TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS 

OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND 

EDUCATION BENEFITS FOR THE TOTAL 

MILITARY FORCE 

Field Hearing

before the

Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on 

economic Opportunity

one hundred ninth congress

Second session

March 22, 2006

Hearing Held in Rogers, Arkansas

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-41

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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

u.s. government printing office

washington : 2007

26-679.PDF
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Steve Buyer, Indiana, Chairman

Michael Bilirakis, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois, Ranking

Terry Everett, Alabama Bob Filner, California

Cliff Stearns, Florida Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois

dan burton, Indiana Corrine Brown, Florida

Jerry Moran, Kansas Vic Snyder, Arkansas

richard H. baker, Louisiana Michael H. Michaud, Maine

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina Stephanie Herseth, South 

Jeff Miller, Florida Dakota

John Boozman, Arkansas Ted Strickland, Ohio

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Silvestre Reyes, Texas

Michael R. Turner, Ohio ShellEy Berkley, Nevada

John Campbell, California Tom Udall, New Mexico

 John T. Salazar, Colorado

JAMES M. LARIVIERE, Staff Director

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity

John Boozman, Arkansas, Chairman Stephanie herseth, South 

Richard H. Baker, Louisiana Dakota, Ranking

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida, Vice Chairwoman Darlene Hooley, Oregon

John Campbell, California Lane Evans, Illinois

 

Michael F. Brinck, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

March 22, 2006

 Page

1

 1

80

2

 3

10

4

82

6

85

7

89

10

94

22

98

28

107

31

112

32

116

Transition Assistance for Members of the National Guard 

  and Education Benefits for the Total Military Force  ...........

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Boozman .................................................................... 

Prepared statement of Chairman Boozman ..............................

Hon. Stephanie Herseth, Ranking Democratic Member .........

Hon. Vic Snyder  .........................................................................

Hon. Mark L. Pryor, U.S. Senator from Arkansas  ..................

Witnesses

DeSoto, Jason, Captain, A/1-142 FA BN, Arkansas National

 Guard .....................................................................................

Prepared statement of Captain DeSoto ....................................

Page, Dwayne K., 1ST LT, C/1-142 FA BN, Arkansas National

 Guard .....................................................................................

Prepared statement of 1st LT Page ..........................................

Peters, Bryan L., Master Sergeant, Noncommissioned Officer

in Charge, Personnel Readiness, Arkansas National Guard.

Prepared statement of Master Sergeant Peters ......................

Rothwell, John H., III, Specialist, B/1-14 FA BN, Arkansas 

 National Guard ......................................................................

Prepared statement of Specialist Rothwell ..............................

Haltom, Larry, BG, Deputy Adjutant General, Arkansas

 National Guard ......................................................................

Prepared statement of BG Haltom ...........................................

Watson, Don, Acting Deputy Regional Administration, Dallas

  Region, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, U.S.

 Department of Labor ..............................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Watson ...........................................

Batey, Doyle W., Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of

Veterans’ Affairs .....................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Batey  .............................................

Patterson, Sara, Education Program Support Manager, Ar-

  kansas State Approving Agency for Veterans’ Training  .....

Prepared statement of Ms. Patterson .......................................

(III)
Snead, Ron, Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Work-

  force Services  ..........................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Snead ............................................

Fillman, William D., Jr., Director, Central Area Office, Veter-

  ans Benefits Administration  ..................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Fillman ..........................................

Bombard, Jim, Chairman, Department of Veterans Affairs, 

  Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Education  .......................

Prepared statement of Mr. Bombard ........................................

Norton, Robert F., Colonel, Co-Chair, Veterans Committee,

  The Military Coaltion  .............................................................

Prepared statement of Col. Norton ...........................................

Sweeney, Don, Legislative Director, National Association of

  State Approving Agencies  ......................................................

Prepared statement for Mr. Sweeney  .......................................

Kime, Steve, Ph.D., Immediate Past-President, Servicemem-

  bers Opportunity College, Vice President (Retired), Ameri-

  can Association of State Colleges and Universities  .............

Prepared statement of Dr. Kime ..............................................

Elliott, Joyce, State Representatives  ........................................

Prepared statement of State Representative Elliott  ...............

Guzman, David, Legislative Director, National Association of

Veterans Programs Administrators ......................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Guzman .........................................

Wilson, Keith M., Director, Education Service, Veterans

  Benefits Administration, U.S. Department Of Veterans

 Affairs .....................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson ............................................

INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD

National Association of Veterans’ Program Administrators

  Veterans’ Education Programs Issues and Legislative

 Agenda ....................................................................................

Trends In College, College Board ........................................... 

Information on claims processing .............................................

(IV)

35

120

38

126

48

131

51

146

53

157

55

163

59

174

62

178

64

217

185

223

252
(1)

TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR

MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND EDUCATION

BENEFITS FOR THE TOTAL MILITARY FORCE 

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in the National Guard Armory Drill Hall Floor, 1408 S. 1st Street, Rogers, Arkansas, Hon. John Boozman [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

  Present: Representatives Boozman, Herseth and Snyder.

  Also present: Senator Pryor.

Mr. Boozman. The meeting will be in order.

 Good morning and welcome to the home of the 142nd Field Artillery Battalion, commanded by Colonel Jeff Montgomery. We are very

proud of all of our Arkansas Guardsmen and women and the 142nd 

holds a special place in our hearts.

  I want to thank everyone for working so hard to set the facility up.

It looks great and looks very user friendly. I know there was a lot of

hard work that went into preparing this. 

  I am delighted that each of you could join us for this important

hearing on the effectiveness of today’s GI Bill and Transition Assistance Program, commonly called TAP. Following the hearing, we are

going to visit the VA Hospital in Fayetteville. Tomorrow, the staff

and I will drive to Muskogee to see how they are handling education

claims, then the staff will head back to D.C.

Congressional committees are organized with a Chairman from the 

majority party -- and that is me -- and a Ranking Member from the

minority party. And I am very fortunate to have Ms. Stephanie Herseth as my Ranking Member. Ms. Herseth represents the entire state

of South Dakota, and I thank her for making the trip to Rogers to 

meet my constituents and get a look at this beautiful part of America.
2

So welcome, Stephanie, and I am holding you to your promise not to

move to Arkansas and run against me.

[Laughter.]

 Mr. Boozman. And also, I apologized to her. I promised her if she 

would come down, the weather would be better than South Dakota, 

which, you know, this time of the year, you should not have any problem producing. But I do not know if we have done that or not. So

welcome, Stephanie, and I yield to you for your opening remarks.

Ms. Herseth. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for inviting me here to beautiful northwest Arkansas. This is

my first trip to Arkansas and it is a pleasure to be here with you, with

Congressman Snyder, another good friend of mine in the Congress,

and with your constituents and service members and those who have

served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

  I am pleased to enjoy your hospitality. I was going to make a comment that I thought it was going to be a little bit warmer, but I cannot 

complain. I will be heading back later to South Dakota to a number 

of inches of snow in the western part of the state. So I am glad to be 

here without some of the snow on the ground.

  I am looking forward to today’s testimony. I appreciate the written testimony that has already been submitted to the Subcommittee.

It has been very insightful. As Ranking Member of the Economic

Opportunity Subcommittee, I have an especially strong interest in

exploring options to improve and modernize the Montgomery GI Bill

as well as enhancing readjustment services for service members transitioning from military service back into civilian life, transitioning

back from months of service abroad, especially in the Middle East,

back to their communities, whether they be in Arkansas or South

Dakota or elsewhere.

  I am looking forward to hearing from the witness panel of service

members this morning about their particular experiences. And additionally, I am interested in exploring the other panelists’ views and

perspectives on the proposed total force GI Bill.

  Since the Montgomery GI Bill was enacted over 20 years ago, our

nation’s dependence on the National Guard and Reserves has dramatically increased. The Montgomery GI Bill was not originally

structured with the Department of Defense’s heavy operational mission use of selected reservists in mind. So accordingly, I believe the

time is right to re-evaluate and modernize and implement this important legislation.

 So I look forward to working with Chairman Boozman, with Congressman Snyder and with my other colleagues on the Committee,

working with the military service branches and military and veterans’ service organizations in developing policy aimed to improve education and transition services to our men and women in uniform.
3

  So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. 

  We are really very pleased to have the other member of the Arkansas delegation that is on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Mr. Snyder is here to be with us and, as you know, he represents the Second

District of Arkansas and is one of the most active members on the

Veterans’ Affairs Committee and is a good friend, nobody does a better job caring for veterans in Arkansas than Vic Snyder. Vic.

 Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

  Mr. Chairman, I just assumed that this hearing had been scheduled so it hit during filing week, so that if Congresswoman Herseth

wants to make some kind of political move, she has got 10 days or so

to make her decision.

  I really appreciate you holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and it

is a great pleasure to have Stephanie here today. She is one of the

real bright spots in the Congress and on the Committee and I really

appreciate her being here.

  I also wanted to recognize Devon Cockrell on my staff, over here

taking pictures -- on my Little Rock staff, is a member of the Army

Reserve and also spent a year in Iraq, so he has got his own views on

some of these issues we are facing today, too.

  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and for

your interest in the GI Bill. As you know, I am on both the Veterans’

Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee and a lot of

these issues we are going to be talking about today on the GI Bill

are really under the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee,

but I think our Committee has dropped the ball on these issues. I

think they are very important, I think we have modernization work

we need to do on the GI Bill, and I think you are one of the leaders in

that and I appreciate the both of you taking time to do the hearing,

because we have not -- I hope this will set a model for the Armed Services Committee that we will follow because we have got some issues

we need to address too.

  But thank you for doing this, I look forward to the testimony.

 Mr. Boozman. Benefits program do not just exist to get a bureaucracy to do something. Programs like the GI Bill and TAP exist to

help those who wear the uniform re-enter civilian life and give them

the opportunity to find success. We will hear from several of those

service members today and I am looking forward to their testimony

because it is good to hear from the customer and that truly is why we

are here.

  Everyone has probably heard of the GI Bill. The first GI Bill came

out of the horrors of World War II and, according to many sociologists,

made the American middle class. Congress passed the most recent GI

Bill in 1985 and it has served us well over the years of the Cold War

and beyond. But today’s military reality is much different than from
4

1985. Guard and Reserve call ups were rare then. Certainly not so

today. Our men and women in the Guard and Reserve are carrying

a significant portion of the War on Terror, and we need to determine

the extent to which we need to modernize the GI Bill, as was just alluded to by Mr. Snyder.

 TAP is a more recent phenomenon and is designed to update our 

servicemembers on programs that are available to them, such as the

GI Bill or employment services through the Department of Labor, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, or VETS. TAP was originally designed for those leaving active duty. However, several states

are now adapting TAP to meet the needs of the returning Guard and 

Reserve units. These states are finding that a small investment in

time and money following a long deployment has paid dividends in

retention, recruitment, and fewer post-deployment family crises. I

believe every state should make that commitment and I hope we will

hear what the Arkansas Guard is doing in that respect.

  Let us begin with the first panel. We appreciate you all being here

today. We will start with Captain Jason Desoto, 142nd Field Artillery.

STATEMENTS OF CAPTAIN JASON DESOTO, A/1-142 FA BN,

 ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD; 1ST LIEUTENANT DWAYNE

 K. PAGE, C/1-142 FA BN, ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD;

 MASTER SERGEANT BRYAN L. PETERS, NONCOMMIS-

 SIONED OFFICER IN CHARGE, PERSONNEL READINESS, 

 ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD and SPECIALIST JOHN H.

 ROTHWELL, III, B/1-14 FA BN, ARKANSAS NATIONAL

 GUARD

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JASON DESOTO

 Captain Desoto. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Herseth and Congressman Snyder. I want to thank you in advance

for the opportunity to speak with you today.

  As you said, my name is Captain Jason Desoto. Currently I am

the Commander of Alpha Battery, 2nd Battalion, the 142nd Field

Artillery. Since my mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom II in

October of 2003, I have remained in a full time military capacity in

the Arkansas National Guard.

  During OIF II, I was assigned as the fire support officer for Bravo

Company, 1st Battalion, 153rd Infantry Regiment of the 39th Infantry Brigade here in Arkansas. The battalion that I was a part of was

attached to the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division located in Baghdad,

Iraq. My responsibilities included coordination with local leaders of

local governments, both at the neighborhood and district level inside

of our zone of Baghdad. I was also responsible for supervising the
5

rebuilding projects in and around our district as well as conducting

information operations in our zone.

  Approximately one month prior to our redeployment back to the

United States, my unit began receiving briefings and health assessments to determine -- to identify both our physical and mental health

needs, as we returned home. Once we arrived at Fort Sill, Oklahoma

in March of 2005, we received more thorough health assessments

that were done both at a group level and a one-on-one basis to afford

us more privacy. The counseling that we had received was designed

to assist us as we began our reintegration with our families once we 

had been released from Fort Sill.

  In addition, we were also briefed on the benefits that were available to us as veterans of foreign wars. The demobilization process in

Fort Sill took approximately two weeks and the adjustment to being

back home is still ongoing today, even as some of us prepare to deploy

in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom again.

  At this time, I am currently not receiving any type of assistance

that was briefed to us once we were demobilizing. However, I am

planning to take part in some of the benefits through the VA. I have

scheduled an appointment with them and want to do this in case 

there are any complications that may have resulted from the deployment.

  In my opinion, the Transition Assistance Program is greatly needed. And maybe in some areas needs some adjustments and in some

areas some expansion. The briefings that were delivered to us as a

unit were done so professionally and were very informative. However, I think that one adjustment that could be made to the program

is that we could start the briefings and the health assessments at an

earlier period, before we actually start the demobilization process. I

think one of the greatest problems that we ran into is that in some 

cases family members would literally be waiting outside of whatever

building that we happened to be in while they are trying to conduct

a health assessment with us. And, you know, a soldier has not seen

his family in 18 months, he may tend to prematurely answer some of

the questions.

  I think also, in addition to that, if the questions and some of the

briefings were posed at an earlier point, it would give the soldiers

and their families time to develop any questions and to become familiarized with all the programs and the benefits that are available

to them.

  In closing, I wanted to again express my appreciation to the Chairman and to the Subcommittee for the opportunity to speak with you.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

  First Lieutenant Dwayne Page, 142nd Field Artillery.

[The statement of Captain Desoto appears on p. 82]
6

STATEMENT OF FIRST LIEUTENANT DWAYNE K. PAGE

1st Lieutenant Page. Good morning, Mr. Chairman Boozman and 

Ranking Member Herseth and Congressman Snyder, I would like to

thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts about the redeployment process, while I was attached to the 39th Infantry Brigade.

  My name is 1st Lieutenant Dwayne Page, and as a member of the

Arkansas National Guard, I was appointed as the Fire Support Officer for Charlie Company, 153rd Infantry that served in the heart of

Baghdad during combat operations of Operation Iraqi Freedom II.

Operation Iraqi Freedom II started October 2003 and ended April

2005. Once my unit moved into Baghdad, my company was attached

to Task Force 1-9 Cav. Although my unit was trained as a motorized

infantry company, we performed the operations of a light infantry

unit in neighborhoods surrounding the well known Haifa Street. My

job was to promote the progress of the coalition and provide the Iraqi

people information regarding the process to successful elections, as 

well as teaching the benefits of democracy and freedom. I was also in

charge of debriefing combat patrols and conducting investigations on

possible insurgents operating in my Task Force area of operations.

  Just before we left the country, we had a mandatory cool down in

Kuwait, which lasted about a week and a half. We just sat there,

just taking it easy. Once we arrived at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, we were

escorted to a field house to reunite with our families and friends. We

were then released until the next morning. The next morning we 

were given classes and counseling sessions which lasted the majority of the day. This was about a five-day process. I do remember

the counseling stressing certain items, although I cannot recall the 

majority of the benefits and classes that were offered to us during the

time of the post-deployment. Like many soldiers, I knew my loved

ones were waiting in the parking lot for me to complete the classes, 

so I found it very difficult for me to focus on the instructors and the

classes given to me.

 The state and federal actions that were taken during the post-deployment were great. I think the only thing was the timing. We

could have conducted some of those classes in Kuwait just before we

came home. As far as the benefits, most soldiers probably do not even

know about all the benefits that are offered to them, just because of

that situation.

  I believe a great way to inform the soldiers would be to roll all those

benefits up on one sheet of paper along with a number that they could

call and ask details about the benefits. I remember when I went

through, I received about 20 flyers, and I just put those flyers in a bag

and I moved on out. I really did not want to spend time sitting there

looking at all the flyers. I think it would have been easier if I could
7

have just looked down at a list of benefits that was offered and have

a number that I could call.

  We have had a couple of counseling sessions since we have been

back, which is great and it shows that the state and federal is taking 

every action to make sure we are taken care of properly.

  Once my deployment was completed, I transferred back to my original unit, the 2nd 142nd Brigade, and I was asked if I would like to go 

to Fort Sill, Oklahoma to conduct my Captain’s Career Course, which

I accepted with honor. I then came back to Arkansas and deployed

to Fort Chaffee, Arkansas for Operation Katrina. During Operation 

Katrina, my job was to provide logistical support to the hurricane

victims. Once my orders ended at Fort Chaffee, I was deployed to

New Orleans, Louisiana to help clean up the damaged homes. Once 

I completed those duties in New Orleans, Louisiana, I returned back 

home to Bentonville, Arkansas. Sometime after New Years Day, I

started working with the 2nd 142nd Brigade. I have been there ever

since. Now I am preparing myself for a second successful mission in

the Middle East.

  I know the United States and the State of Arkansas is doing everything in its power to get my life back on track and I truly appreciate

the diligent work. But I think it would have been more effective if

the presentations were given in Kuwait or two or three months after

the deployment. Additionally, I would suggest the development of a

consolidated list for the benefits available.

  I would like to thank you all for allowing me to speak today on

behalf of the American soldier and the Arkansas National Guard. 

Thank you.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

  Next, we will hear from Master Sergeant Bryan L. Peters, 416th

Air Expeditionary Group.

[The statement of 1st Lieutenant Page appears on p. 88]

STATEMENT OF MASTER SERGEANT BRYAN L. PETERS

 Master Sergeant Peters Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member 

Herseth, Congressman Snyder, it is an honor to be here on behalf of

the Arkansas National Guard and the 188th Fighter Wing to discuss 

the transitional Aasistance for our members. I will be kind of addressing you as both a deployed member and also someone who plays

an integral role in the in-processing of our members when they come

back from DAOR.

  In 2005, the 188th Fighter Wing deployed over 400 airmen to 16

different locations around the world. When we deploy members, we

deploy members in big groups of 300 or more and we also do it in

small groups of two or three and even single individuals. Most of our

deployments are these small groups and single individuals. So when
8

we prepare to provide our members transitional assistance, we go

ahead and provide all our members the same service, no matter how

big or small the group that may have deployed.

  As you may know, the Air Force has Aerospace Expeditionary Force

rotations. These rotations allow units to know that they are going to

deploy every 15 to 18 months. The unit also knows well in advance

where they are going to deploy and how long they are going to be

gone, so it makes it easier to prepare for the deployment.

  Since we deploy ever 15 to 18 months, it allows us to better provide transitional assistance to our members because we do not have

lengthy periods of time in between deployments. Also, since we deploy small groups and single individuals on an almost continual basis

to fill the AEF requirements of active duty and other Air National

Guard and Air Force Reserve units, we are constantly providing transitional assistance. In deploying these small groups, it also allows

more one-on-one interaction in discussing any transitional assistance

issues.

  To start our transitional assistance for our members, we have meetings with all the key players that are going to provide information

in the in-processing. This year, we had several members that had

deployed in the past that we invited to the meetings to discuss what

they felt redeploying members needed. We also had several members

who had just returned from deployments to bring their ideas on what

redeploying members needed. Once we developed our game plan, we

had several more meetings to hone our processes.

 When our members returned home in big groups, we set up an inprocessing line. On this in-processing line, we have stations, including finance and medical sections. When members process through the

finance station, they fill out their travel voucher and decide whether

or not they are going to take their accrued leave. When members process through the medical station, they have blood drawn, they turn

in their post-deployment questionnaires and their deployed medical records. These post-deployment questionnaires are filled out in

country before they come back home from the AOR, and they ask

questions about how your health was while you were deployed, if you

visited the medical section while you were deployed, if you had any

non-combat related injuries or if you have any concerns that need to

be addressed before you return home. This allows our medical folks

back home to prepare a little bit in advance for any issues that may

arise. They also fill out the paperwork to enroll in Tricare Prime once

their orders end and they start their transitional medical care. Family Readiness Group had a table set up where they had VA handouts.

We also provided our handouts -- we have a lot of civil service technicians and we provided handouts to them on their benefits for when

their orders ended. We also provided handouts concerning awards

and decorations as well as DD-214s.
9

  I feel the biggest key to our in-processing for our transitional assistance was to allow our members to see their families as soon as they

got off the plane. I will be the first one to tell you, these Army guys

sitting next to me, they had it a lot worse than we did. They were

kept away from their families. I think that was the key. I know for

me when I got off the plane, to be able to see my family right off the

bat was very important to me. It allowed me to focus more on what

benefits I was going to receive when I was briefed on those.

  Like I said, having been deployed this past summer to KarshiKhanabad, Uzbekistan, I can tell you that our processes work. I can

also tell you that there is always room for improvement, no matter

what the process is. We try to treat our members the same, whether

they go in big groups, come and go in big groups, or single individuals. We have a standardized checklist and we make sure that everybody gets the same benefit briefings, whether they come in ones and

twos and have to walk around, or if they come in big groups.

  Another advantage that we have in preparing for transition is Air

Force MAJCOMs have clear guidance on leave and downtime, so it

makes it a lot easier.

  Some of the issues we have are when our members are actually mobilized, which does not happen very often, our demobilization process

takes too long for the members that want to be demobilized as soon 

as they come back home. We did not have a doctor present to be able

to ask individuals questions as far as what they had on their post-deployment questionnaires for any non-combat related issues. I think

we should have had some briefings instead of just handouts on like

the VA benefits and stuff like that. And I know in talking to Mr. Gray

last night, I know some of the issues were the DD 214s, they need to

find a quicker way to accomplish those.

 In closing, I would once again like to thank Chairman Boozman, 

Ranking Member Herseth, Congressman Snyder for allowing me to

be here today, and I will feel free -- Senator Pryor, you too, sir, I did

not see you walk in -- sorry about that. I will be more than happy to

answer any questions you may have at the conclusion.

[The statement of Master Sergeant Peters appears on p. 89]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Master Sergeant Peters.

  I had the opportunity yesterday to visit with a Master Sergeant at

the 188th and I had the opportunity to fly in an F-16. The Thunderbirds are going to be there for an air show this Saturday, and I would

really encourage all of you to attend, it is going to be a great show. 

But Colonel Dallas took me for a ride and as we got in the thing, he 

said you are going to get to see in the air what the Thunderbirds do.

I can only describe it as kind of -- it would be like going to a carnival,

you know, and getting on the toughest ride you have ever ridden on

and then riding it for 45 minutes. It was great. It was a lot of fun and 

I really do appreciate you all.
10

  We are joined by Senator Pryor. Senator Pryor is very active in

working on veterans’ issues. He just recently introduced a bill that

would take and front-end some of the GI benefits so that they could

take advantage of some of the fast-growing things that are going on

in our economy, which is an excellent idea, and we certainly will be

working with him on the House side to get that accomplished. So we 

appreciate him and appreciate very much you being here today.

Senator Pryor. Thank you. You want me to say a word?

Mr. Boozman. Yes.

Senator Pryor. Well, I want to thank all of you all for being here

and all the public for being here. But for all the men and women, active duty, Guard, Reserve, veterans, we just want to say thank you

for your service. It really means a lot to this state and certainly this

country.

  I know that Congressman Snyder and Congresswoman Herseth

will agree when I say that the veterans have a great friend in Chairman Boozman here. John Boozman has really gone above and beyond. We have talked in a lot of different contexts since we have both

been in Washington about how to help veterans, and particularly the

needs right now, given the fact that we have so many Guard and Reserve activated and they are coming back, we are making more active

duty veterans every day it seems like.

  But again, thank you for doing this, Congressman Boozman. You

have shown great leadership and if I may, I would love to ask some

questions when the time is appropriate, but thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. Well, again, thank you for being here. As you can

see, this is a very bipartisan committee and when it comes to veterans, when it comes to taking care of the promises that we made in 

that respect, it is certainly not a partisan issue, it is something that

we all agree is very, very important.

 Specialist Rothwell.

SPECIALIST JOHN H. ROTHWELL, III

Specialist Rothwell. Good morning, Chairman Boozman, Ranking 

Member Herseth, Congressman Snyder and Senator Pryor. Thank

you for the opportunity to speak here today. I will be sharing a brief

description of my time in Iraq and of the transitional assistance I

received since returning.

  After being out of the military for 13 years, I had the good fortune of being allowed to serve in Iraq with the 39th Infantry Brigade.

I was stationed at Camp Taji, just north of Baghdad. My first six

months there, I worked in the Operations Center and was a Company

Commander’s driver. When I came home for my mid-tour leave, Congressman and Mrs. Boozman were kind enough to have dinner with

me and my family. In fact, many people showered me with more
11

attention than I could have imagined, and I returned to Camp Taji

recharged.

  The last half of my tour, I served in a Counter Improvised Explosive Device Platoon. Our job was to search the streets and highways

for roadside bombs. We were honored to patrol downtown Baghdad 

the day of the historic first election. I would like to mention now that

my friend Lyle Rymer was killed while bravely setting up protection

for that election. Lyle was a good worker, calm under pressure, quick

with a smile. At one point during the election day, my platoon and

I were securing an area around a bomb placed by terrorists near another voting site. We were all still in much pain and frustration, as

we are today, over the loss of Lyle Rymer. An Iraqi kid that day came

over to me and wrapped his arms around my legs and said, “Hey,

Mister, I love you.” The Iraqi children frequently brought joy to our

day and helped remind us why we were there.

  When I returned to the United States, I attended many briefings

and was very impressed by all the assistance being offered. But I

did not accept much help, because my heart was set on returning to

Iraq. After being home a couple of months, I began requesting that I

be allowed to return to duty. Soon, I was picked up by Bravo Battery

1st Battalion of the 142nd Field Artillery and we began training at

Fort Lewis, Washington. In some ways, the training at Fort Lewis

was more rigorous than actually being in Iraq. I was still banged up

a little bit from my recent tour, but did not want to admit that I was

having problems. Eventually, my difficulties reached the threshold

that the leaders of Bravo Battery, although they were under-manned,

graciously allowed me to stay behind and get help.

  I was then enrolled in a new community-based healthcare organization known as CBHCO. This allowed me to come home and be 

seen by local healthcare providers. Also, many of the people who administrate the CBHCO program at Camp Robinson, Arkansas were 

with me in Iraq and I will always have a special bond with them.

This program has ensured that I get comprehensive medical care.

My specific problems have been rapidly identified and treated. If not

for CBHCO, I would have had to remain at Fort Lewis 2500 miles

from my family for six months. Having the loving support of family

and friends has shortened the recovery process and helped me to heal

in many ways. Also, I believe this may be of benefit to the military

because I am living at home and the Army right now is not having to

house me and feed me and provide other housing benefits.

  Before CBHCO, I was really fearful that I would be discharged

from the military, but now I believe that I have more service ahead

and I feel that this program has saved me.

  My transition from combat to civilian to training in just a few

months’ time was stressful, but the Arkansas Army National Guard

has my best interest at heart and in time I believe that I will be al-
12

lowed to return to duty. I know that I went into Iraq thinking one

thing and left thinking another. For the most part, the more I got 

to know the Iraqi people, the more I understood them and cared for

them. I am thankful for the opportunity to serve and to be a part of

something larger than myself.

  Chairman and Committee Members, thank you again for hearing

my testimony today.

[The statement of Specialist Rothwell appears on p. 94]

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. Let me ask a couple of questions real quick. Thank you for your testimony and again, we really

appreciate you being here.

  A couple of you mentioned a need to present post-deployment briefings earlier. Would another option be to integrate briefings on VA

and employment benefits into the normal drill training cycle and

then use what is now TAP as a refresher?

  Do you understand what I’m saying? In other words, just in the

normal course of training, set aside some time at some point. I know 

in visiting with folks a lot of times when you hear about these benefits is when you’re recruited. They do not come up again until this.

  Do you have any comments, any of you all, about that as a possibility?

Captain Desoto. Sir, I believe it would be helpful, especially like

was mentioned before, during the regularly scheduled drill periods

following a deployment. I think it would be helpful as far as reminding the soldiers and advising them again a second or third time on

what those benefits are, what contact information can be given to

them as far as reaching out for any assistance they need.

 Mr. Boozman. Okay.

1st Lieutenant Page. I agree with that.

Mr. Boozman. Good. And then you all mentioned that actually doing it prior to getting back. I know there is tremendous pressure, I

had the opportunity to go be part of the service when folks were coming back and how moving that is. You know, you have been waiting

for a long time and literally, children are born that have not been

seen. The tremendous want, as you mentioned -- I mean literally you

are getting your physical and the family is outside the door. So your

idea is to actually do it in theater before you -- to start it there?

 Captain Desoto. Yes, sir. The point I was trying to make was that

I think that by starting it earlier, it would allow soldiers more time

to become familiar with TAP, to know what some of their benefits

are, allow them to formulate questions, allow their families to see the

program, become familiar with it as well.

 Mr. Boozman. Okay. Would it be helpful to go -- and again, I am

just throwing out stuff. Would it be helpful to go home for a couple of

days and then come back and do it? The other pressure I know you
13

have got is to get back to work; get back in your normal -- would that

be something that would be beneficial or not, or would that cause

more problem than it would solve?

1st Lieutenant Page. I think that would be great. Most of these 

guys that are over there, for the whole year, they have been living on

adrenaline rush and their first concern is just getting back home and

being able to relax.

 Mr. Boozman. How about -- and this is for the whole panel, whoever -- are any of you familiar with members in your units that have

owned small businesses, as to how that has affected things?

Captain Desoto. No, sir, I did not have any in my unit.

1st Lieutenant Page. I know of one soldier that had his own business. I know he just had to put it on hold, he had some people working for him and he just -- it was not growing as much as he wanted it

to because he was not there, he was not able to help push it.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

 Ms. Herseth.

Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for your

testimony.

Just to continue along this same line as Chairman Boozman, when 

we are talking about how important this transition is and the timing 

of it, now for both Captain Desoto and Lieutenant Page, were you in

the same -- were you both together during your tour in Iraq? Did you

come back at the same time?

Captain Desoto. No, ma’am, we were only together for part of the

actual deployment once we reached Iraq. We were nearby, we were

both in the City of Baghdad, but we lived at different bases and patrolled different areas.

 Ms. Herseth. So when you were coming back, I think that, Captain

Desoto, you mentioned that you started getting some information on

the transition assistance about a month prior to returning home and 

then, Lieutenant Page, you mentioned that you were in Kuwait for

about a week and a half for a cool down period, but were you receiving

any information at that point on any of the transition assistance?

1st Lieutenant Page. I do not recall receiving any information at

that time.

Ms. Herseth. Okay. But that leads to your recommendation of

make some other use of time. In addition to the cool down period in 

Kuwait, of giving us this information so that when we do get back

home, you know, just in terms of the sheer amount of the information

you are receiving as well as not the distraction. It may be a distraction for some or a better focus for others, as Master Sergeant Peters 

was describing, when your families are right there.

1st Lieutenant Page. Right.

Ms. Herseth. So I guess my next question is, in addition to integrating this information earlier, before you are returning home, and
14

making use of some of that time, should the family members, do you

think, be involved either over the course of the deployment in getting

some of this information or sitting in on some of the briefings? Perhaps they do, when you were at Fort Sill, perhaps the family members, rather than waiting outside, are a part of the classes. Do you

think that would be a good idea?

1st Lieutenant Page. It could be good and it could be bad. If you

have got a family member sitting in there and you have an opportunity to talk about some of the stuff you saw, you may want them to

realize what you have been through, but at the same time, you may

not want them to know, you know, exactly what you saw. So it could

be a good or bad thing.

 Ms. Herseth. So it would depend perhaps on the particular class. 

If it was some of the counseling types of sessions with other soldiers

and what to expect in re-integrating with family versus some of the

information about which benefits to which you may be entitled and

how that affects the spouse or family.

1st Lieutenant Page. Uh-huh; yes, ma’am.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay. What about follow up. I know the Chairman

asked, as he was throwing out some ideas, the idea of integrating 

some of this information during some regular drill sessions with TAP

as a refresher. And then I think one of you had suggested, you know,

when you get that information, then in the periods after deployment,

right, Jason, of just integrating that?

 Captain Desoto. Yes. 

 Mr. Boozman. So I think both of those ideas emphasize the importance of follow up and so could any of you maybe talk a little bit about

what kind of follow up, whether it be medical needs, whether it be 

additional information about benefits, I think Jason, in your written

testimony you talked about how the chaplains have been very proactive.

 Captain Desoto. Yes, ma’am.

 Ms. Herseth. And Chairman Boozman and I have had hearings

in D.C. where we have emphasized to various officials of the VA the

importance -- or the Department of Labor, the importance of being 

proactive. So can any of you maybe elaborate a little bit on your

thoughts of the importance of follow up for either medical, physical

or mental health needs as well as the follow up of additional information as to which benefits you may be entitled?

 Captain Desoto. Yes, ma’am. One of the examples I can give you

as far as the importance of follow up like you were speaking, we had

been told when we received our counseling and our briefings before

we completed our deployment that generally most soldiers found that

about the six month period after being reintegrated with their families is where they had the most difficult times. Sure enough, I know

that through some of my soldiers in my unit that deployed with me
15

and in my own experience, that that was probably one of the most difficult times, is after you have come back, you have had a small period

of adjustment, reintegration with your family.

  And about a month ago, we participated in a post-deployment

health assessment which was very beneficial. We were able to speak

one-on-one with healthcare providers, VA -- you know, asking us if

we needed any additional assistance. And like as you mentioned, the

chaplains before, they are a constant ready source for everybody in

the unit. And I know that all the soldiers in my unit that deployed

with me have all taken advantage of them, every single one, whether

it is just a one time -- just speaking with the chaplains one-on-one or

doing regular type counseling with them.

 Ms. Herseth. Specialist Rothwell, could you elaborate on the community based health care organization? Do you know, or perhaps

the Chairman or someone else can enlighten me, is this an Arkansas 

National Guard initiative with the State of Arkansas, or is this -- this

has not been something that is a matter of federal policy that we have

integrated I do not think. Are you aware?

Specialist Rothwell. Ma’am, I first found out about it at Fort Lewis and my apologies, I do not know the details to the program.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay.

 Specialist Rothwell. There are people here that, administrators of 

the program, Colonel Clark is here and First Sergeant Wilson is here. 

I believe they have those answers, ma’am.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay, maybe I can --

 Mr. Boozman. Sure.

 Colonel Clark. Good morning, Congressman Boozman -- 

 Ms. Herseth. Do you want to come up to this microphone maybe?

Thanks.

 Colonel Clark. My name is Colonel Nancy Clark and I am the

Case Management Supervisor for the Arkansas CBHCO program.

And what this is, Ms. Herseth, is an initiative that was begun at

the end of 2003 whereby soldiers, Reserve Component soldiers, who

were not ready to be discharged after they have returned from either

OIF or OEF, can -- and still have medical problems that need to be

addressed, they can come back and after they have been treated for

a period of time, usually at a medical treatment facility like at Fort

Hood or Fort Sam, then if they meet criteria, they can come into the

CBHCO program, go home and live, receive their care in their local

area and they can work in an armory if they are able to, whatever

their medical profile allows them to do.

  This is a nationwide program. There were five community-based

healthcare organizations that were started. Arkansas was one of 

those, California, Virginia, Massachusetts and Florida. And these 

programs were started and grew so rapidly that they enlarged it to

eight -- added three more, Wisconsin -- I think they added Virginia,
16

there was one originally in Wisconsin and they added Alabama and I

cannot think of where the other one is.

  But anyway, this program has provided, such as for Specialist

Rothwell, an experience where they do not -- as he said, they do not

have to stay on installations while they are receiving weeks and what

can run into months of medical care. And so it has been an ideal situation to allow the Reserve Component soldiers the opportunity to be

reunited with their families and get their medical care.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you very much, I appreciate the additional information because it sounds like a good idea to integrate everywhere. 

I am glad that it has expanded, hopefully it can expand so that all

states are covered, but I think given the special relationship of Guard

and Reservists to their local communities, separate from perhaps,

you know, being at a base, I think it is important to be close to family,

local healthcare providers that may know the service man or woman

from a number of years back.

 Colonel Clark. Well, yes, that is true, but let me clarify, the 50

states are covered.

 Ms. Herseth. All 50 states are covered?

 Colonel Clark. All 50 states are covered and Puerto Rico. Arkansas has seven states, we cover Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska. And each one of those CBHCOs 

has a number of states that they are responsible for and the soldiers

come and in-process at our headquarters and then go back to their

home to live.

 Ms. Herseth. But it is specifically designed for Selected Reserve

soldiers?

 Colonel Clark. National Guard and Army Reserve, correct.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay.

 Colonel Clark. And they are active duty, they are Title 10 while

they are on the program.

 Ms. Herseth. Right. So I just want to make sure -- and I do not expect you to have the information, I want to make sure that all states

are covered, you know, within one of these regions, that all the adjutants general, you know, have had all the information available to be

able to fully utilize this new program that has developed, because if it

has expanded that rapidly, I just want to make sure it has been done

in such a way that all states are actively participating if they see the

need, for some of their soldiers.

 Colonel Clark. Well, I hope so. I know that there is a liaison officer. I do not know if all states have those through their Guard, their

state Guard TAG office, but we have one in Arkansas, I know Missouri does, Kansas. And so hopefully -- it may not be as well known

as we would like for it to be, it is very dependent on the medical hold

over case management system at the NTS.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you very much.
17

  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colonel Clark. You are welcome, thank you.

Mr. Boozman. Is it paid for by the state or DoD?

Colonel Clark. Oh, DoD. I believe the money came originally

through FORCOM, we were under FORCOM in the beginning and 

just this January transitioned over into MEDCOM and so we’re under MEDCOM now.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

  Mr. Snyder.

Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question to Captain Desoto.

  When you all were filling out all these forms and doing your screenings and they were asking all the questions, was there scuttlebutt

going on amongst other folks, do you think, or that you heard of, was

there a sense among some people I think I am just going to slide

over this, I am not going to say I am having a problem with my knee

or I am not going to tell them about the diarrhea I am still having,

because I would just as soon not be delayed here on any kind of medical hold? Was there any kind of -- did you get any kind of sense that

we were getting some inaccurate information on some of that history

taking because it was occurring before folks had been released to go 

home and see their family?

Captain Desoto. In some cases, sir.

1st Lieutenant Page. Yes, sir. I feel like -- I know my company

really stressed to get everything notarized for the benefits. So I fully

believe everybody gave their honest assessment.

Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that is all I will

ask at this time.

Mr. Boozman. Senator Pryor.

Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

  One of the things that we have really been working on on the Senate side is trying to make sure that the quality of life of our Reserve

Component, the Guard and Reserve, is where it needs to be. And as

a result of that, we have been working on some legislation over there.

One is something that we just filed in the last couple of weeks in the

Senate that I want you all to know about, and I would like to get

your thoughts on it. And that is Senator Conrad Burns of Montana

and I have a bill that we are calling the VET Act. It is the Veterans

Employment and Training Act. And one thing we found, Mr. Chairman, is when you look at the numbers that come out, the economic

numbers like, for example, unemployment, that in certain segments

of our Guard and Reserve demographics for the country, unemployment is twice as high as it is in the regular population. I think there 

are some practical reasons for that. 

  So one thing Senator Burns and I are trying to do is -- well, actually the Department of Labor has already identified 14 areas that are
18

going to have high job growth in this country over the next few years.

In fact, one of those is trucking, which is near and dear to our heart 

up here in northwest Arkansas. We have a big trucking presence. 

But there is a driver shortage nationwide.

  So what Senator Burns and I are doing is trying to match up training through the VA, job training, through the program that is already

on the books called the -- I am drawing a blank on the name right 

now. It is the Accelerated Payment Program, which is part of the

Veterans’ Training Employment Service. But the Accelerated Payment Program basically would allow people to train for jobs where

there is a need according to the Department of Labor.

  So just in your experience and in talking to your friends and people

you served with, are they having problems getting jobs and readjusting back into the work force?

 Captain Desoto. Initially, sir, I believe there were some complications with soldiers.

Senator Pryor. Yeah.

Captain Desoto. Especially ones who came back and did not have a

job to go to. I know of several soldiers in my unit that took advantage

of the benefits that were briefed to us as far as assistance in finding

jobs.

Senator Pryor. Good.

Captain Desoto. I know of two for sure just within my company

that were placed. And, sir, to be honest, any expansion of that area

of helping soldiers find jobs once they have returned from active duty

would be very, very beneficial.

Senator Pryor. Any other comments?

1st Lieutenant Page. I found the biggest problem a lot of soldiers 

had when they come back looking for a job was they had a lot of expectations once they come back, --

Senator Pryor. Right.

1st Lieutenant Page. -- they expected that they could just go right

into a job. But it was a little bit harder than that.

Senator Pryor. I know that employers in this area for sure, some

of the larger employers in this area, have really worked -- you know,

bent over backwards to try to help folks in the Guard and Reserve.

I know that has happened nationwide as well. So anyway, as that

progresses, we will keep everybody posted and try to get that through

the Senate.

  Another thing that we have done in the Senate that has actually

passed the VA Committee in the Senate, but has not come out on the 

floor yet and has not gone to the House yet, is the Veterans’ Benefit

Outreach Act. And what we find, the VA tells us through their statistical numbers and their analysis, is that there is about 600 veterans

nationwide that do not access various programs that are available to

them. They may not be doing that for a reason, but we also suspect
19

that one reason they are not is because sometimes veterans do not

understand completely what is available to them. So we are trying

to be more proactive and force the VA to be more proactive to try to

market its services and programs there. And I am sure that you all

have had stories of people who probably were entitled to receive certain benefits that they have earned, but nonetheless, they just did not

know that was the case. So we are working on that.

  Anybody have a comment on that before we go? Yes, sir?

Specialist Rothwell. Senator Pryor, if I may mention, we had the

opportunity to visit with General Haltom last night, and he had an

idea to change the transition a little bit that sounded really good to

us. Whereas now we have a compressed briefing on top of briefing

and we are really wanting to see our families and then we are just

cut loose -- 

Senator Pryor. Right.

Specialist Rothwell. -- he mentioned that perhaps we could stay

on active duty -- and forgive me if I get the details wrong, sir. I believe the concept was though, Senator and Committee members, that

we stay on duty for an extended period of time, we go home to our

families and then at intervals we come in and we have briefings that

could be more relaxed and more thorough.

  Thank you.

Senator Pryor. That does seem to be a common sense approach on 

that. I would be glad to listen to General Haltom either today or later

whenever he wants to talk about that, because I think that has value

in considering that. 

  Basically another thing that you are entitled to receive, again because you have earned it through your service, is educational benefits.

I think that it is hard oftentimes for people in the Guard and Reserve

to do that. Many are working at least one full time job, maybe more,

they have weekend commitments, they either have to go down and respond to Katrina or they have to go to Afghanistan or Iraq -- I mean,

there are a lot of tugs on their schedule and sometimes it is hard to 

find that block of time where they can continue their education.

  Can you all give us any advice on how we can improve that and how

we can work with you all better and try to make those benefits more

accessible and useable?

1st Lieutenant Page. What I said in my testimony was that I

thought it would be a good idea to roll all those benefits up on just

one single sheet of paper. I know it would be pretty difficult to get all

the organizations together to do all that, but I think you would get

the soldier’s attention a lot better that way, and having a number he

could call to ask about the details that that benefit offered to him.

Instead of having a pamphlet with all those details, it is just easier

for him to see his whole list of benefits.

Senator Pryor. Okay.
20

  Mr. Chairman, I think that is all I have right now.

Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth.

Ms. Herseth. If I could just follow up on Senator Pryor, since we

have you here, since you have been so kind to testify today, some of

the initial questions were focusing on the transition assistance, but

I am pleased that Senator Pryor also directed his questions to you

about the various benefits.

  And one of the things that we are exploring, not only today, but that

we have had other hearings on, is the education benefits to which you

are entitled. And if you feel comfortable either sharing with us from

your experience or from the experiences of some of your fellow soldiers in the National Guard, perhaps you could offer us some insight

as we look to modernize this benefit, about whether or not you have

had discussions about the rate of benefit compared to rising tuition

costs. So in addition to some of the just logistical difficulties, given

deployments, given other responsibilities of finding that block of time

to pursue the degree, have you had any discussions as it relates to

concerns about how much the benefit is compared to tuition costs and

the flexibility or inflexibility of the benefits, which we are trying to

address in different ways with Senator Pryor’s legislation, some companion legislation on the House side, to make that flexible. Do any

of you care to share with us some thoughts about the benefit, how far

it goes in terms of its purchasing power for the types of degrees you

would want to pursue or different types of programs where, if it were

more flexible, would be more suitable to your interest?

Captain Desoto. Ma’am, I do not at this time. I was looking at pursuing my master’s degree and seeing what benefits would be available, but with our upcoming -- for Lieutenant Page and myself -- our

upcoming mobilization to go back in support of Iraqi Freedom, those

have been postponed until we get back.

Ms. Herseth. But you are familiar with the new 1607 benefit?

Captain Desoto. No, ma’am, not at this time, not yet.

Ms. Herseth. This is a new benefit that Congress enacted to increase the amount to which our service members in the Guard and

Reserve are entitled to finance other higher education, based on the

period of your deployment. So we will want to make sure, given that

if you are getting ready for your second deployment, that you are

likely going to be looking at -- was your first deployment a year?

Captain Desoto. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. Herseth. Okay, so your next deployment is going to be another

year?

Captain Desoto. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. Herseth. So you are going to be entitled to the highest level under this new program. So we would hope that you will -- even though

your master’s plans are on hold now, that you would fully utilize that

benefit to pursue your master’s degree and make sure that because
21

it is such a new program and we will be talking to some of the other 

panelists a little bit later here this morning about it, that they are

being utilized because the information is being facilitated effectively

to the soldiers who are entitled to that new benefit.

  Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

  Dr. Snyder, do you have any other questions?

Mr. Snyder. Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

Senator Pryor. Mr. Chairman, I did have one more, if I could.

Mr. Boozman. Senator Pryor.

Senator Pryor. I am sorry, I think it was Mr. Page who was talking to me about not getting all the information at one time. As I

understand it, on the active duty side, when they come back from deployment, they get about a 30-day period, 30-day window, to kind of

decompress, to be with their families and get a lot of flex time during

that time. To me, it would seem beneficial if you all had that option

as well. I know you may have some economic pressure because you

may need to get back to your jobs, whatever. But it would seem to me

that that would be a good thing for us to explore, to see if that would 

be workable for the Reserve and the Guard Component. Do you all

have any comments on that, after you come back from deployment,

have say 30 days to decompress, have a lot more free time?

Master Sergeant Peters Sir, I can comment as far as on the Air 

National Guard side of the house. I said in my testimony, the MAJCOMs have specific guidance and it is all based on the number of

days deployed, and it varies for a MAJCOM. We fall under Air Combat Command, so on the air side 120 days is about a max deployment.

And on the Air Guard, it can be even less. But on the ACC side of the

house, if you are deployed for 0 to 41 days, you do not get any per se

downtime. If you are deployed for 42 to 83 days, then you get seven

days. And 84 days or more, you get 14 days. So you are getting two

free weeks there that you just kind of relax, have downtime. But then

you also are getting to use your leave too, so depending on how long

you are gone, you could have anywhere from three weeks to a month.

And it works really good for us, like I said, for a cool down period.

Senator Pryor. That is in the Air Guard?

Master Sergeant Peters Yes, sir.

Senator Pryor. Is that the same with the Army Guard?

1st Lieutenant Page. After all these procedures have taken place,

the transition assistance, we do get time off before we go meet up 

again. The thing is that there are procedures that have to be taken

once you come back. I mean you just have to do it. But when we come

back, we come back to a base that is four to seven hours away from

home, so it is hard to release those troops from there and then have

them come all the way back another seven hours.
22

Senator Pryor. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

  I want to thank the panel for being here. You did a great job, your

testimony is very, very helpful and we want to thank you for your

service to your country. You did a great job representing your units,

so again, thank you very much for being here.

Captain Desoto. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Boozman. Okay, let us have the next panel then.

 While that group comes up, I want to -- as I look out, I see a bunch 

of our VSO representatives here and I just want to thank you all for

all that you have done in pushing things forward. Without your help,

certainly a lot of what we get done on the Committee just would not

happen. So thank you very much, thank you for being here.

  Our next panel consists of Brigadier General Larry Haltom, Deputy Adjutant General, Arkansas National Guard; Mr. Don Watson,

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator of Dallas Region, Veterans’

Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor; Mr.

Doyle W. Batey, Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Veterans’

Affairs; Ms. Sara Patterson, Education Program Support Manager, 

Arkansas State Approving Agency for Veterans’ Training; Mr. Ron

Snead, Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Workforce Services

and in addition, Mr. William Fillman, Jr., Director of Central Area 

Office, Veterans’ Benefits Administration.

  Thank you all for being here. Let us start with you, General.

STATEMENTS OF BRIGADIER GENERAL LARRY HALTOM,

 DEPUTY ADJUTANT GENERAL, ARKANSAS NATIONAL

 GUARD; DON WATSON, ACTING DEPUTY REGIONAL AD-

 MINISTRATOR, DALLAS REGION, VETERANS’ EMPLOY-

 MENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

 LABOR; DOYLE W. BATEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS

 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS; SARA PATTER-

 SON, EDUCATION PROGRAM SUPPORT MANAGER, ARKAN-

 SAS STATE APPROVING AGENCY FOR VETERANS’ TRAIN-

 ING; RON SNEAD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPART-

 MENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES and WILLIAM D. 

 FILLMAN, JR., DIRECTOR, CENTRAL AREA OFFICE, VETER-

 ANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL LARRY HALTOM

 Brigadier General Haltom. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Herseth, 

Congressman Snyder, Senator Pryor; thank you for the opportunity

to represent the Arkansas National Guard here to you today.

 The location of this hearing we think is most appropriate. This is 

the home of Battery C, 1st Battalion, 142nd Fires Brigade. This unit
23

deployed for Iraq on the 18th of March, they have just left after about

three months at the mobilization station preparing for their mission. 

They will spend an additional 12 months in places that may place

them in harm’s way in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. At present, the Arkansas Army and Air Guard has over 900 members serving our country in various locations, primarily in the Middle East.

  Since 9/11, over 8500 Arkansas Army and Air National Guard

members have been mobilized in support of missions such as airport

and key asset security; Multi-National Task Force, Sinai; Operation Noble Eagle; Operation Enduring Freedom; and Operation Iraqi

Freedom. We recently expended over 120,000 man-days in response

to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Approximately 85 percent of our

members, in fact 87 percent of the Army members and about 75 percent of the Air members, have been mobilized since September 11.

  Transition assistance is critically important in our efforts to care

for our service members. The effectiveness of any transition assistance program holds significant implications, not only for the service

member and their families, but also for the long-term health of our 

organization. This in turn impacts our ability to support future national, local and state missions.

  A successful Transition Assistance Program cannot be just an after

the fact process, as we have kind of alluded to in previous testimony. We have learned it must begin with briefings and actions taking

place upon unit alert and mobilization. Even before alert, we need

to be educating our service members on what is available. Upon mobilization, we conduct a series of readiness processing briefings and

training sessions to ensure the members are ready and qualified to

enter for active federal service. We try to identify and resolve issues

that may have the potential to become problematic for the service

member or their family.

  While our service members are deployed, we continue to stay in

touch and provide assistance where possible. Through our Family

Support Program, we have Family Assistance Centers established

across the state. The FACs are there to provide guidance, assistance

and support to the family members of our deployed troops. Family

support workshops are also conducted for spouses and family members, in order to educate them on what to expect from their loved one

when he or she returns home. When soldiers and airmen know their 

families are taken care of, they are better able to focus on their mission in completion and return.

  As the deployment in country nears the end of rotation, service

members are provided training information on reacclimating back

into civilian life. 

  Upon arrival at the demobilization center in the U.S., the service

member receives a brief welcome home ceremony, which has already

been mentioned here earlier, and the demob process begins almost 
24

immediately. Normally they get a day or so with the family before

this actually begins, but it begins almost immediately.

  The demob process is critical, due to some benefits requiring that

a member apply before he or she leaves active status. Many staff

members from the Arkansas Guard, from active duty installation,

representatives from the VA, Department of Labor and other agencies work in this educational process as the soldier is demobbing. We 

do numerous screenings, briefings and enrollments to prepare the

service member for separation from active duty and reintegration to

civilian life. As has been mentioned earlier, there is sometimes not a

lot of attention paid to those because of the desire to be released and 

get with the family immediately and spend some time with them.

  After the service members have cleared all the requirements from

the demob center, they return home to their families, but the demob

process does not end here. The next phase is back at home unit and 

consists of assistance for problems arising from or aggravated by the

mobilization. Married service members complete a marital assessment and a voluntary marriage education/enrichment workshop is

offered for those who wish to participate. During this period, and 

for some months afterward, the chain of command actively seeks to

assist our service members who have displayed higher than normal

levels of stress, those on which we receive reports that they are having problems in their families. Chaplain support during this period 

is vital. In fact, throughout the whole period, the chaplain support is

vital to assist service members with reintegration with their families

and aid them in returning to premobilization life.

  We have recently hired a State Benefits Advisor to assist with the

Transition Assistance Program. This advisor is there to kind of bring

all these myriad of benefits together. This advisor, along with all

benefits providers and a multitude of service organizations, are there

to work with the service member to ensure they are aware of all benefits available. The benefits advisor we think will be an incredible

asset in assisting with future mobilizations and demobilizations.

  Much has been done by Congress over the past to provide the Reserve Component members Tricare benefits. The Transitional Assistance Management Program is a good example of this, which provides

coverage to 180 days for all service members as they return from a

deployment. There is Tricare Reserve Select, where service members

can purchase Tricare coverage at a very reasonable rate, one year for

every 90 days of mobilization. And there is premobilization Tricare

coverage that is offered in advance of a mob. These have all been a

tremendous help; however, there are still some challenges.

  Short-notice mobilizations often deprive the family and soldier of

using the advance Tricare benefits. 

  There are not enough Tricare providers in Arkansas, and I suspect

that is a nationwide problem. We believe that possible -- and I do not
25

know what kind of incentives -- but incentives should be offered for

physicians and medical facilities to accept Tricare, to become Tricare

providers.

  Under TAMP, the 180 days of Tricare coverage after a mobilization ends, does not include Tricare Prime Remote or Tricare Prime 

Remote for Active Duty Family Members. And that is sometimes a

problem.

  The Tricare dental program administered by United Concordia has

two price schedules, one for active duty and one for Reserve Component members. We feel that they ought to be the same. The Reserve

Component price is more than double the active price. Dental readiness is the number one disqualifier when we are mobilizing soldiers.

  In March of 2005, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health

Affairs directed that Post-Deployment Health Reassessments be conducted for all soldiers that are deployed for more than 30 days in

support of contingency operations. These assessments are ideally

conducted three to six months post-deployment, which is the most

likely time frame for issues to emerge.

  We were very fortunate to have our 39th Infantry Brigade Combat

Team selected as the pilot program for the National Guard. The 39th 

IBCT began the assessments in November of 2005. We have experienced a 50 percent referral rate from these assessments, with 20 

percent being for medical issues only, eight percent being for mental

health issues only, and 21 percent having both medical and mental

health issues that needed to be referred. Referrals were primarily

worked through the VA Hospital, VA satellite clinics and the Vet centers. If no VA system clinic was available within 50 miles, then the

soldier was referred through Tricare.

 It is important to remember that this was a pilot program for the 

entire Army National Guard. The VA has worked well with us and

has made adjustments along the way and the program is getting better. We believe, however, there are some areas that could be improved:

  Funding for temporary case managers and referral managers

would greatly improve the program, as caseloads have exceeded our

available manpower.

  The ability to place soldiers on orders to go to their appointments

instead of split training them away from their unit drill periods.

 We recommend that PDHRA referrals be worked through the Military Medical Support Office instead of the VA. As I said, VA has

worked great with us, but that is not our normal process. So our 

standard system is to use this Military Medical Support Office. The

referral system for soldiers should not differ from normal operating

systems.

  We believe that conducting the PDHRA is the right thing to do

and obviously with the current referral rate, it is a vital program.
26

Reserve Component members mobilized in past wars and conflicts

were left to deal with these deployment problems on their own. The

PDHRA provides a viable means for these soldiers to be evaluated

and receive needed treatment.

  Community-Based Health Care Organizations were established

late 2003, early 2004 in an effort to expeditiously and effectively

evaluate and treat Reserve Component soldiers that have incurred

medical problems in the line of duty while mobilized for the Global

War on Terrorism. I think it at least in some part resulted from 

a perceived disparity of treatment at the active duty medical facilities at that time. There are eight CBHCOs providing case management and command and control for these soldiers while they reside

at home, receive local medical care and perform limited duty in local

military facilities. The care is provided using Tricare, VA facilities,

and military medical treatment facilities.

  The CBHCO in Arkansas has already been discussed a little bit. It

is responsible, as was stated, for the mid-southern states -- Arkansas, 

Oklahoma, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, Nebraska and Kansas. Soldiers in process at Camp Robinson, at the CBHCO there, then proceed to their home of record. They get individualized medical treatment plans for each of them.

  CBHCOs provide a great service to our soldiers. Returning home

for the remainder of medical care allows reunification with family

and friends, allows them to maintain their self-worth while on limited duty, reduces undue financial hardships on families caused by

large separations geographically, and provides continuity of care that

will be important after they are released from their active service.

  To date, CBHCO Arkansas has in processed over 700 soldiers.

There have been 218 of those Arkansas Army National Guard and

19 U.S. Army Reserve soldiers from Arkansas. The remainder being

from the other states. Without CBHCO, those soldiers would have

been in a medical hold status at an active installation in another

state away from their family. It is a great program.

  The Montgomery GI Bill is a very complicated program with many

variations, depending on the subprograms and the service member’s

particular situation. One of the complicating factors is that each service component manages their program differently. For instance, in

the active Army, a soldier cannot use Federal Tuition Assistance and

GI Bill together unless the cost of tuition exceeds the funds provided

by one program. In the Army National Guard, soldiers can use any

of the GI Bill programs and Federal Tuition Assistance at the same 

time. We see that as a benefit. The Army National Guard views

the GI Bill as a program to cover the additional expenses of college,

maybe beyond tuition costs.

  In addition to the Montgomery GI Bill and Federal Tuition Assistance, Arkansas currently offers the Guard Tuition Incentive Pro-
27

gram, it is a state-funded program, funded biennially by the state

legislature. Currently we are funded at about $500,000 per academic

year. This program provides assistance benefits for soldiers and airmen attending Arkansas colleges and universities at a rate of $1000 a

semester for a full time student or prorated if less than full time. We 

have about 450 Guardsmen receiving assistance from this program

each semester.

  In addition to these programs, the State of Arkansas recently

formed the Arkansas National Guard Educational Partnership Program with, at this time, 33 partner colleges within the state. These 

colleges have agreed to waive 25 percent of tuition and fees for the Air

Guard, because they do not get Federal Tuition Assistance on the Air

side; and for the Army Guard, they waive all tuition cost that exceeds

the $4500 a year Federal Tuition Assistance limit. As I said, we currently have 33 partnership members and this is a great benefit.

  Over the last two years, the only recurring issue in the education

arena has been a number of complaints about the National Guard’s 

policy concerning after-service benefits. Unlike the active components, members of the Guard and Reserve must maintain membership in order to be eligible for many of these benefits. Although we

empathize with the Guardsmen who desire to separate from the 

Guard and retain eligibility for benefits, we understand that difference is primarily driven by wanting to provide an incentive for them

to remain in the Guard and Reserve. So we know why that is there.

  Many of our service members are changed for life by their experiences during mobilization and deployment. Transition Assistance

Programs are critical to their successful reintegration into society

and letting them know that we care about their welfare. Most service members, as mentioned earlier, are not paying attention during

many of the briefings during the demob process because they are only

thinking of reuniting with their family and going home. Therefore,

we believe these programs would be improved by allowing returning

service members to remain on active duty at home station for a period

of time, possibly prorated based on the time spent deployed. This

time would allow closer monitoring of their situation, better education as to what is available to them. In fact, the 90-day post-deployment moratorium on drilling or having them on active duty or in a

drill status we feel is actually counter-productive. What we have

found is that a lot of soldiers, after five days, a couple of weeks maybe

at home, started showing up at the armories voluntarily, drinking

coffee together. They were their own best support group. And so

we feel like this moratorium may have actually been the wrong approach.

  Some needs for support, like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, may

not manifest themselves until much later after the return. For that

reason, we need the authority and funding to bring service members
28

back on duty if needed to officially resolve these late-developing issues.

  Thank you for your continued interest in the welfare of our soldiers

and airmen. They are true American patriots and they continue -- as

you have heard already, we have got folks turning around and going

back that have only been home about a year. So they continue to

answer the call for duty.

  Pending your questions, that concludes my testimony.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, General.

 Mr. Watson.

[The statement of Brigadier General Haltom appears on p. 98]

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. WATSON

 Mr. Watson. Chairman Boozman, Congresswoman Herseth, Congressman Snyder, Senator Pryor, thank you for the opportunity to

appear before the Committee and discuss collaboration of the U.S. 

Department of Labor Veterans’ Employment and Training Service

and our state and federal partners in providing transition assistance

to the Arkansas National Guard.

  I have been asked to appear before you today to discuss transition

assistance for the Arkansas National Guard members returning from 

the Global War on Terror. As you are aware, our State Director, Mr.

Byran Gallup, recently passed away. That was on the first of March,

an unexpected heart attack. To complicate matters, our 20-year veteran, who was his assistant, retired in January. So I have been asked

to pinch hit today. So here I am. Byran Gallup was a true advocate

for veterans in Arkansas and he will be missed by our agency and

everyone that worked with him, but particularly by the veterans or

Arkansas.

  The State of Arkansas has been deploying thousands of Guard

members. We have been taking a proactive approach through the

Department of Labor, by both doing mobilization briefings and demobilization briefings. That is one of the differences that I have noticed

in the testimony. The reason that we are proactive on that basis is

because of the Uniformed Service Members Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which as an agency we enforce. It is important that the deploying Guard members know that they have certain

rights and responsibilities under that law before they leave their employment, to ensure that they guarantee those reemployment rights.

  On the demobilization end, we have been taking the lead and providing employment and assistance briefings at the demobilization

sites that we have been discussing this morning. The briefings are

always a team effort between state and federal partners. It includes

of course, the Department of Labor, the State Workforce Agency, the

Department of Defense, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Em-
29

ployer Committee for Support to Guard and Reserve, and others.

  In our particular region, we cover 11 states, all the way from Montana down to Texas. We have two major demobilization centers. One

is at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, which I believe the first panel mentioned

several times; and the second is in Fort Carson in Colorado Springs,

Colorado. Our two state directors are very active in the mobilization and demobilization briefing that occur at those sites. We have

handled approximately 8000 people over the last 24 months in those

two states.

  We cover both USERRA and reemployment rights, we cover the

Transition Assistance Program on a formal basis. We talk about employment workshops and information on how to access employment

and training programs through the local veterans’ employment representatives and through the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program,

which are state counterparts.

  In addition, as a follow up, our two assigned Arkansas staff visited

about 18 separate armories in Arkansas to do individual briefings

and encourage those National Guard and Reservists to come in and

access the state workforce system. I believe my counterpart down

here will add to that later in the testimony.

  It is estimated that about 30,000 troops, active duty, National

Guard and Reserves, family members and friends have attended activities in Arkansas in the last year. Those were statewide celebrations, job fairs, local armory briefings and other public activities. So

it has been very, very active in Arkansas.

  In addition, each state director that we have in our 11 states has

been in contact with the Adjutant General’s Office. We are approaching the Transition Assistance Program on an on-demand basis from 

the Adjutant General’s Office. When they need a briefing, we will

be there to provide that for them, either with the state staff or the

federal staff. As a result of the contacts that we have made at these

mobilization and demobilization briefings, we had a total of 37 formal

reemployment rights cases that were filed in between 2004 and 2005.

It is very interesting to note that 46 of the 47 were Guard and Reservists, so it is the main generator at this point.

  We have noted the same challenges that you have been hearing all

morning about the troop rotations are sporadic. Each demobilization 

briefing may contain troops from several states, which makes statespecific briefings difficult.

  Federal and state benefits can be complex and the access to those

benefits is based on the demographics of where they are returning

to, their home of record. For example, here in Lowell, you have the

VA Hospital in easy driving distance. But if we have people going

back to Wyoming, it may be 150 miles to 200 miles to the nearest VA

facilities.

  Eligibility for some entitlements are time sensitive. For example,
30

under USERRA, with the lengthy deployments we have, they have a

90-day window to reapply for their employment. So it is a very timesensitive benefit that they have and the demob briefings emphasize

that.

  In response to the challenges that we have been noticing, VETS

has ensured that visits to the armories are conducted subsequent to

the demobilization briefings. In other words, we do it twice. This allows the individual needed downtime and helps ensure a more receptive audience.

  During the briefings, emphasis is placed on the time sensitivity and

notifying pre-service employer of the service member’s intent to seek

reemployment, and service members are provided written material

on their employment and reemployment rights and responsibilities,

as well as how to access both the USERRA and the e-law advisors.

  We heard some comments from the first panel about the complexity of the information being presented. The Department of Labor

has been a little bit proactive. We have started a “Keys for Success”

through the Employment and Training Administration. This is a

new program -- 

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Watson, would you pull your mic a little closer

there? They are having a little trouble in the way, way back, if you

would pull it right up there close. Thank you, sir.

 Mr. Watson. Is that better, sir?

 Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir.

 Mr. Watson. Okay. As I was saying, the Department of Labor has

been a little proactive to streamline the information process for the returning Guard and Reservists. We have started a “Keys for Success”

program and over 250,000 of these brochures have been distributed.

What this actually does is it gives a central contact numbers for all

employment and training issues for the returning service members.

We have already started the distribution on those, they are basically

put out through the Department of Defense and through our formal 

TAP sites, and we are working on other strategies to get these in the 

hands of all service members at all the demobilization sites.

  Our agency is committed to doing the best we can for every service

member that returns from the War on Terrorism. 

  We are currently preparing for similar activities in Texas where we

will have 3500 to 4000 National Guard troops returning at the end of

March 2006.

  So that is basically the testimony and I would be glad to take any

questions.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

  Mr. Batey.

[The statement of Mr. Watson appears on p. 107]
31

STATEMENT OF DOYLE BATEY

 Mr. Batey. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before this 

Committee on behalf of the Director James Miller to update you on

the efforts of the Arkansas Department of Veterans’ Affairs to provide transition assistance to the veterans returning from Operation

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. With service officers and support staff located in the federal VA regional office at Fort

Roots in North Little Rock, hospital representatives located in Little

Rock’s John L. McClellan VA Medical Center, and at the Arkansas 

Veterans’ Home here in Fayetteville, and most importantly, with

county Veteran Service Officers serving in each of the 75 counties

throughout Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Veterans’ Affairs 

offers expert assistance to our veterans.

  Our County Veteran Service Officer Program is a major key to our

success. In each county, we offer professional advice and assistance

free of charge. Not only do we advise our National Guard members

concerning their VA benefits, but we also provide information on

special employment assistance through the Arkansas Department

of Workforce Services, the veterans’ preference in state hiring policy

and homestead and personal property tax exemptions for those who

meet the requirements.

  Our County Veteran Service Officers live and work in the community that they serve, allowing for a close, personal relationship

between the veteran service officers and the folks they serve. Our

agency is somewhat integrated with National Guard, as evidenced by

the fact that many of our County Veteran Service Officers are retired

National Guard members from the local areas that they serve in.

Several of our Work Studies are National Guard members. Upon return from deployments, National Guard units are visited by County

Veteran Service Officers in order to raise the unit’s awareness of the

Service Officer’s availability and to provide benefit claims assistance.

These close relationships allow National Guard Commanders to often 

refer troops by name to our Service Officers.

  There are several great programs provided by the Federal Veterans Benefits Administration. The Post Deployment Health Reassessment Program, as you talked about earlier, which is part of the Department of Defense, mandated force health protection initiative is

applauded by our department. This program has been very favorably

received. These are outstanding programs that we use to educate our

troops. In addition, one of our department’s major goals is to provide

continuing support. Many Guard members returning from deployment are anxious to reconnect with loved ones and thus, veterans’

benefits are not an immediate concern. By having a County Veterans

Service Officer available in each county, we offer a unique service to
32

the veteran, allowing us to provide one-on-one assistance, alleviating

the need for the veterans to return to the Guard unit or to a Veterans’

Affairs regional office in order to receive assistance.

 The mission of the Arkansas Department of Veterans’ Affairs is to 

provide dedicated service to the veterans of our state, their families

and their survivors. Our employees are committed to excellence in

assisting with the development of all benefits claims. Veterans are

encouraged to take advantage of the professional expertise available

through our staff. Our mission is to serve those who have served.

The Arkansas Department of Veterans’ Affairs furnishes representation for veterans, widows and dependents. 

  It is our desire to provide all veterans transitioning to civilian life

with the resources and services necessary to succeed in the 21st century workforce. Our goal is for every Guard member to experience a

seamless transition back to civilian life.

  Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I thank you for this

opportunity to testify.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 Ms. Patterson.

  [The statement of Mr. Batey appears on p. 112]

STATEMENT OF SARA PATTERSON

 Ms. Patterson. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth, 

Congressman Snyder and Senator Pryor, I am honored to appear before you today on behalf of the Arkansas State Approving Agency

for Veterans Training to provide comments on education benefits in

Arkansas.

  The State Approving Agency’s primary task is to approve education

programs for the use of the GI Bill. We use the Code of Federal Regulations when evaluating programs and applying criteria for program

approval. Many of these regulations remain virtually unchanged

since written in the 1940s, and therefore, may not reflect the needs

of today’s recipients. Education practices and theories have changed

over the years, and perhaps now is the time for the rules governing

GI Bill education benefits to change accordingly.

  Through outreach activities, our three-person office advises potential qualified facilities on how to obtain approval. We also provide

information and assistance to military members separating from

the service. Most veterans and Guard members erroneously believe

that education benefits can only be used at colleges and universities. 

Monthly participants at the Little Rock Air Force Base Transition

Assistance Program commonly show surprise when they hear that

they can use their benefits for schools such as cosmetology, barbering, real estate, truck driving and for on-the-job training. The State

Approving Agency, through outreach activities, continuously pro-
33

motes the different methods of using the GI Bill, but progress is quite

slow. Veterans do not even know to ask the question when they visit

a facility, “Is this program approved for veterans’ training?” or “Can

it be approved for veterans’ training?”

  Expensive describes most short-term career-oriented programs

such as truck driving. At proprietary schools in Arkansas, truck

driving training reflects a 120-clock hour program condensed into a

three-week period. The clock hours per week that a student spends 

in class determines payment allowance under the GI Bill. In this

instance, students attend 40 hours per week for three weeks. The 

current monthly rate for full time school attendance for Chapter 30

Montgomery GI Bill beneficiaries is $1034 a month, and for a Chapter 1606 Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve educational assistance

beneficiary, the rate is $297. For National Guard beneficiaries, the

education allowance is quite disheartening.

  Truck driving tuition costs range from $3000 to $5000, yet students

under the GI Bill only receive approximately $775.50 for Chapter 30s

and $220.50 for Chapter 1606 recipients. This essentially equates

to students receiving three-quarters of a month of benefits for full

time attendance. As currently applied, this burdens the beneficiary

to find alternative methods for funding the remaining financial need

of his education. On the other hand, the same beneficiary attending

a conventional college program would receive full benefits of $1034 a

month for the length of the semester. One answer to this disparity

may be to expand the list of accelerated payment programs to include

occupations and professions other than high tech programs. Using 

the current methodology for accelerated payment programs, the veteran would be looking at a 60 to 70 percent return on the cost of the 

tuition.

  On-the-job training constitutes a rapidly growing method of using

benefits in Arkansas. In 2000, we had seven programs with seven

beneficiaries in those programs. Now we have 96 OJT facilities approved with currently 133 veterans in those programs.

  Chapter 1606 benefits are out-of-system payments, meaning that

the payments originate from a different source than other more traditional education payments. It takes months for Chapter 30 OJT beneficiaries to receive their first payment from the processor in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The procedure for 1606 OJT recipients takes much 

longer. This delay alone makes undertaking the program seriously

problematic for the transitioning beneficiary, whose funds normally

are stretched due to transitioning and the lack of requisite skills and

education to demand a better wage.

  When our office receives the OJT paperwork, we then send it to the

Muskogee Regional Processing Office. The Muskogee Regional Processing Office then establishes eligibility and inputs the information

into the imaging system. That information is then transferred to the
34

St. Louis Regional Processing Office where payment comes from for

1606s. And as simple as it sounds, it is a long process.

  For example, our office sent OJT paperwork to the Muskogee Regional Processing Office on July 21, 2005 for a Chapter 1606 beneficiary in an airframe and powerplant program. As of this writing,

which was March 8, 2006, the veteran still had not been paid and

his name finally showed up on a March 7 list of paperwork being

processed, but again, he had not received any payment yet. Another

beneficiary in an apprenticeship lineman program, his paperwork

was sent August 18, 2005. His name also finally showed up on that

March 7 list from the St. Louis RPO, but again no payment had been

distributed.

 OJT and apprenticeship training programs are increasing in all 

states. These programs not only benefit veterans, but they also benefit employers, communities and states. Perhaps one day, this method of payment could be automated. This may greatly improve the

processing time, thus distributing monthly payment benefits to the

veterans in a timely manner. Since all 1606 claims are out-of-system

payments, processing occurs at the St. Louis RPO. Changing the

payment process so that each of the four regional processing offices

handles their own claimants’ paperwork would greatly enhance the

response time while reducing the workload on the St. Louis RPO. 

The Muskogee Regional Processing Office does a commendable job

with both OJT and school claims.

  Everyone here today has a vested interest in veterans and their

training and their benefits. We have to pool all of our knowledge

together and refer groups to one another. I find often that does not

happen. We must also look for creative solutions and refuse to accept

the status quo, a status quo that worked in the 1940s for education

benefits. Flexibility and responsiveness will catapult this endeavor

into the 21st century.

 In closing, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Herseth, I would 

like to thank you and those in attendance today for the opportunity to

comment on veterans’ educational benefits in Arkansas. We greatly

appreciate your efforts to make benefits more flexible and accessible

for the proud defenders of our freedom and for those who will follow 

in their footsteps when duty calls. I welcome the opportunity to address any questions you might have concerning the role of the State

Approving Agency and the benefits afforded under the GI Bill.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 Mr. Snead.

[The statement of Ms. Patterson appears on p. 116]
35

STATEMENT OF RON SNEAD

 Mr. Snead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Herseth,

Congressman Snyder and Senator Pryor.

  On behalf of the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services

(DWS), formerly known as the Arkansas Employment Security Department, as you may have previously known it, and our director, Mr.

Artee Williams, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to address

this committee concerning our department’s ability to help serve returning military members and their dependents with employment

assistance and training opportunities. 

  First, let me begin by explaining that the data contained in this

testimony, when relating to veterans is defined by the Department of

Labor as those military members who have served for a minimum of

180 days or more on active federal duty and have not been released

with a dishonorable characterization of service, or was released prior

to 180 days due to having sustained a service-connected disability.

The Department of Workforce Services’ information systems list all

military members who seek assistance from our department as veterans, as previously defined, in the aggregate. Our information systems do not distinguish between service components or whether the

military member was considered National Guard or Reserve.

  Currently, there is a wide array of services provided by our agency

to all of our clients, veterans and non-veterans alike Chief among

these are temporary wage replacement through unemployment insurance benefits (if deemed eligible), employment referral services,

and Workforce Investment Act services. The Workforce Investment

Act services are targeted to provide assessment and training that will

lead to placement into suitable employment. Specifically, for recently

separating military members returning from active duty, these services also include information regarding state veteran benefits that

are available to them, educational and vocational resources that are

available, assistance with filing claims for service-connected disabilities and assistance with obtaining copies of necessary military records. The specialized staffs within our department, whose primary

mission is to serve all veterans with employment services and training assessment needs, are our Local Veterans Employment Representatives, which we call LVERs, and our Disabled Veterans Outreach

Program Specialists, or DVOPs. These positions are funded through 

a grant, as previously mentioned, from the Veterans Employment

and Training Service of the U.S. Department of Labor.

  As mandated by the Jobs for Veterans Act, our DVOPs serve all

veterans primarily by providing core, intensive and referral to supportive services to meet the employment needs of disabled veterans

and other eligible veterans, with emphasis directed toward serving
36

those who are economically or educationally disadvantaged, including veterans with barriers to employment. Our LVERs, on the other

hand, primarily conduct outreach to employers, engage in advocacy

efforts with human resource hiring executives to increase employment opportunities for veterans, encourage the hiring of disabled veterans, and generally assist veterans to gain and retain employment.

Additionally, it is our LVER and DVOP staffs that facilitate and assist with the monthly Transition Assistance Program at the Little

Rock Air Force Base. This is currently the only DOL-sponsored TAP

workshop within the state.

  It is critical that all returning National Guard and Reserve component members attend the TAP briefing once they return from active

duty. Particularly, if the members are not job attached, or if they do

not have a job waiting for them. This is our agency’s primary visibility to obtain a complete list of returning military members who may

need employment assistance and/or training. 

  I think most of you have a couple of charts in front of you. The first

chart there shows the entered employment rates for Arkansas as reported to DOL on December 31 of 2005. And for the period of April 

1 through March 31 of 2005, we had a 69.5 percent entered employment rate. And what that means, of the 146,000, or over 146,000,

people that came into our offices seeking assistance with job placement, 101,584 left with being referred to a job and eventual placement to a job, whether that job or another job. When you compare

that to the veterans, the second chart, we are at 66 percent of those

who come into our office. I want to make something clear here on

those two charts that you have before you. We only have visibility of

those that go through the TAP program or those veterans who walk

into one of our 32 offices within our state. So, it is not all veterans

that we see. As previously stated, we need to do more coordination

and we are working toward that end among the different agencies 

that do have that visibility.

  To help reduce the number of unemployed, it is imperative to maintain the employer funded public employment services system. This

is particularly true for the rural areas of Arkansas where employers

and job seekers rely on the Department of Workforce Services and

the local One Stop Centers to obtain information on training and job

placement.

  The ability to provide job placement and training has a direct correlation to adequate staffing. During the last five years, we have seen a

reduction of our veteran staff fall to 28 full-time equivalent positions

from a staff of 33. In Arkansas, we have 75 counties and maintain

offices in 32 communities. We currently do not have the ability to

maintain a veteran staff member in each of our local offices.

  However, all of our local offices do include our Wagner-Peyser funded employment service staff, which serves all personnel, to include
37

veterans. Our Wagner-Peyser staff has also been adversely impacted

by budget reductions. Over the past 10 years, we have experienced

a reduction of 18 full time equivalent budgeted staff or a reduction of

just over 18 percent of available staff to serve the public and the over

66,000 employers in Arkansas. Currently, we have just over 80 full

time positions to serve in our 32 local offices across our state.

  That said, our agency’s pledge to Congress and to the employers

and citizens of Arkansas is to bring all available resources to bear,

to include personnel and technology, in order to continue providing

appropriate employment services and training opportunities to assist

job seekers find productive high demand jobs. In that regard, like

most states, we have had to rely on improved data systems to assist

in helping serve our clients. We now have an automated system that

allows all clients the ability to file for initial unemployment claims

via the Internet. In addition, we have recently fielded an automated

job service system that allows employers to place jobs online and job

seekers to self-register and post resumes online. These systems will

act as a force multiplier for our reduced staff to continue to provide

professional services to veterans and non-veterans. However, continued reductions in Wagner-Peyser funding will have a negative effect

on our agency’s ability to maintain a presence in our current 32 community locations.

  Lastly, in Arkansas, the Department of Workforce Services has a

strong relationship with several partner agencies to include, but not

limited to, the Department of Economic Development, Department

of Workforce Education, Department of Veterans Affairs and a very

strong and positive relationship with each of our 10 local Workforce

Investment Areas, their boards and One-Stop operators. As a result,

returning veterans who need advice and assistance concerning information in regard to high demand occupations and available training

assistance need only to visit one of our centers across the state. Together with the service member’s Montgomery GI Bill and other resources that are available for the service members and their spouses,

the local DWS offices and the local One-Stop Centers are the right

places to begin a new career for returning veterans in Arkansas.

  Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my prepared remarks and I

am subject to your questions.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Snead.

 Mr. Fillman.

[The statement of Mr. Snead appears on p. 120]
38

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FILLMAN

 Mr. Fillman. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth, Congressman Snyder and Senator Pryor, I appreciate the opportunity

to appear before you today to discuss both the role of the Veterans

Benefits Administration in administering education benefits through

the Regional Processing Offices in Muskogee and St. Louis, and the

efforts the Little Rock VA Regional Office has taken to provide transitional assistance for members of the National Guard and Reserves in

the State of Arkansas. I have a brief summary of my testimony and I

respectfully request that my complete written statement be included

in the record.

  Today, I am accompanied by Mr. Sam Jarvis, Director of the Muskogee Regional Office; Mr. William Nicholas, Director of the Little

Rock Regional Office; and Ms. Francie Wright, the Education Officer

at the Muskogee Regional Processing Office.

  My testimony will address two topics: the workload and performance trends experienced by the Muskogee and St. Louis Regional

Processing Offices and the outreach efforts of the Little Rock Regional Office to ease the transition of the Arkansas National Guard and

Reserve members back into civilian life.

 Nationwide, the education claims processing workload has increased over the past several years, both in terms of the number of

claims received and in the number of students using their benefits.

In 2005, VA received over 1.5 million benefit claims, an increase

of 5.6 percent over the prior year. The number of students rose to

nearly 500,000 in 2005 from 395,000 in the year 2000. From fiscal

year 2004 to fiscal year 2005, the St. Louis RPO received 10.9 percent

more incoming workload and the Muskogee RPO noted a 7.1 percent 

increase. We expect that these elevated workload levels will be sustained throughout 2006 and 2007.

  Despite the challenges, the RPOs are providing responsive, accurate service to veterans and their dependents. Through the end of

the month of February, the RPOs were processing original claims in

37 days, supplemental claims in 22 days and their accuracy rate was

96 percent. Even with the increasing demands for services and the

rise in workload, the Veterans Benefits Administration anticipates it

will end fiscal year 2006 closely approaching our processing targets of

25 days for original claims and 13 days for supplemental claims.

  VBA is actively involved in educating service members about VA

benefits, providing claims processing assistance and supporting a

smooth transition from military duty back to civilian life.

  The Little Rock VA Regional Office has consistently shown its support and commitment to provide a seamless transition for returning

military members. In fiscal year 2005, the office conducted 18 Transition Assistance Program and Disability Transition Assistance Pro-
39

gram briefings at the Little Rock Air Force Base for 669 participants.

Today, in fiscal year 2006, the office has conducted 10 briefings for

318 participants.

  Employees from the VA Regional Office have also participated in

the Welcome Home celebrations for returning troops from Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The Little Rock

Regional Office is working diligently to ensure Arkansas National

Guard members’ transitions are as seamless as possible and are doing whatever they can to prevent members and their families from

being isolated from access to VA medical care and benefits.

  A total of 34 National Guard installations have been visited in Arkansas and the office has made contact with 910 individuals. A total

of 377 disability claims were taken during these interviews. Dedicated VA employees took time to listen to the concerns and the views of

our military men and women and have stayed at each location until

every Guard member who wanted to see them had the opportunity to

do so. The service provided reflects the dedication of the office employees to our mission.

 Mr. Chairman, we at the VA are proud of our continuing role in 

serving this nation’s veterans, whether that service is in the form

of educational claim support or providing transitional assistance to

service members eager to return to the communities. We continually

evaluate and seek opportunities to improve the quality and scope of

our outreach efforts to members of the National Guard and Reserves.

I hope that my testimony today will provide you and the Committee

with a better understanding of the levels of service currently provided by the Muskogee and St. Louis Regional Processing Offices as well

as the transitional assistance extended by the Little Rock Regional

Office to the veterans of Arkansas.

  This concludes my opening statement. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I would be pleased to address

any questions you may have at this time.

[The statement of Mr. Fillman appears on p. 126]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Fillman.

  General Haltom, the 2004 study of Reserve personnel showed that

overall, only 14 percent of those re-enlisting consider education benefits as a decision to re-enlist. You mentioned earlier the thinking

about the education benefit post-discharge.

  Do you personally believe that providing post-discharge education

benefits will reduce re-enlistment rates?

 Brigadier General Haltom. This is a guess. I doubt if it would 

have a significant effect on it.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. The other thing is several witnesses testified today about the complex nature of VA and employment benefits

and things. Ms. Patterson, in particular I think you pointed out that
40

a lot of people that came just did not understand what was going on

as far as the education benefits and things.

  I guess my question is how do we get that worked out? Do we need

to get your to -- in fact, I think something that would be very helpful,

Ms. Patterson, and for all of you and I know you hear these questions

over and over again pertaining to different things that maybe there

is just a particular thing that people have trouble with. If you would

give us a list of those questions that are being asked over and over

again, perhaps we could get you all together where you could work

back and forth to provide that information.

  But do you have any other suggestion as to how we can kind of get

some of those glitches out that seem to be recurring things?

 Brigadier General Haltom. I cannot think of anything right off,

sir.

Mr. Boozman. Okay, thank you.

  The other thing is, you mentioned the Tricare providers. Do you

feel like that is improving or getting worse? Certainly, you can have

a great insurance program and I know Dr. Snyder has worked hard

on this, I have worked hard on it. You can have this great insurance

program, but if there is nobody there to provide it, then it is not much

good.

Brigadier General Haltom. I believe it is improving to some extent. Of course, prior to this latest surge in those who were eligible 

for Tricare, there was not a real requirement for a lot of these physicians to accept it because there was not anybody in their geographic

area that would use it. Through education programs, reaching out to 

the various clinics and hospitals, it is improving. I do not believe it is

where it needs to be.

Mr. Boozman. Good. I know we have actually had the folks down

here and toured them around and things and that was very helpful.

But something that might be helpful to us would be, where the areas 

of problems are and then we hear through contacts with our office,

but again, if you could provide information as to your gut feeling, you

know, of where there are problems, then I think the delegation could 

work together to help sort that out for you.

Brigadier General Haltom. All right. 

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Watson, you cite the number of briefings and

attendance. What are the results of the work being done via the TAP

in terms of putting veterans back to work?

Mr. Watson. The only figures we would have on that would be the

ones that Mr. Snead just mentioned to you. The entered employment

rate I believe he said was in excess of 60 percent for the veterans that

go through the workforce system. On the briefings and the numbers we cite, we really have no way to track those individuals as they

leave, particularly at the main demobilization sites, because they go

to various states which also leads to tracking issues.
41

Mr. Boozman. Okay, very good.

  Ms. Patterson, I am surprised by the examples of the slow processing that you mentioned.

Ms. Patterson. So am I.

Mr. Boozman. I am surprised, but I am not that surprised.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Boozman. Do you have any idea why the RPO has such trouble

in processing that type of claim?

Ms. Patterson. I actually have no idea what takes it so long. I am

sure it is a tedious process, but I really have no idea.

Mr. Boozman. Okay. Ms. Herseth.

  I am sorry. Mr. Fillman?

Mr. Fillman. Chairman Boozman, I have Francie Wright from the

Education Processing Office in Muskogee, she could probably address

that.

Mr. Boozman. Oh, yes, come on up. You can sit there and grab that

mic.

Ms. Wright. Thank you very much.

  In terms of the OJT benefits that are paid out of the RPO, the

length of time it takes is impacted by the fact that it is not made

out of our automatic benefit processing system that we use for every

other type of education benefit that we administer. In particular, the

1606 OJT has to be passed off from all three other RPOs to St. Louis 

for payment because of an accounting situation. It is something that

we try to overcome, but any time there is any hand offs, it just adds

days to the process.

  I was really surprised at the example that Ms. Patterson gave on

the one from July. Other than the fact that possibly the application

itself, not the training package from the State Accrediting Agency,

but maybe the veteran’s package -- excuse me, Reservist or National Guardsman’s application package was not complete. Sometimes 

those things happen and of course, you know, in those instances, it

would take even longer. 

 But I know that we are all concerned about the time it takes to 

work the Reservist and Guard OJT payments, but the reason it does

take longer is because there is another handoff involved.

Mr. Boozman. Okay, thank you.

 Ms. Herseth.

Ms. Herseth. Well, let me just come back to Ms. Patterson. The two

examples you gave us were both on-the-job training applications?

Ms. Patterson. Correct.

Ms. Herseth. Okay. And I think if there is a way for this Committee to look into how we streamline this process a little bit more, especially given what you describe in terms of the expansion of the number of on-the-job facilities that have been approved and how many
42

more service members you have involved and if we look at that in

some of the other states, perhaps there is justification here just based

on raw numbers to give that a special look.

 Let me come back to General Haltom, in response to the Chairman’s first question. I am curious to know -- and I know it was just

a guess on your part -- but we certainly do not want to do anything

to jeopardize recruitment and retention efforts within the Guard and

Reserve, but do you say that you doubt that by allowing sort of a postdischarge utilization of education benefits that accrued would have a

significant impact on retention -- do you say that because there are

other factors that you think are maybe higher on the list in terms of

retention, like pay, military retirement, some other issues, and maybe what those other factors would be?

Brigadier General Haltom. Yes, I do believe there are other factors

that are higher on the list. And the fairness of the issue enters in too 

a little bit, in that if the active component soldier takes their benefits

with them when they separate, then it would seem fair to me that

the Guard member or Reservist took their benefits with them also

when they separate. And it is strictly a guess of mine on whether or

not there would be a significant impact on retention. I do not believe

there would.

  Quite frankly, the biggest thing for retention, in my mind -- and

this is strictly anecdotal -- is the desire to serve and to remain with

their fellow soldier. That is the biggest.

Ms. Herseth. I appreciate the point that you make, sort of the

equity issue. And perhaps one of the ways that we can discuss as we

look to modernize and improve the Montgomery GI Bill is -- but at

the same time address any of the Guard’s retention concerns, even

though I think that there are others that I have visited with informally that would cite the same factors you just did in terms of the

most important factors to stay -- is that we perhaps look at, you know,

a higher rate of benefits if you stay and a lower -- but still especially

for the new 1607, based on an activation and deployment, that those

benefits have accrued and a desire to use those benefits after the 90

days of service, one year of service, two years of active duty service.

  The dental issue here, I live in Brookings, South Dakota and a

couple of the colonels I talked to there, when they were getting ready

for their mobilizations and activations, told me the same thing in

terms of the amount of dental work that was required for the service

members before they reached that readiness level. Do you have any

thought -- I think we are getting at a broader issue in terms of healthcare for all Americans, but any ideas there in terms of what we could

do in the future to avoid that issue?

Brigadier General Haltom. I think I know how we could avoid it, I

am not sure how we would pay for it.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay, fair enough.
43

Brigadier General Haltom. I think that if all military service members, whether they were active, Reserve, Guard, had access to continued Tricare and dental coverage, it would greatly enhance our medical readiness of our soldiers. But there is a bill attached to that. 

Ms. Herseth. And anecdotally in conversations you have had with

other adjutants general and deputy adjutants general, has this been

an issue, just a national issue, just in terms of the dental?

Brigadier General Haltom. Yes, ma’am, it has.

Ms. Herseth. Okay. Mr. Fillman, you had talked about your outreach efforts. Could you maybe discuss in a little bit more detail

how some of those efforts have focused on working with the National

Guard and Reserve on the new Chapter 1607 benefits, and how many

employees, both in St. Louis and Muskogee, are specifically trained to

process the claims for 1607?

Mr. Fillman. Sure. The guidance for processing 1607 came just

-- we got that at the end of February, the combined guidance for the

REAP program. St. Louis and Muskogee and the other RPOs at that 

time conducted training on the guidance that came out. In Muskogee, 

they have 10 people working specifically the backlog of 1607 cases to

get those worked out; and in St. Louis, they have 18 people working

those. In St. Louis, since the end of -- they conducted the training

I believe it was the last week of February, the first week of March. 

They have completed 1908 1607 cases. Muskogee has completed almost 900 at that time. So we are working rapidly to get that backlog

of claims that had been pending out. So the guidance is there, it is in 

place and we are rapidly working to get those out and caught up.

Ms. Herseth. I appreciate that. And then your specific outreach efforts are going to maybe be facilitated by this guidance that has been

more recently issued?

Mr. Fillman. Yes.

Ms. Herseth. Okay. Just one last question. Mr. Snead, you mentioned in terms of the partners that you have been working with, the

different agencies. Can you just elaborate briefly on your working relationship with the VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment

Office?

Mr. Snead. What we have is our LVERs and our DVOPs and the

County Vet Representatives. In each of our DWS locations, as I mentioned to you earlier, we have -- currently 32 offices across the state.

Of course, we are fortunate in Arkansas, and we are thankful to have

the County Vet Reps in each of the 75 counties to help coordinate our

activities. The LVERs, and DVOPs work with them to coordinate

activities with the Department of Workforce Education and, I might

add, in coordination with our states two-year and four-year colleges

that are in those different communities, oftentimes the military member, when they come to us, they do not know all their eligible benefits,

as any other non-veteran that comes to us, of what is available out of
44

our Workforce One-Stop offices.

  Sometimes, we can combine the military GI Bill with other funding sources such as supportive sources, if they need transportation,

or whatever it may be that they need -- child care is another one -- to

help them go to school.

 So, it takes all these people working together, knowing each other’s 

programs and benefits to service veterans and non-veterans alike.

  I hope I answered your question.

Ms. Herseth. Yes, thank you.

  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Snyder.

Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

  General Haltom, several questions. What is the problem with

Tricare Prime Remote? You had in your written statement and you

referred to it briefly, but what is the problem with Tricare Prime Remote?

Brigadier General Haltom. I have got to remember the context in

which I used that, sir.

Mr. Snyder. It is on page 4 of your written testimony.

 Brigadier General Haltom. If I understand it correctly, under

TAMP, the 180 days of Tricare coverage that the soldier is entitled to

after mobilization ends is Tricare Standard, and it is not, therefore, 

available in the Prime Remote during that 180-day period.

Mr. Snyder. So it impacts some members but not all.

Brigadier General Haltom. Yes.

Mr. Snyder. Okay. Congresswoman Herseth brought up the dental

issue and, you know, we saw that all over the country, that one out

of five of all our Reserve Component forces that were mobilized were

not medically fit for service. Not just for dental, but for all reasons. 

When you think about that, these are people who have been coming

to drill every month maybe for years, we think they are ready and

then they all got screened and one out of five in the richest country in

the world were not medically fit for deployment for military service. I

think that really has to be a wake up call. I think the problem is what

we are asking to do is for the military to solve a problem that the

civilian side and the private side has not solved, which is how do we

pay for healthcare. And we can go all throughout Arkansas and find

all kinds of people in the Guard or out of the Guard that have dental

problems and medical problems and lack of health insurance to pay

for them. So it is a national problem, but I am hopeful that -- you

know food stamps came about because people who were drafted were 

coming in too skinny and under-nourished, and maybe this has been

a wake up call, what has happened in the last few years, that we have

got to solve this issue of lack of health insurance and dental health

insurance for our own selfish national security reasons, because it

hurt us and continues to hurt us in these mobilizations.
45

  The issue of the providers is a frustrating one. I know Dr. Schwartz

and I, who is another physician member of the Armed Services Committee, sent a letter nationally that was published by the AMA and

just basically pleaded with people, we know there are problems with

Tricare, but sign up anyway if you can. But it is an issue and I wish

it was one that we did not have right now.

  I would like your comment on the 50 percent referral rate. Were

you surprised when -- those figures have gotten some attention nationally. What was your personal view as somebody who had several

thousand troops overseas?

 Brigadier General Haltom. I was surprised that it was that high. 

We expected what I would have considered high, 25 percent.

 Mr. Snyder. Right.

 Brigadier General Haltom. It was much higher than what we 

thought it would be. I think it is a reflection in our case -- and I can

only look at our case -- I think it is a reflection of where our people

were and what they were doing and the impact that it had on them.

Mr. Snyder. General Haltom, one of the issues that has come up 

in these discussions the last months, and Congresswoman Herseth 

mentioned it too, is the different impacts of the GI Bill in the Reserve

Component and the Active Component. To me, one of the most strikingly unfair aspects of it for the Reserve Component soldiers is if one

of your Guardsman has a six-year enlistment and is activated his or

her last two years, but then decides not to re-enlist, they get no educational benefit at all. Now we cannot feel good about that.

Brigadier General Haltom. No.

Mr. Snyder. I mean that is just terribly unfair. Another issue that

has come up is, as you may know, if somebody is in the Active Component and enlists, in order to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill,

they have to pay $1200 their first year, which is a significant chunk

of pay, you know, if you are an E-1 just coming in. I have a bill, as do

some others, and there is some interest in just eliminating that $1200

and just say if you join the Active Component, you are entitled to the

benefit if you complete your service and all, whatever the criteria are.

We had a hearing last week in Washington that you are probably familiar with, on the GI Bill and at the end of it, the Chairman, Chairman Boyer, was asking the panel of Reserve Component officers and

representatives, looked at it the other way. Well, if you are concerned

about the Reserve Component benefit and think there should be a

better benefit because it has dropped off, we have increased the Active Component benefit, the monthly pay, but not the Reserve Component, should you not be advocating for, in his words, putting some

skin in the game, having some kind of a monthly payment from the

Reserve Component forces, which I think is an absolutely terrible

idea. I think we need to get rid of the $1200 from the Active Component and not think about somehow requiring some kind of a monthly
46

payment from Reserve Component members to join. What is your

feeling about that way of dealing with that issue?

Brigadier General Haltom. Well, I agree totally with your analysis

of it. Requiring a monthly fee from the Reservist would have the effect of further reducing participation in the program.

Mr. Snyder. Right.

  Mr. Watson, you brought up something in both your written and

oral statement that I had not thought of before, which is when we 

talk about, like the suggestion earlier that this demobilization ought 

to be done in Kuwait and all the discussions of benefits as much as

could occur there. But then you pointed out that one of the problems

is that people are from multiple states and every state has really

tried to step forward and we have different tax treatment, different

educational benefits, states have stepped forward trying to provide

benefits. It can make a debriefing kind of weird when you basically

are going to tell people now when you get back home, be sure and talk

to your own state representative because your law may be different.

I had not thought of that before.

  Do you have any further comments on that?

Mr. Watson. Well, it is a common problem, sir. A lot of your states

have state veterans’ benefits available. For example, my home state

of Texas has low-interest loans for housing and land purchases. If 

they are disabled veterans, they have free license plates, free hunting and fishing licenses, and as soon as you go over the border into

Oklahoma, it changes. And it is very difficult to do those briefings. 

What we encourage at our briefings is to make the contact through

the local One-Stop or the Employment Service that Mr Snead represents, with the LVERs and DVOPs. What you tend to find is the

local representative knows the easy access points, they have the good

referrals for both state and federal benefits in the local area, and the

demographics plays a large role in it too. If you are out in west Texas,

you have to go through the County Service Organizations such as Mr.

Batey here next to me represents. Those local representatives are

the experts, they know the easy way for the service member to access

benefits.

Mr. Snyder. Ms. Patterson, I appreciate your participation today

and your comments. I was struck by one of your conclusions that

we need to refuse to accept the status quo. We had an interesting

hearing last week in Washington where -- I don’t know, John, I guess 

there was a panel of about eight or nine people at that hearing, but 

the first two were the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Hall, for

Reserve Affairs and the other one was Mr. Carr, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy. And in both their

written and oral statements, they stated that “There are no significant shortcomings in the GI Bill.” I was suspicious that there was

some coordination in statements there. I sensed a good OMB scrub-
47

bing of their statement before it came before us.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Snyder. Because then right down the line of the general officers who are in charge of these programs, they brought out the kinds

of things that have come out, how the Reserve benefit has dropped

off because the Armed Services Committee has not done anything to

deal with it while the Veterans’ Committee has raised the benefit for

the Active Component. And so, I mean it was very clear to me that

there are significant shortcomings of the program and I appreciate

your comment that you think we should refuse to accept the status

quo, which I think is the mood of the members of this Committee that

are here today.

  And you specifically mentioned the benefit for the Reserve Component, the $297 a month I believe, as, in your words “disheartening”.

  I have a sister who her hobby now is going to garage sales in a town

where a college is and buying used textbooks and put them on the

internet. And $297 -- I could easily find places where $297 would buy

you two textbooks, with the cost of textbooks.

Ms. Patterson. Right.

Mr. Snyder. That is disheartening if you think you are getting

some big benefit for having served in the National Guard or the Reserve forces.

  I think those are all my questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. I

appreciate all your participation here today.

Mr. Boozman. Do you have anything else, Ms. Herseth?

Ms. Herseth. No.

Mr. Boozman. Okay, thank you, panel, very much. We appreciate

all you do for the Armed Services.

  Let us have our next panel.

  Dr. Snyder has one additional question real quick.

Mr. Snyder. Mr. Fillman. I am sorry, Mr. Fillman, may I ask you

one more question?

Mr. Fillman. Sure.

Mr. Snyder. Because in the next panel is Mr. Steve Kime and one

of the things that he says is that “Perhaps the single most important

material element needed to bring the administration of the GI Bill 

into the 21st century is high tech expertise and equipment.” And he

states that the education program does not enjoy high priority in the

Department of Veterans’ Affairs. What is your comment? I do not

know if you had a chance to look at that statement, that there is a

great need for high tech expertise and equipment.

Mr. Fillman. I think the shortcoming is probably the interaction

between the VA and the Department of Defense on getting the information that we need in a timely manner to be able to process a lot of

these claims.
48

  For example, in the Guard and Reserve program or in some of the

programs, we are dependent upon the military to tell us the eligibility

of the people. And sometimes that is very difficult to get. We have to

go to each of the branches. Some branches are receptive and give us

the information. Other branches are not. So if there was more interaction, access where we could get the information on our own, I think 

we would tremendously improve the timeliness of the benefit.

Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boozman. Let us take a two minute break.

[Recess.]

Mr. Boozman. The meeting will be in order.

  Our final panel is Mr. Jim Bombard, Chairman, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Education; Colonel

Robert F. Norton, Co-Chair of Veterans Committee, The Military Coalition; Mr. Don Sweeney, Legislative Director, National Association

of State Approving Agencies; Dr. Steve Kime, Immediate Past-President, Servicemembers Opportunity College and former Vice President of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities;

Representative Joyce Elliott, Arkansas House of Representatives,

District 33, Director of Advanced Placement Field Initiatives, The

College Board; Mr. David Guzman, Legislative Director, National Association of Veterans Program Administrators and Mr. Keith Wilson, 

Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefit Administration.

 Let us start with Mr. Bombard.

STATEMENTS OF JIM BOMBARD, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT

 OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, VETERANS’ ADVISORY COMMIT-

 TEE ON EDUCATION; COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, COCHAIR, VETERANS COMMITTEE, THE MILITARY COALI-

 TION; DON SWEENEY, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATION-

 AL ASSOCIATION OF STATE APPROVING AGENCIES; DR. 

 STEVE KIME, IMMEDIATE PAST-PRESIDENT, SERVICE-

 MEMBERS OPPORTUNITY COLLEGE, VICE PRESIDENT (RE-

 TIRED), AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES

 AND UNIVERSITIES

STATEMENT OF JIM BOMBARD

Mr. Bombard. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth, Congressman Snyder, Senator Pryor, I am pleased to appear before you

today on behalf of the Veterans Advisory Committee on Education to

provide comments on two interrelated issues. First, the Committee’s

findings and recommendations on improving the flexibility and administrative efficiency of Title 38 and Title 10 education programs.

Second, the Advisory Committee’s findings and recommendations on
49

restructuring the GI Bill.

  The Committee, upon review of the claims processing system believes an overhaul of the management philosophy that underlies the

collection and manipulation of data should be accomplished. This 

overhaul may require legislative action, which the Committee recommends the department initiate.

  It is clear that funding for information technology for the Veterans

Education Service within the VBA is inadequate and that much needs

to be done to make hardware and software improvements that will

streamline VBA’s ability to absorb and manage the data it requires. 

Updating the IT systems associated with the payment of educational

assistance benefits should be a top priority.

  With regard to program flexibility, the Committee has in the past

made a number of recommendations designed to increase program 

flexibility. Among them, accelerated payment without restriction, expansion of test reimbursement, removing or extending the delimiting

date, equalizing the benefit for OJT and apprentice in relationship

to the IHL and NCD education and training programs, and remove

restrictions on wage progression for municipal employees who are

receiving OJT benefits under the GI Bill.

  The Committee believes that the Education Service in conjunction

with Congress can create a flexible program and an efficient claims

processing system by accomplishing the following:

  Restructure the GI Bill, adopt a Total Force policy.

 Adopt a new philosophical approach to claims processing which 

streamlines the process.

  Create a synergistic relationship with Congress in order to ensure

feasibility and support for any additional programs associated with

the GI Bill.

  Improve information exchange between DoD and DVA.

  Invest in state-of-the-art IT systems. Adopt the TEES system,

which is the education expert system which has been proposed for

the VA for the last five or six years.

 Hire additional staff to do claims processing or at a minimum maintain budget direct FTE support. That’s one of the biggest problems. 

The VA Education Service has some fine people. A lot of the resources are being drained away from them and they have an inability to

implement efficient and effective claims processing systems.

  With regard to the Total Force, the Advisory Committee recommended a fundamental change to the structure of the Montgomery

GI Bill and put forth a framework for a new GI Bill that reflects the

realities of the Total Force policy.

  Both the Active Duty and Selected Reserve programs share the

same name and are part of the same legislation, but they have different purposes. The Active Duty program revolves around recruitment, transition and readjustment to civilian status, while the Sel-
50

Res program is designed to promote recruitment and retention, with 

no regard for readjustment or transition.

 The current GI Bill programs did not consider DoD’s use of the 

SelRes for all operational missions. Under this policy, the SelRes

and some members of the Individual Ready Reserve are considered

integral members of the Total Force. Reserve members who are faced

with extended activations require similar transition and readjustment benefits as those separating from the Active Duty.

  For this reason, the Advisory Committee recommended replacing

the separate GI Bill programs for veterans and reservists with one

program that consolidates the GI Bill programs under one umbrella, 

Title 38. This will add value to the Montgomery GI Bill as a recruitment and retention tool for the Armed Forces, including the National 

Guard and Reserve, establish equity of benefits for returning Guard

and Reserve members; support Congress’ intent for the Montgomery

GI Bill and potentially save taxpayers money through improved administration.

  This concept would provide Montgomery GI Bill reimbursement

rate levels based on an individual’s service in the Armed Forces, including the National Guard and Reserve, a Montgomery GI Bill active duty three-year rate, a pro rata SelRes rate or Sel Reserve rate

and a SelRes activated rate, which is equivalent to the active duty of

one month of benefits for one month of service on active duty.

  The Total Force proposal provides a unique opportunity to create a

comprehensive GI Bill that is both fair and simple. Its eloquence is

its equity and its simplicity.

  I have been testifying to restructure the GI Bill for longer than I

would like to remember, the first time when Tiger Roland Teague

was the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee and the question that is always raised is can we afford it. Well, I do not think we

can afford not to.

  In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present

the Advisory Committee’s recommendations and views in this regard.

Thank you.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

Colonel Norton.

[The statement of Mr. Bombard appears on p. 131]
51

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON

Colonel Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Herseth, Congressman Snyder. On behalf of the 36 members of The

Military Coalition, I am very pleased to offer our testimony on the

Total Force Montgomery GI Bill, and my written statement also addresses the TAP program.

  I did have a prepared statement here today, but I thought it might

be appropriate to follow up on some of the themes that have already

been addressed here by earlier panels.

  First, Congressman Snyder, I really appreciate your engagement

on this issue because I see you and other members who serve both on

Veterans’ Affairs Committee and on Armed Services as really key on

this issue of restructuring the Montgomery GI Bill.

  The reality is -- and I think it is really important for the members

of the National Guard here in this armory today, as well as the general public and lawmakers, to understand that the Montgomery GI

Bill is a house divided. As Congressman Snyder pointed out, the Reserve GI Bill program is operated under the jurisdiction of the Armed

Forces Committee and the Active Duty GI Bill, ironically, is under

the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Now that may sound like an academic kind of Washington, inside-the-beltway issue. But the reality is that the Defense Department has not endorsed any significant

changes in the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill since before 9/11. I will

offer two examples.

  Number one, the benefits for initial entry into the National Guard

or Reserve. Back before 9/11, those benefits paid roughly 50 cents to

the dollar for the Active Duty GI Bill. Today, if that ratio were still

in play, an Active Duty soldier who enlisted in the Army, for example,

would earn as a veteran $1034 a month for his GI Bill benefits. The

Reservist would have under that 50 percent ratio, about a $500 per

month benefit. But since 9/11, that benefit has dropped in proportion

to the Active Duty program from $500 to about $297. The members

of the National Guard here who have served their country honorably

and selflessly gone into harm’s way deserve better treatment. It is

not fair and it is shameful that this nation cannot do better by them

in terms of the Montgomery GI Bill.

  The second issue relates to what, Congresswoman Herseth, you

brought up. I think there is a real strong linkage here on the Transition Assistance Program to the Montgomery GI Bill. You brought up

the Chapter 1607 program, the brand new program that Congress 

enacted two years ago for members of the National Guard and Reserve who are called up. They receive a mobilization GI Bill benefit

for their service on active duty. And it really surprised me and disappointed me and I know it disappoints members of The Military

Coalition to learn that, that none of the four members of this panel, 
52

members of the National Guard, who had served their country, did

not even understand or know about this benefit.

  And let me illustrate that. If a young man or young woman graduated from Rogers High School, joined the National Guard in 2002

and then, as I understand it from talking to some of the Guardsmen 

here this morning, were called up and they have deployed this year,

March 2006. So under the example, this person has already served

about four years. They come back, after perhaps a 15-month tour

next June, June 2007. Because of that 15 months of active duty,

under Chapter 1607, they have earned a $22,300 GI Bill benefit for

their service to the nation. They can use it for college, they can use

it for job training, they can use it for high tech courses. Obviously

these four young men really did not even know about that benefit, but

more troubling, let us say that in the example I used, the person who

joined out of Rogers High School in 2002 comes back next June, that

is five years, and then they complete their service and they decide

they want to go to the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville full time

when they complete their service in June 2008. They have basically

one year from their return from deployment to use $22,300 under the

GI Bill. They cannot use all of that benefit. Barely would they be

able to use even a portion of it when they separate.

  Now the Coalition is certainly not recommending that anybody get

out of the National Guard, but as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman,

the issue here is not a question of their motivation. I think General Haltom pointed out that these great young men and women stay

in the Guard, stay in the Reserve, stay on active duty for a variety

of reasons. And to make the GI Bill benefit a matter of compelling

them to stay in the Guard is not what they are all about. They will

stay because they want to serve. They will not stay just because of

the GI Bill. And whether they complete their service in two years

or 10 years, they should be able, as was pointed out earlier, to take

their benefits earned from active duty with them into civilian life and

have the same 10-year usage period. So the Coalition would recommend a complete restructuring of the GI Bill, and it will be critical for 

the Armed Services Committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee

to get together to make this happen. We agree that the programs 

under the Reserve side should be transferred over to Title 38. We

have much more confidence that the Veterans’ Affairs Committee can

structure the GI Bill in proportion to the service rendered and also to

provide a very needed readjustment benefit.

  Finally, on the GI Bill, I would just point out that there has been

a lot of interest in improving the flexibility of the delivery of the benefits, say for long haul trucking courses and other than high tech. In

other words, accelerated use of the benefit. And that is a wonderful

thing and certainly we in the Coalition fully support that. Of course,

again, the problem is, using the example that I gave earlier, that if
53

you complete your service and you get out of the National Guard or

the Reserve, you leave all of those benefits from mobilization on the

table, and the flexibility frankly is not there. So the reality is that the

Montgomery GI Bill is a house divided. We need to create a single architecture for it and we need to make sure that these fine young men

and women who serve in the Arkansas National Guard -- presently

there are 919 on active duty here in the state, 118,000 reservists nationwide on active duty, and since 9/11 more than 525,000 have served

on active duty in the War on Terror, including in that number about

70,000 who have pulled two tours of duty. They deserve a better deal

under the Montgomery GI Bill and we look forward in the Coalition

to working with the Committee and working with the Armed Services

Committee to make this happen as soon as possible.

  My statement also comments on the TAP program and I would be

happy to address that during oral Q&A. 

  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present our

views.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Colonel Norton.

  Mr. Sweeney.

[The statement of Colonel Norton appears on p. 146]

STATEMENT OF DON SWEENEY

Mr. Sweeney. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth, 

Congressman Snyder, I am very pleased to appear before you today

on behalf of the National Association of State Approving Agencies to

comment on ways to make VA education benefits more flexible, ease

the administration of the benefits for colleges, universities and students, and also present our views on the Total Force Montgomery GI

Bill proposal.

 As a founding member of the Partnership for Veterans Education, 

the Association is proud to support the Total Force GI Bill proposal. 

As we state in our written testimony, it is an idea whose time is overdue. The security and the future of our nation are hinged upon the efforts and successes of the one percent of our population who put their 

lives on the line for the freedoms that we all so thoroughly enjoy.

They deserve no less from the rest of us than to be provided with the

best possible programs and services to ensure that they can continue

to strive to be the leaders and the builders of tomorrow.

  As my colleagues have and will continue to say here today, a Total

Force GI Bill is a relatively simple idea, but far reaching. It simplifies

the administration, which should bring efficiency and cost savings to

the federal government and it creates equality for those who serve on

active duty from the Selected Reserve forces -- equal opportunities

and benefits for equal service rendered.

  We offer several recommendations on way to make VA’s educa-
54

tional assistance programs more flexible. First, however, we would

like to commend the Congress on its achievements. Much has been

done in recent years to provide service members, veterans and other eligible persons with greater opportunities to use education and 

training benefits which they have earned. Yet, the very nature of

today’s learning environments and the ever-evolving global economy

demand that we continue our improvement efforts to ensure that the

programs remain viable. In our view, the GI Bills should be the premier educational assistance programs in the country, bar none -- let

me repeat -- bar none.

  In the written testimony, we offer eight recommendations ranging

from relatively small revisions in law to ones which will have significant impact on the ability of veterans to use their GI Bill benefits. I

will quickly highlight three of them in my remarks, summarize the

other five and close with suggestions on how to ease the administration of the benefits.

  Our first recommendation recognizes the need for lifelong learning

and offers wording for the incorporation of the principle into Title 

38 by way of revisions to Section 3452(b) and (c). You will see in

the written testimony (c). As of last night, it occurred to me that (b)

needs to be there as well. It expands the provision to all professions,

vocations, and occupations, recognizes that a single unit course or

subject may be all that a veteran needs in order to obtain, maintain

or advance in an occupation or profession. And, it provides for the

use of benefits while enrolled in a subject or combination of subjects

without requiring a connection to a license or a certificate.

  Our second recommendation is in line with the first -- create a task

force of representatives from Congressional Committee staff, the VA

and NASAA to establish a new set of approval criteria, possibly a subsection (e) under Section 3676 of Title 38, for the purpose of approving the kind of course pursuit described in the first recommendation.

Criteria that would ensure the quality and integrity of the learning

experience and simultaneously not impose unnecessary requirements

on the school or entity.

  Our third recommendation is to revise Section 3014A of Title 38 to

allow accelerated payment of basic educational assistance for education leading to employment in industries other than high technology, but place limitations on the length of such programs for use of

the provision. The recommendation is already partially addressed in

H.R. 717.

  At this point, I would like to summarize by topic the other five recommendations mentioned in the written testimony.

  We recommend removing unnecessary approval criteria such as

the period of operation rule and the requirement for a pro rata refund

policy in specific situations.

  We recommend modernizing approval criteria for correspondence
55

courses in terms of the minimum length of the program and the 

length of the affirmation period and then suggest increasing the percentage of the educational assistance allowance payable.

  We recommend providing use of benefits for remedial or deficiency

courses offered through online education.

  And finally, we recommend maintaining the current rate of benefits for job training programs that expire on September 30 of 2007.

  We conclude our comments today with recommendations regarding ways to expedite the VA systems for processing the payment of

VA educational assistance benefits. They are at a macro level, but

important to note. We really encourage the Committee to assist the

Department, as already has been stated here today by the two other

speakers, in its efforts to provide sufficient funding for the improvement of technological assistance associated with the payment of VA

educational assistance benefits, especially apprenticeship and OJT

programs. It is our understanding that there is strong competition 

for funds within the VA for technology improvements, so any help

that the Committee can give to support the needs of education services would be greatly appreciate.

  We also encourage the Committee to support other initiatives by

the VA to streamline its processing systems, such as the capacity to

accept electronic signatures on veterans’ application forms and other

forms used by the Regional Processing Offices.

  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for the

opportunity to comment on the Montgomery GI Bill Total Force proposal, ways to make VA’s education benefits more flexible and ways

to ease the administration of the benefits. We very much appreciate

your leadership and the efforts of the Committee to make improvements in these programs. I would be very happy to respond to any

questions that you might have.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Sweeney.

 Dr. Kime.

  [The statement of Mr. Sweeney appears on p. 157]

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVE KIME

Dr. Kime. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Herseth and Congressman Snyder, it is a real honor to be here in America and I cannot

think of a more appropriate place to hold a hearing like this, particularly when you think about the Total Force GI Bill concept -- it is the

perfect place.

  I come to you today as a 31-year veteran and as an educator both

and I bring with me proxies from all of the major national higher ed

associations -- the American Council on Education, the land grants, 

state college and universities -- representing just about every student

in the United States, including the independent colleges and univer-
56

sities. I could list them all, but I do not want to waste my time here

doing that.

  The important thing for you to understand in that sense right there

is that all of them have coordinated very carefully on the Total Force

GI Bill concept and support it, as members of the Partnership for Veterans Education. These are the people who invented and supported

the concept of a benchmark for the GI Bill, I am sure you have heard

about, to make it equal to a four-year public college education. I am

here to remind you that you are only 60 percent of that benchmark, or

so, today. Not that this Committee and not that the Congress has not

tried and deserves credit for darned good work, because I think you

have made a lot of improvement. But if you think about this, you are

at 60 percent of that benchmark today and the Reserve and Guard

is only getting 28 percent of that 60 percent. So not only has the proportion gone down, but the absolute commitment about how much 

of a four-year public college education are you going to fund has also

taken a big hit in the last three or four years. And that really truly

needs review. And all of higher ed is on board with my comments on

this. Like I say, I very carefully coordinated it.

  There has been progress, as I said, in your attempts to do something about the Active Duty service member and their attempt to

get an education, even though the harder you try, the farther behind

you get. You have not done nearly as well, Congress has not done

as well as they should, with the Reserve and the Guard. The fact

of the matter is that the GI Bill has not kept pace with modern U.S. 

national strategy and U.S. national deployment policies. We have a

new strategy, we have a new deployment policy. Ever since I was a

kid, we have talked about total force. Well, now we have really got a

total force strategy. Now we have really got a total force deployment

policy. We do not have a total force GI Bill. We have a GI Bill that

is spread out too far in too many places and has enormous inequities

in it.

  In fact, what you have done lately with 1606 and 1607 is simply a

well-intentioned -- a very well-intentioned -- bandaid on a sucking

chest wound. It does not cut it. There needs to be a total force GI Bill 

that truly embraces the national strategy and the deployment policy

that we have. And it is time to get all of this together in one place.

It must be done under Chapter 38. I know it is going to be hard and 

I know that a lot of Reservists and Guard people who want to keep

control of this money are not going to like it. But it all needs to be

in one place. I was, by the way, very impressed with the General’s

answer today. He had that right on about retention. Do not let them

tell you that, it is nonsense, it will not affect retention. You do the

right thing and it will pay off.

 Now to shift gears here a little bit. Modern adult and continuing 

education, since I am supposed to represent higher ed here, remem-
57

ber that that applies to everybody. Modern adult and continuing education includes truck driver schools, it includes technology courses

and it includes all of the academic courses. And it applies to the total 

force. These people that go out there from the Reserve and the Guard

need adult and continuing education assistance as much as active

duty people do.

  Now philosophically -- and this is what has been missed -- there

is no readjustment benefit, as Colonel Norton said, for the Guard

and Reserve. Well, if you apply modern adult and continuing education concepts to the Guard and the Reserve, you have to change your

thinking about this. It applies to them. They need continuing education and continuing updates and they need access to the benefit they

have earned by being shot at. They need those benefits until they can

get themselves back and readjusted into the economy. That is important. So the whole purpose of the GI Bill for the Guard and Reserve

needs to be rethought. It is wrong right now.

  Now I would like to turn my attention a little bit to administration. I have comments to make about administration of the GI Bill

that are not pretty and I wanted to be sure that you understand that

these do not apply to the people that I have met. As Chairman of the

Committee for a long time, I have been to these regional offices and

I have talked to hundreds of people in the Veterans’ Administration.

I have found very few that I would not say were first class and many

of them veterans themselves, working very hard. The problem is you

have great people working in a system that is totally outdated and

outmoded, and operating on philosophies that were gained really in

1945 to 1950 with a different GI Bill and a different purpose. It is 

simply not working.

  Now, administratively, let us start at the top. All GI Bill funding

belongs in one place. We now have two departments. After the war

we only had one department. Now we have a department that is responsible for war fighting, we have a department that is responsible

for veterans. Let us put the GI Bill in the department where it belongs, I do not know why it has taken us 50 years to discover this. It

is where it belongs, under Title 38. It does not belong over there under the Reserve bosses in the Pentagon, who are more worried about

keeping head room in their budgets than they are in providing the

education benefits that they should be providing for their people. It

belongs over in the department that was created for that purpose.

And that is the Department of Veterans Affairs. Now their skirts are 

not clean, because they still act like an administration and not like a

department, but it is time that they be given the responsibilities of a

department and that they start to act like it.

  Administrative culture in the VA is a disaster. It generated itself

in the late 1940s and early 1950s when the idea was that every GI

Bill recipient is a potential lawbreaker. Management by exception
58

was impossible. All the schools were out there to steal all the money

they could steal. We are in a different world here now. Even, for

crying out loud, the IRS and the Social Security Administration understand management by exception. Why can we not manage the GI

Bill by exception and why can we not treat this benefit they have as

a credit earned and simplify the administration. It is terrible. The

lawyers and the administrators that run the GI Bill, not to mention

to OMB, have it by the neck. And nothing can get done. We need to

start all over again with rulemaking and we need a clean slate. And

the reason I am making that point so vociferously is that you have

that opportunity now.

  If you create a total force GI Bill, if you go back and start all over

again and get this thing in one place where it belongs, you can address the management philosophy under which it runs and you can

clean out a lot of cobwebs. It needs to be done desperately.

  The consequences of the way the GI Bill is administered now lead

to low morale, total misunderstanding and confusion, as you could

tell this morning, about what is it and how big is it and how do I get 

to it. All of that has got to be fixed.

  Also, I think we need to look a little more specifically at modern

techniques of accounting and administration. I mean Wal-Mart understands them, Visa understands them, The Home Depot understands that you can use an electronic signature. All of these people

know how to manage a debit system and a credit system. Why in

heavens name has the Department of Veterans’ Affairs stuck with

this old system of accounting that requires reams of information, repeatedly requires reams of information and then does not get it and

manipulate it in time, because they have too much of it for too little.

  And I would like to give you one perspective here. How much can

a veteran take? An active duty veteran can only steal $36,000. We

have got to be paying a lot more than that to administer this poor

kid’s GI Bill, because we do it over and over and over again. Management by exception, modern accounting techniques would make a big

difference. 

  And the other administrative reality I would like to address, since

you asked me to when you asked me to testify, is this business of

the priority of the veterans’ benefits, or the education benefits in

VA. Now these people cannot talk about that and it is unfair to ask 

them about it. But you can ask me, I have been watching it for decades. They enjoy no priority practically. Virtually everything you

guys looked at this morning, you ended up reducing to medical issues. 

Well, Lord knows that medical issues come first. No veteran would

say otherwise, a youngster who is hurt is more important than one

who wants to go to college. Let us get that out there. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

  But in your administrative hierarchy and in the way you put funds
59

out there, you have got to put education benefits high enough in the

priority that they can get the job done. They will never, never fix

their technical approach to this or their modeling approach to it, if 

they are always low priority in everything. It will never happen.

  So that needs to be addressed forthrightly. I am not saying that it

should be taken from medical benefits and all that, because I do think

that is the most important thing in the world for these people. But 

education benefits, if it has no priority, then it might as well not exist.

And I think somebody has got to bite that one off and I think it has to

be someone out of the VA to say it forthrightly and that is me.

  Summary -- the current management of the GI Bill needs comprehensive ongoing reform, thorough ongoing reform. The proposed GI

Bill, and putting all of this in one place under a total force GI Bill, 

Title 38, is a rare management opportunity as well as a rare opportunity to finally produce an equitable, fair, clear GI Bill that everybody

in America understands, that is related to the amount of combat experience that a person has. If they are called to active duty, they get

a fair proportion of education benefit. Here is your rare management

opportunity to do something really important.

  That is my comments. I have more detail supporting all this in my

written testimony.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, Dr. Kime.

  Representative Elliott.

[The statement of Dr. Kime appears on p. 163]

STATEMENT OF STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOYCE ELLIOTT

Ms. Elliott. Thank you, Chairman Boozman and thank you Ms.

Herseth, and my own Congressman, Congressman Snyder. 

  I will say up front my comments will be about education in particular, I am not being dismissive of on-the-job training, let us make

sure that is clear. But I am speaking to you today as an educator,

retired educator actually, I taught for 31 years. And now work for

the College Board and also serve in the House of Representatives as

the Chair of the House Education Committee. So you might not be

surprised that my comments might center strictly on education.

  My job with the College Board though has been one of a great experiment, because we are -- if you are not familiar with the College

Board, our primary concern is making sure we connect students to

college successfully and my job is to make sure I reach out to those

under-represented populations because one of the things that we 

recognize at the College Board is that a lot of students have taken

advantage of a college education in this country, but there are those

populations out there that we call under-represented, who are not 

connected and connected successfully. And we had never thought

about this when we started the job, in terms of veterans, but as we
60

are a membership organization that includes colleges, both two-year

and four-year colleges, one of those under-represented populations

among the college population happens to be veterans.

  So it is my responsible and it is the mantra of the College Board

to make sure that we do something about connecting everybody to a

college education who wants to have that advantage. We found in our

research of course that in academic year 2004-2005, 16 percent of the

$18 billion that went to grant in aid went to veterans. And of course,

we have heard today much of that is probably -- that is not enough

money, we need to do even better.

  But it does very little good for us to even appropriate the money

and to fund the programs if we are not doing what we are trying to do

at the College Board, to ensure two things -- that is equity and access. 

I had no idea before I came here today that equity would be so much

a part of this conversation, but just in the general educational world

at large, we know that equity and access are huge issues, especially

for those populations for whom they might be the first generation to

attend college. If they do not have that support, if we do not have

people doing something other than just saying “y’all come,” and not

have the support mechanism there, and not making sure there is a

continuous stream at the beginning of the process through the end of 

it, we tend to lose people.

  For example, I have heard a great deal today about the delay. Delay leads to deterrence and the students who maybe start the process

and are delayed within that process tend to never complete the process of a college education.

  So I want to assure you that in this effort to make sure veterans

have what they need, that they have an opportunity to gain a college

education through the benefits that you are providing, that we think

about this in terms of not doing things the same old way. I thought

before I came here today probably that education was one of the most

inflexible agencies out there. I think I have been disabused of that

notion today. There is somebody who is worse off than we are in the

education field.

  In my testimony that I provided to you, there is some discussion

about the importance of a college education, what it means to this 

country in general. We know that if a person is educated, it is going

to cost a great deal of money and we talk about veterans going to college. On average, just to go to a two-year college, it costs about $2200

a year just for tuition and fees. And when you take a look at the rest

of those costs, if a veterans is at the college campus, that is almost

$12,000. That price of course goes up as we get into talking about

going to a four-year school.

  And so this notion that we are not fully funding veterans so that

they can complete that process is one I think that really flies in the

face of what we owe them. It is terribly expensive, and I am just talk-
61

ing -- I am not even talking about the private colleges, that is just the

state colleges and that is just an average.

  And the other complications that are facing veterans of course have

to do with access and equity. Most of them have the obligation of

work and most of them have to attend college on a part time basis.

That creates extra burdens for them because if they are working,

they have family obligations and they still need more money. How

are they supposed to afford it if we do not do a better job of making sure they have access to those funds. So they end up borrowing

money, one-third of the students who go to college end up borrowing

money. On average, the average student borrows $7500 a year just to

get through college. And if you are a veteran, chances are -- and you

have not come from a family who has been to college, and that is true

of many of the students that I taught who have become veterans and

I taught 11th and 12th graders and I often saw those students matriculate from high school right into the military. And many of those

students I know personally did not come from families who had gone

to college before. So they did not have the means and sometimes not

even the mindset that this is something that is attainable for me. And

I think if they can serve in the military, one of the things we ought to

do is help them with that mindset and the means to make sure they

can matriculate through college and give them the support.

  I will just kind of conclude my comments with some thoughts about

the importance of helping veterans to attain a college education and

what it means to society. We all know that an educated person, for

example, tends to be a less sick person. We all know that an educated person is one who pays more taxes, although that is not our

sole reason for having employment. We also know that a person who

is educated will indeed become a more productive and more participating member of our society. These things are without reputation.

And every year the College Board produces something called College

Trends where we show the benefit of a college education. So this

trend called Education Pays shows in one capacity after another, if

you are college educated, what it means to this country and what it

means to the advancement of this country.

  So I would just like us to think about it in terms of I guess to paraphrase a philosophy in helping our veterans attain what they deserve,

you know, from those from whom we expect a great deal, we should

expect to give a great deal back. And I cannot think of a better way to

do that than to make sure that we look at these issues of access and 

equity and to help the veterans realize the American dream as well.

  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Ms. Elliott.

 Mr. Guzman.

[The statement of Ms. Elliott appears on p. 174]
62

STATEMENT OF DAVID GUZMAN

Mr. Guzman. Good afternoon, Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth and Mr. Snyder. And we are almost finished.

  I have behind me the Chairman of the Legislative Committee for

NAVPA, Faith DesLauriers, in the red and she will be here to help 

answer any questions later on.

  We have been asked to comment on Title 38 and Title 10 education

programs and related administrative processes. While both of these

titles, as relates to the Montgomery GI Bill are admirable programs,

especially at the onset, because they have allowed service members

the opportunity for readjustment or employment needs, education

and training, these excellent programs as envisioned by Representative Sonny Montgomery have not had the benefit of being updated to

meet today’s technological advancements or the involvement of the

total force military. Many of the statutory and administrative requirements are applied in such a manner as to be restrictive and, in

some cases, deny education and training benefits to eligible veterans,

especially those that meet advance pay issues.

  The NAVPA agenda for 2006 outlines many of the barriers. We

know that efficiencies can be gained in a win-win-win situation for

the VA, the school and the veterans, and we have made such recommendations in our agenda, which was distributed to the Subcommittee on February 1.

  While the VA has been open to many of our suggestions, the continual turnover of the Director of Education Services has impaired

some of this progress. Past directors have indicated that our recommendations are sound. One even said that they were no-brainers,

easy to do. But they leave before any actions are taken, progress is

stopped and in fact, we find ourselves starting over after a new director is named and after he or she becomes familiar with the technologies employed and is comfortable in the new position.

  Some of the recommendations include staffing VA Education Services for TAP briefings. Making processing rules the same for all

benefits. Considering that a claims examiner handles many different types of claims, the more variations in rules between benefits

complicates processing and slows down service to veterans. If the

claimant is eligible for a higher rate, the VA should pay the higher

benefit automatically. Public Law 108-375 requires that the VA obtain an election if the claimant is eligible for more than one program. 

Eliminate the need to develop for mitigating circumstances for reductions and terminations under all education benefits. And make the

change effective the date it occurs. On electronic applications, accept

electronic signatures. And develop a web portal for veterans to view

their records specifically on notification of receipt of their application

by VA, determination of eligibility and other tracking issues. These
63

now tend to bog down the process and tie up phone lines.

  NAVPA has long held that the GI Bill is an earned benefit, as well

as an investment. But that it should not have a 10-year delimiting

date, but that delimiting date should be extended or even eliminated,

to better address the needs of lifelong learning. Many veterans cannot

use the benefits immediately following service to our country because

of family commitments. When they finally are able to attend school,

the benefit has expired because of the 10-year delimiting rule, a real

disservice to those who have served honorably and contributed, and

truly need the assistance. Most veterans accessing the Montgomery

GI Bill today use the 36 months of eligibility within their first college

degree program; however, there are many others who need the benefit to pay high-cost, short-term programs or for on-the-job training

and apprenticeships, or to upgrade skills in their profession.

  There are 12 education programs now, too many for the VA and

schools to manage at acceptable levels. The eligibility requirements

are confusing to the VA, let alone for the school certifying official.

Remember that those school program administrators are at the business end of the GI Bill. If the schools cannot immediately hep a veteran because of confusing criteria, you can imagine the frustration of

the veteran seeking help. This is where the total force GI Bill concept

comes in -- a fresh and new approach to an education program that 

equitably rewards our veterans for their service to our country, one

clean bill to replace and update VA education.

  A new total force approach could only enhance the support and

services provided to our members and veterans from all branches of

service. Post-service benefits should be developed to ensure that they

are commensurate with the type and length of service as well as the

risk exposure from mobilization and deployments.

 This updated bill should consider the elimination of allowing the 

federal financial aid formula from eroding the value of the VA education. It should embrace the concept of lifelong learning by allowing

veterans to use their GI Bill when needed to earn a degree, a certificate or to upgrade job skills. Veterans should be allowed to work in

academic departments on the campus in which they are pursuing

their degree program to gain valuable work experience for life after

college under the veterans’ work-study program.

  Administratively, claims processing needs to be made more efficient through consolidation of the four regional processing centers. 

Claims are submitted to the VA in electronic format. Staff savings

in consolidation could be put to more urgent needs within DVA. One 

stop processing of claims means one consistent answer to veterans

and school certifying officials. An on line, secure web portal, similar

to your bank, school, airline, et cetera, would make for an efficient

method of sharing information with the school certifying officials as

well as with the client, the veteran. This is not new technology. And
64

can you imagine the reduction in telephone calls?

  Administrative details such as reporting data in the school certification to the VA are subject to annual audit and should not be necessary as too many claims are held in abeyance pending receipt of

information that does not affect the eligibility status of the veteran’s

claim for education benefits. Tie military separation physicals to VA

compensation physicals to ensure that separating veterans are not

delayed in receiving benefits. A VA compensation physical can take

six months to two years to determine compensable disability, depending on the location of the veteran and the workload of the medical

facility in their area.

  We ask Congress to authorize a Veterans Service, Education and

Training Program grant to be used by school veteran program administrators to enhance services to veterans, to outreach to non-student

veterans in the local community and for training of school certifying

officials. Finally, DVA compensation for schools to develop enrollment verification for the VA is totally inadequate and has not been

updated or increased since the mid-1970.

  Thank you for this opportunity and I stand ready to answer any

questions.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 Mr. Wilson.

[The statement of Mr. Guzman appears on p. 178]

STATEMENT OF KEITH WILSON

Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking

Member Herseth and Congressman Snyder. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss VA’s education benefit

programs as well as the Administration’s views on the total force GI

Bill concept. My testimony will highlight workload, payment, and usage trends for the educational assistance programs under the MGIB, 

as well as the 1607 REAP program. I will also discuss administrative

processes and automation tools that support these programs.

 The education claims processing workload for Chapters 30 and 

1606 combined has increased over the past five years. From fiscal

year 200 until 2005, the number of claims completed increased by 28

percent. The number of students using the benefit rose by 16 percent

and the total payments for the year increased by 87 percent to $2.1

billion.

  The overall usage rate for Chapter 30 grew from 57.9 percent in fiscal year 2001 to 65.5 percent in fiscal 2005. We expect these trends

to continue during fiscal 2006 as well as 2007.

 We are pleased to inform the Subcommittee that VA began making payments under Chapter 1607 in December of 2005. By the end

of this fiscal year, we expect to pay about 40,000 individuals. About
65

13,000 of those will be brand new benefit claimants. As of March 6,

2006, we have processed 1483 of these claims and I am pleased to

report as of this week, that number has increased to about 3400.

  While staffing has increased in the past fiscal year across the four

Education Regional Processing Offices, we have not yet fully realized

the full productivity impact with these additional resources. Formal

training for new employees takes about 20 weeks. Although a new

employee is considered productive at the completion of that training,

the employee does not produce at the same level as a journeyman

claims examiner. Normally we expect it to take about two years for a

new employee to be fully trained and fully productive.

 We continue our efforts to migrate all claims processing work from 

the legacy claims processing system into the new corporate environment. The Education Expert System, TEES, which we have discussed

a lot already, is a multi-year initiative that, when fully developed and

deployed, will result in the implementation of a claims processing

system designed to receive application and enrollment information

electronically and to process that information electronically. This

system will dramatically improve the timeliness and quality of education claims processing.

  Mr. Chairman, the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Education recently made a recommendation to consolidate the MGIB and REAP

programs into one total force GI Bill program. VA found this recommendation merited serious further consideration. Accordingly, the

VA Deputy Secretary established a work group to further analyze the

feasibility of such a consolidation. The work group, which consists of

both VA and DoD people, has met each month at least once a month 

since October of 2005.

  The total force GI Bill work group is analyzing many complex issues associated with the transition to a consolidated program. Establishing a consolidated total force GI Bill program obviously would

require significant changes to the current system, as well as new legislation. The benefits of a consolidated GI Bill program would need to

be weighed against the potential impact on individual beneficiaries,

entitlement levels, military recruitment and retention and funding.

  The transition to a total force GI Bill would require reconciliation

of all of the current eligibility and entitlement requirements. For example, active duty members eligible to receive benefits under Chapter 30 are required, upon electing the benefit, to make a $1200 contribution to the program through pay deductions. Reservists eligible

to receive benefits under Chapters 1606 and 1607 are not required

to make such a contribution. The work group will need to analyze

and prepare a recommendation as to whether the $1200 contribution

should be eliminated, required for some, modified up or down, or required for all under the total force concept.

 Once the work group has completed its task and its recommendations have been fully considered, we will be pleased to provide the

Subcommittee our official views on this matter. We expect the work
66

group to complete its tasks and submit its recommendations in June 

of 2006.

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

to answer any questions you or any members of the Subcommittee

may have.

[The statement of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 217]

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Let me ask you a couple of

questions real quick. Several of the witnesses today mentioned that

the VA regulations are outdated, cumbersome, presume the worse behavior in veterans and in the schools that administer the programs.

How do you respond to those comments?

Mr. Wilson. Well, the programs have certainly evolved over time

and, generally speaking, as they evolve, they are requiring new legislation and that does add a certain level of administrative burden to

the programs that we administer. I would argue though that that is 

generally a good thing because it has meant broader entitlement so

we can pay more benefits to more people. In terms of assuming the

worst, I do not believe that that is accurate. Some of the safeguards

that we have in place right now are based on experiences many decades in the past and they are designed to make sure that the money

that we are paying out is going to the beneficiaries they are designed

for.

Mr. Boozman. I know I was on the school board for seven years and

even at that level, we had a situation where we had a book probably

this thick, that had evolved through the years and so we made it our

purpose on a weekly basis to meet or a committee would meet and

clean that out. Do you feel like that is necessary in your case? And

again, I am not saying -- it is not your regulation, it is our regulation,

along with your regulation, or to give us advice on how we need to

help you clean it out.

Mr. Wilson. Anything that we can do to streamline the process

while maintaining the necessary safeguards would be a good thing.

So in terms of looking at that type of issue, absolutely. It should be

continually looked at.

Mr. Boozman. Okay. And you might not know the answer to this

one, but earlier on we were discussing about the discrepancy in the

man-hours to process the initial supplemental claims versus the ones,

the OJT and the other -- the off-system claims. Can you provide --

do you have any idea what one processing system, the man-hours it

would take to process versus the other?

Mr. Wilson. Not detailed understanding of the technical specifics, no. There are certain types of claims, OJT is a classic example,

that require a lot of administrative, basically “stubby pencil” involvement. Originally 1607 was a lot that way because we did not have a

payment system in place until February. We do have that payment

system in place now. So yes, there are certain types of claims that are

significantly more complex.
67

Mr. Boozman. Would you provide that information for us?

Mr. Wilson. Absolutely.

[The information is found on p. 252]

Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Ms. Herseth.

Ms. Herseth. Thank you.

  Mr. Wilson, I think we are all hoping that maybe when you took the

position, you signed a 10-year contract because I do think it is important. I know that you have a history within the Education Service,

but I do hope that there is some accommodation made as you make

the transition here as Director, to perhaps look at what Mr. Guzman 

and others have pointed out, that have been recommendations in the

past, that your predecessors agreed made sense, would be easy to

implement, that that could perhaps be evaluated sooner rather than

later, not to lose time on that front.

  I apologize because you may have given these numbers while I was

visiting with counsel here. Can you give us the latest data regarding the Chapter 1607 claims processed, including the number of paid 

claims and pending claims and the status of the automated system

that the Subcommittee was told a number of weeks ago was just being integrated?

Mr. Wilson. I can give you some approximate numbers on the

cases, 1607 cases, that were pending when the payment system was

implemented. I do not have any data on the new claims that are coming in the door for 1607 right now.

  There were a little over 14,000 claims that were pending when the

payment system was put in place in mid-February. The RPOs have

really addressed that aggressively and we have worked about 3400

of those claims. Right now, there are roughly 11,000 or so that are

pending.

Ms. Herseth. Any idea of when those will be -- I mean I appreciate

the work, but I think -- and correct me if I am wrong. I do not know, 

Chairman, if you remember this, when we were told that the automated system was put in place, we were told it would just be a matter

of a few weeks that the backlog would be addressed.

Mr. Wilson. Yes. I would -- I am going out on a limb if I give any

kind of specific date, but I feel confident that within the next 45 days,

we would see most of those cases completed.

Ms. Herseth. Okay. Perhaps you could give the Subcommittee an

update at the end of April -- 

Mr. Wilson. Absolutely, uh-huh.

Ms. Herseth. -- when we return from the Easter recess, as to the 

pending claims remaining from that point in time when the automated system came through.

Mr. Wilson. Okay.

Ms. Herseth. Then on a related note, because you had mentioned
68

in terms of new claims not having the most recent data, but that

leads me to the question of what types of coordinated efforts are being pursued to ensure that the four men that we had here on our first

panel and their counterparts in other states are getting information 

and accurate information about their eligibility for Chapter 1607?

Mr. Wilson. I can talk about VA’s efforts to a degree. I am not 

versed on what DoD is doing in terms of providing outreach. Part

of the MOU that we signed with DoD had been to do some of that. 

We are in the process in VBA of receiving a data run from DoD that

would give us the entire universe of individuals that have been activated and are potentially eligible for this benefit. As soon as we get

that data and we can verify it, scrub it, make sure it is accurate, we

can do a mass mailing to everyone, so we know everybody will get, at

their home of record, one of our new trifold pamphlets that explain 

the benefit.

  We are also in the process of updating all of our general benefit

information. The IS-1 is only a yearly publication, so the next time

that comes out, it will include the 1607 benefits.

  In our TAP and DTAP briefings, the information on 1607 is discussed as well, and I am fully aware of the concerns that everybody

has concerning this wealth of information that the individuals coming back are getting. They are getting a lot of information. But that

is part of the briefing package that we do give them.

Ms. Herseth. I appreciate that, and certainly every member of

Congress’ office wants to provide information as well, but I think the

best we can coordinate that, the easier it is to minimize this information overload when our returning service members are receiving

information from a variety of different sources, and focus on the counseling of which benefits they are eligible for and how to utilize those

most effectively.

  I certainly am looking forward to the completion of the work groups

analysis in June of 2006, but you raised an issue in terms of what

some of that analysis is, and that is the contribution that active duty

members make to utilize their Montgomery GI Bill benefit. And

while I was unable to attend the hearing that we had last week because of a markup of a bill in another Committee on which I sit, I

understand that a question was raised as to what the National Guard

and Reserve were going to be willing to contribute and for me, that

is maybe going in the direction, but I think we should go in the other

direction, especially when Dr. Kime says that we have only gotten to

60 percent of the benchmark. And yet we are still requiring $1200

for active duty even participating and then if Guard and Reserve are

at 28 percent of the 60, that the question would even be raised that

the National Guard and Reservists would be paying at that rate, to

receive a benefit at that rate.

  Does anyone else on the panel want to address any conversations
69

that you have had as it relates to the active duty or the National

Guard and Reserve utilization of the benefits and this fee, this payment reduction that is imposed on active duty? Any thoughts on that

as we look to the restructuring of the Montgomery GI Bill?

Mr. Bombard. The Committee has looked at this for a number of 

years and their recommendation is to eliminate the $1200. As with

a lot of the things the Committee has recommended, the Department 

of Veterans’ Affairs has agreed, but there is always a cost issue that

is why this recommendation has not been adopted. But the $1200

has always seemed to the Advisory Committee as an unfair requirement for active duty personnel. It is an earned benefit. I did not pay

$1200 when I came back from Vietnam. I beleive military personnel

who serve should be treatd equally. Therefore the $1200 should be

eliminated. Now DoD has a financial interest in this and will argue

not to eliminate it.

  The $1200 pay reduction poses a significant hardship on a first

term enlistee. Granted $1200 to make $36,000 is a good deal, but it

is not always easy for the young enlistee. Then if they decide they

may want to go to college they don’t always have the money. My feeling is that should be eliminated and I believe that it is the position of

almost everyone who is associated with it.

 But again, there is a cost factor.

Dr. Kime. There are two very important things here that I would

like to get out in public.

  One is that when we first put together the Montgomery GI Bill, this

was done on a shoestring in the post-Vietnam era and in fact, when I

first joined the Advisory Committee, I did a little study and I was just

devastated to find out that the kids who did not take the GI Bill, the

usage rate was in the thirties then, were paying for the ones who did.

The program cost no money. And of course, this was at a benefit of

200 and some odd dollars a month, which was, you know, a national

scandal to begin with. But we have come a long way since then, we

are now at a benefit of $1034 a month, much to the credit of Congress.

I give them a lot of credit for that.

  The $1200 is irrelevant. It is irrelevant and it is almost silly. I do

not know how much money it really is to the Department of Defense,

but it is time they came off of that kick. Certainly two wrongs do

not make a right. Doing the same wrong thing to the veterans in

the Guard does not make it right, because it is wrong to begin with. 

$100 a month out of an E-1’s salary is just too much money. And

remember that one-third of them -- because the usage rate now is in 

the sixties, right? That one-third of them are putting in $1200 and

helping subsidize the ones who are fortunate enough to be able to go 

to college. How fair is that? That does not make any sense.

  Well, second point is one that I really would like to be sure gets

driven home. And this is it: The reason that folks like me who are
70

advocates of veterans’ education, have not pushed to eliminate that

$1200 at the same time that we push for this total force GI Bill -- do

you know why? We do not want to give DoD a way to kill this thing.

And you should not let them either. You should not let them for a

lousy $1200 per kid that is coming into the services say that that is

a poison pill for the total force GI Bill. Let us get that out there on 

the table and talk about it honestly. It should not be allowed to be a

poison pill for the total force GI Bill.

Mr. Bombard. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly accurate. The Advisory Committee decided not to recommend the dropping of the $1200

because we did not want to give DoD the opportunity to declare it

dead on arrival. But it should be implemented.

Mr. Boozman. Mr. Snyder.

Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you

again for having this hearing. I think the panels have been just great.

In terms of quality of the witnesses, I think it is one of the best groups

of people I have had the honor of listening to in my almost 10 years

now. I appreciate you putting it together.

  I know that everyone at the table came from some distance away

and with the exception of Representative Elliott, you all came quite a

distance away to get here today. And we really appreciate you being

here.

  And Mr. Chairman, I know you are very interested in this topic. As

somebody who did sit through most of the hearing last week, I think

this panel would be a great panel to have back in D.C. for the rest of

the members. I think it could be very helpful.

 I also acknowledge and want to thank Doug Thompson from the 

Arkansas Democratic Gazette for having stayed with us. I do not

know how many doughnuts he is into this thing right now, but we

appreciate him being here. And in fact, the Arkansas Democratic Gazette did a story, I guess it was about three or four weeks ago, about

Representative Boozman and myself, but the topic was the GI Bill

and proposed changes to it. And so I appreciate him being here.

  I do want to quote one thing in the story because I am having trouble and have been for several years figuring out where the obstacles

are in this. But the Democratic Gazette called up Grover Norquist

from the Americans for Tax Reform and asked him what he thought 

about these efforts to modernize the GI Bill. And his exact quote was,

“This isn’t about helping soldiers, it is about corporate welfare for

helping universities.” I mean that was Grover Norquist. He called

the GI Bill, which I think has probably been one of the greatest promoters of the middle class in this country perhaps in the history of

our country. It was just absolutely shocking that he said that. But

he also has a lot of influence over the leadership in the Congress now. 

And so we have got some work to do out there.

 Go ahead, Dr. Kime.
71

Dr. Kime. I assume you cannot say crap in one of these places, so I

will not do that. 

Mr. Snyder. It has been quoted in this armory that people have

used that word before.

[Laughter.]

Dr. Kime. Well, good, I am glad I am not breaking any records

here.

Mr. Boozman. I am losing control.

[Laughter.]

 Dr. Kime. But that is really truly silly, speaking from higher education’s point of view. That is the dumbest thing I -- that is not the

dumbest thing I have ever heard, but it is pretty dumb. The fact of

the matter is that other scholarship monies are out there and everything else to fund for education. And the universities would not be

behind the GI Bill simply because it brings in money for universities. 

I have never, ever, ever -- and I have been at this awhile -- heard

anything like that.

Mr. Snyder. Yes.

Dr. Kime. They truly -- one of the best things that has happened to

me in this business is that the people representing the universities

have genuinely, very honestly and strongly supported veterans being

called to active duty, especially to go into combat. And these people

have weighed in, they were the first there for the Partnership for Veterans Education. Has nothing to do with how much money they are

getting out of these so-called scholarships. In fact, they have a practice where they offset scholarship money with GI Bill money, which I

personally am opposed to, but the fact of the matter is it is a wash, it

does not make any difference at all. So it is really a silly comment.

Mr. Snyder. Yeah, I thought it was too.

  This issue that has come up about the jurisdiction of the committees -- and it is a problem and I know it is inside the ballpark I think 

for a lot of folks who do not follow this closely, but there are good reasons why the two committees have different jurisdictions. The DoD is

responsible for the payments of the Reserve Component benefits and

so that comes out of military budget, DoD budget, so that is why the

Armed Services Committee does it. And the Veterans’ Committee has

the veterans who are no longer in the Reserve Component.

 But it is a problem for us. And I do not know how well we are going to do at eliminating this jurisdiction. Several of you have talked

about testifying to this effect for years. I have thought that one way

to get at it would be to have at least -- to have on an annual basis

a joint hearing between Mr. Boozman’s committee or the full Veterans’ Committee, and the Military Personnel Subcommittee on the

Armed Services Committee. If you had a joint hearing once a year
72

with panels like you, where are we at with regard to the GI Bill, then

it would enhance the coordination probably primarily between the

staffs, but also between the members. I do not understand why that

has not been done. I had a commitment from Chris Smith, the former 

Chairman of the VA Committee, to do that with Mr. McHugh, but it 

does not seem to be happening. I requested hearings this year on the

GI Bill and they have not been scheduled. But it is frustrating. If

any of you have any comments about where the obstacles are coming

from, I sure would like to hear them either publicly or privately. I

forget who it was along the line here who said there has not been any

Department of Defense endorsement of change. That may be a big

clue to what is going on here and maybe it is money, I do not know,

but as long as the Pentagon, in the current climate of one party rule

in Washington -- this is my partisan comment -- when we have one

party rule in Washington and the Pentagon says they do not want

any change, it makes it more difficult to change. We have got good

hearted people like Mr. Boozman who want to do something, but it 

makes it a challenge.

  Mr. Bombard, you specifically talked about how you have been testifying for a long time.

Mr. Bombard. Maybe too long.

Mr. Snyder. I am sensing there is something in the air this year.

Do you agree with that?

Mr. Bombard. I would agree with that. I have been testifying to

restructure the G.I. Bill since I returned from Vietnam. Then we 

wanted the Vietnam veterans to have the World War II G.I. Bill. This

did not happen. I do believe however, after having been involved

with the G.I. Bill legislation for a long time, that this time it’s different. There is a momentum behind the total force concept that 

is going to be difficult to stop. There is a momentum here to do the

right thing. I believe both the House an Senate Veterans’ Affairs

Committees have provided a positive forum to get that issue out. I

would also like to see the Armed Service Committee adopt a similar

position. But to answer your question, yes, there is something positive in the air. The total force concept originated with the Advisory

Committee a couple of years ago and worked hard to develop it. The

Advisory Committee has members from DoD, higher education, VA,

and the service organizations. People who really know the G.I. Bill

put this together in the hopes that it would resolve an inequitable

situationand administrative nightmare. And it has. Yes, I do believe

the atmosphere is changing and I do believe the G.I. Bill concept is

gaining momentum. And I also think it is time to get on the train, 

before it leaves the station without you.

Mr. Snyder. The train’s time table is a short window this year

unfortunately.

Mr. Bombard. I understand that. 
73

Mr. Snyder. Mr. Sweeney made the comment about -- in fact there

were several things in his statement I wanted to comment on. You

referred to it as a lifelong learning. And I think that this is different than when Mr. Bombard and I used our Vietnam benefits. We

thought about you get your profession, your career, and you are set

for the next 35 or 40 years. Representative Elliott talked about that.

And I think that attitude that I think more and more of us recognize, 

that a person coming out at age 24 or 25 or 22, has to think in terms 

of lifelong learning for their career, really renders these time limits

of 10 years or 14 years as not helpful to our veteran population or our

Reserve Component population. And I am just repeating, I am not

really asking for your comment, Mr. Sweeney, but just really repeating what you said, because I think that is important.

  And on page 2, I think this was a wonderful statement you made

Mr. Sweeney, in your written statement, you said “In our view, the GI

Bills (plural) should be the premier educational assistance programs 

in the country, bar none.” And it used to be, did it not? When we

came out of World War II and we had those hundreds of thousands of 

almost all men coming back home, most of them without college education. Like Representative Elliott was referring to even today. And

then the GI Bill was you get into Harvard or you get into Yale and

we are going to pay the bill. And when I was in college at a small but

expensive private school in Oregon, when I went to college, started

in 1965, I had a -- my biology teacher was just a brilliant woman who

has been dead for a long time now, but she had been teaching at the 

time that the World War II veterans came back and she just said it

was like a breath of fresh air because here were these kids who had 

never been on these kinds of campuses, with students who had never

seen those kinds of kids. And she said it was not uncommon to have

some guy stand up in class and say “This is BS,” only they would not

say BS, because they were there for a purpose, they were motivated,

they had seen the fires of hell and they were ready to get on with

their lives. Well, we have really gotten away from that. Secretary

Principi had talked about that in the Principi Committee, that he 

wanted us to adopt that principle, that if this 18 year old from Rogers

High School gets into Harvard and has competed military service,

whatever that expense is, we are going to help him do that. Well, we

do not even really think like that any more. Maybe it is unrealistic or

maybe we just do not expand our horizons, but think what that would

mean for opening up poor kids around the country if that was still our

operating principle. 

  But as Representative Elliott pointed out, the challenges of this

escalating cost at all levels, but particularly private schools, and we

are not even pretending that we are really providing a major effort to

let these kids get into the board rooms or whatever through the ivy

leagues or whatever. I would like to address -- and I do not know if
74

we need to have everyone comment, but I am talking about the big

dreams and you all have been talking about this for years. Do any of

you have a realistic assessment, if you could do everything that you

want to do, what the annualized cost would be to the federal taxpayers and where that money is going to come from?

Dr. Kime. There are some indices you could use. For example,

right now, you are at 60 percent or so. In fact, the number is 60.9

percent. I did a little thing here on it.

Mr. Snyder. Of the benchmark?

Dr. Kime. Of the Benchmark for Chapter 30. So obviously you

would need to find out how much is put out by Chapter 30 right now

every year and increase it by the 40 percent, and raise the usage

rate. OMB will not let you forget it, because more kids would do it

obviously. If you build it, they will come. So there you would have an

increase of 60 percent in Chapter 30 outlays right off the bat.

  If you fixed the Reserve and Guard GI Bill and if you looked at their

current usage rates, you would have some idea of that. Probably we

could sit down with a pencil on the back of an envelope and come up

with something pretty quick on that. I do not think that would be

very hard to do.

Mr. Snyder. Because I think -- go ahead, Colonel.

Dr. Kime. One more comment though.

Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir. 

Dr. Kime. Remember that you have talked about Harvard and that

is fine, but if you did that, you would be covering the cost of a fouryear public education in the United States, you would not be going to

a private school. You would be covering a $15,100 a year bill, which

is where it is right now. But I would submit to you that that would

cover 95 percent of all veterans who want to go to college and those

who can get into Harvard out of the military are probably going to get

a full paid scholarship.

Mr. Snyder. Yeah, that is right.

Colonel Norton.

Colonel Norton. I do not pretend to know what the real number 

is, but I would just suggest that maybe looking at it from a larger

perspective. We do know that the Iraq supplemental, the war supplemental to carry on the War on Terror, a couple of hundred million

dollars has been set aside, earmarked for cash bonuses for enlistment 

and re-enlistment in the active forces and in the National Guard and

in the Reserve. It is possible today for young men and women to come

in or to re-enlist and get 30, 40, 50,000 dollar cash bonuses. That 

is the way the Defense Department manages this operation today.

Nothing wrong with that, although to some extent I think there is a 

little cynicism there that this is becoming more and more of a mercenary force.

  We believe that what ought to be done here is that some of that
75

money could be set aside to sort of jump start this total force GI Bill,

in terms of the long-term investment in our economy and in these

great young men that have served us.

Mr. Snyder. I think, you know, as we keep working on this this

year and even in the next year, whatever it takes, but particularly in

the next few months, we need to be more than just sensitive to the

costs. We need to be able to come out with a hard-core appraisal of 

this is how much it is going to cost and this is what Mr. Boozman and 

Ms. Herseth’s plan is going to cost, and this is where we think we can 

find the money. Because if we do not do that, then the people who do

not want to see or do not think we can afford to change, will have us

from the beginning because we will not even put a pencil to it.

 Yes, sir, Dr. Kime.

Dr. Kime. It would be a terrible error though if we failed to come up 

with a new architecture for the GI Bill because of cost.

Mr. Snyder. Yeah.

Dr. Kime. I have already told you that is the reason we did not talk

about the $1200 elimination.

Mr. Snyder. Right.

Dr. Kime. Is because we were afraid of the poison pill thing. I

would not look to raise basic benefits in the next year, frankly. My

personal opinion of this is that we would be much better served, and

I believe veterans would be much better served, if you folks could fix

the architecture and get that right and do not face DoD or even the

Reserves or anybody else with huge financial issues that they have to

deal with. Get the architecture right, make it fair, clear, equitable,

where you are right now, and I guarantee you that in the next four

or five years, we would be sitting around here talking about how we

are going to use that architecture to good advantage and fix the numbers.

Mr. Snyder. Do the three of you agree with that approach?

Mr. Bombard. Yes.

Colonel Norton. Absolutely.

 Mr. Snyder. Dr. Kime, I really appreciate your comment about

priority. I was thinking of my time on the Military Personnel Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee in which we have an

annual hearing on healthcare and it sometimes goes on for two-thirds 

of a day with multiple panels and I frankly wish we would divide

up some, but we do it. And we do not do it on educational benefits

because we have not set that as a priority. And I think that is something that we need to do.

  Representative -- incidentally, Stephanie, as you know, we have

been trying to work out your political future here in Arkansas, and I

do not know what that is going to be, but if you ever need a Secretary

of Education, this is your woman right here.

[Laughter.]
76

Mr. Snyder. Representative Elliott.

  I really appreciate your comments and your written statement,

Joyce, but particularly I think you put more emphasis on the whole

idea of the impact of the GI Bill on society as a whole. And we can

sometimes get so cute trying to figure out well, is it going to increase

this recruitment rate or is it going to increase this retention rate or 

will there be a drop off, when we ought to be saying what would be

the ramifications of having this be a program that military families,

whether career or just the three or four years, could depend on and

recognize as a driving force of the middle class and what that would

do to our national security and technology development. And so I

think that is really an important point.

  And Mr. Guzman, I had one question for you and I am going to

address it to you just because you talked about this some about the

programs like truck driving and those kinds of things.

  I enlisted in the Marine Corps after having completed two years

of college and it took me six years to get back to college, but somewhere along the line, I think I picked up a matchbook cover that had

a phone number for a heavy equipment, construction heavy equipment operator school and it said GI Bill. So I called this person and 

he said yeah, I will be glad to come and talk to you. I do not know if

he came in from out of state, but he traveled some distance. I think

I was in Medford, Oregon and he traveled from Portland, Oregon. I

met him in the morning and he had a motel room, so there was an 

investment of his time.

  Well, there was a really, really heavy sell to get me to sign on that

contract. I felt like I was being preyed upon. And he referred to,

you know, Uncle Sam as “This is Uncle Sugar, you know, go ahead

and sign it,” that kind of thing. As we talk about these programs to

let people kind of forward all their benefits into one big swoop and

it is to a three-week course or however it is, we had also better have

ways, without increasing the bureaucracy for Mr. Wilson, but we sure

better have some kind of a -- and maybe we have it already, I do not

know -- but something to address people preying on our young veterans who want to get on with a program and sign up for something 

that is really high priced and it is not the quality, and I assume that

you would agree with that also.

Mr. Guzman. I definitely agree with that, sir. But we do have those

short-term, high-cost programs available today.

Mr. Snyder. Yeah.

Mr. Guzman. And I think the veterans are part of society, they

should be able to take advantage of them.

 I also wanted to comment on the cost of the program. I think in the 

long run, it will not cost anything. And I say this because if you look

at the history of veterans’ education, the return on the investment
77

will pay for itself. I realize you have to have the upfront money right

now to pay the veterans for their education programs. But if you look

at the Vietnam era GI Bill, it paid 500 times the investment.

Mr. Snyder. Right. That is a good point.

Mr. Guzman. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Ms. Elliott. Mr. Snyder, may I just add --

Mr. Snyder. Yes.

Ms. Elliott. -- this comment has nothing at all to do with my work

with the College Board, but I also belong to a group called Women’s 

Actions for New Directions and one of the things that we have done

a great deal over a number of years is take a look at the military

budget. And one of the things we have found is that the public has

a perception that we are spending far, far more money than we are

actually on the veterans as individuals. They see the huge military

complex budget and they think it is going to individuals, when in essence, not to get into it here, it is actually going someplace else.

  So I think one of the challenges we have, regardless of what the

cost may be, is redirecting the public’s attention to understanding

where those dollars are actually going.

Mr. Snyder. How to invest in people.

Ms. Elliott. Exactly. And I think we will have the support from

the people to invest in people because right now they think that is

happening, because actually that is not the priority in so many cases.

Mr. Snyder. And my final comment, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Wilson,

we really appreciate you being here. You are a very well respected

contributor to this whole effort to help our veterans. I do want to

close, Mr. Chairman, I notice that Mr. Wilson said at the end when 

the task force comes out with its recommendations, that “We will be

pleased to provide the Subcommittee our official views.” And we have

gotten official views and I know what the official views are, they are

“no significant shortcomings,” that is what we heard last week. And

so I appreciate that artfully drawn statement, but a lot of us are also

going to be looking for people’s personal views because I believe those

are sometimes in conflict with the official views, because I think the

programs, great programs, clearly do have significant shortcomings.

  And I applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing and

drawing attention to them and helping us get additional information 

to work on these in the future.

  And thank you again, Stephanie, for being here.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Congressman Herseth.

Ms. Herseth. Just a couple of final comments to share with all of

you. I certainly appreciate Mr. Snyder’s suggestion that Ms. Elliott

should accompany me back to South Dakota. I would appreciate it if

you would.

[Laughter.]
78

Ms. Herseth. Where I am headed later today is to spend two days

in our reservation community with Native American students and

talk about an unrepresented, under-represented segment of our population and what higher education can mean for them. But I commend you and all of the rest of our witnesses on this panel and the

previous panels for your testimony.

  I have to tell you it has been great to be here because the Arkansas

Congressional delegation is my favorite. And I do not say that to ingratiate myself to them, but clearly Chairman Boozman, in my short

time in Congress since June of 2004, and working with him on this 

Committee in particular, but on other issues and how great he has 

been to work with in a truly bipartisan way, his leadership on the

Subcommittee, his insightful analysis in the full Committee, and as

I mentioned on other issues that we deal with on the House floor has

been a great benefit to me in our working relationship since I became

Ranking Member at the beginning of this term of Congress. I know 

we can all tell from Congressman Snyder’s comments and his questions today just the raw intellect as well as being so down to earth

and wanting to, you know, get through everything that we need to

get through to get to the bottom line of what has to be done and the 

way he encourages me to participate and to pursue other avenues

through this Committee, through the Subcommittee and other issues 

has certainly been appreciated.

  And I have to tell you, your two other members of Congress, Mike

Ross and Marion Berry, have traveled to South Dakota to shoot a few

pheasants. So I have enjoyed spending time with all four of them,

and it is certainly a pleasure to be here today, and thank everyone

who traveled as well as the Arkansas National Guard for your service

to the country in so many different missions, certainly in this region

down on the coast, but in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring

Freedom.

  Thank you very much for hosting me to your great state and to

beautiful northwest Arkansas.

Mr. Boozman. Well, we appreciate you being here. We just wish

the weather was a little bit nicer.

 I want to thank the staff for their hard work in setting this up. The 

District staff here, all of those that worked so hard to get the room 

ready and those kind of things. I also want to thank the staff of the

Subcommittee. I know that they have worked very hard to make this

happen and it is a lot of work to make these things happen.

  I especially want to thank Senator Pryor and Ms. Herseth and Mr.

Snyder for being here. Again, these people have very busy schedules and yet, part of our schedule is talking about the things that we

talked about today and that is so, so important. 

  I agree with Vic, I think this is one of the best panels overall, all of
79

the panels, that we have had. So we appreciate your testimony very,

very much.

  We especially appreciate you, Vic, in the sense that being on Armed

Services, you really do have a unique perspective in this thing and really are very helpful in guiding us through the process. We are going

to work really hard to see some changes fairly quickly. And I agree,

I think there is something in the wind right now, we are a nation at 

war, this is the right thing to do. I am glad that Congressman Snyder

brought up the comment that he did. I read that also and I looked at 

that and I thought that is the goofiest thing I have ever read in my

life. You know, I could not think of that if I tried to.

  But again, we do appreciate everything. A special thanks to the

142nd Field Artillery for hosting us and to everyone who appeared

here today, especially to the members of the Arkansas National

Guard. Each of you represents what is good in America. Your voluntary commitment to join the one percent who defend the other 99

percent exemplifies the spirit that has lasted from our earliest Colonial days to those who now serve with you in harm’s way.

  So the final thing I would like is I would like to ask all of us present

today if you would all join me in showing our appreciation for these

men and women and all they represent.

[Applause.]

Mr. Boozman. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.

  [Whereupon at 2:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

 
(80)

APPENDIX
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252

Response to data request from March 22, 2006 HVAC Hearing

During the March 22, 2006 hearing Chairman Boozman requested

information concerning the length of time needed to process an education award using VBA’s award processing system and the length of

time needed to process an education award that cannot be completed 

within VBA’s existing award processing system.

VBA tracks performance data by benefit type and not by type of training program. Therefore, the number of days needed to process an

out-of-system award cannot be determined precisely. However, a

sample review of available data has been conducted. That review

indicates that it takes approximately 25% more time to process an

average award outside of VBA’s award processing system.

/s/

KEITH M WILSON 

Director

Education Service

Veterans Benefits Administration