H.R. 717, H.R. 745, H.R. 1207

Hearing

before the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on economic Opportunity

one hundred ninth congress

first session

May 25. 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-10

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

22-364.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

May 25, 2005

 Page

1

 1

 3

26

27

30

70

74

75

2

5

32

8

11

40

13

42

15

52

H.R. 717, H.R. 745, H.R. 1207 ....................................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

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

Hon. Stephanie Herseth, Ranking Democratic Member, 

 Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ..............................

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Michael H. Michaud ..........................................................

Hon. Richard H. Baker ...............................................................

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

Sharp, Joseph C., Deputy Director, Economic Commission,

 The American Legion ..............................................................

Lawrence, Brian E., Assistant National Legislative Director, 

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

Blake, Carl, Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed Vet-

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

Witnesses

Hon. Michael E. Sodrel, 9th Congressional District of 

 Indiana ....................................................................................

McCoy, Jack, Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefits 

 Administration .......................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. McCoy .............................................

Keenan, Alexander, Director, National Training Center, Fed-

 eral Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of

 Transportation ....................................................................... 

Hon. Michael K. Simpson, 2nd Congressional District of Idaho

Prepared Statement of Mr. Simpson .........................................

Shay, Matthew, President, International Franchise Associa-

 tion ...........................................................................................

Prepared Statement of Mr. Shay ...............................................

Kuntz, Ray, Vice Chairman, American Trucking Association .

Prepared statement of Mr. Kuntz ..............................................

(III)
Bombard, Jim, Director, Public Relations, National Associa-

 tion of State Approving Agencies ...........................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Bombard .........................................

Guzman, David, Legislative Director, National Association of

 Veterans Program Administrators ........................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Guzman ..........................................

INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD

NTTS Veterans Survey ...............................................................

 

17

61

19

 66

83

(IV)

Page
(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 717, H.R. 745, H.R. 1207

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Boozman [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding.

 Present: Representatives Boozman and Herseth.

 Mr. Boozman. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee will come to 

order. Today we’re receiving testimony on several bills affecting GI

Bill education benefits.

 Our witnesses include members, government agencies and a diverse 

group of experts representing education and business interests.

 We all know the value of the GI Bill, and I’m not just talking about 

dollars and cents. Its real value is in the opportunity to provide the 

veterans to gain skills and qualifications that will position them to 

succeed in life. Is the benefit perfect? No, but we are looking for ways 

to improve its effectiveness without incurring large costs.

 I hope that after CBO costs the bills before us today, we will be 

able to mark them up and take them to the floor without violating the 

budget resolution.

 Once again, I’m happy to have our Ranking Member here in a few 

seconds. And as soon as she gets here, we’ll go ahead and proceed 

and begin the testimony.

 [Pause.]

 Let’s go ahead and take your testimony, Mr. Sodrel. We’re pleased 

to have you here, especially in your capacity as a member of Congress 

and then also in your previous life as somebody that’s very, very interested in and was a major part of the trucking industry. So go 

ahead and proceed.
2

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL E. SODREL, A REPRE-

 SENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

 INDIANA

 Mr. Sodrel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my pleasure to be here. 

I may not be unique, but probably rare, that a member of Congress 

served seven years in the Indiana Army National Guard and I still 

have a valid Class A Commercial Driver’s License in my pocket with 

a P endorsement.

 I grew up in the business. My family’s been in transportation the 

last 145 years in various modes. In my youth, you could get a -- what 

was then called a chauffeur’s license at age 18 and there were certain 

exempt commodities that you could drive as a semi driver. A lot of 

that generation of drivers were educated by riding around with their 

dad, their uncle, an older cousin, a relative, so they had -- it was more 

OJT than it was formal training.

 Since all drivers now have to be over 21 years old, veterans represent a pool of potential drivers for the industry and a pool of potential 

jobs for the veteran that’s leaving the service. And I believe that 

H.R. 717 would help precipitate that marriage, if you will, between 

the folks that need the jobs and the jobs that are available in the 

industry.

 Today, you cannot drive a truck commercially without formal training. It’s a different environment, different world both from the standpoint of just the way the insurance companies operate. We’ve become 

a more litigious society. On-the-job training doesn’t work very well. 

So I’d like to see these drivers -- you know, right now we have a shortfall of about 20,000 truck drivers nationally.

 It was odd. When I left the military, I had a military driver’s 

license for trucks, but you cannot exchange a military license that 

you acquired in the service for a civilian license for the same vehicle. 

They’re entirely different standards.

 So a veteran, even if they spent their military career in transportation and they were actually driving a semi or an 80,000 pound 

tank retriever, delivering ammo tanker, whatever it was that they 

were driving, that military experience and that military license is 

not transferrable into a civilian license without the commensurate 

training.

 So I think this would be a good bill, very beneficial to veterans, 

beneficial to the trucking industry, and I’m happy to lend my support 

to it. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. We’re joined by our Ranking Member, 

Ms. Herseth. Would you like to, once you get organized?

 Ms. Herseth. I apologize for being late.

 Mr. Boozman. None needed. I’ve been around here long enough to 

understand how it works.
3

 Ms. Herseth. We have the Defense Authorization Bill up, and 

South Dakota is one of those states that I guess, in my humble opinion, has been treated unfairly in the BRAC process, so that’s been 

what’s occupying us mostly today. But clearly it’s important, as we 

deal with other bills that have been introduced, to gain a sense of the 

support among those that work with our nation’s veterans, and what 

we’re trying to do on the Subcommittee with Chairman Boozman, 

who’s demonstrated just exceptional leadership with what we’re trying to do and how we’ve newly structured the Subcommittee in our 

jurisdiction. And so I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership 

and for waiting on me here a bit.

 I’m pleased to be here today as we receive your testimony and others on these three legislative measures before us.

 As I’m sure we all understand, the federal government’s fiscal situation is not in good order and, consequently, makes our jobs here in 

Congress more difficult as we’re forced to stretch limited funds over 

competing interests. However, this isn’t an excuse for bureaucratic 

inertia.

 Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased that this Subcommittee continues to 

review and seek comments on legislation that aims to invest in the 

economic security of our service members and veterans.

 I’m particularly interested in legislation that would provide greater flexibility and enhanced opportunities for our returning service 

members to acquire the skills and training necessary to compete in 

this 21st century labor market. I’m confident that proper investment 

would yield great returns.

 I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I apologize for 

missing yours, but I’m sure I’ll have some questions for you regardless, based on your written testimony. I appreciate your guidance on 

crafting effective legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today’s testimony and yield back.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Mr. Sodrel, so you actually drove a truck, 

then, while you were in the Guard?

 Mr. Sodrel. I did. And I’ve driven a truck in civilian life as well on 

my way up. Everybody starts at the bottom in my family.

 Mr. Boozman. So now, when you’re in the Guard, you’re driving, you 

know, you’ve got the responsibility of driving a big truck and doing as 

much as you did in civilian life. So the license doesn’t transfer?

 Mr. Sodrel. No, it does not. I mean you go through specific training for a military vehicle of a given type and weight. Your license 

-- and I assume things haven’t changed a lot. The military has a lot 

of inertia. I left many years ago, but your license was for a small vehicle or a two-and-a-half ton or a five ton or larger or tank retriever 

or semi, but that license was not transferrable to a civilian license for 

a similar vehicle.

 Mr. Boozman. And then I guess likewise your experience wouldn’t 
4

transfer. If you’d had five years of driving and then got out of the 

military and then decided to go to work in the trucking industry, then 

your five years of experience wouldn’t -- 

 Mr. Sodrel. That’s kind of to the employer’s discretion. I mean 

some employer may look at that and say if this person has five years 

experience on this type vehicle and they have met the requirements 

for a civilian license, then I’m willing to give credit for some of that 

experience, but that would vary from employer to employer. I’m not 

aware of any regulation or rule that says you must give or cannot give 

credit for the experience.

 Mr. Boozman. But it’s not like flying or some of those things where 

you keep the log book where you can actually translate the experience and -- 

 Mr. Sodrel. No, it’s not.

 Mr. Boozman. Very good. Well, thank you for being here. Ms. Herseth has some questions, but we really do appreciate it. And again, I

think you’ve got a very unique perspective in the sense of, you know, 

being in Congress now and also your background. So we do appreciate your testimony.

 Mr. Sodrel. Thank you.

 Ms. Herseth. Congressman, my questions are going to be along the 

same line as this whole credit issue. So given your insights, as the 

Chairman has reflected upon, we look forward to working with you 

and addressing precisely this issue and some of the disparities that 

have occurred to ensure that we’re treating service members correctly 

in dealing with this credit issue in the most appropriate way possible, 

reaching out to you to offer your insights based on your experience. 

 Mr. Sodrel. I think what’s really important here is that there are 

jobs available. I mean this is not jobs that may be available or could 

be available. These are existing jobs. And as a veteran returns, if 

they’re training, you know you can put them to work. You know, it’s 

not speculative but actual. Thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. We have another member of Congress 

that will be drifting in, and we’ll get to him when he comes.

 Mr. Michaud, a sponsor of H.R. 717 cannot be with us today. He’s 

submitting a statement which we’ll enter into the record without objection.

 [No response.]

 Hearing none, so ordered.

 

 [The statement of Congressman Michaud appears on p. 26]

 Mr. Boozman. Our next panel is comprised of Mr. Jack McCoy, 

Director of the VA Education Service, who is accompanied by Mr. 
5

Dean Gallin, Deputy Assistant VA General Counsel and Mr. John 

Hill, Chief Safety Officer, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrative at the Department of Transportation.

 Mr. McCoy, if you would be kind enough to lead off for us.

STATEMENT OF JACK MCCOY, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION

 SERVICE VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION; 

 DEAN GALLIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL COUN-

 SEL, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ALEXAN-

 DER KEENAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TRAINING CEN-

 TER, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINI-

 STRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

STATEMENT OF JACK MCCOY

 Mr. McCoy. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today to present the 

Administration’s views on three bills that would affect Department of 

Veterans’ Affairs programs providing veterans benefits and services. 

Accompanying me today is Mr. Dean Gallin, Deputy Assistant General Counsel.

 Mr. Chairman, I will begin by addressing H.R. 717. Under current 

law, a Montgomery GI Bill student pursuing high cost courses leading 

to employment at a high technology occupation in a high technology 

industry has the option of receiving an accelerated benefit payment. 

This optional lump sum accelerated benefit payment may cover up to 

60 percent of the cost of such a course provided the pro-rated course 

costs exceed 200 percent of the applicable monthly Montgomery GI

Bill rate.

 Mr. Chairman, this section of the bill would authorize accelerated 

payment only for one type of training program that does not lead to 

employment in a high technology industry, a commercial driver’s license training program. It is not clear to us why this would be done 

to the exclusion of other non-high technology, high cost programs.

 Thus, because we do not believe such piecemeal change to the current law is appropriate, we cannot support section one of H.R. 717.

 Section two of H.R. 717 would exclude educational assistance payments received under Chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill program from 

consideration as income when determining the eligibility of a veteran 

to education grants or loans under other provisions of federal law.

 VA supports the concept of appropriately excluding VA educational 

benefits not only as income but also from consideration as available 

assets or other monetary resources for the purpose of determining 

eligibility for or the amount of student assistance under Title IV of 

the Higher Education Act.

 We strongly believe the determination needed for student financial 
6

assistance should not diminish the value of VA education benefits 

which are earned through service in our nation’s armed forces.

 In our view, such provisions more appropriately should be included 

within the Higher Education Act. Accordingly, we look forward to 

discussing this approach with the Department of Education for consideration as part of the Administration’s Higher Education Act reauthorization proposal.

 Mr. Chairman, the second bill under consideration today is H.R. 

745, which would establish a five-year pilot project to test the feasibility and advisability of allowing the use of educational assistance 

benefits to pay for training costs associated with the purchase of a 

franchise enterprise. The measure provides for a lump-sum payment 

to the individual of the lesser of one-half of the franchise fees or onethird of the benefit amount corresponding to the individual’s remaining entitlement.

 H.R. 745 would prohibit payment of educational assistance for franchise training unless appropriate training is required and provided in 

connection with the purchase and operation of a franchise. While we 

recognize and acknowledge the pilot nature of the proposed project, 

we believe this measure merits further study and refinement.

 For example, as noted above, it would pay training costs equal to 

one-half of the franchise fees or one-third of the individual’s remaining entitlement.

 However, this appears to assume that training costs generally comprise half of the franchise fee, yet, we have no evidence to this in the 

case. Thus, a breakdown of the training costs portion of the franchise 

fee should be a requirement for approval.

 Since, as indicated above, we believe H.R. 745 needs substantial 

further study and consideration, VA cannot support the bill at this 

time.

 Mr. Chairman, the third and final bill under consideration today is 

H.R. 1207. Section two would expand the term ``work-study activity’’ 

for qualifying individuals to include (a) the provision of Chapter 31 

placement services at an educational institution (under the supervision of VA employees); (b) the provision of counseling and assistance in identifying employment and training opportunities, as well 

as related information and services under the Transition Assistance 

Program and the Disabled Transition Assistance Program to members of the armed forces being separated from active duty and their 

spouses (under the supervision of a disabled veterans’ outreach program specialist or local veterans’ employment representative); and 

(c) any activity approved by VA in support of Senior Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps programs at an educational institution or military 

installation.

 With regard to the use of work-study students at educational institutions to provide placement service to disabled veterans, we believe 
7

it is unrealistic to expect students to provide these highly specialized 

counseling services currently being provided by GS-12 federal employees.

 With regard to the work-study students assisting with the Transition Assistance Program and Disabled Transition Assistance Program, we agree with the intent of this provision, but are concerned 

with some of the functions the student would be expected to perform.

 We would, therefore, suggest deleting reference to such functions 

and, instead, permit the work-study student to assist with the Transition Assistance Program and Disabled Transition Assistance Programs in ways consistent with their abilities. VA does not believe 

the students need to be supervised solely by Department of Labor 

employees. We believe in many cases that VA, DoD or contractor 

personnel would be appropriate supervisors as well.

 Finally, with regard to using work-study students to support Senior ROTC programs at educational institutions and military installation, VA supports this portion of section two.

 Section three of H.R. 1207 would direct VA, subject to regulations 

VA would prescribe, to conduct a five-year pilot program to test the 

feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of qualifying workstudy activities to include work-study positions available on site at 

educational institutions.

 VA supports the intent of the pilot program envisioned in section 

three. However, we are strongly opposed to some of the administrative restrictions found in the pilot program. For instance, we are 

opposed to requiring an applicant to demonstrate that no other (nonpilot) qualifying work-study position exists during the applicable 

agreement period. This requirement imposes an unreasonable verification burden on applicants.

 Overall, we suggest that the pilot program have vastly fewer restrictions. We note that the five-year temporary positions already 

approved for work-study allowances do not have such burdensome 

restrictions.

 Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you or any of the other members of 

the Subcommittee have. Thank you.

 [The statement of Mr. McCoy appears on p. 32]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 Mr. Keenan, I apologize. We had your counterpart down. So again, 

like I said, we’re pleased that you’re here to represent DOT. You’re 

recognized.

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER KEENAN
8

 Mr. Keenan. Mr. Hill could not be here. I’m Alexander Keenan, Director of the National Training Center for the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration. I do not have a prepared statement today.

 I would like to thank the Chairman for the invite and praise the 

Committee for its support of veterans. Having spent 28 years wearing the military uniform and retiring at the rank of Command Master 

Chief, I’m very supportive of the GI Bill, having been a user of the GI

Bill for over 14 years of night school.

 I’m also a special editor for The Navy Times retirement section, 

their bi-weekly newspaper, which really gives me a lot of opportunities to work with veterans, retirees, and talk about issues with the 

GI Bill.

 Today I’m here to represent the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration on the national training center as the director, but 

here to answer any questions the Chairman or the Committee might 

have.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you. On your comments on limiting the accelerated to truck driving schools, you question whether truck driving 

schools met the Title 38’s high tech requirement. Can you describe 

the types of training approved under the VA regulations for accelerated payment?

 Mr. McCoy. Just to name a few, computer specialist, math specialist, engineers, life and physical sciences, just to name a few.

 Mr. Boozman. Given that today’s veteran is often supporting a family and may not be able to perhaps -- be inclined to or be able to pursue a four-year degree, would you agree that some of the restrictions 

under today’s laws and regulations hamper the use of the GI Bill?

 Mr. McCoy. No, sir, I don’t.

 Mr. Boozman. Okay. I guess the -- Mr. Sodrel, in his testimony, testified that the jobs were there as far as the trucking industry. I think 

that the same is true as far as maybe the railroad industry, things 

like that. Is the GI Bill, as it’s written now with the regulations, is it 

conducive to those individuals getting the training that they need to 

get into those jobs?

 Mr. McCoy. I would say to the extent that someone is entitled, for 

example, to the Montgomery GI Bill and whatever their training time 

might be, they would be entitled to that. You know, we have a number -- dozens of truck driving schools now that veterans go to and get 

paid. Of course, if it was under this regulation, obviously they would 

get more of a lump-sum payment up front obviously.

Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth.

 Ms. Herseth. Just to continue along this line, in your testimony 

you state that the VA doesn’t support section one of H.R. 717 because 

the need is not clear, and you don’t believe “piecemeal change to the 

current law is appropriate.”

 I guess my response there is to be disappointed in perhaps the lack 
9

of creativity and the need for flexibility here. Individuals earn and 

learn in many different ways now, and the VA shouldn’t be stuck in 

the past or operate under the false impression that all veterans want 

to use their earned GI Bill benefits by attending a traditional fouryear college.

 So to clarify, Mr. McCoy, does the VA not support expanding the 

accelerated benefit payment as described in section one of H.R. 717 

because it limits the expansion to CDL schools only, or does VA not 

support expansion of the benefit generally?

 Mr. McCoy. I would say that it’s more to the point of one business, 

and if we’re going to do this, then why wouldn’t we be looking at other 

types of training also. So not just to say no, it’s just truck driving.

 Ms. Herseth. Okay. Do you know how many veterans are currently 

taking advantage of the GI bill benefits to attend truck driving school 

or to obtain the CDL certification courses?

 Mr. McCoy. I would say right now approximately -- it’s approximately 300.

 Ms. Herseth. So it’s not so much a fiscal issue then?

 Mr. McCoy. No, ma’am. I -- 

 Ms. Herseth. You just think it should be broader. It shouldn’t be 

categorizing them one at a time.

 Mr. McCoy. And I guess that’s my point in the testimony. If we’re 

going to do this, why is it only this one training issue and not others?

 Ms. Herseth. So given what we’ve done for the area of high tech 

employment, you’re just saying we should expand -- we could expand 

the category to include CDL certification?

 Mr. McCoy. We would be glad to look at that if that were the case, 

yes. If we got legislation or, you know, to expand it. But again, I

don’t understand why we would only expand it for one, but we would 

be glad to look at it.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. I guess I would like, you know, some input as to that 

and maybe to some others that we need to be looking at, but the most 

obvious thing is the expense. This will cost the government more 

money to do this. I guess my reasoning in supporting or tending to 

support the bill, that’s what this is all about is to get the testimony 

so we can decide what -- but my inclination in tending to support it 

was that this would be a good start to try and look at maybe expanding the GI Bill in a different way. Again, realizing that this area, 

and there’s probably two or three others that there truly is a ready 

market for jobs out there that because of the nature of getting back, 

you know, not having the funds maybe to pursue the education, that 

you just can’t get into it.

 But like I said, I think that’s the biggest thing is the funds. I would 

really like -- you know, I would welcome -- I know that all of the Com-
10

mittee would welcome other areas that we need to be looking at as far 

as trying to expand it.

 Would you describe the DOT requirements for commercial driver’s 

license. And does DOT require any sort of experience verification to 

qualify for any type of licenses?

 Mr. Keenan. Mr. Chairman, I might need to defer to some assistance here. The definition the commercial motor vehicle used, the 

proposed bill for eligible training refers to 49 U.S. Code 3130. The 

definition used for the CDL program, the passage of this bill would 

have no effect on the current CDL program.

 The Department of Transportation does not have a regulatory authority over commercial driver training schools nor does it accredit 

any commercial driver training curriculum.

 DOT, through our agency, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, administers the program as created by the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986.

 The Act’s goal was to improve highway safety by ensuring that 

drivers of large trucks and buses are qualified to operate these vehicles through standardized testing.

 Our Agency sets the minimum driver’s testing standards for the 

CDL program to promote uniformity in drivers’ training. States administer the knowledge of the written test based upon our standards, 

federal testing standards.

 While the department supports modeled driving training curriculum as a means of providing uniform driver training, the school and 

the driver curriculum oversights is really the jurisdictions of the 

state’s regional, national accredited organizations.

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth?

[No response]

 Thank you all very much for sharing your testimony. And again, 

Mr. McCoy, we really would be interested in working with you as far 

as getting your ideas, getting your perspectives about other avenues 

that maybe are out there that fall into this category and perhaps 

expanding this.

 Mr. McCoy. Be glad to. Thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

[Pause.]

 Mr. Boozman. We’re really pleased to have with us Mike Simpson. 

He’s going to testify about his bill, 1207. And it really is good to have 

you back here, Mike, and share your expertise.

 Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
11

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. SIMPSON

 Mr. Simpson. It’s always nice to be back here. I served four years 

here and was Chairman of what was then the Benefits Subcommittee 

and enjoyed it and the staff work here greatly.

 I apologize for being a little late. We had a markup and, you know, 

you just can’t get out of those.

 Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth, it’s good to be with 

you today. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee to discuss the bill H.R. 1207, the Department of Veterans’ 

Affairs Work-Study Act of 2005, which will expand the work-study 

opportunities for veteran-students.

 Mr. Chairman, the work-study program provides veteran-students 

an opportunity to earn additional funds each semester while gaining valuable work experience. Current law authorizes a work-study 

program for any student receiving a VA education or vocational rehabilitation benefits; however, the current restrictions for ``acceptable’’ 

work-study services are too limiting.

 Under current law, the veteran-student may only perform services 

in support of veterans programs at VA regional offices, medical centers or national cemeteries or college and university veterans’ affairs 

offices or by conducting outreach services under the supervision of a 

VA employee or a state approving agency. These limiting parameters 

for acceptable work-study services restrict the number of positions 

available to eligible veterans and keep veterans from having the opportunity to earn supplemental financial assistance while gaining 

valuable work experience. Limited work-study opportunities are particularly true at campuses not located near VA facilities.

 The VA Work-Study Act would expand the work-study opportunities to include vocational rehabilitation program employment services at an educational institution, Transition Assistance Program 

and Disabled Transition Assistance Program counseling, training 

and employment services under the supervision of Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialist and Local Veterans Employment 

Representatives, or services in support of ROTC programs at educational institutions or military installations. Expansion of the VA

work-study program complements the intent of previous legislation 

I introduced, Public Law 107-288, the Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002. 

Like the Jobs for Veterans Act, this bill would enhance a veteran’s 

opportunity for job placement following college.

 This bill also creates a 5-year pilot program to test expanding the 

scope of the acceptable work-study services a step further. In the pilot program, veterans would be afforded more opportunities for workstudy positions at the institution of higher learning where they are 

pursuing their degree programs. Employment positions in academic 
12

departments and in student services would be eligible, subject to the 

approval of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

 While I have the table, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine that’s over here that will be testifying on the third 

panel, Mr. Dave Guzman. Dave is a legislative director for the National Association of Veterans Programs Administrators, and I’ve 

been working closely with him on this legislation, and it’s been a pleasure to work with Dave, and I look forward to his testimony.

 As, I said, Mr. Chairman, this would expand work-study opportunities for veteran-students and enhance the veteran’s opportunity for 

job placement following college. I appreciate the opportunity to testified before the Committee and your consideration of this legislation.

 [The statement of Mr. Simpson appears on p. 40]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much for being here. As someone 

-- when I was in optometry school I was on work-study and was a 

janitor. And some of my constituents might feel like that’s probably 

an appropriate place for me now. But it really was, it was something 

that was very, very valuable to my wife and I and really did make the 

difference in really being able to count on.

 So, Ms. Herseth?

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you for your insights and testimony in support of the bill that you’ve introduced. Just prior to your testimony 

we heard from some of the representatives with us today from the 

VA and the concern was expressed that perhaps when you’re dealing with programs, the Transitional Assistance Programs for our disabled veterans, that it’s possible that some of the students wouldn’t 

have the skill set necessary to provide that type of assistance or at 

least that the placement shepherding the veteran who may qualify 

through that program in the placement services, and suggested perhaps a change to the language that would have something consistent 

with the abilities of the student, that they would be able to provide 

certain services. Do you have any thoughts or comments on that 

concern expressed by the VA and how this might put a student in a 

position where they couldn’t work as effectively as someone employed 

with a GS-12 rating, I think was referred to?

 Mr. Simpson. I certainly would not want to put any veteran in a position of a job for work-study program that they couldn’t handle, and 

they should not be placed in that position. So certainly that would 

depend on the individual that you’re placing.

 Secondly, I’m always open to suggestions from Veterans’ Administration on how we can improve the language on this and make it a 

work-study program available to more students so that they have the 

ability to earn some money while they’re going to college.

 Ms. Herseth. I don’t have any other questions. I was a work-study 
13

student too. And the more flexibility and type of experience we can offer students, whether they’re returning veterans, especially if they’re 

returning veterans. And as we were talking about with another bill, 

the flexibility needed here to meet the needs, because some of our returning veterans could very well have a skill set that goes above and 

beyond perhaps what a typical 18 or 19 year old would bring to the 

table who would qualify. So I appreciate the aim and the objective of 

your bill today. Thank you.

 Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you for being here.

 Our third panel includes representatives from private industry and 

organizations responsible for overseeing the daily operations of the 

GI Bill. We are pleased to welcome Mr. Matthew Shay from the International Franchise Association, Mr. Ray Kuntz from the American 

Trucking Association, Mr. Jim Bombard from the National Association of State Approving Agencies, and Mr. David Guzman from the 

National Association of Veterans Program Administrators.

 For those not familiar with these state approving agencies, they are 

the organizations that actually certify education and training programs as eligible for VA GI Bill benefits.

 The Veterans Program Administrators are employees of education 

and training entities whose job it is to verify veterans enrollment and 

generally keep the paper moving between the school and the VA.

 Welcome to Subcommittee. Let’s begin with Mr. Shay.

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW R. SHAY, PRESIDENT, INTER-

 NATIONAL FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION; RAY KUNTZ, 

 VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIA-

 TION; JIM BOMBARD, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC RELATIONS,

 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE APPROVING AGEN-

 CIES; DAVID GUZMAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS PROGRAM 

 ADMINISTRATORS.

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW R. SHAY

 Mr. Shay. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Herseth. We appreciate the opportunity to be with you today.

 My name is Matthew Shay. I’m President of the International 

Franchise Association. Since 1960, the IFA has served as the voice 

of the franchise community here in the United States and around the 

world. Today we represent more than 1,000 franchisor members, approximately 8,000 franchisee and several hundred supplier members. 

And we certainly appreciate your taking the time to hold this hearing 

today. We thank you and your staff for your work on the bill and also 

thank Mr. Baker and his staff for listening to our concerns and the 
14

concerns of the franchise community and of the veterans community 

while producing this legislation.

 We think this is a very appropriate conversation to be taking place 

in the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee. We think franchising 

in many ways is equivalent to economic opportunity, as it provides 

individuals with an opportunity to get into business for themselves 

but not by themselves. And we think that the Veterans Self-Employment Act will provide just that kind of an opportunity.

 Let me just give you a quick overview of the franchise community here in the United States. Last year our educational foundation 

conducted an economic impact study of franchising, and determined 

there are nearly 800,000 franchise establishments operating in the 

United States. They employ more than 18 million Americans and 

generate more than one-and-a-half trillion dollars in total economic 

output. And to put that in perspective, that is approximately 14 percent of the private sector labor force and nearly 10 percent of the 

total private sector economic output. And just to bring it home with a 

little more detail, Mr. Chairman, in your district there are more than 

2400 franchised establishments that create nearly 40,000 jobs. And 

in the Ranking Member’s home state, there are approximately 2500 

franchise businesses that create nearly 55,000 jobs.

 We think one of the most wonderful features of franchising is its 

broad diversity. There are more than 75 different industries that 

are involved in franchising, and we are not newcomers to the concept 

that veterans can make wonderful franchisees. In many ways they 

are ideal candidates because of the skills they’ve learned while in the 

military. They include teamwork and a mission oriented focus, and 

those apply very nicely and very directly to the operation of a franchise business.

 For all those reasons, we endorse the Veterans Self-Employment 

Act because it would provide an opportunity for veterans to apply a 

portion of their benefits to the initial franchise fee, specifically to the 

costs of the training associated with becoming involved with a franchise. And as to several of the concerns that were raised by the VA, 

we think we can very easily work with those. It would not be difficult 

for our members to make a determination with the high level of specificity about the portion of the franchise fee that is devoted to training 

costs. We could do that I think fairly easily. And we also think that 

with regard to the issue raised in the VA’s testimony about the election of benefits and either choosing one or the other opportunity to 

offset some of the training costs for the franchise fee, that would be 

certainly acceptable to us as well.

 So with those initial comments, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Herseth, we 

certainly appreciate the opportunity and thank you for giving us this 

time with you.
15

 [The statement of Mr. Shay appears on p. 42]

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Kuntz.

STATEMENT OF RAY KUNTZ

 Mr. Kuntz. Good afternoon, Chairman Boozman and ranking chairwoman Herseth. My name is Ray Kuntz. I’m Vice Chairman of the 

American Trucking Association and I’m the CEO of Watkins and 

Shepard Trucking, based in Montana.

 I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee 

on behalf of ATA to voice our support of H.R. 717, particularly as it 

relates to training our country’s veterans to drive commercial trucks. 

I believe I have a unique perspective on the issue because I not only 

run a trucking company but I also run a truck driver training school. 

I also chair a joint ATA Truckload Carriers Association working group 

on the driver shortage and driver training issues.

 American Trucking Association is the national trade association 

for the trucking industry. It’s a federation of affiliated state trucking 

associations, conferences and organizations that include 38,000 motor carrier members representing every type of class of motor carrier 

in the country.

 The trucking industry is a $671 billion industry comprised of 3.24 

million commercial vehicle drivers. Our nation’s economy and business rely heavily on trucks for the transport of goods because no other 

form of delivery can bring goods door to door regardless of whether 

such goods have traveled by plane, ship or train. Trucks carry nearly 

all freight in some point in their journey from producer to consumer.

 A significant segment of the trucking industry is facing a serious 

shortfall of qualified long-haul truck drivers. According to an in-depth 

study being released today by ATA, there is currently a shortage in 

this country of approximately 20,000 long-haul truck load drivers.

 The study projects a widening imbalance in the potential supply 

and the demand for long-haul truck drivers during the next 10 years. 

According to its analysis, the current driver shortfall of 20,000 in the 

absence of substantial market adjustments could rise to a shortfall of 

111,000 by the year 2014.

 There are a number of factors involved in the driver shortage issue. 

Stringent government regulations, insurance carriers standards, and 

standards of the trucking company themselves all restrict availability of qualified drivers to commercial vehicle industry.

 Another critical contributing factor to the driver shortage situation 

is lack of available funding for students who would like a career in 

professional truck driving. The national average tuition to attend a 

truck driver training school for an average of two to four months is 

$4,000 plus the cost to live while you’re in the school.
16

 Driver training is essential and must be taught by a reputable 

truck driver training school in order for a driver to obtain the knowledge and the skills to successfully pass both the written and the road 

testing requirements of the commercial drivers’ licensing known as 

the CDL test. A company will not hire a driver without a valid state 

issued CDL.

 Veterans, if they choose, under the Chapter 30 of the Montgomery 

GI Bill, can use their educational benefits to attend a Veterans Administration approved truck driving school. The maximum tuition 

benefit a veteran can receive per month is only $1,004. On average, 

truck driving school tuition costs $4,000. And since most truck driving training schools average two months in duration, the veteran will 

likely have completed his or her training before the school receives 

the majority of the tuition reimbursement under the current GI Bill 

tuition payment system, which means that the school has to foot the 

bill or the receivable while that student is in school. Since the schools 

do not control disbursement of the payments, when or whether the 

remaining tuition fees will get paid creates concern among all parties 

involved.

 H.R. 717, if enacted, would go a long way towards fixing this particular funding problem. By applying accelerated payment program 

to truck driver training schools, 60 percent of the students’ veteran 

driver tuition may be paid in advance to the veteran and to the school 

covering his or her tuition expenses. The other 40 percent could come 

from a variety of sources, including low interest loans and carrier 

subsidies.

 Under H.R. 717, additional funding avenues would potentially be 

open to veterans by excluding their GI benefits from eligibility determination for other federal financial education grants or loans.

 If this bill is enacted, qualified veterans who wish to pursue a professional career in commercial truck driving could do so at little or no 

cost to them. In as little as two or three months upon the completion 

of a truck driver training and by successfully passing a commercial 

driver’s license test, a veteran can be gainfully employed as a longhaul truck driver with a high quality trucking company making entry 

level salary averaging about $40,000 a year. And I add that I know 

of no other industry with a two-month investment or roughly, what 

-- we’re talking $2400, that can take a veteran and put him in that 

kind of a salary and the contribution back to the government as far 

as taxes will cover that in a very short period of time.

 Why does the trucking industry need and try to actively recruit 

veterans? The answer is simple. Former military personnel make 

the best students and have a higher training graduation rate than 

their civilian counterparts. From the trucking company’s perspective, 

veterans have a reputation of being outstanding employees. Their 

military training and background lends itself to leadership, respect 
17

for procedures, integrity and teamwork, ideal characteristics sought 

by all employers but vital to the success of a professional commercial 

truck driver.

 For veterans as military occupation specialty or MOS involved 

heavy truck driving, commercial truck driving may be a national career path. Although a military license does not automatically convert 

to a CDL in most U.S. states, the skills gained driving trucks in the 

military are certainly at a great value when applying them during 

the civilian truck driver training.

 In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate ATA’s support of 

H.R. 717 and urge the Subcommittee to move the bill forward. This 

concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer any questions 

that you have at the appropriate time. Thank you.

 [The statement of Mr. Kuntz appears on p. 52]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 Mr. Bombard.

STATEMENT OF JIM BOMBARD

 Mr. Bombard. Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Herseth 

and members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am 

pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the National Association of State Approving Agencies to provide comments on H.R. 717, 

H.R. 745 and H.R. 1207.

 I should mention at the outset that I am also the Vice Chair of the 

Legislative Committee of the Association and have had the pleasure 

of working with the members and the staff of the Committee for many 

years as the Committee has worked to improve the various GI Bills.

 The Association is pleased to support the provisions that are presented in the three bills. In general, much has been done in recent 

years to provide service members, veterans and other eligible persons 

with greater opportunities to use the education and training benefits 

for which they are entitled.

 Yet, the nature of the today’s global economy demands that we 

continue to strive to help our workforce, especially our veterans, to 

gain new knowledge and learn new skills in order to maximize their 

contributions to the Nation. The provisions of H.R. 717, H.R. 745 

and H.R. 1207 provide either directly or indirectly for these kinds of 

learning opportunities.

 H.R. 717 expands the accelerated payment provision of law to 

allow veterans to obtain the kind of financial support necessary for 

enrollment in commercial driver license training programs. Nationally, truck driving programs are relatively expensive because of the 

complexities of the today’s equipment, the demands of new licensing 
18

requirements for specialized loads. Program cost can reach as high 

as $6,000 or $7,000 for a 12 week instruction. An opportunity to use 

the accelerated payment provision of law would allow more veterans 

to pursue their chosen occupation.

 The Association supports H.R. 717 section 2, exclusion of benefit 

payments under the Montgomery GI Bill from income for eligibility 

determinations for federal education loans.

 GI Bill benefits are intended to be an earned benefit to which all 

who serve in the armed forces of our nation are eligible. Moreover, 

it has always been the intent of the Congress that the GI Bill be the 

premier program in our nation to help our citizens to further their 

education and training. Inclusion of GI Bill benefits in any formula 

for determining eligibility for other federal educational assistance is 

not consistent with these goals nor the sacrifices made by those who 

protect the freedoms that we all so thoroughly enjoy.

 H.R. 745 provides for the creation of a pilot program for veterans 

to use their VA educational assistance benefits for training associated with the ownership of a franchise, opportunities for veterans 

to obtain gainful employment in a field of their choosing. The risks 

associated with this pilot would be few since the rules pertaining to 

the approval of the programs are almost identical to those currently 

required for non-accredited, non-degree programs of education and 

training.

 Additionally, most state laws would, as they do now, require a 

review of the organization offering the training for state licensing 

purposes. Thus, there is little to no risk by fly by night training.

 H.R. 1207 provides a much needed expansion of the kinds of services 

in which the VA work-study students may be engaged. The first part 

of the bill allows VA students to assist veterans and their spouses as 

they work to achieve their education and training and employment 

goals. In our view, this is an excellent use of VA work-study funds.

 The second part of the bill is a pilot program that expands the 

program of work in which VA students can be involved while they 

are enrolled at an educational institutions. We believe that this expansion is appropriate as the cost of higher education escalates at a 

much faster pace than VA educational assistance benefits have risen 

because of budgetary constraints.

 The pilot program also has sufficient limitations to ensure that it 

will not be abused by an overly ambitious post-secondary educational 

institution with an eye on cutting its overhead costs and increasing 

its profit margin.

 In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the three bills. Thank you also for your efforts to make improvements to the education and training assistance 

programs that have been made available to those who defend the 

freedoms that we all so thoroughly enjoy. As stated earlier, we sup-
19

port the provisions of the bills at this time, and I would be happy to 

respond to any questions that you have.

 [The statement of Mr. Bombard appears on p. 61]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 Mr. Guzman.

STATEMENT OF DAVID GUZMAN

 Mr. Guzman. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the House 

Committee on Veterans Affairs, Sub-Committee on Economic Opportunity.

 I am David Guzman, Legislative Director for the National Association of Veterans Program Administrators. And with me today is 

Faith DesLauriers, Chair of the NAVPA Legislative Committee. We 

appreciate this opportunity to address you today on veterans’ educational issues.

 Our membership consists of concerned and dedicated veterans 

program administrators at the business end of the GI Bill, the college 

and universities across this great land of ours. The Montgomery GI

Bill and GI bills before have intended to serve as recruiting and readjustment tools for those who served our country honorably, and we 

are proud to be a part of the process that serves these dedicated and 

most deserving Americans.

 H.R. 1207 intends to correct some deficiencies in the VA work-study 

law by removing some of the restrictions that limit veteran students’ 

ability to work at colleges and universities outside of the Office of Veterans Affairs. I conducted a quick survey on our association’s website 

just two days ago and received replies that indicated there is a genuine desire within the academic departments at the colleges and universities for the valued military experience, maturity and work ethic 

our veterans bring to the workforce. And there is a desire on the part 

of the veterans to gain hands-on instruction in their academic major 

while supplementing their GI Bill. Especially at rural colleges, such 

as Washington State University where I worked in Pullman, Washington, or at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, and other 

rural colleges across America where outside work opportunities are 

limited or at locations at Uba Community College in Arizona where 

unemployment is high.

 Additionally, veteran work-study are needed at Humbolt State 

University in California where they administer one of the largest 

veterans upward bound programs in the nation and at large colleges 

where the veteran student population is larger.

 This work-study program helps the Office of Veterans Affairs that 

has not received an increase in VA funding for processing education 
20

claims since 1976. Expansion of the VA work-study program would 

complement the Jobs for Veterans Act under PL 107-288 that Mr. 

Simpson talked about. It would enhance the veterans’ opportunity 

for job placement following graduation and complete the readjustment process.

 NAVPA urges this Committee to recommend adoption of this bill 

that would allow veterans the opportunity to work in the college and 

university Office of Veterans Affairs or administrative or academic 

departments at the degree granting institution in which the student 

is pursuing his or her academic credentials.

 Expanding work-study opportunity for veterans would cost very 

little. In fact, the payback in earnings for the veteran would return 

seven or more times the investment as proven by the GI Bills of past 

eras given the expanded knowledge and leg up for employment in 

their new discipline following graduation.

 With regard to H. R. 717, to expand the scope of programs of education for which accelerated payments of educational assistance and 

to exclude benefits payments under the MGIB from income, and we 

would like to include “or as a resource for purposes of determining 

eligibility for education grants or loans under any other provision of 

law.”

 The federal methodology used to calculate need for student financial assistance requires institutions to take into account all forms of 

assistance received by the student to help pay educational costs. The 

Montgomery GI Bill benefit is considered in the needs assessment as 

income and, thus, deducted from the total financial award or cost of 

attendance dollar-for-dollar.

 Additionally, not all considered in this formula is the initial $1,200 

pay reduction service members had withheld from their basic pay to 

enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill at the onset of their initial service 

tour, nor is there any consideration given for the years of military service, personal sacrifices, family separations, irregular duty hours and 

conditions, for the protections and freedoms afforded this nation.

 The Montgomery GI Bill is not like other resources. It is an earned 

benefit, one that we believe our nation owes the men and women who 

serve this county for putting their personal aspirations on hold to protect and defend our freedoms and one that should not be dismissed by 

a standard formula that does not consider these sacrifices. These men 

and women should be afforded the opportunity to make readjustment, 

earn an education or otherwise train for gainful employment without 

further sacrifice. With regard to the truck training, there’s a saying, 

if you have it, a trucker brought it.

 NAVPA fully supports the proposed legislation in H. R. 745, Veterans Self-Employment Act of 2005, that will allow veterans more 

opportunity to use their veterans’ educational benefits to better their 

opportunities in the world of work. We recognize that veterans mirror 
21

the American society and that not all veterans will pursue a college 

degree. Therefore, expansion of the Montgomery GI Bill, as provided 

for in these bills, makes good sense and further enhances the readjustment concept and speaks highly of the value we, as Americans, 

place on those who serve in our military services.

 This concludes my remarks, sir.

 [The statement of Mr. Guzman appears on p. 66]

 Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. I think the -- you know, -- in 

this Committee we talk about jobs and certainly you all represent 

jobs. And I was surprised at the amount of franchisees jobs represented in Arkansas and South Dakota. That’s pretty amazing.

 Mr. Shay. We’re happy to surprise you, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Boozman. Very much. Mr. Kuntz, your statistics are good. I

think all of us felt like there’s a crisis looming. I know on-time delivery, pulling something off the shelf and then that going to a central 

distribution center through a computer and then the truck instead 

of sending 100 boxes of tissue only sends what you need. I think in 

Arkansas they’re estimating that the amount of truck traffic by 2020 

will be 60 percent greater. And so if you’re having the trouble with 

the drivers, that’s not very long off. If you’re having driver troubles 

now, I think if anything your protections maybe short-sighted because the trend is going to be more and more that way.

 I think Ms. Herseth really said it best a while ago. What we’re looking for is some flexibility in the system. How does the -- Mr. Kuntz, 

how does the VA’s list of occupations eligible for accelerated payment 

compare to today’s job market in your way of thinking? Would you 

describe the technical side of a trucker’s education?

 Mr. Kuntz. Well, the second part of that first. The driver today I 

think the general public doesn’t understand that he has a computer 

in his truck. He has to be able to operate the computer. We’re sending him directions and messages and communicating back and forth 

all by a computer. And the truck itself is a pretty technical instrument compared to what people realize guys were driving 20 or 30 

years ago.

 As far as -- I was a little surprised when I compared what the VA is 

considering as a high growth or jobs what the applied the accelerated 

payment. I was fortunate to take part in the President’s high growth 

job training initiative. And when I got the material, they had set 12 

sections aside as industries with high growth opportunities. In these 

12 sections, they projected they add substantial numbers of new jobs 

to the economy or affect growth of other industries. They are existing 

or emerging businesses being transformed by technology and innovation requiring new skills for workers.

 What was interesting, I reviewed the VA’s jobs that qualified and 
22

then I reviewed the 12 that the President’s high growth initiative 

identified, and at least from my understanding only three of the 12 

identified would quality under advance, and transportation as listed 

as one of those 12. What that tells me is that the VA definitely needs 

a little flexibility and maybe to update what they’re looking at compared with the reality of where the jobs are today.

 Mr. Boozman. One of the criticisms of looking at as far as the truck 

driving aspect of this is that we’re piecemealing it, you know, just 

kind of selecting jobs. Do you all -- and again, I think the reason 

that we’re looking at that in the sense is that we do have some cost 

-- things we’re trying to work with it. And then too, it gives us an opportunity the kind of start in that direction and see what happens.

 But Mr. Bombard, Mr. Guzman, do you all, off the top, can you recommend any other things that we need to be looking at? I know the 

railroad industry, that aspect of transportation is also undergoing 

the same sort of thing. Have you got any other suggestions as far as 

places that you can see with training programs that we need to look 

at maybe expanding, doing the same thing?

 Mr. Bombard. Well, you know if it was a perfect world and we had 

enough money, it would be better to just allow the veteran to use the 

benefit as he sees fit and to have it accelerated. I mean the high cost 

of traditional education also lends itself to the fact that a veteran 

may be in a circumstance where the veteran needs the money up 

front rather than at a later date.

 Realizing that this isn’t a perfect world, I think it would behoove 

both the Congress and the VA and all concerned to look at the various 

industries and areas where high tech can be redefined to serve the 

veteran, the community and to provide job opportunities in the shortterm thru the use of the accelerated payment provisions.

 In general, as I said, I would prefer to see it carte blanche. As 

Chairman of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Education, one 

of our recommendations to Secretary Prinicipi was that the accelerated payment restrictions be removed. The VA took exception to citing 

cost as the deciding factor. I think a further study needs to be done. 

And I think we need to move forward in other areas with regard to 

accelerated payment.

 Mr. Guzman. I agree with my colleague, Mr. Bombard. I also agree 

with what you said, sir, and that is it’s a good start. I think that we 

have to start someplace, and we did when we did high cost, high tech. 

So this is the next step. Although it may look like we’re piecemealing, 

I think we have to be realistic and look at what we can afford at this 

time as well.

 So given what Mr. Bombard said about looking at other areas, that 

could be the next step down the road.

 Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth.

 Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you 
23

for your testimony today. I do have a couple of questions, but as each 

of you have addressed the three bills that we are discussing that our 

colleagues have introduced, we do appreciate you taking the time. I

wish I had kept my pin on from yesterday when my South Dakota 

Trucking Association folks were here and gave me the pin that says 

“Good Stuff. Trucks Bring It.” So I think that it’s important -- 

 Mr. Kuntz. We can get you one.

 Ms. Herseth. I just didn’t wear it today. But let’s talk a little bit 

about H.R. 717 in particular just to continue the line of questioning 

of the Chairman.

 I think, Mr. Kuntz, you had said if we had the accelerated benefits 

here for the CDL courses which roughly are two to four months, the 

veteran could pay 60 percent up front for the tuition roughly, right, 

and then the remaining 40 percent of the tuition could be financed 

by low interest loans or carrier subsidies. Now when you say ``carrier subsidies,’’ are you talking about the trucking companies themselves?

 Mr. Kuntz. Right.

 Ms. Herseth. Do they already have an established program for 

others to help them pay for the certification courses that are required 

that helps pay for that tuition for non-veteran truck drivers?

 Mr. Kuntz. Because of the extreme driver shortage, many carriers, 

ourself included, will subsidize part of the school in order to help a 

potential driver, both veteran and non-veteran, bridge the gap. And 

then the problem that we get into, especially as a trucking company 

school I can do that. But a private school where most of the truck 

drivers are trained can’t afford to bridge that gap.

 So especially with the GI Bill, what happens now is the driver 

comes to the school and he wants to apply and use his GI Bill and he 

gets the $1,004 a month. And if the school only takes six weeks, that 

only like $1,400 towards that entire cost. So it’s not adequate. And 

if he’s a veteran who has good credit, they try to bridge that gap with 

some kind of financing.

 The thing to remember is that a lot of veterans -- I think people 

think that the veteran that’s coming to us is the guy that’s coming 

straight out of the service and coming to our school. The reality, and 

unfortunate in some cases, we get that veteran four, five, six, seven 

years and maybe after even one, two or three failed other attempts at 

other careers. And he looks and says, you know, I can make $40,000 

driving a truck. This is a chance to get me out of this financial hole 

and move on with my life, which it is.

 Unfortunately, by that time his credit is also no good, the VA funding doesn’t allow him to go to school, and we can’t get him credit approved. And so in most cases the private truck driving school ends 

up turning that gentleman away. And I’ve got some stats that I could 

show you if you’d like me to expand on that.
24

 Ms. Herseth. That would be helpful if you could submit that for the 

record in part because I was going to -- I’m glad you clarified that because I think that there is a sense. And Mr. Sodrel from Indiana was 

here earlier, a colleague, describing his experience. And so if you’re 

getting veterans -- let’s say that it’s been three, four, five years since 

their deployment versus those that are coming back from deployments in Iraq or Afghanistan and the types of jobs that they’ve got 

over there, combat related but also the service jobs that many of the 

National Guard and Reserve units are performing, that if we allowed 

this flexibility in this instance, that it would also allow, as we try to 

make sure that these new veterans are having that first good experience with how they can apply their GI Bill benefits, that this is one of 

their options. That they can move into this especially when we’ve got 

trucking companies, because of the shortage, that are there to offer 

some sort of bridge to that an additional incentive. I mean they’re 

putting together not only their benefits but also these private enterprise subsidies to help get this certification. That’s why even though 

I understand the concerns about the piecemeal approach here, it does 

seem that this particular area is well-suited for the reasons you’ve 

described as well as the potential opportunity for men and women 

returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to take advantage of something 

that maybe hadn’t considered before that would complement some of 

the services they were performing. And again, I know the Chairman 

shares this concern of mine with our National Guard and Reservists 

that are returning home, especially in rural areas if jobs are hard to 

come by in those smaller communities. So I appreciate if you would 

submit that additional information. And thank you for your insights 

as well on your knowledge and familiarity with the President’s high 

demand initiative and how that compares to the VA’s categorization. 

I appreciate it. Thank you.

 Mr. Kuntz. Thank you.

 Mr. Boozman. Mr. Kuntz, given that experienced drivers are paid 

more, would ATA would be willing to work with DoD to develop a 

method to document experience that people received in the military?

 Mr. Kuntz. That’s a question I don’t know if I can handle. Most 

truck driving companies, the competition itself kind of drives you to 

that point.

 What’s happened just in the last six months, driver pay in our own 

company, we’ve had to raise it 10 or 12 percent on average in order to 

compete. So I think it kind of takes care of itself. Like a new driver 

today is making five or six thousand dollars a year more than he did 

a couple of years ago. And so if someone comes out of the military, 

does well in school, shows he has experience and drives the truck well 

and performs well, just the law of supply and demand today will drive 

him up to an income level that will take care of that.

 If your question is are we -- can we move that guy straight into 
25

the driving force, if that was where your question was coming a little 

bit, he still needs that training because there are so many different 

things involved in commercial driving, logging and traffic and things 

that you can’t by-step that process.

 Mr. Boozman. Have you got any other things?

 [No response]

 Well, thank you again. We certainly appreciate the panel’s testimony, and that was very, very insightful. I note that the VA’s comments 

about some provisions are in question and we certainly will work with 

them regarding their concerns and try and get things ironed out. We 

really appreciate your input and look forward to working with you, 

again to alleviate those concerns.

 I also want to thank the Veterans Service Organizations for submitting statements for the record. If there’s nothing further, the hearing 

is adjourned.

 [Whereupon at 3:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
(26)

APPENDIX
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
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