U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

68–453 2011

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON 

H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, AND H.R. 169 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 15, 2011 

Serial No. 112–24 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

BOB FILNER, California, Ranking 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

HELEN W. TOLAR, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

July 15, 2011 

Page 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169 ............................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman Jeff Miller ............................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Chairman Miller ........................................................ 18 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member .................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Congressman Filner ................................................... 19 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, prepared statement of ............................................................. 20 

Hon. Corrine Brown, prepared statement of ......................................................... 21 

Hon. Russ Carnahan, prepared statement of ........................................................ 21 

WITNESSES 

Bishop, Hon. Sanford D., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia .............................................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement of Congressman Bishop ................................................. 22 

Erie Community College, Williamsville, NY, Hon. Jack Quinn, President ........ 6 

Prepared statement of Mr. Quinn ................................................................... 22 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

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

for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration, statement ..... 25 

U.S. Department of Labor: 

Hon. Raymond M Jefferson, Assistant Secretary, Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service, statement ..................................................................... 29 

Ismael Ortiz, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service, supplemental statement ..................................................... 31 

U.S. Department of Defense, statement ................................................................ 35 

American Legion, Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National Economic 

Commission, statement ....................................................................................... 37 

Disabled American Veterans, John L. Wilson, Assistant National Legislative 

Director, statement .............................................................................................. 40 

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

Associate, statement ............................................................................................ 43 

Military Officers Association of America, VADM Norbert R. Ryan, Jr., USN 

(Ret.), President, letter ........................................................................................ 45 

National Association of State Workforce Agencies, Robert L. Simoneau, Deputy Executive Director, statement ...................................................................... 46 

Paralyzed Veterans of America, statement ........................................................... 51 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy 

Director, National Legislative Service, statement ............................................. 54 

Veterans of Modern Warfare, John F. Morgan, President/Chief Executive 

Officer, letter ........................................................................................................ 56 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs to Hon. Jack Quinn, President, Erie Community College, letter 

dated July 26, 2011, Mr. Quinn’s responses .................................................. 57 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs to Hon. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, letter dated July 26, 2011, and VA responses .................................. 60 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs to Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National Economic Commission, American Legion, letter dated July 26, 2011, and Mr. Madden’s 

responses, letter dated July 19, 2011 ............................................................. 61 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs to Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, letter dated July 26, 2011, and Mr. Tarantino’s 

responses, dated August 15, 2011 ................................................................... 65 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs to Bob Simoneau, Deputy Executive Director, National Association 

of State Workforce Agencies, letter dated July 26, 2011, and Mr. 

Simoneau’s responses ....................................................................................... 67 

Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs to Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Mr. Gallucci 

responses, dated September 7, 2011 ............................................................... 70 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON 

H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, AND H.R. 169 

FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2011 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller [Chairman of 

the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Stearns, Bilirakis, Roe, 

Stutzman, Denham, Runyan, Filner, Brown, Michaud, McNerney, 

Donnelly, Walz, and Carnahan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MILLER 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This hearing will come to order. 

And I want to get right to the meat of things. Sixty thousand veterans were added to the unemployment rolls in the month of June 

bringing the total number to over one million veterans out there 

that are unemployed today. And that is unacceptable. 

I have a full opening statement that I want to enter into the 

record. And without objection, I will do so. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller appears on p. 18.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And we have a long series of votes, so I’m going 

to waive the rest of my opening statement and turn to the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Filner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER 

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The statistic you quoted shows how important this hearing is 

and how important it is that we address the issue of jobs very seriously. 

We read about the results of veterans who come home often with 

invisible wounds who cannot find the dignity and security that 

work provides. We see that evidenced in the skyrocketing suicide 

statistics, domestic violence, substance abuse, and even, of course, 

in rising homelessness amongst our veterans. 

Each of these bills before us today seeks to address the needs 

and I want to comment on H.R. 169, which requires the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to highlight the VetSuccess site 

on its main Internet page. I hope that the VA will do that. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts in trying to make meaningful change in our veterans’ lives and you have introduced some 

legislation, including H.R. 2433, which is before us today. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

I have some problems with H.R. 2433, Mr. Chairman. I do not 

think we can call it a jobs bill, because it is a retraining bill. That 

is good, but it does very little to create jobs for veterans regardless 

of how this is going to be portrayed. 

It focuses on contracting out the Transition Assistance Program, 

(TAP), which is a big discussion that I think we need to have about 

whether contracting out is the right way to go. 

While I fully support widening the opportunities for our veterans 

by providing them with additional skills, I think we have to be realistic about how we frame the bill. 

You pointed out the statistics and clearly we have to do something. 

I also want to point out that in order to pay for the legislation, 

your bill would extend higher loan fees for our veterans that utilize 

the VA Home Loan Guarantee Program and then use these monies 

to pay for the monthly stipend and retraining costs that are created by the bill. 

Mr. Chairman, your party has been threatening the whole stability of our economy by arguing that if you extend a fee or you do 

not extend a tax cut, you are raising taxes. 

By extending the higher rates for 10 more years, what we are 

doing is not only raising taxes but taxing a specific group of veterans for using their benefit. Your leader, Mr. Cantor, said we do 

not believe you ought to be raising taxes right now in this recession. 

So let’s be consistent about how we apply the beliefs that we are 

throwing around on the Hill. If allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire was characterized as a tax increase, then not allowing these 

higher rates to expire can also be characterized as a tax increase. 

Let’s be clear about what we are doing and say in plain language 

that we are raising taxes on veterans. So let’s be transparent about 

the shell game and how we are paying for it so we are not back 

here later trying to figure how we deal with unintended consequences. 

Even worse, I think in my opinion, is that in order to pay for the 

bill, you will charge our veterans more fees so they benefit in one 

program, so we can pay for other veterans and their benefits in another program. 

In this economy when our national housing market is in the tank 

where we on this Committee have worked so hard to protect our 

veterans from home foreclosures, we must carefully weigh our actions and be sure that the actions we take are not going to make 

it more difficult for a veteran to purchase or keep a home. 

We also have Mr. Bishop with us today who has a viable alternative and he is going to explain that. It is going to require broad 

job skill training. It is a companion bill to Senator Murray’s bill, 

S. 951. 

What Mr. Bishop’s bill does is require servicemembers to learn 

how to translate the skills they learned in the military into the 

working world. It will ensure that more veterans have jobs waiting 

for them when they leave the military by streamlining the path to 

private and Federal employment. 

It requires the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) to take a hard 

look at what military skills and training are translatable into the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

civilian sector and work to make it simpler for our veterans to get 

the licenses and certification that they need. 

I support H.R. 1941, the companion to Senator Murray’s bill. It 

passed the Senate Committee unanimously and I hope we can do 

it here. I think it is a whole step forward. 

The questions that we have to ask ourselves today, Mr. Chairman, are these the policies we want to pursue, what impact will 

extending these fees that you have in your bill have on the housing 

market, and the ability of our veterans to utilize the VA Home 

Loan Program. 

Again, I think we could have looked at these questions and 

worked them out by going through the Subcommittee process. I 

also have not seen the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate on this. 

I hope that we can look at these bills in a bipartisan way, find 

the right combination that will, in fact, increase the employment 

opportunities for our Nation’s veterans. 

I thank the Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Filner appears on 

p. 19.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Ranking Member. And now I know 

why you would not agree with me to forego our opening statements. 

I would remind you or inform you, if you are not aware, that the 

Senate Committee unanimously approved Senator Murray’s bill. It 

uses the same fees in order to fund her bill. 

The House approved the GI Bill grandfathering measure that use 

the same fees. And you used funding fees to increase 5 years ago 

to pay a host of improvements to veteran benefits. 

So I appreciate you coming to the side of fiscal conservatism. I 

look forward to working with you on those issues in the future. 

Now I would recognize our good friend, Mr. Bishop, who has 

joined us to make remarks that he may like to make on behalf of 

his bill today. 

And welcome back, sir. As a former Member of this Committee, 

we are glad to have you back in the Committee room. You are recognized for 5 minutes to discuss your bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

And I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Filner and the rest of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the Hiring Heroes Act of 

2011. 

As you are aware, the current economic environment has left 

millions of Americans out of work and has made it exceptionally 

difficult to find jobs. This problem is particularly acute when it 

comes to our Nation’s veterans. 

Recent data has shown that veterans, especially those who have 

served in Iraq and Afghanistan, are facing an unemployment rate 

of over 27 percent after leaving the service. This situation is really 

unacceptable and it represents a failure of us here in Congress to 

really help our Nation’s veterans. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

As the War in Iraq comes to an end and we begin to draw down 

our forces in Afghanistan, even more veterans are going to be looking for work further compounding the problem. 

With this in mind, I thank Senator Murray for taking the lead 

on this issue and introducing the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 in the 

Senate. 

It is also for this reason that I am proud to have introduced with 

the help of Ranking Member Filner, Chairman Bill Young of the 

Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Ranking Member Norm 

Dicks of the full Appropriations Committee, and Representative 

McNerney, the House companion bill to Senator Murray’s legislation. 

Here in the House, the measure has already gained 55 cosponsors representing both Republicans and Democrats from both ends 

of the political spectrum. 

I would like to add that this legislation has gained the support 

of various veterans and servicemember groups including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Officers 

Association of America, and Military Families United. 

The Hiring Heroes Act has already passed favorably, as the 

Chairman noted, out of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee 

and it is my hope that this Committee will follow the Senate’s lead 

and quickly send the measure to the full House for consideration. 

Now, let me discuss briefly the details of the legislation. Along 

with modernizing Federal hiring practices, the bill makes participation in the Transition Assistance Program mandatory for separating servicemembers. It requires that each servicemember receive 

an individualized assessment of jobs for which they may qualify. 

It creates new programs aimed at improving the transition from 

servicemember to civilian life including a Competitive Grant Program for nonprofit organizations that provide mentoring services 

and job training that lead directly to job placements. 

It also aims to break down the barriers between the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Labor, the Department 

of Veterans Affairs, and it makes it easier for servicemembers to 

smoothly transition to veteran status. 

Finally, I would like to stress that we have an obligation to help 

our veterans land on their feet when they come home and we have 

an obligation to help them find good-paying jobs to support their 

families. 

These are the members of our society that have risked the most 

for our country. Our current system, although well-intended, simply does not focus enough on our servicemembers’ transition into 

civilian life. 

Providing more support to our Nation’s veterans is simply the 

right thing to do. And I look forward to working with my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle toward passing the Hiring Heroes Act of 

2011. 

I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify 

and I will be happy to respond to any questions that the Committee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Bishop appears on 

p. 22.] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. We appreciate you being here to present this important piece of legislation. 

Also, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all Members 

can submit their opening statements for the record. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the following organizations’ 

statements or letters of support be inserted into the record, U.S. 

Department of Defense, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans 

of Modern Warfare, Military Officers Association, and the Disabled 

American Veterans. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. For the record, all of the veterans service organizations supported. 

If you could, tell us what you think the most important component is, not the outcome, but the most important component is of 

the legislation that you are proposing. 

Mr. BISHOP. I think the most important component is being able 

to coordinate the efforts of all of the Federal agencies to make sure 

that the veterans have a seamless transition. Obviously gainful 

employment is extremely, extremely important to veterans. The 

lack of gainful employment often contributes to homelessness as 

well as joblessness. 

And, of course, to the extent that we on behalf of the American 

people can give the right kind of transition, the tools to facilitate 

that transition, I think the better we will serve the people who 

serve America because, after all, they paid the price for the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. And we owe them that debt. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does your bill fund any retraining for unemployed vets other than the few that would be granted additional vocational rehabilitation and education (VR&E) benefits? 

Mr. BISHOP. Say that again? 

The CHAIRMAN. I said does your bill fund any retraining for unemployed vets other than the few that would be granted additional 

VR&E benefits? 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, it creates a Competitive Grant Program for 

nonprofit organizations that provide mentorship and job training 

programs that are designed to lead to job placements. 

It requires the DoD, DoL, and the VA to jointly contract for a 

study to identify the equivalencies between certain military occupational specialties and related skills and potential civilian employment. 

And it allows DoD to create a program to provide work experience with civilian employees and contractors to facilitate that transition for servicemembers that are on terminal leave. 

It requires DoD, DoL, and the VA to collaborate in eliminating 

the barriers. 

So there are some additional requirements, but, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the legislation and the report from 

the Congressional Budget Office indicates that if enacted on net, 

the bill would decrease direct spending by $227 million over the period from 2012 to 2016 and by $179 million over the period from 

2012 to 2021. 

In addition, the CBO estimates that implementing the bill would 

have a discretionary cost of $160 million over the 2012 to 2016 period assuming that the appropriation of the necessary amounts are 

made. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

But as you can see, the savings clearly outweigh the expenditures and I think that it is a very sound investment long term and 

short term and it is the right thing to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Filner. 

Mr. FILNER. Just briefly. 

Thank you, Mr. Bishop, for being here and for introducing your 

bill. 

I would like to point out that the Chairman mentioned that Senator Murray’s bill has a similar funding mechanism that I criticized in his bill. That does not mean I am for that part of Ms. 

Murray’s bill. 

I would just clarify that your bill does not include that funding 

mechanism at this moment, right? 

Mr. BISHOP. No, it does not. 

Mr. FILNER. All right. So we can fully support your bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions from any Members? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bishop, thank you very much for being here 

today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much and I appreciate the consideration of the Committee. 

I think it is a good bill and I hope that we will do the right thing 

for our veterans as this Committee has always done over the years. 

And I thank you for your service. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Our second witness, we will ask him to come forward. Many of 

you may remember that he is a former Member of this Committee 

and Chairman of the Benefits Subcommittee, the Honorable Jack 

Quinn who formerly represented that tropical haven known as Buffalo, New York. Congressman Quinn is now President of Erie Community College demonstrating once again there is life after Congress. 

Welcome back to the Hill. Welcome to this Committee. And you 

are recognized for the customary 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK QUINN, PRESIDENT, ERIE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, WILLIAMSVILLE, NY (FORMER MEMBER OF 

CONGRESS) 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, boy, is there ever 

life after Congress, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by stating that I have a prepared statement that 

will be part of the record today and I will limit my remarks to just 

5 minutes verbally with you. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Filner, I never thought I 

would talk about the good old days, but I am able to now and I 

see this room and my office just down a door or two in Cannon. 

Bob was my Ranking Member when I chaired. 

And, Bob, I officially want to thank you for those years and your 

work on behalf of veterans. 

Mr. Stearns, a lot of hours here and Mr. Michaud, the new folks 

I do not know, but I want to officially from the world of education 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

talk with you for a few minutes today about the bill that is for discussion. 

And rather than the other folks who will testify here this morning, it looks like I am the only one that can talk about the education side of this. 

Mr. Miller and Mr. Filner, that is what I would like to do. You 

all will figure out how it is paid for and what ends up getting 

passed. I am out of that business for now. I wish you luck and tell 

you we need the help. But I would like to spend a few minutes just 

talking about the education side of this, if I may. 

And as President of Erie Community College in Buffalo, New 

York, we are about, just to give you a snapshot for the Members, 

we are about 20,000 students at our college on three separate campuses, downtown Buffalo, the suburbs north of Williamsville and 

south in Orchard Park in Hamburg, represented, by the way, by 

three able Members of Congress for our college-wide system. 

And hearing the number this morning of a million veterans who 

are unemployed is enough to have all of us sit up and pay attention. 

What I wanted to briefly say is that all schools face, as we look 

at our veteran students, the transition from wearing a uniform 

under the most difficult circumstances to the relatively 

unstructured civilian student life. 

I understand that Assistant Secretary Jefferson has a project underway to revise the Transition Assistance Program. Hope he considers the concept that will help a veteran determine whether he 

or she is ready for college and choose the right school. 

I also welcome the bill’s Reauthorizations of Licensing and 

Credentialing Program. 

And one of the things I worry about as the President of our college in Buffalo at Erie Community and the State University of New 

York (SUNY) system in New York is to provide the right education 

and training opportunities to meet these needs of local employers 

by making it clearer what a veteran needs to meet in these local 

licensing requirements. We can structure the program the way 

they are the most needed. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out the questions already 

talked about, the skills that are transferable with our veterans and 

would point out something you already know, that the United 

States Military is the largest training operation in the world. 

And I would submit to you now in the education field, particularly at a community college, almost all of what we train our veterans for are transferrable. Unlike a 4-year institution, at a community college, you already know, whether it is Erie Community 

College in Buffalo or anywhere across the country, our work many 

times deals with training and on-the-job readiness. And I would 

submit to the Committee, the full Committee that our veterans are 

ready to do just that. 

Recent numbers show that community colleges remain a top 

choice for veterans using their GI Bill education benefits. When we 

go back and look at numbers in 2008 and 2009, 40 percent of veteran students used their education benefits at a community college. 

Almost half of our veterans are at community colleges. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

That is important for us as the educators and it is important for 

all of you as you put the local laws in place. 

Two of the things that always crop up when you talk about community colleges as I have learned across the country is the low cost 

of the program and the convenience that they offer as driving 

forces in the decisions that veterans make, low cost at the community level and the convenience. 

Veterans will also cite the fact that community colleges offer 

hands-on relevant education and training programs that build on 

their skills. We are constantly working at our level, Mr. Chairman, 

with employers to ensure that the programs, they offer students 

the skills they need for high-demand occupations in their areas. 

Community colleges are also extremely nimble in their ability to 

quickly create and modify education and training opportunities to 

stay abreast of those skills. 

And if I may just divert from my written testimony for a minute, 

Mr. Chairman, to share a quick story to give you a glimpse, the full 

Committee of the kinds of training and the flexibility community 

colleges are able to afford. 

There is a utility company up in Buffalo called National Grid. 

They surveyed their workers and found out that the, for want of 

a better word, Mr. Chairman, the pole climbers, the folks who get 

up in bad weather and have to do the things that need to be done 

were going to be retiring very, very soon. 

They came to us to do a skills program in the classroom for these 

folks and they came out and put up a dozen poles on our property, 

put these men and women that were trained for it, 20 to a class, 

up on a pole, facilitated the kind of weather that you might see in 

the northeast and Upstate New York on rainy, windy days when 

the power goes out. 

Mr. Chairman, we now run 23 students a year through that program. They are certified through the utility company and they get 

out and they are making $22.50 an hour for starters. Those become 

vibrant citizens in our economy in Upstate New York and western 

New York State. And they are helping the company and they are 

helping themselves. 

As I checked our last group of 22, seven were veterans, Mr. 

Chairman. We got them in the school cheap. They are trained and 

they are on the job. 

And I would submit to you this morning that as you look at the 

educational opportunities for a lot of the bills that come through 

the Committee, to keep our community college sector in mind. We 

can expand on the training our vets have received. We can match 

it in most cases and we are able to put men and women from the 

veteran services and from the veterans’ ranks on the job and working. 

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, my remarks are in the record 

fully. And I stand ready to assist the Committee in any way I can 

and answer any questions you may have this morning. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quinn appears on p. 22.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

It is great that you used that one scenario with the linemen because one of the things that we would like to focus on and you 

talked about community colleges having the ability to be nimble 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 

and transform their training programs quickly. We have so many 

of the returning veterans today that are trained for certain jobs 

that could quickly transfer into the private sector but because of 

certification requirements but for the different States, and we hope 

to be dealing with the Governors Association and others to help. 

Do you see a way that the community college system could help 

in shortening the training? Obviously the training for a medic, a 

combat medic—— 

Mr. QUINN. Uh-huh. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. I would say they work under pressure. They know their job, but do not necessarily need to go 

through a year’s worth of education to become an EMT (emergency 

medical technician). 

So can the community colleges adapt and is that a good theory 

to be working upon? 

Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, the answer is unequivocally yes, that 

they can. And I will give you another quick example to the medic. 

When I used to fly back and forth to Buffalo for the 12 years I 

was here, I met some mechanics at U.S. Airways and they were 

vets. And this mechanic came to me and said, you know, Mr. 

Quinn, I could take that plane apart and put it back together on 

the tarmac out there and it took me 2 years to get certified and 

licensed through U.S. Air to work on the thing. And that is crazy. 

So the short answer is yes, absolutely. I do not speak for our national association, the American Association of Community Colleges 

(AACC), but I am involved and close to them. They are located 

right here in Washington, D.C. 

One of the things that we could do is to expand what we do at 

Erie, our affiliations. Right now at our school, 20,000 students, we 

have over 400 affiliations and that means we are with on the front 

end some high schools, on the other end some 4-year institutions. 

We just signed up with Syracuse University and Cazenovia College 

in Upstate New York. 

We arrange these affiliations, which is nothing more than an 

MOU, a memorandum of understanding, so that our teachers, our 

educators take a look at what was trained, the courses that were 

taken, the training that was taken, and they are able to certify or 

verify that it is almost the exact same thing we are teaching in 

classes and in training at the college. 

Once that is done, I think the paperwork that needs to follow 

would be quick. It would not take long at all. The rub is going to 

be, Mr. Chairman, and we do it often with DoD and others, the rub 

is going to be that we can certify, we can somehow check off the 

box that says it is the same kind of training and education. 

I can tell you from hands-on experience it is, it is the same old 

story. We need to get ourselves worked through the paperwork. 

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned 4-year institutions, high schools. 

What about vocational technical centers? 

Mr. QUINN. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Privates? 

Mr. QUINN. Private colleges, sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is just a matter of assessing and certifying? 

Mr. QUINN. It is, Mr. Chairman, and let me point out one other 

thing to you is we looked nationally and locally for our community 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
10 

colleges. It is becoming more and more competitive for students 

and we are recruiting students. The beauty for us at the 2-year 

schools is if they choose, they can go on to a 4-year school. All those 

courses, all those credits are completely transferable. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Filner. 

Mr. FILNER. I just want to thank Mr. Quinn for being here. 

When you are kids together, it is hard to call someone Mr. President. 

Mr. QUINN. I have been called worse. 

Mr. FILNER. I am glad to see that you finally got an honest job. 

I think what you do in the community college is exactly the answer 

to many of the problems facing our veterans. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

Mr. FILNER. I was critical of Mr. Miller’s bill on one level, but 

certainly the retraining part is critical and we have to figure out 

ways to do this more efficiently, as you point out. 

Mr. QUINN. Sure. 

Mr. FILNER. I hope you will help us with the AACC. Is that—— 

Mr. QUINN. Exactly. 

Mr. FILNER. It has usually been the State. We worked on this 

when you were in Congress. The State certification agencies and 

the bureaucracies there protect the licenses so it is hard to break 

through the bureaucracy. We have to figure out a way to do that. 

I appreciate that you are still working on veterans issues and 

you have not aged a bit. You always looked older than all of us 

anyway. 

Mr. QUINN. I think I mean to say thank you. I am not certain, 

Mr. Filner. 

Mr. FILNER. But thanks for what you are doing—— 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

Mr. FILNER [continuing]. And helping us. 

Mr. QUINN. And if I may, Bob, just to say officially on the record 

I stand ready to assist with our association and any others that 

could be of help to the full Committee as you work on these issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Any other Members have questions for Mr. Quinn? 

Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to see you again—— 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

Mr. MICHAUD [continuing]. Mr. Quinn. Just a couple of quick 

questions. You talked about the student population. How many veterans are currently attending? 

Mr. QUINN. Our school, I will give you a raw number, we can figure the percentages later, right now we have about 20,000 students. That is an unduplicated head count. That is everybody who 

is doing training and degree and certificate programs. 

We hope to be in September at our school at almost 1,000 vets. 

So of the percentage that is out there, it is not high enough. But 

as we look at other schools in our area, in the western New York 

State area, we sort of lead the league with that because I have 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
11 

hired a director of veterans’ affairs. I have a club at each of my 

three campuses, a place for the vets to meet, those kinds of things. 

But it is growing and as the colleges, I believe, become more competitive for students, I think you are going to see a lot of other 

places engage themselves in the marketing to veterans and it is 

about time. So I would say that number, 1,000 out of 20,000, not 

enough. But when the word gets out, I think those numbers will 

go up. 

Mr. MICHAUD. And how flexible is the college? For instance, if 

you have soldiers coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, it might 

not be at the same time—— 

Mr. QUINN. Right. 

Mr. MICHAUD [continuing]. That the school enrollment begins. 

How flexible is the college as far as trying to meet the needs of the 

veterans to meet their schedule as well? 

Mr. QUINN. Certainly. And I am prejudiced because I work at 

one. But I would say that is probably a hallmark of all community 

colleges is that flexibility. 

For example, like we have what we call our Pathways Program. 

We do not have any dropouts at our college. We have stop-outs. If 

a veteran or any student comes back and cannot get the work the 

first month or 2—and, frankly, Members, that happens with some 

vets. They are not ready to go to school when they come back. They 

will start it up. They will get going at it, but then they find out 

that for a lot of reasons, they are not able to continue. 

We do not call any of those folks dropouts. They are stop-outs. 

We bring them back. Our Pathways Program is an ungraded system that keeps the students, all students, but veterans in particular in the classroom so we do not lose them, so they come back. 

No penalty and no cost. 

And when they are ready to get going to the second phase at our 

college, and most all the community colleges do it, and we know 

that in the best interest of the students and us, it is better to have 

them involved in the college in one way or another. 

So I am sold on this whole community college sector like it is just 

the way to go. It is flexible enough. Four years. God bless them. 

They have a mission as well and it is important. But for now I just 

thought when I saw the topic today it is a perfect match. 

Mr. MICHAUD. And what are some of the problems that you are 

hearing from the veterans when they come back as far as, you 

know, do they have childcare at the college for those that might 

have children? What are some of the problems that they are talking about? 

Mr. QUINN. Of course veterans present extra special problems, 

but daycare is one because we deal with nontraditional students. 

I had three students last May graduate in their eighties from our 

college. We run a nighttime daycare at our school, for example, for 

our moms. 

Mr. FILNER. Do they need daycare? 

Mr. QUINN. Pardon me? 

Mr. FILNER. Do they need daycare? 

Mr. QUINN. No, they did not, but their children did. 

So they present lots of problems. Some of them are financial. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
12 

What I found out was after dealing with the bureaucracy in the 

Army, the Navy, or the Air Force and Coast Guard, Marines, they 

came back to another educational bureaucracy. When it came time 

to sign up, they talk to the admissions people, to the bursar, the 

financial aid. We have somebody that handles Montgomery GI at 

our school. 

And it is confusing. I mean, sometimes on purpose it is confusing 

if you are part of the government. And so what we have tried to 

do is streamline all of that. I have a one-stop phone call at our 

place where you get the bursar, admissions, financial aid, and a 

counselor all at the same time. 

So I guess the specific answer, besides all of some emotional 

problems, Bob mentioned homelessness. Back at our school, we are 

hooked in with the VA Hospital. We are hooked in with the transitional housing assistance that we worked on some years ago so that 

the whole package is deliverable because veterans come back and 

present extra special problems. 

And normally we would not offer housing assistance necessarily 

to a student who is applying at our school. We have cobbled it all 

together in one spot at the Veterans Club. 

Mr. MICHAUD. So about 20 seconds left. What major industry are 

they being retrained for? Is there any specific sector? 

Mr. QUINN. We are not seeing one that jumps out at us, but I 

am surprised to see a number getting into nursing that were not 

necessarily medical in the service. But as they come back, because 

that is a sector, at least in our economy in Upstate New York, 

where there is a lot of hiring going on, so we are finding a transfer 

to the medical field. 

And then a lot of our trades, our building trades that we do and 

our construction and green construction fields are attractive to a lot 

of folks because the jobs seem to be available. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. QUINN. Hello. 

Ms. BROWN. Hi. 

Mr. QUINN. How are you, Corrine? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you for your presentation. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. My real job in life was I worked 16 years at Florida 

Community College in Jacksonville. 

Mr. QUINN. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. So I am a community college lover. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. I do have a couple of questions. I am a community 

college lover. I wanted that to be on the record. But I guess my 

question is, the graduation rate is about 12 percent—— 

Mr. QUINN. Uh-huh. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Which is not that high. But I understand that education is life-long learning and like you said, they 

move in and out. But what kind of employment placement, what 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
13 

kind of success do you have in that area because this is a major 

problem? 

Mr. QUINN. Sure. 

Ms. BROWN. I mean, when we have so many veterans returning, 

they cannot get jobs. I mean, it is just amazing. People who are out 

defending our country and when they come back, their job is no 

longer there. And I am so very happy that we have the educational 

opportunities for them to train and retrain, but what kind of success do we have? 

Mr. QUINN. Not good enough, frankly. I was lucky enough to be 

invited to President Obama’s summit on community colleges about 

4 or 5 months ago and participated. The President talks about 

those graduation rates not being high enough and what we are 

going to do to address those. 

All the community colleges across the country are involved in 

that. But what I would like to point out in answer specifically to 

your question is I take a little bit of umbrage with those graduation numbers all the time. Before you came in, I talked a little bit 

about a pole climbing program we have at our college. It sounds 

silly, but what it does is it puts people to work at good-paying jobs 

with health benefits and a small retirement, by the way. 

So I guess, Corrine, I would not get ourselves as focused on the 

graduation rates as much as job placement. And in some of these 

jobs that I am talking about, there is no need for a 4-year education. There is in some cases not even a 2-year associate’s degree. 

Oftentimes it is training. It is the proper training and the licensing 

and the certificate that is necessary. 

And so we have at our place and in the SUNY system in New 

York across our 30 community colleges, we have put new emphasis 

on just that, job training and job placement. 

Ms. BROWN. Right. I think that is what I was saying because 

when you say graduation—— 

Mr. QUINN. Right. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. That is saying that we are looking for 

a 2-year degree—— 

Mr. QUINN. Uh-huh. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Or a 4-year degree. 

Mr. QUINN. Uh-huh. 

Ms. BROWN. But job placement, you could train, let’s say you are 

a nurse—— 

Mr. QUINN. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Or you are a technician and you have 

been placed in a job, so the most important thing is, and also the 

support that we give those students while they are in school—— 

Mr. QUINN. Of course. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. You know, what kind of support, the 

counseling, the, you know, the assistance—— 

Mr. QUINN. Uh-huh. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. The childcare, the transportation, all of 

those things are important. 

Mr. QUINN. Correct. And the only other thing I would add, if I 

may, is one other thing you will find at the community college 

ranks across the country and New York State is a huge emphasis 

on internship opportunities. We are finding out that when we—— 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
14 

Ms. BROWN. Internships, co-ops, all of that. 

Mr. QUINN. Exactly. When we can intern our vets with very possibly another veteran who owns some businesses or a workforce 

site in our locality geographically that it is a more instant match 

for us. So we work pretty closely with the businesses. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I think one of the weaknesses that I think we 

have over all this is that we probably need to help more veterans 

go into businesses so that they can hire veterans. And so I hope 

that is one of the components of your—— 

Mr. QUINN. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Institution. And I guess the last thing, 

what we are doing is that we are taking funds from one area for 

veterans’ programs to put it in another. I guess we are making decisions about age groups or who will get the services. 

How do you feel about that? 

Mr. QUINN. Now that I view this Committee from this angle—— 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, that is what we are talking about. 

Mr. QUINN [continuing]. I like it better, by the way, and I would 

suggest that we find ways to include more money, that just to take 

from Peter to give to Paul and move around, while that is useful 

in an exercise, that is important because you get a chance to check 

on the programs, update them, make sure they are working. 

One of the things we are hearing with these numbers that the 

Chairman mentioned when I first walked in this morning, a million 

veterans unemployed is something that Member Bishop talked 

about. Let’s get Labor, Defense, VA all together so that all, whatever amount of money we are going to have is used the right way. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, in closing, you know, I look at it like my 

grandmother’s sweet potato pie. We have made sure that we have 

funded veterans’ programs. 

Mr. QUINN. Uh-huh. 

Ms. BROWN. And we are doing big business, but we are not doing 

business with veterans. And that is still in my opinion one of the 

weaknesses as we move forward—— 

Mr. QUINN. Sure. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Because if I am a veteran, I am a disabled veteran and I have a business, then I am going to hire other 

veterans. 

Mr. QUINN. Right. 

Ms. BROWN. So we need to put more emphasis and focus on that 

area. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. But thank you very much. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. And it has been a pleasure—— 

Mr. QUINN. Thanks. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Working with you in the past and look 

forward to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just be brief. 

Jack, welcome back. It is good to see you. Are you playing any 

basketball or—— 

Mr. QUINN. Not as much. 

Mr. STEARNS. What is the unemployment rate in Buffalo? 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
15 

Mr. QUINN. Buffalo right now we are hovering a trifle above 9 

percent. It is about 8.7, 8.76, I think? 

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. The fact that the economy is weak across 

the Nation, and perhaps Upstate New York is no exception, has 

that impacted the funding for the community college from the 

State, which creates sort of extra problems for you? 

Mr. QUINN. Sure. The way that we are funded in New York State 

is that it is the 3 percent that funds the college. A third comes from 

the local companies sponsoring us, in my case Erie, a third comes 

from the State through SUNY, and a third is tuition. 

We all know the situation in the States with the economy. We have had a cut the last 2 years and had to raise tuition $300 a year 

last year. 

Mr. STEARNS. Now, does that kind of economic stress on your college, does that affect the services that you can provide? For example, are you able to provide, I think you mentioned in your opening 

statement, counseling service for these veterans when they come 

in? 

Mr. QUINN. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Because I think one of the key areas is that program you talked about, your Stop-outs instead of dropouts is very 

good and tries to improve in some way to say to the veterans there 

is a pathway for you here, do not be discouraged. 

But is the fact that some of the veterans need counseling, is that 

a part of the community college and how is that being affected with 

this economy? 

Mr. QUINN. Well, I want to be clear, Cliff, too, that when we are 

stressed and stretched with funding problems, it affects all of our 

students, not just veterans. 

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. 

Mr. QUINN. The rub here, of course, as we have said this morning and for many years here, our veterans need some special attention. 

Mr. STEARNS. Right. 

Mr. QUINN. And sometimes when the funding is cut, it is disproportionately affected for these veterans. And I have to say yes. 

But I do want to be clear when we talk about funding from our situation, States and the local county, that hurts all of our students. 

The big thing we are seeing, just again on an education note, Mr. 

Chairman, having to rely on adjunct professors more and more instead of full-time professors. And at the end of the day, that affects 

your counseling, that affects the advice that students get for 

courses, for financial aid, all of it. 

So we are stressed and we do not make a distinction except I 

know what you are talking about when you say it is veterans. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you, Cliff. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 

holding this hearing. 

And, Mr. Quinn, thank you for your service on both sides. You 

are in a very unique position. 

And I, like my colleague, Ms. Brown, am an unabashed supporter 

of community colleges. I think it is a fabulous transition. And, of 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
16 

course, this group of folks is the best trained and just some of our 

best folks and we should be getting them in. And so I am concerned 

about this too. 

We work hard on both sides making sure that DoD, that we are 

preparing folks to come out. And I noticed in your written testimony you talk about the TAP Program, something we struggled 

with here. 

And I am kind of interested in this because you are making the 

observation that maybe we should make this mandatory like the 

Marine Corps. And I was looking at that. 

Is that because these guys that are Marines, and being an Army 

veteran, I find it hard to believe that there is a higher quality of 

person coming out of there, but is the Marine Corps doing a better 

job of preparing their folks because of that program in your opinion? 

Mr. QUINN. I do not know a better job, but I would have to say 

to you when they make it mandatory, it is more complete. I am not 

mincing words because we have some great Army vets. In fact, my 

testimony includes two verbatims, two sort of life stories, one 

Army, one Navy. 

Mr. WALZ. Right. 

Mr. QUINN. So I would not say necessarily better. But it is like 

high school. When you force everybody to take driver’s ed, they are 

hopefully going to be better drivers. In this case—— 

Mr. WALZ. The one we struggle with, though, is because you understand you are getting into that issue of the commander’s prerogative to be able—— 

Mr. QUINN. Yes. 

Mr. WALZ [continuing]. To lead and to be able to demand this. 

But our take is, and I have seen this as being on that side of things 

and having out-processing lectures that were voluntary or mandatory—— 

Mr. QUINN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WALZ [continuing]. If it is time to go home, I know where 

they are going. So I very much appreciate that. I just wanted to 

kind of get and see. That is something we are struggling and looking with. 

But, again, thanks for the work you are doing. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

Mr. WALZ. Fabulous. 

Mr. QUINN. Appreciate the comment too. 

Mr. WALZ. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Donnelly, do you have a question? 

Mr. DONNELLY. No, I do not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Quinn, thank you so much. It has been a 

pleasure to visit with you. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

One disclaimer. I want to be careful that I do not speak for 

AACC. I hope I did not get them in any trouble here this morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. You said that. We understand. 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will be making contact with them. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
17 

Mr. QUINN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

And Mr. Filner said he will handle the trouble part for you. 

Members, we have 18 votes, 16 amendments, a motion to recommit, a final passage. Here is what I suggest we do. 

We have testimony from everybody for my bill that is before us 

today and the other bills, excuse me, all three bills. So I suggest 

in view of the fact that it may be an hour and a half or 2 hours 

before we are able to return that we take all the testimony into the 

record, hopefully not offend anybody who is here today to testify, 

and call our business done for the day. 

Does anybody have an objection? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And if there are any questions for the record that 

need to be added, we will be happy to enter those, statements, letters of support, questions for the record. 

No objections. Done. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(18) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman, 

Full Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This hearing will come to order. 

Let me get right to the heart of what this hearing is about. Six hundred thousand 

veterans were added to the unemployment rolls in June. That brought the total 

number of America’s out-of-work veterans to over 1 million—a staggering figure. It 

is that fact alone that brings us here today to accomplish one goal. Namely, to put 

America’s veterans back to work. 

Having a job provides a sense of self-worth and accomplishment. It is our workforce that makes America strong. It makes us exceptional, and it also averts many 

of the perils that befall our societies, such as homelessness. It is therefore incumbent upon us all to find solutions and act. 

Otherwise reaching goals such as eliminating homelessness among veterans will 

be next to impossible if we don’t reduce unemployment at the same time. There is 

no better preventive measure than a good-paying job. 

We have already set in place the building blocks for many of today’s veterans. 

Through the Post-9/11 GI Bill, eligible veterans are getting college degrees, enrolling 

in on-the-job training programs, and training in specialized fields such as aviation 

in higher numbers than ever before. Nevertheless, the breadth of the joblessness 

problem in today’s economy leads me to the conclusion that additional steps are 

needed. 

To that end, I believe we must advance proposals which embrace certain fundamental objectives. 

First, we must re-evaluate programs that are meant to acquaint our veterans with 

the civilian workforce. We owe it to these men and women, and every taxpayer, to 

ensure that these programs are effective and that measures are in place to gauge 

their viability. If they do not work, we must find programs that will. 

Second, we must give unemployed veterans of past wars temporary access to education programs to acquire skills, especially in fields with a shortage of workers, 

such as technology and health care. Two-thirds of our unemployed veterans are between the ages of 35 and 64, and many face skills and training deficits. 

Veterans of past conflicts are more likely to face significant financial obligations 

such as mortgages and college tuition for their children. Imagine looking forward 

to retirement, only to have to begin again. 

Third, we must enforce the job protections in place for veterans, especially those 

who serve in the National Guard and Reserve—14 percent of whom are currently 

unemployed. 

Fourth, we must work with the States to eliminate the regulations that hinder 

job growth. Our veterans have skills that are of value in the private sector and are 

being wasted due to unduly burdensome laws and regulations across the States. 

It is time for the States to recognize the quality of military training and the power 

of reciprocity. 

We cannot do this in a vacuum, however. We have an obligation to these men and 

women, and to all Americans, to decrease our debt, lower taxes that impede growth, 

and assure employers, especially the small businesses that are the engine of our 

economy and that produce 40 percent of new jobs, that help and leadership is on 

the way. 

The Veterans Opportunity to Work Act (the VOW Act), which I have introduced, 

is my attempt at a comprehensive solution. It embraces all of the objectives I have 

just outlined. The VOW Act critically evaluates existing programs to ensure they are 

effective. 

It focuses retraining assistance for veterans of past conflicts, who have fewer options available to them. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
19 

It strengthens re-employment rights to Guard and Reserve members. And it seeks 

to eliminate licensing and credentialing barriers preventing veterans from immediately applying skills learned in the military to a civilian job here at home. 

Furthermore, recognizing that America’s small businesses, many of which are veteran-owned, are suffering more today than other companies, I have also introduced 

legislation that would provide small businesses with a tax credit toward the purchase of capital equipment for every unemployed veteran they hire. 

Again, we must think outside the box to solve this problem, and H.R. 2433, the 

VOW Act, is my starting point. 

We have two other bills on the agenda that will round out our discussion this 

morning. First is H.R. 1941, introduced by our colleague from Georgia and former 

Member of this Committee, Sanford Bishop, and then we have H.R. 169 introduced 

by Congressman Stearns. 

So, without further delay, let’s get to work. 

I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Filner for any opening 

remarks he may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Filner, Ranking Democratic Member, 

Full Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Thank you, Chairman Miller. 

All too often we read about the results of veterans who come home—often with 

the invisible wounds of war—who can’t find the dignity and security that work provides. We read about it in skyrocketing suicide statistics, problems at home, substance abuse, and even in rising homelessness among our veterans. 

Today we are here to review H.R. 169, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 2433. Each bill seeks 

to address the needs of our veterans. H.R. 169 will require VA to highlight the 

VETSuccess site on its main internet page. I support making the VA Web site as 

user friendly as possible. 

I appreciate the Chairman’s efforts to make meaningful change in the lives of our 

veterans and their families with this legislation and his own bill—H.R. 2433—The 

Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011. 

But, I also think we need to be clear about what H.R. 2433 IS and what it IS 

NOT. This bill IS NOT a jobs bill where veterans can go get a job—instead it is 

a retraining bill. This bill does very little to create jobs for veterans, regardless of 

how my Republican colleagues may portray it. This bill IS about completely contracting out the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). While I fully support widening the opportunities for our veterans by providing them additional skills, I also 

believe that we need to be realistic about our discussion and how we frame this bill. 

Unemployment among veterans, and all of our citizens, is a national tragedy. A 

recent article in the Los Angeles Times dated July 11, 2011, stated that ‘‘Unemployment among recently returned veterans, already in double digits, is poised to get 

worse as more soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan.’’ According to the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, unemployment among Gulf War-era II veterans aged 18–24 was 

nearly 21 percent in 2010. 

In order to pay for this legislation, this bill would extend higher loan fees on our 

veterans that utilize the VA Home Loan Guarantee Program and then use those 

monies to pay for the monthly stipend and retraining costs created by this bill. 

By not allowing the higher loan fee rates to expire to much lower rates and by 

extending the higher rates for 10 years we are effectively taxing a specific group 

of veterans for using a benefit. The House Majority Leader, Mr. Cantor of Virginia, 

said on July 11, 2011, that ‘‘We don’t believe you ought to be raising taxes right 

now in this recession, in this economy [.]’’ 

If this is the belief of our colleagues, then we must be consistent in how we apply 

these beliefs. If allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire was characterized as a tax increase, then not allowing these higher rates to expire can also be characterized as 

a tax increase. We need to be crystal clear as to what we are doing, and say in plain 

language that we are raising taxes on veterans. 

I want to be transparent about this ‘‘shell game’’ and how we are paying for it, 

so we are not back here later in this session or in following sessions talking about 

how we had some ‘‘unintended consequences’’ and we then have to find some way 

to pay for the pay-for. 

Simply put, in order to pay for this bill, we will charge our veterans more for the 

use of their benefit in one program so we can pay for other veterans and their benefits in another program. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
20 

In this economy where our national housing market is in the tank, where we, on 

this Committee, have worked so very hard to protect our veterans from home foreclosures, we must carefully weigh our actions and be sure that the actions we take 

are not going to make it more difficult for a veteran to purchase or keep a home. 

But, we also consider today a viable alternative. A bill that will require broad job 

skill training for all servicemembers returning home. 

H.R. 1941, a bill introduced by Mr. Bishop of Georgia which I have cosponsored, 

is the companion bill to Senator Murray’s S. 951. This comprehensive bill requires 

servicemembers to learn how to translate the skills they learned in the military into 

the working world. It will also ensure that more veterans have jobs waiting for them 

when they leave the military by streamlining the path to private and Federal employment. 

This bill requires the Department of Labor to take a hard look at what military 

skills and training are translatable into the civilian sector, and work to make it simpler for our veterans to get the licenses and certification they need. 

I fully support and endorse H.R. 1941. The companion to this bill passed the Senate Committee unanimously and my hope is that we will have the same result here 

in the House. I believe, as does Chairwoman Murray, that this bill is a huge step 

forward in re-thinking the way we treat our men and women in uniform after they 

leave the military. 

Finally, I have questions regarding all of the bills, as I am sure many of my colleagues do. First, are these the policies we want to pursue? What impact will extending these fees have on the housing market and the ability of our veterans to 

utilize the VA home loan program? Why didn’t these bills follow the normal course 

of going to the Subcommittee of jurisdiction and how much do they cost—where are 

the CBO cost estimates? 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we address these bills and other legislation that may assist our veterans in finding employment when their service is over. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns 

Thank you Chairman Miller for having this hearing today. 

Unemployment is at a record high today and unemployment in our veteran community is higher than at any time that I can remember. 

My bill, H.R. 169, would require that the Department of Veterans Affairs have 

a drop-down menu titled ‘‘Veterans Employment’’ on its homepage. This drop menu 

would have links to VetSuccess, USA Jobs, Job Central and other appropriate employment Web sites. It would also require the Secretary of VA to advertise and promote the VetSuccess Web site and require direct outreach to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans. 

This bill comes out of discussions I had with the VA over the past couple of years 

and from constituents in my district returning from their service to our country. 

While the VA has addressed some of my concerns, they continue to miss the underlying reason for my bill: customer service and usability. The VA should have a clear 

link that will take veterans to a listing of jobs based on zip code. 

Today, if you are a veteran and are looking for a job whether in the private sector 

or within the government, it can be a daunting task. For example, when you go to 

the VA homepage under quick links is ‘‘Federal Jobs for Veterans.’’ After clicking 

on the link, you are taken to more barricades. This link will take you to 

‘‘FedsHireVets’’ (feds hire vets), which offers useful tips, but you still have to go 

through one more step to access government jobs within your area. 

To find private sector jobs, you have to click on the Veteran Service dropdown 

menu and navigate multiple links on the VA homepage. There is no simple link for 

Veteran Employment or Veteran Jobs. Instead you need to know that the 

VetSuccess program is what you’re looking for. If you’re unfamiliar with veteran 

programs, you may not know that VetSuccess is the web portal for jobs. The title 

isn’t clear. VetSuccess might be the link for successful navigation of the VA bureaucracy. The title should clearly and simply mention jobs or employment. 

Then, once you get to the VetSuccess webpage you must register to look up jobs. 

You can’t just type in your zip code and get a list of jobs in your local area. My 

office had to fill out an excessively long form, and then monitor our spam filter to 

catch the verification e-mail, click the e-mail to prove we’re human and then we 

waited for a follow up e-mail to get our password to finally access the VetSuccess 

job portal. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
21 

This is too high a hurdle for something so simple as a job listing for veterans. 

You should be able to go to this site, type your zip code and get the job listings. 

When I go to Monster.com, I don’t need to register to do a quick lookup for the jobs 

listed within a specified proximity of my home in Ocala. VetSuccess needs to have 

similar accessibility like Monster: immediate access to job listings by zip code without hiding behind vague titles in a crowded drop menu with excessive registration 

requirements. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment for all veterans was 

8.2 percent. The purpose of my bill is to get the VA thinking about how they should 

properly address the needs of Veterans, provide good customer service and lower the 

barriers to information. This type of employment information should be easily accessible in plan language on the VA’s homepage and the VetSuccess program should 

provide these job listings without making veterans jump through more hoops. Our 

veterans have sacrificed so much for our safety and liberties. I want to ensure our 

veterans a smooth transition into our workforce after their service. Again, I appreciate Chairman Miller having this hearing today and I look forward to what we can 

accomplish and learn from the testimonies of our witnesses. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Corrine Brown 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Filner, for calling this legislative 

hearing today. It is important to discuss the legislation that is before this Committee. 

The bills before us today are H.R.169, by my neighbor from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

This would emphasize veterans’ employment on the VA Web site. Considering the 

amount of information available on so many issues, it is important to include this 

information where our veterans can access it best. 

H.R. 1941, the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 is introduced by my good friend Sanford 

Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Bishop, for explaining your legislation to the Committee. 

This legislation would provide rehabilitation and vocational benefits to severely 

wounded members of the armed forces. I am pleased to be cosponsor of the legislation and look forward to voting for this bill in the full house. 

The third bill is where I have some concerns. I commend the Chairman for bringing a bill to allow veterans to receive retraining assistance. However, with unemployment of veterans at an all time high, and those coming back from the wars in 

Iraq and Afghanistan not having jobs, I don’t understand the reasoning of limiting 

the age of eligibility to those between 35 and 60. 

I also don’t understand the funding mechanism for the program. In this time of 

budget tightening, and a refusal to discuss tax increases for any issue, this bill taxes 

veterans with higher interest rates to pay for more government programs. This legislation doubles the interest rates veterans pay for housing loans. Yes the rates 

have not gone into effect yet, but they are law right now, and I am sure in these 

tough economic times our veterans can use the estimated $1.6 billion dollars this 

change in law will cost them. 

The Veterans Home Loan Program is one of the homeowner programs that works 

in this country. The foreclosure rate is much lower than anything in the private sector and I don’t think changing this program will do anyone any good. 

I don’t need an explanation of this provision, Mr. Chairman. I can recognize hypocrisy when I see it. You are trying to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans. I cannot support this legislation as it is currently written. I hope that by the time 

we mark up this bill in Subcommittee and then full Committee, the provision is 

fixed. 

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Russ Carnahan 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, thank you for hosting this legislative 

hearing to discuss the important issue of putting America’s veterans back to work. 

In this tough economy, jobs are hard to come by, particularly for many of our veterans. Our young returning combat soldiers, and those severely injured during military service, have the hardest time securing employment. We are also seeing difficulty in older vets obtaining employment as well. 

It is vitally important to ensure that our veterans are able to secure and maintain 

employment after returning to civilian life. Not only does employment offer salary 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
22 

and benefits, employment also provides an important sense of purpose and aides in 

the transition from military to civilian life. We in Congress must work with relevant 

stakeholders to guarantee that opportunities exist for our veterans to obtain gainful 

and meaningful employment. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and have a few questions for 

them. f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia 

I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and the rest of 

the House Veterans Affairs Committee for inviting me to testify today on behalf of 

the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011. 

As you are aware, the current economic environment has left millions of Americans out of work and has made it exceptionally difficult for them to find jobs. This 

problem is particularly acute in our Nation’s veterans community. 

Recent data has shown that veterans, especially those who have served in Iraq 

or Afghanistan, face an unemployment rate of over 27 percent after leaving the 

service. This situation is simply unacceptable and represents a failure of us here 

in Congress to help our Nation’s veterans. As the war in Iraq comes to an end and 

we begin to draw down our forces in Afghanistan, even more veterans will be looking for work, further compounding this problem. 

With this in mind, I thank Senator Murray for taking the lead on this issue and 

originally introducing the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 in the U.S. Senate. 

It is also for this reason that I am proud to have introduced, with the help of 

Ranking Member Filner, Chairman Bill Young of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Ranking Member Norm Dicks of the full Appropriations Committee, and 

Representative Jerry McNerney, the House companion bill to Senator Murray’s legislation. Here in the House, the measure has already garnered 55 cosponsors, representing Republicans and Democrats from both ends of the political spectrum. 

I would like to add that this legislation has gained the support of various veterans 

and servicemember groups including the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign 

Wars, the Military Officers Association of America, and Military Families United. 

The Hiring Heroes Act has already passed favorably out of the Senate Veterans 

Affairs Committee. It is my hope that this Committee will follow the Senate’s lead 

and quickly send this measure to the full House for its consideration. 

Now let me discuss the details of the legislation: 

• Along with modernizing Federal hiring practices, this bill makes participation 

in the Transition Assistance Program mandatory for separating servicemembers. • It requires that each servicemember receive an individualized assessment of 

jobs for which they may qualify. • It creates new programs aimed at improving the transition from servicemember 

to civilian life, including a competitive grant program for nonprofit organizations that provide mentoring services and job training that lead directly to job 

placements. • It also aims to break down barriers between the Department of Defense, the 

Department of Labor, and the Department of Veterans Affairs and makes it 

easier for servicemembers to smoothly transition to veteran status. 

Finally, I want to stress that we have an obligation to help our veterans land on 

their feet when they come home and help them find good paying jobs to support 

their families. These are the members of our society that have risked the most for 

our country. Our current system, although well-intended, simply does not focus 

enough on our servicemembers transition into civilian life. 

Providing more support to our Nation’s veterans is simply the right thing to do, 

and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and 

passing the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011. 

I thank the Committee for inviting me to testify, and I am happy to respond to 

any questions. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jack Quinn, President, 

Erie Community College, Williamsville, NY 

Good morning Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and to each of the Members of the Veterans Affairs Committee. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
23 

As you probably know, as a former Member of this Committee I spent 12 years 

here representing the people around Buffalo, NY and I come before you today as 

one who shares your passion for America’s veterans and to speak on behalf of H.R. 

2433, the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act. 

I am now the President of Erie Community College in Buffalo, NY and I see, on 

a daily basis, the value of education and training. Therefore, I believe that preparing veterans to work in tomorrow’s job market may be the most important thing 

this Committee could do for those who defend us. 

To that end, I am delighted that Chairman Miller has chosen to introduce a bill 

whose centerpiece is to re-skill the largest cohort—632,000—of our 1 million unemployed veterans—those who are between the ages of 35 and 60. 

The Veterans Opportunity to Work Act would provide up to 12 months of Mont- gomery GI Bill benefits, currently about $1,426 per month, to enroll in full time 

training or education leading to employment in a high-demand field as determined 

by the Secretary of Labor. 

To ensure these funds are being well-spent, the bill also requires participants to 

certify their attendance on a monthly basis, just as it has been done for as long as 

I have been around the Montgomery GI Bill. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly mention a challenge that all schools face 

with some of our veteran students and that is the transition from wearing a uniform, often under the most difficult circumstances, to the relatively unstructured civilian student life. I understand that Assistant Secretary Jefferson has a project underway to revise the Transition Assistance Program and I hope he considers content 

that will help a veteran determine whether he or she is ready for college, and choose 

the right school. I also note that the bill would make TAP mandatory. I remember 

from my time on the Committee, that too many servicemembers were not attending 

TAP. I would hope the other services would join the Marine Corps in making TAP 

mandatory. 

I also welcome the bill’s reauthorization of a licensing and credentialing program. 

One of the things I worry about is the ability of Erie Community College to provide 

the right education and training opportunities to meet the needs of local employers. 

By making it clearer what a veteran needs to meet local licensing requirements, 

schools can structure their programs more efficiently. 

One more thing about the State employment services—during my time on the 

Committee, I remember hearing from the Veterans Service Organizations that too 

often, DVOPS and LVERs were being diverted away from serving veterans to nonveteran work. Therefore, I strongly support the bill’s provision that would prohibit 

full time DVOPS and LVERs from serving non-veterans. 

I also see that the bill meets PAYGO requirements and in today’s fiscal climate, 

that too is a good thing. But as an educator, I would like to focus on why Chairman 

Miller’s approach, using community colleges and tech schools, is on target. 

As I speak in such strong support for this bill, I cannot reiterate enough how community colleges are a perfect fit for veteran students. Recent numbers show that 

community colleges remain a top choice for veteran students using their GI Bill educational benefits. In a 2008 article analyzing Department of Veterans Affairs data, 

the Chronicle of Higher Education found that nearly 40 percent of veteran students 

used their educational benefits at a community college in FY 2007. A more recent 

Chronicle article reported that five of the top fifteen institutions serving veteran 

students using Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits were community colleges. Veterans often 

mention the low cost of community college programs and the convenience they offer 

as driving factors in their decision about what institution to attend. 

Veterans also often cite the fact that community colleges offer hands-on, relevant 

education and training programs that build on the skills they learned in the military to help them find good jobs. In many respects, veterans are much like any 

other worker seeking the skills they need to transition from one job to another. 

Community colleges constantly work with employers to ensure that the programs 

they offer give students the skills they need to qualify for high-demand occupations 

in their area. Community colleges are also extremely nimble in their ability to 

quickly create or modify educational and training programs to stay abreast of the 

skills needs of emerging industries. 

Community colleges are striving to increase the numbers of students who leave 

their institutions with postsecondary educational credentials, and to be successful 

in that effort we must effectively serve veteran students. Numerous studies have 

stressed the importance of attaining a credential to the student’s short and longterm career prospects. H.R. 2433 is right to focus on degree or certificate attainment 

in a high-demand occupation. 

In other respects, however, returning veterans are not like other transitional 

workers. Many veterans of active duty bring with them special needs that tax the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
24 

resources of our institutions as we try to address them. Community colleges have 

expressed the need for greater support in serving veteran students. The increased 

complexity of the veterans benefits programs and the unique physical, mental and 

other challenges faced by veterans of the recent wars are often cited as the reasons 

for this increased need. The Federal response has featured very modest efforts to 

meet this need, including the creation and funding of a new Centers of Excellence 

for Veterans success program in the Higher Education Act and an ongoing TRIO 

program in this area. Private efforts in this area, including the American Council 

on Education’s ‘‘Serving Those Who Serve’’ initiative, have had some impact as well. 

Increasing resources for institutions that serve significant numbers of veteran students should continue to be a top priority of the Federal Government. 

As you know, today’s military requires a high school diploma or a general equivalency diploma to enlist. Veterans, as the community in general, come from a variety 

of educational backgrounds and therefore require and desire a diverse support system which is unique to the community college environment. At ECC our students 

have a variety of educational academic programs and support options to choose 

from. If a student graduated from high school long ago and need to brush up their 

skills before taking a placement test, the RISE Program (Reading Incoming Students for Excellence) is a workshop which prepares students in math skills, English 

skills and college success skills. In addition, the Pre-Collegiate Studies Program, a 

more in depth program 10 week program exists to build a student’s skills before 

they enter a classroom. These programs are typical of the Community College environment. Community Colleges offer developmental courses (foundation courses) to 

those students whose academic skills are below the proficiency necessary to begin 

a particular program. Tutoring centers exist to support these efforts, as well as, to 

provide support during the completion of their academic program. 

While community colleges have Veteran Affairs Departments, advisement and 

counseling centers they also develop relationships with community partners, such 

as the VA Hospital and Vet Centers to refer veterans for services when appropriate. 

One of the most important attributes of a low cost community college education 

is that a student can re-enter the workforce within 2 years or less by completing 

a 2 year degree or an even sooner if they complete one of the many certificate programs offered. Many students transfer to 4 year institutions after benefiting from 

their community college experience. 

I would also like to submit for the record two student veteran stories, in their own 

words. And before I close, I would like to say again that it is my hopes that H.R. 

2433 gets the support it needs to become a reality, especially for Veterans Day this 

year which falls on 11/11/11. 

Tina Terhune 

‘‘My name is Tina Terhune, I am 34 and am originally from Buffalo, NY . Visiting 

my father in Oregon, he sent me to a semester at college after graduating early from 

high school at age 17. Upon completion, I was hooked to continue my education. I 

joined the Navy at 19, completing 4 years active duty and 3 years of Reserves in 

Buffalo on Porter Ave. I knew I was headed for ECC City Campus. I had a 10 year 

laid-out plan to start ECC towards my intended degree into forensics. Taking classes at an affordable institution like ECC, my out-of-state and military classes processed into electives easier than I thought. I hit a snag with my Military money, but 

was encouraged to continue. Faculty guided me towards scholarships and awards 

available to me for female veterans to scholarships and awards to where I exactly 

served. I continue to get pointers on monetary help available to me. Another reason 

I knew I was going to continue with ECC was my mother who studied here in the 

late 1980’s. She brought her two daughters to class, and I paid attention. Now, I’m 

packing a full time schedule with my club interests. I’m secretary for the vets club 

at ECC. I play with the physical HyPer Club when schedule permits. I’m also trying 

to revitalize the Theatre Club that used to exist as that was my major in high 

school. I’m glad that I didn’t think my education stopped after my military money 

ran out. There were other avenues I was not aware of. I’m glad for the ECC veteran 

advisors that kept me to steer the Course! I hope to pay it forward with other veteran students who think they cannot continue. I’m living proof and I feel I’m working on a second chance! 

Glenn A. Scott 

I’m a 51-year old Army Veteran who served two terms in the United States Army. 

During and after the Army I had a long bout with addictions. With alcohol being 

my drug of choice, I hit several bottoms and attended many rehabs.Upon coming 

to Buffalo from Martinsburg, West Virginia on January 4, 2008, I drank and roamed 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
25 

the streets of Buffalo homeless. I sought minimal treatment because I wasn’t ready 

to give up drinking. Then a moment of clarity hit me. I entered my latest rehab 

on June 18, 2009 and have been sober ever since, with hope and ambitions today. 

I’m currently enrolled in Erie Community College, and I have completed two semesters earning a 3.33 GPA. My major is Business/Office Management. I’m the Vice 

President of the Veterans Club in the Student Government Association. I have a list 

of names of people who have helped me get to where I’m at today—starting with 

the college’s president, countless faculty members, and all the teachers that I’ve had 

the privilege to study under. ECC’s slogan, ‘‘Start Here, go anywhere’’ really caught 

my attention. While roaming the streets of Buffalo, I’d see that slogan on the side 

of metro buses. I’d say to myself that someday I’d like to go there. Because anywhere is better than where I’ve been, well, that day is here. Today I’m a full time 

student with many goals and ambitions. It took a 12-step program, a higher power, 

and ECC to change my life, and for that, I’m forever grateful.’’ 

f 

Statement of Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for 

Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Democratic Member Filner, and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to present the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on three bills that would affect rehabilitation, training, education, and employment programs for Veterans and Servicemembers. I am accompanied today by Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of the 

General Counsel. 

H.R. 2433 

H.R. 2433, the ‘‘Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011,’’ would make changes 

in the laws relating to the employment and training of Veterans. We are pleased 

to provide our views regarding sections 101 and 501 of the bill, but respectfully 

defer to other departments or entities, including the Department of Defense (DoD), 

the Department of Labor (DoL), and the Government Accountability Office, regarding the bill’s remaining provisions. 

Section 101(a) would require, during the period beginning on January 1, 2012, 

and ending on March 31, 2014, the Secretary of Labor, through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to provide for monthly payments of retraining assistance to certain 

eligible Veterans. The number of eligible Veterans who could participate in this program would be limited to 45,000 during fiscal year 2012 and 55,000 during the period beginning on October 1, 2012, and ending on March 31, 2014. 

Section 101(b) would provide, generally, that each Veteran participating in the retraining program would be entitled to up to 12 months of retraining assistance, as 

determined by the Secretary of Labor. Such assistance could only be used by a Veteran to pursue a VA-approved program of education or training on a full-time basis 

offered by a community college or technical school that would lead to an associate 

degree or a certificate and is designed to provide training for a high-demand position, as determined by the Secretary of Labor. 

Under Section 101(c), each Veteran participating in the retraining program would 

be responsible to self-certify to VA his or her enrollment in an approved program 

of education for each month in which he or she participates in the program. 

Section 101(d) would provide that the amount of the retraining assistance under 

the program would be the amount payable under the Montgomery GI Bill-Active 

Duty. 

Section 101(e) would define an eligible Veteran as a Veteran who is at least 35 

years of age but not more than 60 years of age; was last discharged from activeduty service in the Armed Forces with an honorable discharge; as of the date of application for assistance, has been unemployed for a period of time determined by the 

‘‘Secretary’’ (unspecified, but most likely the Secretary of Labor), with special consideration given to a Veteran who has been unemployed for at least 26 continuous 

weeks; is not eligible for assistance under chapters 30, 31, 33, or 35 of title 38, 

United States Code; and applies for the retraining assistance by not later than October 1, 2013. 

Subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 101 would provide, respectively, for: 

(1) a report by the Secretaries of Labor and Veterans Affairs (to be submitted 

not later than June 1, 2014) that would reflect specified data or information 

regarding the retraining program’s usage by Veterans; (2) entry into an agreement between DoL and VA for the purpose of carrying out the retraining proVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:26 Dec 03, 2011 Jkt 068453 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\68453.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68453

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
26 

gram; (3) funding for payments under the retraining program from VA’s readjustment benefits account; and (4) the termination of the authority to make 

payments under section 101 to be effective on March 31, 2014. 

While VA supports the intent of providing Veterans with educational retraining 

assistance, VA has several significant concerns regarding the implementation and 

administration of this proposed benefit. 

It is unclear whether DoL or VA would make the final eligibility determination 

under the program. As written, we interpret the language to indicate that DoL 

would accept applications and determine eligibility. However, VA would be required 

to determine if an individual is eligible for certain VA educational assistance programs prior to issuing payments. This decision could potentially change DoL’s initial 

eligibility determination. 

Additionally, it would be very cumbersome for VA to determine that an individual 

remains ineligible for VA educational assistance while in receipt of the training assistance. This would require VA to review eligibility under multiple educational assistance programs prior to issuing each payment. This is even more complicated 

since individuals may become eligible or lose eligibility for certain assistance without notice. For example, under the Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33) program, there is 

a transfer of entitlement provision that allows a Servicemember to transfer entitlement to a dependent. Although VA could determine that a Veteran is not receiving 

chapter 33 benefits from their Servicemember-spouse at the time of application, the 

Veteran could subsequently become eligible under chapter 33 based on a transfer 

of entitlement. A Veteran could also potentially gain eligibility under the Survivors’ 

and Dependents’ Educational Assistance (chapter 35) program as a surviving spouse 

or a spouse of a Veteran. 

Under the proposed legislation, Veterans eligible for education benefits under 

chapters 30, 31, 33 or 35 will not be eligible for the retraining assistance. However, 

Veterans eligible for benefits under chapter 32 of title 38, United States Code, or 

chapters 1606 and 1607 of title 10, United States Code would be eligible for this 

new benefit because the proposed legislation is silent on whether or not these Veterans would be eligible. 

The proposed legislation would provide retraining assistance for 12 months towards a pursuit of program of education that leads to an associate’s degree or certificate. However, we note that most associate’s degrees require 2 years of study. 

It is unclear whether a person who has previously used VA education benefits and 

either exhausted their benefits or reached the end of their period of eligibility would 

be considered eligible for the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program. VA recommends adding language to the proposed legislation to clearly state the eligibility 

criteria for the program and the agency responsible for making the determination. 

The proposed legislation requires that VA enter into an agreement with DoL to 

carry out the program. VA would need to modify existing processing systems to accommodate the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program as well as hire and train 

120 additional FTE in year one and another 12 employees in year two (132 total 

FTE) to accommodate the anticipated increase in claims received. This estimate is 

based on the assumption that applications are received evenly throughout the year. 

However, given the annual limit on the number of beneficiaries, VA expects that 

the bulk of the workload would be received at the start of each fiscal year. To process this surge (estimated 65 percent of annual limits) in applications, we would need 

62 permanent employees, as well as additional temporary employees at the beginning of each year. Without this level of FTE and temporary employees to administer 

the proposed benefit, the timeliness for processing of Veterans’ claims for other VA 

education programs would be severely and negatively impacted. 

To accommodate the time needed to develop an agreement, hire and train new 

employees, and amend or develop systems for processing the benefit, VA recommends an effective date of June 1, 2012. 

We will provide an estimate of the cost of enactment of section 101 for the record. 

Section 501(a) of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. § 3710(a)(12) to extend the Secretary’s authority to guarantee loans secured by stocks or certificates in cooperative 

housing. Currently, the law is scheduled to expire on December 21, 2011. Subsection 

(a) would extend the provision through December 21, 2016. 

VA supports subsection (a), provided Congress identifies the necessary cost offsets. Allowing the authority to expire would limit housing options available to certain Veterans, especially those living in larger, urban housing markets. 

VA estimates that enactment would result in insignificant costs the first year, 

$0.8 million over the period of FY 2012 through FY 2016, and $2.2 million over 10 

years. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
27 

Section 501(b) would amend 38 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2) to maintain statutory loan fees 

at their current rates through October 1, 2021, and to delay the time frame in which 

the loan fees are scheduled to be further reduced. Currently, loan fees applicable 

to various types of loans, including initial loans with little or no down payment, 

loans for which Veterans contribute more substantial down payments, and subsequent loans, are all scheduled to decrease as of October 1, 2011. Another reduction 

of such fees is set to occur on October 1, 2013. If enacted, subsection (b) would extend through calendar year 2021 the current fee structure for the first two types: 

initial loans with little or no down payments and loans for which Veterans will contribute more substantial down payments. Subsequent-use loans would not be affected, and would decrease as currently scheduled. 

VA does not oppose enactment of subsection (b). If Congress were to allow the 

funding fees to reduce as scheduled under current law, the program would require 

a larger appropriation to cover expected loan-subsidy costs associated with newly 

guaranteed loans. 

VA estimates enactment of subsection (b) would provide loan-subsidy savings in the amount of $206.9 million in the first year, $1.0 billion over 5 years, and $2.1 

billion over 10 years. 

Section 501(c) of the bill would amend section 501 of the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–389) by delaying the sunset date affecting 

temporary increases in the maximum guaranty amounts. In 2004, as part of Public 

Law 108–454, Congress amended 38 U.S.C. § 3703(a)(1) by adding a new subparagraph (C) to redefine the maximum guaranty amount as ‘‘the dollar amount that 

is equal to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit determined under 

section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 

§ 1454(a)(2)) for a single-family residence, as adjusted for the year involved.’’ Public 

Law 110–389 temporarily increased such amounts, through December 31, 2011, to 

the greater of either 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit or 25 percent of 125 percent of the area median price for a single-family residence. In no 

case, however, could a guaranty amount exceed 25 percent of 175 percent of the 

Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. If section 501(c) were enacted, the temporary 

increase would be extended through December 31, 2014. If it were not, the definition 

of the maximum guaranty amount would again be limited, as of January 1, 2012, 

solely to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limitation. 

Provided Congress identifies necessary cost offsets, VA supports extending the 

temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount enacted in the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008. 

VA estimates enactment of subsection (c) would result in an increase to loan subsidy costs by $642,000 in the first year, $6.0 million over 5 years, and $24.6 million 

over 10 years. 

H.R. 1941 

We are pleased to provide our views on sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 of H.R. 1941, 

the ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011,’’ but respectfully defer to the views of the DoD regarding sections 6, 7, and 12; the DoL regarding sections 8, 11, and 13; and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regarding section 10. 

Section 2 of the bill would extend through 2014 a provision enacted in Title XVI 

of Public Law 110–181, known as the Wounded Warrior Act, which authorizes VA 

to provide rehabilitative services and assistance to certain severely disabled activeduty Servicemembers in the same manner as to Veterans. VA proposed a similar 

provision in its draft Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2011, transmitted to 

Congress on May 19, 2011. While the provisions differ in the length of the extension, VA supports section 2. 

Section 3 of the bill would amend section 3116(b)(1) of title 38, United States 

Code, to expand VA’s authority to pay employers for providing on-job training to 

Veterans. Under current law, VA is authorized to make payments to employers for 

providing on-job training to Veterans who have been rehabilitated to the point of 

employability in certain cases. By removing the requirement that Veterans be rehabilitated to the point of employability before VA can make payments to employers 

for providing on-job training, this section would allow VA to make these payments 

to employers for providing on-job training to many more Veterans. VA supports this 

provision. VA estimates benefit costs to be $792,000 for the first year, $4.2 million 

for 5 years, and $9.1 million over 10 years. 

Section 4 of the bill would provide for additional rehabilitation programs for persons who have exhausted rights to unemployment benefits under State law. Under 

section 3102 of title 38, United States Code, as amended by this section, a person 

who has completed a chapter 31 rehabilitation program would be entitled to an additional rehabilitation program if the person meets the current requirements for enVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:26 Dec 03, 2011 Jkt 068453 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\68453.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68453

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
28 

titlement to a chapter 31 rehabilitation program; has, under State or Federal law, 

exhausted all rights to regular compensation with respect to a benefit year; and satisfies certain other requirements. 

Section 4 of the bill would also amend sections 3105 and 3695 of title 38, United 

States Code, to limit the period of an additional rehabilitation program to 24 

months, but also to exempt Veterans pursuing an additional rehabilitation program 

from certain other limits. Under current section 3105, a rehabilitation program may 

not be pursued after 12 years following a Veteran’s discharge or release from active 

service. Under current section 3695(b), assistance under chapter 31 in combination 

with certain other provisions of law is limited to 48 months. Section 4 of the bill 

would amend sections 3105 and 3695(b) to make these limitations inapplicable to 

an additional rehabilitation program. 

VA supports this provision because it would help VA serve more Veterans in need of assistance. VA estimates benefit costs to be $51,000 in the first year, $294,000 

for 5 years, and $724,000 over 10 years. 

Section 5 of the bill would amend section 3106 of title 38, United States Code, 

to require an assessment and followup on Veterans with service-connected disabilities who participate in VA training and rehabilitation. In addition, section 5 would 

require VA to ascertain the employment status of a participating Veteran and assess his or her rehabilitation program not later than 180 days after completion of, 

or termination of, his or her participation in that program, and at least once every 

180 days thereafter for a period of 1 year. VA supports this provision. We believe 

that providing follow-up is an important endeavor. No benefit costs would be associated with this provision. VA estimates administrative costs to be $4.7 million in the 

first year, $24.2 million over 5 years, and $55 million over 10 years. In addition, 

VA estimates that $250,000 will be needed in FY 2012 to develop an IT solution 

to automate follow-up activity. 

Finally, section 9 of the bill would require VA, DoD, and DoL to select a contractor to conduct a study to identify equivalencies between skills developed by 

members of the military through various military occupational specialties (MOS) 

and the qualifications required for private-sector civilian employment positions and 

report on the results of the study. This section would also require Federal Government departments and agencies to cooperate with the contractor. VA, DoD, and DoL 

would be required to transmit the report with appropriate comments to Congress. 

Section 9 would also require DoD to use the results of the study and other information to ensure that each member of the military participating in the Transition 

Assistance Program (TAP) receives an assessment of the various private-sector civilian employment positions for which the member may be qualified as a result the 

member’s MOS. DoD would have to transmit the individualized assessment to VA 

and DoL to use in providing employment-related assistance in the transition from 

military service to civilian life and to facilitate and enhance the transition. 

VA does not support this provision to enter into a joint contract to identify civilian 

equivalencies of military jobs. Software applications that analyze military occupational data and provide equivalent civilian jobs currently exist. Therefore, VA believes a contract to conduct a study to identify this information is not necessary. 

VA is currently utilizing web software available in the public domain that translates 

military skills to equivalent civilian jobs. VA will continue to closely monitor the 

marketplace to identify software that may improve our ability to identify civilian 

equivalents of military jobs. 

VA estimates that if section 9 of H.R. 1941 were enacted there would be no benefit cost to VA; however, general operating expense costs would be approximately 

$175,000. 

H.R. 169 

H.R. 169 would require that, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 

of the Act, the Secretary include on the main page of VA’s Internet Web site a new 

hyperlink with a drop-down menu entitled ‘‘Veterans Employment’’ that will include 

direct access to the VetSuccess Internet Web site, the USA Jobs Internet Web site, 

the Job Central Web site, and other employment Web sites that focus on jobs for 

Veterans. It would also require the Secretary to promote awareness of the 

VetSuccess Internet Web site by advertising in national media and to inform Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom of the 

VetSuccess Internet Web site through outreach efforts. 

VA supports efforts to increase Veterans’ awareness of the VetSuccess.gov Web 

site and to promote opportunities for employment of Veterans through links to appropriate resources. Although we believe we are currently accomplishing the purpose of this legislation, we do not object to the enactment of this bill. VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program currently conducts outreach 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
29 

to OEF/OIF Veterans through the Coming Home To Work (CHTW) initiative and 

through other avenues such as Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP) 

presentations. VR&E informs Veterans of the VetSuccess.gov Web site through 

CHTW and by other means, including DTAP presentations and the distribution of 

QuickBooks. 

One-time costs associated with advertising in national media outlets are estimated to be $900,000 during the first year. To conduct a recent media campaign, 

VA’s Education Service spent approximately $380,000 on developing concepts and 

materials, identifying and targeting appropriate markets, and developing a marketing plan. An additional $520,000 was spent on implementation of the marketing 

plan. Implementation included advertising on radio, social media sites including 

Facebook and MySpace, Internet sites including Google and Yahoo, print outlets and 

text messaging services. VA would expect to incur similar costs to conduct a media 

campaign to advertise the VetSuccess.gov Web site. 

No additional costs are related to conducting outreach to OEF/OIF Veterans to inform them of the VetSuccess.gov Web site because this is currently done by VR&E. 

No additional costs are associated with including hyperlinks on the VA main Internet page because VA has already budgeted for these types of minor changes. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to share the Department’s views. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. 

f 

Statement of Hon. Raymond M. Jefferson, Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ 

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

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss legislation pending 

in this Committee aimed at helping our returning servicemember transition back to 

civilian life. 

The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) proudly serves Veterans 

and transitioning servicemember by providing resources and expertise to assist and 

prepare them to obtain meaningful careers, maximize their employment opportunities and protect their employment rights. 

Secretary Solis has been an incredible source of guidance and support, and has 

made Veterans and VETS one of her top priorities. Our programs are an integral 

part of Secretary Solis’s vision of ‘‘Good Jobs for Everyone’’ and her unwavering commitment to help Veterans and their families get into the middle class and maintain 

financial stability. We strive to achieve this vision through four main programs: 

• Jobs for Veterans State Grants; 

• Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops; 

• Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Programs; and 

• Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. 

Your letter of invitation seeks input on three bills: (1) H.R. 169, to require the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the main page of the Internet Web site 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs a hyperlink to the VetSuccess Internet Web 

site and to publicize such Internet Web site; (2) H.R. 1941, the ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act 

of 2011’’; and (3) H.R. 2433, the ‘‘Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011’’. I will 

limit my remarks to those provisions of H.R. 1941 that would have a direct impact 

on VETS and the Department of Labor. 

As for the remaining legislation, H.R. 169 would be administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) and we defer to VA on that bill. H.R. 2433 was recently introduced on July 7, 2011, and we have not had an opportunity to thoroughly review and formulate the Department’s views on the legislation in time for 

this hearing. We will, however, provide the Committee with our views in a followup Statement for the Record. 

H.R. 1941: ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011’’ 

Section 6: This section would require the mandatory participation of members of 

the Armed Forces in the Department of Labor’s Employment Workshop component 

of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). 

We believe that all transitioning servicemember who plan to enter civilian employment would benefit from attending the Employment Workshop, but defer to the 

Department of Defense (DoD) as to whether it should be a mandatory component 

for all transitioning servicemember. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
30 

Section 7: This section would require DoL to follow-up on the employment status 

of members of the Armed Forces who recently participated in TAP. In particular, 

it would require that DoL contact each participating Veteran no later than 6 months 

after his or her completion of the program, and at least once every 90 days thereafter over the next 6 months in order to ascertain the Veteran’s employment status. 

DoL supports the concept of the TAP follow-up, but believes that the metrics of 

our redesigned Employment Workshop would properly satisfy this requirement. As 

you may recall, we recently testified on our current initiative to redesign and transform the Employment Workshop. As part of the redesign, which is already underway, a comprehensive follow-up program will be implemented to track participants’ 

success entering the civilian workforce. In particular, participants will receive customized coaching by phone or online for 60 days after they attend the workshop. 

This will be ‘‘live’’ person-to-person contact and will focus primarily on assisting participants with implementing, ‘‘pressure-testing’’ (i.e., comparing the written plan 

with the participants’ actual desires), and revising their Individual Transition 

Plans. The follow-up component will also incorporate peer support techniques. DoL 

believes that this program may provide the information that the Committee desires, 

and we would like to work with the Committee to provide additional information 

on this initiative. 

Section 8: Among other things, this section would: (1) establish a competitive 

grant program for nonprofit organizations that provide mentoring and training to 

Veterans; (2) require DoL and nonprofit organizations to collaborate in order to facilitate the placement of Veterans in jobs that lead to economic self-sufficiency; 

(3) require DoL to conduct an assessment of grant performance no later than 18 

months after enactment; and (4) authorize appropriations of $4.5 million for Fiscal 

Years 2012 and 2013. 

DoL believes that it currently satisfies the intent of this section. We note that this 

section seems to closely follow the parameters of the existing Veterans’ Workforce 

Investment Program (VWIP) established under section 168 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The VWIP provides employment and training support, through 

grants and contracts to service providers, to provide eligible veterans with additional assistance to transition to meaningful employment within the civilian labor 

force. It is unclear whether the intent of this section differs from the intent of the 

VWIP. Therefore, we would like to work with the Committee to discuss the potential 

overlap between this section and the VWIP. 

Section 9: Among other things, this section would require DoL, DoD, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to conduct a joint study to identify any equivalences between the skills developed by members of the Armed Forces through various military occupational specialties (MOS) and the qualifications required for various positions of civilian employment in the private sector. 

Section 9 seems to duplicate existing processes that provide the capability to 

crosswalk Servicemember skills to equivalent civilian occupations. We note that 

there are several tools that meet the need for skill equivalencies for separating 

servicemember, such as the Department’s Occupational Information Network 

(O*NET) and DoD’s Credentialing Opportunities On-Line (COOL). In addition, the 

TAP redesign will include practical exercises to help participants in translate their 

skills, abilities, experience, and training on to a re ́sume ́, as well as create an Individual Transition Plan. We would like to work with the Committee to explore ways 

to strengthen these resources and improve the transition of Veterans into civilian 

employment. 

Section 11: This section would require the Department to conduct outreach and 

employment assistance to recently-separated Veterans who receive unemployment 

compensation for more than 105 days. 

The Department supports this section, but requests that the time period be 

changed from 105 days to 15 weeks to coincide with the end of a benefit week for 

purposes of Unemployment Compensation. 

Section 13: This section would reauthorize and modify the demonstration program for credentialing and licensing of Veterans contained in 38 U.S.C. 4114. 

DoL supports the concept of this section and believes that credentialing and licensing Veterans will help in transitioning successfully into the civilian sector. This 

provision does, however, raise serious implementation issues. 

Licensing and credentialing are functions performed most often by individual 

States, which means that the demonstration project would require DoD to align its 

military training and assessments to more closely match States’ civilian licensing 

requirements. We would like to work with the Committee to help resolve these 

issues so that the credentialing and licensing of Veterans can be more successfully 

implemented. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
31 

Conclusion 

We are reminded every day of the tremendous sacrifices made by our Veterans, 

Servicemembers and their families. Secretary Solis and the Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service believe that America must honor those sacrifices by providing 

the Nation’s bravest with the best possible programs and services that we have to 

offer. We look forward to continuing our work with this Committee to do just that. 

I again thank this Committee for its commitment to our Nation’s Veterans and 

for providing the opportunity to testify before you. We would be happy to work with 

your staffs to provide technical assistance on any of these or future bills, and I 

would be happy to respond to any questions. 

f 

Supplemental Statement of Ismael Ortiz, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of Labor’s 

(DoL or Department) views on an important piece of legislation that would significantly impact our Servicemembers: H.R. 2433, the ‘‘Veterans Opportunity to Work 

Act of 2011’’ (the Act). We appreciate your continued support of the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) and look forward to working with Congress 

to help our returning Servicemembers transition back to civilian life. 

To that end, the Department offers the following views on provisions of H.R. 2433 

that would have a direct impact on DoL and VETS. As explained in our analysis, 

the Department has significant concerns with some portions of this bill. 

H.R. 2433 ‘‘Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011’’ 

Section 101—Veterans Retraining Assistance Program: 

Section 101 of the Act would require the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) to provide eligible Veterans with monthly payments of ‘‘retraining assistance’’ to pursue 

a post-service education at a community college or technical school. Although DoL 

supports the intent of this section, we believe the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) should be the lead agency for three reasons. First, the payments are funded 

out of a VA account. Specifically, section 101(h) requires that the payments be made 

from amounts appropriated to the VA’s readjustment benefits account. Second, the 

bill would require VA to receive the necessary enrollment certifications from participating Veterans. Finally, VA is in a better position to determine whether applicants 

are eligible for the program because of VA’s access to Veteran’s service records. 

Section 201—Transition Assistance Program (TAP): 

Section 201 would require the Secretary of Labor to contract with private entities 

to provide certain services to members of the Armed Forces who are separating from 

active duty (and their spouses). The bill also specifies that the Secretary must enter 

into these contracts within twenty-four months of the date on which H.R. 2433 is 

enacted. 

DoL has two concerns with this section. First, the twenty-four month deadline is 

far too short. Although VETS intends to transition to having all facilitation of the 

TAP Employment Workshop done by contract facilitators, the move will take time. 

The transition to all contractors will take over 2 years to implement fully because 

of the following: 

• First, VETS is currently working with a contractor to redesign the TAP curriculum that the contract facilitators will utilize. In order to maintain stability 

during the various stages of the curriculum redesign of TAP, we believe it most 

appropriate to extend an existing contract that provides VETS with facilitation 

services. It would be unnecessarily complicated to redesign TAP while simultaneously transitioning to a new contractor to provide all-contract facilitators. 

• Second, a new award for facilitation services will take time to plan, compete, 

award and execute. 

• Third, once a new facilitation contract has been awarded, that contractor will 

need to hire, train, and deploy facilitators 

• Finally, Status of Forces Agreements for the new facilitation contractor to work 

in the host countries overseas will take months to complete 

In order to continue to provide the Nation’s warriors and their families with the 

seamless support they deserve, the timing should be revised to provide the Secretary with greater flexibility. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
32 

1Section 4103A(a) of Title 38 of the U.S. Code requires DVOPs to ‘‘carry out intensive services.’’ This broad mandate has been interpreted to include counseling. 2 Under section 4104(b)(2) of Title 38, LVERs are required to ‘‘facilitate employment, training 

and placement services.’’ 

Second, VETS is concerned that the proposed legislation would require the Secretary to contract for services that are already assigned by statute to employees in 

the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 1 (DVOP) and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives 2 (LVER) program. Specifically, the bill would reassign the responsibility for counseling and placement to contractors. 

The DVOP and LVER programs have been very successful, and have helped Veterans throughout the United States. In fact, either a DVOP specialist or a LVER 

is out stationed half-time or more in 48 of the VA Regional Offices and in 19 satellite offices. The work of these individuals helped the Department’s Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) Program in providing services to nearly 589,000 Veterans, and helped ensure that over 201,000 Veterans found jobs. 

Therefore, due to our concerns regarding the timing of the TAP redesign and the 

conflict this section presents with the statutory responsibilities of DVOP and LVER, 

DoL does not support this section as written. However, DoL could support this section if it were amended to include more flexibility of time in the implementation of 

the contract facilitators and to preserve the roles and responsibilities of the DVOP/ 

LVER positions 

Section 202—Mandatory Participation in Transition Assistance Program: 

Section 202 would require the mandatory participation of members of the Armed 

Forces in the Department of Labor’s Employment Workshop component of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) unless there is a documented urgent operational 

requirement that prevents attendance. We believe that all transitioning Servicemembers who plan to enter civilian employment would benefit from attending the 

Employment Workshop, but defer to the Department of Defense (DoD) as to whether 

it should be a mandatory component for all transitioning Servicemembers. 

Section 203—Report on Transition Assistance Program: 

Section 203 would require the Secretary of Labor to: (1) report to Congress, annually, the number of members of the armed forces eligible for assistance under the 

Employment Workshop portion of TAP who participated in the program within 30, 

90, and 180 days of being separated from active duty, and the percentages of which 

participated in each time frame; and (2) contract out an audit of the program at 

least every 3 years, and submit the results of the audit to Congress, VA, DoD, and 

DoL. This audit would be funded through the JVSG program. 

We believe that the report required in (e)(1) more properly belongs to DoD and 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DoL does not have access to the information required in the report. Only DoD and DHS know when a Servicemember will 

be separated from active duty. DoL would report Employment Workshop participation information to DoD in order for them to note attendance in the Servicemembers’ records. 

Since the bill assigns the audit contracting requirement to the Secretary of Labor, 

it appears to require an audit of the Department’s Employment Workshop, which 

is the only component under the Secretary’s direct supervision. As this Committee 

is aware, TAP is an interagency program designed to assist returning Servicemembers as they transition back into civilian life. TAP consists of five components 

and is delivered in partnership with DoL, VA, DoD, and DHS. The five components 

include: 

1. Pre-separation Counseling (3 hours)—This is a mandatory component for all 

transitioning Servicemembers and is provided by the military services; 

2. TAP Employment Workshops (2.5 days)—These are voluntary on the part of 

the transitioning Servicemember and are administered through DoL and its 

State partners; 

3. VA Benefits Briefing (4 hours)—These briefings are also voluntary and administered by the VA; 

4. Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP) (2 hours)—Also voluntary and 

administered by the VA; and 

5. One-on-One Coaching—This is a follow-up, provided by the military services, 

to the four components outlined above. 

The TAP Employment Workshop provided by DoL is but one component of an 

interagency program for returning Servicemembers, which addresses their unique 

needs as they prepare to reenter civilian life. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
33 

The Department’s redesign of the TAP Employment Workshop, already underway, 

calls for the use of new performance metrics. These metrics must be fully integrated 

and implemented before they can be sufficiently evaluated. In particular, the redesign will include metrics and gather input from participants at three ‘‘moments of 

truth’’: 

1. At the conclusion of the TAP Employment Workshop—attendees will evaluate 

the delivery, content, approach, resources, and setting; 

2. During the job search (when attendees are actually applying what they have 

learned)—they will evaluate the relevancy and effectiveness of the workshop’s 

content and approach; and 

3. After securing employment—attendees will be asked how useful the workshop 

was in helping them obtain a job or career opportunity, how rapidly the program helped them assimilate into the work culture of their new organization, 

and whether the program helped them become positive contributors to their organization. 

The performance metrics for the new TAP Employment Workshop will allow for 

the continual analysis of the workshop and, if necessary, for adjustments to be 

made. We believe the new performance measurement system for the DoL Employment Workshop will accomplish the intent of the audit provision. Consequently, requiring a separate, outside audit every 3 years would not provide a meaningful benefit for the re-configured TAP Employment Workshop, and could, in fact, detract 

from the implementation of the performance metrics. 

Moreover, we note that the Department’s Office of the Inspector General currently 

conducts audits of the Employment Workshop program. We believe that this audit 

could fulfill the Congress’s intent, as would the Comptroller General review in Section 205, which we discuss later. If an additional audit is needed, we believe it 

would properly fall under the jurisdiction of the Government Accountability Office, 

rather than being contracted for by the Secretary of Labor, as required by the bill. 

Therefore, we do not support this section. 

Section 204—Transition Assistance Program Outcomes: 

Section 204 would require the Secretaries of Labor and DoD to jointly develop a 

method to assess the outcomes for individuals who participate in the Transition Assistance Program. DoL supports the intent of this section but notes that the Secretary of VA should also be included because subparagraph (f)(3) asks for outcomes 

associated with education benefits that the VA has responsibility for tracking. 

Section 205—Comptroller General Review: 

Section 205 would require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of the TAP Employment Workshop and submit the results and recommendations for improving the program in a report to Congress. DoL supports this 

section and believes this section eliminates the need for the audit required by Section 203 of the Act. 

Section 301—Reauthorization and Improvement of Demonstration Project on 

Credentialing and Licensure of Veterans: 

Section 301 would reauthorize and expand the demonstration project that links 

military skills to civilian jobs through licensing and credentialing. DoL supports the 

intent of this section, but requests that the dollar limit be removed. The Department 

believes it is unlikely that a sufficiently rigorous project could be completed for less 

than $180,000. The Department also requests that the potential entities for this 

project be expanded to include all public and private entities to allow for the selection of the best proposal. Finally, the Department requests that the submission date 

for the report to Congress be extended to 120 days after the close of the fiscal year 

to allow time for the project to be evaluated. 

Section 302—Inclusion of Performance Measures in Annual Report on Veteran Job Counseling, Training, and Placement Programs of the Department of Labor: 

Section 302 would create new performance metrics to track the employment rate 

of Veterans who received services from all DoL-administered job training programs. 

The provision would also require that States track veterans’ average salaries and 

credential attainment. The section would also require States to significantly modify 

and expand their processes to collect information. 

The Employment and Training Administration tracks program outcomes based on 

a set of common performance measures for entered employment, retention and average earnings for all workforce system customers, including Veterans. The DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:26 Dec 03, 2011 Jkt 068453 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\68453.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68453

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
34 

ment does not support this provision as written because it would in effect create 

a separate performance system for serving Veterans. 

Section 303—Clarification of Priority of Service for Veterans in Department 

of Labor Job Training Programs: 

Section 303 would further clarify Priority of Service under section 4215 of title 

38 U.S.C. and expand what is required in the DoL VETS’ Annual Report. The update to the definition of Priority of Service is in line with the definition that appears 

in our regulations at 20 CFR 1010.200(b). DoL would support this change. 

DoL also supports the intent of Section 303’s expansion of VETS’ Annual Report. 

The bill would require VETS to include: (1) an analysis of implementation of providing priority of service; (2) whether the representation of Veterans in such programs is in proportion to the incidence of representation of Veterans in labor market, including within groups that the Secretary may designate for priority under 

such programs, if any; and (3) performance measures to determine if Veterans are 

receiving priority of service and being fully served by DoL job training programs. 

Under the current Priority of Service regulations, DoL tentatively plans to collect 

additional information to provide data on Priority of Service in DoL programs. 

Section 304—Evaluation of Individuals Receiving Training at the National 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Services Institute: 

Section 304 would require that all Disabled Veteran Outreach Program Specialists 

(DVOP) and Local Veteran Employment Representatives (LVER) pass a certification 

test at the end of their National Veterans Training Institute training (currently operated by the University of Colorado at Denver). The Department supports this section because it will enhance our ability to track performance but requests an effective date of 180 days to allow time to make required changes to courses. 

Section 305—Pilot Program on the Use of Veterans Employment and Training Grant Funds to Provide Direct Training Services to Unemployed Veterans: 

Section 305 would require the Secretary of Labor to carry out a 3-year program 

to make grants to and enter into contracts with any of the ten States with the highest unemployment in the Nation. DoL does not support this section as written. The 

Department believes that Veterans have access to training under the Workforce Investment Act and therefore the diversion of funds from the JVSG for a secondary 

training program is unnecessary. 

WIA offers comprehensive employment services, including job counseling, job 

search and referrals, re ́sume ́ preparation, and other assistance. WIA also provides 

training through community colleges and other training providers for those in need 

of a credential or need to change or upgrade their skills. These services are easily 

accessed through WIA’s network of nearly 3,000 One-Stop Career Centers nationwide, and Veterans receive priority of service for WIA programs and all other DoLfunded employment and training services. 

Section 306—Requirements for Full-time Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives: 

Sec. 306 of the proposed bill would add additional language barring full-time 

DVOPs and LVERs from performing non-Veteran-related duties. It also adds a requirement that DoL conduct regular audits to ensure compliance with this prohibition, and says that if there are violations, then a State’s grants can be reduced. We 

believe the additional language is unnecessary. The current law, as well as VETS 

policy guidance, already makes clear that the role of DVOPs and LVERs is to help 

veterans find employment, and the audit requirement would needlessly divert scarce 

administrative resources. We recommend that the Committee strike Section 306 and 

maintain the current language in Chapter 41 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code. 

Section 307—Report on Findings of the Department of Defense and Department of Labor Credentialing Work Group: 

Section 307 would require a joint report by DoL and DoD on reducing licensing 

and credentialing barriers for ten military occupational specialties. DoL supports 

this section but recommends subsection (c) be changed to allow the study to be completed within 12 months from the date of the award of the contract. The report 

should be submitted to Congress no later than 90 days after the completion of the 

study. This would allow sufficient time for a thorough study to be conducted. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
35 

Section 401—Clarification of Benefits of Employment Covered Under 

USERRA: 

Section 401 would clarify the definition of the terms ‘‘benefit’’, ‘‘benefit of employment’’, or ‘‘rights and benefits’’ under chapter 43 of title 38—Employment and Reemployment Rights of Members of the Uniformed Services. The Department supports this section. 

Section 502—Extension of Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs: 

Section 502 would extend the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program until 

2016. The Department supports extending this program. HVRP is the only Federal 

employment program designed specifically to address the employment problems 

faced by our Nation’s homeless veterans. HVRP provides services to assist in reintegrating homeless veterans into meaningful employment and to stimulate the development of effective service delivery systems that will address the complex problems 

facing homeless veterans. Employment is the linchpin by which a homeless veteran 

may start a successful journey back to society, regardless of whether the homelessness is long term or short term, first time or cyclical. 

Conclusion 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on this bill. We look 

forward to working with this Committee to provide the Nation’s bravest and their 

families with the best possible programs and services that we have to offer. 

f 

Statement of the U.S. Department of Defense 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and Members of this distinguished 

Committee, thank you for extending an invitation to the Department of Defense to 

address pending legislation that would significantly affect our Servicemembers: H.R. 

169; H.R. 1941, the proposed ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011’’; and H.R. 2433, the proposed ‘‘Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011’’. 

The Department defers to the VA on H.R. 169 as DoD does not have any specific 

concerns. 

The Department recommends modifying H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433, and the Department’s comments are limited to sections directly affecting it. 

Summary of the Department’s views on pending legislation 

H.R. 1941 

The Department’s comments on H.R. 1941 are limited to sections directly affecting 

it. 

Section 2: The Department is not opposed to the provisions of section 2 that would 

extend Section 1631(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) through December 31 2014. Section 1631(b)(1) allows 

Servicemembers, with a severe injury or illness to receive vocational, rehabilitation 

and employment benefits (but not compensation) from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to facilitate their recovery and rehabilitation while still a member of the 

Armed Forces. Extending this benefit provides Servicemembers with disabilities assistance in identifying the training requirements and resources needed to achieve 

their rehabilitation and employment goals. 

Section 6: The Department continues to work closely with Departments of Veterans Affairs and Labor, and the interagency, to enable seamless transition from 

Servicemembers to Veteran. Our efforts are consistent and integrated with the 

President’s Veteran Employment Initiative to help Federal agencies identify qualified Veterans, clarify the hiring process for Veterans seeking employment with the 

Federal Government, and help them to adjust to the civilian work environment once 

they are hired. The President’s statement highlights the fundamental purpose for 

that effort—‘‘Honoring our sacred trust with America’s Veterans means doing all we 

can to help them find work when they come home so they never feel as if the American Dream they fought to defend is out of reach for them and their families.’’ DoD 

believes that we too must honor our sacred trust with America’s Servicemembers 

and do all we can to make their transition to Veteran seamless. 

The Department has had recent discussions with the Administration to further 

highlight and advance these principles. The DoD Transition Assistance Program 

(TAP) must be an integral part in our ability to achieve the seamless transition. 

TAP is an important tool to prepare Servicemembers for life after they separate or 

retire from the military. Whatever policy decision is made about its mandatory use 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
36 

will need to factor provide maximum flexibility for the Service Secretaries to ensure 

that there are waiver authorities available to exempt military personnel from mandatory training when appropriate given the unique circumstances of individual 

cases. This should also provide Service Secretaries with the tools for managing their 

personnel during transition. 

Section 9: The Department believes that section 9 is unnecessary as it duplicates 

existing processes that provide the capability to crosswalk Servicemember skills to 

equivalent civilian occupations, and therefore does not support section 9 of H.R. 

1941. 

During mandatory (required by statute) preseparation counseling, Servicemembers are informed about the Occupational Information Network. The revised 

DD Form 2648, Preseparation Counseling Checklist for Active Component (AC), Active Guard Reserve (AGR), and Reserve Program Administrator (RPA) Servicemembers, states, ‘‘counselors will provide information on civilian occupations corresponding to Military occupations (see Occupational Information Network (O*Net 

Web site) at www.online.onetcenter.org/crosswalk and related programs . . .’’ 

The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is under the sponsorship of the 

U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration. The O*NET 

program is the Nation’s primary source of occupational information. Central to the 

project is the O*NET database, containing information on hundreds of standardized 

and occupation-specific descriptors. The database is continually updated by surveying a broad range of workers from each occupation. O*NET OnLine contains 

crosswalks between the O*NET-Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) and the 

Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), Dictionary of Occupational Titles 

(DOT), Military Occupational Classification (MOC), Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Data System (RAPIDS), and Standard Occupational Classification 

(SOC). 

Additionally, the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration has a long-standing record of assisting transitioning Servicemembers with 

O*NET. 

Another program is the United States Military Apprenticeship Program (USMAP), 

a partnership between Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Navy and Secretary of 

Transportation. Out of 300 enlisted Military Occupational Specialties (MOS’s), 257 

are covered under USMAP trades/occupations employing apprenticeship. Occupations offered through USMAP cross over into several civilian industries, including 

servicing, manufacturing and construction, and transportation/utilities. 

Section 10: The Department opposes section 10. The authority under this section 

is too broad in its application and scope. It would appear the language would simply 

allow veterans to be non-competitively appointed to the GS system within 180 days 

of discharge. There appears to be no provision on how we would establish qualifications. Given we have a myriad of hiring authorities for veterans, we do not see what 

problem this language is trying to solve. Further, it runs the risk of making it extremely difficult for someone who is not a veteran to gain entry level employment 

in light on this authority. We run the risk of inadvertently giving veterans preference that is far overreaching and will likely be challenged by the Merit Systems 

Protection Board. 

Section 12: The Department is not opposed to the provisions of section 12 which 

would allow the Department to establish a pilot program to provide separating 

Servicemembers, who are on terminal leave, work experience with civilian employees and contractors of the Department of Defense to facilitate the transition of those 

members from service in the Armed Forces to employment in the civilian labor market. The Department realizes the value of programs that improve the employment 

outcomes for our transitioning servicemembers, such as those that provide exposure 

to the civilian work environment while working for the Department. The Department of Labor, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security all jointly develop and contribute to the Transition Assistance Program, and we look forward to working with 

them to improve transition outcomes by using new and creative ideas, such as the 

one provided in this section. 

H.R. 2433 

Comments on H.R. 2433 are limited to sections directly affecting the Department. 

Section 202: As with section 6 of H.R. 1941, we believe TAP is an important tool 

to prepare Servicemembers for life after they separate or retire from the military. 

However, Section 202 would require mandatory participation in the DoL Employment Workshop for all transitioning Servicemembers and only allows exceptions 

when ‘‘a documented operational requirement prevents attendance.’’ As written, this 

section would require personnel to be retained on active duty until they have completed this TAP component. Therefore, this provision should include a waiver auVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:26 Dec 03, 2011 Jkt 068453 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\68453.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68453

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
37 

thority to exempt mandatory attendance in order to give the Service Secretaries 

greater flexibility for managing their personnel during transition. 

Section 204: The Department believes that section 204 is unnecessary and does 

not support this provision as written. On June 2, 2011, Secretary Jefferson, Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training Service, Department of Labor, 

discussed the redesigned DoL Employment Workshop in testimony before this Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. The redesigned workshop will 

gather input from TAP attendees: (1) after the Employment Workshop; (2) during 

the job search; and (3) after they secure employment to assess how useful the workshop was in helping them obtain a job. We believe the redesigned DoL Employment 

Workshop, which is scheduled to be implemented November 2011, accomplishes the 

intent of the proposed legislation to access the effectiveness of transition assistance 

employment efforts. 

Section 307: The Department supports section 307 mandating the completion of 

the joint Department of Defense and Department of Labor Credentialing Work 

Group study of 10 military occupation specialties. We request the Departments be 

granted sixteen months from the date the contract is awarded to complete the study, 

analysis and submit the report to Congress as required by paragraphs b and c of 

this section. 

f 

Statement of Robert Madden, Assistant Director, 

National Economic Commission, American 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The American Legion applauds this Committee for the attention given to the troubling rise in veterans’ unemployment. This slate of legislation addresses many of the 

key concerns of our 2.4 million members. The American Legion supports the passage 

of H.R. 169, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 2433. 

H.R. 2433 addresses one of the little known facts of veterans’ unemployment, 

which is though the percentages of younger, unemployed veterans is slightly higher, 

the vast majority of the ranks of unemployed veterans are of an older age group 

and require different needs such as retraining of job skills and other skills not necessarily covered by education benefits directed at younger veterans. Reaching these 

veterans would provide real and tangible job skills needed in the changing employment market. 

Both H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433 recognize the essential nature of a mandatory 

Transition Assistance Program (TAP) which is fully supported by The American Legion. There is no reason this necessary hand off between the military and civilian 

worlds should not be made mandatory. 

Furthermore, better understanding of credentialing and certification is necessary 

to help civilian employers recognize the job skills learned in service closely mirror 

those required in the non-military world. There is no good reason a military driver 

should not be equally qualified to drive trucks in the civilian world, or that a corpsman is not qualified to serve as an EMT. Better attention to the certification and 

licensure process is needed. 

The American Legion supports the passage of all three bills on this slate of legislation. 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner and distinguished Members of the 

Committee: 

On behalf of the 2.4 million members of The American Legion I thank you for this 

opportunity to submit The American Legion’s views on the legislation being considered by the Committee today. We appreciate the efforts of this Committee to address the different needs of the men and women who are currently serving and 

those who served during past conflicts. 

H.R. 2433: Veterans’ Opportunity to Work Act of 2011 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements in the laws 

relating to the employment and training of veterans, and for other purposes. 

With the growing unemployment numbers facing both our younger and older generations, it is imperative that our great Nation gives back to the men and women 

who have given much to this country. Younger veterans currently face an unemployment rate of approximately 13.3 percent, the number of unemployed veterans aged 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
38 

35–60 is far greater in terms of raw numbers. While unemployment seems to remain relatively steady for the general population, America’s veterans face unemployment that has continued to grow for the past several years. As the largest veterans’ service organization serving veterans from all eras, The American Legion applauds the Committee for seeking to restore employment and training opportunities 

to veterans of all eras. We understand the struggles that veterans from all ages face 

when either returning to work after military service or just getting back to work 

after being eliminated from their past employment. It is well documented that veterans who have any sort of education generally have lower unemployment rates as 

opposed to those who do not possess any higher education. 

Recent transitioning servicemembers are provided with a robust education benefit, 

which earns them up to 36 months of tuition and fees, a housing allowance and a 

books stipend, based on their eligibility. Yet older veterans who have fallen on tough 

times are forced to fend for themselves seeking alternative employment. These veterans often have families and greater financial responsibilities. Additionally, these 

older veterans are not eligible for most education benefits like the new generation 

of veterans possess. These groups of veterans are reviewing ways to re-define themselves and their employment. Factory jobs that were eliminated during the economic 

recession might not return and these veterans are faced with an obsolete vocation 

and need to transition into thriving career fields. 

H.R. 2433 also seeks to provide all servicemembers with the specific transitional 

training when leaving military service. The American Legion has supported, now 

and in the past, a policy of the service branches making Transition Assistance Program (TAP) mandatory for all servicemembers exiting the military. With the Departments of Labor, Defense and Veterans Affairs making the much needed changes 

to the TAP program, we believe this provision is essential to give all transitioning 

servicemembers the tools and resources they need to successfully integrate into the 

civilian workforce. 

America’s servicemembers are the most skilled and highly trained individuals of 

any other Nation, yet when they are transitioning most of their military training 

is not properly equated to its civilian counterpart. In general, they must either return to school to get their civilian credentials or choose a different career path. 

These employment barriers exist for transitioning servicemembers who seek employment in line with their military occupational specialty (MOS). Surely a truck driver 

who drove convoys through the deserts of Iraq is qualified to drive the roads of the 

American Midwest; or the corpsman who patched up wounded in remote provinces 

of Afghanistan should be recognized as capable of performing as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) in any American city. 

The American Legion commends the Committee for seeking to perform a formal 

study not only to identify the top 10 MOS’s, but to analyze initiatives that are currently available to servicemembers while in service and how to use those initiatives 

for all service branches; consequently, impacting a wider range of men and women. 

In addition, The American Legion recommends that all MOS’s that have a civilian 

counterpart be included in this formal study. Expanding credentials to servicemembers creates a more professional workforce and is aligned more fully with recruiting and retention of servicemembers. By improving the knowledge and skill of 

servicemembers, we will give them improved chances for employment after exiting 

the military and incentives/reasons should they chose to stay in the service. 

The American Legion also supports the re-enactment of the credentialing work 

study group. Previously, the credentialing work group provided Federal agencies 

with support and guidance on how to move in promoting employment for 

transitioning servicemembers. The credentialing work group would help in fostering 

new ideas in the area of credentialing and provide options for overcoming barriers 

to employment. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 1941 

Hiring Heroes Act of 2011–Amends the Wounded Warriors Act to extend until January 1, 2015, the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide the 

same rehabilitation and vocational benefits to members of the Armed Forces with severe injuries or illnesses as are provided to veterans. 

H.R. 1941 accomplishes many of the same tasks as H.R. 2433. The goal of this 

legislation is to: reduce unemployment for recently transitioned servicemembers and 

place them in training; expand Vocational Rehabilitation programs for those who 

have exhausted their unemployment benefits; follow up on employment status after 

rehabilitation training, making Transition Assistance Program mandatory; provide 

grants to non-profits for veterans training, mentoring and placement; create a study 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
39 

to examine the employment barriers that transitioning servicemembers face when 

acquiring civilian credentials; and utilize a direct hire for veterans who have recently transitioned from service with an honorable discharge. 

Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are facing double digit unemployment figures; this bill’s goal is to eliminate some of the employment barriers that 

exist for recently returning servicemembers. With less than 1 percent of the population currently serving, H.R. 1941provides a valuable tool and resource for those 

who are exiting the military and are trying to return to a ‘‘normal’’ state of life, including the number one issue they face: employment. As stated previously, the unemployment figures for recently returning servicemembers has been steadily increasing. This trend says that as a country, we should be providing every tool available to knock down those barriers that exist. Education Rehabilitation is one of the 

sharpest tools available to help veterans, active duty, Guard and Reserve components search for and locate employment. In almost every situation, education gives 

a leg up against the competition to veterans and civilians alike. With the employment climate being competitive, providing additional training resources is critical in 

drastically reducing the unemployment rates for returning veterans. 

The American Legion supports the idea of utilizing Vocational Rehabilitation for 

those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, but sees a potential problem of the number of counselors available to meet this new demand. Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment counselors already carry a heavy workload with the 

current case load. The addition of new veterans would need to be counteracted with 

the hiring of new, qualified counselors to meet the fresh demand. In addition, The 

American Legion supports the bolstering of follow-up on participants in the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program. In too many cases, veterans exit 

the program before finishing, thereby mandating a re-visit on a veteran’s case, the 

metric of success would guide the overall program into a new direction. 

The American Legion’s policy regarding Transition Assistance Program has been 

to recommend the program be made mandatory. The American Legion commends 

the Committee for proposing this legislation. 

Servicemembers exit the military fulfilling a certain Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) then return to their home of residence to find out, despite their duties 

and qualifications in their respective MOS, they are not qualified to provide the 

same support in a civilian counterpart. This problem is systemic from what is provided at the military training centers to what additional training a veteran might 

need in order to receive the civilian credential. Providing individual assessments at 

the TAP program might provide the veterans with additional resources, but we need 

to examine how we can bridge the credentialing gap between the military and civilian divide to better improve the employability of transitioning servicemembers. 

The American Legion commends the Committee for proposing a study of 10 MOS’s 

to identify employment barriers, but would suggest a comprehensive study of all 

MOS’s that have a civilian counterpart. This expansion will make a great impact 

in identifying the employment and credentialing barriers that exist for transitioning 

servicemembers. 

The American Legion further commends the Committee on bringing a non-competitive way to bring recently transitioned veterans into the Federal workforce. 

However, we are concerned that if this provision makes it through the legislative 

process, it would have to be properly communicated to those who are transitioning 

through TAP. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 169 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the main page of the 

Internet Web site of the Department of Veterans Affairs a hyperlink to the VetSucess 

Internet Web site and to publicize such Internet Web site. 

Helping our wounded warriors and service-connected disabled veterans is and 

should maintain a high priority for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Giving 

them the proper tools and resources gives this group of veterans a way to gain an 

education and then enter a job market that fits their ability to perform. On too 

many occasions, The American Legion is informing service-connected or wounded 

warriors about the benefits available through the VetSuccess program. This legislation would enable one more way for veterans who visit www.va.gov to find the information about the VetSuccess program and then make an informed decision about 

their education and employment path. 

The American Legion once again commends the Committee for aggressively taking on the issue of veterans’ unemployment. Veterans facing unemployment rates 

at two-thirds higher than the national average is a national tragedy; it is clear from 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
40 

the work of this Committee that this issue needs to be resolved. The American Legion urges Congress to act swiftly to pass this legislation to help put our American 

heroes back to work. Furthermore, The American Legion reminds Congress of the 

essential role veterans’ groups and Congressional oversight will play in ensuring 

that once this legislation is signed into law, it is implemented as intended and actually works to benefits those deserving veterans. 

f 

Statement of John L. Wilson, Assistant National Legislative Director, 

Disabled American Veterans 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner and Members of the Committee: 

On behalf of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and our 1.2 million members, 

all of whom are wartime disabled veterans, I am pleased to offer our statement for 

the record on three bills under consideration today. 

H.R. 2433—Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011 

This bill addresses several areas important to veterans. Section 101 establishes 

a 3-year retraining program, providing up to 12 months of monthly compensation 

for eligible veterans. To be eligible, veterans must be between 35 and 60 years of 

age and pursue education or training through an accredited community college or 

technical school that leads to either an associate’s degree or certification in a highdemand civilian occupation. Special consideration will be given to those veterans 

who have been unemployed for at least 26 continuous weeks. 

This program sounds similar to the Servicemembers Occupational Conversion and 

Training Act (SMOCTA), which was established in 1993 in response to the 

downsizing of the military and its impact on veterans, particularly those who had 

no readily transferable skills. SMOCTA provided assistance in the form of reimbursements to employers to offset the cost of training recently separated servicemembers. It also provided funds for assessments, development of training plans, and 

supportive services for trainees. 

This provision is in concert with the intent of DAV Resolution No. 100, which supports efforts to eliminate employment barriers that impede the transfer of military 

job skills to the civilian labor market. 

Section 201 would require the Secretaries of Labor, Defense, Homeland Security, 

and Veterans Affairs to contract with businesses that provide Transition Assistance 

Program (TAP) participants with counseling, employment and training opportunities 

and other services as they plan to leave their respective branches of the military. 

While TAP participants should be provided the best in both information and delivery of services during this important time, we are also aware that contracts have 

been let by the Departments of Defense, Labor and Veteran Affairs to modernize 

their segments of this program. 

While we appreciate the interest in further improvements to this program, requiring that TAP be contracted out may be too prescriptive at this time. Therefore we 

recommend mandates to contract out these services be held in abeyance until such 

a time that the changes currently underway can be fully assessed. 

Section 202 would make participation in TAP mandatory for all military servicemembers except for urgent operational requirements. This is in line with DAV Resolution No. 230, which acknowledges the criticality of TAP attendance for military 

personnel being discharged from the service. The Department of Defense (DoD) has 

generally been opposed to mandatory attendance. This opposition should be overcome by this section’s additional language, which provides waivers in the face of 

operational requirements. While the Services naturally have their focus on their 

mission, an equally strong case can be made that making TAP attendance mandatory may make the transition to civilian employment smoother and reduce the unemployment benefits that DoD would otherwise have to pay. 

In accordance with DAV Resolution 304, we would also recommend that this section be amended to include mandatory attendance for members of the National 

Guard and Reserve, who are not typically afforded the opportunity to attend. 

Section 203 would require contractor-provided reports on course participation. As 

with section 201, while we appreciate the interest in further improvements to this 

program, this requirement may be too prescriptive at this time. Therefore, we recommend mandates to have contractor-provided reports be held in abeyance until 

such a time that the changes currently underway can be fully assessed. 

Section 204 directs the Secretaries of Labor and Defense to track how long TAP 

participants are unemployed after leaving the military, their initial salaries, or how 

long they attend college or a technical school during the first 12 months after disVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:26 Dec 03, 2011 Jkt 068453 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\68453.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68453

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
41 

charge. Although DAV does not have a resolution on this matter, we are not opposed 

to its favorable consideration. Tracking data such as this may provide valuable insights into current and future course structure and methods of instructions. 

Section 301 would reauthorize and mandate the licensure and certification demonstration project that was recommended in title 38, Section 4114. The Veterans 

Benefits, Health Care and Information Technology Act of 2006 asked, but did not 

require, that the Department of Labor (DoL) Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training carry out a demonstration project that would identify the 

equivalencies between at least 10 military occupational specialty-related skills and 

civilian occupations, as well as ways to eliminate barriers between military training 

and civilian licensure or credentialing for those military occupational specialties. 

This section of H.R. 2433 would adjust the parameters of the demonstration project 

to evaluate at least five but not more than 10 military specialties. 

The important distinction of making such a demonstration project mandatory is 

critical as our Nation searches for ways to reduce the unemployment rates that afflict our veterans. This provision is in line with DAV Resolution No. 100, which supports efforts to eliminate employment barriers that impede the transfer of military 

job skills to the civilian labor market. 

Section 302 would modify the reporting requirements of the DoL with the addition 

of data on veteran job counseling, training, placement programs and earnings as 

well as those who participated in an education, certificate or licensure course of 

study. While DAV does not have a resolution on this matter, we are not opposed 

to adoption of this provision. 

Section 303 would require DoL, in concert with State workforce agencies, to implement new performances measures to evaluate the priority of services provided to eligible veterans as compared to the overall customer base. The further clarification 

and reporting to ensure priority of service is in line with DAV Resolution 234, which 

addresses the role of Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS) and 

Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVERs). 

Section 304 establishes a requirement that all those who completed a course of 

study provided by the National Veterans’ Employment And Training Services Institute be given a pass/fail final exam and the results of the exam provided to the organization that employs the participants. DAV has no resolution on this matter. 

Section 305 directs the establishment of a 3-year pilot program to assist unemployed veterans with skills training leading to qualification for employment. Up to 

10 States that have the highest national unemployment rates could participate in 

the program. While this pilot program may provide important assistance to unemployed veterans, it would do so at the expense of DoL’s State grants program, which 

funds DVOPS and LVERs. Specifically, it would allow participating States to use 

up to 25 percent of State grant funding to cover the cost of the pilot program. This 

means that the 10 States with the highest unemployment levels could reduce DVOP 

and LVER staff funding by 25 percent in order to provide the training. 

In accordance with DAV Resolution 101, which calls for adequate funding for all 

veterans’ employment and training programs, we would recommend that this section be amended to exclude funding from State grant programs and provide additional funding to support this pilot program. 

Section 306 mandates that the sole duty of DVOPS and LVERs will be to assist 

eligible veterans in finding suitable employment. In addition, audits will be performed on a regular basis to ensure this is the case. DAV has long held that DVOPS 

and LVERs have been placed in the difficult position of wanting to assist veterans 

but being directed to perform other tasks such as working on public assistance related programs, including food stamps. DAV supports this provision, which is in line 

with DAV Resolution 234. 

Section 307 directs the DoD and DoL to enter into a contract to complete the DoD/ 

DoL Credentialing Work Group study with a focus on reducing barriers to certification and licensure for transitioning members of the military as well as veterans. 

DAV has long been concerned with the issue of the transferability of military 

training into the civilian job market. It is our view that DoD provides critical training to active duty personnel to ensure their proficiency in the military specialty. Unfortunately, while this training meets the needs of the military, it does not meet the 

licensure or certification needs of the States in which servicemembers wish to live 

and work once they leave the military. Additional information on how to improve 

upon the employment prospects of veterans is welcome. This provision is in line 

with DAV Resolution No. 100, which supports efforts to eliminate employment barriers that impede the transfer of military job skills to the civilian labor market. 

Section 401 clarifies the employment benefits covered under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). USERRA protects 

servicemembers’ reemployment rights when returning from a period of service in the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
42 

uniformed services, including those called up from the reserves or National Guard, 

and prohibits employer discrimination based on military service or obligation. This 

section would stipulate that such protections extend to any advantage that is earned 

as a result of that employment to include rights and benefits offered by employers. 

We recommend this section be amended to include medical treatment for serviceconnected conditions in accordance with DAV Resolution 141. While USERRA requires employers to release employees to perform military duty, and employers are 

required to make reasonable accommodations regarding these disabilities, currently 

employers are not specifically required by law to allow veterans with service-connected disabilities to be absent from the workplace to receive treatment for these 

disabilities. Amending this section to expand employment protections would resolve 

this discrepancy. 

Section 501 extends the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA’s) loan guaranty program for an additional 10 years for the purchase or construction of cooperative housing units. Programs to provide cooperative housing are an important resource in the 

multifaceted effort to end veterans’ homelessness. Therefore, in accordance with 

DAV Resolution 223, we support the extension of the guaranty of loans for the purchase or construction of cooperative housing. 

Section 502 reauthorizes the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP). 

The HVRP is an important program focusing on employment of homeless veterans, 

which provides assistance for those with significant problems including substanceuse disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), serious social problems and 

legal issues. In accordance with DAV Resolution 223, we support this provision to 

provide sustained funding to improve services for homeless veterans. 

H.R. 1941—Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 

This bill provides enhancements to several programs impacting veterans. 

Section 2 provides a 2-year extension, from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 

2014, of a program that provides rehabilitation and vocational benefits to severely 

wounded members of the Armed Forces under the Wounded Warrior Act. 

Extending this benefit provides servicemembers with disabilities important assistance in identifying the training requirements and resources they may need in order 

to achieve their rehabilitation and employment goals. 

This is line with DAV Resolution No. 307, which supports strengthening of the 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program to meet the demands 

of disabled veterans. 

Section 3 would expand the authority of the VA to pay employers to provide onthe-job training to veterans who have not been rehabilitated to the point of employability. Presently, the VA can make payments to employers for providing on-the-job 

training to veterans who have been rehabilitated to the point of employability in individual cases when it is determined that these payments are necessary help a veteran obtain needed on-the-job training or to begin employment. This provision extends this flexibility to veterans who have not been rehabilitated to the point of employability. Although DAV has no applicable resolution, we are not opposed to its 

passage. 

Section 4 would provide up to an additional 24 months of vocational rehabilitation 

and employment services to veterans who have exhausted both these benefits and 

State-provided unemployment benefits and begin the new additional vocational rehabilitation program within 6 months of the date that the unemployment benefits 

begin. DAV has no applicable resolution but is not opposed to its passage. 

Section 5 of the measure requires VA to engage, on a periodic basis for up to 1 

year, with each veteran who has participated in its VR&E program, to determine 

whether the veteran is employed. This provision is in line with DAV Resolution No. 

307, which calls for VR&E to provide for placement follow-up with employers for at 

least 6 months. 

Section 6 of this measure would make participation in TAP mandatory for all 

military servicemembers, as does Section 202 of H.R. 2433. DoD has generally been 

opposed to mandatory attendance in the past. Opposition to this section of the bill 

could be overcome by amending it to include additional language which provides 

waivers of servicemembers’ attendance in the face of operational requirements. 

Mandatory attendance is in line with the intent of DAV Resolution No. 230, which 

recognizes the importance of TAP and the Disabled Transition Assistance Program 

for those servicemembers transitioning to civilian status. 

Section 7 would require the DoL to contact all TAP participants twice over a 180- 

day period to determine their employment status. Although DAV does not have a 

resolution on this matter, we are not opposed to its favorable consideration. 

Section 8 creates a competitive grant program for nonprofit organizations that 

provide mentorship and job training programs that are designed to lead to job placeVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:26 Dec 03, 2011 Jkt 068453 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\68453.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68453

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
43 

ments. Although DAV does not have a resolution on this matter, we are not opposed 

to its passage. 

Section 9 requires that each servicemember receive an individualized assessment 

of jobs they may qualify for when they participate in TAP. Although DAV does not 

have a resolution on this matter, the provision could benefit transitioning servicemembers. Therefore, we are not opposed to its favorable consideration. 

Section 9 also requires the DoD, the DoL and VA to jointly contract for a study 

to identify any equivalencies between military occupational specialty-related skills 

and the qualifications required for various positions of civilian employment in the 

private sector. Then all those participating in TAP will be provided an individualized assessment of their military occupation as it relates to civilian employment opportunities. 

This provision is in concert with the intent of DAV Resolution No. 100, which supports efforts to eliminate employment barriers that impede the transfer of military 

job skills to the civilian labor market. 

Section 10 modifies Federal hiring practices to encourage the hiring of separating 

servicemembers and would allow them to begin the Federal employment application 

process prior to separation. This is in line with the intent of DAV Resolution 305, 

which supports veterans’ preference in public employment. 

Section 11 would authorize DoL Veterans Employment and Training Service to 

conduct outreach efforts through DVOPS and LVERs to unemployed veterans and 

assist them in finding employment. While DAV does not have a resolution on this 

matter, we are not opposed to its favorable consideration. 

Section 12 would direct DoD to establish a pilot program to provide separating 

servicemembers, who are on terminal leave, work experience with civilian employees 

and contractors of the DoD to facilitate the transition of those members from service 

in the Armed Forces to employment in the civilian labor market. DAV has no resolution on this matter but is not opposed to its adoption. 

Section 13 directs, as does H.R. 2433, Section 301, that DoL conduct a licensure 

and certification demonstration project. The important distinction of making such a 

demonstration project mandatory is critical as our Nation searches for ways to reduce the unemployment rates that afflict our veterans. This provision is in line with 

DAV Resolution No. 100, which supports efforts to eliminate employment barriers 

that impede the transfer of military job skills to the civilian labor market. 

H.R. 169 

This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the main 

page of the VA’s Web site a hyperlink to the VetSucess Web site and to publicize 

the Web site. DAV has no resolution on this matter but is not opposed to its passage. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. 

f 

Statement of Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative Associate, 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, on behalf 

of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s 200,000 Member Veterans and supporters, thank you for allowing me to submit testimony sharing our members’ views 

of on these important issues. 

My name is Tom Tarantino and I am the Senior Legislative Associate with IAVA. 

I proudly served 10 years in the Army beginning my career as an enlisted Reservist, 

and leaving service as an Active-Duty Cavalry Officer. Throughout these 10 years, 

my single most important duty was to take care of other soldiers. In the military 

they teach us to have each other’s backs. And although my uniform is now a suit 

and tie, I am proud to work with this Congress to continue to have the backs of 

America’s servicemembers and veterans. 

IAVA would like to thank this Committee for its work on veteran unemployment, 

and would like to offer our comments on several of the bills that the Committee is 

currently considering. 

Bill # Title/Desc. Sponsor Position 

H.R. 2433 Veterans Opportunity to Work Act Miller Support 

H.R. 1941 Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 Bishop Support 

H.R. 169 Publicizing VetSuccess Program Stearns Support 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
44 

H.R. 2433 

IAVA is proud to endorse H.R. 2433. The most pressing concern for new veterans 

in 2011 is unemployment. With 13.3 percent unemployment for veterans in June 

2011 and a rate of 12.3 percent for the year overall, unemployment is one of the 

single greatest challenges faced by veterans. Even though employment is a concern 

for every American in the current economic environment, the average unemployment rate for veterans is 25 percent higher than the rate for civilians. IAVA supports H.R. 2433, the Veteran Opportunity to Work Act of 2011, because of the significant steps it takes to help increase veteran employment. 

The first step towards a successful transition to the civilian workforce is a successful Transition Assistance Program (TAP). Building on the reforms underway at 

the Department of Labor (DoL), H.R. 2433 makes TAP mandatory for all separating 

servicemembers. Additionally, this bill wisely requires that DoL collect metrics on 

the effectiveness of the program. 

Additionally, in order to help a veteran transition from the military to the civilian 

workforce, we must know how their skills translate in to the civilian market. H.R. 

2433 addresses this head on by studying how 10 high density Military Occupational 

Specialties (MOSs) can translate into licenses and certifications in the civilian market. Requiring the DoL to contract with an organization of State Governors as well 

as private industry leaders to conduct this study will put decision makers and experts in front of this problem and promises to yield results where we have failed 

in the past. Hopefully, this effort will be the beginning of programs that allow military veterans to use the skills, training, and experience acquired through military 

service in civilian certification processes. 

Throughout H.R. 2433, there are provisions that also collect metrics and enhance 

performance standards. This is a necessary component to establish not just historical perspective or current performance of any program, but to determine the most 

effective course of action in the future. 

IAVA is pleased to support this bill. We thank Chairman Miller for his leadership 

and applaud the work of the Committee and their staff as a whole to address the 

problem of veteran unemployment in strong and creative ways. 

H.R. 1941 Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 

IAVA is pleased to support H.R. 1941, the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011. H.R. 1941 

is a robust bill that contains provisions that utilize the combined resources of the 

Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Labor (DoL) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to combat this problem. 

An essential first step is ensuring that all transitioning servicemembers attend 

a Transition Assistance Program (TAP). Nearly 20 percent of all separating servicemembers fail to attend a TAP class. TAP classes provide important information of 

job search skills and strategies as well as veteran benefits. Requiring TAP for all 

separating servicemembers will mean that veterans are made aware of VA programs for educational assistance or vocational training as well as transitional medical benefits that will help ease their transition to the civilian world. While requiring TAP attendance will not be the panacea to veteran unemployment, it will provide a baseline of knowledge for separating servicemembers and guarantee that they 

have at least a general exposure to the full range of benefits to which they are entitled. It is a low cost and effective first step toward a solution. 

Understanding how military jobs, billets, and certifications translate into the civilian market and then directly translating military credentials and licenses into those 

used by civilian employers are necessary steps in reducing veteran unemployment. 

Military skills and experience in skilled occupations from air traffic controller to operating room specialist to jet pilot are often lost when servicemembers become civilians. Because military training and experience is not necessarily recognized for civilian licensure, barriers to entry into analogous civilian jobs in the form of costs for 

required (often duplicative) education and time to achieve requirements are high 

and those skills are lost. H.R. 1941 recognizes this loss to society and our economy 

and seeks to prevent it by establishing civilian equivalency for military jobs. This 

is a wise and frugal investment; the expense to train has already been borne by the 

military. It is a far costlier choice to allow servicemembers’ skills to disappear. 

Other aspects of H.R. 1941 are important in easing the transition from military 

to civilian employment and will, we believe, lessen the staggering 13.3 percent veteran unemployment rate posted for June of 2011. The ability to allow direct appointments into civil service jobs and establishing a pilot program to allow the DoD to 

place servicemembers 180 days from discharge into DoD civilian jobs or jobs with 

DoD contractors while on terminal leave are two forward thinking ideas that represent ‘‘out of the box’’ solutions that will help ease veteran unemployment at lowto-no extra cost to the taxpayer. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
45 

H.R. 169 Publicizing VetSuccess 

IAVA supports H.R. 169. The VetSuccess Program is an excellent resource that 

offers a centralized location to find answers to common questions about VA resources for employment, education, health care and more. However, no matter how 

well resourced or executed a program is, if the population it serves is unaware that 

it exists, the program will not be successful. One of the most common criticisms of 

benefits programs is that veterans do not know the benefits exist. If we are to ensure that the VetSuccess program is successful, the least we can do is to prominently display it on the VA Web site (where many veterans initially begin searching). 

For example, one of the most valuable steps a veteran can take to be successful 

in the job market is to earn a college degree. The Post-9/11 GI Bill has already 

opened the doors to success for thousands of veterans across the country that would 

have otherwise been out of reach. VetSuccess on Campus, the VA program that 

places VA personnel dedicated to educational benefit counseling on college campuses 

and helps mitigate the challenges faced by transitioning veterans, could play a crucial role in ensuring that student veterans receive their benefits in a timely and uncomplicated fashion without their academic success being jeopardized by benefit 

complications. It could also ensure that educational institutions are informed and 

educated on the procedures and terms of the GI Bill, and that the VA is not burdened with erroneous or unnecessary certifications and paperwork. However, we 

have found that many veterans do not know that the resources exist to help them 

navigate the labyrinthine processes they encounter. 

This is a perfect example of the benefit of H.R. 169. Publicizing the resources 

available before a veteran begins the journey through the bureaucratic maze will 

help ensure faster access to benefits for the veteran and less extra, and often unnecessary, work for program administrators. H.R. 169 will help ensure the success of 

VetSuccess by the simplest of means. 

f 

Military Officers Association of America 

Washington, DC. 

July 14, 2011 

The Honorable Jeff Miller 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Miller: 

On behalf of the 370,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America 

(MOAA), I am writing to thank you for your leadership in introducing H.R. 2433, 

The Veterans Opportunity to Work Act. 

H.R. 2433 would re-open Vietnam Era GI Bill educational benefits to certain veterans who have been chronically unemployed, mandate attendance in the Transition 

Assistance Program (TAP), require the Defense and Departments of Labor to track 

outcome measures for TAP participants, re-authorize a pilot program to link military acquired skills to civilian jobs through licensing and certification, and for other 

purposes. 

MOAA recommends including a provision in the bill to require outreach by the 

VA to unemployed veterans who may be eligible for the GI Bill benefits authorized 

in Title I of the legislation. We would also recommend adoption of Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program adjustments and other employment-related features in the Hiring Heroes Act of2011, H.R. 1941. 

MOAA pledges its full support for early enactment of H.R. 1941 and respectfully 

requests including this letter in the record of any hearing to consider or mark-up 

this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

VADM Norbert R. Ryan, Jr., USN (Ret.) 

f 

President 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
46 

Statement of Robert L. Simoneau, Deputy Executive Director, 

National Association of State Workforce Agencies 

NASWA has long advocated for additional training resources dedicated to veterans as contained in H.R. 2433, the ‘‘Veterans Opportunity Act of 2001.’’ The following summarized our comments: 

• NASWA supports the veterans retraining assistance program as described in 

Title I of H.R. 2433. 

• NASWA supports extending the requirement for TAP participation all armed 

forces. 

• NASWA asks the Committee to consider extending the provision of TAP to National Guard and Reserve members. 

• NASWA supports Section 4114 of Chapter 41, Title 38, Credentialing and Licensure of Veterans demonstration project, and supports the changes outlined in 

H.R. 2433. 

• NASWA supports a joint recommendation with NGA on Common Measures, but 

plans to study and provide recommendations for revised performance measures. 

• NASWA supports additional training resources, especially those dedicated to 

serving veterans. 

• NASWA supports the provisions in H.R. 169 and suggest changing the term, 

‘‘JobCentral’’ to ‘‘the National Labor Exchange (NLX), powered by JobCentral.’’ 

• In regard to H.R. 1941, NASWA is supportive of efforts to provide additional 

services to veterans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits under 

State law in H.R. 1941. 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA), I thank you 

for the opportunity to submit written testimony and to appear before you to discuss 

the legislation being addressed today. 

The members of our Association are State leaders of the publicly-funded workforce 

development system vital to meeting the employment needs of veterans. This is accomplished through the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) and the 

Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVER) programs, as well as other 

programs and initiatives offered through the publicly-funded workforce system. 

NASWA serves as an advocate for State workforce programs and policies, a liaison 

to Federal workforce system partners, and a forum for the exchange of information 

and practices. Our organization was founded in 1937. Since 1973, it has been a private, non-profit corporation, financed by annual dues from member State agencies, 

grants, and private sector alliance funds. 

NASWA thanks the Committee for development of legislation to enhance services 

available for military members and veterans, their families, and to improve the 

transition of military members to civilian lives and careers. Helping veterans make 

a successful transition from their service in the military to successful civilian careers remains a significant challenge. I would now like to turn to the specific provisions of your proposed legislation. 

H.R. 2433 

‘‘Veterans Opportunity Act of 2011’’ 

Title I—Retraining Veterans 

NASWA has long advocated for additional training resources dedicated to veterans. Although the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and other employment and 

training programs funded through the U.S. Department of Labor provide priority of 

services for veterans, the purchasing power of those funds is limited and decreasing. 

Section 168 of WIA, Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP), dedicates 

training resources to veterans, but only a few States receive VWIP grants, and only 

a few local areas receive funding. 

We acknowledge the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, the ‘‘GI Bill of 

Rights,’’ revamped by the 1984 bill, the ‘‘Montgomery GI Bill,’’ and especially the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill of 2008, are excellent sources of education and training resources 

for veterans. The Post-9/11 GI Bill significantly enhances educational benefits to 

cover various school expenses, including books and supplies. It also provides for the 

ability to transfer educational benefits to spouses or children. 

Not every veteran can benefit from or take advantage of the GI Bill. It is difficult 

to tell how the proposed training in Title I of H.R. 2433 would be funded and implemented, but the clause, ‘‘Payments of retraining assistance under this section shall 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
47 

be made by the Secretary of Labor through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’’ 

sounds similar to the Servicemembers Occupational Conversion and Training Act or 

‘‘SMOCTA’’ program. NASWA has several times recommended Congress consider refunding the SMOCTA program, authorized in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (P.L. 102–484), or a similar job training program. We believe one of the reasons SMOCTA worked so well is the program was administered 

jointly by the U.S. Departments of Labor, Veterans Affairs, and Defense. Funds 

were provided by the Department of Defense. 

State workforce agencies considered SMOCTA to be one of the best programs to 

serve returning military personnel. SMOCTA was established in response to the impact on veterans who had been affected by the downsizing of the military, especially 

personnel who had no readily transferable skills. SMOCTA provided assistance in 

the form of reimbursements to employers to offset the cost of training recently separated servicemembers for stable and permanent positions that involve significant 

training. Besides the reimbursements to employers, SMCOTA provided funds for assessments, development of training plans, and supportive services for the trainee. 

H.R. 2433 focuses retraining assistance on the pursuit of a program of education 

as defined in Section 3452(b) of Title 38, United States Code; however, it also allows 

training on-the-job as covered under Chapter 36 of Title 38. 

NASWA supports the veterans retraining assistance program as described in Title 

I of H.R. 2433. It promotes the inclusion of on-the-job training and alternate education programs as outlined in section 101 (b) Retraining Assistance of the legislation. We also appreciate that special consideration is provided for veterans who have 

been unemployed for at least 26 continuous weeks. Our members often cite the need 

for additional resources for older veterans. The requirement for these training funds 

to be used for a veteran who is at least 35 years old but not more than 60 years 

old should help address this issue. 

Although we realize this is authorization legislation, we are concerned whether 

additional appropriation of funds would be available for such training services. If 

additional funds are made available, it will be important those funds also cover administrative costs. 

Title II—Improving the Transition Assistance Program 

The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) consists of comprehensive workshops at 

selected military installations nationwide. Many of these workshops have been conducted by State staff under the DVOP or LVER programs. While States have varying opinions regarding the move to contract administration of TAP workshops to private vendors, we understand the intent of ensuring TAP instruction is provided uniformly across the Nation. NASWA encourages the continued involvement of DVOPs 

or LVERs in TAP workshops, to assist in connecting the transitioning member to 

the local workforce center during and after the workshop. 

NASWA supports the change to require the participation of all members of the 

armed forces eligible for assistance provided by TAP. The benefits of participation 

in TAP have been proven and have been acknowledged by most transitioning members who attend the workshops. The U.S. Marine Corps’ policy to require participation in TAP has resulted in an average 85 to 90 percent participation rate, allowing 

for waivers or exemptions. We support extending the requirement for TAP participation to the all armed forces. 

Many of our States have developed and expanded TAP workshops to include National Guard and Reserve units. We ask the Committee to consider extending the 

provision of TAP to individuals in these units transitioning from active duty to civilian life. Although many of these individuals, but not all, are job-attached, there still 

are many other provisions of TAP workshops that would benefit them. 

The requirement for the Secretary of Labor to contract an appropriate entity to 

conduct an audit of the TAP program seems prudent. Section 203 of H.R. 2433 

amends Section 144 of Title 10, United States Code, to indicate the Secretary of 

Labor shall use funds made available for the State grant program authorized under 

Section 4102 of Title 38. We recommend the audit contract not be funded from allocations made to States for the DVOP and LVER programs, which would reduce the 

ability of States to provide direct services to veterans. 

Our only concern with Section 204, TAP Outcomes, is this section greatly expands 

the number of individuals potentially attending TAP. If State workforce agencies 

have the responsibility to track TAP participants, the reporting and tracking burdens placed on States will be significant. Current tracking and reporting systems 

used by the States often use antiquated computer systems and are difficult to 

change. In addition, establishing a method to build and implement an assessment 

system could require substantial resources. NASWA urges Congress to provide funding to make these changes. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
48 

One problem we often hear from our members is that the Department of Defense 

(DoD) cannot or will not share any personal information regarding transitioning 

members. The method to assess outcomes must include sharing of personal information of transitioning members between the Department of Labor and DoD; if DoD 

is not forthcoming with this information, expansion of the TAP is not likely to 

achieve the Committee’s goals. 

Title III—Improving the Transition of Veterans to Civilian Employment 

Often military experience and training do not transfer to civilian occupations, or 

more likely, are not understood or accepted by civilian employers or State or local 

licensing or credentialing entities. Unfortunately, this often results in military members unable to obtain employment in occupations they are proficient in, but lack the 

civilian credentials to obtain. Also, when pursuing education or training requirements for a credential or license, they typically discover they need to repeat the 

same type of training or classes they had in the military. 

This is a serious barrier to many transitioning members, which keeps them from 

finding employment in the industry or occupation where they want to work. 

Through our National Labor Exchange (NLX) employer partners, we learned one of 

the most critical obstacles to the employment of veterans is their inability to secure 

formal credentials and certifications, even though they have received nearly equivalent training while in the military. Veterans must spend resources, including valuable time, to acquire formal civilian credentials when many already possess the 

skills. 

NASWA supports Section 4114 of Chapter 41, Title 38, Credentialing and Licensure of Veterans demonstration project, and supports the changes outlined in H.R. 

2433. Our only concern is with the change in Section 4114(h) Funding. The change 

instructs the Assistant Secretary to carry out the demonstration project by ‘‘using 

not more than $180,000 of the funds in each fiscal year that are appropriated . . . 

to be derived from amounts available to carry out Sections 4103A and 4014 of this 

title.’’ Although NASWA supports the credentialing and licensure demonstration 

project, we are concerned that the funds for the DVOP and LVER programs are 

again being diverted from direct services to veterans. 

Section 302, Inclusion of Performance Measures in Annual Report on Veteran Job 

Counseling, Training, and Placement Programs of the Department of Labor, adds 

a number of performance measures for the provisions under Chapter 41, Title 38. 

NASWA’s current policy is to support the NASWA and National Governors Association’s (NGA) proposed common measures for the reauthorization of WIA. The 

NASWA/NGA proposal recommends measuring the percentage of program participants who are employed during the second quarter after exit, the percentage of program participants employed during the fourth quarter, the median earnings of program participants during the second quarter after exit, and the percentage of program participants who obtain an education or training credential during participation or within 1 year after exit. 

NASWA supports common measures for all programs, including veterans’ programs in the workforce system. Although NASWA currently supports the NASWA/ 

NGA proposal, we recognize the workforce system in general, and performance 

measures in particular, can be improved. One example suggested by a NASWA 

member is to establish measures at the point of entry or during participation, rather 

than after exit. NASWA will work with its members to study this and other ideas, 

and make recommendations in the future. 

We are concerned with staff time required to implement and then track these 

measures, and with the cost and programming time to change computer-based reporting systems. Computer modifications to implement these additional performance 

measures could be quite complicated and expensive. If State workforce agencies are 

required to perform these computer modifications within existing budgets, it would 

diminish direct services to veterans. If the additional performance measures are 

added, we recommend the U.S. Department of Labor include the changes in its redesign of consolidated reporting and provide the States with programming options and 

funding to retrofit State reporting systems. 

The additional language to clarify Priority of Service for Veterans in Department 

of Labor Job Training Programs is a subtle difference, but because there still seems 

to be confusion in implementing Priority of Service; we appreciate the clarification. 

The only concern we have with the additional reporting criteria for the Secretary’s 

Annual Report on Priority of Service is the potential increase in workload and costs 

for local and State workforce staff to track the information required for the assessment and the Report. 

It is not clear what the overall purpose is for conducting a final pass-fail examination to evaluate the individual’s performance in receiving training as described in 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
49 

Section 304, Evaluation of Individuals Receiving Training at the National Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Services Institute. 

The intent of the training is to increase the knowledge skills and abilities (KSA) 

of staff who undertake the training. The curriculum is designed to cover specific segments of KSAs staff need to accomplish their work. As with any training program, 

trainees come from different backgrounds and experiences, therefore having an assessment system that measures the gain in KSAs achieved by each student makes 

sense, but these need to be targeted to specific areas. A single final pass-fail grade 

may not be attainable, nor achieve the intent of the Committee. 

The participants of the various classes start at different knowledge and experience levels. There are a number of different classes taught at the Institute and we 

are not sure if all classes would have the same requirement, including those for 

managers and supervisors. Much of each class is skill-based and requires practice 

in the classroom. 

Although NASWA does not have an official position on the requirement for testing, we do question the value of a pass-fail examination. Each State has the responsibility for evaluating employees’ performance. If a sponsoring State or other entity 

receives a report that an employee failed the final examination, it is unclear whether the expectation is termination of the employee, reassignment to the same training, or other action. This could be in conflict with a State policy. 

NASWA supports additional training resources, especially those dedicated to serving veterans. The pilot program to use State grant funds to enter into grants with 

the ten States with the highest rates of unemployment in the Nation to provide 

training to unemployed veterans sounds great. However, the legislation says the 

State may use up to 25 percent of the State grant for the training program. This 

means that the ten States with the highest unemployment levels would need to reduce its DVOP and LVER staff funding by 25 percent in order to provide the training. If the funding for sections 4103A and 4004 would be increased significantly, 

this would be a great option. We often hear from our members that they wished 

the State grant would provide and allow for training veterans; however, this recommendation is based on additional funding. A 25 percent reduction in the funding 

of DVOP and LVER staff in a State would have a significant adverse impact on 

services to veterans. 

We understand and support the intent of Section 306, Requirements for Full-Time 

DVOPs and LVERs; however, States and local workforce centers should still have 

some flexibility in order to maintain efficient delivery of services. In small offices, 

a DVOP or LVER may need to cover the telephones or greet customers when no 

other staff members are available. At limited times, DVOPs or LVERs serve military members (not a veteran), non-eligible spouses, or possibly a veteran who does 

not want to be identified as such on the records. 

NASWA supports Section 307, Report on Findings of the DoD and USDoL 

Credentialing Work Group. This study of ten military occupational specialists has 

been in the process for some time. An examination of current initiatives and programs to promote credentialing of members of the Armed Forces and identify best 

practices that can be leveraged by all services to increase the transferability of military education, training, experience, and skills would help to reduce barriers to certification and licensure for transitioning members. This study would enhance the efforts to reauthorize and improve the demonstration project on credentialing and licensure of veterans described under Title III, Section 301 or H.R. 2433. 

Funding cuts and efforts to improve the workforce system through automation 

have allowed States to serve more workers and employers, but has disrupted the 

ability to provide in-person, targeted reemployment services. While nearly all Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants, including veterans, file for unemployment insurance via telephone or Internet, there is often limited in-person contact with one-stop 

career centers. NASWA is working with the U.S. Department of Labor to improve 

this connection. 

During a recent hearing before this Committee, NASWA Executive Director Rich 

Hobbie mentioned a concept for the employment of veterans. The concept would require veterans collecting Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers 

(UCX) to register with their local one-stop career center as a condition of receiving 

UCX and receive reemployment services. This process could be voluntarily piloted 

in a few States. 

This approach would be targeted and timely, providing early intervention and information on the full array of job openings and employment and training services 

for recently discharged veterans. It also enhances the Jobs for Veterans Act, taking 

advantage of the Priority of Service provision to focus on veterans most likely to 

have difficulty finding employment. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
50 

If the Committee is interested, NASWA is willing to provide background information and suggestions for legislative language. 

Title IV—Improvements to Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

NASWA supports the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act (USERRA) and has no concerns on Section 401. 

Title V—Extension of Certain Expiring Provisions of Law 

NASWA supports Section 502, the extension of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs (NVRP). The NVRP programs provide important resources to homeless veterans and to avert veterans from becoming homeless. Our members work 

closely with HVRP grant recipients. 

H.R. 169 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the 

main page of the Internet Web site of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs a hyperlink to the VetSuccess Internet 

Web site and to publicize such Internet Web site. 

Section 1. Promotion of the VetSuccess Internet Web site. 

NASWA supports the provisions in H.R. 169 for hyperlinks on the Department of 

Veterans Affairs’ Web site for VetSuccess, USA Jobs Internet Web sites, JobCentral 

Web site and any other appropriate employment Internet Web sites. 

We suggest changing the term, ‘‘JobCentral’’ to ‘‘the National Labor Exchange 

(NLX), powered by JobCentral.’’ NASWA in partnership with the DirectEmployers 

(DE) Association created the NLX, which allows NASWA and its State and business 

partners to have a direct involvement in making job connections for our Nation’s 

veterans by creating a free electronic labor exchange service. 

Promoting awareness of the VetSuccess Web site in national media outlets and 

conducting outreach to veterans of recent wars to inform such veterans of the Web 

site are sound business initiatives. 

Although the list of Web sites in the legislation is not inclusive, we recommend 

the Web sites listed in H.R. 169 include the ‘‘Key to Career Success’’ Web site, which 

lists all one-stop career centers in the country and includes many other resources. 

The site is available at http://www.careeronestop.org/MilitaryTranstion/ 

findLocalServices.aspx. 

H.R. 1941 

‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011’’ 

Section 4. Training and Rehabilitation for Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities who have Exhausted Rights to Unemployment Benefits 

Under State Law. 

NASWA is supportive of efforts to provide additional services to veterans who 

have exhausted their unemployment benefits under State law. We also suggest earlier emphasis on reemployment of veterans who are likely to exhaust their unemployment benefits. We suggest legislation be clear whether the State workforce 

agency or the Department of Veterans Affairs would be responsible to determine eligibility for this program. State workforce agencies have responsibility for the UI 

programs in their State; the role of the UI program should be delineated. 

Section 5. Assessment and Follow-up on Veterans who Participate in Department of Veterans Affairs Training and Rehabilitation for Veterans with 

Service-Connected Disabilities. 

This section directs the Secretary to contact such veteran for follow-up at 180-day 

intervals. NASWA suggests legislation be clear whether the State workforce agency 

or the Department of Veterans Affairs’ would be responsible for conducting the follow-up. Currently, DVOP staff conducts the follow-up for Chapter 31 participants 

referred to the State workforce agency for placement services. 

Section 6. Mandatory Participation of Members of the Armed Forces in 

the Transitional Assistance Program of the Department of Defense. 

As stated in our comments for Title II of H.R. 2433, NASWA supports the change 

to require the participation of all members of the armed forces eligible for assistance 

provided by TAP. 

Section 7. Follow-up on Employment Status of Members of Armed Forces 

who Recently Participated in Transitional Assistance Program of Department of Defense. 

NASWA interprets this section to mean the State workforce staff, primarily the 

DVOP, would be required to conduct the follow-up activity for all Transitional AsVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:26 Dec 03, 2011 Jkt 068453 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 I:\VA\68453.XXX GPO1 PsN: 68453

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
51 

sistance Program (TAP) participants. This could result in a substantial increase in 

workload. Tracking former participants could be very difficult, and the more time 

that elapses after participation, the harder it is to find individuals. 

Section 8. Collaborative Veterans’ Training, Mentoring, and Placement 

Program. 

This section includes authorizing appropriations of additional funds to carry out 

the program as described in Section 8. NASWA would be concerned if the program 

used existing State grants funds. We appreciate the requirement for grant recipients 

to collaborate with DVOPs, LVERs, and the appropriate State and local board as 

defined in the Workforce Investment Act. However, collaboration takes time and if 

not well-defined, can mean a significant increase in workload for the DVOPs, 

LVERs and other staff. 

Section 9. Individualized Assessment for Members of the Armed Forces 

Under Transition Assistance on Equivalence Between Skills Developed in 

Military Occupational Specialties and Qualifications Required for Civilian 

Employment with the Private Sector. 

As stated in our comments for Title III of H.R. 2433, NASWA supports efforts to 

improve the ability of veterans to use their military experience and training to obtain required civilian credentials and licenses. A study to identify any equivalence 

between the skills developed by members of the Armed Forces through various specialties and the qualifications required for various civilian positions should be beneficial to understanding the differences in requirements and to assist in veterans obtaining civilian credentials and licenses. 

Also, it makes sense to use the results of the study to implement individualized 

assessment of all TAP participants of the various positions of civilian employment 

in the private sector for which such member may be qualified as a result of the 

skills developed by such member through the member’s military occupational specialty. 

Section 11. Outreach Program for Certain Veterans Receiving Unemployment Compensation. 

NASWA supports the focus to provide outreach to covered veterans and provide 

them with assistance in finding employment. Past reemployment programs that provided resources to outreach and assist UI claimants to obtain employment have 

been very successful. 

We reiterate the concept we proposed in response to Title III of H.R. 2433. The 

concept would require veterans collecting Unemployment Compensation for ExServicemembers (UCX) to register with their local one-stop career center as a condition of receiving UCX and receive reemployment services. This process could be voluntarily piloted in a few States. 

This approach would be targeted and timely—providing early intervention and information—on the full array of job opportunities and employment and training services for recently discharged veterans. It also enhances the Jobs for Veterans Act, 

taking advantage of the Priority of Service provision to focus on veterans most likely 

to have difficulty finding employment. 

If the Committee is interested, NASWA is willing to provide background information and suggestions for legislative language. 

Section 13. Enhancement of Demonstration Program on Credentialing 

and Licensing of Veterans. 

NASWA supports a demonstration program on credentialing and licensing of veterans. Credentialing and licensing after military service is a significant barrier for 

many veterans in finding employment in their field of experience and training. 

NASWA and its members remain dedicated to improving the efficiency of the 

labor market and its labor exchange function, and improving the employment opportunities of our Nation’s veterans. We are willing to assist the Committee and the 

U.S. Department of Labor in any way possible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues. 

f 

Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and Members of the Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity to offer 

our views on H.R. 2433, the ‘‘Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011;’’ H.R. 1941, 

the ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011;’’ and H.R. 169. The employment challenges facing 

average Americans is certainly no secret, but the challenges facing veterans, particularly disabled veterans, are even greater. PVA is pleased to see that the Committee has made employment of veterans one of its highest priorities. In fact, PVA 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
52 

has taken on veterans employment for severely disabled veterans as one of our primary missions by creating our own vocational rehabilitation program focused on actually getting veterans into a career, not just a job, and keeping them employed. 

Recent statistics about veterans’ unemployment are humbling to say the least. 

Unemployment is particularly a problem for veterans who have served since September 11, 2011. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans rose to 12.1 percent at the end of May from 10.9 

percent at the end of April. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate for non-veterans remained unchanged at 9.1 percent during that same period. Moreover, the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans spikes to nearly 20 percent for male veterans ages 

18 to 24. 

And yet, the statistics for severely disabled veterans are even worse. Currently, 

approximately 85 percent of veterans with a severe disability are unemployed. The 

reasons for this are many, ranging from the veterans fear of reentering the workplace to employers simply being unwilling to take on the responsibility of accommodating veterans with special needs in the workplace. With these thoughts in mind, 

an agenda that focuses on employment for veterans of all ages, whether disabled 

or not, is critical, and we applaud the Committee for meeting this challenge head 

on. 

H.R. 2433, the ‘‘Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011’’ 

PVA fully supports H.R. 2433, the ‘‘Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act of 

2011.’’ PVA is intrigued by the provision to create a veterans retraining assistance 

program. We are unclear as to why the program created by this provision would be 

limited to veterans over the age of 35. While we understand that a significant number of veterans in the age bracket proposed by this legislation (35 to 60) are chronically unemployed, we believe that this program could be beneficial to all veterans. 

That being said, given the vast array of programs available to post-9/11 veterans 

(many of whom are younger than 35), we appreciate the fact that the Committee 

proposes to offer this innovative assistance to older veterans. 

PVA appreciates the emphasis placed on improving the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) in this legislation. However, we recommend that the proposed legislation be clarified to include veterans participating in the Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP). We have argued over the years that while TAP is questionably effective, the DTAP has been completely forgotten. In fact, too often disabled 

servicemembers are not even aware that there is a TAP available specifically for 

them. Additionally, we believe that the Department of Labor (DoL) has done a poor 

job of promoting and conducting DTAP. 

We also fully support the requirement that participation in the TAP be made 

mandatory for all servicemembers prior to discharge. While we understand that the 

legislation includes the caveat that TAP will not be mandatory if a ‘‘documented urgent operational requirement prevents attendance,’’ we believe that such occurrences rarely, if ever, occur. In fact, in the past, servicemembers primarily did not 

attend TAP because their unit commanders placed no importance on the program 

and did not readily provide them the opportunity to attend. Fortunately, we believe 

this culture is changing, but it has not been completely overcome. Given the difficulty that recently discharged servicemembers have achieving meaningful employment, it only makes sense that they be required to participate in TAP or DTAP. 

Although PVA appreciates the focus on assessing outcomes of TAP, we believe 

that this assessment can be taken a step further. Often, the problem with employment tracking is that it does not follow the individual far enough into the future 

to ensure that they are retaining employment for an extended period of time. As 

such, we believe that DoL, the VA, and the Department of Defense should develop 

an in depth assessment that tracks veterans well beyond discharge. 

PVA also supports the provision to reauthorize the demonstration project on 

credentialing and licensure of veterans. Credentialing standards, such as education, 

training, and experience requirements, are developed based on traditional methods 

for obtaining competency in the civilian workforce. As a result, many transitioning 

military personnel who have received their career preparation through military 

service find it difficult to meet certification and licensing requirements due to the 

lack of civilian recognition of military training and experience. However, we are unclear as to why the consultation requirement with ‘‘Federal, State, and industry officials’’ is being changed. 

PVA also fully supports the provisions to require State employment offices receiving Federal grants to maintain a full-time Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 

(DVOP) specialist and a full-time Local Veterans’ Employment Representative 

(LVER) whose responsibilities are to only serve the employment needs of eligible 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
53 

veterans. Too often, State employment offices take advantage of DVOP and LVER 

staff to fulfill other requirements not related to serving veterans. This has long been 

a complaint of veterans’ service organizations. We appreciate the fact that the Committee has recognized this problem and is now considering legislation to prevent 

this from happening. 

Lastly, we would like to offer our strong support for the reauthorization of the 

DoL Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program (HVRP). The HVRP is a valuable 

program focusing on employment of homeless veterans. This program has achieved 

wonderful success since its inception approximately 25 years ago. The HVRP provides help for those veterans with significant problems including substance-use disorder, severe PTSD, serious social problems, legal issues and HIV. The specialized 

services needed for these veterans and provided by HVRP are often their only hope. 

The HVRP is perhaps the most cost-effective and cost-efficient program in the Federal Government. And yet in spite of the success of HVRP, it remains severely 

under-funded. Reauthorization of this program would ensure that homeless veterans 

who need a high level of support get it. 

H.R. 1941, the ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011’’ 

PVA strongly supports H.R. 1941, the ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011.’’ With veterans’ 

national unemployment rate higher than civilian unemployment rates for all age 

categories, the Federal Government must assist these men and women as they try 

to assimilate back into the civilian world. It is estimated that over 27 percent of 

young veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan are unemployed. The ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011’’ is a proactive effort by the various agencies, VA, DoL, and 

DoD, to actively assist these newly discharged servicemembers with identifying a 

career path and obtaining employment they desire. The ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011’’ 

is the first legislation of its kind to require broad job skills training for all servicemembers returning home. 

Military service to our Nation is preparation for civilian work opportunities. 

Today, most military occupations do not offer that benefit since many military occupational specialties are nontransferable skills. If all provisions included in the ‘‘Hiring Heroes Act of 2011’’ are fully developed, properly executed, and available to all 

servicemembers, this effort will provide a strong recruitment tool for all branches 

of service. 

H.R. 169 

PVA supports H.R. 169. Having readily available information pertaining to employment opportunities on the Internet is essential for veterans seeking employment 

in the 21st Century. This is particularly true of the newest generation of veterans 

who rely heavily on internet and online social media for information. The internet 

may be the most valuable tool for veterans who are continuing their education or 

looking for employment. 

While creating a hyperlink directed towards veterans employment is seemingly a 

trivial step, it highlights the importance of this issue. Additionally, having readily 

available and easy access to other important Web sites such as VetSuccess, USA 

Jobs, Job Central, and other relevant Web sites would certainly improve information 

sharing for veterans seeking employment opportunities. PVA believes that determining the information to be made available through this hyperlink should be coordinated between the VA and the Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and 

Training Service. We often hear of the difficulty veterans face when trying to navigate the vast array of information available when seeking employment. We believe 

the provisions of this legislation can help ease their search by placing these important links on the main page of the Web site of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, once again PVA would like to 

thank you for placing emphasis on one of the greatest challenges facing our Nation’s 

veterans. 

Meaningful employment is a vital part of improving transition for servicemembers 

as well as fulfilling our obligation to the men and women who served in the past. 

Moreover, employment holds the key to finally overcoming homelessness among veterans. We look forward to partnering with you to put veterans back to work. We 

would be happy to respond to any questions that you might have. 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
54 

Statement of Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, National Legislative 

Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE: 

On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 

United States and our Auxiliaries, the VFW would like to thank this Committee for 

the opportunity to present its views on these bills. 

H.R. 169, To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include on the 

main page of the Internet Web site of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

a hyperlink to the VetSuccess Internet Web site and to publicize such 

Internet Web site. 

The VFW generally supports the intent of H.R. 169. However, we believe that the 

problem this bill seeks to rectify goes beyond VA. Recently, the Office of Personnel 

Management published its report on the 2009 Employment of Veterans in the Federal Government initiative, or Feds Hire Vets. Though the report demonstrated 

some success in the initiative, the gains in veteran hires were underwhelming. 

Numbers across agencies were inconsistent, while traditionally military-friendly departments, such as the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans 

Affairs still comprise nearly 80 percent of total veterans employed. 

After reviewing the numbers, the VFW decided to look at how each Federal executive agency chose to implement the tasks of the Feds Hire Vets program through 

their Web sites, which the VFW believes is the most easily accessible point of entry 

for job-seekers. The VFW found that information for veteran job-seekers was not 

readily available on many agency Web sites, and those that included the information often directed job-seekers into a loop that was difficult to navigate, and eventually guided job-seekers to USAJOBS. 

Though the VFW does not necessarily support a legislative solution to issues of 

Web site layout and design, we support the notion that Federal agencies should 

practice consistency in their messaging to veteran job-seekers. The VFW believes 

that veterans should be able to easily find resources like VetSuccess and USAJOBS 

on the landing pages of Federal agencies, and we hope that Veteran Employment 

Program officers will choose to implement this recommendation as a best practice. 

H.R. 1941, Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 

The VFW supports H.R. 1941, the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011, and considers this 

bill a critical and overdue piece of legislation that will help our Nation’s heroes reenter and remain competitive in the workforce. During recent difficult economic 

times, young veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disproportionately affected by a stagnant job market, which is why VFW believes Congress 

should take every step necessary to ensure that our Nation’s heroes have viable careers available to them when they leave the military. The VFW generally supports 

the provisions of H.R. 1941, but we would like to focus on several of the bill’s sections in our testimony. 

First, the VFW agrees that TAP must be mandatory for all servicemembers leaving the military. This is a missed opportunity to ensure that all servicemembers 

have a viable baseline from which to work once they reenter the civilian workforce. 

The VFW also believes that consultation with VA should be included in all TAP programs, ensuring that veterans transitioning out of the military are at least aware 

of the benefits and services to which they are entitled. 

The VFW also agrees that direct hiring authority for Federal agencies and offering civilian work experience for potential civil service employees while on terminal 

leave will cut down on red tape for veterans seeking careers in the Federal workforce. Allowing qualified veterans a direct path to a civil service career also helps 

Federal agencies fulfill their obligations to employ veterans. 

Finally, the VFW supports offering two additional years of VocRehab benefits for 

unemployed veterans who have exhausted all of their State and Federal benefits. 

The intent of VocRehab is to ensure that veterans who were disabled in the line 

of duty would be trained and employable in a new career field. If a veteran has used 

their VocRehab benefits, yet remains unemployed, then their initial VocRehab program clearly failed. To the VFW, VA is obligated to ensure that veterans who participate in the program truly receive the job skills they need to remain competitive 

in the civilian workforce. 

The VFW also has a suggestion for improving H.R. 1491. Section 9 of the bill has 

the right objective; making the transition from military to civilian life easier by allowing servicemembers to apply the skills learned from their MOS to the civilian 

workforce. The problem with Section 9 is the approach; calling for a study and report requiring coordination between the Secretaries of Defense, Veterans Affairs, 

and Labor. This approach wastes time on bureaucracy, rather than helping to place 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
55 

the servicemember in a civilian occupation. Replacing Section 9 with ongoing private 

sector initiatives—two of which the VFW follows at Fort Bragg and in Illinois— 

would streamline this transition by cutting out bureaucracy. Some of these initiatives utilize mathematical algorithms through which servicemembers can simply 

enter their MOS to populate a list of viable civilian careers; others identify and fill 

State credentialing gaps; and industry experts continue to develop ways to translate 

such data sets into usable information to guide veterans on their educational and 

professional training needs. The VFW is eager to discuss these initiatives further 

with Members of the Committee following this hearing. The VFW believes that the 

private sector already has the capacity to bring the departments of Defense, Labor 

and Veterans Affairs into the 21st century through these ongoing initiatives without 

wasting additional resources on a duplicative study. Starting over with another 

study could cause a setback on gains already made by companies that have identified such gaps and are already working to close them. 

H.R. 2433, Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011 

The VFW supports H.R. 2433, the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011, 

which is yet another long overdue piece of legislation to help veterans find meaningful employment during difficult economic times. The VFW generally supports the 

provisions of this bill, which will create substantive new programs for veterans, 

while also codifying reporting requirements for the departments of Defense, Labor 

and Veterans Affairs to ensure that new and ongoing initiatives are producing the 

desired result of placing veterans in viable careers once they separate from the military. 

The VFW supports the proposal to create a new Veterans Retraining Assistance 

Program, allowing veterans who have exhausted both their education benefits and 

unemployment benefits to take advantage of an additional 12 months of training, 

honing the skills necessary to reenter the competitive job market. This new program 

would serve an often overlooked demographic within the veterans’ community— 

workers ages 35 to 60—who are struggling to make ends meet during difficult economic times, but either do not qualify for or have exhausted comprehensive benefits 

packages like the Post-9/11 GI Bill or Chapter 31 Vocational Rehabilitation benefits. 

As the VFW testified in relation to the extension of additional Chapter 31 benefits 

to unemployed veterans who have participated in the VocRehab program, VA education benefits were designed to allow veterans to cultivate the skills necessary to 

compete in the civilian workforce. If veterans have taken advantage of these programs, but remain unemployable, then the programs clearly failed and further assistance should be made available. Veterans have been hit disproportionately hard 

by the economic downtown. However, the VFW knows that our Nation’s war-fighters 

still bring tremendous intangibles to the workplace. The VFW views this short-term 

benefit as a stop-gap measure to ensure that those who served our Nation have the 

resources they need to help stimulate our economy. 

One of the VFW’s top priorities for the last few years has been mandating TAP 

programs for separating servicemembers across the armed forces. This bill not only 

mandates TAP, but calls on concerned agencies to also compile data on program outcomes such the length of a veteran’s unemployment following separation, starting 

salaries upon finding employment, and status of educational and vocational training 

programs. 

Another overlooked statistic when discussing veterans’ transition into the civilian 

workforce is underemployment. The VFW believes that many times veterans with 

years of relevant work experience as military professionals are treated as either 

entry level or even unskilled workers once they enter the civilian workforce. This 

is unacceptable, and the VFW believes that tracking starting salaries for TAP participants is a critical first step in rectifying this injustice. 

The VFW believes that by mandating TAP, creating reporting criteria, including 

VA in TAP programs, and possibly integrating several of the follow-up provisions 

from H.R. 1941, Congress can ensure that veterans not only receive a baseline of 

resources to assist in their transition off of active duty, but that concerned agencies 

will have a vested interest in demonstrating program success. 

Ensuring successful implementation of ongoing educational and employment programs seems to be a consistent goal of H.R. 2433, such as calling for DVOPs and 

LVERs to be evaluated upon completion of their training. The VFW supports this 

evaluation and the requirements that all full time DVOPs and LVERs must only 

perform tasks related to their specific function. The VFW has consistently heard of 

DVOPs and LVERs crisscrossing their responsibilities, ultimately diluting the caliber of services delivered to veterans eligible for each of the unique programs. Implementing auditing requirements whereby States could lose funding for DVOPs and 

LVERs for failure to comply will help ensure mission success. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
56 

The VFW also supports the pilot program allowing States to allocate up to 25 percent of DVOP and LVER funding for individual job training. The VFW believes that 

this keeps with the intent of DVOPs and LVERs of assisting eligible individuals in 

finding gainful employment, and VFW supports the caveat that all requests must 

be made to VA on an individual basis. If existing programs cannot help a veteran 

become employable, the VFW believes this last ditch effort is a proper use of available resources to ensure that the unique needs of the veteran will be met. 

Finally, the VFW supports the approach H.R. 2433 takes to successfully correlating military service to civilian job skills. Though this bill also calls for the completion of the DoD, DoL, VA study, it includes the caveat that existing programs 

addressing this issue should be leveraged. As we have testified in the past, private 

industry groups are already working to address this issue with quantifiable success. 

We believe it is the responsible course of action to ensure that we are not duplicating effort. 

The VFW views both H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433 as critical pieces of stand-alone 

legislation that can each help veteran job-seekers successfully find viable careers 

after military service. The VFW believes that the new benefits programs established 

by both bills will help different sectors of unemployed veterans find viable work, and 

we believe the provisions included to offset costs are fair. The bills only minimally 

overlap when discussing issues such as mandatory TAP and credentialing of military job skills in the civilian sector. The VFW welcomes the opportunity to work 

with the Committee on how to improve either bill or create a single, comprehensive 

bill that includes provisions of both. However, the VFW must reiterate that unemployed veterans need a comprehensive veterans’ employment package yesterday, 

which is why we urge Congress to move quickly in passing these necessary programs and reforms, and the VFW stands ready to assist in accomplishing that goal. 

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

questions that you or the Members of the Committee may have. 

f 

Veterans of Modern Warfare 

Washington, DC. 

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Member of this Committee. 

Thank you for inviting Veterans of Modern Warfare to address you today. 

As you know the national unemployment level is over 9 percent. Among Veterans, 

especially this generation of Veterans it’s even higher. 

House Resolutions 169,1941 and 2433 are examples of our governments understanding and appreciation of our service to this country. Through these bills either 

the continuation of good programs or the mandating of specific provisions of established programs will help Veterans entering the private sector. Through the TAP 

program and or other programs in these bills, the Department of Labor will provide 

to the returning Veteran the support and training programs necessary to reinstitute 

their place in society. Through tax incentives, employers will be incentivized to hire 

and train this generation of returning Warriors. 

Veterans of Modern Warfare applauds the sponsors of these bills. A great deal of 

publicity has been shed on the 21st Century 9/11 GI Bill. Which is a wonderful piece 

of legalization. Unfortunately, as you know, not every Veteran is a candidate or has 

the desire to attend a 4-year college. The passage of House Resolutions 169, 1941 

and 2433 will reassure and support this generation of Veterans returning to our society. 

Veterans of Modern Warfare thank and encourage our Legislators to continue 

sponsoring bills that remind Veterans and America, that their sacrifices and service 

is appreciated now and forever in the hearts and minds of our country. 

‘‘A country that doesn’t stand by it’s Veterans, will one day fall, for lack of the 

Veteran’’ 

Respectfully, 

Joseph F. Morgan 

President/Chief Executive Officer 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
57 

1 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/. 

2 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/. 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 26, 2011 

Hon. Jack Quinn 

President 

Erie Community College 

121 Ellicott Street 

Buffalo, NY 14203 

Dear Jack: 

In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, 

and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would appreciate it if you could 

answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on September 7, 

2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses to Debbie at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please 

call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Ranking Democratic Member 

JL:ds 

Responses from Erie Community College 

Question 1: Is there a difference in needs between a veteran that recently separated from service and one who separated over 15 years ago? 

Response: The comparison of the veteran of today and the veteran of 15 or more 

years ago can be made by looking at two main points that impact veterans and 2- 

year community colleges; economy, operational tempo, readjustment, and TBI. 

The economic indicators from 1996 and prior show a more robust economy than 

experienced today. An 8 month recession had ended by March 1991, unemployment 

in 1996 peaked at 5.4 percent, with veterans experiencing a 3.9 percent unemployment rate.1 In 2011, we are 2 years removed from a defined recession, however recent stock market swings indicate otherwise. Current unemployment is at 9.1 percent with veterans experiencing a 15 percent unemployment rate.2 Veterans of 

today will need educational assistance to become more employable in today’s job 

market along with tax incentives for employers to hire and retain work ready veterans. 

The effects of Operational Tempo from multiple deployments over a 10 year sustained war, coupled with readjustment issues stemming from the deployments and 

undiagnosed Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) are placing a greater stress on today’s 

veterans verses those of 15 years ago. 

The Gulf War had ended by February 1991 and conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia and 

Kosovo were limited in time, scope, and total troop deployments. Contrasting that 

the current veteran has faced a sustained multi theater 10-year conflict, with many 

facing multiple deployments and for the first time since WWII an extensive use of 

the Reserve and National Guard. In relation to education this increased OP Tempo 

has resulted in many veterans either breaking the educational path or indefinitely 

delaying it due to time away from school. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
58 

3 Bob Brewin, ‘‘Half the Afghanistan and Iraq veterans treated by VA receive mental health 

care,’’ Broken Warriors, Examining the invisible wounds of war series, March 2011. http:// 

www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ngl20110322l2917.php. 4 Jaimie L. Gradus, DSc, MPH, ‘‘Epidemiology of PTSD.’’ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

National Center for PTSD. http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/epidemiological-factsptsd.asp. 5Lucille Beck and Barbara Sigford, ‘‘Update on Health Care: VA TBI Screening Program,’’ Department of Veterans Affairs, September 2008. 6 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, ‘‘Traumatic brain injury: hope 

through research,’’ Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health; 2002 Feb. NIH Publication 

No.: 02–158. See: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/tbi.htm. 7Matthew J. Friedman, MD, PhD, and Paula P. Schnurr, PhD, ‘‘PTSD Treatment: Research 

and Dissemination,’’ National Center for PTSD. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs indicated that 313,670 veterans of the current conflict have been treated for mental health issues as of December 2010.3 A 

Rand Corp study in 2008 showed 13.8 percent of 1,938 veterans surveyed using the 

pre-established PTSD checklist (PCL; 9) showed signs of PTSD. Based on the more 

than two million troops deployed in both OIF and OEF by the end of 2009, the survey supported the numbers seeking counseling at VA Hospitals. By comparison the 

same survey applied to veterans of the 1991 Operation Desert Strom indicated a 

10.1 percent rate of PTSD equating to approximately 30,000 veterans with PTSD 

based on troop deployments.4 The number of veterans who suffer from readjustment 

disorders, depression and PTSD will place a greater strain on community based 

counseling services as these veterans return to the workforce or to school. Community Colleges with smaller class sizes and a less intimidating campus sprawl have 

proven to be the choice of veterans according to VA data. Today’s veteran continues 

to look for the atmosphere and support that he or she was accustomed to in the 

military, an atmosphere and system of support more readily accessible on a Community College campus. 

According to the 2008 Rand report, probable Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) has 

been reported in 19 percent of the troops surveyed. About 68 percent of the more 

than 33,000 wounded in action in Iraq experienced blast-related injuries.5 The rate 

of psychological and neurological injuries suffered by current conflict veterans is on 

par with veterans of the Vietnam War.6 How does this impact the veteran returning 

to school? A veteran suffering from neurological injuries as a result of a TBI will 

present mood changes, difficulty concentrating, memory, attention, or thinking as 

well as restlessness, or agitation.7 These symptoms will transfer directly to the 

classroom setting where veterans will struggle in larger settings. The small class 

size of the Community College creates a more welcoming feel for veterans who can 

receive greater one on one attention, tutoring, and ease of transition to an academic 

setting. 

Question 2: Is legislation necessary to make TAP mandatory. 

Response: As discussed during the question and answer period and in my written testimony, the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) developed by the DoD is 

critical in helping military members and their families make a smooth transition 

from a military career to the civilian sector. While all branches of the Armed Services state that the Pre-separation counseling is required, only the Marine Corps, 

Navy and Air Force describe the program as congressionally mandatory for all personnel. So to answer the question, no new legislation is needed as TAP is already 

considered mandatory by 60 percent of the branches. Under the guise of ‘‘Commanders Intent,’’ the process used by the Marine Corps has been further refined to 

provide personnel with a better skill set on separation. A uniformed approach across 

all branches modeled after the Marine Corps Transition Assistance Management 

Program (TAMP) and further follow up through the TurboTap Web site 

www.turbotap.org would better serve personnel and Commanders during this period. 

Question 3: Tina Terhune was eligible for Chapter 30 of the Montgomery GI Bill? 

Response: The term of eligibility is 10 years. Unfortunately, her eligibility ran 

out on 6/26/10 and she was only able to use it for one summer semester 

Question 4: How many high demand associate degrees and/or certificates are offered at Erie Community College? 

Response: The Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Investment Board distributes 

a list of ‘‘Demand Occupations’’ each year. Currently, ECC offers 32 degree, certificate and/or non-credit training opportunities that would be considered ‘‘high demand’’ based on this list. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
59 

They are: 

Autobody Repair 

Automotive Technology 

Building Analyst 

Building Envelope Professional 

Business Administration 

Business Administration (Transfer) 

CNC Precision Machining 

Clinical Laboratory Technician 

Computer Applications for the Office 

Computer Science 

Construction Management Engineering Technology 

Dental Assisting 

Dental Hygiene 

Financial Services 

Green Building Technology 

Health Information Technology 

Heating, Ventilating, AC and Refrigeration 

Human Services 

Information Technology 

Liberal Arts and Science—Social Science 

Medical Office Assistant 

Medical Office Practice 

Mental Health Asst—Alcohol Counseling 

Mental Health Asst—Substance Abuse 

Nursing 

Occupational Therapy Asst. 

Office Assistant 

Office Management 

Paralegal 

Radiation Therapy Technology 

Respiratory Care 

T Chart Comparison 

Veteran separated over 15 years ago Recently separated Veteran 

Economic 

More robust economy 

Five years since previous Recession 

GDP decline 1.4 percent through Recession 

National unemployment 5.4 percent 

Veteran unemployment rate 3.9% 

Economic downturn 

Two years since last official Recession 

GDP decline 5.1 percent through Recession 

National unemployment 9.1 percent 

Veteran unemployment 15% 

Operational Tempo/Deployments 

Operation Desert Storm ended 5 years prior 

Conflicts from 1993–1999 were limited in 

duration, scope of mission and overall troop 

deployment 

Current conflicts are approaching 10 years of 

sustained multi front, multi deployment operations 

Approximately 300,000 troops deployed More than 2 million deployed by the end of 

09 

Female Veterans 

Number had steadily declined since WWII Comprise 20 percent of current force 

Fastest growing population of homelessness 

Female veterans divorce rate at 9.2% 

National Guard and Reserve 

Deployments 

In 1996 large scale deployments had ceased 

Most unit or individual deployment were 

short duration peace keeping or humanitarian 

missions 

Largest call up of National Guard and Reserve since WWII 

Duration of deployment exceeds 1 year 

Causes issues with education and career 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
60 

T Chart Comparison—Continued 

Veteran separated over 15 years ago Recently separated Veteran 

Mental Health needs 

10 percent of Operation Desert Strom 

veterans diagnosed with PTSD or depression; 

30,000 veterans 

313,760 have sought treatment at the VA for 

mental health issues as a result of current 

conflicts Traumatic Brain Injuries on par 

with Vietnam War. 68 percent of wounded in 

Iraq are from blast injuries. 

Causes lingering issues with concentration, 

memory loss, attention, and thinking 

GI Bill 

Increase in veterans and dependant accessing 

GI Bill has dramatically delayed access to 

f 

tuition and housing allowance 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 26, 2011 

The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, 

and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would appreciate it if you could 

answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on September 7, 

2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses to Debbie at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please 

call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Ranking Democratic Member 

JL:ds 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Post-Hearing Questions for Curtis L. Coy, From the Honorable Bob Filner, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169, July 15, 2011 

Question 1: What is VA’s anticipated cost for adding 132 additional FTE to administer the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program? 

Response: In our testimony, VA indicated the need for 132 FTE to administer 

the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program if the claims were received evenly 

throughout the year. However, we would expect to receive the bulk of the workload 

at the beginning of each fiscal year, and therefore VA would need 62 permanent 

FTE and additional temporary employees to administer this program. 

Assuming VA receives 65 percent of the total claims payable in the first 90 days 

of each fiscal year (FY), the need in FY 2012 would be 62 permanent FTE and 77 

temporary FTE. In FY 2013, the need would grow to 62 permanent FTE and 104 

temporary FTE. In FY 2014, the need would be 62 permanent FTE. The administrative costs are estimated to be $9.4 million the first year and $20 million over 3 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
61 

years. These costs include payroll and benefits for the new employees, office supplies, equipment, and additional rent costs. In addition to VBA administrative costs, IT costs are estimated to be $851,000 the 

first year and $1.1 million over 3 years. 

Question 2: How much time would VA need to hire and train the 132 FTE? 

Response: VA anticipates that it will take 6 months to hire and train the permanent and temporary employees once an agreement with the Department of Labor 

and processing system are in place. 

Question 3: Does VA have a National advertising plan to publicize benefits nationwide? 

Response: VA is developing a national advertising plan. This will be a comprehensive campaign based on market research and strategic analysis that uses 

clear, accurate, consistent, and targeted messaging to educate Veterans, their families and interested groups on VA’s benefits and services. 

The National Veterans Outreach office has been charged with two roles in adver- tising benefits: (1) Review Departmental advertising efforts over $10,000 in scope 

and recommend approval or disapproval; and, (2) Develop a national advertising 

strategy (explained below). 

The plan will emphasize the use of partnerships including the Ad Council 

(www.adcouncil.org), a private, non-profit organization that marshals volunteer talent from the advertising and communications industries, the facilities of the media, 

and the resources of the business and non-profit communities, to deliver critical 

public service announcements to the American public. The campaign will leverage 

advertising technology and the voice of partners to deliver VA’s message. 

VBA’s Benefits Assistance Service (BAS) works closely with VA’s National Veterans Outreach office to develop outreach products and campaigns to enhance access 

to VA benefits. BAS promotes national awareness of self-service activities available 

through eBenefits. In collaboration with the rest of VA, BAS is committed to providing streamlined benefits to Servicemembers, Veterans, and their dependents. 

Question 4: How much money has VA spent in the past 3 years on advertising? 

Response: VA issued its first national ‘‘Interim Advertising Policy,’’ August 5, 

2010, to provide direction, set standards and delegate responsibility for advertising. 

Prior to the issuance, VA administrations and offices were largely prohibited from 

conducting ‘‘marketing and advertising.’’ As a result, there wasn’t a specific entity 

with responsibility of tracking advertising within VA. Advertising was largely permitted for the recruitment of health care professionals. Thus, information on expenditures have not been collected. 

However, VA is establishing methods to standardize and track advertising. The 

National Veterans Outreach Office was established within the Office of Public and 

Intergovernmental Affairs (OPIA) in FY 2010 to assess and standardize how outreach is being conducted throughout VA, and to further develop the process for oversight and tracking of advertising campaigns over $10,000. 

The Office is also providing project management of significant marketing and advertising contracts, and is working to develop a system to track department-wide 

performance measures for VA’s outreach programs. 

In FY 2010, the Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs (OPIA) developed 

the ‘‘What Lies Ahead,’’ and ‘‘Care Package,’’ public service announcements as a 

part of national Veterans awareness campaign targeting OIF/OEF Veterans at a 

cost of $5 million. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 26, 2011 

Robert Madden 

Assistant Director, National Economic Commission 

The American Legion 

1608 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Dear Robert: 

In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, 

and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would appreciate it if you could 

answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on September 7, 2011. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
62 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses to Debbie at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please 

call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely 

BOB FILNER 

Ranking Democratic Member 

JL:ds 

American Legion 

Washington, DC. 

July 19, 2011 

Honorable Bob Filner, Ranking Member 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Ranking Member Filner: 

I respectfully submit the following responses to your additional questions from the 

Full Committee hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169 conducted on July 

15, 2011: 

Question 1: According to resolution #342, the Legion seeks elimination of the VA 

Home Loan Funding fee. How do you reconcile your support for a bill that extends 

the fees at a higher rate when they were going to decrease? 

Response: While The American Legion would like to see the elimination of the 

VA funding fee, there are programs that are needed and required now. Ultimately, 

The American Legion would like to see the elimination of the VA Home Loan Funding Fee for veterans. 

Question 2: Since States have the biggest role to play in licensure and 

credentialing, what are the top 3 things that can be done to assist veterans with 

licensure and credentialing? 

Response: The lack of attainment of both State licenses and national certifications can be a significant barrier for transitioning servicemembers and veterans. 

It is important to note that State licensing and national certification are two separate things and reducing barriers in these areas requires different strategies. Promoting State licensing of servicemembers and veterans is an important policy goal, 

but attention should also be provided to issues related to national certification. With 

regard to State licensure, the top three things that can be done to alleviate barriers 

include: 

1. Ensuring that States pass legislation and change regulations to allow licensing 

bodies to recognize equivalent military training and experience. (The States of 

WA, CO, UT, VA, and MD currently have legislation that does this that can 

serve as models for other States.) 

2. Demonstrate to State licensing agencies (and national certification bodies) the 

equivalency of military training and experience by conducting gap analyses between military training and experience and State licensing requirements and 

reporting this information systematically to the State licensing agencies. 

3. Encourage States to grant reciprocity for servicemembers, veterans, and 

spouses who have attained licenses in the same occupation that are attained 

in other States. This would allow servicemembers and spouses to get licensed 

in one State during their military service and then, when they transition out 

of the service to a different State that license will be recognized and they will 

not have to attain a new license in order to practice. 

It is important to note that The American Legion believes that national certification (e.g., certifications for automotive mechanics, dental assistants, IT personnel) 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
63 

is equally important as State licensing. Employers often require these certifications 

even when there is no comparable licensure requirement in the State. Moreover, civilian certifications provide concrete evidence that transitioning servicemembers’ 

and veterans’ skills are on par with their civilian counterparts. However, many 

servicemembers leave the military without these certifications. The American Legion recognizes that reducing barriers to certification requires a multi-faceted approach. The top three things that can be done to promote certifications are: 

1. Ensure that all servicemembers have equal access to information on certifications (and licenses) related to their military occupations. To date, only the 

Army and Navy consistently disseminate complete information on credentialing 

to their servicemembers (through the Army and Navy Credentialing Opportunities On-Line or COOL initiatives). While the Air Force has a web-based tool 

(called CERT), it is not nearly as comprehensive as the COOL initiatives. 

Moreover, the Marine Corps does not have anything to disseminate information 

on certifications and licenses to its servicemembers. 

2. Promote funding of certifications and licenses. This can be accomplished in 

three ways: 

• Require the military services to fund credentials for certifications and licenses 

directly related to the servicemember’s military occupational specialty. Currently the Navy is the only service that has exercised its authority under the 

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2006, which authorized the 

expenditure of appropriated funds for servicemembers to pay for commercial 

credentials. • Ensure that the VA promotes the GI Bill licensure and certification benefit to 

servicemembers and veterans. Many servicemembers and veterans are un- aware that the GI Bill will reimburse up to $2,000 per test for licensure and 

certification exams. The VA needs to increase awareness of this benefit. • Ensure that the VA publicizes to licensure and certification agencies the need 

to get their certifications and licenses approved by the VA for GI Bill payment. 

Currently, data from the Army and Navy shows that less than 50 percent of 

the certifications and licenses that are related to Soldiers’ and Sailors’ military occupations have been approved for GI Bill payment. 

3. Promote Accreditation of Certification Programs. The lack of accreditation of 

certification programs means that servicemembers and veterans may spend 

money on certifications that do not have relevant value. Unlike in higher education where accreditation of institutions and programs is prevalent, there is 

currently no systematic monitoring of the quality of certification programs. 

Two agencies currently accredit certification programs—the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Commission on Certifying Agencies (NCCA); however, the vast majority of certification programs have not 

been accredited. Army and Navy data show that less than 10 percent of certifications related to their military occupations have been accredited by either organization. Accreditation of certification programs is of benefit to military 

servicemembers, veterans, and civilians, but it can be costly for certification 

agencies and there is no major incentive for them to get accredited. Therefore, 

The American Legion recommends that the Department of Labor seriously consider providing grants to certification agencies that elect to get accredited. 

Question 3: Is the Legion supportive of taking money from one group of veterans 

to pay for benefits for another group of veterans? 

Response: The American Legion supports increasing veteran’s benefits that provide valuable solutions to problems that face veterans from all eras of service. When 

financing a veteran’s benefit, the financing should not be taken from a current benefit in order to pay for the newly created one, instead funding should come from 

a direct source that does not interfere with another veteran’s benefit. 

Question 4: What are the top 5 employment barriers facing veterans today? 

Response: The American Legion has identified the following employment barriers 

facing veterans: 

1. Difficulty in translating military training and experience to civilian jobs. A recent Society of Human Resource Management survey determined that 70 percent of civilian hiring managers cited their inability to translate military training and experience to their civilian jobs as a major challenge in hiring veterans. 

2. Lack of attainment of civilian occupational credentials while in the military. Civilian credentials are instrumental in ensuring civilian employers that 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
64 

transitioning servicemembers’ and veterans’ skills are on par with their civilian 

counterparts. They are also often required by civilian employers or by government agencies in order to perform certain occupations. 

3. Lack of a centralized database of veterans’ re ́sume ́s. It is often difficult for employers to locate/identify qualified transitioning servicemembers and veterans 

to fill their job vacancies. Employers—particularly small business—often see 

the cost of using a private sector recruiter that specializes in hiring of ex-military as too prohibitive. A publicly funded talent bank that is heavily promoted 

to veterans and employers would help match qualified veterans with civilian 

jobs. 

4. Deployments. The multiple deployments of veterans have taken them out of the 

job market and networking opportunities, which amounts to tremendous difficulties with obtaining and/or sustaining meaningful employment. Due to the 

recession, there are limited amount of jobs with heavy competition to fill them. 

Employers are skeptical to say the least in hiring veterans (National Guard 

and Reservists), because of the inevitable deployments, which has a major impact on business productivity, particularly small businesses. Furthermore, the 

longer a veteran is out of work, it becomes more of a challenge to find gainful 

employment, due to the private sector tending to assume that the veteran’s 

skills have considerably diminished. 

5. Stigma of PTSD & TBI (invisible wounds). There is a significant portion of 

combat veterans who have been diagnosed with PTSD and/or TBI. These invisible wounds have been well-documented since the two wars have progressed, 

which has caused an immediate concern to the private sector regarding the capability of combat veterans with these diagnoses in a civilian work environment. Currently, these invisible wounds are being researched/studied to provide employers and the public more details regarding how these mental disabilities effect veterans’ work habits and ability to be productive in a work and/ 

or family dynamic. Additionally, due to the fact that employers have a modest 

understanding about veterans’ benefits, they have serious concerns regarding 

health care costs of hiring veterans with PTSD and TBI, along with other physical disabilities. These invisible wounds have set tremendous obstacles for veterans who are seeking employment. 

Question 5: Should the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) be completely contracted out? 

Response: The American Legion is supportive of making the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) mandatory; similar to the way the United States Marine Corps 

requires their troops to attend the TAP program. The TAP program is undergoing 

significant changes that have not been implemented. The American Legion has been 

advocating for an innovative and comprehensive TAP program, conducted by trained 

and effective leaders. At this time, The American Legion does not have a position 

on whether or not TAP should be contracted out; however, we’re strongly recommending sweeping changes to be made to the TAP program that benefits servicemembers who are reintegrating into civilian life. 

Question 6: The government provides programs to help separating veteran’s 

transition back into their communities. How long should the government continue 

to provide such services after servicemembers separate from the military? 

Response: The American Legion strongly believes that the government should 

provide assistance and/or services for these transitioning servicemembers as long as 

they require help. The government along with the private sector should be focused 

on providing the most proficient programs that provide education, training, employment and business opportunities, so veterans can productively move onto their next 

phase in life without incurring severe difficulties. It is the obligation of the government and the servicemember, in partnership with entities such as The American Legion, to create objectives and strategies which will significantly assist veterans with 

their journey to a seamless and successful transition. This is not a one-topic issue 

but, as we have learned, this is a multi-faceted issue which if not properly addressed can bring about: high unemployment rates, homelessness and other transitional issues. The American Legion will continue to support and advocate for effective government programs that enhance the employment and business opportunities 

for servicemembers as they transition from the Armed Forces. 

Question 7: Section 203 and Section 4114 of H.R. 2433 direct the Department 

of Labor to use funds made available for the State grant program. Are you concerned that this directive may reduce funds to the States to provide direct services 

for veterans? 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
65 

Response: The American Legion supports conducting the research, analysis, and 

reporting required in H.R. 2433 related to the Transition Assistance Program (Section 203) and credentialing (Section 4114) and is not concerned that it will take 

away funds for providing direct services to veterans. The American Legion recognizes the importance of funds for direct services to veterans; however, we also recognize the importance of conducting periodic evaluation and review of existing programs and identifying new methods of reducing employment barriers for 

transitioning servicemembers and veterans. If this type of research is not conducted, 

it is difficult to ensure that the existing services provided meet the needs of today’s 

veterans. 

Question 8: If DoD needs to share information With NASWA does your Organization have any privacy or security concerns? 

Response: The American Legion does not have a position or resolution on this 

topic, therefore will decline comment. 

Question 9: The pilot program, established by H.R. 2433, authorizes 25 percent 

of State funds to be used by States to enter into grants with the ten States with 

the highest unemployment which would essentially mean a 25 percent reduction in 

funding for Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS) and Local 

Veterans’ Employment Specialists (LVERS). Do you support this reduction to the 

States with the worst unemployment and how helpful do you think this will be? 

Response: The American Legion does not support this reduction. DVOPs and 

LVERs play an important role in providing direct assistance to veterans who are 

disabled and/or other eligible veterans seeking employment. The American Legion 

seeks legislation that will transfer all DVOPs and LVERs from the State Agencies 

to DoL–VETS for supervision and oversight in order to ensure that the individuals 

employed to serve veterans are not used for other programs. 

Question 10: In your testimony you mention that older veterans have great financial responsibilities and often have families. Do you think that younger veterans 

may be in the same position? 

Response: Yes. The context was not only to look at the younger generation who 

are searching for jobs and who might have education eligibility or other forms of 

Federal financing, but to also look at the population of older veterans who are in 

a forced transitional phase. These older veterans might have been working at a job 

for 10–20 years and have had to reinvent themselves to gain a new job skill or vocation. Typically an older veteran tends to have a wife, children, a home and possibly 

greater debt. Veterans of all ages are serving in the war, but those who have come 

before the younger generation are not to be forgotten when discussing the employment of veterans. 

Thank you for your continued commitment to America’s veterans and their families. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Madden, Assistant Director 

National Economic Commission 

cc: Chairman Stutzman 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 26, 2011 

Tom Tarantino 

Senior Legislative Associate 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

777 North Capitol Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Dear Tom: 

In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, 

and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would appreciate it if you could 

answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on September 7, 

2011. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
66 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses to Debbie at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please 

call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Ranking Democratic Member 

JL:ds 

House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Legislative Hearing on 

July 15, 2011, Questions for Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative Associate, 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, August 15, 2011 

Question 1: Section 203 and Section 4114 of H.R. 2433 directs Labor to use funds 

made available for the State grant program. Are you concerned that this directive 

may reduce funds to the States to provide direct services for veterans? 

Response: IAVA staff could not find section 4114 of H.R. 2433. However, under 

section 301 of H.R. 2433, Title 38 section 4114 is discussed. IAVA does not believe 

that this provision would have a substantial negative impact upon services for veterans. IAVA has championed the cause of translating military training into civilian 

credentials and we believe that this provision will prove tremendously valuable to 

veterans. If IAVA has any criticism of this provision it is that it does not cover more 

military occupational specialties. 

Section 203 of H.R. 2433 establishes the conduct of an audit of the program once 

every 3 years by a veteran-owned small business. While IAVA clearly would like all 

funds dedicated for veterans programs to go directly to those programs, we also understand the need to collect metrics on the success and effectiveness of those programs. IAVA has long championed increased collection of information on veterans 

and veterans programs; one of the issues we face in our efforts to help our Nations 

heroes is a dearth of useful information. The nature of the requirements of section 

203 appear to be of minimal impact, and IAVA does not believe that this requirement will have a significant negative impact upon the execution of the VA’s mission 

or individual programs. 

Question 2: The pilot program, established by H.R. 2433, authorizes 25 percent 

of State funds to enter into grants with the ten States with the highest unemployment would essentially mean a 25 percent reduction in funding for Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialists (DVOPS) and Local Veterans’ Employment 

Representatives (LVERs). Do you support this reduction to the States with the 

worst unemployment and how helpful do you think this will be? 

Response: The likely effectiveness of this program is beyond the resources of this 

office to quantify. While a reduction in funding for DVOPS and LVERs seems, on 

the surface, drastic and counterproductive to the goal of helping veterans gain employment, increasing grants to the States with the highest rates of unemployment 

appears, on the surface, to be a good approach to a worthy goal. The real question 

is: How effective is the current system and will the new system be more effective? 

IAVA supports any measure that results in a more efficient and effective system 

that quickly delivers fair and accurate benefits to veterans. However, IAVA does not 

support attempts to reduce the VA’s ability to effectively deliver fair and accurate 

benefits to veterans. 

Question 3: Should a State ever lose its funding for its State grant program that 

provides direct services for veterans? 

Response: If the program is ineffective and wasteful, then ‘‘Yes.’’ IAVA’s primary 

concern is the quick and effective delivery of fair and accurate benefits that help 

veterans. If programs are effective and helping veterans, then they should be continued. IAVA believes that any program that does not meet that standard should be 

restructured, rethought, and potentially cut in favor of better ideas. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
67 

Question 4: What more should VA be doing to publicize their benefits to veterans 

and families? 

Response: Mandatory attendance of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) by 

all separating servicemembers will go a long way towards informing veterans and 

their families of what the VA has to offer. IAVA has long advocated for this measure 

and we continue to push for mandatory TAP. President Obama’s recently proposed 

veterans employment initiative, S. 951 sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray, H.R. 1941 

sponsored by Rep. Bishop and H.R. 2433 sponsored by Rep. Miller show that there 

is bipartisan support for this common sense measure. IAVA supports the adoption 

of mandatory TAP attendance for all servicemembers. 

Question 5: Currently, what grade would you give VA on their efforts to inform 

veterans about their benefits? 

Response: While IAVA has long championed improvement within the administration and delivery of VA programs and services, IAVA believes that ‘‘grading’’ the VA 

is counterproductive. Higher grades could lead to complacency, a false sense that 

all is well and there is no improvement to be found. Lower grades needlessly fuel 

outside criticism and call for shifting spending away from the VA instead of improving their delivery. In addition, painting the depth and breadth of the VA programs 

with a single stroke does not recognize that there are both exceptional programs 

and those in need of improvement. IAVA recognizes that the VA and its employees 

strive to provide help to our Nation’s heroes but we reserve the right to provide constructive criticism at the appropriate time in the appropriate forum. 

Question 6: Are you concerned that H.R. 2433 excludes veterans that qualify 

Chapter 30, 31, 33, and 35 but not veterans eligible for Title 32, Chapters 1606 and 

1607? 

Response: There are no chapters 1606 or 1607 in Title 32 of the U.S. Code. There 

are however, chapters 1606 and 1607 of Title 10 U.S.C. that deal with educational 

assistance for members of the Select Reserve. IAVA does note that not excluding 

these chapters is inconsistent, but does not object to their exclusion. Since the 

House Veterans Affairs Committee does not have jurisdiction over issues pertaining 

to Title 10 U.S.C., I can only speculate that they were left out to avoid any jurisdictional issues with the legislation. 

Question 7: Community college associate degree programs are for an average of 

2 years. Do you have any concerns that the retraining program is only for 12 

months? 

Response: The purpose of the bill is to address retraining, not initial study for 

an associate, technical, or baccalaureate degree. Therefore, the period of time to 

complete retraining should not be as long because prerequisites will have already 

been dispensed with. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 26, 2011 

Bob Simoneau 

Deputy Executive Director 

National Association of State Workforce Agencies 

444 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 142 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Bob: 

In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, 

and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would appreciate it if you could 

answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on September 7, 

2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
68 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses to Debbie at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please 

call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Ranking Democratic Member 

JL:ds 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Post-Hearing Questions for Bob Simoneau, From the Honorable Bob Filner, 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, and H.R. 169, July 15, 2011 

Question 1: How can we help employers understand the qualifications veterans 

and servicemembers have to offer? 

Answer: With limited resources, State Workforce Agencies (SWA) attempt to 

make labor exchange services as efficient as possible. SWAs and local one-stop career centers work closely with unemployed veterans to gain a sense of their skills, 

and they assist them either to apply directly for available jobs, or if needed, they 

offer intensive services up to and including training. 

The SWAs have used web services, such as the National Labor Exchange (NLX) 

and the MOS crosswalk page at O*Net, where employers and veterans can relate 

the Military Occupational Classification with the private sector Occupations. Today 

much of the interaction between job seekers and employers occur thru Web sites. 

The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) can help veterans learn how to communicate with employers in ways employers understand, and make connections for potential employment. Requiring all of the armed services to mandate transitioning 

members to attend TAP would help prepare them for connecting with employers. 

Promotional efforts to demonstrate the value of hiring a veteran and to better define the qualifications of a veteran or servicemember need to be increased. Congressional support for such efforts would help to maintain this as a priority. 

The employer tool kit developed by the U.S. Department of Labor Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) is an excellent start, but may need to be 

marketed better to employers. The link is in a prominent spot on the VETS Web 

site, but could be identified better with an icon or something to attract attention. 

VETS could promote the tool kit more directly with employer groups and associations. The tool kit is available at: (http://www.americasheroesatwork.gov/ 

forEmployers/HiringToolkit). Many other groups and agencies also have developed 

employer tool kits. 

Question 2: Do you think that employers are looking for a labor pool of applicants with marketable and transferable job skill that veteran’s lack? 

Question 2(a): What types of jobs are most veterans likely to qualify for and do 

those jobs exist or are there enough of those jobs? 

Answer: To answer this question with any specificity we would need to discuss 

the skills of specific categories of veterans. For example, if we look at the education 

levels of veterans, we find veterans have a wide range of educational backgrounds. 

In the four categories shown in Appendix A, veterans have an education distribution 

equal to or better than the general population. 

We do not have data on unsuccessful matches between the veteran job seeker and 

available jobs; real-time labor market information and analysis may help, but the 

ability to do this is just now emerging among States. 

We have information on veterans who get training under the Workforce Investment Act. The data show more than 28,000 veterans received services in program 

year 2010, including training, to help them gain skills needed to obtain new jobs. 

Question 3: What grade would you give employers for understanding the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)? 

Question 3(a): What grade would you give to employers for USERRA compliance? 

Answer: NASWA and the SWAs are not involved directly with USERRA. VETS, 

especially the State Directors for Veterans Employment and Training (DVETs), have 

the primary responsibility for the USERRA program. Also, representatives for the 

Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) assist in processing initial 

USERRA questions and complaints. Workforce system staff members, especially 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
69 

DVOPs and LVERs, are knowledgeable about the basic criteria under USERRA, and 

refer veterans to the DVET in their State, or to ESGR representatives. 

NASWA does not have specific data on program understanding by employers; anecdotal evidence would indicate a good deal of understanding. The Society of Human 

Resource Managers (SHRM) conducted a survey in 2010; the results are shown in 

Appendix B. 

Although the SHRM survey is based on a relatively small sample of employers, 

it demonstrates a need to improve education of employers about their responsibilities under USERRA. There is heavy employer involvement in membership in 

DirectEmployers, which partners with NASWA to run the National Labor Exchange 

and VetCentral. 

There is evidence from VETS that the number of official complaints filed against 

employers has remained relatively constant for the last 5 years, which may indicate 

at least there is not a growing problem. In 2010, there were 1,438 new USERRA 

cases, plus 244 carry over cases. This compares with the following caseloads: 

2005—1,252 cases 

2006—1,434 cases 

2007—1,365 cases 

2008—1,426 cases 

2009—1,431 cases 

According to VETS, approximately one third of the meritorious cases each year 

are resolved, one third of the cases are not supported by evidence, and one third 

of the cases are withdrawn or were not eligible under USERRA. 

Appendix A 

Educational Attainment by Veteran Status 

Percent distribution 

Veteran status 

Less than a 

high school 

diploma 

High school 

graduate, no 

college 

Some college 

or associate 

degree 

College 

graduate 

Nonveterans 14 .3 30 .8 27 .6 27 .2 

Veterans 7 .4 32 .7 32 .8 27 .1 

Gulf War-era II veterans 1 .5 29 .2 45 .9 23 .4 

Gulf War-era I veterans 1 .5 28 .0 41 .4 29 .1 

WWII, Korean War and 

Vietnam-era veterans 10 .2 32 .3 28 .9 28 .6 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, annual averages 2009, at: www.bls.gov/spotlight/2010/veterans. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
70 

Appendix B 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 26, 2011 

Ryan M. Gallucci 

Deputy Director, National Legislative Service 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

200 Maryland Avenue, NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

Dear Ryan: 

In reference to our Full Committee legislative hearing on H.R. 2433, H.R. 1941, 

and H.R. 169 that took place on July 15, 2011, I would appreciate it if you could 

answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on September 7, 

2011. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Debbie Smith 

by fax your responses to Debbie at 202–225–2034. If you have any questions, please 

call 202–225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

BOB FILNER 

Ranking Democratic Member 

JL:ds 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING68453a.001
71 

STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS 

OF THE UNITED STATES, RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED 

BY RANKING MEMBER FILNER, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO 

SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 7, 2011, H.R. 169, H.R. 1941, H.R. 2433 

Question 1: You recommend replacing Section 9 of H.R. 2433 with private sector 

initiatives. Can you give us a brief summary of these private sector initiatives? 

Response: Several initiatives that the VFW has been following closely include 

the Military Pipeline, Helmets to Hardhats and the Teamsters’ initiatives on 

credentialing health care professionals and commercial drivers. Military Pipeline is 

an independent program, currently being tested at Ft. Bragg, which allows servicemembers and veterans to correlate their military job skills to potential civilian career fields. Using mathematical algorithms, the proprietary software also allows veterans to learn of credentialing gaps for career fields they may wish to pursue. The 

program’s developers are also looking for ways to responsibly steer servicemembers 

and veterans down viable career paths, once credentialing gaps have been established. Helmets to Hardhats is another program which seeks to streamline the process through which servicemembers can quickly transition from military service into 

construction-related jobs. Though Helmets to Hardhats is operated as an online optin program for veterans interested in construction-specific careers, the portal has an 

established network of regional outreach coordinators to assist veterans in pursuing 

union and non-union construction careers, as well as apprenticeships. Finally, the 

Teamsters currently operate two separate pilot programs designed to close 

credentialing gaps for two of the military’s most highly trained, yet underemployed 

MOSs, health care professionals and truck drivers. The Teamsters are currently 

working in the State of Illinois to close credentialing gaps for servicemembers 

trained in these fields and looking to pursue these kinds of careers in the civilian 

job market. These four initiatives only scratch the surface, as countless others are 

underway across the country. The VFW believes that credentialing gaps have already been thoroughly identified through private sector initiatives, and rather than 

funneling more taxpayer money into additional studies of the phenomenon, the interests of veterans would be better served by reviewing private sector programs and 

investing in infrastructure that is already working to fix the credentialing gap. 

Question 2: Is VFW supportive of taking money from one group of veterans to 

pay benefits for another group of veterans? 

Response: The VFW does not support taking money from one group of veterans 

to pay for benefits for another group of veterans. However, the VFW respectfully 

disagrees with the premise that failing to lower interest rates on VA home loans 

is tantamount to increasing fees or lowering benefits for a certain group of veterans. 

The VA home loan benefit remains one of the best veterans’ benefits available, and 

continues to offer the best rates in the housing market exclusively for veterans. 

Since the law was passed, authorizing a rate reduction, the needs of American veterans have shifted drastically, no longer making such a rate reduction a viable 

course of action. 

Question 3: You state that another study could cause setbacks on claims already 

made. Is there such a thing as too many audits and studies? 

Response: The VFW believes that too much time is wasted on government studies when need has already been identified. H.R. 1941 proposes another study on 

closing civilian credentialing gaps, requiring coordination between DoD, VA, and 

DoL. The VFW believes that such studies are duplicative and would waste time, 

while veterans continue to remain unemployed. The VFW would support the aforementioned private sector initiatives in lieu of more studies. However, the VFW does 

support proper auditing measures with regard to veterans employment programs. 

For example, we fully support proper auditing of TAP program outcomes, as included in both H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433, and auditing of the pilot program to use 

DVOP and LVER funds for individual training. 

Question 4: You state that if veterans take advantage of a Federal program and 

remain unemployed, then the program failed. If a veteran gets a college degree and 

remains unemployed like many of his or her civilian counterparts is that a failure 

of the program? 

Response: The VFW believes that chronic unemployment clearly demonstrates a 

failure in academic planning, or a failure to cultivate the necessary skills to compete 

in the job market. However, I must clarify my statement on the extension of certain 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
72 

benefits offered by H.R. 1941 and H.R. 2433. The VFW believes that the VA is obligated to extend VocRehab benefits, which are included in H.R. 1941, because the 

premise behind VocRehab is that veterans are unemployable and must be retrained 

due to service-connected disabilities. The VFW believes that the extension of Chapter 30-style benefits, which are included in H.R. 2433, would be a critical tool to 

help veterans reenter the job market, should they become and/or remain unemployed at the ages of 35–60. For this particular demographic, careers may have disappeared as the job market has evolved. Extension of this benefit is not an obligation of VA, but, rather, a temporary, responsible, stop-gap measure to help this particular group of veterans find viable careers and stimulate the economy during difficult economic times. 

Question 5: What role should the veteran and the VA play in determining what 

type of training is most beneficial for the veteran? 

Response: The veteran deserves the opportunity to determine his or her career 

path and the opportunity to develop a responsible course-of-action to succeed in that 

industry. VA should have the ability to offer sound advice to veterans on how to 

make this happen. The VA also has an obligation to ensure that requisite education 

and training is conducted through credible institutions in a timely manner. Over the 

last few months, the VFW has learned that vetting processes for institutions accepting VA education benefits are irresponsibly lax, allowing predatory institutions of 

higher learning to take advantage of veterans eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits. 

Such institutions should be ineligible to receive Federal education dollars, and the 

VA should be able to offer sound counsel to veterans seeking to utilize their benefits. 

Question 6: You state that veterans with years of relevant work experience are 

treated as either entry level or even unskilled once they enter the civilian workforce. 

What can be done to remedy this issue? 

Response: The VFW believes that many times this is the result of military skills 

not translating well to the civilian job market. The VFW supports Department of 

Defense efforts to close credentialing gaps, ensuring that separating servicemembers 

are employment-ready once they leave active duty. The VFW also supports outreach 

efforts to private industry to help demonstrate the value of prior service military 

employees. 

Question 7: Section 203 and Section 4114 of Hr. 2433 directs the Department of 

Labor to use funds made available for the State grant program. Are you concerned 

that this directive may reduce funds to the States to provide direct services for veterans? 

Response: The VFW believes that this provision in H.R. 2433 gives leverage to 

DVOPs and LVERs in the States hardest hit by the economic downturn to accomplish their mission of employing veterans. The VFW believes that the 3-year pilot 

program includes proper safeguards to ensure that funds are used responsibly when 

they are set aside for individual training. The pilot program specifically lays out eligibility criteria and auditing criteria to prevent fraud. Should this pilot program 

come to fruition, VFW would monitor progress closely and make further recommendations to this Committee on the viability of expanding the program beyond 

the original 10 States. 

Question 8: If DoD needs to share veteran information with the National Association of State Workforce Agencies does your organization have any privacy or security concerns? 

Response: The VFW is unclear as to what this question pertains to with regard 

to the included legislation, and cannot speak on behalf of NASWA. However, we believe that DoD could help to remedy the current veterans’ employment crisis by offering home-of-record information to State employment offices. We believe that this 

could pose challenges to DoD with regard to personally identifiable information, but 

we also believe that DoD has the capability to ensure that PII beyond home-ofrecord could be redacted from any records turned over to State operators. The VFW 

believes that for State employment officers to be able to properly accomplish their 

mission, they must first know how many veterans they have been tasked to serve. 

Question 9: In your written testimony you mentioned that after reviewing the 

OPM report on the 2009 Employment of Veterans in the Federal Government, the 

numbers were inconsistent. Do you think that a direct-hire authority for Federal 

agencies will help? 

Response: The VFW supports direct hiring authority for veterans transitioning 

off of active duty. We believe that this would encourage agencies consistently proven 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
73 

to hire a low percentage of veterans to tap this group of competent workers. Today, 

veterans who seek to take advantage of their 5 point preference must have a DD– 

214 in hand to start the often-lengthy Federal hiring process. The prospects are 

even worse for service-disabled veterans who must wait for their VA claims to be 

adjudicated before starting the hiring process. The resultant lag time in completing 

the hiring process can lead to significant financial hardships, and can result in the 

Federal agencies losing prime candidates to leaner private industry employers. If a 

veteran meets core competencies, they should be able to simply take off the uniform 

on Friday, and put on a suit on Monday, avoiding unnecessary hurdles and the potential financial hardships that come with the current Federal hiring system. 

Æ 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING