U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

67–186 2011

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, 

H.R. 1657, AND H.R. 1671 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 3, 2011 

Serial No. 112–11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

BOB FILNER, California, Ranking 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

HELEN W. TOLAR, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana, Chairman 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Ranking 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

May 3, 2011 

Page 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, H.R. 1657, and H.R. 1671 ............ 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman .................................................. 25 

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

Prepared statement of Congressman Braley .................................................. 25 

Hon. Bill Johnson, prepared statement of ............................................................. 26 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education 

Service, Veterans Benefits Administration ........................................................ 16 

Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson .................................................................. 33 

American Legion, Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National Economic 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of Mr. Madden ................................................................ 30 

American Veterans (AMVETS), Christina M. Roof, National Acting Legislative Director .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement of Ms. Roof ..................................................................... 26 

Connolly, Andrew, Dubuque, IA ...................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of Mr. Connolly ............................................................... 32 

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

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

Prepared statement of Mr. Tarantino ............................................................. 28 

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

Prepared statement of Mr. Barker .................................................................. 29 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

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

Government Relations Committee, statement ................................................... 36 

Military Officers Association of America, Vice Admiral Norbert R. Ryan, 

Jr., USN (Ret.), President, letter ........................................................................ 37 

National Association of Veterans Programs Administrators, Faith 

DesLauriers, Legislative Director, and Dorothy Gillman, President, letter ... 38 

Paralyzed Veterans of America, statement ........................................................... 39 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, 

H.R. 1657, AND H.R. 1671 

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:02 p.m., in Room 

340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Stutzman, Johnson, Braley, and Walz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN STUTZMAN 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Good afternoon, and I call the Subcommittee on 

Economic Opportunity of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to 

order. 

Today, we will be taking testimony on H.R. 1383, the ‘‘Restoring 

GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011,’’ sponsored by Chairman Miller and 

myself; also, H.R. 802, sponsored by Ranking Member Filner; H.R. 

1671, sponsored by Ranking Member Braley; and H.R. 1657, a bill 

to improve the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA’s) enforcement of service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses and their 

contracting, which I introduced. And our intent is to hold a Subcommittee markup this Thursday followed by a full Committee 

markup on May 11th. 

H.R. 1383, the ‘‘Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011,’’ is a bill 

that would grandfather veterans attending private schools who are 

adversely affected by the changes to the GI bill that passed at the 

end of last Congress. I am glad that we were able to make this fix 

to help vets in the seven States that would see their tuition and 

fee payments reduced, all without increasing the deficit due to the 

inclusion of an offset. I see by their testimony that the VA has 

some objections to the bill, and I hope we can work through those 

concerns. 

H.R. 1657 is a bill that I introduced that is designed to debar 

companies who are fraudulently claimed to be service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOBs) from doing business with 

VA. For too long, legitimate SDVOBs have lost contracts to these 

fraudulent companies, and I hope that the prospect of debarment 

for 5 years will be the deterrent we need to stop this despicable 

practice. 

I would ask all of today’s witnesses to summarize your written 

statement within 5 minutes, and without objection each written 

testimony will be made part of the hearing record. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

Before we begin with testimony, I now ask unanimous consent to 

have statements from the Gold Star Wives, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America entered into the record. Hearing none, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Stutzman, and the statements for the record, appears on p. 25.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member 

from the great corn State of Iowa for any remarks he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY 

Mr. BRALEY. I want to thank you for holding this hearing because I think the subjects we are dealing with today are why the 

work of this Subcommittee is so important. Today’s legislative 

hearing includes four bills before us that address some of the urgent needs of our veterans’ population, including education benefits, extending temporary adaptation grants for disabled veterans, 

recognizing small businesses for their contributions to employing 

veterans, and penalizing fraudulent veteran-owned small businesses. 

Included in the hearing today is H.R. 1671, the ‘‘Andrew 

Connolly Veterans Housing Act,’’ that I introduced yesterday. This 

bill seeks to extend the temporary residence adaptation grant, also 

known as the TRA, through December of 2016. The TRA permits 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to award a grant to a service-disabled veteran who is temporarily residing in a residence owned by 

a member of the veteran’s family and makes adaptations necessary 

to meet the veteran’s mobility needs. And I have worked with a 

number of veterans in my district who take advantage from these 

programs. 

Currently, the legislation is set to terminate on December 31, 

2011, which is why I am extending this to December 31, 2016. This 

grant is important to service-connected veterans who return home 

with devastating injuries. These veterans need a caretaker while 

they rehabilitate, and these caretakers are generally family members. In order to provide disabled veterans with the independence 

they need while they recuperate, different types of adaptations 

need to be made to a family’s home while the veteran lives temporarily with them. 

Finally, I want to recognize one of my constituents, Andrew 

Connolly, a disabled veteran who served in Iraq and Egypt, who 

has received a specially adaptive housing grant and is here to talk 

about how this grant has affected his life. 

One of the things that I can tell you about, knowing Andrew and 

his wife, Jenny, and his son Brody, who is here, is that they have 

a deep appreciation for how these programs provide opportunities 

for a new future for families like theirs who are affected by an unplanned disability. 

I want to thank them for traveling from Iowa to be with us today 

and for Andrew’s continued service by fighting for veterans’ issues. 

One of the highlights of my career was going to the open house 

that Andrew, Jenny and Brody held with the new home they were 

able to build from this grant. They gave away black sweatshirts to 

everyone there, Mr. Chairman, and it had a little house logo, and 

on that logo it said this house was built on hope and love. I cannot 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

think of any better symbol of what these grants are supposed to 

do, and that is why I am so proud to have them here today. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Braley appears on 

p. 25.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Braley. 

I now ask the first panel to come forward. 

With us today is Ms. Christina Roof, representing AMVETS; Mr. 

Robert Madden from The American Legion; Mr. Tom Tarantino 

from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA); and 

Mr. Shane Barker from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 

States (VFW). 

And, of course, Mr. Andrew Connolly, who we met; and it is great 

to meet you, sir. Thank you for your service. It is good to meet your 

family as well. Thank you for having them all here. I am looking 

forward to your testimony. 

So let us start with Ms. Roof. You have 5 minutes for testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF CHRISTINA M. ROOF, NATIONAL ACTING 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VETERANS (AMVETS); 

TOM TARANTINO, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ 

AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA; SHANE BARKER, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE 

UNITED STATES; ROBERT MADDEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; AND ANDREW CONNOLLY, DUBUQUE, IA 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA M. ROOF 

Ms. ROOF. Thank you. 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of AMVETS, I would like 

to extend our gratitude for being given the opportunity to share 

with you our views and recommendations on these very important 

pieces of legislation. The Committee has my full statement for the 

record, so in the interest of time today, I will just address a few 

of the bills. 

AMVETS supports H.R. 1657, to amend title 38 to revise the enforcement of penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern 

as a VOSB or as an SDVOSB. AMVETS applauds Congressman 

Stutzman for introducing this piece of legislation, which AMVETS 

believes is very long overdue and very much needed. AMVETS believes H.R. 1657 will not only strengthen, but also help enforce 

penalties that have long been in place, yet severely underutilized 

by numerous Federal agencies. 

AMVETS urges a swift passage of H.R. 1657 and further calls 

upon the Subcommittee to focus a substantial amount of their time 

during the 112th Congress to finally close all of the loopholes within the Federal procurement system and to pass laws that will once 

and for all rid the Federal procurement system of fraudulent businesses unlawfully taking contracts and jobs from veterans. 

AMVETS also lends our strong support to H.R. 1671, to extend 

the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adaptive housing to veterans residing in temporary housing. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

Thousands of disabled veterans depend on these funds to sustain 

their quality of life and independence. 

Furthermore, given the rate at which our Nation’s war fighters 

are returning from our current conflicts with debilitating and lifechanging injuries, AMVETS urges the swift passage of this life-sustaining bill and urges Congress not only to extend this to 2016, but 

to look to further extending this to meet the needs of our current 

serving men and women who, as we sit here today, are engaged in 

combat abroad. 

Finally, AMVETS supports H.R. 1383, to temporarily preserve 

higher rates of tuition and fees. AMVETS believes this will allow 

for students currently enrolled in nonpublic institutions of higher 

learning the opportunity to finish their degree without any undue 

financial burden or stresses. 

And while AMVETS applauds Chairman Miller for introducing 

this piece of legislation, I feel I will be doing a great disservice to 

the AMVETS membership if I do not voice their concerns regarding 

the new system of which veterans will receive their monthly living 

allowances under the new Post-9/11 GI Bill. AMVETS believes 

many veterans already utilizing their educational benefits and entitlements under the Post-9/11 GI Bill will be caught off guard and 

experience undue financial hardship during the time periods between college semesters. 

AMVETS urges Congress to revisit this issue, and we even more 

strongly urge VA to immediately start performing stronger outreach and education on all of the changes made to the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill to those students already enrolled in institutions of higher 

learning. 

Chairman Stutzman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, AMVETS again would like to thank you for inviting us 

to share with you our opinions and recommendations today. 

This concludes my testimony, and I stand ready to answer any 

questions you may have for me. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roof appears on p. 26.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Ms. Roof. 

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

STATEMENT OF TOM TARANTINO 

Mr. TARANTINO. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members 

of the Committee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 

America’s 200,000 members and civilian supporters, I want to 

thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing to share our 

members’ views on these really important issues. 

My name is Tom Tarantino, and I am the Senior Legislative Associate with IAVA. I proudly served 10 years in the Army, beginning my career as an enlisted Reservist and leaving service as an 

active-duty calvary officer. Throughout those 10 years, my single 

most important duty was to take care of soldiers. In the military, 

they teach us to have each other’s backs. Although my uniform is 

now a suit and tie, I am proud to work with Congress to ensure 

that the entire country has the backs of America’s servicemembers 

and veterans. 

IAVA conceptually supports the establishment of a program to 

recognize businesses that contribute to veterans’ employment. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

While we endorse H.R. 802, IAVA does have concerns about what 

the specific program will look like, how it plans to recognize businesses, and what effect it will have on lowering the rising veteran 

unemployment rate. While the VetStar program certainly couldn’t 

hurt, we remain skeptical that this is the most effective course of 

action for Congress to take at this stage. 

In 2010, the unemployment rate for new veterans was a staggering 111⁄2 percent. Even as the civilian unemployment rate begins to decline, we continue to see new veteran unemployment rise 

from month-to-month in 2011. With less than half a percent of 

Americans fighting in this current war and only 8 percent of Americans having ever served in the military, it is critical that we 

bridge this widening gap between the civilian workforce and our 

Nation’s veterans. IAVA believes that more proactive measures 

need to be taken if we are to turn the tide of veteran unemployment. 

Several weeks ago, we brought 28 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans 

from around the country to D.C. for our Storm the Hill campaign. 

Our goal was to reduce the veteran unemployment rate by Veterans Day in 2011. We met with 117 offices and 57 Members of 

Congress. We identified five priorities for Congress to actually tackle to reduce the veteran unemployment rate. 

We want to order a study and report on the differences between 

military certifications, jobs, and education with their civilian counterparts. 

We want to make Transition Assistance Program mandatory and 

call for a review of the program every 3 years. 

We want to make the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) violations enforceable and expand them to in-State National Guard deployments. 

We want to encourage entrepreneurship by expanding successful 

programs like the Patriot Express Loan Program and the Veteran 

Entrepreneur Boot Camp. 

And we want to encourage businesses to hire veterans by simplifying and enacting robust tax relief. 

I am proud to report that these ideas came with almost universal 

support. And many Members of the House, especially those sitting 

on this Committee, have stepped up and are currently working on 

legislation that will reduce the number of veterans coming home 

from war to an unemployment check. And I look forward to testifying at future legislative hearings on those bills and reporting to 

our 90,000 Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF) veterans that Congress once again has their back. 

IAVA proudly supports H.R. 1383. This bill will ensure that a 

small minority of veterans who, due to poorly constructed and confusing tuition and fee regulations, would have had their benefits 

reduced as a result of the Post-9/11 GI bill’s expansion to more 

than 400,000 veterans. It will ensure that they will be able to finish their college education. 

The House of Representatives widely included this provision in 

their version of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Improvement 

Act of 2010. However, it was excluded from the version that was 

signed by the President. IAVA fought hard to ensure that student 

veterans would not be negatively impacted by the improvement 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

and the expansion of the GI Bill; and on behalf of our members and 

those student veterans, I want to thank this Committee for taking 

this on. 

IAVA supports H.R. 1657, strengthening the penalties that small 

businesses may incur if they misrepresent themselves as a veteranowned or service-disabled veteran-owned small business seeking 

government contracts. 

Promoting veteran entrepreneurship is key to fighting the growing tide of veteran unemployment, and small businesses that falsely claim to be veteran owned when applying for government contracts harm veterans who provide essential services to the government. This bill will provide clarity on those penalties. 

And IAVA proudly supports H.R. 1671, that would extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide adaptive 

housing benefits to veterans who are recovering from injuries at 

the home of a caregiver through 2016. 

For thousands of veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan with severe injuries, the recovery process is often long and arduous. Many of them require constant care from a caregiver years 

after they leave service, and during this time, they frequently reside in a home that is not their own or a permanent residence that 

they may live on after they recover. So adaptations like ramps and 

elevators and all the things that you need to increase your mobility 

may need to be done twice. So by extending this to 2016, Congress 

shows their strong support for these veterans for their sacrifice and 

the extreme sacrifices they have made for our freedom. 

I would like to thank this Committee for continuing to support 

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families. By ensuring that 

these bills are swiftly made into law, we will continue to send a 

signal to veterans of all generations that Congress and the veterans’ community has their backs. 

Thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tarantino appears on p. 28.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. We have just been called to votes. 

Mr. Barker, we will take your testimony, and then we will run over 

and vote, and then we will be back to continue. So, Mr. Barker, 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SHANE BARKER 

Mr. BARKER. Thank you very much on behalf of the Veterans of 

Foreign Wars. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views 

on these bills to you today. 

We support H.R. 802, legislation to establish an award program 

known as VetStar. This would recognize businesses for their efforts 

to employ veterans. 

We have concerns about this legislation, however. For it to be 

successful, funding may be needed to conduct the private-sector 

outreach to promote employment in the population of veterans. 

We also believe that the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service may be better suited to provide access to the private and public sector employment data and assistance to verify and acknowledge companies that take this initiative 

in employment and in promotion of veterans. Those who employ 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

our veterans should not go unnoticed, and we look forward to working with the Committee on this legislation in the future. 

We greatly appreciate the Chairman’s initiative in introducing 

H.R. 1383, the ‘‘Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011.’’ It addresses what is perhaps the most harmful deficiency with the current 

Post-9/11 GI Bill; that is, the lack of provisions to ensure that students are not saddled with debt or out-of-pocket expenses as a result of changes in tuition payment rates set to take effect this August. 

Over the past 2 years, many students have chosen a particular 

degree program with the expectation that the Yellow Ribbon program they began with would still be there when they completed 

their degree. Changes made to the Post-9/11 GI Bill last year, positive as they were, significantly altered the Yellow Ribbon program 

without protecting current degree-seeking students from the impact. Many could find themselves making the choice between transferring schools or paying hefty tuition bills if they choose to remain. H.R. 1383 would preclude changes made to the Yellow Ribbon program from negatively affecting students who are already 

working on their degrees. It is very good legislation, and the VFW 

strongly supports it. 

We also support H.R. 1657. Veterans preference in hiring and 

contracting has been a great benefit to many veterans and should 

be protected from abuse. Provisions in this legislation would create 

harsher penalties for those who abuse the system and enhance protections for service-disabled and veteran-owned businesses involving contracting. It also heightens oversight of the process, a critical 

piece. 

Finally, the VFW supports H.R. 1671, which would extend the 

authority of VA to provide specially adaptive housing assistance to 

individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a family 

member. Through the VA’s adaptive housing program, hundreds of 

our most severely injured veterans have been given an opportunity 

to transition back into civilian life while gaining some sense of 

independence as they recuperate under the care of a family member. 

With the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we must continue providing adaptive housing assistance for our severely injured veterans. This essential benefit unquestionably makes a difference in the quality of life for many disabled veterans and their 

families. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, we appreciate this opportunity; 

and we would be happy to take any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barker appears on p. 29.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you very much. 

At this time, we will take a short recess while votes are taken; 

and we will resume as quickly as possible once we are back here. 

To the Connolly family, I apologize for the break, but you understand, I am sure. So we are looking forward to your testimony as 

well. We will be back as quickly as possible. So thank you again. 

We have two votes, so it shouldn’t take us very long. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. We will continue our Committee meeting here. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

I am going to ask for unanimous consent to include letters from 

the Military Officers Association and the National Association of 

Veterans Programs Administrators to the record as well. Without 

objection. Thank you. 

[The letters appear on p. 37.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. At this time, we will continue with testimony. I 

appreciate your patience, and we will continue with Mr. Madden. 

Mr. Madden, you have 5 minutes to testify. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. MADDEN 

Mr. MADDEN. Thank you, Chairman Stutzman and Ranking 

Member Braley, for allowing the American Legion the opportunity 

to present our views on the proposed legislation. 

We have seen massive changes made to the education benefits 

that servicemembers and veterans receive. Congress took the initiative in 2007 to work towards a bill that would properly address 

the economic needs of our servicemembers and provide them with 

an educational benefit that properly addresses their commitment 

and service to this great Nation. 

As a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, there were a few unintended 

consequences that revealed some parity or equity issues resulting 

in some veterans receiving a grander benefit than those who chose 

an uncommon path of education. The original bill did not allow for 

those pursuing at a non-degree grant institution to receive the 

more robust benefit that those who did attend a more traditional 

path of education. This is one of some of the examples that were 

addressed in 2010. 

Now we are gazing upon a landscape and are again seeing unintended consequences that need to be addressed through legislative 

changes. H.R. 1383 seeks to accomplish one of those unintended 

consequences. The American Legion is understanding of this group 

of private school student veterans in certain and specific States 

who will see a change in their benefits. 

There are also additional issues that should and need to be addressed when considering this bill. Not only are those who attend 

private schools with the assumption their tuition and fees would be 

covered, but we also need to address the out-of-State student veterans who are attending public school but will now fall under the 

$17,500 cap and will be called upon to pay additional costs out of 

their pocket to maintain attendance in their respective public institutions. 

In addition, the loss of interval pay for all education benefits will 

affect those attending school during short but very specific time 

frames. 

We recommend adding the two changes that I have mentioned 

here today to help better serve a community who has already sacrificed so much to preserve our freedoms. 

The American Legion supports H.R. 802 and 1657 and the draft 

legislation that is being focused on today, based on the simple 

measure that they one day continue to provide support, provide 

valuable recognition, and help apply the rule of law. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you might have today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Madden appears on p. 30.] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. 

At this time, I am going to yield to Ranking Member Braley for 

the introduction and recognizing Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am honored to have a constituent of mine testifying today, Andrew Connolly, who served in the 133rd Combat Brigade of the 

Iowa National Guard, also known as part of the Red Bulls. Andrew 

served as part of the longest combat deployment of any unit in Iraq 

with the Iowa National Guard, and he also served in Egypt. So we 

are delighted to have him here and look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW CONNOLLY 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

First off, I would like to thank Chairman Stutzman and Ranking 

Member Braley for holding this important hearing today. 

My name is Andrew Connolly. I am here today to advocate for 

adaptive housing grants for veterans. I currently reside at 2820 Illinois Avenue in Dubuque, Iowa. 

I served in the United States Army National Guard from November 2000, to August 2007. During my time of service, I completed 

two tours. The first tour took place in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, 

from May of 2003 to January of 2004. The second tour of duty was 

a combat mission in the Al Anbar province in Iraq from October 

2005, to August of 2007. 

Our mission in Iraq was convoy security. During the 16 months 

I spent in Iraq, my unit transported goods to most of the western 

allied bases in Iraq. Our largest enemy threats were the improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. 

I personally encountered many IEDs near my vehicle and experienced one direct hit, which took place on March 9, 2007. The blast 

report from the explosive ordnance disposal team verified it to be 

a pressure plate land mine with approximately 15 pounds of PE4. 

My team and I suffered minor injuries and concussions from the 

blast. 

After completing my tour in Iraq, I immediately returned to work 

and enrolled in school. I tolerated the wear and tear on my body, 

figuring that the pain and weird feelings would go away. After 

serving in Iraq, my disability ratings varied from different parts of 

my body. My back and knees both bothered me quite a bit while 

in Iraq, which is documented in my medical files. 

A little over a year after my return, I noticed numbness in my 

right foot. I thought that I had just tweaked something in my back 

due to the injuries that occurred while overseas. After a couple of 

months having this irritating numbness, I consulted with the VA 

hospital in Iowa City; and they ordered an MRI right away. 

Following the MRI, the neurologist suggested that I come in for 

a consultation the next week. It was early February of 2009, and 

I was struck with some devastating news. The neurology doctor at 

the VA closed the door behind him, proceeded to tell me that I had 

a slow-growing small mass located within my spinal cord, and he 

was 90 percent sure that it was malignant. So a spinal cord biopsy 

was scheduled for 2 weeks later. The results came back positive for 

cancer, and treatment options were offered. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
10 

At this time, I had a million things rushing through my mind, 

the first being how long do I have. The next was, how am I going 

to get through this financially? The neurologist reported that the 

tumor was service-connected and most likely contributed to the 

pain and discomfort that I suffered while on Active Duty. 

At the time, I owned a top-bottom duplex that was built in 1890. 

Fortunately, my family and I occupied the lower unit. Unfortunately, it was not handicapped accessible. My condition rapidly deteriorated and complicated our family situation. 

My son, Brody, was born on July 31, 2008, with a neuromuscular 

disorder called congenital myasthenic syndrome. This disorder affects all of my son’s muscles, thus causing dependence on a ventilator 24 hours-a-day. He, too, will need to be in a wheelchair for 

the rest of his life. 

I started radiation and followed up with chemotherapy. I am still 

taking chemotherapy and probably will until I can no longer tolerate it or I move on. As the year 2009 went on, the right side of 

my body slowly lost feeling. By the time 2010 came around, my left 

side began to lose feeling as well. As my body began to dwindle 

from the nipples down, I investigated military grants for paralyzed 

veterans. I came across the specially adaptive housing grant and 

applied for it. I was denied the grant because I was still able to 

walk at that time. 

The doctor’s report stated that this type of cancer would leave me 

paralyzed and no cure existed. I was diagnosed with a grade 2/3 

anaplastic astrocytoma cancer of the spine. This still did not qualify me for the grant. 

My leg started to give out on me, and I tripped quite often. A 

wheelchair-bound life was creeping into the picture quite rapidly. 

My frustration with the VA grew immeasurably, and I felt trapped, 

fighting a losing battle. I was 26, married, and had a beautiful 

handicapped child to support. 

My life spiraled downward, and I fit the grant criteria to a tee. 

Ironically, my minimal ability to walk kept it beyond my grasp. 

For 7 years, military leaders preached to us, prepare, prepare, 

prepare. This is exactly what I was trying to do. I was hoping to 

get the grant paperwork started early so that when the time came 

and a wheelchair became a permanent part of my life, I would be 

ready. At this time, I was unable to afford a proper handicapped 

accessible house for my family. 

In April of 2010, I called Ray Zirkelbach, who served with me in 

both Egypt and Iraq. Ray, an Iowa House Representative in the 

neighboring county, listened to my story. He, too, thought something should be done about this situation. He forwarded the e-mail 

on to Congressman Bruce Braley, who quickly turned around my 

application paperwork. 

Within 2 weeks of contacting Representative Ray Zirkelbach and 

Congressman Bruce Braley, I was approved for the grant, and a 

huge weight lifted off my shoulders. With the grant approved, I 

was able to build a house that would be suitable for my family. 

Construction on our new house began on June 21, 2010. At the 

same time, I became wheelchair bound. Life in our duplex during 

the construction of the new house was quite miserable but temporarily manageable. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
11 

In August, 2010, I officially became a paraplegic, losing all use, 

function, and feeling below the nipples. At this point, the neurologist decided it was time to try to remove as much of the tumor and 

spinal cord as possible in an attempt to prolong my life. The surgery itself went perfectly. However, the surgeons were not able to 

remove the entire tumor without causing me to become a quadriplegic or having respiratory complications. 

With paralysis, I fell deeper and deeper into depression. The lists 

of tasks I was able to do around the duplex grew shorter and shorter. I became so reliant on my wife and others to help me accomplish simple tasks. Taking a shower, for instance, became an hourlong duty that required an extra set of hands and an awkward 

plastic bench that offered terrible support. I lost all control of bowel 

and bladder, which made it impossible for me to use the bathroom 

in my own apartment. 

Since the duplex was built in 1890, all the doorways and hallways were narrow and produced a knuckle-rubbing experience 

every time I moved into a different room. Cooking, doing the 

dishes, and even maneuvering around the kitchen became very difficult. Life in the duplex was unbearable. 

Today, I am in my new house. Today, I took a shower by myself 

in a 5-by-5 roll-in shower with handicap controls. Today, I cooked 

my own breakfast because I was able to reach all of the ingredients. Today, I was able to watch my son, Brody, sleeping in his 

bedroom because I could roll through his doorway with my wheelchair. 

Today, I am praying for all soldiers and veterans, that they may 

have the support and dignity they deserve without having to jump 

through hoops or have friends in politics. I am where I am today 

because I had advocates, not because I will ultimately die young as 

a result of serving the country I love. Adapted housing grant programs, including the temporary residence adaptation program that 

is specifically extended by this legislation, ensure that our brave 

soldiers get the assistance they deserve so that they can live as 

self-sufficiently as possible. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing. It is my hope that 

Congress extends the TRA program and continues its support for 

all adaptive housing grant programs to come, and I am open to any 

questions you might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connolly appears on p. 32.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

Thanks to each of you for your testimony. 

I will start the questioning. 

I guess my question to you, Mr. Connolly—I just really appreciate your story, and you are an inspiration. And thank you again 

for your service. It is just remarkable. And I am sure you have 

many questions, and I think what you are here today and supporting is really just a small token of appreciation from our country 

to you and what you have been willing to give. And I cannot say 

thank you enough. To you and your son and to your wife, I wish 

you the very best. 

But during the time when your disease progressed, needing a 

wheelchair, was there a time when you could walk with the assistance of a cane or a similar device? For how long? 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
12 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. I started using the cane probably around 

April, just a single one-arm cane. And then I switched to four-arm 

canes for a while. And then I started tripping quite a bit with those 

and had to move into the wheelchair almost at the same time I 

started to build the house. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. How many months was that before you were confined to a wheelchair that you were using it about, from when you 

were able to walk without any assistance to the wheelchair? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, from diagnosis in 2009, February of 2009, 

I was able to walk on my own up until April. And then in June 

I was wheelchair bound from then on. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Quite rapidly then. So once you were approved 

for the grant—that seems to be the biggest holdup for you, was getting approved. What has your experience been like since you have 

been approved, getting the house built? You have a new house for 

you and your family. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. Once Congressman Braley had—once I 

contacted him, everything has gone real smoothly. Our house was 

built fairly quick. Our contractor did a great job. And the VA—the 

support that I have had from the VA has been pretty good. But 

since I have been approved, everything has gone pretty darn 

smooth. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. What about with your son, Brody? What type of 

assistance and help have you been able to receive? Are there programs there? What kind of challenges and also assistance is there 

for you? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I haven’t really worked with the VA for our 

son very much. We also have Medicaid for him, and they deal mostly with Brody. But with this grant and the new house, it has made 

life for Brody and us so much easier. We have a separate bathroom 

for him that is handicap accessible, and it has helped out quite a 

bit. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. The next question—and I am kind of keeping 

track of time in my head, and I don’t want to take from the other 

Members’ times. So if you could start then. I will just finish up 

here in just a couple of minutes. 

But to the veterans service organizations (VSOs), you had mentioned and you had listed problems with the recent GI bill fix act 

from last Congress, including the interval payments and the need 

to grandfather groups of students who would be adversely affected 

by the law. Can you explain why did your organizations support 

the legislation that then created these problems in the first place? 

And I will just let any of you address that. 

Mr. TARANTINO. Well, first of all, Congressman, we had worked 

very hard with the House of Representatives to create a fairly robust bill that worked. It wasn’t the bill we got, for several reasons. 

First of all, we had trouble getting the bill out of the Committee. 

The Committee was not choosing to move. And, honestly, you don’t 

let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

The bill that came out of the Senate expanded GI benefits to 

400,000 veterans, 85,000 National Guardsmen the day it was 

signed. These were upgrades that were critically needed by not just 

our members, but by all the veterans using the GI bill. So while 

the bill we got was not the perfect solution, it was the solution that 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
13 

we got and that is going to vastly improve the lives of veterans and 

their families come August 1st and that is the bottom line. 

What we are looking to now is we are looking for the House to 

take leadership and fix some of the things that were left out of the 

Senate version that ultimately got passed. 

Mr. MADDEN. The American Legion, as a resolution-based organization, we had certain policies that directed what we supported and 

what we did not support. Every policy that was, as Mr. Tarantino 

spoke about earlier, was in the bill that was introduced, the Senate—was the bill, but it did address in more than one way every 

resolution that we had affecting education. So, ultimately, in the 

long run, we were going to support the bill that additionally provided over 400,000 servicemembers the opportunity to attend 

school that were previously not allowed to. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. With that, I will go ahead and close my questioning out and turn it over to Mr. Braley. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Andrew, I have had the pleasure of having a number of constituents testify at hearings in Washington, and I can tell you I have 

never heard more moving testimony than what you shared with us, 

and there was a reason why you could hear a pin drop during your 

testimony. So thank you for making the effort to come out and 

share your story. 

I think one of the important things about these adaptive housing 

grants under the Veterans Administration is what I call the multiplier effect, and that is how we get a lot more bang for our buck 

from that initial investment than just the VA dollars coming into 

an individual veteran’s life. Could you share with us a little bit 

about your own experience, about how the community of Dubuque 

where you live embraced you and your family and made the value 

of this project worth much more than just the simple dollars you 

received? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Oh, sure. The support that I have had is just 

unreal. My family, my friends, people that I don’t even know have 

all chipped in while building our house. And I just can’t say enough 

thank you. My pens have run out of ink to try to thank so many 

people that have helped with building this house. 

And it was in the newspaper and on television, and people just 

want to help other—help the veterans out that are in the community once they hear about it. And I know, like with the roofing, I 

had help with roofing and siding. And it is like a multiplying effect. 

Just more people want to help out. It is awesome. It is such a great 

feeling that they are there for us. 

Mr. BRALEY. It is my understanding that a number of people in 

the building trades in the city of Dubuque just came by to donate 

their time and help out with the construction of the home so that 

the value that you got from that money went a lot further than 

would have otherwise. Is that right? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That is for sure, yes. 

Mr. BRALEY. One of the things that I think is so significant about 

your testimony is something that you mentioned in your testimony, 

Mr. Tarantino, and I want to talk specifically about your third recommendation, where you said to make USERRA violations enforceVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:24 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 067186 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\VA\67186.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67186

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
14 

able and expand USERRA to include in-State National Guard deployments. 

Mr. Connolly and the Iowa National Guard served the longest 

combat deployment of any unit in Iraq. It was featured in an hourlong 60 Minutes special on Veterans Day. And we have changed the 

emphasis that we place on our Guard and Reserve units, bringing 

them to an almost active-duty rotation. And yet there is still some 

troubling discrepancies between the types of benefits afforded to 

people in the Guard and Reserve, and I will just give you an example. 

When Mr. Connolly came back from Iraq, it was brought to my 

attention that many of the members of his unit had their orders 

cut short 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 days so that they did not qualify for an 

additional $250 a day in GI Bill education assistance benefits. And 

you can imagine how angry I and many other people who represented constituents affected by that policy were with the U.S. Department of Defense. We got that problem solved and found out 

that tens of thousands of Guard members around the country did 

not even know those benefit had been denied. 

Then we got into a problem with respite leave compensation for 

people serving in an hazardous area for prolonged periods of time 

were being denied up to $250 a day of additional compensation. 

So the concern I have for all of you is it is great to have policies 

and statutes that govern how benefits should be awarded, but if 

the Pentagon and the Department of Defense aren’t respecting the 

purpose behind those laws, you still have a problem. Could you 

elaborate on why that recommendation is important? 

Mr. TARANTINO. This is tied to that issue, and I am speaking for 

someone who served as a Reservist back in the 1990s. It was pretty 

common for the Army to send you on a 179-day AT or deployment. 

Because once you hit 180 days, suddenly you get all these veterans’ 

benefits. We always used to laugh about that morbidly, because 

that is just the way it worked. 

I am happy to say that these have gotten better. But there has 

been—especially since our National Guard and Reserve have borne 

a terrible burden throughout this entire conflict over the last 10 

years. If you are a National Guardsman, you have a very specific 

job; and that job was not designed to be three, four rotations into 

a combat zone within a 10-year period. Because when you come 

back, you still have duty in-State. 

I looked at my own State, California, which tends to burn down 

every year. And we use our National Guard for in-State firefighting. This is not a Federal disaster. These are State disasters. 

So you are really looking at a situation where you have to leave 

your job to get called up, go and defend your hometown from burning down, but your job isn’t protected when you come back off. And 

that is really what is the crux of it. There is a lot of things that 

we need to do to tweak USERRA to make it more effective, to make 

it more enforceable. 

But this was one really big, gaping hole that a lot of our members are starting to feel pain. They are protected when they go 

overseas. But when they have to do a month-long stint fighting a 

fire or doing flood relief, they are starting to find that their jobs 

aren’t protected. And, frankly, that is just not right. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
15 

Mr. BRALEY. I just want to follow up on that. Because when Mr. 

Connolly and his colleagues came back, they immediately faced an 

ice-storm disaster in my district that put a half a million people 

without electricity. Then the worst tornado in the United States in 

2008, the worst flooding in our State in history. And I saw them 

all over my State, and now there are 3,500 members of the Iowa 

National Guard serving in Afghanistan. This is a problem I think 

that we have swept under the rug far too long, and that is why I 

appreciate all of your attention to these issues. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON [presiding]. Thank you. And thank you all for being 

here. Sorry I was late. I had another hearing this morning—or this 

afternoon, rather. 

I am Bill Johnson from Ohio, and I am going to yield myself my 

question time, if that is okay. 

Have you folks thought about H.R. 1657? How can we further 

strengthen the laws to deter fraudulent companies from claiming 

to be service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses and taking contract dollars away from those legitimate ones? Do you think H.R. 

1657 is going to be an adequate deterrent? 

Ms. ROOF. I think it is a great start. What I have said repeatedly 

and what AMVETS believes is that you can’t come up with new 

laws or strengthen laws until you start enforcing them. I hate to 

be blunt about it, but there are laws in place that are not being 

enforced. And I think H.R. 1657 is a great step in a direction of 

enforcing—not only enforcing current penalties but giving them 

some teeth, for lack of a better term. 

Mr. MADDEN. It is already hard enough for Federal agencies to 

reach that 3 percent goal that they are supposed to do so. When 

you add these individuals who are fraudulently qualified as servicedisabled, veteran-owned small businesses, you are taking away— 

and we agree with the AMVETS on this, that it is just creating 

teeth, adding more additional penalties, debarring them after 30 

days. It is a good start. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But what I hear you saying is that is not enough 

if we are not enforcing, correct? 

Ms. ROOF. Yes, sir. I think it could be said that for any law, 

though. Any law is great in the book. But until you enforce it, it 

is just that, in a book. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do any of your organizations provide any type of 

an award or public recognition to employers who hire veterans? 

And do you know of any other private-sector awards that properly 

recognize these veteran-friendly employees? 

Mr. MADDEN. Right now, I think for quite a long time, the American Legion has had an award that goes out to small, medium, and 

large businesses that hire and retain veterans. We provide it every 

year to different departments in different States that offer suggestions. So we have been giving it for a long time. 

I am not sure—I do not know offhand of any other organizations 

or any other magazines that might do it as well. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Any others? 

Ms. ROOF. We currently have a program, Employer of the Year. 

I can get you more information for the record on that. It is not my 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
16 

forte. But AMVETS does have a couple of programs like that, actually. 

[Ms. Roof subsequently provided the following information:] 

AMVETS Employer of the Year 

The AMVETS National Employer of the Year Awards recognize outstanding companies who demonstrate the highest commitment to hiring 

veterans. In light of the high rate of unemployment among veterans, recognition of those employers who, as a standard practice, go out of their way 

to hire the veteran becomes even more important. There are many firms 

that utilize veterans’ preference, even though they may not be government 

contractors, and AMVETS wants to make sure we recognize them. 

The employers to receive the awards will be selected from nominations 

submitted by AMVETS department employment committees. Departments, 

posts or individuals may make recommendations to their respective employment committees and employers may nominate themselves. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have one final question. 

I find it a bit interesting that many of you have listed problems—that has already been asked? Okay. I was counseled. Asked 

and answered. That is a good thing. Thank you very much. 

And, with that, I will yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. STUTZMAN [presiding]. I think that will be all the questions 

we will take, but I do want to turn it over—yield to Mr. Braley just 

for a couple of closing remarks with this panel. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thanks again for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

I think Ms. Roof’s comment was instructive. Because having a 

law is one thing. Enforcing a law is quite a different story. And, 

sadly, you have to have money to enforce laws. The dilemma that 

we face in this climate that we are experiencing is that it takes 

money to enforce the law, and yet it saves money if you spend 

money to enforce the law. And that is the challenge we face, is 

making sure we are funding the enforcement arm of these agencies 

to do their job and make sure that we are not promoting behavior 

that punishes legitimate veteran-owned small businesses. 

So, with that, I will yield back. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. This concludes the time of this panel. 

I will excuse you all and thank you again for coming. 

And at this time, we will call for the second panel, consisting of 

Mr. Keith Wilson, Mr. Jan Frye, and Mr. John Brizzi from the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION 

SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JAN 

R. FRYE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ACQUISITIONS AND LOGISTICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND F. JOHN BRIZZI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL 

COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to 

provide VA’s views on H.R. 802, H.R. 1383, H.R. 1657, and a draft 

bill to authorize the VA to provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a 

family member. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
17 

Accompanying me today are Mr. Jan Frye, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisitions and Logistics, and Mr. F. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel. 

H.R. 802 would require VA to establish a VetStar Award Program, as well as a process for administering this program, which 

would recognize businesses for their contributions to veterans’ employment. 

A program of recognition for contributions to veterans’ employment is a worthwhile means of encouraging businesses to continue 

to employ veterans. Businesses that contribute to veterans’ employment provide a valuable and meaningful service, allowing VA to 

excel with regards to its mission to help veterans become employable and obtain and maintain gainful employment. VA supports 

this bill, and estimates that enactment of this bill, as written, 

would result in no significant costs. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1383, the ‘‘Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 

2011,’’ would temporarily preserve higher rates of tuition and fees 

for programs of education at nonpublic institutions of higher learning pursued by individuals enrolled in VA’s Post-9/11 GI Bill as it 

existed before the enactment of Public Law 111–377. Section 2 of 

this bill would modify the amount of educational assistance payable 

to specific individuals to make an exception for those who are enrolled in a private institution of higher learning in certain States. 

This exception would apply to an individual entitled to educational 

assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill who, on or before April 1, 

was enrolled in a private institution of higher learning in a State 

in which the amount of maximum tuition per credit hour is $700, 

and the combined amount of tuition and fees for full-time attendance exceeds $17,500. There are seven States which meet this criteria: Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. 

VA notes that the bill has no impact on the Post-9/11 Bill Yellow 

Ribbon program. The Yellow Ribbon program continues to allow 

high cost schools to offset those high costs by entering into agreements with VA to fully cover tuition and fee costs exceeding 

$17,500. Depending on a school’s level of participation, Yellow Ribbon agreements will continue to cover all tuition and fee costs in 

excess of $17,500. 

VA has concerns with the proposed legislation as written, to include the timeline for implementing this legislation, which are described fully in my written testimony. VA has had constructive discussions with the Subcommittee staff regarding these issues, and 

will be pleased to continue to be available to work with the Committee to address these concerns. 

VA is aggressively working on the long-term solution needed to 

process GI Bill claims. VA plans to implement changes for the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill as mandated by Public Law 111–377 across three 

phases. The first release deployed on March 5. Future releases are 

scheduled for June 6 of this year and October 17 of this year. The 

enactment of H.R. 1383, as introduced, would severely hamper 

VA’s long-term solution deployment efforts. The changes made by 

this legislation would lead to very complicated processing scenarios. 

Additionally, since the amount of educational assistance would be 

based on the greater of the maximum tuition credit hour payments 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
18 

or $17,500, VA would have to apply a blended set of rules for each 

claim that falls under these provisions. 

This proposed legislation would have a negative impact on service delivery for those students using benefits this fall. VA claims 

processors would have to thoroughly examine each claim manually 

to determine if it meets the provisions, which would result in laborintensive manual processing. This would lead to a significant increase in average processing time for all claims during the critical 

fall enrollment period. 

H.R. 1657 would revise title 38 to mandate a minimum 5-year 

debarment for VA contracting for any business, including the principals of the business, determined by the Secretary to have misrepresented its status as a veteran-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small business. Further, the bill would require VA to 

commence debarment action within 30 days of determination that 

the representation had occurred, and to complete the action within 

90 days. 

VA shares the Subcommittee’s focus on aggressively protecting 

the government from disreputable businesses in order that procurement dollars set aside reach the intended recipients. VA has taken 

steps to protect the integrity of our set-aside process as described 

in my written testimony. While we support the general intent of 

the legislation, VA cannot support H.R. 1657 in its present form. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 33.] 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. And thanks for being 

here on behalf of the VA. I do have a couple of questions. 

You stated several concerns with the grandfather bill. Chairman 

Miller has made fixing the provisions in last December’s fix bill, affecting tuition and fees at private institutions, a high priority. 

House Resolution 1383 does not mandate a method, such as within 

the new automated system, just an outcome. So the question becomes how does it happen? How can you make it happen? 

Mr. WILSON. As mentioned in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, we 

have worked very aggressively with the Committee staff, and we 

do appreciate their involvement in this. They are fully aware of the 

work that we put into developing a payment system. The stage 

that we are at in development of that payment system and the 

time allowed to implement the changes are inconsistent. 

Basically, what that means is we see no way that we can change 

our development to allow for these provisions in time to not negatively impact a broader scope of individuals during the fall enrollment. There is simply a lot of work that we continue to need to do 

before we begin processing fall enrollments at the beginning of 

June. Since we are unable to modify the development cycle in time 

that way, the only method for us to be paying those benefits is 

what I would refer to as the stubby pencil method, manual processing. We are very concerned about anything that would require 

us to manually process claims because of the experience we have 

had previously with initial implementation of this program, and 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
19 

being required to do a lot of manual work to pay benefits. We are 

very concerned about benefits being paid on time. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Do you have any idea what that number might 

be, what you could anticipate as far as enrollees applying for the 

program? 

Mr. WILSON. Nationwide we are providing education benefits to 

about 800,000 people in all of our education programs. We haven’t 

fully finished our costing on this piece of legislation. The number 

that we do have, though, is a maximum of about 30,000 people in 

the seven States would be impacted by the cap of $17,500. So 

30,000 of the 800,000 or so that we provide benefits to. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to address your point 

about there being a difference between, as you call it, an innocent 

mistake and outright willful violation of the law regarding servicedisabled veteran ownership and control. And if you could provide 

some suggestions in that regard, I would be happy to consider 

them. But there appears to be no real progress on firms that have 

been rejected by either the U.S. Government Accountability Office 

well over a year ago and firms identified by the VA as not meeting 

the statutory standard of ownership and control. 

How long do you think it is appropriate to take debarment action 

against a firm that has been found to willfully misrepresent its status? 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Frye to respond to that question, please. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Frye. 

Mr. FRYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I would 

like to state for the record that we have taken action against a 

number of firms who have misrepresented themselves and 

mischaracterized themselves as veteran-owned service-disabled or 

veteran-owned small businesses. To date, we have debarred three 

firms and five individuals. We have five firms who are referrals in 

the queue. And we have one firm and one individual that have 

been proposed for debarment. And I would characterize this number as large. I have been in the VA for 51⁄2 years in my role as a 

senior procurement executive, and I can tell you that debarments 

outside of Public Law 109–461 have been minuscule. I have not 

done, I think, more than three debarments outside of this public 

law. So we have been very actively engaged in debarring those 

firms who have misrepresented themselves. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. What is a typical debarment? How long of a time 

are they not able to do contracting work? 

Mr. FRYE. Well, I can give you an example. My staff told me that 

it took 105 days, workdays, to debar one firm. So that is an example of how long that it sometimes takes. We do give them a chance 

to represent themselves. We give them a chance to have attorneys 

represent them, to present their case, and take all factors in account before we debar them. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Once they are debarred, though, how long were 

they debarred from doing any contract work? 

Mr. FRYE. In the case of—let me see here, we imposed a 5-year 

period on two firms and four individuals. So they got the maximum 

5-year period. We imposed a 6-month debarment period on one firm 

and one individual. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
20 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. People do things like this, go set up a different firm, and continue work a different way. Are we following 

through and making sure that we are not doing business with 

those folks? 

Mr. FRYE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly why we debar the 

individuals as well as the firm. We want to make sure that the individual doesn’t pull up stakes, roll the tent up, move it someplace 

else, and start another firm under another business name. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Because I just think if somebody does 

something like this it is just a despicable act. To take advantage 

of the situation, people like that should not be in business, frankly. 

I appreciate what you are doing, but I think that really this is important, that especially in times like this, when we are asking more 

folks to be competing with one another in the private sector, that 

people are taking advantage especially of our veterans’ circumstances and the situation that they are in. 

With that, I will turn to Mr. Braley for his questions. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frye, I want to follow up with you on that point. Is it your opinion that H.R. 1657 

is a solution in search of a problem, or is there a widespread problem that the current solutions are not properly addressing? 

Mr. FRYE. I wouldn’t characterize it the way you have, Mr. 

Braley. What I would say is that the VA’s authority is limited to 

VA contracts. Right now we have no authority to debar firms except those who fall under Public Law 109–461. That is the way I 

would characterize it. So if someone violates the rules outside the 

VA, we don’t have the authority to move in and debar them from 

government contracts elsewhere. 

Mr. BRALEY. So for example, if a veteran-owned business working under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and its programs were to participate in conduct that 

would be similar to what we are talking about here, you would not 

have a remedy to pursue that? 

Mr. FRYE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. BRALEY. Have you had conversations with people at SBA 

about the common interest you have in eliminating this practice 

and what type of joint enforcement efforts could be employed? 

Mr. FRYE. I don’t believe we have had any in-depth conversations. We talked about it, but no in-depth conversations that I 

know of. 

Mr. BRALEY. All right. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, in dealing with 

the issues we were talking about on H.R. 1383, is it your testimony 

that this is a timing problem or an implementation problem in 

terms of the proposal as it exists now? In other words, is this something if it wasn’t for the demands of the rapidly approaching fall 

academic year that could be addressed within the confines of the 

legislation? 

Mr. WILSON. Timing is the issue. We have created a very robust 

tool, not fully deployed, but we are processing all of the claims in 

the system right now that does allow us flexibility. But if the calendar doesn’t cooperate, there is not much we can do. The challenge we have right now is timing. We have completed the development cycle for what we need to implement for Public Law 111–377, 

that it impacts the fall enrollment on August 1. We are in user acVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:24 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 067186 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\VA\67186.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67186

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
21 

ceptance testing for that now. We deployed that on June 7. We 

begin processing fall enrollments on June 7. We do that so that 

there is not a backlog come August, September. Being able to 

squeeze any more development work in between now and then is 

just simply not possible. There are just not enough hours in the 

day to do it. 

Mr. BRALEY. As I listened to your testimony, I got the impression 

that your primary concern was the unintended consequences that 

a well-intended bill might have the actual impact of denying welldeserving benefits that they should be getting simply because of 

the challenges of addressing the implementation. Is that correct? 

Mr. WILSON. I think that is a fair characterization. Impacting 

our ability to pay benefits timely is a very major concern. And most 

of our students are completely dependent on their monthly check 

from VA to stay in school. If they are not paid timely, they can’t 

stay in school. 

Mr. BRALEY. You also talked in your testimony about the issue 

of a blended set of rules. Can you elaborate on the problem of applying a blended set of rules? 

Mr. WILSON. The blended set of rules, if the bill is enacted the 

way it is with the timeline, would require our claims examiners to 

manually look at these calculations. In other words, they would be 

looking at computer screens, and they would be making manual determinations on what would actually be paid. The calculations that 

exist in the system right now would no longer apply to the students 

of private schools in those seven States. So they would basically 

have to create something where they are actually doing math, you 

know, stubby pencil math to figure out whether the amount of tuition and fees paid would be something less than the $17,500, something more than the $17,500, and then factoring in the Yellow Ribbon payments if there is a Yellow Ribbon school at all as well. So 

there are several things that they would have to apply their gray 

matter to do. Our folks are very smart, they can do that, but it 

takes time. And that is the challenge is the time it would be taking 

us to do that during the fall semester, when we will have hundreds 

of thousands of people who need to be paid timely. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilson, you have 

actually enlightened me a little bit, because I have had some concerns about the claims processing for quite some time. In your testimony, you indicate that you are opposed to H.R. 1383 because of 

the effect that it would have on processing times and the long-term 

IT solution. What do you mean by the long-term IT solution? 

Mr. WILSON. When the Post-9/11 GI Bill was originally enacted 

in 2008, signed into law in June 2008, VA had 13 months to set 

up a payment system. The payment tools and processing tools that 

we had in place at the time were structured fundamentally differently than the variables we had to account for in the Post-9/11 

GI Bill. Basically speaking, Montgomery GI Bill and the other programs paid a single payment to the student based on a flat rate. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill has several factors that vary depending upon 

the individual’s situation. So we are paying a total benefit amount 

that is unique to each individual. We didn’t have a payment system 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
22 

to do that. What we set up was a two-track effort, the first track 

being do the minimum that we have to so that we can meet the 

initial timeline in 13 months and begin paying. We went very 

heavy on additional staff to support that model. But also what we 

developed at the same time was a completely new automated payment and processing tool so that we could continue to pay people 

timely without a heavy reliance on individuals. So we have deployed four phases of that long-term payment system. The completion of that long-term payment system, though, was put on hold so 

that we can change it to calculate the new payments that are required under Public Law 111–377. 

Mr. JOHNSON. One of the concerns that I have had through our 

different Committee, Oversight and Investigations, is asking for a 

view of the architecture of VA’s IT systems. You know, correct me 

if I am wrong, but your job, the VA’s job is to care for our veterans. 

Would it be an accurate statement to say that saying our IT systems are inadequate to allow us to do that and to respond quickly, 

do you find that an acceptable answer? 

Mr. WILSON. I would hesitate to provide a response as broadly 

as the manner in which your question was put to me. What I can 

tell you is that for the Post-9/11 GI Bill we did not have adequate 

tools. Now, what I will also say is that the relationship we, the 

business providers in the Veterans Benefits Administration and 

elsewhere in VA, specifically the information technology organization have done to stand up this new architecture that we have, has 

been phenomenal. We have used an agile development methodology. We went from absolutely nothing to a fully deployed system 

within about 18 months. And it is a system that works. It is a system that provides the payment tools that we need. It is not completely done because we have had to change it to support the new 

legislation. But our users like it. It is a 21st Century tool. And I 

do know that our IT environment is using the lessons learned from 

chapter 33 to apply to the other developments that are underway. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But my background as a chief information officer 

in corporate America, and 30 years in IT, agility means you are 

putting in a system that is easily adaptable, easily modifiable. But 

what you are telling me here is that it is not. 

Mr. WILSON. I believe in fact it is. What I would say is that regardless of how agile you set up a system, and the system that we 

are setting up for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which again is not completely done but will be, is 21st century technology. It is leadingedge technology. But regardless of how agile that is, if we are not 

given the calendar time to be able to modify it without a significant 

level of risk, we are going to have an abundance of concern. The 

time frame that we are dealing with here leads us to believe that 

we are on the path of potentially impacting the fall enrollment negatively. And that is a risk we are not prepared to accept. It is a 

challenge. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sorry, Mr. Wilson, for cutting you off. I am 

out of time. Agility in the IT industry means the ability to quickly 

change. So you still haven’t clarified for me. You keep saying that 

regardless of how agile it is, without the requisite amount of time 

to change it to incorporate these new rules, we are still behind the 

power curve. If that system were truly 21st century technology, 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
23 

with agility built in, you wouldn’t be having these problems, and 

the veterans throughout America and all the veterans organizations would not be screaming about the processing backlog. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. I want to make just a couple of comments and ask a couple of other questions. If the gentlemen have 

any other further questions, we will probably be out of here in just 

a couple of minutes. But I agree with what Mr. Johnson was just 

saying. This can’t be that difficult. How many more employees did 

the VA hire to implement the new GI Bill? 

Mr. WILSON. About 1,100. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. One thousand, one hundred. What are they doing 

now? 

Mr. WILSON. They are processing claims right now. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. I mean they have been doing this for some time, 

right? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, they have. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. So is there any way that they could—it seems 

like we have a workforce there that could adapt and adjust here. 

Mr. WILSON. And that is what we will be using. Our original 

plan was to move from a very heavily human-based process into a 

more automated process. We are continuing to move in that direction. But because of the new changes under P.L. 111–377, we need 

to keep those people on board until we fully deploy. The challenge 

is we have never had the opportunity to fully deploy the system 

yet, even though we have had four releases, we have moved mountains, and accomplished a lot in 18 months. It was a huge undertaking. And I believe we have done a very good job at meeting that 

undertaking. We do not have a claims backlog in the education 

area, despite what was mentioned earlier. We have very sound 

processing times. Students are being served. And I want to make 

sure that that is clear. And we want to be able to continue to provide that level of service. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Right. Absolutely. I agree and applaud that is 

being done. I want to go back to the Small Business Enforcement 

Act. Once a business or individual has been put on the debarment 

list, are they put on the excluded parties list? 

Mr. FRYE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are put on the excluded parties list once they are debarred. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. So they are not showing up anywhere else. 

We want to make sure they are not doing business with the government. Is that right? 

Mr. FRYE. They should not do business with the government. If 

the contracting officers do their job, their job is to look at the excluded parties list before they award any contract. They should not 

be doing business with the government. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Very good. All right. Mr. Braley, any further questions? 

Mr. BRALEY. No. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. Thank you to the panel. And thank you for 

being here. I am looking forward to working with you on this. I 

know we will be communicating some more. Mr. Braley, you have 

any further comments to make? 

Mr. BRALEY. No. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
24 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Connolly, again thank you very much for 

being here. Your testimony was very powerful, and helps all of us. 

It makes a big difference when people from back home experience 

travel to DC. I know it is not an easy thing to do, but we are really 

glad you are here. And thank you to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Frye, and Mr. 

Brizzi for being here as well. 

So with that we will conclude today’s meeting, and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(25) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman, Chairman, 

Subcommittee Economic Opportunity 

Good afternoon. Today, we will be taking testimony on H.R. 1383 the Restoring 

GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011, sponsored by Chairman Miller and myself, H.R. 802 

sponsored by Ranking Member Filner, H.R. 1671 sponsored by Ranking Member 

Braley, and H.R. 1657, a bill to improve VA’s enforcement of service disabled veteran-owned small business contracting, which I introduced. Our intent is to hold a 

Subcommittee markup this Thursday followed by a full Committee markup on May 

12. 

H.R. 1383, the Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011, is a bill that would grandfather veterans attending private schools who were adversely affected by the 

changes to the GI Bill that passed at the end of last congress. I am glad that we 

are able to make this fix to help veterans in the seven States that would see their 

tuition and fees payments reduced all without increasing the deficit due to the inclusion of an offset. I see by their testimony that VA has some objections to the bill 

and I hope we can work through those concerns. 

H.R. 1657, is a bill I introduced that is designed to debar companies who have 

fraudulently claimed to be a service disabled veteran owned small businesses from 

doing business with VA. For too long legitimate SDVOB’s have lost contracts to 

these fraudulent companies, and I hope that the prospect of debarment for 5 years 

will be the deterrent we need to stop this despicable practice. 

I would ask all of today’s witnesses to summarize your written statement within 

5 minutes and without objection, each written testimony will be made part of the 

hearing record. 

Before we begin with testimony, I now ask unanimous consent to have statements 

from the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Gold Star Wives, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America entered into the record. Hearing none, so ordered. 

I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member from the great State of Iowa 

for any remarks he may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Today’s legislative hearing includes four bills before us that address some of the 

urgent needs of our veteran’s population. These bills: provide education benefits; extend temporary adaptation grants for our disabled veterans; recognize small businesses for their contribution to employing veterans, and; penalize fraudulent veteran owned small businesses. 

Included in today’s hearing is H.R. 1671, the Andrew Connolly Veterans’ Housing 

Act, which I introduced yesterday. This bill seeks to extend the Temporary Residence Adaptation (TRA) grant through December 2016. The TRA permits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to award a grant to a service-disabled veteran who is 

temporarily residing in a residence owned by a member of the veteran’s family and 

make adaptations necessary to meet the veteran’s mobility needs. 

Currently the legislation is set to terminate on December 31, 2011, which is why 

I am extending this to December 31, 2016. This grant is important to service-connected veterans who return home with devastating injuries. These veterans need a 

caretaker while they rehabilitate, and these caretakers are generally family members. In order to provide disabled veterans with the independence they need while 

they recuperate, different types of adaptations need to be made to a family’s home 

while the veteran temporarily lives with them. 

Finally, I would like to recognize Andrew Connolly, a disabled veteran who has 

received a specially adaptive housing grant and is here to talk about how this grant 

has impacted his life. Andrew served in both Egypt and Iraq as part of the Iowa 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
26 

Army National Guard’s 133rd Infantry and is visiting us today from my district. I 

would like to thank him for traveling from Iowa to be here today and for his continued service by fighting for veteran issues. 

I would like to thank all our panelists and I look forward to receiving feedback 

on the bills before us today. f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Johnson 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, 

I am pleased for this opportunity to discuss legislation intended to advance education and employment opportunities for our Nation’s veterans. I would also like to 

thank members of the veterans’ service organizations and the VA for being here 

today and sharing your views and recommendations on H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, H.R. 

1657, and also Ranking Member Braley’s legislation regarding specially adaptive 

housing assistance. 

As I’ve stated before, I strongly believe that veterans are the segment of society 

that most deserves our sincere gratitude and assistance. It is our responsibility to 

ensure that veterans returning home are made aware of the benefits they are entitled to, and that they receive the necessary assistance to ease their transition back 

to civilian life and the workforce. 

It is my hope that veterans take advantage of the educational programs and opportunities offered by the VA. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is intended to aide veterans in 

achieving their educational goals by assisting with tuition and fees, housing, and 

books and supplies. 

However, it is also important that changes made to the benefits offered to our veterans are not done so in a harmful manner. H.R. 1383, introduced by Chairman Miller, would temporarily preserve higher rates for tuition and fees for non-public education programs so that students, who had previously been guaranteed higher tuition payment rates than those currently specified in the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program, will not face a reduction in tuition and fees paid by the VA on 

their behalf. It is necessary that these students finish their degree with the benefits 

they were entitled to when they began their education program. 

Today, we will also discuss H.R. 802, legislation that would establish the VetStar 

Award Program to recognize businesses for their contributions to veterans’ employment. While this legislation will not solve the issue of high rates of veteran unemployment, it is my hope that H.R. 802 will encourage more businesses to hire veterans. Additionally, H.R. 1657 will ensure that government contracts intended for veteran-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses will be awarded correctly. Veterans possess a unique perspective that only those who have served our 

country can offer. It is unconscionable for small businesses to falsely claim to be veteran-owned and take away contracts intended for those who have served and sacrificed for our country. 

I welcome this opportunity to further discuss each of these bills with my colleagues in addition to the veterans’ service organizations and VA members who are 

present. f 

Prepared Statement of Christina M. Roof, National Acting Legislative 

Director, American Veterans (AMVETS) 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, on behalf of AMVETS, I would like to extend our gratitude for being 

given the opportunity to share with you our views and recommendations regarding 

H.R. 1383, H.R. 802, H.R. 1657 and Ranking Member Braley’s piece of legislation 

regarding Specialty Adaptive Housing. 

AMVETS feels privileged in having been a leader, since 1944, in helping to preserve the freedoms secured by America’s Armed Forces. Today our organization 

prides itself on the continuation of this tradition, as well as our undaunted dedication to ensuring that every past and present member of the Armed Forces receives 

all of their due entitlements. These individuals, who have devoted their entire lives 

to upholding our values and freedoms, deserve nothing less. 

Given the fact this testimony will be addressing several pieces of legislation, I 

shall be addressing each piece of legislation separately, as to make AMVETS testimony clear and concise on the individual subject matters of the bills. 

AMVETS supports H.R. 802, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a ‘‘VetStar Award Program.’’ AMVETS believes with the disproportionately high 

unemployment of our veteran community compared to that of their civilian counterVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:24 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 067186 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\67186.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67186

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
27 

parts, employers who actively seek out and employ veterans deserve to be recognized for their contributions to our veterans community. Furthermore, the VetStar 

Award Program stands to serve as a motivator for other companies to actively seek 

out and employ veterans. We must take all necessary actions to address and immediately rectify the problem of unemployment that is plaguing today’s veterans. 

AMVETS believes H.R. 802 is another step in the right direction at doing just that. 

AMVETS again lends our support to H.R. 802. 

AMVETS supports H.R. 1383, to temporarily preserve higher rates for tuition and 

fees for programs of education at non-public institutions of higher learning pursued 

by individuals enrolled in the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs before the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, and for other purposes. AMVETS believes this will allow for students currently enrolled in non-public institutions of 

higher learning the opportunity to finish their degree without any undue financial 

burden or stress. While we applaud Chairman Miller for introducing this piece of 

legislation, we feel we would be doing a disservice to our membership if we did not 

bring up our concerns on the new system of which veterans will receive their monthly living stipends under the new Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs enacted in late 2010. AMVETS believes many veterans utilizing their educational entitlements under the Post-9/11 GI Bill will be 

caught off guard and experience undue financial hardships during the periods of 

time between college semesters. While AMVETS strongly supports H.R. 1383, we 

urge the Chairman and this Subcommittee to address what AMVETS believes will 

be a large problem, the living stipend distribution for the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as amended in late 2010. 

AMVETS supports H.R. 1657, to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the 

enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small business concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern 

owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans. AMVETS applauds Congressman 

Stutzman for writing a bill that is long overdue and very much needed, in order 

to protect Veteran Owned Small Businesses (VOSB) and Service Disabled Veteran 

Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB). AMVETS has long called upon Congress to revise and enforce penalties for misrepresentation by a business concern as being a 

VOSB or SDVOSB. AMVETS finds it reprehensible that any individual or business 

entity would knowingly and purposefully take contracts and jobs away from veterans, as well as blatantly defraud the Federal Government. AMVETS believes H.R. 

1657 will not only strengthen, but help enforce penalties that have been long in 

place, yet severely underutilized by numerous Federal agencies. If VA and the Federal Government are truly dedicated to protecting the integrity of the Federal procurement system, as well as the veteran entrepreneurial community, AMVETS 

urges the swift passage of H.R. 1657. Furthermore, AMVETS calls upon this Subcommittee to focus a substantial amount of their time during the 112th congress to 

finally closing all of the loopholes within the VA procurement system and to pass 

laws that will once and for all rid the Federal procurement system of fraudulent 

businesses unlawfully taking contracts and jobs from veterans. It is important to remember that due to the high unemployment rates, veterans are turning to entrepreneurship at rates this country has not seen since WWII. Given this fact, now more 

than ever, VOSBs and SDVOSBs must have a fair chance in a successful Federal 

procurement and acquisitions system. AMVETS again lends our strong support to 

H.R. 1657. 

AMVETS supports H.R. TBD, the ‘‘Andrew Connolly Veterans’ Housing Act.’’ This 

piece of legislation will amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority 

of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing assistance 

to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member. Thousands of disabled veterans and their families depend on these funds to sustain their 

quality of life and independence. Given the rate at which our Nation’s war fighters 

are returning from our current conflicts, with debilitating and life changing injuries, 

AMVETS would like to see the Committee go a step further and look into extending 

this program past 2016, as outlined in Section 2102(A) of title 38, United States 

Code. We have an obligation to care for those who return from war in a state different from that of which they left for war in. Furthermore, given the current state 

of our Nation’s economy many disabled veterans and their families are having to 

turn to the support of family members for temporary housing. Again, AMVETS 

lends our support to Congressman Braley’s bill, the ‘‘Andrew Connolly Veterans’ 

Housing Act.’’ 

Chairman Stutzman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, AMVETS 

would again like to thank you for inviting us to share with you our opinions and 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
28 

recommendations on these very important pieces of legislation. This concludes my 

testimony and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have for me. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative Associate, Iraq 

and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, on behalf of 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s 200,000 Member Veterans and supporters, I thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing to share our members’ 

views on these important issues. 

My name is Tom Tarantino and I am the Senior Legislative Associate with IAVA. 

I proudly served 10 years in the Army beginning my career as an enlisted Reservist 

and leaving service as an Active Duty Cavalry Officer. Throughout those 10 years, 

my single most important duty was to take care of other soldiers. In the military, 

they teach us to have each other’s backs. Although my uniform is now a suit and 

tie, I am proud to work with this Congress to ensure the entire country has the 

backs of America’s servicemembers and veterans. 

Bill # Bill Name/Subject Sponsor Position 

H.R. 802 VetStar Award Program Filner Support 

H.R. 1383 Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011 Miller Support 

S. 1657 Misrepresentation of Service Disabled Owned 

Small Business 

Stutzman Support 

H.R. DRAFT Andrew Connolly Veterans Housing Act Braley Support 

H.R. 802—VetStar Award Program 

IAVA conceptually supports the establishment of a program to recognize businesses that contribute to veterans’ employment. While we endorse H.R. 802, however, IAVA has concerns about what this specific program will look like, how it 

plans to recognize such businesses and what effect it will have lowering the rising 

veteran unemployment rate. While a VetStar program certainly couldn’t hurt, we 

remain skeptical that this is the most effective course of action for Congress to take 

at this stage. 

In 2010, the unemployment rate for new veterans was a staggering 11.5 percent. 

Even as the civilian unemployment rate begins to decline, we continue to see the 

new veteran unemployment rate rise month-to-month in 2011. With less than half 

a percent of Americans fighting in the current wars and only 8 percent of Americans 

having ever served in the military, it is critical that we bridge the widening gap 

between the civilian workforce and our Nation’s veterans. IAVA believes that more 

proactive measures need to be taken if we are to turn the tide on veteran unemployment. 

Several weeks ago, IAVA brought 28 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from around 

the country for our annual Storm the Hill campaign to discuss solutions for reducing 

the veteran unemployment rate by Veterans Day 2011. Meeting with 117 offices and 

57 Members of Congress, we proposed the following policies to reverse the growing 

number of unemployed veterans: 

1. Order a study and report on the differences between military certifications, 

jobs, and education and those for civilian counterparts. 

2. Make the TAP program mandatory and call for a review of the program every 

3 years. 

3. Make USERRA violations enforceable, and expand USERRA to include in-state 

National Guard deployments. 

4. Encourage entrepreneurship by expanding successful Small Business programs 

like the Patriot Express Loan Program and the Veteran Entrepreneurship 

Bootcamp. 

5. Encourage business to hire veterans by simplifying and enacting a robust tax 

relief package. 

I am proud to report that our suggestions met with almost universal support. 

Many Members of the House, especially those sitting in this room, stepped up and 

are working on legislation that will reduce the number of veterans coming home 

from war to an unemployment check. I look forward to testifying at a future legislaVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:24 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 067186 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\67186.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67186

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
29 

tive hearing on those bills, and reporting to IAVA’s 90,000 Member Veterans that 

Congress has their back. 

H.R. 1383—Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011 

IAVA proudly supports H.R. 1383. This bill will ensure that a small minority of 

veterans who, due to poorly constructed and confusing tuition and fee regulations, 

would have had their benefits reduced as a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill’s expansion to 400,000 more veterans will be able to finish College. 

The House of Representatives wisely included this provision in their version of the 

Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. The provision, however, was excluded from the final version that the President ultimately 

signed into law. IAVA fought hard to ensure that this small minority of student veterans would not be negatively impacted by the improvements and expansion of the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill. On behalf of our members and those student veterans, I would 

like to thank this committee for their commitment to ensure that these student veterans are not left behind. 

H.R. 1657–Misrepresentation of Service Disabled Owned Small Business 

IAVA supports H.R. 1657, strengthening the penalties that small businesses may 

incur if they misrepresent themselves as veteran-owned or service disabled veteranowned small businesses when seeking government contracts. 

Promoting veteran entrepreneurship is key to fighting the growing tide of veteran 

unemployment. Small businesses that falsely claim to be veteran-owned when applying for government contracts harm veterans who provide essential services and 

contracts to the Federal Government. This bill provides clarity on the penalties that 

may be levied against those businesses if they take contracts away from veteran entrepreneurs. 

Draft Legislation—Andrew Connelly Veterans’ Housing Act 

IAVA proudly supports this draft legislation that would extend the authority of 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide adaptive housing benefits to veterans 

who are recovering from injuries at the home of a caregiver through 2016. 

For the thousands of veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan with 

severe injuries, the recovery process is often long and arduous. Many of them require constant care from a family caregiver for years after they leave service. During this time, they frequently reside in a home that is not their own and not a permanent residence where they may live on their own after recovery. Adaptations, like 

ramps and elevators, must often be made to their permanent home and that of their 

caregiver while they are recovering from their injuries. While the VA does provide 

grants for adaptive housing, the benefit is largely based on the assumption that 

wounded warriors are living in their permanent home. Section 2102A of Title 38 allows the VA to issue a separate grant to adapt the temporary homes of recovering 

veterans; however, it is set to expire at the end of this year. By extending this program to 2016, Congress can show their strong support for those veterans who have 

made the most extreme sacrifices for our freedom. 

Conclusion 

I would like to thank this committee for continuing to support Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families. By ensuring that these bills are swiftly made law, 

we will continue to send a signal to veterans of all generations that Congress and 

the veterans’ community has their back. Thank you for your time and attention. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Shane Barker, Senior Legislative Associate National 

Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE: 

On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 

United States and our Auxiliaries, the VFW would like to thank this committee for 

the opportunity to present its views on these bills. 

H.R. 802, to direct VA to establish a ‘‘VetStar’’ Award program. 

The VFW applauds the idea behind H.R. 802, which would recognize businesses 

for their contributions to veterans’ employment, but believes that funding to establish criteria and to promote this type of program would also be needed. In establishing a ‘‘VetStar’’ award, outreach would have to be increased within the private 

sector to encourage employment opportunities for veterans, something that the Department of Labor’s Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) would be 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
30 

better suited to provide. Also, VETS, under its array of programs, has access to private and public sector employment data, which would allow them to verify and acknowledge companies that take the initiative in employing and promoting veterans. 

H.R. 1383, The Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011 

The VFW greatly appreciates Chairman Miller’s initiative in introducing this legislation. It addresses what is perhaps the most harmful deficiency with the current 

Post -9/11 GI Bill-that is, the lack of a ‘‘hold harmless’’ provision to ensure that students are not saddled with debt or out-of-pocket expenses as a result of changes in 

tuition payment rates set to take effect this August. 

Over the past 2 years, many students chose a particular degree program with the 

expectation that the Yellow Ribbon Program they began with would still be there 

when they completed their degree. Changes made to the Post-9/11 GI Bill last year, 

positive as they were, made significant changes specific to the Yellow Ribbon Program without protecting current students from the impact. Many could find themselves making the choice between transferring schools or paying hefty tuition bills 

if they choose to remain. H.R. 1383 would preclude changes made to the Yellow Ribbon Program for students who were already working on their degrees. This is good 

legislation and the VFW strongly supports it. 

H.R. 1657, to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement 

penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small business concerned owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern owned and controlled by service disabled veterans. 

VFW supports H.R. 1657, as it would provide a more robust reinforcement of laws 

for the misrepresentation of small businesses owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans. Provisions in the bill include harsher penalties and protections for 

service-disabled and veteran owned businesses involved in contracting, as well as 

increased oversight into the process. We also believe that this bill would be a step 

forward in encouraging positive action with regard to veterans’ preference in contracting. 

DRAFT Bill, to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority 

of VA to provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member. 

VFW supports the reauthorization of this critical benefit. Through VA’s adaptive 

housing grant program, hundreds of our most severely injured veterans have been 

given an opportunity to ease back into civilian life while gaining some sense of independence as they recuperate under the care of a family member. With the ongoing 

wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is important to continue providing a benefit that 

significantly improves the lives of our severely injured veterans. By extending the 

grant program through December 31, 2016, you will increase the flexibility of the 

benefit while making a difference in the quality of life for many disabled veterans 

and their families. 

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

questions that you or the Members of the Committee may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National 

Economic Commission, American Legion 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

H.R. 1383: The American Legion understands the unintended consequences of the 

passage of the Post-9/11 Fix-it Bill in 2010 and the need to address those in legislative language during the 112th Congress. H.R. 1383 accomplishes part of what the 

American Legion sees that needs to be remedied yet it does include addressing the 

role of the State Approving Agencies, interval pay and addition of out-of-state tuition for public school students. 

H.R. 802: The American Legion supports this legislation. The bill recognizes those 

companies that hire and retain veterans. It serves as an incentive to promote veterans’ employment and provides awareness for those who have fought so bravely for 

this country. 

H.R. 1657: The American Legion supports this legislation. The ability of Service 

Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) to gain Federal contracts is 

distracted by fraud and abuse by those who have decided not to follow the rules. 

SDVOSB owners have sacrificed for their country and are provided with a gateway 

into the Federal contracting world. Those who choose to swindle the system should 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
31 

be appropriately disqualified and punished, without creating more of a bureaucratic 

process for legitimate service disabled veterans who own businesses. 

Draft Legislation: The American Legion supports this legislation. Adaptive housing assistance is vitally important in light of the continuing numbers of disabled 

servicemembers returning from combat zones as the United States engages in action 

on multiple fronts overseas. This aid cannot be allowed to sunset, and therefore the 

extension to this aid is needed and supported by The Legion. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these opinions of the American Legion 

on these issues. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion’s views on the 

several pieces of legislation being considered by the Subcommittee today. The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for holding a hearing to discuss these very 

important and timely issues. 

H.R. 1383, Restoring GI Fairness Act of 2011, To temporarily preserve higher 

rates for tuition and fees for programs of education at non-public institutions of 

higher learning pursued by individuals enrolled in the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs before the enactment of the 

Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, and for other 

purposes. With the many changes recently made to the Post-9/11 GI Bill unintended 

consequences need to be remedied through the legislative process. While this bill 

helps address one of those issues relating to the benefits offered veterans attending 

private schools, it falls short in addressing those other issues. Therefore, The America Legion stands firmly committed to ensure every group somewhat affected by the 

most recent changes should be included in all encompassing legislative change. 

The American Legion requests Congress add the following provision and issues to 

address all the needs of returning veterans and their access to education benefits 

entitled to them: 

• grandfathering in the private schools (as addressed in this legislation) but also 

admitting those who attend out-of-state public universities who fall under the 

same $17,500.00 cap; • addition of interval pay to include those months when veterans are between semesters yet in need of the housing allowance to meet their financial responsibilities, and; • addressing the role of State approving agencies in verifying veteran-friendly 

programs that are specific for the demographic. 

The American Legion’s views are established in a consensus that all veterans are 

entitled to certain education benefits that will enable them to continue moving forward, in terms of their success, and we should continue to increase their accessibility and not eliminate any portion that might affect their sustainability in attaining a higher education. 

H.R. 802, seeks to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a VetStar 

Award Program. The American Legion supports this legislation. The American Legion believes in rewarding those small, medium and large businesses that contribute to the welfare of veteran employment. Veterans hire veterans. When possible, it is imperative that businesses that hire and retain veterans should be recognized for their continued contribution to the country. The American Legion currently provides recognition for businesses that hire veterans and would wholeheartedly agree, through the success of our own program, this type of behavior 

should be rewarded. Programs such as the VetStar Award shed light into the immense work done by American businesses and contribute to other companies realizing their own veteran hiring potential. 

H.R. 1657, To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small business concern 

owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans. The ability of a Service Disabled Veteran 

Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) to gain government contracts is a right, not a 

privilege. The American Legion supports H.R. 1657. The minimal oversight and protection for SDVOSB needs to come to an end. Time after time, Federal agencies are 

allowing fraudulent individuals to gain contracts intended for a SDVOSB or after 

the award of a contract discovering the ‘‘SDVOSB company’’ was not run or owned 

by a service disabled veteran. In a report submitted in 2009, the Government Accountability Office estimated over $100 million was awarded to ineligible firms who 

stated they were SDVOSB. This information and number is only from a 10-case 

study. In addition, the GAO report cited that ‘‘agencies show that significant control 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
32 

weaknesses in the SDVOSB program allow ineligible firms to receive millions in 

SDVOSB contracts. The lack of effective fraud-prevention controls by SBA and agencies awarding contracts allowed these ineligible firms to receive approximately $100 

million of sole-source or set-aside SDVOSB contracts over the last several years.’’ 

This lack of prevention only goes to undermine the significant impact that 

SDVOSB can have in the government contracting realm. We must prevent this 

abuse and fraud, maintaining the ease of accessibility for self-certification, and ensure growth and success for the legitimate SDVOSB. 

Draft legislation, The American Legion supports this legislation. Adaptive housing assistance is vitally important in light of the continuing numbers of disabled 

servicemembers returning from combat zones as the United States engages in action 

on multiple fronts overseas. This aid cannot be allowed to sunset, and therefore the 

extension to this aid is a needed and supported by The Legion. 

The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this statement. 

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the Subcommittee for allowing the American Legion to present its views on these very important issues today. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Andrew Connolly, Dubuque, IA 

First off, I would like to thank Chairman Stutzman and Ranking Member Braley 

for holding this important hearing today. 

My name is Andrew Connolly. I currently reside at 2820 Illinois Avenue in Dubuque, Iowa. I served in the United States Army National Guard from November, 

2000 to August, 2007. During my time of service I completed two tours. The first 

tour took place in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt from May, 2003 to January, 2004. The 

second tour of duty was a combat mission in the Al Anbar Province, Iraq from October, 2005 to August, 2007. Our mission in Iraq was convoy security. During the 16 

months in Iraq, my unit transported goods to most all of the western allied bases. 

Our largest enemy threats were the improvised explosive devices (IED’s). I personally encountered many IED’s near my vehicle, and experienced one direct hit, which 

took place on March 9, 2007. The blast report from the explosive ordinance disposal 

team verified it to be a pressure plate land mine with approximately 15 pounds of 

PE4. My team and I suffered minor injuries and concussions from the blast. 

After completing my tour in Iraq, I immediately returned to work and enrolled 

in school. I tolerated wear and tear on the body figuring that the pains and weird 

feelings would go away. After serving in Iraq, my disability ratings varied for different parts of my body. My back and knees bothered me quite a bit while in Iraq, 

which is documented in my medical files. A little over a year after my return, I noticed numbness in my right foot. I thought that I had just tweaked something in 

my back due to the injuries that had occurred while overseas. 

After a couple of months of having this irritating numbness, I consulted with the 

VA Hospital in Iowa City and they ordered an MRI right away. Following the MRI 

the neurologist suggested that I come in for a consultation the next week. It was 

early February, 2009 and I was struck with some devastating news. The neurology 

doctor at the VA closed the door behind him and proceeded to tell me that I had 

a slow growing, small mass located within my spinal cord and he was 90 percent 

sure it was malignant. A spinal cord biopsy was scheduled for 2 weeks later. The 

results came back positive for cancer and treatment options were offered. At this 

time I had a million things rushing through my mind, the first being, ‘‘How long 

do I have?’’ Next was, ‘‘How am I going to get through this financially?’’ The neurologist reported that the tumor was service-connected, and most likely contributed 

to the pain and discomfort I suffered while on active duty. 

At the time, I owned a top-bottom duplex built in 1890. Fortunately, my family 

and I occupied the lower unit. Unfortunately, it was not handicapped-accessible. My 

condition rapidly deteriorated and complicated our family situation. My son Brody 

was born on July 31, 2008, with a neuromuscular disorder called congenital myasthenic syndrome. This disorder affects all of my son’s muscles, thus causing dependence on a ventilator 24 hours-a-day. He too will need to be in a wheelchair for the 

rest of his life. 

I started radiation and followed up with chemotherapy. I am still taking chemotherapy and probably will until I can no longer tolerate it or I move on. As the year 

2009 went on, the right side of my body slowly lost feeling. By the time 2010 came 

around, my left side began to lose feeling, as well. As my body began to dwindle 

from the nipples down, I investigated military grants for paralyzed veterans. I came 

across the Specially Adaptive Housing grant and applied for it. I was denied the 

grant because I was still able to walk at that time. Doctor reports stated that this 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
33 

type of cancer would leave me paralyzed and no cure existed. I was diagnosed with 

grade 2/3 anaplastic astrocytoma cancer of the spine. This still did not qualify me 

for the grant. My legs started to give out on me and I tripped quite often. A wheelchair-bound life was creeping into the picture quite rapidly. My frustration with the 

VA grew immeasurably and I felt trapped, fighting a losing battle. I was 26, married, and had a beautiful, handicapped child to support. My life spiraled downward. 

I fit the grant criteria to a ‘‘T’’. Ironically my minimal ability to walk kept it beyond 

my grasp. 

For 7 years, military leaders preached to us, ‘‘Prepare, prepare, prepare!’’ That is 

exactly what I was trying to do. I was hoping to get the grant paperwork started 

early so that when the time came and a wheelchair became a permanent part of 

my life I would be ready. At this time I was unable to afford a proper handicappedaccessible house for my family. In April of 2010, I called Ray Zirklebach, who served 

with me in both Egypt and Iraq. Ray, an Iowa House Representative in the neighboring county, listened to my story. He too thought something should be done about 

this situation. He forwarded my email on to Congressman Bruce Braley, who quickly turned around my application paperwork. Within 2 weeks of contacting Representative Ray Zirklebach and Congressman Bruce Braley, I was approved for the 

grant and a huge weight was lifted from my shoulders. 

With the grant approved, I was able to build a house that would be suitable for 

my family. Construction on our new house began on June 21, 2010, the same time 

I became wheelchair-bound. Life in our duplex during the construction of the new 

house was quite miserable, but temporarily manageable. 

In August of 2010, I officially became a paraplegic, losing all use, function and 

feeling below the nipples. At this point, the neurologist decided it was time to try 

to remove as much of the tumor and spinal cord as possible in an attempt to prolong 

my life. The surgery itself went perfectly, however, the surgeons were not able to 

remove the entire tumor without causing me to become a quadriplegic or have respiratory complications. With paralysis, I fell deeper and deeper into depression. The 

list of tasks that I was able to do around the duplex grew shorter and shorter. 

I became so reliant on my wife and others to help me accomplish simple tasks. 

Taking a shower, for instance, became an hour-long duty that required an extra set 

of hands and an awkward plastic bench that offered terrible support. I lost all control of bowel and bladder, which made it impossible for me to use the bathroom in 

my own apartment. Since the duplex was built in 1890, all the doorways and hallways were narrow and produced a knuckle rubbing experience every time I moved 

to a different room. Cooking, doing the dishes, and even maneuvering around the 

kitchen became difficult. Life in the duplex was unbearable. 

Today I am in my new house. Today I took a shower by myself in a 5′ x 5′ roll 

in shower with handicapped controls. Today I cooked my own breakfast because I 

could reach all of the ingredients. Today I was able to watch my son Brody sleeping 

in his bedroom because I could roll through his doorway with my wheelchair. Today, 

I am praying for all soldiers and veterans, that they may have the support and dignity they deserve, without having to jump through hoops, or have a friend in politics. I am where I am today because I had advocates, not because I will ultimately 

die young as a result of serving the country I love. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing. It is my hope the adaptive housing 

grants program can be extended so that our brave soldiers get the assistance they 

deserve, so they can live as self-sufficiently as possible. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service, 

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

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and other Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to provide the 

Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) views on pending legislation affecting VA’s 

programs: H.R. 802, H.R. 1383, H.R. 1657, and a draft bill to authorize VA to provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in 

housing owned by a family member. Accompanying me this afternoon are Mr. Jan 

R. Frye, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisitions and Logistics, and Mr. F. John 

Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel. 

H.R. 802 

H.R. 802 would require VA to establish a ‘‘VetStar Award Program,’’ as well as 

a process for administering that program, which would recognize businesses for 

their contributions to Veterans’ employment. The program would specify categories 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
34 

and sectors of businesses eligible for recognition each year and have objective measures for selecting recipients of the award. 

VA supports this bill. A program of recognition for contributions to Veterans’ employment is a worthwhile means of encouraging businesses to continue to employ 

Veterans. Businesses that contribute to Veterans’ employment provide a valuable 

and meaningful service, allowing VA to excel with regard to its mission to help Veterans become employable and obtain and maintain suitable employment. This service deserves appropriate recognition. VA would recommend two categories, ‘‘small 

businesses’’ and ‘‘other than small businesses,’’ and three sectors, ‘‘non-profit,’’ ‘‘service,’’ and ‘‘manufacturing, farming and other,’’ of recipients eligible to receive 

awards. A review board would be created to review nominations and select recipients. Recipients would be recognized with appropriate non-cash award and mementos. 

VA estimates that enactment of this bill as written would result in no significant 

costs. VA estimates nominal costs associated with staff-days to review and select 

nominations, advertising, verification of winners, and purchasing trophies and 

plaques. 

H.R. 1383 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1383, the ‘‘Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011,’’ would 

temporarily preserve higher rates for tuition and fees for programs of education at 

non-public institutions of higher learning pursued by individuals enrolled in VA’s 

Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program as it existed before the enactment of Public Law 111–377, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act 

of 2011. Prior to the passage of Public Law 111–377 on January 4, 2011, individuals 

using benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill at a private institution of higher learning 

were paid the lesser amount of the established charges (the actual charges for tuition and fees which similarly-circumstanced non-veterans enrolled in the program 

of education would be required to pay) or the established in-state maximum tuitionand-fee rate at a public institution within that State. With the enactment of Public 

Law 111–377, individuals pursuing a program of education at a private institution 

of higher learning for the academic year beginning on August 1, 2011, will be limited to the actual net cost for tuition and fees assessed by the institution, not to 

exceed $17,500. 

Section 2 of this bill would modify the amount of educational assistance payable 

to specific individuals to make an exception for those who are enrolled in a private 

institution of higher learning in certain States. This exception would apply to an 

individual entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, who, on or 

before April 1, 2011, was enrolled in a private institution of higher learning in a 

State in which the maximum amount of tuition per credit hour in the 2010–2011 

academic year exceeded $700, and the combined amount of tuition and fees for fulltime attendance in the program of education in such academic year exceeded 

$17,500. There are 7 States which meet these criteria: Arizona, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Beginning on August 1, 2011, and ending on July 31, 2014, the amount payable under this section 

would be the greater of $17,500, or the established charges payable based on the 

Department of Veterans Affairs Post-9/11 GI Bill 2010–2011 Tuition and Fee InState Maximums published October 27, 2010. 

H.R. 1383 does not preserve the higher rate for tuition and fees for students pursuing a program of education in a foreign country, pursuing at less than half-time 

rates or while on active duty. 

Section 3 of this bill would freeze the cost-of-living adjustment for the monthly 

housing allowance provided under section 3313(c)(1)(B) of title 38, United States 

Code, at the amount payable on August 1, 2011, for a 24-month period beginning 

on that date. At the end of the 24-month period, the monthly allowance would become the amount then authorized by the aforementioned section. 

VA has not yet had an opportunity to estimate the cost impacts of this legislation. 

We will submit our estimate and updated views on the bill for the record. However, 

in addition to any concerns we may have if the legislation is found to impose 

PAYGO costs without an identified offset, VA also has concerns with the proposed 

legislation as written, to include the timeline for implementing this legislation, 

which are described in detail below. VA has had constructive discussions with Subcommittee staff regarding these issues, and will continue to be available to work 

with to the Committee to address these concerns. 

VA is working aggressively on the Long-Term Solution (LTS) for processing Post9/11 GI Bill claims. As of January 2011, VA and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlanta (SPAWAR) have developed four releases for the LTS system. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
35 

The enactment of Public Law 111–377, which modifies aspects of the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill, impacted VA’s ability to deploy previously-planned functionality enhancing the 

capability of the LTS. VA plans to implement changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill mandated by Public Law 111–377 across three releases of the LTS. The first release was 

deployed on March 5, 2011; future releases are scheduled for deployment on June 

6, 2011, and October 17, 2011. 

The enactment of H.R. 1383 as introduced would severely hamper VA’s LTS deployment efforts. The changes made by this legislation would lead to very complicated processing scenarios in the LTS with changes in enrollment and Yellow Ribbon payments. Additionally, since the amount of educational assistance would be 

based on the greater of the maximum tuition per credit hour or $17,500, VA would 

have to apply a blended set of rules to each claim that falls under these provisions. 

This proposed legislation would also have a negative impact on service delivery 

for those students using benefits this fall. VA claims processors would have to thoroughly examine each claim to determine if it meets these provisions, which could 

result in labor-intensive manual processing. This would lead to a significant increase in the average number of days to process all education claims. 

Regarding section 3, VA defers to the Congress on identification of an appropriate 

offset necessary to pay for the cost of the temporary adjustment for affected Veterans provided by this bill. We note, however, that such a freeze in cost-of-living 

adjustment increases for housing allowances could result in some hardship for a 

broad range of students. 

VA has identified several other technical concerns with regard to the bill text. For 

example, it is unclear if an individual must be enrolled in the same school and program on or before April 1, 2011, to be covered under this legislation. It is also unclear how the legislation would apply to an individual who changes programs or 

schools. 

Mr. Chairman, as we noted above, we have already had some discussions with 

Subcommittee staff regarding these concerns and look forward to the opportunity to 

continue those discussions. 

While the amendments made by this legislation would take effect on August 1, 

2011, VA strongly recommends language be added to allow VA to begin making payments in accordance with these provisions no later than August 1, 2012, to allow 

for necessary system changes and reduce the impact on existing beneficiaries. 

As stated earlier, VA requests that we be able to provide cost estimates for H.R. 

1383 for the record at a later date. 

H.R. 1657 

H.R. 1657 would revise section 8127(g) of title 38, United States Code, to mandate 

a minimum 5-year debarment from VA contracting for any business, including the 

principals of the business, determined by the Secretary to have misrepresented its 

status as a Veteran-owned or service-disabled Veteran-owned small business 

(VOSB/SDVOSB). Further, the bill would require VA to commence a debarment action within 30 days of determining the misrepresentation has occurred and to complete the action within 90 days. VA shares the Subcommittee’s focus on aggressively 

protecting the Government from disreputable businesses in order that procurement 

dollars set aside for VOSB/SDVOSBs reach the intended recipients. VA has taken 

steps to protect the integrity of the VOSB/SDVOSB set-aside process. VA has added 

to its acquisition regulations the misrepresentation of VOSB/SDVOSB status as a 

specific cause of debarment for a period of up to 5 years. Also, VA has instituted 

a separate and distinct 8127 Debarment Committee to review, examine, and refer 

those who misrepresent themselves to VA’s debarring official. While we support the 

general intent of the legislation, VA cannot support H.R. 1657 in its present form. 

With regard to the proposed bill, VA questions whether a mandatory debarment 

as proposed would be consistent with the general requirement in debarment actions 

established by the courts to provide appropriate due process, notice and an opportunity to be heard, to businesses prior to a final determination of debarment. VA 

also submits that there are varying degrees of misrepresentation of VOSB/SDVOSB 

status. Some may be the result of an ‘‘innocent’’ mistake whereas others evince a 

clear desire to circumvent the VOSB/SDVOSB status requirements by ‘‘seducer’’ 

companies or individuals to steer set-aside dollars to non-status firms or persons. 

VA’s believes the debarring official should retain the discretion to make these determinations with respect to any debarment, including its duration, based on the specific circumstances, including remedial measures and corrective actions to prevent 

the misconduct from recurring. 

VA requests the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee to address its concern of protecting the VOSB/SDVOSB set-aside program while maintaining an equiVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:24 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 067186 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\67186.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67186

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
36 

table debarment process consistent with the requirement for an appropriate level of 

due process, including ways of improving VA’s debarment authority. 

VA estimates that enactment of this bill as written would result in no significant 

costs since VA already has a standing 8127 Debarment Committee. 

Draft Legislation 

The ‘‘Andrew Connolly Veterans’ Housing Act’’ would amend section 2102A of title 

38, United States Code, extending, through December 31, 2016, VA’s authority to 

provide Specially Adapted Housing assistance to eligible individuals residing temporarily with family members. Under current law, the authority is set to expire on 

December 31, 2011. 

Although VA supports enactment of this draft legislation, we recommend that 

Congress extend the benefit through the year 2021, in accordance with the Administration’s FY 2012 Budget. 

VA estimates that the enactment of this proposal would not result in additional 

benefit costs or savings. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to respond to questions you or the other 

Members of the Subcommittee may have regarding our views as presented. 

f 

Statement of Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Au.D., Chair, Government Relations 

Committee, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. 

‘‘With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, 

as God gives us to see right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to 

bind up the Nation’s wounds, to care for him who has borne the battle, 

his widow and his orphan.’’ 

. . . President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 

1865 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Bradley and members of this committee, 

I am pleased to submit testimony for the record on behalf of Gold Star Wives on 

legislative issue H.R. 1383, pertinent to the children of our Nation’s military surviving spouses. 

My name is Vivianne Wersel, Chair of the Gold Star Wives Government Relations 

Committee. I am the widow of Lieutenant Colonel Richard Wersel, Jr., USMC, who 

died suddenly on February 4, 2005, 1 week after returning from his second tour of 

duty in Iraq. 

Gold Star Wives of America, Incorporated (GSW), founded in 1945, is a Congressionally Chartered organization of surviving spouses of military servicemembers 

who died while serving on active duty or as a result of a service-connected cause. 

GSW’s current members are surviving spouses of military members who served during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the conflicts 

in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and every period in between. 

On January 4, 2011, the Post-9/11 GI Bill Veterans Educational Assistance Act, 

signed into law, reduces educational benefits and is scheduled to take effect August 

1, 2011. This law would affect surviving children using the Gunnery Sergeant John 

David Fry Scholarship. GSW supports H.R. 1383, which would grandfather veterans 

and covered individuals who enrolled in a private institution prior to April 1, 2011. 

This bill (H.R. 1383) also would include exempting veterans from the new nationwide tuition limit of $17,500. The Fry Scholarship benefit recipients are included 

as stated ‘‘. . . covered individuals entitled to educational benefits under Chapter 

33 of Title 38, Unites States Code . . .’’. 

Because of their hard work and academic dedication, some surviving children excelled and were accepted and enrolled in a high-cost private institution despite the 

loss of a parent. One of our surviving children attends American University (AU) 

using the Fry Scholarship. She lost her Dad in 2002 and last week lost her mother. 

She enrolled full time at AU for the summer; however, it is uncertain how the tuition will be paid because of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Veterans Educational Assistance 

Act. 

Surviving children of active duty deaths post-9/11 are eligible for the Fry Scholarship, which was designed to mirror the GI Bill. GSW is greatly encouraged by the 

Fry Scholarship program and request this program be included in the Yellow Ribbon 

Education Program. The Yellow Ribbon Education Program does not currently apply 

to children of the fallen, yet it would help ensure these children have a brighter fuVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:24 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 067186 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\67186.XXX GPO1 PsN: 67186

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
37 

ture. We believe this was an oversight when the Fry Scholarship was created with 

the intention of matching education benefits to mirror the New GI Bill. 

As you may recall from our previous testimonies, GSW seeks improved education 

benefits for the surviving spouses and children, to mirror the GI Bill. When the 

servicemember dies, the surviving spouse is left to take over the family and run the 

household. This would require many spouses to return to school to learn a trade or 

finish a degree. For many post-9/11 surviving spouses, the servicemember paid into 

the Montgomery GI Bill, with thoughts that someday the benefit would be transferable. Unfortunately, after the death, the beneficiary receives the paid premiums, 

rather than the benefit. There is no transferability for the surviving spouse after 

the death. 

We are grateful for Chapter 35, however, it does not keep up with the rising costs 

of housing, tuition, books and fees. In the past, GSW, as well as The Military Coalition, brought these inequities before Congress. Additionally, the time restrictions to 

use Chapter 35 should be removed, allowing surviving spouses of previous war eras 

to use their lost benefit. 

GSW seeks a voice when there are changes and or concerns with the Post-9/11 

GI Bill or VA education benefits; we are stakeholders. When there is a reduction 

in a benefit or a delay in the entitlement, the burden places a hardship on the surviving spouse as well as the child. 

GSW is grateful to Representatives Miller and Stutzman for introducing H.R. 

1383 and for their dedication to veterans and survivors. In conclusion, each of us 

faithfully stood by our spouses, despite hazardous duty, multiple deployments, and 

numerous family moves. Some surviving spouses never having an opportunity to 

have a family and others forced to serve as both mother and father to their children. 

Surviving spouses often lost longevity in their careers or had to give up careers due 

to multiple family moves. Now we are faced with the challenge of numerous inequities for our children. 

Let me remind you of President Lincoln’s quote engraved on the VA headquarters 

building, ‘‘. . . to care for him who has borne the battle, and his widow and his orphan.’’ 

f 

Military Officers Association of America 

Alexandria, VA. 

May 2, 2011 

The Honorable Jeff Miller 

Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Cannon House Office Bldg., Rm. 335 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington DC 20515 

The Honorable Marlin Stutzman 

Chair, Economic Opportunity Subcommittee 

Cannon House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Miller and Chairman Stutzman: 

On behalf of the 375,000 members of The Military Officers Association of America 

(MOAA), I am writing to express our strong support for your bill, H.R. 1383 that 

would temporarily ‘‘grandfather’’ higher rates for veterans currently enrolled in nonpublic colleges and universities under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

MOAA strongly supported needed improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill and we 

were pleased with the final passage of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010 signed into law as P.L. 111–377 on 4 January this 

year. The original version of that legislation included a grandfather provision to ensure that students who were already enrolled in private colleges could continue 

their educations under the rate structure in effect on 1 August 2009 as adjusted by 

annual COLAs. Unfortunately, the grandfather provision was removed from the bill 

as it proceeded through the legislative process. 

MOAA believes the underlying intent of your legislation contemplates the potential inclusion of out-of-state public college students. For some of these currently enrolled veterans, the cost of enrollment exceeds the new academic year cap of $17,500 

for non-public institutions. 

We recognize the enormous budgetary challenges that face all of our elected representatives in this most difficult period of rising national debt. MOAA recommends 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
38 

a further temporary, internal adjustment to program enrollment or housing rates 

to accommodate currently enrolled out-of-state students attending public colleges. 

MOAA respectfully requests a copy of this letter be included in the official transcript of the hearing scheduled before the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, 

House Committee on Veterans Affairs on 3 May 2011. 

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to the men and women who wear 

and have worn our Nation’s uniform. 

Sincerely, 

VADM Norbert R. Ryan, Jr. USN (Ret.) 

f 

President 

National Association of Veterans Programs Administrators 

April 27, 2011 

The Honorable Jeff Miller 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Miller: 

On behalf of the membership of the National Association of Veterans Programs 

Administrators (NAVPA), thank you for introducing H.R. 1383 to temporarily preserve higher Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) rates for tuition and fees for programs 

of education at non-public institution of higher learning. Both your bill as well as 

Senator Schumer’s Senate Bill 745 would, in part, correct what we believe to be an 

unintended injustice to veterans, servicemembers and their dependents currently 

enrolled. 

While students attending private schools may in some cases experience the greatest reduction in benefits beginning in fall 2011 under Chapter 33; many non-resident (out-of-state) students attending public institutions will also experience substantial decreases in their basic Chapter 33 tuition and fee payments. 

A sample of 40 students at four public institutions in three different States (Indiana, Kentucky, and Washington) showed reductions in benefits ranging from $936 

to $3,864 per year. These figures would likely vary considerably among all 50 States 

and among institutions. There are definitely students whose benefits will increase 

based on the new rules, but there are many others whose financial situations will 

be negatively impacted as is the case for those attending private schools. 

We respectfully request consideration to grandfather all Chapter 33 eligible students enrolled on or before April 1, 2011 and, including those serving on Active 

Duty. All eligible students enrolled on or before April 1, 2011 should receive the 

greater of the scheduled payment under the 2010–2011 Chapter 33 rules, or the 

scheduled payment under the provisions of P.L. 111–377. We also request that ‘‘Covered individuals’’ include all students (veterans, servicemembers and those dependents to which benefits have been transferred) regardless of the State in which they 

are enrolled. 

We realize this will require VA to calculate payments at both rates for the grandfathered period—and to track those students for whom grandfathering is appropriate. This effort is reasonable to protect all individuals who have made both personal and financial commitments to pursue their educational endeavors based on 

the benefits available and promised at the time they applied for admission, were accepted and enrolled at Institutions of Higher learning throughout the country. 

Thank you for your support, your service, and for your consideration of these recommendations. 

Respectfully, 

Faith DesLauriers Dorothy Gillman 

Legislative Director President 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
39 

Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of the Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), thanks you for the opportunity to 

submit a statement for the record regarding the proposed legislation being considered today. PVA appreciates the fact that you are addressing these important issues 

with the intention of improving benefits for veterans. We particularly support any 

focus placed on meeting the complex needs of the newest generation of veterans, 

even as we continue to improve services for those who have served in the past. 

H.R. 1383, ‘‘Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011’’ 

PVA does not support H.R. 1383 as it is currently introduced. We support the concept of H.R. 1383 that will temporarily preserve higher rates for tuition and fees 

for programs of education at non-public institutions of higher learning. 

PVA opposes Section 3 of H.R. 1383. This section will limit the cost of living increases of the monthly stipends for veterans who rely on this funding to support 

themselves and their families while they prepare for a career after serving their 

country. Even though the rate of total inflation has remained low in recent years, 

we are witnessing dramatic increases in transportation costs. Students use their 

automobile for travel to school, work, and other obligations and higher fuel costs are 

now affecting food, heating and other necessities. With the price of gasoline increasing each month their monthly stipend must be adjusted each year to help these veterans remain in school. 

H.R. 802, legislation to establish a VetStar Award Program 

PVA supports H.R. 802, a bill to establish a VetStar Award Program. During this 

time of high unemployment it is unfortunate that the unemployment rate among 

veterans is several points higher than the national average. While the Federal Government has directed its agencies to increase the hiring of veterans and those agencies that assist veterans to increase their efforts to help veterans enter the workforce, veteran’s unemployment rate remains unacceptably high. This bill, H.R. 802 

will help to promote and recognize private sector employers that put forth extra effort to employ veterans. 

H.R. 1657, legislation to enforce penalties for misrepresentation of a 

business as a small veteran-owned business 

PVA supports H.R. 802, a bill to enforce penalties for those that misrepresent 

their business when competing for government contracts. PVA has been a member 

of the Veterans’ Entrepreneurship Task Force (VET–Force) since its creation. This 

is a coalition of Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business and Veteran 

Owned Small Businesses that work together to identify and remove barriers that 

prevent these businesses from participating in government contracts. This problem 

has been an ongoing issue with this organization. Misrepresenting a business for 

the purpose of receiving a government contract should be a Federal crime. Financial 

penalties for businesses that perpetrate this misrepresentation would discourage 

businesses from falsifying information to the Federal Government. PVA supports 

this legislation. 

Andrew Connolly Veterans’ Housing Act 

PVA supports this legislation that would extend to December 31, 2016, the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member. 

Making a home accessible for mobility impaired veterans is an important issue for 

PVA. Extending this program for 5 years will allow more veterans to take advantage of this benefit which allows them to stay with their families while rehabilitating and adjusting to their new lives. PVA strongly supported the legislation to 

create the temporary housing grant when it recently became law. PVA supports the 

extension of this benefit. 

Æ 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING