[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1037,
H.R. 1098, H.R. 1168, H.R. 1172,
H.R. 1821, H.R. 1879, AND H.R. 2180
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 21, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-922 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
Dakota Carolina
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
GLENN C. NYE, Virginia
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
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
__________
May 21, 2009
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1037, H.R. 1098, H.R. 1168, H.R.
1172, H.R. 1821, H.R. 1879, and H.R. 2180...................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 23
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 23
Hon. Thomas S.P. Perriello....................................... 5
Prepared statement of Congressman Perriello.................. 24
Hon. Harry Teague................................................ 14
Prepared statement of Congressman Teague..................... 24
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director,
Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration............ 17
Prepared statement of Mr. Keith M. Wilson.................... 37
U.S. Department of Labor, John M. McWilliam, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service........... 18
Prepared statement of Mr. McWilliam.......................... 39
______
American Legion, Mark Seavey, Assistant Director, National
Legislative Commission......................................... 9
Prepared statement of Mr. Seavey............................. 32
American Veterans (AMVETS), Raymond C. Kelley, National
Legislative Director........................................... 11
Prepared statement of Mr. Kelley............................. 33
Coffman, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado.................................................... 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Coffman.................... 25
Disabled American Veterans, John L. Wilson, Associate National
Legislative Director........................................... 8
Prepared statement of Mr. John L. Wilson..................... 30
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Richard Daley, Associate
Legislation Director........................................... 7
Prepared statement of Mr. Daley.............................. 28
Wounded Warrior Project, Corporal Wade J. Spann, Alumni, USMC.... 12
Prepared statement of Corporal Spann......................... 35
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Filner, Hon. Bob, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and a
Representative in Congress from the State of California,
statement...................................................... 40
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Mr.
Wade J. Spann, Alumni, Wounded Warrior Project, letter dated
May 26, 2009, and WWP responses................................ 42
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Mr.
Raymond Kelley, National Legislative Director, AMVETS, letter
dated May 26, 2009, and AMVETS responses....................... 43
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Mr.
John L. Wilson, Associate National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans, letter dated May 26, 2009, DAV and
responses...................................................... 44
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Mr.
Keith Wilson, Director, Office of Education Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
letter dated May 26, 2009, and VA responses.................... 45
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Mr.
John M. McWilliam, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor,
letter dated May 26, 2009, and DOL responses................... 47
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1037,
H.R. 1098, H.R. 1168, H.R. 1172,
H.R. 1821, H.R. 1879, AND H.R. 2180
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:12 p.m., in
Room 340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Perriello, Adler,
Kirkpatrick, Teague, Boozman, Moran, and Bilirakis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, hearing on pending legislation will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and that written
statements be made part of the record. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
Today, we have seven bills before us that would address the
unique needs of our veteran population. The bills before us
today seek: to expand the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs'
(VA) Work Study Program; increase the amount of educational
assistance payments for individuals pursuing an apprenticeship
or on-the-job training; provide veterans with training
assistance in employment sectors in high demand; authorize the
VA to post a list of organizations that provide scholarships to
veterans and their survivors; expand the services offered by
the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program;
extend Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act
(USERRA) rights for servicemembers ordered to full time
National Guard duty; and bring equity to our injured veterans
by waiving the housing loan fees for certain veterans with
service-connected disabilities called back to active service.
Some of you might recall that last year I introduced
legislation that would direct the Secretary of the VA to
conduct a 5-year pilot project to expand on existing work study
activities for veterans. Recognizing the need to address this
important issue in the 111th Congress, I reintroduced H.R.
1037, the ``Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act
of 2009.''
Currently, veterans that qualify for work study would be
limited to working on VA-related work, such as processing VA
paperwork, performing outreach services and assisting staff at
VA medical facilities or the offices of the National Cemetery
Administration.
While providing a study workforce to assist the VA in day-
to-day activities is crucial in providing our student veterans
with employment opportunities, my bill would allow veterans
additional options of working in academic departments and
student services. This change would put them on par with
students that qualify for a work-study position under programs
not administered by the VA.
It is important that we continue to reevaluate existing
programs and look into innovative ways to provide our veterans
with expanded workforce benefits, education benefits and
employment protections which the bills before us today seek to
accomplish.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 23.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I now recognize Ranking Member Mr.
Boozman for any opening remarks he may have on H.R. 1168, H.R.
1172 or any of the other bills.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you mentioned, we
have seven bills to discuss today.
We all know about the current unemployment situation. There
was a recent article in a national news magazine that noted
that there are currently 3 million job openings in the United
States. Unfortunately, some job skills become irrelevant or
obsolete with the passage of time. To address that issue I
introduced H.R. 1168, which authorizes $100 million per year to
provide a living stipend and moving assistance to veterans who
have been unemployed for at least 4 months, who are not
eligible for training or education under title 38 and are
enrolled in the U.S. Department of Labor Retraining Program.
The amount of the stipend would mirror that given to
chapter 33 GI Bill participants. The moving assistance is
intended to help a newly trained veteran who lives in an area
of high employment to move to an area where there is a demand
for the veteran's skills. It is my hope that H.R. 1168 will be
a step toward providing veterans with new skill sets and the
ability to relocate where jobs are.
Madam Chair, each bill raises issues of importance to
veterans and I am hopeful that today's witnesses will provide
us with additional things to consider as we move forward. I
want to work with you to ensure that we move as many of these
as we can forward as possible, given any PAYGO restrictions we
may face and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 23.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
I would like to welcome our panelists testifying before the
Subcommittee today. The Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Filner, may be joining us here shortly.
We have the Honorable Mike Coffman of Colorado, Ranking
Member Boozman, Congressman Perriello and Congressman Teague
who also have bills under consideration today. They will be
joining us at the dais here today along with Members of the
Subcommittee and will be entering their written statements and
any other statements they wish to make into the hearing record.
Mr. Coffman, we will recognize you first. Welcome to our
Subcommittee you are recognized on your bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member
Mr. Boozman.
I introduced House Resolution 1879, the ``National Guard
Employment and Protection Act,'' in order to extend the same
reemployment protections given to National Guardsman,
regardless of whether they are assigned to a Homeland Security
mission or deployed overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Under current law, members of the National Guard who are
called up to serve overseas have full reemployment rights
granted by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act 1994, commonly referred to as USERRA, to meet any
active-duty requirements, while those who are involuntarily
called up to serve somewhere in the United States as part of a
Homeland Security mission are not covered.
USERRA places a maximum 5-year time limit that an employer
is required by law to keep a position open for a returning
member of the Guard or Reserve who has been mobilized to serve
on active duty.
The ``National Guard Employment and Protection Act,'' House
Resolution 1879, would amend USERRA to authorize the Secretary
of Defense to include members of the National Guard who are
involuntarily recalled to Federal title 32 service for Homeland
Security missions to receive the same USERRA reemployment
protections as their counterparts who have been mobilized or
are serving overseas.
USERRA was designed to provide reemployment rights to
returning members of the National Guard and Reserve after they
were recalled to active duty under title 10, U.S. Code. The
theory behind is USERRA is that the challenges imposed on the
members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families
would be unnecessarily compounded if they did not have
reemployment rights with their civilian employers when they
return from active duty. Their recruitment and retention of
military personnel for these critical Guard and Reserve
components of the U.S. Armed Forces would be extremely low
without the reemployment protections given under USERRA.
Training, Homeland Security and Defense missions fall under
title 32 of the U.S. Code. Historically, the National Guard has
been utilized in one of two categories to define their status
when serving on active duty--title 32 and title 10.
Traditionally, title 32 was reserved for training and State
missions, and title 10 for mobilization to Federal active duty.
Before 9/11, training and State missions were generally
thought of as requiring relatively short periods of duty for
civil disturbances, natural disasters, annual unit training, or
for professional development course work. Training and State
missions were never anticipated to be for a very long time.
However, after the terrorist attack of September 11th, the
Guard was tasked with Homeland Security defense and given new
missions, such as security at airports and nuclear power plants
and border patrol, and the Air Sovereignty Alert missions were
greatly expanded.
The current USERRA law was written before 9/11 happened. It
never envisioned that a member of the National Guard would be
called up to serve for an extended period of Federal duty in
the United States. The law only assumed that a member of the
National Guard would be called to active duty for an extended
period of time to serve overseas. USERRA was written for
Guardsman serving on active duty under title 10, and has never
been amended for those called up under title 32, Federal Duty
Status.
All of the soldiers and airman serving in the National
Guard must have the same reemployment rights irrespective of
where or how they are ordered to serve. We need to recognize
that those who are called up for Homeland Security missions can
face the same hardships and challenges in trying to get their
civilian employment back as someone who has been far away from
their civilian occupation due to an overseas assignment.
Eight years into fighting the Global War on Terror, we are
starting to see an increasing number of National Guardsman
serving in Federal title 32 status who are bumping up against
the 5-year USERRA protection for their civilian jobs.
According to the statistics provided by the National Guard
Bureau, since 9/11, 6,984 of our citizen soldiers had been
called up to perform Federal missions under title 32. There are
currently 1,719 Guardsman performing duty under title 32
orders.
The Air National Guard has especially been impacted,
particularly those airman performing the Air Sovereignty Alerts
missions, such as the 140th fighter wing in my home State of
Colorado. They are by no means alone in their situation.
As this loophole in employment protection affects the
entire National Guard, it is essential that we make sure all of
our Nation's heroes are given adequate opportunity to support
Federal missions without it affecting their civilian jobs,
whether they are protecting our skies, helping save lives
during a national disaster such as hurricane Katrina, enhancing
our border security, or another Federal mission.
There is no doubt that the National Guard is an essential
part of the total force. America's National Guardsman should
never be put in a position where they are forced to chose
whether to support a critical mission such as a mission in
supporting the Global War of Terror or return to work with
their civilian employers in order to protect their jobs.
If the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009 is
not passed, National Guard members may be forced to chose
between keeping their civilian jobs and serving our Nation.
Unfortunately, this is already starting to occur and the
problem will likely get worse as people near the current USERRA
5-year job protection limit.
The National Guard is performing critical Federal missions
under title 32, and it is essential that this loophole be
closed so that we protect those who serve to protect us.
This legislation is fully supported by Enlisted Guard
Association of the United States and the National Guard
Association of the United States, and I have enclosed their
letters of endorsement for the record. The National Guard
Bureau and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) also favor
closing this loophole to protect our national Guardsmen.
Our citizen soldiers fight to protect our Nation and our
freedom and the very least we can do is protect their rights to
serve and retain their livelihood for themselves and their
families.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Coffman and the
attached letters, appears on p. 25.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you Mr. Coffman. Thank you for
your attention and commitment to our National Guardsmen and
women.
We have a series of votes, but we have time to recognize
Mr. Perriello to speak on his bill, H.R. 1098.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS S. PERRIELLO
Mr. Perriello. Thank you, Chairwoman and Ranking Member,
for holding this important legislative hearing and giving us
this opportunity to offer testimony in support of H.R. 1098,
the `Veteran Workers' Retraining Act of 2009,'' or Vet Works
Bill.
According the U.S. Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the unemployment rate among veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan has reached a staggering 11.2 percent.
H.R. 1098, legislation I introduced to the House on
February 13th, 2009, will help to reduce this trend by
providing 570,000 unemployed veterans and members of the Guard
and Reserve with enhanced assistance in securing employment in
today's challenging job market.
H.R. 1098 increases and makes permanent the training
benefit amount for on-the-job training or OJT. OJT provides an
alternative to attending a college or university by allowing
veterans to use their educational assistance entitlement to
pursue a full-time program of apprenticeship or on-the-job
training. This program allows veterans to become gainfully
employed because their training will lead to an entry level job
or better.
Approved OJT programs must be between 6 months and 2 years
in length and include programs for welders, painters, cooks,
production equipment mechanic, auto mechanic, corrections
officer, parts buyer, et cetera.
The training benefit amount is based on a percentage of the
basic full-time school rate. The Veterans Benefits Improvement
Act of 2004 increased benefits for individuals pursuing
apprenticeship or OJT. The increase was only temporary,
however, from October 1, 2005, to January 1, 2008.
On January 1, 2008, this provision expired and benefits
were restored to the previous rate amount. H.R. 1098 will
reinstate the benefit training rate amount established by the
Veterans Benefit Improvement Act of 2004 and make it permanent.
Prior to the expiration date of the provisions in the
Veterans Benefit Improvement Act of 2004, the Department of
Veterans Affairs proposed legislation that would have extended
the temporary increase in the rates of payment to individuals
pursuing apprenticeship and OJT programs. Additionally, the
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has stated that jobs generally
requiring this kind of training will account for half of all
jobs by 2016.
I can't tell you how many of our returning servicemen have
said to me, ``I'm really excited to enter the job market. I'm
not looking to go to a 4-year college. It's not what I feel
called to do right now. I would really like to pick up a trade.
This is the sort of training that could be the difference for
me between no job or a job, or perhaps the difference between a
minimum wage job and a living wage job.''
This Congress, this Committee has done a great thing in
modernizing the GI Bill for those who want to go to college. We
need to do the same for those who feel called to pick up a
trade and do the kind of apprenticeship programs that can be
the difference for a family of economic security or
unemployment.
We have an obligation to help those who have defended our
country by giving them the tools they need to rejoin the
civilian workforce. H.R. 1098 is a common sense bill, which
will provide America's veterans with the resources they need to
join the workforce.
I would like to thank all of the veteran service
organizations (VSOs) assembled here today for their support of
this effort and I look forward to working with you as the
legislation progresses.
I thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Perriello appears on
p. 24.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Perriello. The
Subcommittee will now take a brief recess for the two votes
that have been called and will resume in about half an hour.
[Recess.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We will now reconvene. We will now
invite Panel 2 to the witness table. Joining us on our second
panel of witnesses is: Mr. Richard Daley, Associate Legislative
Director for Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA); Mr. John
Wilson, Associate National Legislative Director for the
Disabled American Veterans (DAV); Mr. Mark Seavey, Assistant
Director, National Legislative Commission for the American
Legion; Mr. Raymond Kelley, National Legislative Director for
AMVETS; and Mr. Wade Spann of the Wounded Warrior Project
(WWP).
In the interest of time and courtesy to all of the
panelists here today on this panel and the following, we ask
that you limit your testimony to 5 minutes, focusing on your
comments and recommendations. Your entire written statement has
been entered into the Committee record.
So with that, Mr. Daley, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF RICHARD DALEY, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATION DIRECTOR,
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; JOHN L. WILSON, ASSOCIATE
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; MARK
SEAVEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION,
AMERICAN LEGION; RAYMOND C. KELLEY, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VETERANS (AMVETS); AND CORPORAL WADE J.
SPANN, USMC, ALUMNI, WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DALEY
Mr. Daley. Thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and
Ranking Member Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee.
I am pleased to be here to express our feelings on several
of these bills. In the interest of time, I will limit my
remarks to three of the bills, but all of them are important,
and I would like to see movement on all of the bills because
they are a step forward for the veterans.
The first one that I would like to discuss is H.R. 1037. It
is legislation to establish a pilot program to expand the
current scope of work study programs. It is supposed to be a 5-
year pilot program that will open up other positions that are
available for other people in work study programs through the
veterans and there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to
help people in the accounting department or the library or any
of the other functions within the university or school
environment.
In H.R. 1168, the ``Veterans' Retraining Act of 2009,''
unemployment is a problem with especially the Gulf War II
veterans. It is at 11.2 percent. Gulf War I veterans, I don't
have a specific number because they tend to merge that in with
Gulf War II veterans and just say Gulf War veterans, that we
know that there is probably--it is higher than the national
average for Gulf War I veterans.
This legislation could apply to them because their GI Bill
has expired by now and they may not be eligible for any other
rehabilitation programs, so this can help those veterans now
that are in their late thirties or mid forties, to get some
training and seek another career.
And even the current veterans that are 21 years old, you
know, when they are 37, they may need a career change and this
would also help them.
H.R. 1821, the ``Equity Injured Veterans' Act of 2009,''
PVA supports this, that would extend the period of eligibility
for training and rehabilitation through the VA from the current
12 years to 15 years. This would help veterans that must
undergo a multi-year medical rehabilitation and that does
happen, especially with people with spinal cord injuries.
In preparation for this, I know a veteran back in the St.
Louis area, Joseph Avalon, a member of PVA, a military marine,
retired marine, but he is a high-level quadriplegic, and I met
him when he first came into the Spinal Cord Unit at Jefferson
Barracks.
He has been going to college now. He is up and around and
everything. He has adjusted to, after 9 years of being, you
know, a power wheelchair. But he has finished his college
degree and he is going to work on a graduate degree. But I
said, ``Did you know that you won't be eligible for the Voc
Rehab in another 2 years?''
He said, ``No, I didn't know that.''
Because he may need to take a computer course or something
else to help his employment situation. And I said, well, there
is legislation out there to extend it to 15 years, even though
it probably shouldn't be any time at all if you are injured in
the service like that, such as he was.
The situation was, he was, him and Marines swimming in
Hawaii with other Marines, and one of the guys was getting
trouble and Joey jumped in, dove in to help save his fellow
Marine, and from that point on he was a quadriplegic, that he
is dealing with that very well.
And H.R. 1172, we certainly support that, that directs the
VA to establish an internet site for organizations, listing
organizations for scholarships for veterans and their
survivors. That would certainly get the use out of it. I was
looking in the U.S. News--USA Today on Monday and they had a
big article in there about the number of war veterans that are
seeking their brides using the internet. They are over there
and they are meeting people, and they are actually, when they
come back from Iraq or Afghanistan, they are getting married.
So they are very Internet savvy. So putting this information on
the internet would certainly make it accessible for them.
That concludes my testimony. I will be ready to answer
questions when you have them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley appears on p. 28.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Daley. Mr. Wilson, you
are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN L. WILSON
Mr. John Wilson. Thank you. Madame Chairwoman and Members
of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 1.2 million members of
the Disabled American Veterans, I am honored to present
testimony addressing various bills before this Subcommittee
today.
In accordance with our Congressional Charter, the DAV's
mission is to advance the interests and work for the betterment
of all wounded, injured and disabled American veterans. We are,
therefore, pleased to support various measures, insofar as they
fall within that scope.
The legislation under consideration today, I want to
address two in my oral statement. The first is H.R. 1821
introduced by Congressman Filner, which seeks to amend chapter
31 of title 38, United States Code, to increase vocational,
rehabilitation and employment assistance.
Specifically, it increases the eligibility period from 12
year to 15 years. It increases the allowance from 2 months to 6
months and allows those participating in a vocational
rehabilitation program who elect to pursue an approved program
of education and receive monthly assistance.
The monthly amounts received would be equal to the amounts
eligible veterans receive for educational assistance of this
title, including a monthly stipend. Reimbursements for
childcare assistance up to $2,000 per month for single parents
is also provided for veterans who are the sole caretaker of a
child.
DAV Resolution 246 seeks legislation extending vocational
rehabilitation in excess of the 12-year limitation. This bill
extends eligibility from 12 years to 15 years. Therefore, we
are pleased to support the legislation presented today.
Now, also, the second bill would be H.R. 2180 introduced by
Congressman Teague, April of 2009, which waives the housing
loan fees for certain veterans with service-connected
disabilities called to active service.
This legislation, although focused on veterans called to
active duty as part of the Guard or Reserve who have and
temporarily forego receiving disability compensation, readily
applies to DAV Resolution 15 which calls to the repeal of all
funding fees for VA home loans. A resolution notes that in 1990
Congress imposed funding fees upon VA guaranteed home loans
under budget reconciliation provisions.
As a temporary deficit reduction measure, these fees are
now a regular feature of all VA home loans, except for disabled
veterans and un-remarried surviving spouses. The fees were
increased, and at the present time may well continue so over
the next 7 year.
Their express purpose is straightforward, a way to generate
additional revenue to cover the costs of improvements and cost-
of-living adjustments and other veterans' programs. Veterans
have already paid a high price for freedom, however, and such
benefits should not be bourne on the backs of their patriotism.
The DAV has urged Congress to refrain from further
increasing the VA home loan funding fees and to repeal these
fees as soon as possible.
Congressman Teague is taking a step in the right direction
and is to be commended. In these difficult economic times, such
legislative action goes far, reducing the burden felt by so
may, particularly those who join the ranks of the military.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony on behalf of
the DAV. I will be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John Wilson appears on p.
30.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Seavey, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MARK SEAVEY
Mr. Seavey. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
present the American Legion's views on the several pieces of
legislation being considered by the Subcommittee today.
The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for holding a
hearing to discuss these important and timely issues. I will
start with H.R. 1037, the ``Pilot College Work Study Programs
for Veterans Act of 2009,'' which seeks to direct the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to conduct a 5-year pilot project to test
the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of
certain qualifying work study activities under title 38. The
American Legion supports this pilot program.
According to the Department of Labor, the present
employment rate for recently discharged veterans is an alarming
20 percent, and one out of every four of these veterans who do
find employment earn less than $25,000 per year. The American
Legion believes that this Work Study Program would provide
needed job skills and experience for veterans, particularly
those in non-skilled military occupational skills.
H.R. 1098 seeks to amend title 38 to increase the amount of
educational assistance payable by the Secretary of the VA to
certain individuals pursing internships or on-the-job training.
The American Legion supports this legislation as well. We
believe that an increase in pay within the existing programs
for on-the-job training will greatly benefit veterans who are
pursuing internships in training with the necessary income that
will provide for their daily and living expenses.
H.R. 1168 would amend chapter 42 of title 38 to provide
certain veterans with employment training assistance. The
American Legion supports this legislation as well. The bill
would provide veterans, especially recently separated veterans
who are mission oriented, trainable, drug free and have great
work ethic, with training that would prepare them to obtain
gainful employment so they can financially provide for
themselves and for their families.
H.R. 1172 seeks to direct the Secretary of the VA to
include on their Internet Web site a list of organizations that
provide scholarships to veterans and their survivors. The
American Legion supports this action as well.
This additional scholarship information on VA's Web site
would provide veterans and their survivors with centrally
located resources that will assist them in their educational
endeavors and ultimately help them to smoothly transition from
active duty to the civilian workforce.
H.R. 1821 amends chapter 31, title 38 to increase
vocational rehabilitation and employment assistance. The
American Legion supports the increase in pay for these eligible
veterans. This legislation would provide veterans with
increased allowances more closely aligned to financial benefits
under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The American Legion believes this legislation will greatly
assist and encourage eligible veterans to remain in voc rehab
programs, search for employment and assist with living
expenses. Additionally, this bill will provide reimbursements
for childcare to veterans who are participating in a voc rehab
program and/or who are the sole caretaker of a child or
children.
H.R. 1879 seeks to amend title 38 to provide for employment
and reemployment rights for certain individuals ordered to
full-time National Guard duty. Today, reserved forces are
operational forces and they fight side by side with active duty
forces, bringing their unique skills and abilities to the
modern battlefield.
The American Legion believes that reemployment benefits due
these National Guard warriors should be changed to reflect the
new military reality. The American Legion supports this
provision and the idea that all veterans be treated equally,
regardless of their National Guard status in that an individual
who is called to duty and serves honorably should receive these
kinds of benefits.
H.R. 2180 amends title 38 to waive housing loan fees for
certain veterans with service-connected disabilities called to
active service. The American Legion supports this initiative to
waive housing loan fees for these service-disabled veterans so
they and their families can move into quality housing and use
these moneys for other necessary items or projects.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present
this statement for the record. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman,
Ranking Member Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee for
allowing us to present our views on these important issues.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seavey appears on p. 32.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Seavey.
Mr. Kelley, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. KELLEY
Mr. Kelley. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman,
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to provide AMVETS' views and discuss
pending legislation.
Multiple studies have shown that veterans are more likely
to be unemployed or underemployed than their civilian
counterparts and a small percentage of veterans who apply for
chapter 31 benefits complete their program.
I would like to share some statistics with you. Eighty-one
percent of all servicemembers who are transitioning from the
military to civilian life have some sort of uncomfortability
with that transition. Sixty-one percent of employers don't know
the skills that veterans possess. Fifty-two percent of
companies use less than 2 percent of their recruitment budget
to recruit veterans and that unemployment for veterans is 4
percent higher than their civilian counterparts. That is the
bad news.
The good news is the bills that we are discussing today are
taking a pretty good stab at removing some of those inequities.
H.R. 1037 will greatly expand the scope of qualifying work
study for veterans. By expanding this program, veterans will
benefit by qualifying for jobs on campuses in which they
attend, making it much easier to schedule work hours and class
commitments. AMVETS strongly supports this legislation.
On-the-job training and internships are a great way for
pre-entry level job seekers to gain real world experience in a
field, build their resume and network with companies that hire
entry level employees. AMVETS supports H.R. 1098, increasing
the assistance amount for veterans who are pursuing internships
or on-the-job training is important in helping veterans who
lack specific work experience in an occupational field.
Many internships and on-the-job training opportunities are
unpaid positions or only provide a small stipend. Also, many of
these opportunities prevent participants from working other
part-time jobs to sustain themselves. Making these humble
increases to the benefit will increase the availability of
veterans to find a secure career track and training tools
without risking their ability to provide for themselves and
their families while they transition from the military.
The Department of Labor has identified 14 sectors that
qualify as high-growth fields. AMVETS supports the spirit of
H.R. 1168 and would recommend that the duration of payment be
extended to cover the entire length of any approved training
course.
This will ensure two things. First, that veterans will have
the financial means to complete training that lasts longer than
6 months; and second, that veterans will not be limited to
career fields that have training periods that last 6 months or
less.
AMVETS supports H.R. 1172. Providing a one-stop shop for
scholarships will be beneficial to veterans as they are looking
for scholarship opportunities. I do have a couple of
recommendations, though, that in the legislation be added
dependents and not just survivors. AMVETS, and I know that
other organizations provide scholarships to dependents of
living veterans and that that should be included as well.
AMVETS also suggests that a vetting process occur to ensure
that organizations that wish to post their scholarships meet
the spirit of the bill. Also, providing a link to the National
Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs will provide
easy access to these State veterans' benefits.
AMVETS believes that one of the overlying causes of VR&E
incompletion is financial. Increasing the living stipend will
reduce the financial burden. Therefore, AMVETS supports the
stipend increase provisions.
However, we disagree with maintaining a delimiting period.
There is no delimiting period for disabilities, and there
should not be one for the service that is in place to ensure
that wounded and injured veterans can gain and maintain
meaningful employment.
AMVETS also supports H.R. 2180 and H.R. 1879.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you, again, for providing AMVETS
the opportunity to present our views on these key pieces of
legislation and this concludes my testimony and I would be
happy to answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelley appears on p. 33.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. Thank you.
Corporal Spann, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF CORPORAL WADE J. SPANN, USMC
Corporal Spann. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman
and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me to
address the Subcommittee today on several pending bills related
to economic empowerment of our Nation's veterans.
I am here today on behalf of the Wounded Warrior Project.
Their goal is to make this generation of wounded veterans the
most successful and well adjusted generation in veterans'
history.
My written testimony addresses all the bills before you
today. However, I would like to speak only on H.R. 1821, which
addresses the VR&E Program.
My story begins on June 13th, 2004, when I was wounded by a
roadside bomb outside of Fallujah when I was serving in the
Marine Corps. From my sacrifices and from my disabilities, I
gained a 70 percent disability rating.
I went on to finish my third tour in Iraq. While on my
third tour, I met another Marine who had gotten out, worked for
the VA and then came back from the Marines, and he is the one
that told me about the VR&E program.
I was enrolled in the educational tract in April of 2007
with a severe employment handicap. Last Friday, I proudly
state, I graduated from the George Washington (GW) University
with a degree in International Affairs.
Let me say this. I state I like the VRE program. I am
grateful for the VR&E program. I could not have attended the
George Washington University had it not been for that program,
but their subsistence levels are too low. For example, in my
case, my monthly cost of living is about $2,000. I received
about $1,100 for my disabilities and $540 per month from the
VR&E subsistence rates.
To cover the difference in that cost, I have worked 3 days
a week as a bartender, every week while at school. This working
did hamper my academic studies and it greatly affected my
studies.
H.R. 1821 is a step in the right direction. It gives me the
choice to use the new GI Bill with the higher subsistence
rates, but if I use that new GI Bill, there is a cap at the end
of my tuition.
Here is what this would have meant for me had I been going
to GW during this. In Washington, the new GI Bill will pay $105
per credit hour. It will also pay me $657 per term to cover my
fees. Last semester I carried 15 credit hours.
On the new GI Bill, this would give me about $2,232 per
term for tuition and fees. The good news, my subsistence
payments would be over $1,900 a month, but my subsistence would
be more than enough to meet my monthly expenses.
However, the George Washington University tuition is about
$50,000 a year. So if I use the new GI Bill, I would have to
pay about $45,000 out of my own pocket and simply any veteran
getting out of the military or any American these days does not
have $45,000 to pay for school.
There are some good provisions in this bill that I want to
include. As I represent the Wounded Warrior Project, we support
extending the eligibility period from 12 years to 15 years. In
addition, we also support extending subsistence payments from 2
to 6 months after completing a VR&E tract.
One final concern I have deals with the VR&E counseling and
tutoring. I had very limited contact with my VR&E counselor,
and I wish I had had some more. It would have given me the
guidance that I needed sometimes.
Also, the VR&E tutors are not sufficient enough for me to
be at an academic level that I was at. I found that the GW
University provided peer tutors that were more beneficial and
better for my academics. To use the GW tutors, I moved near
campus. That way I could be close to my student peers, tutors,
and also my professors. This cost me about $1,000 a month in
rent.
In summary, I am very grateful for the VR&E program. The
low subsistence payments almost made me quit many of times. If
it was not for my family in this area, my fellow veterans and
fellow VSOs in this area, I would have definitely not completed
my education at the George Washington University.
H.R. 1821 offers a partial remedy for letting me use the
new GI Bill, but if I use that new GI Bill, my tuition is
capped and which restricts my choice of schools.
In summation, VR&E should provide a fair comprehensive
package of monthly payments to cover training, tuition fees,
subsistence and family living expenses through the first 6
months of employment.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spann appears on p. 35.]
Mr. Perriello [presiding]. Thank you very much to all of
you for your testimony. Before we go to questions, I am going
to recognize Mr. Teague for a couple of minutes for an opening
statement.
Mr. Teague. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is this microphone on?
Is it now?
Mr. Perriello. Yes, sir.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY TEAGUE
Mr. Teague. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Boozman and fellow Subcommittee Members. Thank you for
allowing me to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of H.R.
2180. I believe that this bill represents something that we can
always use more of in government, a little common sense.
In this case, that common sense is a simple fix that will
ensure that disabled veterans will be able to receive
assistance that they should have had all along. H.R. 2180 would
amend title 38 of the United States Code to waive VA home loan
fees for certain veterans with service-connected disabilities
that have been recalled to active service.
As you know, the Department of Veterans Affairs underwrites
home loans that are made by private lenders to eligible
veterans. The benefits of having a VA home loan are many. For
example, the buyer is informed of reasonable value, the
interest rate is negotiable and there are no mortgage insurance
premiums. Veterans also have the right to prepay without
penalty, and the VA provides assistance to veteran borrowers in
default due to financial difficulty.
Additionally, under title 38, section 3729, many disabled
veterans and some injured soldiers qualify for a waiver of home
loan fees. Unfortunately, however, a different part of the law,
title 38, section 5304 prevents an eligible servicemember or
veteran from receiving a home loan funding fee waiver if the
veteran is called up back to active-duty service. My bill
amends title 38 to close this hole in the Code and also
eligible servicemembers to receive the fee waiver.
Mr. Chairman, I simply think that it is wrong to expect
someone who has served their country, and been injured as a
result of that service, be penalized because we, as a
government, are putting them back in uniform. This is an
oversight in the law that must be repaired, and I thank the
Committee for giving my bill a hearing. The cost of this bill
would be very minimal and it complies with the PAYGO rules.
H.R. 2180 represents a common sense solution to a problem
that I do not think anyone anticipated. I believe that when the
Congress established the VA home loan program, they had the
best of intentions and created a wonderful opportunity for
thousands of veterans that simply want their part of the
American dream. With this bill, we can correct an oversight
that will help even more veterans along the way. I would like
to take this time to thank the staff members of the Economic
Opportunity Subcommittee who lent their expertise during the
drafting of this bill and thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and
Ranking Member Boozman for the opportunity to advance this
bill.
This concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any
questions you may have regarding H.R. 2180. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Teague appears on p.
24.]
Mr. Perriello. Thank you, Mr. Teague.
I am going to return to the questions now and ask Ranking
Member Boozman if he has questions for the panel.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Spann, in your testimony you stated that you believe
H.R. 1168 was too costly and could affect other programs. Are
you opposed to the bill because it would likely benefit older
veterans who have few other opportunities to getting marketable
skills?
Corporal Spann. Can you repeat that question, sir?
Mr. Boozman. In your testimony, you said that it was too
costly and could affect other programs. I guess the question
is, are you opposed because it would likely benefit older
veterans that really don't have many opportunities as far as
skill sets, to acquire skill sets, marketable skills?
Corporal Spann. I understand the question. At this time I
would like to defer to answering and take that question for the
record.
[The Wounded Warrior Project subsequently provided the
following information:]
Wounded Warrior Project commends Representative Boozman's intent
with this legislation. WWP's position is that we neither support nor
oppose H.R. 1168 at this time. As proposed, Congressman Boozman's bill
contains limited information about the specifics of the program and
does not reveal how the program's cost of $100 million would be paid.
Accordingly, WWP is uncertain whether this bill could adversely impact
existing or proposed VA programs which focus more specifically on
Wounded Warrior Project signature initiatives intended to help our core
constituency.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is the only
question I have. I appreciate you commenting on the bills as
always. It is always very, very helpful. As we go forward, I am
really pleased. I think that the Members of Congress have
really come up with many suggestions in the form of these bills
that we have to work with, that I think really offer the
possibility of making veterans' lives a little bit easier, so
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perriello. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. I have a question
for Mr. Wilson, but others may comment.
Do you believe that the current method used by the VA to
report the number of rehabilitated veterans is adequate or
should we be looking to adhere to H.R. 1821, the proposal from
Mr. Filner?
Mr. John Wilson. Repeat the question again, please, sir.
Mr. Perriello. Do you believe that the current method used
by the VA to report the number of rehabilitated veterans is
adequate, or should the VA adhere to the proposal in H.R. 1821
that has been introduced by Chairman Filner?
Mr. John Wilson. I would think that looking in our view
that the current process is adequate and that H.R. 1821 seems
to address an important issue of extending an eligibility
period. We would like to see the delimiting period removed
entirely, but have had no issue with how the VA currently
identifies veterans who are eligible for participation.
Mr. Perriello. It is possible to get the report earlier in
the process of the rehabilitation?
Mr. John Wilson. It is entirely possible, yes, sir.
We always, we would hope for an earlier reporting whenever
possible. That makes it easier to reach out to the veterans and
provide them full assistance.
But to properly address your question, I should take it
under advisement and respond to your letter.
[The information was provided in a Post-Hearing Question
and Response for the Record, which appears on p. 42.]
Mr. Perriello. Thank you.
Mr. John Wilson. You are welcome.
Mr. Perriello. Mr. Kelley.
Mr. Kelley. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Currently under title 38,
chapter 31, the VA Performance and Accountability Report, there
is a discrepancy in the reporting. VA currently will, if a
veteran drops out of VR&E without a plan of what they are going
to do, that they don't take that into account within their
reporting. That is why they have that 73 percent success rate,
when in actuality it is in the high teens, low twenties.
There needs to be some oversight on that to ensure that the
proper amount of money is given to that program for success in
the future.
Mr. Perriello. Well, picking up on that question, Mr.
Kelley, cited 18 percent. How does that compare to the world of
rehabilitation more generally outside of the VA system?
Mr. Kelley. I would have to go back and look at that. I can
get that for you for the record, Mr. Chairman.
[The information was provided in a Post-Hearing Question
and Response for the Record, which appears on p. 43.]
Mr. Perriello. All right.
Mr. Teague, do you have any questions?
Mr. Teague. Yes. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you.
I just have one question. It is for Corporal SPANN. Why do
you feel that H.R. 2180 is unnecessary?
Corporal Spann. You said H.R. 2180?
Mr. Teague. Yes, H.R. 2180. In your testimony you stated
that you didn't think it was necessary?
Corporal Spann. You will have to forgive me on that. My
memory escapes me on that. I would like to defer that answer
and take that question for the record.
[The Wounded Warrior Project subsequently provided the
following information:]
Representative Teague, as we stated in our written testimony, while
we do not oppose this proposed legislation, we feel that all active
duty servicemembers should be subject to the same VA loan fees
regardless of disability status. We recognize and support the current
laws which waive those fees for disabled veterans, including Guard and
Reserve members, not on active duty. However, once called back to
active duty, we feel that Guard and Reserve members should be treated
as any other active duty servicemember. There are several instances of
active duty regular servicemembers who have been disabled but who
continue to serve. They must pay the VA loan fees. We simply feel that,
as a matter of equity, all servicemembers on active duty should be
subject to the same VA loan rules.
Mr. Teague. Okay. Very well. Thank you. I have no other
questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perriello. I would like to thank all the Members of the
panel for testifying before our Subcommittee. Your feedback on
legislation today is appreciated. Your dedication to our
Nation's veterans is appreciated. We look forward to those
answers that will come back to us later and continue this
dialog.
Thank you very much and the panel is dismissed.
There may be additional questions submitted by the staff
and we will be in touch as those questions arise.
We now invite Panel 3 to the witness table. Joining us on
our third panel is: Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of the Office of
Education Services, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA),
Department of Veterans Affairs, who is accompanied by Mr. John
Brizzi, Deputy General Counsel for the Department of Veterans
Affairs; and Mr. John McWilliam, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service for the Department of
Labor.
Your full written statements will be entered into the
record as well. We will begin with Mr. Wilson. You are now
recognized.
STATEMENTS OF KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SERVICES,
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN BRIZZI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COUNSEL,
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
AND JOHN M. MCWILLIAM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, VETERANS'
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.
STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON
Mr. Keith Wilson. Good afternoon, Chairman Periello,
Ranking Member Boozman and other Members of the Subcommittee. I
am pleased to be here before you today to provide the
Department of Veterans Affairs views on pending benefits
legislation. I am accompanied today by Mr. John Brizzi of VA's
Office of General Counsel.
Two of the bills on the agenda today, H.R. 1168 and H.R.
1879, affect programs or laws administered by the Department of
Labor and we defer to DOL's views on those bills.
H.R. 2180 would waive housing loan fees for certain
veterans with service-connected disabilities called to active
duty. VA supports this proposal. The law as currently written
does create an inequity among groups of veterans. VA estimates
that the costs of H.R. 2180, if enacted, would be small.
H.R. 1821, the ``Equity for Injured Veterans Act of 2008,''
would amend chapter 31 of title 38 U.S. Code to extend the
basic eligibility for use of voc rehab and employment
assistance benefits under the chapter by an additional 3 years
from 12 years to 15 years.
VA supports, in principle, efforts to facilitate successful
completion of voc rehab programs under chapter 31. Provisions
within H.R. 1821 do have the potential to improve
rehabilitation completion rates. The VA looks forward to
working with the Committee to ensure the bill properly
addresses the issues that impact veterans' ability to complete
rehabilitation programs.
We estimate that the impact of this--we estimate that the
cost of this bill would be $43.8 million over the first year,
$400 million over 5 years and $895.4 million over 10 years.
H.R. 1037 would direct VA to conduct a 5-year pilot project
to test feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of
the current work study program. Although VA supports the intent
to expand the authorized work study activities, we are unable
to support the bill.
VA does not have the expertise or the resources to directly
supervise, as required by law, the wide range of activities
suggested, such as research assistants, lab assistant, tutors,
et cetera, for positions located at non-VA offices. The success
of the current work study program is largely due to
participant's performance of VA-related functions under the
direct supervision of VA.
H.R. 1098 would increase by 10 percent the full-time
monthly institutional rate for educational assistance allowance
that is payable for apprenticeship or on-the-job training under
certain VA education programs.
VA is unable to support H.R. 1098 at this time. The bill
would remove the annual cost-of-living increase for the chapter
35, Dependent's Educational Assistance Program.
Additionally, funding for such an increase in these
benefits is not included in the Administration's fiscal year
2010 budget. We will provide a full cost of the bill for the
record.
[The cost of the bill appears in the response to Question 2
of the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record,
which appears on p. 46.]
H.R. 1172 would direct VA to include on the Internet Web
site of the department, a list of organizations that provide
scholarships to veterans and their survivors and a link to the
Internet Web sites of such organizations. We understand and
support the importance of veterans having all available
information concerning scholarship programs available to them.
However, as currently prepared, we do have concerns that
maintaining such a list on the VA Web site would be problematic
and not provide veterans the best available information.
Therefore, we do not support the bill. We estimate that the
cost of H.R. 1172, if enacted, would be insignificant.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. I would be
happy to entertain questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keith Wilson appears on p.
37.]
Mr. Perriello. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. McWilliam, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MCWILLIAM
Mr. McWilliam. Thank you, sir, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Boozman.
Thank you for inviting us today to testify. I will restrict
my remarks to those two bills that impact the Department of
Labor and we defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs on the
remaining bills.
H.R. 1879, the purpose and sense of Congress in enacting
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
1994 was to encourage non-career service in the uniformed
services. To further this purpose, Congress limited to 5 years
the cumulative time that an employer is required to support a
servicemember's military absence.
H.R. 1879 would amend USERRA to exempt from the 5-year
limitation the service of National Guard members who are
ordered to full-time duty, pursuant to 32 USC Sec. 502(f). The
Department is confident that the Secretary of Defense is
sensitive to the balance that civilian employers face in, both,
supporting their employees who serve in the National Guard and
operating a successful business. Therefore, we have no
objection to this provision.
H.R. 1168 would direct the Secretary of Labor to provide
covered veterans a monthly training assistance allowance for
each of 6 months in which they are enrolled in an employment
and training program that teaches a skill in demand. The
Department notes that this bill appears to establish an
entitlement to this assistance, which is a concern in term with
the long-term financial challenges the Nation faces. The
assistance would be available without regard to the financial
need of the veteran or the need for training to enhance his or
her employment prospects.
The Department also notes that veterans currently receive
priority of service within the wide array of training programs
available through the DOL-funded one-stop career center system.
The Department would like to offer some thoughts on this
implementation of this legislation. The Department would need
to develop a system of certification and payment. The
Department would need to explore various options to include the
possibility of veterans' certification being done by veterans'
employment specialists in one-stop career centers.
The Department believes that the program's highest priority
should be those eligible veterans who, without this benefit
would be unable to obtain the training necessary to find a good
job.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McWilliam appears on p. 39.]
Mr. Perriello. Thank you very much, Mr. McWilliam.
Let me begin with Mr. Wilson. On February 13th, 2008, the
Subcommittee held a hearing in which Mr. Keith Pedigo testified
on behalf of the VA. In his testimony he proposed legislation
that would extend the temporary increase in the rates of
payment to individuals pursuing apprenticeship and OJT programs
and recommended reinstatement of the benefit rate increase in
support, making the increased payment.
In today's testimony, the VA does not support H.R. 1098
because it is not included in the fiscal year 2010 budget. The
temporary increase was not included in the 2009 budget request,
yet the VA did support the extension.
Can you elaborate on what has changed?
Mr. Keith Wilson. Yes. The core participants that we pay
benefits to are paid under the chapter 30 program. The chapter
30 participants under the OJT program did receive a 20-percent
rate increase with enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, so we
believe that was a core important issue in terms of supporting
the on-the-job training program.
Additionally, the budget issues involved with the 2010
budget, as indicated in my testimony, prohibit us from
supporting further expansion.
Mr. Perriello. You state that the success of the current
work-study program under H.R. 1037, is largely due to
participant's performing VA-related functions under the direct
supervision of the VA. Why must the students be performing VA-
related functions?
Mr. Keith Wilson. Under the current statute, that is the
requirement, is that they are doing VA-related work under
direct supervision of VA staff. That allows us to have a close
relationship with the individuals that are performing the
functions. It also gives us a level of expertise to monitor
that they are doing work and we understand that the work that
they are providing is valid work.
Extending it beyond our expertise would challenge our
ability to really provide the oversight that the statute
requires as to provide to the program currently.
Mr. Perriello. But why does the VA need to personally
supervise the students in the work study program? Can the
supervision be conducted by university officials with guidance
from the VA, similar to other work study programs that many of
us were part of?
Mr. Keith Wilson. Under current statutes, that is not our
understanding that that would be an option. It refers to direct
supervision by VA.
Mr. Perriello. Why is it that the Federal work study
programs do not have direct Federal government oversight while
the VA work study does?
Mr. Keith Wilson. I would have to provide a response to the
record. I don't have good information for that right now.
[The information was provided in the response to Question
#1 of the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record,
which appears on p. 46.]
Mr. Perriello. All right. With that, I am going to turn to
the Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for his questions.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your
comments about the evolving Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Programs (DVOPs) and local veteran's employment representatives
(LVERs) and the one-stop employment centers in the proposed
program. Can you expand on that a little bit for me, Mr.
McWilliam?
Mr. McWilliam. Mr. Boozman, we were considering how to do a
certification for the training. We would assume that most
people who would be enrolled in this program, hopefully, would
be also case managed by a DVOP or an LVER.
So one of the initial responses we had to the proposed
legislation was that certification could start with a DVOP or
an LVER. We would certainly have to work that out in
regulations, but that was an initial assessment that we had of
the proposal.
Mr. Boozman. Thanks.
Mr. Wilson, wouldn't placing appropriate disclaimers on the
proposed scholarship Web site stating the VA is not responsible
for the accuracy or completeness of the listed scholarship
address your concerns?
Mr. Keith Wilson. It would provide some level of
understanding, I guess, in the information that we would be
linking to from our Web site. I believe that is correct.
What we do want to do is make it as simple as possible for
veterans to get information on the options that they have, and
we don't want to duplicate other sources of that information.
For instance, we are aware the Department of Education does
have a Web site that has this type of information.
We need to go into more detail to find out any differences
between what the Department of Education does offer and what
this proposal would offer. But recently my staff has been on
that Department's Web site and did a search for veterans'
scholarships, and we came up with about 120 hits, results from
that search.
Mr. Boozman. In your testimony regarding H.R. 1098, you
said VA is unable to support the enactment at this time because
funding for such an increase in these benefits is not included
in the administration's fiscal year 2010 budget.
I think we have these hearings in good faith, to try and
really determine the merit of these bills. Are we in a
situation now where if it is not in the President's budget,
that VA--I am picking on you a little bit. I know it is not
you, it is VA, and I think the Department of Labor is probably
in the same situation, but are we in a situation now where if
it is not in the budget, you are not for it?
Mr. Keith Wilson. I think that is too broad to be an
accurate statement. There are several things that would go into
play concerning whether or not the administration would support
pieces of legislation, taking into account the cost and the
benefit that would be derived from the cost, so I would say
that the answer would be no and that would not be a blanket
approach on all issues.
Our problems is if you look back, in talking to staff and
people who have been around, if we have to sit back and wait
for VA and the Department of Labor to come to us, very little
has gotten done.
My interpretation of this is it is a two-way street and it
should help us in good faith, you know, determine the merits of
these bills. And I think we have had that relationship in the
past and I hope that we continue to have that relationship. I
think it is really important, but our duty is to push these
things forward with your help, with the VSO's help also.
But, like I said, if we have to wait on you guys, it is not
going to happen. Plus, it is our responsibility.
If there is a money issue, then you need to tell us there
is a money issue and then go from there. So that is my lecture
for the day.
Mr. Boozman. I understand. Thank you.
Mr. Keith Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perriello. Thank you very much for making that
important point, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Wilson--I know. I appreciate it. Don't think it went
unnoticed.
Mr. Perriello. In your testimony, Mr. McWilliam, you state
that: ``Eligible veterans who, without this benefit, would be
unable to obtain the training necessary to find a good job.''
Do you know how many veterans you would estimate fit into this
category?
Mr. McWilliam. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not. There is, as of
April 2009, slightly over one million veterans who were
considered unemployed. I do not know how many would fall into
the category of this bill, ineligible for other benefits.
Mr. Perriello. Mr. Wilson, in your testimony you state
that: ``The childcare program is not tailored to those who
would otherwise forego rehabilitation in the absence of
government subsidized childcare assistance.''
How should the program under H.R. 1821 be tailored in your
mind?
Mr. Keith Wilson. Yes. Those are specifically the type of
things that we look forward to engaging with the Committee on.
One of the things, for example, that jumps out at me on the
childcare issue, is it is limited to sole provider, single
veterans with children.
Currently, we have about 98,000 participants in the voc
rehab program, 1,000 of which are single veterans. So that
would, I believe, beg the question of whether or not the 97,000
that would not be covered under this would have similar needs,
taking into account a lot of times we are living in an economy
where we have two bread winners that are required to make ends
meet.
So those would be the type of things that we would welcome
engagement on.
Mr. Perriello. We look forward to that. Thank you very much
for your time today. Thank you for your testimony, and thank
you for all you do for our Nation's veterans. And with that, we
will dismiss the panel.
Before we adjourn today's hearing, I would like to thank
all of our men and women in uniform who are currently serving
in our Armed Forces, the veterans who have answered our
Nation's call to duty, and particularly thank the families who
have lost a loved one while in military service.
While `thank you' is never enough to demonstrate our
Nation's gratitude or their selfless service, I know that my
colleagues and I in the Committee stand united in honoring
their legacy.
I would like to thank everyone for their statements this
afternoon. We look forward to working with all of you as we
continue to evaluate the suggestions that were provided to us
today. I can assure you that we will continue to work together
in bipartisan manner to review current programs, to determine
if they meet the needs of veterans and their dependents, while
we continue to look for new opportunities to strengthen and
improve benefits.
The hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:46 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Today we have seven bills before us that would address the unique
needs of our veteran population. The bills before us today seek to:
expand the VA's work-study program; increase the amount of educational
assistance payments for individuals pursuing an apprenticeship or on-
job training; provide veterans with training assistance in employment
sectors in high demand; authorize the VA to post a list of
organizations that provide scholarships to veterans and their
survivors; expand the services offered by the Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment Program; extend USERRA rights for servicemembers ordered
to full-time National Guard duty; and bring equity to our injured
veterans by waiving the housing loan fees for certain veterans with
service-connected disabilities called back to active service.
Some of you might recall that last year I introduced legislation
that would direct the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs
to conduct a 5-year pilot project to expand on existing work-study
activities for veterans. Recognizing the need to address this important
issue in the 111th Congress, I re-introduced H.R. 1037, the Pilot
College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2009.
Currently, veterans that qualify for work-study would be limited to
working on VA related work such as processing VA paperwork, performing
outreach services, and assisting staff at VA medical facilities or the
offices of the National Cemetery Administration. While providing a
student workforce to assist the VA in day to day activities is crucial
in providing our student veterans with employment opportunities, my
bill would allow veterans additional options of working in academic
departments and student services. This change would put them at par
with students that qualify for a work-study position under programs not
administered by the VA.
It is important that we continue to reevaluate existing programs
and look into innovative ways to provide our veterans with expanded
workforce benefits, education benefits, and employment protections
which the bills before us seek to accomplish.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon Madam Chair. We have a full slate of witnesses to
provide their views on:
Your bill, H.R. 1037, the Pilot College Work Study
Programs for Veterans Act of 2009 to expand the number and
types of work study positions at schools;
H.R. 1098, Veterans' Worker Retraining Act of 2009,
introduced by Mr. Perriello, to restore the expired increased
payment rates for OJT and apprenticeship jobs;
My H.R. 1168, Veterans Retraining Act of 2009, to
provide financial assistance to unemployed veterans undergoing
DoL training programs;
My H.R. 1172, what I call the Tillman Scholarship
Initiative, to have VA list veterans scholarships on the VA Web
site;
H.R. 1821, Equity for Injured Veterans Act of 2009,
introduced by Chairman Filner, to expand benefits provided
under the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program;
Congressman Coffman's H.R. 1879, National Guard
Employment Protection Act of 2009 to exclude certain title 32
active duty from being counted against the 5-year limit under
USERRA; and finally;
Mr. Teague's H.R. 2180, which waives loan guaranty
fees for certain veterans with service-connected disabilities.
Madam Chair, we all know about the current employment situation.
There was a recent article in a national news magazine that noted there
are currently 3 million job openings in the United States.
Unfortunately, some job skills become irrelevant or obsolete with the
passage of time. To address that issue I introduced H.R. 1168 which
authorizes $100 million per year to provide a living stipend and moving
assistance to veterans who have been unemployed for at least 4 months,
who are not eligible for training or education under title 38, and are
enrolled in a U.S. Department of Labor re-training program.
The amount of the stipend would mirror that given to chapter 33 GI
Bill participants. The moving assistance is intended to help a newly
trained veteran who lives in an area of high unemployment to move to an
area where there is a demand for the veteran's skills.
It is my hope that H.R. 1168 will be a step toward providing
veterans with new skill sets and the ability to relocate to where the
jobs are.
Madam Chair, each bill raises issues of importance to veterans and
I am hopeful that today's witnesses will provide us with additional
things to consider as we move forward. I want to work with you to
ensure that we move as many of these as possible given any PAYGO
restrictions we may face and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas S.P. Perriello
Good Afternoon--Let me begin by thanking Chairwoman Sandlin and
Ranking Member Boozman for holding this important legislative hearing.
I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony in support of H.R.
1098, the Veterans Worker Retraining Act of 2009.
According to the United States' Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics the unemployment rate among veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan is a staggering 11.2 percent.
H.R. 1098, legislation which I introduced in the House on February
13, 2009, will provide 570, 000 unemployed veterans and members of the
guard and reserve enhanced assistance in securing employment in today's
challenging job market.
H.R. 1098 increases and makes permanent the training benefit amount
for on-the-job training (OJT). OJT provides an alternative to attending
a college or university by allowing veterans to use their educational
assistance entitlement to pursue a full-time program of apprenticeship
or on-the-job training. This program allows veterans to become
gainfully employed since their training will lead to an entry level
job. Additionally, while in training, they will receive wages from
their employer. Approved OJT programs must be at least 6 months and can
be up to 2 years in length. Some examples of OJT programs are welder,
painter, cook, production equipment mechanic, auto mechanic,
corrections officer, and parts buyer.
The training benefit amount is based on a percentage of the basic
full-time school rate. The Veterans Benefit Improvement Act of 2004,
increased benefits for individuals pursuing apprenticeship or on-the-
job training. The increase was temporary, from October 1, 2005 to
January 1, 2008. On January 1, 2008, this provision expired and
benefits were restored to the previous rate amount. H.R. 1098 will
reinstate the benefit training rate amount established by Veterans
Benefit Improvement Act of 2004 and make it permanent.
Prior to the expiration date of the provisions in the Veterans
Benefit Improvement Act of 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs
proposed legislation that would have extended the temporary increase in
the rates of payment to individuals pursuing apprenticeship and OJT
programs. Additionally, the Department of Labor states that jobs
generally requiring OJT training will account for half of all jobs by
2016.
We have an obligation to help those who have defended our country
by giving them the tools they need to rejoin the civilian workforce.
Again I thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and look
forward to answering and questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Teague
Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Boozman and fellow Subcommittee
Members, thank you for allowing me to have the opportunity to speak on
behalf of H.R. 2180. I believe that this bill represents something that
we can always use more of in government, a little common sense. In this
case, that common sense is a simple fix that will ensure that disabled
veterans will be able to receive assistance that they should have had
all along.
H.R. 2180 would amend Title 38 of the United States Code to waive
VA home loan fees for certain veterans with service-connected
disabilities that have been recalled to active service.
As you all know, the Department of Veterans Affairs underwrites
home loans that are made by private lenders to eligible veterans. The
benefits of having a VA home loan are many. For example, the buyer is
informed of reasonable value, the interest rate is negotiable, and
there are no mortgage insurance premiums. Veterans also have the right
to prepay without penalty, and the VA provides assistance to veteran
borrowers in default due to financial difficulty.
Additionally, under Title 38, section 3729, many disabled veterans
and some injured soldiers qualify for a waiver of home loan fees.
Unfortunately, however, a different part of the law, Title 38, section
5304, prevents an eligible servicemember or veteran from receiving a
home loan funding fee waiver if the veteran is called up back to active
duty service. My bill amends Title 38 to close this hole in the Code
and allow eligible servicemembers to receive the fee waiver.
Madame Chairwoman, I simply think that it is wrong to expect
someone who has served their country and been injured as a result of
that service be penalized because we as a government are putting them
back in uniform. This is an oversight in the law that must be repaired,
and I thank the Committee for giving my bill a hearing.
The costs of this bill would be very minimal, and it complies with
PAY-GO rules. H.R. 2180 represents a common-sense solution to a problem
that I do not think anyone anticipated. I believe that when the
Congress established the VA Home loan program they had the best of
intentions and created a wonderful opportunity for thousands of
veterans that simply want their part of the American dream. With this
bill we can correct an oversight that will help even more veterans
along the way.
I would like to take this time to thank the staff Members of the
Economic Opportunity Subcommittee who lent their expertise during the
drafting of this bill, and I thank Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin and
Ranking Member Boozman for the opportunity to advance this bill. This
concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any questions you may
have regarding H.R. 2180.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Coffman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Purpose of Legislation: This bill would amend the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA) to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to include Full Time National Guard
Duty for possible exemption from the USERRA 5-year limit on service.
The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to exempt National Guard
service supporting critical homeland defense missions or other missions
as deemed appropriate. Since USERRA already authorizes exemptions for
service supporting critical active duty missions, this amendment would
simply correct a disparity in the treatment of National Guard members.
Background: Currently, certain types of active duty service are
exempted from the 5-year reemployment limit under the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA). These
exemptions cover service during a time of war or national emergency,
support of missions where others have been ordered to duty under an
involuntary call-up authority, and for other critical missions or
requirements.
After the events of September 11, 2001, voluntary active duty in
support of Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) and Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF) were exempted from the USERRA 5-year limit on reemployment.
However, full-time National Guard duty performed under Title 32 is not
covered under those exemptions.
As part of the new operational reserve construct, National Guard
personnel will be used in ever-increasing numbers to support certain
operational requirements while serving in a Title 32, full-time
National Guard duty status. Indeed, section 512 of the Ronald W. Reagan
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law
108-375) added a new chapter 9 to Title 32 to authorize this type of
service. Despite this fact, there is no current authority under USERRA
to exempt this type of National Guard service.
Examples of National Guard employment when such a USERRA exemption
might be appropriate include airport security following the terrorist
attacks of September 11th, the southwest border security mission,
Hurricane Katrina disaster response, and the Air Sovereignty Alert
(ASA) /Combat Air Patrol missions defending the United States from air
attacks. As we continue to pursue the Global War on Terror, and the
National Guard continues to be utilized at an extremely high rate, even
more of these missions may identify themselves.
Conclusion: If the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009
is not passed, National Guard members may be put into a position where
they are forced to choose whether they support a critical mission, such
as Katrina or a mission in support of the Global War on Terror, or
return to work with their civilian employers. This is already starting
to occur, especially to Air National Guardsmen doing the Air
Sovereignty Alert mission, like those at the Like their counterparts
supporting critical active duty missions, they should not be forced to
make the choice of whether to keep their civilian jobs or support
critical national security missions.
The lack of a USERRA exemption for Title 32 Federal full-time
National Guard duty is a clear disparity that needs to be addressed.
The National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009 will close this
loophole and protect our citizen soldiers. This legislation is fully
supported by the National Guard Association of the United States
(NGAUS) and the Enlisted Guard Association of the United States
(EANGUS).
__________
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, distinguished
representatives of our Nation's Veterans' Service Organizations, thank
you for the opportunity to be here to address your Subcommittee on an
issue that seriously impacts our national Guardsmen. Today, I am proud
to appear before this Subcommittee in support of a critical piece of
legislation: The National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009.
At no time in America's history has the National Guard played such
a critical role in the defense and security of our homeland. They also
serve as full partners in the continuing War on Terror. According to
the latest figures available from the Congressional Research Service,
since September 11th over 299,177Army and Air National Guardsmen have
been mobilized. Yet at the same time, the National Guard has continued
its critical role in homeland security, homeland defense, emergency
preparedness, and disaster response. Through its effort and expanding
role, the National Guard has more than earned the right to be one of
the highest priorities of the Department of Defense and the Congress.
The National Guard's operations tempo has increased exponentially
since September 11th, and the Federal duties they have been charged
with have created a unique situation. Previously, National Guardsman
were either called up or mobilized to perform Federal missions in Title
10 active duty status, or they were in Title 32 State or training
status. Yet after September 11th, it became increasingly apparent that
there needed to be a mechanism to allow the National Guard to perform
Federal missions in Title 32 status. This created a new, Federal Title
32 duty status from the traditional Title 32 training.
Unified State and Federal cooperative employment of the National
Guard provides a uniquely powerful tool to address domestic security
needs. Some examples of this type of Federal Title 32 duty are Air
Sovereignty Alerts (ASA), which provides air defense for our Nation,
airport security, operations in support of natural disasters such as
Hurricane Katrina, fighting wildfires, and border security to name a
critical few.
More and more often, we see operations in which the Federal
government provides the funds and the State Governors provide the
authority and control to execute operations to secure the homeland.
This means that a greater number of National Guardsmen are performing
such duties, which unfortunately are not currently covered under
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994
(USERRA). Prior to September 11th, there were essentially no
operational missions conducted by the National Guard under Title 32, so
there was no loophole in the protection afforded National Guardsmen
under USERRA.
To address the loophole created by the new Title 32 Federal duty
status, I introduced H.R.1879, the National Guard Employment Protection
Act of 2009, with Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam as my
Democratic original cosponsor. The bill would amend the USERRA to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to include Full-Time National Guard
Duty for possible exemption from the 5-year limit on service. USERRA
already authorizes exemptions for service supporting critical Federal
active duty missions, this amendment would simply correct a disparity
in the treatment of National Guard members.
It is essential that we make sure all of our Nation's heroes are
given adequate opportunity to support Federal missions, without it
affecting their civilian jobs. Whether they are protecting our skies,
helping save lives during a national disaster such as Hurricane
Katrina, enhancing our border security, or doing another Federal
mission, there is no doubt that the National Guard is an essential part
of the Total Force. America's National Guardsmen should never be put in
a position where they are forced to choose whether to support a
critical mission, such as a mission in support of the Global War on
Terror, or return to work with their civilian employers in order to
protect their jobs.
Eight years into fighting the Global War on Terror, we are starting
to see a small but increasing number of National Guardsmen bumping up
against their 5-year USERRA protection for their civilian jobs.
According to statistics provided by the National Guard Bureau, since
September 11th, 6,984 of our citizen soldiers have been called up to
perform Federal missions under Title 32. There are currently 1,719
Guardsmen performing duty under Title 32 orders. The Air National Guard
has especially been impacted, particularly those airmen performing the
Air Sovereignty Alert mission, such as the 140th Fighter Wing in my
home State of Colorado. They are by no means alone in their situation,
as this loophole in employment protection affects the entire National
Guard.
If the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009 is not
passed, National Guard members may be forced to choose between keeping
their civilian jobs and serving our Nation. Unfortunately, this is
already starting to occur and the problem will likely get worse as
people near the current USERRA 5-year job protection limit. The
National Guard is performing critical Federal missions under Title 32
and it is essential that this loophole be closed so that we protect
those whose service protects us.
This legislation is fully supported by the Enlisted Guard
Association of the United States (EANGUS) and the National Guard
Association of the United States (NGAUS) and I have enclosed their
letters of endorsement for the record. The National Guard Bureau and
Department of Defense also favor closing this loophole to protect our
national Guardsmen. Our citizen soldiers fight to protect our Nation
and our freedom and the very least we can do is protect their rights to
serve and also retain livelihood for themselves and their families.
I thank this Subcommittee for its serious consideration of the
National Guard Employment Protection Act. I know all the Members of
this Subcommittee share my commitment to the National Guard, and
therefore strongly urge passage of this legislation.
__________
National Guard Association of the United States
Washington, DC.
March 10, 2009
The Honorable Mike Coffman
House of Representatives
1508 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative Coffman:
Thank you for introducing the ``National Guard Employment
Protection Act of 2009.''
The service of our men and women of the National Guard ordered to
full-time National Guard duty under Title 32 must be protected by the
same reemployment rights under the Uniform Services Employment
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) as are afforded our members ordered to
active duty under Title 10.
Although not readily visible to the American public and media, the
men and women of the National Guard ordered to serve on full-time
National Guard duty under Title 32 after September 1, 2001 are playing
an indispensable role in maintaining the National Guard as a ready
operational force in the Global War on Terror. As with the active
forces, the sacrifice of these men and women involves spending extended
periods away from civilian occupations. Upon completion of their duty,
they should be protected by the same rights under USERRA as Reserve
Component members serving on active duty under Title 10 able to return
with certainty to their civilian jobs.
NGAUS strongly supports the ``National Guard Employment Protection
Act of 2009'' now before the 111th Congress, which would establish a
national Guard Employment Protection Act that would apply the benefits
of USERRA to individuals ordered to full time National Guard duty under
section 502(f) of Title 32 on or after September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Kopfer
Brigadier General, USAF (Ret.)
President
__________
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
Alexandria, VA
March 17, 2009
The Honorable Mike Coffman
United States House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515
Dear Representative Coffman:
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
(EANGUS) is the only military service association that represents the
interests of every enlisted solider and airmen in the Army and Air
National Guard. With a constituency base of over 414,000 soldiers and
airmen, their families, and a large retiree membership, EANGUS engages
Capitol Hill on behalf of courageous Guard persons across this Nation.
On behalf of EANGUS, I'd like to offer our letter of support for
your legislation to amend Title 38 of the United States Code, the
``National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009.''
The National Guard employees thousands of its members every day in
a Title 32 full-time duty status. In essence, it is the backbone of the
readiness of our units as they prepare to be mobilized and deploy to
fulfill active duty missions through the world, and especially in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Djibouti.
Codifying their reemployment rights as they serve in these full-
time National Guard tours of active duty is just the right thing to do,
and import now that the National Guard has transitioned into an
operational reserve. Further, it helps in the fulfillment of National
Guard empowerment, the beginnings of which were passed into law (Public
Law 110-181) in January 2008.
Thank you for your continued support of our military and veterans.
If our association can be of further help, feel free to contact our
Legislative Director, SGM (Ret) Frank Yoakum, at 703-519-3846 x22.
Working for America's Best!
MSG Michael P. Cline, USA (Ret.)
Executive Director
Prepared Statement of Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director,
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
you for the opportunity to testify today on the various bills that have
been introduced. We appreciate the efforts of this Subcommittee to
address the different needs of the men and women who are currently
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and those men and women who served
during past conflicts.
H.R. 1037
PVA supports H.R. 1037. This legislation will establish a pilot
program that will expand the current scope of the work-study program
that is available under Title 38, United States Code, section 3485.
This work-study program is important for veterans pursuing their
education while maintaining other financial responsibilities that
accompany the role of being an adult member of the community and a
student at the same time. This legislation would create a 5-year pilot
program for on-campus work-study positions that may include work in
academic departments serving as tutors, research assistants, teaching
assistants, and lab assistants or other positions in student services
which include work in career centers and financial aid, campus
orientation, cashiers, admissions, records, and registration offices.
This pilot program will broaden the scope of positions available for
the student veteran as it opens up the employment opportunities to
equal the existing work-study positions available on campus through
other programs. We hope this program will prove to be successful and
become another option for the veteran before the 5 year expiration date
of the program.
H.R. 1098, the ``Veterans' Worker Retaining Act of 2009''
PVA supports H.R. 1098. This legislation will increase the amount
of educational assistance for veterans pursuing internships, or on-the-
job-training. This benefit can help a significant number of veterans
that had a military occupation that did not transfer to the civilian
job market, or veterans that may need additional training to convert
their job skills to an employer's needs. This could be another tool for
the Department of Labor's Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP)
and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives (LVER) as they work in
their communities to explore and collaborate with employers to find
suitable employment for veterans.
H.R. 1168, the ``Veterans' Retraining Act of 2009''
Unemployment is a problem among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans
today. The downturn in the economy has been harder on the employment
outlook for this group than the general public. As of March, the
jobless rate for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans rose to 11.2 percent, or
one out of every nine are unemployed. The current economic situation
can account for part of this unemployment level, but it can also be
attributed to service men and women leaving the military after years of
performing a task that ultimately is not transferable to the civilian
workforce. H.R. 1168 can help veterans as they pursue employment
opportunities that require some re-training. However, we believe this
legislation could apply to more employment situations if the maximum
training assistance allowed was extended to 12 months, instead of the 6
months as proposed in the legislation. Otherwise, PVA supports this
legislation.
H.R. 1172
PVA supports H.R. 1172. This legislation directs the VA to include
on its Internet Web site a list of organizations that provide
scholarships to veterans and their survivors. Most new veterans receive
and communicate information through the Internet. Many new veterans
rarely visit a public or college library, but most may have logged onto
the Internet in the past 24 hours. Providing a list of organizations
that offer scholarships to veterans and their survivors is an excellent
idea. This initiative would seem to support the idea of greater
outreach that PVA and all other veterans' service organizations have
been advocating for the VA to conduct.
H.R. 1821, the ``Equity for Injured Veterans Act of 2009''
PVA supports H.R. 1821, a bill that would extend the period of
eligibility for training and rehabilitation through the VA from the
current 12 years, to 15 years. This would be helpful for veterans that
must undergo a multi-year medical rehabilitation because of their
service-connected injury. A veteran that has suffered a spinal cord
injury, such as quadriplegia, could require years of rehabilitation
before he or she is physically and psychologically ready to consider
preparation for employment.
This legislation also extends the subsistence allowance for a
period of 6 months. Moreover, it includes a provision that provides for
child care for the veteran who is the sole caretaker of a child while
participating in a vocational rehabilitation program. Although this
benefit seems like an insignificant addition to the benefits available,
it could be the one component of the veteran's rehabilitation that
determines the success or failure of that veteran's rehabilitation.
H.R. 1879, the ``National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009''
PVA also supports H.R. 1879. This legislation will close a loophole
that exists in the current protection under the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA) for employment for
National Guard veterans when they return from active duty. A new
activation status under Title 32, United States Code, does not protect
National Guard members when activated to perform certain functions for
national security. This legislation will include these National Guard
members under the employment protections that exist for other veterans.
H.R. 2180
The proposed legislation, H.R. 2180, would amend Title 38, United
States Code, to waive housing loan fees for certain veterans with
service-connected disabilities called to active service. Originally a
veteran could qualify for the housing loan fees waiver because of their
service-connected disability. Because that veteran is called back to
duty, and accepts the responsibility to continue serving their country,
the veteran loses their waiver. This legislation will correct this
deficiency and help many disabled veterans.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the
Committee, I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to
express our concerns on these important issues. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Prepared Statement of John L. Wilson, Associate National Legislative
Director, Disabled American Veterans
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the 1.2 million members of the Disabled American
Veterans (DAV), I am honored to present this testimony to address
various bills before the Subcommittee today. In accordance with our
congressional charter, the DAV's mission is to ``advance the interests,
and work for the betterment, of all wounded, injured, and disabled
American veterans.'' We are therefore pleased to support various
measures insofar as they fall within that scope.
H.R. 1037
Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin introduced the Pilot Work Study
Programs for Veterans Act of 2009 in February 2009, to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a 5-year pilot project to test
the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of certain
qualifying work-study activities under title 38, United States Code.
The pilot program would consider the work-study positions appropriate
to academia, such as tutors or research, teaching, and lab assistants
and in student services facilities positions in career centers and
financial aid, campus orientation, cashiers, admissions, records, and
registration offices. Regulations would be formulated by the Department
to carry out the pilot project, including regulations providing for the
supervision of work-study positions.
The DAV has no resolution on this issue. Additionally, this
legislation is outside the scope of the DAV's mission. We nonetheless
have no opposition to its favorable consideration.
H.R. 1098
Congressman Perriello introduced the Veterans' Worker Retraining
Act of 2009 on February 13, 2009, to amend title 38, United States
Code, to increase the amount of educational assistance payable by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain individuals pursuing
internships or on-job training.
Although the DAV has no resolution on this issue, we support this
legislation as it fits with one of our principles, which is vocational
rehabilitation and/or employment to help disabled veterans prepare for
and obtain gainful employment. An increase in the amounts of education
assistance, given the economic downturn and the pace of inflation which
has diminished the effectiveness of this program, is welcomed for those
using the Montgomery GI Bill, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational
Assistance, Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance or Selected
Reserve Montgomery GI Bill.
H.R. 1168
Congressman Boozman introduced the Veterans' Worker Retraining Act
of 2009 on February 25, 2009, to amend chapter 42 of title 38, United
States Code, to provide certain veterans with employment training
assistance.
This bill directs the Secretary of Labor to pay to each
participating veteran a monthly training assistance allowance for each
month a veteran is enrolled in an employment and training program that
teaches a skill in demand, as determined by the Secretary. The amount
of the training assistance allowance is the amount equal to the monthly
amount of the basic allowance for housing for a member of the Armed
Forces with dependents in E-5 pay grade.
A participating veteran would be entitled to training assistance
for not more than 6 months during each 10-year period beginning on the
date in which the covered veteran first receives training allowance. In
addition to the training assistance allowance, a participating veteran
may receive up to $5,000 for moving expenses related to the veteran's
receipt of training.
A participating veteran would be defined as a veteran who is
unemployed for not less than four consecutive months at the time of
applying for training assistance under this section; able to
successfully complete the employment and training program and
ineligible for education or training assistance under this title.
The DAV has no resolution on this issue. We nonetheless have no
opposition to its favorable consideration as an increase in the monthly
training assistance allowance along with the inclusion of up to $5,000
for moving expenses is welcomed, given the economic downturn and its
impact on so many veterans who have given so much for our country.
H.R. 1172
Congressman Boozman introduced legislation in February 2009 to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the Web site of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) a list of organizations that
provide scholarships to veterans and their survivors.
Although the DAV has no resolution on this issue, we are not
opposed to the favorable consideration of this legislation.
H.R. 1821
Congressman Filner introduced legislation in March 2009 to amend
chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, to increase vocational
rehabilitation and employment assistance.
Specifically, it increases the eligibility period from 12 years to
15 years. It also increases the allowance from 2 months to 6 months and
allows those participating in a vocational rehabilitation program under
this chapter to elect to pursue an approved program of education and
receive assistance in monthly amounts to the extent that a veteran has
remaining eligibility for and entitlement to assistance under this
section, if the Secretary approves the educational, professional, or
vocational objective chosen by such veteran for such program.
The monthly amounts a veteran may receive are the amounts equal to
the monthly amounts the veteran is eligible to receive for educational
assistance of this title, including the monthly stipend. Reimbursement
of child care assistance for single parents is also provided for
veterans who are the sole caretaker of a child up to $2,000 per month
for each month the veteran is participating.
DAV Resolution No. 246 seeks legislation to allow an extension of
vocational rehabilitation in excess of the 12 year limitation. This
bill extends the current eligibility from 12 to 15 years and modifies
exceptions for extensions. Therefore, the DAV supports the favorable
consideration of this legislation.
H.R. 1879
Congressman Coffman introduced the National Guard Employment
Protection Act of 2009 in April 2009, to amend title 38, United States
Code, to provide for employment and reemployment rights for certain
individuals ordered to full-time National Guard duty.
The DAV has no resolution on this issue. Additionally, this
legislation is outside the scope of the DAV's mission. We nonetheless
have no opposition to its favorable consideration.
H.R. 2180
Congressman Teague introduced legislation in April 2009, to amend
title 38, United States Code, to waive housing loan fees for certain
veterans with service-connected disabilities called to active service.
This legislation, although focused on veterans called to active
duty as part of the Guard or Reserve and have to temporarily forgo
receiving disability compensation, readily applies to DAV Resolution
No. 015, which calls for the repeal of all funding fees for VA home
loans. Our resolution notes that in 1990, Congress imposed funding fees
upon VA guaranteed home loans under budget reconciliation provisions as
a temporary deficit reduction measure and these fees are now a regular
feature of all VA home loans, except for disabled veterans and un-
remarried surviving spouses. These fees were increased, and at the
present time may well continue so for the next 7 years. Their express
purpose is straightforward; a way to generate additional revenue to
cover the costs of improvements and cost-of-living adjustments in other
veterans' programs. We believe that veterans have already paid a high
price for freedom and such benefits should not be borne on the back of
their patriotism.
The DAV has urged Congress to refrain from further increasing the
VA Home Loan funding fees and to repeal these fees as soon as possible.
Congressman Teague is taking a step in the right direction and is to be
commended. In these difficult economic times, such legislative action
goes far in reducing the burden felt by so many, particularly those who
joined the ranks of the military.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony on behalf of DAV. We
hope you will consider our recommendations. I would be happy to answer
any questions Members of the Subcommittee might have.
Prepared Statement of Mark Seavey, Assistant Director, National
Legislative Commission, American Legion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The American Legion supports H.R. 1037. The American Legion
believes this work study program would provide needed job skills and
experience for veterans so they transition seamlessly and obtain a
quality-of-life after honorably serving the United States. The American
Legion supports H.R. 1098. The American Legion believes the increase in
pay within the Montgomery GI Bill, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans
Educational Assistance, Survivors and Dependents Educational
Assistance, and Selected Reserve Montgomery GI Bill, will greatly
benefit veterans who are pursuing internships or on-the-job training
with necessary income that will provide for their daily and living
expenses. The American Legion supports H.R. 1168. This bill will
provide veterans, especially recently separated veterans who are
mission-oriented, trainable, drug-free, and have great work ethic, with
training that will prepare them to obtain gainful employment so they
can financially provide for themselves and their families. The American
Legion supports H.R. 1172. This additional scholarship information on
VA's Web site would provide veterans and their survivors with resources
that will assist them in their educational endeavors and ultimately
help them to smoothly transition from active duty to the civilian
workforce.
The American Legion supports H.R. 1821. This legislation will
provide veterans with increased allowances more closely aligned to
financial benefits under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The American Legion
believes this legislation will greatly assist and encourage eligible
veterans to remain in vocational rehabilitation programs, search for
employment, and assist with living expenses. Additionally, this bill
will provide reimbursements for child care to veterans who are
participating in a vocational rehabilitation program and/or the sole
caretaker of a child (or children). The American Legion supports H.R.
1879. Today, Reserve forces are operational forces and they fight side-
by-side active duty forces bringing their unique skills and abilities
to the modern battlefield. The American Legion believes the
reemployment benefits due these National Guard warriors should be
changed to reflect the new military reality. The American Legion
supports this provision and the idea that all veterans be treated
equally regardless of their National Guard status in that an individual
who is called to duty and serves honorably should receive these kinds
of benefits. The American Legion supports H.R. 2180. The American
Legion supports this initiative to waive housing loans fees for these
service-disabled veterans, so they and their families can move into
quality housing and use these moneys for other necessary items and/or
projects.
__________
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
views on the several pieces of legislation being considered by the
Subcommittee today. The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for
holding a hearing to discuss these very important and timely issues.
H.R. 1037, Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of
2009, seeks to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a 5-
year pilot project to test the feasibility and advisability of
expanding the scope of certain qualifying work-study activities under
title 38, United States Code. The American Legion supports this pilot
program. According to DOL the present unemployment rate for recently
discharged veterans is an alarming 20 percent, and one out of every
four veterans who do find employment earn less than $25,000 per year.
Unfortunately, many of the thousands of servicemembers who are
currently leaving the service are from the combat arms and non-skilled
professions that are not readily transferable to the civilian labor
market. The American Legion believes this work study program would
provide needed job skills and experience for veterans so they
transition seamlessly and obtain a quality-of-life after honorably
serving the United States.
H.R. 1098, seeks to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase
the amount of educational assistance payable by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to certain individuals pursuing internships or on-the-
job training. The American Legion supports this legislation. The
American Legion believes the increase in pay within the Montgomery GI
Bill, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance, Survivors and
Dependents Educational Assistance, and Selected Reserve Montgomery GI
Bill, will greatly benefit veterans who are pursuing internships or on-
the-job training with necessary income that will provide for their
daily and living expenses.
H.R. 1168, would amend chapter 42 of title 38, United States Code,
to provide certain veterans with employment training assistance. The
American Legion supports this legislation. This bill will provide
veterans, especially recently separated veterans who are mission-
oriented, trainable, drug-free, and have great work ethic, with
training that will prepare them to obtain gainful employment so they
can financially provide for themselves and their families.
H.R. 1172, seeks to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
include on the Internet Web site of the Department of Veterans Affairs
a list of organizations that provide scholarships to veterans and their
survivors. The American Legion supports this action. This additional
scholarship information on VA's Web site would provide veterans and
their survivors with resources that will assist them in their
educational endeavors and ultimately help them to smoothly transition
from active duty to the civilian workforce.
H.R. 1821, amends chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, to
increase vocational rehabilitation and employment assistance, and for
other purposes. The American Legion supports the increase in pay for
eligible veterans. This legislation will provide veterans with
increased allowances more closely aligned to financial benefits under
the Post 9/11 GI Bill. The American Legion believes this legislation
will greatly assist and encourage eligible veterans to remain in
vocational rehabilitation programs, search for employment, and assist
with living expenses. Additionally, this bill will provide
reimbursements for child care to veterans who are participating in a
vocational rehabilitation program and/or the sole caretaker of a child
(or children).
H.R. 1879, seeks to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide
for employment and reemployment rights for certain individuals ordered
to full-time National Guard duty. Today, Reserve forces are operational
forces and they fight side-by-side active duty forces bringing their
unique skills and abilities to the modern battlefield. The American
Legion believes the reemployment benefits due these National Guard
warriors should be changed to reflect the new military reality. The
American Legion supports this provision and the idea that all veterans
be treated equally regardless of their National Guard status in that an
individual who is called to duty and serves honorably should receive
these kinds of benefits.
H.R. 2180, amends title 38, United States Code, to waive housing
loan fees for certain veterans with service-connected disabilities
called to active service. The American Legion supports this initiative
to waive housing loans fees for these service-disabled veterans, so
they and their families can move into quality housing and use these
moneys for other necessary items and/or projects.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this
statement for the record. Again, thank you Madam Chairwoman, Ranking
Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee for allowing The
American Legion to present its views on these very important issues.
Prepared Statement of Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director,
American Veterans (AMVETS)
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to provide AMVETS' views and discuss pending legislation on education
and employment opportunities for veterans. AMVETS is pleased to see
this Subcommittee's commitment to invest in the education and training
of our veterans. Multiple studies have shown that young veterans are
more likely to be unemployed or underemployed than their civilian
counterparts, and it is the responsibility of each of us here today to
ensure that our veterans are given every opportunity to succeed.
Passing the legislation we are discussing today will only add to the
prospect of educating, training and ensuring reemployment of the very
few who have chosen to defend our Nation and way of life.
The ``Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2009''
will greatly expand the scope of qualifying work-study for veterans.
Currently, title 38, section 3485, limits the work study positions to
areas that provide services for Veterans Affairs. This policy greatly
reduces the type and availability of work and the locations in which
veterans can supplement their income. By expanding this program,
veterans will benefit by qualifying for jobs on the campus in which
they attend, making it much easier to schedule work hours around class
commitments. With a VA expansion of this program to include campus
jobs, VA will also offset the cost the college will pay to work-study
veterans. This will offer cost-saving incentives to colleges to hire
veterans for these positions. AMVETS strongly supports H.R. 1037.
On-the-job training and internships are a great way for pre-entry
level job seekers to gain real world experience in a field, build their
resume and network with companies that hire entry-level employees.
AMVETS supports H.R. 1098, the ``Veterans' Work Retraining Act of
2009.'' Increasing the assistance amount for veterans who are pursuing
internships or on-job training is important in helping veterans who
lack specific work experience in an occupational field. Many
internships and on-the-job training opportunities are unpaid positions
or only provide a small stipend. Also, many of these opportunities
prevent participants from working other part-time jobs to sustain
themselves. Making these humble increases to the benefit will increase
the ability of veterans to find and secure career track training tools
without risking their ability to provide for themselves and their
families while they transition from military service to civilian life.
Without these opportunities, veterans will continue to be underemployed
or unemployed at alarming rates.
The Department of Labor has identified 14 sectors that qualify as
``high growth'' fields. These sectors include high-tech fields such as
biotechnology, aerospace, and geospatial technology as well as fields
in healthcare, advanced manufacturing and energy. A 2006 GAO report
found that ``roughly 700,000 veterans have been unemployed in recent
months, a figure that could swell considerable with the anticipated
increase in the numbers of people leaving active duty.'' \1\ Providing
a living stipend that is equal to Chapter 33 entitlements for
unemployed veterans who could be trained in any of these 14 sectors
will ensure that veterans can sustain themselves and their families
while they are being trained. AMVETS supports the spirit of H.R. 1168,
but would recommend that the duration of payment be extended to cover
the entire length of any approved training course. This will ensure two
things: first, that veterans will have the financial means to complete
the training if it lasts longer than 6 months, and second, that
veterans will not be limited to career fields that have training
periods that last 6 months or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO-06-176 December 30, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMVETS supports H.R. 1172, the ``Pat Tillman Veteran's Scholarship
Initiative.'' A lot of scholarship information can be found on VA's Web
site, but there is no single page that houses this information. One
must conduct a search to find scholarship information. AMVETS and many
other organizations provide scholarships to dependents of active duty
servicemembers and veterans. Therefore, AMVETS requests this bill be
amended to add dependents and not just survivors. AMVETS also suggests
that a vetting process occur to ensure that organizations that wish to
post their scholarships meet the spirit of this bill. Also, many states
have veterans' benefits that provide educational assistance to veterans
and their family members, providing a link to the National Association
of State Directors of Veterans Affairs will provide easy access to
these state veterans' benefits.
H.R. 1879, the ``National Guard Employment Protection Act of
2009'', closes a loophole that excluded USERRA protection for National
Guard members who are called to active duty for `federal duty' under
title 32 for such things as border protection. It is important to
provide employment protection for all of our servicemembers who are
called to active duty, regardless of where they might serve. AMVETS
wholly supports this bill.
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) benefits continue
to have low rehabilitation rates. While there are multiple reasons for
the low success rate of VR&E, AMVETS believes one of the overlying
causes of veterans discontinuing their program is financial. Supporting
themselves and possibly a family while in a rehabilitation program is
tough at best. Providing an increased living stipend that is equal to
chapter 33 benefits, and reimbursing childcare cost for qualifying
veterans will greatly reduce the financial stress associated with
participation in VR&E.
AMVETS appreciates the extension of the period of eligibility under
section 3103(a) of title 38, to 15 years, but as a member of the
Independent Budget AMVETS believes there should be no delimiting period
for rehabilitation. In this respect, VR&E should not be compared to
educational benefits. VR&E is in place to provide independent living
and employment training for service-connected disabled veterans. There
is no delimiting period for disabilities and there should not be one
for the service that is in place to ensure our wounded and injured
veterans can gain and maintain meaningful employment. Also, AMVETS, in
partnership with the Independent Budget, has concerns about VA's
Performance and Accountability Reports that are submitted under title
31. In 2006 VA reported a 73 percent rehabilitation rate, when in
reality there was only an 18 percent success rate. The disparity in
these rates is caused by VA not including veterans who discontinue the
program without implementing a written rehabilitation plan. AMVETS
requests that VA provide more accurate accounting of the program to
ensure budget and resource decisions are consistent with real needs.
AMVETS generally supports H.R. 1821, with the exception of maintaining
a delimiting period.
AMVETS supports H.R. 2180. There are many members of the Guard and
reserves who are rated by VA for a disability and continue to serve and
deploy in support of military operations. Their disability compensation
is offset by their military pay. Amending section 3729(c)(1) of title
38 will close a loophole that could cause these veterans to pay a loan
fee.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you again for providing AMVETS the
opportunity to present our views on these key pieces of legislation.
This concludes my testimony and I will be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Prepared Statement of Corporal Wade J. Spann, USMC, Alumni, Wounded
Warrior Project
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman and Members of
the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) to offer our
views on these bills related to the economic empowerment of our
Nation's veterans. Our organization has staff throughout the Nation
assisting wounded warriors on a daily basis. This direct contact gives
Wounded Warrior Project a unique perspective on the needs of wounded
warriors as they reintegrate back into their homes, communities,
educational institutions, job-training programs, and ultimately, the
civilian workplace. Our goal is to ensure that this is the most
successful, well-adjusted generation of veterans in our Nation's
history. This perspective provides the framework for our testimony.
While each of the bills under consideration reflects the thoughtful
efforts by their sponsors to assist veterans as they transition to the
civilian workplace, one in particular, H.R. 1821, addresses a Wounded
Warrior Project signature issue. We support this legislation.
H.R. 1821
Wounded Warrior Project offered testimony before this Subcommittee
on April 2, 2009 regarding the current effectiveness of the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program. In that testimony, we
stated our position that wounded warriors have earned their GI bill
benefits by virtue of their service but have earned their VR&E benefits
by virtue of their disability. We believe it essential that VR&E offer
more than simply a repackaged version of the new GI bill to disabled
veterans, and that VR&E benefits should be additive rather than
alternative benefits. Additionally, we cited a number of improvements
to the VR&E program which would help make the VR&E program the `crown
jewel' of VA benefits programs. Chairman Bob Filner's bill, H.R. 1821
takes an important step in that direction.
To recap Wounded Warrior's recommendations, the VR&E subsistence
rate must be brought into line with the new GI Bill, it must apply to
the three employment tracks as well as the education track, it must be
adjusted for the cost of living in each community, and it must extend
beyond completion of the VR&E program of training.
H.R. 1821 addresses some of these urgently needed improvements. As
we understand the legislation's provisions, under H.R. 1821, any
disabled veteran who enters the VR&E education track will be offered
the option of receiving monthly educational assistance and monthly
subsistence payments at either the VR&E rate or the new GI Bill rate.
If the veteran chooses the chapter 33, or new GI Bill rate, he or she
is then bound by all of the chapter 33 educational assistance
limitations, including the cap on tuition and fees. In such a case, the
higher chapter 33 subsistence levels would be paid. These payments
would be based on the E-5 with dependents housing rate for the ZIP code
where the educational institution is located. Individuals choosing the
VR&E education track would have no cap on their educational assistance,
but would receive the current VR&E subsistence payments which Wounded
Warrior Project considers inadequate.
Wounded Warrior Project supports H.R. 1821 as an interim measure to
provide VR&E enrollees access to new GI Bill subsistence levels.
However, the price paid for the higher subsistence levels under chapter
33 is a cap on educational benefits. While the bill represents a
significant improvement, it still falls short of the optimum solution,
an increase in VR&E subsistence payments to at least chapter 33 levels
within the structure of the current VR&E program without placing a cap
on overall education assistance.
Regarding the extended subsistence payments, Wounded Warrior
Project supports the extension of monthly subsistence payments from two
to 6 months for all VR&E tracks following the completion of approved
training within each track. This improvement is long overdue and
reflects a much more realistic transition period from education and
training to fully employed, particularly in today's challenging job
environment.
Wounded Warrior Project also commends Chairman Filner's initiative
to cover child care expenses within the VR&E program up to $2,000 per
month. However, the provision is unnecessarily limited to apply to only
sole caretakers of children. Disabled veterans--particularly severely
disabled veterans--are often not sole caretakers. Child care expenses
should be reimbursed for all VR&E enrollees. Further, a flat rate for
child care, while an improvement, seems cumbersome. A per child rate,
with a cost-of-living adjustment, would be more appropriate and would
provide much greater piece of mind for many VR&E enrollees and their
families.
We support the extension of the VR&E eligibility period from 12 to
15 months, and, though they are limited in scope, we also support the
outcomes reporting requirements specified by the bill. Expanding these
measurements to include average salary levels attained, continued
employment at the one-, two-, and 5-year post-completion points, and a
number of other longitudinal measures would greatly enhance the
effectiveness of VR&E programs.
While we commend Chairman Filner for addressing the urgent need to
bring VR&E subsistence levels in line with the new GI Bill, we note
that H.R. 1821 does not address several improvements we addressed in
previous testimony which we feel are necessary to properly revitalize
the VR&E program. For example, H.R. 1821 has no provision for the
reimbursement of other than child care expenses such as job search
costs, a professional clothing allowance, and travel costs for the
interview process. The bill has no provision for improved VA outreach
to better inform servicemembers about the benefits of the VR&E program,
and it does not address the Independent Living program at all. These
changes must be considered in the future to enable the VR&E program to
reach its full potential in support of disabled veterans.
Other Legislation
Wounded Warrior Project offers the following comments on other
legislation being considered today:
H.R. 1037. A bill directing VA to conduct a 5-year pilot project to
test the feasibility of expanding the scope of work-study activities.
While the empowerment aspects of the proposal seem
noteworthy, the bill does not provide sufficient information,
as currently written, to justify the expense. Wounded Warrior
Project would like to see a more detailed description of the
pilot project before supporting the bill.
H.R. 1098. A bill increasing the amount of assistance for individuals
covered under the Montgomery GI Bill.
While Wounded Warrior Project is fully supportive of
increased benefits for this population of veterans, the bill
does not directly affect our constituency.
H.R. 1168. A bill directing the Secretary of Labor to provide
employment training assistance to unemployed veterans.
While its intent is commendable, this legislation comes with
a $100 million price tag. Wounded Warrior Project is concerned
about the possible impact on other programs assisting
servicemembers and veterans.
H.R. 1172. A bill directing VA to include on its Web site a list, with
links, of organizations that provide scholarships to veterans and their
families.
Wounded Warrior Project supports the intent of this
legislation which seems simple and straightforward. We defer to
VA on possible issues related to this legislation.
H.R. 1879. A bill to amend title 38 to provide for employment and
reemployment rights for certain individuals ordered to full-time
National Guard duty.
This bill appears to fill a gap in previously passed
legislation to include National Guard personnel and, if that
interpretation is correct, Wounded Warrior Project supports
this bill in principle. However, we defer to VA on possible
unintended consequences related to this bill.
H.R. 2180. A bill to waive VA housing loan fees for certain veterans
with service-connected disabilities called to active service.
This bill would apply to disabled National Guard and Reserve
members called to active duty who, while still temporarily on
active duty, apply for a VA home loan. We believe active duty
servicemembers should be treated equally while serving on
active duty. We believe this bill is unnecessary; however, we
do not oppose it.
Thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, for the opportunity to
address you today. I would be happy to answer any questions or provides
responses for the record.
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Madam Chairwoman and other Members of the Subcommittee, good
afternoon. I am pleased to be here today to provide the Department of
Veterans Affairs' (VA) views on pending benefits legislation. I am
accompanied today by Mr. John Brizzi of VA's Office of General Counsel.
Two of the bills on the agenda today affect programs or laws
administered by the Department of Labor. We respectfully defer to that
lead agency, and expect that it will best speak to the following bills:
H.R. 1168, the ``Veterans Retraining Act of 2009,'' (providing
employment training assistance for unemployed veterans) and H.R. 1879,
the ``National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2009,'' (providing
for reemployment rights following certain National Guard duty).
H.R. 1037
H.R. 1037, the ``Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act
of 2009,'' would direct VA to conduct a ``5-year'' pilot project to
test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of certain
work-study activities for purposes of section 3485(a)(4) of title 38,
including work-study positions available on site at educational
institutions. These activities may include positions in academic
departments, such as tutors and research, teaching, and lab assistants.
Positions in the student services area could also be included, such as
work in career centers, financial aid departments, admissions, records,
and registration offices, and jobs performing campus orientation. VA
would issue regulations pertaining to the pilot project and the
supervision of the work-study students by appropriate VA personnel.
Although VA supports the intent to expand the authorized work-study
activities, we are unable to support the bill. VA does not have the
expertise or resources to directly supervise the wide range of
activities suggested (i.e. research assistants, lab assistants, tutors,
etc.) for positions located in non-VA offices. The success of the
current work-study program is largely due to participants performing
VA-related functions under the direct supervision of VA.
The bill only provides funding for 4 years, although it refers to a
5-year pilot project--it authorizes appropriations totaling $40 million
for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. Therefore, VA would only administer
the pilot through the 4 years that funding is available. In addition,
we note that the proposed legislation would generate additional
workload for the VA. Thus, VA would need nine additional FTE in order
to administer and process the additional work-study contracts.
Accordingly, VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 1037 would result in
additional GOE costs to the VA of $531,000 during the first year and
$2.1 million over 4 years.
H.R. 1098
H.R. 1098, the ``Veterans' Worker Re-training Act of 2009,'' would
increase by 10 percent the full-time monthly institutional rate of
educational assistance allowance that is payable for apprenticeship or
other on-job training under the Montgomery GI Bill--Active Duty and
Selected Reserve programs and the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational
Assistance program. It would further increase the educational
assistance allowance for such training under the Survivors and
Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA) program for the first 6 months
of training, from $574 to $650; for the second 6 months of training,
from $429 to $507; and for the third 6 months of training, from $285 to
$366. The bill would also remove the annual cost-of-living increase for
the DEA program. The provisions of H. R. 1098 would be effective on the
date of enactment of the Act and the changes to the benefit amounts
would be permanent. We note that participation levels would likely
increase in the foregoing programs due to the benefit rate increase,
but not by a significant margin.
VA is unable to support the enactment of H. R. 1098 at this time
because funding for such an increase in these benefits is not included
in the administration's FY 2010 budget. We will provide our estimate of
the cost of enactment of this bill for the record.
H.R. 1172
H.R. 1172 would direct VA to include on the Internet Web site of
the Department a list of organizations that provide scholarships to
veterans and their survivors and a link to the Internet Web site of
each such organization. We understand and support the importance of
veterans having all available information concerning scholarship
programs available to them. However, we are concerned that maintaining
such a list on the VA Web site will not necessarily serve our Veteran-
students' best interests. By placing such a list on the VA Web site,
students would often assume it is both all-inclusive and a final
authority of information on available scholarships. However, VA has no
authority to require organizations to notify VA when scholarships are
offered or no longer offered. Therefore, the information would
routinely be incomplete and/or inaccurate. Additionally, students may
also incorrectly assume that VA has an oversight or approval function
over the scholarships listed through the Department Web site. Such a
list would largely duplicate the information most relevant to students
which is normally available through student financial aid offices. We
estimate that the cost of H. R. 1172, if enacted, would be
insignificant.
H.R. 1821
H.R. 1821, the ``Equity for Injured Veterans Act of 2009,'' would
amend chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, to extend the basic
period of eligibility for use of vocational rehabilitation and
employment assistance benefits under that chapter by an additional 3
years--from 12 years to 15 years.
The bill would amend chapter 31 to permit a veteran who is eligible
for and entitled to receive assistance under that chapter to elect to
pursue an approved program of education and receive assistance in
monthly amounts that are equal to monthly amounts payable under new
section 3313 of title 38, United States Code (including the monthly
stipend provided under section 3313(c)(1)(B)).
This legislation would increase the number of months that
subsistence allowance may be paid to veterans receiving employment
services under chapter 31--from 2 months to 6 months.
The bill would, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary, authorize reimbursements of up to $2,000 per month for
childcare for a chapter 31 participant who is the sole caretaker of a
child.
H.R. 1821 would also require VA to submit the following
documentation in support of the President's budget for each fiscal
year: (1) the percentage of veterans receiving assistance under chapter
31 who became employed; (2) the percentage of veterans receiving
assistance under chapter 31 who achieved independence in daily living;
and (3) any changes made by the Secretary in measuring or calculating
the performance of the Department under chapter 31.
VA supports, in principle, efforts to facilitate successful
completion of vocational rehabilitation programs under chapter 31, and
we recognize that extending the basic period of eligibility under
chapter 31, allowing participants to elect payment under the chapter 33
rate, and authorizing the reimbursement of certain childcare costs
incurred by chapter 31 participants will encourage more veterans to
continue their rehabilitation programs. However, we cannot support H.R.
1821 at this time. Recent changes to VA education benefits, including
the new Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33), may affect chapter 31
participation and completion rates. In addition, as recommended by the
Dole-Shalala Commission on Wounded Warriors, VA is currently completing
a review of its compensation program that has implications for the
vocational rehabilitation program. This changing landscape of
comprehensive benefits prevents VA from adequately evaluating the
provisions in this bill. In addition, the childcare reimbursement in
particular is not tailored to those Veterans who would otherwise forgo
rehabilitation in the absence of government-subsidized childcare
assistance, since beneficiaries who may have existing childcare options
available could also receive reimbursement. VA also cannot support this
bill because no funding for such proposals is included in the
administration's FY 2010 budget, and because of concerns we have with
the bill as drafted. We are also concerned about the type of
documentation this bill would require in support of the President's
budget. VA currently reports the percentage of veterans who are
rehabilitated as the number achieving suitable employment or
independent living goals compared to the number of veterans whose cases
were closed in either rehabilitated or discontinued status during that
same period. VA is able to separate this data to account for those
suitably employed versus those achieving independent living. However,
VA does not believe that reporting this data as a percentage of those
currently receiving assistance is an appropriate measure of program
outcomes. Program participants may receive services over a period of
several years. Therefore, VA believes that the percentage of successful
outcomes based upon those veterans exiting VR&E after having been
provided services vs. a snapshot of successful outcomes as a ratio of
total program participants is a more accurate measure of program
performance.
We estimate that enactment of this bill would result in a benefits
cost of $43.8 million during the first year, nearly $400 million over 5
years, and $895.4 million for 10 years.
H.R. 2180
H.R. 2180 would waive housing loan fees for certain veterans with
service-connected disabilities called to active service. Under 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3729(c)(1), housing loan fees are currently waived for
veterans in receipt of compensation benefits and for those who would be
eligible for such benefits if they were not receiving retirement pay.
All other recipients of VA-guaranteed loans are required to pay the
fee, including those whose compensation benefits are interrupted
because they have begun receiving active duty pay. If H.R. 2180 were
enacted, disabled veterans would no longer be penalized for being
called to active duty and would be granted the same waiver as if they
were receiving compensation benefits.
VA supports this proposal. The law, as written, creates an inequity
among groups of veterans. Those veterans who have been rated as having
a compensable disability, but return to active duty, are precluded from
receiving the waiver of the funding fee. However, a veteran who
receives a similar disability rating, but does not return to active
duty is able to have the funding fee waived.
The number of individuals who serve a tour, receive compensation,
and then return to active duty and obtain a VA home loan is extremely
small. VA, therefore, estimates that the costs of H. R. 2180, if
enacted, would be small.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
entertain any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
Prepared Statement of John M. McWilliam, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of
the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting us today to testify on several bills that
have been introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to
this Subcommittee.
In the letter of invitation you asked us to address the following
bills: H.R. 1037; H.R. 1098; H.R. 1168; H.R. 1172; H.R. 1821; H.R.
1879; and H.R. 2180. Of those, only H.R. 1168 and H.R. 1879 pertain to
the Department of Labor and I will restrict my remarks to those two
bills. We defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on the
remaining bills.
H.R. 1879_To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
employment and reemployment rights for certain individuals
ordered to full-time National Guard duty.
The purpose and sense of Congress in enacting the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA) was to
``encourage non-career service in the uniformed services'' (38 U.S.C.
Sec. 4301). To further this purpose, Congress limited to 5 years the
cumulative time that an employer is required to support a
servicemember's military absences. H.R. 1879 would amend USERRA to
exempt from the 5-year limitation the service of National Guard members
who are ordered to full-time duty pursuant to 32 U.S.C. Sec. 502(f),
and that the Secretary of Defense designates as being exempt from the
5-year limitation under USERRA. To accomplish this, the bill would add
a new subparagraph (F) to the other 5-year limitation exemptions listed
in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4312(c)(4). The Department is confident that the
Secretary of Defense is sensitive to the balance civilian employers
face in supporting their employees who serve in the National Guard and
also succeeding in their businesses, and therefore we have no objection
to this provision. However, the bill should clarify that a particular
502(f) assignment is exempt from the 5-year USERRA limitation of
4312(c)(4)(F) only if the Secretary of Defense expressly designates in
writing on the orders to duty that such duty qualifies under 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 4312(c)(12)(F).
H.R. 1168_To amend chapter 42 of title 38, United States Code, to
provide certain veterans with employment training assistance.
H.R. 1168 would direct the Secretary of Labor to provide covered
veterans a monthly training assistance allowance for each of 6 months
in which they are enrolled in an employment and training program that
teaches a skill in demand. Covered veterans would include those who: do
not qualify for VA's educational and training assistance under Title
38, have been unemployed for 4 consecutive months, and can complete the
training program. The amount of the assistance would be tied to the
basic allowance for housing for an E-5 payable in the ZIP code area in
which the veteran resides. The veteran would also be eligible for a
$5,000 moving stipend.
The Department notes that H.R. 1168 appears to establish an
entitlement to this assistance, which is a concern in light of the
long-term financial challenges the Nation faces. The assistance would
be available without regard to the financial need of the veteran or the
need for training to enhance his or her employment prospects.
The Department also notes that veterans receive priority of service
within the wide array of training programs currently available through
the DOL-funded One-Stop Career Center system. Moreover, Pell grants and
other financial assistance may also be available for unemployed
veterans. As unemployed workers, these veterans may be eligible for
unemployment insurance benefits as well.
The Department, however, would like to offer some thoughts on this
pending legislation. In the event this legislation is enacted and
appropriations are provided, there are several issues that we will have
to address prior to its implementation. For instance, the Department
will need to develop a system of certification and payment. In
addition, the Department will need to explore various options to
include the possibility of veteran certification being done by
veterans' employment specialists in One-Stop Career Centers. If the
veteran is or has been in receipt of unemployment insurance or
unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers, then verification
could be made from those respective records.
The Department would need to work to develop a payment system,
which would include collaborating with the Department of Defense to
ascertain payment amounts under section 403 of title 37, United States
Code.
The Department believes this program's highest priority should be
those eligible veterans who without this benefit would be unable to
obtain the training necessary to find a good job.
This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to respond to any
questions.
Statement of Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman
Thank you Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on H.R. 1821, Equity for Injured
Veterans Act of 2009, which I introduced earlier this year.
Throughout the history of our country our citizens have recognized
the need to equip our servicemembers with the resources needed to
complete their mission and reciprocate the same commitment to veterans
that they have exemplified while in military service. Certainly, the
Department of Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment program is no exception to this change. From the time when
vocational rehabilitation was provided to World War I veterans to the
time it was formally created by Public Law 96-466, this important
program has evolved to meet the unique needs of the time.
Today, by including H.R. 1821 in this hearing we have shown that
there is a need to reevaluate the VR&E program to provide and equip our
most vulnerable veterans with the tools needed to succeed.
Specifically, my legislation seeks to:
Expand VR&E participation eligibility for a period of 15 years,
from the current 12 years, allowing injured veterans the additional
time needed to heal prior to seeking employment;
Authorize the Secretary to pay subsistence allowance for a period
of 6 months, from the current 2 months, while the veteran continues to
satisfactorily follow a program of employment services after program
completion;
Provide an equitable housing stipend at the same levels as the new
Post-9/11 GI Bill housing stipend recipients. Currently, disabled
veterans who do not qualify for the Post-9/11 housing stipend, and are
participating VR&E, will receive a lesser housing stipend even though
their injury is any less grave;
Authorize the Secretary to provide reimbursements for child care
services. Providing VR&E participants the ease of mind that their
children will be taken care of while they obtain the needed skills to
enter the workforce is a major concern for veterans with children. I am
confident that this section will help reduce the drop-out rate and
encouraging program completion;
Finally, my bill will require the Secretary to modify its VR&E
reporting requirements as recommended by a recent Government
Accountability Office report on VR&E.
We must never forget the great debt we owe our veterans, especially
those who have become injured while protecting our freedoms. H.R. 1821
is a modest change to a program that will strengthen our Nation's
commitment to serve our veterans with the same commitment and
dedication with which they protected and served us.
Madam Chair and Colleagues, I thank you for considering H.R. 1821
in today's legislative hearing. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
May 26, 2009
Mr. Wade J. Spann
Alumni
Wounded Warrior Project
10 G Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Mr. Spann:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative
Hearing on May 21, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Thursday, July 2, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Wounded Warrior Project Responses to Questions From
Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House Veterans' Affairs Committee
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON MAY 21, 2009
Question 1: Can you explain how a flat rate for child care would be
cumbersome, as stated in your testimony?
WWP wishes to respond to this question in view of the revised
language in the amendment in the form of a substitute that now
constitutes H.R. 1821.
First, we believe Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
coverage of child care expenses would be a significant enhancement to
current VR&E benefits. We applaud the Chairman for addressing this in
the amended bill.
Secondly, we note the Bill now includes a ``means test'' to
determine whether or not a sole caretaker VR&E participant should be
reimbursed for child care expenses. WWP believes this provision
obviates the need to restrict the reimbursement to sole caretakers
since a means test, by definition, would corroborate need regardless of
marital status. Accordingly, the bill should be amended to remove the
sole caretaker limitation but retain the means test to determine
whether or not child care expenses should be reimbursed.
We thank the Chairman for his leadership in addressing this issue
in the amended bill. Reimbursing child care expenses for those VR&E
enrollees who would be unable to participate in the program without
such payments is a sound one.
Question 2: In your testimony you state that the Independent Living
Program is not addressed at all. What should we be doing to properly
address the Independent Living Program?
The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program should
be the ``crown jewel'' of VA benefits. Wounded Warrior Project believes
the time has come to re-examine the entire VR&E program and develop a
model VR&E program better suited to the needs of our newest generation
of wounded warriors. Such an overhaul could improve the relevance and
impact of all elements of the VR&E program, including the Independent
Living program. We are currently writing a policy white paper which
will propose such a model. We plan to work closely with VR&E senior
staff and our field service teams who interact with VR&E enrollees
daily throughout the country to propose a model program. We expect this
study to be completed later this summer, and we would be happy to
provide Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin a copy.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
May 26, 2009
Mr. Raymond Kelley
National Legislative Director
AMVETS
4647 Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, MD 20706
Dear Mr. Kelley:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed question for
the record I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative
Hearing on May 21, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions
by no later than Thursday, July 2, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Question for the Record
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
May 21, 2009.
1. In the world of rehabilitation, is 18 percent a low number or an
acceptable rehabilitation rate for the VA?
The short answer is 18 percent is in line with other vocational
rehabilitation programs, but if 18 percent is acceptable why do these
programs inflate their success numbers.
At face value, both Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment, Chapter 31 benefits program (VR&E) and state Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR) programs appear to have high success rates that
average in the mid 70 percentile. However, these percentages are not
the actual rehabilitation rates. VR&E has more than 90,000 enrollees
with just over 11,000 veterans achieving their rehabilitation plans.
State VR programs have a similar ratio of successes to total number of
program participants.
VA and states arrive at their success rates in different manners.
States follow the Federal Evaluation Standard with several performance
indicators. The first performance indicator is the total number of
rehabilitations. This number is calculated by the number of
rehabilitations divided by the sum of the Individual Plan for
Employments (IPE) signed in VR plus the number of Status 28 closures.
Status 28 is the status for customers who must be closed as ``not
rehabilitated'' after having been accepted for VR services and whose
services under the IPE had already begun. On the basis of clear
evidence, the counselor must determine that the customer cannot
progress to the point of entering employment. Some examples of reasons
for Status 28 closures include: death; no longer has rehabilitation
potential (due to failing health, etc.); will not be employed in an
integrated work setting; has left the state and has no job; or refuses
further VR services.
The real percentage of VR customers to achieve their IPE averages
around 15 to 17 percent. Once the Status 28 customers are added it
inflates the percentage to around 55 percent. The Federal Evaluation
Standard for rehabilitation is 55.8 percent. The states then report the
percentage of customers who have an employment outcome with an hourly
wage at or above minimum wage for 35 or more hours per week from the
55.8 percent, increasing the successful rehabilitations to 75 percent.
VR&E arrives at its percentage rate in a different manner. VR&E
starts with the number of veterans who are no longer receiving services
under Chapter 31. For FY 2008, this number was 16,169. This number is
arrived at by taking the total number of rehabilitations (11,066, FY08)
and adding all discontinued veterans (5,103, FY08) then subtracting the
Maximum Rehabilitations Gained (MRG) (1,550, FY08). This leaves 14,619
veterans classed as rehabilitated or 75.7 percent rehabilitated. The
three MRG categories are: (a) not employed and deemed unemployable; (b)
employed but not following rehabilitation plan; (c) employable but not
interested in seeking employment.
In FY08 there were 91,735 veterans in VR&E with 16,169 leaving the
program for one of three reasons: rehabilitation, discontinuing the
program or being viewed as MRG. This accounts for 17.6 percent of the
enrollees. VA does not disclose the average length of rehabilitation,
nor do they indicate how many veterans are in their last year of
eligibility. Under the assumption that a veteran has 4 years to
complete his or her rehabilitation plan 25 percent, or 22,000, enrolled
veterans would have used their entire Chapter 31 benefit in FY08. With
11,000 completing their rehabilitation plan 50 percent of veterans in
their last year of eligibility would be rehabilitated. Without complete
data on the average months of usage and number of veterans who are in
their last months of eligibility, finding an accurate rehabilitation
rate is difficult at best.
In the end, an 18 percent vocational rehabilitation plan
implementation appears to be in line with other rehabilitation rates,
but if it was an acceptable rate for either VA or state programs they
would not disguise the true rate. AMVETS' larger concern is the method
of performance reporting of Chapter 31 benefits programs under title
31. Because of the appearance of a high success rate in reporting,
Congress is not completely aware of the overall performance rate when
making resource allocation decisions.
Without clear accounting and understanding of why such a high
percentage of Chapter 31 benefits program participants are classed as
MRG and what can be done to retain these veterans in rehabilitation
plan, VR&E will continue to be underfunded and appear deceptive in
their reporting.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
May 26, 2009
Mr. John L. Wilson
Associate National Legislative Director
Disabled American Veterans
807 Maine Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20024
Mr. Wilson:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed deliverable I
am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative Hearing on May 21,
2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than
Thursday, July 2, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
POST-HEARING QUESTION FOR
ASSOCIATE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE
AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 24, 2009
Question: Do you believe that the current method used by the VA to
report the number of rehabilitated veterans is adequate in the
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment report or should the VA adhere
to the proposal in H.R. 1821? Is it possible to get an earlier report?
Answer: VA currently reports the percentage of rehabilitated
veterans as those who achieve either suitable employment or specific
independent living goals. We believe the data currently reported by the
VA is an effective measure of the success of the program.
Regarding the question of earlier reporting, we believe the current
reporting cycle is sufficient as it provides accurate and timely
reporting of VR&E veteran participation.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
May 26, 2009
Mr. Keith Wilson
Director
Office of Education Service
Veterans Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Mr. Wilson:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed deliverables
I am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative Hearing on May
21, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than
Thursday, July 2, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Questions for the Record
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
May 21, 2009
Pending Legislation
Question 1: In your written testimony you state that the success of
the current VA work-study program is largely due to participants
performing VA-related functions under the direct supervision of the VA.
Why is it that the Federal work-study programs do not have direct
Federal Government oversight while VA work study does?
Response: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) work-study
program and the Federal work-study (FWS) are governed by different
authorities. The Department of Education administers the FWS, and an
institution participating in that program must follow the FWS statute
and regulations as well as any applicable Federal, State, or local laws
that govern employment. For example, an institution must follow the
employment requirements issued by the Department of Labor or the
requirements of the State where the student is employed that do not
conflict with the FWS statute or regulations. Although the FWS program
is a Federal financial aid program, it is also employment. Even though
a student is awarded FWS based on financial need, if the student does
not perform, he or she may be released from the job.
An institution can employ an FWS student or have an agreement with
an eligible off-campus agency to employ an FWS student. In either case,
the student must have a supervisor who directly supervises the FWS
student in the office that the student is placed. When an institution
places a student with an eligible off-campus agency, the institution
must only enter into an off-campus agreement with an agency that has
professional direction and staff. The employer has the right to control
and direct the services of the FWS student. Since the Department of
Education does not supervise the FWS student, the institution is
ultimately responsible for ensuring that each FWS student's work is
properly supervised, regardless of the employer.
Title 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3485 governs the VA work-study program. Unlike
the FWS program, VA is required by statute to supervise the work-study
program. Work-study participants must be eligible for one of the
education programs administered by VA and must perform duties related
to VA activities. The work-study students must work under the direct
supervision and control of a VA employee but may be assigned to assist
in outreach activities. A work-study student engaged in VA outreach
activities may be located at a non-VA organization and supervised by an
official of the non-VA organization, but only in a cooperative
supervisory effort with a VA employee who controls the work activities.
In this case, the non-VA organization supervisor will report the work-
study participant's hours worked to the supervisory VA employee. For
students working at a VA facility, a VA supervisory employee is
assigned to carry out the program.
Question 2: On May 21, 2009, you were unable to provide a cost
estimate for H.R. 1098. I ask that you provide the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity a cost estimate for H.R. 1098.
Response: Benefit costs for VA are estimated to be almost $12
million during the first year, $61.2 million for 5 years, and $128.7
million over 10 years. The total cost to be reimbursed by Department of
Defense is $1.1 million the first year, $5.6 million for 5 years and
$11.9 million over 10 years. Total benefit costs are estimated to be
$13.1 million the first year, $66.9 million over 5 years, and $140.5
million over 10 years.
Benefits Methodology: Based on historical data, we projected the
number of trainees for both apprenticeship and on-the-job training for
fiscal 2010 through 2019. For the chapter 30 program, actual
obligations for fiscal 2008 were taken from the VA computer output
identification number GIB 021 September report. For the chapter 32, 35
and 1606 programs, obligations were based on estimates provided by the
Veterans Benefits Administration Education Service. Using obligations
and data on the numbers of trainees, we calculated an average cost per
trainee. We applied the cost-of-living adjustment commensurate with the
fiscal 2010 President's Budget submission to derive the average
benefits in the out-years. Obligations were calculated by taking the
difference in the increase of the benefit payment (10 percent) for each
year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost to VA Reimbursable Total Cost
Fiscal Year ($000) Cost ($000) ($000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 $11,954 $1,102 $13,056
2011 $11,990 $1,105 13,095
2012 $12,182 $1,123 13,304
2013 $12,413 $1,144 13,557
2014 $12,674 $1,168 13,842
2015 $12,940 $1,193 14,133
2016 $13,212 $1,218 14,429
2017 $13,489 $1,243 14,732
2018 $13,772 $1,270 15,042
2019 $14,062 $1,296 15,358
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $128,686 $11,862 $140,548
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
May 26, 2009
Mr. John M. McWilliam
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Veterans' Employment and Training Service
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20210
Dear Mr. McWilliam:
I would like to request your response to the enclosed deliverables
and questions for the record I am submitting in reference to our House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Legislative Hearing on May 21, 2009. Please answer the enclosed hearing
questions by no later than Thursday, July 2, 2009.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 226-4150.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Response to Questions for the Record from the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Legislative Hearing
May 21, 2009
Question 1: Can you elaborate on the system of certification and
payment that would need to be developed if H.R. 1168 were to be
enacted?
Response: A system of certification and payment would need to be
created that incorporates several steps:
certifications of eligibility for each Veteran
applicant, to include determining that the applicant was
ineligible for other assistance under Title 38, is expected to
be able to complete the training, and, particularly, was
unemployed for 4 months at the time of applying
identification of employment and training programs
that meet the definition of teaching a skill in demand
determinations of enrollment by the Veteran in
employment and training programs
identification of the ZIP code in which the Veteran
resides
certification of payment
Question 2: In your testimony you state that, ``eligible veterans
who without this benefit would be unable to obtain the training
necessary to find a good job.'' How many veterans fit into this
category?
Response: The Department believes this proposed training assistance
should focus on helping those eligible veterans who need training to
find a good job. As we noted in our testimony, there is already a wide
menu of training-related assistance available to veterans, including
those who are currently unemployed. However, there are an
indeterminable number of veterans who are not only ineligible for other
training assistance under Title 38, but may require this benefit in
order to stay successfully enrolled in a training program.
Unfortunately, we are unable to estimate the number of veterans who
would fit into this category. Moreover, we do not have enough
information available to know how many veterans simply do not enroll in
Title 38 training, or considered enrolling, but were discouraged from
doing so because they were unable to qualify for assistance, as these
veterans would also fit into this category.
What we can provide, however, is data from the three most recent
program years on the number of veterans receiving training services
through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker
formula grants, including the number that are receiving unemployment
compensation, as well as those that are already taking advantage of the
needs-related payment that is available through WIA. We can assume that
veterans enrolled in WIA training for a high demand skill may seek this
benefit were it to be enacted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans--WIA Adult
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Year 2005 Program Year 2006 Program Year 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total served 16,312 52,916 59,584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of total WIA Adult 6.6 8.2 7.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UI Claimants 3,051 5,189 5,920
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needs Based Payments 184 216 210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans--WIA Dislocated Worker
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Year 2005 Program Year 2006 Program Year 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total served 19,170 24,005 21,870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of total WIA DW 8 8.5 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UI Claimants 9,927 9,254 8,983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needs Based Payments 109 92 83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------