U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–691 2016

A REVIEW OF LICENSING AND CREDENTIALING 

STANDARDS FOR SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS: DO BARRIERS STILL REMAIN? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC 

OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 

Serial No. 114–36 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

KATHLEEN RICE, New York 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

DON PHILLIPS, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio, Chairman 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa 

RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking 

Member 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

KATHLEEN RICE, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

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. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, September 10, 2015 

Page 

A Review of Licensing and Credentialing Standards for Servicemembers and 

Veterans: Do Barriers Still Remain? .................................................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Brad Wenstrup, Chairman ...................................................................................... 1 

Mark Takano, Ranking Member ............................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Steve Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National Veterans Employment & 

Education Division, The American Legion ......................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 32 

Dr. Roy Swift, Executive Director, Workcred, and Affiliate of the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI) ................................................................. 4 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 38 

Mr. Jamie P. Merisotis, President, Lumina Foundation ...................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 41 

Ms. Denise Roosendaal, Executive Director, Institute for Credentialing Excellence (ICE) ............................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 46 

Ms. Teresa W. Gerton, Acting Assistant Secretary, Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor .............................................. 19 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 57 

Mr. Frank C. DiGiovanni, Director, Force Readiness and Training, U.S. Department of Defense ............................................................................................. 21 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 62 

Mr. David Quam, Deputy Director, Policy, National Governors Association ..... 23 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 70 

FOR THE RECORD 

National Council of State Board of Nursing .......................................................... 78 

The Reserve Officers Association of the United States ........................................ 81 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

A REVIEW OF LICENSING AND 

CREDENTIALING STANDARDS FOR 

SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS: 

DO BARRIERS STILL REMAIN? 

Thursday, September 10, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in Room 

224, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Brad Wenstrup [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Wenstrup, Costello, Radewagen, Bost, 

Takano, and Rice. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRAD WENSTRUP 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity’s hearing today entitled, ‘‘A Review of Licensing and Credentialing Standards for 

Servicemembers and Veterans: Do Barriers Still Remain?’’ 

For several years, many have tried to do what on face value 

should be a fairly easy task, ensuring that the training and knowledge that servicemembers gain from their time in the military 

seamlessly translates to civilian licenses and credentials when they 

return home. 

The translation of skills is critical. As we know, so many positions in our economy could remain unfilled due to the ever-growing 

skills gap of our workforce. We simply should not continue to spend 

millions of dollars training servicemembers to do a job in the military and then require them to turn around and retake unnecessary 

courses or exams for the same job in the civilian workforce. 

After many years of great work done by many of our witnesses 

here today as well as others, I think we can safely say that their 

hard work is finally paying off. Last week, the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics announced that the unemployment rate for veterans in 

August was 4.2 percent, the lowest it was been in many years. 

So news like this is very encouraging, but I still remain concerned about the number of younger veterans who remain either 

unemployed, underemployed at their current job, or have left the 

workforce altogether. These are the types of veterans that can benefit from redoubling our efforts to improving licensing and 

credentialing standards and programs for our veterans. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
2 

Before I recognize the ranking member, I want to recognize the 

efforts of members of our first panel. Veterans groups like the 

American Legion and nonprofits like the Lumina Foundation are 

the ones who are on the front line making huge strides in addressing this issue. It is groups like these, not the Federal Government, 

that are turning the tide. 

I also want to thank the National Governors Association for their 

work and attendance here today. Congress can create all of the new 

Federal programs we want, but if the States don’t participate and 

step up and change their laws and regulations to recognize the 

skills and knowledge that our servicemembers gain through military service, then the programs are doomed to fail. 

So, with that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today 

about how Congress can help facilitate improvements in this area, 

and I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Takano, for his 

opening comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MARK TAKANO 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am very happy 

to join in today’s examination of the challenges veterans face as 

they translate skills and training they have received in the military 

to their best advantage in the civilian workforce. 

I appreciate the witnesses appearing here today from the various 

sectors most involved in this process. The chairman and I are both 

committed to eliminating unnecessary barriers to veterans’ employment, and I look forward to learning how we can improve current 

policies to ensure that veterans’ military experience and training 

effectively translates into meaningful civilian employment. 

In examining this issue, it is crucial that civilian industries recognize and need the certifications that our veterans are pursuing. 

I am concerned about the lack of legitimate third-party accreditation of most licenses and credentials, and I worry that, without 

clear standards, veterans may be pursuing certifications that don’t 

lead to jobs. 

In particular, I am extremely troubled by the fact that many veterans are chipping away at their valuable post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement, a month at a time, in order to pay for licensing or 

credentialing tests, especially if those certifications don’t lead to 

meaningful careers. 

I look forward to your testimony about how we can improve our 

current policy of charging veterans 1 month of post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement per licensing or credentialing test. Surely, there is a better way to pay for these tests than to remove 1 full month per test 

from the veteran’s 36-month entitlement. I am looking into a legislative solution, and I hope Chairman Wenstrup will also be interested in considering ways to fix this particular problem. 

We have got a lot to get through here today, and so I just want 

to say welcome. Welcome back, everybody. And thank you again for 

being here and answering our questions. And I look forward to the 

testimony from all of you here today. 

I yield back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. I thank the ranking member and now welcome 

our first panel of witnesses to the table. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
3 

With us today we have Mr. Steve Gonzalez—welcome back—Assistant Director of the National Veterans Employment and Education Division for the American Legion; Dr. Roy Swift, Executive 

Director of Workcred, which is an affiliate of the American National Standards Institute; Mr. Jamie Merisotis, president of the 

Lumina Foundation; and Ms. Denise Roosendaal, Executive Director of the Institute for Credentialing Excellence. 

Thank you for all being here today. 

Mr. Gonzalez, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of National Commander Dale Barnett and over 2 million members of the 

American Legion, we thank you and your colleagues for the work 

you do in support of our servicemembers, veterans, and their families. The American Legion commends you for holding this hearing. 

In early 1996, the American Legion launched the first 

groundbreaking credentialing study to report on those skills for 

which the armed services provided training and for which a license 

or certification is required in the civilian workforce. 

The education, training, and experience obtained during an individual’s military service not only provides tangible benefits for the 

Nation’s defense but can also contribute significantly to a highly 

skilled civilian workforce. The military invests millions of dollars 

training its uniform personnel, providing a broad base of knowledge and experiences that can carry over to civilian occupations. 

However, transitioning from military occupations to civilian jobs 

can present significant challenges for servicemembers. Postsecondary education credentials are arguably even more important 

today than ever before. Those individuals who hold the credential 

generally have lower unemployment rates and greater earning 

power. Since 2008, jobs in the workforce that require some postsecondary education or a degree have increased by 3.6 million, while 

jobs for people with a high school diploma or less have declined, 

leading to higher unemployment rates. 

However, when civilian credentialing boards, States, and employers fail to fully recognize military education, training, and experience, both the servicemember and the Nation are impaired. The 

veteran faces reduced chances of obtaining a job on par with his 

or her skills, and the civilian workforce cannot take full advantage 

of the extensive skills training in which our Nation has invested. 

Still, the process for a veteran to get licensed is not as easy as 

showing up to an office with a DD 214 providing relevant military 

training. Conflicts between Federal and State requirements for credentials complicate the issue, which remains far from resolved 

around the country. 

Earlier this year, the American Legion hosted its second national 

credentialing summit in Washington, DC, to identify best practices 

for implementing State laws and for lobbying new ones. Policymakers and other key stakeholders were part of the collaborative 

discussion. The American Legion is in the process of issuing a postsummit report in the next several months. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
4 

In the past several years, a variety of Federal and State legislation, administrative initiatives, and new Department of Defense 

and Department of Labor programs have been developed to reduce 

barriers to credentialing for servicemembers and veterans. We applaud these efforts but remain concerned about how to ensure the 

quality of the credentials that are paid for by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

Currently, the VA does not require periodic reapproval of certification programs. Certification tests and organizations at present 

are only approved once, and there are no requirements for reapproval. However, certification requirements are adapted, and 

changes to exams are made by the certifying agency on a regular 

basis. The American Legion recommends a reapproval process to 

ensure that the tests and organizations continue to meet the statutory requirement for payment. 

Another barrier is the difference between post-9/11 and the government GI Bill payment system. The American Legion encourages 

this committee to eliminate the requirement that post-9/11 GI Bill 

recipients use an entire month’s worth of entitlement for a licensing or certification test fee even when the fee amounts to far less 

than the full month’s entitlement. 

Under Title 38, U.S.C. Section 3315, license and certification 

tests, post-9/11 GI Bill recipients are charged 1 full month of entitlement, which may amount to over $1,000, even if the licensing or 

certification fee is significantly less than that. One of our recommendations is to reduce proportional to the cost of the licensing 

and exam fees. 

While I have only highlighted two barriers and solutions within 

my oral remarks, my written testimony further explains barriers 

and Legion recommendations to Congress. 

This concludes my testimony. The American Legion appreciates 

the opportunity to address this topic as well as identify ways to 

continue to break down barriers that would not only benefit those 

who have served but benefit our economy and workforce. I will be 

happy to answer any questions you might have. 

And thank you, Chairman. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Swift, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROY SWIFT 

Mr. SWIFT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Roy Swift, and I am the Executive Director of 

Workcred, an affiliate of the American National Standards Institute. ANSI is the coordinator of the U.S. standardization system, 

and Workcred is a separate affiliate whose mission is to strengthen 

workforce quality by improving workforce credentials and the 

credentialing system. 

Before launching Workcred, I spent the previous 10 years building ANSI’s internationally recognized accreditation programs for 

educational certificates and certifications. 

It is important to note that Workcred is separate from and respects the impartiality of ANSI’s accreditation services. NonetheVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:27 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-691.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
5 

less, both organizations share an ongoing commitment to fostering 

a more robust and qualified American workforce and enhancing the 

quality of credentials. 

As a retired United States Army colonel who served a 28-year career in the U.S. Army Medical Department, I am deeply honored 

to testify today on the credentialing of servicemembers and veterans. 

U.S. military personnel gain valuable training, skills, and, at 

times, do earn civilian credentials during their service, particularly 

in the medical arena. Credentials can contribute to career development and enhance the potential for promotion for servicemembers. 

After military service, credentials can help demonstrate to civilian 

employers that training and skills attained in the military are on 

par with those gained through traditional civilian pathways. 

Unfortunately, many servicemembers that have earned a military occupational specialty are often not licensed or certified to perform a comparable job in the civilian workforce. This situation creates an artificial barrier to employment. 

With an estimated 250,000 military personnel expected to leave 

the service every year, the need to translate military skills into civilian careers is as important as ever. But we face a tremendous 

challenge. There are more than 4,000 certifications in the U.S., and 

less than 10 percent of these are accredited or reviewed by a thirdparty accreditation body. This lack of third-party review creates a 

buyer-beware environment because most certifications would not 

meet a national or international standard. 

Accreditation is an independent third-party assessment of a certification body’s competence, and it plays an important role in increasing the credibility and continuous quality improvement of certifications. 

ANSI’s accreditation process is designed to increase the integrity 

and mobility of certified professionals and provide confidence to the 

market that they have the required competencies as advertised. 

Millions of professionals currently hold certifications from ANSI-accredited certification bodies. 

In ANSI’s view, the global nature of personnel certification demands accreditation to international standards. That is why 

ANSI’s accreditation program is based on a national standard and 

international standard, ISO 17024. And that is why ANSI was the 

first U.S. accreditation body to deliver this accreditation in accordance with the requirements of 17011. 

17011 is the basis for mutual recognition of accreditation bodies 

in countries around the world. This assures that credentials are 

seen as equivalent and are transportable across borders, broadening the global labor market and opportunities for employers and 

employees. 

With respect to veterans’ employability, ANSI has long been an 

active leader in working with the government on private 

credentialing solutions. For example, the military Credentialing 

Opportunities Online, COOL, program and the Department of 

Labor highlight ANSI accreditation. 

With a broader vision, Workcred is focused on building a competency-driven credentialing economic system. We want to create 

alignment between industry, training, and credentialing organizaVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:27 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-691.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
6 

tions. This will advance the quality workforce credentials that have 

validity and are market-valued and will promote an open, transparent exchange of information. 

ANSI and Workcred, in collaboration with the American Legion, 

were instrumental in working with the Army’s TRADOC to identify 

high-quality, industry-recognized credentials relevant to Army soldiers as candidates for Army credentialing pilot programs. 

Together with partners from George Washington University and 

Southern Illinois University, Workcred has just launched the 

Credentialing Transparency Initiative Pilot Program to create clarity in the U.S. credentialing marketplace. Funded by Lumina, the 

initiative will create a voluntary registry that we think has great 

potential for use by the Department of Defense. 

All Americans have a stake in a strong and effective 

credentialing system. Both ANSI and Workcred are committed to 

supporting the employability and successful transition of military 

servicemembers into the workforce. 

Thank you, sir. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROY SWIFT APPEARS IN THE AP- PENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you very much, Dr. Swift. 

And, Mr. Merisotis, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE P. MERISOTIS 

Mr. MERISOTIS. Thank you very much for the chance to be here 

today. I am Jamie Merisotis, president of Lumina Foundation. 

You know, the issues being discussed here today are vital not 

just to the millions of individuals who are directly affected but to 

the growing demand for talent that will impact our entire Nation 

and its future. At Lumina Foundation, which is the Nation’s largest private foundation focused specifically on increasing student access to and success in postsecondary education, we are working to 

improve the Nation’s talent profile by focusing all of our efforts on 

one specific goal, what we call ‘‘Goal 2025.’’ 

That goal is this: By the year 2025, we want 60 percent of Americans to hold a high-quality postsecondary degree, certificate, or 

other postsecondary credential. We are convinced that this level of 

educational attainment is a national necessity that is the only way 

to ensure our country can thrive in the global economy. 

Unfortunately, today, only about 45 percent of Americans now 

hold any kind of postsecondary credential at all. So, clearly, we are 

a long way from having the workforce that we need for the 21st 

century. 

Certainly, servicemembers and military veterans can help close 

this gap. In fact, they represent a huge asset, a rich source of talent that this Nation sorely needs. Unfortunately, as you have already heard, their vast potential is not being fully realized, in part 

because of barriers imposed by issues related to education 

credentialing. 

Lumina is involved in many different areas of work related to 

credentialing. When we embraced this idea of Goal 2025, we realized very quickly that things must change significantly when it 

comes to credentialing if we have any hope of reaching that 60-percent rate. Simply put, our Nation’s postsecondary system needs to 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
7 

be revamped so that it can serve students better and serve far 

more of them than it ever has before, including the millions of our 

military veterans. 

In short, we need a student-centered system, one that recognizes 

and rewards not just time spent in the classroom but actual learning, no matter where or how that learning was obtained. This is 

critical for servicemembers and veterans. If there is one barrier to 

postsecondary success facing our returning veterans, that is it: 

being recognized for what they learned while in service. Any workable redesign of higher education must address this barrier, which 

results from the complexity and confusion of our current approach 

to credentialing. 

Today’s credentialing marketplace is highly fragmented, with a 

vast array of credentials that don’t always connect—to each other, 

to other educational opportunities, or to careers. We need a 

credentialing system that does connect, one that actually functions 

as a system, not as a collection of disparate parts. 

A great deal of our recent work has been focused on reimagining 

this type of interconnected system. In fact, as Dr. Swift mentioned, 

we are part of a partnership of more than 80 national organizations—business, education, workforce, labor, and other organizations—that have begun a national dialogue on this topic. 

A reimagined credentialing system would be competency-based, 

interconnected, and continually updated. It would ensure quality, 

and it would enable users—students, education providers, and employers—to compare the value of various credentials. Clearly, a system with these attributes would be of enormous benefit to veterans 

as they make their transition to civilian life. 

Of course, the effort to create this type of interconnected system 

is one that will require concerted action by a range of stakeholders, 

including the Federal Government, which has supported 

credentialing reform through its leadership, through funding, and 

through participation and research. 

The Departments of Labor and Education, among others, are already testing approaches to a more inclusive system of 

credentialing for all students. The Federal Government should 

work to link those efforts to the many others underway to build a 

credential system that works for all learners. 

Frankly, there are few issues far more urgent than meeting our 

Nation’s growing need for talent. Assuring that the talent of our 

veterans is recognized, that they obtain appropriate credentials for 

what they know and what they can do, and that they have opportunities to develop their talent has great import for the veterans 

themselves, for their families, their communities, and for our Nation. 

I am very pleased that this committee and others are considering 

approaches to breaking down barriers and finding ways to recognize learning and skills however and wherever they are achieved. 

I am happy to answer your questions about the steps that the Federal Government might take in this effort or to provide further information on the work that we are doing in this area. 

Thank you very much for the chance to testify. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. MERISOTIS APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX ] 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
8 

STATEMENT OF DENISE ROOSENDAAL 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Merisotis. 

Ms. Roosendaal, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ROOSENDAAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Denise Roosendaal. I am the Executive Director of 

the Institute for Credentialing Excellence. It is a 501(c)(3) membership organization representing credentialing bodies across the 

country. The National Commission for Certifying Agencies, NCCA, 

is our accrediting arm and has accredited over 300 personnel certification programs to its standards since its inception in 1977. 

I would like to thank you for the invitation to speak with you 

today on such an important topic. ICE has been involved in this 

topic for several years, supporting the establishment of the ArmyNavy COOL Web sites back in 2003 as well as the two 

credentialing summits held by the American Legion in 2012 and 

2015. 

In my written testimony, I outlined anecdotal evidence of some 

of the success stories that we have heard about from several 

credentialing organizations, such as the American Culinary Federation and the Human Resources Certification Institute. These organizations connected with the military in a meaningful way to create a smooth pathway for Active Duty military servicemembers and 

veterans to access the private-sector certifications. 

I have also outlined in my written testimony six areas that I 

think still need some attention. These are somewhat technical in 

nature, but I do believe that in order for us to move forward in connecting private-sector credentials with the important experience 

and knowledge that military servicemembers and veterans bring to 

the marketplace they should be addressed. 

Very quickly, these areas are: the alignment of required knowledge, skills, and competencies between military experience and the 

civilian certification; some of the challenges in understanding and 

communicating certification and military nomenclature and classifications; the eligibility requirements, where there are no alternative pathways outlined to help identify equivalents in military 

experience; the lack of awareness of some of the best practices, 

such as governance structures, the separation of education from 

certification practices; the need to educate employers on the value 

of certifications for veterans; as well as inadequate resources for 

necessary activities that would help resolve some of these technical 

areas. 

So the first one that I mentioned, the alignment of required 

knowledge, to many of our organizations has become clear as one 

of the most important to address. The alignment of acquired knowledge is sometimes—the misalignment is sometimes fueled by that 

misunderstanding of the military nomenclature, and it is probably 

the most significant obstacle. 

Some private-sector credentialing organizations have found great 

success in their military programs by conducting an extensive and 

often expensive gap analysis mapping the military knowledge and 

skills back to the certification’s own job analysis of required skills. 

Other programs, like the Human Resources Certification Institute, overcame this obstacle by creating a direct connection to the 

military through the Army’s Training with Industry, TWI, proVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:27 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-691.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
9 

gram. This is where they place a liaison in the office of HRCI, and 

for at least a year they understood and began to communicate the 

differences between the military HR requirements and the privatesector certification. 

Without that direct personal connection, however, the gaps have 

to be analyzed on paper. And sometimes those gaps are easily identified; sometimes they are identified and filled with just specific 

training. Such as the Culinary Institute, they identified certain 

skills that were lacking in the military experience, and they were 

able to fill that gap with employer-based and employer-funded 

training. 

But, more often, the gaps are not easily or accurately identified, 

especially around eligibility requirements. We are seeing that there 

is some misunderstanding of, when private-sector certification requires a certain number of years of experience—say, 5 years of relevant experience, it is not clear whether or not the military 5 years 

experience is equivalent. 

The COOL site has helped immensely in connecting certifications 

with specific MOSs, but I think helping the private sector understand that connection a little bit better would be very helpful. 

In ICE’s research, 89 percent of certification bodies are nonprofit, 

501(c)(3) or (c)(6), with a median staff size of about six individuals. 

So it does make it difficult to find the resources to help fill these 

gaps and address these issues. 

I would be remiss if I concluded without expressing ICE and 

NCCA’s commitment to identifying quality credentialing programs. 

The NCCA standards were originally created through a federally 

funded grant to create standards for quality personnel certification 

programs. The third-party accreditation is the best means for assessing quality programs, and our military servicemembers deserve 

that quality. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I 

do hope that ICE and NCCA can continue to be a resource for this 

committee. 

Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENISE ROOSENDAAL APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you very much. 

I thank you all for your testimony. 

I am going to now yield myself 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. Gonzalez, in your written statement, you address the concern of the services informing servicemembers of the opportunities 

that may exist with credentialing and licensing after their service. 

One of my thoughts is, maybe, yeah, you can do it throughout 

their service career, but I also think it can be a recruiting tool and 

be brought up from the very beginning, depending upon what 

someone’s MOS is going to be, obviously, what those opportunities 

are, just like the GI Bill is a recruiting tool. 

I just wanted to get your thoughts on that or other methods that 

you think might be helpful. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I believe that you are absolutely 

right, so I agree with you that it should be done in a process and 

it should be done as the military now transitions—and you, Mr. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
10 

Chairman, who sits on the Armed Services Committee—it is a 

lifecycle. 

So it is making sure that that individual understands in their 

particular profession within the military what else they can be 

doing, not just to better themselves, but also it helps the readiness 

of the military. A better workforce for the military is a better ready 

military. 

But, also, it helps those individuals that when they do transition 

out, one, it decreases unemployment for the military, what they 

pay out, but also it helps retain those individuals, whether it is in 

the Reserves or National Guard, for the total military force. 

And then, of course, how do we figure out how to leverage technology, Mr. Chairman. How do we use technology to still get information, not just individuals within the continental United States 

but also overseas regardless of where they are stationed at, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. You mean technology for continued training in 

certain skills? Is that what you are—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Technology as far as how we deliver those types 

of material—study material, information. And, in some cases, and 

I know there are other organizations like a Princeton Review, and 

how do we deliver those types of exams. Can we deliver those 

exams through new technology platforms that, regardless of where 

you are at, you can still be able to take that test and be prepared 

while you are overseas. And then, of course, when you get back, 

you are still prepared, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Yeah. Just like when you deploy and you may 

want to continue your military education classes online or whatever, depending upon where you are, you can do that. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Okay. I appreciate that input. 

Now, this might seem like a very obvious question, but I would 

ask all of you: What is the number-one thing that this subcommittee and Congress could do today or quickly to improve licensing and credentialing opportunities for veterans, in your opinion? 

And we can go down the line. 

Mr. SWIFT. Well, the word ‘‘certification’’ is pretty meaningless 

these days. You can say that you are certified when you pay $50 

to get it, or it could be one in which it is fully accredited by a legitimate accreditation agency. So, often, it is a buyer-beware market, 

and it is very confusing to soldiers and the Department of Defense. 

And that is why, in our pilot program where we are looking at 

using an electronic means via to look at the transparency of credential of the National Transparency Credentialing Initiative. We 

think that this sort of national registry would be dynamic, because 

it has a platform where it spiders down and obtains the most recent information, and that registry would allow applications, such 

as the Department of Defense to put an application on the registry 

about the requirements of particular military occupational specialties, and match it to competencies related to specific credentials 

that meet certain criteria that have been developed by the Department of Defense. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
11 

Naturally, we think that if we are going to say that we will only 

reimburse for higher education that is accredited, institutionally or 

programmatically accredited, and we think certification is important—which we believe it is—to moving people to obtain jobs, then 

the Department of Defense should not be accepting any certifications unless they are accredited or have had some sort of third 

party review in that regard. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. I think it is probably also important for the 

servicemember to have some understanding of what States recognize a certain credentialing. Like you said, you can get a credential, but if no one recognizes it parlays into a legitimate job, then 

you have been had. 

Mr. SWIFT. Right. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. I think that is important information to get out. 

Am I understanding you correctly there? 

Mr. SWIFT. Yes, absolutely. 

And this national registry which was funded by Lumina Foundation is designed to have descriptors that would establish a profile, 

not just what are the terminal competencies so there could be a 

match between military occupational specialty and the competencies, but what is the transfer value of that credential it is related to state regulation and who recognizes it, if anybody. There 

are about 18 descriptors, sir, that at another time and another 

place could be discussed. 

It is in the pilot stage, but we do think that this could be one 

of the answers to begin increasing this communication. Because we 

found, even with the meeting that we had with the American Legion—we brought about 20 certification bodies to meet with 

TRADOC. The difficulty of communication between higher education, the credentialing organization, and industry seems to be 

very difficult without some sort of facilitation. 

I talked enough. I will be quiet. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, and my time has expired, and I see people 

nodding, so, at this time, I will recognize Mr. Takano for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

I recognize that need for that coordination among the three entities you just mentioned. 

Do any of you see a potential in the area of licensing and 

credentialing for the kind of predatory marketing that has often 

gone on in the for-profit sector in higher education? If so, what can 

we as Federal policymakers do now to protect veterans and the integrity of Federal programs designed to help them transition into 

meaningful civilian employment? 

Mr. MERISOTIS. It is an enormously difficult question. As you 

know, as a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, 

these issues are cutting across Federal programs in so many different ways. 

And I think, ultimately, this issue of protecting the interests of 

students, the learners themselves, comes down to the fact that we 

have to change the paradigm of what we are actually getting at in 

these programs. 

We have talked about it; whether it is in the GI Bill benefit programs, whether it is in education programs or others, these are all 

time-based programs, right? So you accumulate college credits, 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
12 

your benefits expire after 36 months. All of these are rooted in 

these concepts of time instead of concepts of learning. 

And we should be increasingly pushing these concepts that all of 

us, I think, have talked about today, which is competency in these 

programs and then driving the consumer protection element 

around whether or not students, whether they are veterans or 

other students, have actually learned in these programs. What 

have they gotten academically? What do they know? What are they 

able to do out of these programs? 

Then we would worry less, frankly, about whether it is a for-profit or a not-for-profit. We would focus more on what are the learning 

outcomes. Frankly, we have some abuses in not-for-profit educational providers, as well, that we have to address. 

So I think these issues that you are talking about, which I think 

are real and serious, ultimately we have to get at that root cause 

of the fact that competency should be what we should be focusing 

on in all of our postsecondary learning programs. 

Mr. TAKANO. Dr. Swift. 

Mr. SWIFT. And around that competency, I would like to talk 

about the triad, that you can’t just talk about competencies. First 

of all, are they validated competencies? 

Mr. TAKANO. Right. 

Mr. SWIFT. Have they been validated by industry or the appropriate organization that is looking into this? 

And, thirdly, what is the quality of the assessment? Because we 

may get the competencies right, but, as Mr. Merisotis was saying, 

if we don’t have the correct assessments, we will never know 

whether learning took place or not. 

So one of the weak links—and this is true of certifications too; 

if the exam doesn’t discriminate—we don’t know whether learning 

takes place if our assessment instruments aren’t strong enough to 

discriminate between those who know and those who don’t know. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Gonzalez, as I understand it, the post-9/11 GI Bill recipients 

use an entire month’s worth of entitlement for a certification or licensing fee, whether or not that—excuse me, I am looking at the— 

they use an entire—or licensing fee does not apply to Montgomery 

GI Bill recipients. Their entitlement is reduced proportionally. 

Why do we take so much more away from post-9/11 GI Bill recipients? I am comparing the two different programs. Is it just easier for the VA to do recordkeeping? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Takano, when the post-9/11 was first introduced, I was still in college. So, to be honest, behind the scenes and 

what was the formula that was used to calculate post-9/11, I am 

not aware of. 

However, Montgomery GI Bill does pretty much prorate in what 

the cost is, thus saving you entitlements for the longer education 

process. And I know this is something that I would definitely love 

to talk more in detail with the committee itself on how can we kind 

of revert certain sections of post-9/11 to what Montgomery had in 

place to ensure that that particular individual is not exhausting its 

entitlement and, of course, keeping in mind within fiscal constraints and making sure that CBO can score it properly and it is 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
13 

something that is amenable with Members of Congress too, Mr. 

Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Great. 

Well, since the VA is not here, can you describe for us the supposedly stringent criteria VA uses to approve credentials for the GI 

Bill? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. There is no standard, Mr. Takano. If you want 

the honest truth, there is no standard. It is whatever the checklist 

is from the State approving agency gets stamped, and once that 

program is stamped as approved, it is a done deal. 

Mr. TAKANO. So the American taxpayer could indeed be paying 

for these tests and credentials, which really don’t result in anything. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. There is no reapproval process by the VA. 

So there is no incentive for the VA to come back and say, we are 

going to do an audit, we are going to reexamine your certification 

program in general. 

And I can give you an example of us, ourselves, and the American National Standards Institute meeting with the VA about a 

year and a half ago to bring this particular subject up to their 

knowledge and make them aware of it, and their response was, 

who are we hurting? 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I really thank you for the time and the subject matter you have brought before us. We have a lot of work I 

plan to do and work with your office on this in the days to come. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Costello, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to all of you for being here and for what you do every 

day. 

Obviously, the name of this subcommittee is the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, and so the focus is on creating more economic opportunity for veterans and making sure that we carry 

through legislatively and from an implementation perspective to 

provide that economic opportunity. 

With the hearing title being ‘‘Do Barriers Still Remain?’’, I think 

the answer is, yes, barriers do remain. I think the added question 

is, well, what can we do about those barriers? It seems to me, given 

the principle of federalism, that States certainly have some—well, 

they do have flexibility and discretion in terms of what their particular occupational licensing standards are. Fine. It also seems to 

me that that, in and of itself, can create a barrier. 

And so what can we do, either from a preemption perspective 

federally or from just a best-practices perspective, to align them 

better so that a veteran who wants to return to my State, Pennsylvania, or maybe to Miss Rice’s State, New York, doesn’t decide— 

and Miss Rice is terrific—to go to Miss Rice’s State because the occupational licensing standards there are more favorable to what 

that veteran has acquired from a skills and experience perspective 

but yet Pennsylvania—and I am using it as not an example but for 

purposes of hypothetical—Pennsylvania’s may be more difficult? 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
14 

And so we want to align that so that that doesn’t occur for a veteran wanting to choose where they may live. 

So my question is twofold. One, what can we do on the Federal 

level to diminish the possibility that the 50 State occupational licensing jurisdiction doesn’t create a barrier from a legislative perspective on a preemption basis? And, number two, what can we do 

from a best-practices perspective in order to reduce that? 

If that question is too much in the land of hypothetical, I believe 

it was Mr. Gonzalez or Mr. Merisotis who said, you know, there are 

a lot of things we could talk about in terms of what Congress could 

do. So that would be sort of the catch-all question, if you will. And 

I would open it up to all four of you. 

And, again, thank you for being here and testifying. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Costello, I will make it quick for the purpose 

of time. 

One of the things our recommendation would be is, how do we 

create a clearinghouse on where States themselves who have 

passed legislation can acquire information so programs of instruction by the military, whether it is through the ONET process at 

Department of Labor, whether it is through the VA. And I know 

it is going to be a daunting task for the DoD, but how do we make 

the Federal agencies be able to provide a platform where States, 

private entities can actually go and acquire these programs and instructions? Of course, keep in mind where we are not compromising 

national security, so we are not going to put the programming instructions when we are dealing with cybersecurity, for instance. 

However, there are many other occupations within the military 

that will be very, very helpful for those individual entities to be 

able to access and be able to compare what have you actually acquired in the military, regardless of what that is, to be able to say 

we are going to recognize and accept or we are not going to recognize and accept and this is why we can’t recognize and accept, 

whatever that might be. 

Right now, currently, it is very scattered, and how do you get 

this information or where do you get this information. And maybe 

that is a question also for the next panel, Mr. Costello. 

Mr. SWIFT. I just want to add a couple of sentences to that. 

Being 28 years in the Army, I understand that when somebody 

gets their training initially and when they go out of the service 

after 3 or 4 years, the competencies are quite different. And I think 

licensure and some certifications often evaluate them on what the 

competencies were when they took their initial training. And the 

military maybe should do a better job of identifying the customized 

competencies that one has achieved over that 4-year experience, because the experience has changed to a very different individual 

than the one that they said, this describes a medic or this describes 

a mechanic. There is a big gap difference in the two scenarios that. 

And then the credentialing world needs to do a better job of 

learning how to quantify experience. We don’t have the good, sophisticated tools that we need to do that, to make that match. And, 

of course, communication is always the issue. 

But I think that if we were clear—I remember when I was in the 

Army we had something called job books. And those job books were 

competencies at every level that we were to achieve, which allowed 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
15 

us to be able to demonstrate that we had certain competencies if 

we were a lieutenant or an E-5 or a sergeant or whatever, and that 

is very different than when we were a PFC and this sort of thing. 

So I think those are some of the things that we can do on the 

military side that you would have some jurisdiction over in trying 

to facilitate that to happen, where we could do a better job in that 

regard. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms Rice, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms RICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Gonzalez, I just want to go back to that meeting that you 

talked about a year and a half ago at the VA. Can you just expound on that more? What precipitated the meeting, who was 

there, and what was discussed? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And, again, Mrs. Rice, just due to time, very 

quickly, it was—we identified certain certifications that were being 

approved by VA, that individuals, of course, can go and go to the 

course, go to the school or institution itself and acquire that particular credential, per se. We had identified a couple of them, and 

we brought it up to the economic section of the Department of Veterans Affairs, brought it to their attention. 

And the conversation went from bad to worse very quickly. And 

the conversation pretty much ended as, ‘‘Who are we hurting?’’, 

from their end. And our response was, you are hurting the veteran, 

you are hurting the taxpayers because we are paying for it. And 

it just kind of ended like that, and we just left it alone. 

And, ever since then, we have just been pushing in other ways 

to push to ensure that VA kind of overhauls how they are doing 

things—how they are approving these programs, how they are evaluating the programs, are they doing reapproval, whether they are 

doing surveys, whatever it is that they need to do to ensure that 

these programs are actually meeting some standard and some quality assurance. 

Ms RICE. So you got the sense that there was no rhyme or reason 

as to—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I got the sense that, because it is not their 

money, it is not coming out of their pocket, they can care less. 

Ms RICE. So what about their process made you go to—I am trying to figure out exactly what they are doing. They are saying that 

these programs are okay when they are not? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes. So the programs—and I don’t know if you 

want to chime in. 

Because Dr. Swift was also at the meeting, and he can chime in 

on more of the technical side. 

If you care to. 

Mr. SWIFT. Sure. 

One of the things—the reason that we were concerned is that a 

lot of the agencies that had been approved talked about training. 

And certification needs to be a third-party assessment that is 

firewalled away from training, that is a judgment that competencies have been achieved. 

So we are saying—and they do have a self-attestation questionnaire that the State approving agencies use. But it looks like—is 

from our brief meeting—that VA probably needs to have—there 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
16 

needs to be more resources for the people who are trying to use 

that attestation questionnaire to determine if they are a legitimate 

certification body. 

Because it appears that maybe we have allowed some through 

that weren’t really certifications, but what we would call certificate 

programs that has education and training and measures learning 

outcomes, where certification is to be an agency that does an analysis of what the skills are to be successful on the job. 

Ms RICE. So what would you suggest that the VA do? 

Mr. SWIFT. I would think that we need to relook at the criteria 

they are using, the questionnaire. And I think we need more resources to do training of the people in the States that have the responsibility of determining whether this is a legitimate certification 

body or not. One of the ways to achieve this would be to re-authorize the old Professional Certification & Licensure Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the VA. 

Ms RICE. Great. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Mrs. Radewagen, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is for Mr. Gonzalez. 

And, yes, I welcome you, as well. Thank you very much, all of 

you, panel, for appearing today. 

You mentioned in your written statement that all 50 States have 

now passed some form of new licensing and credentialing laws. 

Does this include the United States territories? 

And, also, could you please go into more detail as to what these 

new laws are and how they will increase consistency across the 

States and territories for servicemembers and veterans trying to 

obtain certain credentials? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I cannot talk to the U.S. territories. I am not 

aware of the laws, if they have been changed, or the statutes in 

any U.S. territories. But within the 50 States, some type of 

credentialing current statutes have been changed. 

And it varies from State to State. So you might have something 

as simple as how an electrician gets their licensure, and, of course, 

in the State of Georgia versus the State of Washington, who might 

just have complete control and says, we are just going to make one 

massive overhaul, versus some States who want to do it in increment processes or increment progression to ensure that they are 

not compromising the public safety in some capacity. 

I know in one of the States that we have been doing it very slowly, and it is my home State of New York. It has been very much 

a slow process, whereas, again, you have some Midwestern States 

like Indiana, like Washington, Ohio, who has just done one massive 

overhaul. Of course, Iowa, as well, is another State. 

So it depends. But as far as U.S. territories, I am not aware of— 

I can go back and come back with the actual information for you, 

ma’am. 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. I appreciate that. 

You also discussed how only certain occupational licenses are 

reached by Federal law, but many, including nursing, paramedics, 

et cetera, are regulated at the State level. For these certain occupaVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:27 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-691.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
17 

tional licenses, what can we do in Congress to ensure consistency 

of protocols all across the States and—of course I am going to say— 

the U.S. territories? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I would think—— 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. We are part of the family. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. If it is okay with you, ma’am, I think my colleagues who might be a little better versed on some of that and better answer that question. I would—I don’t know if they want to answer, since I have two of the biggest accreditation bodies here who 

can actually also give you that understanding. 

And, of course, some of those particular topics are very much a 

hybrid in nature, where the Federal Government does have a role 

but then, of course, the States also have their own role. 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Okay. If we could go to the—I am running out 

of time. Thank you. 

Mr. SWIFT. Well, licensure is a difficult issue because it is a State 

function, and, frankly, scopes of practice are done by the legislature, and it is a political process about who can lobby the best. And 

that is why you have differences among States in regard to scope, 

and some people can administer medication, and some can’t. And 

this is true for a lot of—and then some States may license a dental 

hygienist and some not. And it is the whole range of how you interpret what public protection is all about, because licensure is supposed to be strictly about public protection. 

And there are several issues associated with this. First of all, licensure is based on the whole idea that scope of practice is mutually exclusive from anybody else. So if you say ‘‘wound healing’’ in 

one scope, God help you if you are another professional who says, 

‘‘Well, we look at wounds, too,’’ you know. And, of course, the workforce is not going that way of having these boundaries of scopes. 

And so that is why I think it is very difficult for the Federal Government, because it is very State-controlled. 

Now, the federations, like the State boards of nursing and physical therapy, psychologists, they try to bring some standardization, 

but even the nurses, who are very, very active in trying to create 

a compact of mutual recognition across borders, I think—don’t 

quote me on this, but I think there are around 30, but you would 

think they would have all 50 States, you know, in looking at this 

sort of thing. 

So it is difficult. I think that a recent initiative by the Department of Labor to look at giving grants in relationship to how we 

can decrease these barriers with licensure is a good start, to force 

the States to begin looking at, do we really need to license this profession or is this just a barrier that we put up that is really not 

necessary? 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Bost, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I would kind of like to continue down that because of my 

experience in the State. And I am trying to figure out—first off, 

this would be a pretty broad step towards removing States’ rights 

and their abilities. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. SWIFT. Yes. That’s why I say it is very difficult, because it 

is considered a State responsibility. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
18 

Mr. BOST. And I don’t know other States, but I can give you Illinois. Illinois, though we might have the department of professional 

regulation that handles one area, we also have other boards and 

other groups that handle other licensing. So how would we work 

to combine them in a positive way so that we could have one standard, I guess? Do you have any suggestions on that? 

Mr. SWIFT. I actually don’t. 

Mr. BOST. Yeah. That is my—— 

Mr. SWIFT. I just think that there may be financial incentives for 

States to begin looking at streamlining, to help mobility of people 

in the workforce and multinational corporations, and to try to be 

encouraged to move away from these mutually exclusive scopes. 

Because let’s just take healthcare for a sample. As we move from 

hospital-based care to community-based care, we have to have people who can multitask and are working in the home and in the 

community. And so, to say that you can only do one little thing by 

the license is going to be an impediment to deliver good healthcare 

in this regard. 

So I guess I would approach it from that. But I don’t think I have 

a good answer for you. 

Mr. BOST. But this particular proposal is not just on healthcare 

licensing; it is on all licensing. 

Mr. SWIFT. No, no. I was just giving healthcare as an example. 

Mr. BOST. I know, for example, for cosmetology, the level of 

training required and for licensing in the State of Illinois is so 

much different than States around them. And so where do we set 

the standard? Do we set it at the Illinois standard, or do we set 

it at one of the other—the lower State standard? 

Mr. SWIFT. This is probably something for the National Governors, who is up in the next panel, to talk about, because I think 

it is very difficult, because it is a legislative process. Scopes of practice are determined by the legislature. 

And so how to deal with that difficulty with these differences, 

you know—I mean, the differences are some State says, well, we 

have to protect the public with this profession, and another State 

will say, oh, no, we don’t need to protect the public with this profession. And so the differences are extreme at times as to who supposedly is protecting the public. Whether it is protecting the profession or protecting the public is sometimes debatable. 

Mr. MERISOTIS. I want to just add quickly here on this point. 

Mr. BOST. Please. 

Mr. MERISOTIS. This is one of the reasons I mentioned in my testimony this idea of having this national dialogue on credentialing. 

Because this cacophony that you are talking about, I think, is precisely the problem. From the consumer perspective, whether it is 

veterans or any other group seeking postsecondary learning, that 

complexity inherent in the system is a big barrier to their eventual 

success. And so a lot of people get ripped off by the system, they 

never complete the programs, they never get appropriately 

credentialed. So it is a real mess out there. 

I am loathe to seek a Federal solution to this, I confess. And so, 

I think, go with your gut on that, because I am not sure—— 

Mr. BOST. Yes, because I have a tendency to believe that it, like, 

jumps all over States’ rights. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
19 

Mr. MERISOTIS. Yes. Yeah. On the other hand, I think the Federal Government could set the tone—— 

Mr. BOST. The base standard. 

Mr. MERISOTIS. That is right—set the tone for what the expectation should be and give States the opportunity to differentially regulate based on what they want to accomplish. 

I do think, though, that this issue of we really have to have a 

higher bar within and across States is very different. You know in 

your State that you have a real cacophony, a real mix, a sort of 

mess of different programs and different boards. Other States have 

different models. And I think we need some sort of basic framework, some sort of overall approach that everyone could agree to— 

national, not Federal. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you. 

A very interesting conversation, obviously, and not a simple fix. 

But, you know, what goes through my mind is focusing on what we 

may be able to do to allow States to make a decision. Because that 

is where it is going to have to come from. And I think we will hear 

from the National Governors Association and see what they have 

to say, but they are not going to want to give up those authorities, 

and probably rightfully so. But, at the same time, what can we do 

to provide each and every State or territory with information they 

need about the level of education and training that this person received that could help them make a decision in their credentialing 

process. And maybe that is where we need to focus. 

If there are no other questions, I want to thank you all for answering our questions, and you are now excused. Thank you for 

joining us today. 

I now want to welcome our second and final panel to the witness 

table. 

We welcome back Ms. Teresa Gerton, Acting Assistant Secretary 

for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service. We also have Mr. Frank DiGiovanni, who is the 

Director of Force Readiness and Training at the U.S. Department 

of Defense. And, also, we have Mr. David Quam, deputy director 

of policy for the National Governors Association. 

I want to thank you all for being here today. 

Ms. Gerton, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TERESA W. GERTON 

Ms. GERTON. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss the Department’s efforts on licensing and credentialing for 

veterans and servicemembers at today’s hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, last week the Department’s 

Bureau of Labor Statistics released the August unemployment report. And the unemployment rate for veterans over the age of 18 

is 4.2 percent, compared to 5.6 percent 1 year ago. 

Ms. GERTON. The total number of unemployed veterans in August 2015 was 449,000, down from 501,000 the previous month, 

and down 25 percent over the last year. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
20 

We believe our collective interventions contribute to these recent 

positive employment trends for our veterans. And, overall, August 

was the 66th consecutive month of private sector job growth. 

As the economy improves, Secretary Perez and I remain committed to ensuring our workforce meets the needs of our businesses 

and workers. I know you share our belief that veterans are critical 

to building our economy. The Department prioritizes efforts to facilitate veteran attainment of licenses and credentials. At the 

American Legion’s National credentialing summit earlier this year, 

Secretary Perez said, ‘‘we owe to our veterans to break down the 

barriers to employment that they too often face as they reintegrate 

into civilian life’’. Breaking down these barriers requires the cooperation of Federal agencies, State licensing boards, educational 

institutions and the private sector. 

VETS worked closely with our colleagues in the Department’s 

Employment and Training Administration over the last year to implement landmark workforce legislation, the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act, or WIOA, emphasizing job-driven training 

that leads to industry-recognized post secondary credentials, and 

promotes the use of career pathways and sector partnerships to increase employment in in-demand jobs. 

WIOA reflects our shared understanding that training leading to 

credentials demonstrates skills in a way employers understand, a 

way to get workers, including veterans, jobs. That is why Congress 

added a new performance measure to WIOA to track and encourage credential attainment. In 2010, the Department set a high priority goal for credential attainment in our training programs. We 

have met or exceeded that goal ever since. 

With the new WIOA measures, we are confident we will continue 

to see success. And, of course, under WIOA, veterans and eligible 

spouses continue to receive priority for all services, as is true with 

all DOL-funded workforce programs. 

Another key department investment is the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training grants program. 

Over 4 years, we have awarded over $2 billion to community colleges nationwide to help them develop skills training programs 

leading to industry-recognized credentials and good jobs. The 

TAACCCT program has enrolled more than 11,500 veterans 

through September 30th, 2014. And the last round of TAACCCT 

grants was awarded last year, but the Department hopes to continue the important momentum and innovation built through these 

investments. 

Our investments have worked, and the latest employment numbers show that, but we recognize and appreciate the value of knowing more. The VOW Act of 2011 required DOL to carry out a demonstration project on credentialing ‘‘for the purpose of facilitating 

the seamless transition of members of the Armed Forces from service on active duty to civilian employment.’’ 

DOL funded the project with a contract with the National Governors Association to both engage governors in accelerating 

credentialing and licensing for veterans, and to move veterans into 

civilian employment by reducing or eliminating barriers to credentials, certifications or licenses. NGA designed and implemented the 

demonstration project in six participating States and explored acVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:27 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-691.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
21 

celerated career pathways for servicemembers and veterans in selected, high-demand civilian occupations. 

Also, under the VOW Act, the Department entered into a contract to study equivalencies between the skills of various military 

occupational specialties and the qualifications required for related 

civilian jobs. We studied 68 military occupations that covered 57 

percent of all enlisted servicemembers, and created a more robust 

military-to-civilian crosswalk for those 68 military occupations. 

The Department remains committed to licensing and 

credentialing efforts, but as we discussed, the authority for 

credentialing most professions lies ultimately with the States. 

Many States are identifying and addressing licensing barriers. The 

President’s budget proposes $15 million to encourage more State 

action to increase interstate portability of licenses, remove other 

barriers and provide easier access. 

Participants in the Department’s registered apprenticeship receive an industry-issued, nationally recognized credential that certifies occupational proficiency. Yesterday, President Obama announced that the Department of Labor is awarding $175 million in 

American apprenticeship grants to 46 winning consortia to train 

and hire more than 43,000 new apprentices. Some of these programs have specific veteran components, and I am happy to discuss 

those. 

Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, thank you again 

for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. GERTON APPEARS IN THE AP- PENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you. Mr. DiGiovanni, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK DIGIOVANNI 

Mr. DIGIOVANNI. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. As a 26-year veteran of the United 

States Air Force, this is an issue near and dear to my heart. 

In June of 2012 the Department stood up a licensing and 

credentialing task force. It was stood up for two purposes: First, to 

give meaning to the profession of arms. It is not only just about 

military courtesy, but it is also about a professional course that is 

both licensed and credentialed. 

We also believe that licensing and credentialing is pointing to 

military transition, so that is the ability to translate what one 

learned both from training, education, and experience, and how 

that translates into the private sector. 

The program of licensing and credentialing in the Department 

falls along three lines of action: The first is when you finish your 

initial qualification training, if you are qualified at that time, then 

there is an opportunity to secure a license or a credential. The second time is mid career when you have sufficient experience. And 

the third is as you begin to transition from military services. 

In October of 2013, per the direction of Congress, we did a set 

of pilots, we submitted a report to you all in 2013. And in that report, we looked at areas such as truck driving, logistics, healthcare, 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
22 

manufacturing, IT and other areas which have direct portability 

from the military into the civil sector. 

For example, on the one line of action that I spoke of, the Army 

has been very aggressive in their 91 Echo Allied Trade Specialist 

schoolhouse. Since 2012, over 2,000 initial graduates of that course 

have been awarded American Welding Society certification, and 

2,350 members have been awarded certification from the National 

Institute of Metalworking Skills. 

Also, with DoD assistance, there have been 79 bills enacted in 

each of the 50 States, 40 of which have made changes which encourage colleges and community colleges to give military members 

credit for their training, education and experience. 

What we are working on now is that by fiscal year 2016, all four 

services will pay for credential. The latest was the Marine Corps 

which started their program this month, the other three, two of 

which actually started paying in 2015, and the Navy have been 

paying for credentials since 2008. 

We are also working on a DoD instruction to consolidate the policies that come from this body and other places. And we also have 

a DoD credentialing working group where we are looking to get the 

four services together to look at best practices and standardization. 

There is also a standup of AWS, the DoD COOL Web site, 

Credentialing Opportunity Online, that will now not only be able 

to get that from each of the four services, but there will be a central place for them now to go where you can get access to all four 

service sites. And the task force that I spoke of that was set up in 

2012 has been extended to the end of 2017. 

For the way ahead, certainly what you have done has been fantastic. It certainly helped our military members. There have been 

great laws that have been passed; in particular, one which authorized our military members to receive initial skills job training up 

to 6 months before they get out. So that becomes their place of employment for up to 6 months before they leave military service. 

That program, or that authority, is called SkillBridge. 

We are also starting to shift the center of gravity to the States. 

We think that when you look at the States, the licensing issue certainly, as was discussed earlier, is a State issue. The other center 

of gravity is the professional associations themselves. 

We also think there is an opportunity to partner with community 

colleges. For example, in our study, only four of 395 accredited 

paramedic colleges actually have a pipeline course. And what a 

pipeline course is is where they look at a military member’s training, education and experience. You get credit for that time, you also 

get a competency-based exam, and then they custom design a set 

of coursework that only fills the gaps in what you need. 

What we have seen for the paramedic, that cuts between 6 to 7 

months of school time for transition. It is interesting that only 4 

of the 395 institutions have that capability. 

The last area that we are looking at is in combat arms, and we 

are looking at soft skills in helping those folks transition. I thank 

you for the opportunity to speak to you today and I will stand by 

for questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. DIGIOVANNI APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
23 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. DiGiovanni, for your input and 

feedback in your testimony. Mr. Quam, you are now recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID QUAM 

Mr. QUAM. Chairman Wenstrup and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. It is good to see you all, and it is a real 

privilege to be here on behalf of the National Governors Association. Governors have been very focused for years on veterans, the 

military and the National Guard. As commanders in chief of the 

National Guard, the last decade has seen governors very much focused on not only the protection of our troops when they go abroad, 

but their protection when they come home. I think this has been 

a really great example of what governors can do to help when these 

military men and women, including the Guard and our active military are coming back to the States. So it was a real privilege to 

be able to work with the Department of Labor to start to find those 

best practices. 

I think you heard a lot today that every single State, and I will 

say some of the territories as well, have taken steps to really help 

the veterans returning with regard to licensing and credentialing 

and trying to accelerate those pathways. Well, what we found during this 18-month, really intensive process, was that implementation is key. There aren’t a lot of Federal solutions that need to be 

imposed, licensing and credentialing is a State issue for a reason. 

It has to do with public safety, it has to do with geography, it has 

to do with the economy. All those licensing boards and 

credentialing criteria were put in place for a reason. 

And State and local government has control over that because it 

is important for this to remain local. That being said, governors 

have found that there are barriers to trade and there are things 

that have to be done and the governors play a key role. 

As we work through this demonstration process, there were five 

key recommendations that came across for what can be done to 

really implement these programs. There was a blueprint put in 

place for all States to follow. The first recommendation: Assemble 

a team. It is remarkable only the governor has the authority across 

all the agencies to bring everybody together to get the level of coordination and collaboration that you need to get this done. The effort in the State of Ohio for instance, the governor called a task 

force together, gave it to the governor’s workforce task force, they 

identified 33 different State agencies that were involved in the hiring of vets, the credentialing and licensing, 33 just in the State of 

Ohio. Every State has that level of complexity, the governor as convener is key. 

Second, you have to do your homework. What is the information? 

How many veterans are coming back? What were they trained in? 

What does your economy need? Where are the jobs? What institutions do you have that can provide that training? And can you 

match it all up? Without all that information, you can’t make really 

strong decisions. 

You need then data, this is where working with some of the national credentialing bodies, national licensing bodies is critical. The 

nurses were able to do a nationwide gap analysis comparing what 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
24 

the military did with what some of the States do. That type of data 

allows the State to start to really focus on what do we need to 

make sure that our veterans are ready for that civilian workforce. 

It is interesting, if you think of a medic who is trained to help 

soldiers who are injured in combat, there is a different level of 

training to handle that versus handling, say, infants, who you 

might have to service as a nurse or a practitioner, or the elderly. 

And so you have to make sure that the licensing and credentialing 

is there for a reason to make sure that that quality control is servicing the civilian sector by taking into account the training and experience to be gained in the military. 

Next one, don’t reinvent the wheel. This is a big one. Best practices, the States have started to really share across State lines. You 

had six different States involved in this demonstration process— 

demonstration program, and probably the best thing that came out 

of it is them talking to each other. What did you do that worked? 

How did you work with your legislature? How did your State licensing board set up? What other bodies are you concerned with? 

What other are the politics that are involved there? How did you 

fund it? States talking to States is a key to making this work in 

the end. 

The last one: Share information. If I have one role for the Federal Government to play, it is to help with the sharing of information from the Federal Government and from the agencies to the 

States. A true partnership will require the flow of information so 

you don’t have to go looking. One of the interesting findings as I 

was talking to some of the people who put together this report, 

they had to do workarounds just to get the basic information of 

what vets were coming back to their States and what have they 

been trained in. Those are keys to bring the policy decisions together to really make this work. Happy to take questions and it 

has been a pleasure to be here. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. QUAM APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you, Mr. Quam. I appreciate all of 

your testimonies. I will now allow myself 5 minutes for questioning. 

I will just continue with you, Mr. Quam, if I can. I appreciate 

what you said about governors taking the lead on some of these 

issues within the States, and best practices. I have always contended that one of the advantages of having States and territories 

is you have the opportunity to find best practices. You have over 

50 labs to try different things to see what works, but it takes the 

communication and the knowledge of what is working and see if it 

works in your own State. And, of course, some of the differences 

between States are sometimes based upon—the protocols can be 

based upon the need of a State, right? Some States need different 

professions more than others, and so they may change their needs, 

their rules based on their needs. 

So, again, going back to the question I asked before in the previous situation is, what is it that you think that we can do here 

for the States to make the process easier? I ask that from the VA 

side, or DoD side, really. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
25 

Mr. QUAM. I am going to go back to what some of the previous 

speakers mentioned and one of the recommendations I was making, 

it is a flow of information. There is information that is held at the 

Federal level that needs to be communicated to the States in order 

for the States to make really good decisions. 

I will tell a story that I was just told yesterday about how this 

works, and it really brought it to light for me, and that is, one the 

States who was trying to figure out whether to put a paramedics 

training session together needed to know A, how many paramedics 

do we need in the State? They had that information. But B, how 

many folks do we have coming into the State who have that training and may be looking for that type of job? They asked the Federal Government, and part of this lies with several different Federal agencies. 

At the end of the day, the only way they could get that information was to send a FOIA request to the Federal Government to get 

it out. They couldn’t get it any other way. Even the National Governors Association, we did this demonstration project, we had to 

also put in a FOIA request to get the information we were looking 

for. 

So there was some talk about a clearinghouse to have some of 

this information in better flow between the Federal silos amongst 

themselves, but then the Federal partnership with the State and 

local partnership—if we can just get the information going back 

and forth, that alone is going to streamline this process and you 

get some better policymaking. We would love your help with that. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. My first question is, can you compile a list of the 

type of information that you need from the Federal Government 

that we can help try to expedite so that you can have this stuff 

available to you that is appropriate and so you do not have to go 

through that. 

Mr. QUAM. And certainly, from the demonstration project, I think 

we have got some very specific information we can look for, work 

with you, have your help. Happy to bring that to you, yes. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. If you could please forward that to us, we would 

be glad to take that information and try and take that ball and run 

with it. 

Mr. DiGiovanni, there is a sharing of information that we are 

talking about. Where do you think the DoD is right now as far as 

sharing information that may be necessary, or what barriers are in 

your way in the process of sharing information about the skills of 

our servicemembers? 

Mr. DIGIOVANNI. Sir, from my several years of working this 

issue, the biggest problem for us has been access. So as military 

members begin to transition, a lot of people in industry are looking, 

so how do we talk to these 250,000 servicemembers that are getting out every year? And I think it was alluded to in the earlier 

testimony, but I think the technical means, the use of social networking capabilities, Twitter and other types of communication devices allow it to scale. It is too hard to try to find out individually 

what 250,000 people, where they are going to go. And a lot of it 

is up to the servicemember, do they really want to release that information, do they know—do they even know where they want to 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
26 

go yet? So there is a lot of devil in the details when it comes to 

that question. 

But I think the biggest thing I have seen is just how do we use 

maybe technology that allows people to scale and reach out to them 

in a way that is voluntary? So if they want to be contacted, they 

can opt in and then provide that communication. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. So you are talking about really the outside access 

to these skilled people? 

Mr. QUAM. Yes, sir. And I think once you do that, then you do 

have a database that kind of says those are the people that are 

opted in, this is where they want to go and this is the kind of job 

they are looking for, which is what we are trying to do as part of 

the SkillBridge authority. We are trying to use that authority to 

help advertise back and forth. Servicemembers looking for job field 

training opportunities and companies looking for people to train. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Connecting the dots. 

Mr. DIGIOVANNI. Yes, sir. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you. Mr. Takano, you are now recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. DiGiovanni, in your testimony, you talk about 

how partnerships with community colleges can help student veterans bridge their military experience to obtain civilian licenses 

and credentials. How can community colleges improve outcomes for 

new student veterans? And is there any way we can better 

incentivize the best practices in this particular area? 

Mr. DIGIOVANNI. Sir, great question. I—one of the things that we 

did as we saw the law started to get changed which opened up that 

kind of licensing board and flexibility to take advantage of military 

training, education and experience, because we went out and contracted something that I call the technical data package. What that 

did is we went and did a deep dive at those four places, for example, that we are doing paramedic pipelining. In that technical data 

package, we captured how they translated military training and 

education to college credit. And we also captured the competencybased exams they were giving these folks. 

So one of the things that we need to do is just, as you said, get 

the information out. I mean, it is sitting there. The States just 

need to just say, look, does the Federal Government have anything 

that has best practices? So that is one thing, it is really getting the 

best practice out. I think the second thing is incentivizing these 

community colleges in some way to build these kinds of programs 

that not only in the healthcare, but in other areas where we see 

our military veterans migrating to. 

Mr. TAKANO. You cite paramedics as an example, but have they 

tried other lines of vocations at all? 

Mr. DIGIOVANNI. We haven’t, sir. The first study really took a 

hard look at healthcare because it was such—there was this great 

alignment between what the military is doing and the private sector, so that was really the first look. 

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Quam, what are States doing to conduct meaningful gap analysis of their credentialing requirements against 

military training requirements? I think you mentioned nursing as 

one example. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
27 

Mr. QUAM. Nursing was one where the national body does some 

licensing, they did it on their own. The States went to them and 

they actually partnered together. Some States then went beyond 

that, they took what the gap analysis from the National Association, and then they did their own at the State level. But the work 

with some of the those national licensing bodies—we talk about 

some of the groups who are trying to create some more uniformity 

without a Federal law, it is important to work with them because 

they have got the experts to do that initial gap analysis, and then 

for the States to come in and apply this specifically. 

I will say this, that with regard to gap analysis and with regard 

to all of this, specificity is a key. We tried to do this for all occupations and all licenses, we tried to take on everybody and streamline 

everything. We have found that that does not work. You have got 

to really focus on some of the key industries, the key places where 

the military training and most people are coming to get the most 

bang for the buck and have the most success. 

Mr. TAKANO. I would agree that you have to look at the key occupations. Nursing is one of those areas where there is an independent third-party validation, setting the credential at least, 

right? 

Mr. QUAM. Correct. 

Mr. TAKANO. But, let me ask you this question: I mean, you talk 

about the State’s role. I respect the State-Federal distinction. I 

come from local government as well. But say you have a strong 

credentialing body, such as nursing, or physician assistants, do the 

States really retain the autonomy to be able to talk about scope 

and also set the number of years, say, it takes to be an RN? Or 

is it really the National Association that is doing that? 

Mr. QUAM. I think for—the National Association has a huge role 

to play. This is still legislative and it is law. So at the end of the 

day, the States have a very, very strong say. What you are seeing, 

though, is that for some of these professions is, I think it was wellput, finding national solutions to national problems, not necessarily 

Federal solutions to those problems, but national. I think that is 

an important distinction. This is one of the reasons, though, why 

we are saying the collaboration and cooperation between those national bodies and the States, that is critical, because there are 

some expertise there where States can build off of the work that 

has already been done. 

Mr. TAKANO. I would love to be able to engage with you off-line. 

I have some further questions about how all this works, especially 

with nursing, physicians’ assistants. The military may require less, 

but some reason they go into the civilian world they have to do 

more. Is it really necessary or are there other factors going on here. 

My time is up. But it’s a topic that I would like to explore further 

with you. 

Mr. QUAM. I would like to have that discussion. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Costello, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DiGiovanni, I have heard—elsewhere, I’ve heard through testimony elsewhere about the TAACCCT program and the need to 

improve coordination between DoD and the VA. Could you identify 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
28 

for me where you think maybe the—I don’t want to say problems, 

let’s say challenges—where the challenges are and what you are 

doing to make it more seamless and what, if there is anything Congress can do, I’ll keep it open-ended for you. 

Mr. DIGIOVANNI. Sir, unfortunately I am not the expert on the 

TAACCCT program. Most of the areas that I engage in are in the 

licensing and credentialing piece. I will take that question for the 

record, sir, and I will get an answer back. But that office is run 

by Dr. Susan Kelly. And so I really need to defer to her expertise 

here, sir. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Okay, appreciate that. I yield back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Ms. Rice, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Ms. 

Gerton, can you—you talk about working with the private sector in 

your role to find out—actually, I want to ask you how closely you 

work with the private sector to identify what the workforce needs 

are, and then how you integrate those needs into your 

credentialing program. 

Ms. GERTON. Sure. Let me speak generally about the Department of Labor, and then talk a little bit about what VETS does 

specifically. The grants that the Department of Labor offers 

through the State workforce system require a very close integration 

of local businesses and employers with the workforce boards, and 

then the State workforce agency or the grantees so that the training programs that we allow States to fund are actually totally integrated in building job pathways, career pathways for that local 

economy. 

It is very much a sort of a centrally-funded but locally-executed 

program, so the local businesses are required members of the workforce investment boards, and they then drive the training programs 

that are offered in those regions so that the training programs are 

consistent with the job opportunities in that area. 

One of the powerful ways that the Department of Labor helps 

veterans particularly that is the VETS organization works directly 

with employers who want to employ veterans, and we help them 

take advantage of the public workforce system to build those job 

pathways so that they can bring veterans in. So we teach them 

how to use job training programs, apprenticeships, a variety of different workforce-funded options, to create a career pathway that 

closes skill gaps for veterans. That is the first. 

The second is that the Department of Labor, through its network 

of job centers, can actually work, especially with transitioning 

servicemembers, to help them navigate from where they are separating from the service to where they want to be. And we have a 

dislocated worker program. It is a fabulous program, and definitely 

not as well-known as it could be for which transitioning 

servicemembers qualify for 6 months prior to separation, and a 

year afterwards where they can get direct counseling on the skills 

that they currently have, how they might apply to jobs where they 

want to be, and then be counseled through the process of filling 

those skill gaps. Oftentimes with DOL-funded training DOL, 

through the dislocated worker program, may be able to fund the 

credentialing test that is required to port that skill to the new 

State. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
29 

There is a great deal of resources here that will link employer 

needs, in general, in communities and then specifically for veterans 

so that training programs can be designed through the public workforce system and that transitioning servicemembers and veterans 

can take advantage of. 

Ms RICE. Okay. Mr. Quam, my home State of New York has 

launched an initiative in 2011 called Experience Counts, which expanded our State’s licensing, and higher education credentials to 

better integrate military skills and training. Now, it is my understanding that over a dozen licenses and certifications covered under 

this initiative, and that the entire State University of New York 

and City University of New York system, which was one of the 

largest State university systems in the country are participating. 

So I know that you were talking about how you don’t need to reinvent the wheel, I think it was number 4 in your list of five 

things. 

Mr. QUAM. Right. 

Ms RICE. I had to say, I had to profess ignorance as to whether 

we got that idea from someone else, or if it is something that came 

from us and should be exported. Are there other examples like that 

around the country? How is it that you facilitate the sharing of information so they don’t have to recreate the wheel? 

Mr. QUAM. That is a great question. And part of the demonstration project, I have to compliment the Department of Labor for all 

their help with this, is designed to take the best practices and help 

us disseminate them. And so an interim came out just this year, 

the final report will come out later this year with the Department 

of Labor, both the National Governors Association and the Department will be disseminating this to all States to share. 

As a matter of fact, one possibility is even though we did six 

States, it is to fund—if there are funds available, to do another cohort, to share with another set of States. But we will be sharing 

all this information with the governors, with the State workforce 

agencies, parts with the veterans—the folks who handle veterans 

affairs in each of the States. 

It is remarkable how many agencies touch on this issue, education, workforce, licensing and credentialing, all can be separate 

boards. It will be our job to take the information we find, disseminate it to everybody, and then continue this discussion, both among 

the governors and among those folks who are chiefly responsible for 

it. DOL will be a critical partner in getting that done. 

Ms RICE. Great, thank you very much. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Ms. Radewagen, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

panel for appearing today. 

Mr. DiGiovanni, what do you see as the biggest impediment to 

achieving better cohesion between military training and civilian licenses and credentials? It seems to me that it might be easier for 

the States and territories to try to conform to one similar standard 

for popular licenses and credentials than to have DoD try to adjust 

training and procedure for a variety of different State standards. 

Mr. DIGIOVANNI. So our approach has been primarily marketdriven. So one of the things that we have asked anyone who has 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
30 

asked, or anyone we talked to from industry is, what is the goal 

in certification? What is the goal in licensure? So that we can advise military members that if you are seeking a career in, say, metalworking or truck driving, which is pretty simple, you obviously 

need a CDL, but one of these kind of manufacturing or logistics, 

what are the certifications that if a military member walked into 

your H.R. office and you lay that on the table, that would be exactly the certification they are looking for. 

So from our perspective, we are looking for, again, this information, but this time, toward the Department, to help better inform 

our military members, what certifications and licensures matter, 

particularly in the kinds of jobs that they are looking for. 

I think we also not really trying to, the military to date, has not 

taken on the task of trying to do the gap training themselves. They 

do have a military requirement, and then they train and educate 

those military servicemembers to the specific requirements of the 

Department. And then what we have done is then provide them 

with information mechanisms to find out what the gaps are and 

then help them locate where they can get those gaps filled. And so 

that is—it has kind of been that process and also that demanddriven process, what is the marketplace looking for as far as licensing and credentialing? 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Thank you. Ms. Gerton, it is nice it see you 

again. Understanding the results of the NGA study on 

credentialing are not final, but what are other steps that you think 

we should take to incentivize States and the territories to pass 

laws and regulations that account for skills and training that 

servicemembers already have when looking at licensing and 

credentialing standards? 

Ms. GERTON. I think there are a number of initiatives already on 

the table. The interim report is out there, and it does lay out in 

draft form the blueprint that Mr. Quam talked about. We would 

certainly encourage those on the committee to take the report back 

to your home States and share those results, as we have already 

posted it out to the State workforce agencies, so they can begin 

working on it. 

And career pathways and job-driven training are a huge focus of 

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. I think that there 

is an opportunity here for us to continue the type of grants that 

TAACCCT and Ready To Work and some of the other labor grants 

represent that encourage innovation in this space, and encourage 

the development of innovation, particularly course curricula as a 

result of the TAACCCT grant that is shared in the public domain, 

so that other folks who wanted to pick that curriculum up already 

have that written. That is a prerequisite of the TAACCCT grant. 

I think there is that. And I think another key piece is increasing 

the capacity in the workforce system to do this kind of counseling 

and training because to answer one of Representative Takano’s earlier questions about the cost of credentialing, some of those costs 

are already covered in the public workforce system. We don’t need 

to replicate those costs, we can, by referring folks through the public workforce system, have some training paid for, some of their 

costs and credentialing paid for, and have individual counseling for 

them that helps them leverage the variety of these different kinds 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
31 

of tools. This is especially critical for veterans as we approach this 

issue. 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. If there are no other questions, I want to thank 

you all for answering our questions today, and you are now excused. And I think we have a lot of valuable information out of this 

hearing today. I thank you all for your presence. 

I want to thank everyone for joining us today. It is important 

that our servicemembers and veterans have a seamless transition 

into civilian jobs, and especially ones that they are qualified for due 

to their military service. A major part of this is getting a licensing 

and credentialing process right. So I thank you for your input. 

I look forward to all of us continuing to work together on this as 

we move forward. Again, I thank the members and all of you here 

today for participating. 

And finally, I ask unanimous consent that all members have 5 

legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. Without objection, so ordered. This hearing is 

now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
32 

APPENDIX 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 98691.001
33 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 98691.002
34 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 98691.003
35 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 98691.004
36 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 98691.005
37 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 98691.006
38 

STATEMENT OF ROY SWIFT

Workcred, an affiliate of the American National Standards Institute rswift@workcred.org; 202.331.3617 

My name is Roy Swift and I am executive director of Workcred, 

an affiliate of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 

ANSI is the coordinator of the U.S. standards and conformity assessment system, and Workcred is a separate 501(c)(3) affiliate organization whose mission is to strengthen workforce quality by improving workforce credentials and the credentialing system. Before 

launching Workcred, I spent the previous ten years building ANSI’s 

internationally recognized accreditation programs for personnel 

certificate and certification programs. 

It is important to note that Workcred maintains a separation 

from and respects the impartiality of ANSI’s accreditation services. 

Nevertheless, both organizations share an ongoing commitment to 

fostering a more robust and qualified American workforce, and enhancing the quality of credentials for both military and civilian personnel. 

As a retired United States Army colonel who served a 28-year career in the U.S. Army Medical Department, I am deeply honored 

to testify today on the credentialing of servicemembers and veterans. 

U.S. military personnel gain valuable training, skills, and at 

times do earn civilian credentials during their service. Credentials 

can contribute to personal and professional career development and 

enhance the potential for promotion for servicemembers on active 

duty. After military service, credentials can help demonstrate to civilian employers that training and skills attained in the military 

are on par with those gained through traditional civilian pathways. 

Unfortunately, many servicemembers that have earned a military occupational specialty are often not licensed or certified to perform a comparable job in the civilian workforce. This situation creates an artificial barrier to employment for veterans. With an estimated 250,000 military personnel expected to leave service every 

year, the need to translate military skills into civilian careers is as 

important as ever. 

But we face a tremendous challenge. There are more than 4,000 

certifications in the U.S., and less than ten percent of these are accredited or reviewed by a third-party accreditation body. This lack 

of third-party review creates a ‘‘buyer beware’’ environment because most certifications would not meet a national or international standard. In fact, many self-identified ‘‘certifications’’ are 

actually educational programs with a test to measure learning outcomes and are not competency-based assessments of the individual’s ability to perform in the workplace. Certification must be firewalled away from education to be a third-party judgment that competencies have been acquired. Certification must be time limited 

and have the ability to take away the certification for unethical behavior or incompetence. 

Accreditation is an independent, third-party assessment of a certification body’s competency to perform the functions as I have just 

stated, and it plays an important role in increasing the credibility 

and continuous quality improvement of certifications. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
39 

ANSI’s accreditation process is designed to increase the integrity 

and mobility of certified professionals, and provide confidence to 

the marketplace that they are competent. Millions of professionals 

currently hold certifications from ANSI-accredited certification bodies. In ANSI’s view, the global nature of personnel certification demands accreditation to international standards. That’s why ANSI’s 

accreditation program is based on the American National Standard 

(ANS) and international standard ANSI/ISO/IEC 17024. And that’s 

why ANSI was the first U.S. accreditation body to deliver this accreditation in accordance with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17011, 

another international standard that represents the highest globally 

accepted practices for accreditation bodies. 

This 17011 standard is also the basis for mutual recognition of 

accreditation bodies in countries around the world. This assures 

that credentials—just like products and quality management systems—are seen as equivalent and are transportable across borders, 

broadening the global labor market and opportunities for both employers and employees. 

With respect to veterans’ employability, ANSI has long been an 

active leader in working with the government on private-sector 

credentialing solutions. For example, the military’s Credentialing 

Opportunities On-Line (COOL) programs and the Department of 

Labor highlight ANSI accreditation. 

With a broader vision, Workcred is focused on building a competency-driven workforce credentialing ecosystem. We want to create alignment between industry, training, and credentialing organizations. This will advance quality workforce credentials that have 

validity and are market valued, and will promote an open, transparent exchange of information. And an associated benefit to society should be to reduce unemployment by narrowing the ‘‘Skills 

Gap.’’ ANSI and Workcred, in collaboration with the American Legion, were instrumental in working with the Army’s Training and 

Doctrine Command to identify high quality, industry-recognized 

credentials relevant to Army Soldiers as candidates for Army 

credentialing pilot programs. 

Together with partners from George Washington University and 

Southern Illinois University, Workcred has just launched the Credential Transparency Initiative to create greater clarity in the U.S. 

credentialing marketplace. Funded by Lumina Foundation, the initiative will develop common terms for describing key features of 

credentials. It will create a voluntary, web-based registry for sharing the resulting information. And it will test practical software applications for employers, students, educators, and other major credential stakeholders like the U.S. Department of Defense. The registry holds great promise to make civilian credentials more transparent. For example: DoD, in cooperation with partners such as the 

American Council on Education (ACE), could use an ‘‘app’’ to more 

efficiently connect Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) competencies to credentials in the civilian job market. 

All Americans have a stake in a strong and effective labor market credentialing system—especially our nation’s military 

servicemembers. Both ANSI and Workcred are committed to supporting the employability and successful transition of military 

servicemembers into the workforce. We look forward to continuing 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
40 

to partner with the military, government agencies, and groups like 

the American Legion to advance this effort. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

About Workcred 

Formed in 2014 as an affiliate of the American National Standards Institute, Workcred is a nonprofit organization whose mission 

is to strengthen workforce quality by improving the credentialing 

system, ensuring its ongoing relevance, and preparing employers, 

workers, educators, and governments to use it effectively. 

www.workcred.org. 

About ANSI 

ANSI is a private, non-profit organization that administers and 

coordinates the U.S. voluntary standards and conformity assessment system. In this role, the Institute oversees the development 

and use of voluntary consensus standards by accrediting the procedures used by standards developing organizations, and approving 

their finished documents as American National Standards. 

Internationally, the Institute is the official U.S. representative to 

the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and, via 

the U.S. National Committee, the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC). ANSI’s membership is comprised of businesses, 

government agencies, professional societies and trade associations, 

standards developing organizations (SDOs), and consumer and 

labor organizations. 

The Institute represents the diverse interests of more than 

125,000 companies and organizations and 3.5 million professionals 

worldwide. ANSI works closely with stakeholders from both industry and government to identify consensus-based solutions to national and global priorities—an inclusive, collaborative partnership 

between the public and private sectors. www.ansi.org. 

Statement on Federal Grants and Contracts 

Dr. Roy Swift is presenting this testimony on behalf of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the ANSI affiliate organization, Workcred. 

While ANSI has not directly received any Federal grants and 

contracts within the previous two fiscal years that are relevant to 

the subject matter of this testimony, we have partnered on some 

projects that are supported by grant money, and we have relationships with agencies that we wish to disclose as relevant. These include: 

• The Department of Energy (DOE) working with the National 

Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) and industry stakeholders developed the Better Buildings Workforce Guidelines, 

voluntary national guidelines to improve the quality and consistency of commercial building workforce credentials for four 

key energy-related jobs: Building Energy Auditor, Building 

Commissioning Professional, Building Operations Professional, 

Energy Manager. ANSI is designated as an accreditation body 

for these schemes by DOE. ANSI is a subcontractor to NIBS 

for this initiative, which did receive funding from DOE; however, this funding was not provided directly to ANSI by DOE. 

The certifications are part of a coordinated effort under DOE’s 

Guidelines for Home Energy Professionals project, which also 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
41 

developed Standard Work Specifications (SWS) for Home Energy Upgrades, available at sws.nrel.gov. 

• ANSI and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) 

developed a joint accreditation program for energy efficiency or 

renewable energy related certificate programs. This initiative 

was funded by DOE grant money; however, this funding was 

not provided directly to ANSI by DOE. 

• ANSI’s Certificate Accreditation Program (CAP) has accredited three federal agencies: the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the FBI Academy, and the U.S. Army Combat 

Readiness/Safety Center. These agencies paid accreditation 

fees but did not enter into grants or contracts with ANSI. 

Workcred does not have any Federal grants or contracts to disclose. 

f 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE P. MERISOTIS

Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon. 

I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about licensing and credentialing issues and how they relate to members 

of the armed services and military veterans. These issues are vital, 

not just to the millions of individuals who are directly affected, but 

to the growing demand for talent that will impact our entire nation 

and its future. 

I am Jamie Merisotis, President and CEO of Lumina Foundation, 

a private foundation based in Indianapolis. Lumina is the nation’s 

largest private foundation focused specifically on increasing students’ access to and success in postsecondary education. I’ve been 

at Lumina since 2008, and throughout my tenure, we’ve been working toward one specific, clearly focused goal. We call it Goal 2025. 

The goal, simply stated, is this: By the year 2025, we want 60 

percent of Americans to hold a college degree, certificate or other 

high-quality postsecondary credential. We are convinced that this 

level of educational attainment is a national necessity—that it’s the 

only way to ensure that our nation can thrive in today’s dynamic, 

global economy. And we are not alone in this view. Labor economists and other experts tell us that the overwhelming majority of 

new jobs require some form of postsecondary credential—as will 

two-thirds of ALL jobs in this country by the end of this decade. 

Unfortunately, only about 40 percent of Americans now hold at 

least a two-year degree, with perhaps another 5 percent holding a 

quality credential at the sub-associate-degree level. That’s a long 

way from the 60 percent goal that we’re working toward, which 

means we’re a long way from having the strong, flexible, well-prepared workforce this nation needs to succeed in the 21st century. 

Certainly, servicemembers and military veterans are a growing 

and increasingly vital part of the dynamic workforce that this country so desperately needs. They are now returning from service and 

entering postsecondary programs in large numbers—and that represents a tremendous opportunity for our nation’s future. Our 

servicemembers and veterans are a huge economic and social 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
42 

asset—a rich source of talent that can move America forward by 

great strides. Unfortunately, the vast potential of these dedicated 

individuals is not being fully realized, in part because of barriers 

imposed by the issues this subcommittee is here today to explore: 

issues related to education credentialing. 

At Lumina, we’ve done a lot of work in the credentialing area in 

recent years—work that stems directly from our commitment to the 

Goal 2025 effort I just mentioned. When we committed to that goal, 

we realized very quickly that things would have to change significantly for the nation’s attainment rate to reach 60 percent. Simply 

put, we realized that our nation’s postsecondary system would have 

to be redesigned so it could serve far more students than ever before—including millions of military veterans and active duty 

servicemembers—and serve them better. 

In short, our higher education needs to change because our students have changed—dramatically. 

Today, there are more than 20 million people enrolled in the nation’s two- and four-year institutions, including over 1 million military veterans. A sizable majority of these 20 million Americans— 

including all of the veterans and servicemembers—are students 

who do not fit the profile of a traditional college student. About 40 

percent are 25 years old or older. More than one-third attend part 

time, and nearly 20 percent are holding down full-time jobs as they 

attend college. About 40 percent of today’s students attend community colleges or for-profit schools—and this is true of a much higher 

percentage of first-generation students, and those who are African 

American or Latino, and those who come from low-income families. 

If traditional students are those that go to college directly from 

high school and attend full-time, that’s less than a third of today’s 

students. Those who are also identified as a dependent on their 

parent’s tax return and live on campus are an even smaller percentage. I would argue that federal policy has been overwhelmingly 

focused on students who are a small and shrinking share of all the 

students and potential students we should be considering. When 

more than three out of four students are considered ‘‘non-traditional,’’ it’s time to rethink some of our assumptions. 

Today’s veterans are a window into who today’s students really 

are. They are older. They have significant work and life experiences. Many of today’s students, including most veterans, are working adults, with responsibilities and commitments that extend far 

beyond the classroom. 

In other words, today’s ‘‘typical’’ student, if such a thing even exists, is nothing like the student that higher education was originally designed to serve and that federal policy is based on. That 

means it’s time—past time, really—for a redesign. What we need 

is a system that is structured specifically to meet the varied needs 

of today’s students—a system that is flexible, affordable and committed to quality. 

Fundamentally, a commitment to quality boils down to one thing: 

assuring that educational programs result in genuine learning— 

that they give students the knowledge, skills and abilities they 

need to succeed in the modern workplace and in life. Unfortunately, most postsecondary programs aren’t set up to assure genuine learning. Students earn their degrees and credentials, not by 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
43 

demonstrating actual knowledge or skills, but by earning a specified number of credits by spending a certain number of hours in 

classrooms or labs. 

Again, the approach here is institution-centric; it’s not designed 

around the needs of students. That has to change. We need a student-centered system—one in which credits and credentials are 

awarded, not when a certain amount of time is served, but when 

the proper knowledge and skills are demonstrated. 

In short, we need a system that recognizes and rewards actual 

learning—and it shouldn’t matter where or how that learning is obtained. The knowledge, skills and abilities that individuals develop 

in non-academic settings—on the job, in volunteer roles, and certainly during military service—all of this learning matters. And 

that means it all needs to count. Students should be credited for 

that learning, be able to apply it toward a postsecondary credential, and be assured that that credential will be recognized when 

they seek employment or further education. 

If there’s one barrier to postsecondary success facing our returning veterans, that’s it: being recognized for what they’ve learned 

while in service. Any workable redesign of higher education must 

address this barrier. It starts with embracing what educators often 

call students’ ‘‘prior learning.’’ Institutions and states must find 

better ways to assess this learning, grant academic credit for it, 

and include it in the record that qualifies a student for a credential. 

Awarding credit for prior learning is critically important, but our 

work has shown it is not enough. Like you, we have concluded that 

we must find ways to better integrate and organize the often-bewildering array of education credentials being offered. 

There are myriad credentials in today’s postsecondary landscape, 

including degrees, educational certificates, occupational licenses 

and industry certifications. New types of credentials, such as digital badges and enhanced transcripts, are also emerging. However, 

there’s little clarity about what these various credentials actually 

mean—their value, their quality and how they connect. 

The confusion isn’t really surprising; it merely reflects the 

unstructured development of the U.S. credentialing marketplace 

over many decades. That marketplace is now a complex, loosely 

connected collection of education and training providers, personnel 

certification bodies, accreditation organizations and federal/state 

regulatory agencies and boards. The result: a highly fragmented, 

multi-layered system that presents major challenges for anyone attempting to obtain a credential to get a better job or advance their 

career, as well as employers and education providers who need to 

compare and evaluate different credentials. In short, we have an 

ever-growing group of providers offering a vast array of credentials 

that don’t always connect—to each other, to other educational opportunities, or to careers. 

We need a credentialing system that does connect—one that actually functions as a system, not as a group of disparate parts. We 

need a system with common definitions—one that engenders trust 

and facilitates student movement and progress, much like a currency exchange enables international financial transactions. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
44 

At Lumina, a great deal of our recent work has been focused on 

reimagining and helping to build this type of interconnected system. In fact, we have helped forge a growing partnership of national organizations—more than 80 so far—that have begun a national dialogue on this important topic. 

Some of our thinking about how to improve the system is presented in a brief report that is included with your copies of this testimony—a report titled Connecting Credentials: Making the Case 

for Reforming the U.S. Credentialing System. 

I won’t go into too much detail here about that report, but I do 

want to highlight one important section. It’s a list of the five key 

attributes that the reshaped American credentialing system should 

have. 

• First, it should be easily understandable. All postsecondary 

credentials—from badges to degrees and beyond—should be 

based on competencies, making them easier to understand and 

use by students, employers, educators and workforce agencies. 

• Second, it should assure quality. Users must be able to rely 

on the quality of credentials, including their accuracy in representing the competencies possessed by a credential holder. 

• Third, the revamped credentialing system should be up to 

date. Credentials should be continually updated and validated 

to ensure they stay relevant to employer needs. 

• Fourth, it should be interconnected. All students should understand how credentials connect and be able to see several 

pathways to increase career and economic mobility. Users also 

must be able to combine credentials to fit their needs and inform their education-career planning, including job transitions. 

• Finally, it should enable comparisons. Stakeholders must be 

able to compare the value of various credentials and determine 

which credential best fits their needs. 

Clearly, a system with these five attributes would be of enormous 

benefit to military veterans as they make the transition to civilian 

life. It would make their educational and career pathways much 

more clear—thus saving time and helping to ensure the best return 

on the investment of public dollars for education benefits. 

Such a system would convey other benefits as well; these are detailed in the Connecting Credentials report, which I commend to 

your attention. I also urge you to visit a website that we’ve established to provide a platform for the national dialogue that I mentioned earlier. The website is called connectingcredentials.org. 

I want to make it clear that neither our current credentials system nor the stronger, revamped system I am describing is a federal 

system in any way, shape, or form. However, the effort to improve 

postsecondary credentialing is one that will require concerted action by a range of stakeholders—including the federal government. 

The federal government has supported credentials reform 

through its leadership, funding and participation in research. 

There is more to be learned and there are already discussions underway to test approaches to supporting and funding a more inclusive system of credentialing for all students. As I noted above, 

while the need for the reforms is clear for all students, it is especially so for veterans and servicemembers. I am glad to see that 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
45 

you, too, are considering approaches to break down these barriers 

and find ways to recognize already-achieved learning and skills. 

I have thought a lot about these issues in recent years, particularly the need to recognize skills and knowledge whenever, wherever, and however they have been obtained. In fact, in my new 

book America Needs Talent, published this month by RosettaBooks, 

I endeavor to show how the national need to develop and recognize 

talent is driven by more than meeting the growing demand for educational and economic opportunity, as vitally important as that is. 

I argue that our economic and social future as a nation will in 

large measure be determined by our ability to build a system that 

expands talent. There is no better place to start than by assuring 

that the talent of our veterans is recognized, that they obtain appropriate credentials for what they know and can do, and that they 

have opportunities to develop their talent for the benefit of themselves, their families, their communities, and the nation. 

I needn’t tell you that these men and women deserve our very 

best efforts—and that we as a nation can gain immeasurably by 

giving them every opportunity to succeed. I stand ready to answer 

any questions and would be happy to provide further information 

on the work we are pursuing in this area. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony to the Subcommittee this afternoon. 

Thank you. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
46 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 98691.007
47 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 98691.008
48 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 98691.009
49 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 98691.010
50 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 98691.011
51 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 98691.012
52 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 98691.013
53 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 98691.014
54 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 98691.015
55 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 98691.016
56 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 98691.017
57 

STATEMENT OF TERESA W. GERTON

Introduction 

Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, 

and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. As Acting Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training at the Department of Labor’s (DOL or Department) Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service (VETS), I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Department’s efforts on licensing and credentialing for 

veterans and servicemembers. 

Facilitating veteran attainment of licensing and credentialing is 

one of the Department’s most important and challenging objectives. 

Addressing this requires joint efforts between Federal agencies, 

state licensing boards and educational institutions, and the private 

sector to eliminate the barriers between military and civilian occupations. Ultimately, authority for regulating entry into most professions lies with state governments. Although federal agencies and 

national professional associations can propose standards and guidelines, state licensing boards make final decisions about whether alternative pathways, such as military training and experience, are 

adequate to uphold public safety standards, based on professional 

norms and state laws and regulations. Governors and states are 

addressing this through Executive Orders and legislation directing 

licensing boards to recognize and award credit for veterans’ military training and experience. Since 2010, all 50 states and Puerto 

Rico have enacted some form of legislation assisting active duty 

servicemembers and veterans in transferring and obtaining occupational licenses and certifications. 

In April of this year, Secretary Perez attended the American Legion’s National Credentialing Summit to address a crowd of 

credentialing experts and advocates for veterans and military 

spouses. The group had gathered to explore connections between 

military experience and civilian credentials. At this meeting, Secretary Perez said, ‘‘We owe it to our veterans to break down the 

barriers to employment that they too often face as they reintegrate 

into civilian life.’’ The Department is following through on that 

commitment. 

Servicemembers are trained in hundreds of occupations with relevance to employment opportunities in the civilian workforce and 

veterans should easily be able to turn that training and work experience into civilian jobs. However, many civilian occupations have 

highly formalized pathways for entry, requiring licenses or certifications that present barriers to employment for those trained outside of those pathways. Despite the highly relevant skills and experience veterans possess, state- or locally-established requirements 

often require re-training outside of the military. 

VETS, in close collaboration with our colleagues in the Department’s Employment and Training Administration has been, and 

will continue to be, actively working to eliminate these barriers and 

connect military training and experience with civilian credentials 

and licenses. The Department is currently engaged in a number of 

efforts and programs to address this important issue, including: initiatives conducted in partnership with other Federal agencies; acVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:27 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-691.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
58 

tivities authorized under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA); a Licensing and Credentialing Demonstration; 

and the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Budget. 

Cross-Agency Federal Initiatives 

Since 2011, the Department has been an active participant in a 

number of initiatives to enhance the civilian career prospects of 

servicemembers and veterans. These include the First Lady’s Joining Forces Initiative, the Veterans’ Employment Initiative Task 

Force implemented by the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Veterans Affairs (VA), the DoD Credentialing and Licensing Task 

Force, a joint effort between the Department and VA to streamline 

access to GI Bill benefits for veterans in registered apprenticeships, 

the Pilot Program on Civilian Credentialing for Military Occupational Specialties implemented by DoD and the military services, 

and the Military to Mariner Transition initiative of DOL with the 

Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security. 

It is through federal partnerships such as these that we have been 

able to begin addressing gaps in licensing and credentialing for 

servicemembers and veterans at the federal level. Additionally, the 

Military to Mariner Transition initiative seeks to identify and remove the barriers that prevent servicemembers from attaining the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)—National Maritime Center (NMC) credentials necessary to qualify for employment as merchant mariners. 

Initiatives such as these show how, through inter-agency partnerships, we can identify needed licenses and credentials in the civilian sector, link them to related military occupations, and bridge 

the gaps in training and licensing requirements for transitioning 

servicemembers and veterans. 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) 

The Department offers veterans, transitioning servicemembers, 

and eligible military spouses the opportunity to receive a range of 

career and training services through the nationwide network of 

local American Job Centers that are part of the public workforce 

system authorized under WIOA. WIOA emphasizes engaging employers across the public workforce system to align training with 

needed skills and match employers with qualified workers. The law 

also emphasizes training that leads to industry recognized post-secondary credentials and promotes the use of career pathways and 

sector partnerships to increase employment in in-demand industries and occupations. American Job Centers, also known as OneStop Career Centers, bring together various Federal, state, and 

local programs to assist veterans in obtaining credentials and entering into or advancing within in-demand occupations. Veterans 

and eligible spouses receive priority of service. Available career 

services under WIOA include job-search and job-placement assistance, access to useful labor market information, career counseling, 

comprehensive assessment of an individual’s employability, and the 

development of an individual employment plan. Veterans, 

transitioning servicemembers, and eligible spouses may also be eligible for DOL-funded training services, which include occupational 

training, work-based training (including Registered Apprenticeship 

and on-the-job training), and supportive services including assistVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:27 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-691.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
59 

ance with child care and transportation. Areas with a higher than 

average demand for employment and training activities for dislocated military servicemembers and eligible spouses are eligible 

for National Dislocated Worker Grants. 

Community colleges are a key partner of the public workforce 

system: they are eligible providers in Adult, Dislocated Worker and 

Youth program formula grants under WIOA and part of the partnerships eligible for grant under a number of strategic DOL investments because of their unique ability to address specific community 

workforce needs. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Community 

and Career Training (TAACCT) grants program, an Administration 

flagship investment of $2 billion over four years, is one example of 

funds targeted to community colleges nationwide to help them enhance their capacity to develop skills training programs in in-demand occupations and industries that will result in industry-recognized credentials and employment. The TAACCT program has enrolled more than 11,500 veterans through September 30, 2014. 

DOL Licensing and Credentialing Demo 

Section 237 of the Veterans’ Opportunity to Work to Hire Heroes 

Act of 2011 (VOW Act) required DOL to carry out a demonstration 

project on credentialing ‘‘for the purpose of facilitating the seamless 

transition of members of the Armed Forces from service on active 

duty to civilian employment.’’ Recognizing that the authority to 

regulate entry into most professions lies with the states, DOL funded the demonstration project with the intent to both engage governors in an effort to accelerate credentialing and licensing pathways for veterans and to move veterans into civilian employment 

by reducing or eliminating barriers to credentials, certifications, or 

licenses requiring similar skills, training, or experience within a select number of military occupations. A cost study will also examine 

savings to federal programs, which may be achieved when a veteran completes an accelerated pathway towards licensure instead 

of a duplicative training under a full-length pathway. 

Through a contract with the National Governors’ Association 

(NGA), the Department explored accelerated career pathways for 

servicemembers and veterans in selected high-demand civilian occupations, (i.e. truck driving, law enforcement, and healthcare support). Working with a panel of experts, NGA designed and implemented a demonstration project in six participating states: Illinois, 

Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

During this demonstration NGA identified the following challenges regarding state efforts to design, establish, and improve 

strategies for accelerated pathways: 

• Veterans with equivalent training and experience as licensed 

civilians may have difficulty providing documentation recognized by civilian licensing boards. 

• Veterans that experience gaps between their military training and experience and civilian requirements may have to participate in duplicative training to attain relevant civilian licensure and/or certification. 

• Administrative rules and processes within civilian licensing 

and credentialing systems may create hurdles for veterans to 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
60 

obtain licensure and/or certification unrelated to their ability to 

competently provide professional services to the public. 

In turn, the demonstration identified several strategies that 

states may utilize to streamline the licensing and certification of 

veterans, including: 

• To address documentation challenges, states can license veterans by endorsement, or permit veterans with relevant training to sit for civilian licensure examinations. 

• To address training gaps, states can work with educational 

institutions to set up new accelerated programs for veterans 

that bridge gaps, or provide veterans advanced standing in existing programs. 

• To address administrative or procedural challenges, states 

can assess any non-skill related requirements that may disadvantage veterans such as fees or length of experience, or 

take steps to make civilian employment pathways friendlier to 

veterans through concerted outreach to both veterans and prospective employers. 

DOL, with the support of NGA, will share the best practices 

identified through the demonstration project in a final report that 

includes a blueprint for other states to follow as well as the results 

of the cost study. 

Raising Awareness of Translating Military Skills to Civilian 

Employment 

Under Section 222 of the VOW Act, the Department also entered 

into a contract for a study to identify equivalences between the 

skills developed by members of the Armed Forces through various 

military occupational specialties (MOS) and the qualifications required for related positions in the civilian workforce. 

The project studied 68 military occupations that engage a significant portion of each service’s overall population, and which represent the occupations of 57 percent of all enlisted servicemembers. 

The study resulted in the creation of a more robust military to civilian crosswalk for those 68 MOSs, and identified additional information on the nature of the matches with regard to rank attained 

and length of military service. The enhanced crosswalk provides 

numerous additional career options for military servicemembers 

and veterans to consider, is integrated in DOL and VA online job 

search tools for veterans, and is available to other web developers. 

These tools also link to information on related civilian certification 

and licensing requirements. The study report was transmitted to 

Congress in September 2014. 

In addition, the Department, together with the Department of 

the Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers, recently released a report which highlights the growth in occupational licensing, its effects on the labor market and on servicemembers, veterans, and military families in particular, and suggests several best 

practices to improve licensing policies. 

FY 2016 President’s Budget 

The President’s FY2016 Budget proposes a number of investments that would help veterans overcome transition and employment challenges. Among those is a $400 million increase to the 

Wagner-Peyser State Grants to expand the availability of intensive, 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
61 

staff-assisted counseling and other reemployment services to displaced workers, including veterans. These staff-assisted services 

will include the use of workforce and labor market information to 

guide participants in their job search and training decisions, as 

well as other assessment tools and resources to assist individuals 

identify occupations in in-demand industries. 

The President’s Budget also includes a $100 million increase for 

Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments (RESEA) for 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants. This $181 million program would build on the successes of the evidence-based RESEA 

initiative. RESEA pairs UI eligibility assessments with reemployment services. Under the Budget proposal, RESEA would be made 

available to all transitioning veterans receiving Unemployment 

Compensation for ex-servicemembers in addition to the top onethird of UI recipients profiled as most likely to exhaust their benefits. 

Additionally, a number of states have taken action in recent 

years to identify and address unnecessary licensing barriers. Such 

steps are critical to ensuring economic opportunity and geographic 

mobility for servicemembers, veterans and their families. To encourage even more states to follow suit, the President’s Budget proposes $15 million to support states in these efforts. This would 

serve to increase interstate portability of licenses, reduce or remove 

other unnecessary barriers to employment, and provide easier access to high-quality jobs. 

Conclusion 

The Department of Labor remains committed to our 

servicemembers and veterans and looks forward to working with 

the Committee to ensure the continued success of our efforts to 

properly recognize the value of military training and experience. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I am 

happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
62 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 98691.018
63 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 98691.019
64 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 98691.020
65 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 98691.021
66 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 98691.022
67 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 98691.023
68 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 98691.024
69 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 98691.025
70 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 98691.026
71 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 98691.027
72 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 98691.028
73 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 98691.029
74 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 98691.030
75 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 98691.031
76 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 98691.032
77 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 98691.033
78 

FOR THE RECORD

Chairman Wenstrup and Ranking Member Takano: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for your subcommittee’s hearing entitled, ‘‘A Review of Licensing and 

Credentialing Standards for Servicemembers and Veterans: Do 

Barriers Still Remain?’’ 

The National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) is an 

independent, non-profit association comprising 59 boards of nursing 

(BONs) from across the U.S., the District of Columbia and four 

U.S. territories. BONs are responsible for protecting the public 

through regulation of licensure, nursing practice and discipline of 

the 5.2 million registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical/vocational (LPN/VNs) and advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) 

in the U.S. with active licenses, in addition to the approval of 

prelicensure nursing education programs in the U.S. NCSBN was 

created by these boards of nursing to act and counsel with one another and to lessen the burden of government. The mission of 

NCSBN is to provide education, service and research through collaborative leadership to promote evidence-based regulatory excellence for patient safety and public protection. Through NCSBN, 

BONs can work together on policy matters that will affect the future of nursing and healthcare. 

The 2013 White House report, ‘‘The Fast Track to Civilian Employment: Streamlining Credentialing and Licensing for 

Servicemembers, Veterans and Their Spouses’’, encourages states 

to support legislative efforts that will transition veterans into the 

civilian workplace. NCSBN wholeheartedly joins these efforts valuing the contributions veterans have made in the military by acknowledging their training and experience. NCSBN supports federal and state legislation that will help veterans safely and competently enter civilian careers in nursing. 

Recently, there has been an emphasis placed on transitioning 

military medics, corpsmen and airmen to civilian roles as LPN/ 

VNs. NCSBN staff, with consultation from leading experts in the 

areas of nursing and military education, conducted an in-depth 

analysis of the healthcare specialist (medic), corpsman and airman 

curricula, and compared these with a standard LPN/VN curriculum. The following are key findings and recommendations that 

will be helpful for policymakers introducing legislation related to 

this topic. 

LPN/VN education is different than the training received by 

healthcare specialists (medics), corpsmen or airmen. NCSBN encourages legislation that supports the development of LPN/VN 

bridge programs allowing healthcare specialists (medics), corpsmen 

and airmen to receive credit for the knowledge, skills, and abilities 

they acquired in the military, and recommends focusing content on 

gaps in knowledge, the nursing process, and differences between 

the military and LPN/VN roles and scope of practice. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
79 

NCSBN and BONs are working with many groups to address different aspects of this project and should be involved in any discussions regarding this endeavor so that it can assist in assuring that 

veterans have a safe and smooth transition into a career in nursing. 

Additionally, NCSBN has supported the continued inclusion of 

the NCLEX–RN® and NCLEX–PN® (National Council Licensure 

Examination) to the qualified list of non-federal government licensure/certification examinations by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The NCLEX® is the nationally recognized exam taken by RN 

and LP/VN graduates to ensure every licensed nurse has met state 

education requirements and is competent to practice nursing safely. The inclusion of the NCLEX® allows for eligible veterans and 

their dependents (as defined by the Department of Veterans Affairs) to be reimbursed for the cost of test(s) given to qualify an individual for a vocational license or certificate. Currently, qualifying 

veteran candidates have no limit as to the number of times the 

exam can be taken. 

NCSBN also strives to offer providers the opportunity to practice 

safely and competently across state lines without undue licensure 

burdens. One way that we have worked to facilitate interstate mobility of nurses is through our Nurse Licensure Compact (NLC), an 

interstate compact that allows a nurse to have one multistate license (in his or her state of residency) that grants the privilege to 

practice in other NLC participating states (both physically and 

electronically), subject to each state’s practice laws and regulations. 

NCSBN launched the NLC in 2000 in an effort to expand the mobility of nurses as part of our nation’s healthcare delivery system. 

Currently, 25 U.S. states have adopted the NLC. That number is 

expected to grow in the coming years as the states begin to adopt 

a newly enhanced version that addresses concerns raised by states 

that have not yet joined. 

In addition to the NLC, we have also developed a compact that 

would facilitate interstate license portability for APRNs, who are 

increasingly delivering primary care and helping with chronic disease management via telehealth. The APRN Compact maintains 

most of the same principles as the NLC, including a mutual recognition licensing model that would allow an APRN to practice in 

any participating state with just one license. 

BONs under the NLC facilitate interstate cooperation and coordination through participation in NCSBN’s Nursys® program, the 

only national database currently available for verification of nurse 

licensure and discipline for RNs, LPN/VNs and APRNs. Nursys® 

allows access to the status of a nurse’s license and provides information about any history of discipline. 

Ultimately, the NLC and the APRN Compact create the necessary legal structure that requires BONs to report and share license and discipline information with one another, a key component to ensuring nurse competency and patient safety across the 

country. 

NCSBN looks forward to continuing to work with the Committee, 

veterans, and other stakeholders to address issues involving veterans and their efforts to become a civilian licensed nurse. We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on this important 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
80 

issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Elliot Vice, NCSBN’s Director of Government Affairs, can be reached at evice@ncsbn.org 

and 202–530–4830. We look forward to continuing the dialogue 

with you on this very important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Kathy Apple, MS, RN, FAAN, 

Chief Executive Officer 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
81 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 98691.034
82 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 98691.035
83 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 98691.036
84 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 98691.037
85 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 98691.038
86 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 98691.039
87 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 98691.040
88 

Æ 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 98691.041