H.R. 1773, The Native American

Veteran Home Loan Act; H.R. 3082, The 

veteran-owned Small Business

Promotion Act of 2005; and 

four draft bills

Hearing

before the

Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on 

economic Opportunity

one hundred ninth congress

first session

July 27. 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-20

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

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

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

u.s. government printing office

washington : 2005

22-709.PDF
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Steve Buyer, Indiana, Chairman

Michael Bilirakis, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois, Ranking

Terry Everett, Alabama Bob Filner, California

Cliff Stearns, Florida Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois

dan burton, Indiana Corrine Brown, Florida

Jerry Moran, Kansas Vic Snyder, Arkansas

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

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

Jeff Miller, Florida Dakota

John Boozman, Arkansas Ted Strickland, Ohio

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Silvestre Reyes, Texas

Michael R. Turner, Ohio Shelly Berkley, Nevada

 Tom Udall, New Mexico

JAMES M. LARIVIERE, Staff Director

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity

John Boozman, Arkansas, Chairman Stephanie herseth, South 

Richard H. Baker, Louisiana Dakota, Ranking

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

 Lane Evans, Illinois

 

Michael F. Brinck, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

July 27, 2005

 Page

1

1

 3

33

4

34

7

35

9

40

10

45

12

57

17

65

18

69

20

73

H.R. 1773, The Native American Veteran Home Loan Act; 

 H.R. 3082, The Veteran-Owned Small Business Promotion

 Act of 2005; and Four Draft Bills ...........................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

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

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

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

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

Witnesses

Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, Delegate from American Samoa 

Prepared statment of Mr. Faleomavaega ..................................

Register, John, Manager, The Paralympic Academy and Mili-

 tary Programs of the U.S. Olympic Committee .....................

Prepared statement of Mr. Register ..........................................

Lawrence, Brian E., Assistant Legislative Director, Disabled

 American Veterans .................................................................

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

Blake, Carl, Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed Vet-

 erans of America .....................................................................

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

Fryar, Deborah Kline, Deputy Director, National Military 

 Family Associate, Inc. .............................................................

Prepared statement of Ms. Kline ...............................................

Lopez, John K., SDV, Chairman, Association for Service Dis-

 abled Vetrans ..........................................................................

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

Sharpe, Joseph C., Jr., Deputy Director, Economic Commis-

 sion, The American Legion .....................................................

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

Weidman, Richard, Director, Government Relations, Vietnam

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

Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman ........................................

(III)
McWilliam, John M., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Opera-

 tions and Management, Veterans’ Employment and Train-

 ing, Departmment of Labor .....................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. McWilliam .......................................

Pedigo, Keith, Director, Loan Guaranty Service, Department

 of Veterans Affairs ...................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo ..............................................

INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD

Daley, Maren, Chair, National Association of State Workforce

 Agencies ....................................................................................

Blackwell, Walter, President/CEO, National Veterans Busi-

 ness Development Corporation ...............................................

H.R. 1773, the Native American Veteran Home Loan Act ........

H.R. 3082, the Veteran-Owned Small Business Promotion Act

 of 2005 ......................................................................................

Draft Bill, relating to Adaptive Housing Assistance for Dis-

 abled Veterans Residing Temporarily in Housing owned

 by Parent or Sibling .................................................................

Draft Bill, relating to Professional Qualifications for Disabled

 Veterans’ Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans’

 Employment Representatives ................................................. 

Draft Bill, relating to Increase in Assistance Amount for Spec-

 ially Adapted Housing .............................................................

Draft Bill, relating to Department of Veterans Affairs Office of

 National Disabled Veterans Sports Programs and Special

 Events .......................................................................................

(IV)

25

79

26

82

90

94

100

107

116

119

122

124

Page
(1)

H.R. 1773, The Native American Veteran Home Loan

Act; H.R. 3082, The veteran-owned Small Business

Promotion Act of 2005; and four draft bills

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:00 p.m., in Room 334, 

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

Subcommittee] Presiding.

 Present: Representatives Boozman, Herseth, and Evans. 

 Mr. Boozman. The Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity will 

come to order.

 As you may know, we just completed a markup of two bills that I

am very pleased to send to the full Committee for consideration. Our 

next bit of business is to receive testimony on two introduced bills 

and four draft bills.

 Two of the drafts deal with adaptive housing-related issues. H.R. 

1773 would amend the Native American Loan Guaranty Program, 

sponsored by Ranking Member Ms. Herseth, one draft codifies the 

VA’s special events program, H.R. 3082, would increase opportunities 

for veteran- and disabled veteran-owned small businesses at the VA, 

and finally a draft to establish national quantification standards for 

Disabled Veteran Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans 

Employment Representatives.

 The draft special events bill is intended to codify the VA special 

events program. This program includes a wide variety of events 

ranging from things like the recent 75th anniversary celebration to 

art shows and sporting events for disabled veterans.

 Let me be clear about the intent of the bill, we just want to ensure 

that these types of events continue.

 Obviously, the bill emphasizes sports, but not at the exclusion of 

the other types of rehabilitative and special events. Anyone who has 
2

attended events like the Winter Sports Clinic, the Golden Age Games, 

the Wheelchair Games and the Arts Festival can only come away impressed by the effect these opportunities had on the participants.

 I will note that Ms. Bo Derek has lent her celebrity to these programs in the last 5 years during the recent Wheelchair Games. And 

I didn’t know until we got into this that they do play rugby in wheelchairs. Ms. Derek remarked that disabled veterans have a great advantage over nonveterans with the same types of disabilities because 

of the opportunities offered by the special events programs.

 You will also note that the draft bill requires VA to achieve a relationship with the U.S. Olympic Committee and subsidiaries. We are 

doing that to encourage more veteran participation in competitive 

sports. And I look forward to hearing from the USOC about that 

today.

 Our draft adaptive housing grant bill would increase the amount of 

the grant and provide an opportunity for grants to be made to renovate the homes of parents or siblings of severely disabled veterans. 

I believe this is important because many of our wounded spend all 

or part of their convalescence with their immediate families before 

moving out, and a small grant to renovate those homes seems totally 

appropriate.

 Regarding veterans and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, Public Laws 106-50 and 108-183 established a procurement goal 

of 3 percent and authorized set-asides for Federal agencies. Unfortunately, to date, virtually no Federal agency, including the VA, has 

achieved either the spirit or will of the law. The intent of H.R. 3082 

is to rectify that as far as the VA is concerned.

 The bill will essentially change what has been a “may” to a “shall” 

in terms of goals, and since it is the VA, I strongly believe the VA

should set the example for the rest of the Federal Government. And 

so my bill sets a 9 percent total, and also does things like grandfather 

qualifying business for 10 years after the death of a veteran owner.

 The Veterans Employment and Training Service of the Department of Labor provides Federal grants for States to employ Disabled 

Veteran Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans Employment Representatives, or as they are commonly called, DVOPS and 

LVERs. These are State employees, and the qualifications and pay 

scales vary significantly.

 For example, we are told the pay ranges from a low $20,000 in some 

States up to over $100,000 in other States. Clearly, if one believes 

that you get what you pay for, there is likely a wide disparity in the 

qualifications among the States. Our draft bill would require the Department of Labor, through the Veterans Employment and Training 

Service, to set national standards for initial hires as well as training 

requirements for those on the job.

 I am sure this bill will concern some current DVOPS and LVERs. 
3

I am not trying to dictate the terms of the qualifications, but anyone 

who believes in the status quo is not putting veterans first, and we 

do that by requiring the States to ensure that highly qualified and 

motivated employment specialists fill those jobs.

 There are many dedicated DVOPS and LVERs out there who do a 

great job for veterans, and the intent of this draft bill is to make them 

even more productive in the wide variety of duties laid out in title 

38. That is why the draft bill grandfathers existing employees and 

gives them 5 years to achieve the training requirements for continuing employment.

 Let me repeat, the objective of this legislation is to improve service 

to veterans, and that is best achieved by improving the skill levels 

of all those charged with putting veterans and disabled veterans in 

good-paying jobs.

 Finally, as I said, Ms. Herseth is the sponsor of H.R. 1773. I am 

also a cosponsor, and I now yield to her to explain the bill and for any 

remarks she may have.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this legislative hearing. I would like to welcome all the witnesses. I

look forward to their testimony concerning their positions on many 

of the bills before the Subcommittee today, and especially a special 

welcome to our colleague, the delegate from American Samoa, Mr. 

Faleomavaega. 

 Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that we have included on 

today’s agenda, H.R. 1773, the Native American Veteran Home Loan 

Act, a bill I introduced along with a number of my House colleagues 

and, Mr. Chairman, you as well, in April.

 H.R. 1773 would make permanent the Native American Housing 

Loan Pilot Program, administered by the VA since its inception in 

1983. By all accounts, the pilot program is a great success and, in 

fact, currently has a negative subsidy -- that is, it actually pays for 

itself.

 Additionally, I am pleased we are examining other draft measures 

aimed at expanding eligibility and increasing the grant amounts under the VA’s adaptive housing program. As more and more of our servicemembers and veterans return with injuries, we must be prepared 

to ease their transition in many ways, including providing for the 

means to adapt their living quarters as a result of any disabilities, as 

well as providing broad and effective employment system.

 Yesterday we marked the 15th anniversary of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. We have made progress in the area of including 

persons with disabilities into everyday activities. It is incumbent for 

us to also include the Nation’s servicemembers and veterans in this 

ongoing progress.

 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the witnesses’ views and their efforts 

to assist us in crafting legislation that is effective and fiscally respon-
4

sible. I hope that we will use the witnesses’ testimony to guide us in 

making helpful and reasonable improvements to the measures that 

we consider today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I look forward to today’s testimony and yield back the balance of 

my time.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 As Ms. Herseth noted, we do have a very distinguished member 

with us today, Mr. Faleomavaega, representing the island of American Samoa. I have a fairly short travel to my district, compared to 

whatever you have got to have, as far as frequent flier miles and 

things like that. You have to be the champion in the House.

 We want to welcome you to the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. And 

you are free to go ahead with your testimony with any remarks you 

may have.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A

 DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AM-

 ERICA SAMOA

Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and our distinguished Ranking Member, Ms. Herseth, for allowing me the opportunity to testify before your Committee concerning H.R. 1773.

 I know I join my colleagues that make up the Native American 

Indian Caucus. I know that Congressman J.D. Hayworth and Congressman Dale Kildee and many other members, both Republican 

and Democratic members, who are very supportive of Native American issues.

 I just wanted to initially state that I would like to include my statement, to be made part of the record. And I will just kind of go over 

extemporaneously the statement and the substance of my remarks 

concerning the bill.

 This is a very historical occasion for introducing this legislation, 

Mr. Chairman. It has been my experience from well over 10 years 

now that we periodically keep passing authorizing legislation to allow this pilot program to continue to see if we can give assistance to 

many of our veterans who live on reservations. This is in the instance 

of Native American Indians, Native Alaskans, also Native Hawaiians 

who live in homestead lands -- a very particular situation that allows 

native Hawaiians to do that -- and even in my home district where our 

veterans are allowed to live on what is known as communal lands.

 This special legislation has been a tremendous help to many of 

our veterans who would not have qualified otherwise, simply because 

there were no lending institutions that are willing to participate and 

to work with our veterans who live in these different situations.

 For your information, Mr. Chairman, six of my soldiers now have 
5

died from the war in Iraq. There was a recent article in USA Today, 

about 2 weeks ago, giving the per capita ratio casualty among the 

States and territories, and interestingly enough, the State of Vermont is highest with about 11.6 percent of the casualty of the soldiers 

who have died from this conflict in Iraq.

 Well, my humble district is 86.6 percent, the highest in the whole 

United States and territories in terms of the numbers of my soldiers 

-- I call them warriors -- who, unfortunately, have been killed in this 

conflict.

 I guess it is part of our culture. I think these romantic writers have 

done a great injustice in painting the picture of these Polynesian 

islanders living under coconut trees with ukuleles and strumming 

away, and that is all they are good for is happy-go-lucky natives, contrary to the fact that our culture is -- among the Polynesians, were 

very warrior oriented, very similar to the American Indians. That is 

probably the reason why I have a couple thousand of my people who 

are in the various branches of the Armed Forces.

 When we did the pilot program, Mr. Chairman, it was an excellent program, when several of my constituents, who happen to be 

non-American Samoans, are U.S. Citizens, but married to American 

Samoan residents, came up to me and said, “Well, what about us? We 

should be given the same opportunity even though we are not American Samoans.” and I fully agreed with the concerns that some of my 

constituents have. Well, they live there. They are going to die there. 

Why shouldn’t they be given the same opportunity?

 This is a real -- it is a very unique program, Mr. Chairman, for our 

veterans, where the Veterans Administration provides the funding 

and then they go through a screening agency or development bank, 

for example, which then allows them to be participants. And this 

is where section 3 of H.R. 1773 also provides similar loan programs 

for our veterans who are not Native Americans, but who are spouses 

to Native Americans living there, whether it be on a reservation or 

homestead land or communal land.

 And that is basically the essence of the bill. And what the bill 

provides is no longer as a pilot program, but making this program 

as an integral part of our veterans system to give assistance to these 

veterans.

 I would be remiss if I did not express my particular thank you to 

Mary Ellen McCarthy for her being so patient in trying to work out 

the proper language and seeing that this bill would include this provision that would be helpful to our non-American, non-native veterans, but who are spouses of our veterans. And they should be given 

the same opportunity. And that is basically what I am trying to plead 

here for those vets.

 And again, Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank you for this and 

the opportunity; and I will be glad to answer any questions members 
6

may have.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much for your testimony and remarks. I read the article that you referred to. And to be honest, I

knew that the percentages were way up, but I didn’t realize that -- 

you know, that they were in that neighborhood. You have traveled 

extensively in many places. You truly are very, very well represented. And we are proud of the effort and sacrifice that is being made.

 Do you have any questions?

 Ms. Herseth. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I just appreciate 

the gentleman being here before the Committee today in support of 

this important bill.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

 Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would gladly 

invite both you and our Ranking Member, please come and visit my 

humble district. And of course, you will have to pay your own way to 

come down. But once you are there, then it is my turn, and I will be 

more than happy to accommodate your needs.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. Maybe we will take you up 

on that.

 Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.

 [The statement of Mr. Faleomavaega appears on p. 34]

 Mr. Boozman. Okay, now let’s have our next panel.

 Our next panel is comprised of Mr. John Register, Manager of 

the Paralympic Academy and Military Programs at the U.S. Olympic 

Committee; Mr. Brian E. Lawrence, Associate National Legislative 

Director at DAV; Mr. Carl Blake, Associate Legislative Director for 

PVA; and Ms. Debbie Fryar, Deputy Director for Government Relations, National Military Family Association.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN REGISTER, MANAGER, PARA-

 LYMPIC ACADEMY AND MILITARY PROGRAMS, UNITED

 STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; BRIAN E. LAWRENCE, 

 ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DIS-

 ABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; CARL BLAKE, ASSOCIATE

 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AM-

 ERICA; AND DEBORAH KLINE FRYAR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

 GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY

 ASSOCIATION

 Mr. Boozman. Why don’t you go ahead and start us off, John, once 

you get yourself situated?
7

STATEMENT OF JOHN REGISTER

 Mr. Register. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the Subcommittee. My name is John Register, and I

am representing the United States Olympic Committee, a privately 

funded organization chartered by Congress through the Ted Stevens 

Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

 The Association’s principal function is to field for the United States 

the most competent representation to the Olympic, Pan American 

and Paralympics games, the latter being a competition for elite disabled athletes conducted at the same Olympic approximately 2 weeks 

following the Summer and Winter Olympic Games.

 Let me give youa quick background on myself. I am an Army 

veteran who served in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, 

three-time All American track and field athlete, and graduate of the 

University of Arkansas. I have twice competed in the Olympic trials 

and am a two-time Paralympic Athlete, 1996 to 2000, taking the silver medal in the Sidney Australia in the long jump becoming the only 

American athlete to jump over 18 feet without a leg or a knee in the 

process.

 My current position with the USOC is manager of the Paralympic academy and military programs, and the reason I am here today 

is to discuss legislation that would create within the Department of 

Veteran Affairs an Office of National Disabled Veteran Sports Programs and Special Events, a proposal that the USOC enthusiastically endorses. Quite simply, such an office provides the potential 

for a highly synergistic partnership between the USOC and the Department of Veterans Affairs that would enable us to significantly 

expand the work that the USOC, through its U.S. Paralympics division, to bring Paralympic sport to disabled American servicemen 

and -women, many of whom have incurred service-connected injuries 

while serving in the Middle East.

 My injury occurred in freak hurdle accident, after I returned from 

the first Gulf War and costing my left leg just above the knee. And 

my initial reaction really was not to return to athletics and to make 

the Paralympics, but rather my reaction had to do with my identity. 

Who was I now? Was I still a husband to my wife? Will she still accept me in this new condition? Was I still a father to my boy? Was I

still a son to my mother and father? Was I still a soldier?

 It was sports that played a critical role in my reaffirmation of 

who I was. And I see a great similarity between my situation with 

yesterday’s and today’s veterans. During World War II, it was discovered that sports and physical activity could play an important and 

unique role in the rehabilitation of military personnel with newly 

acquired disabilities. Young servicemembers who had just returned 

from World War II, who were undergoing rehabilitation, were pre-
8

dictably drawn to sports and other team activities.

 The attraction of sport for the new set of veterans serves as more 

than just a rehabilitation technique. These sports served as a source 

of motivation and a path to a fuller life for young people in the aftermath of a disability.

 With the onset of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, a new generation of U.S. Paralympic, U.S. military personnel with disabilities 

has emerged. And these newly disabled men and women are young, 

ambitious; they are goal oriented and in their physical prime. Sport 

has played an integral role for returning veterans of World War II, 

Korea and Vietnam, now has the capacity to assist military personnel 

with adjustment to life with a disability. The United States Olympic 

Committee and its Paralympic partners recognize the opportunity to 

play a key role in the lives of these returning military personnel with 

these newly acquired disabilities.

 To date, the United States Olympic Committee has conducted 

Paralympic sports programs and clinics at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Brooke Army Medical Center since January 2005 and 

March of 2004. And each time I leave the sport clinics, I get the same 

reaction, disabled vets are at first a little bit skeptical, but after a few 

minutes of competing in the sport, the disability disappears, and then 

the game is on.

 In the fall of 2004, the USA Paralympic team participated in sports 

administration of clinics with disabled military personnel from Walter Reed; and in the fall of 2005, USOC will host up to 75 disabled servicemembers to two Paralympic sports programs and military clinics. The USOC’s Paralympic partners also have been active in these 

efforts, especially Disabled Sports USA at Walter Reed and Blaze 

Sports Clubs of America and Brooke Army Medical Center. Additionally, the Paralympic partners have encouraged the participation of 

disabled military personnel in local, regional and national competitions where they have the opportunity to participate in sports clinics 

and observe elite athletes in action.

 While sports clinics are a great way to introduce veterans to Paralympic sports, but a more comprehensive program is needed to ensure 

that they realize the full benefits of sports participation. While the 

resources of the USOC and our various partners are limited, unfortunately the pool of disabled military and newly acquired disabilities 

are growing.

 The proposed Office of the National Disabled Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events would have authorization to bring expanded reach and resources to serve these veterans. The USOC would 

welcome the opportunity to work with this office to further develop 

the program, services and events for the Nation’s disabled veterans.

 The USOC and the Department of Veterans Affairs are developing 

a Memorandum of Understanding that will strengthen and expand 
9

upon existing sport programs for disabled veterans and will expand 

the services to the disabled veterans nationwide, and specifically in 

the vicinity of VA medical centers and veterans centers, through accessing the resources and efforts of local community-based Paralympic organizations. The creation of this new office would bring national 

planning, coordination and support to these expanded efforts.

 And let me be clear about why the United States Olympic Committee is so interested in veterans programs and what we are trying 

to achieve. We believe that we have a responsibility to bring our talents and those of our principal assets, our Olympic and Paralympic 

athletes, to bear on issues that affect all levels of society. Assisting 

disabled veterans to lead full, active and meaningful lives by introducing them to sports is an area where we have talent and resources 

and where we can make a meaningful contribution.

 And further, the more men and women that enter the participation 

pyramid at the base, the greater opportunity there is for more elite, 

Olympic and Paralympic caliber athletes to develop and rise to the 

top.

 The programs conducted at Walter Reed and Brooke Army Medical 

Center and other locations throughout the country, have been encouraging and have demonstrated the value of sports in the rehabilitation of disabled servicemen and women, but we know that so much 

more is needed.

 The partnership between the United States Olympic Committee 

and the Department of Veterans Affairs being formed through the 

memorandum of understanding would be greatly enhanced by the 

creation of this new Office of National Disabled Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events, and I am confident these efforts will result 

in high-quality sports programs and services for disabled veterans 

who so greatly deserve the best efforts of us all. Thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Register.

 [The statement of John Register appears on p. 35]

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Lawrence.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN E. LAWRENCE 

 Mr. Lawrence. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth, I

am pleased to have the opportunity to present the views of Disabled 

American Veterans. DAV commends the Subcommittee for its continued bipartisan and heartfelt efforts to improve opportunities for 

disabled veterans and their families. On behalf of our 1.3 million 

members, we appreciate the bills and the draft bills that are under 

consideration today.

 You have my written statement, so I won’t reiterate my views on 
10

every bill, but I would like to emphasize our support for the draft bill 

to codify and fund the Office of National Disabled Veterans Sports 

Programs and Special Events.

 This draft bill would fulfill the resolution adopted by the membership of the DAV to provide a separate line item appropriation in 

the VA budget to ensure the continuance of these worthy programs, 

which are profoundly beneficial in helping veterans overcome or mitigate the physical and emotional impact of severe disabilities.

 The DAV applauds the Subcommittee for recognizing the value 

and importance of Disabled Veterans Sports Programs and Special 

Events and for having the foresight to ensure they are available to 

disabled veterans in the future.

 We hope that you will consider our recommendations to include 

language in the bill placing special events office under the Veterans 

Health Administration and to require VHA to develop a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding of cosponsors and to provide a 

detailed accountability for all special events office funds, including 

cosponsorship fees.

 These recommendations were derived with the aid and input of 

DAV’s Director of Voluntary Services, Ed Hartman. Mr. Hartman, 

who was fortunately able to join us for today’s hearing, has been 

heavily involved with the National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports 

Clinic for the past several years.

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

to answer any questions that may arise as a result of this testimony. 

Thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 [The statement of Brian E. Lawrence appears on p. 40]

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Blake.

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE

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

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

legislation.

 PVA particularly appreciates the efforts to address the special 

housing needs of the severely disabled veterans. PVA fully supports 

the proposed legislation that would require the VA to award 9 percent of procurement contracts to small businesses owned by veterans 

and, specifically, disabled veterans.

 As a participating member of the Task Force For Veterans Entrepreneurship, PVA works with many of the veterans service organizations present today to ensure that veterans and disabled veterans are 

given proper consideration for contracting opportunities within the 
11

Federal Government.

 As we have stated in the past, the flaw we saw in Public Law 106-

50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development 

Act of 1999, is that it establishes 3 percent as merely a goal. PVA and 

all the organizations that are comprising the Task Force For Veterans 

Entrepreneurship have argued that 3 percent should be mandated.

 Federal agencies generally ignore this 3 percent goal because they 

know that no real sanctions can be levied against them. For this reason, we welcome the requirement that VA offer 9 percent of procurement contracts to veteran-owned and small businesses and step up 

and set the bar by which all other Federal agencies seek to achieve.

 PVA supports the creation an Office of National Disabled Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events in the creation of a director 

of this office. PVA has a specialist in this office as we are the chief 

cosponsor, along with the VA, of the National Veterans Wheelchair 

Games.

 We would like to recommend, however, that this office be removed 

from the VA Office of Public Affairs and be consolidated under the 

Veterans Health Administration. Although these events serve as 

a good social event for veterans to interact, participation in these 

events is not just about being a participant in an elite athletic event. 

The ultimate purpose of the Wheelchair Games, the Winter Sports 

Clinic, the Golden Age Games and the Creative Arts Festival is to 

provide the best rehabilitative therapy to maximize independence 

and enhance the quality of life for severely disabled veterans. Given 

that rehabilitation is part of the mission of VHA, we believe that they 

should be the controlling authority.

 And PVA also believes that a separate line item appropriation 

should be included in the VA budget to support these events. This 

would remove some of the burden that the VA carries when trying 

to raise funds to support these programs and allow it to focus on the 

actual purpose of the event.

 PVA fully supports this proposed legislation that would increase 

the amount of the specially adapted housing grant from 50,000 to 

$55,000. PVAs are some of the highest users of this particular grant. 

It provides much needed assistance to veterans with severe serviceconnected disabilities who wish to purchase a home.

 In accordance with recommendations of the independent budget, 

we would also like to recommend that an additional change be made 

to this grant program. As the housing market has continued to boom, 

these grants have not kept pace. Without annual adjustment to the 

grants, inflation will continue to erode the purchasing power of them. 

PVA recommends that Congress amend this legislation to include an 

automatic annual adjustment indexed to the rising cost of inflation.

 PVA also supports the draft legislation that would authorize the 

VA to provide adaptive housing assistance to disabled veterans resid-
12

ing temporarily at the residence of their parent or siblings. Without 

this assistance, many veterans are forced to prolong their stay in a 

VA medical center because they have no accessible home to go to. 

 Finally, PVA supports proposed legislation that would require the 

DOL to establish professional qualifications for DVOP specialists and 

LVER staff. These improvements can only ensure that veterans get 

the best quality employment service available to them.

 Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Herseth, I would like to thank 

you for the opportunity to testify here today, and I am happy to answer any questions that you might have.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 [The statement of Carl Blake appears on p. 45]

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Fryar.

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH KLINE FRYAR

 Ms. Fryar. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the National Military Family Association appreciates 

your interest in the families of veterans, especially the families of 

servicemembers who have been disabled with injuries. We are grateful to the Subcommittee for this opportunity to express our views concerning the needs of those families and to comment on the proposed 

legislation under discussion today.

 NMFA asserts that behind every wounded servicemember is a 

wounded family. In the past, most benefit programs offered by the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have 

regarded the servicemember’s family as only his or her spouse and 

children. Now, however, it is not unusual to see the parents and 

siblings of a single servicemember stepping up to the plate to care 

for their wounded loved one. Almost 50 percent of the force today is 

single. As more single servicemembers are wounded, their parents 

and siblings must take on the task of helping their son, daughter, 

brother or sister through the recovery process.

 To serve all wounded servicemembers, we must also provide support to the parents of single servicemembers and their siblings as 

well. Because the severely injured single servicemember cannot be 

go home to be on their own they go home to recuperate in the homes 

of their parents and siblings. Faced with the imminent arrival of a 

servicemember home from the hospital, families feel they must make 

needed handicapped housing renovations in order to care for their 

injured loved one.

 These families are spending much of their own money to pay for 

needed modifications, often taking out personal loans. Whether it is 

installing wheelchair ramps, adapting bathrooms with handicapped 
13

accessories, widening doorways or hallways, installing handrails or 

specialized rail products, the costs of making these adaptations is 

significant. Added home renovation costs are often necessary at a 

time when the family can least afford the expenses. The increased 

financial burden placed on the families to pay out of pocket for out-ofpocket housing adaptations requires immediate attention.

 The proposed adaptive housing bill this Subcommittee is reviewing to expand support for adaptive housing to parents of these servicemembers recognizes the role parents are assuming as caregivers 

of our severely injured heroes, especially in the period immediately 

after their release from the hospital.

 Currently, severely disabled servicemembers are eligible for onetime-use-only adaptive housing grants through the VA. While this 

is a notable benefit, the modification is a one-time-use benefit, and 

funds not initially used cannot be reserved for use at a later time.

 NMFA would like to see this benefit converted to a multiuse benefit 

where the balance could be carried over. Since many of the severely 

injured troops return to their parents homes temporarily before moving to their own homes, this would benefit them and give them the 

opportunity to carry any over any unused portion of the allowance.

 NMFA is also concerned about servicemembers in the transition to 

private sector employment continuing to face challenges. Of prime 

importance is the translation in military training skills. We also hear 

that some employment representatives hired to counsel wounded 

servicemembers are not experienced. NMFA supports the establishment of professional qualifications for Disabled Veterans Outreach 

Program Specialists and Local Veterans Employment Representatives.

 Mr. Chairman, NMFA appreciates the opportunity to raise awareness of issues affecting families of wounded servicemembers. We appreciate your leadership and sensitivity in addressing the financial 

needs for critical increases in adaptive housing. Likewise, the proposed increases in the amount of assistance for certain disabled veterans that were for specifically adaptive housing would be invaluable 

and keep pace with today’s increased construction costs.

 And finally, your awareness of the need to hire qualified individuals to work as Local Veterans Employment Representatives will go 

a long way in assisting wounded servicemembers in coming years. 

Thank you.

 [The statement of Debbie Fryar appears on p. 57]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Ms. Fryar. I think your testimony did 

a very good job of elaborating on some of the challenges that the men 

and women face as they come back and get acclimated -- not only 

them, but their families -- in trying to return to life.
14

 And yet I am an optometrist, an eye doctor. And I used to work 

with people that had severe visual impairments, and the reality is, 

we live in a sighted world. And so if you can get people where they 

can just read a letter and be able to see a price tag or something like 

that, it is a big deal. It makes a lot of difference.

 And again, you know, those are the things we would like to be able 

to do -- fix things so that these individuals can get along as best they 

can.

 John, I went to the University of Arkansas and we are really very 

proud of you.

 I don’t think you all realize the program that John was a part of. 

How many national championships did you all win during your years 

at Arkansas?

 Mr. Register. Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t aware that you were a 

Arkansas graduate. We won four national championships all four 

years I was at the University. I think we have a total of 38 national 

championships since 1984.

 Mr. Boozman. So John is really one of the elite members in the 

track sphere. So we are really very, very proud of you.

 Let me ask you, can you kind of describe for us how you think the 

current VA sports programs will encourage more disabled veterans 

to participate in sports and for some to compete in the Paralympic 

sports programs? You are a guy who was a world class athlete. Kind 

of describe a little bit more about what the program did for you.

 Mr. Register. Well, the program that -- for myself, I really came 

through a different track and got involved with veterans programs a 

little bit later on and mostly in my current job now.

 Mr. Boozman. I was speaking more just the -- not the -- you know, 

just a different program but the same type of thing.

 Mr. Register. I see a parallel track, and the testimony that was 

presented here -- by my colleagues here is that the sports programs really impact the whole person, getting the serviceman back on track.

 And we live in a sports society. You know, we try and have different analogies for sports as it concerns business and employment, and 

we use these analogies in the boardroom. At the same time, we can 

use these same analogies for supporting these servicemembers who 

come back.

 They are trying to look for something. What makes me a part of 

society again? Am I still -- as I said earlier, am I still that father? Am 

I still that kid? How do I reacclimate when I come back in? And that 

is really where I see the partnership, again, between Veterans Affairs 

and the United States Olympic Committee because we all recognize 

how valuable sport is, especially for the disabled athlete’s reacclimating and for family members to come back in. Because anybody who 

touches the Olympics rings can identify with that phenomenally fast, 

able-bodied athlete.
15

 But, sir, everybody has somebody in their family that might be 

visually impaired or have an amputation or may be spinal cord disabled or something that affects their whole person. So we want to 

bring that back to them.

 I think that Wheelchair Games and the Disabled American Veterans in the winter sports clinics are a great conduit to bring that 

wholistic approach back.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. The DAV and PVA suggested placing 

the special events office in the VHA. Would you care to explain your 

reasoning for us a little more about this, why you want to do that?

 Mr. Lawrence. My understanding is the focus -- well, it is a rehabilitative event, and the focus should be on rehabilitation per the 

servicemembers that are in attendance there. And -- well, I haven’t 

been personally involved, and I understand simply that the focus is, 

with its being under the Public Affairs Office, that the focus hasn’t 

been on rehabilitation as much as it probably should be.

 And the Public Affairs Office certainly has a role to play. But 

I think if the rehabilitation and the benefits are provided, that the 

public affairs issues will go along with it. But that should be the 

primary focus.

 Mr. Blake. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a whole lot more 

than what Mr. Lawrence said.

 Other than that, the overall mission of these games ultimately is 

the rehabilitation, that Mr. Register talked about, holistically of that 

person who is disabled. The Public Affairs Office doesn’t really have 

any role in a rehabilitative mission of the VA. So it just only follows, 

from our perspective, that VHA should manage it and that Public Affairs could still have a role in kind of the marketing of the games and 

the getting the stories out.

 There are a lot of good things that are good, done through the 

Public Affairs Office, but ultimately, it focuses on the veterans’ being 

able to maximize their independence and become better citizens and 

be able to function better, to trust in themselves and understand that 

there are really no limitations, even with a disability, as long as they 

are willing to move forward. And that is all wrapped into the mission 

of the rehabilitative therapy portion of the VHA, not so much Public 

Affairs.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. 

 Ms. Herseth.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any questions, just a couple of thoughts and observations.

 Just last night, late, after votes, I went to see Murderball, the new 

movie that maybe some of you have seen, much anticipated and a 

terrific story of a number of young men who have suffered terrible 

accidents or illnesses who clearly have used quadiprlegic rugby as 

a rehabilitative tool for them, not only physically, but I believe emo-
16

tionally as well.

 And so I take the point that Mr. Blake and Mr. Lawrence make. 

But I also think that there probably is a dual role, the primary role 

of the rehabilitative therapy that the sports program would provide, 

but then also a dual role at some point with Public Affairs. Even 

this movie sort of captured how far these individuals have come and 

the public support that they received at the Paralympic and World 

Championship.

 So I appreciate the point that you make there and certainly recognize there is a role for each department in promoting the sports 

programs that can serve for rehabilitation for our severely disabled 

veterans.

 At the end of this movie, a number of the athletes are actually 

making presentations to the men and women returning from Iraq 

and Afghanistan, at Walter Reed Hospital, to gauge their interest in 

participating in similar programs.

 And, Ms. Fryar, I appreciate what you share with us today in light 

of the servicemembers who are coming home, many of them single, 

many without children of their own yet and their need to live, particularly after they return from the hospital, with parents, other relatives, and the flexibility that we clearly need in the adaptive housing 

program to meet these types of unique needs that anyone may face.

 So keeping up with sort of changing times, I appreciate the perspective that you offer today and would just also like to echo the Chairman’s appreciation and acknowledgment of your success in the work 

that you do, Mr. Register, for our servicemen and -women and what 

you have done with the Olympic Committee. Thank you very much.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. I thank all of you very much for your 

testimony. We appreciate the input on these bills.

 Mr. Boozman. Our next panel consists of Mr. John Lopez, Chairman of the Association for Service Disabled Veterans; Mr. Joe Sharpe, 

Deputy Director of the American Legion’s Economic Commission; and 

Mr. Richard Weidman, Director of Government Relations for Vietnam Veterans of America.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN K. LOPEZ, CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATION

 FOR SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS; JOSEPH C. SHARPE,

 JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC COMMISSION, THE

 AMERICAN LEGION; AND RICHARD WEIDMAN, GOVERN-

 MENT RELATIONS DIRECTOR, VIETNAM VETERANS OF

 AMERICA

 Mr. Boozman. John, would you please lead us off?
17

STATEMENT OF JOHN K. LOPEZ 

 Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Members. I would like to thank you 

for your kind invitation to present the views of the Association for 

Service Disabled Veterans regarding important matters before the 

Committee.

 Without objection, I will summarize my testimony and submit my 

full statement for the record.

 The 25 million veterans of our Nation, including 10 million mothers, 

23 million wives, 20 million daughters, and 17 million granddaughters who are all emotionally, economically and legal stakeholders in 

the programs that you have fostered in entrepreneurial legislation.

 Mr. Lopez. Too often we forget that the procurement actions, even 

the support of entrepreneurial programs, impacts the family, not only 

the individual veteran; its impact is much greater than the number of 

our service-connected disabled veterans.

 Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Members 

of the Committee and Subcommittees, for the compassionate and 

responsible leadership that they have demonstrated in the development of Veterans’ Entrepreneurship.

 H.R. 3082, the Veteran Owned Small Business Promotion Act of 

2005, is a splendid example of the Committee’s concern and focus 

in responding to the veteran need for rehabilitation and transition 

assistance. H.R. 3082 gives specific authority to the Department of 

Veterans’ Affairs to accept direct responsibility for the provision of 

benefit to the veteran, and especially the service-disabled veteran. It 

puts the task to that agency specifically established for the purpose 

of serving those who bore the battle.

 H.R. 3082 also puts focus on a more direct and specific course of 

action for the United States Department of Veterans’ Affairs efforts. 

As we have experienced with Public Law 160-50 and Public Law 108-

183, the legislated intent of this U.S. Congress has been variously 

interpreted by regulators due to the necessity for inserting and parsing of the required language, statements, and references of existing 

regulations and public laws.

 H.R. 3082 is a welcomed clarification of the resolve of the Committee to clearly state the public willingness to assist in the rehabilitation of our Nation’s veterans. H.R. 3082 also clarifies the misconception that Veterans Entrepreneurship, and the proposed act, is a 

socioeconomic development initiative or a cultural inequity panacea. 

It is not. H.R. 3082 is a specified contribution to the continuing obligation of our Nation to rehabilitate those veterans that sacrifice for 

our Nation’s security and prosperity.

 There is no justification for requiring that service-disabled veteran 

indemnification and rehabilitation be adjusted to the conduct of any 

other government program.
18

 The service-disabled veteran’s government service-incurred misery 

is unique. Future generations of American military heroes will be 

forever indebted to the 106th, 107th, 108th and 109th Congress -- and 

especially the 109th Congress -- for their commitment to honor and 

support those killed, maimed, and tortured in the continuing struggle 

to provide security and prosperity for the people of the world.

 Those Iraqi-Afghanistan veterans returning from harm’s way are 

experiencing a different outreach from others who have served, and 

that is a tribute to the consciences of the Members of the U.S. Congress.

 We ask that the Congress enact H.R. 3082 expeditiously, and that 

the Congress stay acutely engaged in a process of verifying that the 

intent of the legislation is implemented.

 Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 [The statement of John K. Lopez appears on p. 65]

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Sharpe.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH C. SHARPE, JR. 

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

appreciate this opportunity to share the views of American Legion’s 

six benefits-related legislative initiatives brought before us today; the 

first being a draft bill to authorize the Secretary of Labor to establish 

professional qualifications for disabled veterans’ outreach program 

specialists and local veterans’ employment representatives.

 Every year 250,000 servicemembers are discharged from the Armed 

Forces. These former service personnel are actively seeking either 

employment or the continuation of former or vocational education. 

The Veterans Employment and Training Service offers transitioning 

veterans the assistance they need to obtain employment.

 The American Legion believes with the dramatic increase in the 

number of veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan being discharged, and the unacceptable unemployment rates among female 

veterans and all veterans between the ages of 20 and 24, the roles and 

professionalism of the DVOPS and LVERs in assisting all transitioning veterans to the civilian workforce are increasingly important.

 Furthermore, the American Legion believes there is a direct correlation between the successful placement of veterans into training 

programs and job placement with having professional qualifications 

standards set for DVOPS and LVERs. Therefore, the American Legion supports this bill.

 In addition, the American Legion strongly supports the hiring 
19

requirement of both DVOPS and LVERs to be veterans. The American Legion believes that the unique experience of the military service serves as a benefit to veterans who are employed as DVOPS and 

LVERs. That shared experience enables DVOPS and LVERs to better understand the needs of the veterans seeking assistance, and ultimately results in more timely and efficient assistance.

 H.R. 3082, the Veteran Owned Small Business Promotion Act of 

2005. The American Legion views small businesses as the backbone 

of American economy. It is the driving force behind America’s past 

economic growth, and will continue to be a major factor as we move 

into the future.

 Presently, more than 9 out of every 10 businesses are small firms 

which produce almost one-half of the gross national product. The veterans’ benefits have always included assistance in creating and operating veteran-owned small businesses. This assistance dates back 

to the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944. The American Legion 

supports this bill, as it would add value to the nature of military service and transfers that service into the Federal marketplace.

 H.R. 1773, a bill to make permanent an existing pilot program of 

direct home loans to Native American veterans, and for other purposes. The American Legion supports the purpose of this loan program to give Native American veterans an opportunity to purchase, 

construct, or renovate homes on trust lands, and applauds the success this program has had in ensuring that qualified Native American veterans have the opportunity to purchase homes on trust land. 

By making this program permanent, and with continued outreach 

efforts by the VA to the Native American veteran community, the 

number of home loans made to Native Americans will continue to 

increase in the coming years.

 The other three draft benefit bills consist of, one, establishment of 

an Office of National Disabled Veterans Sports Programs and Special 

Events within VA that would encourage and facilitate disabled veterans in participating in sporting events.

 The second draft bill will increase the amount of assistance for 

certain disabled veterans for specially adapted housing.

 And lastly, a draft bill to authorize the Secretary of the VA to provide adaptive housing assistance to disabled veterans residing temporarily in housing owned by a parent or sibling.

 The American Legion is supportive of all three bills that have a goal 

to enhance the quality of life for all our Nation’s disabled veterans.

 Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I appreciate the opportunity to present the American Legion’s views on these important 

and timely topics.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Sharpe.

 [The statement of Joseph Sharpe, Jr. appears on p. 69]
20

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Weidman.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WEIDMAN

 Mr. Weidman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in 

holding this hearing today. And thank you, Congresswoman Herseth, for your role in this and many other strong efforts of this Subcommittee.

 The VA strongly favors theincrease in the assistance amount for 

specially adapted housing, and the draft bill that would allow adaptive housing assistance for temporary housing. Both are needed. We 

strongly encourage you, however, to consult with the National Builders Associations and other trademark -- or trade associations to find 

out some way and some mechanism for indexing this for not only 

today but for the future, because building materials are going up at a 

faster rate than anyone had ever anticipated, and that is why we had 

a projected cost of a $1 billion hospital in Denver recently.

 VVA is very much in favor of establishing professional qualifications for DVOPS and LVERs. However, there has to be something 

in that bill that will stipulate that the State workforce development 

agencies pay people commensurate with their experience, with their 

degrees, and with their performance. What you have now is a situation when the DVOP programs were created it was built into Title 38, 

chapter 41, that they could not be paid less than an entry level of an 

employment specialist by that workforce development agency. That 

floor has become the ceiling, and that is why you have 28,000 a year 

-- DVOPS earning 28,000 a year. The only way they could do it is if 

they are military retirees. They are -- obviously DVOPS are disabled 

vets in addition, and in many cases their spouse works at a reasonably lucrative occupation.

 The statistics you cited about DVOPS and LVERs making $100,000 

a year are the rare exception. Those are people that are put into a 

DVOP or LVER slot as the State veterans program administrator for 

the workforce development agency. It is not the online DVOP. And 

you can look at that by looking at the medium wage of both DVOPS

and LVERs across the country. They are, by and large, paid too low. 

That is why the turnover rate of LVERs is about 15 percent -- at least 

it was the last time I asked for those figures. And the turnover rates 

for DVOPS was 17 or 18 percent the last time I asked for those figures. 

And I think you will find that pretty much unchanged, because these 

are very difficult jobs. It is, in fact, possible with the combined efforts 

of the National Veterans Employment and TrainingInstitute which 

USC and VVS contracts with the University of Colorado at Denver, to 

enhance the training having to do with special disabilities.

 When I was, in a former life, a State veteran program administrator -- and I did not make six figures at that time, I can assure you 
21

-- first we dealt with visually impaired and blind, with the assistance 

of the Blind Veterans Association; and then we used at that time the 

Eastern Paralyzed Veterans training people, getting people with profound disabilities and created a new title -- we used to call them ER, 

veterans employment counsel. It was a master’s degree position in 

the State of New York Department of Labor, which still exists today. 

So it is possible, but there have to be some quality checks on it, and it 

has to be related to productivity.

 VVA strongly agrees with H.R. 1773, the Native American housing 

law, as written. It is a significant problem in all of the reserve territories to get credit for any purpose, and certainly for this one.

 We also certainly favor H.R. 3082. And thank you very much for 

your leadership in this area for the Veteran Owned Small Business 

Promotion Act of 2005. We would, however, point out that there is 

no reason -- at least to be considered, if not in this legislation but in 

a future legislation to follow -- of increasing the requirement from 3 

percent to 5 percent. It is useful to know that H.R. 5668, which was 

passed unanimously by the House of Representatives in July of 1999 

and became the basis for Public Law 106-50, the goal for service-connected disabled veterans was 5 percent. Was 5 percent. And in order 

to get legislation through that Congress, we finally dropped to 3 percent in order to get it through in a timely way and move forward with 

a view, then, that we would go back to the 5 percent.

 Secondly, it is, according to the SBA, it is more than 20 percent of 

small businesses that are veteran-owned. And so 15 percent across 

the board at VA would be appropriate.

 In regard to the provision of the 10-year delimiting date for the 

spouse of a deceased veteran who died in service-connected conditions, we would urge you strongly to reconsider that, because 10 years 

may be too short. If a Gulf War veteran returns home today and they 

have small children -- gets married and they start a business and 

they have small children, 3 or 4 years from now and he or she dies, 

it is going to be a lot longer than 10 years before -- they are going to 

need to support the children. So we strongly urge you to reconsider 

that 10-year delimiting date for the spouse.

 And a further key issue in this regard is why the delay until the 

end of fiscal year 2006? If it is worth doing, and this shouldn’t be 

different than -- run-up to this has already been done with Executive 

Order 13360 at the VA, with the efforts of the senior officials who is 

leading this effort at VA, and we see no reason why it could not be 

implemented beginning October 1, calendar year 2005, or the first 

day of fiscal year 2006, not the last day of fiscal year 2006.

 Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I see my time is over, and 

I appreciate the opportunity to present our views this morning, and 

would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
22

 [The statement of Richard Weidman appears on p. 73]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, and I thank all of the panel.

 One thing, Mr. Weidman, I think what we were trying to do is -- 

not implying that we had to -- trying to illustrate that we had a wide 

salary range, not trying to imply that most were on the upper end of 

the scale by any means; in fact, I suspect that many more are on the 

lower end of the scale. But that is what we were trying to illustrate; 

that because of the wide discrepancy in various States, we are trying 

to link that with, as you have testified to, some sort of an educational 

thing, a career qualification, and possibly performance.

 We are all told that restricting competition amongst suppliers will 

increase the constant supplies of especially health care-related items, 

things of that nature. How do you all respond to that when that 

comes up? Take turns.

 Mr. Weidman. I have always wanted to say I defer to my distinguished colleague on my far left.

 Mr. Lopez. There is no evidence to support that. I have never seen 

a study that supports that kind of a feeling that restricting competition -- you are not really restricting competition, you are just limiting 

it to a specific number of people first; and then if not enough individuals respond, then it is back in the pool, back into the marketplace. So 

that is not really what happens, and I think the procurement people 

know that. 

 I think most procurement policies by the contracting officers are 

based on their own insecurities in dealing with service-disabled veterans and an unwillingness to offer them opportunities because it 

may reflect on their own performance.

 Mr. Weidman. Mr. Chairman, I would agree that there is no study 

that we know of that would indicate one way or another about that. 

But I will tell you this: As you look at the GAO reports over the 

years there, it is used as an excuse for contracting officers and decision makers not to use -- to contract with service-connected disabledowned businesses; when, in fact, if you look at those same, be they 

medical centers, those same facilities, et cetera, you will find that 

they are rife with what we call “Uncle Charlie” contracts. In other 

words, sweetheart deals with contractors in the local area.

 And there is no mechanism to go back and look at that, and there 

is no strong systematic effort to look at that. And while frankly, the 

PBA, we don’t think in many cases we are getting the bang for the 

taxpayer bucks for many goods and services that are purchased by 

the VA, it is certainly not the cause of use of specific contracting authorities, any of them, and certainly not service-disabled veteranowned business.

 Mr. Boozman. One other question, Mr. Weidman. You called the 

unemployment a sham. Why is that?
23

 Mr. Weidman. When this was first proposed under the previous administration, I termed it -- having been a philosophy major at Colgate 

University, my father said, what are you going to do with that? Nobody is going to pay you to sit around and think. And it was just one 

more thing that my father was absolutely correct on. Nobody did.

 Anyway, it is commission of the classic posthoc fallacy. In other 

words, because something happened after this point in time, it must 

be due to something that happened prior to that. And there is no 

relation one with the other.

 People come in, and a scientist or a social scientist that the VETS

brought in from the University of Maryland was there to explain this 

over at the VFW hall, and I confirmed it with him. And he seemed 

like a decent and intellectually honest fellow, and he admitted there 

was not anything whatsoever. And so if we wanted to change it, and 

if you look at what the switchover actually was in program year 2002, 

bam, it suddenly looks like their productivity went up 50 percent. 

Jeepers, boy, they are really doing a great job now.

 Well, their productivity didn’t go up. They had people’s Social 

Security number because they wanted a one-stop center to register 

for their unemployment insurance. And once they had, they said you 

better go over here and register. So they had their name. So what 

they do is, they consult the unemployment insurance rolls, which 

means they got a job. They may never have been back to that center 

again, but the fact that they got a job, they are counting that as an 

entered employment and a success. And that is what at VVA we believe that it is a sham, Mr. Chairman, and a classic example of a post 

hoc ergo fallacy.

 If we are going to measure placements, then let us measure placements. If we are going to measure entered employment -- which used 

to be that you have to demonstrate that you truly delivered a supported service of some sort, whether it is job counseling or whether it 

is going over delivery of labor market information about who is hiring within that community, and what kinds of jobs those companies 

were hiring, and show the individual how to follow up, and check on 

it later. That is a supportive service, and not just the fact that they 

wandered by the office.

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the testimony of the entire panel today.

 Just one question. As we move forward with H.R. 3082, and many 

members supported the bill, but some concerns as we look forward to 

negotiating what is feasible in the short term versus the objectives in 

the long term.

 Mr. Lopez or Mr. Weidman, would you with respect to H.R. 3082, 

would you support, in place of an immediate 9 percent requirement 

for veteran-owned small businesses, a more graduated requirement 
24

initiative for assistance, perhaps starting at 5 percent -- which historically as you point out is where we were before it was negotiated 

back through the Senate, back in 1999 -- but starting at 5 percent and 

working up to 9 percent over a specified number of years?

 Mr. Lopez. My personal feeling is low standards, low performance. 

You tell them a goal of 3, they are going to do 1. You tell them 1, you 

might as well not have a program. I think if we keep it at 9, we may 

get 3, and that is our goal.

 And I am kind of being facetious, but the fact remains that they 

are not motivated to use disabled veterans because they have such a 

lack of faith in their capability. That is a cultural problem we have in 

this country. It is especially true when one is responsible for making 

financial awards.

 So I would not support it. But obviously, in a practical sense, we 

will take what we -- nah, I shouldn’t say that. I ain’t gonna take what 

we -- sorry.

 Mr. Weidman. May I follow up on that?

 Ms. Herseth. Please.

 Mr. Weidman. The 5 percent in 1999 was for service-disabled vets, 

not for all vets. And the poison pill that they asked us to swallow on 

the other side of the Hill was 5 percent for all vets. And we knew 

they could get 5 percent for all vets because there were probably that 

many doing business with the VA, if they counted. The VA has had 

in place now for 2 years, a 7 percent goal for all veteran business that 

was established internally by the Secretary’s order. So they had 2 

years to gear up to reach 7 percent, and I see no reason not to make 

them go ahead and gear up to reach 9 percent.

 There has to be some kind of sanctions, there has to be some kind 

of accountability right across the board for how you spend taxpayer 

dollars and how well you meet the mission, and there has been all too 

little of that across the board.

 As to the 5 percent that we are suggesting for service-disabled 

veteran business owners, it has come to our attention now, and we 

have discussed it with Deputy Secretary Gordon Mansfield, that it 

looks like they have started to move up. What they are doing is taking people who had preexisting contracts under 8(a) and then finding 

out that they are service-disabled veterans and counting them as service-disabled veterans, too. So if the goal were 5 percent, we actually 

would get for real additional 3 percent veterans that got contracts because of service-disabled veterans, ifthat makes any senses, ma’am.

 So we have offered, we continue to work with Mr. Mansfield, we 

continue to work with Scott Dennison, and we continue to work with 

Dr. Erlich, because it is VA Veterans’ Health Administration where 

the -- and Fred Downs, who is now the acquisition director for the 

Veterans’ Health Administration, to try to get it moving.

 But there is a long way to go in these overall goals. And as Mr. 
25

Lopez noted, constant oversight by this Committee is what will get 

us there. And we are grateful to you for everything you have done 

heretofore, and would like to express gratitude for your long-term 

commitment that we know that both you and the Chairman have on 

this issue.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you both for your well-informed opinions in 

response to that question and what we think is feasible and what the 

internal objectives are and what we know is the need for our continued oversight.

 So, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions, and I yield back.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Ms. Herseth.

 Thanks to the panel for your testimony; we appreciate it, and it was 

very informative.

 Mr. Boozman. Our next panel consists of Mr. John McWilliam, with 

the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service; Keith Pedigo and 

Gail Wegner with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN M. McWILLIAM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

 SECRETARY FOR OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT, VET-

 ERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, DEPART-

 MENT OF LABOR; KEITH PEDIGO, DIRECTOR, LOAN GUAR-

 ANTY SERVICE, VETERANS’ BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION,

 ACCOMPANIED BY: GAIL WEGNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

 OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS

 UTILIZATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

 Mr. Boozman. Let’s start out with John.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. McWILLIAM

 Mr. McWilliam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth, it is my honor to be 

here today before the Committee to present the views of the Department of Labor on several bills and draft bills regarding the draft bill 

authorizing the Secretary of Labor to establish professional qualifications for DVOPS and LVERs. This bill does require the Secretary to 

establish professional qualifications for the employment and continued employment of those veterans’ representatives.

 The Jobs for Veterans Act, Public Law 108-288, requires that States 

employ, to the maximum extent possible, qualified disabled veterans 

to serve as DVOPS, and qualified veterans or other eligible persons to 

serve as LVERs, but does not set specific standards for establishing 

the qualifications of candidates for these positions.

 We agree that establishing qualification standards for the DVOPS 

and LVERs could enhance services to veterans and improve their employment outcomes. 
26

However, in order to better understand the nature and extent of these 

professional standards, including how we would go about implementing them, we believe a thorough review of this issue is required. 

Therefore, our approach is consistent with the human capital reforms 

in the President’s Management Agenda to first initiate a workforce 

analysis to identify the specific competencies needed by the DVOPS 

and LVERs, to identify existing skill gaps, and the options for closing 

those gaps.

 DVOPS and LVERs are State employees whose employment standards are currently established by State workforce agencies. The 

establishment of national employment standards in these programs 

could provide a common level of standardization among the States 

by establishing for the first time competency models to guide their 

workforce activities. We would want to involve our stakeholders at 

the national and State levels on the front end of this initiative to ensure a workable program.

 On the remaining five bills and draft bills, the Department of Labor 

generally supports appropriate legislation that benefits veterans, but 

respectfully refers to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

 Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

 [The statement of John M. McWilliam appears on p. 79]

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Pedigo.

STATEMENT OF KEITH PEDIGO

 Mr. Pedigo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today to present 

the views of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs on six bills of great 

interest to our Nation’s veterans. I have with me today Ms. Gail 

Wegner, Deputy Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization, Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

 The first bill I will discuss, Mr. Chairman, is H.R. 1773, which 

would make several amendments to the VA Native American direct 

loan program. Under this program, qualified Native American veterans living on trust land may receive direct housing loans from VA.

 First, this bill would make the Native American direct loan program permanent. Because of some constitutional concerns that the 

Department of Justice has expressed, the VA would like to work with 

the Committee staff and Justice to address those issues and develop 

legislation that the administration can support.

 Mr. Chairman, VA supports the provisions of the bill that would tie 

the maximum loan to the Freddie Mac conventional conforming loan 
27

limit and extend eligibility to a veteran who is not a Native American 

but who is married to a Native American nonveteran.

 The next item I will address, Mr. Chairman, is H.R. 3082, the Veteran Owned Small Business Promotion Act of 2005. This bill would 

establish a set-aside tool for veteran-owned small businesses and 

enable surviving spouses of veterans to participate in the Federal 

marketplace after the loss of their loved one, and provide VA with 

authority to choose veterans first when filling their requirements for 

our Department.

 H.R. 3082, Mr. Chairman, proposes to establish a 9 percent procurement requirement for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for 

both prime contracting and subcontracting. While the administration supports expanding opportunities for veterans’ small businesses 

in Federal contracting through appropriate goals and incentives, the 

administration does not support mandating that a certain percentage 

of contract dollars go to certain businesses.

 Mr. Chairman, you also requested our views on a draft bill that 

would increase the maximum specially adapted housing grants authorized by sections 2101 (a) and (b) of Title 38, United States Code, 

to 55,000 and $12,000 respectively. VA favors enactment of this measure.

 The next draft bill, Mr. Chairman, would authorize the Secretary to 

provide additional assistance to a veteran who is temporarily residing in a home owned by the veteran’s parent or sibling. Veterans eligible under section 2101(a) could get up to $10,000, and veterans eligible under section 2101(b) up to $2,000. If the veteran subsequently 

receives a grant under section 2101 for a permanent residence, the 

amount of the assistance received under this proposed authority 

would be deducted from the maximum grant otherwise authorized 

by section 2102.

 The VA believes the intent of this draft bill is laudable, and has 

no objection to the concept of the legislation. Before VA can endorse 

this or any similar legislation, however, we believe more study of this 

proposal is required and a number of practical issues need to be resolved.

 For example, the veteran would have no ownership interest in the 

temporary residence and would be at the mercy of the parent or sibling to be permitted to continue to occupy the residence. Should the 

owner need or desire to sell the residence, or the veteran and relative 

have a falling out, the veteran could be forced to vacate the residence 

prematurely and lose the benefit of this one-time assistance.

 Also, due to the high cost of construction, many homes cannot be 

adequately adapted, even as a temporary residence, on the amount 

proposed for the new grant. Likewise,when a veteran who has received such temporary assistance acquires a permanent residence, 

the grant for that home would be reduced by the amount of such ini-
28

tial grant. Reduction in the final grant might adversely affect the 

affordability of a permanent adapted home for some veterans. Thus, 

we need further study to ensure that we are not converting this important program into one that supplies two inadequate grants.

 We would be pleased to meet with the Committee staff to discuss 

our concerns in greater detail.

 The final draft bill would establish the Office of National Disabled 

Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events in VA to administer 

and facilitate participation in sports programs for disabled veterans 

and sponsor such programs for disabled veterans conducted by other 

groups. VA opposes this bill. It would create a redundant office with 

too narrow a mission.

 Since 2000, the Office of National Programs and Special Events has 

been responsible for managing and posting VA’s National Rehabilitative Special Events, which focus on rehabilitation, health promotion, 

and disease prevention by encouraging all veterans to lead healthy 

active lifestyles. Some of these events are not sports programs, and 

many of the Golden Age games participants are not disabled veterans.

 VA does not believe that there is a need to create another office 

that would be limited to working solely on sports programs involving 

disabled veterans.

 This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you or members of the Subcommittee may have.

 [The statement of Keith Pedigo appears on p. 82]

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Wegner.

 Ms. Wegner. I don’t have a statement.

 Mr. Boozman. You are off the hook then.

 Ms. Wegner. Right.

 Mr. Boozman. Do we know, how many -- if you just took all of 

the small businesses in general, do we know how many are veteranowned?

 Ms. Wegner. We know published statistics about veteran-owned. 

The frequently published statistics are from the Bureau of Census, 

based on an extrapolation of a small sample that was studied back in 

the early 1990s.

 Using that extrapolation, Census says that they believe that there 

are between 4 and 5-1/2 million veteran-owned small businesses today. We haven’t found all of those veteran-owned businesses. We 

know about 80,000 veteran-owned businesses, but that is it.

 Mr. Boozman. How many are in your database?

 Ms. Wegner. In our database, on the public database there are 

about 9,000 businesses. We have an internal database of those that 
29

have been contacted and asked to register on our database, and that 

gets up to about 25,000 businesses on the internal level where they 

have not answered those four gateway questions that they are asked 

to address. Those are questions to verify that you are a veteran under the definition of the law, verify your service-connected disability, 

and that you meet Federal size standards.

 Mr. Boozman. So there is quite a discrepancy in what the Census 

Bureau says and what you are showing. How many small businesses 

are there total; do we know that?

 Ms. Wegner. The Small Business Administration has those figures, and they estimate that there are about 18 to 20 million small 

businesses total, but those are combined. They are not all sustainable businesses; some are casual businesses, those people that do 

part time and don’t make a living off of it.

 Mr. Boozman. So the Census Bureau has kind of a conservative 

number based on their figures. So again, I guess the problem I have 

on this, what is the VA at now as far as percentage today?

 Ms. Wegner. With veterans?

 Mr. Boozman. Yes, veterans only.

 Ms. Wegner. For fiscal year 2004, the last year we had data, we 

were at 4.43 percent of our procurement dollars. That equates to 

$367 million that we invested with veterans last year.

 Mr. Boozman. So, again, I guess one could argue that we are not 

at the average without any real push. If the average amount of businesses out there are 10 to 20 percent, then I guess with those kind of 

figures it doesn’t seem hard at all, with an effort to give preference, 

that we could get our numbers up quite a bit.

 Ms. Wegner. The 4 to 5-1/2 million estimate was based upon 

standard business lines. But distribution of those businesses varied 

across industry lines. There are a lot of industries that the Federal 

Government does not purchase goods and services from.

 Mr. Boozman. So you feel that we are doing everything we can do 

to identify and do the job that we need to do to get the veteran preferences, as of the intent of the law?

 Ms. Wegner. That is a tough question. Are we doing everything 

that we can do? I wouldn’t say that the answer to that is yes. No. But 

I think there is more that we can do. I think we can work very much 

more cooperatively with our partners, with SBA and other agencies, 

to get the word out. We simply have not done that yet.

 Mr. Boozman. Again, I think the spirit of the law was to get it done. 

And the problem that we face is, it is very difficult to get things done 

with agencies if we don’t make them do it. And that is the dilemma 

we face. It is hard for us to get the other agencies to fall in line if we 

can’t have you as a great model to say, hey, you can do this without 

the world falling apart. And so like I said, that is the dilemma that 

we face, trying to get it done without the mandate.
30

 Several of the witnesses suggest moving the Office of Special Events 

to VHA. Can you all comment on that?

 Mr. Pedigo. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Of course we support the idea of 

disabled veterans and other veterans being able to participate in a 

broad array of special events. Consequently, in 2000 we created the 

Office of National Programs and Special Events in the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Public and Governmental Affairs. And that 

program has a wide umbrella of events that it sponsors, such as the 

National Veterans’ Wheelchair Games and the Winter Sports Clinic, 

to mention a few.

 We believe that creating this new office would be duplicative of 

what the VA is already doing, and would not add any significant value to the benefits the veterans receive.

 Mr. Boozman. A couple of things. In reading the VA testimony, I

understand your comments that you made about diluting the benefit 

as far as fixing up the area, the homes, and things like that, and I 

think those kinds of things are valid, and I think we can work with 

you on those, and I think those are valid concerns.

 I don’t really understand the rift in the family-type of argument: 

There can be a breakup, and we have invested this and that. I mean, 

I guess my attitude there is, so much of what we do can always draw 

that out -- you can do that with any VA owner or anything else. Maybe you can do a VA loan if there is a divorce in the family. I mean, 

like you say, I understand your testimony, I appreciate it. That part 

of it I didn’t really feel made a difference.

 Mr. Pedigo. I understand that, sir. We were simply trying to point 

out all of the potential ramifications of that proposed legislation. We 

don’t believe that veterans have a falling out with their siblings all 

that often, but it is a circumstance that could occur; and if it did occur, then the veteran would have lost the benefit that was provided 

to him or her.

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth.

 Ms. Herseth. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of votes?

 If I don’t get through all of my questions, I will just submit them for 

the record. But let me just start.

 For you, Mr. Pedigo, thanks for your support of the Native American direct loan program, and I look forward to working with you in 

improving legislation to make it a successful program.

 I am curious. Could you just elaborate a little bit on what the 

Department of Justice constitutional concerns are; do these relate to 

sovereignty issues?

 Mr. Pedigo. I wish I could elaborate. We haven’t gotten a lot of 

feedback from the Department of Justice. We did hear that they had 

these concerns. We believe it may be focused on the fact that there 

may be some interpretation of law or the Constitution that would suggest that the broad umbrella of our Native American loan program, 
31

which includes Native American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native 

Hawaiians, Natives from Guam, and the Natives of American Samoa 

may be too broad. We believe it is possible that Justice believes that 

only Native American Indians really have a valid claim to the special 

benefit that this program would offer.

 But I am speculating a little bit there, and that is why we would 

like to meet with members of the Committee as well as the Department of Justice to get a clear understanding of what their concerns 

are, and hopefully come up with some solutions so that we can go 

forward with this proposal.

 Ms. Herseth. Well, thank you. I look forward to soon facilitating 

that kind of meeting so that we can both better understand what the 

constitutional concerns are there that have not been expressed as a 

pilot program. And we are dealing with veterans first and foremost, 

so I appreciate you raising those concerns. We will get those questions answered.

 For the record, just real quickly, onpage 3 of your written testimony, right before the text for H.R. 3082, the estimate for the savings, 

do we need to clarify here that it is a discretionary 10-year savings of 

approximately 2.3 million as opposed to 23 million -- I wish it were 

23 million, and I will take that, but I think they may have estimated 

that it was 2 million savings over 2 years.

 Mr. Pedigo. We will check that out, and if so, we will correct it for 

the record.

 Ms. Herseth. Also, if you could provide us, the members of the 

Committee and staff, with a reaction -- I am going to ask one more 

question -- but with some assessment of the point that our witness 

today from NMFA suggested about making the adaptive grant a multigrant rather than a one-time grant. I know that the current cap is 

50, 000 average pay out there, the one-time payment is $49,500 or 

$49,900, but that may be because it is only a one-time use.

 And perhaps if it were a multiple use, the veteran would make 

certain decisions to integrate certain adaptations over time. But we 

would like to get your feedback to the suggestion that was made, 

whether it is at 50,000 or increasing it to 55,000, what that may mean 

for flexibility for the veterans.

 And I do want to get a chance to pose a question to Mr. McWilliam. 

I am pleased that you support improved qualification standards for 

the DVOPS and LVERs to improve overall service for veterans seeking employment. As I understand your testimony, you don’t support 

the draft bill authorizing the Secretary of Labor to establish those 

qualifications at this time, but you do mention a workforce analysis. 

 So is this initiative of workforce enhancement development analysis something that the Department of Labor could begin without 

legislation; and, if so, is it something that you would be interested in 

promoting it personally?
32

 Mr. McWilliam. Ma’am, we are very interested in looking at qualifications for the veterans’ representatives and pursuing that. We are 

also looking into training that we are providing currently right now, 

and going through an annual update, looking at the training that 

is provided to them through the National Veterans Training Institute, which is the way that we provide professional -- I don’t want to 

say certification, but professional training right now for the veterans’ 

representations.

 Our concern is this is a very complex issue, and we have to work 

with all of the States and the District of Columbia. There are many 

different personnel systems out there that would be affected by it, 

and we think it is just a very complex issue that needs a lot of study 

to make sure it can be implemented.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Boozman. Thanks to the panel. And I do appreciate all of the 

hard work. Don’t misunderstand, I really do appreciate, as I know 

the rest of the Committee does, the hard work that you do on behalf 

of our veterans. And we will be glad to work with you on these things 

and move forward.

 So, without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

 [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

 
(33)

APPENDIX
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126