U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

68–457 2012

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1911, H.R. 240, 

H.R. 1263, H.R. 120, H.R. 2274, H.R. 2301, 

H.R. 2302, H.R. 2345, AND H.R. 2329 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 7, 2011 

Serial No. 112–21 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

BOB FILNER, California, Ranking 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

HELEN W. TOLAR, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana, Chairman 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Ranking 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

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. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

July 7, 2011 

Page 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1911, H.R. 240, H.R. 1263, H.R. 120, H.R. 2274, 

H.R. 2301, H.R. 2302, H.R. 2345, and H.R. 2329 .............................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman Marlin A. Stutzman ............................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman .................................................. 36 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Republican Member ........................................... 2 

Prepared statement of Congressman Braley .................................................. 36 

Hon. Bill Johnson .................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary 

for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration ......................... 28 

Prepared statement of Mr. Coy ....................................................................... 57 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Susan C. Aldridge, 

Ph.D., President, University of Maryland, University College, Adelphi, MD . 21 

Prepared statement of Dr. Aldridge ................................................................ 53 

American Legion, Jeff Steele, Assistant Director, National Legislative Commission .................................................................................................................. 8 

Prepared statement of Mr. Steele ................................................................... 43 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Tom Taratino, Senior Legislative 

Associate ............................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of Mr. Tarantino ............................................................. 37 

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, Arthur F. 

Kirk, Jr., President, Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, FL ................................ 19 

Prepared statement of Mr. Kirk ...................................................................... 50 

Reserve Officers Association of the United States, Major General David 

Bockel, USA (Ret.), Executive Director, also on behalf of Reserve Enlisted 

Association of the United States ......................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement General Bockel ............................................................... 46 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Shane Barker, Senior Legislative Associate, National Legislative Service ...................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of Mr. Barker .................................................................. 41 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Au.D., Chair, 

Government Relations Committee, statement ................................................... 62 

Paralyzed Veterans of America, statement ........................................................... 65 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee 

on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Major 

General David Bockel, USA (Ret.), Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association of the United States, letter dated July 13, 2011, 

and General Bockel’s responses ............................................................... 67 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee 

on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Arthur 

F. Kirk, Jr., President, Saint Leo University, National Association 

of Independent College and Universities, letter dated July l3, 2011, 

and Dr. Kirk’s responses ........................................................................... 68 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record—Continued 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee 

on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Susan 

C. Aldridge, Ph.D., President, American Association of State Colleges 

and Universities, letter dated July 13, 2011, and response from Ed 

Elmendorf, Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Policy 

Analysis, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 

letter dated August 18, 2011 .................................................................... 69 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee 

on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Curtis 

L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans 

Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and 

VA responses ............................................................................................. 72 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1911, H.R. 240, 

H.R. 1263, H.R. 120, H.R. 2274, H.R. 2301, 

H.R. 2302, H.R. 2345, AND H.R. 2329 

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10:08 a.m., in 

Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marlin A. 

Stutzman [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Stutzman, Bilirakis, Johnson, Denham, 

Braley, and Walz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN STUTZMAN 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Good morning and welcome to the Subcommittee 

on Economic Opportunity of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

We are here to receive testimony on nine bills today, including 

bills by Ranking Member Braley and I as well as other Members. 

These bills cover a variety of issues ranging from the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)/U.S. Paralympics Program. 

As always, we ask witnesses to summarize their statements and 

to observe the 5-minute rule. 

I introduced H.R. 2301 to reduce the administrative burden on 

both the VA and the schools as a means to speed up processing by 

cutting down on the number of transactions per student due to 

changes in enrollment. The bill would direct the VA to pay chapter 

33 tuition and fees after receiving a bill from a school reflecting all 

the changes in enrollment during the academic period. 

After reviewing the testimony, it is obvious that some institutions may have concerns because of cash flow and other reasons. 

I would point out that veterans make up less than 10 percent of 

all college students for many schools, but witnesses have pointed 

out other problems, some due to State laws and regulations and 

technical issues such as needing to update the schools’ information 

technology (IT) systems and varying lengths of academic periods. 

To that end, the two major stakeholders in this process, VA and 

the schools, need to get together and figure out how to make this 

work. The schools have a right to expect payment, but they also 

have an obligation to their veterans to adjust their process. 

We cannot write a bill that will account for every variation in 

how schools operate. On the VA’s part, perhaps it is time for the 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

VA and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to adopt a common 

payment system to make things easier on the schools. 

One thing I can promise you that this will not be the last time 

we meet on this particular issue. 

I have also introduced H.R. 2302, a bill that would require the 

VA to report the estimated cost of conferences and any other type 

of meeting that meet certain thresholds. The bill also would require 

the VA to report the final cost of those conferences. 

While I have no objection to bringing together VA staff and others at a conference, I believe a measure of transparency on the cost 

is important. 

And finally, the VA/U.S. Paralympics Programs appears to be 

meeting the goals set in Public Law 110–389. In that law, former 

Chairmen Buyer and Filner saw the benefit of using sports as part 

of rehabilitating injured servicemembers. Initial indications are 

that the program has brought hundreds of disabled veterans back 

to adaptive sports and we are seeing a few of them succeed even 

at the elite levels. 

I am also proud to note that the Turnstone Center for Adults and 

Children with Disabilities, located in my district in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is a participant in the Paralympics Sports Club’s program. 

Therefore, I believe it is important to see this program continue 

and my bill would extend the program through fiscal year 2018. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on all the bills. 

And at this time, I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Braley. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman appears on 

p. 36.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

About 7 years ago, I had the honor of bringing my mother to 

Washington for the dedication of the World War II Memorial. 

And I know, Mr. Chairman, you and your family, my family and 

I had an opportunity to spend a little bit of the 4th of July period 

here. 

And I cannot think of a better time to rededicate ourselves to the 

work of taking care of America’s veterans and having had the opportunity to be here and celebrate that important holiday. 

I want to thank you for holding this legislative hearing because 

the bills included in today’s hearing represent some of the current 

critical needs veterans have such as foreclosure protection for 

servicemembers and spouses, veteran small business contracting 

opportunities, housing loans for surviving spouses of disabled veterans, and the need to extend paralympic funding. 

I am pleased that one of the bills we will be discussing today is 

H.R. 1911, the ‘‘Protecting Veterans Home Act,’’ a bill I introduced 

to help veterans returning from combat who are facing the foreclosure of their homes. 

This legislation would protect veterans from being foreclosed 

upon by banks and would give these soldiers time to get their finances in order after long deployments. 

Our veterans often return from combat only to face new challenges, whether it is an injury or financial crisis caused by long deVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

ployments and time off from their civilian jobs. Our veterans deserve to know that we are standing up for them. 

This bill will give soldiers enough time to get back on their feet 

and get their finances in order before being kicked out of their 

homes. It is the least we can do for the brave men and women who 

serve this country. 

Providing veterans the opportunity to succeed means that we 

have to generate programs or benefits that will allow them to establish small businesses, careers, or own a home. 

One of the major hurdles veterans face when they become civilians is that while they are on active duty, their personal lives and 

careers are put on hold while their civilian counterparts do not 

have those same challenges. 

Their service to our country can make it difficult to obtain a 

home loan, successfully compete for Federal contracts, or even put 

them at risk of losing their home in the event of financial difficulty. 

Today’s bills recognize the many challenges that our veterans 

face. I look forward to today’s discussion on how these bills will 

help veterans overcome some of the challenges they face and welcome any ideas on how to improve them. 

I am also anxious to hear from the testimony of our distinguished witnesses. 

And with that, I thank you and yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Braley appears on 

p. 36.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Braley. 

And at this time, I understand, Mr. Johnson, you have an opening statement and I do not know if Mr. Walz would like to make 

one. 

Okay. Mr. Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

time to discuss these important pieces of legislation. 

As many of you know, I have introduced H.R. 2329, the ‘‘Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act.’’ The Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act was created to protect the legal interests of our troops 

whose service to our Nation may interfere with their ability to 

meet certain financial obligations. The SCRA temporarily suspends 

certain judicial administrative transactions and proceedings during 

active-duty military service that would otherwise adversely affect 

their legal rights. 

Unfortunately, some financial institutions legally bound by the 

provisions of the SCRA have been uncooperative and unresponsive 

in assisting servicemembers to meet their legal obligations in a 

timely manner. 

H.R. 2329 will correct this situation by amending the SCRA to 

add the requirements for lending institutions in two ways. 

They must designate a compliance officer who is responsible for 

ensuring that the institution is complying with the provisions of 

the SCRA and distributing information to servicemembers. 

And then lending institutions with fiscal earnings of $10 billion 

or more per year are to maintain a toll-free telephone number and 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

make that number available on the institution’s primary Internet 

Web site. 

It is not only in our Nation’s best interest, but it is our responsibility to ensure that our troops will be able to continue to protect 

and defend our Nation without fear of financial difficulties stemming from their service. 

So I look forward to discussing these today, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

And as Mr. Braley mentioned, I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us to remember our veterans and so I want to thank 

each one of you for being here today. 

And at this time, I will make the introductions and then we will 

yield to you for your testimony. 

With us today are Tom Tarantino, thank you for being here, from 

the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA); Mr. Shane 

Barker, thank you as well, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars 

(VFW); Mr. Jeff Steele from the American Legion; and also Major 

General David Bockel from the Reserve Officers Association (ROA). 

Thank you for being here. And I appreciate each of you and what 

you are doing serving our veterans. 

So let’s begin with Mr. Tarantino, with your testimony and we 

will begin with you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF TOM TARATINO, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA; 

SHANE BARKER, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN 

WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; JEFF STEELE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, AMERICAN 

LEGION; AND MAJOR GENERAL DAVID BOCKEL, USA (RET.), 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES, ALSO ON BEHALF OF RESERVE ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

STATEMENT OF TOM TARANTINO 

Mr. TARANTINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

and Members of the Subcommittee. 

On behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s 200,000 

member veterans and supporters, I want to thank you for inviting 

me to testify at this hearing to share our members’ views on these 

very important issues. 

My name is Tom Tarantino. I am a Senior Legislative Associate 

with IAVA and I proudly served 10 years in the United States 

Army, beginning my career as an enlisted Reservist and leaving 

service as an active-duty cavalry officer. 

Throughout these 10 years, my single most important duty was 

to take care of other soldiers. In the military, they teach us to have 

each other’s backs. Although my uniform is now a suit and tie, I 

am proud to work with Congress to ensure that the entire country 

has the backs of America’s servicemembers and veterans. 

IAVA supports H.R. 210, 240, 1236, 911, 2274, 2329, 2302, and 

2345. And we thank the Committee for their work on these important bills and urge Congress to swiftly pass them.. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

For the remainder of my testimony, however, I would like to address some of our serious concerns with H.R. 2301. It is the 

‘‘Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011.’’ 

IAVA strongly opposes H.R. 2301. And although we believe this 

legislation was well intentioned, it could, in its current form, result 

in late fees or nonpayment charges to thousands of student veterans and may cause them to be barred or disenrolled from their 

current academic programs. 

This bill seeks to move VA educational assistance payments to 

the schools to the end of the term. However, that is not how schools 

work. This could cause veterans to be disenrolled after the add/ 

drop period and could potentially delay Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) payments throughout the entire term and that is in the 

best case. 

So without any sort of clause in this law that would protect veterans from penalties, from fees, and from any other measures resulting in delayed payments, the unintended consequence of this 

bill may be completely and totally destructive to veterans’ academic 

careers and may act as even a disincentive for schools to go out and 

try to enroll veterans. 

Additionally, the second part of this bill creates a per school 

standard for determining the maximum cost per credit hour based 

on full-time enrollment. Gentlemen, this is a regressive proposal 

and it violates the whole intent of the Post-9/11 Educational Improvement Act of 2010. That bill was meant to correct an error that 

the VA made when formulating the regulations for the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill. 

In 2008, those regulations created 50 tuition caps and 50 fee caps 

that were not connected. It created a system where veterans could 

not predict what benefits they got. The benefits from State to State 

varied widely. 

For example, in California, you could barely, in fact, you could 

barely attend public school whereas in Texas or New York, you 

could go to any private or graduate school you wanted under the 

GI Bill. 

Moreover, tuition and fees under a cap system varied 700 percent 

between 2009 and 2010. They were unpredictable and, frankly, 

they were unsustainable, which is why we removed the tuition and 

fee caps which was the intent when the GI Bill was passed in 2008. 

This simply adds potentially 30,000 tuition and fee caps, one per 

school, and it will disadvantage veterans for not going to school full 

time. The way that this works is it creates a cap based on full-time 

enrollment on tuition. 

The language of the law is a little fuzzy on fees. So under the 

best case scenario, when fees are included in that equation and fees 

are not rated based on per credit hour, they are technically—they 

tend to be very standard whether you take five, ten, or twelve 

units. 

If a student takes a full load, they will not notice the difference. 

They will not care. It will not matter to them. However, if they 

take less than a full load, they could be on the hook for hundreds 

of dollars because the fee charges do not reduce with the amount 

of credit hours you take. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

And in my testimony, I have a chart that outlines how this math 

works. 

I understand where I think Congress was going with this, but 

the math does not work out. And that is the best case scenario. 

And the worst case scenario, fees are not even mentioned and the 

student could be on the hook for the total cost of fees anyway. 

Gentlemen, these calculations just do not work out. And we support streamlining the GI Bill. That is why we supported the House 

version of the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Act, which was a 

much more robust bill, but the Committee chose not to push it forward. And so what we got was an incomplete version out of the 

Senate. 

And I want to applaud this Committee for its very hard work in 

helping fix some of the errors that came out of that Senate bill. 

And we are looking forward to passing specifically H.R. 1383 this 

year. 

I want to thank you for your time and your efforts, but, frankly, 

H.R. 2301 is fixing something that does not need fixing. The system that will take place August 1st actually will work much better 

administratively and was the original intent of the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill. 

So I thank you for your time and attention and I look forward 

to taking any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tarantino appears on p. 37.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Tarantino. 

Mr. Barker, you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SHANE BARKER 

Mr. BARKER. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and 

Members of this Subcommittee, on behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our 

auxiliaries, I thank you for this opportunity to present our views 

on today’s pending legislation. 

In the interest of time, I will limit my remarks to a select number of bills before the Committee. 

The VFW is pleased to support H.R. 120, the ‘‘Disabled Veterans 

Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act.’’ This bill would extent VA 

home loan eligibility to surviving spouses of servicemembers who 

were disabled when they became deceased. 

Regardless of the extent a deceased veteran may have been disabled, spouses should have access to VA home loan benefits. Few 

things could be more important to a surviving spouse than knowing 

they can remain in their home after the passing of a husband or 

wife and we strongly support this legislation. 

The VFW does not support H.R. 240 which requires VA to use 

sole-source contracting methods when they can determine a veteran-owned small business can perform the necessary work. We are 

concerned that many such contracts may be routine and contracting officers may have some familiarity with established veteran-owed small businesses that would put others at a disadvantage. 

VA should be focusing their energies on processing and validating applications more quickly and efficiently, which we believe 

is the best way to foster more successful veteran-owned businesses. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

The VFW strongly supports H.R. 1263, which would amend the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to protect the spouses of servicemembers who die on active duty from home foreclosure. Current 

law does not provide such protections and we believe that it should. 

Giving survivors this added protection is the right thing to do for 

those who have lost a loved one in defense of our country. 

The VFW supports H.R. 1911, the ‘‘Protecting Veterans Homes 

Act of 2011,’’ but believes it should go further to address the serious challenge of home foreclosure in the military. 

Servicemembers and their families need options to renegotiate 

the terms of their loan agreement and a lender who will provide 

reasonable accommodations, not simply more time mired in an intractable situation. 

We are particularly concerned about those serving in the Guard 

and Reserve as many take a pay cut and put their financial wellbeing at risk when they deploy. 

My written testimony provides concrete suggestions to achieve 

this goal. We are adamant that military members should not lose 

their homes when they are making good-faith efforts to make payments on time, but are unable to meet their commitment solely because they made a choice to defend our freedom and security. 

The VFW supports the intent of H.R. 2301, the ‘‘Streamlining 

Educational Claims Processing Act of 2011,’’ but it should include 

specific protections for educational institutions who would disenroll 

students or limit their registration options until they receive payment from VA. 

We all know that many veterans have experienced discord with 

VA and their college or university because invoices are not getting 

paid on time because of complications when they drop a class or 

when they deploy, for other reasons including initial implementation hiccups. 

We want to see these and other problems addressed, but we also 

urge the Committee to be very cautious in their approach. In the 

short time since the Post-9/11 GI Bill was created, it has been altered significantly and this would be another significant change. 

Veterans are struggling to keep up with these changes when they 

should be free to focus on their education. And because schools use 

a wide variety of methods to establish the length of a credit-worthy 

class, we are also concerned with the definition of credit this bill 

would use to prorate payments. 

We hope the Committee will address these concerns when considering changes in an effort to bring equity to the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

once and for all. 

Finally, the VFW supports H.R. 2329, the ‘‘Ensuring a Response 

for Servicemembers Act.’’ This bill would address problems brought 

to light earlier this year by mandating that all major lending institutions must employ an SCRA compliance officer and by requiring 

the posting of a toll-free number on the main page of their Web site 

to connect servicemembers directly to specially-trained customer 

service professionals. It is a common-sense bill that we are pleased 

to support. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barker appears on p. 41.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Steele, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF STEELE 

Mr. STEELE. Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity for the American Legion to present its views on legislation pending before the Committee. 

I will limit my remarks to three bills we would like to highlight 

for today’s hearing. 

In 2008, Public Law 110–389 authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs to award grants to the U.S. Olympic Committee to 

plan, manage, and implement an adaptive sports program for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Services. 

In addition, it authorized a monthly subsistence allowance to 

qualifying disabled veterans in training or competing for the 

Paralympics to help them more easily take part in competitive 

sports. 

Furthermore, both were authorized during fiscal years 2010 

through 2013. H.R. 2345 now before this Committee would extend 

these authorizations through 2018. 

Since its foundation in 1919, the American Legion has identified 

as its most important issue the rehabilitation and reintegration of 

the disabled veteran. We are also strong believers in the physical 

and psychological benefits that come from involvement in sports 

and recreation. 

Thus, we support such programs of the U.S. Olympic Committee 

to facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration of our disabled veterans and servicemembers. We know that sports and physical activity can have a transformative effect on those with physical disability and the continued provision of funds will help to expand and 

provide greater access to sports programs for injured veterans and 

disabled members of the Armed Forces. 

Therefore, the American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 2329 seeks to encourage compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by mandating that large lending institutions subject to the SCRA designate an employee as a compliance 

officer who is responsible for ensuring the institution’s compliance 

with the provisions of the SCRA relating to the maximum rate of 

interest on debts incurred before military service and for distributing information to servicemembers whose obligations and liabilities are covered by those provisions. 

In addition, it requires these lending institutions to maintain a 

toll-free telephone number and make such telephone number available on the primary interest Web site of the institution. 

Earlier this year when a report that one of America’s largest 

banks had been overcharging about 4,000 servicemembers on their 

home loans and had improperly foreclosed on the homes of 14 military families, we wholeheartedly joined the chorus of justifiable 

outrage about this shocking situation and called upon all financial 

institutions that handle mortgage for military families to review 

policies and practices to make sure they are obeying Federal law. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 

While the bank involved has issued a mea culpa and made efforts to reassure the men and women of our military their commitment to make this right, the episode makes it clear that further 

strengthening of the SCRA is called for. It is a national security 

imperative that servicemembers be able to fight this Nation’s wars 

without having to worry about their rights being trampled at home. 

The tragic stories of those who have been adversely affected by 

the failure of our financial institutions to play by the rules further 

highlight the necessity of enhancing the effectiveness of the legal 

and regulatory protections for our servicemembers and veterans. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

Finally, H.R. 1263 would amend the SCRA to afford surviving 

spouses of servicemembers who die while in the military and whose 

death is service-connected the same protections against sale, foreclosure, and seizure of property currently applicable to their husbands who while in military service are unable to meet an obligation on real or personal property. 

Military families serve our country with pride, honor, and quiet 

dedication. We know that every member of the military family sacrifices just as much for this country. When one member of the family goes to war, the whole family goes with them. 

Currently spouses of servicemembers who have died while in the 

service have no mortgage protections leaving grieving families vulnerable to losing their home and being put out on the street. Extending mortgage foreclosure protection to surviving spouses will 

allow these families to explore their options so they may keep their 

home. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

This completes my statement and I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or the Subcommittee might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steele appears on p. 43.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

And, General, thanks for being here and I turn it over to you for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL DAVID BOCKEL, USA (RET.) 

General BOCKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. The Reserve Officers Association thanks you for the 

invitation to appear and give testimony. 

I am Major General David Bockel, Executive Director of the Reserve Officers Association. I am also authorized to speak on behalf 

of the Reserve Enlisted Association (REA). 

Though contingency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are expected to draw down, currently there are still high levels of mobilizations and deployments and many outstanding citizen soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who sacrifice much 

in order to serve. It is important, therefore, that we do not squander this valuable resource of experience nor ignore the benefits that 

they are entitled to because of their selfless service to their country. 

The legislation being discussed today shows support of our Guard 

and Reserve members, veterans, and survivors. ROA and REA support the passages of both H.R. 2274, introduced by Representation 

Bilirakis and H.R. 2301, introduced by Representative Stutzman, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
10 

both of which would provide better oversight and streamlining of 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

Currently many flaws exist in regards to the implementation of 

the GI Bill in part caused by a lack of oversight of the program. 

Many veterans are left to fall through the cracks of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ system, many waiting months to receive 

benefits that they have earned. 

Also it is essential to build a more concise system of payment for 

educational benefits from the VA under the GI Bill. 

ROA and REA appreciate that Congress, the Administrative, and 

the U.S. Department of Defense have acknowledged the importance 

of family support including spouse support. 

ROA and REA urge Congress to pass H.R. 120 introduced by 

Representative Virginia Foxx which would provide certain surviving spouses of veterans with eligibility to both housing loans 

and monthly dependency and indemnity compensation from the 

VA. 

Spouses of deceased veterans must cope with the loss of the veterans while also getting their finances back in order and adapting 

to life without a partner. Furthermore, these spouses have made 

sacrifices for the United States and should be compensated for 

their losses. 

Thus, ROA and REA firmly believe that spouses of deceased veterans should be able to receive both dependency and indemnity 

payments and eligibility for VA’s Home Loan Guarantee Program. 

Moreover, ROA and REA support expanding the eligibility of surviving spouses to receive the survivor benefit plan, dependency indemnity compensation payments with no offset. 

ROA and REA encourage Congress to support H.R. 1263, which 

would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide surviving spouses with certain protections relating to mortgages and 

mortgage foreclosures. 

Returning veterans often face new challenges upon their arrival 

home such as dealing with injury or having to find a new civilian 

job. For troops facing these hardships, getting their finances together to avoid foreclosure, sale, or seizure of their homes can seem 

almost impossible. And some of these protections provided in SCRA 

are set to expire at the end of 2012. 

ROA and REA strongly support the passage of H.R. 1911, the 

‘‘Protecting Veterans Homes Act,’’ introduced by Representative 

Braley, which would permanently extend protections against foreclosure for servicemembers and would extend this grace period 

from 9 months to 12 months. 

ROA and REA also request support of H.R. 2329, the ‘‘Ensuring 

a Response for Servicemembers Act,’’ introduced by Representative 

Bill Johnson, which would amend SCRA to provide financial protection for servicemembers. 

ROA and REA further recommend amending SCRA to broaden 

the types of leases and contracts which the person entering active 

duty can terminate without penalty and to forbid exorbitant overdraft fees and late fees for the deployed servicemembers. 

As an aside, ROA Servicemember Law Center provides fee information regarding SCRA as well as other legal issues relating to 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
11 

their service to all members of the military, their families, and 

counselors. 

ROA and REA appreciate that the House passed H.R. 1657 in 

May, which revises the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation 

of a business concern owned and controlled by veterans or is a 

small business concern owned or controlled by service-disabled veterans. 

ROA and REA support initiatives to provide small business owners with protection for their businesses to be sustained while on deployment. 

As such ROA and REA ask for Congressional support of H.R. 

240, which promotes jobs for veterans through the use of solesource contracts by the VA in order to meet contracting goals and 

preferences of the VA for small business concerns owned by and 

controlled by veterans. 

ROA and REA also support passage of H.R. 2302 introduced by 

Representative Stutzman that would require VA to inform Congress of conferences sponsored by VA. 

ROA and REA believe this is a good way for Congress to stay informed of the VA’s activities and interests, which leads to greater 

transparency. 

Finally, ROA and REA support passage of H.R. 2345 introduced 

by Representative Stutzman, which would extend authorization for 

the Secretary of VA to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans training for or competing for the Paralympic team 

as well as authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to the 

United States Paralympics. 

Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. Please let me know if you have any questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Bockel appears on p. 46.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, General. 

And I will begin the questions. And my first is to Mr. Tarantino. 

You mentioned your opposition to H.R. 2301. If we would add a 

hold harmless provision and drop the section on deleting credit 

hours, would you change the position on the bill or what are some 

of your thoughts regarding that? 

Mr. TARANTINO. I think the only way we would conceive of supporting this bill is dropping the credit hours provision and ensuring 

that there are Federal protections for students from incurring any 

penalties. That would be the only way we would conceive of it. 

But overall, Congressman, I do not think this is necessary. A lot 

of the problems that came with processing the GI Bill was assigning structures to things that are by their own nature not very 

structured, things like tuition and fees. Tuition and fees, we have 

this loose understanding of what tuition is and this loose understanding of what fees are, but there is nowhere in any regulation 

or law is it defined. 

And so that is why when you assign caps or a structure to this 

system, you end up getting outliers that affect thousands of veterans. And that was the biggest flaw with the VA’s initial regulations. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. So you do not think there is any problem with— 

I mean, I remember how it was. You change classes. You maybe 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
12 

drop a class. Your bill is kind of fluctuating there for some time. 

Do you think there is a problem of overpayment anywhere or—— 

Mr. TARANTINO. I mean, when you talk about overpayment and 

underpayment, this is actually a much deeper problem and it even 

goes so far into that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 

and VA Debt Management do not even have a method of effectively 

communicating with each other. 

I mean, and that is a whole other hearing that we could talk 

about it. I mean, up until a few months ago, they did not even have 

a phone number to call a guy from Debt Management and the guy 

in VBA . That is how bad it is. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Yes. 

Mr. TARANTINO. But, again, that is a separate issue. I think it 

is worth further exploring this, but I think it needs to be thought 

out and looked at a little bit more because, again, we are talking 

about roughly 30, 40,000 institutions that all have similar but not 

exactly the same policies and procedures when it comes to add/drop 

dates, when it comes to fiduciary management, when it comes to 

student accounts. 

And so if we are to put a structure on to something that is not 

very structured, we run the risk of causing a lot of outliers. And 

in the end, it could be and it usually is the students that pay the 

price. 

So if we are going to explore changing the payments, I think it 

is worth discussing this a lot more and actually, and I hate to use 

the word, but really study how this is going to affect it before we 

do this. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Yes. 

Mr. TARANTINO. You know, when we passed the GI Bill, it was 

the result of 2 years of discussion and thought and hearings and 

sort of working through, you know, ways that we can fix it. 

So I think it is worth talking about and I think it is a discussion 

that Congress, the veteran, the student veteran community, the 

veteran community, and the higher education community I think 

actually come together and figure out a solution that works. 

And I think that is a discussion that I know IAVA is extremely 

willing to have and I would hazard to say the higher education 

community would definitely like to have because I think ultimately 

what we want is a system that works for students and that both 

the VA and higher education find easy to administer. I think our 

goals are the same. So, yes, I think it is worth having this conversation more. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. TARANTINO. Thank you. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. And I am going to go ahead and yield to Mr. 

Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. To follow-up on that, Mr. Tarantino, you had testified that the bill as it currently exists will disadvantage veterans 

not going to school full time. Do you remember that? 

Do you have any sense of the magnitude of those veterans as 

part of the overall veterans seeking educational assistance under 

this program? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
13 

Mr. TARANTINO. In sheer terms of numbers of veterans that are 

not attending the GI Bill full time, you can try asking the VA and 

they might get back to you sometime in 2025. 

Mr. BRALEY. But you raised this concern. 

Mr. TARANTINO. Right. 

Mr. BRALEY. So I am interested in your perspective on how serious that problem is. 

I can tell you I have about 3,000 Iowa National Guard soldiers 

who will soon be returning home from Afghanistan. Many of them 

hopefully are returning to jobs they had before they were deployed, 

but a lot of them in this high level of unemployment for Iraq and 

Afghanistan veterans, they will probably be looking at educational 

options. 

And I assume that a lot of them are going to be working and 

going to school at the same time. So I am guessing a lot of them 

are going to fall into this. I am just interested in your perspective 

to support that statement in terms of how big that problem is. 

Mr. TARANTINO. Without having hard core numbers, I would say 

it is a severe problem. I mean, and this is just anecdotal evidence 

from our membership. A significant number are taking school part 

time because you have to work. 

I had a full ROTC scholarship and I had to work full time to get 

through college. 

And so, you know, the nature of modern education and especially 

the nature of the Guard and the Reserve, you are going to have to 

take part time, especially when you are talking about the disabled 

student veteran population who may not be able to physically get 

through 15, 12 to 15 units. 

So in a system where they are going to have to pay out of pocket 

because they cannot take a full load, that is a severe, severe problem. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Barker, you had raised a concern about H.R. 1911 in that 

it did not go far enough in terms of giving veterans the opportunity 

to try to negotiate lower terms during the period of a deployment. 

And so I have a couple questions for you. 

You know, obviously we in Congress are dealing with the aftermath of a recession that was ignited in part because of home lending practices and because of that, home lenders are under great 

scrutiny in order to have credit-worthy loans to back up their portfolio. 

Have you or anybody in the VFW or any other veterans service 

organizations (VSOs), are aware or reached out to home lenders as 

a group and asked them to be involved in structuring a solution to 

this problem that could or could not result in a legislative response? 

Mr. BARKER. The short answer is not to my knowledge. 

Mr. BRALEY. And what is your recommendation to us in terms 

of what types of options would best serve veterans in allowing 

them the ability to renegotiate terms of their loans with lenders 

who are in this predicament we find ourselves in? 

Mr. BARKER. Sure. It is a simple concept, but it would require 

us to find a solution. The basic concept is when people, especially 

Guard and Reserve, are deploying and they take a tremendous pay 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
14 

cut, to re-amortize their loans or just work out prior to deployment, 

you know, before people go have a negotiation in place, have an 

agreement in place that would reduce payments, you know, perhaps by the amount of income that they are losing because of their 

deployment for that time, for the time of their deployment and perhaps shortly thereafter so that they do not get behind on their payments, so that there is no negative credit impact. 

The follow-on complications can be serious for many, many years. 

Even if a servicemember and their family has to leave their home, 

the complications do not end there. They continue on. So our idea 

is to give them the option and have willing participants, i.e. with 

the lending institutions to temporarily renegotiate the terms of 

their loan during the period of deployment. 

Mr. BRALEY. I am not unsympathetic to the problem. In fact, I 

am very sympathetic to the problem. I can also tell you that the 

political reality of the world we work in is if you can bring stakeholders to the table to try to craft a solution before it gets to the 

legislative process, you are going to have a much better opportunity 

to get consensus on how you structure that. 

I would just encourage all of the VSOs who are interested in this 

issue to work with you, reach out outside of the hearing that we 

are conducting today. I would be more than happy to work with 

you in trying to come up with a reasonable solution to this problem. 

Mr. BARKER. We appreciate that wise counsel. 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Steele, you had raised the issue about mortgage 

foreclosure protection for surviving spouses and we all know this 

is a huge issue. 

And one of the things that I am interested in in terms of your 

recommendations is when you deal with this problem, you are dealing with the probate courts of 50 separate States who become involved in the death of any servicemember. You have the lending 

practices of the lenders themselves and how you take that loan 

with a surviving spouse who is probably a co-signer of the loan and 

becomes legally responsible. 

So have you and the American Legion thought through how we 

can do a better job of helping surviving spouses wrestling with this 

in light of this legislation, know where they need to go to find their 

way through this maze and get to a result that works best for 

them? 

Mr. STEELE. The short answer would be no, but we appreciate 

the question and that can serve as a prompt for giving thought to 

that question. 

Mr. BRALEY. Great. 

Mr. STEELE. So thank you. 

Mr. BRALEY. We would welcome any suggestions you might have. 

This is a big, big challenge for mostly widows who are struggling 

to cope with a lot of changes in their lives and anything we can 

do to remove that burden from their plate would be greatly appreciated. So I would welcome that insight as well. 

Mr. STEELE. Thank you. 

Mr. BRALEY. Major General, I want to just ask you briefly. You 

had talked about the fact that there have been a number of calls 

received at the Servicemembers Law Center. Eighty percent of 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
15 

those calls were on Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). 

Can you just briefly share with us what the main items of concern were that were coming in on those calls? 

General BOCKEL. We receive approximately 500 calls a month 

and these are, you know, the first line of defense for the Guard and 

Reserve and their ombudsman. If they cannot find relief there, we 

are the only other source they have. And most of them are 

USERRA, as we mentioned. 

And as to specifics, do they fit in any particular category, I cannot really tell which ones are which, but somebody who was denied 

employment, somebody who was not put back in a position they 

would have attained had they stayed. I cannot tell you how many 

of those there are. 

But we do get a certain number of SCRA calls. And interestingly, 

I was discussing with majority counsel earlier a government agency 

that deals with credit protection setting up a separate branch to 

deal with SCRA issues. 

So it has reached a level that the Federal Government beyond 

just this law is taking an interest in. Of course, we will be involved 

in that as well. 

Mr. BRALEY. If the organization has the capability of categorizing 

and quantifying the nature of those calls, that could be of benefit 

to us in helping us understand the nature of the concerns and 

where the major attention needs to be focused. We would appreciate receiving that. 

General BOCKEL. I will make sure that we send you a summary 

depending if you just want a—— 

Mr. BRALEY. Absolutely. 

General BOCKEL [continuing]. Snapshot of a particular month or 

a 6-month period or quarter, something like that. I will gather that 

information and we will have it back over to you. 

[General Bockel subsequently provided the following information:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
16 

2011 ROA Servicemember’s Law Center Stats as of 10/25/11 

Subject 

January February March April May June July August September October November December Total 

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total 

USERRA 161 180 288 337 295 223 187 296 272 0 0 0 2,239 State Leave 

Laws 1 0 2 3 0 7 0 1 5 0 0 0 19 

Federal 

Leave Laws 3 5 1 5 5 3 0 7 6 0 0 0 35 

SCRA 15 24 6 13 15 15 95 3 14 0 0 0 200 Military 

Family Law 5 45 2 1 3 6 2 9 15 0 0 0 88 

Military 

Personnel Admin 4 7 8 5 5 12 27 32 29 0 0 0 129 

VA Benefits 4 3 5 1 4 5 8 1 2 0 0 0 33 Military 

Voting 85 50 33 74 60 97 95 140 80 0 0 0 714 

Veterans 

Preference 0 0 2 5 5 2 2 19 3 0 0 0 38 

Military 

Justice 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 

Ethics Rules 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
17 

Personnel 

Law (Federal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 8 6 13 9 19 9 13 13 29 0 0 0 119 Total 288 321 361 454 411 380 430 521 455 0 0 0 3,621 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
18 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. 

With that, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to thank all of you for your support of 

H.R. 2329. 

Do you believe, and I have heard in your testimony, I think I 

know the answer to this, but just want to make sure, do you believe this legislation will be effective in assisting servicemembers, 

veterans, and their families to receive more effective and responsive assistance from lending institutions regarding their mortgages? 

I know we have heard some horror stories in previous hearings. 

Any of you, all of you. 

Mr. TARANTINO. I will go ahead and start, Congressman. 

Yes. One of the biggest problems with the SCRA that we have 

seen out in the wild is that nobody knows about the SCRA. 

You know, a few weeks ago, I attended a veterans and law conference at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago and the biggest complaint from lawyers around the country, especially law 

clinics, is that most employers, they just do not know about the 

provisions of the SCRA. This is largely because, you know, prior to 

2001, we had a 20-year period where it was pretty much a peacetime military and these issues just did not come up as much. Now 

they do and the business community is way behind in catching up. 

So I think this is a really sensible way to ensure that the institutions that could potentially hurt veterans the most and hurt 

servicemembers the most have a clear and nondescript way to have 

access to not just the information but actually the protection of the 

SCRA. 

So we thank you very much for the legislation. 

Mr. BARKER. I think we believe it is a clear indication from Congress that you are taking it seriously, which we very much appreciate. We want to be a part of that and we do think it will help. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good. Any recommendations on anything else that 

we can add that would strengthen the bill to make sure that our 

servicemembers, veterans, and their families are protected where 

they engage with the lending institutions? 

Mr. BARKER. I think I would suggest that it may be best to see 

how this goes and take it from there, but we think it is a great 

start. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Good. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Chairman, may I just follow-up with the gentleman’s comment about awareness and follow-up with Mr. Tarantino 

on that? 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Sure. 

Mr. BRALEY. I am a big fan of self-help. I wonder if any groups 

or whether you collectively have considered reaching out to the 

U.S. Chamber. They had representatives testify in front of this 

Subcommittee about the possibility of doing some public service announcements (PSAs) on the specific issues that you have identified, 

Mr. Tarantino, that were raised at this conference on how employers are lacking basic information about the law and how it funcVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
19 

tions. But they certainly have a lot of resources and those type of 

PSAs should not be that expensive to put together, but I can tell 

you I have never seen any type, a similar type of a PSA run. And 

with the high volume of returning unemployed veterans, I think it 

would be something worth exploring. 

Mr. TARANTINO. I mean, I know that the Chamber has been incredibly proactive in helping veterans not just with employment 

but also with information. That had not occurred to me. I think 

that is actually an excellent idea. And, I mean, that is definitely 

something we can look into. 

And, I mean, the Chamber has been one of the best partners in 

the last 2 years in helping veterans with employment issues. And 

so it is something that I think would be worth further discussion. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Thank you to each of you for being here. 

That completes our first panel discussion. And I thank you again 

for your testimony and for your participation. 

Our second panel is comprised of Dr. Susan Aldridge, President 

of University of Maryland’s University College, who is here representing the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), and also Mr. Arthur Kirk, Jr., the President of 

Saint Leo University, who is here representing the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), and welcome them to the table. 

Thank you to both of you for being here today. And, Mr. Kirk, 

we will start with you for 5 minutes to hear your testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF ARTHUR F. KIRK, JR., PRESIDENT, SAINT 

LEO UNIVERSITY, SAINT LEO, FL, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES; AND SUSAN C. ALDRIDGE, PH.D., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, ADELPHI, 

MD, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR F. KIRK, JR. 

Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member 

Braley, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate having the 

opportunity to appear today to discuss pending legislation dealing 

with the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

I am, as you heard, Art Kirk, President of Saint Leo University. 

Saint Leo University is an independent Catholic university 

founded in 1889. It offers over 40 undergraduate and graduate degree programs on its residential campus in Florida and to adult 

students on 16 military bases in six States, to students in all 

States and overseas through our Center for Online Learning, and 

on ten Florida community college campuses. 

Saint Leo University enrolled 4,743 veterans during the past academic year, 2,790 or 59 percent of whom were chapter 33 or Post9/11 veterans. The University awarded 678 associate, bachelor, and 

graduate degrees to our veterans. The University also educated 

5,026 active-duty military and Reservists during the course of this 

last academic year. All tolled, this equals 37 percent of the students who took at least one course with us during the year. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
20 

I represent today my University, one of the leaders in educating 

our veterans and active-duty military, but I also represent the 

member institutions of the National Association of Independent 

Colleges and Universities, an organization that represents the diversity of private, nonprofit higher education in the United States. 

The bill that I will address today is H.R. 2301, which would 

change the reimbursement procedures for veterans and colleges 

and universities. 

This bill would reduce the need for the Department of Veterans 

Affairs to make adjustments to their payments for veterans. However, it would also clearly increase the need for adjustments that 

would have to be made at the school level for other financial aid 

for veterans, particularly title 4 student financial aid. 

Program participation would become much more complicated 

both for the veteran students and for schools. Issues related to billing and to the assignment of responsibility for payment will be less 

clear. The management information systems in most schools will 

require reprogramming, but the more likely solution will be more 

manual adjustments. 

A particular concern is the impact this change would have on 

small colleges and the veterans who choose to attend them. While 

I would be quite pleased if every veteran looking for a college were 

to choose Saint Leo, I also deeply believe in the goal of the GI Bill 

to give veterans the widest choice possible of educational options. 

Over half of our Nation’s private, nonprofit colleges have fewer 

than 5,000 students and a quarter have fewer than 2,000. Many 

veterans choose to attend these institutions. While they serve only 

a fraction of the veterans that we do at Saint Leo, these schools 

will struggle with more new procedures and consequent cash flow 

problems. 

The typical semester is 15 weeks. This bill would move payment 

from the beginning of the semester when most students’ accounts 

are collected to 30 days after the semester ends. That is 19 weeks 

in which to wait for payment. The school will, of course, have had 

to pay all of their faculty and staff and other bills during that time. 

The problem will not necessarily be limited to small schools. The 

medium endowment of private, not-for-profit colleges is about $18 

million. Indeed, while Saint Leo was not small 14 years ago, we 

found our cash flow was tight year round at that time. Delayed 

payment would have been a hardship for us. Thankfully we would 

now have the cash reserves to handle this. 

Another concern for many small colleges would be coping with 

changing procedures. Among other things, these changes would involve things such as manually voiding late payment fees and future 

registration blocks, which are automatically set when a student’s 

bill is not paid. 

Saint Leo has several experts to handle the many different services and administrative procedures for veterans. We also have personnel who train other staff in these procedures. Small colleges or 

colleges with relatively few numbers of veterans will not have these 

expert resources. 

At Saint Leo University, we are already implementing a system 

we believe will resolve the problems this bill seeks to address. We 

are implementing a two-step veteran certification process. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
21 

Our veteran certifying officers will enter the veteran as a student, but will certify zero tuition and fees in VAOnce, the VA GI 

Bill database system, at the semester’s start. This allows the veterans to receive their housing and living stipend. 

After the period for adding and dropping the course ends, we will 

then reenter in VAOnce and add the tuition and fee charges for all 

the courses in which the veteran is actually enrolled. 

In summary, there are some pluses to H.R. 2301. Student accounts do stabilize after add/drop deadlines. So if passed, the bill 

would provide a truer picture in most cases. 

The VA would pay after the term, so debt collection letters to the 

students or the institutions would decline significantly. Every one 

of those letters must be researched. 

However, on the downside, cash flow to institutions and veterans 

would be problematic for many. More title 4 aid adjustments for 

veterans’ accounts are likely to be needed. It will be hard to pay 

title 4 credit balances to students since they will not have a credit 

on their account from the VA. Veterans would face difficulties registering in many colleges without payment in advance or in places 

like Saint Leo without the bill settled for the previous term before 

the next term begins. 

Many colleges and university information systems will not be 

able to accommodate these changes without at least some reprogramming. 

Greater confusion about who owes what, the veteran, the VA, or 

title 4 will ensue. Schools will not know what VA will pay or what 

to bill the veteran. Such confusion increases the barriers to successful completion for our vets. 

We believe that the problems that H.R. 2301 is intended to solve 

would be better addressed if greater efforts were made to work 

within the framework the institutions now use to deliver financial 

aid to their students. 

We believe, for example, that Saint Leo’s approach will have no 

adverse effects on the veterans and will reduce the need for billing 

adjustments by the VA. An approach like ours or others that may 

be devised by other colleges would offer a better solution. 

Saint Leo, NAICU, and many others in the higher education 

community stand ready to assist the Subcommittee in identifying 

ways to serve our veterans effectively and efficiently. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirk appears on p. 50.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kirk. 

And, Dr. Aldridge, thank you for being here. Five minutes for 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN C. ALDRIDGE, PH.D. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. Thank you, Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Susan C. Aldridge and I am the President of the 

University of Maryland, University College. And today I represent 

and present the perspective of the American Association of State 

Colleges and Universities or AASCU. 

The University of Maryland, University College has a 64-year 

history of serving the military and veterans both stateside and 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
22 

overseas. Of our 94,000 students, we serve 50,000 active-duty 

servicemembers and veterans. Even today as I speak, we are on the 

ground in Afghanistan and in Iraq delivering face-to-face courses to 

active-duty servicemembers. 

In summary, AASCU’s written statement regarding H.R. 2301 

points out that there is a need to streamline the claims process for 

the payment of VA education benefits. However, the bill as introduced, while well-intended, has the potential to harm rather than 

benefit student veterans. 

I will now bring your attention to three areas of concern identified by AASCU. 

First, a delay in payment up to 30 days after the end of the quarter, semester, or term is unprecedented and in many cases will prohibit student veterans from enrolling in subsequent courses until 

payment has been made by the VA. This puts student veterans at 

a significant disadvantage in comparison to their civilian contemporaries and will unnecessarily delay their time to degree. 

With our younger veterans facing high rates of unemployment, 

we cannot afford to impede their academic progress. 

Second, if H.R. 2301 as introduced is made law, institutions, particularly public institutions, may be faced with unpalatable prospects of requiring student veterans to pay out of pocket until funding is received from the VA. 

The increasing budget cuts faced by public institutions do not 

provide for a reasonable expectation that tuition and fees can be 

deferred past the end of the term. Out-of-pocket costs will be prohibitive for an unknown but surely high number of veterans who 

cannot afford to pay these fees up front. 

Third, soon after the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, institutions 

brought on additional staff and invested in new technologies to 

meet the demands of direct payments by the VA to the institutions. 

Given the increasing regulatory demands on institutions of higher 

education, the prospect of having to make further investments is 

daunting and may not be a feasible option for many of the State 

colleges and universities that are members of AASCU. 

AASCU member institutions have proudly answered the call 

since the passage of the original GI Bill. We understand and have 

responded to the challenges faced by student veterans and take 

great pride in having them in our classrooms. Their success is of 

great importance to the future of this great country and we owe all 

that we have to offer to them. 

Therefore, we ask the Committee to reconsider this legislation. 

At a minimum, we ask that time be taken to work with organizations such as Partnership for Veterans Education to give thoughtful deliberation to the impact that this bill would have on the timely and affordable attainment of a college degree for those who have 

so bravely served and unselfishly served in defense of our Nation 

and its citizens. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Aldridge appears on p. 53.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you for being here. 

And I will start the questioning. To either one of you, would you 

agree that the vast majority of changes in enrollment that trigger 

a transaction with VA happen during the add/drop period and, if 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
23 

so, rather than delay payment until the end of the semester, what 

if the bill directed the VA to pay after the drop/add period? 

Mr. KIRK. One, we think that the vast majority of changes in a 

student’s schedule and, hence, charges would occur during that 

add/drop period and that that would be a positive step and I think 

reduce significantly the charges back and forth. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. Certainly the students’ records will be cleaner at 

that point in time. There are some institutions that are members 

of AASCU that have 8-week terms, so the time frame is very tight 

in terms of that 30-day window. 

So depending upon when drop/add occurs, we are still dealing 

with a fairly tight window if the State requirements for payment 

require that the students have their payments paid in full prior to 

registering for the next term. 

So I think that is at least a viable option to consider, but we 

would need to go back and talk to our members about that, particularly with those institutions that have shorter length terms. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. The number of paperwork transactions between the VA and the schools contributes to the high level of frustration with the Post-9/11 GI Bill by all parties. Your organizations 

obviously do not like H.R. 2301. 

So how would you suggest we fix the problem and are your members willing to continue the current process? 

Mr. KIRK. I can certainly speak for my institution and I think the 

vast majority, if not all the members of the Independent Colleges 

and Universities, that we will continue with the current process 

and work diligently with whatever process is required of us. 

Again, we have devised a solution in terms of not billing the VA 

until after add/drop. That goes into effect in our 8-week term that 

begins on August 1st. We think it is going to significantly reduce 

the number of transactions. 

It does put an added burden on us because now for every veteran, we are making two entries into the system, but I think all 

of our schools, public and private, are absolutely committed to serving our veterans as best we can. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. That is your school has chosen to wait to bill 

until after the drop/add date? 

Mr. KIRK. Yes. Because, you know, the issues that the VA is facing at the end of the term also impact the institutions. Every one 

of those debt letters and transactions has to be researched back 

and forth. So we are trying to ameliorate the problem by implementing this ourselves and are hoping it is going to be a significant 

improvement. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Do you know if any other schools have chosen to 

make the same decision that you have? 

Mr. KIRK. I do not. I would not be surprised that a number of 

other schools have because our veteran certifying officers are talking through list serves and that kind of thing. And we all recognize 

there is a problem here. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. I concur with my colleague, Mr. Kirk. I think the 

institutions are absolutely committed to these veteran students and 

want to do whatever they can to both ameliorate some of the paperwork issues but keep these students in school. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
24 

Many of the institutions have tackled the administrative burden 

with a variety of different creative solutions, which is one of the 

reasons that I think it will be best for us to sit down and look at 

some of the creative solutions that institutions have come up with 

to alleviate the burden and simultaneously not harm the student 

or prevent them from continuing their education. 

At our institution, we allow students to register for the second 

term and do not prevent them from continuing until the outstanding balance is still outstanding after the second term. We 

have shorter terms, however, than some institutions. And so institutions that have a 15-week term could not do that most likely. 

So I would really encourage an ongoing discussion about this because I think there are some creative ideas that are out there that 

might both address the issue that you are trying to address 

through this legislation and also continue to protect the student 

and their ongoing education. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. If your semester is shorter, is your add/drop date, 

does that come earlier—— 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. Yes. 

Mr. STUTZMAN [continuing]. In the semester—— 

Mr. KIRK. Yes. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. Yes. That’s right. 

Mr. STUTZMAN [continuing]. Than it would in our semester? 

Okay. Thank you. 

I will yield to Mr. Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, let me thank both of you for the extraordinary 

efforts both of your institutions are making to educate our Nation’s 

veterans. 

Mr. Kirk, let me start with you. You stated that cash flow would 

be a problem for many institutions. 

Do you have any sense of how much money we are talking about 

would be impacted at an average institution? 

Mr. KIRK. It would be sheer speculation. But for many of our 

small colleges with 1,000, 1,200, 2,000 students, they might have 

40 or so veterans. And those colleges are most likely to face cash 

flow issues year round. They are small. As I indicated, average endowment $18 million. Not a lot of reserves there, so it could definitely have an impact on some institutions. 

Mr. BRALEY. You also stated that it would be better to work 

within the existing framework that institutions now use to deliver 

financial aid to students. 

Are you stating that the VA should use the Department of Education’s system instead of their own? 

Mr. KIRK. No. I think we all understand that the VA has made 

a considerable investment, but I think bringing the Department of 

Education title 4 financial aid folks into the conversation because 

it will have impact on the veterans’ title 4 financial aid, which they 

are eligible for, so that we are all at the table and we do not have 

unintended consequences of solving a problem here but creating a 

bigger one over there because the veteran will be in the middle. 

Mr. BRALEY. What is it that is keeping everybody from being at 

the same table now? 

Mr. KIRK. I cannot answer that question, sir. I certainly volunteer my services and the services of my experts on campus to parVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
25 

ticipate in that conversation. And I know that the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities would be happy to 

help put that conversation together. 

[Mr. Kirk subsequently provided the following information:] 

We are currently processing our first semester/term dealing with the net payer 

issues, which I believe is what I was referring to. 

Title IV aid is excluded from the net payer issue so VA students will have their 

tuition paid by the VA plus receive their Title IV Aid. The problem we are seeing 

is state aid such as FRAG and Bright Futures. These students cannot receive both 

and were caught off guard by that. It may not be that they were not informed of 

the changes by the VA, but they probably just did not understand the impact. We 

have weekly team meetings with our veterans folks from the registrars area, our 

centers, student accounts and financial aid staff to develop methods of identifying 

and reporting students with financial aid so the Veteran Certification Officers will 

know how much to certify with the VA. 

The other big problem we are experiencing is with the payments coming from the 

VA. It is taking hours of staff time to match payments up to students. Amounts 

don’t match and payments are coming from different regional processing offices and 

even being deposited to the wrong back accounts. We do hope to see a reduction over 

time now that we are not certifying until after drop/add. 

Mr. BRALEY. Dr. Aldridge, how would the VA benefit from adapting the Department of Education’s common origination and disbursement system in your opinion? 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. I do not know the specific details of how the two 

systems work together, but I certainly would be willing to have my 

staff who work on both of those processes, work with you. Because 

we have so many students, I would be happy to have them work 

with the staff to address whatever the issues are that you deem appropriate. And I know that the AASCU staff and other institutions 

would meet with you as well. 

Mr. BRALEY. If you would be willing to check on that and provide 

us any feedback that you get from them, we would appreciate that. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. I will. 

[The AASCU subsequently provided the information in the answer to Question #1 of the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses 

for the Record, which appear on p. 70.] 

Mr. BRALEY. Based upon your experience and talking to your 

peers around the country who deal with these challenges, is it your 

opinion that schools are unwilling to work with veterans and the 

Veterans Administration to accept payment in arrears? 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. No. I think there are difficulties at the institutions right now. Many State institutions have lost 20, 30, 40 percent of their State allocations for funding because of the State 

budget cuts. 

So many of these institutions have significant financial problems, 

not just capital infrastructure issues, but the general public does 

not want to pay more for an education, and simultaneously the appropriations from the States have decreased significantly. I think 

at this critical point in time, cash flow is an issue for that reason. 

These institutions appreciate having the veteran students on 

their campuses. Most of these campuses have added additional 

staff, have changed processes, have changed mechanisms in their 

IT systems in order to accommodate the new requirements, and 

have added new services and support systems, have worked with 

Wal-Mart and others who have offered grants to help them with 

special projects on their campuses to support these students. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
26 

So I think there has been a genuine committed effort to support 

these warriors, particularly these individuals who are coming back 

from Iraq and Afghanistan, who need much more support than students that we have seen in the past. And I think I am seeing a 

renewed commitment on the part of the campuses to do everything 

they can. 

Mr. KIRK. I hesitate to speak for public institutions, but my understanding in the State of Florida is the Florida public institutions 

are prohibited from carrying balances for students. So—— 

Mr. BRALEY. By State law? 

Mr. KIRK. I do not know whether it is law or policy. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. Yeah. 

Mr. KIRK. I cannot say, but I know that they are prohibited. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. Yes. 

Mr. KIRK. So the institution itself does not have the option. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. Allow me to address that. It is not a State law, 

but there are different governing councils in each of the different 

States. Many of the governing boards for universities do not allow 

them to carry debt as a State institution. And so they have very 

severe restrictions in terms of how long they can carry a student 

debt. 

So that is our biggest concern in each of these States. Many of 

them are required, we are required, for example, by the State of 

Maryland to send students to collections within a specific period of 

time. 

So the students will not be allowed to register if that payment 

has not been made unless they pay out of pocket. And most of 

these students are not able to pay out of pocket. That is our greatest concern. 

We can probably work through many of the other logistics that 

need to be worked through, but there are some cumbersome requirements State by State that really prevent the institutions from 

having bad debt from individuals that have not paid. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, given the extensive involvement that the University of Maryland has with veteran students, if the university 

were required to carry all of those veterans’ unpaid balances, do 

you have any sense of how much money that would be? 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. We have not been able to calculate that, but I assure you we are working on that. 

Mr. BRALEY. Okay. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. It would not be insignificant. 

Mr. BRALEY. If you are able to quantify that in some way and 

share that with the Committee, that would be much appreciated. 

And I will yield back at this time. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. We will do that. 

[The AASCU subsequently provided the information in the answer to Question #2 of the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses 

for the Record, which appear on p. 70.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You mentioned a two-step process at Saint Leo that would be a 

better solution than the one that exists currently. 

What is that process? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
27 

Mr. KIRK. Again, at the point at which the veteran enrolls, we 

would enter the VA system, indicate that the veteran had enrolled, 

but put that they enrolled in zero credit. The veteran then would 

begin to receive their housing and support checks. 

At the end of the add/drop period, we would then enter the system after they had added or dropped any courses. We would reenter the system and enter the actual courses that they were enrolled 

in after add/drop because there is a lot of movement among students from the point of registration to the end of the add/drop period. 

This would at least eliminate for the VA having to reconcile any 

of the dropped courses or the added courses and so forth. 

Mr. JOHNSON. In other words, you would get a jumpstart on the 

administrative process of getting the veteran enrolled? 

Mr. KIRK. And we have to make a one-step process a two-step 

process, but it saves, we think, so much time at the end for everyone on our side as well as the VA that we are very hopeful it is 

going to significantly ameliorate the problem for the vast majority 

of our veteran students. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. How does the Department of Education pay 

title 4 funding? Is there anything we can learn from them to make 

the GI Bill process simpler for students and schools and the VA? 

Mr. KIRK. I certainly think so because they have been at it now 

for over 50 years and process much larger sums, hundreds of millions of dollars to every institution. So I am sure there are things 

that we can learn. 

I would not consider myself an expert in title 4 by any stretch 

of the imagination. It is a very involved process that starts with 

the financial aid form to determine the amount of aid for which a 

student is eligible. 

The institution then packages it, Pell Grants, potentially institutional grants, State grants, and loans based on the amount the student is eligible for including if they are getting funds from the VA. 

We cannot over-award financial aid. We cannot give them more 

than that form has indicated that they are eligible to receive. 

Those monies come to the institution. The balances for tuition 

and, if appropriate, room and board costs are applied to the student’s bill. The excess for living expenses, books perhaps, and so 

forth must be refunded to the student within 5 days. 

But if I go any farther, I am going to exceed my ability to really 

accurately describe that system. But they will be involved because 

many of our veterans also are receiving some title 4 financial aid 

and it is part of the process. So having them at the table will be 

very helpful. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Got you. Okay. Well, thank you very much. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Any further questions? 

Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony and for answering the questions that we had. It has been very helpful. 

And we will move on to the next panel 

Mr. KIRK. Thank you. 

Dr. ALDRIDGE. Thank you. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Our third panel is comprised of Mr. Curtis Coy, 

the Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity of the DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
28 

partment of Veterans Affairs. And Mr. Coy is accompanied by Mr. 

John Brizzi, Deputy General Counsel for the U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

And welcome to both of you. Thank you for being here. And we 

will begin with your testimony. Mr. Coy, you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; 

ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN BRIZZI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. COY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Braley, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today for the 

very first time on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs to 

discuss bills that would affect our housing and education programs 

as well as our mission of service to our Nation’s veterans. 

I am accompanied today by Mr. John Brizzi from the VA Office 

of General Counsel. 

Four of the bills you are considering today would affect the VA 

Home Loan Program. 

H.R. 120, the ‘‘Disabled Veterans Surviving Spouses Home Loans 

Act,’’ would expand eligibility for VA’s Guaranteed Home Loan Program to surviving spouses of certain totally disabled veterans who 

pass away due to nonservice-connected causes. This law would give 

a covered veteran the peace of mind that his or her surviving 

spouse will be able to receive VA home loan benefits regardless of 

the veteran’s cause of death. 

VA cannot offer a position on this bill at this time, however, because we have not had the opportunity to determine the full effect 

of this bill on the Veterans Benefits Housing Program fund. VA 

will provide an estimate of the cost of this bill at a later date. 

[The VA provided the costs for H.R. 120 in the answer to Question #2 of the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the 

Record, which appear on p. 72.] 

Mr. COY. The other three bills that would affect the VA Home 

Loan Program are all proposed amendments to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. 

H.R. 1911, the ‘‘Protecting Veterans Home Act, ‘‘would extend 

the period of time for which SCRA mortgage protections would 

apply from the current 9 months to 12 months and make this permanent. 

H.R. 1263 would expand SCRA protections to the surviving 

spouses of servicemembers whose deaths are service-connected. 

Currently those protections apply only to active-duty servicemembers. 

H.R. 2329 would require lending institutions to designate an 

SCRA compliance officer and larger institutions maintain a toll-free 

telephone hotline. 

VA generally supports any measures that will help servicemembers and veterans preserve their homes, but we will defer to 

the Department of Defense on the merits of these particular bills. 

Two of the bills before you affect VA education benefits. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
29 

H.R. 2274 would require that VA and the Department of Defense 

report on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. VA would be required to report information about utilization of educational assistance and expenditures under chapter 33 as well as the number of credit hours, certificates, degrees, and other qualifications earned by chapter 33 

beneficiaries. 

Further, VA would need to make recommendations for administrative and legislative changes to the delivery of education benefits. 

In general, we concur with the requirement to report annually on 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill and we have already notified schools that we 

will be requiring this information on the majority of the items in 

this bill. 

H.R. 2301 proposes a number of changes to the VA Education 

Program. First, it would define educational terms of quarter, semester, or term and full-time pursuit as they are established by the 

schools themselves. 

VA does not support this portion of the bill as drafted because 

it would allow each educational institution to establish a definition 

for a quarter, semester, or term. Allowing educational institutions 

to establish their own definitions would add an additional level of 

complexity to understanding the program. 

Currently VA has standards regarding how many weeks of training constitute quarters and semesters. 

Second, H.R. 2301 would require VA to pay educational institutions for Post-9/11 GI Bill expenses at the end of the quarter, semester, or term. Currently we make lump sum payments to educational institutions upon receipt of the enrollment certification 

from the school. 

We generally support this section of the bill. We believe this 

amendment would minimize the probability of overpayments of 

educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Requiring VA 

to hold tuition and fee payments to the end of the enrollment period would allow educational institutions time to submit or provide 

updates or changes. However, holding the claim open for such a period would by definition increase the amount of time it takes for 

the VA to complete the claim. 

VA is also concerned about the effective date of the legislation 

because schools begin submitting enrollment certifications as early 

as the month of June for terms that begin in August. If VA has 

already processed enrollment for terms beginning after 1 August of 

this year, educational institutions may have already received those 

payments. 

Therefore, we recommend postponing the effective date of this 

provision until August 1, 2012. 

VA requests clarifications on Section 4 of H.R. 2301 and we have 

requested specific guidance in my written statement. And we would 

be happy to work with the Committee to fully and effectively implement this section of the bill. 

[VA failed to provide the costs for H.R. 2274 and H.R. 2301.] 

Mr. COY. I will discuss three other bills that involve VA programs. 

H.R. 2345 would extend VA’s authority to assist the United 

States Paralympics with adaptive sports programs for disabled vets 

and disabled members of the Armed Forces by 5 years. It would 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
30 

also extend VA’s authority to award monthly assistance allowance 

to veterans training or competing with the U.S. Paralympics team 

by 5 years. 

Extending these authorities would allow VA and the U.S. 

Paralympics to continue developing their adaptive sports programming while building stronger relationships with partner organizations and allowing veterans to continue their rehabilitation for 

years to come. 

Subject to availability of funding, we fully support these extensions. 

H.R. 240 would require contracting officers to enter contracts 

with service-disabled veteran-owned or veteran-owned small businesses for all VA procurements under $5 million. 

VA opposes this legislation because the proposed language would 

be too restrictive and take discretion for necessary business judgments away from VA contracting officers. 

Furthermore, in pursuit of this existing authority, VA has consistently achieved its socioeconomic contracting goals for servicedisabled veteran-owned and veteran-owned small business. We consider it likely that VA would pay higher prices over time for contracts awarded under the $5 million threshold. 

Finally, H.R. 2302 would require VA to notify Congress in advance of certain covered conferences by VA that would cost the Department at least $5,000. 

VA opposes this bill because it would impose burdensome notification and reporting requirements on the Department and would 

not add any value to VA’s existing conference review process. 

It would also discourage legitimate and beneficial conference activities including in-person gatherings within VA with other Federal agencies, VSOs, and veterans’ advocates and businesses encouraged to hire veterans. 

The definition of covered conferences captures the majority of 

operational meetings in VA’s day-to-day business. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks and I would 

be pleased to respond to your questions or any from the other 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coy appears on p. 57.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Coy. 

I will begin the questions. What is the percentage of schools that 

enroll 100 or fewer veterans? Do you have any idea? 

Mr. COY. Yes, sir. For Post-9/11 schools, there are about 5,500 

schools. Of those, only 15 percent have enrollment of 100 or more 

veterans. Of all schools, there are about 9,500 schools that participate in the GI Bill and 92 of those schools have student veteran 

enrollment over 1,000. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. So roughly 85 percent of schools enroll 100 

or fewer veterans? 

Mr. COY. Fewer than 100, yes, sir. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. 

Mr. COY. And of those schools, of Post-9/11 GI Bill schools, those 

5,500 schools, only 21 of them have enrollments over 1,000. And of 

those 21, about 6 of those 21 are full-up online schools. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. So not necessarily like a University of 

Phoenix or something—— 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
31 

Mr. COY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STUTZMAN [continuing]. Relative? Okay. Do you think that 

any of these colleges or these schools would experience a serious 

cash flow problem or a significant increase in administrative effort 

if the delayed payment provision did become law? 

Mr. COY. I have to take a look at what the cash flow is for those 

schools. I would point out that we generally pay full tuition costs 

for those schools in terms of how much they would have to float. 

We would have to look at that and I can certainly get you that for 

the record, sir. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 

VA does not have information on cash flow problems or other administrative difficulties related to smaller institutions. Therefore, VA defers questions pertaining to 

cash flow problems or administrative difficulties regarding H.R. 2301 to the educational institutions. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Do you have any idea what kind of impact H.R. 

2301 would have on the number of students who have overpayments to VA? 

Mr. COY. I can get you the exact amount of students that are 

currently in that category. I do not have it in front of me. I am not 

thinking it is that many, but I do not have the number in front of 

me. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. And then also any idea on what dollar 

amount in overpayments? 

Mr. COY. No, sir. I do not have that information in front of me, 

but I will be happy to provide that to you in a written response. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 

Debt Summary for VA Education Programs as of September 30, 2011 

Program Number Amount 

Chapter 33 Students 156,652 $160,395,245.15 

Chapter 33 Schools 40,328 $57,355,406.26 

Chapter 30 42,654 $66,873,898.71 

Chapter 1606 12,332 $8,873,858.42 

Chapter 1607 4,350 $5,084,319.47 

Chapter 35 24,823 $31,187,993.08 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Yes. That would be very, very helpful if 

that information would be available. 

Why did the VA choose not to adopt the Department of Education’s benefit management system? 

Mr. COY. Their payment process? The short answer, sir, is that 

I am not sure and I will look into it. But it is my understanding 

that they are two entirely different processes in the way they 

award money to students. But I will be happy to provide that for 

the record. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Would there be any potential capability of or 

compatibility between the two systems or just—— 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
32 

Mr. COY. The short answer is I do not know, but I will be happy 

to find that out. I do not know much about Department of Education’s payment system but will shortly. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 

VA has considered the feasibility of employing a system similar to the Department of Education’s (ED) COD system. In 2008, VA met with ED for a demonstration of its system. At that time VA was still developing detailed business requirements but knew we would need a system that could do the following: 

1. Issue payments both to students and schools though Treasury after approval; 

2. Allow VA to tie and track payment information to a specific Veteran; 

3. Allow VA to establish accounts receivable and transfer all debt information to 

the VA Debt Management System; 

4. Allow VA employees to enter adjustments to beneficiaries; and 

5. Maintain detailed accounting information at the beneficiary level. 

After meeting with ED, VA determined that the COD system would not meet all 

of our requirements. 

On June 30, 2011, representatives from VA and ED met to discuss their respective programs and to get a better understanding of each system. From this meeting, 

VA determined that the systems were incompatible. Major differences exist in the 

way the programs are administered, which preclude VA from adopting ED’s COD 

system. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Regarding the cost of conferences, further 

scrutiny of the VA not a bad thing for taxpayers, is it? 

Mr. COY. I am not sure of the question, sir. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. If we would, as far as the conferences go and 

with further scrutiny and transparency of the cost of the conferences that the VA has, that they would spend on a conference, 

I do not believe further scrutiny is a bad thing. Would the VA hold 

a different position? Obviously you are opposed to the bill, and 

why? 

Mr. COY. I have invited Susan Blauert to come forward and answer that specific question on the conferences. 

Ms. BLAUERT. I am Susan Blauert. I am Deputy Assistant General Counsel in the Office of General Counsel. 

And what our views are laid out as are really a concern about 

the breadth and scope of the bill and the impact that the covered 

conferences as defined would have. 

I do not think we are opposed to transparency per se. We just 

have concerns about the breadth and scope of these particular requirements. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Well, how do you think it would discourage conferences if this bill would pass? 

Ms. BLAUERT. How, I do not—— 

Mr. STUTZMAN. I believe in the testimony that the VA opposes 

the section and one of the reasons was that it would discourage 

conferences. Let me see if I can find that right off. 

Do you have that? Where was that at? 

Okay. Opposes it because it would discourage conferences and 

has too low of a threshold for reporting the expenditures of a conference. 

I mean, obviously $5,000 is a low threshold, but the transparency, I believe, is very important. And it seems like some of the 

conferences have exceeded what most taxpayers would believe to be 

appropriate. 

Would you agree with that? 

Mr. BRIZZI. Mr. Chairman, I will try and address this matter. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
33 

VA certainly has no objection in any way to transparency. And 

we believe that we are already transparent as to our expenditures 

for conferences. 

But what this does is put us in a position where, even if we are 

going to conduct a very small conference, we may not necessarily 

be able to meet one of your requirements, which is to provide notice 

to the Congress 180 days in advance of that. 

We may simply be in a shorter time frame on organizing some 

meetings that we believe would fall under your criteria as it presently is drafted primarily, because it is an ‘‘or’’ situation versus 

‘‘and.’’ If any one of the three criteria would apply, then we would 

be subject to this advanced reporting. 

We certainly have no problem with reporting. I do not want you 

to think that in any way that VA is reluctant to be providing this 

information. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Well, I think I understand why you may feel that 

the thresholds may be tying your hands a little bit more than necessary, but I think the point is that we are trying to get at, with 

the fiscal situation that we are in, eliminating frivolous, wasteful 

conferences that really appear to be extravagant in spending. 

The information that I have here is that there was a conference 

in Scottsdale, Arizona, where the VA paid a contractor over 

$99,000 and extended the conference over a weekend. I mean, that 

typically does not go on hopefully within government agencies, but 

it does not make sense right now at a time when we are trying to 

control spending in Washington. And this is the type of action that 

we are trying to get at. 

Mr. BRIZZI. Certainly. I cannot disagree with you. We can respond to that particular matter for the record if you would like. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 

The VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) forum held in Scottsdale, Arizona, from January 25 to February 4, 2011. These conferences are required as part 

of the VASRD update, and it is impossible to complete the update of the VASRD 

without them. VA attempts to complete updates for four to six body systems each 

year, and the nature of the body systems is such that each body system requires 

a completely different group of attendees and medical experts. VA attempts to hold 

the conferences in the part of the country closest to the experts we need for the particular body system we are updating. 

This particular conference was not extended over the weekend. It was always 

scheduled to last for 2 weeks. This is all part of our effort to accelerate the VASRD 

update process and better serve our Nation’s Veterans. We completed two body systems the first week of the conference and two different body systems the second 

week. The expert personnel, doctors, raters, VSOs, and other participants for each 

of the weeks were different, so none of the technical staff or experts were held over 

the weekend. One group left Friday night, and the next group arrived on Sunday 

night. We kept our support staff in place, because it was cheaper to keep them there 

than fly them back to DC Friday night and then back to Arizona on Sunday night. 

The support staff worked the entire weekend to complete the documents and finalize 

the first two body systems and then set up everything for the second conference. 

The entire conference was planned to make the best use of resources. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. That would be fine. 

Mr. BRIZZI. Thank you. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Any further comments? 

Okay. I will yield to Mr. Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. Just a few questions. Mr. Coy, what are the main 

differences in how the VA pays for tuition versus how the Department of Education pays for tuition? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
34 

Mr. COY. The short answer, sir, is that I am not entirely clear 

on how Education does their payment system. And I will certainly 

find out and provide that to you for the record. 

I think Mr. Brizzi can shed some light on how Education pays 

its grants. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 

Few differences exist in how tuition is paid by the Departments. 

Both VA and ED send payment information to Treasury who will 

then release the payments. Both VA and ED have the ability to pay 

by check or by EFT. ED has more advanced automated tools that 

schools can use to reconcile payments received to accounts. 

Mr. BRIZZI. It is not so much a matter of us choosing one particular system, simply because we like our system better. 

The statutes are vastly different. The two programs are different 

in their organization, in their requirements, and in some respects 

in the specific purpose for which they are provided. 

So this is not a new discussion, obviously. This has been brought 

up many times before and VA’s position has always been, to my 

memory, that depending on how we are authorized to operate 

under the statute, that is the way we proceed. 

Mr. BRALEY. I understand that these types of rationales are offered and have been offered for years, but we spend a lot of time 

here talking about the concept of interoperability and how government agencies communicate with one another. 

If there is a problem that deals with how you streamline payment for educational funding that serves a similar purposes and if 

the agencies are not talking to each other about how they could coordinate and streamline those payment systems, then we are failing to do our job because those statutes can also be amended. The 

regs that implement those statutes can be amended. 

If there are better ways to serve veterans and make sure they 

are getting payment for educational benefits they are entitled to, 

I am willing to take that responsibility on. 

Mr. BRIZZI. I also agree with that. We certainly do have relationships with, and communications with, the Department of Education. I think what I am trying to indicate is that we would be 

in some respects trying to fit a square peg into a round hole if we 

tried to adopt and follow Education’s procedures. 

Mr. BRALEY. Right. And in my experience, Mr. Brizzi, a lot of 

times, those square pegs cannot be fitted into a round hole because 

the people who have the knowledge base to solve that problem 

much as they solved that problem during the Apollo 13 mission are 

not talking to each other and oftentimes come to us requesting a 

legislative response without a consensus decision on how we can do 

it better. 

So I guess the message I am sending today is that I welcome 

input from people who have talked to people in the Department of 

Education about how we on this Committee can help improve and 

streamline the payment systems, achieve a common purpose, and 

do what is important to get our veterans the educational assistance 

they earned. 

And with that, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. I think that is all the questions that we 

have from the Subcommittee. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
35 

I want to thank you for being here and for your answers. If you 

could submit the information that we had asked for and were not 

able to give an answer that would be helpful and we will look forward to that. 

And as always, we are grateful for all the witnesses who took 

time and their effort to present their testimony. 

I would like to remind the Subcommittee that we will hold a 

markup next week on Thursday, the 14th at 10:00 a.m. 

And, finally, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members 

have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. Hearing 

none, so ordered. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(36) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin Stutzman, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Good morning. We are here to receive testimony on nine bills, including bills by 

Ranking Member Braley and me, as well as other Members. These bills cover a variety of issues ranging from the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to the VA–U.S. 

Paralympics program. As always, we ask witnesses to summarize their statements 

and to observe the 5-minute rule. 

I introduced H.R. 2301 to reduce the administrative burden on both the VA and 

the schools as a means to speed up processing by cutting down on the number of 

transactions per student due to changes in enrollment. The bill would direct VA to 

pay chapter 33 tuition and fees after receiving a bill from a school reflecting all 

changes in enrollment during the academic period. 

The testimony I have reviewed makes it clear, that some institutions may have 

concerns because of cash flow and other reasons. 

I would point out that veterans make up less than 10 percent of all college students for many schools. But witnesses have pointed out other problems, some due 

to State laws and regulations and technical issues such as needing to update 

schools’ IT systems and varying lengths of academic periods. 

To that end, the two major stakeholders in this process—VA and the schools— 

need to come together and figure out how to make this work. The schools have a 

right to expect payment, but they also have an obligation to their veterans to adjust 

their processes. 

We cannot write a bill that will account for every variation in how schools operate. On the VA’s part, perhaps it is time for VA and the Department of Education 

to adopt a common payment system to make things easier on the schools. One thing 

I can promise you is that this will not be the last time we meet on this issue. 

I have also introduced H.R. 2302; a bill that would require VA to report the estimated costs of conferences and any other type of meeting that meet certain thresholds. 

The bill would also require VA to report the final costs of those conferences. While 

I have no objection to bringing together VA staff and others at a conference, I believe a measure of transparency on the costs is important. 

Finally, the VA–U.S. Paralympics program appears to be meeting the goals set 

out in Public Law 110–389. In that law, former Chairmen Buyer and Filner saw 

the benefit of using sports as part of rehabilitating injured servicemembers. 

Initial indications confirm the program has brought hundreds of disabled veterans 

back to adaptive sports and we are seeing a few of them succeed even at the elite 

levels. Therefore, I believe it is important to see this program continue. My bill 

would extend this program through FY 2018. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on all the bills and I now yield 

to the Ranking Member, Mr. Braley. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking 

Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

The bills included in today’s hearing represent some of the current critical needs 

veterans have such as foreclosure protections for servicemembers and spouses, veterans small business contracting opportunities, housing loans for surviving spouses 

of disabled-veterans, and the need to extend Paralympics funding. 

I am pleased that one of the bills we will be discussing today is H.R. 1911, the 

Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act, a bill I introduced to help veterans returning from 

combat who are facing foreclosure of their homes. This legislation would protect vetVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
37 

erans from being foreclosed upon by banks and would give these soldiers time to 

get their finances in order after long deployments. 

Our veterans often return from combat only to face new challenges. Whether it’s 

an injury or a financial crisis caused by long deployments and time off from their 

civilian jobs, our veterans deserve to know that we’re standing up for them. This 

bill will give our soldiers enough time to get back on their feet and get their finances in order before being kicked out of their homes. This is the least we can do 

for the brave men and women who serve this country. 

Providing veterans the opportunity to succeed means that we must generate the 

programs or benefits that will allow them to establish small businesses, careers, or 

a home. One of the major hurdles veterans face when they become civilians is that 

while they are on active duty their personal lives and careers are put on hold, while 

their civilian counterparts don’t have these challenges. Their service to our country 

can make it difficult to obtain a home loan, successfully compete for Federal contracts, or even put them at risk of losing their home in the event of financial difficulty. 

Today’s bills recognize the many challenges that our veterans face. I look forward 

to today’s discussion on how these bills will help veterans overcome some of the 

challenges they face and welcome any ideas on how to improve them. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative 

Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, on behalf of 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s 200,000 Member Veterans and supporters, I thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing to share our members’ 

views on these important issues. 

My name is Tom Tarantino and I am the Senior Legislative Associate with IAVA. 

I proudly served 10 years in the U.S. Army beginning my career as an enlisted Reservist and leaving service as an Active-Duty Cavalry Officer. Throughout those 10 

years, my single most important duty was to take care of other soldiers. In the military, they teach us to have each other’s backs. Although my uniform is now a suit 

and tie, I am proud to work with this Congress to ensure the entire country has 

the backs of America’s servicemembers and veterans. 

Bill # Name/Subject Sponsor Position 

H.R. 120 Disabled Veterans’ Surviving 

Spouse Home Loans Act 

Rep. Foxx Support 

H.R. 240 Preferential VA Contracts to 

Veteran Businesses 

Rep. Filner Support 

H.R. 1263 Mortgage Protections for 

Surviving Spouses 

Rep. Filner Support 

H.R. 1911 Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act Rep. Braley Support 

H.R. 2274 Annual Reports on the NGIB to 

Congress 

Rep. Bilirakis Support 

H.R. 2301 Streamlining Education Claims 

Processing Act of 2011 

Rep. Stutzman Oppose 

H.R. 2302 Reports to Congress on VA 

Conferences 

Rep. Stutzman No Position 

H.R. 2329 SCRA Transparency for 

Financial Institutions 

Rep. Johnson Support 

H.R. 2345 Extension of Benefits to 

Veteran Paralympians 

Rep. Stutzman Support 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
38 

H.R. 2301—Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011 

IAVA opposes H.R. 2301. Although we believe that this legislation was well intentioned, it could, in its current form, result in late fees or non-payment charges for 

student veterans, may cause them to be barred or disenrolled from their academic 

programs, and cause veterans to pay a bill that the Government promised to cover. 

The bill seeks to move VA educational assistance payments made to educational 

institutions to the end of the term. However, without a clause protecting the veteran 

from penalties, fees, and other measures resulting from the delayed payment, the 

unintended consequences from this bill may be destructive to some veterans’ academic careers, and will act as a disincentive for schools to enroll veterans. 

This measure will likely disadvantage veterans who are attending college less 

than full-time. The proposed measure forces schools to total tuition and fee costs 

and divide them by what the school determines as ‘‘full-time’’ in order to establish 

the school’s ‘‘cap.’’ Students attending full-time will never notice the difference. 

However, part-time students will be short-changed because fees are typically 

charged at a flat rate regardless of how many units a student takes. 

For Example: John attends a university that charges $2400 in tuition per term. 

Additionally, there are $2500 in health, student life, and facilities fees that are 

charged per term. Full time is 12 units at this school. 

Under the proposed formula, John would have a $408 per credit hour cap. 

$2400 Tuition + $2500 Fees = $4900 per term/12 Units = $408 per credit hour 

cap 

If John takes a full load at 12 units: 

$2400 Tuition + $2500 Fees= $4900 per term—(12 Units x $408) = $0 charged 

to the veteran per term 

But if he only takes 8 units: 

$1600 Tuition + $2500 Fees= $4,100 per term—(8 Units x $408 cap= $3264) = 

$836 charged to the veteran per term 

IAVA supports streamlining GI Bill processing at the VA to help veterans get 

their benefits in a more expedient and uncomplicated fashion. However, such efforts 

must be done with the veteran beneficiaries in mind. Reducing bureaucracy at the 

VA is important, but it cannot occur at the veterans’ expense. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, on behalf of 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s 200,000 Member Veterans and supporters, I thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing to share our members’ 

views on these important issues. 

My name is Tom Tarantino and I am the Senior Legislative Associate with IAVA. 

I proudly served 10 years in the U.S. Army beginning my career as an enlisted Reservist and leaving service as an Active-Duty Cavalry Officer. Throughout those 10 

years, my single most important duty was to take care of other soldiers. In the military, they teach us to have each other’s backs. Although my uniform is now a suit 

and tie, I am proud to work with this Congress to ensure the entire country has 

the backs of America’s servicemembers and veterans. 

Bill # Name/Subject Sponsor Position 

H.R. 120 Disabled Veterans’ Surviving 

Spouse Home Loans Act 

Rep. Foxx Support 

H.R. 240 Preferential VA Contracts to 

Veteran Businesses 

Rep. Filner Support 

H.R. 1263 Mortgage Protections for 

Surviving Spouses 

Rep. Filner Support 

H.R. 1911 Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act Rep. Braley Support 

H.R. 2274 Annual Reports on the NGIB to 

Congress 

Rep. Bilirakis Support 

H.R. 2301 Streamlining Education Claims 

Processing Act of 2011 

Rep. Stutzman Oppose 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
39 

Bill # Name/Subject Sponsor Position 

H.R. 2302 Reports to Congress on VA 

Conferences 

Rep. Stutzman No Position 

H.R. 2329 SCRA Transparency for 

Financial Institutions 

Rep. Johnson Support 

H.R. 2345 Extension of Benefits to 

Veteran Paralympians 

Rep. Stutzman Support 

H.R. 120—Disabled Veterans’ Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act 

IAVA supports H.R. 120. Allowing the spouse of permanently disabled veteran to 

be recognized as a veteran when applying for a home loan is the least that we can 

do to recognize the sacrifices made by our military families. Permanently disabled 

veterans have the unfortunate fate of enduring physical and emotional hardships— 

but they don’t agonize alone. This bill will provide a small measure of comfort toward easing the new emotional and financial challenges after the death of their veteran. Passing this bill will create a valuable respite for surviving spouses in providing a safe home for their families, and for themselves. 

H.R. 240—Preferential VA Contracts to Veteran Businesses 

IAVA supports H.R. 240. This bill ensures that contracting officers bypass usual 

competitive procedures for awarding contracts, if qualified veteran owned businesses 

are competing for the contract. If passed, IAVA believes that this bill can be an effective means in attempting to reduce veteran unemployment and increasing the 

success of the over 2.2 million veteran-owned small businesses nationwide. 

H.R. 1263—Mortgage Protections for Surviving Spouses 

IAVA supports H.R. 1263. We believe that expanding Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act (SCRA) protections to surviving spouses is necessary to help ease the already 

heavy burden born by our Gold Star families. Currently, the SCRA protects military 

members from having to suffer the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property, if the 

failure to meet their obligation resulted as a consequence of their military service. 

This bill seeks to extend these same protections to the surviving spouses of military 

servicemembers who die while in the service or as a result of a service-connected 

injury. Surviving spouses dealing with the loss of their servicemember should not 

have to fear the loss of their vehicle or home in a time of mourning and crisis. 

H.R. 1911—Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act 

IAVA strongly supports the Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act. In 2008, IAVA 

fought to extend foreclosure protections for veterans from 9 to 12 months. During 

these difficult economic times, foreclosure rates in military towns increased at four 

times the national average, and homelessness reached 107,000 veterans on any 

given night. IAVA believes that permanently extending these protections can be instrumental in reducing both foreclosure rates and homelessness among veterans. 

Giving veterans 3 more months to keep their homes and shelter their families is 

a small but meaningful step towards reducing these staggering statistics. 

H.R. 2274—Annual Reports on the New GI Bill to Congress 

IAVA supports H.R. 2274. By mandating yearly, separate information from the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Congress stands to receive multifaceted reports regarding the Post-9/11 GI Bill’s effects on retention levels in the Armed Forces, its span to non-active duty personnel, current efforts to 

expand knowledge of the Post 9/11–GI Bill, and levels of utilization and certificates 

or degrees earned under the bill. Recommendations from both secretaries will help 

identify improvements in the administration of the New GI Bill to better serve our 

Next Greatest Generation. 

H.R. 2301—Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011 

IAVA opposes H.R. 2301. Although we believe that this legislation was well intentioned, it could, in its current form, result in late fees or non-payment charges for 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
40 

student veterans and may cause them to be barred or disenrolled from their academic programs. 

The bill seeks to move VA educational assistance payments made to educational 

institutions to the end of the term. However, without a clause protecting the veteran 

from penalties, fees, and other measures resulting from the delayed payment, the 

unintended consequences from this bill may be destructive to some veterans’ academic careers, and will act as a disincentive for schools to enroll veterans. 

Additionally, the second part of the bill creates a per-school standard for determining maximum cost per credit hour rates based on full-time enrollment. This is 

a regressive proposal that completely violates the intent of the Post-9/11 Educational Improvements Act of 2010. That bill was supposed to remove the overly 

complicated, confusing and unsustainable tuition and fee structure. 

This measure will likely disadvantage veterans who are attending college less 

than full-time. The proposed measure forces schools to total tuition and fee costs 

and divide them by what the school determines as ‘‘full-time’’ in order to establish 

the school’s ‘‘cap.’’ Students attending full-time will never notice the difference. 

However, part-time students will be short-changed because fees are typically 

charged at a flat rate regardless of how many units a student takes. 

For Example: John attends a university that charges $2400 in tuition per term. 

Additionally, there are $2500 in health, student life, and facilities fees that are 

charged per term. Full time is 12 units at this school. 

Under the proposed formula, John would have a $408 per credit hour cap. 

$2400 Tuition + $2500 Fees= $4900 per term/12 Units = $408 per credit hour cap 

If John takes a full load at 12 units: 

$2400 Tuition + $2500 Fees = $4900 per term—(12 Units x $408) = $0 charged 

to the veteran per term 

But if he only takes 8 units: 

$1600 Tuition + $2500 Fees = $4,100 per term—(8 Units x $408 cap= $3264) = 

$836 charged to the veteran per term 

The suggested calculation forces institutions to set a cap per credit hour, which, 

at an equal fee amount, favors full-time over less than full-time enrollment and 

could result in higher out of pocket expenses for part-time student veterans. 

IAVA supports streamlining GI Bill processing at the VA to help veterans get 

their benefits in a more expedient and uncomplicated fashion. However, such efforts 

must be done with the veteran beneficiaries in mind. Reducing bureaucracy at the 

VA is important, but it cannot occur at the veterans’ expense. 

H.R. 2302—Reports to Congress on VA Conferences 

IAVA has no position on H.R. 2302 

H.R. 2329—SCRA Transparency for Financial Institutions 

IAVA supports H.R. 2329. We believe that this bill will result in greater transparency and ease for servicemembers to make use of their rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). SCRA provides significant benefits to the brave 

men and women who serve in our Armed Forces at a time of great stress and uncertainty. By requiring lending institutions to have a named compliance officer to 

verify the institution’s adherence to SCRA provisions, H.R. 2329helps to ensure that 

our deployed warriors do not have to return home to illegal foreclosures and repossessions. Veterans should not have to fight another war to have things returned to 

them that should never have been taken in the first place. 

H.R. 2345—Extension of Benefits to Veteran Paralympians 

IAVA supports H.R. 2345. This bill extends the VA’s allowance to veteran 

Paralympians to 2018. These men and women have sacrificed so much for their 

country. Supporting these brave and talented Americans is the right thing to do, 

and showcases the amazing drive and resilience that this generation of warriors 

have to offer society. 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
41 

Prepared Statement of Shane Barker, Senior Legislative 

Associate, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE: 

On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 

United States and our Auxiliaries, the VFW would like to thank this committee for 

the opportunity to present its views on these bills. 

H.R. 120, Disabled Veterans’ Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act 

The VFW is pleased to support H.R. 120, which would further extend VA home 

loan eligibility to surviving spouses of servicemembers who were disabled at the 

time of death. VFW believes that regardless of time and level of disability of the 

deceased veteran, the spouse should be provided access to VA home loan program 

benefits. We hope the Committee enacts this legislation so as to benefit spouses, especially at a time when home loans are more difficult to finance. 

H.R. 240, To amend title 38, U.S.C., to promote jobs for veterans through 

sole source contracts by the Department of Veterans Affairs 

The VFW does not support this legislation. By insisting that VA grant sole source 

contract when the contract officer determines that a veteran-owned small business 

can fulfill the contract requirements, meets the cost threshold and that the contract 

is a fair and reasonable price, it would appear that veteran-owned small businesses 

would be granted an advantage. However, many of the projects that would fall into 

this contract category are routine contacts and contracting officers will have familiarity with established veteran-owned small business, putting new veteran-owned 

small businesses at a disadvantage of securing a contract because the contracts will 

go to the known businesses. Also, by reducing competition, truly identifying a fair 

and reasonable price might be lost for the contracting officer. 

An alternate solution for promoting veteran-owned small businesses would be to 

ensure that VA has the resources necessary to process applications from veteranowned small businesses more quickly, so these companies can be verified and added 

to the database of veteran-owned small businesses, which is a requirement to secure 

a contract as a veteran-owned small business. 

H.R. 1263, To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide surviving spouses with certain protections relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosures 

The VFW supports this legislation as it would protect spouses of servicemembers 

who die on active duty from foreclosure. Current law does not provide these protections; this bill would close that loophole. We believe that making this small change 

is the right thing to do for those who have lost a loved one in defense of our country. 

H.R. 1911, Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act of 2011 

The VFW supports this legislation, but believes it could go a step further to address the serious challenge of home foreclosure for the men and women of our military who are struggling to keep their homes. Servicemembers and their families 

need options to renegotiate the terms of their loan agreement, and a cooperative 

partner in the effort. Adding an additional 3 months onto the mortgage protection 

period does not produce either of those conditions. We are particularly concerned 

about the Guard and Reserve components, because many take cuts in pay and put 

their financial well-being at risk when they deploy. 

We are so concerned that we believe serious thought should be given to amending 

the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act in such a way to reduce mortgage payments 

on a scale that reflects the loss of income for those who experience salary decreases 

during and immediately after deployments. Our military members should not lose 

their homes if they are making good faith efforts to make payments on time, and 

are falling short of meeting their commitments solely because they are defending 

the freedom and security of this Nation. Servicemembers should have the option to 

contact their lender before a deployment to inform them and make arrangements 

for reduced payments during the deployment so they can keep their homes and give 

their families less to worry about while they are away. This can be achieved by 

amending title 50, U.S.C. by inserting a new subsection (b) in Section 533 that 

would incorporate this language. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
42 

Veterans are not looking for a free ride. They do, however, want the civilian world 

to understand and appreciate their unique circumstances. We hope to see legislation 

to provide a meaningful solution to this persistent challenge. 

H.R. 2274, To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress annual reports on the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program, and for 

other purposes 

The VFW supports this legislation, as it creates a congressional reporting mandate for both the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Veterans Affairs with regard 

to the successful use of chapter 33 GI Bill benefits. Under previous iterations of the 

GI Bill—particularly chapter 30—both departments were mandated to report to 

Congress regularly on usage, enrollment and successful completion of GI Bill-financed programs. However, no such provision currently exists under chapter 33. 

These periodic reports and the information contained in them are critical to demonstrating success and identifying potential shortcomings within the program. 

H.R. 2301, Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011 

The VFW supports the intent of this bill to streamline the payment process for 

student-veterans utilizing the Post-9/11 GI Bill and to minimize the paper trail for 

VA. However, the VFW would encourage the Committee to include explicit protections for veterans against any hindrances in their ability to continue their education, such as threats of disenrollment or restrictions from class registration while 

schools await payment from VA. When the Post-9/11 GI Bill was implemented and 

initial tuition payments were delayed, the VFW, our partners within the veterans’ 

community, VA administrators, and even Members of this committee received scores 

of complaints from veterans that schools were either threatening them with 

disenrollment or barring their registration for the subsequent semester’s classes. 

While barring veterans from enrollment may seem like a public relations nightmare 

for colleges and universities, we have already seen it once before, and it took a concerted effort on the part of the veterans’ community to ensure that each individual 

school did not hold their veterans accountable for the shortcomings of the VA’s payment system. The VFW also notes that VA must be allowed proper time to implement any such changes to their processing and payment programs, with proper notification to the universities and student-veterans of the pending policy change. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill is only 2 years old, meaning the first students to take advantage of the program have not even earned their degrees yet. However, Congress 

continues to look for ways to change the benefit and its delivery mechanisms, 

whether it is through changing the break payment system, adjusting tuition rates, 

creating new tuition caps, and now potentially overhauling the payment system. 

The VFW urges restraint in further manipulating the Post-9/11 GI Bill until we can 

gauge the initial success of the program, which was designed to simplify the process 

for veterans seeking to earn a college degree, but recently has proven to be a headache for veterans struggling to understand how and why the benefit keeps changing. 

H.R. 2302, To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to notify Congress of conferences sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The VFW supports this bill, mandating reports to Congress on conferences hosted 

or sponsored by VA. While the VFW acknowledges the benefits to VA and its employees of periodically hosting professional development seminars to remain at the 

forefront of relevant industries, the VFW agrees that Congress should have oversight on how VA chooses to conduct such events. During a time when Americans 

have called on Congress to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, the VFW believes that 

VA can demonstrate its solidarity with the American people by improving transparency with Congress. 

H.R. 2329, Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act 

The VFW supports H.R. 2329, the Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act. 

Earlier this year we learned that J.P. Morgan Chase Bank had violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by charging interest on home loans above the cap that act 

mandates. It also came to light that representatives that servicemembers contact 

over the phone often are not fully aware of SCRA rules and regulations, and thus, 

are not providing the customer service that our servicemembers need. This bill will 

mandate that major lending institutions must have a compliance officer to ensure 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
43 

SCRA laws are fully met. It will also ensure access to company representatives who 

are aware of what protections servicemembers have under the law by mandating a 

free number, available on the homepage of these institutions, is established to link 

them to specially trained customer service professionals. This is a common sense bill 

that we are happy to support. 

H.R. 2345, To amend title 38, U.S.C., to extend the authority of appropriations for the Secretary of VA to pay monthly assistance allowance to 

disabled veterans training or competing for the Paralympic Team 

Extending the assistance allowance for veterans who are training for the 

Paralympics will allow those veterans who are training or competing in competition 

to focus more of their time on training, as well as assist in showcasing the types 

of adaptive sports that are available and the benefits they hold for all disabled veterans. The VFW sees this as a small cost to promote recovery and healthy lifestyles 

for all veterans and we are happy to support this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you or the Members of the Committee may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Jeff Steele, Assistant Director, 

National Legislative Commission, American Legion 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

H.R. 120 Legion supports 

H.R. 240 Legion supports 

H.R. 1263 Legion supports 

H.R. 1911 Legion supports 

H.R. 2274 Legion suggests improvements 

H.R. 2301 Legion supports 

H.R. 2302 Legion has no position 

H.R. 2329 Legion supports 

H.R. 2345 Legion supports 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit The American Legion’s views on the legislation being considered by the Subcommittee today. We appreciate the efforts of 

this Subcommittee to address the different needs of the men and women who are 

currently serving and those who served during past conflicts. 

H.R. 120: Disabled Veterans’ Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act 

Includes as a veteran, for purposes of eligibility for housing loans guaranteed by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the surviving spouse of a veteran who at 

the time of death was in receipt of or entitled to compensation for a service-connected 

disability rated totally disabling if: (1) the disability was so rated for 10 or more 

years preceding death; (2) the disability was so rated for at least 5 years since the 

veteran’s discharge or release from active duty; or (3) the veteran was a former prisoner of war who died after September 30, 1999, and the disability was so rated for 

at least 1 year preceding death. Requires any applicable VA housing loan fee to be 

collected from such spouse. 

Generally, VA pays Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) to the surviving spouses of military servicemembers who die while on active duty, and to surviving spouses of veterans whose death resulted from service-related causes. These 

surviving spouses are also eligible for VA Home Loan Guaranty Benefits. 

DIC also may be paid to surviving spouses of veterans who were totally disabled 

from service-connected conditions at the time of death, even though their serviceconnected disabilities did not cause their deaths. Such surviving spouses qualify according to the same criteria used in H.R. 120. Although, these qualifying surviving 

spouses are eligible for the same DIC benefit as those above, they are not eligible 

for similar VA Home Loan Guaranty Benefits. H.R. 120 would correct this inequity. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
44 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 240 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to promote jobs for veterans through the 

use of sole source contracts by Department of Veterans Affairs for purposes of meeting 

the contracting goals and preferences of the Department of Veterans Affairs for small 

business concerns owned and controlled by veterans. 

This legislation is simple; it changes one word in title 38 § 8127(c). It changes the 

word ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall’’ and is intended to reemphasize the priority of place of veteran-owned small businesses in the awarding of certain contracts by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

It is vital that veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses receive a fair and proportionate share of Federal contracts, especially from the agency 

whose primary function is to help veterans—the VA, so these veterans can build and 

maintain successful businesses. 

To that end, The American Legion supports legislation that supports and develops 

veteran and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, while providing them equal 

opportunity to start and/or grow a small business, including establishing numerical 

goals for all veterans to compete in government procurement. We believe this legislation serves that end. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 1263 

Amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to afford surviving spouses of servicemembers who die while in the military and whose death is service-connected the 

same protections against sale, foreclosure, and seizure of property currently applicable to their husbands who while in military service are unable to meet an obligation 

on real or personal property. 

Military families serve our country with pride, honor, and quiet dedication. We 

know that every member of a military family sacrifices just as much for this country. When one member of the family goes to war, the whole family goes with them. 

Currently, spouses of servicemembers who have died while in service have no mortgage protections, leaving grieving families vulnerable to losing their home and being 

put on the streets. Extending mortgage foreclosure protection to surviving spouses 

will allow families to explore their options so they may keep their home. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 1911: Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act 

Amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to extend from 9 to 12 months after 

military service the period of protection against mortgage sale or foreclosure, as well 

as the stay of proceedings, in the case of an obligation on real property of a servicemember that originated before the period of military service. Amends the Housing 

and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to repeal the sunset date for such periods of relief. 

This bill would help active duty servicemembers who are returning home and are 

facing foreclosure stay in their homes. Given the tough housing and job markets, 

extending the period of protection as this bill does will give servicemembers the time 

they need after returning from deployment to regain solid financial footing. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 2274 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

and the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress annual reports on the Post-9/ 

11 Educational Assistance Program, and for other purposes. 

With regard to that part of H.R. 2274 within the jurisdiction of this committee, 

The American Legion generally supports the spirit of this legislation, but we recommend the following improvements. First and foremost, the report should be made 

available to the public by placing a link to the report on the GI Bill landing page 

of the VA Web site. In addition, the report should include such information as may 

be useful to a student-veteran, such as student-veteran attendance by type of college, graduation and dropout rates, average tuition rates, and average debt accrued 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
45 

by type. Such information would assist student-veterans make informed decisions 

about the use of this earned benefit. 

H.R. 2301: Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to make payments to educational institutions under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program at the end of a quarter, semester, or term, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion’s first and foremost concern with the administration of the 

new GI Bill is that veterans depending on this education benefit are able to apply 

for and receive chapter 33 benefits in as timely and seamless a manner as possible. 

Because H.R. 2301 is aimed at adjusting the payment relationship between VA and 

educational institutions, it is for the most part beyond our purview except to note 

that we view favorably the tendency the change would have to mitigate the number 

of overpayments incurred by student-veterans. To establish an overpayment puts 

unnecessary burdens on both the student and VA in the effort to recover the overpayment. Therefore, eliminating as much as possible such overpayments is good for 

both students and VA. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 2302 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to notify Congress of conferences sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The American Legion has no position on this bill at this time. 

H.R. 2329 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for certain requirements 

for financial institutions that are creditors for obligations and liabilities covered by 

that Act. 

This bill seeks to encourage compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

(SCRA) by mandating that large lending institutions subject to the SCRA designate 

an employee as a compliance officer who is responsible for ensuring the institution’s 

compliance with provisions in the SCRA relating to the maximum rate of interest 

on debts incurred before military service, and for distributing information to servicemembers whose obligations and liabilities are covered by those provisions. In addition, it requires these lending institutions to maintain a toll-free telephone number 

and make such telephone number available on the primary Internet Web site of the 

institution. 

Earlier this year, when reports that one of America’s largest banks had been overcharging about 4,000 servicemembers on their home loans, and had improperly foreclosed on the homes of 14 military families, we wholeheartedly joined the chorus of 

justifiable outrage about this shocking situation and called upon all financial institutions that handle mortgages for military families to review policies and practices, 

to make sure they are obeying Federal law. 

While the bank involved has issued a mea culpa and made efforts to reassure the 

men and women of our military their commitment to make this right, the episode 

makes it clear that further strengthening of the SCRA is called for. It is a national 

security imperative that servicemembers be able to fight the Nation’s wars without 

having to worry about their rights being trampled at home. The tragic stories of 

those who have been adversely affected by the failure of our financial institutions 

to play by the rules further highlight the necessity of enhancing the effectiveness 

of the legal and regulatory protections for our servicemembers and veterans. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 2345 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance to 

disabled veterans training or competing for the Paralympic Team and the authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to 

United States Paralympics, Inc. 

Public Law 110–389 (2008) authorized VA to award grants to the U.S. Olympic 

Committee to plan, manage and implement an adaptive sports program for disabled 

veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces. In addition, it authorized a 

monthly subsistence allowance to qualifying disabled veterans in training or comVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
46 

peting for the Paralympics to help them more easily take part in competitive sports. 

Further, both were authorized during fiscal years 2010 through 2013. H.R. 2345 

would extend these authorizations through 2018. 

Since its foundation in 1919, The American Legion has identified as its most important issue the rehabilitation and reintegration of the disabled veteran. We are 

also strong believers in the physical and psychological benefits that come from involvement in sports and recreation. Thus, we support such programs of the U.S. 

Olympic Committee that facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration of our disabled veterans and servicemembers. We know that sports and physical activity can 

have a transformative effect on those with a physical disability and the continued 

provision of funds will help to expand and provide greater access to sports programs 

for injured veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment on the bills being 

considered by the Subcommittee. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

might have. Thank you. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Major General David Bockel, USA (Ret.), Executive 

Director, Reserve Officers Association of the United States, and also on 

behalf of Reserve Enlisted Association of the United States 

INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) and the Reserve Enlisted Association (REA) would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify. ROA and REA applaud the ongoing efforts 

by Congress to address issues facing veterans and servicemembers such as educational programmatic hurdles, problems within the home loan programs, SCRA 

and more. 

Though contingency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are expected to drawdown 

currently there are still high levels of mobilizations and deployments, and many of 

these outstanding citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen 

have put their civilian careers on hold while they serve their country in harm’s way. 

As we have learned, they share the same risks and their counterparts in the Active 

Components on the battlefield. Recently we passed the 800,000th mark for the number of Reserve and Guard servicemembers who have been activated since post-9/11. 

More than 275,000 have been mobilized two or more times. The United States is 

creating a new generation of combat veterans that come from its Reserve Components (RC). It is important, therefore, that we don’t squander this valuable resource 

of experience, nor ignore the benefits that they are entitled to because of their selfless service to their country 

ROA and REA would like to thank the Committee and staff for making improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill, enhancing benefits for caregivers, and much more. 

Amendments to GI Bill 

ROA and REA support the passages of H.R. 2274 and H.R. 2301, which would 

provide better oversight and streamlining of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

Currently, many flaws in implementation of the GI Bill exist due to a lack of oversight of the program. Many veterans are left to fall through the cracks of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) system, waiting months to receive benefits that 

they have earned and deserved. 

Greater oversight authority of the VA and of the implementation of the GI Bill 

is seriously needed. H.R. 2274, introduced by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R–FL), would require both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the VA to submit an annual report about the efficacy and operation of the GI Bill during the previous fiscal 

year. These reports would assist in singling out the biggest problems in implementing the GI Bill and would increase accountability for those responsible for implementing the bill. 

H.R. 2301, introduced by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R–IN), and titled the ‘‘Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011,’’ would establish a more concise 

system of payment for educational benefits from the VA under the GI Bill. The act 

States that, for charges incurred from educational institutions by individuals eligible for GI Bill educational benefits, the VA must send payments within 30 days of 

receipt of the charges. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
47 

Currently, funds promised to students eligible for GI Bill benefits by the VA often 

arrive late, go missing, or are otherwise inadequate. Streamlining the payments of 

GI Bill benefits to veterans would help create more accountability in the VA and 

would ensure that veterans are able to take full advantage of the benefits to which 

they are entitled. 

ROA and REA urge Congress to implement these measures in order to ensure that veterans are adequately compensated for the service they have provided our country. 

Disabled Veterans’ Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act 

ROA and REA urge Congress to pass H.R. 120, introduced by Rep Virginia Foxx 

(R–NC), and named ‘‘Disabled Veterans’ Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act.’’ This 

Act would provide certain surviving spouses of veterans with eligibility to both housing loans and monthly dependency and indemnity compensation from the VA. 

Currently, spouses of veterans whose deaths were not service-related, but who 

had permanent and total service-related disabilities for at least 10 years immediately prior to their death, are eligible to receive monthly dependency and indemnity compensation payments from the VA, but are not eligible for the VA’s Home 

Loan Guarantee. 

Spouses of deceased veterans must cope with the loss of the veterans while also 

getting their finances back in order and adapting to life without a partner. These 

spouses, by supporting disabled or coping with the loss of a spouse who was a veteran, have made sacrifices for the United States and should be compensated for 

their losses. Thus,, ROA and REA firmly believe that spouses of deceased veterans 

should be able to receive both dependency and indemnity payments and eligibility 

for the VA’s Home Loan Guarantee. 

Please consider H.R. 120, which would provide veterans’ surviving spouses 

with the benefits they need in order to move on after the death of their 

spouses. 

Small Business 

Reserve Component small business owners are particularly challenged by deployments. About 22 percent of self employed Reservists find that their activations impact their personal businesses, causing severe problems. Many have to sell out partnerships, or close down the business. And many of these Reserve Component members are employers of others, therefore many non-military lose their jobs when the 

business owner is deployed. 

ROA and REA support initiatives to provide small business owners with 

protections for their businesses to be sustained while on deployment. 

ROA and REA appreciate the House passing the H.R. 1657, which was passed in 

May. This bill amended title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern owned and controlled by veterans 

or as a small business concern owned or controlled by service disabled veterans. 

ROA encourages Congress to look at enacting Uniformed Services Employment 

and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protections for employers who require regularly scheduled mandatory continuing education and licensing/certification and to 

make necessary changes to USERRA to strengthen employment and reemployment 

protections. 

Once again, ROA asks for Congress’ support with the H.R. 240, which promotes jobs for Veterans through the use of sole source contracts by Department of Veterans Affairs for purposes of meeting the contracting goals and 

preferences of the Department of Veterans Affairs for small business concerns owned and controlled by Veterans. 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act 

Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), members of the Armed Forces 

are granted 9 months of protection from non-judicial mortgage foreclosure after returning home from Active Duty. This temporary moratorium on civil action allows 

soldiers to return home and re-adjust to civilian life while at the same time pooling 

their funds to repay debts such as mortgages. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
48 

Returning veterans often face new challenges upon their arrival home, such as 

dealing with injury or having to find a new civilian job. For troops facing these adversities, getting their finances together to avoid foreclosure, sale, or seizure of their 

houses can seem almost impossible. 

Currently, such protections in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act are set to expire at the end of 2012. 

ROA and REA strongly support the passage of H.R. 1911, titled ‘‘Protecting 

Veterans’ Homes Act,’’ introduced by Rep. Bruce Braley (D–IA), which would 

permanently extend protections against foreclosure for servicemembers and 

would extend this grace period from 9 months to 12 months. 

Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act 

Under the SCRA, since 1917, a person entering active duty has been permitted 

to terminate a lease on premises. In 2003, Congress broadened this provision to enable the person entering active duty to terminate a vehicle lease. In 2008, Congress 

enacted a new provision to permit a servicemember to terminate a cell phone contract under certain circumstances. 

ROA and REA appreciate Congress’ work on these issues, however, there are 

many other kinds of leases and contracts that the person entering active duty may 

need to terminate. 

ROA and REA request support of H.R. 2329, introduced by Rep. Bill Johnson (R, Ohio), which would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to 

provide for certain requirements for financial institutions that are creditors 

for obligations and liabilities covered by that Act. 

ROA and REA further recommend amending the SCRA to broaden the 

types of leases and contracts which the person entering active duty can terminate without penalty. For example, a reservist who has his own small private 

business and who leases his equipment is being deployed for a year and has no need 

for the equipment since he must shut down his business. However, his lease on the 

equipment is not up for another few years and the lesser won’t let him out of the 

contract early and insists that the reservist still pays for the equipment. Congress 

needs to amend the SCRA to include leases and contracts of this nature, in addition 

to leases of premises, vehicles and cell phones. 

In addition ROA and REA propose further amending the SCRA to forbid 

exorbitant overdraft fees and late fees for deployed servicemembers. There 

have been instances where deployed servicemembers have been charged hundreds 

or thousands of dollars in overdraft fees or late fees for a low dollar overdraft on 

a checking account or a late payment on a credit card. Such exorbitant fees should 

not be allowed to happen. 

• Congress needs to amend the SCRA to clarify that the person returning from 

the military service has the right to reinstate income-replacement insurance 

and other forms of insurance, as well as health insurance narrowly defined. 

• Improve SCRA to protect deployed members from creditors that willfully violate 

SCRA. 

• Continue to enact tax credits for health care and differential pay expenses for 

deployed Reserve Component employees. 

Amending SCRA for Surviving Spouses 

In order to best support servicemembers it is essential to also support the family. 

ROA is thankful for the Department of Defense’s (DoD), the administration’s and 

Congressional acknowledgment that the military spouse is part of DoD’s family. 

ROA and REA encourage Congress to support H.R. 1263, which would 

amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide surviving spouses with 

certain protections relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosures. 

This bill would amend section 303 by adding this subsection: 

• Protection for surviving spouses- with respect to a servicemember who has died 

while in military service and whose death is service-connected, this section shall 

apply to the surviving spouse of the servicemember if such spouse is the successor in interest to property covered under subsection (a). 

Expand eligibility of surviving spouses to receive Survivor Benefit Plan 

(SBP)—Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC) payments with no offset. 

Under current law, the surviving spouse of a retired military member who dies from 

a service-connected disability is entitled to Dependency Indemnity Compensation 

(DIC) from the Veterans’ Administration. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
49 

ROA is grateful for the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision in the Sharp vs. 

United States case that restored eligibility for DIC to military surviving spouses 

who remarry after 57 years of age; this only extends to about 400 spouses. Approximately 45,000 surviving spouse are left behind. 

Servicemembers Law Center 

ROA offers a unique area of expertise pertaining not only to Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act (SCRA), but also the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA) and other Guard/Reserve issues, through the Servicemembers 

Law Center run by director Captain Sam Wright, JAGC, USN (Ret.). 

In the summer of 2009 ROA established the Servicemembers Law Center (SMLC) 

as a source of excellence in the areas of employment and consumer law for active, 

Guard and Reserve personnel. 

The Law Center’s goals include the following: 

• Advise Active and Reserve members who have been subject to legal problems 

that relate to their military service. 

• Develop a network of legal scholars, law school clinics and private practitioners 

interested in legal issues of direct importance to servicemembers. 

• Advance world-class continuing legal education on issues relating to USERRA 

and SCRA. 

• Broaden the existing database of USERRA and SCRA research. 

• In conjunction with bar associations, develop standards that will help to ensure 

that lawyers to whom servicemembers are referred for legal services have the 

requisite expertise to represent them effectively. 

Recruiting and retaining members of the armed services, especially those in the 

National Guard and Reserves, depends in part on assuring current and future Citizen Warriors that laws and regulations are in place to protect them effectively from 

discriminatory practices. 

The Law Center is functioning at a modest but effective level. ROA is pursuing 

efforts to obtain private or public funding and to identify public and private entities 

willing to sustain this effort in order to expand this service to fuller capacity. This 

is especially needed following potential cuts to the National Committee of Employer 

Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR). 

As part of the SMLC and under Captain Wright, the Law Center maintains the 

‘‘Law Review’’ data base and indices containing over 700 articles on USERRA and 

SCRA issues (available at www.roa.org/law_review_archive). On a monthly basis 

Captain Wright receives about 500 calls from concerned servicemembers, families 

and attorneys. On a monthly basis for the past several months about 80 percent of 

the calls were about USERRA. 

The Law Center’s services include: 

• Counseling: Review cases, and advise individuals and their lawyers as to lawfulness of actions taken against deployed Active and Reserve Component members. 

• Referral: Provide names of attorneys within a region that have successfully 

taken up USERRA, SCRA and other military-related issues. 

• Promote: Publish articles encouraging law firms and lawyers to represent 

servicemembers in USERRA, SCRA and other military-related cases. 

• Advise: File amicus curiae, ‘‘friend of the court’’ briefs on servicemember protection cases. 

• Educate: Quarterly seminars to educate attorneys a better understanding of 

USERRA, SCRA and other military-related issues. 

The Servicemembers Law Center is available at www.roa.org/Servicemembers_Law_Center. 

Other Bills 

ROA and REA support H.R. 2302 to amend title 10, United States Code, to 

direct the Secretary of the VA to notify Congress of conferences sponsored by 

the VA. 

This bill encourages transparency and oversight which are important aspects of 

governance. Furthermore it would help to keep Congress apprised of VA’s activities 

and interest areas. 

ROA and REA also support H.R. 2345 to amend title 38, United States 

Code, to extend the authorization for the Secretary of the VA to pay a monthVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
50 

ly assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing for the 

Paralympic Team and the authorization for the Secretary to provide assistance to the United States Paralympics, Inc. 

Conclusion 

ROA and REA appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony, and we reiterate 

our profound gratitude for the progress achieved by this committee such as providing a GI Bill for the 21st Century and advanced funding for the VA. 

ROA and REA look forward to working with the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity and the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, where we can present solutions to these and other issues, and offer our support. We hope in the future to have 

an opportunity to discuss these issues in person. 

ROA and REA encourage this Committee to utilize the Servicemembers Law Center and reports, which are both valuable assets, and to share them with your constituents and other Congressional members. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Arthur F. Kirk, Jr., President, Saint 

Leo University, Saint Leo, FL, on behalf of National 

Association of Independent Colleges and Universities 

Executive Summary 

I am testifying on behalf of Saint Leo University and the National Association of 

Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) regarding H.R. 2301, a bill to 

change the reimbursement procedures under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 

Program. 

Saint Leo University has a long history of serving veteran students—enrolling 

4,743 during the past academic year, 2,790 (59 percent) of whom were Post-9/11 veterans. The NAICU membership includes over 1,000 institutions nationwide, representing the diversity of private, non-profit higher education in the United States. 

H.R. 2301 would reduce the need for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) to 

make adjustments to their payments for veterans. However, clearly, it also would 

increase the need to make adjustments at the school level for other financial aid 

for veterans—particularly title 4 student financial aid. Program participation would 

become much more complicated, both for the veteran students and for the institutions they attend. Issues related to billing and to the assignment of responsibility 

for payment will be less clear. The bill will require reprogramming of the management information systems of most schools; however, the more likely solution will be 

more manual adjustments. Meeting these challenges would be particularly difficult 

for small colleges—which could limit the options of veterans who wish to attend 

them. 

There are some pluses to H.R. 2301. Student accounts do stabilize after add/drop 

deadlines so, if passed, the bill would provide a truer picture in most cases. Also, 

the VA would pay after the term, so debt collection letters to the student or the institution would decline significantly, and time spent researching the letters would 

be reduced. 

On the down side, cash flow to institutions and veterans would be problematic for 

many. More title 4 aid adjustments for veterans’ accounts are likely to be needed. 

It will be hard to pay title 4 credit balances to students, since they won’t have a 

credit on their account. Veterans would face difficulties registering in many colleges 

without payment in advance or, in places like Saint Leo, without the bill being settled for the previous term before the next term begins. Many institutional information systems will not be able to accommodate these changes without, at least, some 

re-programming. Greater confusion about who owes what (the veteran, the VA, and 

title 4) also will ensue. Such confusion increases the barriers to successful completion for our vets. 

We believe that the problems that H.R. 2301 is intended to solve would be better 

addressed through greater efforts to work within the framework the institutions 

now use to deliver financial aid to their students. For example, we believe that a 

two-step certification process Saint Leo is planning will reduce the need for billing 

adjustments by the VA without adversely affecting veterans. An approach like ours, 

or others that may be devised by other colleges, would offer a better solution. Saint 

Leo, NAICU, and many others in the higher education community stand ready to 

assist the Subcommittee in identifying ways to serve our veteran students effectively and efficiently. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
51 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate having the opportunity to appear today to discuss pending 

legislation dealing with the Post-9/11 GI Bill. I am Art Kirk, president of Saint Leo 

University. 

Saint Leo University is an independent Catholic university founded in 1889. The 

University offers over 40 undergraduate and graduate degree programs on its residential campus in Florida, and to adult students on 16 military bases in Florida, 

Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, and California; to students in all 

States and overseas, through our center for online learning; and on 10 Florida community college campuses. 

The University began offering full degree programs on military bases in 1973, and 

became the first college or university in the Nation to grant the bachelor’s degree 

on an Air Force base. We were an early adopter, in 1997, of online offerings for the 

military. The University’s mission, to provide opportunities for people of good character regardless of their religion, compelled the University to respond to these 

needs. 

Saint Leo University enrolled 4,743 veterans during the past academic year, 2,790 

(59 percent) of whom were chapter 33 or Post-9/11 veterans. The University awarded 678 associate, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees to veterans. The University also 

educated 5,026 active duty military and reservists during the course of the last academic year. All told, this equals 37 percent of the students who took at least one 

course with us during the year. 

Today I represent not just my university, one of the leaders in educating our veterans and active duty military. I also represent the member institutions of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. With more than 1,000 

members nationwide, NAICU reflects the diversity of private, nonprofit higher education in the United States. Members include traditional liberal arts colleges, major 

research universities, church- and faith-related institutions like mine, historically 

black colleges and universities, women’s colleges, performing and visual arts institutions, 2-year colleges, and schools of law, medicine, engineering, business, and other 

professions. NAICU is committed to celebrating and protecting this diversity of the 

Nation’s private colleges and universities. 

The Subcommittee is receiving testimony about a number of bills today. The one 

that I will address is H.R. 2301, which would change the reimbursement procedures 

for veterans and colleges and universities under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program. 

This bill would reduce the need for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) to 

make adjustments to their payments for veterans. However, clearly, it also would 

increase the need for adjustments at the school level for other financial aid for veterans—particularly title 4 student financial aid. Program participation would become much more complicated, both for the veteran students and for the institutions 

they attend. Issues related to billing and to the assignment of responsibility for payment will be less clear. The bill will require reprogramming of the management information systems of most schools; however, the more likely solution will be more 

manual adjustments. I will address this concern more fully in a moment. 

A particular concern is the impact of this change on small colleges, and on the 

veterans who choose to attend them. While I would be quite pleased if every veteran 

looking for a college were to choose Saint Leo, I also believe deeply in the goal of 

the GI Bill to give veterans the widest choice possible of educational options. 

Over half of our Nation’s private, non-profit colleges have fewer than 5,000 students, and a quarter have fewer than 2,000. Many veterans choose to attend these 

smaller institutions. While their veteran student population is just a fraction of that 

at Saint Leo, these small schools will struggle far more with the new procedures 

under this bill, and the consequent cash flow problems. The typical semester is 15 

weeks. This bill would move payment from the beginning of the semester, when 

most student accounts are collected, to 30 days after the semester ends. That’s 19 

weeks in which to wait for payment. Meanwhile, the institution will, of course, have 

had to pay faculty and staff salaries and other bills during that time. 

This problem won’t necessarily be limited to small colleges. The median endowment across all private, not-for-profit colleges is only about $18 million. Indeed, 

while Saint Leo was not small 14 years ago, we did find that our cash flow was 

tight year-round at that time. Delayed payment would have been a hardship for us. 

Thankfully, we would now have the cash reserves to handle this. 

Even if it is difficult to do so, private colleges may be able, by using cash reserves 

or lines of credit, to enroll students and defer collections as proposed. However, public colleges and universities will face unique challenges if this bill is enacted. Most 

public institutions must collect full tuition from their students, or from the students’ 

financial aid providers, at the beginning of the term. Veterans will face barriers to 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
52 

enrolling at public universities and colleges, given that many will not be in a position to pay their tuition and fees up front, and then wait for their reimbursement 

months later. 

As I noted earlier, another concern for the many smaller colleges would be coping 

with changes in procedures. Among others, these changes would involve such matters as manually voiding late payment fees and future registration blocks—which 

trigger automatically when a student’s bill is not paid. 

Saint Leo has several experts in the specialized services and administrative procedures essential to enrolling veterans. We also have skilled staff members who train 

others in these procedures. Small colleges or colleges with relatively small numbers 

of veterans are likely to lack these expert resources. 

Saint Leo University already is implementing a two-step veteran’s certification 

process that, we believe, will resolve the problems this bill seeks to address. Our 

Veterans Certifying Officers will enter the veteran as a student, but will certify zero 

tuition and fees in VAOnce—the VA GI Bill database system—at the semester’s 

start. This allows the veteran to receive their housing and living stipend. After the 

period for adding and dropping courses ends, we then will reenter the student in 

VAOnce, now adding the tuition and fee charges for all the courses in which the 

veteran is actually enrolled. 

In summary there are some pluses to H.R. 2301: 

• Student accounts do stabilize after add/drop deadlines, so the bill would provide 

a truer picture in most cases. • The VA would pay after the term, so debt collection letters to the student or 

the institution would decline significantly. Every one of these letters must be 

researched, and the time spent doing so would be reduced. 

However, on the down side: 

• Cash flow to institutions and veterans would be problematic for many. • More title 4 aid adjustments for veterans’ accounts are likely to be needed. • It will be hard to pay title 4 credit balances to students, since they won’t have 

a credit on their account. • Veterans would face difficulties registering in many colleges without payment 

in advance or—in places like Saint Leo—without the bill for the previous term 

being settled before the next term begins. • Many college and university information systems will not be able to accommodate these changes without, at least, some re-programming. • Greater confusion about who owes what (the veteran, the VA, and title 4) will 

ensue. Schools won’t know what VA will pay, or what to bill the veteran. Such 

confusion increases the barriers to successful completion for our vets. 

We believe that the problems that H.R. 2301 is intended to solve would be better 

addressed through greater efforts to work within the framework the institutions 

now use to deliver financial aid to their students. We believe, for example, that 

Saint Leo’s approach will have no adverse affects on the veterans, and will reduce 

the need for billing adjustments by the VA. An approach like ours, or others that 

may be devised by other colleges, would offer a better solution. 

I’d also like to briefly mention the two other provisions of H.R. 2301: 

• Section 3 sets an effective date of August 1 of this year—less than a month 

from now. Making the proposed changes on such short notice would be highly 

disruptive for students, institutions, and the VA alike. All of the procedural concerns outlined in my testimony would be magnified. 

• Section 4 specifies the means by which established charges per credit hour are 

to be determined. It is our understanding that the provision is designed to avoid 

situations in which charges to a student taking only one course are significantly 

higher than the per-credit charge if the student were taking a full load. However, since established charges per credit hour will no longer be used as the 

basis for determining the chapter 33 tuition benefit, this provision will not have 

any effect that we can discern. Rather, its most likely effect will be to create 

confusion about how it is to be interpreted. For that reason, we would suggest 

that the language be dropped. 

Saint Leo, NAICU, and many others in the higher education community stand 

ready to assist the Subcommittee in identifying ways to serve our veteran students 

effectively and efficiently. 

Finally, on a related topic, allow me to take this opportunity to extend our appreciation to the Members of this Subcommittee, and to the full Veterans’ Affairs Committee, for your work in moving the ‘‘Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011’’ (H.R. 

1383). The bill provides an important ‘‘hold-harmless’’ for veterans who otherwise 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
53 

would see their Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition-and-fee benefits reduced August 1. Enactment of this bill would assure that student veterans attending private institutions 

in several States will not face an unexpected increase in expenses while mid-way 

through their higher education programs. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Susan C. Aldridge, Ph.D., President, 

University of Maryland University College, Adelphia, MD, on 

behalf of American Association of State Colleges and Universities 

Executive Summary 

Potential negative impacts on veteran students of H.R. 2301, ‘‘Streamlining 

Education Claims Processing Act of 2011’’ 

• Registration holds due to unpaid balances that would have to be resolved manually on a case-by-case basis 

• In States where public institutions are not legally permitted to allow students 

with unpaid balances to register for a subsequent semester/quarter, mandatory 

interruption of studies until VA paid the institution 

• Inability to receive refunds (for veteran students who also receive other forms 

of financial assistance than Post-9/11 GI Bill funds) to pay for college expenses 

unrelated to tuition and fees since students would show an account balance due 

until VA paid the institution, creating considerable financial hardship 

• Potential requirement to pre-pay tuition and fees and be reimbursed when VA 

paid the institution a month after each semester/quarter/term, creating considerable financial hardship 

• Increased confusion regarding benefit eligibility under the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

since payments would be for the previous semester/quarter/term 

Potential negative impacts on higher education institutions of H.R. 2301, 

‘‘Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011’’ 

• Violation of State laws in States where public institutions are already required 

to prevent students with unpaid balances from registering for subsequent terms 

• Potential violations of State accounting rules for public institutions and/or previously established State accounting policies (particularly if forced to carry unpaid balances between fiscal years) 

• Cash flow problems, particularly for institutions with large veteran student populations 

• Increased Post-9/11 GI Bill processing burden on school certifying officials as 

well as financial aid offices, bursar/cashiering offices, accounting offices, and 

other institutional personnel, particularly in understanding H.R. 2301’s concurrent impact with the ‘‘net cost’’ provision of Public Law 111–377, ‘‘Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvement Act of 2010,’’ also effective August 

1, 2011 

• Increased infrastructure and staffing expenses since institutions would be required to either modify existing electronic registration, payment, and fund balance systems or to process all veteran student accounts by hand each term 

• Unclear financial impact on institutions of students who drop out mid-term 

given the shift in payment date by VA under H.R. 2301—will institutions be 

paid for the instruction that they have delivered up to that point? 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, my name is Susan Aldridge and I am president of the University of 

Maryland, University College. Today, however, I am here to present the perspective 

of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). This statement is related to the potential effects of legislation currently being considered by 

this Subcommittee on its 420 institution and system members located in 49 States, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Thank you for 

holding this hearing and providing the opportunity to present this testimony. 

In addition, AASCU is the contract administrator for the Department-of-Defensefunded Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC). The SOC Consortium is a network of approximately 1,900 colleges and universities offering educational services 

to our Nation’s Armed Forces and veterans. In order to be included in the Consortium, an institution must establish flexible policies appropriate for the unique demands on servicemembers and dependents. These policies address items such as enrollment, credit evaluation of military training, and transfer of credit. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
54 

i American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) ‘‘Testimony on Post-9/11 

GI Bill Benefits Program,’’ presented by Dr. Alan G. Merten, President, George Mason University, September 16, 2010. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://www.congressweb.com/aascu/ 

docfiles/AMerten%20Testimony%20Veterans%20Cmte%2009162010.pdf. ii Veterans’ Educational Benefits: Enhanced Guidance and Collaboration Could Improve Administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Program, GAO–11–356R, p. 3. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11356r.pdf. iii Issue Tables: A Profile of Military Servicemembers and Veterans Enrolled in Postsecondary 

Education in 2007–08, Table 5–A. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/ 

2009182.pdf. iv Veterans Affairs Can Further Improve Its Development Process for Its New Education Benefits System, GAO–11–115, ‘‘Highlights.’’ Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://www.gao.gov/ 

new.items/d11115.pdf. 

The legislation that AASCU would like to focus its comments upon today is H.R. 

2301, the ‘‘Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011.’’ While AASCU 

agrees in principle with the concept behind H.R. 2301—to simplify the payment 

process of Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act benefits, which has been 

arduous for higher education institutions and veteran students alike—this particular legislation will not simplify the funds payment process. Unfortunately, it will 

complicate it even further and cause even more delays for veteran students in receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. 

As AASCU testified to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the Committee on Veterans Affairs in September 2010,i the VA’s problems in implementing 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill are well-documented in both prior hearing testimony and the 

press. VA itself has gone on record that its previous performance was unacceptable. 

The GAO’s February 2011 report on VA education benefits and its May 2011 report 

specifically on the administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program provide further 

documentation of this state of affairs. 

H.R. 2301, however, would not fix VA’s processing issues. Instead, it would financially penalize institutions and veteran students for a problem they did not create. 

AASCU is fully cognizant that VA is experiencing a historic culture shift (some 

might say culture shock) in terms of veteran education benefits processing and that 

the VA was originally given very little time to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We 

have acknowledged this in previously published testimony and policy briefs. However, making veteran students and institutions of higher education bear the brunt 

of the VA’s inevitable adjustment process hardly seems equitable. Other ways can— 

and should—be found to alleviate Post-9/11 GI Bill payment delays. 

For instance, it would seem reasonable for the VA to seek further assistance in 

managing the Post-9/11 GI Bill program from the U.S. Department of Education, 

another Cabinet agency that long ago managed a large-scale transition to electronic 

processing involving all title 4-eligible institutions of higher education. In fact, the 

May 5, 2011 GAO review of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program, Veterans’ Educational 

Benefits: Enhanced Guidance and Collaboration Could Improve Administration of 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill Program, concluded that ‘‘VA may be able to achieve greater 

efficiencies by building stronger partnerships with schools, Education, and other expert external organizations. For instance, Education has learned many management 

lessons and overcome some of its management challenges over the years by refining 

its systems and administrative processes for delivering student aid.’’ ii

However, the report also stated that ‘‘VA did not continue its coordination with 

Education because of the limited applicability of Education’s systems and procedures, according to VA officials.’’ 

Notwithstanding the obvious statutory differences between title 4 financial aid 

and chapter 33 veterans education benefits, this statement from VA that the established Department of Education (ED) computer systems enabling the disbursement 

of billions of dollars to tens of millions of title 4 aid recipients are of ‘‘limited applicability’’ does not take into account that, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 16 percent of military undergraduates (including veterans) 

received Federal Pell Grants in 2007–08.iii Therefore, veteran students are not completely isolated from ED systems and procedures. 

Given that veteran students can qualify for both ED and VA funds and that institutions are well-versed in ED’s electronic processing methods, it would seem reasonable for VA to more seriously explore adapting pre-existing systems such as ED’s 

Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system used by financial aid administrators, loan servicers, and other appropriate stakeholders to administer title 4 

grants and loans. A separate GAO review of VA’s implementation of its own IT system to support the Post-9/11 GI Bill iv suggested technological areas in need of improvement, so it also seems reasonable that exploring adaptations and management 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
55 

viState University System of Florida Board of Governors Regulations, chapter 7, ‘‘Tuition and 

Fees,’’ Section BOG 7.002, ‘‘Tuition and Fee Assessment, Collection, Accounting, and Remittance,’’ sec. (7). Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://www.flbog.org/about/regulations/regulations.php. 

techniques ED used during its earlier construction of the COD would benefit VA in 

this process. 

While VA’s response to the GAO review of Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation stated that ‘‘VA will again contact ED and the higher education community to determine the applicability of any of their processes in VA’s administration of the Post9/11 GI Bill,’’ H.R. 2301 seems to inadvertently discourage VA from working collaboratively with other Cabinet agencies to ease its own burdens and deliver educational 

funds to veteran students and institutions in the most efficient, cost-effective way 

possible. Given the budget crisis facing this country, we do not consider this a judicious mode of action. 

That overall comment being made, AASCU would now like to address some specific logistical concerns regarding the detrimental impact of H.R. 2301 on higher 

education institutions and veteran students. Our colleagues at AACRAO, NACUBO, 

and NASFAA—to name a few higher education associations with particular subject 

matter expertise in admissions and registration, business and finance, and financial 

aid—could provide even more nuanced critiques of H.R. 2301’s potential impact on 

their constituencies. We encourage the Subcommittee to also call upon them for 

comment and analysis. 

The first detrimental impact of H.R. 2301 concerns tuition and fee payment 

deferment at registration. In general, higher education institutions can permit students to register for a term and have their tuition and fees (and room and board, 

where applicable) ‘‘deferred’’ in full or in part based on expected financial aid from 

all sources. These sources are generally Federal, State, institutional, or third-party 

aid such as employer reimbursements or external scholarships. 

However, the student is ultimately responsible for the unpaid tuition and fee balance should any deferred aid not arrive. And if that aid does not arrive before the 

end of the term, the student is normally barred from registering for any subsequent 

term until the debt is satisfied. Some States specifically forbid public institutions 

of higher education to register students who have unpaid balances from a previous 

term. 

Florida is one such example. According to the Florida State University System 

Board of Governors’ ‘‘7.002 Tuition and Fee Assessment, Collection, Accounting and 

Remittance’’ regulation v (bolding AASCU’s), State colleges and universities are required to: 

‘‘establish by regulation, procedures for the payment of tuition and associated 

fees. Such regulation shall provide that a student’s course schedule will be canceled 

if payment, or appropriate arrangements for payment, has not occurred by the deadline set by each university, which shall be no later than the end of the second week 

of classes . . . .However, the president may choose to temporarily suspend further 

academic progress in lieu of canceling a student’s course schedule in those cases 

where the student has partially paid tuition and the university guarantees full payment from an authorized and existing fund before the submission of the final student data course file or the end of the semester, whichever is later; otherwise, the 

student credit hours shall not be counted for State funding purposes. Suspension 

of academic progress shall preclude students from receiving grades, transcripts, or a diploma and shall deny registration for future terms until the 

student’s account has been settled in full.’’ 

Therefore, if H.R. 2301 is made law, particularly at public institutions governed 

by State laws forbidding students with unpaid balances to register, institutions 

would be faced with the unpalatable prospect of either 

a. carrying veteran students’ unpaid account balances from term to term and possibly fiscal year to fiscal year—which is not only a cash flow problem for all 

institutions of higher education, but may even be illegal for individual State 

colleges and universities depending on their State accounting rules and procedures, or 

b. requiring veteran students to pay up front for courses and be reimbursed 

whenever the VA pays the school. 

Both of these prospects are unfair not only to veteran students, but the institutions serving them. The first could force public institutions—depending on the 

State—into a conflict with State debt management and collection policies in order 

to accommodate veteran students receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill funds. Even if institutions did not find themselves in violation of State law, they would most likely be 

forced to carry unpaid balances on their ledgers from fiscal year to fiscal year given 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
56 

institutions’ different fiscal year closing dates versus the iron-clad payment time 

frame set up by H.R. 2301. They would also encounter cash flow issues stemming 

from the delayed payments by VA. 

In addition, if VA were permitted to send payments 1 month after the end of each 

semester, the bursar and cashiering offices at institutions would then be forced to 

process all veteran students’ Post-9/11 GI Bill payments at once rather than receiving a steady flow of payments for veteran students during each semester. This 

would create further delays for veteran students in receiving refunds. 

The second prospect could restrict veterans’ access to college and ability to use 

their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits either for their own education or that of their eligible 

spouses and dependents—not because institutions do not want to educate veterans 

or their families, but because institutions would not be fiscally able to indefinitely 

‘‘front’’ their tuition and fee bills for term after term. Instead, institutions would 

have to ask veteran students to pay and be reimbursed, which is contrary to the 

entire purpose of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

In addition, the payment change in H.R. 2301 would create yet another unfunded 

mandate for higher education institutions. Institutions’ computerized billing, payment, and refund systems would either have to be reprogrammed—at significant 

extra cost to institutions—or staff would have to spend extra hours processing manual payments and overrides for veteran students on top of the long hours they already spend counseling veteran students on their benefit eligibility and resolving 

over- and underpayments by VA. Given the regulatory and counseling burden on 

higher education as a whole, and the fact that many school certifying officials perform these duties in addition to other job duties, this prospect is daunting. 

The January 2011 amendments to the Post-9/11 GI Bill specifically restrict the use of the $12/student fee paid to schools by the VA for processing veteran students’ 

registration and enrollment. (As noted in AASCU’s previous testimony, institutions 

serving large numbers of veterans have voluntarily hired extra staff, created new 

veterans’ centers, and incurred expenses often far exceeding these monies received 

from VA.) Therefore schools would be unable to use these fees to partly defray the 

overall infrastructure expenses necessary to accommodate H.R. 2301. Given the 

well-publicized finance issues in public higher education in particular, H.R. 2301 

would thus place an especially unfair compliance burden on public institutions. 

For example, 3 of the 7 brick-and-mortar campuses reported by the VA as having 

enrolled the most veteran students using Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits in 2009–10 were 

AASCU members (Old Dominion University, Troy University, and University of 

Maryland—University College). These institutions enrolled over 5,000 of the 

12,000+ veteran students on the 7 campuses. The University of Maryland—University College alone enrolled over 3,000 veteran students in 2009–10; it currently enrolls over 4,500 veteran students. Forcing these institutions to perform manual billing and registration overrides for thousands of veteran students would be cumbersome, expensive, and labor-intensive—in addition to not being in the best interests of veteran students. 

Therefore, public colleges and universities that enroll veteran students, befitting 

their mission as public taxpayer-supported institutions serving the public good, 

would be consistently financially penalized for these enrollments if VA were permitted to delay payments 30 days after the end of each semester. In addition, they 

would most likely be forced into conflict with their States’ debt management and 

collection policies. 

The second detrimental aspect of H.R. 2301 is its concurrent impact with the ‘‘net 

cost’’ provision in Public Law 111–377, which amended the original Post-9/11 GI 

Bill. This provision requires institutions to subtract certain forms of financial assistance awarded to students by States, institutions, the Federal Government, or other 

third parties from their tuition and fee charges reported to VA for Post-9/11 GI Bill 

payments. 

When AASCU last testified before this committee, our representative stated that 

the net cost provision would inflict ‘‘intolerable chaos . . . on both veteran students 

and program administrators.’’ The provision was nevertheless signed into law and 

is scheduled to take effect August 1, 2011. Given how complicated the new process 

will be for students and program administrators compared to the original Post-9/11 

GI Bill payment structure—and how many unforeseen complications will undoubtedly occur after it takes effect—delaying tuition and fee payments for 30 days after 

a semester will create even more problems for both veterans and institutions. 

The third detrimental impact of H.R. 2301 is its potential impact on payment for 

students who drop out during a term after attending classes. Under the current 

Post-9/11 GI Bill payment process, funds flow to the institution during the period 

of enrollment after a certificate of eligibility has been issued by VA for a veteran 

student and the institution has certified that veteran student’s enrollment. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
57 

vi U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs School Certifying Official Handbook, 1st ed., May 15, 

2011, p. 37. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from http://gibill.va.gov/documents/job_aids/ 

SCO_Handbook_v1.pdf. 

VA has strongly encouraged institutions to certify veteran student enrollment as 

early as possible—even prior to a semester when the veteran’s actual tuition and 

fees are unknown.vi Institutions thus often have to submit two enrollment certifications for one veteran, the first with zero tuition and fees and a second amended 

enrollment certification with the actual tuition and fees when the veteran registers. 

If a veteran drops or adds courses later in the registration process, the original enrollment certification must be amended. This has created more challenges for both 

institutions and VA in terms of processing. 

Delaying payment for 30 days after the end of a term, for every term, thus creates 

uncertainty about whether institutions will be paid by VA if a veteran student drops 

out partway through a term after having attended classes that the institution has 

delivered in good faith. H.R. 2301 does not address this issue, and clarification 

would be necessary for institutions on this point. 

While AASCU has expressed significant concern about H.R. 2301’s effect on higher education institutions in this testimony, we would like to state for the record that 

our member institutions—as well as those public institutions who belong to the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) and the private nonprofit 

institutions belonging to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), which is also testifying in front of this body—are proud to serve 

veterans and active-duty military students. We all understand these students’ challenges and support their using college education benefits they have earned through 

their military service. Their success is very important to not only our institutions, 

but our country. 

In addition, we would like to state that the higher education community has repeatedly reached out to the VA during the Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation process 

to offer expert guidance, assistance, and cooperation. Veteran students are not only 

veterans, but our students. 

The enactment of H.R. 2301 into law would not only place a further burden on 

students and institutions struggling to understand and implement the cascading set 

of Post-9/11 GI Bill amendments currently taking effect. It would also be contrary 

to the entire intent of not only the Post-9/11 GI Bill but the original GI Bill, because 

it would effectively penalize veteran students and institutions alike for problems not 

of their making. 

We stand ready and willing to partner with VA in creating better processes to deliver Post-9/11 GI Bill funds to veteran students and institutions. But H.R. 2301— 

though well-intended—will harm veteran students and institutions of higher education alike rather than streamlining the process by which these funds are delivered. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under 

Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I am pleased to present the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on a number of bills that would affect our housing and education programs, as well as our mission of service to our Nation’s Veterans. I am accompanied 

today by Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General 

Counsel. 

HOUSING MATTERS 

H.R. 120 

H.R. 120, the ‘‘Disabled Veterans’ Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act,’’ would 

amend section 3701(b) of title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for VA’s 

guaranteed loan program to surviving spouses of certain totally disabled Veterans. 

Currently, a surviving spouse is eligible for home loan benefits if he or she was married to a Veteran who either died from a service-connected disability or is listed for 

more than 90 days as (i) missing in action; (ii) captured in the line of duty by a 

hostile force; or (iii) forcibly detained or interned in line of duty by a foreign government or power. Subsection (a) of section 3 would expand eligibility for home loan 

benefits to surviving spouses who were married to certain severely disabled VetVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
58 

erans who died from other than service-connected causes. For the surviving spouse 

to be eligible, the Veteran’s disability must have been service-connected and rated 

totally disabling for (i) a period of 10 or more years immediately preceding death, 

(ii) a period of not less than 5 years from the date of the Veteran’s discharge or 

other release from active duty, or (iii) a period of not less than 1 year immediately 

preceding death, if such Veteran was a former prisoner of war who died after September 30, 1999. Subsection (b) would make the amendment to section 3701 apply 

with respect to any loan guaranteed after the date of the Act’s enactment. Subsection (c) would clarify that a loan fee must be collected pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 

§ 3729 in the same manner as such fees are collected from surviving spouses who 

were married to Veterans who died from service-connected disabilities. 

Enactment of H.R. 120 would give a covered veteran the peace of mind that his 

or her surviving spouse will be able to receive VA home loan benefits, regardless 

of the veteran’s cause of death. However, before VA can offer a position on the merits of this bill, it must first determine its full impact on the Veterans Benefits Housing Program Fund. We have not yet had the opportunity to do so, and will provide 

our estimate of the cost of enactment of the bill at a later date. . 

H.R. 1263 

H.R. 1263 would amend section 303 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by expanding the Act’s mortgage protections to include a surviving spouse of a Servicemember whose death was service-connected. Currently, the protection is limited 

only to Servicemembers who are on active duty or those whose active duty ended 

within the covered period. 

VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding the merits of this bill. 

H.R. 1911 

H.R. 1911, the ‘‘Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act,’’ would amend section 303 of the 

Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act to extend the period to which the Act’s mortgage 

protections apply. 

Section 2(a) of the bill would extend the period within which a court may stay 

proceedings and adjust obligations relating to real or personal property. It would 

also extend the period within which a court may provide relief from a sale, foreclosure, or seizure resulting from a defaulted obligation. Before 2008, a court was 

permitted to exercise such protections if the legal action to enforce the obligation 

was filed during, or within 90 days after, the Servicemember’s period of military 

service. With the enactment of Public Law 110–289, the ‘‘Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008,’’ the protection was temporarily extended from 90 days to 9 

months. Subsection (a) would further extend such period another 3 months, so that 

a Servicemember could rely on the Act’s mortgage protections for a total of 12 

months after his or her period of military service ended. 

Section 2(b) would eliminate the December 31, 2012, sunset date that the Housing 

and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 imposed on the extended protection and make 

it permanent. 

Subsection 2(c) would specify that the amendments made by the Act shall take 

effect on the date of enactment. 

VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding the merits of this proposal. 

H.R. 2329 

H.R. 2329, the ‘‘Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act,’’ would amend section 207 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to require lending institutions to 

designate an employee of the institution as a compliance officer responsible for ensuring the institution’s compliance with the maximum interest rate requirements 

and for distributing information to Servicemembers whose obligations and liabilities 

are covered by such requirements. The bill would further require lending institutions that hold more than $10 million in assets during a fiscal year to establish and 

maintain the next fiscal year a toll-free telephone number, and to make such number available on the institution’s primary Internet Web site. 

VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding the merits of this bill. 

EDUCATION MATTERS 

H.R. 2274 

Subsection (a) of H.R. 2274 would amend chapter 33 of title 38, United States 

Code, by adding a new section 3325 that would require (in subsection (a)) the SecreVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
59 

taries of Veterans Affairs and Defense to submit to Congress at least once every 

year (through January 1, 2021) separate reports on the operation of the Post-9/11 

GI Bill (also referred to as ‘‘chapter 33’’). 

Pursuant to subsection (b) of proposed new section 3325, the Secretary of Defense 

would be required to include information in each report indicating: (1) the extent 

to which the benefit levels provided under chapter 33 are adequate to achieve the 

purposes of inducing individuals to enter and remain in the Armed Forces and of 

providing an adequate level of financial assistance to help meet the cost of pursuing 

a program of education; (2) whether it is necessary for the purpose of maintaining 

adequate levels of well-qualified active-duty personnel in the Armed Forces to continue to offer the opportunity for educational assistance under chapter 33 to individuals who have not yet entered active-duty service; and (3) describing the efforts 

under section 3323(b) of title 38, United States Code, to inform members of the 

Armed Forces of the active-duty service requirements for entitlement to educational 

assistance benefits under chapter 33 and the results from such efforts. The Secretary would also be required to include such recommendations for administrative 

and legislative changes regarding the provision of educational assistance to members of the Armed Forces and Veterans, and their dependents, as the Secretary considers appropriate. VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding these proposed reporting requirements. 

Pursuant to subsection (c) of proposed new section 3325, the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs would be required to include in each report: (1) information concerning the 

level of utilization of educational assistance under chapter 33 and the expenditures 

under that chapter; (2) the number of credit hours, certificates, degrees, and other 

qualifications earned by beneficiaries under chapter 33 during the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the report is submitted; and (3) such recommendations for administrative and legislative changes regarding the provision of educational assistance to members of the Armed Forces and Veterans, and their dependents, as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

VA concurs, in principle, with the requirement to report annually on the Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill. However, we do not currently collect the number of credit hours, certificates, and other qualifications earned by individuals under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We 

estimate that we would need at least 12 months to develop a mechanism to track 

and report such information. 

Subsection (b) of the bill would repeal section 3036 of title 38, United States Code, 

which requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress at least once every 2 years separate reports on the operation of the Montgomery GI Bill—Active Duty, codified in chapter 30 of title 38. VA supports this repeal. 

We will provide an estimate of the cost of enactment for this bill for the record. 

[VA failed to provide the costs for H.R. 2274.] 

H.R. 2301 

H.R. 2301, entitled the ‘‘Streamlining Educational Claims Processing Act of 2011,’’ 

includes a requirement that VA make payments to educational institutions under 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill at the end of a quarter, semester, or term. 

Section 2 of the bill proposes to amend section 3301 of title 38, United States 

Code, to provide definitions for the terms ‘‘quarter, semester or term,’’ and ‘‘full-time 

pursuit.’’ A ‘‘quarter, semester, or term’’ would be defined as the academic period 

during which a course of education is pursued, as established by the educational institution. The legislation would define ‘‘full-time pursuit’’ as the pursuit of a program of education during any quarter, semester or term, as established by the educational institution. Currently these terms are not defined under section 3301. 

VA does not support section 2 as presented because the legislation would allow 

each educational institution to establish a definition for a quarter, semester, or 

term. Allowing educational institutions to establish their own definitions would add 

an additional level of complexity to understanding the program. If enacted, this 

change would also have a significant negative impact on VA’s Long-Term Solution 

(LTS) for processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. Currently, VA has standards regarding how many weeks of training constitute quarters and semesters. VA would have 

to make adjustments to the LTS to accommodate educational institutions’ definitions of quarter, semester, or term. 

Section 3 of the bill would amend section 3313 of title 38 to require VA to make 

payments under the Post-9/11 GI Bill to educational institutions not later than 30 

days following receipt of charges incurred by the individual at the end of the term. 

Currently, VA makes lump sum payments to the educational institutions for tuition 

costs on behalf of an individual pursuing a program of education upon receipt of an 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
60 

enrollment certification from the educational institution concerned. The changes 

made by this section would be effective for any quarter, semester, or term that begins on or after August 1, 2011. 

VA generally supports this section. We believe this amendment would minimize 

the probability of overpayments of educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill. However, we note that its enactment would potentially impact the timeliness 

of processing claims. Currently, VA processes tuition and fee payments upon receipt 

of an enrollment certification from a school. Requiring VA to hold tuition and fee 

payments to the end of the enrollment period would allow the educational institution time to submit changes or updates; however, holding the claim open during 

such period would, by definition, increase the amount of time it takes for VA to complete the claim. Additionally, if educational institutions submit enrollment certifications before the final charges are determined, VA may experience a significant increase in the number of claims submitted, which could negatively impact the average days to process claims. 

We also have concerns with the effective date of the legislation. Educational institutions begin submitting enrollment certifications as early as the month of June for 

terms that begin in August. If VA has already processed enrollments for terms that 

begin after August 1, 2011, educational institutions may have already received payments for terms that have not yet begun. Therefore, VA recommends postponing the 

effective date of this provision until August 1, 2012. 

Section 4 of the bill would amend subsection (h) of section 3313. It is unclear, 

however, whether the drafters intend to amend subsection (h) as currently in effect 

or whether they intend to amend that subsection as it will be in effect as of October 

1, 2011 (by virtue an amendment to section 3313 by section 105 of Public Law 111– 

377). Effective October 1, 2011, section 105(b) of Public Law 111–377 will operate 

to strike current section 3313(h) (Established charges defined) and redesignate current section 3313(g) (Payment of established charges to educational institutions) as 

section 3313(h). Finally, also effective on October 1, 2011, section 105(b) of the Public Law will add a new subsection (g) to section 3313 (Assistance for pursuit of programs of education other than programs of education leading to a degree). The text 

of section 4 is confusing in that it would amend section 3313(h) by striking ‘‘(h) Payment of Established Charges to Educational Institutions.—Amounts’’ and inserting 

‘‘(g) Payment of Established Charges.’’— 

‘‘(1) Payment to Educational Institutions—Amounts’’. (Emphasis added). We believe the drafters intended the first portion of the amendment to read ‘‘(h) Payment 

of Established Charges.—’’. Otherwise, this could be construed as supplanting the 

newly added language of subsection (g) discussed above. In addition, the affected 

subsection would be amended by the addition of a new paragraph (2), to require 

that VA determine the established charges for each credit hour of a program of education for any term, quarter or semester by dividing the total cost of the tuition for 

enrollment in the program of education on a full-time basis for that term, quarter 

or semester by the number of credit hours the educational institution is offering for 

the program course. 

It is not clear how this amendment would affect VA’s determinations of payments 

to educational institutions once various amendments that were made by Public Law 

111–377 become effective. Given the uncertainty surrounding section 4 of the proposal, VA is unable to provide views regarding that section at this time. We will 

seek clarification from the Subcommittee staff and provide comments on this section 

at a later date. 

We are unable to provide an estimate of the cost of enactment of H.R. 2301 at 

this time. However, once we clarify the drafters’ intent regarding section 4, we will 

provide that estimate for the record. [VA failed to provide the costs for H.R. 2301.] 

OTHER MATTERS 

H.R. 2345 

Title VII of Public Law 110–389 included provisions authorizing the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to: (1) provide assistance to the United States Paralympics (USP) 

to plan, develop, manage and implement an adaptive sports program for disabled 

Veterans and disabled members of the Armed forces (codified at 38 U.S.C. § 521A); 

and (2) award a monthly assistance allowance to Veterans training for or selected 

to compete on the U.S. Paralympic team (codified at 38 U.S.C. § 322). The respective 

funding authorities for these provisions are set to expire at the end of fiscal year 

2013. 

Section 1 of H.R. 2345 would amend section 322(d)(4) to extend, for a period of 

5 years (through FY 2018), the authority for appropriations to fund VA’s payment 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
61 

of monthly monetary allowances. Section 2 of the bill would amend section 521A(g) 

to extend, for a period of 5 years (through FY 2018), the authority for appropriations 

to fund VA’s above-described provision of assistance to the United States 

Paralympics; it also would amend section 521A(l) to similarly extend the termination date for provision of such assistance (through FY 2018). 

Extending these authorities would allow VA and the U.S. Paralympics to continue 

developing their adaptive sports programming while building stronger relationships 

with partner organizations in Veterans’ communities, allowing Veterans to continue 

their rehabilitation through sports for years to come. Thus, subject to the availability of funding, we fully support these extensions. 

By its own terms, the cost of enactment of this bill would be $10 million in fiscal 

year 2014, with a total 5-year cost (FY 2014 through FY 2018) of $50 million. 

H.R. 240 

Section 1(a) of H.R. 240 would change the wording in section 8127 of title 38, 

United States Code, from ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall,’’ to require contracting officers to contract 

with service-disabled Veteran-owned or Veteran-owned small businesses for all VA 

procurements under $5 million using other than competitive procedures for purposes 

of meeting the contracting goals and preferences established by the Secretary. The 

businesses must be deemed responsible and VA has to make an award at a fair and 

reasonable price. In addition, Section 1(b) would require VA to issue interim policy 

guidance to carry out this authority within 30 days of enactment. 

VA opposes this legislation because the proposed language would be too restrictive, and would remove necessary business judgments that must be made at the discretion of VA contracting officers to acquire goods and services by the best means 

available for each applicable acquisition. Moreover, full and open competition, not 

the use of other-than-competitive procedures, is the most preferred acquisition 

methodology, as competition is the best means to achieve a fair and reasonable 

price. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 8127(d), VA is currently required to set-aside acquisitions over $3,000 on a full and open competitive basis for service-disabled Veteranowned or Veteran-owned small businesses on a priority basis when two or more 

such businesses are found in market research and an award can be made at a fair 

and reasonable price. Furthermore, pursuant to this existing authority, VA has consistently achieved its socioeconomic contracting goals for service-disabled Veteranowned and Veteran-owned small businesses since the enactment of 38 U.S.C. § 8127 

in 2006. 

H.R. 2302 

H.R. 2302 would amend title 38, United States Code, by adding a new section 517 

to require the Secretary (VA) to notify Congress in advance of certain ‘‘covered’’ conferences sponsored by VA that would cost the Department at least $5,000. 

Subsection (a) of proposed new section 517 would provide that, not later than 180 

days before the date on which a covered conference begins, the Secretary shall notify 

the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the House and Senate of such conference, 

including the estimated costs to the Department. 

Subsection (b) of the proposed new section would provide that, not later than 60 

days after the date on which a covered conference ends, the Secretary shall submit 

to the Veterans’ Affairs Committees a report that includes an accounting of the final 

costs of the conference to the Department. 

Subsection (c) of the proposed new section would define the term ‘‘covered conference’’ to mean a conference, meeting, or similar forum that is sponsored or cosponsored by VA and is: (1) held for a period of 3 or more days (beginning at the 

time of the initial on-site registration and ending at the time the final event is completed); (2) attended by 20 or more individuals, including one or more VA employees; 

or (3) estimated to cost the Department at least $5,000, including costs related to 

transportation and parking, per diem payments, lodging, rental of halls, auditoriums, or other spaces, rental of equipment, refreshments, entertainment, contractors, and brochures and other printed media. 

VA opposes this bill as it would impose burdensome notification and reporting requirements on the Department. It would also discourage legitimate and beneficial 

conference activities, including in-person gatherings within VA, and with other Federal agencies, Veterans Services Organizations and Veterans advocates, and businesses encouraged to hire Veterans. In addition, the 180-day notification requirement would limit VA leadership’s ability to promptly and appropriately respond to 

training, planning, or other emergent operational needs. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
62 

All VA national events require notice to and/or approvals from VA Executive Management. Any conference that will be attended by more than 100 individuals must 

be approved in advance by VA’s Chief of Staff. When VA determines a face-to-face 

conference is the most preferred manner of conducting training, it complies with 

Government-wide regulations to identify potential locations and hotels. All proposed 

conference contracts for amounts exceeding $25,000 are reviewed by VA’s Office of 

General Counsel. Conference contracts also undergo technical review. The process 

for determining conference locations is consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and is driven by the specific requirements of each conference. 

The definition of ‘‘covered conferences’’ in H.R. 2302 captures the majority of operational meetings that are planned in the day-to-day administration of VA’s large 

health care, benefits and cemetery systems. Because of the low participant and dollar thresholds, it would include minor gatherings and those events that feature a 

substantial virtual component. The bill’s requirements would hinder the Department’s ability to effectively plan day-to-day business activities and meet emerging 

business needs, and would not provide any additional value to the current review 

process. For example, VA medical center directors could not conduct timely town 

hall meetings, the Deputy Secretary could not conduct a timely Operational Management Review, and VA medical centers could not conduct timely grand rounds. 

In addition, conferences are an indispensable tool for VA training. The success of 

VA transformation, cultural change, and effective implementation of new policies (as 

well as carrying out changes in programs resulting from legislative enactments) are 

dependent on the ability of VA to carry out effective training. VA conferences also 

address maintenance and appearance of 131 national cemeteries, accountability and 

quality control procedures, and the administration of VA benefits related to burial 

and memorializing of our Nation’s fallen heroes and their eligible family members. 

Moreover, VHA provides workforce development and continuing education for more 

than 239,000 health care professionals and support staff at over 1,400 sites of care 

nationwide. Much of this training is necessary for these health care professionals 

to obtain and maintain their required licensing and certifications. 

VA is unable to estimate the costs associated with this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Statement of Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Au.D., 

Chair, Government Relations Committee, Gold Star 

Wives of America, Inc. 

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God 

gives us to see right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up the Nation’s 

wounds, to care for him who has borne the battle, his widow and his orphan.’’ 

. . . President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865 

Chairman Stutsman, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the Subcommittee on Economic and Opportunities, thank you for the opportunity to present 

testimony on behalf of Gold Star Wives of America (GSW). 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki once stated, ‘‘Taking care of survivors 

is as essential as taking care of our Veterans and military personnel. By taking care 

of survivors, we are honoring a commitment made to our Veterans and military 

members.’’ We thank this committee for including us today to honor that commitment. 

I am Vivianne Wersel, the Chair of the Gold Star Wives’ Government Relations 

Committee. I am the surviving spouse of Lt Col Richard Wersel, Jr. USMC who died 

suddenly on February 4, 2005, 1 week after he returned from his second tour of duty 

in Iraq. Gold Star Wives of America, founded in 1945, is a congressionally chartered 

organization of spouses of servicemembers who died while on active duty or who 

died as the result of a service-connected disability. It is an all-volunteer organization. We could begin with no better advocate than Eleanor Roosevelt, newly widowed, who helped make Gold Star Wives a truly national organization. Mrs. Roosevelt was an original signer of our Certificate of Incorporation and a member of 

the Board of Directors. Our current membership encompasses surviving spouses of 

servicemembers who died while on active duty or as a result of a service-connected 

disability during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the first Gulf 

War, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and every period in between. 

Gold Star Wives is an organization of those who are left behind when our Nation’s 

heroes, bearing the burden of freedom for all of us, have fallen. We are that family 

minus one; we are spouses and children, all having suffered the unbearable loss of 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
63 

our spouses, fathers or mothers. We are those to whom Abraham Lincoln referred 

when he made the government’s commitment ‘‘. . . to care for him who shall have 

borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.’’ 

This hearing encompasses various House bills; some do not reflect our membership. Today, I will focus on the legislation that pertains to military and veterans’ 

surviving spouses. 

H.R. 120—Disabled Veterans’ Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act 

Disabled Veterans’ Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act—to provide for eligibility 

for housing loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs for the surviving 

spouses of certain totally-disabled veterans. 

CRS Summary 

Disabled Veterans’ Surviving Spouses Home Loans Act—Includes as a veteran, for 

purposes of eligibility for housing loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA), the surviving spouse of a veteran who at the time of death was in receipt of or entitled to compensation for a service-connected disability rated totally disabling if: (1) the disability was so rated for 10 or more years preceding death; (2) 

the disability was so rated for at least 5 years since the veteran’s discharge or release 

from active duty; or (3) the veteran was a former prisoner of war who died after September 30, 1999, and the disability was so rated for at least 1 year preceding death. 

Requires any applicable VA housing loan fee to be collected from such spouse. 

This legislation will cover the surviving spouses of totally-disabled veterans who 

were not included in earlier legislation for VA home loan guarantees. 

Despite the implication in statement concerning fees in the above summary, it appears to this legal novice that the VA fee for surviving spouses of totally-disabled 

veterans is waived. Earlier legislation waived the VA fee for surviving spouses included in earlier legislation. 

GSW supports the legislation. 

H.R. 240—Sole Source Government Contracts for Small Businesses—Vet Preference 

CRS Summary 

Requires (current law authorizes) a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contracting officer to award contracts to small businesses owned and controlled by veterans using other than competitive procedures for contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold in order to meet VA small business procurement contracting 

goals. 

After the death of a veteran spouse, the surviving spouse is left behind to maintain the family’s financial stability. Some surviving spouses were in business with 

the veteran spouse before their death, and other surviving spouses have the means 

and desire to start a business on their own. GSW supports this bill and suggests 

that surviving spouses of veterans who died of a service-connected cause and own 

small businesses be included in this legislation. 

GSW supports this legislation. 

H.R. 1263 

CRS Summary 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide surviving spouses with 

certain protections relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosures. Amends the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to afford surviving spouses of servicemembers who die while in the military and whose death is service-connected the 

same protections against sale, foreclosure, and seizure of property currently applicable to their husbands who while in military service are unable to meet an obligation 

on real or personal property. 

With the economic stresses the country now faces, we have many surviving 

spouses who worry about losing their jobs and/or when they will be able to retire. 

Some are one-step away from a car that stops running or an unmet house payment. 

Many of our members have a serious problem making house payments when their 

spouse dies. Not all surviving spouses receive the SGLI and the Death Gratuity 

today, as both may now be assigned to others, leaving the surviving spouse unable 

to meet their existing financial obligations. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
64 

Our concern is that this legislation applies only to surviving spouses of those who 

die on active duty. Surviving spouses of servicemembers who subsequently die of 

wounds or illness should be entitled to the same protection. 

GSW supports this legislation and suggests that surviving spouses of servicemembers who subsequently die of wounds or illness be given this same protection. 

H.R. 1911—Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act 

CRS Summary 

Amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to extend from 9 to 12 months after 

military service the period of protection against mortgage sale or foreclosure, as 

well as the stay of proceedings, in the case of an obligation on real property of 

a servicemember that originated before the period of military service. 

Amends the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to repeal the sunset date 

for such periods of relief. 

GSW supports this legislation that would extend the time period in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act from 9 to 12 months after military service, and repeals 

the sunset date for such periods of relief in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act 

of 2008. 

GSW supports this legislation. 

H.R. 2274 

Latest Title: To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress annual reports on 

the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program, and for other purposes. 

GSW supports this legislation and suggests that chapter 35, Dependents Educational Assistance benefits be included in this report. 

H.R. 2301—Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 2011 

Latest Title: Payments will be made to Educational Institutions at end of semester for Post-9/11 education benefits. 

GSW does not support this legislation. 

This legislation would reduce the VA administrative costs and remove some of the 

turbulence from the processing of tuition benefits; it also has the potential to put 

students with limited income like surviving spouses whose children are entitled to 

these benefits in financial jeopardy. Delaying payment of tuition until the end of the 

term, quarter or semester would require the student or the surviving parent to 

cover the tuition costs out-of-pocket, which would be a financial hardship for many 

students and surviving parents. 

Many educational institutions have agreed to waiver payment of tuition for 60– 

90 days; however, there is currently no waiver in place that provides for tuition to 

be paid at the end of the term, quarter or semester. 

Even if the educational institution agreed to waive payment of tuition until the 

end of the term, quarter or semester, if the student is unable to complete the course 

of study successfully, this bill shifts the cost of the tuition debt as well as the cost 

of collecting the tuition debt from the VA to the educational institution. Due to the 

number of severely injured veterans and the veterans who suffer from TBI and 

PTSD, there may be many who cannot complete the course of education covered by 

the tuition. Educational institutions might cease to admit students using post 9–11 

educational benefits. The VA has better resources from which to collect such a tuition debt. 

H.R. 2329—Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act 

Text of Legislation 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for certain requirements 

for financial institutions that are creditors for obligations and liabilities covered by 

that Act. 

This is an enforcement parameter of the SCRA-to appoint a compliance officer at 

creditors- it makes someone at the creditors’ office responsible for compliance (i.e., ensuring interest rates are lowered accordingly, that homes are not foreclosed when people are deployed, etc.) For the larger companies, ensures debtors can contact creditors 

through a phone number set up for this purpose. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
65 

The families of the Nation’s fallen have already suffered the greatest loss; there 

is no need to make these families struggle further. We are not living the ‘‘good life’’, 

but rather are living a modest life and sometimes existing near poverty levels. 

There are numerous news articles about the shenanigans some of the banks and 

other mortgage holders are pulling on those attempting to reduce their monthly 

mortgage payment and avoid foreclosure. This legislation would be helpful to surviving spouses who need to reduce their monthly mortgage payment. 

GSW supports this legislation. 

Gold Star Wives appreciates the compassionate work that Members of this Subcommittee and the staff do on our behalf. We always stand ready to provide this 

Subcommittee with any additional needed information. We are the voice of the surviving spouses and their children. 

f 

Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), thanks you for the opportunity to 

submit a statement for the record regarding the proposed legislation being considered today. PVA appreciates the fact that you are addressing these important issues 

that affect the economic wellbeing of veterans. We support your effort to help these 

men and women that have honorably served their nation transition successfully 

back to the civilian world. 

H.R. 120 

PVA supports H.R. 120, legislation that would modify the existing housing loan 

program for veterans which provides a loan guarantee by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This bill would expand the program to include the surviving spouse 

of a veteran who was 100 percent service-connected disabled if the disability was 

so rated for 10 years preceding death; the disability was so rated for 5 years since 

the veteran’s discharge, or the veteran was a former prisoner of war who died after 

September 30, 1999, and the disability was so rated for at least 1 year preceding 

death. 

H.R. 240 

PVA supports H.R. 240, which would promote employment for veterans in the current unfavorable employment market. This bill insures more veteran owned businesses receive consideration for government contracts. Veteran owned businesses 

tend to employ more veterans that nonveteran owned businesses. This would require VA contracting officers to award contracts to veteran owned small businesses 

through the use of sole source contracting. The use of the sole source contracting 

policy would result in contracts to veteran owned businesses that would exceed the 

minimal requirement of 3 percent. 

H.R. 1263 

PVA supports H.R. 1263, legislation to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act to afford surviving spouses of servicemembers who die while in the military and 

whose death is service-connected the same protections against sale, foreclosure, and 

seizure of property currently applicable to their husbands who while in the military 

service are unable to meet an obligation on real or personal property. 

H.R. 1911 

PVA supports H.R. 1911, the ‘‘Protecting Veterans’ Homes Act’’. This bill would 

extend the current protection authorized by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

from the current time of 9 months to 12 months after military service. This protection would apply to the sale or foreclosure, as well as the stay of proceedings, in 

case of an obligation of real property of a servicemember that originated before the 

period of military service. 

H.R. 2274 

PVA supports H.R. 2274, which would require an annual report to Congress from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense providing detailed 

information on the usage of, and their future recommendations for the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill. This report will help identify the effectiveness of the current program to recruit 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
66 

and retain members of the Armed Forces. These motivating factors were taken into 

consideration when developing this benefit. The report should also help identify 

shortcomings in the program, which could include access to, or inadequate financial 

assistance. The report will also indicate the number of certificates, degrees, and 

completed programs the veterans and servicemembers have accomplished for each 

year. This information will document the success of the program for preparing these 

men and women to enter the civilian workforce for current employment, or future 

employment after military service. This report will be a valuable tool for Congress 

as they make legislative changes to reshape the Post-9/11 GI Bill in the future. 

H.R. 2301 

PVA supports H.R. 2301, the ‘‘Streamlining Education Claims Processing Act of 

2011.’’ Making this change in the payment schedule to educational institutions will 

accommodate the changing educational class loads of the veterans resulting in the 

correct payment to the institution at the end of the educational session. 

H.R. 2302 

PVA does not have a position on H.R. 2302, legislation that would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify Congress of conferences sponsored by the VA. 

We do question the value of this requirement. This would involve professional staff 

time to coordinate such events while complying with the advanced notification time, 

determining which events meet the criteria, tracking expenses, reporting expenses, 

and submitting reports to Congress. This seems to be an extreme example of Congress trying to micro-manage one of the largest agencies in the Federal Government. 

The goals of conferences sponsored by the VA are generally educational or to disseminate information applicable to carrying out its mission. This could include raising awareness of problems, or better methods or solutions to address issues within 

the VA. We feel the VA staff realize their agency must function within a limited 

budget which means they would be selective on topics and critical of the value of 

conferences they sponsor. 

H.R. 2345 

PVA supports H.R. 2345, a bill that would reauthorize the Paralympics program 

that has partnered with the VA to expand sports and recreation opportunities to 

disabled veterans and injured servicemembers. We believe that this has certainly 

been a worthwhile program as the need for expansion of these activities is necessary. We appreciate the role that the Paralympics have played in this expansion. 

However, as we expressed during original consideration of this program in 2008, 

we remain concerned about a general lack of transparency. We believe a better and 

more open explanation of what expansion efforts have actually taken place needs 

to be expressed. Additionally, as we testified in 2008, we believe that the grant review and approval process needs to be more open so that Congress as well as the 

American public can see how the money that has been authorized is being spent. 

Lastly, further oversight needs to be conducted to ensure that administrative 

costs of these programs are being minimized. The original law mandated that no 

more than 5 percent of the Paralympics funding could support administrative costs 

and no more than 10 percent could support administrative costs for grant recipients. 

While we believe the Paralympics are doing a reasonable job of meeting this requirement, we are concerned that the VA General Counsel’s opinion on indirect 

versus direct costs could allow them to skirt the original intent of the legislation 

to hold down actual administrative costs. We would encourage the Subcommittee to 

investigate this further. 

H.R. 2329 

PVA supports H.R. 2329, the ‘‘Ensuring a Response for Servicemembers Act’’. This 

places increasing requirements on lending institutions that benefit from conducting 

business with servicemembers. They would be required to establish a compliance officer for providing information to servicemembers and in addition, depending on assets of the institution, required to establish a toll-free telephone number to address 

problems with servicemembers’ accounts. This will help address some problems of 

the lack of communication with institutions that have been reported in past hearings dealing with servicemembers conducting business with lending institutions. 

Mr. Chairman, Paralyzed Veterans of America appreciates this opportunity to express our views on these issues. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee 

on these and other issues in the future. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
67 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

July 13, 2011 

MG David Bockel, USA (Ret.) 

Executive Director 

Reserve Officers Association of the United States 

One Constitution Avenue, NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Dear MG Bockel: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed question for the record I am 

submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee 

on Economic Opportunity Legislative Hearing on July 7, 2011. Please answer the 

enclosed hearing questions by no later than Thursday, August 18, 2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225– 

9756. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce L. Braley 

Ranking Member 

JL/ot 

Question for the Record from the 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

July 7, 2011 Legislative Hearing 

Question 1: In your written testimony, you stated that there are many other 

kinds of leases and contracts that the person entering active duty may need to terminate. Can you give us a list of these leases and contracts for review? 

Response: There are many things that a civilian may regard as ‘‘necessities’’ that 

quickly become ‘‘encumbrances’’ when he or she is called to active duty. Under the 

Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), dating back to 1917, a person entering active duty (by draft, by voluntary enlistment, or by call-up from the National 

Guard or Reserve) has had the right to terminate a lease on PREMISES (apartment, house, office, farm, etc.). 

In 2003, Congress enacted the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), as a longoverdue rewrite of the SCRA. In 2003, Congress continued the right to terminate 

a lease on premises and added the right to terminate a lease on a VEHICLE. 

Just last year, Congress enacted an effective provision giving the person entering 

active duty the right to terminate a CELL PHONE contract. 

While these provisions are good, there are many other leases or contracts that the 

person entering active duty will need to terminate. 

The Reserve Officer Association would favor a provision giving the person entering active duty the right to terminate any contract or lease for goods or services that 

has more than 3 months to go at the time the person enters active duty. This should 

apply to goods and services for the individual’s personal use and for business use. 

Examples include: 

Professional Health Care Equipment Leases 

Professional Legal Equipment Leases, Services Agreements and Subscriptions. 

House Security Alarm Contracts 

Cable Television agreements 

DirectTV contracts 

Gym memberships 

Some Utility Contracts. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
68 

Currently, the only option under section 591 of the SCRA (50 U.S.C. App. 591) 

is to apply to a court for relief from a pre-service obligations under an equipment 

lease. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

July 13, 2011 

Mr. Arthur F. Kirk, Jr. 

President 

Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, FL. 

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities 

1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 700 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Dear Mr. Kirk: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed question for the record I am 

submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee 

on Economic Opportunity Legislative Hearing on July 7, 2011. Please answer the 

enclosed hearing questions by no later than Thursday, August 18, 2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225– 

9756. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce L. Braley 

Ranking Member 

JL/ot 

Question for the record of July 7, 2011, Legislative Hearing 

from Representative Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Member 

of Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the House Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

to Dr. Arthur F. Kirk, Jr. (President of Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, 

Florida) 

Question 1: In your testimony you mentioned that if H.R. 2301 were to pass, 

‘‘issues related to billing and to the assignment of responsibility for payment will 

be less clear. ’’ How can the legislation be improved to avoid this problem?’’ 

Response: Billing issue: The need to make modifications in a school’s SIS systems and billing processes to accommodate payments at the end of the term/semester. 

Any change to the current payment system will require these types of modifications by the school, but there are better ways than delaying payment until after the 

end of the term. 

In my testimony, I noted that Saint Leo is implementing a new two-step veteran’s 

certification process. Our Veterans Certifying Officers will enter the veteran as a 

student, but will certify zero tuition and fees in VAOnce, the VA GI Bill database 

system, at the semester’s start. After the period for adding and dropping courses 

ends, we will then reenter in VAOnce and add the tuition and fee charges for all 

the courses in which the veteran is actually enrolled. We believe this approach 

would work better than delaying payments until after the term has ended. 

Billing issue: The need to address school policies that prevent registration for future terms/semesters for students with outstanding balances. 

Saint Leo could waive the financial holds. However, we would not always know 

the amounts expected from the VA. Since many students are not at 100 percent of 

eligibility, they often incur out-of-pocket costs. We would always be running behind 

and never have a true sense of what the student owes. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
69 

Assignment for responsibility for payment: This question arises in situations 

where a student withdraws—particularly if the student withdraws during a refund 

period. 

I would also mention that the bigger question related to assignment of responsibility for payment is not tied to H.R. 2301, but rather to the ‘‘net payer’’ provision 

in effect this August 1. Saint Leo University has always certified for the full tuition 

amount and has never had to consider any other type of aid the student may have 

received. As has happened in the past, there have been no final regulations/guidelines/training issued prior to the effective date. So, it is not clear yet how this will 

work. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

July 13, 2011 

Susan C. Aldridge, Ph.D. 

President 

University of Maryland University College 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities 

1307 New York Avenue, NW 

Fifth Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Dr. Aldridge: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for the record I 

am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative Hearing on July 7, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Thursday, August 18, 2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225– 

9756. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce L. Braley 

Ranking Member 

JL/ot 

f 

American Association of State Colleges and Universities 

Washington, DC. 

August 18, 2011 

The Honorable Bruce Braley 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Questions for the Record, July 7, 2011 Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2301 

Dear Ranking Member Braley: 

Enclosed please find the requested response to your questions for the record regarding the July 7, 2011 testimony of the American Association of State Colleges 

and Universities (AASCU) and President Susan C. Aldridge, University of MaryVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jan 27, 2012 Jkt 067457 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\68457.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68457

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
70 

land—University College. If you or other Members of the Subcommittee have further questions, we would be happy to address them at your earliest convenience. 

Regards, 

Ed Elmendorf 

Senior Vice President 

Government Relations and Policy Analysis 

lm/EE 

Enclosure 

Responses Submitted by AASCU for the Record in Response 

to Ranking Member Braley’s 

Submitted Questions Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Question 1: How would VA benefit from adapting Department of Education’s 

Common Origination and Disbursement system? 

Answer: To electronically disburse Higher Education Act title 4 Federal financial 

aid, the U.S. Department of Education developed the Common Origination and Disbursement system (COD). The COD has evolved into an efficient interface between 

the Federal Government and institutions of higher education. The system is used 

to record and reconcile awards and disbursements to individual students. Institutions submit data to the COD using batch files written in Extensible Markup Language format (XML). These files provide a host of eligibility and enrollment data 

to the Department. The COD acknowledges receipt of the file and issues a report 

of accepted and rejected data elements. The COD is used to inform the Department 

of any changes to enrollment, eligibility status, and resultant award or disbursement changes. The award and disbursement information is used to control fund 

availability to institutions for disbursement and to reconcile disbursements to students with funds drawn by the institution. 

The benefit of the COD is that it allows institutions to share information with 

the Federal Government in a flexible and dynamic manner. While the VA could benefit from a COD-like system, the current fabrication of the Post-9/11 GI Bill program is highly rigid. As such, the efficiencies of the COD would not be helpful given 

current VA processes. Should the VA decide to move toward a more flexible and dynamic process of certification, disbursement, return of funds, and corrections, the 

COD would be an excellent model to replicate as appropriate in the VA program. 

Question 2: If the University of Maryland were required to carry all the veterans’ 

unpaid balances, how much would that be? 

Answer: For the past academic year (2010/2011), University of Maryland University College alone (not including the ten other degree granting institutions within 

the University System of Maryland) carried nearly $30,000,000 in VA payments 

across the three semesters (Summer 2010, Fall 2010, and Spring 2011). For the previous academic year, that total was approximately $14,000,000, based upon the Fall 

2009 and Spring 2010 semesters as the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance 

Act of 2008 was implemented on August 1, 2009. 

Question 3: How much more money have veterans and the G.I. Bill brought to 

schools and is any of this money being used to address their unique payment needs? 

Answer: According to statistics released by the National Center for Veterans 

Analysis and Statistics, the Post-9/11 GI Bill served 384,552 participants nationwide 

in 2010. (Expenditure data from the same source mingles Vocational Rehabilitation 

spending with both the Post-9/11 GI Bill and the Montgomery GI Bill and therefore 

is not provided here.) 

We defer to the VA to provide the most recent data for expenditures under the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill program. We also note that to get an accurate nationwide figure 

of institutional receipts it would be necessary for VA to disaggregate data on tuition 

and fee payments made directly to institutions (as well as reconcile overpayments 

returned by institutions due to VA error, student enrollment changes, and so forth) 

from BAH and book stipend payments made directly to student veterans. 

While veteran enrollment has increased with the Post-9/11 GI Bill, it is difficult 

to determine on a national level whether veteran students are additions to the target number of students that institutions would have enrolled anyway—or if, in fact, 

veterans displaced civilians in enrolled classes of students. If an institution maintained its predetermined enrollment target, then the Post-9/11 GI Bill funds used 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
71 

to pay a veteran’s tuition and fees at the institution would have been equal to the 

funds received by a nonveteran minus any institutional aid that the nonveteran received. If veteran students enrolled over and above the institution’s previously set 

target enrollment numbers, then tuition and fee payments from the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill could be considered additional funding; however, these payments serve to defray 

the institutional costs of providing the veteran with a proper education. 

Higher education as a whole, however, is adapting to serve the unique needs of 

its veteran population. According to the first national survey of higher education institutions about their institutional programs and services for servicemembers and 

veterans conducted in 2009 by a group of higher education and veterans’ associations (AASCU, ACE, NASPA, NAVPA, and SOC), 57 percent of the 723 responding 

institutions offered programs and services specifically tailored to servicemembers 

and veterans. Roughly 60 percent of the respondents also indicated that programs 

and services for servicemembers and veterans were a part of their institutions’ longrange strategic plan. Many institutions (both public and private) also offered tuition 

discounts, in-state tuition eligibility for veterans and families, and scholarships for 

veterans. 

Finding funding for additional campus programs and services for veterans and 

families was a common priority for institutions already offering such programs 

(From Soldier to Student, Figure 4, p. 18). In the public 4-year sector, roughly 46 

percent of institutional respondents indicated that as a priority, compared with 

about 35 percent of private 4-year institutions. 

Institutions have gone about raising additional funds and creating methods to 

support veteran students on campus and their families—since tuition and fee monies, as stated above, are intended to defray the instructional costs of providing students with an education—in various ways. Some AASCU member examples are as 

follows: 

• George Mason University: won a 2-year, $100,000 Success for Veterans 

Award grant from ACE and the Wal-Mart Foundation to fund their Office of 

Military Services after setting aside funds from different offices to create a military liaison position. The grant funding also helped George Mason to hire a 

military and veteran student counselor for the university’s Counseling and Psychological Services office who is specifically trained and experienced in dealing 

with issues such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder (PTSD). In addition, the university also received a grant from the Aurora Foundation to support a veteran transition course taught by an assistant 

dean and has veterans working in the Military Services office who are funded 

by the VA work-study program. 

• San Diego State University: through private fundraising and support from 

the university president, created what is believed to be the first fraternitystyled ‘‘Veterans House’’ for student veterans and servicemembers to live on 

campus; the house also serves as a community hub for student veterans on campus. SDSU also won an ACE/Wal-Mart grant for its veteran services programs. 

In addition, SDSU’s Campanile Foundation has raised over $150,000 for the 

Troops to College program to date; its goal is to provide scholarships, book 

vouchers and enrichment opportunities to veteran students on campus, as well 

as to support the SDSU student veterans organization. 

• New Jersey Association of State Colleges and Universities: the association of 9 public colleges and universities initially created Operation College 

Promise (OCP) to serve as a Web portal on college information for returning 

servicemembers. Winning an ACE/Wal-Mart grant allowed it to expand its 

scope to identifying and widely disseminating best practices for veteran services 

on campus, including training staff and faculty and developing a resource manual for campus service providers. According to the OCP Web site, the project 

currently supports more than 12,000 veterans and their dependents attending 

NJASCU campuses. 

f 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
72 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

July 13, 2011 

Mr. Curtis L. Coy 

Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Secretary Coy: 

I would like to request your response to the enclosed questions for the record I 

am submitting in reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Legislative Hearing on July 7, 2011. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later than Thursday, August 18, 2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all full committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 225– 

9756. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce L. Braley 

Ranking Member 

JL/ot 

Department of Veterans (VA) replies to 

Questions for the Record from 

Ranking Member Bruce Braley 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Legislative Hearing 

July 7, 2011 

Question 1: A suggestion was made by a witness that to manage the Post-9/11 

GI Bill program the VA should adapt the Department of Education’s Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system. Has VA considered adopting COD? What 

are some, if any, challenges the VA would have in applying the COD system? 

Response: VA has considered the feasibility of employing a system similar to the 

Department of Education’s (ED) COD system. In 2008, VA met with ED for a demonstration of its system. At that time VA was still developing detailed business requirements but knew we would need a system that could do the following: 

1. Issue payments both to students and schools though Treasury after approval; 

2. Allow VA to tie and track payment information to a specific Veteran; 

3. Allow VA to establish accounts receivable and transfer all debt information to 

the VA Debt Management System; 

4. Allow VA employees to enter adjustments to beneficiaries; and 

5. Maintain detailed accounting information at the beneficiary level. 

After meeting with ED, VA determined that the COD system would not meet all 

of our requirements. 

On June 30, 2011, representatives from VA and ED met to discuss their respective programs and to get a better understanding of each system. From this meeting, 

VA determined that the systems were incompatible. Major differences exist in the 

way the programs are administered, which preclude VA from adopting ED’s COD 

system. 

Question 2: When will VA determine the full impact of H.R. 120 on the Veterans 

Benefits Housing Program? 

Response: VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 120 would result in additional 

loan subsidy costs of approximately $441 thousand in FY 2012., $4.6 million over 

5 years, and $12.8 million over 10 years. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
73 

Fiscal Year Caseload Cost ($000s) 

2012 575 $441 

2013 575 625 

2014 575 990 

2015 575 1,174 

2016 575 1,364 

5–Year Total 2,875 $4,594 

2017 575 1,486 

2018 575 1,577 

2019 575 1,660 

2020 575 1,722 

2021 575 1,781 

10–Year Total 5,750 $12,820 

VA estimates the population of surviving spouses of 100 percent service-connected 

Veterans who did not die as a result of their disabilities to be 41,461. Applying the 

FY 2010 usage rate of 1.39 percent to this population, VA estimates an additional 

575 VA-guaranteed loans each year for these beneficiaries. In VA’s housing financial 

model, the incremental workload of 575 loans each year is assigned to three loan 

categories: 5 percent loans, 10 percent loans, and no down payment loans. Twentynine loans are assigned to the 5 percent loan category as well as the 10 percent loan 

category. The remaining 517 loans are assigned to the no down payment loan category. 

Question 3: What are the main differences in how VA pays for tuition versus the 

Department of Education? 

Response: Few differences exist in how tuition is paid by the Departments. Both 

VA and ED send payment information to Treasury who will then release the payments. Both VA and ED have the ability to pay by check or by EFT. ED has more 

advanced automated tools that schools can use to reconcile payments received to accounts. 

Question 4:: What does paying for ‘‘actual charges’’ and being the ‘‘last payor’’ 

mean for VA tuition payments? 

Response: The Post-9/11 GI Bill is one of various programs that provides funds 

designated to cover, in whole or part, tuition and fees for an eligible Veteran, 

Servicemember or dependent. Other programs providing funding include: DoD Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarships, DoD Health Professionals Scholarships, Merit Scholarships, employer-paid tuition, and State tuition reductions provided for State National Guard members. 

Often the money from the other programs is credited to a student’s account before 

VA receives an enrollment certification from the school. Currently, schools submit 

enrollment certifications and report established tuition and fee charges for the student’s program of education without deducting payments received from other programs. In this situation, VA’s payment to the school would be greater than the remaining balance owed for tuition and fees. 

Asking the schools to report only the actual charges that the student was required 

to pay with his or her own funds eliminates duplication of benefits, provides clear 

rules for students and schools, and streamlines the process. 

Question 5: What is the average student veteran population at universities 

across the country? 

Response: Data from VA’s annual reporting fee list shows the average VA beneficiary population at universities and training facilities across the country, including 

U.S. territories, was 89 per educational institution in calendar year 2010. This average is based on 810,116 beneficiaries enrolled at 9,110 educational institutions. 

However, an individual may have attended more than one educational institution. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
74 

This beneficiary count includes attendance in all VA education programs, including 

the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (chapter 31) program and the Dependents’ Educational Assistance (chapter 35) program. 

Æ 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING