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

66–674 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 112–143 

PREVENTING ABUSE OF THE MILITARY’S TUITION 

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

OF THE

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2011 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Staff Director 

BILL WRIGHT, Minority Staff Director 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 6 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 39 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 57 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 

Hon. Tom Harkin, a United States Senator from the State of Iowa ................... 7 

Robert Gordon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, U.S. Department of Defense ....................................... 13 

George Scott, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 14 

Kathy Snead, President, Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges ........................ 16 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Gordon, Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Harkin, Hon. Tom: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Scott, George: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Snead, Kathy: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

APPENDIX 

Questions and responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Gordon ........................................................................................................ 101 

Chart referenced by Senator Harkin ..................................................................... 118 

Chart referenced by Senator Harkin ..................................................................... 119 

Chart referenced by Senator Harkin ..................................................................... 120 

Chart referenced by Senator Harkin ..................................................................... 121 

Chart referenced by Senator Carper ...................................................................... 122 

Chart referenced by Senator Carper ...................................................................... 123 

Chart referenced by Senator Carper ...................................................................... 124 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

PREVENTING ABUSE OF THE MILITARY’S 

TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES,

AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Brown, and Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Well, good afternoon, everybody. It is great to 

be here with our Republican Senator for, I think it is our first hearing together, Scott Brown, but to our colleague from Iowa, thank 

you for not only for being here, but I understand your schedule is 

such that you can stay for a few minutes while we do our opening 

statements, but we are delighted that you are here and thank you 

for your leadership on this. We welcome our other guests, our other 

witnesses, and we will be welcoming you up to this table in just 

a short little while. 

But the hearing will come to order. As we gather here for this afternoon’s hearing, our Nation’s debt stands at $14 trillion, actually just over $14 trillion. Ten years ago on this date, it stood at 

less than half that amount, a little over $5.5 trillion. If we remain 

on the current course, it may double again before this decade is 

over. 

The debt of our Federal Government held by the public as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has risen to almost 65 

percent. That is up from about 33 percent a decade ago. The last 

time it was this high was at the end of World War II. In fact, the 

only time it has ever been as high, I believe, was at the end of 

World War II. That level of debt was not sustainable then and it 

is not sustainable today. We need only ask our friends in Greece 

and Ireland about that. 

The Deficit Commission led last year by Erskine Bowles and 

former Senator Alan Simpson has provided us with a road map out 

of this morass, reducing the cumulative deficits of our Federal Government over the next decade by some $4 trillion and skewering a 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

number of our sacred cows, including some of my sacred cows, 

along the way. 

The purpose of this hearing, though, is not to debate the merits 

of the Commission’s work. The purpose of our hearing today is to 

look at yet another area of government spending and ask this question: Is it possible to achieve better results for less money, and if 

not, is it possible to achieve better results without spending a 

whole lot more money, or maybe even spending the same amount 

of money that we are spending today? 

A lot of Americans believe that a culture of spendthrift prevails 

in Washington, D.C., and has for many years. They are not entirely 

wrong. We need to establish a different kind of culture. We need 

to establish a culture of thrift. We need to look in every nook and 

cranny of Federal spending—domestic, defense, entitlements, along 

with tax expenditures—and find places where we can do more with 

less. 

The Subcommittee has spent the last half-dozen years trying to 

do just that. In those days, Senator Tom Coburn sat right here 

where Senator Brown is sitting, or he sat here in this seat. We took 

turns chairing this particular Subcommittee. But we have worked 

over those years closely with the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), with Inspectors General (IG), with nonprofits like Citizens Against Government Waste and the Committee for a Responsible Federal 

Budget, to reduce wasteful or inefficient spending. 

In doing so, we sought to reduce improper payments. We sought 

to combat fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, to unload surplus Federal properties, thousands of pieces of unused, unneeded Federal 

property. We sought to decrease cost overruns in major weapons 

systems procurement and in the procurement of information technology (IT) systems by Federal agencies that were over-budget and, 

frankly, were not able to do what they were supposed to do in the 

first place. We sought to begin to close a $300 billion tax gap. We 

sought to introduce efficiencies in the way that the mail is delivered and the way that the Census is taken. And we have sought, 

and I think may prevail on this year, to provide the President with 

a constitutionally sound statutory line item veto power. And the 

list goes on. That gives you a flavor of the kinds of things we have 

worked on. It is a good list. 

Most of us in this room today, however, understand that we cannot simply cut our way out of the debt. We cannot tax our way out 

of the debt. And we cannot save our way out of all this debt. We 

need to grow our way out of this debt, too. That means we need 

to invest in ways that will grow our economy and make our Nation 

more competitive with the rest of the world by building a better 

educated, more productive workforce, by reversing the deterioration 

of our Nation’s infrastructure, broadly defined, and by funding the 

kind of research and development that will enable us to out-innovate the rest of the world again. 

If we are really serious about out-innovating the rest of the 

world, we need to start by out-educating them, and frankly, we 

have not done that for some time. This means a major focus on 

early childhood education so that when kids walk into the first 

grade at the age of six, they are ready to compete. They are ready 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

to be successful. I think I can get an ‘‘amen’’ from Senator Harkin 

on that one. 

It means that we must continue to transform our K to 12 public 

schools so that fewer students drop out and those who do graduate 

are able to read, write, think, do math, use technology, go on to become productive members of our society. And it also means, for 

purposes of our hearing today, it means ensuring that the post-secondary education that Americans receive truly will make them 

more productive workers and more productive citizens. 

For years with our service academies, with programs like the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and the G.I. Bill, we sought 

to raise the skill levels of those who serve in our armed forces as 

well as the skill levels of those who later return to civilian life. 

Senator Harkin and I both served a number of years ago in the 

Navy. Scott Brown still serves, I believe, in the military in a role 

in Massachusetts National Guard, a leadership role. So this is personal for us, given our background. This is personal for us. 

Traditional education programs like ROTC scholarships and the 

G.I. Bill are still in place, and now the new G.I. Bill is much improved from when we were there. However, we also offer our active 

duty military personnel another lesser-known education benefit. It 

is called the Tuition Assistance Program (TA), and that is going to 

be the focus of our hearing today. Under this program, American taxpayers will pay about $250 per 

credit hour toward the cost of a service member’s tuition for a maximum of about $4,500 per year. In fiscal year (FY) 2000, the Department of Defense (DOD) spent about $157 million on tuition 

payments under this program. By 2009, that number had risen to 

over $500 million, a three-fold increase in just 9 years. 

This program does require service members to continue their active duty service while they complete their courses. As you might 

expect, this requirement somewhat limits the choices available to 

active duty personnel, like the ones at Dover Air Force Base, where 

you never know when you are going to head out on a detachment 

or deployment in Afghanistan, Iraq, or some other place around the 

world. 

But active duty personnel members basically have three options 

when it comes to post-secondary education. One of them is that 

they can take courses on base with schools that have permission 

to offer courses there. We have some of that at Dover. You probably 

have that in your States, as well. Second, they can attend courses 

at nearby college campuses. Some of our folks at Dover Air Force 

Base do that as well. Last, our military personnel can enroll in distance learning courses. 

Each of these three options includes providers who do an excellent job, of educating their students. Each of these three options 

also include providers who, frankly, do not. These three options include private and nonprofit schools, public colleges and universities, and for-profit schools. In today’s hearing, we will focus primarily on the latter, and that does not mean we are taking our 

eyes off of the former. 

For-profit schools that operate almost entirely online have become the frequent choice of many military personnel who have 

opted for the distance learning option. At the Dover Air Force Base 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

in Delaware, the most popular school is a for-profit, and this forprofit university has enrolled, I am told, twice as many Dover airmen and women as the two local colleges that offer courses on 

base. The fact probably should come as no surprise, since the distance learning services are in high demand. For-profits have sought 

to fill our military’s needs for post-secondary education, in part because of the accessibility of their classes and the variety of courses 

that are offered. 

While some for-profit schools return real value for taxpayers’ 

money—we have heard and talked to a number of them—serious 

questions have also arisen with respect to the recruiting practice 

of some for-profits and to the quality of the education that they 

provide. 

Over the past year or two, Senator Harkin’s Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) has sought to put a spotlight on both of these areas. In cooperation with the Government 

Accountability Office, the Committee uncovered unethical recruitment practices by a number—not all, but by a number of for-profits 

that they investigated. In addition, the Committee found a disturbing trend. Many for-profit institutions depend heavily on Federal student aid dollars, but fail to consistently provide a quality 

education. I said many, but by no means all. Some of them do an 

excellent job, and we want to make that perfectly clear. 

In a number of cases, 90 percent or more of these for-profit 

schools’ revenues come from taxpayer-funded student aid programs, 

over 90 percent. This would not be objectionable if the overwhelming majority of these schools were producing students with 

strong skill sets that led to careers with livable wages and good 

benefits. However, at too many of these schools, that simply is not 

the case and far too many students are provided with minimal instruction and support. They drop out. Others may actually graduate, but they subsequently have difficulty finding the kinds of jobs 

that would enable them to pay off their sizeable student loans and 

to support their families. 

Recent data shows that some 25 percent of students at for-profit 

colleges have defaulted on their loans within 3 years while only 

about 10 percent of students at not-for-profit institutions have defaulted. 

The Department of Education (DOE) is addressing the issues of 

default rates and accountability in for-profit industry through regulation. Our post-secondary education system will be better off, I believe, as a result of these efforts. While some folks contend that 

these efforts by the Department would cut off higher education access to many of our most vulnerable citizens, I do not agree with 

that thinking. The Department of Education’s regulations would 

only cut off access to programs at schools that are clearly not offering a good product, an education that costs too much, offers little 

instruction and training, and often saddles students with mountains of debt that is difficult, if not impossible, for them to repay. 

Currently—and as I have gone through the preparation for this 

hearing, I have talked with a number of folks from schools themselves and from the Department of Defense, from Education, from 

the Committee, and it occurs to me that, currently, the incentives 

at many for-profit colleges are misaligned, somehow, the incentives 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

that we are providing for them to perform and to provide education, in this case, for our military personnel. The institutions are 

rewarded for enrolling more students, but they have little, if any, 

incentive to make sure that their graduates are prepared for the 

workforce and are able to enter careers that enable them to manageably repay their student loan debt and begin to live the American dream. 

Having said that, let me again say as clearly as I can, this is not 

an issue solely for for-profit institutions. There are many community colleges experiencing similar issues with extremely low degree 

completion rate and very high default rates. And to be fair, there 

are also a number of for-profit institutions that offer a quality education and have a history of success with placing students in wellpaying jobs. 

We have reached the time, though, when we need to be doing all 

that we can to ensure that we get the best bang for our bucks 

across all aspects of our Government. Student aid spending needs 

to be at or near the top of our list, not just because of the amount 

we spend on these programs—and it is a lot—but also because the 

future and the dreams of our students depend on spending that 

money wisely. 

Nowhere is that need more evident than with our troops participating in the Tuition Assistance Program. Over the past year, several reports have described troubling stories of how some schools 

come close to abusing our veterans and active duty military personnel. The accounts of that abuse range from deceptive recruitment practices by school recruiters to schools’ hollow promises 

about the transferability of credits to students becoming saddled 

with unnecessary debt. 

In one case, our staff uncovered a service member who used his 

tuition assistance benefit to earn his Bachelor’s degree from a forprofit college that promises his credits would fully transfer after 

graduation. However, when he went on to apply for a Master’s program at another school, he found that none of his credits would be 

accepted there, rendering his Bachelor’s degree far less valuable 

than he thought it would be. 

In another case, one soldier enrolled in a for-profit institution 

based on the school’s promise that they accepted tuition assistance 

payments, but because the Department of Defense only pays the 

benefit after successful completion of a course, the soldier discovered that after taking a class that the Army would not give payments to his school, instead sticking him with the bill. 

As some of you know, I have four core principles that I try to incorporate into everything that I do and they are, number one, treat 

other people the way I want to be treated; number two, to try to 

do the right thing, not the easy thing, but try to do the right thing, 

really to focus on excellence in everything that we do, and to really 

never give up. If I think I am right, know I am right, I just do not 

give up. I think a lot of us are that way. 

The idea that some schools take advantage of our service members really offends each of those four core principles that I claim 

as my own. We demand so much of our men and women in uniform 

and of their families. We must also demand more of our schools 

and get better results from our government. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

We are here today because I think it is a moral imperative to ensure that the Department of Defense is doing everything that it can 

to prevent these kinds of abuses. We have asked the Government 

Accountability Office to investigate and assess the Department of 

Defense’s ability to identify and stop these abuses. GAO will share 

its findings with us today. 

And finally, let me just say, we also have with us today representatives from the Department of Defense and the 

Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, a consortium of schools empowered to police these schools that are serving our troops. We welcome you. These witnesses will help us better understand the current safeguards against abuse of the Tuition Assistance Program, 

how well they work and how we can improve them. 

In turning this over to Senator Brown, he has spent over 20 

years in our armed forces. How many years is it, close to 30, is it 

not? 

Senator BROWN. Thirty-one years. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, 31 years. I spent 4 years of Midshipman, 

5 years active duty during the Vietnam War, another 18 years as 

a Naval flight officer (NFO), ready reservist in the military, retired 

as a Navy Captain, 8 years as the Commander in Chief of the Delaware National Guard. This is personal for him. This is personal for 

me and the men and women with whom I served, sometimes in 

war, sometimes in peace. They deserve the best that we can give 

them and I just want to make sure that as we go through this, that 

we are giving them our best effort and we are giving them every 

chance that they have to be successful when they turn to getting 

the skills they need to be employable and to go on with their lives. 

Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN 

Senator BROWN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that 

presentation. First of all, I am honored to be on this Subcommittee. 

I think the last time people saw us together, we were sitting together at the State of the Union in the new arrangement that we 

have, so that was enjoyable. 

I am going to submit my comments for the record. You said a lot 

of what I felt is important. The bottom line is, for somebody who 

is still serving and has really participated with the educational 

process in Massachusetts for Massachusetts Guard and Reservists, 

I understand what the needs are and look forward to working with 

you to get to the bottom of it, maybe ways to improve and streamline and consolidate. 

I know that Senator Harkin is on a tight schedule and I do not 

want to take any time from anybody else, so I will submit my comments for the record and just say I am looking forward to working 

with you and honored to be on the Subcommittee. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. We are delighted that you are here. 

You fill some big shoes, this guy’s shoes over here. It is how I got 

a job sitting in this seat. I said this before you arrived, Tom, but 

sitting here and sitting there, and we are pleased to be able to 

work with you on so many issues, including this one. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

1The prepared statement of Senator Harkin appears in the appendix on page 60. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. I will just take a few short minutes. 

One is a letter I received yesterday on the, I will say it more 

gently than what I think, some very significant and inappropriate 

behavior at the Department of Education in tipping hedge funds on 

short selling of private education funds, which this Subcommittee 

definitely needs to take a look at. 

The second point I will make is the significant problems with the 

Forensic Issue at GAO and the report they issued and the modifications they have issued since. As we all know, they are redoing their 

Forensic Unit because of the errors associated with a report on forprofit colleges which was, to a great extent, in many areas, highly 

inaccurate. It was almost like we had something we wanted to 

show, so let us make the figures put to that. 

Nevertheless, there are real problems. I am not concerned about 

the increase in the utilization, because with the new G.I. Bill and 

the fact that the 90/10 rule does not apply for for-profit colleges, 

you would expect them to go after many more veterans because 

that is the way they can balance out their numbers with the Department of Education. 

I apologize I will not be able to stay for the entire hearing. We 

have a judiciary hearing ongoing. But the issue in terms of the lack 

of proper utilization of facts in the Department of Education in 

advantaging investors in one segment to make significant dollars 

over something the government is thinking about doing is highly 

unethical, and if proven to be the case, some people ought to be 

going to jail in the Department of Education. This is not a light 

statement. I recognize that. But it is a serious statement, and I 

promise you, if we do not get on it in this Subcommittee, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will, in fact, do that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. I guess, reiterating, the purpose here 

is not to demonize for-profit colleges and universities. The purpose 

is to try to make sure that the men and women that are serving 

our country are getting the best deal that they can, a fair deal, and 

that the taxpayers are getting a fair deal, as well. 

With that having been said, let me recognize Senator Harkin. I 

have a long introduction, but I will not use that. Let me just say, 

you and your staff have been terrific on these issues and we applaud you for trying to do what you believe is right, what I think 

is right, and you are recognized for as long as you wish. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM HARKIN,1 A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate it very much. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this and for having 

this hearing, and Senator Brown, Senator Coburn. This is an issue 

that all of us have to pay more attention to. 

I would just start off by saying that we have decided as a country 

and as a Congress that it is important for the Federal Government 

to be involved in higher education. We have been for a long time— 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

the G.I. Bill, Pell Grants, student loans. I think it is equally important that we make sure the taxpayers get a good value for their 

dollar, and I think it is equally important that students get a good 

education and that they do not take on more debt than they can 

pay back. That is just a general overview. 

Concerning the for-profit schools, what got us into this about a 

year ago as I took over the Chairmanship of the Committee were 

more and more reports were coming out about the tremendous 

growth in this segment of education over the last few years, 225 

percent growth in just a few years, just a burgeoning of this, and 

the more and more money that we saw going from Pell Grants and 

others into the for-profits compared to how many students were 

there. They were getting a disproportionate share of the money. 

For example, 10 percent of the higher education students are in 

for-profit schools, but they are getting 23 percent of the Pell money 

and 24 percent of student loans. So 24 percent of the student loans, 

23 percent of the Pell Grants, but they only have 10 percent of the 

students. 

So we saw this burgeoning, this growth, and so we began to ask 

questions, and we began to ask questions about the students and 

who were these students and how were they doing and what was 

the graduation rate and we could find out nothing. There were no 

answers out there. No one was keeping track of anything. And so 

we started an investigation of this, of the for-profits, trying to find 

out if we could get some answers from this. 

And so we started this investigation that has been going on for 

about a year. We have asked for documentation from a number of 

these schools. I think about 20 of these schools we have looked at 

and asked for documentation. Some of it has been forthcoming, and 

as we looked at it and delved into it, we got a clearer picture of 

what was happening, at least in this segment. We could not go into 

all of them, but we took 20 across the spectrum. 

And thus far, the findings of our investigation are that, number 

one, as a sector, for-profit higher education has experienced disproportionate growth, more than doubling enrollment over the last 

decade. 

Two, that growth has been fueled by Federal subsidies. The 15 

publicly-traded for-profit colleges receive almost 90 percent, and in 

some cases more than 90 percent, because as Senator Coburn indicated, military money is not counted on the 90 percent side, it is 

counted on the other side. So sometimes they can go over the statutory limit of 90 percent. So they are getting about 90 percent, overall, of the revenue from taxpayer dollars. I have often wondered, 

how can you be for profit when you are getting 90 percent of your 

money from the taxpayers. 

Three, as a result, many of these companies have been extremely 

successful, sometimes with profits exceeding 30 percent per year— 

30 percent of gross revenue profits in these schools. 

Next, in what appears to be a systemic failure, however, schools 

are extremely profitable even when the students are failing. Nearly 

every for-profit student borrows a Federal loan to attend college. 

Twenty-five percent are defaulting within 3 years of leaving the 

school, compared to 11 percent at public institutions and 8 percent 

at nonprofit colleges. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

Last, these default rates should not come as a surprise when the 

data provided to the Committee shows that more than 54 percent 

of students enrolling in for-profit schools, the ones that we looked 

at, dropped out within a year. Fifty-four percent dropped out within 1 year, after having taken on a substantial debt load. So they 

are getting huge debts, but they have no diploma. 

So the question, I think, before us is not whether for-profit colleges should exist, but how to make sure they are doing their utmost to serve students and to give taxpayers good value for their 

dollar. 

Now, for-profit colleges, as they exist, must spend a large percent 

of their Federal dollars on aggressive marketing campaigns and 

sales staff in order to grow, sometimes as much as 60 percent. The 

GAO, which visited 15 campuses of 12 companies, found misleading, deceptive, overly aggressive, or fraudulent practices at 

every one of those campuses. Investigators posing as prospective 

students were lied to about the costs of the program, about what 

they could expect to earn, about how many students graduated, 

about whether the credits would transfer, and about whether the 

program was accredited. 

In addition, my Committee has reviewed recruiting and training 

manuals from several different campuses and they all have one 

thing in common. It is called manipulation. They encourage their 

sales staff to identify the emotional weaknesses of prospective students and to exploit what they call the students’, quote, ‘‘pain’’ in 

order to motivate them to enroll. These high-pressure sales tactics 

are designed to maximize enrollments and profits, not to ensure a 

good match between a student’s educational needs and the school. 

And in my testimony, I have provided some of these documents to 

the Committee. 

Now, this brings us to the military. Unfortunately, our military 

bases are by no means safe havens from these types of aggressive 

and misleading recruitment practices. According to a Bloomberg article on for-profit colleges and service members, some of the schools 

are recruiting on base without permission, circumventing the education coordinator on the base. Again, this is happening in the military, and one of the reasons they are going after the military is because they do not have to count that on the 90 percent side. 

Now again, despite the disturbing record of dropouts and defaults, Congress has acted to increase educational benefits available to active duty troops and families and to veterans of Iraq and 

Afghanistan, the Webb bill. In December, I released a report examining these two programs and found that revenue from DOD educational programs at 18 for-profit education companies increased 

from $40 million in 2006 to $175 million by 2010, a startling 337 

percent increase. 

I gave you some charts. I do not have them on a big board, but 

if I could refer to Chart 1,1 the blue line and the red line, the red 

line is the total company revenue and how much it has gone up 

since 2006, and it has incrementally gone up. But you see the huge 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

1The chart referenced by Senator Harkin appears in the appendix on page 118. 

2The chart referenced by Senator Harkin appears in the appendix on page 119. 

3The chart referenced by Senator Harkin appears in the appendix on page 120. 

4The chart referenced by Senator Harkin appears in the appendix on page 121. 

increase in the amount of money coming from the military. That 

is Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and DOD revenues. 

Chart 2 is a similar one.2 The green line shows the total educational benefit programs, VA and DOD, going up. But what is 

pulling the line up is the revenue that is coming into those schools, 

that blue line is going up. So you can see that they are aggressively 

going after the military. 

Chart 3, I think, is also instructive.3 It is the Department of Veterans Affairs educational benefits received by 18 for-profit schools. 

You can see in 2006, it was $26 million. In 2010, it was $285 million, just in 4 years. 

The last chart is the DOD educational benefits.4 The previous 

chart was VA. This one is DOD at these 18 schools. As you can see, 

it has gone from $40 million to $175 million just last year. So this 

tremendous, tremendous increase in the amount of money going 

from the military. 

So in sum, what I am saying is that what I have heard and what 

I have learned from this investigation makes me deeply concerned 

that there is inadequate oversight of our nearly $30 billion in Federal aid to for-profit schools. At the beginning of this investigation, 

I found an alarming lack of information. When we first went after 

the schools a year ago on investigation, we had no information, so 

we had to do this investigation. So I went to the military and I 

asked them for information. Nothing. They do not track students. 

They have no idea what is happening to this money. They have no 

idea what is happening to graduation rates. The figures I have 

shown you here, Mr. Chairman, are just for 18 schools that we investigated. You cannot get it for the whole military. I cannot get 

it from anyone in the military. 

So I would just sum up by saying this. We have to remember— 

you mentioned, Mr. Chairman—I am like you. I went through 

ROTC, spent my time in the military, used the G.I. Bill to further 

my education, and it is a great benefit. It is a great benefit. But 

we have to remember one thing. These benefits are one time, finite, 

one time. You get them one time, and if they are wasted, if they 

are thrown away and you do not get a good education, you do not 

ever get them again. 

And again, when I asked questions about the military, I got the 

same problem as I got a year ago when I asked just about the general for-profit schools, no answers. No answers. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that there is something 

wrong when students are failing, they are dropping out in their 

first year, they are taking on huge debts, and these schools are 

making profits, big time profits, up to 30 percent per year profits 

on them. And now, what has happened, as bad as it has been in 

the past, it is now seeping into the military, and more and more 

of our taxpayers’ dollars going out through DOD and to VA into the 

for-profit schools. 

And the DOD is not tracking this, Mr. Chairman. They are not 

doing anything that can tell you what is happening to these stuH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

dents. I can tell you because we did an investigation of 18 schools. 

But I cannot tell you if this is representative. If this is representative of the entire military, we have a real problem out there, and 

I think it behooves us as, as you said, taking care of the taxpayers’ 

dollar, to find out where that money is going, how it is being used, 

and also, I think, as guardians of our troops, those who have risked 

their lives for us and to defend our country, are they being aggressively recruited? Are they being taken advantage of? Are they getting the money to go to these schools, dropping out within a year, 

and not getting a diploma or a good education of the kind that we 

got when we used our G.I. Bill? 

So, Mr. Chairman, this warrants looking into. I congratulate you 

for your endeavors in this area and I look forward to working with 

you to, again, get the answers we need. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very, very much for that, not only 

for the statement, but for the yeoman’s labor that you and your colleagues on the Committee and your staff have done. 

I have a number of questions I could ask you, but I am not going 

to do that. I will just ask a rhetorical question and we will pursue 

this with our other witnesses and maybe you and I can talk about 

this with Senator Coburn and with Senator Brown later. 

But when we focus on health care reform, we focus on one of the 

issues that is one of the drivers for health care is the cost of defensive medicine. We almost reward the doctors, nurses, hospitals for 

quantity rather than for quality. Sometimes, I think maybe, we 

have our incentives misaligned, and rather than incentivizing not 

just churning more people through the door, somehow, we have to 

figure out how to incentivize making sure at the end of the day 

that the folks who come through the door actually leave with a degree and with an education, with completion of a program that will 

enable them to move on to live more productive lives. Somehow, we 

have to figure out how to change those incentives, and my hope is 

that with your help, the help of your Committee and the folks who 

are before us today, and people within the industry itself, especially the for-profit community that are doing a great job, we can 

learn from them. 

Is there anything you want to add to this, Scott? 

Senator BROWN. No, thank you. 

Senator CARPER. All right, good. All right. Thank you so much. 

Great to see you. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. If our second panel would come up and join us, 

that would be great. [Pause.] 

Let me just go ahead and briefly introduce our witnesses, starting with Robert Gordon. Nice to see you again. You are going to 

actually be our lead-off hitter, now that spring training is underway. But Mr. Gordon is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Military Community and Family Policy. In this position, Mr. 

Gordon is responsible for overseeing the various aspects of support 

services for military members and for their families. He is here 

today because one of these services is the Volunteer Education Program for Military Personnel, which includes the Tuition Assistance 

Program. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

In addition to serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gordon is also a retired Army Colonel, so good for you. 

Thanks for your service. During his 26-year military career, Mr. 

Gordon held numerous assignments, including being selected to be 

aide de camp to then Brigadier General Colin Powell, one of my heroes, from 1981 to 1982. 

Colonel Gordon, we thank you for being here and, again, for your 

service. 

Next, the real George Scott, is here to speak with us today. Mr. 

Scott is the Government Accountability Office’s Director for Education, Workforce, and Income Security. He is responsible for leading the Government Accountability Office’s work that is related to 

higher education issues, including oversight of the Department of 

Education’s student financial aid programs. 

Last spring, my office asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate the adequacy of the Department of Defense’s 

oversight of the Tuition Assistance Program. Mr. Scott is here 

today to testify on the findings of this report and the work that 

they have done. 

Mr. Scott, we thank you for the strong work of the Government 

Accountability Office and specifically for the work of your team. I 

talked with Senator Brown recently and saw he was joining this 

Subcommittee and I said we are just one little Subcommittee, but 

in terms of what we can do by working with OMB, GAO, and the 

Inspectors General and a number of nonprofits that are really committed to spending money wisely, we are able to get a whole lot 

done, but we really are grateful to the work that GAO does—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. As our partner in this. 

Last but not least, we have Dr. Kathy Snead. Dr. Snead is the 

President of the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC), as I 

am sure it will be referred to here today. The Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges is a membership consortium that contracts with 

the Department of Defense to serve as a connection between our 

military personnel and the schools that serve them. I was interested to learn this week from you and our testimony and all that 

this consortium consists of almost 2,000 schools and was created to 

provide educational opportunities to service members who, because 

they frequently move, as Scott and I know, Tom Harkin knows, frequently move from place to place, have trouble sometimes completing their college degrees. 

Prior to becoming President in 2004, Dr. Snead served in a number of positions within the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, 

beginning in 1995, and we thank you very much for joining us 

today. 

I am going to ask to have Mr. Gordon lead us off. Again, your 

entire testimonies will be made part of the record and we will invite you to summarize as you see fit. Thanks so much. We have 5 

minutes on the clock. If you run a little bit over that, that is OK. 

If you run a lot over that, that is probably not OK. We will rein 

you back in. Thanks very much. 

Please proceed, Mr. Gordon. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon appears in the appendix on page 66. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT GORDON,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MILITARY COMMUNITY AND FAMILY POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Senator Brown. The 

Secretary of Defense and the men and women of the Armed Forces 

as well as our families thank you for your support and also thank 

you both for your service. 

My role today is to focus on what the Defense Department is 

doing to provide quality lifelong education and learning opportunities through our off-duty voluntary education programs and how 

we effectively manage those programs. 

Each year, a third of our service members enroll in post-secondary educational courses leading to Associates, Bachelor’s, and 

advanced degrees. This past year alone, there were more than 

857,000 course enrollments and 45,290 service members earned degrees and certifications. In the spring of 2009 and 2010, we have 

held graduation ceremonies in Iraq and Afghanistan for 432 service 

members. 

Service members enrolled in voluntary education programs are 

non-traditional students, as we know. They attend school part-time 

during off duty, taking one or two classes a term. When the military mission, deployments, transfers, and family obligations impinge upon their ability to continue their education, it can result 

in an interruption of studies and breaks of months or even years 

between taking courses and completing degrees. 

The military is keeping pace with the civilian millennial generation’s expectations to access information through technology. To facilitate education in today’s high operations tempo environment, 

colleges and universities deliver classroom instruction via the 

Internet and on military installations around the world. There are 

no geographical confines. Courses are offered on board ships, submarines, and at deployed locations. 

To help us ensure our service members are receiving a quality 

education, all for-profit, non-for-profit, and public post-secondary 

institutions participating in Tuition Assistance Programs must be 

accredited by an accredited body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Also, colleges and universities on our installations adhere to additional criteria. 

To support these efforts, the Defense Department previously contracted with the American Council on Education (ACE) to conduct 

the Military Installation Voluntary Education Review (MIVER), 

which provided a third-party independent review of our on-installation programs. Currently, we are pursuing another contract, to be 

awarded by October 1 of this year, which will have an enhanced 

quality criteria and include all modes of delivery and all institutions, on and off military installations, participating in the Tuition 

Assistance Program. With the new review, we will track the thirdparty recommendations and monitor all corrective actions to ensure 

there is continuous quality improvement. 

To ensure this occurs, we are implementing a new policy requiring every institution participating in the Tuition Assistance Program to have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DOD 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Scott appears in the appendix on page 74. 

which includes an agreement to participate in the new review process. The policy is effective next year, January 1, 2012. 

As you are aware, our Tuition Assistance Program recently underwent a very detailed examination by the Government Accountability Office. I am pleased to say that I believe their report on our 

management of this large and complex program was favorable. We 

will find out in a minute. The GAO made five administrative recommendations. We concurred with all of them and we are implementing them now. 

To help us better leverage Department of Education’s knowledge 

and expertise in the future, we are developing a partnership sharing agreement to receive reports from accrediting agencies, school 

monitoring reviews, and requirements for State authorizations of 

schools. We will apply this information, where applicable, to the 

DOD Voluntary Education Programs and use it prior to issuing tuition assistance funds. 

Also, the DOD is developing an automated tracking system to 

document all concerns and complaints. The web-based system will 

allow students, DOD personnel, and schools to submit comments. 

The system will track all submissions and record resolutions. Information gleaned from the system will be used to address improper 

behavior or questionable marketing practices by an institution participating in the Tuition Assistance Program. 

One of the reasons recruits join the military is because of educational opportunities, and many of them continue to reenlist because of those opportunities. None of this could have been possible 

without Congressional support and the funding designated for our 

Volunteer Education Programs. 

Thank you again for your strong support of our military members and their families. I will be happy to respond to any questions. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much for your testimony. 

Mr. Scott, please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE SCOTT,1 DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman and Senator Brown, I am pleased to 

be here today to discuss the Department of Defense’s oversight of 

its Tuition Assistance Program. 

In fiscal year 2010, the program provided $531 million in tuition 

assistance to over 300,000 service members pursuing post-secondary education. The Department offers these benefits to service 

members to help them fulfill their academic goals and enhance 

their professional development. The Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness is responsible for oversight of the program. In addition, the military services are responsible for operating the program and Education Centers on military installations. 

Today, I will discuss DOD’s oversight of schools receiving tuition 

assistance funds and the extent to which the Department coordinates with accrediting agencies and the Department of Education. 

In summary, DOD is taking steps to enhance its oversight of the 

Tuition Assistance Program, but areas for improvement remain. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

Specifically, DOD could benefit from a risk-based approach to overseeing schools, increased accountability in its quality review process, and a centralized system to track complaints. We also found 

that DOD’s limited coordination with accreditors and the Department of Education may hinder its oversight. 

First, we found that DOD does not systematically target its oversight efforts. Instead, DOD’s policies and procedures vary by a 

school’s level of involvement with the program. Further, schools 

that operate on base are subject to the highest level of review, even 

though over 70 percent of courses taken by service members are 

through distance learning programs. DOD is taking steps to create 

a more uniform set of policies. 

Despite these changes, the Department’s oversight activities still 

lack a risk-based approach. For example, while DOD monitors 

schools’ enrollment patterns and addresses complaints about 

schools on a case-by-case basis, its oversight activities do not systematically consider such factors when targeting schools for review. 

Additionally, the lack of accountability for schools and installations 

to follow up on findings and recommendations from educational 

quality reviews may limit the effectiveness of this oversight tool. 

Second, while DOD has several ways for service members to report problems associated with their tuition assistance funds, it 

lacks a centralized system to track complaints and how they are resolved. According to DOD officials, the Department’s practice is to 

resolve complaints locally and to only elevate issues that warrant 

greater attention to the military service level. However, DOD and 

the military services do not have a formal process or guidance in 

place to help staff determine when they should elevate a complaint. 

Without formal policies and a centralized system to track complaints and their outcomes, DOD may not have adequate information to assess trends or determine whether complaints have been 

adequately addressed. 

Finally, DOD’s oversight process does not take into account monitoring actions by accrediting agencies or the Department of Education. For example, DOD could consider whether a school has been 

sanctioned by an accreditor or is at risk of losing its accreditation 

when considering which schools to review. Likewise, the Department does not utilize information from Education’s reviews to inform its oversight of schools. The results of Education’s oversight 

efforts can provide important insight on a school’s financial stability and compliance with regulations that protect students and 

Federal student aid dollars. Further, DOD may also be able to leverage information from Education’s ongoing efforts to improve its 

oversight of distance education. 

In conclusion, the significant amount of tuition assistance funds 

spent on distance learning programs creates new oversight challenges for DOD. This is especially true given that the Department 

has traditionally focused on schools offering classes on military installations. Although DOD is taking steps to improve its oversight, 

further actions are needed to address the gaps we identified. Additionally, DOD could enhance its efforts by leveraging information 

from accreditors and the Department of Education. 

I am encouraged that the Department has agreed with our recommendations and is taking actions to address them. We will conH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Snead appears in the appendix on page 86. 

tinue to monitor the Department’s progress in improving its oversight of the Tuition Assistance Program. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I would be happy 

to answer any questions you or Senator Brown have at this time. 

Senator CARPER. Great. Thanks so much, Mr. Scott. 

Dr. Snead, please proceed. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHY SNEAD,1 PRESIDENT, 

SERVICEMEMBERS OPPORTUNITY COLLEGES 

Ms. SNEAD. Chairman Carper and Senator Brown, thank you 

very much for the opportunity to talk about the Department of Defense’s Voluntary Education Program. 

SOC’s primary role in the Voluntary Education Program, as defined by our contractual relationship, is verifying that institutions 

that provide undergraduate education on military installations are 

appropriately accredited and that they adhere to academic principles and criteria regarding the transfer of credit from other colleges and universities and the evaluation of military credit from 

training and experience that they have had, and we look at those 

academic policies that facilitate completion of the degree. That is 

the primary goal for that educational program. 

Beginning in 2005, the SOC principles and criteria have been expanded with some operating guidelines for member institutions 

that are related to college recruiting, the marketing, and student 

services. The guidelines have really evolved over the years into 

really standards of good practice, and the member institutions adhere to those and they affirm that every 2 years, letting us know 

that those principles are in place at their institutions. 

In those guidelines and standards of good practice, we talk about 

outreach efforts and that those advertising and marketing efforts 

need to really focus on the educational programs to make sure that 

students are aware of the cost, also the requisite skills that they 

need to have to be able to successfully complete that program. In 

addition, those principles and criteria really state that the highpressure promotional activities and enrollment incentives are inappropriate practices for our member institutions. 

With the increased funding levels in the recent years, both with 

military tuition assistance and the G.I. Bill programs that contribute toward the veteran and the service member’s education, I 

think some institutions have sought to limit their capital risk by 

heavily recruiting students who are supported by guaranteed Federal monies, whether it be the financial aid program Title IV, military tuition assistance, VA educational benefits, and this is done to 

really reduce the risk of enrolling students who are solely relying 

on their out-of-pocket funding sources, which fluctuate in the economic downturns. To focus on recruiting students to start college 

without regard to the student success metrics may be where some 

of the potential abuse of the DOD Tuition Assistance Program may 

lie. 

Mr. Gordon referenced the Department of Defense instruction 

that has been revised and has the Memorandum of Understanding. 

In addition to the MIVER, all of the institutions who participate 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

in the Tuition Assistance Program will be required to adhere to the 

SOC principles and criteria and to our Military Student Bill of 

Rights, and we have included that as an appendix with the written 

testimony. So these added measures, I think, will help document, 

identify, and also track adherence to standards of good practice and 

there will be greater focus there on the compliance. 

SOC’s contract also identifies a second role that is related to college and university compliance and standards of good practice. We 

serve as an ombudsman for counseling and troubleshooting, academic counseling and troubleshooting. In this capacity, the staff 

serve as ombudsmen for individual students who identify a grievance or a complaint or the military services through the Education 

Services Office (ESO) who have cited a complaint or a grievance 

against an institution. To the best of our ability, we investigate, we 

problem solve and try to negotiate or resolve those issues. If we are 

unable to resolve that, then we do forward those complaints and 

issues to the Inter-Service Working Group, the Department of Education, and to accrediting agencies, as appropriate. 

With respect to improving the fraud prevention in the Tuition 

Assistance program, my recommendation would be for more frequent and systematic analysis of the student TA enrollment data. 

The accountability measures that have been employed are primarily focused on program accountability. Is the student who is 

being funded with tuition assistance being paid? Are those colleges 

being paid? And if the student does not successfully complete his 

or her course, is that being repaid to the government? So they have 

been following government procedures there. 

And I think we could extend that same analysis at the individual 

level to the institutional level, to look at the tuition assistance data 

for the institutions, look at course completion, course withdrawals 

to be able to get a better handle on some of the concerns there. Systematically reviewing those course completions, I think, would 

prove insightful, and as well, collecting and aggregating such data 

across the Armed Services would be instructive. 

Finally, I would suggest that you replicate similar data analysis 

with the VA educational benefits. That would also go across tuition 

assistance. Since some service members top up their tuition assistance funding with VA educational benefits, some of the same advertising, marketing strategies may be employed by institutions 

that are working both with veterans and our service members. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. And thank you very, very much. 

I have asked Senator Brown if he would like to lead off. I think 

we are going to maybe have a vote or two sometime after 3:30, and 

he has got to be on the road at 4:00, so I am going to go first with 

him. Thank you. 

Senator BROWN. That is very thoughtful, Mr. Chairman. That is 

why everyone loves you. 

So my concerns are that you have somebody who is back from 

military service. They take advantage of the wonderful programs 

that we offer. They go and they take part in one of the long-distance learning programs. They complete the course. And then 

maybe they want to go and get a Master’s and then those credits 

are not counted and/or they do not finish, and what is the cost to 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

the government by—well, I want to know why they did not finish. 

Was there a breakdown? Did they realize that their diploma maybe 

is not as good as it should be? And then what happens to the funds 

to the institutions? Do we get some type of reimbursement to the 

government? So a lot of it with me is about the accountability part 

and to make sure that we are getting the best value for our dollars. 

And with that being said, Mr. Gordon, when will the new contract for the MIVER be awarded? 

Mr. GORDON. Senator, it will be October, basically, of this year. 

So we had our old contract with ACE that ended in October of this 

last year. We are in the process of putting that new contract together and we will compete that contract in the next couple of 

months. 

One of the questions has been, well, why the gap, for example, 

between last year and this year. 

Senator BROWN. That was my question. 

Mr. GORDON. Right. [Laughter.] 

Well, and one of the answers to that is the old contract did not 

cover online institutions. So with this rapid growth in online institutions and then the consumption of such on the part of our service 

members, we felt that we can take this time to ensure that we are 

doing it right, building the clock right in terms of this new contract 

to incorporate online institutions, all institutions, take some time 

to learn about how to do that, to partner with the Department of 

Education and others to figure out what that contract should look 

like, what the protocols and regulations should be. So usually, any 

given year, the old MIVER covered roughly about five installations, 

roughly about 20 to 25 schools. But again, they were brick-andmortar schools on post or on base. So we think we can take this 

time to do it right and get a good contract there to cover all institutions. 

Senator BROWN. So, as you know, distance learning is nothing 

new and we know there has been a significant enrollment by our 

service members. It has been happening for 3 or 4 years. Do you 

hear anyone saying, or do you feel that the DOD has been a little 

bit behind the curve on this issue? 

Mr. GORDON. Actually, I think we have been ahead of the curve, 

because DOD has been doing distance learning for years and years 

and years. What is new is the online aspects of distance learning. 

We have had, as we all know, sailors on ships for a long time 

and—— 

Senator BROWN. Yes, I have taken them—— 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator BROWN. Still do. 

Mr. GORDON. Right, and so distance learning is not new to the 

military. What is new is the online aspect of it. So I think we are 

learning with everyone else. We are seeing this evolution across the 

country of online education, of blended learning. 

I just had a group into my office, I think it was yesterday or the 

day before, that had a virtual blended education, basically, for social workers. Some of that blended education focused on our military community. 

So things are changing, I think, in terms of education across the 

country. We are all learning about that sort of evolution. I think 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

what is important is to give our service members opportunities to 

take and consume education from great colleges and universities 

across the country, and at the same time ensure we do have the 

safeguards in place for those who do not provide it to steer our 

service members away from it. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott, do you have any concerns at your organization, there 

is a gap at all? 

Mr. SCOTT. Senator Brown, of course, being from the GAO, any 

gap in coverage, per se, would at least from our perspective be 

somewhat troubling because we do want to make sure that during 

this period of transition and change, that there continues to be sufficient oversight of the schools. 

As I mentioned in my oral statement, we are encouraged by the 

number of actions DOD has committed to take in response to our 

recommendations. We feel that our report and our recommendations provide a good road map for the Department in terms of enhancing its oversight of all schools participating in the program. 

That said, though, I would hope there would be some plan in place 

to provide some interim coverage during this year, during this period of transition. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

And Mr. Gordon, I know that about $3.7 million is what the duration of the previous MIVER contract with the ACE was. So after 

that amount of money and about 4 years of work, what kind of insight do you have as to whether the ACE’s recommendations were 

fully implemented at the 60 or so installations that were actually 

reviewed? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, I think the good news story there is that we 

worked with those installations once the ACE has findings in terms 

of some improvements. We work with those installations to ensure 

that those improvements take place so that our service members 

are provided a better education. 

So I think the advantage of our system in the past has been that, 

clearly, areas have been uncovered that should be improved. It has 

been very collegial in terms of working with those institutions. But 

again, the shortfall is that we did not cover online institutions with 

that old contract. We will be able to do so. 

Senator BROWN. And Dr. Snead, I do not want to let you look 

lonely over there. 

Ms. SNEAD. I am fine, really. [Laughter.] 

Senator BROWN. So I was wondering if the SOC has any involvement in keeping service members better informed about their benefit qualifications and educational opportunities. Is there anything 

you need to let us know on that front? 

Ms. SNEAD. Certainly, one of the things that we do is to provide 

information to all of the military installations through the Education Offices. So the publications we provide on identifying the 

right fit in terms of an institution, the right type of degree program, we make that available through the Education Centers. Our 

troubleshooting and counseling, function, as I mentioned also, we 

have both a Web site and phone service. It is not 24/7, but we are 

able to respond within 24 hours to a lot of the both service memH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

1The chart referenced by Senator Carper appears in the appendix on page 122. 

2The chart referenced by Senator Carper appears in the appendix on page 123. 

bers’ and their spouses’ questions about education, about the financial assistance, and directing a program, finding one. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will wait until the 

next round. 

Senator CARPER. I want to follow up, if I can, on one of the questions that Senator Brown was asking. I have a couple of charts up 

here. I do not know if we can put them up, if we could. 

But, Mr. Scott, in your testimony, I think, you raised a number 

of important points, but I want to try to illustrate one or two of 

them with some charts. And the first chart here on the left, the one 

that reads ‘‘DOD Tuition Assistance,’’ 1 it looks like we spent—we, 

the taxpayers—spent about $517 million in fiscal year 2009 on tuition assistance benefits. Is that a correct number? 

Mr. SCOTT. I believe that is correct. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. GORDON. That is correct. 

Senator CARPER. The next chart that we have here, one that labeled ‘‘Lack of DOD Oversight,’’ 2 you see that about $360 million 

of this number was not subject to DOD’s quality review. In fact, 

only about $157 million was subject to this review. Is that correct? 

Mr. GORDON. I have not seen that before—— 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Scott, is that—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I think the one thing we will want to note 

about the lack of DOD oversight, the $360 million, I believe, relates 

to the distance education portion, while the $157 million would relate to funds spent for in-classroom instruction on military installations. The one thing I would clarify with that, though, is that simply because it involves in-classroom instruction on military installations does not necessarily mean it was actually reviewed as part 

of the process, because as we know, there is only a limited number 

of reviews that are conducted each year. 

Senator CARPER. It strikes me as strange, if that is the way it 

breaks out, $360 million on tuition assistance payments for distance learning courses, and the—so that is the bulk of this $517 

million. But we actually did the quality review when the course 

was actually provided on base in person. It just seems like—it 

seems strange. 

Mr. SCOTT. I think, as Mr. Gordon has pointed out, though, they 

are taking steps to address that gap through the new process they 

are developing. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. And I think we have a third chart here. 

It says, ‘‘No DOD Oversight Until October 2011.’’ 3 The contract 

lapsed December 31, 2010. I think October—it is not entirely clear 

to me what happens on October 1, 2011. Do we have a quality review in place for all these many courses that are being offered 

through distance learning? Is that when a contract is awarded? Is 

it possible that there will be a contract awarded and then litigation 

maybe that grows out of the awarding of the contract? We see that 

all the time. We finally just awarded a contract to Boeing for tankers and it has been years in the making. So what are we looking 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

3The chart referenced by Senator Carper appears in the appendix on page 124. 

at here in terms of—I want to actually have the quality review in 

place and somebody doing the job and doing it well. 

Mr. GORDON. Right, Senator. We plan to start that quality review in October. We will award that contract before then. 

Just some thoughts, I think, on the numbers. Of course, that is a snapshot, when you see the $360 million in fiscal year 2010. Over 

time, of course, we have had this growth of online institutions and 

we had a review process in place that was focused on installations. 

So over time, of course, the number of our service members who 

were migrating over to online institutions grew, and, of course, our 

MIVER did not cover that. So we plan to cover that now. So I think 

the good news story is we are going to cover now, with our new 

MIVER, that $360 million that you see up there. 

My response in terms of this gap, tough business, I think, in 

terms of really understanding what it is that we really need to look 

at for online institutions. We have to have time to get this right. 

And we are working, I think, with the right groups to do that. We 

are thinking comprehensively and judiciously about it. But I would 

just submit to you, because we have to get that 360 covered, we 

do need some time to ensure that we have a clock that is built to 

cover it adequately. 

And the whole idea is, no, let us not award the contract in October. Let us begin in October. So we plan to award that contract before then. 

Senator CARPER. All right. A question—in a minute I want to ask 

you about incentives, the way you have aligned incentives here to 

get better performance out of the schools, better product for the 

military personnel. But let me just take another minute and ask 

on my first question, why did we not just keep the current contract 

going? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, the contract—— 

Senator CARPER. It ended at the end of last December, right? 

Mr. GORDON. Right, and the—well, October, the contract did expire. 

Senator CARPER. So, basically, we are running without pretty 

much anything, as I understand it, for about a year. 

Mr. GORDON. For a year. 

Senator CARPER. That seems strange—— 

Mr. GORDON. Well, one thing—— 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. Especially in a climate where we 

know that the product that is being delivered, the education that 

is being delivered to a lot of our students, frankly, is disappointing, 

even disturbing. 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, Senator, but I would submit that contract 

would not have covered the $360 million. Now, it would have covered those brick-and-mortar schools, basically, that we currently 

have on our installations, but it would not have helped us one bit 

to get to that $360 million in those online institutions. So what we 

decided to do was focus this year on developing that new contract 

that would do it. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I want to go back, and maybe, Dr. 

Snead, we can lead off with you on this. We talked a little bit about 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

this when you were kind enough to meet with my staff and me, the 

issue of aligning incentives in a way to drive good public policy behaviors. It is something that intrigues me. I studied a little bit of 

economics at Ohio State. My professors would say, not enough. I 

studied a little bit more when I got my MBA at Delaware. My professors would say, probably not enough. 

But I have always been fascinated with how do we harness market forces to drive good public policy behavior, and I just want to 

make sure that we do not continue to have our incentives maybe 

misaligned, that we actually do a better job of saying we are going 

to compensate schools, not just for the number of people that they 

put through the program, or actually bring into the program, but 

the number that they actually say at the end of the day, well done. 

You have completed these requirements. Here is your diploma. 

Here is your certificate of completion. And that it actually means 

something. It actually means that they have the ability to go out 

and get a job and to be able to make money to repay not just their 

loan, but to go out and support their families and live a decent life. 

Talk to us a little bit about how we might change the way we 

align the incentives to get the product that we all want, and, frankly, to reduce the need for regulation. 

Ms. SNEAD. Well, I am with you in terms of economics. I did not 

have an economic course in any of my three degrees, so you are 

ahead of me there. 

And I would see it more perhaps turning it the other way. My 

expectation is that colleges and universities that participate in the 

Tuition Assistance Program meet certain guidelines for success. 

They have success metrics in place and they can demonstrate to us 

that they are doing a good job. If they cannot do a good job, if they 

are not providing the education that we want, we do not then fund 

them. So in a way, it is a disincentive, that if they are not providing the services and we cannot look at measures of success, then 

they should not be in the tuition assistance or education benefits 

for the Veterans Affairs program. 

Senator CARPER. If we want to reward success, how should we 

be measuring success and this Tuition Assistance Program? That 

is a question for you, Dr. Snead, and Mr. Scott, as well. But how 

should we be measuring success? 

Ms. SNEAD. And that is—— 

Senator CARPER. Sometimes, we like—and we had an event this 

morning, Senator Brown, where some of us were over at a school 

here in Washington and we were talking about how do we measure 

success in schools. And sometimes in education—in a lot of programs—we try to say that we measure process. We do not measure 

product, we measure process, and we reward process. That does not 

work anymore. I mean, we have to figure out how to measure success and reward product, not process, but go ahead. How do we 

measure success in this? 

Ms. SNEAD. Well, and that is difficult. Our organization actually—— 

Senator CARPER. That is why we ask you. [Laughter.] 

Ms. SNEAD. I know. Well, we hosted a burning issue summit on 

that very thing in February, and—— 

Senator CARPER. This last month? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

Ms. SNEAD. Just this past month, and had probably 200 educators in the room discussing the issue. Part of it has to be quantitative, to be able to look at course completion. How/where does 

the student start? Are they successful? And part of that also is 

looking at the qualitative measures of what tools or what sort of 

support is the student getting, whether that is tutorial assistance, 

whether it is some guidance before they start, are you ready for an 

online or a distance learning program. 

The Army, probably 4 or 5 years ago, had a program called 

PREP, and I do not even remember what the acronym stands for, 

but I can get that for you. Before soldiers entered in eArmyU, 

which was an online, 100 percent distance learning program, soldiers had to go through PREP training, to see whether they have 

the online computer skills, whether they have the reading skills to 

be able to do independent work, and also writing skills. And this 

inventory did not deny participation, but it was one of those mechanisms that said to a student, you may have difficulty in this online program because your reading level is not what might be at 

a college level. And so then it was a discussion point with the Education Services Office or the base commander to say for you to succeed, you need to make sure you have everything in place and you 

are willing to study. 

So it is a process and I think the piece I would say, and I will 

defer to others, is to look at the quantitative as well as the qualitative measures and what do colleges and universities have in 

place to help students be successful. 

Senator CARPER. I am over my time, but Senator Brown, just 

bear with me here just for a minute. 

Senator BROWN. All right. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Colonel. [Laughter.] 

This school that we visited today, one of the things that those 

students have to do, they have to—they take a test that measures 

their progress toward the academic standards that are in place for 

math and English and science and social studies, and they take— 

it used to be they would take, like, an annual photograph to see, 

like, where they were in the spring. But now we take tests 

throughout the year. Students take tests throughout the year that 

measure student progress. A lot of it, they do it on computers, so 

it is a computer-assisted thing. And we actually use the data that 

we get from those testing to mine the data and we use it for individual instruction for the students. But we actually are measuring 

success throughout the school year. 

And for, I think there is a raging battle, or a raging debate going 

on in this country right now about how do we—about teacher tenure in our public schools and whether or not if school students are 

not making progress, should they continue to be discontinued or 

eliminated. It is an important battle, or issue, and it is one that 

is actually relevant here. 

How do we measure success, Mr. Scott, and then I will yield to 

Senator Brown. 

Mr. SCOTT. As Dr. Snead mentioned, this issue of outcomes and 

accountability is a key challenge, not only for the Tuition Assistance Program, but for higher education overall. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

One of the key things that folks are having trouble figuring out 

is what does success look like in terms of post-secondary education? 

What exactly does that mean? I would respectfully suggest that 

what we might want to also think about is what should those 

metrics look like. They need to be meaningful, they need to measure what we want them to measure. They actually have to be 

measurable. There has to be some quantitative aspect to this. And 

they should also be transparent so that everyone understands what 

the ground rules are, that we have buy-in from key stakeholders. 

And once we have those ground rules, then I think it is fair to 

apply those metrics across all sectors of higher education, not just 

for-profits, but the not-for-profits and the public, as well. 

It is a process. I think this is a key challenge facing higher education as we speak. There are lots of dollars going into the system 

and there are lots of questions about the benefit we are deriving 

from those investments. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, and I thank you very much, Scott, for 

your patience. You are recognized for as long as you wish. 

Senator BROWN. All righty. Well, let me just walk through, for 

people who may be listening or observing. So somebody serves. 

They become eligible for the benefits, and that is accurate, correct? 

And then they go and they say what? I really want to further myself. I want to be a better educated soldier or person. And then 

they would go, let us say if they were still serving, they would go 

to the base commander, or the Learning Center on the base to get 

that guidance. 

How is it determined what type of guidance they actually get? 

Let us say someone is working on the motor pool or someone is a 

hard-charging 11-Bravo infantry soldier. I mean, is there a test 

that they take to determine where they are best qualified to kind 

of focus their skills on, or what? 

Mr. GORDON. The services do it a little bit differently. The Air 

Force, for example, has the Community College of the Air Force, 

so they have a number of strategic planks that are associated, basically, with tuition assistance. So each service does it a little bit differently. What is baseline, though, is having access to counseling 

on the part of service members through our education programs, 

and then access to education about the kinds of opportunities that 

are available. 

Then I think what is important to underscore when we talk 

about quality and we talk about schools, that only those schools, 

those colleges and universities that are accredited by the Department of Education are available for tuition assistance, and that is 

absolutely key in the process. 

Senator BROWN. Right. Let us take it a step further. And I understand that, but one of the things that we are kind of wrestling 

with is we are spending all this money and we are finding out that 

some of these folks really are not getting a good job based upon 

their training or their schooling after they decide to take that step. 

I mean, I would suggest that measuring progress is curriculum development, building a course load towards a degree, and then ultimately graduation to a junior or a four-year college. I mean, is 

that—when you are saying, how do you measure it, is that not— 

am I missing something? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

Mr. GORDON. I think coaching—well, coaching is available and 

tuition support and assistance. I do want to get back to this measurement piece, because when we see the $517 million—— 

Senator BROWN. Well, what is the goal? I guess, so I am asking 

myself, I am listening, I have been reading, I mean, what is the 

goal? Is the goal to take a course and feel good about it, or is the 

goal to get somebody graduated with a degree in something meaningful and then get them employed? So what is the goal? 

Mr. GORDON. I think a number of things. Lifelong education. 

Lifelong education is a good thing, and what we have as a vision 

is lifelong learning for DOD adult members. 

Senator BROWN. What does that mean, lifelong education? Do 

you mean you just want to learn about how to play the violin? I 

am never going to be a violinist. What does that mean, just enhancing my cerebral cortex, or what does that mean exactly? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, I think some of the evidence does suggest 

that, especially with today’s new technologies, we have available to 

us the ability to continue to be educated and to grow. 

Senator BROWN. Well, it is always good to grow and be educated, 

but the bottom line is we are spending taxpayer dollars to basically 

provide the tools and resources for our soldiers to go out and get 

jobs and be employable. As you know, Guard and Reservists, it is 

over 20 percent unemployment and we are dealing with that in the 

veterans’ community. That is one of the reasons I filed the Hire a 

Hero Act, to try to get those people employed. But if we are not 

giving them the guidance at the basic, initial entry level as to 

what, Scott? You are never going to be a concert violinist, but you 

could be a good fill-in-the-blank. I mean, are they getting that guidance? When I measure success, it is course completion towards a 

degree to get a degree so I can go get a job. 

Mr. GORDON. And our service members are getting their degrees. I just want to say that with that $517 million, we have over 

500,000 service members who are going through our educational 

system, 500,000. So when we take a look at success in terms of 

education, 45,000 degrees that were conferred, I mean, those are 

large numbers—— 

Senator BROWN. How many degrees have there been? 

Mr. GORDON. Over 45,000. 

Senator BROWN. OK. Out of how many? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, we have 500,000 going through the system. 

Senator BROWN. OK. 

Mr. GORDON. And what is important, I think what is important 

here is multiple deployments where our soldiers and our service 

members in general need time, basically, to finish their education. 

And we are deployed. We are a deployed force overseas. Our service 

members need time, basically, to complete those courses. And so I 

still think it is a good news story that we have an increase in the 

consumption of education. 

And yes, there are taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers have spent money 

on me to be educated as an Army officer, both my undergraduate 

and graduate degrees. Hopefully, I am providing something back to 

the country for that, and I think that is the great benefit of this 

program. 

Senator BROWN. All right. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

26 

Ms. SNEAD. And I would, if I could add on to that—it is the educator in me, I am sorry—but part of the process is when someone 

goes to the Education Center, it is identifying what the service 

member’s educational goal is. This is a voluntary—an off-duty, voluntary education program. So whether it is a certificate, an Associate degree, a Bachelor’s degree, they have identified the goal, and 

then it is the counselor’s role to figure out how to get there. 

As a counselor, some of the times it is the service member says, 

what is the fastest way to a degree? I just need a degree in order 

to gain employment—— 

Senator BROWN. Regardless of just get it, just to check the box. 

Ms. SNEAD. Exactly. 

Senator BROWN. Right. OK. 

Ms. SNEAD. For others, it is, I want a degree so that I can then 

aspire in X, Y, and Z—— 

Senator BROWN. Computer science, so I can go out and work in 

computers or whatever. OK. 

Ms. SNEAD. So those are the conversations, and again, it is the 

individual educational goal. Sometimes, we do not have a college 

graduation, or degree completion as being the ultimate goal. The 

measure is whether people achieve the goal that they had in mind, 

whether it is gaining employment after five or six courses, whether 

it is getting an associates degree in management so they can own 

their own motorcycle shop or other kind of business. They have acquired the skills, so then they are satisfied and they are more productive in that way, so—— 

Senator BROWN. Well, I think one of the reasons I am going 

down this line is that I do not think we are talking about those 

people that want to be a manager of motorcycles. I think we are 

trying to zero in on some of the, maybe the high-pressure tactics 

that some of the Marine Corps and other IG offices investigated. 

I wonder, did some of those institutions get kicked off or barred 

from the installations, number one, and if so, how many instances 

are you aware of and how were they handled? Did they go up and 

down the chain of command? So that would be kind of my first 

thing. 

And, listen, I know there is a lot of good. That is great. Amen. 

But we are not here to talk about the good. I do not think we are 

having a hearing to talk about the good stuff. I think we are having a hearing because we are worried and concerned about the 

oversight and we are also concerned about are we getting the best 

value for our dollar, and if not, then how can we do it better? And 

if we need to provide you some tools and resources to do things better, what is it? So that is kind of where my head is at, Mr. Chairman, and so if maybe you could just—— 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, Senator, and we are really happy to do that 

and to be working basically as a government to ensure that we are 

providing that correct oversight. And you are correct, there are 

some institutions that are very aggressive in marketing. I think 

what we can do and will do better is help to educate our commanders, actually, in addition to the Education Officers. It is really 

about the education, I think, of our post and our base commanders 

about some of these practices and some of the protocols that they 

can use and procedures they can use to both monitor when these 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

27 

actions take place and then take action. So there is some additional 

work to be done, quite frankly, and we are going to do it. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

I think you just made a good point there, Mr. Gordon. One of the 

values of what we are doing here, this Subcommittee asked GAO 

to do this study. We have asked them to put this program really 

under a microscope and find out what we are doing well and what 

we are not and to try to figure out what we could do better. They 

have spent the time, I think a fair amount of time, a lot of human 

resource hours, to drill down and to look at the good, the bad, the 

ugly, and to come back with a set of recommendations. 

We are now holding this hearing to illuminate what they have 

found and for you to have the opportunity on the part of DOD to 

say, this is what was found. We, frankly, agree with all the recommendations, the major recommendations that were made, and 

we are beginning to follow up and act on those recommendations. 

If that is all that happens out of the work that has gone into this 

last year, that is all that happens, that is a good thing. If base commanders, the base commanders and folks that are, whether it is 

Dover Air Force Base or a base in Oklahoma or Massachusetts or 

any other place, if they get wind of what is going on and they have 

a better sense that some of these—it is not just the brick-and-mortar schools that are offering courses on their bases that is important to monitor and to be concerned about the welfare of their men 

and women, they need to be concerned about the quality education 

that their folks are getting on these online schools and distance 

learning schools, that is really important here, as well. So that is 

part of the value of this hearing. 

Another comment I would make, I think, in response to Senator 

Brown’s question about measuring success, and I think, Mr. Gordon, you mentioned one of our goals is lifelong learning, and I 

strongly agree with that. One of the reasons why we have hearings 

in the Senate is to help us, as Senators, to actually get a little 

smarter and hopefully a lot smarter on the broad range of issues 

that are before us. 

I like to say—I said it already once today, I will say it again— 

I know everything I do, I can do better. And one of the ways that 

I hopefully can get better is get smarter, and one of the ways I get 

smarter is to prepare for these hearings and to actually sit through 

them and participate in them. 

But if you have a student, maybe a student who had not done 

all that well in public school, K to 12, and they are in the military, 

they sign up, for classes maybe for reasons that are not all that 

good or maybe they are well intentioned but maybe they are under 

some pressure, but they are signed up to participate in a course, 

a portion of which the cost is borne by the Tuition Assistance Program, and they have a bad experience, or maybe a couple of bad 

experiences in terms of not getting the kind of support they need, 

maybe being in over their head right from the start. 

We see every semester at Delaware Technical and Community 

College, a very good community school, where students graduate 

with a high school degree, start at Del Tech. They cannot do Del 

Tech math. They cannot do Del Tech English. They need remedial 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

28 

training. They need preparation before they are going to even have 

a chance of being successful. So if we want to encourage people to 

really buy into lifelong learning for themselves, part of it is to 

make sure that they have some success right from the get go. 

I have another question, if I could, for Mr. Scott. I just want to 

revisit this a little bit before I turn to the next line of questioning. 

But Mr. Gordon characterizes the audit that GAO has done as, I 

think the word that was used was ‘‘favorable.’’ I am not sure that 

is quite what I came away with. In fact, I think your audit says 

that DOD has taken, I think the word was ‘‘steps,’’ but you believe 

that areas of improvement remain. 

Could you just take a moment and elaborate again on what are 

some of those areas of improvement that remain and talk to us 

about how you, GAO, how we, the Legislative Branch in our oversight role, how we can make sure that those areas of improvement 

do not remain all that long, that they are actually addressed. 

Please. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Senator. As I said in my statement, we 

believe that the Department of Defense is taking some steps, but 

we also want to make sure that we continue to monitor their 

progress in the areas we identified. That includes working with the 

Department of Education and leveraging information that is available there, taking steps to hold installations and schools accountable for the MIVER process. I think some of the things they have 

laid out in the MOU and the new process will help address those 

concerns. 

So the five recommendations I believe that we laid out in the report, we see as key steps in helping to improve oversight. And as 

I mentioned earlier and Mr. Gordon mentioned, the Department is 

committed to following through on those recommendations. So from 

our perspective, that is encouraging, but as I also said, we will continue to monitor them to ensure that they do, in fact, follow 

through. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Dr. Snead, Mr. Gordon, any comments 

on what Mr. Scott has just said? 

Mr. GORDON. We plan to follow through, and we do concur with 

those five recommendations. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Snead. 

Ms. SNEAD. No. 

Senator CARPER. No? OK. If I can, a question for Mr. Gordon, 

please. GAO, I think, indicated that they feel that DOD lacks a 

centralized tracking system to catalog and monitor complaints. You 

have indicated that in response, the DOD has established a new 

centralized complaint tracking system that satisfies this criticism. 

What does your new complaint tracking system look like? Does it 

require every base’s Education Service Officer or whoever fills that 

kind of role, does it require every base’s Education Service Officer 

to register and catalog complaints, every significant complaint, at 

least, that is received from military students, or is it just really a 

hotline or maybe a web form? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, we have instituted a web-enabled system because we feel that can be very effective. Our base, basically, of 

service members who are engaged in online education, or tuition 

assistance, should I say, do know of these Web sites that are availH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

29 

able that they go to to learn more about the program and then use 

that information to sign up for tuition assistance. So these are not 

unknown Web sites. They can go to them. They can log a complaint 

or a concern. We already have put that system into place. A number of things can happen as a result of that. We can either ping 

one of the services to have them follow up or follow up also at our 

level, as well. So we have put a system in place. We will continue 

to refine it. But it is a web-enabled system and we feel that it will 

be very effective. 

Senator CARPER. Could you all comment on that, Mr. Scott and 

Dr. Snead, please? 

Ms. SNEAD. I have only seen the paper diagram that walks you 

through that process. I have not participated in the resolution experience yet. 

Senator CARPER. Should we be encouraged by what Mr. Gordon 

has explained? Let us say I am the Education Service Officer at 

Dover and we have some folks that are taking—it sounds like for 

every one student there who is taking a brick-and-mortar on-base 

course, or maybe two, they are using distance learning—not a bad 

thing, necessarily. It could be a very good thing. But let us say if 

there are complaints, whether it is for on-base or the remote stuff, 

under the system that you have envisioned or are instituting, I get 

the complaint. Do I have any obligation as the Education Service 

Officer at our base to—what am I obligated to do with it? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, I just want to be clear that there are some 

complaint systems already in place. The Army has a great system 

and we are learning from that system, as well. 

Senator CARPER. Could you just briefly talk about that and say 

how we are learning from it? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, a number of things. We are designing our 

system by collaborating also with the Army. They have not only got 

a system of complaints, but they have a follow-up system in terms 

of a survey to see what customer support was like, as well. So they 

do have a good system in place and I think the advantage of that 

is we can build upon it and institute more of a global system at 

our level to ensure that we are being able to log those complaints 

and then take some sort of action. 

Now, some of those actions will be the same as before in terms 

of the services looking into those and solving those complaints. But 

now that we have this in place, there is much more visibility and 

resolution on the part of OSD. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Not long ago, my family, my wife and our 

two sons and I, were trying to figure out where to go for a vacation 

over the Christmas holidays and we were looking at some different 

hotels to go to in a place where the weather was warmer than 

Delaware. In looking into the different hotels that we looked at, we 

noted that there were a number of comments, people who stayed 

there and liked it, a number of opportunities for people to comment 

that were not all that crazy about some things that they encountered. My guess is you all have seen the same sort of thing. It is 

very helpful to have that. And also, it serves to—it really serves 

to incentivize the provider of the lodging to actually work a little 

harder to do a better job. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

30 

How is this—is this part of what we are anticipating doing, like 

if I am thinking of taking a course from School XYZ and I can go 

on and look online and actually see there are 100 comments from 

people who are thrilled with it, delighted with it, and then I say, 

oh, this is good, but I see 200 comments from those who thought 

this was just a very disappointing experience, that is going to inform my decision. How do we use that kind of technology? 

Mr. GORDON. Right. Two thoughts. I do not know if we have that 

incorporated into our system, so I will have to take that for the 

record and find out if that is a part of it. 

INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD

The Department does use this kind of technology. However, the Department’s formal Feedback, Concerns and Record Keeping processes do not include a section for 

military students to rate and review their college or university. This is due to the 

overlapping inefficiencies we noted as we started investigating adding this capability to our formal system. We discovered that of the many web-based programs 

already in existence which rate schools, several of which provide for student rating. 

Rather than developing an additional system and duplicating efforts, we are currently reviewing the existing programs for possible inclusion into DOD’s current system. 

I think, though, that what we can also encourage or that can 

grow out of this new way of education is the degree to which our 

communities share information about schools that provide quality 

education, for example, and if there is some sort of assessment system for that is really more community-based on the part of our 

service members. So I think that is an area that certainly can be 

explored and that you see emerging, I think, across a number of 

other sectors, as well, whether they are hotels or auction services 

or a host of different sort of venues. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Yes, ma’am? Dr. Snead. 

Ms. SNEAD. There are a couple. The distance learning institutions have actually set up some Web sites much as you describe. 

It is not necessarily about customer feedback, but there are sites 

called transparent—one is Transparency by Design, where the institutions themselves provide you some information about degree 

completion, different rates that they have, experiences, cost, a variety of information. So I think there can be some lessons there, 

whereas we are looking at colleges and universities trying to help 

service members find the right fit of institution that we use tools 

like that to help provide them some information. And there are a 

number of them out there. What we need is really buy-in from 

other colleges and universities to be more forthcoming with that information. 

Senator CARPER. So you think that what we need is more buyin from—— 

Ms. SNEAD. More institutions who are willing to share that information, and so essentially open their books and say, here is our— 

when we are talking about course completion rates or we are talking graduation rates, not just their general student population but 

the military student population. Let us look at service members, 

how they are doing through this process, whether they are completing their courses, and again, satisfaction ratings are certainly 

good. Having dealt with students long enough, I am also skeptical 

that the ‘‘Rate My Professor’’ and a couple of those sites may or 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

31 

may not be the most useful. So we just need to build in the right 

pieces there to look at institutions and to look at the quality of the 

program offerings that we have. What are their employment statistics or their promotion rates once someone has completed a degree 

with that institution? 

Senator CARPER. If I were running a school, it was for-profit, private, public, I would—I am enrolling a lot of students with the taxpayer dollar and I were asked to provide course completion information, graduation completion information, if I were proud of the 

work we were doing and happy to compare that with anybody else, 

that could be a real good marketing tool for me. But my sense is 

that we do not always get that information. 

And I was talking earlier about aligning incentives and trying to 

measure success, but not everybody in the military that is taking 

these courses under the Tuition Assistance Program, not everybody 

wants to get a degree. Not everybody wants to get ready to find a 

job when they leave the military. But a lot of people do. A lot of 

people do. 

When I think of how do we measure success, set aside the people 

that want to learn more about auto mechanics or playing the guitar 

or just things that are interesting to do and maybe make life richer 

or more interesting. But those that really are looking for improving 

their standing in the military, their ability to get promotions in the 

military, in addition to be successful when they leave the military, 

because a lot of us have gone into second careers, third careers. 

But it would certainly be helpful to know that kind of information 

that you just mentioned—course completion, graduation completion, and, frankly, it would be helpful to know something about job 

placement. That would be very helpful things to know. 

At the end of the day who is paying for it? Taxpayers are, and 

we are way in over our head. We have a trillion-and-a-half-dollar 

deficit this year. The President said, we want to out-educate, outcompete, out-innovate the rest of the world and we do not have a 

whole lot of money to play with. So it behooves us all to figure out 

how to, as I said earlier, to get more without paying a whole lot 

more, better results. 

Let me—I want to go back to Mr. Gordon, if I can, and I just 

want to make sure I have this. My staff gave me this question and 

I am just going to read it verbatim. It says, from the system in 

place, what have you learned? How many complaints so far this 

year? 

Mr. GORDON. Right. Since we have placed it—and I just want to 

make sure I am correct—we have had at least 10 complaints at our 

level. What we have learned, well, it is new. We have instituted 

this system fairly recently. I think the big learning is that the complaint process is being used at this point in time and we will continue to refine it and to improve it. But the big learning is that it 

provides us yet another lens, I think, through which we can better 

understand some shortcomings in the community that we can solve 

and resolve. 

Senator CARPER. Let me come back to you, Dr. Snead, if I could. 

We have some public schools, public colleges, some private colleges, 

we have some for-profits that are actually doing a very good job of 

trying to make sure they are not abusing anybody when they reH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

32 

cruit, they are recruiting in a fair and open way, in ways actually 

mindful of the Golden Rule of treating other people the way we 

want to be treated, that when they bring in people who, frankly, 

are going to be challenged by the coursework, they try to make 

sure that they get the, maybe the earlier training or the remedial 

work before they actually start doing the more rigorous 

coursework. They make sure that folks get tutoring if that is needed. One of the reasons why we included tutoring in the G.I. Bill 

for, I think it is about maybe, I do not know if it is a thousand dollars a year or whatever it is, but we want to make sure that we 

are not just throwing good money after bad and we are paying all 

that tuition money, but to ensure that the tutoring is there if it is 

needed. 

But when you look at the folks that are doing a good job—I think 

you had 1,800 or 1,900 colleges or universities—when you look at 

the ones that are doing a good job of making sure that folks are 

ready, walking them through this process, getting their classwork 

done, their courses completed, hopefully get their degrees completed if that is what they want, when you look at the ones that 

are doing a really good job and those that, frankly, are not, what 

can we learn from the ones that are doing an especially good job, 

whether it is public, non-profit, or for-profit? 

Ms. SNEAD. And I think one of the defining factors is that they 

have the good of the service member at the center focus of their 

efforts. So they are really in touch with the needs of the service 

member and they are looking at the variety of services, and they 

are also providing that feedback. And as you said, many institutions, we are spending time talking about probably a very small 

number of institutions in the aggregate when you look at that total 

number of institutions, and many of them are doing great things. 

They have training for their faculty members in terms of military 

culture, helping them understand their military students. They 

have online training for their faculty who are going to be teaching 

online so it is not a professor who has been teaching in a brickand-mortar institution or in a classroom for 30 years and now 

being given an online lesson. So there are lots of positive things, 

and again, the service member and the military student is always 

at the heart of that institution when they are planning their course 

work, when they are planning their curriculum. They have the best 

interest of the student at heart. 

Senator CARPER. Mm-hmm. Mr. Scott, same question. I realize 

you wear a different hat than Dr. Snead does—you probably wear 

several hats—but just put your taxpayer hat on or your GAO hat 

on and give me your thoughts. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, interestingly enough, Senator, GAO actually 

has a couple of studies underway right now that are trying to better understand this issue of outcomes and accountability, including 

what might potentially be some promising practices that we might 

identify as it relates to distance education and some other areas. 

So with that said, I am hoping to have more to say along those 

lines this fall when those studies become public. 

Senator CARPER. So you think we will have something from you 

this fall? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

33 

Mr. SCOTT. There are a number of studies that we have currently 

underway that will, I believe, help inform this issue about outcomes across all higher educational sectors. We have an engagement going on right now looking at distance education, what are 

some of the challenges with distance education, what are some of 

the safeguards, what are some of the promising practices. We are 

also looking at what steps is the Department of Education taking 

in terms of improving its oversight of distance education. So I believe this study is on track to be issued this fall. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Do we have to wait until this fall before 

we can be better informed what is going on at the Department of 

Defense? That was a question I would ask of you, or is there something that you think maybe there is a dialogue going on or some 

lessons learned that you can share with them prior to this fall? Is 

that possible? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, we are always happy to share information, 

where appropriate, with the cognizant Federal agencies. I think 

one of the things that is really important, especially during this period of transition, is for the Department to work closely with the 

Department of Education, both in terms of the distance education 

issue, but also just more generally in terms of the higher education 

community is a very large and diverse community. And so I think 

to the extent that the Department of Defense can leverage the expertise and the knowledge that is within the Department of Education, it will really benefit them as they transition to their new 

oversight regime. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Gordon, do you want to take 60 seconds on 

that, or do you want to pass? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, I agree with that. I think we do and we are 

working much more closely with the Department of Education. The 

Department of Defense globally is involved in education for kids. 

We have 1.2 million military children coursing through the veins 

of our education system, our spouses are roughly around 750,000 

spouses, and our service members. So what it means is developing 

a comprehensive education strategy is important and working very 

closely with the Department of Education is essential to do that. 

Senator CARPER. Good. That actually leads me into the next 

question I wanted to ask, and I just want to make sure I have this 

right. GAO’s report, I believe, indicated that the Department of Defense had actually fairly limited interaction with the Department 

of Education. When my staff met with DOD last, I think it was last 

June, they reported that there was no formal or regular interaction 

between DOD and the Department of Education on issues of fraud 

and on waste and quality of the curriculum. Has that changed at 

all, and if so, when and how did that change? 

Mr. GORDON. Well, I have been in the Department of Defense 

since July, actually July 19 of last year, and I can tell you that I 

have been a party to and witness of a number of meetings between 

our staff, between me, of course, and the Department of Education 

so we can much more closely coordinate our efforts. 

Does that mean that more can be done? Yes, and I hope to do 

that. I think the beauty of this report is it helps to give us an azimuth for how we can also collaborate in different sorts of ways. I 

think the strength of the GAO is it gives you that additional set 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

34 

of eyes where you can do things more and better to improve both 

the quality and ensure that we are providing the kind of access we 

need to education for military service members. So I have seen collaboration, but I think we can do better and we will continue to do 

so. 

Senator CARPER. Well, as I said earlier, everything we do, certainly me, I know we can do better. That is why I am pleased to 

see that the GAO investigation that we had requested has helped 

to spur the Department of Defense and the Department of Education to begin a better dialogue about these issues, and we want 

to improve even beyond that. We would like to have seen it happen 

some time ago. However, having said that, we are just pleased to 

see it appears to be in effect now. 

I am going to ask one more question, I think, of Dr. Snead and 

Mr. Gordon, and then my last question will be sort of asking you 

to—we do not often give witnesses a chance to do a closing statement. We always ask you to do an opening statement. I want you 

to give a closing statement—not now, not now, but after I ask this 

next question. Just be thinking about your closing statement, 

maybe just kind of reacting to what you have heard from the other 

witnesses, maybe reacting to what you heard from Senator Harkin 

or the questions that Senator Brown and I asked. Just be thinking 

about it, if you will. While you are thinking about that, I will ask 

this question. 

And thanks to the efforts of Senators Webb and Durbin and others, the Department of Veterans Affairs just announced that it 

would suspend the G.I. Bill payments to several schools because of 

the questionable recruiting policies that were being used by those 

institutions. You will recall, Senator Webb was really the driver in 

the new G.I. Bill, the most generous G.I. Bill we have ever seen 

in the history of our country. Has the DOD ever been forced—this 

is, again, for Mr. Gordon and Dr. Snead, but do you know if the 

DOD has ever been forced to refuse tuition assistance payments to 

a school or put them in a sort of like a ‘‘do not pay’’ list? We have 

contractors who we sort of have a ‘‘do not pay’’ list because they 

owe obligations. They have not paid taxes to the Federal Government. But has the DOD ever been forced to refuse tuition assistance payments to a school or put them on a ‘‘do not pay’’ list, and 

is DOD maybe working with the VA to ensure that tuition assistance payments are not just going to these same schools? 

Mr. GORDON. To my knowledge, we have not. We do not have 

that sort of list. Using the military installation Volunteer Education Review that we currently had in place, it really portended, 

actually, working together with the schools to make improvements 

in any anomalies or shortcomings that we found. We felt very comfortable that through working with the MIVER findings and making those sorts of improvements, the schools were very responsive 

to that and were providing an education for our service members. 

I am knowledgeable about this recent action. The good news is, 

to my knowledge, we do not have any service members who are 

part of those schools that have been put on those lists, but clearly, 

what it means is that we can also do more in terms of ensuring 

we have coordination with the VA, because there is that transition 

from active duty, when you qualify for tuition assistance, of course, 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

35 

into being a veteran, where you qualify for the G.I. Bill, and so the 

coordination is important. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to submit some follow-up questions. 

One of the follow-up questions I am going to ask is, do you think 

there might be some value in DOD working with VA to ensure that 

the schools that they have identified as schools that are sort of like 

on a ‘‘do not pay’’ schools list because of some of their behavior, 

questionable behavior, objectionable behavior, that maybe there is 

some overlap here that you all should follow up on. I will ask that 

question—— 

Mr. GORDON. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. And look forward to your response. 

I would urge you to do that. 

Mr. GORDON. Mm-hmm. 

Senator CARPER. And this would be for Dr. Snead. Has your organization ever referred a school to an accrediting body because of 

unethical or improper behavior, that you are aware of? 

Ms. SNEAD. Yes, we have, and, in fact, one that we have recently 

been involved in, we were unable to resolve. It was Army and Air 

Force issues with tuition assistance and improper behavior on an 

installation, aggressive marketing, and we filed a complaint with 

the accrediting body, and as a result, the institution most recently 

has lost their accreditation. So that is essentially—will be a ‘‘do not 

pay’’ because they will not be accredited by that agency. Therefore, 

they would not be on the Department of Education list and they 

would not be eligible for tuition assistance then. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Well, we very much appreciate your preparation for today and we 

appreciate your testimony today and your response to our oral 

questions and we look forward to responses to some written questions. 

I would just ask, how long do our Subcommittee Members have 

to submit letters? Two weeks? Over the next 2 weeks, our Subcommittee Members can submit in writing follow-up questions 

within 2 weeks. We just ask that you respond to those promptly. 

And now, this is a chance for each of you, if you will, to let us 

have a closing statement, some reflections, just based on what we 

have talked about here today. Dr. Snead, why don’t you go first, 

and then we will go to you, Mr. Scott, and then Mr. Gordon. Some 

good take-aways for us. 

Ms. SNEAD. Well, I think we have all discussed today the value 

of the Voluntary Education Program and how it is really important 

to—— 

Senator CARPER. Let me just interrupt. One of the things I want 

to ask you to do as you do this—I should have said it—think of 

yourself—we are all taxpayers, all right, so we all have a dog in 

this fight. This is our tax money. We care about the men and 

women that serve us on active duty, and a lot of them are putting 

their lives on the line for us, literally, as we gather here today. We 

care about them and we care about their families and we want 

them to have the best that we can provide for them. So keep that 

in mind as you respond. Thank you. 

Ms. SNEAD. I think all of us do have the best interest in mind 

and it is extremely important that we make sure that it is a qualH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

36 

ity product that we provide. Our organization takes that seriously. 

We look at colleges and universities and sometimes we do have to 

ask the tough questions. Our role in this process is really more of 

what I would describe as really a facilitator. We want the institution to improve services to their service members, to their families, 

and also to the veterans. So I think our take-away is to continue 

to be vigilant in the complaints and the issues that we see and 

really try to do the best we can to improve on that educational setting. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott, some closing thoughts, please? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you again, Senator, for the opportunity to testify today. Clearly, the DOD Tuition Assistance Program is an important program in terms of supporting the education of our service 

members and the work that we have done on this program highlights some areas for the Department to continue to improve upon. 

Generally when I discuss oversight and what good, effective oversight looks like, I always put it in terms of you need clear rules, 

safeguards, in place to protect students and the Federal investment. You need tools. You need an effective set of tools to provide 

ongoing monitoring and oversight. And finally, you need a range of 

mechanisms to hold schools accountable. 

So to the extent that as the Department of Defense moves forward in developing its new oversight regime, I think it is important 

to keep those goals in mind. Having clear rules, safeguards in 

place, having a range of tools to allow you to effectively monitor 

and oversee schools, and finally, having mechanisms in place to 

hold schools accountable. And so to the extent that the Department 

can make progress in those areas, I think that it will just ensure 

that the TA funds are being properly used and our service members are receiving the quality education they deserve. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Gordon, please, closing thought, please. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, I just want to thank you, as well, Senator, 

for giving us the opportunity to testify. 

My closing thoughts are our education system in this country 

continues to evolve, and I think the good news about that evolution 

is the potential access to education by more citizens in the United 

States and our service members are a subset of that. We do owe 

those service members, in fact, our commitment to ensure that they 

have an access to the best quality education, especially given our 

multiple deployments and the fact that our service members are 

asked to sacrifice for their country in ways that often impede their 

ability to consume that education at a rate that others can. 

And so what I am just delighted by is that I think we have the 

kinds of partnerships and can grow them, both between DOD and 

Education, Congress and GAO and our agencies, to ensure that we 

can sharpen the point of a quality education for our service members, and I am happy to be a part of collaborating on that process. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Let me just give a closing thought or two, if I could. I was 17— 

actually, 16 years old when I learned that I had applied too late 

to go to the Air Force Academy. I had been a Civil Air Patrol Cadet 

and I was bitterly disappointed. I went to three high schools. I was 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

37 

barely learning, like, where the restrooms were and it was time to 

move on and go to another school. I like to joke and say I went to 

three high schools until I finally found one that would let me graduate, but actually, my father kept getting transferred and we just 

ended up living in a lot of different places at a tough time, tenth, 

eleventh, twelfth grade. And I missed the filing deadline, the application deadline for the Air Force Academy and was really very disappointed. It was a sad time in my life. 

And 1 day, sitting in homeroom in my high school, early morning, doing the announcements on the homeroom, they announced 

on the PA, anybody interested in winning a Navy scholarship, go 

see your guidance counselor, and I did. And my dad had been a 

Chief Petty Officer in World War II, spent a lot of time in the Reserves in the Navy. So I went and I learned about Navy ROTC and 

the fact that I could, if I won a scholarship, get an education, 

would have a chance to get a commission and go on and serve our 

country. And I wanted to do that for, oh, about 23 years. 

But I really needed some help to be able to afford to go to college 

and the Navy was there to extend that help. Really, taxpayers 

through the Navy were there. And I went to Ohio State, got a good 

education, and have been fortunate enough to get to go to graduate 

school through the G.I. Bill. 

But for me, the military was a way to sort of improve my standing, improve my ability to contribute to the society and to play the 

kind of roles that I have played. I really want to make sure that 

a whole new generation of young men and women receive a similar 

kind of opportunity and that it is not a hollow opportunity, but it 

is an opportunity that really leads them somewhere where they 

want to go. Whether it is to be better sailors, airmen, marines, 

whatever, we want to make sure that they have the chance to do 

that. If it means finishing up their service duty and going out and 

starting a business or working for somebody else, working for a 

nonprofit or becoming a teacher, we want to make sure that they 

have the opportunity to do that. 

Two big challenges that we face—I know I am probably speaking 

to the choir here—one is the huge deficits, spending way more 

money than we can afford. And the second, we compete in a world 

where competition is a lot stronger than it was when I was a senior 

in high school listening to those announcements all those years ago 

in homeroom. So this needs our best effort. 

I mentioned earlier my sort of four core values. Figure out the 

right thing to do and just do it. Treat other people the way I want 

to be treated. Focus on excellence in everything we do. If it is not 

perfect, I like to say, make it better. And finally, just do not give 

up. 

We can do better here. I think we are trying to do better here, 

and with the help of GAO and the good efforts of a bunch of people 

in DOD and from SOC and from a bunch of the colleges, whether 

they are for-profit, nonprofit, whether they are public, a bunch of 

them are showing us the way to get a better product and doing 

right by our young men and women, or not-so-young men and 

women. We will learn from them. But the folks that are not doing 

the best that they can, we need them to measure up. This is not 

a threat. We want to help the ones that are not doing the kind of 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

38 

job that they should be proud of or could be proud of, we want to 

make sure they start doing that. 

One of the things I am pretty good at is being persistent, and 

when I sense that there are wrongs being committed out there, I 

would like to right wrongs. I think most of us feel that way. There 

is a lot of good that is being done through this program, but there 

are some wrongs that are being committed with taxpayer money, 

and to the best of our ability, I just want to eliminate that and I 

want to eliminate it as quickly as we can. Our servicemen and 

women deserve that. And when I look them in the eye at Dover or 

over in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever they might be, I want 

them to know from my heart, we are doing our best for them, and 

I know you feel that way, too. 

With that having been said, this is going to be a dialogue. It is 

going to be a dialogue that continues. I would encourage certain 

GAO and the Department of Education and the Department of Defense, SOC, and others to be part of that dialogue, and I would encourage the institutions themselves, whether they are for-profit, 

nonprofits, publics, to be a part of that dialogue. At the end of the 

day, when we have a chance to see our sailors, soldiers, airmen, 

marines going out there and doing a great job and going on and 

being successful with their lives, we can feel really, really proud of 

them and good about what we have helped them to accomplish. 

With that having been said, thank you all very much for joining 

us today and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereas, at 4:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.001
40 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.002
41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.003
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.004
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.005
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.006
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.007
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.008
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.009
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.010
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.011
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.012
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.013
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.014
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.015
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.016
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.017
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.018
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.019
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.020
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.021
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.022
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.023
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.024
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.025
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.026
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.027
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.028
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.029
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.030
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.031
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.032
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.033
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.034
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.035
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.036
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.037
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.038
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.039
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.040
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.041
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.042
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.043
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.044
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.045
84 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.046
85 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.047
86 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.048
87 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.049
88 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.050
89 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.051
90 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.052
91 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.053
92 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.054
93 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.055
94 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.056
95 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.057
96 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.058
97 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.059
98 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.060
99 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.061
100 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.062
101 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.063
102 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.064
103 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.065
104 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.066
105 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.067
106 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.068
107 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.069
108 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.070
109 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.071
110 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.072
111 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.073
112 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.074
113 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.075
114 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.076
115 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.077
116 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.078
117 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.079
118 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.080
119 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.081
120 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.082
121 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.083
122 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.084
123 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.085
124 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66674.086