LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4791, THREE DRAFT BILLS, AND A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3082

Hearing

before the

Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on 

economic Opportunity

one hundred ninth congress

Second session

April 27, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-46

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

27-517.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

April 27, 2006

 Page

1

 1

43

2

45

3

 12

46

5

48

8

61

10

65

27

71

28

77

30

86

31

93

32

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4791, Three Draft Bills, and a 

 Proposed Amendment to H.R. 3082 ......................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

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

Prepared statement of Mr. Boozman ........................................

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

Prepared statement of Ms. Herseth .........................................

Hon. Darlene Hooley ..................................................................

Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite .........................................................

Prepared statement of Mrs. Brown-Waite ...............................

Witnesses

Mansfield, Gordon, Deputy Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs ..............................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Mansfield .......................................

Ciccolella, Charles, Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training, Department of Labor ............................

Prepared statement of Mr. Ciccolella .......................................

Ingram, Donald, Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman, National Association of State Workforce Agencies .....................

Prepared statement of Mr. Ingram ...........................................

Lawrence, Brian E., Assistant National Legislative Director, 

 Disabled American Veterans .................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence .......................................

Blake, Carl, Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America ........................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Blake .............................................

Lopez, John K., Chairman, Association for Service Disabled

Veterans ..................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Lopez .............................................

Sharpe, Joseph C., Jr., Deputy Director, Economic Commission, The American Legion ....................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Sharpe ...........................................

Weidman, Richard, Government Relations Director, Vietnam

Veterans of America ...............................................................

(III)
Brown, Morgan, Co-Chair, The Military Coalition ..................

Prepared statement of Mr. Brown ............................................

Hilleman, Eric, Assistant Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ...........

Prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman ........................................

Greineder, David, Deputy National Legislative Director, 

 AMVETS .................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Greineder ......................................

35

102

36

108

38

112

(IV)
(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4791,

THREE DRAFT BILLS, AND A PROPOSED

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3082

Thursday, April 27, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:36 p.m., in Room 334, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Boozman [Chairman of the 

Subcommittee] presiding.

 Present: Representatives Boozman, Brown-Waite, Herseth, and 

Hooley.

 Mr. Boozman. The meeting will be in order. Today we are going to 

receive testimony on two bills, an amendment for H.R. 3082 and H.R. 

4791, as well as three draft bills.

 The proposed amendment is for bill I introduced earlier in the session, H.R. 3082, and would provide new tools and procedures for VA

contracting officers to enable them to do more business with veteran 

and disabled veteran entrepreneurs and put veteran businesses at 

the head of the line for small business set-asides.

 Given this new set of acquisition tools, there will be no reason for 

VA not to meet the veteran and service-disabled veteran small business contracting goals. I expect the Department to make a significant 

effort to ensure that its contracting officers understand that we are 

serious about this and are giving them a chance to perform.

 H.R. 4791 is Ms. Herseth’s bill to increase Adapted Housing Grant 

amounts, and I will recognize her in a moment to explain its provisions.

 One draft bill focuses on improving the State Grant Program for 

Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veteran Employment Representatives by setting hiring and retention 

guidelines, improving reporting of employment data, setting certain 

requirements for grants, implementing a pilot contract program in 

areas of high veteran unemployment, and revising the current Incen-
2

tive Award Program.

 Another draft proposed by Ms. Brown-Waite seeks to improve licensing and certification for those coming out of the military. And I 

will also ask her to explain her bill.

 Finally, we have a draft bill to begin the process of modernizing the 

GI Bill Education Benefit Program. One of the things we have found 

is that about 30 percent of veterans never use their educational benefit because they do not want to attend traditional degree programs or 

cannot spend two to four years in schools because of circumstances.

 Therefore, the draft focuses on improving the usefulness of the GI

Bill for the 30 percent of veterans who do not use the program by increasing the types of training courses eligible for accelerated benefits. 

The draft also improves work study, equalized monthly payments for 

certain students, and requires VA to provide a report on streamlining 

administration.

 I feel strongly that many of the restrictive rules and regulations in 

the current program need to be eliminated or significantly modified 

where possible as long as we do not open the program to waste, fraud, 

and abuse.

I take Mr. Steve Kime’s observation at our Arkansas field hearing to heart that current rules and regulations treat all schools and 

veterans like potential lawbreakers. We spend so much time and 

resources trying to screen out possible problems that we negatively 

impact service to our veterans. And certainly it is not right to go too 

far. That situation is not a good situation.

 We can use technology to maintain the integrity of the program, 

improve timeliness, education benefits for prime candidates, for 

rules-based processing. And I intend to have a conversation with VA

leadership about increasing the investment in that type of information technology to speed up processing.

 Regarding the Draft Education Bill, I felt we needed to begin exploring ideas and potential cost. And I want to make sure that everyone understands that it is not a finished product by any means. The 

eventual changes will likely cost a significant amount of money and 

we must do this right to get the most effective use of taxpayer funds.

 I understand the DoD/VA GI Bill Working Group will report to the 

Joint Executive Council in July, and the Armed Services Committee 

is also taking a hard look at the issue. We will work with the VA/DoD

Working Group not for the quickest change but for the best.

 I now recognize our Ranking Member, Ms. Herseth, for her opening 

remarks.

Ms. Herseth. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to 

you and to those who have joined us today. I want to thank you for 

holding this legislative hearing.

 I very much appreciate your efforts as I have stated in the past, but 

I do not think it can be stated often enough of your willingness and 
3

the work of our staffs to conduct our Subcommittee in a very bipartisan and effective manner.

I also appreciate your flexibility in scheduling that allows us to 

attempt to participate in all of the events that we have going on 

throughout the week when we are in session.

 Like you, Mr. Chairman, I also want to welcome the witnesses today and look forward to receiving their views and insights and responses to some of our questions on the many bills we have before the 

Subcommittee.

 I am particularly pleased that we have included in today’s agenda 

House Resolution 4791, the Disabled Veterans Adapted Housing Improvement Act, a bill that I introduced along with a number of my 

colleagues earlier this year.

 The bill would increase the amounts available for adapted housing 

grants for certain disabled veterans. It would also establish an index 

that reflects a uniform national average annual increase in the cost 

of residential home construction so that the future disabled veterans 

eligible for this grant would continue to maintain their purchasing 

power.

 Additionally, I am pleased we are examining other measures aimed 

at enhancing the VA’s ability to contract with veteran-owned small 

business owners and improving employment services and job training opportunities for veterans seeking employment and providing 

more flexibility to the Montgomery GI Bill.

 Nearly 200,000 servicemembers separate from military service 

each year. These men and women who have given their best in defense of the nation deserve our best efforts here in the Congress. Indeed, after protecting and sustaining our freedom and our way of life, 

they and their families have earned the right to live the American 

dream. And many of these initiatives that we will be talking about 

today facilitate the ability to meet and live that dream.

 So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the witnesses’ views and their efforts to assist us in crafting effective legislation. I know that we will 

use the testimony to guide us in making some helpful and reasonable 

improvements in the measures before us.

 So thank you, and I yield back.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 Ms. Hooley.

Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, for holding these hearings today. I, too, am excited about the legislation that 

is before us. And since my election, one of my priorities have been 

to make sure that veterans and their spouses get what they so richly 

deserve.

 I really believe the federal government has a debt of honor to pay 

back all the veterans and I will continue to fight to make sure that 

American veterans receive the benefits which they so clearly deserve 
4

in return for their service to the nation and its people.

 The bills we are considering today are important and they are common-sense measures that will not only improve the lives of our veterans but keep the promise our nation made to take care of them.

Proposals like increasing benefits for our disabled veterans to 

adapt their houses to fit their needs, very important, or initiatives 

to help veterans with their employment, be it a veteran-owned small 

business trying to get its foot in the door or placement programs for 

disabled veterans.

 But I am particularly pleased to see the Subcommittee considering 

draft legislation that would provide great flexibility to our veterans 

as they use our education benefits that they have earned under the 

Montgomery GI Bill.

Too many of our veterans find claiming and using their earned education benefits to be a cumbersome process filled with red tape, and 

this draft legislation will hopefully make it a little a little easoier for 

them to get the education they need. However, there is one issue, 

and I hope both the Chair and the Ranking Member pay attention, 

that has not been addressed. It is something I believe to be a harsh 

penalty upon our veterans and I hope it can be fixed.

 Under current law, once a soldier has been separated from service, 

he or she only has ten years to use that education benefit or they lose 

it. I do not think this is right. It is a program that they paid into and 

they cannot reclaim their own money if they do not enroll in school 

before the ten years are up.

Currently only 57 percent of soldiers who pay into the GI Bill Fund 

actually use their earned education benefits within that time frame.

 And what I found is there are some young people that have come 

back from the service and in some cases, they need help. They do not 

know what they are going to do. They do not know where they are going. Sometimes they have mental health problems. Sometimes they 

have drug problems. And at about 30, they decide, gee, I think I want 

to go back to school only to find out they cannot use the benefits.

 So I think something is wrong with that system, and hopefully we 

will look at that in this particular piece of legislation. And, again, I

think these veterans should be able to reclaim their education benefits whenever they are ready to attend school and it is long past the 

time to repeal this outdated ten-year limit.

 Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Herseth, I look forward to working with both of you to address this issue as we continue to look at 

ways to make the GI Bill more flexible and education benefits more 

accessible to our veterans, and look forward to our panel today.

 Thank you.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Ms. Hooley. And we certainly were paying attention.

Ms. Hooley. Okay.
5

Mr. Boozman. Our first -- 

Ms. Hooley. You always do, by the way.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

Our first panel includes the Honorable Gordon Mansfield, Deputy 

Secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

 And it seems like yesterday I had won a special election and went 

over and asked to be on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Went over 

and Gordon gave me a little pin, a little challenge coin, and he said, 

Congressman, you are going to get a lot of these, but I want to give 

you the first one that you get. And it was very neat, and we appreciate all that you are doing.

 Also, we are very pleased to have the Honorable Charles Ciccolella, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans’ Employment and Training, and Mr. Donald Ingram, Chairman of the Veterans’ Committee 

for the National Association of State Workforce Agencies.

Secretary Mansfield.

STATEMENTS OF GORDON MANSFIELD, DEPUTY SECRE-

 TARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPA-

 NIED BY JACK MCCOY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT,

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION; SCOTT F. 

 DENNISTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SMALL BUSINESS

 AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION, DEPART-

 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; CHARLES CICCOLELLA, 

 ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT

 AND TRAINING, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; DONALD

 INGRAM, VETERANS’ AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN,

 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE WORKFORCE

 AGENCIES

STATEMENT OF GORDON MANSFIELD

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

Herseth and member Hooley.

 Accompanying me today are Scott Denniston, our Director of the 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, my expert 

advisor and advocate in that area, and Mr. Jack McCoy, the Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management at 

VBA where we administer these important benefit programs.

 I would request that my written statement be submitted for the 

record and make the point that I am here today to present the Administration’s views on several proposed measures which would affect 

VA programs and benefits and services and make the point that any 

support that VA expresses for particular provisions is contingent on 
6

accommodating the provisions within the President’s budget.

 Mr. Chairman, it struck me as I was sitting here waiting for the 

hearing to begin that this is really important because you are the inheritor, this Subcommittee, you are the inheritor of the GI Bill from 

World War II which was the vehicle that I believe, and I know, Mr. 

Chairman, you have expressed this too, that really built the middle 

class of the United States of America, advanced us in education and 

advanced us in housing.

 And two of those issues are being brought forward again today as 

this Committee continues to do its excellent work on a bipartisan basis to advance the needs and the earned benefits of America’s veterans. I want to thank you on behalf of Secretary Nicholson and myself 

and the VA for your continued excellent work in that area.

 I want to make a couple of comments on some of the bills. And as I

said, my statement for the record goes into some detail.

 We support improved access to education and veterans’ earned benefits, be they efforts to better use technology or to streamline administrative processes. And I would urge the Subcommittee to consider 

these improvements while not adversely impacting entitlement.

 I am concerned that the GI Bill Flexibility Act introduces a concept of authorizing greater payments for service-disabled veterans or 

other veterans in the same chapter, and there is some concern about 

that.

Vocational rehabilitation and employment services are available 

under Chapter 31 for eligible service-disabled veterans for whom 

Montgomery GI Bill benefits are insufficient for a proper readjustment to civilian life. So, therefore, VA would oppose Section 2 of 

that bill. The other concerns in that area are outlined in my written 

statement.

VA also cannot support Section 3 of a draft bill exempting federal, 

state, or local government institutions from certain refund provisions. Veterans should not be disadvantaged because the institution 

involved is a government entity or supported with government funds. 

If veterans meet the requirements and withdraw after proper notification and within the context of the applicable regulations of the 

program or the university, they should not be penalized.

 Under the determination of full- or part-time status, we understand 

that Section 4 is intended to ease certain administrative burdens. VA

supports that goal and offers to consult with the Subcommittee staff 

and assist, as a technical service, in crafting appropriate language.

 In the area of extension of work-study activities for veterans, we 

believe that extending work-study opportunities for veteran students 

and eligible dependents to assist with the TAP and DTAP Program is 

a productive idea, but such students should not provide employment 

assistance briefings unless they have the required specialized training and/or certification that may be required in this area.
7

 In the area of reports on the improvement and administration of 

educational assistant benefits, we would beg the Committee’s attention that the time element in the current bill may not be enough. 

Given the complexity of our education programs, we would have no 

objection if this were extended to six months in which to submit the 

required report.

 In restoration of lost entitlement for those who are ordered to fulltime National Guard duty, Section 7 would restore entitlement to 

Chapter 35 to certain National Guardsmen ordered to duty after September 11th, 2001.

 The VA would recommend that that date be used as the effective 

date to determine how far back in time Title 32 service could occur. 

As I understand it, that would comport with other titles within the 

Federal Code.

 Regarding specially-adapted housing, Section 2 of House Resolution 4791 would increase the amounts of assistance available. VA

would support the increases proposed by Section 2. However, we 

would oppose the indexing proposal and would make the point that 

the Administration believes that any indexing proposal should be in 

conformity across the entire Executive Branch, not singled out individually.

 And also VA believes that there was an inadvertent omission of an 

amendment to allow us to be able to extend this program to activeduty personnel, and we request that it be reinstated.

 In small business issues, the Secretary is committed to veteranowned small businesses. He will continue to make procurement 

contracts with this deserving and able group a priority in the department. I, too, support that vision and his commitment to this 

important goal.

 And I can tell you that I made this issue a reportable item for the 

VA’s monthly reporting requirement and would also make the point 

that I now require in addition to the previous departmental levels, 

that it be broken down into the specific administrations or offices. 

I can also make the report, Mr. Chairman and members, that we 

had such a report this morning I can tell you that we continue to do 

well. We have targets that we are striving to meet and we are doing 

a better job. Mr. Denniston and his folks have been instrumental in 

allowing us to do that.

 So, we would support amendments to House Resolution 3082. 

However, there are some minor changes fully noted in my written 

testimony that we would request be made. And, again, we would be 

more than happy to provide technical assistance.

 Again, in the area of quarterly reports, we would request a revision 

to require annual reporting. This again would put it in line with other reports that we understand that our contracting partners, those 

that are doing this have to do, the prime contractors in many cases, 
8

and would allow us not to put an additional burden on folks who we 

are asking to meet us in this important goal.

 Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point that we appreciate 

again your efforts to move forward in these areas. We are very supportive and would make every effort to provide whatever assistance 

my staff can to yours as we move forward.

 Thank you very much.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

[The statement of Gordon Mansfield appears on p. 48]

Mr. Boozman. Mr. Ciccolella.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES CICCOLELLA

Mr. Ciccolella. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Herseth, and Congresswoman Hooley, and Congresswoman 

Brown-Waite. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee to testify on the two bills that impact the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service.

 And I want to say from the outset that the legislation contains 

some very positive ideas and we appreciate the Committee’s bipartisan work in coming up with these bills.

 We do feel it is important to point out some of the issues which 

come to mind with regard to implementation of these provisions so 

that the Committee is aware of them. And my written testimony 

contains some of those issues, at least the ones that we have identified so far. And we look forward to working with the Committee on 

those provisions.

 Let me begin with a few particulars. With regard to Section 2 of 

the Veteran State Employment Grant Improvement Act, that requires the Secretary of Labor to maintain guidelines for States and 

establishing the professional qualifications required for determining 

both the eligibility and the continued employment of the veteran employment representatives, the DVOPs and LVERs.

 And we say that we agree with this idea in principle. However, 

since the States already have standards in place for selecting their 

DVOPs and LVERs, I think the selection criteria would probably be 

pretty general, the ones that we prescribe.

 The continuing employment requirements could be accomplished 

through the National Veterans Training Institute and, of course, 

should be implemented through the DVOP and LVER performance 

plans. We would also want to coordinate any guidelines that we come 

up with with the National Association of State Workforce agencies.

 Now, we already have NVTI working in this direction and that is 

moving along very nicely. There will necessarily be additional cost 

associated with this effort, certainly potentially with the States be-
9

cause they classify their merit staff positions.

 So that could impact the numbers of DVOPs and LVERs if the JVA

grant is not increased. And it would also definitely require more 

funds for NVTIs. You know that budget has been pretty well level 

funded at $2 million.

With regard to Section 3, that defines the DVOP, LVER part-time 

work provision as meaning not less than half-time basis. In other 

words, performing those duties on a not less than half-time basis.

 We think it is necessary to have a clear standard on this and we 

know what the intent was in the Jobs for Veterans Act that part time 

means half time. We feel that that policy should be continued so that 

the States are not confused and so that we do not have a significant 

tracking issue with regard to the accountability of the time for the 

DVOP and LVER.

 With regard to Section 4, that requires the States to establish local 

performance information system within three years following enactment. We totally support that provision and believe it should come 

on line at the same time that the Department of Labor introduces its 

new reporting system.

 Meanwhile, between now and then, we are working with the States 

to look at what information can be obtained with regard to outcomes 

and what the cost may be associated with those States in so doing 

that. The GAO identified some 21 States where it was difficult for 

the State to obtain that information. So we are working with that 

already.

In Section 5, that establishes the State licensing and certification 

programs for veterans. I think that is absolutely a step in the right 

direction. They probably need a little bit of time to think through 

that in terms of the impact on the States. And we are absolutely 

ready to work with the Committee in that regard.

 Section 6 requires that newly-hired DVOPs and LVERs be training 

at the National Veterans Training Institute within three years after 

they are hired and extends the training to existing employees. We 

can do that more practically if we recognize that the training is done 

by NVTI as opposed to at NVTI because it is more economical to send 

the NVI team, for example, to Florida to train 30 or 40 people than it 

is to send those people to Denver.

 The other thing is that NVTI again needs to be funded accordingly 

because the demand for NVTI training right now is very high and 

it is also impacted by the annual turnover of the DVOPs and the 

LVERs. That annual turnover runs about 15 percent. So if you look 

at a three-year period, there is a backlog of training that is required 

for the DVOPs and LVERs as we have it right now.

 With regard to Section 7, it establishes the demonstration project 

on contracting for placement of veterans in high unemployment areas. We do not think that provision is needed. States conduct their 
10

own analyses of the workforce areas and they have the capability to 

determine how and where best to use their resources. We would certainly be involved in that and want to be involved in that through our 

State Directors of Veterans’ Employment and Training.

With regard to Section 8, which modifies the incentive awards that 

were established under the Jobs for Veterans Act, we totally support 

that measure. We just believe that the Assistant Secretary should be 

the final authority on it.

 With regard to Section 9, which requires DoL, the Department of 

Labor, to publish regulations implementing priority of service, we understand it is a very important issue with the Committee. We do not 

believe that regulations are necessary because we believe that priority service is best implemented through policy.

On the second proposed bill, which is the Veterans Certification and 

Licensure Act of 2006, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs already 

has a Committee that is established and is looking at that issue. And 

I know that that Committee is doing some very good work.

 I have thought about this for a long time with regard to whether it 

makes sense to form another Committee to look at this because a lot 

of Committees have been formed to look at licensing and certification 

and making that path smoother from the military to those civilian occupations, but not a lot has been done over the years in that regard.

 So I have some ideas on that that I would be happy to discuss during the question and answer period because I know my time is limited 

here. And we will defer to the VA and support them on the GI Bill 

Flexibility Act and the Veteran-Owned Small Business Promotion 

Act.

 And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to answer your questions.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, sir.

[The statement of Charles Ciccolella appears on p. 61]

Mr. Boozman. Mr. Ingram.

STATEMENT OF DONALD INGRAM

Mr. Ingram. Good afternoon, Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth, and members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the 

National Association of State Workforce Agencies, I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to share the views of our members.

 NASWA members constitute the State leaders of the publiclyfunded workforce investment system which is vital to meeting the 

employment needs of veterans through the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives 

Program.

 My remarks will be limited to the legislative discussion draft that 
11

would establish the Veterans Employment State Grant Improvement 

Act of 2006.

 Mr. Chairman, NASWA supports the intent of the Subcommittee’s 

proposal to require the Secretary of Labor to establish and maintain 

guidelines for States to develop the professional qualifications for 

LVERs and DVOPs.

We believe giving States the flexibility to develop the professional 

qualifications for LVERs and DVOPs will ensure these professionals 

are highly qualified to serve veterans while enabling them to function within the range of State personnel structures. It is important 

the guidance established by the Secretary allow for these variations 

among States.

 In addition to NASWA’s support for the intent of the Subcommittee’s legislative proposal to improve DVOP and LVER qualifications, 

we offer the following comments and recommendations:

NASWA applauds the Subcommittee for clarifying the definition 

of part-time DVOPs and LVERs to mean those working no less than 

half time. State flexibility in hiring or assigning part-time DVOPs 

and LVERs to rule in satellite offices provides veteran services in 

areas that are not otherwise served.

 NASWA recommends the local performance information on veteran services be collected and monitored at the State workforce agency 

level. The capability to collect performance information, it exists in 

many States already.

 The three-year time period for implementation of the information 

collection system is necessary for all States to meet the compliance 

requirements. Once information on performance is collected, it will 

provide useful feedback to ensure workforce center services provide 

veterans that exceeds performance standards.

NASWA supports State licensing and certification programs for 

veterans. However, NASWA recommends additional funds be appropriated by Congress to cover the cost to implement these programs. 

If additional funds are not appropriated, it is requested that the Act 

clarify the costs for establishing and implementing licensing and certification programs be an allowable cost under the DVOP and LVER 

State grants.

 NASWA supports the National Veterans Training Institute training for DVOPs and LVERs within three years of their designation 

as DVOPs or LVERs. However, the law should permit exceptions 

for instances where there exists State travel bans, unavailable NVTI

training, when disabled personnel cannot attend training, or just any 

other unusual circumstances.

 Further, the reduction to the State grant for noncompliance under 

this requirement should be taken from the next fiscal year, not the 

current fiscal year, as funds are obligated already.

 NASWA recommends contractors applying to deliver veteran ser-
12

vices under the $3 million pilot should be required to obtain a letter 

from the State Workforce Agency to ensure their service delivery is 

consistent with the State workforce plan and the State policies. We 

request that funds for this pilot not be taken from State grants.

 NASWA recommends States have the option of providing incentive 

awards to individuals, offices, or smaller units within the offices. We 

recommend administration of these incentive awards be managed 

through the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans’ Employment 

and Training, not the Director for Veterans’ Employment and Training as proposed, just to ensure a certain level of consistency and fairness of awards across the nation.

 Finally, we support the requirement for the Secretary of Labor to 

develop regulations that would ensure veterans receive priority of 

service.

 Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with this Subcommittee 

to continue providing veterans the highest level of service. Thank 

you very much.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

[The statement of Donald Ingram appears on p. 65]

Mr. Boozman. We have been joined by Ms. Brown-Waite.

 Would you like to talk about your bill?

STATEMENT OF HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE

Ms. Brown-Waite. Certainly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today.

 Each year, over 180,000 American soldiers make a decision to leave 

the Armed Forces. After serving honorably in defense of our country, 

many of these individuals seek employment in the civilian world hoping to capitalize on the skills that they have gained during their time 

in the military.

However, the job search for veterans can be difficult. According to 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average unemployment rate for 

recently discharged veterans is 6.9 percent. Now, we need to compare that with the national average of 4.7 percent.

 Unfortunately, many employers do not understand the skills that 

an individual obtains while serving in the military. Moreover, many 

civilian occupations require employees be certified or licensed within 

their field, something that is sometimes difficult to obtain while serving in the Armed Forces.

 This virtually renders the individual ineligible for some of the jobs 

that they seek that they easily could do. For example, a soldier who 

has driven a truck during their time in the service, a large tractor 

trailer truck, is not eligible for a job that requires a CDL. They have 
13

to then spend thousands of dollars. Whether they use the GI Bill or 

their own money, they then have to spend thousands of dollars to be 

eligible to take the CDL license.

 This result certainly is undesirable. And some veterans want to 

find employment in the fields for which they are over-qualified or in 

fields that have nothing to do with the skill set that they have learned 

while in the military. Although the Department of Defense, Labor, 

and Veterans’ Affairs have worked to address this issue, we certainly 

must do more.

This week, I will introduce, the Veterans Certification and Licensure Act of 2006. The bill would establish a Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Certification, Credentialling, and Licensure within the Department of Labor.

 This Committee would include experts from the business realm, 

human resources industry, labor unions, and veterans service organizations. The Committee would focus on improving the transition 

of military personnel to the civilian world through certification, credentialling, and licensing efforts. It would examine the current programs within DoD and DoL as well as the VA. It would make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor.

The Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Certification, Credentialling, and Licensing would meet each fiscal quarter and would have 

to provide a report on its efforts to Congress within one year of its 

creation. The Committee would also submit a detailed report to the 

Secretary of Labor addressing some of the important questions with 

respect to the employment of veterans.

 I believe that as members of Congress, we have an obligation to 

ensure that veterans obtain employment after leaving the Armed 

Forces. This bill would take those important steps toward achieving 

that goal. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle recognize this and will lend their support to the Veterans 

Certification and Licensure Act of 2006.

 Once again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for allowing me to testify today.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

[The statement of Ginny Brown-Waite appears on p. 46]

Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth.

Ms. Herseth. Thank you for allowing me to pose some questions 

first to our panel. Appreciate that.

 Well, thank you for your insights. Let me start with Mr. Ciccolella 

and Mr. Ingram. I thank you both for your testimony and appreciate 

the insight that you have offered as we have drafted the Veterans 

Employment Bill.

 I am very supportive of enhancing the Vets State Grant Program. 

I think better data management and accountability procedures, the 
14

increased training and qualifications of staff, and, of course, improved 

results are, I am sure, everybody’s goal.

 However, perhaps along the lines of Mr. Ingram’s caution, I am a 

little bit concerned that without additional funding for training and 

services that the added mandates within the draft bill may have some 

unintended negative consequences.

 Particularly I am concerned that in some rural States or just some 

States whose -- well, that have a number of the conditions by which 

Mr. Ingram said, you know, there are some exceptions, if they have 

got a ban on travel and what have you.

 But if they are already under some tight budgets and in some cases 

limited supply of expert professionals available for veterans’ employment services, may we see reductions in staff dedicated to working 

with veterans and disabled veterans seeking employment?

 Mr. Ciccolella, could you comment on that matter in terms of -- I

do not mean to put you in the position of having to say, yeah, we need 

more funding or we are going to have problems. That is not necessarily the response I am looking for.

 But how much information do we have available to use that would 

help us anticipate what some of these problems might be in some of 

the areas that are sort of strapped the most for resources in being 

able to meet some of the new requirements that will lead to improved 

results?

Mr. Ciccolella. Congresswoman Herseth, the National Veterans 

Training Institute has, I think, proven itself over the years to be a 

very, very dynamic, flexible, and effective way to raise the standards 

of the DVOPs, LVERs to a consistent level.

 I think the key thing, where we have had tremendous success with 

NVTIs not only in the quality of the instruction that they give but 

also in the flexibility and how they go about it and where they go 

about it.

 The other thing that we have done, of course, is to make the training free, including the travel, free to the State. There are situations 

in the States where due to the turnover or for other reasons, some of 

the DVOPs and LVERs do not receive the training that they really 

need. And we do have a bit of a backlog of DVOPs and LVERs that 

we are trying to train. So we are always trying to catch up.

 To implement the continuing employment requirements would take 

some level of additional funding, resources, staffing, and we have to 

build the capacity for that. I think the capacity could be built very 

quickly. There are a lot of good people who can do that. But the main 

thing is the resources would have to be increased.

 I am not sure if I responded to your question.

Ms. Herseth. I think so. I mean, I think we all understand, especially within the agencies in which you all work, that we do our best 

to make whatever resources are available from year to year go a long 
15

way and being innovative like you just mentioned in terms of offering 

the free training and that it would include travel that would allow, 

you know, us to kind of get around, you know, what might be happening with a particular State on the budgets that they are allocating 

to meet some of the needs for veterans that we know various States 

have done more effectively than others.

Mr. Ciccolella. Yeah. With the flexibility of the NVTI and the 

quality of their instructions, I do not see that as the real issue with 

raising the standards through the continuing education requirements. I think the issue may be on the other end because the States 

have their classification systems.

 And so, you know, you have got to look at how much you upset the 

apple cart back there and what impact, consequences, unintended 

and intended, you have in terms of the pay that those individuals get 

and that sort of thing.

Ms. Herseth. Okay.

Mr. Ciccolella. But the idea is absolutely on point.

Ms. Herseth. In some of the capacity building that you refer to, 

you know, we may have a sense if additional resources that we think 

may be necessary may end up being necessary more in a shorter-term 

capacity building basis than necessarily adding those additional costs 

on the longer-term basis. I am not saying that that will be the case, 

but it is possible if we are imposing some new -- that the cost may not 

be level over time. Is that true?

Mr. Ciccolella. Definitely, yes.

Ms. Herseth. Okay. Then taking a point that Mr. Ingram made 

about the utilization of the services provided by part-time DVOPs 

and LVERs and making mention that oftentimes that is particularly 

useful for rural or satellite offices.

 Mr. Ciccolella, do you know how many part-time DVOPs and 

LVERs that Vets is currently funding?

Mr. Ciccolella. We have that number. I do not have it with me, 

but we certainly have that number.

Ms. Herseth. And do you track working with the States where 

those part-time individuals are -- what is the word I am looking for -- 

where they are based or where they are appointed, if they are serving 

a rural office or a satellite office? Do you track that information?

Mr. Ciccolella. Well, it is tracked at the State level.

Ms. Herseth. So it would be available for us in terms of the overall 

number that you have and then being able to get from at the State 

level the breakdown of how those part-time folks are being utilized?

Mr. Ciccolella. Oh, yes, we could do that. And with regard to the 

half time for the DVOPs, I think it is -- the figures that I have, 109 of 

them. And with the LVERs, it is 324. And there are a total of about 

2,400 DVOPs and LVERs.

Ms. Herseth. Okay. Thank you.
16

Secretary Mansfield, thank you for your testimony today. It appears that the VA supports the policy of considering the increases to 

specially-adapted housing grants on an annual basis.

 But I was going to ask you based on your written testimony to explain the opposition to establishing the annual index. But I think as 

you explained here today, it is because you think that it should be 

across the entire Executive Branch. It should be in comport across 

the entire Executive Branch.

 But my question would be, don’t we do this in terms of it is just 

essentially cost-of-living adjustments for other benefits just based on 

CPI?

Mr. Mansfield. They said that we support the increase that you 

recommended for the total amount this one time. The problem is the 

Administration’s position is that there should not be the individual 

indexing, that it should be tied into other indexing programs across 

the system, and that would be an Administration initiative. Therefore, we opposed it.

Ms. Herseth. So if it was tied into other indexing, we could do -- 

Mr. Mansfield. In other words, the Administration -- 

Ms. Herseth. -- we could tie it to CPI for the cost-of-living adjustments?

Mr. Mansfield. Well, I think what the Administration position is 

is rather than having a number of different types, for example, VA

may be tied into the CPI and the VA -- or HUD may be tied into the 

HUD index and then -- 

Ms. Herseth. I see.

Mr. Mansfield. -- Commerce might be tied into something else. 

That instead of having a whole number of these, there should be one 

way to do it across -- 

Ms. Herseth. Okay.

Mr. Mansfield. -- the entire Executive Branch -- 

Ms. Herseth. Given what you just described, that is a broader goal 

of the Administration is to try to find some equalizing measure across 

agencies?

Mr. Mansfield. Yes.

 Ms. Herseth. And that once we find that, that you are not opposed 

to the index per se, but what the index is?

Mr. Mansfield. This is one where I have to be careful.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay.

Mr. Mansfield. You know, I think the position is that if you can 

find an index that meets the needs of all these different programs, 

then it would be, you know, approved.

Ms. Herseth. In light of your -- 

Mr. Mansfield. But that is not an Administration -- 

Ms. Herseth. In light of your understandingly cautious response, 

do you have any suggestions on what an appropriate index might 
17

be?

Mr. Mansfield. Well, the other part of this I would make a point, 

too, which the testimony says, we would be more than happy to work 

with the Committee each and every year in an effort to make sure 

that when the appropriate time is, we do go forward with an increase 

that meets the needs.

 Obviously over the course of the last few years with a steady and 

high rise in real estate values, it has been the time to do this. In 

other years, it may be flat and you may not need to do it. But we 

would continue to work -- 

Ms. Herseth. Okay.

Mr. Mansfield. -- with the Committee on making sure that the 

veterans, which is what we are here for -- 

Ms. Herseth. Right.

Mr. Mansfield. -- are taken care of.

Ms. Herseth. And along that line, and I appreciate your willingness to work with us on that, is sort of in trying to determine, say, an 

appropriate index. It might be to ask you the question of whether or 

not you are aware of what adaptations are made most frequently to 

a veteran’s residence through the Specially-Adaptive Housing Program.

Mr. Mansfield. Well, there are two parts of this program, and the 

one is the Total House Program and that is a methodology to conform 

to the VA established requirements for accessibility within the house. 

That is the large program.

 The smaller program with the smaller amount is set up to deal 

with the individual veteran’s specific needs. And in that case, a 

blinded veteran might have certain needs. A spinal cord-injured veteran might have certain needs. An amputee might have other needs. 

And those needs are then addressed by the smaller dollar amount 

program.

Ms. Herseth. Okay.

Mr. Mansfield. If you wish, for the record, I can supply you with 

exactly what the different requirements are.

Ms. Herseth. That would be fine. I do not know that it is necessary. I think we can access that information separately. But if that 

is easily transferred over to us, that would be helpful.

 Does the VA maintain the number of disabled veterans who are eligible for specially-adapted housing grants or do you only track those 

who actually apply for or utilize the benefit?

Mr. Mansfield. There is a medical determination that has to be 

made for the entitlement to invest, so to speak. So we would have 

that. I do not have it with me. Again, we can supply it for the record. 

But, you know, it requires the medical determination of whether you 

can meet the needs. So we would have that on record.

 And then Jack may be able to help you out. It goes to the regional 
18

offices, right?

Mr. McCoy. We can get you some information on that because, as 

the Deputy said, it does go to our regional offices. At each regional 

office now especially we are tracking severely injured. So it would 

be much easier for us to track that. And then the rating decision on 

each individual, we make a determination at what level they would 

be entitled to the full grant, to the adaptation grant.

Ms. Herseth. So just to be clear, and I know I have gone over time, 

but it is a medical determination that is independent from any other 

-- veterans have to go through a lot of interviews and determinations 

for the variety of different benefits that they have earned.

 And so is this a medical determination that any of our disabled 

veterans go through as an initial matter that is comprehensive to our 

different benefits or is it -- it is not one that is separate -- 

Mr. McCoy. No, ma’am.

Ms. Herseth. -- for this particular program?

 Mr. McCoy. For example, if the veteran filed a claim for serviceconnected disability, we would make a determination by -- even if the 

person did not apply, it is an inferred issue. If we saw that person 

was entitled, we would make that determination. It would be part of 

that rating, and we would send them information on how they could 

apply for the benefit.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay. So going back however many years when we 

had the medical determination for the rating, okay, so for any service-connected disabled veteran going through that process to get a 

rating, the regional offices have the ability to track that?

Mr. McCoy. I cannot tell you how far back we can track that.

Ms. Herseth. Okay. If you could just follow-up with us so that 

we -- you know, especially, I think, now my hunch is, and I mean no 

disrespect, my hunch is we are doing a better job tracking our severely-injured service men and women who are returning from Iraq 

and Afghanistan than perhaps we did as they returned in the ‘70s 

and before.

 But if you can just give us some sense as to what the Committee 

can do as we seek to meet the needs of even some of our veterans, say, 

from the Vietnam era who are just now some of them coming around 

to utilize and getting over some of their distrust of government or unease with dealing with the VA or what have you, that because some 

of their fellow veterans are starting to utilize different benefits that 

have been available to them for some time, and I just want to make 

sure we are in a position to meet their needs.

 So thank you.

 I may have a few other questions on the GI Bill, but I will turn it 

over to others on the Committee.

Mr. Boozman. Ms. Brown-Waite.

Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
19

you for holding this hearing.

 Mr. Ciccolella, I understand that you have concerns about some of 

the provisions in the bill that we are introducing this week and feel 

that it may be duplicative of the entity that is within Department of 

Veterans Affairs right now, that being the Professional Certification 

and Licensure Committee.

 It is my understanding that that Committee is primarily concerned 

with administering the VA Reimbursement Program for licensing 

and certification testing fees as opposed to setting up a model of this 

is the career path that the veteran had when he was in the military 

and here is a similar career path, but rather the existing Committee 

is more into paying the reimbursement and the fees for that certification.

 If we could come up with a group -- and there are entities out there 

that are willing to do this -- if we could come up with a method of 

gaining that certification, which is the goal of my bill, without spending a lot of money, rather breaking through some of the red tape, it 

seems to me as if that would be a win-win.

 And I also understand that the Committee, the PCLAC, under the 

Department of Veterans Affairsis due to expire December 31st of this 

year.

 So having said all that, why do you believe that this would be conflicting with what you are doing? There are two separate issues. One 

is paying fees for certification and another one is here is the certification, Mr. Employer, that this person has done X, Y, Z, and here are 

what the requirements are in the outside world.

 Let me tell you why I introduced the bill. I had a young man come 

to me who spent 20 years in the Air Force and he was a meteorologist 

in the Air Force. When he came out, he went into HR. And I said to 

him, now, that certainly is a different career path. And I like people 

who change careers, but that is a really drastic change.

 And he said, oh, I loved being a meteorologist. The problem was I

was not certified. And he said I had a family to support and did not 

have the time to spend three or four years in college again to get that 

certification.

 So if we can say, okay, your meteorological skills were learned in 

the military and a meteorologist on the outside world needs these 

qualifications and this kind of experience, why should that person 

have to go to college for three years? And that is what we are trying 

to accomplish in the bill.

 So I would like to have your comments in light of the fact that the 

Committee actually is one that is about to expire, the existing Committee.

Mr. Ciccolella. Thank you, Congresswoman.

 First of all, let me just say that we at the Department of Labor, 

I personally and I think the Administration, very much appreciate 
20

your interest in this area.

I think you are right with regard to how you defined the VA Committee’s responsibility. I think they may also have picked up where 

the Veterans Corporation left off. And the Veterans Corporation also 

had a Committee that looked at that. I think there is probably very 

good work being done by the PCLAC, the VA Committee.

I also would like to say that licensing and certification is exactly 

the way you have described it. It is an issue when you leave the service. I had the same experience. I wanted to be a teacher. I had to go 

back to school for two or three years, pay $10,000 a year to get tuition 

and whatnot. So I decided not to do that.

 So I applaud the Committee’s efforts. Now, this is a very complex 

issue and there have been a lot of Committees and a lot of studies and 

a whole lot of conferences by a lot of different entities, but we still do 

not have much in the way of the path that you have described and 

any clear-cut assistance, I think, that truly makes it easier to transition with your skills to a license or a certification.

 So I will say that it is an important issue. I applaud your efforts. 

It needs to be addressed. My question is whether or not we need 

another Committee to do this. I think what we are after here is the 

path. I think what we are after is some information.

 And I have given this a lot of thought. I think we need to move to 

the next step and I think the next step should be more operational. I

think that we should take a look at a sampling, 20, 30, maybe 100 of 

the occupational specialties in the military that clearly relate to the 

high- demand occupations, the high-growth industries that lead to 

good careers.

 And I think that we should look at the training that has been provided by the military because they spend so much money on training 

and the certificates or certifications that the military provides. We 

ought to look at the 50 States or 52 States and territories and look 

at these comparable civilian occupations and we ought to list what 

the requirements are for those occupations that correspond to those 

military occupational specialties.

 Then that would tell us what the gap is. And then we could do a 

gap analysis and then it might be time to form a Committee to make 

some recommendations with regard to how we deal with the States 

and how we ask the States to accept some of the military training.

 And as with everything else in life, it just seems to me that if we get 

this started on a smaller level and do it for 20 or 30 occupations and 

facilitate and make it easier, maybe instead of having to go through 

four out of five wickets to get a State license or a State certification, 

you could reduce that to one or two, then we are on the path toward 

making progress on this. And then we could expand that list of the 

occupational specialties and how they transition.

 So what I am saying, Congresswoman, is that I applaud the idea. I
21

think the Committee could be effective. But I think it would be much 

more effective to do something operational as opposed to more reports 

and more recommendations by the Secretary because we have done a 

lot of that, but we still do not have, I think, what we need.

Ms. Brown-Waite. But, sir, what you are admitting is that it has 

not worked.

 But, you know, that is exactly one reason why this bill went through 

about 30 iterations, because I do not want it to just be another study 

Committee. Basically the bill, I tightened up a lot on it and gave 

some deadlines for accomplishing things because I do not want it to 

drag on forever.

 You know, hopefully we will be bringing some troops home. You 

know, we need to have them have the availability of transitioning 

into a job. Some jobs will require certification.

So, first of all, we put some deadlines in here and asked them to 

identify any area of employment in which credentialling and certification systems could be established where this is a mutuality. And 

so that is called for in here.

I think without specific deadlines, and we are asking it to be done 

within an 18-month period, without specific deadlines, I am told that 

nobody could ever get together and really agree on this.

 And if you look at the composition of the panel that we have, we 

have people from Labor. We have people from the various VSOs, 

certainly the VA. We want to make sure that this happens and that 

it is not just another study.

 But I do not think we can go out there and wave a magic wand tomorrow and say,you sir, are now a meteorologist because you spent 

almost 22 years in the military doing that. We need to make sure 

that there is a comparative skill set there from the military to the 

private sector.

 And I want to make sure that it does get done. As I say, this bill 

went through lots of iterations because I do not believe in putting a bill 

out there without having a sunset and without having some achievable goals because to me, that is three-quarters of what Washington 

has missed in the big picture. They say go forth and do, but never 

give any deadlines. And so, therefore, it just goes ad nauseam.

 So we wanted to make sure that we did set some reasonable deadlines in here. And, quite honestly, there are a couple of firms out 

there that say that they can do this. I did not want to steer business 

their way. However, there is some language in here that allows this 

Committee, if they feel that it is expeditious, it allows this Committee 

to contract with someone to help them to achieve this goal.

 So there are lots of tools in the bill that -- I can tell you that we have 

spoken to the Veterans Service Organizations. They support it. We 

need to stop talking, sir, and start doing something. And if this group 

says, you know, hey, we have tried this before and we are incapable, 
22

then you have the ability to hire it out to various companies that say, 

hey, we can do this for you.

 But, you know, what I do not want to do is I do not want to be in an 

adversarial position. I want to work with you so that we can help our 

young men and women coming out of the military.

Mr. Ciccolella. Well, Congresswoman, we certainly are not on 

different sides on this. I think I applaud the intent behind the Committee. Something does need to be done. I think we just differ on how 

we go about it.

Committees, I believe, can be so effective and I think the Committee, the way the legislation is written, I think it would identify the 

issues, and that serves a purpose. And I am not disputing that at all. 

I do not think we have a difference.

 My contention is that I would like to see some real progress made 

on this just like you would. And I think the way you make that progress is we start profiling the military occupational specialties against 

the State requirements and we establish 20 or 30 paths.

 And then, you know, we make sure that Defense Department does 

their piece and Labor and VA do their piece, and we look at how we 

have actually facilitated transition and then we sort of expand that 

list.

 And it is not that I think the Committee is a waste of time or that it 

would not do good work because I know it would, and the composition 

is very good. And I think a great deal of thought has gone into it. The 

objectives of the Committee are very good.

 Again, I just think it is time to draw a straight line on this and 

move toward a product. And I think given the work that has been 

done by Department of Veterans’ Affairs and other entities that have 

looked at this, I truly believe we are ready to move in a more operational manner. So we may just differ on that point.

Ms. Brown-Waite. If you have any suggestions that you would like 

to add on this, I would certainly be very happy to work with you. But 

I do not mean this the way it sounds. You have not done it thus far, 

so this member of Congress does not believe unless it is written thou 

shalt that it will be done. So, therefore, this is why the bill evolved 

into this manner.

 Now, if you would prefer, I will rewrite a bill that says let us go to 

a group that has the expertise, that can do this, but you might not 

like the outcome.

 So I believe that your involvement is very important. I believe that 

the Department of Labor involvement is very important. Their veterans’ outreach is very important. And I want to see that very delicate 

blend of expertise there so that we can get moving on this.

 I would love it to be in six months, sir. But one thing I had to learn 

when I came to Washington, D.C. and that is how slowly government 

works. For somebody who came from a State legislative background, 
23

it is very frustrating how slowly Congress works. And you know 

what? It is even more frustrating for our constituents back home 

who cannot understand why it takes so long.

 I will tighten up on the time line in here, sir. If you think 18 months 

is too long, we can make it three months or six months, but we need 

to get going and stop talking about it. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ciccolella. I think we agree. I think we agree on that point, 

Congresswoman. And I would be more than pleased to work with 

you and your staff and the Committee’s staff to come up with a viable 

plan.

Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth.

Ms. Herseth. Thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chairman. Just listening to the exchange, it is clear to me that both the Congresswoman 

and Mr. Ciccolella have given this a lot of thought and agree on more 

than they disagree.

 And my only suggestion, even though understanding Ms. BrownWaite’s frustration because she and I have both been -- she has been 

here a little bit longer than I have, not too much, and we both want to 

just see the results. And so much has been done, but we have never 

followed through. We have not connected the dots.

 And I think that if we can make a bipartisan commitment to reforming a GI Bill that provides flexibility, that intersects directly 

with this issue that we can move in an operational way to perhaps 

add a new section to the GI Bill that matches this up, matches up 

the training with the governors’ involvement and the certification by 

every State and how we make this a more fluid transition perhaps in 

a more comprehensive bill even though I know that Ms. Brown-Waite 

and I agree sometimes we can get the results a little bit faster if we 

approach it in a more incremental way, but just a suggestion that if 

we can get the political will to do what we want to do with the GI Bill 

that this might make a great sort of new section on how we do it.

Mr. Ciccolella. I completely agree. We need to get something 

done.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 And I think that is our frustration. You know, we are with you 

and we really do appreciate the fact that you have thought about 

this a lot. And hopefully, we will mesh this out and be able to move 

forward.

 Let me just ask a couple things real quick and then we need to 

move on.

 First of all, Mr. Secretary, I want to assure you that the language 

on the disabled business owners and spouses that it in no way was 

meant to imply that a disabled veteran was not capable of running a 

business. And the record certainly shows just the opposite and our 

report language will reflect that as we go forward.
24

 Second, today several witnesses on the second panel will disagree 

with the deletion of the nine percent mandatory acquisition goals 

that was in the first draft of House Resolution 3082. They feel like 

the VA will not take this bill seriously without the provision. And I

want to note that this year, the VA has set aside just 2.16 percent for 

service-disabled veteran-owned businesses.

 So we have talked about this. And I really know that your heart is 

in the right place on this, but can you talk a little bit about a commitment that you would make in establishing under Public Law 106-50, 

the Secretary’s goals for the department?

Mr. Mansfield. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I made the point in my 

introductory statement that one of the things that I did was move 

this requirement into the monthly performance review report so that 

I got a chance to look at it. 

 Originally, that was on a departmental basis and we had an opportunity to see what was happening across the department.

Recently, I moved it to Office and Administration basis so we could 

allow each Office and Administration to be able to see where they 

were in the picture and that I could see where they were and we could 

then be able to take action as needed.

 I would make the point that the Secretary has indicated in directives to the staff that he is committed to this. I would make the point 

that I am committed to this. I have to tell you that I am concerned 

that I sit here with the numbers you just mentioned as a part of our 

record and that is not good. We need to do better, obviously.

 The other part of it is is that we are the Department of Veterans’ 

Affairs and I believe we need to focus on and concentrate on within 

the context of existing statutes the veterans’ issues and make that a 

priority. And I have attempted to do that and I would tell you and the 

Committee and the world that I would continue to make that a priority, continue to push it and continue to try and get those numbers 

higher. And I know that we will.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

 Another thing that just came up, the National Student Clearinghouse, we received a letter from them saying that they were proposing to conduct a one-year pilot program to assist VA enrollment, certification, and other issues of veterans attending institutes of higher 

learning at no cost to the VA.

 You know, on the surface, this seems like a good idea. I guess 

would you all be willing to sit down with our staff and discuss that 

as far as looking at a Clearinghouse pilot project, not committing you 

in any way, but just, you know, sitting down and looking at their 

proposal and -- 

Mr. Mansfield. Yes, sir.

Mr. Boozman. -- going forward?

Mr. Mansfield. I would definitely do that. I make the point, too, 
25

for example, in a recent visit to Ft. Benning to talk to our folks involved in the Benefits at Discharge Delivery Program that that office 

has the benefit of a work study-type person in there to help in the 

administrative duties.

 I think what I was trying to say is that in this area, we need to 

make sure that we do not put unqualified people in jobs that are advising or giving direction to veterans that require a certain qualification or certification.

Mr. Boozman. Okay. One other question about the withholding. 

It was suggested that withholding funds from the subsequent year 

rather than the current year. Can you explain that comment?

Mr. McCoy. Would you repeat the question, please?

Mr. Boozman. Mr. Ingram, I am sorry. It was suggested that withholding funds from the subsequent year rather than the current year. 

Can you explain that comment?

Mr. Ingram. Yes, sir, I can. This would enable States to do better planning as far as their budget goes for the following year. The 

budgets had already been established and so to take it from that year 

would impede the planning for the following year.

Mr. Boozman. And so is this something that VETS would concur 

with or -- 

 Mr. Ciccolella. The issue here is the negative incentive if they do 

not send their DVOPs and LVERs to NVTI to arrange that training. 

I am not in favor of taking money away from States. I do not think 

it helps at all.

 But if the money were going to be taken away, I think as a practical matter, it would be taken out of the next year’s allocation. The 

next year’s allocation would be reduced. Just as a matter of course, it 

would take that long to process that.

 Again, I would go on record saying that I am just simply not in 

favor of taking money away from States. It is a job of our State Directors and it is a job of our National Office to work with the States and 

help them in every way to get their DVOPs and LVERs trained and 

to get their outcomes up. And we have a lot of tools to do that. And 

I am just not sure that taking money away from States -- I just think 

it makes it a lot worse.

Mr. Ingram. Chairman Boozman, another point is that the State 

grant received in the current year has already been obligated for services to the veterans and this would just give us additional time to 

coordinate the service delivery based on the projected reductions in 

the next fiscal year.

Mr. Boozman. Have you got any other things, Ms. Herseth?

Ms. Herseth. One last, and I know we are keeping the second panel waiting, but I never pass up an opportunity to ask for an update on 

Chapter 1607 and the Reserve Education Assistance Program.

Could either you, Mr. Secretary, Mr. McCoy, address sort of where 
26

we are in terms of the implementation of the New Electronic Payment System and the like?

Mr. McCoy. As far as the Chapter 1607, I believe, as you know, 

when we established our payment system in February, we had 15,000 

cases pending. As of this morning, we had approximately 1,500 and 

we are going to make every effort to have those gone and worked by 

Monday morning. Our goal has been to finish by the end of April.

Ms. Herseth. Thank you for the good news. I appreciate it.

Mr. Mansfield. I might make the point that that, too, is a part of 

the monthly performance review.

Ms. Herseth. Okay. Thank you.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you. I thank the panel so much for appearing. 

We appreciate your testimony, and I think we really accomplished a 

lot and got some real insight. So thank you with your help on these 

bills and we appreciate your service. Thank you.

 Our second panel today includes David Greineder, the Deputy 

Legislative Director for AMVETS; John Lopez, Chairman of the Association for Service Disabled Veterans; Brian Lawrence, Assistant 

National Legislative Director for the DAV; Mr. Morgan Brown, CoChairman of the Military Coalition; Mr. Joseph Sharpe, Deputy Director of the Economic Commission of the American Legion; Mr. Carl 

Blake, Associate Legislative Director for the Paralyzed Veterans of 

America; Mr. Eric Hilleman, Assistant Director of the VFW National 

Legislative Service; Mr. Rick Weidman, National Legislative Director of the Vietnam Veterans of America.

 Let us start out with Mr. Lawrence. Thank you all. I apologize 

that we are running a little late and yet we are not. You know, that 

is the idea of these hearings - to be here and try and get all the useful 

information that we can. So we do appreciate you being here. And so 

again, let us start with Mr. Lawrence.

STATEMENTS OF BRIAN E. LAWRENCE, ASSISTANT NATION-

 AL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VET-

 ERANS; CARL BLAKE, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIREC-

 TOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; JOHN K. 

 LOPEZ, CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATION FOR SERVICE DIS-

 ABLED VETERANS; JOSEPH C. SHARPE, JR., DEPUTY

 DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN

 LEGION; RICHARD WEIDMAN, GOVERNMENT RELA-

 TIONS DIRECTOR, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; 

 MORGAN BROWN, CO-CHAIR, VETERANS COMMITTEE, 

 THE MILITARY COALITION; ERIC HILLEMAN, ASSISTANT

 DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS

 OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; DAVID

 GREINEDER, DEPUTY NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

 AMVETS
27

STATEMENT OF BRIAN E. LAWRENCE

 Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member 

Herself, and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 1.3 million members of the Disabled American Veterans, I appreciate the 

opportunity to present our views on the legislation being considered 

today. I will limit my remarks to the measures that are most pertinent to the DAV mission.

 First, I would like to commend the Subcommittee for its leadership and bipartisan commitment to assist the most severely disabled 

veterans. The DAV thanks Ranking Member Herseth for introducing the Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing Improvement Act and 

Chairman Boozman for recognizing its merit and fostering its success.

 This bill is important not only because specially-adapted homes are 

more expensive than conventional homes, but also because the grant 

amount has remained relatively flat while building costs have risen.

 Along with providing an immediate increase, the bill would help 

to ensure that grant amounts remain viable by providing for annual 

adjustments based on the national average increase in the cost of 

residential home construction.

 This will have a huge impact on the lives of catastrophically injured 

men and women returning from the War on Terror. In accordance 

with resolutions adopted by delegates to the National Convention, 

the DAV strongly supports this legislation.

 The DAV also supports the effort to increase VA contracting opportunities for small businesses owned and controlled by service-connected disabled veterans. No other category of business owner has 

contributed more to our nation or is more deserving of special consideration for federal contract opportunities than disabled veterans.

 The amendment to House Resolution 3082 would require VA to 

establish a percentage goal for each fiscal year for such contracts. 

While we would prefer to see mandates rather than goals, it is a worthy measure, especially since it provides an incentive for procurement 

officers to meet the established goals. The DAV hopes this additional 

measure will encourage adherence to the amendment’s intent.

 Generally the DAV does not take action on legislation that is based 

upon other than wartime service-connected disabilities; therefore, we 

would not usually have a position regarding the Montgomery GI Bill. 

But because the GI Bill Flexibility Act of 2006 provides special consideration for disabled veterans, we support its goal to provide flexibility for accelerated payments.

 The Act would provide special rules authorizing payments for service-connected disabled veterans to equal 75 percent of established 

charges. The DAV supports this legislation.

 Though we have no resolutions pertaining to the remaining mea-
28

sures, their purposes are meritorious and we have no objection to 

their favorable consideration.

 Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I will be happy to 

respond to any inquiries you or any other members may have.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

[The statement of Brian E. Lawrence appears on p. 71]

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Blake.

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE

 Mr. Blake. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth, PVA

would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 

proposed legislation.

 And, Ms. Herseth, PVA would like to particularly thank you for 

introducing House Resolution 4791 that would increase the amount 

of the Specially Adapted Housing Grant from 50 to $60,000. PVA

members are the highest users of this very important grant.

 In accordance with the recommendations of the Independent Budget, we also support the provision that would require the Secretary to 

establish a residential home cost of construction index to be used to 

automatically adjust the amount of these grants each year.

 As the housing market has continued to boom, these grants have 

not kept pace. Without an annual adjustment to the grants, inflation 

will continue to erode their purchasing power.

 I would also like to suggest to the Subcommittee that they consider 

looking at changes to the grant that provides for adaptive equipment 

for the purchase of an automobile as well as you move this legislation 

forward.

 PVA supports the Veterans Employment State Grant Improvement Act. PVA is very encouraged by the requirement for the States 

to establish a licensing and certification program as a condition of a 

grant or contract.

 PVA welcomes the GI Bill Flexibility Act as a means for more separating veterans to take advantage of the opportunities earned while 

in uniform. Providing increased versatility to veterans to take advantage of their benefits will provide greater opportunities in civilian 

employment.

Currently rules severely limit the ability for veterans to receive 

lump sum or accelerated payments of educational benefits. By expanding this access, many training programs that have been off limits to veterans will now become available. PVA believes that this 

legislation is only the first step in needed changes to all veterans’ 

education benefits.

 Perhaps the most overlooked section of this population is National 

Guard and Reserve forces mobilized for the Global War on Terror. 
29

These soldiers serving on active duty earn as much as $22,000 in 

educational benefits during their mobilizations. However, if these 

soldiers choose to retire or leave military service following their return from combat, they would lose these benefits automatically. Any 

active-duty military who choose to do the same will not lose their 

benefits.

 PVA sees this as inherently unfair. Military leaders are quick to 

point out that retention is their prime concern and see this program 

as a tool in keeping soldiers in the Guard and Reserves. We understand these concerns, but disagree that these soldiers who honorably 

served should be denied this benefit that they have rightfully earned. 

We hope the changes to the GI Bill do not end with this legislation.

 PVA supports the Veterans Licensing and Credentialing Act as another step to ensure individuals separating from the military have 

every opportunity to seamlessly transition to civilian life.

 The training and experience achieved during military service 

makes veterans well suited to be successful in civilian employment. 

It is troubling that many of these veterans leave military service with 

skills and experiences often well above their civilian counterparts who 

have not served and, yet, they struggle to find employment. These 

veterans are hampered because they do not have the specific State 

license or certification that can allow them to immediately enter a 

civilian profession.

The establishment of a Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Certification, Credentialling, and Licensure can improve this process. However, we believe to be really successful, it must be fully supported by 

the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and the 

Department of Labor.

 PVA is disappointed to see the changes to House Resolution 3082 

proposed in the amendment being considered. In July 2005, we first 

testified on this legislation and we welcomed the substantial move 

to require nine percent of procurement contracts entered into by the 

VA to be awarded to small business concerns owned by veterans or 

service-connected disabled veterans.

 It is unfortunate that the Subcommittee is moving away from such 

meaningful legislation. Replacing this requirement with a goal that 

the Secretary shall establish does nothing to improve the current 

situation.

Though the nine percent requirement may be large or difficult to 

meet, government agencies almost without exception have shown 

that they are wholly incapable of meeting the procurement goals for 

veteran-owned businesses.

 When working towards passage of Public Law 106-50, the VSOs 

worked tirelessly to get real requirements for procurement included 

in the legislation. It is unfortunate that years after the passage of 

Public Law 106-50, there has been no change in the attitudes towards 
30

veteran business owners, particularly those with service-connected 

disabilities.

 Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify and I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

might have.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Blake.

[The statement of Carl Blake appears on p. 77]

Mr. Boozman. Mr. Lopez.

STATEMENT OF JOHN K. LOPEZ

Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

members of the Committee.

 Attempts by the nation’s service-disabled and prisoner of war military veterans to participate in the economic system for which they 

have ensured security and prosperity have been an embarrassment.

 In spite of the commitment of the United States Congress and the 

efforts of individuals in the Federal Administration, the systemic 

abuse of service-disabled veteran aspirations by an insulated bureaucracy has threatened the foundation to our national patriotism.

The recalcitrant behavior of those officials charged by the United 

States Congress and Presidential Executive Order to enhance and 

implement opportunity for service-disabled veterans makes a chilling 

statement that the rehabilitation of America’s heros is irrelevant to 

the agenda of the major corporations and their subservient procurement officials.

 As an example, consider that the top 100 billion dollar contracts to 

the Department of Veterans’ Affairs are among the worst providers of 

opportunities for service-disabled veterans seeking to maintain their 

rehabilitation as owners and operators of small business.

 The United States Department of Veterans’ Affairs will not meet 

even negotiated goals unless those goals are specifically enumerated. 

The intent of the provisions of House Resolution of 3082 is absolutely needed by the service-disabled veterans of the United States and 

their families.

 The proposed amendments are also necessary to clarify and more 

clearly focus on the complexity and practice of procurement awards 

by the United States Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Each of the 

House Resolution 3082 provisions and amendments address a real 

and specific experience or concern of service-disabled veterans in pursuing and maintaining their rehabilitation practices.

 This unique and most deserving population requires a complete 

and total commitment of our nation’s resources and the support of the 

United States Congress.

 I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank 
31

you.

[The statement of John K. Lopez appears on p. 86]

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, sir.

 Mr. Sharpe.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH C. SHARPE, JR.

Mr. Sharpe. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity to submit the American Legion’s views 

on the issues being considered by the Subcommittee today.

 House Resolution 4791, the Disabled Veterans Adapted Housing 

Improvement Act. Given the rising cost of construction materials 

and services, the American Legion is pleased to support this pending 

legislation that would raise these allowances and allow the grants to 

be paid to adapt the homes of parents and siblings caring for disabled 

veterans.

 Draft bill Veterans Employment State Grant Improvement Act of 

2006, the American Legion is supportive of the Veterans Employment State Grant Improvement Act of 2006 and other measures that 

will improve employment services for veterans provided under the 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Services.

 Draft bill GI Bill Flexibility Act of 2006, the American Legion supports the provisions of the GI Bill Flexibility Act of 2006. In addition, 

the American Legion strongly supports the expansion of the program 

to include other short-term programs of value that could lead to the 

immediate employment of veterans.

 Draft bill Veterans Licensing and Credentialling Act of 2006, a concern of the American Legion is that the Veterans Service Organizations be adequately accounted for on any establishment of a Veterans’ 

Advisory Committee on Certification, Credentialling, and Licensure.

 The American Legion suggests that approximately half of the Committee be made up of VSO representatives. The American Legion 

supports the provisions of the Veterans Licensing and Credentialling 

Act of 2006.

And, finally, a proposed amendment to House Resolution 3082, the 

Veteran Owned Small Business Promotion Act of 2005, the American Legion still supports the original bill House Resolution 3082 that 

requires that nine percent of procurement contracts entered into by 

the Department of Veterans’ Affairs be awarded to small business 

concerns owned by veterans.

 We are very concerned about the elimination of the minimum goals 

and any other measures that might hinder contracting opportunities for veteran-owned businesses. The American Legion supports 

certain provisions of this proposed legislation. However, there needs 

to be a federal-wide national procurement policy in conjunction with 
32

Public Law 106-50

 Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much, sir.

[The statement Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr. appears on p. 93]

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Weidman.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WEIDMAN

Mr. Weidman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Herseth, Vietnam 

Veterans of America, first of all, I want to thank you for allowing us 

to testify today.

 House Resolution 4791, this Disabled Veteran Adaptive Housing 

Grant, we strongly support the increase from 50 to 60,000 and from 

10,000 to 12,000. However, there is a need for a regional instead of 

a national average increase in order to keep up with rising housing 

costs. Housing costs in high-cost areas such as Washington, D.C., 

New York, California, et cetera, Miami are rising much faster than 

they are in many of our rural States.

 Secondly, while it may not be appropriate to this legislation, it is 

something that we would suggest that the Committee needs to look 

into, is that the decision as to whether or not to allow someone adaptive housing and various aspects of adaptive housing is supposed to 

be a clinical decision. All too often, particularly in the last year and a 

half, two years, it has become a fiscal decision with fiscal people overriding the Prosthetics Committee of three at VA medical centers.

Secondly, the bill that would allow more flexibility in the GI Bill 

by allowing acceleration of pay for particular vocational rehabilitation programs, we strongly favor that kind of flexibility and, frankly, 

would note at this point that we continue to advocate for a World War 

II GI Bill such as our fathers had be made available to our sons and 

daughters who even now are in harm’s way in the Global War on Terrorism around the world.

 In regard to the amendments to House Resolution 3082, the performance review noted in that that is for the chief procurement officers 

for the various divisions should also extend to those decision makers 

within that decision. We laud Secretary Nicholson and Deputy Secretary Mansfield as well as Under Secretary Perlin. They have now 

given each network director that as a specific requirement in their 

performance evaluation. And I believe we are going to see a much 

improved situation when it comes to procurement from the Veterans 

Health Administration which is, of course, 85 percent of all procurement by the VA.

 The third thing there or second thing is Vietnam Veterans of America also favor keeping the nine percent goal because even though we 

have strong support at the VA now from the Secretary on down, we 
33

may not always have that kind of support from the very top in regard 

to this issue.

 Number three, the sole source provisions need to be even further 

clarified because there is much willful ignorance out there on the part 

of contracting officers as well as decision makers.

 And, lastly, applaud you for putting in the succession provision 

when a veteran dies or becomes totally incapable, a disabled vet, of 

running their business.

In regard to the Veterans Certification Committee, applaud Ms. 

Brown-Waite for her strong and assertive leadership on this issue. 

It is something that is much overdue. The veterans’ community has 

been floundering and trying to get something done in this for 20 years. 

And it is a good start.

 We would encourage you to think about adding the Department of 

Education since the State approving agencies in many States falls 

under the Department of Education.

 Next, CPC is not something we can recommend be on that Committee as essentially it is a not-for-profit that is wholly owned by a forprofit corporation. Instead we would encourage you to put in there 

the U.S. Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers, or the National Federation of Independent Business, or all three.

 Lastly is any vestiges of the responsibility for this function, we believe should be removed from the Veteran Corporation. They have 

enough to do trying to accomplish their primary mission, and given 

to Labor.

 And last but not least, we would encourage you to add to this Committee the National Governors Association between the State Department of Educations and the National Governors. If they are not 

going to make it work in approval at the State level, it is not going 

to work which is the problem with implementing the small business 

flexibility you allowed in legislation two years ago.

 Lastly, in regard to the Veterans State Employment Improvement 

Grants of 2006, VVA remains strongly opposed to part-time DVOPs 

and, in fact, part-time LVERs. We never get 50 percent of those people. The way to accomplish that in our view is to have people who are 

itinerant when you have small offices who go from office to office and 

then you can guarantee more fully that you are getting a bang for the 

buck out of the staff time you are actually devoting.

 We very much agree that training should be a requirement for 

DVOPs and LVERs who come on board, but we would urge you to 

shorten that time from three years to two years and also include the 

managers of the local offices. Many of them just never go for training 

and they do not even know what the law is much less have a commitment to fulfilling it.

 The other thing we would note is the Jobs for Veterans Act never 

has had implementing regulations published by the Secretary of La-
34

bor. Therefore, there is only the flexibility part of the Act that has 

been implemented and not the accountability of the Act.

 And we would encourage you to follow-up on the GAS study on this 

issue with Secretary Chow to ensure that there is regulation and enforcement of all of the accountability parts of that Act which passed 

four years ago now.

 And very much agree with the Statistical Metropolitan Statistical 

Area Standard, Metropolitan -- the DEMO Project for three million, 

and that is something that needs to be done.

Very last, in 2000, this Committee took the lead in revamping 

the system that would hold the States harmless. In other words, no 

DVOPs or LVERs would have been laid off and, yet, we would move 

towards the money that goes to the State Workforce Development 

Agencies following performance. And it failed at the very last minute 

in September of 2000.

 We are still very much in favor of that and, frankly, do not believe 

anything else is going to start to improve the workforce development 

system for veterans in this country. And it is the key readjustment 

program for veterans returning from OIF, OEF, and we owe them 

nothing less than to take the steps necessary to help them find meaningful work at a living wage.

 Mr. Chairman, Ms. Herseth, thank you very much.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Weidman.

 One thing, if it is okay with Ms. Herseth, Mr. McCoy, he mentioned 

the fiscal concerns overriding the Prosthetic Committee. Can you 

comment about that?

Mr. Weidman. Well, we have -- 

Mr. Boozman. I was going to get Mr. McCoy to -- 

Mr. Weidman. Sir?

Mr. Boozman. Mr. McCoy is still here. I was going to get him to 

comment from the -- 

Mr. Weidman. There is actually an instance now where I am collecting the names of veterans, although a lot of them are afraid to 

come forward in VISN 2 -- 

Mr. Boozman. Okay.

Mr. Weidman. -- where the Prosthetics Committee met. There are 

three people on that. All three are clinicians. And the individual who 

is from accounting was sitting there and nixed the replacement sea 

legs for the veterans who were amputees, Vietnam veterans, because 

of fiscal concerns.

Mr. Boozman. Okay. Mr. -- 

Mr. Weidman. It would give them another regular leg but not another sea leg, and their original sea leg had worn -- 

Mr. Boozman. Okay.

Mr. Weidman. -- had become worn out.

Mr. Boozman. Mr. McCoy, will you comment about that and tell us 
35

what is going on.

Mr. McCoy. I do not believe I can comment in regards to the loss 

of the prosthetics, that not being approved. But as far as the original 

question in regards to special adaptive housing, as much as one has 

to do with the other, I believe what Rick is talking about is not something that would cause us to disallow a request for special adaptive 

housing.

Mr. Boozman. Okay.

Mr. McCoy. The person has the loss or loss of use and the entitlement is there.

Mr. Boozman. Okay. I think as a Committee, that is something 

that we would like for you to follow-up on and -- 

Mr. McCoy. Okay.

Mr. Boozman. -- tell us what -- does that come out of the RBA account?

Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Boozman. Okay.

Mr. McCoy. I will be glad to -- 

Mr. Boozman. Thank you for your help.

Mr. Weidman. Mr. Chairman, we were not saying it is a matter of 

policy. It has to do with quality assurance at the local level. And the 

national policy is very clear. It is the quality assurance at the VA

medical center level that is sometimes lacking.

Mr. Boozman. And thank you. And I appreciate your bringing it 

up. Certainly that is something that all of the members of this Subcommittee, all of the members of the Committee period are concerned 

about those kind of things. So thank you.

 Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF MORGAN BROWN

Mr. Brown. Good afternoon, sir, and Ranking Member Herseth. 

On behalf of the Military Coalition and its five and a half million 

members, I want to express our views on the legislation under consideration today.

Before I begin with my comments, we support all five pieces of legislation. In the interest of moving things along, I am just going to 

take a moment to comment on two of them.

 House Resolution 4791 aims to help disabled veterans return to the 

normalcy of a home life by expanding eligibility for VA adaptive housing assistance. And the increases proposed in this draft bill as well as 

the indexing are long overdue and, therefore, the Military Coalition 

supports its passage.

 The Military Coalition also supports the accelerated payment of 

the Montgomery GI Bill benefit. The payment structure that is currently in place is outdated and was designed for veterans pursuing 
36

four-year degrees at universities.

 The draft bill entitled GI Bill Flexibility Act of 2006 would accelerate payment of the GI Bill benefits to accommodate some of the compressed schedule of modern-day courses that lead to certification or 

licensure or in an industry that is experiencing a high growth rate.

 We endorse this bill, but we do note a couple shortcomings with it. 

And, unfortunately, this worthy Montgomery GI Bill improvement 

would be available only to active-duty veterans and not to the Guard 

and Reserve as was previously noted.

Additionally, the proposed flex benefit would be employ and accelerated burn rate of 1.5 months entitlement for the up-front payments, 

meaning the individuals that take advantage of the provision would 

ultimately lose a portion of their overall entitlement.

Obviously this change will benefit some individuals and we cannot 

discount its value in that regard. However, the limitations I have described are unfair and limit the Montgomery GI Bill’s ability to make 

an impact on all veterans in this area.

And, finally, in regards to the proposed amendment to House Resolution 3082, we join with our peers and express concern that by not 

establishing a standard rather than a goal, the government’s past 

record of meeting goals is pretty poor and we would prefer putting 

some teeth into this legislation and making a standard that must be 

met versus a goal that could be easily ignored.

 And the Military Coalition expresses its profound gratitude for the 

extraordinary work this Subcommittee does on a day-to-day basis. 

And on behalf of the military veterans and their families, I thank 

you.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, sir.

[The statement of Morgan Brown appears on p. 102]

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Hilleman.

STATEMENT OF ERIC HILLEMAN

 Mr. Hilleman. Thank you, Mr. Boozman, and Ranking Member, 

Ms. Herseth.

 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 

2.4 million men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 

United States of America, thank you for this opportunity to testify 

today and present our views on the pending legislation.

 Our positions on the bills are as follows:

 House Resolution 3082, the Veterans Owned Small Business Promotion Act would require nine percent of all Department of Veterans’ 

Affairs’ procurement contracts be awarded to veterans. We enthusiastically support this bill. Job security and business development are 

among our highest goals for our veterans.
37

 We prefer the original language of this bill in place of the amendment that has been offered. The original bill would do much more to 

further the interest of veterans than the amendment.

 House Resolution 4791, Disabled Veterans Adaptive Housing Improvement Act would increase the matching grant for disabled veterans’ home purchase and modifications. The current grant maximum 

is $50,000. The new amount, $60,000, may go far in rural areas of 

America, but veterans residing in major population centers, as pointed out by other members on this panel, would not go quite as far. We 

ask Congress to consider a regional housing cost average to determine the maximum grant amount.

 The draft bill entitled the Veterans Employment State Grant Improvement Act seeks to improve performance and increase the accountability of veterans’ employment representatives under the 

Department of Labor. We vigorously support this bill, but ask Congress to consider a more timely implementation of its prescribed measures.

 Taking three years to phase in performance evaluations, waiting 

two years to phase in licensing and certification on a State level and 

requiring training sessions sometime within the first three years of 

employment of an employment representative should all be accomplished in a shorter period of time.

 The draft bill entitled GI Flexibility Act is written to expand licensure and certification, thus allowing lump sum payments in areas of 

industry experiencing critical shortages that are deemed high growth 

by the Secretary of Labor.

The VFW has long called for expansion of licensure and certification programs which lead to rewarding careers, but we have several 

concerns about this legislation. We are wary that some industries 

included in this expansion are overly broad and that in some cases 

would lead to careers that lack long-term employability.

The Department of Labor’s definition includes areas of hospitality and retail. These can provide rewarding careers, but we do not 

believe these industries are the target areas of this legislation. We 

feel the GI Bill should be a key to unlock a career, not just a door to 

another job.

 Our second concern is oversight. With such a wide expansion of 

lump sum payment, we can envision unscrupulous companies attempting to take advantage of veterans. Many companies and businesses will rise to meet the demand for short-term training programs. 

We must be cautious. With this invaluable educational benefit, we 

support the idea behind the bill, but cannot support the draft legislation as written until these concerns are met.

The draft bill entitled Veterans Certification and Licensure Act 

would establish a Committee to bridge the gap in certification, credentialling, and licensure for troops transitioning from active duty 
38

into the workforce. We believe military experience in many fields, including heavy equipment operation, transportation, electronics, mechanical repair, and construction, are all highly transferrable. The 

VFW strongly supports the enactment of this bill and the creation of 

the Committee.

 Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity to present 

the VFW’s views before this Committee, and it has been my pleasure 

and I welcome all questions.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

[The statement of Eric Hilleman appears on p. 108]

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Greineder.

STATEMENT OF DAVID GREINEDER

 Mr. Greineder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Herseth. Thank you for inviting AMVETS to testify before you today.

 House Resolution 4791 would increase the amount of adaptive 

housing assistance available to the disabled veterans. This bill would 

be very helpful to veterans who sustained traumatic life-altering injuries so they may live their lives as independently as possible. AMVETS fully supports this legislation.

 The Veterans Employment State Grant Improvement Act draft 

bill would implement professional qualification for DVOP and LVER 

programs. The heart and soul of the Department of Labor Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service is the dedicated staff tasked with 

facing the employment challenges of veterans. AMVETS supports 

the goals of this legislation.

 The GI Flexibility Act draft bill would enhance GI Bill educational 

benefits for veterans wanting to use tuition assistance for certain 

training programs. This bill will make short-term, high-cost training 

programs more affordable to veterans. This legislation would also 

help address the serious unemployment rate of veterans between the 

ages of 20 and 24.

Veterans in this age bracket have an unemployment rate of over 

15 percent, nearly double the rate of nonveterans in the same group. 

Accelerating the benefit would help place veterans in a good-paying, 

long-term, and secure job. AMVETS endorses this legislation.

 The Veterans Licensing and Credentialling Act draft bill would establish an Advisory Committee to review and improve certification 

and licensing procedures for veterans. The Advisory Committee’s 

overall goal will be to facilitate servicemembers with a seamless transition back into civilian life.

 AMVETS believes there is no greater responsibility of DoD and VA

to properly take care of returning soldiers and to provide them with 

as many tools as possible to assist them back into civilian life. There-
39

fore, we support the goals of this legislation.

 The proposed amendment to House Resolution 3082 seeks to increase VA contracting opportunities for service-connected disabled 

veteran small businesses. The amendment will require VA to establish a goal for each fiscal year for such contracts.

 AMVETS supports the amendment, but we do note, however, that 

Public Law 106-50 established similar goals and ideas which have 

not yet been met. AMVETS would really like to see full implementation and enforcement of 106-50 before any additional legislation is 

passed.

 In closing, Mr. Chairman, AMVETS looks forward to working with 

you and others in Congress to ensure employment opportunities of all 

America’s veterans are strengthened and improved.

 Thank you again. This concludes my testimony.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. Thank all of you.

[The statement of David Greineder appears on p. 112]

 Mr. Boozman. A couple things. Mr. Blake, you mentioned the automobile adaptation. Again, I think that is something that is - Counsel 

is telling me that that is not our jurisdiction and, yet, I agree with 

you. That is probably something that needs to be looked at. I think 

what we can do is push that over to the appropriate staff and members that it is and see if we can help in that regard.

 One thing I think you know that our commitment on this nine percent thing and trying to get this squared away that we really are 

committed to doing that. And so what we have tried to do is figure 

out what is another approach in order to get that done.

 And so, as you know, in this bill, it basically says that if you do not 

get on the stick that the senior contracting officials will not receive 

award or are not eligible for award in doing that. And so it is a different way of doing it. And I think that that has some merit in trying. 

It is being tried in different ways.

 And we have got two things that we are facing here. We have got 

something that we can get done. And, like I say, I think this is something that is a different approach, but I understand your concern and 

I have the same concern. And I know that the minority has the same 

concern also. This is something that we are really working hard to 

get done. But that is the effort is just approaching it a little bit differently.

 Ms. Herseth.

Ms. Herseth. I do not have any questions directly to any one particular individual on this panel. Thank you for your thoughts on all 

of the bills that we are dealing with today. But let me just comment 

on the idea of a regional index or a regional housing cost variable 

here on the Adaptive Housing Grant.

 I am open to what we might -- I mean, you heard the testimony in 
40

the first panel, so we first have to figure out, you know, can we find 

an index that everyone seems to agree on.

 And I understand certainly and worked with Congresswoman Susan Davis in the last Congress as it related to what we were doing 

not for the Specially-Adapted Housing Grants, but the program that 

just was providing for any veteran. And we worked on some issues of 

housing for Native American veterans separately.

 But, you know, she is from San Diego. I know that the costs of 

home ownership in San Diego are probably a lot higher than they are 

in Aberdeen, South Dakota. But in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the 

housing market is much higher as it is in Rapid City, South Dakota 

than the rest of the State.

 So when you talk about State by State, you will end up with veterans who may be living in larger communities in these States who 

will then be at a disadvantage even though they may face some of the 

same situations in terms of higher housing costs as a fellow veteran 

who lives in a different State or a different region.

 I mean, the broader issue here is the availability of affordable housing period for anybody regardless of the size of the community. But 

I am open to making sure whether it is in establishing the amount 

of the grant itself, although right now in this budget environment, 

you know, we are just trying to get kind of the overall increase for 

everybody.

 But then at that point, let us look at a fair regional index if we can 

find the consensus that perhaps marries the variables of region, of 

size of community, of maybe some of what our real estate friends can 

help us do in terms of various housing markets that will allow for a 

fair indexing of that benefit rather than some arbitrary issues that 

have developed over time on a regional basis that do not reflect the 

size and growth of certain communities in perhaps more rural regions, but, yet, a growing community that lacks affordable housing.

 So I appreciate the comments that you have made in that regard as 

to the overall amount of the grant as well as what we do for the index, 

whether it is a national uniform average or some sort of regional index that is currently available or one that we could work to construct. 

But that is going to be, you know, a tougher task.

 And so I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the prospect 

of being able to move this forward and increasing the overall level 

utilizing a national uniform average right now versus maybe taking 

more time to accommodate some of the legitimate concerns that you 

have raised or manners in which we could improve the grant for veterans in different geographic areas.

Mr. Blake. Ms. Herseth, I would say that this is an issue that is 

probably nearer and dearer to PVA’s heart than any other organization given that our membership probably is the highest percentage 

user of the grant due to the nature of our membership’s disabilities. 
41

On its face, I agree with all of the ideas about a regional index. I

think it only makes sense given the difference in cost of living in every area around the country.

 The IB does not actually recommend that type of index or that variable in an index because we also recognize to get to that point, we 

need an index in the first place. There needs to be some kind of annual adjustment in the grant in the first place.

 It seems that just that principle in itself makes sense. We get cost 

of living adjustments for everything else under the sun, yet something that probably has the most impact on these veterans’ lives is 

not adjusted. And this is probably the most significant and certainly 

the most expensive thing that these veterans will ever purchase in 

their lifetime in all likelihood.

 I would suggest that we will have to, you know, work this out over 

time. But if we could get an index enacted in the first place, I would 

say we have made a great leap forward in improving this benefit.

I listened to Secretary Mansfield say that he would be willing to 

work with the Committee every year to ensure that the grant is increased to meet the need. Well, it sounds like to me that is saying we 

are willing to spend more of our man hours and money to try to help 

you develop something that an index would do anyway. So I think 

that makes the argument for why an index is necessary.

Mr. Weidman. I would say move forward with the floor that you 

have in the bill now and get that established and then look beyond 

that.

 The National Association of Home Builders keeps housing costs on 

a county-by-county as well as standard metropolitan statistical area 

basis and then use that as an add-on to raising the national floor, if I 

may be so bold as to suggest to you all.

Mr. Lopez. Mr. Chairman, you commented on performance review. 

I believe the consensus is not -- we applaud performance review. The 

question is is that we have had six years of goals from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. They have never even come close to meeting them. And we have never seen indications where even their data 

when they report is reliable.

 So you can understand our concern, all of us, with the absence of 

specific, enumerated, legislated goals.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you all very much.

 I think Rick has a special guest with him today. I have got three 

daughters. And his daughter, Marjorie Anna Weidman is here. And 

I have been watching her. She has just been excellent. It is good to 

have you here. We appreciate you sharing your daddy with us for a 

little bit.

 Again, we do appreciate the testimony. They are very informative 

and certainly it looks like we have got a little bit of work to do before 

the markup in May. But we want to assure all of you, all of the stake-
42

holders, that we really do value your input as we go forward.

 So if there is nothing further, the meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
(43)

APPENDIX
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
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