
TAPS goal to bring all survivors into the Fry Scholarship and phase out
the Vietnam Era Dependents Education Assistance (Chapter 35).
Discussion Draft - In-State Tuition
TAPS is excited to see an expansion of In-State Tuition as a
priority for the committee. While all Fry Scholarship recipients
currently receive in-state tuition, thanks to the Choice Act, TAPS
recommends the inclusion of Chapter 35 recipients.
Chapter 35 recipients are often forgotten from legislation. The
$200 increase provided by the Forever GI Bill, is still not comparable
with the Montgomery GI Bill. If we are going to provide in-state
tuition across the board, we should include survivors whose benefits
are not enough to cover tuition at a state school. Since the financial
burden for in-state tuition falls on individual states, this should be
an easy fix for the committee.
Discussion Draft - Transition Assistance
Military-to-Civilian transition is a psychological and cultural
evolution that requires a new definition of wellness as service members
shift from a collectivist community into an individualistic one. VA
research indicates that veterans who are engaged in care are far less
likely to die by suicide. Such support increases the likelihood of a
positive transition into civilian life and is a significant protective
factor which reduces potential risks for serious issues facing this
population, such as suicide. Conversely, 14 of the 20 veterans who die
by suicide each day are not engaged in VA care.
Given the high stakes of helping our nation's service members make
a successful transition, TAPS is grateful to see such effort put into
overhauling the Transition Assistance Program. Our team of suicide
prevention and postvention subject matter experts is available to
support strategic planning efforts as the TAP program is re-envisioned.
While many key aspects were updated by the 2019 NDAA, there is still
much work to do. TAPS supported the Navy Seal Chief Petty Officer Bill
Mulder Transition Improvement Act last year, and we look forward to
seeing it pass this year.
Discussion Draft - Definition of dependents
TAPS supports the draft text to make sure the definition of
``dependents'' is the same for the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). At TAPS, we know that not all
family is blood related and applaud the committee for including this
definition.
Discussion Draft - 4th Administration, VETOPP Act
TAPS continues to support the creation of a 4th Administration
under the Department of Veterans Affairs. We understand and respect
that VA has concerns about this issue. TAPS agrees with our partner
organizations, Student Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, that it is imperative that Economic Opportunity have its own
under secretary.
Responsibilities of this new division at VA would include the
administration of housing loan guaranty and related programs,
vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E), education assistance
programs, and transition programs.
At present, these programs are buried within the bureaucracy of VA
and lack a true champion at the level of leadership these programs
warrant. Over the past century, VA has evolved to focus on compensating
veterans for loss. Yet realities and advances of the 21st century and
beyond demands the additional goal of empowering veterans to excel
post-service. Importantly, this will also advance our nation's goals of
enhancing economic competitiveness by focusing on veteran contributions
to be future economy, it is imperative we afford VA the opportunity to
enrich the lives of veterans through the primacy of VA's economic
opportunity programs.
The implementation of the Forever GI Bill last year highlighted
many concerns. With the passage of the VETOPP Act, the VA may be better
prepared for other improvements to EO programs and allow these
important programs to be a priority for the VA.
TAPS thanks the committee and the original sponsors of all this
important legislation. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful
consideration of the needs of our nation's veterans and surviving
families.
It is the responsibility of the nation to provide for the support of
the loved ones of those who have paid the highest price for
freedom. Thank you for allowing us to speak on their behalf.
Veterans Education Success (VES)
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Veterans Education Success (VES) appreciates the opportunity to
share its perspective on the hearing for Draft Legislation before the
Subcommittee.
VES is a non-profit organization focused on protecting the
integrity and promise of the GI Bill and other federal educational
programs for veterans and servicemembers.
DRAFT - Flight Training Schools
The purpose of the Post 9/11 GI Bill is to aid service members and
veterans in the transition from military service into the civilian
workforce. Since its inception, thousands of military-connected
students have had the opportunity to take advantage of this generous
benefit in hopes of increasing their economic mobility and the
socioeconomic standing of their families. Unfortunately, some schools
have also taken advantage of veterans' benefits in a way that is less
than admirable. This has been the case for certain flight schools,
which is why Veterans Education Success supports the intent of this
bill.
With the overall amount of GI Bill money going to flight school
training dropping from $79.8 million in 2014 to $48.4 million in 2016,
it is evident that VA has made commendable progress in tightening the
oversight and execution of reimbursement of costs to flight training
schools for enrolled veterans. While this work by VA is commendable, we
believe this type of oversight uses valuable resources that would be
better focused in other areas. Similar to the annual tuition and fees
cap for private institutions of higher learning (IHL), the cap
recommended in this bill offers an amenable solution, especially if
schools opt to participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program.
According to data provided by VA, the average tuition for veterans
attending 86 of the 102 schools that received GI Bill money for flight
training in 2016 was below the $22,800 proposed cap (the 2017/18
national maximum for private schools). For 7 of the 16 remaining
schools, the cost was slightly above the cap. With this proposed bill,
should these schools choose to match half of the tuition gap by
participating in the Yellow Ribbon program, VA would match the other
half and veterans would be able to successfully complete their training
without needing to take on additional student loan debt.
Despite the large number of institutions who provide flight
training at costs around $22,800 per student per year, in FY16 the VA
reported a number of schools charging $130,000, on average. While
representatives from these schools argue this type of training is
costly due to high-end equipment, the cost for similar training at 61%
of the schools who accepted GI Bill benefits was significantly lower.
This is concerning at best. To continue to pay these schools at such
high costs is not an appropriate use of tax payer money.
While Veterans Education Success supports the intent of the bill
and a cap similar to that already in existence for private IHLs, we are
concerned about the proposal to offer accelerated payments for those
choosing to attend these schools. Accelerated payments burn through a
student's benefits, leaving them without the opportunity to finish a
college degree. Given the availability of the Yellow Ribbon Program,
VES does not believe that accelerated payments are a necessary solution
to covering the extraneous costs of certain flight training programs.
Additionally, if VA were to be allowed to pay for a private pilot's
license, we recommend the proposed legislation be amended to continue
to require the medical clearance mandated by law to allow someone to
become a pilot. Otherwise, it will be a waste of tax payer dollars and
the students' benefits if they pursue this training and then are unable
to use it.
H.R. 1718 - GI Education Benefits Fairness Act
This bill creates alignment with the language in Section 1072(2)(I)
for dependents of service members for the purposes of transferring
education benefits. VES supports this bill as it provides parity for
what is already happening within the Department of Defense for
dependents.
DRAFT - Veteran Employment and Child Care Access Act of 2019
One contributing factor to non-completion in higher education is
lack of childcare. Military-affiliated students are often
nontraditional students who have. Lack of childcare should not impede
their ability to pursue post-secondary education leading to viable
employment.
We understand from the Committee that this bill will ensure the
existing childcare is much more comprehensive. We also understand from
VA that VA believes the bill is not necessary because it duplicates the
existing program. While we are not sufficiently familiar with the
details of the existing program to assess the merits of VA's position,
we do know that student veterans need childcare and everything possible
should be done to ensure they have access to it.
DRAFT - VET OPP Act
The office of Economic Opportunity is a proactive approach to
supporting veterans and their families as they transition from military
service into the civilian workforce. It is important they have a more
prevalent voice that can speak and advocate on their behalf, especially
during the point of transition. The recent challenges VA faced in the
implementation of the Harry W. Colmery Act reinforces the need for a
fourth administration whose sole focus is the office for Economic
Opportunity. That is why VES supports this bill.
DRAFT - Amendment of the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship
Often students pursuing a degree within a STEM field must add an
extra year to their education due to the timing of courses offered and
the prerequisites necessary to complete these programs. This has
discouraged some students from pursuing a degree in STEM, despite the
high demands for trained professionals in the American workforce. The
original intent of the law was to provide an extra year of GI Bill
benefits to address this issue. Unfortunately, the current credit
requirement misses the intent of the law and makes it impossible for
the majority of programs to meet eligibility. This bill addresses this
and returns to the original intent by removing the credit hour
requirement for a degree program. VES supports this change and believes
military-affiliated students are strong candidates for helping fill
this significant gap within the workforce.
Discussion Draft - In State Tuition
Part of a student's ability to make an informed decision related to
his or her choice of higher education requires full transparency of the
cost of attendance and whether or not he or she will qualify for in-
state tuition. This legislation would help with that transparency.
Discussion Draft - Expansion of the Fry Scholarship
Children and spouses of the members of the reserve components who
die of a service-connected disability should have access to the Fry
Scholarship. This bill makes it available to them.
We appreciate the amount of time, effort, and attention the
Committee has given to ensure military-connected students receive
optimal training and education for a successful career in the civilian
workforce. Thank you for considering the views of VES on this important
topic.
[all]