[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                          PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

                                OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                       THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-54

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
                    
                                __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-959                        WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         
                   
                     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

                              ----------                              

                       THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Honorable Mike Levin, Chairman...................................     1
Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, Ranking Member.......................     6
Honorable Kevin McCarthy.........................................     2
Honorable Elaine G. Luria........................................     4
Honorable Susie Lee..............................................     4
Honorable Joe Cunningham.........................................     5
Honorable Ben Ray Lujan..........................................     8

                               WITNESSES

Ms. Charmain Bogue, Executive Director, Education Service, 
  Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans 
  Affairs........................................................     9

        Accompanied by:

    Ms. Laurine Carson, Deputy Executive Director, Policy & 
        Procedures, Compensation Service (VBA)

Mr. Patrick Murray, Deputy Director, National Legislative 
  Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.........    11

Mr. John Kamin, Assistant Director, National Veterans Employment 
  and Education Division, The American Legion....................    13

Mr. Justin Monk, Policy Associate, Student Veterans of America...    15

Mr. Morgan D. Brown, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed 
  Veterans of American...........................................    16

                                APPENDIX
                    Prepared Statements Of Witnesses

Ms. Charmain Bogue Prepared Statement............................    29
Mr. Patrick Murray Prepared Statement............................    37
Mr. John Kamin Prepared Statement................................    40
Mr. Justin Monk Prepared Statement...............................    54
Mr. Morgan D. Brown Prepared Statement...........................    58

                       Statements For The Record

Veterans Education Success.......................................    63

 
                          PENDING LEGISLATION

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020

              U.S. House of Representatives
               Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
                              Committee on Veterans Affairs
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m., in 
room 210, House Visitors Center, Hon. Mike Levin presiding.
    Present: Representatives Levin, Brindisi, Pappas, Luria, 
Lee, Cunningham, Bilirakis, and Meuser.
    Also present: Representative Lujan and Representative 
McCarthy.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, CHAIRMAN

    Mr. Levin. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. I 
request unanimous consent that the chair is authorized to 
declare a recess at any time.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    I would also like ask for unanimous consent for Leader 
McCarthy and Mr. Lujan to join the subcommittee today for the 
purpose of making opening statements.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    I want to welcome everyone to today's Subcommittee on 
Economic Opportunity hearing where we are reviewing 14 pieces 
of legislation, and I am very pleased to tell you that all of 
them are bipartisan. I commend our teams for working together 
in service of our veterans.
    I am also happy to say that this subcommittee is hosting 
the Veterans Affairs' Committee first legislative hearing of 
the year and I am particularly glad to continue our bipartisan 
work with the ranking member and my republican colleagues, 
something I consider a hallmark of this subcommittee.
    Today our subcommittee will consider bills and drafts that 
cover the spectrum of our jurisdiction and reflect the work 
that has been occurring in hearings and behind the scenes. 
Nearly 2 years after the passage of the Forever GI Bill, we 
have several proposals that look to refine both, the Veterans 
Technology Education Courses (VET TEC) and Edith Nourse Rogers 
Science Technology Engineering Math (STEM) programs that the 
law created.
    We have also proposals today to allow the automobile 
assistance program to provide new vehicle adaptations to 
disabled veterans as their vehicles age out of usage.
    We have proposals from both sides of the aisle on these 
issues and the feedback from VA and the veteran service 
organizations today and I thank them all for being here with 
us. Will help us refine and consolidate these bills going 
forward.
    We also have several more bills that work to improve 
education benefits more broadly, including proposals to adjust 
the timing of Post-9/11 G.I. Bill tuition payments to schools 
in order to reduce overpayments, match Work Study Program wages 
to local minimum wages to provide parity for student veterans, 
add meaningful outcome data to the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool, 
institute more oversight on the conversion of for-profit 
education institutions to non-profit, limit the liability of 
transferred benefits to the veteran, and a bill that Ranking 
Member Bilirakis and I introduced yesterday that requires VA to 
provide all veterans eligible for education benefits with 
electronic certificates of eligibility.
    Finally, we will be looking at the VA Home Loan Program and 
how to reduce the burden for veterans whose homes are destroyed 
by natural disasters. There is no question we are covering a 
lot today and that we have been and will continue to be a very 
active subcommittee.
    I can tell you that we intend to stay busy as we continue 
to address veteran homelessness, employment, and education 
issues.
    I appreciate the hard work of every member of this 
subcommittee and our great staff on both sides of the aisle who 
have assisted and who have worked together in getting these 
bills ready for review and I thank the expertise of all of our 
witnesses in the room and elsewhere who help participate as 
well.
    I am hopeful that the feedback we receive today will lead 
to many of the bills moving through the committee, the full 
House, and then the Senate, before being signed into law.
    With that, I will recognize Leader McCarthy for his opening 
statement. Thank you, sir.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF KEVIN MCCARTHY

    Mr. McCarthy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
you holding this hearing and I appreciate all the organizations 
before us today.
    I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today and discuss legislation that Congressman Ro Khanna 
and I introduced, the VET TEC Expansion Act. In 2017, after 
visiting Udacity, an innovative, non-traditional educational 
provider, I was struck by the potential of non-traditional 
education courses for today's evolving workforce.
    Following that visit, I thought about how these types of 
courses could benefit our Nation's veterans, the brave men and 
women who often re-enter civilian life with highly specialized 
skills and experience. I was very surprised to learn, though, 
at that time, there was no existing VA programs allowing 
veterans to use their benefits to take non-traditional 
education courses as a means to achieve gainful employment upon 
leaving military service and those veterans that I met at 
Udacity and other organizations, such as itself, already went 
to a 4-year degree, could not get hired, and found, having left 
there, they were making much more money and had greater 
employment.
    I introduced the original VET TEC Act in early 2017 and 
President Trump signed it into law that summer. The VET TEC 
pilot program went live in May of last year and for the first 
time, the VA had the authority to contract with non-traditional 
educational providers to give veterans the opportunity to 
access technology-oriented classes.
    Since being implemented, the VET TEC pilot program has 
provided several success stories and has provided veterans with 
more freedom decide what and how they would like to learn. I am 
encouraged by this, but also have considered feedback on the 
program from veterans and providers who have participated in 
it.
    This is why I have introduced the VET TEC Expansion Act, a 
bill to expand on the VET TEC pilot program. This bill would 
allow the VA to accept more course providers into the VET TEC 
program by reducing the amount of time that a provider must 
successfully operate a course from 2 years to 1 years, because 
what is happened is, I will take an example like Udacity. They 
are in Denver. They have expanded and they opened up another 
part of the State. Even though the courses have already been 
provided in one entity with each satellite office, it has to 
stay--be open 2 years, instead 1, even though the facility 
already knows how to provide it; it is just an expansion 
facility.
    The intent of the VET TEC pilot program was always to match 
veterans with educational providers who are innovative, 
responsive to industry demands and this change will better help 
the VA to succeed while preserving the VA's authority to 
contract only with quality education providers. The bill would 
also allow the VA to accept education providers that offer 
part-time courses such as night classes into the VET TEC pilot 
program.
    Education is not one-size-fits-all and I believe that the 
VET TEC pilot program should be expanded to accommodate working 
veterans who are looking to make a career change or add to 
their resume. Last, the bill would allow active-duty 
servicemembers who are on terminal leave to get a jump-start on 
their lives as veterans by enabling them to apply and to 
participate in the VET TEC pilot program.
    By allowing transitioning servicemembers to utilize the VET 
TEC pilot program, more servicemembers will have the 
opportunity to transition to veteran life with a job already 
secured.
    At the end of the day, the intent of the original VET TEC 
Act is to provide veterans with greater choice when it comes to 
their well-earned benefits. The VET TEC Expansion Act builds on 
the success of the original law by expanding choice for 
veterans in a dynamic, technology-centric economy.
    With over four years remaining in this pilot program, these 
necessary changes will actually give the VA and my colleagues 
in Congress a better look at what does and does not work for 
the American student veterans. As I have often said, you can 
tell a lot about the character of our Nation by how we treat 
our veterans, and so I believe this is the best step forward--
greater choice, more opportunity, and greater advantage for 
those who serve and transitioning into a veteran's life, and I 
thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Leader McCarthy. I appreciate you 
being here with us today.
    I have a number of my colleagues who are introducing and 
speaking the legislation that they are led and I will defer to 
a few of them for opening statements and I would like to start 
with Ms. Luria.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF ELAINE G. LURIA

    Ms. Luria. Thank you and thanks for allowing me to 
introduce this draft legislation and to speak today.
    I thank all the Veterans Service Organizations (VSO) and 
representatives for the VA who are appearing today to discuss 
our ideas for legislation to improve service to our veterans.
    My bill, the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool Data MOU Act, would 
help veterans get the information they need to choose the best 
educational option for them. My bill would direct the VA to 
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or MOU with the 
Department of Education and the IRS to share student outcome 
data for inclusion in the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool website. 
This is a website that veterans can use to compare different 
educational choices. This would give prospective student 
veterans access to critical data like graduation rates, 
transfer rates, and post-graduation employment statistics.
    This information will help veterans understand how other 
students using the G.I. Bill have succeeded in the schools that 
they are considering. We an all agree that we want veterans to 
have all relevant data before committing to use their G.I. Bill 
benefits.
    I have the privilege of representing more than 92,000 
veterans in our district and it is among my top priorities to 
ensure that the veterans have the support they need and the 
benefit that they have earned.
    Thank you to Ranking Member Bilirakis for working with me 
on this bill, and I look forward to introducing this bill and 
bringing it before the committee before for a vote very soon.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Luria.
    I would now like to recognize Ms. Lee for her opening 
statement.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SUSIE LEE

    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for 
including my bill, the Class Evaluation Act, in today's 
hearing.
    Before I get started, I want to thank the Veterans 
Education Success, Student Veterans of America, Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America 
for the feedback you all provided to both, myself and the 
committee on this bill.
    I am proud to have worked closely with my colleague, 
Representative Bilirakis, to incorporate your feedback into our 
bipartisan bill we are discussing.
    Put simply, the Class Evaluation Act is a common sense 
solution to an incredibly salient problem facing student 
veterans: G.I. Bill overpayments. G.I. Bill overpayments occur 
when the VA puts out more in tuition and fees than a student's 
semester course load ends requiring. This may be due to change 
of schedule, a dropped class, a school closing, or a myriad of 
factors that cause course loads to change at the start of a new 
semester after the VA has already sent over their G.I. Bill 
payments.
    In these cases, the student veteran is caught holding the 
bag and left responsible for reimbursing the VA for any 
overpayments. It is estimated that G.I. Bill overpayments 
affect 1 in 4 student veterans and cost American taxpayers 
hundreds of millions in wasted Federal funds each year.
    Put simply, G.I. Bill overpayments are a waste of taxpayer 
funds and an added burden to student veterans. To address this 
issue last October, I introduced Student Veteran Protection 
Act, a bill that would shift the financial burden of the G.I. 
Bill overpayments from the veteran back to the school; in 
short, ensuring that the responsibility lies on the school to 
reimburse the VA, not the student.
    I am pleased that this bill passed the House in November as 
part of the Protect the G.I. Bill Act, a clear step in the 
right direction. Now, today, I am excited to be here to take 
our efforts to address G.I. Bill overpayments a step further.
    My bill we are discussing today, the Class Evaluation Act 
is a bipartisan, common sense solution to prevent these 
overpayments from happening in the first place. The Class 
Evaluation Act works to prevent G.I. Bill overpayments by 
mandating that VA waits 7 days into a term before paying 
schools. By delaying G.I. Bill payments for 1 week, students 
will have the flexibility and the peace of mind to make 
necessary changes to their class schedule and course load 
within the first week of a semester, without worrying about 
being held personally responsible for any overpayments by the 
VA.
    In addition, the bill also ensures that student veterans 
are not charged for late fees during this period. It is also 
important to note that this bill also works to address cases we 
have seen where schools in financial distress that collected VA 
funds at the beginning of a term then abruptly close, leaving 
the VA out of thousands of dollars and more importantly, 
leaving students left holding the bag.
    It is estimated that the net savings to the VA from this 
bill would be roughly $120 million over 10 years. These are 
taxpayer funds, that if not wasted on overpayments, could be 
put toward a number of other critical VA programs supporting 
student veterans.
    Put simply, the Class Evaluation Act is a common sense, 
bipartisan fix that would protect student veterans from 
financial burden and save American taxpayers millions of 
dollars in critical VA funds.
    I would like to thank you all again for being here to 
discuss this bill today and I look forward to hearing your 
feedback. Thank you.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF JOE CUNNINGHAM

    I would now like to recognize Mr. Cunningham for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Cunningham. I want to start by thanking Chairman Levin 
and Ranking Member Bilirakis for holding this hearing and for 
including the Veteran Home Loan Disaster Recovery Act in this 
slate of bills under consideration today.
    I also want to thank our distinguished panel for joining us 
here today, especially The American Legion, the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America for 
offering statements in support of my bipartisan legislation 
that would help veterans in the wake of natural disasters.
    As you all know, South Carolina is no stranger to natural 
disasters and veterans in the Low Country, as well as across 
the Nation, should not be penalized for living in the path of 
hurricanes. When disaster strikes, every American and 
especially our veterans and servicemembers deserve to know that 
their country is behind them.
    The bipartisan, Veteran Home Loan Disaster Recovery Act 
would help veterans by reducing VA home loan fees so that they 
have more money in their pockets to recover and rebuild.
    Under the VA Home Loan Program, veterans and servicemembers 
are eligible for loans backed by the Federal Government with 
lower interest rates than traditional mortgages. This 
legislation would reduce the loan fees for veterans who have 
been affected by Presidentially declared natural disasters by 
enabling them to qualify for a second home loan using the 
initial VA funding fee, instead of the higher subsequent-use 
fee.
    Our veterans should not be forced to pay higher fees for a 
second home loan if their first home was destroyed in a 
disaster through no fault of their own. The absolute least that 
we can do for veterans who are struggling to put their lives 
back together after a storm is a make sure they do not face 
additional barriers to access the benefits that they deserve.
    In closing, I want to thank Senator Hirono for her work as 
the lead sponsor of this legislation in the Senate and my 
colleague, Congressman Brian Mast for co-leading this 
legislation with me in the House.
    I would also like to thank the VA for providing their 
suggested revisions to improve this bill; we will certainly 
take those into consideration moving forward.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
committee and the members of this distinguished panel to get 
this bill across the finish line and ensure that our veterans 
who lose their homes to natural disaster have the support that 
they have earned.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.
    I would now like to recognize my friend, the ranking 
member, Mr. Bilirakis.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF GUS M. BILIRAKIS, RANKING MEMBER

    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I apologize for my tardiness. I was at the prayer breakfast 
and I missed the bus, so the story of my life. I had to take a 
cab back. I actually did not know where the bus was.
    Anyway, whatever. I am here now and I know you do not want 
to hear any more, but I do have an opening statement. Thank 
you, again, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
    Okay. Thank you for continuing, again, Mr. Chairman, the 
bipartisan tradition of this subcommittee by bringing 14 bills 
that are before us today, including several Republican bills, 
so we appreciate that.
    Since you have become chairman of the subcommittee, both 
you and your staff have been nothing but fair to me and my 
colleagues, in my opinion, on this side of the aisle. I really 
it and, again, I appreciate your efforts.
    While I am supportive on most of the bills on today's 
agenda, I am concerned that a few of the draft bills may have 
unintended consequences. One of the draft bills on the agenda 
would extended new rules to accredited and G.I. Bill-approved 
schools that convert from a for-profit tax status to a non-
profit tax status.
    While I believe that the VA should be more aggressively 
targeting schools that are not providing value and education to 
veterans--and I proposed legislation in the past on this 
particular subject a few years ago--I agree with many of our 
witnesses today that there are better approaches available to 
solving this problem. These include many of the bipartisan 
proposals in H.R. 4625, the Protect the G.I. Bill Act that 
both, you and I, introduced, and I supported, back in October. 
We should be focused on protecting students from bad schools, 
regardless of their tax status, and I look forward to working 
with the chairman and others to address my concerns with this 
proposal.
    Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank you for including 
my bill, H.R. 5750, the streamlining G.I. Bill Processing Act 
of 2020, which would require VA to modify their IT systems so a 
G.I. Bill student would be able to access their Certificate of 
Eligibility (COE) for G.I. Bill benefits online. The need to 
allow students to access their certificate of eligibility 
online has been brought to this subcommittee's attention by, 
again, the field hearings, staff, as well. We have had the 
regional hearings and we have also talked to the processing 
offices.
    Subcommittee staff was told that this has been a continual 
request from VA field staff, but the changes have 
understandably been delayed due to the Forever GI Bill IT 
updates. I am confident that while there are IT costs 
associated with making this change, my bill will end up saving 
the Government money in mailing and staff costs.
    Most importantly, this, functionally, would, again, provide 
better service to veterans who currently must call a hotline 
and wait on hold only to ask that a piece of paper be sent to 
them.
    I am also supportive of the bills that make changes to 
provisions of the Forever GI Bill, especially Leader McCarthy's 
bill on expanding access to the VET TEC pilot program, and 
Representative Barr's bill, to improve the STEM Scholarship.
    I am also supportive of Representative Bost's bill to 
address a loophole related to the G.I. Bill--the overpayments, 
as well as Representative Mueser's bill to provide service-
connected veterans an opportunity to receive a second grant to 
help provide funds to purchase an adaptive automobile.
    Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, as always, for including 
these and other bills on the agenda for today's hearing. I look 
forward for hearing from our colleagues and the panel about the 
bills before us today.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Levin. I thank the ranking member and always appreciate 
the opportunity to work together on the subcommittee in a 
spirit of bipartisan collaboration.
    Our last opening statement, certainly not our least, is 
from my friend from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan.
    Thank you for joining us.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF BEN RAY LUJAN

    Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Bilirakis 
for the opportunity to speak on my legislation, the Wage 
Adjustment for Veterans Enrolled in School Act, also known as 
the WAVES Act.
    I want to join each and every one of my colleagues of 
thanking the members of the panel for being here today, 
representing the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, Student 
Veterans of America, and Paralyzed Veterans of America. Thank 
you all for being here today.
    Congressman Jimmy Gomez and I introduced this legislation 
to provide a simple, but necessary fix to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Work Study allowance. Our legislation, which 
has bipartisan support, will ensure veterans, reservists, and 
their family members, are paid fairly for their work when using 
education benefits and the VA Work Study Program.
    Today, the program requires that student workers receive 
the State or Federal minimum wage, whichever is higher, but the 
law does not take into account that many local areas set their 
own minimum wage. As a result, there are 44 localities in 11 
states where student veterans are paid below the local minimum 
wage, 5 of which are in my home State of New Mexico. This just 
is not right. It does not make sense.
    Veterans, reservists and their families sacrifice for our 
country and I think we can all agree that when they return home 
to get an education, they should be paid fairly as part of this 
program.
    Mr. Chairman, my constituents are frustrated and we have 
heard from constituents across the country. How can student 
veterans afford to work in their school's veterans office when 
it pays less than any minimum wage job in town?
    That is what this, this comes down to. This is not a 
minimum wage issue. This is veteran-equality issue and there is 
a precedent.
    Students participating in the Department of Education's 
Federal Work Study programs are paid at least the Federal, 
State, or local minimum wage, whichever is higher. Veterans 
using the VA's Work Study Program deserve no less. We just want 
equity and parity hear.
    The VA Work Study Program is vital to the successful 
transitioning of veterans to civilian life. It gives them 
civilian job experience and a steady source of income while 
allowing them to remain in school and focus on their studies 
and take advantage of the VA Work Study Program.
    Let us ensure that veterans have the students that they 
deserve and that they have earned to build a successful future. 
It is time that Congress close this loophole and ensure student 
veterans are being paid fairly for their work.
    Thank you for considering the WAVES Act here today and I 
ask all my colleagues for their support and for our student 
veterans.
    Thank you very much and I yield back.
    Mr. Levin. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for 
joining us today. I appreciate all of my colleague's opening 
statements and their leadership on these issues.
    With that, it is my pleasure to introduce today's 
witnesses. First, we have Ms. Charmain Bogue, executive 
director for education services in the Veterans Benefits 
Administration (VBA).
    Nice to see you.
    Ms. Bogue is accompanied by Laurine Carson, deputy 
executive director for public policy and procedures--actually, 
policy and procedures in the compensation service at VBA.
    Thanks for being here.
    Next, we have a Patrick Murray, deputy director of the 
National Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
    Always good to see you.
    Next is John Kamin, assistant director of the National 
Veterans Employment and Education Division for The American 
Legion.
    Thanks for being here.
    Followed by Justin Monk, policy associate for the Student 
Veterans of America.
    Good to see you. Mr. Monk, I understand it is your first 
time testifying before Congress, so I welcome you to the 
subcommittee. It is great to have you here.
    Finally, we have Morgan Brown, national legislative 
director for the Paralyzed Veterans of America. He has an 
experienced subcommittee member by now.
    Thank you for being here.
    Thank you all for joining us today. As you know, you will 
have 5 minutes, but your full statement will be added to the 
record.
    With that, I now recognize Ms. Bogue for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF CHARMAIN BOGUE

    Ms. Bogue. Thank you.
    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and 
other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to be here today to discuss legislation pertaining 
to the programs and services offered by VA.
    Accompanying me today is Laurine Carson, deputy executive 
director of policy and procedures of Compensation Service.
    We are pleased to see several draft bills on the agenda 
that would make changes to VA's high-technology pilot program 
VET TEC. Since launching the program, we have issued more than 
7,000 certificates of eligibility.
    VA supports the proposed bills that would require VA to 
give preference to providers that offer tuition reimbursement 
to apprenticeship and Reserve members and expands eligibility 
to members of armed force on terminal leave.
    VA supports the intent, but has significant concerns with 
the draft bill that would expand eligibility to an individual 
who would become an eligible veteran within 180 days of VA 
making such a determination. VA would be happy to work with the 
committee staff in order to ensure that the bill is clear and 
accomplishes the desired intent.
    VA supports the draft bill to clarify certain eligibility 
requirements and expand eligibility for the Edith Nourse Rogers 
STEM Scholarship. Since launching the STEM program this past 
August, we have received more than 10,000 applications and 
awarded almost 800 scholarships.
    VA also supports legislation that would expand eligibility 
under the STEM Scholarship to certain individuals enrolled in a 
medical residency program; however, there appears to be an 
error in the bill. As written, the bill would grant eligibility 
to an individual who is earned a post-secondary degree in a 
STEM field and is enrolled in a program of education or medical 
residency program leading to a teaching certification.
    We interpret the intent to be to grant eligibility to 
individuals either enrolled in a program of education leading 
to a teaching certification or a medical residency program. VA 
requests that bill language be admitted to provide 
clarification.
    H.R. 5052 would change the definition of the term 
applicable hourly minimum wages to include the hourly minimum 
wage, under comparable law, of the local government. Provided 
that Congress appropriates necessary funding, VA supports this 
bill as it would ensure Work Study students receive the highest 
possible wage.
    Another bill would require VA to enter into a memorandum of 
understanding with the Department of Education and Internal 
Revenue Service that would require both agencies to provide VA 
with student outcomes. VA believes this bill is unnecessary, as 
it merely would codify existing requirements that were set 
forth in the Executive Order 13607 and does not impact VA's 
approval criteria.
    VA would need to establish a data-transfer connection and 
make modifications to our IT systems. This would take about 18 
months from enactment to implement this legislation.
    Provided that Congress appropriates the necessary funding, 
the VA supports the proposed bill that would require to VA to 
ensure that individuals entitled to VA education assistance are 
able to access an electronic version of their certificate of 
eligibility; however, VA estimates it would require 18 months 
to make these necessary changes.
    VA has a number of concerns with the draft bill which would 
require VA to treat for-profit schools that convert to non-
profit schools as for-profit schools for 10 years. It is 
unclear on what 10 years is considered the appropriate length 
of time, also the bill needs clearer language regarding who 
determines a school's profit status.
    The proposed class action bill would prohibit VA from 
making lump-sum payments prior to 7 days after the first day of 
a term or semester, unless VA provides a waiver. VA cannot 
support this bill, as drafted, due to the potential negative 
impact on G.I. Bill beneficiaries.
    VA does not support the bill that would require joint 
liability for overpayment, in cases involving transferred 
entitlement because it was make transferors solely liable for 
all overpayments, even those created by actions of the 
dependant under Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, such as a reduction in 
course load.
    The VA welcomes the opportunity to work with the committee 
to provide technical assistance.
    Another bill would reduce the loan fees paid by certain 
veterans who have been affected by a major natural disaster and 
are obtaining a new loan guaranteed or made by VA. VA supports 
enactment of this bill, subject to technical limits.
    Two bills on the agenda would make changes to VA's 
automobile allowance. VA would be happy to discuss our 
technical concerns with the committee.
    This concludes my testimony. We appreciate the opportunity 
to present our views on these bills and to answer any question 
the committee may have for us. Thank you.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Charmain Bogue Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Bogue.
    I would now like to 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 (VFW), I 
would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our 
views on these important pieces of legislation.
    For years, the VFW has had a resolution to amend VA's 
Automobile Grant for Disabled Veterans. The Automobile Grant 
Program is an incredibly valuable benefit that disabled 
veterans need to purchase or upgrade their vehicles; however, 
the grant is a one-time benefit and cannot be utilized again, 
no matter how many vehicles the veteran may purchase.
    The VFW supports the proposal to increase the number of 
times the VA's Automobile Grant Program can be utilized by 
disabled veterans. The Automobile Grant proposal seeks to 
increase eligibility for once every 10 years. The VFW feels 
this proposal is a step in the right direction; however, 
ultimately, the VFW would like to see VA's Automobile Grant 
Program available for veterans to use for each new lease or 
purchase or every 5 years, whichever comes first.
    With the rapid advancement of automobile efficiency and 
safety technology, the VFW feels disabled veterans should be 
able to utilize these grants in order to stay up with emerging 
automobile advancements.
    The VFW is a strong supporter of G.I. Bill Comparison Tool 
and supports this proposal to add information to this valuable 
platform. While the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool has important 
information for students on it, and it could always use more 
information, such as student loan debt and accurate graduation 
rates, the tool, itself, we feel, needs significant overhaul 
before it could be truly reliable.
    The current comparison tool and complaint system does not 
have the best current information about schools displayed on 
the tool. Old information and complaints exist on the tool and 
there is no formal process for removing negative information.
    Even if VA enters into multiple data-sharing agreements 
with other agencies, the G.I. Bill Comparison Tool will never 
be fully accurate unless there is a system in place to remove 
old data to ensure the most current information is the most 
accurate. In order to do this, the VFW recommends a thorough 
review of the entire comparison tool and proposes to overhaul 
the platform with proper IT resources in order to make the tool 
a living comparison tool that student veterans can rely on at 
any time.
    Regarding VET TEC, the VFW supports all three proposals to 
make changes and improvements for the Veterans Affairs high-
technology education pilot program, known as VET TEC. Expanding 
VET TEC eligibility for servicemembers still on active-duty, 
but on terminal leave, would hopefully decrease the number of 
veterans who face employment gaps after transitioning off of 
active service.
    Servicemembers are allowed to participate in certain 
employment training while in the SkillBridge program before 
separation and adding VET TEC to an option like that should 
benefit servicemembers looking for careers in high-technology 
jobs.
    The VFW also supports the change regarding employment 180 
days after VET TEC completion for Reserve-component personnel 
only if activations disrupt their path toward employment. We 
understand that an individual might have difficulty obtaining 
employment if they are being activated and we do not think a 
VET TEC program they participate in should be negatively marked 
because of involuntary orders; however, the VFW does not want 
to see this as the beginning to ease some of the success 
requirements of the overall VET TEC program.
    The entire pilot program is still very new and we need to 
be careful that changes such as these are made only if they are 
absolutely necessary for the veterans or for the 
servicemembers.
    Finally, VFW also supports the proposal to alter the 
requirements for students looking to participate in this 
program on a part-time basis. The VFW sees this as an important 
proposal for participation and views this solution as an 
opportunity for a larger discussion about veteran education and 
employment programs. Student veterans sometimes face challenges 
typical students traditional do not face while attending 
school.
    Large numbers of student veterans have families, are 
employed in some capacity, or are facing multiple other hurdles 
in default life that may not be realized yet for a lot of 
traditional 18-to-22-year-old students. Student veterans are 
largely non-traditional students who tackle school in a 
different way, including their class schedules and 
participation rates.
    We, veteran advocates, along with our friends at VA and 
Congress, have recognized for a while now that these student 
veterans are more often than not, a non-traditional student, 
yet we keep building education and employment programs based on 
traditional full-time models. Then, after feedback and 
discussion, these programs are frequently altered to allow for 
non-traditional students to partake in these programs.
    We think now is the time to look at all student veteran 
programs to begin the discussion about opening all of them to 
non-traditional students, particularly with an eye on part-time 
participation. We also suggest that any new programs should be 
built with at least non-traditional students in mind and 
possibly with the thought of these students in the forefront.
    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. I am 
prepared to take any questions you or the subcommittee members 
may have. Thank you.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Patrick Murray Appears In The 
Appendix]


    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Murray.
    I would now like to recognize Mr. Kamin for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JOHN KAMIN

    Mr. Kamin. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, 
Congressman Brindisi, on behalf of the national commander, Bill 
Oxford, and nearly 2 million members of The American Legion, we 
thank you for the opportunity to testify in this first 
legislative hearing of the year.
    Before addressing the pending legislation, we would like to 
extend a sincere thank you to Representative Susie Lee for 
helping to spearhead the passage of H.J. Res. 76 to overturn 
the Department of Education's 2019 borrower defense rule. We 
had one request when the rule was being created, which was to 
provide veterans group borrower relief in the case predatory 
schools like ITT and Corinthian, which categorically targeted 
veterans.
    When the rule did not include this, it enforced veterans to 
individually prove schools' misconduct, we had to stand up in 
opposition and we appreciate Representative Lee's leadership in 
look forward to taking this case to the Senate.
    Due to the allotted time available, I will briefly discuss 
two pieces of legislation and also go into a little bit about 
the VET TEC improvements. We will begin with the draft 
legislation that assigns the liability of a G.I. Bill 
overpayment from the dependant to the veteran who initially 
transferred the benefit.
    We believe this is an important distinction to make and 
like to illustrate how difficult this can be on families. The 
American Legion was recently made aware of a case of a 
servicemember who completed the transfer of G.I. Bill to his 
daughter with his chain of command sanction prior to discharge. 
His daughter then used the G.I. Bill for her fall and spring 
freshman semesters.
    Unbeknownst to her, VA determined that her father did not 
meet the eligibility to transfer his benefits, due to a 
technicality of service dates down to the month. As a result, 
VA revoked his daughter's G.I. Bill and sent a debt-collection 
notice for the previous fall and spring tuition. Before her 
eighteenth birthday, she owed tens of thousands of dollars to 
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    Problems with transferability for the G.I. Bill will remain 
as long as DOD administers a program in which VA holds the 
pursestrings. Unfortunately, some servicemembers will continue 
to be deprived for transferability that they have earned 
through service, due to technical misunderstandings between 
their chain of command and VA. These are problems we face 
today, but is unacceptable that such burdens be borne by our 
children. This draft bill would establish that veterans assume 
financial liability for G.I. Bill overpayments, instead of 
their dependants, which we believe is common sense.
    Another important piece of draft legislation defines the 
treatment by the VA of for-profit education institutions that 
convert to non-profit schools. The American Legion believes 
that all sectors of education should be held to a high standard 
of quality and administration, but agrees with the conventional 
understanding that precipitous failures and poor outcomes in 
the for-profit sector have warranted additional oversight 
protections.
    We have seen more than one case for the past 5 years of 
for-profit schools avoiding these oversights by converting to 
non-profit status. We do not believe that it is necessary to 
completely eliminate the ability for these types of conversions 
to happen, but it is prudent to increase oversight for an 
additional period of time.
    In an ideal environment, we would be in favor of 10 years 
of additional oversight; however, in the present condition, 
given the costs that oversight and the other Federal and State 
agency categorization--that means the creditors, Department of 
Education, IRS--request in the capability of maintaining this 
oversight for 10 years. Until a greater resource inventory can 
be calculated, we believe that a 5-year period of oversight is 
more practical.
    Finally, I would like to provide some brief remarks on the 
improvements proposed on both sides of the aisle regarding the 
VET-TEC program. First and foremost, the American Legion 
supports all of the VET-TEC improvement bills listed, and 
encourages the committees to keep working together with the VA 
to identify improvements that can be made to the program. We 
believe these improvements should have the effect of expanding 
eligibility pools, lowering red tape for employers, and 
increasing occupational pathways.
    We understand the concerns expressed about the program 
regarding quality controls. If it has not been clear over the 
past few years, quality controls are the No. 1 concern of the 
American Legion regarding the GI Bill.
    However, there are distinctions with VET-TEC that lower the 
priority of present oversight concerns for that specific 
program. No. 1, VET-TEC is employment driven. The GI Bill is 
not. With VET-TEC training, providers must prove that veterans 
have secured meaningful employment in prospective fields of 
study. That is not the case with the GI Bill, but it is 
arguably more important and more stringent criteria for 
technical pathways.
    With that in mind, there is a question of where traditional 
oversight measure for education would fit into it. Second, VET-
TEC is not entitlement. It is a pilot program. After 5 years, 
there is going to be an assessment period about whether or not 
the program warrants reauthorization or expansion. That is the 
time when prudent judgment calls should be made on program 
accountability and oversight. Until this completion, the 
American Legion leans more in favor of legislation that expands 
eligibility pools, lowers red tape, and increases occupational 
pathways.
    Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, Congressman 
Brindisi, thank you for the time, and I would be happy to 
answer any questions you have. Thank you.

    [The Prepared Statement Of John Kamin Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Kamin. I now recognize Mr. Monk 
for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTIN MONK

    Mr. Monk. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting Student 
Veterans of America (SVA) to submit our testimony on pending 
legislation before the subcommittee.
    With more than 1,500 on campus chapters, Student Veterans 
of America is committed to the empowerment of yesterday's 
warriors. Through a supportive network of chapter leaders, SVA 
works to transform the skills and experience of student 
veterans to ensure they achieve their greatest potential.
    We appreciate the opportunity to share our views on many of 
the bills, which will directly impact student veterans, their 
families, and survivors. While many of the proposed bills being 
discussed today are technical fixes or adjustments to existing 
benefits, many would require significant changes to the 
Department of Veteran Affairs existing IT infrastructure.
    In addition to considering the substance of these bills, we 
strongly encourage consideration of the requisite funding needs 
to ensure there is successful implementation. There are several 
topics I would like to cover and brief, and I look forward to 
any questions the subcommittee may have afterwards.
    The first item I would like to discuss is the VET-TEC 
program. Three of the draft bills propose improvements to the 
new pilot program for both individuals and program providers. 
Generally, SVA is supportive of efforts to expand and clarify 
language underlying veterans' programs. Obvious solutions, such 
as expanding the 180 day deadline after program completion for 
Reservists who are called up to active duty are welcome 
adjustments. However, we have concerns when the proposed 
adjustments weaken safeguards or seek to change the program 
before meaningful data can be gathered.
    In one instance, a draft bill removes the requirement that 
providers operate for at least 2 years before being approved. 
While we understand the desire to bring more providers into the 
program quickly, opening the door to unproven programs may 
cause more problems than solve. In light of Leader McCarthy's 
testimony, we would be open to discussions about ways to meet a 
need for approved providers expanding to satellite campuses 
without weakening the broader protection the 2-year requirement 
offers.
    We would also like to encourage Congress to take care when 
amending pilot programs. It stands to reason that there may be 
some common sense adjustments that need to be made following 
the enactment of these programs. However, doing so may 
introduce noise into the data set. We would encourage Congress 
to consider the impact of the results of a study before 
amending the pilot.
    The second item I would like to discuss is the non-profit 
conversion draft bill. Thanks to tireless advocacy from student 
and consumer rights groups, leaders in Congress, and a growing 
awareness by the public of predatory practices of some 
institutions, many of the worst providers in higher education 
have come under increased scrutiny in recent years.
    In response to this increased awareness and scrutiny, there 
is a worrying trend to proprietary institutions converting to 
non-profit status to avoid some of VA's requirements, while 
maintaining the same profit-seeking and predatory behavior.
    This draft bill addresses an important topic, and we 
appreciate this subcommittee's continued efforts to discuss 
this issue in open forums. We strongly support the bill's 
intent, largely out of recognition of the need for greater 
oversight of the conversion process, but also because in a 
vacuum, this bill would likely be a positive net change 
overall.
    Be that as it may, we believe this bill fails to address 
the root cause of the problem, which would be VA's general lack 
of authority to act on an institution's bad behavior. Other 
bills, including the recently House passed H.R. 4625 the 
Protect the G.I. Bill Act, provide broader authorities to VA, 
which allow them to act based on the wider context of an 
institutions misbehavior.
    It is important to note that some of the responsibility 
does not lie with VA or this subcommittee. Some of it rests at 
the feet of the Department of Education and the Internal 
Revenue Service. These agencies and the associated committees, 
must look at what is required of institutions that convert to 
non-profit status in a comprehensive manner.
    The last item I would like to discuss is the draft bill on 
Liability for Transferred Benefit Overpayments. Our full 
support of this bill hinges on recent discussions with 
subcommittee staff to limit the scope of these changes. The 
revised language should provide a solution to an unusual, but 
serious situation, which a dependent, typically a spouse, is 
held liable for a debt resulting from the transferring 
individual's failure to complete the required service agreement 
in order to transfer said benefits.
    As this debt is caused entirely from the behavior of the 
veteran, and the Dependent used the benefit in good faith, as 
well as cannot possibly fulfill the obligation themselves, the 
liability should rest wholly on the shoulders of the veterans.
    We would like to thank subcommittee staff for their 
willingness to listen to our concerns and revise the language 
to more accurately apply only to a specific subset of 
dependents.
    We would also like to recognize the overarching need for 
increased VA IT resources to enact many of the proposed 
solutions here today. We cannot pound on the table for change 
with our left hand, while our right withholds the money 
required to achieve it. We hope to work with this subcommittee 
and any relevant stakeholders to better meet the needs of 
student veterans and VA.
    Thank you for your time, attention, and devotion to the 
cause of veterans in higher education. I look forward to your 
questions.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Justin Monk Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Monk. You are now a pro at 
testifying. With that, I would like to recognize Mr. Brown for 
5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF MORGAN D. BROWN

    Mr. Brown. Thank you. Chairman Levin, Chairman Levin, 
Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the subcommittee, 
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for 
the opportunity to discuss views on pending legislation that 
impacts the Department of Veterans Affairs today.
    My written statement covers our positions on several bills, 
so I am going to limit my comments to the ones that directly 
affect our membership.
    Beginning with the discussion draft that would reduce home 
loan fees paid by certain veterans. This bill reduced fees paid 
by those affected by major disasters and allows a veteran's 
next home loan following the disaster to be treated as an 
initial loan.
    PVA wholeheartedly supports this effort to help veterans 
who have lost their homes to a natural disaster. We are 
particularly pleased that this committee is considering 
legislation that could help catastrophically disabled veterans 
meet their transportation needs.
    We thank Representatives Cisneros and Meuser for drafting 
the two pieces of legislation being considered today that allow 
eligible veterans to receive more than one automobile grant, so 
they can purchase reliable transportation that ensures their 
safety, maintains their independence, and helps them get to 
medical appointments.
    We would also like to recognize Mr. Meuser for his 
introduction yesterday of H.R. 5761, the Auto for Veterans Act, 
which also would provide a--it is a cleaner language providing 
an automobile grant for these veterans.
    We believe that the ideal legislation is similar to H.R. 
5761, that would aid veterans who receive their first grant 10 
years or more ago to receive a grant for a new automobile as 
soon as possible, and allow for additional grants after a 
requisite period has lapsed.
    We would be more than happy to work with Representatives 
Cisneros and Meuser, as well as the committee staff, to craft a 
single bill that captures the positive aspects of all of these 
bills into one.
    The rate of VA's current one-time grant for eligible 
veterans to purchase their initial vehicle is presently 
$21,488.29. Unfortunately, the cost to replace a modified 
vehicle is very high and the veteran bears much of this cost 
themselves.
    I want to give you a quick example. A PVA member bought a 
replacement vehicle late last year. They traded in their 
previous vehicle, which they bought in 2011 for $38,000. They 
received 14,000 in trade-in value toward the purchase of a new 
vehicle. The make and model that they purchased was very 
practical, and had a base sticker price of $33,000. They ended 
up spending around $49,000 with all of the add-ons, that 
included some of the modern assistive technologies that you see 
on TV When they subtracted the amount they received from the 
trade-in, as well as the adaptations that were reimbursable by 
VA, this catastrophically disabled veteran wound up paying 
about $32,000 out of their pocket toward this vehicle.
    Fortunately, they had the means to do so, but many of our 
members do not. These substantial costs, coupled with 
inflation, present a financial hardship for many veterans who 
need to replace their primary mode of transportation once it 
reaches the end of its serviceable life.
    Since vehicles do not last a person's lifetime, veterans 
should have the ability to purchase a vehicle once every 10 
years without having to shoulder the burden of the entire cost 
themselves.
    Another factor to consider as you deliberate, if more than 
one grant is warranted, is a veteran's physical condition. 
Younger veterans who are injured may retain or be able to 
recover a fair degree of their strength and mobility after the 
injury that makes them eligible for the grant program.
    A car may be suitable for these veterans at this point in 
their lives, but the reality is that eventually their physical 
condition will deteriorate and their transportation needs will 
change.
    There are safety aspects in the need for additional grants 
as well, because the high cost to procure replacement vehicles, 
many veterans retained vehicles well beyond the reliability 
point, which places them and those around them at risk, when 
the vehicle they are operating is unsafe or unreliable.
    If given the chance for a second or subsequent grant, 
veterans may be inclined to take advantage of some of that new 
assistive technology that is currently being developed with 
great regularity.
    In closing, we ask Congress to establish multiple 
automobile grants for veterans to use once every 10 years, 
equaling the current grant maximum in effect at the time of the 
vehicle replacement.
    We thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to express 
our views, and I welcome any follow-up questions you may have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Morgan D. Brown Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Appreciate your testimony 
and the testimony of all of our witnesses. With that, I would 
like to turn to the question portion of the hearing. I would 
like to recognize myself for 5 minutes to begin.
    I would like to start by again thanking Ranking Member 
Bilirakis for partnering with me to introduce the Streamlining 
G.I. Bill Processing Act, which I am glad each of today's 
witnesses support. Ms. Bogue, you noted that implementing this 
legislation would require modifying VA's existing IT systems. I 
just want to reiterate my commitment to you and to my 
colleagues to make sure that we do make those necessary 
investments in the VA's IT infrastructure to improve and to 
deliver benefits efficiently. Also looking forward to working 
with my colleague, Ms. Lee, who is here, who chairs the 
Technology Modernization Subcommittee.
    In your testimony, you mentioned that it could take 
approximately 18 months to provide electronic certificates of 
eligibility. As far as I know, and I have been to Muskogee, 
Oklahoma and taken the tour, and seen how some of this works, 
the date of who is eligible currently exists. The data of those 
eligible for those benefits in the data base. Why would it take 
18 months to increase the functionality to allow electronic 
copies of certificates when you already have all the data?
    Ms. Bogue. Thank you for that question. One aspect of that, 
it does include the acquisition process as well. We would need 
to make sure that we have a vendor in place in order to build 
in that functionality.
    The other aspect is the way that particular bill is 
written, it applies to all of our education programs. When you 
are talking all education programs, only the post-9/11 G.I. 
Bill is managed through the long term solution. All of the 
other education programs are managed in other systems across 
that space. There are 23 systems. You will need to be able to 
build the rules across those systems in order to feed into one 
avenue, in order to spit out that certificate of eligibility.
    Yes, you are correct. We have the information, but we will 
need to build the rules, and build that centralized source in 
order to spit out that certificate of eligibility for someone.
    I would also like to State that today we do provide 
something similar to the certificate of eligibility. It is 
called the statement of benefits. That is available on VA.gov 
for students. They can download that information today without 
calling us. They will be able to get the latest information of 
how much entitlement they have remaining associated with their 
education benefits.
    Mr. Levin. Appreciate that. If there is anything that we 
can do to work with you to try to speed that up, obviously I 
think it is in the interest of our veterans to get that 
certificate without delay. I look forward to working toward 
that.
    I wanted to shift gears to the for-profit conversions 
discussion draft. In your written testimony, you State, Ms. 
Bogue, that there is some ambiguity regarding when institutions 
convert from for-profit to non-profit, and that the Department 
of Education and IRS have different standards regarding when 
and how these institutions are classified. Would it be easier 
for VA to mirror the determinations of the Department of 
Education when determining an institution's for-profit or non-
profit status?
    Ms. Bogue. Thank you for that question. When it comes to--
we are still doing research in terms of which is the better 
option of IRS or Department of Education. We do know it is 
important to pick one as the authoritative source. We have seen 
in the past where there has been a definite conflict between 
the two agencies when it comes to the authoritative source.
    The other aspect that I want to pivot to as it relates to 
this particular bill, it does not change our compliance 
requirements as it relates to oversight for that 10-year 
period. Our compliance requirements are the same for for-profit 
schools and non-profit schools. There is nothing also in there 
as it relates to disapproval of a program if they are in 
violation of anything along the way during that process. There 
are some other aspects of this bill that we would like to be 
able to work with you and your staff on to get it to the place 
that you would like it to be.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you. I appreciate that. We look forward 
for the opportunity to do that and working with your team at 
the VA.
    Mr. Brown, in your testimony, you expressed a need for 
automobile adaptive equipment grants to be renewed every 10 
years. I appreciate that. Can you elaborate on the necessity 
for these adaptations in relation to a veteran's mobility and 
health as they age?
    Mr. Brown. Sure. Certainly. In fact, I would like to refer 
back to the individual that I spoke of that purchased the 
replacement vehicle, because he is actually an ideal example. 
He is currently confined to a wheelchair. He is a paraplegic. 
He has upper body strength, which allows him to get in and out 
of the vehicle. But because he is pulling himself up and into 
and out of the vehicle, as well as lifting the chair in and out 
of the vehicle, it ultimately will do damage to his shoulders 
and to other parts of his upper body. His strength will 
eventually diminish and he will not be able to do that, and 
that would force him to perhaps move into a vehicle with like a 
side entry.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Brown. That is a very good example of the type of 
condition that we are talking about.
    Mr. Levin. I appreciate that. I have just a couple more 
questions. I apologize to my colleagues. I have heard reports 
that accessing these grants can be cumbersome, since veterans 
must go through processes at both the Veterans Health 
Administration (VHA) and VBA. Can you speak to how long the 
process generally takes from submitting a claim until the 
installation of the adaptive equipment, and how quickly the 
invoices for vehicle adaptations are paid?
    Mr. Brown. It is true that both VHA and VBA are involved. 
That is by necessity because VHA will be the one that will 
actually determine that the condition exists. They are the 
initial certifying authority. From there, to just kind of 
quickly walk you through the steps, you would have eligibility. 
They would have to apply for the benefit. There would be a 
rating decision. They would notify the veteran. That would be 
VA's responsibility. There is processing. There is pain 
eligibility requirements issuing the certificate of 
eligibility, and then processing any disagreements that might 
arise as a result of this approval process.
    To speak to the exact timeframe, VA is probably in a better 
position to answer that question. I can tell you that in some 
cases, the veteran may dictate or determine how long that 
process is, because they may go through all of these steps and 
be approved for that automobile loan. Then they may not 
necessarily go out and purchase that vehicle right away.
    Mr. Levin. Fair enough. When VA updates its regulations on 
automobile adaptive equipment, what new technology would PVA 
like to see included on that list and why?
    Mr. Brown. It is true. They are in the process of updating 
the regulation and I understand as of yesterday that it could 
be forthcoming very soon. I think first and foremost, what I 
should note is that in terms of the list, and the items that 
are currently on the list, the one thing that we would 
absolutely want to make certain is the items that are currently 
there, that we would want them to remain there, and those items 
to remain reimbursable.
    I identified in my written statement two or three of the 
type of assistive technologies that we would recommend be 
added. The VA secretary does have the ability to add these 
items. It is pretty much what you see on TV now that would 
enable you to remain in your lane, to prevent you from running 
into another vehicle. Those types of technologies are certainly 
available and would----
    Mr. Levin. Thank you. My last question is for Mr. Murray, 
and this is regarding the Waves Act. As you know, this will 
allow VA to pay higher wages to students in the work study 
program. Can you elaborate on how this bill would impact your 
members who take on debt, going to school full time.
    Mr. Murray. With the work study program, a lot of what we 
have heard is the prompt payment and the processing are the 
issues. The issue of State wages, Federal wages, things like 
that versus work study, the only thing that we would caution is 
as was mentioned, there are states that have different 
municipality rates as well. If we would have gone back and 
rewound the tape 2 years ago and talked about changing Basic 
Allowance Housing (BAH) payments toward zipcodes, how it would 
sink VA's IT system, we probably would have laughed that off. 
There is no way that changing for zipcodes would crash their 
entire program.
    If we are going to now start paying different wages toward 
different municipality minimum wages, it is just something that 
we caution that going forward, that is kept in mind.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you for that. I have more questions, but 
we will have to end there for now. I would like to recognize 
Mr. Bilirakis, the ranking member.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Mr. 
Chairman.
    First of all, I want to ask the VA, Ms. Bogue, do you all 
plan to implement an electronic COE if this legislation does 
not pass? Even though I have confidence that it will pass.
    Ms. Bogue. Yes. Sorry, I did not mean to cut you off. Thank 
you.
    Basically, we can do this without legislation. It really is 
an IT change that needs to transpire. It is something that we 
were actually trying to go down that path prior to Colmery Act. 
It is still on our roadmap to do so.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Now, do you plan to do so?
    Ms. Bogue. Yes. Our plan is to do so.
    Mr. Bilirakis. When?
    Ms. Bogue. I do not have a timeframe, because right now we 
are still implementing the last stages of Colmery, as well as 
the retroactive piece for the monthly housing allowance 
changes. We are still in that process with Colmery. We do not 
have a timeline as it relates to implementing certificates of 
eligibility.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I recommend 
we still go forward with the legislation, just to be on the 
safe side. I appreciate that.
    Ms. Bogue. No problem.
    Mr. Bilirakis. In your written testimony, you voiced 
concerns with the current drafting of the bill to close the 
G.I. Bill loophole that changes the liability of education 
debts if a service member has transferred their G.I. Bill 
benefits but does not complete their service obligation. This 
question is for Ms. Bogue again.
    If the bill text was altered to clarify that the service 
member would only be eligible for all of her payments that were 
created solely because they did not complete the service 
obligation, as opposed to overpayments created by dropping a 
class, would VA support that change?
    Ms. Bogue. We would support that change. When we look at 
that particular program, we see that that is the No. 1 issue 
when it comes to our dependents is that the service member has 
not completed their service obligation time. Now that debt 
falls on the student.
    The law is actually silent right now on that issue, and we 
were trying to work with our general counsel on how to 
implement something by policy in order to transfer that debt to 
the service member versus the dependent.
    We would appreciate a statutory fix in order to make that 
clear.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Murray, please tell us 
more about why you believe we should ease some of the 
restrictions on those who can use the VET-TEC pilot and the 
legislation, of course, that the minority leader McCarthy spoke 
of this morning.
    Mr. Murray. Thank you, sir. The part-time participation we 
think is one of the biggest changes that can come along with 
this, because what we have recognized for years now that 
student veterans go back to school, they are doing so at 
different rates than the traditional student. We think that 
opening up different eligibility, different opportunities for 
the non-traditional student, for part-time students, for folks 
working, single parents, things like that, opening up all these 
programs for that student veteran. Especially because it turns 
out if you look at the numbers, that is actually the majority 
of them.
    Building and designing these programs for traditional 
Monday through Friday, 9 to 5, full-time students is not what 
the student veteran is. We think that this aligns the 
eligibility expansion with the population we are trying to hit.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Agreed. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Kamin, 
again from the Legion, can you please tell us why you believe 
the Class Evaluation Act could hurt schools who currently use 
the dual certification system?
    Mr. Kamin. Thank you, sir. Again, we do appreciate the 
intent of the program and oversight being a focus that we can 
collectively come up to some solutions on.
    What dual certification is before this semester even 
begins, I get the student's credits and I put that into the 
certification, but I leave the tuition blank. Then during the 
add/drop period, I can amend the tuition based on any--if there 
was any changes in credits to exactly what it is.
    This is a strategy that VA has endorsed. It is on their 
website and it poses it as a way to alleviate these 
overpayments. It is a way to distribute the workload so that 
you can, in advance of the semester, get a lot of the legwork 
done and are not scrambling 2 weeks into the semester to start 
from scratch.
    We worry that this act would eliminate that possibility and 
force school certifying officials 2 weeks into the middle of 
the first semester to certify everything all at once. 
Additionally, most schools begin 4 year programs in the last 
week of August. It might not seem like much, but that one or 2 
week period at BAH you get at the beginning of September 
matters a lot. If schools have to wait 2 weeks before doing it, 
that would effectively be eliminated in terms of that first 
increment of BAH.
    Again, we support the intent, but as long as dual 
certification is a best practice, we would like that to be 
maintained.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much. Yes, that is 
why we have you here. I appreciate what you are doing. You tell 
us how the veteran--how it truly impacts the veteran so that we 
can write good legislation to their benefits. Everyone has good 
intentions. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Levin. I thank the ranking member, and I would like to 
recognize Mr. Brindisi for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Brindisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 
Chairman and the ranking member for holding this hearing today. 
I would like to thank our witnesses for testifying. I think it 
is essential that we hear from our VSOs when considering 
legislation to help our Nation's veterans. Thank you all for 
being here.
    I would also like to thank Congressman Meuser for 
introducing the Advancing Uniform Transportation Opportunities 
for Veterans Act with me. Our bill will expand the VA's 
automobile grant program to allow eligible veterans to receive 
$20,000 or more in assistance every 10 years to replace their 
vehicles, which are often outdated with adaptive equipment.
    We believe this is a worthy program that assists veterans 
every year who have sacrificed so much for our country. These 
vehicles are adaptive equipment and are essential for these 
veterans to go to work, attend school, visit family, and 
maintain a life of mobility.
    Expanding this grant program to allow these veterans to 
replace their vehicle after a 10-year period to me is just 
common sense. Just a few brief questions.
    Mr. Brown, perhaps, can you speak more to the importance of 
this grant program and special adaptive equipment grants in 
helping veterans with disabilities?
    Mr. Brown. Sure. I think one of the most important things 
that we need to consider in regards to this legislation is that 
we have younger veterans who are injured. They have suffered a 
catastrophic injury, and they are confined to a wheelchair. 
They have transportation needs. It is going to be a lifetime. 
This is a lifetime event for them.
    Because they are younger, that means that they are going to 
have to replace that vehicle multiple times. The gentleman that 
I spoke of in my oral statement, that was his third vehicle 
since his injury. As conditions change, as to the adaptive 
technology changes in the vehicle, you can not continue to take 
older technology and apply it to a newer vehicle. At some 
point, you have to upgrade everything. That is a tremendous 
cost that is coming out of the pocket for these individuals for 
a service connected disability.
    I just believe that as a Nation, we should not be putting 
veterans into a position of financial hardship for a service 
connected disability that we really should be taking care of 
them for.
    Mr. Brindisi. Thank you, sir. Mr. Kamin, could you tell us 
what these grant programs can mean to a veteran with 
disabilities, getting to work or attending school.
    Mr. Kamin. Well, we think it is--when you look at schools 
right now, we have come a long way when it comes to disability 
support services and being able to be 508 compliant, and making 
sure facilities are met to meet the needs of traditional 
students with disabilities. There is an enormous chasm between 
what a traditional student's disabilities are and what a 
veteran's are.
    Often times, veterans come into schools with a full belief 
that this is a problem that I have. It is with the VA. The 
school has nothing to do with it. There is a lot of work that 
needs to be done to bridge that so that they can feel just as 
empowered as your traditional students coming with 
disabilities. At the very least, not having them have to take 
public transportation to go to their hospital for 
rehabilitative services.
    When I was at American University, a close friend of mine 
was in that case, where he would walk to the bus that would 
take him to Walter Reed from American University. We know that 
even though this is a minority of the overall disability 
population, that it matters--for student veterans.
    Mr. Brindisi. Thank you. Thank you all for being here 
again. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Brindisi. Now, I would like to 
recognize Mr. Meuser for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meuser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member for 
including my legislation in today's hearing. Thank you all very 
much. Very nice to see you.
    This legislation will increase----
    Mr. Levin. Mr. Meuser, microphone. Sorry.
    Mr. Meuser. My apologies, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Levin. No problem.
    Mr. Meuser. I will start from the beginning. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman and the ranking member, for including my legislation 
in today's hearing, which will increase access to the VA's 
automobile grant program.
    I certainly want to thank Mr. Brindisi very, very much and 
the PVA for leading this effort with me. The VA is, as you were 
just stating, Mr. Brown, the VA's auto grant is narrowly 
tailored, approximately 2,500 recipients likely, yet vitally 
important, extremely important, and will serve our country's 
most severely disabled veterans by providing them an allowance 
to purchase a new or used vehicle beyond the scope of the 
first. It certainly makes a lot of sense.
    Safe, reliable transportation is absolutely essential 
component to veterans leading healthy lives, getting to work, 
and interacting with the community, and getting to the Veterans 
Administration. I have discussions with our VAs. The one in my 
district, the Lebanon VA, who does the best job that they can, 
and the Wilkes-Barre VA, which is slightly outside my district, 
but I have thousands of veterans in my district that go there, 
and transportation is a problem that we continue to need to try 
to solve.
    Increasing this frequency to veterans to use this grant 
program will help ease a large financial burden for the 
vehicle, as well as any assistive devices, and continue to 
provide an important benefit for those most in need who have 
earned such benefits and our support.
    Mr. Brown, you pretty much just answered my first question, 
but this program has not evolved over 60 years, more or less, 
perhaps as long as that. Do you think that this is enough? Do 
you think that this bill will do the job necessary that will 
truly help thousands of veterans receive the funding they need 
to get the second car 10 years out?
    Mr. Brown. We do, sir. Just to kind of parlay a little bit 
onto your comment, a couple of your comments. At a minimum, 
your legislation addresses a key safety issue. It also 
addresses an important quality of life issue as well. Because 
the individuals, the majority of them that we are talking 
about, certainly the majority of the members that I represent, 
they can not afford--if they can not afford to modify or 
purchase another vehicle to modify, then they risk losing their 
independence. Then it becomes an issue of where you are talking 
about issues of isolation, and then potentially depression, and 
it is a downward spiral from there.
    Your legislation would provide, I believe, what our 
veterans need the most. That is real help, immediate help, and 
will keep them--preserve their independence and keep them on 
the road.
    Mr. Meuser. That is great.
    Mr. Brown. We thank you. Thank you and thank Representative 
Brindisi as well.
    Mr. Meuser. Thank you as well. I am very happy to be 
sponsoring and introducing this.
    Rural areas, clearly even high impact than more suburban 
and certainly city dwellings. It is important elsewhere. I am 
very, very, again, pleased to be introducing this legislation.
    What else can we do? What else would the Paralyzed Veterans 
of America feel, or any of you in my limited time here, what 
else can we do to make ease of access to work, to the 
community, to the VA, to society for our veterans?
    Mr. Brown. Well, your legislation opens the door, I think, 
for the first critical part, and that is to authorize the 
second grant. We still feel very strongly that vehicles should 
be replaced. They should be given the option to replace a 
vehicle at a certain period. Average wear out of a vehicle is 
about 11, 11 and a half years according to I guess you could 
say some Federal sources. The reason why we chose 10 is because 
much a vehicle's usable service life falls within that 
timeframe.
    There are potentially, as the chairman indicated, the 
possibility of including some of the modern assistive 
technologies that are available. I think that is a discussion 
that we need to have with VA, and perhaps when the new 
regulation comes out here in the very near future.
    Mr. Meuser. All right. Terrific. It is an honor to work 
with all of you, and it is certainly an honor to serve our 
veterans. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Meuser. With that, if there are 
no more questions, we can conclude this hearing.
    I want, again, to thank the ranking member and every member 
of the subcommittee, as well as the respective staff, for 
working together on this package of bills today in a continued 
spirit of bipartisan collaboration.
    I want to thank our witnesses for their expertise, and my 
other colleagues Leader McCarthy, Mr. Lujan for their interest 
as well.
    All members will have 5 legislative days to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material. Without 
objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

?

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


                         A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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


                    Prepared Statement of Witnesses

                              ----------                              


                  Prepared Statement of Charmain Bogue

    Good Morning Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members 
of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 
today to discuss 14 bills--11 on Veterans' educational assistance, 2 on 
VA's automobile allowance, and 1 on loan guaranty. Accompanying me 
today is Ms. Laurine Carson, Deputy Executive Director, Policy and 
Procedures, Compensation Service (VBA).

                         H.R. 5052 - WAVES Act

    H.R. 5052, the Wage Adjustment for Veterans Enrolled in School Act 
(WAVES), would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3485(a)(6) to change the 
definition of the term ``applicable hourly minimum wages'' for purposes 
of work-study allowance to include consideration of the hourly minimum 
wage under comparable law of the local government with jurisdiction 
over the area in which the work-study services are to be performed. 
Currently, the hourly minimum wage for the work-study allowance is the 
greater of the hourly minimum wage under section 6(a) of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. Sec.  206(a)) or the hourly minimum 
wage under comparable State law. Under the bill, a work-study student 
would receive an hourly minimum wage equal to the Federal, State, or 
local government minimum wage, whichever is greatest. The amendment 
would apply to a payment of work-study allowance made on or after 
January 1, 2021.
    Provided that Congress appropriates the necessary funding, VA 
supports the proposed legislation because it would ensure work-study 
students receive the highest possible wage available for the location 
in which they are providing services. VA cannot estimate costs 
associated with H.R. 5052 because limited data are readily available 
comparing Federal, State, and local government minimum wages.

                 Unnumbered Bill - Comparison Tool MOU

    This unnumbered bill would add a new paragraph (4) to 38 U.S.C. 
Sec.  3698(c) to require VA to enter into a memorandum of understanding 
with the Department of Education and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 
that would require both agencies to provide VA with student outcome 
information for students who are Veterans, members of the Armed Forces, 
or dependents of Veterans or members of the Armed Forces at educational 
institutions. The student outcome information would include the 
following: persistence rate; course and program completion rates; 
transfer-out rate; graduation rate; number of completed degrees and 
certificates; average number of years to complete a degree or 
certificate program; unemployment rates of graduates and of individuals 
who attended but did not complete a degree or certificate program; 
average salary for graduates; average salary for graduates with each 
major or certificate available at the institution; median amount of 
Federal student loans; and student loan default rate.
    In addition, this proposed bill would require VA to provide such 
student outcome information for each institution of higher learning, 
for the most recent academic year for which information is available, 
in the GI Bill Comparison Tool.
    VA believes this bill is unnecessary, as it merely would codify 
existing requirements that were set forth in Executive Order 13607, 
``Establishing Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions 
Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members.'' 
Recently, VA has implemented a Joint Higher Education Interagency 
Agreement with the Department of Defense, Department of Education, and 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in response to the executive 
order. This agreement enables VA and the other signatories to leverage 
decision support tools created by each agency in an effort to ensure 
educational institutions are transparent about financial costs and 
performance outcomes and that quality academic and student support 
services are provided to military and Veteran students in accordance 
with E.O. 13607. While VA already collects certain student outcome 
information on veterans, we still are in the beginning stages of 
coordinating this with other agencies to determine what matching data 
is possible. Based on previous experience, the Department of Labor is a 
critical partner in such agreements as it provides valuable information 
regarding things such as unemployment rates of graduates and of 
individuals who attended but did not complete a degree or certificate 
program.
    VA would need to establish a data transfer connection with IRS in 
order to receive the required student outcome data. VA would also need 
to make modifications to the VA-Online Certification of Enrollment and 
Web Enabled Approval Management computer systems. VA estimates that it 
would require 18 to 24 months from the date of enactment to make the 
information technology (IT) changes necessary to implement the proposed 
legislation, pending funding availability. No mandatory or VBA General 
Operating Expenses (GOE) costs are associated with this unnumbered 
bill. However, VA estimates IT costs to be $8 million. Implementation 
also may result in costs to other agencies that we are not able to 
estimate.

     Unnumbered Bill - Availability of Electronic Certificates of 
                              Eligibility

    This unnumbered bill would require that, not later than August 1, 
2021, VA ensure that any person who is entitled to educational 
assistance under chapter 30, 33, or 35 of title 38, U.S.C., or section 
1606 of title 10, U.S.C., is able to access an electronic version of 
the certificate of eligibility showing the person's entitlement to such 
assistance.
    Provided that Congress appropriates the necessary funding, VA 
supports the proposed legislation as it would give all VA education 
beneficiaries access to their eligibility and entitlement information 
in an electronic format. However, VA would have to make modifications 
to its existing IT systems to implement this proposed legislation. Due 
to competing priorities in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 and a lack of a 
contract vehicle, VA estimates that it would require 18 months from the 
date of enactment to make the IT changes necessary to implement the 
proposed legislation, pending funding availability. No mandatory or VBA 
GOE costs are associated with this unnumbered bill. However, VA 
estimates IT costs to be $15 million.

         Unnumbered Bill - For-Profit Conversion to Non-Profit

    This unnumbered bill would add a new 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3699B that 
would require VA to treat for-profit educational institutions that 
convert to non-profit educational institutions as for-profit 
educational institutions for 10 years after the date the educational 
institution is converted. This provision would be effective on the date 
of enactment but would apply to conversions that occurred on or after 
January 1, 2016.
    VA has a number of concerns with this proposal. First, it is 
unclear on what basis 10 years is considered the appropriate length of 
time before an institution can be considered a non-profit after 
converting from a for-profit status. Second, the bill needs clearer 
language regarding who determines a school's profit status. Currently, 
both IRS and the Department of Education independently make 
determinations regarding a school's for-profit status. There have been 
several recent occasions when IRS and the Department of Education 
disagree over a school's status. For example, in 2018, Grand Canyon 
University (GCU) (a for-profit school) completed a sale and 
restructuring transaction with Gazelle University (a non-profit 
corporation). Notwithstanding Gazelle's nonprofit 501(c) status with 
IRS, the Department of Education determined that GCU would continue to 
be considered a for-profit educational institution for the purposes of 
its continued participation in the Title IV, Higher Education Act 
Programs (i.e., Federal financial student aid). The bill is unclear as 
to which agency's - IRS's or the Department of Education's - 
adjudication of ``profit status'' would be determinative for purposes 
of determining profit status under the bill.
    Additionally, the bill pegs the transitional period as beginning on 
``the date the educational institution is so converted.'' However, it 
is unclear to what action or decision this corresponds. The date the 
educational institution considers itself ``converted'' (i.e., the date 
of the business transactions that may accompany a conversion) may be 
different from the date of any adjudicative decisions by either IRS or 
the Department of Education. VA is available to provide technical 
assistance to ensure that the proposed bill is clear and accomplishes 
the desired result.
    Last, VA would need to update its IT systems and processes to 
gather and track information on each school that converts from a for-
profit educational institution to a non-profit educational institution. 
Because the proposed change would be effective on or after January 1, 
2016, VA would have to manually identify and account for these schools 
until an automated tracking system is available. No mandatory or 
discretionary costs are associated with this unnumbered bill.

 Unnumbered Bill - Reducing Loan Fees for Certain Veterans Affected by 
                            Major Disasters

    This unnumbered bill would reduce the loan fees paid by certain 
Veterans who have been affected by a major disaster and are obtaining a 
new loan guaranteed or made by VA. Specifically, if a Veteran has 
obtained a loan guaranteed under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3710 or a loan made 
under section 3711, and the dwelling securing such loan is 
substantially destroyed or damaged by a major disaster declared by the 
President under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act, VA would be required to treat as an 
initial loan the next loan VA guarantees or makes to such veteran. VA 
supports enactment of the bill subject to the recommended technical 
amendments discussed below and subject to Congress identifying 
appropriate cost offsets for the increased benefits costs, if 
significant.
    Prior to obtaining a chapter 37 loan, non-exempt \1\ Veterans must 
pay a statutory loan fee under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3729. Under section 
3729(b), the loan fee amount is expressed as a percentage of the total 
loan amount. The loan fee table set forth by section 3729(b)(2) lists 
the requisite percentages according to loan type, closing date, amount 
of down payment, nature of service, and whether a loan is an ``initial 
loan'' or a ``subsequent loan.'' Section 3729(b)(4)(D) defines an 
``initial loan'' as a chapter 37 loan ``to a Veteran...if the Veteran 
has never obtained'' such a loan. (Emphasis added.) Section 
3729(b)(4)(E) defines a ``subsequent loan'' as a chapter 37 loan ``to a 
Veteran...if the Veteran has previously obtained'' such a loan. 
(Emphasis added.) For example, under the current statute, a non-exempt, 
active-duty Veteran, who closes on a VA-guaranteed purchase loan, with 
no down payment, on or after January 1, 2020, would need to pay a 2.30 
percent loan fee for an ``initial loan'' or a 3.60 percent loan fee for 
a ``subsequent loan.'' If the total amount of the loan was $200,000, 
such a Veteran would pay a $4,600 loan fee for an ``initial loan'' or 
$7,200 for a ``subsequent loan,'' a difference of $2,600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Under section 3729(c), certain Veterans are exempt from the 
loan fee, e.g., a Veteran who is receiving compensation for a service-
connected disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the current statutory definitions of ``initial loan'' and 
``subsequent loan,'' VA must collect the higher ``subsequent loan'' fee 
from all non-exempt Veterans obtaining, for example, their ``next'' VA-
guaranteed loan, i.e., the next loan such a Veteran obtains where the 
prior VA-guaranteed loan was secured by a home that was substantially 
damaged or destroyed by a major disaster. This loan fee framework does 
not align with VA's effort to ease financial burdens for Veterans who 
have been affected by major disasters. For example, under 38 U.S.C. 
Sec.  3702(b), VA can disregard a Veteran's prior use of loan guaranty 
entitlement for purposes of determining the aggregate amount of 
entitlement available if the Veteran's property is destroyed by fire or 
other natural hazard, and VA is given broad discretion to restore a 
Veteran's entitlement one time, if the VA determines circumstances 
warrant (e.g., a disaster). This can help increase the likelihood that 
such Veterans can obtain additional VA-guaranteed loans, in larger 
amounts, perhaps without having to make a down payment. Also, VA has 
discretion under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3703(d)(3)(A) to allow for a 
guaranteed loan to be subordinated to a superior lien created by a 
covenant in favor of a public entity that has or will provide 
assistance in response to a Presidentially declared major disaster. 
Additionally, under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3720(f), whenever such a disaster 
causes loss, destruction, or damage to a property securing a chapter 37 
loan, VA provides counseling and other services to Veterans, e.g., 
helping such Veterans obtain disaster assistance from Federal, State, 
and local agencies. Under section 3720(f), VA can also extend other 
forms of disaster assistance on a case-by-case basis, e.g., forbearance 
relating to a direct loan. VA does not, however, have authority to 
treat a ``subsequent loan'' as an ``initial loan'' for determining loan 
fees in disaster cases.
    The bill, if enacted, would ensure that Veterans are not required 
to pay a higher loan fee in replacing a home that was substantially 
damaged or destroyed by a major disaster. Whether an affected Veteran 
rebuilds an affected home or chooses to relocate due to the trauma of a 
major disaster, this bill, if enacted, could help Veterans ``reset'' 
their home loan guaranty benefit at a difficult time in their lives. 
The current version of 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3729(b)(4)(D) defines an 
``initial loan'' as a chapter 37 loan ``to a Veteran...if the Veteran 
has never obtained'' such a loan. The bill would, in part, create two 
new clauses in subparagraph (D). Proposed subparagraph (D)(i) would 
retain the current definition of ``initial loan.'' Proposed 
subparagraph (D)(ii) would require VA, in cases where a Veteran's home 
secured a prior chapter 37 loan and such home was ``substantially 
damaged or destroyed'' by a Presidentially declared major disaster, to 
``treat as an initial loan[as described in proposed subparagraph 
(D)(i)], the next [chapter 37] loan the Secretary guarantees or makes 
to such Veteran.'' The bill would also amend the current definition of 
``subsequent loan'' set forth by section 3729(b)(4)(E). Current 
subparagraph (E) defines a ``subsequent loan'' as a chapter 37 loan 
``to a Veteran...if the Veteran has previously obtained'' such a loan. 
The bill would amend subparagraph (E) to define a ``subsequent loan'' 
as a chapter 37 loan ``to a Veteran...that is not an initial loan.''
    While supportive of Congress's intent, VA notes that the bill, as 
drafted, may inadvertently provide windfalls to Veterans who may not 
need disaster relief. For example, proposed section 3729(b)(4)(D)(ii) 
would allow for a reduced loan fee in the case of a Veteran (i) whose 
home was destroyed in a major disaster; (ii) who rebuilt the home using 
insurance proceeds; (iii) who continued to repay an existing VA-
guaranteed loan; and (iv) who, many years after the disaster, sold the 
home, and purchased a new home with a VA-guaranteed loan. In this 
example, under the current bill text, the Veteran would pay the 
``initial loan'' fee for the next loan even though the Veteran received 
an insurance payment shortly after the disaster and moved out of the 
home long after the disaster.
    To address this concern, VA recommends an edit to proposed section 
3729(b)(4)(D)(ii) that would limit the loan fee disaster relief to 
cases where a Veteran obtains a next chapter 37 loan not later than 3 
years from the date that the Veteran's dwelling was substantially 
damaged or destroyed. In recommending a 3-year timeframe, VA recognizes 
that a Veteran will need time to assess an affected property and 
consider all recovery options. Insurance data reveal that the average 
recovery period for 11 major hurricanes that occurred between 2000 and 
2018 was 10.7 months. However, this period varied widely depending on 
the storm.\2\ Furthermore, experts have estimated longer recovery 
periods for more recent storms.\3\ As such, VA recommends providing 
Veterans with a 3-year recovery period to ensure that Veterans have 
ample time to consider all options and, perhaps, to take advantage of a 
reduced funding fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ BuildFax U.S. Hurricane Recovery Report Reveals a Nearly 25 
Percent Increase in Preventative Upgrades to Properties in 2018, 
BusinessWire (Mar. 27, 2019), available at https://
www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190327005152/en/BuildFax-U.S.-
Hurricane-Recovery-Report-Reveals-25.
    \3\ The Recovery Timelines for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, Inman 
(Oct. 9, 2017), available at https://www.inman.com/2017/10/09/the-
recovery-timelines-for-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to setting a timeframe in which a Veteran could receive 
disaster relief relating to the loan fee, VA also recommends 
prohibiting such relief in connection with certain refinance loans. VA 
understands that the purpose of this bill is to enable Veterans to 
repair a damaged home or to construct a new home, without having to pay 
an increased loan fee. The bill, as currently drafted, could be 
construed to allow for certain Veterans to obtain, for example, a VA-
guaranteed cash-out refinance loan, at the lower loan fee rate, without 
any requirement that the Veteran use the cash proceeds to repair or 
construct a home.
    VA welcomes the opportunity work with the Committee to provide 
technical assistance relating to this bill. Due to several constraints 
relating to disaster forecast data, VA is unable to provide costs at 
this time.

           Unnumbered Bill - STEM Clarification and Expansion

    This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3320, governing 
the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship (STEM Scholarship) Program, to 
clarify that individuals enrolled in a dual post-secondary degree 
program as well as individuals enrolled in a standard post-secondary 
degree program are eligible for STEM Scholarship benefits. The bill 
would also extend eligibility for STEM Scholarship benefits to 
individuals who have earned a post-secondary degree in a STEM field and 
are enrolled in a nursing residence program. The bill would eliminate 
VA's current authority to extend eligibility for STEM Scholarship 
benefits to individuals enrolled in undergraduate medical residency 
programs and clarify that an individual enrolled in a medical residency 
program must have already completed a graduate degree program in a STEM 
field to be eligible.

    VA supports the proposed legislation to clarify certain eligibility 
requirements and expand eligibility for the STEM Scholarship. No 
mandatory or discretionary costs are associated.

                   Unnumbered Bill - STEM Improvement

    This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3320(b)(4)(B) to 
expand eligibility under the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship 
program to individuals who have earned a post-secondary degree in a 
STEM field and are enrolled in either a program of education or a 
medical residency program leading to a teacher certification. 
Currently, the Rogers STEM Scholarship is available for individuals who 
are enrolled in a STEM degree program and have completed 60 semester 
(or 90 quarter) credit hours or have earned a STEM degree and are 
enrolled in a program of education leading to a teaching certification.
    The bill would also amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3320(c) to change how VA 
prioritizes and selects individuals who can receive additional funds. 
Currently, priority is given to individuals who are entitled to 100 
percent of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits and those who need the most 
credit hours. The bill would allow VA to determine the priority for 
eligible individuals if VA determines there are insufficient funds 
available in a Fiscal Year to provide additional benefits to all 
eligible individuals.
    Finally, this bill would add a new paragraph (4) to 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3320(d) to ensure that individuals who receive benefits under the Edith 
Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship are not subject to the months of 
entitlement limitations under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3695.
    VA supports legislation that would expand eligibility under the 
Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship to certain individuals enrolled in 
a medical residency program; however, there appears to be an error in 
the proposed draft language that would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3320(b)(4)(B). As written, the bill would grant eligibility to an 
individual who has earned a post-secondary degree in a STEM field and 
is enrolled in a ``program of education or a medical residency program 
leading to a teaching certification.'' However, since medical 
residencies do not lead to teaching certification, we interpret the 
intent to be to grant eligibility to individuals either enrolled in a 
program of education leading to a teaching certification or a medical 
residency program. VA requests the bill language be amended to provide 
clarification if this is, indeed, the desired intent.
    VA has no issues with the proposed changes to how individuals would 
be prioritized. However, legislation is not needed for prioritization. 
We awarded the first Rogers STEM Scholarships in November 2019. 
Currently, VA is using a Prioritized Matrix (Job Aid) that has all the 
rules for prioritizing individuals based on the current law. VA reviews 
this matrix quarterly since VA has not reached the funding limitation 
threshold. VA will continue to accept applications and award 
scholarships in January, March, July, and October 2020.

                 Unnumbered Bill - Class Evaluation Act

    This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3313(d)(1) to 
limit when VA can issue payment of educational assistance for pursuing 
an approved program of education, other than an amount payable for 
pursuing a program of education exclusively by correspondence. 
Specifically, it would prohibit VA from making a lump sum payment prior 
to 7 days after the first day of the quarter, semester, or term, unless 
VA provides for a waiver. Additionally, it would prohibit VA from 
making a payment if an individual withdraws during the first 10 days of 
the quarter, semester, or term.
    The bill would also add a new subsection (f) to 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3679 that would require the Secretary or the State Approving Agency to 
disapprove a course of education unless the educational institution 
providing the course of education agrees not to charge any individual 
entitled to educational assistance under chapter 31 or 33 a late 
payment fee due to the timing of the payments under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3313(d)(1). The amendments made by the bill would apply to a quarter, 
semester, or term that begins on or after the date that is 1 year after 
the date of enactment.
    VA cannot support this bill, as currently drafted, due to the 
potential negative impact on GI Bill beneficiaries. While the proposed 
changes could possibly decrease some overpayments and debts owed to VA, 
we believe such changes would merely shift the tuition and fee debt to 
the student, as certain schools would still require payment for the 
period of a student's enrollment and the student would owe the school.
    VA also notes other significant concerns with the bill as drafted. 
First, the proposed change to section 3313(d)(1) would require VA to 
issue all payments (tuition and fees, monthly housing stipend, books, 
and supplies, etc.) under section 3313 for approved programs, other 
than correspondence programs, for the entire quarter, semester, or 
term, as applicable. Currently, VA issues certain payments, such as 
housing payments under section 3313(d)(2), on a monthly basis. This 
bill would conflict with VA's practice in this regard.
    Second, the bill would require that VA not make payment for tuition 
and fees if an individual withdraws from a program of education during 
the first 10 days of the quarter, semester, or term. As drafted, it is 
clear that VA should not pay retroactive benefits for individuals if 
they withdraw during the first 10 days of the term and benefits have 
not yet been paid. However, VA notes that it is unclear how the 
statutory provisions in 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3680(a), which are generally 
applicable to benefit payments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and this 
bill would interact. Specifically, the bill is arguably inconsistent 
with section 3680(a)(1)(C), which creates an exception to the general 
prohibition on payment for withdrawals (regardless of timing) if 
mitigating circumstances exist. Section 3680(a)(1)(C)(ii) dictates that 
mitigating circumstances shall be considered to exist for initial 
withdrawals from courses totaling not more than 6 semester hours.
    Third, the bill would require VA or the State Approving Agency to 
disapprove a course unless the educational institution agrees to not 
charge a chapter 31 or 33 beneficiary a late payment fee by reason of 
the timing of payments under section 3313(d)(1). This provision appears 
to overlap with section 3679(e)(1)(B), which prevents an educational 
institution from imposing any penalty, including the assessment of late 
fees, the denial of access to classes, libraries, or other 
institutional facilities, or the requirement that the covered 
individual borrow additional funds due to the inability to meet his or 
her financial obligations to the institution, as a result of delayed 
payments for educational assistance from VA under chapter 31 or 33. 
Section 3679(e)(1)(A) allows a State Approving Agency or VA (when 
acting in the role of the State Approving Agency) to disapprove certain 
courses of education unless the educational institution puts a policy 
in place that allows an individual to attend or participate in a course 
of education if the individual provides a certificate of eligibility 
for entitlement to educational assistance under chapter 31 or 33. The 
policy must permit any covered individual to attend the course of 
education beginning on the date the individual provides a certificate 
of eligibility until the earlier of the date VA provides payment to the 
educational institution or 90 days after the date the educational 
institution certifies for tuition and fees following receipt of the 
certificate of eligibility from the individual.
    Finally, VA's Post-9/11 GI Bill claims processing system, the Long-
Term Solution, is currently programmed to release awards for tuition 
and fees no earlier than 14 days prior to the beginning of an 
enrollment period. As such, VA would need to modify the Long-Term 
Solution business rules and apply a blended set of rules to prevent the 
release of a tuition and fee payment prior to 7 days after the 
beginning of the term and ensure that tuition and fee payments are not 
released in the event an individual withdraws from a program of 
education during the first 10 days of the term. The bill would give VA 
1 year to implement these major changes that would apply to most Post-
9/11 GI Bill claims. VA would need 18 months from the date of enactment 
of the proposed legislation to complete these modifications.

   Unnumbered Bill - Sole Liability in Transfer of Entitlement Cases

    The unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3319(i)(1), 
regarding liability for overpayments in cases of transferred 
entitlement, to remove joint liability for overpayments. Currently, a 
Servicemember or Veteran (transferor) and his or her designated 
dependent (transferee) are held jointly liable for overpayments of 
Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance when a transferor transfers 
unused education benefits to a dependent. The amendments would impose 
on the transferor sole liability for any overpayment of educational 
assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
    VA does not support the bill as drafted because it would make 
transferors solely liable for all overpayments created by their 
dependents under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Under the bill as drafted, VA 
would be required to establish debts for tuition and fees, monthly 
housing allowances, and books and supplies payments against the 
transferor for changes in enrollment made by their dependents. VA does 
not believe that it is reasonable to hold the transferor solely liable 
for debts resulting from somebody else's actions, which may be outside 
of the transferor's control. Additionally, schools are required to 
refund tuition and fee payments to the student in accordance with their 
established refund policies. VA has no authority to require schools to 
refund payments to the transferor, and schools may well be prohibited 
from making refunds to parents or spouses of students. We believe that 
it would be easier for a dependent to resolve overpayments caused by a 
change in enrollment.
    VA also has concerns that the proposed legislation does not address 
section 3319(l), which allows an eligible dependent to transfer 
entitlement to another eligible dependent if the transferor dies before 
the transferred entitlement has been used. The draft legislation does 
not include language regarding whether or how VA should apply section 
3319(l) and assign debts when the transferor (Servicemember or Veteran) 
has passed away. No mandatory or discretionary costs are associated 
with this unnumbered bill.

     Unnumbered Bill - VET-TEC Apprenticeships and Reserve Members

    The unnumbered bill would amend section 116 of the Harry W. Colmery 
Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017, P.L. 115-48 (Colmery Act), 
requiring the establishment of a high technology pilot program (VET-
TEC). When offering contracts to providers of high technology programs 
while establishing the VET-TEC program, VA is required to give 
preference to providers that offer tuition reimbursement for students 
who complete a program and do not find meaningful employment in the 
field of study of the program within 180 days of completion of the 
program. This bill would also require VA to give preference to 
providers that offer tuition reimbursement for students who complete an 
apprenticeship program and do not find meaningful employment in the 
field of study of the program within 180 days of completing the 
apprenticeship and to providers that offer tuition reimbursement for 
reserve component members who serve on active duty during the 180-day 
period following completion of a program and do not find meaningful 
employment in the field of study of the program within 180 days of 
completing a program plus the number of days the reserve member served 
on active duty during the 180 day period.
    VA supports the proposed legislation, which would expand the 
preference for qualified providers that offer tuition reimbursement and 
certain VET-TEC students, thereby providing expanded safeguards to 
program participants. No mandatory or discretionary costs are 
associated with this unnumbered bill.

        Draft VET-TEC Terminal Leave from the Armed Forces Bill

    The bill would amend section 116 of the Colmery Act, requiring the 
establishment of the VET-TEC program, to expand eligibility for the 
VET-TEC program to members of the Armed Forces on terminal leave who 
are entitled to educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 30, 32, 
33, 34, or 35 or 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606 or 1607. Under the draft 
legislation, members of the Armed Forces who are eligible for the VET-
TEC program would not qualify for a housing stipend while in receipt of 
the basic allowance for housing from the Department of Defense. In 
offering contracts to providers of high technology programs, VA is 
required to give preference to providers that offer tuition 
reimbursement for students who complete a program and do not find 
meaningful employment in the field of study of the program within 180 
days of completion of the program. In the case of VET-TEC participants 
who were members of the Armed Forces on terminal leave who are serving 
on active duty when they complete a program, this bill would require VA 
to give preference to providers who offer tuition reimbursement for 
these VET-TEC participants if they do not find meaningful employment in 
the field of study of the program within 180 days of discharge or 
separation from active duty.
    VA supports the proposed legislation. However, VA would need to 
work with the Department of Defense to establish a data feed to provide 
the additional information that would allow VA to identify individuals 
on terminal leave or individuals who are in receipt of a basic 
allowance for housing from the Department of Defense. Currently, VA 
receives military service data and eligibility information from the 
Department of Defense for determining a Servicemember's and Veteran's 
eligibility for VA educational assistance; however, these data do not 
include the information necessary to implement the changes proposed by 
the draft legislation. No mandatory or discretionary costs are 
associated with this draft bill.

               Unnumbered Bill - VET-TEC Improvement Act

    This unnumbered bill would amend section 116 of the Colmery Act to 
expand eligibility for the VET-TEC program to an individual who VA 
determines will become an eligible Veteran within 180 days of VA making 
that determination. The individual, however, would not qualify for a 
housing stipend under the VET-TEC program prior to becoming an eligible 
Veteran.
    The proposed legislation would also eliminate the requirement for a 
qualified provider to be operational for at least 2 years; expand the 
definition of a high technology program of education to include a part-
time program shorter than 6 months in duration; and exclude enrollment 
in the VET-TEC program for purposes of the limitation on period of 
assistance under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3695.
    VA supports the intent of the draft legislation to provide 
eligibility to transitioning Servicemembers and accelerate the 
transition process, but we have significant concerns. First, the bill 
would expand eligibility to the VET-TEC program by requiring VA to 
treat an individual as an eligible Veteran if VA determines that the 
individual shall become an eligible Veteran fewer than 180 days after 
the date of such determination. The draft language does not specify 
what should happen if the individual fails to become an eligible 
Veteran within 180 days for any number reasons, including separation 
with a less than fully honorable character of service, extension of 
active duty orders, or reenlistment.
    It is unclear if VA would lose the authority to make any future 
payments to the beneficiary or the school, or whether past tuition 
payments would become debts against the beneficiary, the school, or 
neither. Also, if VA were to lose the authority to make future 
payments, it would prevent the training provider from receiving full 
reimbursement for tuition and fee charges through no fault of its own; 
especially in the case of an individual continuing to serve on active 
duty who may not be available for full-time employment in the field of 
study in the foreseeable future. VA would be happy to work with 
committee staff in order to ensure that the proposed legislation is 
clear and accomplishes the desired intent.
    Second, VA is not aware of any issues regarding the requirement for 
qualified providers to be operational for at least 2 years. By removing 
this requirement, providers without a proven track record could apply 
and be accepted as approved providers which may result in a heightened 
risk to Veterans' learning and employment opportunities because of 
financial instability resulting in school closure or a bad reputation 
due to subpar or inconsistent performance.
    Precluding VA from considering enrollment in the VET-TEC program as 
assistance under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3695 is unnecessary because the VET-
TEC program is not one of the programs listed in that section and, 
accordingly, VA does not charge a Veteran's entitlement for 
participation in the VET-TEC program. No mandatory or discretionary 
costs are associated with this unnumbered bill.

             Unnumbered Bill - Second Automobile Allowance

    This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3903 to authorize 
VA to provide an eligible person with a second automobile or other 
conveyance if 10 years have elapsed since the date on which the 
eligible person received his or her first such automobile or conveyance 
or assistance under chapter 39, and such date was after January 1, 
2014.
    VA does not object to the proposal to provide eligible service-
disabled Veterans with a second automobile or other conveyance assuming 
Congress appropriates the necessary funding for this provision. 
Currently, the law only allows Veterans to receive a second automobile 
or conveyance if the vehicle is destroyed as a result of a natural 
disaster or other disaster, as determined by the Secretary, and the 
Veteran does not otherwise receive compensation for the loss from a 
property insurer. Under the bill, all eligible Veterans who received 
their first allowance after January 1, 2014, would be allowed to 
receive a second automobile allowance if 10 years have elapsed since 
receipt of their first allowance.
    According to IHS Markit Company, the average age of light vehicles 
in the United States in 2019 was 11.8 years.\4\ When considering the 
average age of vehicles in the United States and the significant level 
of disability experienced by Veterans who qualify for this allowance, 
VA considers this proposal as fair and equitable. Mandatory costs 
associated with this unnumbered bill are estimated to be $0 in 2021, 
$98.7 million over 5 years, and $387.4 million over 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 2018-19: IHS Markit Co., Average Age of Cars and Light Trucks 
in U.S. Rises Again in 2019 to 11.8 Years, IHS Markit Says, available 
at https://news.ihsmarkit.com/press-release/automotive/average-age-
cars-and-light-trucks-us-rises-again-2019-118-years-ihs-markit-as of 
Sep. 17, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Unnumbered Bill - Automobile Allowance Increased Frequency

    This unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.  3903 to increase 
the frequency of the automobile allowance for eligible service-disabled 
Veterans. VA appreciates the apparent intent of Congress to increase 
the frequency by which eligible service-disabled Veterans may receive 
the automobile allowance under section 3903. However, it is unclear 
whether section 3903(a)(1) as proposed to be amended and proposed new 
paragraph (a)(3) are intended to prohibit a beneficiary who received an 
allowance before January 1, 2031, from receiving any further allowances 
during any later period or whether such persons would be eligible for 
additional allowances after January 1, 2031, if at least 10 years had 
passed since the prior award. If the former is intended, VA would 
strongly oppose the bill, as the result of such provisions would be 
inequitable and would not reflect VA's core values. While we suspect 
the latter, more Veteran-friendly reading is intended, we recommend 
clarifying the statutory text if that is the case and would be happy to 
provide technical assistance.
    VA opposes the provision of the bill that affects Veterans' 
eligibility to receive a second allowance under 38 U.S.C. Sec.  
3903(a)(2) if their first vehicle was destroyed as a result of a 
natural disaster. While the newly proposed subsection (a)(3) would 
allow such Veterans to receive a second allowance before January 1, 
2031, during ``any period,'' i.e., at any time, if the conditions under 
subsection (a)(2) are satisfied, it appears to only allow a second 
allowance for eligible Veterans on or after January 1, 2031, during 
``any 10-year period.'' Thus, it appears that a Veteran who is eligible 
to receive a second automobile allowance under section 3903(a)(2) on or 
after January 1, 2031, must not have received the first allowance 
within 10 years prior. VA does not view the results from this provision 
as fair or equitable.
    VA also notes that this bill would allow an eligible Veteran to 
receive more than two automobile allowances under proposed section 
3903(a)(1) after January 1, 2031, as long as the Veteran does not 
receive more than one allowance for any 10-year period. However, 
section 3903(a)(2) would allow an eligible Veteran to receive a second 
allowance if an automobile or other conveyance previously purchased 
with assistance under chapter 39 was destroyed due to a natural 
disaster but, by its current language, would not seem to allow an 
eligible Veteran to receive a third allowance if an automobile 
purchased from a second allowance under proposed section 3903(a)(1) was 
destroyed due to a natural disaster. In other words, a Veteran may be 
limited to only two allowances under section 3903(a)(2), even though a 
Veteran may receive multiple allowances under section 3903(a)(1). It is 
not clear if this was the intent of Congress.No mandatory or 
discretionary costs are associated with this unnumbered bill because 
the effective date is beyond the 10-year timeframe for costing.

                               Conclusion

    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. My colleagues and I are 
prepared to respond to any questions you or other Members of the 
Subcommittee may have.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Prepared Statement of 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 these important pieces of 
legislation.

H.R. 5052, Wage Adjustment for Veterans Enrolled in School (WAVES) Act

    Most of the feedback the VFW receives regarding the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) Work-Study program is centered around processing 
and timely payments. The VFW does not have a specific resolution 
regarding equitable VA Work-Study wages and State minimum wages, 
however, we would definitely not oppose a proposal such as this to 
increase the amount of money in the pockets of student veterans.

Stem Eligibility Extension

    As part of the Forever GI Bill, the VFW strongly supported the 
provision to grant additional months of GI Bill eligibility for student 
veterans pursuing degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math 
(STEM). Our nation is making a push to encourage more students to 
pursue STEM degrees in order to be competitive and outpace other 
nations around the world. Student veterans should be at the forefront 
of this initiative. In order to make this a possibility, there needs to 
be some additional eligibility granted for those pursuing these 
degrees, because STEM programs often take longer than the traditional 4 
years to complete a bachelor's degree. The VFW wants to see student 
veterans succeed at the highest levels, and extending school 
eligibility in this case may be necessary to complete these highly 
important degrees.
    The STEM provision when crafted was not perfect and needed some 
additional amendments since its enactment. The STEM fields identified 
as eligible were never meant to be a final list, because as time passes 
additional programs will be identified and added to the list. Medical 
residency and nursing residency programs are vitally important to help 
increase the number of health care professionals serving our country. 
Adding these programs to the STEM eligibility is a common-sense 
proposal that will ultimately add to our number of health care 
professionals.

VA Auto Grant

    For years the VFW has had a resolution to amend VA's automobile 
grant for disabled veterans. The auto grant program is an incredibly 
valuable benefit that disabled veterans need to purchase or upgrade 
their vehicles. However, the grant is a one-time benefit and cannot be 
utilized again no matter how many vehicles a veteran may purchase. The 
VFW supports the proposals to increase the number of times the VA's 
auto grant program can be utilized by disabled veterans.
    The average American replaces a car approximately every 5 years, 
and while these proposals seek to increase eligibility for once every 
10 years, the VFW feels these proposals are a step in the right 
direction. Ultimately, the VFW would like to see VA's auto grant 
program available for veterans to use for each new lease of a vehicle, 
or every 5 years, whichever comes first.

GI Bill Comparison Tool

    The VFW is a strong supporter of the GI Bill comparison tool and 
supports this proposal to add information to this valuable platform. 
While the GI Bill comparison tool provides important information to 
students, and could always contain more information such as student 
loan debt and accurate graduation rates, but the tool itself needs a 
significant overhaul before it can be truly reliable. The current 
comparison tool and complaint system does not have the most up to date 
information about schools displayed. Old information and complaints 
exist on the tool and there is no formal process for removing negative 
information. Even if VA enters into multiple data-sharing agreements 
with other agencies, the GI Bill comparison tool will never be fully 
accurate unless there is a system in place to remove old data to ensure 
the current information is the most accurate. In order to do this, the 
VFW recommends a thorough review of the entire GI Bill comparison tool 
and a proposal drafted to overhaul the platform, with proper IT 
resources, in order to make it a living comparison tool that student 
veterans can rely on at all times.

Class Evaluation Act

    Going back to school after military service may be a challenging 
task for many veterans for a variety of reasons. Student veterans may 
be juggling school responsibilities in combination with other demanding 
factors such as work, or families, and worrying about accurate VA 
payments is a burden we should lift off their shoulders. The VFW 
supports this proposal to make a requirement related to the payment of 
VA money in order to standardize payment schedules, potentially lessen 
overpayments, and remove unnecessary worries of student veterans while 
they complete their educational endeavors. Simplifying the payment 
schedule from VA to schools and students is a smart step in rectifying 
VA payment issues.

Disaster Relief

    The VFW supports the proposal to reduce the loan fees paid by 
veterans affected by major disasters. The VA Home Loan program is an 
incredibly valuable benefit utilized by millions of veterans during its 
75-year history. The home loan program is an earned benefit for 
veterans, and it should not be diminished due to unforeseen natural 
disasters. Major disasters strike various areas of the country every 
year, devastating entire communities. A major hurdle in these 
communities is the effort of rebuilding, and allowing VA to wipe the 
loan fees slate clean for certain veterans affected by these disasters 
will help speed up the recovery process for these families, and 
hopefully help their surrounding communities. Allowing veterans who 
lost homes due to devastating natural disasters to revert fees back to 
the original home loan buyer level, as opposed to a subsequent buyer, 
is a small measure of relief for veterans in areas hit by disasters.

VA Certificates of Eligibility

    The VFW has supported the proposal to make Certificates of 
Eligibility electronic for years. The option of having the certificate 
at a veteran's digital fingertips is an option that is long past due. 
If VA's IT systems cannot make this option a reality, then proper 
funding for a simple solution should be requested, authorized, and 
appropriated to make this common-sense fix for a 20th-century problem. 
Certificates of Eligibility for programs all across VA are requested by 
outside parties constantly, and an electronic solution is needed. There 
are certain VA forms that can be accessed through eBenefits, but then 
those forms need to be sent to various parties. Veterans should be able 
to log on and see all the benefits and programs to which they are 
entitled, not only Disability and Compensation eligibility.

Transferability Liability

    GI Bill transferability often seems like a fairly straightforward 
option for service members, but occasionally a recipient of this 
incredible benefit gets caught up in unintended bureaucracy. The VFW 
agrees that the transfer recipient of the GI Bill should not be held 
financially liable if the original service member fails to fulfill his 
or her service obligation. Once discovered, the use of the benefit 
should cease, but the dependent should not be held accountable for 
repayment, as they were not the party who did not complete an 
obligation.

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the treatment 
by the Department of Veterans Affairs of for-profit educational 
institutions converted to non-profit educational institutions.

    The VFW feels this proposal could set up future conflicts between 
the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Education. The 
VFW is concerned this could lead to unintended consequences if the two 
agencies intentionally set up different rules.

VET-TEC Improvements

    The VFW supports all three proposals to make changes and 
improvements for the Veterans Affairs High Technology Education (VET-
TEC) Pilot Program. Expanding VET-TEC eligibility for service members 
still on active duty but on terminal leave would hopefully decrease the 
number of veterans who face employment gaps after transitioning out of 
active service. Service members are allowed to participate in certain 
employment training while in the SkillBridge program before separation, 
and adding VET-TEC to their options should benefit those service 
members looking for careers in certain high technology fields.
    The VFW supports the change regarding employment 180 days after 
VET-TEC completion for reserve component personnel only, if activations 
disrupt their paths to employment. However, the VFW does not want to 
see this as beginning to ease some of the requirements for the overall 
VET-TEC program. The entire pilot program is still very new, and we 
need to be careful that changes such as these are made only if they are 
absolutely necessary for the veterans or service members.
    The VFW also supports the proposal to alter the requirements for 
VET-TEC students looking to participate in this program on a part-time 
basis. The VFW also sees this as an important proposal that opens up a 
larger discussion about veteran education and employment programs. 
Student veterans sometimes face challenges typical traditional students 
do not face while attending school. Large numbers of student veterans 
have families, are employed in some capacity, or are facing multiple 
other hurdles of adult life that may not be realized yet for a lot of 
traditional 18-22-year-old students. Student veterans are largely 
``non-traditional'' students who tackle school in a different way, 
including their class schedule times.
    We veterans' advocates, along with our friends at VA and in 
Congress, have recognized that the student veteran is more often than 
not a non-traditional student, yet we keep building education and 
employment programs based on a traditional full-time model. Then, after 
research and discussion, these programs are altered to allow for non-
traditional students to partake in these programs. Now is the time to 
look at all student veteran programs to begin the discussion about 
opening all of them to non-traditional students, particularly with an 
eye on part-time participation in programs. Any new programs should be 
built with at least non-traditional students in mind, and possibly with 
these students in the forefront.
    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.
                                 ______
                                 

                    Prepared Statement of John Kamin
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Prepared Statement of Justin Monk

    Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America (SVA) to submit 
our testimony on pending legislation before the subcommittee.
    With a focused mission on empowering student veterans, SVA is 
committed to providing an educational experience that goes beyond the 
classroom. Through a dedicated network of more than 1,500 on-campus 
chapters in all 50 states and 4 countries representing more than 
750,000 student veterans, SVA aims to inspire yesterday's warriors by 
connecting student veterans with a community of like-minded chapter 
leaders. Every day these passionate leaders work to provide the 
necessary resources, network support, and advocacy to ensure student 
veterans can effectively connect, expand their skills, and ultimately 
achieve their greatest potential.
    Edward Everett, our Nation's 20th Secretary of State, and the 
former President of Harvard University was famously quoted as stating, 
``Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.'' 
While we have the finest military that the world has ever known, the 
sentiment remains; the importance of education to our Nation's national 
security remains paramount.
    We appreciate the opportunity to share our views on many of the 
bills which will directly impact student veterans, their families, and 
survivors. While many of the proposed bills being discussed today are 
technical fixes or adjustments to existing benefits, many would require 
IT changes to Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) existing IT 
infrastructure. In addition to considering the substance of these 
bills, we strongly encourage consideration of the requisite funding 
needs to ensure successful implementation.


    Draft legislation, To amend title 38, United States Code, to make 
an individual eligible for educational assistance under chapter of such 
title and who transfers such educational assistance to a dependent 
solely liable for any overpayment of such educational assistance

    This proposed legislation would remove liability for overpayments 
made by VA for transferred education benefits in cases of the 
transferring individual not completing the agreed upon service contract 
granting transfer authority.
    SVA supports this draft legislation. It addresses an uncommon but 
serious situation that may arise from the existing statute. To 
illustrate, consider the circumstance where a dependent, typically a 
spouse, is using transferred education benefits in good faith, but due 
to the transferring individual's failure to complete the necessary 
service agreement those benefits are revoked. Any unused benefit is 
returned to the veteran and any used benefit is considered an improper 
overpayment by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 38 U.S. Code Sec.  3319--Authority to transfer unused education 
benefits to family members, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/
3319
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on current law, the scenario above would result in both the 
transferring individual and the dependent being held ``jointly and 
severally liable'' for the debt.\2\ In our view this is unreasonable. 
The dependent used these benefits in good faith and the overpayment is 
caused through no fault of their own. Obviously, but importantly, there 
is way a dependent can fulfill the necessary obligation to maintain 
those benefits. They are wholly at the mercy of the behavior of the 
transferring individual. Thus, the responsibility should be left with 
the transferring individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We appreciate Subcommittee staff incorporating our earlier concerns 
regarding the removal of all liability for overpayments from 
dependents. Scenarios such as the above are distinct from the more 
common occurrences, such as enrollment changes at a school causing an 
overpayment. In those cases, and similar ones, the liability should 
rest with the person using the benefit. We appreciate committee staff's 
willingness to address this and look forward to final text.

Draft legislation, the VET-TEC Improvement Act

    This draft legislation proposes to make certain eligibility 
expansions to the ongoing Veteran Employment Through Technology 
Education Courses (VET TEC) pilot program for both individuals and 
program providers.
    SVA is supportive of this draft legislation and, generally, of 
efforts to expand VET TEC to meet the demands of veterans across the 
country. The program is an excellent opportunity for veterans to 
develop their skills in some of the most high-demand fields today and 
we are supportive of Congress' efforts to improve the field of 
offerings for veteran education and training.
    With that stated, our one concern is the trend of establishing new, 
innovative, and exciting pilot programs only to adjust or amend them a 
year or two later. We understand these pilots are typically for new 
ideas, so it stands to reason there may be some common-sense 
adjustments that need to be made following their enactment. However, 
doing so necessarily introduces noise into the data set. Once the pilot 
has run its course, and we begin to parse through the results to 
determine whether to continue the program, it becomes difficult - and 
sometimes impossible - to separate the original design from the 
amended. We would encourage Congress to consider the impact to the 
results of a study before amending a pilot.

H.R. 5052, the Wage Adjustment for Veterans Enrolled in School, or 
    WAVES Act

    This bill proposes to bring aspects of VA's work-study program into 
parity with the Federal work-study (FWS) program by ensuring student 
veterans are paid the prevailing wage among Federal, State, or Local 
law.
    SVA fully supports this draft bill. According to Federal Student 
Aid Handbook, ``FWS employers must pay students at least the Federal 
minimum wage in effect at the time of employment. If a State or local 
law requires a higher minimum wage, the school must pay the FWS student 
that higher wage.'' \3\ This draft language would simply bring VA work-
study into wage parity with existing FWS guidance and provide student 
veterans the same economic opportunities already given to other 
students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  The Federal Student Aid Handbook, Chapter 2, Federal Work-
Study Program, p. 6-49. https://ifap.ed.gov/fsahandbook/attachments/
1920FSAHdbkVol6Ch2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, based on feedback we received at our last two Leadership 
Institutes, a leadership training program for the top student veteran 
leaders, there are a few areas of improvement we would like to see 
addressed as VA continues to modernize their work-study program. The 
feedback repeatedly discussed the paper-based model as antiquated, 
cumbersome, and lethargic on getting paychecks to student veterans. The 
method is an unreliable source of income. Transitioning to a web-based 
system that mirrors some of the successes of ED's work-study program is 
overdue. In fact, we would like to thank this Subcommittee for their 
efforts to address this specific issue with last year's H.R. 3535, the 
GI Bill Work-Study Improvement Act of 2019.\4\ We hope to see renewed 
discussion around this bill's merits as we see it as a bipartisan, 
common-sense solution to this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Congress.gov, H.R. 3535-the GI Bill Improvement Act of 2019, 
https:// www.Congress.gov/ bill/116th-congress/ house-bill/3535?q=% 
7B%22search% 22%3A% 5B%22h.r.+3535% 22%5D% 7D&s=1&r=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the lack of parity between ED work-study employment 
options and options under VA work-study, which are limited to positions 
directly related to VA, is a source of frustration to SVA chapters. It 
is understandable there is a propensity to have VA funds spent on VA 
needs, but Congress should examine ways student veterans can take part 
in opportunities available to other students under ED work-study that 
better align with career goals.

Draft legislation, the Class Evaluation Act

    This legislation proposes to delay GI Bill payments to schools 
until 7 days after the start of a school term.
    As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from October 
2015 makes clear, VA has an ongoing issue with overpayments made on 
behalf of the GI Bill.\5\ This report illustrates how significant these 
debts are, how negatively they impact student veterans, and how quickly 
they must be addressed to avoid further disruption of veterans' lives. 
Compounding this problem is VA's method of correcting these 
overpayments. VA recoups GI Bill overpayments directly from students, 
even though the school received the tuition money.\6\ In previous 
testimony, we outlined the 200,000 overpayment notices VA sends out 
each year and the significant financial burden it places on veterans 
and their families.\7\ SVA fully supports the structural and procedural 
changes that must take place within VA to prevent these overpayments 
from occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ POST-9/11 GI BILL: Additional Actions Needed to Help Reduce 
Overpayments and Increase Collections, https://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-16-42
    \6\ Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. 38 U.S. Code 
Sec.  3680. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/3680
    \7\ Student Veterans of America. Testimony for Legislative Hearing 
on the Topic of ``Pending Legislation'' May 22, 2019. Senate Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs. https://www.veterans.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
5.22.19%20-%20SVA.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While SVA supports this bill's intent, we believe mandating a delay 
in GI Bill benefit payments might compound VA's ability to make timely 
benefit payments to students and schools. We encourage this 
Subcommittee to host additional conversations with ED on the 
feasibility of implementing a batch payment model like ED has been 
using for decades. The Department of Education processes payments to 
schools prior to the start of the semester based on historical 
enrollment data from previous years. It is an effective process that 
allows schools and ED to operate without jeopardizing the financial 
situation of schools or students.
    We suggest studying the feasibility of incorporating lessons 
learned from ED and its use of batch payments as a potential way of 
alleviating some of the front-end work VA must to do certify both MHA 
payments and tuition payments. We acknowledge there are foundational 
differences between how the ED and VA function, and that batch payments 
may not be the correct solution, but greater cross-agency communication 
and collaboration can still provide valuable insight.
    Overpayments are a significant issue with the current model of 
payment VA employs and SVA encourages Congress and VA to continue 
discussions on how best to serve our student veterans and educational 
institutions while still meeting the needs of VA.

    Draft legislation, To amend title 38, United States Code, to 
provide for the treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs of for-
profit educational institutions converted to non-profit educational 
institutions

    This bill proposes a 10-year window for VA to conduct oversight of 
for-profits institutions that convert to non-profit status.
    Thanks to tireless advocacy from student and consumer rights' 
groups, leaders in Congress, and a growing awareness by the public of 
predatory practices of some institutions, many of the worst providers 
in higher education have come under increased scrutiny in recent years. 
In response to this increased awareness and scrutiny, there is a 
worrying trend of proprietary institutions converting to nonprofit 
status to avoid some of VA's requirements while maintaining the same 
predatory behavior. To better protect student veterans, Congress should 
enact standards of oversight to prevent bad actors from taking 
advantage of nonprofit status by creating protections against hiding 
fraud, waste, and abuse.
    SVA supports this draft bill's intent, but we believe there are 
better methods available to address our concerns. In fact, the House 
recently passed an example of this in H.R. 4625, the Protect the GI 
Bill Act, which includes robust language giving VA significant 
authority across all institution types to act when institutions operate 
outside of the best interests of their students. It establishes higher 
requirements for approval of title 38 benefits, broader approval and 
disapproval authority, and improves communication between ED and VA. It 
echoes our position that any adequate response to the clear need for 
greater oversight of the conversion process will include expanded 
authorities for VA to act in conjunction with and independent of other 
agencies.
    To better explain the need for greater authorities at VA, consider 
that there are two issues at hand: the regulatory weakness that 
currently exists between ED and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and 
VA's long-standing lack of authority to act on bad actors in the 
nonprofit space.\8\ Solving the former is treating the symptoms of the 
problem, solving the latter is treating the root cause. Inserting VA 
directly into the void between ED and IRS narrowly addresses one issue, 
but not the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Shireman, Robert. The Covert For-Profit: How College Owners 
Escape Oversight Through a Regulatory Blind Spot. The Century 
Foundation. Retrieved from: https://tcf.org/content/report/covert-for-
profit/'agreed=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Existing statutes governing VA's approval process hamstring the 
agency from acting on bad actors in the public and not-for-profit 
proprietary space because, once these programs are accredited by an ED-
approved agency, VA must deem them approved for title 38 benefits.\9\ 
Short of an accreditor withdrawing accreditation from an institution, 
VA is largely prohibited from acting on bad behavior. In turn, this 
creates a haven for bad actors in the for-profit space seeking to get 
out from under VA's more-stringent regulations - especially the 90-10 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. 38 U.S. Code 
Sec.  3672. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/3672
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, the Department of Education currently relies on the IRS 
label in determining nonprofit status. It is unreasonable to expect ED 
to be able to rely wholly on the IRS to improve their monitoring of the 
nearly 1.5 million organizations they exempt.\10\ According to the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO), the IRS reexamines less than 1 
percent of nonprofits annually.\11\ Beyond the IRS designation, there 
is no routine effort to ensure a school is following the basic 
expectations of nonprofits after a conversion.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics, 
Core Files (2005, 2010, and 2015); and the Internal Revenue Service 
Business Master Files, Exempt Organizations (2006-16)
    \11\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``Tax-Exempt 
Organizations: Better Compliance Indicators and Data, and More 
Collaboration with State Regulators Would Strengthen Oversight of 
Charitable Organizations,'' December 2014, http://www.gao.gov/assets/
670/667595.pdf.
    \12\ Shireman, Robert. The Covert For-Profit: How College Owners 
Escape Oversight Through a Regulatory Blind Spot. The Century 
Foundation. Retrieved from: https://tcf.org/content/report/covert-for-
profit/?agreed=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We encourage Congress to continue looking for ways to provide 
additional oversight of the conversion process and look forward to 
working with members of this Subcommittee on furthering protections for 
student veterans.

    Draft legislation, To amend title 38, United States Code, to 
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to collect and include 
certain student outcome information in the GI Bill comparison tool of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes

    This draft legislation proposes VA enter into an agreement with the 
Department of Education (ED) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to 
provide additional student outcome data for veterans and dependents.
    SVA supports this draft legislation. We strongly believe improving 
the quantity and quality of information available to veterans allows 
them to make more-informed decisions about where to use their education 
benefits.\13\ There are, however, improvements that would make the 
process of considering education options significantly better. 
Additionally, increased IT budget resources should be devoted to 
implementing important congressional mandates, and the GI Bill 
Comparison Tool is no exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Student Veterans of America. Testimony for Legislative Hearing 
on the Topic of ``Pending Legislation'' March 07, 2019. Senate and 
House Committees on Veterans' Affairs. https://www.veterans.senate.gov/
imo/media/doc/5%20-%20SVA%20Testimony%2003.07.19.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since inception in 2014, the GI Bill Comparison Tool has proved to 
be an invaluable source of information for veterans trying to 
understand the value of their GI Bill as they considered different 
education options. However, there is a lack of coordination between ED 
and VA with the College Navigator, College Scorecard, and GI Comparison 
Tool, reducing the overall delivery of powerful data to 
veterans.\14\, \15\, \16\ The Comparison Tool has 
unique and important data, necessitating a separate tool from ED's 
current options, but the underlying data is not being shared 
effectively, leaving prospective students an incomplete view of their 
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ College Navigator, National Center for Education Statistics, 
US Department of Education, https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/, 
Accessed 01 March 2019
    \15\ College Scorecard, US Department of Education, https://
collegescorecard.ed.gov/, Accessed 03 February 2020
    \16\ GI Bill Comparison Tool, US Department of Veterans Affairs, 
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/, Accessed 03 February 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The data running the Comparison Tool are largely restricted to VA's 
internally available data, which are also limited, notably excluding 
many student veterans who run out of benefits prior to graduation or 
elect alternative funding sources. Noting those current limitations, 
SVA appreciates the continued availability of the raw data powering the 
GI Bill Comparison Tool, which affords external entities to run 
complementary research and analysis to support additional feedback to 
VA and policymakers.
    There are several additional improvements we believe would make the 
tool a more effective and complete information source for students. SVA 
fully acknowledges the proposed improvements will require dedicated IT 
funds and we hope to see dedicated funds included for these projects in 
future budgets.
    The tool currently lacks an effective side-by-side comparison 
function. Students primarily use the tool for its ``look up'' function 
for familiar institutions as that is effectively the best option the 
tool currently offers. Student veterans should also be able to rate 
their schools, thereby affording future student veterans direct 
consumer feedback like Amazon's verified user rating system. In 2013, 
Public Law 112-249 mandated the statutory requirement for VA to launch, 
``centralized mechanism for tracking and publishing feedback from 
students,'' like `Amazon reviews,' yet this functionality is still 
missing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Public Law 112-249, ``Comprehensive Veterans Education 
Information Policy'', https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
PLAW112publ249/pdf/PLAW-112publ249.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, we encourage VA to develop a mechanism to maintain closed 
schools within the tool, versus having them merely disappear. This 
disappearance of schools from the tool also applies to the associated 
data, leaving significant gaps in the overall picture.

    In addition to the legislation above, SVA supports the draft 
legislation amending title 38 to clarify and expand eligibility for the 
Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship, and the draft legislation 
requiring electronic certificates of eligibility be provided to those 
entitled to VA educational assistance. We echo the stated benefits 
extolled by VA about this change in their Fiscal Year 2020 Budget 
Submission and, as we have stated previously, request any additional IT 
update be accompanied by a matching funding increase. It is 
unreasonable to hold VA accountable for the numerous updates and 
improvements demanded of them while simultaneously failing to provide 
the resources necessary to complete them.\18\ We encourage Congress to 
continue working with VA and others to better understand the IT 
requirements for these proposed bills and future changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Department of Veterans Affairs, Fiscal Year 2020 Budget 
Submission, Volume III. https:// www.va.gov/ budget/docs/ summary/ 
fy2020VA budget volumeIII benefits Burial Programs AndDeptmental 
Administration.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The success of veterans in higher education is no mistake or 
coincidence. Research consistently demonstrates this unique population 
of non-traditional students is far outpacing their peers in many 
measures of academic performance.\19\ Further, this success in higher 
education begets success in careers, in communities, and promotes 
family financial stability, holistic well-being, and provides the all-
volunteer force with powerful tools for recruitment and retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Cate, C.A., Lyon, J.S., Schmeling, J., & Bogue, B.Y. (2017). 
National Veteran Education Success Tracker: A Report on the Academic 
Success of Student Veterans Using the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Student 
Veterans of America, Washington, DC, http://nvest.studentveterans.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NVEST-Report_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the Subcommittee members 
for your time, attention, and devotion to the cause of veterans in 
higher education. As always, we welcome your feedback and questions, 
and we look forward to continuing to work with this Committee and the 
entire Congress to ensure the success of all generations of veterans 
through education.

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

    Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, Student 
Veterans of America has not received any Federal grants in Fiscal Year 
2018, nor has it received any Federal grants in the two previous Fiscal 
Years.

Justin Monk, Policy Associate, Government Affairs

    Justin advocates on behalf of student veterans, their families, and 
military-connected students to empower them through higher education 
and beyond.
    After graduating from Wake Forest University in 2010, and 
Appalachian State University in 2012, Justin moved back home to Texas 
to work and be closer to family. In 2016, he accepted an offer to come 
to Washington, DC and pursue his dream of policy work on Capitol Hill. 
He started as an intern and worked his way up to a Legislative 
Fellowship before leaving Capitol Hill to lead the Federal policy 
portfolio for an environmental startup. Later, having come from a 
family of veterans, Justin took the opportunity to work on behalf of 
those who have served by joining Student Veterans of America.
    In every position, he has advocated for more responsible 
stewardship of taxpayer funds and common-sense, proactive solutions for 
infrastructure and investments. He now brings his desire to help others 
to SVA where he works to improve student outcomes and preserve earned 
benefits for student veterans everywhere.
                                 ______
                                 

                 Prepared Statement of Morgan D. Brown

    Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the 
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank 
you for the opportunity to discuss our views on pending legislation 
impacting the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that is before the 
Subcommittee. No group of veterans understand the full scope of 
benefits and care provided by VA better than PVA's members--veterans 
who have incurred a spinal cord injury or disorder. Several of these 
bills will help to ensure veterans receive much needed aid and support.
    PVA provides comment on the following bills included in today's 
hearing.

    Discussion Draft, ``to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
reduce the loan fees paid by certain veterans who have been affected by 
major disasters and are obtaining a new loan guaranteed, insured, or 
made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.''

    As written, this legislation reduces VA loan fees paid by those 
affected by major disasters. The bill also allows a veteran's next home 
loan following the disaster to be treated as an initial loan. PVA 
wholeheartedly supports this effort to avoid unwarranted VA loan fees, 
especially among those whom have lost their homes to a natural 
disaster.

    Discussion Draft, ``to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
provide electronic certificates of eligibility to persons who are 
entitled to educational assistance under certain educational assistance 
programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs.''

    This pending legislation would require by August 1, 2021, anyone 
who is eligible for VA education benefits to be able to obtain an 
electronic copy of their eligibility. PVA supports this effort to 
update the current process and reduce the amount of time eligible 
students wait for their school to receive proof of eligibility status.

    Discussion Draft, ``to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
provide for a requirement relating to the timing of the payment of 
educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 
Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other 
purposes.''

    This draft bill requires VA to make payments to schools no sooner 
than 7 days after the first day of the quarter, semester, or term. PVA 
supports this effort to reduce overpayments to schools by allowing 
students to adjust their schedules during the add/drop period and 
receive their syllabi to help determine if their course load is 
appropriate. It will also deter predatory school practices of 
convincing student veterans to just attend 1 day of class in order for 
payment to be received rather than focusing on the academic success of 
their students. We also support the requirement for VA to disapprove a 
course of education unless the school agrees to waive any late fees due 
to payment timing.

    Discussion Draft, ``to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
provide for the treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs of 
forprofit educational institutions converted to non-profit educational 
institutions.''

    This draft measure directs the VA Secretary to treat for-profit 
schools that have converted to no-profits after January 1, 2016, as if 
they are for-profits for the next 10 years following the change. PVA 
supports this effort to ensure those using VA educational benefits are 
protected from educational institutions who convert to non-profit 
status to evade certain regulatory requirements and operate in the 
interest of their shareholders rather than the interest of their 
students.

H.R. 5052, the ``WAVES Act''

    This legislation requires students using VA work-study to be paid 
the higher of the hourly wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938, the law of the State where the work is performed, or a comparable 
local law. PVA supports this effort to ensure students using VA work-
study programs receive fair compensation for their work.

    Discussion Drafts, ``to improve and expand eligibility for the 
``Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship Program.''

    These two drafts clarify, improve, and expand the eligibility for 
the Edith Nourse Rogers STEM scholarship for students pursuing these 
degrees. We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in improving this 
program. These bills would help ensure VA education users are able to 
receive additional tuition to support degree completion and expand the 
program to cover medical and nursing residencies. We suggest that these 
drafts by merged into a single piece of legislation to facilitate 
passage.

    Discussion Draft, ``H. R._, To increase the frequency of benefits 
under the automobile assistance program of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.''

    Discussion Draft, ``H. R._, To authorize the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs to provide or assist in providing a second vehicle adapted for 
operation by disabled individuals to certain eligible persons.''

    VA's Automobile Assistance Grant program was originally established 
in August 1946 to assist severely disabled WWII veterans with the 
purchase of an automobile or other conveyance. Changes were made in 
subsequent years to include similar veterans from other eras or allow 
modest increases to the grant itself, but little has been done to 
ensure the program, as it currently exists, is meeting the needs of 
disabled veterans--particularly those with catastrophic disabilities 
whom PVA represents. The draft bills before the Subcommittee would 
provide what catastrophically disabled veterans need most--financial 
help to ensure they can purchase and maintain safe and reliable 
transportation to sustain their independence and get to medical 
appointments.
    Representative Cisneros' draft bill would allow a second automobile 
grant beginning January 1, 2031, and subsequent grants in 10-year 
increments thereafter.
    Representative Meuser's draft legislation would provide a second 
automobile grant. As written, veterans who received their original 
grant on or after January 1, 2014, could receive a second grant once 10 
years had elapsed. It is our understanding that Representative Meuser, 
plans to introduce a modified bill that does not include the ``look-
back'' provision and sets October 1 of this year as the first date of 
eligibility for all catastrophically disabled veterans who received 
their first automobile grant 10 or more years ago.
    PVA believes that the ideal legislation would aid veterans who used 
their first grant 10 or more years ago to receive a grant for a new 
automobile as soon as possible and allow additional grants after a 
requisite period has lapsed. We recommend 10-year increments because 
government agencies and industry standards place an average vehicle's 
useful life in that timeframe. Additionally, vehicles that have been 
modified structurally, including modifications to accommodate the 
weight of veterans and their wheelchairs, can have a decreased 
lifespan.
    Current law allows VA to provide financial assistance to eligible 
veterans through an automobile grant as indexed for inflation. For 
Fiscal Year 2020, the amount of the grant is $21,488.29. This one-time 
award is used toward the purchase of a new or used automobile to 
accommodate a veteran or service member with certain disabilities that 
resulted from a condition incurred or aggravated during active military 
service.
    However, on average, the cost to replace modified vehicles is more 
than double the value of the current auto grant and several thousand 
more when the vehicle is used. These substantial costs, coupled with 
inflation, present a financial hardship for many disabled veterans who 
need to replace their primary mode of transportation once it reaches 
the end of its useful service life.
    The cost of replacing modified vehicles purchased through the VA 
automobile grant program presents a financial hardship for veterans who 
must bear the full replacement cost once the adapted vehicle has 
exceeded its useful life. The divergence of a vehicle's depreciating 
value and the increasing cost of living only compounds this hardship.
    Since vehicles do not last a person's lifetime, veterans should 
have the ability to purchase a vehicle, once every 10 years, without 
having to shoulder the burden of the full cost of a vehicle themselves. 
Therefore, we ask Congress to establish multiple automobile grants, for 
veterans to use once every 10 years, equaling the current grant maximum 
in effect at the time of vehicle replacement.
    Another factor to consider as you deliberate if more than one grant 
is warranted is a veteran's physical condition. Younger veterans who 
are injured may retain or be able to recover a fair degree of their 
strength and mobility after the injury that makes them eligible for the 
grant program. A car may be suitable for these veterans at this point 
in their lives. In time, however, their physical condition will 
deteriorate. A car purchased for transportation by a manual wheelchair 
user eventually becomes useless for the veteran who is now forced to 
purchase a minivan or similar transportation that can accommodate a 
motorized wheelchair.
    Access to an adapted vehicle is essential to the mobility and 
health of catastrophically disabled veterans who need a reliable means 
of transportation to get them to and from work and their medical 
appointments. There is a safety aspect in the need for additional 
grants as well. Because of the high cost to procure replacement 
vehicles, many veterans retain vehicles beyond their reliability point 
which places them, and those around them, at risk when the vehicle they 
are operating is unsafe or unreliable. The thought of a 
catastrophically disabled veteran stranded on the side of the road in 
an inoperable vehicle should concern us all.
    If given the chance for a second or subsequent grants, veterans 
might also be inclined to take advantage of some of the new assistive 
technologies that have recently become available like backup cameras, 
lane assist, and adaptive cruise control. These assistive technologies 
would help some veterans maintain their driving independence and make 
all eligible veterans and those with and around them much safer.
    PVA would once again like to thank the Subcommittee for the 
opportunity to submit our views on some of the legislation being 
considered today. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on 
this legislation and would be happy to answer any questions.

  Information Required by Rule XI 2(g) of the House of Representatives

    Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g) of the House of Representatives, the 
following information is provided regarding Federal grants and 
contracts.

                            Fiscal Year 2020

    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports 
Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports 
activities--$253,337.

                            Fiscal Year 2019

    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports 
Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports 
activities--$193,247.

                            Fiscal Year 2018

    Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports 
Programs & Special Events--Grant to support rehabilitation sports 
activities--$181,000.

                     Disclosure of Foreign Payments

    Paralyzed Veterans of America is largely supported by donations 
from the general public. However, in some very rare cases we receive 
direct donations from foreign nationals. In addition, we receive 
funding from corporations and foundations which in some cases are U.S. 
subsidiaries of non-U.S. companies.

                        Statement for the Record

                              ----------                              


            Prepared Statement of Veterans Education Success

    Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    Veterans Education Success is a non-profit organization with a 
mission to advance higher education success for veterans, service 
members, and military families, and to protect the integrity and 
promise of the GI Bill and other Federal education programs.
    In addition to research, providing free case work to students 
having trouble with GI Bill or impacted by predatory schools, and 
elevating the voices of students to share with policymakers both their 
positive and negative experiences in higher education, we are focused 
on addressing ways to increase the continued academic success of 
military-connected students in their pursuit of their academic goals.
    We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on the 
pending legislation before the Subcommittee:

H.R. 5052: WAVES Act

    We support this amendment to the WAVES Act which mandates that 
student veterans participating in a VA work-study program earn the 
higher amount between the Federal, State, and local minimum wage laws 
where the student goes to school and works. It is a sensible provision 
that allows students to receive the proper compensation.

Draft Legislation ``Class Evaluation Act''

    Veterans Education Success strongly supports this bill, which would 
require VA to wait at least 7 days after the first day of each quarter, 
semester, or term to make payments of Post 9/11 Educational Assistance 
payments to a school and denies payment to a school if the student 
withdraws within the first 10 days. This important bill would allow 
students to settle their schedule and class load before payments are 
made to the school, thereby mitigating many overpayment issues due to 
schedule changes and other reasons. It would also provide a grace 
period for military-connected students as they navigate the ``add/drop 
period'' at the beginning of a term giving them the chance to figure 
out how many classes they can manage during a semester, rather than 
signing up for too many credits.
    As we testified on July 17 of last year, \1\ this bill represents a 
critical step needed to stop the rampant problem of GI Bill 
``overpayments,'' in which VA has paid out more in tuition and fees 
than the student's course load requires. The US Government 
Accountability Office reported that GI Bill overpayments cost $416 
million in Fiscal Year 202014, affecting 1 in 4 GI Bill students.\2\ A 
major cause of GI Bill overpayments is the way VA pays out the full 
term of GI Bill after a veteran sits for just 1 day of class. Should a 
student using GI Bill benefits withdraw from classes after that first 
day, the school has already accrued the entire term of GI Bill funds, 
creating an ``overpayment'' of GI Bill funds by VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Testimony of Col. Robert F. Norton, USA-Ret., Senior 
Advisor, Veterans Education Success, before the House Veterans Affairs 
Committee (July 17, 2019), available at https://vetsedsuccess.org/our-
testimony-for-july-17-house-veterans-economic-opportunity-subcommittee-
hearing-on-proposed-legislation/.
    \2\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Post 9/11 GI Bill: 
Additional Actions Needed to Help Reduce Overpayments and Increase 
Collections, October 2015, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/
673230.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, by disbursing the entire term of GI Bill tuition to a 
school after a student sits for just 1 day of class, VA inadvertently 
incentivizes predatory schools to use deceptive tactics to convince 
military-connected students to sit for just 1 day. This ``Just 1 Day'' 
mentality leads unscrupulous schools to focus primarily on convincing a 
veteran to enroll, rather than on the academic success of their 
students. Many such schools explicitly adopt a business model called 
``churn,'' in which they plan for students to drop out quickly, so they 
focus on quick and short enrollments. This causes significant waste, 
fraud, and abuse of a student's hard-earned education benefits and 
taxpayer dollars. Passage of this bill would stop schools from 
receiving a veteran's entire term of GI Bill benefits after just 1 day 
of classes.
    This Act also prohibits schools from fining students due to this 
change, which we agree is correct; schools should not be allowed to 
assign students any late fees based on VA's processing. We note the 
Committee previously enacted Section 103 of Public Law 115-407, which 
forbids schools from forcing GI Bill students to pay penalties or late 
fees and from denying students' access to classes, libraries, and 
facilities if the VA payment is late.

    Draft legislation to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
provide electronic certificates of eligibility to persons who are 
entitled to educational assistance.

    We strongly support this provision. It will update the current 
process and allow for eligible student veterans to easily access 
information that is vital to them furthering their education.

    Draft Legislation to make an individual eligible for educational 
assistance under chapter 33 of such title and who transfers such 
educational assistance to a dependent solely liable for any overpayment 
of such educational assistance.

    Veterans Education Success supports this bill, which clarifies that 
the original recipient of the educational benefit is responsible and 
held liable for any overpayment debt that may occur after transferring 
the benefit to a dependent. We have seen, firsthand, dependents who 
have utilized the GI Bill, only to be hit with thousands of dollars of 
debt due to issues with the original beneficiary's qualifications for 
the GI Bill.
    One student we are currently helping is an ex-spouse of a service 
member who transferred his benefits to her while they were still 
married. After they had separated and divorced, he was kicked out of 
the military for bad behavior, ultimately impacting his GI Bill 
benefit. She was unaware and believed her GI Bill was in good standing. 
Through no fault of her own, she now owes a large debt to the VA which 
she was not aware of until it went into collections because the notices 
were being sent to her ex-spouses' house and not to her. This provision 
protects other military-connected students in similar situations from 
receiving life-altering overpayment debts due to no fault of their own.

    Draft Legislation to provide for an extended timeframe for certain 
students to find employment following completion of Department of 
Veterans Affairs high technology education program

    AND

Draft Legislation ``Vet-Tech Improvement Act.''

    We have concerns with these bills in their present form, which 
would weaken the bipartisan bicameral consensus agreement in the 2017 
Colmery Act (the ``Forever GI Bill''), enacted with unanimous support, 
on minimum quality controls for programs that wish to be eligible for 
VA educational funds for high technology programs, like coding boot 
camps. The bipartisan bicameral agreement on minimum quality controls 
for coding boot camps and other high technology programs must be kept 
in place and not weakened. A coding boot camp that cannot place its 
graduates in anything better than an unpaid apprenticeship is not 
serving students well. Nor is it wise to open up VA funding to new, 
unqualified programs that have not demonstrated they can provide 
quality training. Similarly, approving part-time short-term programs 
runs counter not only to the bicameral bipartisan agreement of 2017 but 
to reams of research that demonstrate that short-term programs produce 
substandard student outcomes. For example, student outcome data at 
Title IV-participating trade schools that enroll GI Bill beneficiaries 
in certificate programs showed that less than half of the students 
earned more than a high school graduate 10 years after enrolling.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Veterans Education Success, ``Weak Return on Investment at 
Trade Schools that Enroll GI Bill Beneficiaries'' (2019), available at 
https://vetsedsuccess.org/weak-return-on-investment-at-trade-schools-
that-enroll-gi-bill-beneficiaries/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are a wide range of coding boot camps and other high-tech 
programs available. Some are well-respected and well-regarded by high-
tech employers. And some are widely considered to be ``jokes'' by these 
employers. During the 2017 negotiations, Committee staff consulted with 
several high-tech employers who explained the great disparity in 
quality among high tech education programs. It is not fair to students 
to approve their participation in programs that are not well-respected 
and well-regarded by the industry they are hoping to be employed by.
    We urge the Committee not to undermine the bipartisan bicameral 
agreement of 2017 on quality controls for coding boot camps and other 
high-tech programs. We look forward to working with the Committee staff 
to amend these bills.

Draft Legislation to provide for the eligibility of members of the 
    Armed Forces on terminal leave for the Department of Veterans 
    Affairs high technology education program, and for other purposes.

    We do not oppose expanding the eligibility for the high technology 
program to members of the Armed Forces who are on terminal leave. For 
all intents and purposes the service member has finished her/his 
service and this allows her/him to start her/his training at an earlier 
date that to support a smooth transition from military service into the 
civilian workforce.
    If a veteran is on terminal leave and receiving a basic allowance 
from the Department of Defense, then it makes sense that the veteran 
would not also receive BAH from the VA while attending a VET TEC 
program during this timeframe.

    Draft Legislation to clarify and expand eligibility for the Edith 
Nurse Rogers STEM Scholarship

    AND

    Draft Legislation to improve the Edith Nurse Rogers STEM 
Scholarship program.

    We appreciate the Committee's work to ensure that students pursuing 
STEM degrees who need additional years of tuition support are able to 
receive it.
    We further appreciate the Committee's work to clarify that the 
program includes students pursuing dual degrees as well as covers 
medical and nursing residencies in both of these draft bills. Student 
veterans pursuing their medical residencies or nursing degree are 
extremely valuable to the community and including them as eligible for 
this scholarship is vital to ensuring their success.
    We urge the Committee to merge these two bills.

    Draft Legislation to provide for the treatment by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs of for-profit educational institutions converted to 
non-profit educational institutions.

    We support this legislation that would direct the Secretary to 
treat for-profit schools that convert to nonprofit status as if they 
are for-profit for a number of years following their conversion.
    Veterans Education Success has spoken to whistleblowers from for-
profits schools who have shared how some are converting to escape 
regulatory requirements - like the 90/10 rule. Additionally, schools 
that convert sometimes use their new status to mislead their students 
by advertising that they are nonprofit when in actuality they are 
operating as a covert for-profit entity. Grand Canyon University, for 
example, was just recently denied its non-profit status by the 
Education Department because it operates in the interest of its 
shareholders and not the students.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Department of Education's Determination Letter of Nonprofit 
Status for Grand Canyon University, November 6, 2019, available at 
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6548639-GCUDecision.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill would help monitor the conversion process of for-profit 
entities looking to avoid some of the regulations put in place to 
protect students. It would ensure that schools do not set up their 
nonprofit in a way that allows for regulatory avoidance and financial 
conflicts of interest similar to what happened with Grand Canyon 
University.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  Bob Shireman, The Century Foundation, ``The Covert For-
Profit,'' September 22, 2015, available at https://tcf.org/content/
report/covert-for-profit/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We note that the Senate is also considering similar language in the 
bipartisan S. 2857, Protect Veterans' Education and Taxpayer Spending 
Act of 2019, \6\ which concerns closing the 90/10 loophole and includes 
a period of oversight of for-profit schools converting to nonprofit or 
public status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  S. 2857--Protect Veterans' Education and Taxpayer Spending Act 
of 2019, available at https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/
senate-bill/2857/text.

    Draft legislation to require VA to collect and include student 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
outcome data on the GI Bill Comparison Tool.

    The GI Bill Comparison Tool can and should be a key resource for GI 
Bill eligible individuals to be able to consider their options and make 
an informed college choice. We supported the creation of the Comparison 
Tool in 2012, including its inclusion in Executive Order 13607 and 
Public Law 112-249, and have worked over the years to help VA improve 
this critical tool.
    At the moment, students using the Comparison Tool face a key lack 
of knowledge because the Tool provides almost no data for students to 
understand the basic facts about a school and whether it serves 
students well or not. We support this bill and offer several 
suggestions below to improve the bill. These suggestions involve 
disaggregating some of the data because (1) the needs and 
characteristics of the three cohorts differ, (2) individuals are 
seeking and earning different types of credentials (certificates, 
associate's, bachelor's, and advanced degrees), and (3) some 
individuals complete while others do not.
    We have also identified additional metrics that provide useful 
data, including repayment rates, the percentage of completers and non-
completers in deferment or forbearance, median Pell Grants received, 
and Federal student loan repayment plans in which GI Bill beneficiaries 
are enrolled. Finally, the MOU should specify that the data be provided 
on an annual basis.
    For the data to be meaningful, it will have to take into account 
the fact that each type of credential takes a minimum of up to 9 
months, 2 years, or 4 years to complete and often times longer. Thus, a 
GI Bill beneficiary who enrolled in 2011-12 would likely not earn a 
bachelor's degree until at least 2015 or even later.\7\ The Secretary 
of Education and the IRS Commissioner will have to determine how best 
to account for these differences in order to show the progression of GI 
Bill students over time. Simply knowing that the graduation or non-
completion rates in a given year would not allow the information to be 
used to evaluate the return-on-investment from this hard-earned 
benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ For example, research by Veterans Education Success found that 
about 41 percent of veterans graduated in 2015-16 enrolled for the 
first time in 2005 or earlier. These proportions varied based on the 
degree pursued. For example, 50 percent of veterans who earned 
Bachelor's degrees in 2015-16 first enrolled in 2005 or earlier, 
compared to 36 percent of Associate's degree and 33 percent of 
certificate program graduates. See pp. 12-13 of Ochinko, Walter and 
Kathy Payea, Veterans Education Success, Postsecondary Non-Completion 
Among Veterans: Contributing Factors and Implications (Nov. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We believe the following recommendations would strengthen the 
utility of outcome data on veterans, servicemembers, and eligible 
family members using the GI Bill.

    Page 2 of Draft Bill:

      Line 12: require that the information be provided 
annually and strike ``shall provide the Secretary the following 
information . . . :'' Replace with: ``...shall provide to the Secretary 
annually outcome information about individuals using the GI Bill.''

      Line 15: specify that the data shall be reported 
separately for each cohort. ``The following data shall be provided 
separately for each cohort--veterans, members of the Armed Forces, or 
dependents of veterans or members of the Armed Forces:''

      Line 16: after line 16 insert ``Retention rate.''

      Line 20: require reporting separately on the number of 
each type of degree. ``Number of completed credentials, disaggregating 
certificates, associates, bachelors, and post-baccalaureate degrees.''

      Line 22-23: revise to make consistent with line 20. 
``Average number of years to complete each type of credential.''

      Line 24: Since unemployment is defined as those seeking 
work, revise to require data on employment rates. ``Employment rates 
of...''

    Page 3 of Draft Bill:

      Line 1: revise to read ``Median earnings for graduates'' 
because some individuals don't earn wages on a salaried basis.
      Line 4: require median debt data separately for graduates 
and individuals who did not complete. ``Median amount of Federal 
student loan debt, separately for graduates and for individuals who 
attended but did not complete.''
      After line 4: insert new measure--``Median amount of 
Federal Pell Grants, separately for graduates and individuals who 
attended but did not complete.''
      Line 5: revise to read--``Student loan cohort default 
rate.''
      After line 5: insert two new measures----

                o ``Student loan repayment rate and the proportion in 
                deferment or forbearance, separately for graduates and 
                individuals who attended but did not complete''

                o ``Student loan repayment plans, separately for 
                graduates and individuals who attended but did not 
                complete.''

    It is also worth noting that information of GI Bill student 
outcomes will be more valuable if Congress enacts the College 
Transparency Act because this bill will provide a frame of reference to 
understand how outcomes of GI Bill students differ in comparison to 
non-veteran students or other subgroups of students such as 
``independent'' students who, like most veterans are older and no 
longer financially dependent on their parents.
    We would like to State that in order to ensure these vital pieces 
of legislation to be implemented in an effective and expeditious 
manner, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) must have a 
functioning modern IT-system. We hope Congress will continue to put at 
the forefront the importance of giving the VBA the necessary funding to 
address and update its IT-system to ensure student veterans are put 
first and not needlessly harmed by old IT infrastructure.
    Veterans Education Success sincerely appreciates the opportunity to 
express our views on legislation before the Subcommittee today. 
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, Veterans 
Education Success has received no Federal grants in Fiscal Year 2020 
nor in the previous two years.

                                   [all]