U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

98–629 2016

‘‘LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 456; H.R. 473; 

H.R. 474; H.R. 475; H.R. 476; H.R. 643; H.R. 

1038; H.R. 1141; H.R. 1187; H.R. 1313; H.R. 

1382’’ 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC 

OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2015 

Serial No. 114–12 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American 

Samoa 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

KATHLEEN RICE, New York 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

DON PHILLIPS, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio, Chairman 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American 

Samoa 

RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking 

Member 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

KATHLEEN RICE, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, March 24, 2015 

Page 

‘‘Legislative Hearing On H.R. 456; H.R. 473; H.R. 474; H.R. 475; H.R. 476; 

H.R. 643; H.R. 1038; H.R. 1141; H.R. 1187; H.R. 1313; H.R. 1382’’ 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Brad Wenstrup, Chairman ...................................................................................... 1 

Mark Takano, Ranking Member ............................................................................ 3 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 31 

Jeff Miller, Chairman of the Full Committee ........................................................ 10 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Patrick Murphy (FL–18) ................................................................................ 6 

Mr. Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director National Legislative Service, Veterans 

of Foreign Wars of the United States ................................................................. 8 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 33 

Mr. Christopher Neiweem, Legislative Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America .................................................................................................. 13 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 41 

Mr. Steve Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National Veteran Employment &

Education Division, The American Legion ......................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 46 

Dr. Joseph W. Wescott, President, National Association of State Approving 

Agencies ................................................................................................................ 16 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 57 

Accompanied by: 

Timothy Freeman, Legislative Director, NASAA 

MG Robert M. Worley II USAF (Ret.), Director, Education Service, VBA, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ................................................................. 24 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 61 

Accompanied by: 

Mr. Tom Leney, Executive Director, Small and Veterans Business 

Programs, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Ms. Kimberly McLeod, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

And 

Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Ms. Teresa W. Gerton, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor .............................................. 26 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 99 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

U.S. Department of Defense ................................................................................... 105 

School Advocates for Veterans’ Education and Success ....................................... 105 

Paralyzed Veterans of America .............................................................................. 108 

Easter Seals, Inc. ..................................................................................................... 110 

National Association of Veterans’ Program Administrators ................................ 112 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

‘‘LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 456; H.R. 473; 

H.R. 474; H.R. 475; H.R. 476; H.R. 643; H.R. 

1038; H.R. 1141; H.R. 1187; H.R. 1313; H.R. 

1382’’ 

Tuesday, March 24, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Brad Wenstrup [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Wenstrup, Zeldin, Costello, 

Radewagen, Bost, Miller, Bilirakis, Takano, Titus, Rice, and 

McNerney. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRAD WENSTRUP 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Good afternoon, everyone. 

The Subcommittee will come to order. Before we begin, I would 

like to ask unanimous consent that our colleagues, Chairman Miller and Mr. Bilirakis, be allowed to sit at the dais to make opening 

statements and ask questions. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I want to thank you all for joining us here today to discuss legislation pending before the subcommittee concerning education benefits and employment programs for our return servicemembers and 

veterans. This afternoon we have 11 important pieces of legislation 

before us. I will focus my remarks on three of these bills which I 

introduced earlier this year. 

The first is H.R. 474, the Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Programs Reauthorization Act of 2015. The Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program, HVRP, provides grants to programs with employment and training services for homeless veterans. H.R. 474 

would reauthorize HVRP until 2020 and would ensure that veterans who are homeless and participating in the HUD VASH 

voucher program, as well as veterans who are transitioning from 

incarceration are also eligible for services provided by HVRP. 

My second bill, H.R. 475, the G.I. Bill Processing Improvement 

Act of 2015 would make several changes to improve processing of 

G.I. Bill claims. The centerpiece of this legislation is to authorize 

additional funding for new IT projects to ensure that all original 

education claims are processed electronically. This is an issue the 

subcommittee has been tracking for several years, and as I said at 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
2 

our hearing last week, it is imperative that VA finish the job and 

complete the long-term solution. This bill also has a provision that 

would extend by a year, the July 1st deadline, for schools to comply 

with the in-state tuition provision in the Choice Act. 

VA, state legislatures and the SAA seem to be making good 

progress as we approach this deadline in the coming months, but 

I am interested to hear from our witnesses today as to whether 

they believe this extension is needed. If it is not needed, I would 

intend to remove this provision from the bill at our subcommittee 

markup. 

My final bill is H.R. 476, the G.I. Bill Quality Enhancement Act 

of 2015, which makes several changes to the role of the state approving agencies and how schools are approved for G.I. Bill benefits. This bill was based on legislative changes proposed by the National Association of State Approving Agencies, and I want to 

thank Dr. Wescott and General Worley for working together to 

bring this proposal forward. The main focus of this bill would be 

to increase oversight of G.I. Bill programs and strengthen the role 

of the SAA for decades to come. 

I understand that there have been concerns raised by some related to the flight school provision in the bill that I would like to 

address. While I believe that flight training is a noble and worthwhile education, it was never the intention of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill 

to allow some schools to charge in some cases, almost $900,000 in 

tuition and fees for one veteran. By capping tuition and fees for 

public flight schools at the same cap as other private, nonprofit 

schools, we would be leveling the playing field for all student veterans. 

I would also like to address the concerns that have been raised 

regarding Section 3 of the bill relating to the States’ ability to set 

their own standards and criteria for G.I. Bill approval. While I 

don’t have any problem with States setting their own reasonable 

criteria for approval of an educational program, an authority granted to the States currently under federal law, they should and must 

do so in a fair and equitable way across all schools. Ensuring a fair 

and level playing field for all schools, regardless of the type of 

school, is what this section is striving to accomplish, nothing more. 

Some may say that we are trying to protect bad schools and undermining States’ rights, and I would remind everyone this is a 

federal benefit, not a state benefit, and if the SAA in that state or 

the VA believes that a school is not providing their student veterans with a quality education at a good value, then they should 

withdraw that school’s approval immediately. But to impart one set 

of standards on one group of schools while excluding another group 

of schools with a similar student population, as well as similar student outcomes is not fair. It is not good government, and is simply 

not right. 

With that being said, I am eager to discuss each of the 11 pieces 

of legislation before us today, and I am grateful to my colleagues 

who have introduced these bills and to our witnesses for being here 

to discuss them with us and I look forward to a productive and 

meaningful discussion. 

I will now yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Takano, for 

any opening statement that he may have. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
3 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MARK TAKANO 

Today, we are examining 11 bills, five of which directly relate to 

veterans education benefits. As a former educator, I enjoy my time 

on this committee precisely because we all share an interest as to 

how education helps veterans successfully transition into civilian 

life. I believe that the majority of these bills move us towards this 

subcommittee’s purpose, increasing economic opportunity for our 

nation’s veterans. 

The G.I. Bill Fairness Act, which I introduced, would close a gap 

faced by our National Guardsmen and Reservists who have been 

called and then recalled to war throughout operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. I was shocked when I first heard that brave men and 

women with combat injuries, who are receiving medical treatment 

on active duty military orders, are not allowed to count their recovery time towards earning education benefits. This is a no-brainer, 

a cost of war, let’s do the right thing by these injured servicemen, 

servicemembers, and give them the benefits they need and deserve. 

I am happy to hear the Department of Defense agrees this is the 

right thing to do. 

I also want to recognize several of my colleagues’ bills. Ms. Rice 

has introduced her first bill as a representative, the BRAVE Act, 

which requires VA to consider the number of veteran employees a 

contractor has before giving them new work with the VA. I am confident her legislation will result in the number of jobs available to 

veterans and I applaud her efforts in getting right to work for veterans on Capitol Hill—I am speaking about you, Ms. Rice, as you 

are walking in. Mr. McNerney’s bill, the Service Disabled Veteran 

Owned Small Business Relief Act, also allows surviving spouses to 

retain their deceased spouses preferred status of their businesses 

for three years. And Mr. Murphy’s bill, the Reducing Barriers for 

Veterans Education Act, will help veterans pay for their college application fees. I strongly support all of these pieces of legislation. 

I generally agree with the legislation being offered for scrutiny 

today, but there is one provision in H.R. 476, the G.I. Bill Education Quality Enhancement Act that infringes on States’ rights to 

govern their educational institutions. I fear that this provision will 

have serious negative impacts on our veterans. Director Worley 

and I agree that States should retain the right to implement additional standards for schools that educate and train our veterans as 

they see fit, as is the case under current law. In fact, I believe it 

was through these additional standards that the California Department of Veterans Affairs was able to suspend and ultimately withdraw approval for Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a company that was 

shut down after the Department of Education found widespread 

abusive and deceptive practices. I am concerned that the provision 

in H.R. 476 would hinder our States’ ability to protect veterans 

from predatory schools, particularly those that take veterans’ 

money for the benefit of their shareholders and leave our heroes 

with unsustainable debt and worthless degrees. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill is otherwise important for veterans and 

taxpayers, but on behalf of California veterans, I ask you to reconsider this provision. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
4 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to a good hearing. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MARK TAKANO

APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Takano. 

Next we have Mr. Zeldin to discuss his bill, H.R. 1187. You are 

now recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is great to—I appreciate you bringing this bill up for the Committee’s consideration. In some parts of the country, the real estate 

markets are a little bit higher than others. I represent New York’s 

1st Congressional District on the east end of Long Island. And 

what we are experiencing is that over the course of the last several 

years, due to a change made as part of the 2009 Stimulus Package, 

thousands of veterans were able to qualify for VA home loans due 

to a change that then expired at the end of 2014. This bill would 

eliminate the loan limit or the maximum guarantee amount of a 

loan that the VA can guarantee for a veteran. 

There are several places around the country where a veteran is 

not able to use their VA home guarantee benefits because of the 

lower maximum guaranty amount that went into place January 1st 

of 2015, when the old higher loan limits statutorily expired. 

Thank you for bringing this bill to the Committee for consideration. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin. 

Next, we have Ms. Rice to discuss her bill, H.R. 1382, and you 

are now recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 

Member Takano, for holding this hearing. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to serve on this subcommittee, 

and I look forward to working together to solve problems for all of 

our veterans and ensure they have the opportunities they need to 

succeed in civilian life. 

And one of the bills we will discuss today is H.R. 1382, otherwise 

known as the BRAVE Act, the Boosting Rates of American Veteran 

Employment Act, which I introduced last week. This bill would authorize the VA secretary, when awarding contracts, to give preference to companies with high concentrations of veteran employees, 

reward companies that actively employee veterans, and creating an 

incentive for other companies to do so the same. 

I want to thank my lead co-sponsor, Congressman Paul Cook 

from California, for his support. I also want to thank our original 

co-sponsors, Ranking Member Takano and Congresswoman 

Radewagen, as well as our colleagues on the full committee, Congressman Abraham and Congresswoman Kuster. It is very important to me that the first bill I have introduced in the House have 

balanced bipartisan support, and it is even more important to our 

veterans that we work together in a bipartisan way to solve problems for the men and women who have served our country. 

And one of the biggest problems facing our veterans right now, 

especially those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is finding 

good jobs in civilian life. We have seen progress in event years, but 

the unemployment rate among post-9/11 veterans is still higher 

than the national average and that is completely unacceptable. Our 

veterans have received the best training in the world. They have 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
5 

unique skills and experience that can’t be acquired, anywhere but 

in the United States military. They have what it takes to excel in 

civilian workforce and they don’t need charity. They don’t need a 

handout; they just need the opportunity. 

The BRAVE Act will reward companies that provide that opportunity. It gives them an advantage in securing federal contacts and 

that creates an incentive for other contractors to step up and do 

the same, to make it a priority, to actively invest in our veterans. 

And I have no doubt that as contractors hire more veterans, they 

will realize that that is a smart investment. That is really what all 

of this is about. We don’t just want to hire veterans because it is 

the right thing to do, we want them to realize it is a smart investment. We want them to recognize that it is in their own self-interest to actively hire men and women who are highly trained, highly 

skilled, and know how to get the job done, whatever the job is. 

That is the goal. That is how we will solve this problem and ensure 

that every single man and woman who served our country can find 

a good job and succeed in civilian life. And passing the BRAVE Act 

will help us get there. 

I want to thank the witnesses who have taken the time today to 

join us today. I look forward to hearing your testimony and I am 

eager to work with you to advance this legislation and to help advance our veterans’ careers and education in any way that we can. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Ms. Rice. 

Next we have Mr. Costello to discuss H.R. 1038. You are now 

recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, it is my pleasure 

to testify on behalf of my legislation, H.R. 1038, the Ensuring VA 

Employee Accountability Act. This is a commonsense effort to ensure greater employee accountability within the Department of 

Veterans Affairs and I respectfully request my colleagues here 

today support the passage of this legislation. 

We all agree that our veterans deserve the best service and care 

possible and it is our responsibility to ensure that care is being provided by the employees responsible. The VA’s disciplinary actions 

for their personnel are carried out in a tiered system and the two 

most commonly used are the lower-tiered actions, admonishments 

and reprimands. As the VA continues to review the findings of the 

recent Inspector General’s investigation related to data manipulation, backlogs, and wait times, it is apparent in the limited reports 

the VA provides to Congress on adverse actions that a greater 

number of admonishments and reprimands are being issued to atfault employees. 

However, in the current policy, these disciplinary actions remain 

in an employee’s file for only three years and are then deleted. This 

policy prevents the keeping of complete employee files and does not 

allow the poor performers within the VA to be tracked or be held 

accountable. Veterans expect that if an employee’s actions warrant 

a removal, then the correct disciplinary action should be administered, not simply getting a temporary written warning; therefore, 

as the VA continues to issue these lower-tiered disciplinary actions 

more heavily than others, it is important that the personnel actions 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
6 

remain in the employee’s record while employed at the VA. It is 

only right to ensure that if a VA employee has illustrated a pattern 

of disciplinary misbehavior, that a full and complete employee file 

be considered when an employee is reviewed for bonuses, promotions or advancements. 

This will do just that. It will require all reprimands and admonishments remain in the VA employee’s file as long as they are employed at the VA. That being said, nothing in this bill imposes new 

employee penalties or would affect the existing process for a VA 

employee to appeal a disciplinary action. This is simply another 

tool for the secretary to hold employees accountable throughout 

their tenure at the VA. It will ensure that the VA maintains good 

complete employee records and holds those who care for our veterans accountable. It will also ensure our veterans receive the care 

they deserve and have earned. 

I would respectfully call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to promote transparency and accountability 

where it is greatly needed. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Costello. 

Next, we have Mr. McNerney to discuss his bill, H.R. 1313. You 

are now recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to thank the Chairman. 

Just imagine the scenario, you are a spouse of a service connected disabled business owner and you are doing well, you are 

supporting your family, you are supporting a couple other employees and all of a sudden your spouse dies in a car accident or something that is not related to a service disability, all of a sudden you 

lose your status; you are laying off your employees; you are seeing 

your kids go without decent meals, without clothes. I mean that is 

not acceptable. 

What my bill does is it extends that disability rating for three 

years which gives the spouse enough time to establish the business 

without the rating. So that is what my bill does. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. Murphy, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK MURPHY 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 

Members of the Committee, for having me here. It is nice to be on 

this side of things; it is a different view. 

It is an honor to be here to discuss this important piece of legislation that I introduced with my colleague, Mr. Luke Messer. One 

of the greatest honors of my time here in Congress was visiting our 

brave men and women in Afghanistan serving our country. I had 

the opportunity to see firsthand the extraordinary work they are 

doing for this country day in and day out. These men and women 

are putting their lives on the line for us. 

Our grateful nation works to expand opportunities when they return home. To that end, the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill changed the lives 

of veterans across this country; however, veterans in my district in 

Florida still tell me they face significant challenges when they return home. One key obstacle to applying to undergraduate, gradVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:27 May 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-629.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
7 

uate and vocational colleges, while tuition and fees are covered 

under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, the application fees are not. According to the National Association for College Admission Counseling, 

average fees for an undergraduate institution are around $40. 

Graduate school applications can be as high as $275. For a veteran 

returning home after months or years of active duty service, covering those costs can be extremely difficult. 

Based on the incredible bipartisan work on this committee here 

and its dedicated membership, I know you all share my belief that 

we should look for opportunities to make the lives of our heroes 

easier, not more complicated. And for this reason, I have introduced the Reducing Barriers for Veterans Education Act to address 

the issue of college application fees. This legislation would make 

college application costs eligible for payment under the Post-9/11 

G.I., bill giving our veterans the option to use up to $750 of their 

Post-9/11 G.I. benefits to cover application costs. 

This would open the doors for veterans in Florida and across the 

country who are unable to cover these costs on their own. When we 

talk about cutting spending and balancing the budget, it is to protect key investments. The American people entrust us with their 

hard-earned tax dollars with the hope that we will give it a good 

return. That return on investment that we get for facilitating access to college and graduate school for our brave men and women 

couldn’t be greater. 

Even still, the costs of these application fees would be offset, 

counting against the existing Post-9/11 G.I. benefits. This isn’t 

about creating a new entitlement; this is about tearing down unnecessary barriers that stand between those willing to give it all 

for their country and then go on to get an education. This bipartisan legislation has the support of over 100 members of Congress 

and veteran service organizations including The American Legion, 

Student Veterans of America, and the Military Officers Association 

of America. 

This is legislation that should be signed into law. It is the right 

thing to do and more than anything, it is something that will make 

a real impact on veterans in every congressional district. Again, I 

appreciate the opportunity to discuss this legislation with you 

today and I look forward to continuing to support your good work 

and improving the lives of veterans. Thank you. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you, Mr. Murphy. 

Unless there are any questions for our colleague, you are excused. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. I now invite our second panel to the table. First 

we have Mr. Aleks Morosky, deputy director of the national legislative service at the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; 

Mr. Christopher Neiweem, legislative associate at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Mr. Steve Gonzalez, assistant director of the national veteran employment & education division at 

The American Legion; and also Dr. Joseph Wescott, president of 

the National Association of State Approving Agencies. I thank you 

all for being here, for your service to our nation in uniform, and 

for your hard work and advocacy for veterans. 

Mr. Morosky, we will begin with you. You are now recognized for 

five minutes. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
8 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALEKS MOROSKY 

Mr. MOROSKY. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and 

women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and 

our auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on today’s pending legislation. 

The VFW supports the Reducing Barriers for Veterans Education 

Act. Believing that veterans should not face any unnecessary barriers when accessing their benefits and that allowing them to use 

a small portion of their entitlement to defray college application 

costs is fully consistent with the intent of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. 

The VFW supports the Increasing the Department of Veterans 

Affairs Accountability to Veterans Act. No employee should be able 

to commit a serious crime and then opt to retire without consequence. We believe VA needs the authority to take quick and decisive action against all senior managers who perpetuate wrongdoing, while ensuring that all SES employees have proper training 

and performance evaluation systems in place so that they will be 

the leaders the VA needs them to be. 

The VFW fully supports the Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration 

Program Reauthorization Act. VA has taken great strides in 

achieving the goal of ending veterans’ homelessness, but before it 

can be realized, VA homelessness programs must continue. 

The VFW supports all provisions of the G.I. Bill Processing Improvement Act, except Section 3, which would delay the implementation of in-state tuition protections for one year. At this point, we 

are confident that most states should be able to meet the July 1st, 

2015 deadline. We also note that VA has the authority to grant 

waivers to individual states with legitimate reasons for needing 

more time. Considering these factors, we now believe that the original implementation date should remain in effect in order to encourage all states to continue to make progress towards full implementation as quickly as possible. 

The VFW supports the G.I. Bill Education Quality Enhancement 

Act which would make important reforms to the way state approving agencies and VA approve courses of education. These reforms 

include codifying the authority of SAAs to inspect and approve noncollege degree programs at not-for-profit schools; the requirement 

to apply uniform criteria when approving all categories of educational programs; placing reasonable caps on the amount of tuition and fees that may be paid for flight training; and adjusting the 

way compliance surveys are conducted. These are consistent with 

VFW recommendations from previous hearings, and we thank 

Chairman Wenstrup for introducing this bill. 

The VFW supports the Veterans Education Survey Act to commission a survey of student veterans currently using their earned 

G.I. Bill benefits. Student veterans, particularly those who enroll 

in non-traditional programs, usually start their studies on a parttime basis while serving in the military or they bring a significant 

number of transfer credits into their programs after completing 

military service, meaning they are never considered first-time, fulltime students, and thus, are never tracked by the Department of 

Education. Without statistically valid information on student vetVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:27 May 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-629.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
9 

eran experience or student veteran outcomes, it is impossible to 

know how student veterans are actually faring in higher education. 

The VFW fully supports the Ensuring VA Employee Accountability Act. Currently an employee who is reprimanded and is 

granted a transfer will start their new position with a clean slate. 

This allows the bad mark to go unrecognized on their next evaluation, which inhibits accountability and passively condones poor performance. Employees must be held accountable for their actions 

and this legislation goes a long way towards achieving that goal. 

The VFW supports the G.I. Bill Fairness Act which would require VA to consider time spent by members of the Reserve component receiving medical care for service-connected injuries for the 

purposes of determining eligibility for the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. We 

believe the time it takes to recuperate from service-connected injuries is still time in service to this country and that Reservists and 

Guardsmen should be recognized for their sacrifice. 

Furthermore, we urge Congress to address another inequity that 

we have identified in Post-9/11 G.I. Bill eligibility determination. 

The VFW believes that any member of the Armed Forces who is 

wounded in action should be deemed 100 percent eligible, regardless of how long they served on active duty. 

The VFW supports H.R. 1187, believing that veterans should not 

be limited by arbitrary caps when selecting a location to purchase 

a home. Since the rate of default on VA-backed loans is significantly lower than that of the national average, approving mortgages for higher amounts will not adversely affect veterans or financial institutions, but will help veterans secure home loans in all 

geographic areas. 

The VFW also supports the Service Disabled Veteran Owned 

Small Business Relief Act. Current law only allows the surviving 

spouse to temporarily continue operating a service disabled veteran 

owned business if the veteran was 100 percent disabled or died 

from service-connected disability. This is a necessary protection 

that allows for a transition period for the bereaved spouse to restructure the business as necessary. The VFW believes that this 

protection should be extended to all surviving spouses under the 

SDVOSB program. 

Finally, the VFW supports the BRAVE Act, which would allow 

VA to give preference to prospective contractors based on the percentage of veterans their companies employ. Such a policy would 

potentially incentivize companies to hire more veterans. The VFW 

believes that such incentives are still necessary in light of the fact 

that the unemployment rate for current era veterans continues to 

outpace that of the nation at large. 

Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, thank you, and 

I look forward to any questions you or any other members of the 

subcommittee may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. ALEKS MOROSKY APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Morosky. 

If I may indulge the panel for just a few moments here, at this 

time, I would like to yield to Chairman Miller of the full committee 

to discuss his bill, H.R. 473. 

Chairman Miller, you are now recognized. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
10 

OPENING STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JEFF 

MILLER 

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

I apologize for being late. I was in an intelligence hearing on the 

defense intelligence budget and was asking some questions that 

you and I both are very interested in. Thank you for yielding to me 

for just a moment. I want to thank you and the ranking member 

for allowing me an opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill, H.R. 

473, Increasing the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability 

to Veterans Act of 2015. 

First, let me start by recognizing the tens of thousands of people 

that work at the Department of Veterans Affairs that are dedicated, that go to work every day that do what they do for the right 

reason, both senior managers and rank and file personnel. But the 

past year has been very tumultuous for VA and I know that a lot 

of distrust has arisen between the American public and the Department, and I want to emphasize that H.R. 473 is in no way intended 

to disparage the hard-working employees, as I said, that go to work 

every day to do the right thing. In fact, my bill is meant to help 

them, as well as the Department as a whole, by assisting the secretary in his effort to turn around the VA, to turn a new page at 

the Department, if you will. 

Last Congress, we were successful in passing into law a tool the 

secretary needed to weed out the bad managers within the Department and hold senior executives accountable when warranted, and 

I think we can all agree that this tool was a very important and 

necessary one, but it is not the only means to enhance accountability at the Department. True accountability and a change in culture cannot happen over night and cannot happen with just one 

piece of legislation, which is why I introduced H.R. 473, to bring 

additional reform to VA. Without a continued change in culture, 

the Department will not become the agency that our veterans deserve. 

My bill would do several things, but I am going to touch on just 

a few important aspects of the bill at this time. First, it would 

allow the secretary to reduce an SES employee’s retirement only 

upon their conviction of a felony that influenced their performance 

at work. I believe that this is a common sense measure, as it 

should not require an act of treason or an act of terrorism before 

an employee’s retirement can be reduced, as the current law currently states. 

H.R. 473 would also make changes to the performance review 

system for SES employees and would require the secretary to rate 

the senior executives in a tiered system, as opposed to just placing 

everyone in the top two categories. Not a single senior executive 

was placed in a category lower than fully successful for the past 

couple of years, and I think that we can all agree that after the 

scandal that arose last summer, that is not an accurate depiction 

of the performance of all senior managers within the Department. 

And, Members, my bill would also reinforce the foundations of 

the original intent of the Senior Executive Service by requiring senior executives to move every five years to a new position. This is 

to ensure that best practices are spread throughout the agency and 

the country and to improve leadership across all facilities. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
11 

Finally, my bill would limit the amount of time that a senior executive employee may be placed on paid administrative leave to 14 

days. It is ridiculous that VA is paying employees to sit at home 

for almost a year in some cases at the taxpayers’ expense; that 

should not be the common practice for VA, but, unfortunately, we 

have seen it in far too many cases. It is easier to send someone 

home indefinitely and continue paying them instead of making a 

personnel decision. 

The secretary has the authority to make great strides to improve 

accountability following the biggest scandal in the Department’s 

history, but more needs to be done. We must continue to work together to change the culture at VA. It is what both veterans and 

the American taxpayers deserve. And I know many are concerned 

that continuing to impose personnel measures on VA employees 

that are not applicable to the rest of the federal government will 

only disincentivize good workers from coming to the Department, 

but I think the opposite is true. Good workers want to work in good 

agencies with other hard-working employees and want to know 

that bad actors will be held fully accountable. 

I believe that giving the secretary these further tools will only 

enhance the culture at VA and ultimately improve the care provided to our country’s veterans. At the end of the day, that is the 

job of this committee; our primary mission is to support our veterans. Everything else should take second place. 

I would ask my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Takano, the Ranking Member, for including my legislation into today’s agenda, and I yield back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Next, Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for five minutes to discuss your bill. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and, obviously, hearing my bill, H.R. 

643, the Veterans Education Survey Act of 2015. 

The challenges our nation’s heroes face do not end on the battlefield, but continue as they make their transition to civilian life. 

America has always been the land of opportunity and it is our responsibility that our veterans are equipped with the necessary resources to pursue that happiness. The brave men and women of 

our U.S. Armed Forces have answered the call to protect the liberties that we enjoy on a daily basis. Likewise, we must answer the 

call for veterans. 

Through the G.I. Bill, veterans can utilize these benefits to work 

towards college degrees and certificates, correspondence courses, 

apprenticeships, on-the-job training programs, and vocational flight 

training programs. Additionally, these programs provide assistance 

in covering costs from a myriad of education-related expenditures. 

These education and training programs have been credited with 

successfully transitioning and readjusting returning 

servicemembers for generations; however, we must strive to do 

more and find ways to improve this important program. 

Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2008, over one million of our nation’s veterans have 

participated in this program. By fiscal year 2011, the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill had the largest number of participants and highest total obliVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:27 May 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-629.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
12 

gations when compared to previous versions of the GI Bill since 

1984. The VA provided nearly $10 billion for that fiscal year in 

education benefits for veterans and beneficiaries, with the majority 

of these benefits applied to the Post-9/11 GI Bill program. 

An obstacle we continue to encounter when discussing the GI Bill 

is a lack of data available regarding its participants. It is critical 

to understand how these programs affect veterans, so that we may 

continue to provide the best assistance we can. 

Recently, the economic opportunities subcommittee held a hearing titled, ‘‘A Review of Higher Education Opportunities for the 

Newest Generation of Veterans.’’ In this hearing, various veterans 

service organizations and witnesses highlighted the value in presenting such benefits to our transitioning service members. 

For example, the School Advocates for Veterans Education and 

Success, so it is called SAVES, they stated, ‘‘In our eyes the most 

important question is, how do we know how well veterans are 

doing on our campus?’’ To answer those questions, we must measure the strengths and weaknesses, the successes and failures of our 

programs, both quantitatively and qualitatively. In order to give 

the best opportunities to our veterans, we must be prepared to address new needs as they are identified, and continue to find ways 

to improve both the effectiveness and delivery of these resources. 

Veterans service organizations seeing this firsthand have 

stressed to Congress the necessity of collecting comprehensive data. 

The American Legion stated before Congress that current outcomes 

are based on incomplete data and recommended redefining VA’s 

data points in measuring success indicators across the population. 

To ensure that our nation’s veterans’ progression into civilian life 

is a top priority, I have introduced the Veterans Education Surveys 

Act of 2015. My bill, H.R. 643, would create a pathway to continued 

success by surveying veterans using their education-assistance benefits. 

The survey would be an extensive study conducted by a thirdparty non-government entity using a statistically valid sample of 

individuals utilizing the educational programs. The information 

would encompass all possible factors that could contribute to the effectiveness of these programs. This survey would prove beneficial 

to VA and Congress by providing a better understanding of what 

improvements will be most impactful to the success of these individuals using the education-assistance programs. 

I want to thank our witnesses today for being here, as well as 

those that provided testimonies for the record. I want to especially 

thank the American Legion, the VFW, the School Advocates for 

Veterans’ Education and Success, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America for their 

support of the Veterans Education Survey Act. 

I encourage my colleagues on this committee to support this bipartisan piece of legislation. Please co-sponsor the legislation as 

well. We can all agree that those who dedicated their lives to serving our country should have the resources they need to successfully 

transition into civilian life. Let us honor that commitment and get 

this done for our veterans, our heroes. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
13 

Mr. Neiweem, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER NEIWEEM 

Mr. NEIWEEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and our nearly 400,000 members 

and supporters, we would like to extend our gratitude for the opportunity to share with you our views and recommendations regarding these important pieces of legislation. Specifically, the following bills. 

H.R. 475. This bill would provide the needed funding and support 

to keep VA’s administration of education programs to a standard 

veterans will require over the next decade. Last week, I appeared 

before this committee with survey data collected by IAVA members 

that showed late payments continue to occur with respect to the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill program. This legislation is necessary to continue 

to improve and modernize the services that VA is currently providing and will move toward preventing these problems from occurring in the future. 

Broadening electronic automation functionality and enhancing 

technological capabilities are the only way to make sure that the 

disbursement of education benefit checks keeps pace with current 

technological capabilities. The timeliness of benefit delivery to veterans over the next decade will greatly depend on efficient IT technology platforms. 

IAVA supports this bill and appreciates the resources it will provide to VA to better assist in getting education benefit payments 

right the first time. 

In regard to H.R. 474, this legislation will extend needed housing 

benefit programs for veterans for an additional five years. Additionally, this bill will make needed changes required to maintain support for veterans currently being served by HUD–VASH vouchers. 

Allowing veterans access to housing support and job training programs greatly increases his or her chances for success when 

transitioning to full-time work and a long-term residential option. 

IAVA supports this bill. 

In regard to H.R. 1141, this bill would consider time spent by reserve components healing from injuries in DOD facilities as good 

towards Post-9/11 GI Bill program eligibility. When reservists who 

are deployed overseas return stateside and their Title 10 orders expire, his or her time counted towards their eligibility for Post-9/11 

benefits is not counted. This would fix this inequity. There is no 

reason that an injury should reduce accrual of education benefits 

and IAVA strongly supports the legislation. 

In regard to H.R. 476, the chief solution this legislation would 

provide is capping the payments that are currently being provided 

to some private flight schools at $20,235.02. In the last several 

months, it has come to our attention that some student veterans 

have taken flight training and have been charged excessive fees 

that have been paid under their GI Bill benefits. This measure provides a commonsense cost control for extremely high fees that upon 

examination are well above the costs intended for the instruction 

received. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
14 

In learning more about some of these scenarios and in working 

with the committee, we agree Section 4 is necessary to protect VA 

education benefits from abuse. IAVA strongly supports this legislation. 

H.R. 643. This legislation would require a non-government entity 

to conduct a survey of veterans’ views and experiences utilizing 

their education benefits. The information that the survey intends 

to capture is broad and would go a long way to identifying how 

support programs are working from the view of the customers that 

matter most, the veterans. 

Additionally, these surveys would solicit views on TAP participation and potential barriers or obstacles that prevent veterans from 

making use of their benefits for those that have not participated in 

VA education benefit programs. The focus on each person’s individual experience is the best way to know how many nations’ programs are or are not helping them in achieving their educational/ 

employment objectives. And this survey would be more comprehensive and go further than current survey efforts that are underway 

currently at VA. IAVA strongly supports this legislation. 

In regard to H.R. 473, the accountability measure, Chairman 

Miller’s bill is of great interest to IAVA and we are continuing to 

examine how its potential enactment could impact the department 

and our members, more importantly. There is no question of accountability failures at the Phoenix VA Medical Center last summer and that this committee and VSO/MSO stakeholders must aggressively promote policies that make certain those actions that included the maintenance of secret waiting lists for veterans who 

waited for care are never repeated. 

We support the intent of this bill and look forward to a closer examination of how federal policy across the U.S. Government compares with these recommendations for the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. Additionally, IAVA will engage with the VA to identify how 

its implementation would impact the employment culture and retention mission of the department. 

We strongly appreciate Chairman Miller’s staunch commitment 

to making sure our veterans are receiving the best care our nation 

can deliver and we will continue to closely study and monitor this 

measure. As such, while we support many of the provisions of this 

bill, we require more time and study before issuing full support. 

Lastly, in closing, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1187. This bill would adjust the VA Home Loan guarantee restrictions currently set at 25 

percent of the loan and allow more flexibility in VA in determining 

its commitment. Providing VA this flexibility and removing the cap 

could be the difference between a veteran securing a loan to buy 

the home that they always envisioned. 

I am a little over time here, Mr. Chairman. I will close by saying 

IAVA supports these bills and I am happy to answer any questions 

you or the members of the committee have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neiweem appears in the Appendix] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you, Mr. Neiweem. 

Mr. Gonzalez, you are now recognized for five minutes. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
15 

STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking 

Member Takano, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

On behalf of our national commander, Mike Helm, and the 2.3 

million members of the American Legion, we thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding the American Legion’s position on 

pending legislation before the subcommittee. 

In sum, we are generally supportive of the proposed legislation. 

Here I will highlight two where we differ somewhat. 

We support H.R. 475, the GI Bill Processing Improvement Act of 

2015, sponsored by Chairman Wenstrup, except for Section 3. The 

American Legion was gratified that the Veterans’ Choice Act contained among its provisions one which effectively requires public 

universities and colleges that participate in the Post-9/11 GI Bill to 

provide in-state tuition to veterans and dependents using those GI 

Bill benefits. Many states either currently assist all or certain veterans by recognizing them as in-state students for purposes of attending a public education institution or are in the process of making the rule changes necessary to comply with the in-state tuition 

provision. 

In addition, VA has the authority to waive for a year those states 

which cannot meet the current July 1, 2015 implementation date 

to allow them additional time to become compliant. Therefore, we 

don’t see the necessity of delaying by a year to July 1, 2016 the 

implementation of this important change. 

Turning now to Chairman Miller’s bill, H.R. 473, Increase in the 

Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability to Veterans Act. Reacting to the firing of Phoenix VA Healthcare System director in 

November of last year, the national commander of the American 

Legion, Mike Helm, noted, ‘‘This is one long overdue step in a journey that is far from over.’’ 

Unfortunately, as we all soon discovered after the story broke 

last April, this problem was not isolated to Phoenix, it was widespread. And we expect to see additional consequences, even criminal charges, if they are warranted, for anyone who knowingly misled veterans and denied them access to medical services. The 

American Legion believes it is important to ensure there is accountability at all levels within VA and that the process is completely transparent. 

Where VA employees are found to have engaged in wrongdoing, 

the American Legion supports the appointment of a special prosecutor to be assigned to investigate and vigorously prosecute any 

VA employees engaged in fraudulent practices designed to improperly award bonuses or other financial or meritorious awards to the 

perpetrator. 

While those in the senior executive service can and should receive performance bonuses when their performance is exemplary, 

the American Legion believes any bonuses need to be tied clearly 

to quantitative and qualitative measures. There must be an open 

process for determining these awards that all state quotas can examine to determine the propriety of the awarded bonuses. 

This legislation, while it is helpful towards achieving these ends 

in some ways, has some sections which still raise concerns about 

the manner of their implementation. The American Legion supVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:27 May 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-629.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
16 

ports increased accountability and those employees found guilty of 

having committed crimes at the expenses of veterans entrusted to 

their care should never profit from these crimes. To achieve bonuses based on manipulation and lies undercuts any trust with the 

veterans’ community. Requiring additional transparency about SES 

performance outcomes is also laudable and supported by the American Legion. 

Where this legislation dives into creating a specific new performance appraisal system, the American Legion has concerns. While 

the goal of reforming the performance system is admirable and 

needed, their concerns at this level of specificity may lead towards 

over management of this task. While VA can and must reform this 

area, the American Legion is wary of dictating the shape of that 

reform into too many and too detailed a manner. 

The American Legion does support open discussion on this process and hopes this proposal can at least be a starting point for 

working with all parties from VA to Congress until the state quotas 

determine a system that enforces accountability and fairness in the 

bonus system. 

The American Legion recognizes the importance of reforming the 

bonus system and indeed the management culture within VA, and 

applauds the initial efforts by VA Secretary Bob McDonald to begin 

that process, as well as the diligence of this committee to direct 

oversight efforts towards that task. 

This legislation has great intentions and the portions related to 

adding transparency to the system and preventing from profiting 

at the cost of veterans are strong. With further work, perhaps more 

of the legislation could be supported and the American Legion looks 

forward to working with this committee to ensure impactful legislation is passed towards this end. 

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to present the American Legion’s views and look forward to any questions you may 

have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Dr. Wescott, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESCOTT. ACCOMPANIED BY: 

TIMOTHY FREEMAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NASAA 

Dr. WESCOTT. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, 

and members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am 

pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the over 55 member 

agencies of the National Association of State Approving Agencies 

and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on bills pending before this committee. 

I am accompanied today by Timothy Freeman, who is the 

NASAA Legislative Director. 

NASAA supports the provisions of H.R. 475, Section 2, that 

would pay for changes and improvements made to VA information 

technology systems, so that all original and supplemental Chapter 

33 claims are adjudicated electronically. Indeed, for the last two 

years we have worked side by side with our VA partners to redesign the compliant survey process, so that corrections to claims 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
17 

generated during those visits would be handled utilizing the VA 

automation system and not paper referrals. 

NASAA also supports the extension of the effective date of Section 702(b) as set forward in Section 3 of H.R. 475. But we are 

hopeful that the efforts of SAAs and other stakeholders in this endeavor will result in full compliance by all schools within the prescribed deadline. We do recognize the need to account for those situations in which an extension of waiver might be needed. 

I am pleased to report to the committee that state approving 

agencies through NASAA have taken a leading role in assisting 

their individual states in becoming compliant with Section 702. We 

have established a page in the member section of our national Web 

site to continuously and closely monitor the status of the adoption 

of Section 702 requirements within the individual states. 

Likewise, we have provided in our Web site language approved 

by VA legal counsel and/or the legislative language used to bring 

states within compliance. Though only seven states were compliant 

with the requirements of the law as of yesterday, states are working diligently to meet the requirements of the federal law. NASAA 

is committed to working with our VA partners to ensure that the 

waiver process which is established is equitable and timely, and we 

will not shrink from the responsibility or ignore the opportunity to 

help our states become compliant. 

NASAA strongly supports H.R. 476, which clarifies and codifies 

state approval authority and oversight over all non-federal facilities 

by identifying SAAs as the primary entity responsible for approval, 

suspension and withdrawal. The bill does not do away with the 

idea of deemed approved degree programs at certain accredited institutions of higher education. Rather, it would maintain the intent 

of the statute by adhering to an expeditious list of approval criteria 

for those programs. 

In addition, this bill will expand 3675 to cover all accredited programs not already covered under 3672, while maintaining all previous approval criteria for private for-profit institutions. 

H.R. 476 also provides measures to improve cost control for aviation degrees offered by colleges and universities. These programs 

frequently involve a contracted flight school which may or may not 

be approved by a state approving agency. This section would limit 

Chapter 33 payments for flight programs at public institutions to 

the prevailing cap, presently just over $20,200. 

Finally, the bill mandates appropriate changes to the manner in 

which we perform compliance surveys. These changes in the law 

allow for a manageable mission in which VA, with the assistance 

of SAA partners, can conduct compliance surveys on a regularly 

scheduled basis at the majority of approved institutions while allowing for continued waiver of those institutions with a demonstrated record of compliance. These changes would allow for 

flexibility to adjust resources towards specific high-risk educational 

institutions as needs arise, allowing both VA and SAAs to be 

proactive to risks identified through the new complaint system, and 

would allow SAAs to provide needed technical assistance and training visits to schools. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
18 

Mr. Chairman, last year’s SAAs increased the number of compliance visits we conducted by 17 percent over the previous year and 

we conducted more than 50 percent of the visits accomplished. 

Mr. Chairman, I pledge to you that we will not fail in our critical 

mission and in our commitment to safeguard the public trust, to 

protect the GI Bill and to defend the future of those who have 

nobly defended us. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WESCOTT APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Dr. Wescott. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for questioning, but I 

want to thank you all for your testimonies and again for being here 

today. 

I would like to go back to what a couple of you did discuss, which 

is the idea of a waiver for the in-state tuition requirements. And 

I know that many of you were concerned that the VA, and most 

state governments, they wouldn’t be able to meet the July 1st, 2015 

deadline for implementation of that provision of the Choice Act. 

And so if each of you would just comment, and for some again, 

comment on if you believe that there is a date that needs to be 

pushed back, or will a combination of a waiver and states coming 

into compliance be enough. And if we do proceed with a waiver of 

the in-state tuition requirement, what should the VA require from 

the state or school in order to receive a waiver? 

So, Mr. Morosky, I would like to start with you, if I could. 

Mr. MOROSKY. Mr. Chairman, we were initially a little concerned 

about this when the bill was originally introduced. It would have 

given two years when it was eventually signed as a part of the 

VACA. There were only 11 months. 

Since that time, we have met with the National Association of 

Governors. We have met with the National Association of State 

Legislatures. We feel like there is a lot of buy-in all the way 

around. State legislatures are wanting to make this happen and we 

feel like most, if not many, will be able to meet the deadline. So 

in order to keep the momentum going, rather than delay for another full year, just allow the waiver processes in place to take 

place and keep the momentum going, as I said. 

Thank you. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Neiweem. 

Mr. NEIWEEM. I would just agree with our colleague from the 

VFW. I think that one of our strategies has been to focus at the 

state level to get the state legislatures to expedite it, to look at it 

quickly and to keep the pressure on. In some of our recent communication with members, we are still doing some field work to get 

some information of members this would impact. But we echo our 

colleague that state legislatures should prioritize it and try to fix 

it now. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, having been working on this with 

a couple of my colleagues at VFW and SVA for the last two and 

a half years, and SAAs, many states have had intent and already 

have passed legislation, with the hopes of—but of course, when I 

say passed legislation, most of them have granted waivers already. 

The only hiccup was, I want to say is, when we actually advocated 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
19 

to have the Federal Government pass the actual legislation, dependents and children was included into that piece of legislation, 

which kind of was not in line with what we had asked the states 

initially to have passed. So when we went to states and we testified, and I think in roughly about 32 states that have passed some 

form of legislation, each state had passed what we as organizations 

had asked them to pass. 

So this particular hiccup has kind of thrown a monkey wrench, 

because in a lot of the states now we are back to square one where 

some of them are adding now dependents and children to meet the 

criteria of what the Federal Government is asking of them. 

So we would say and our suggestion to that is, the states that 

already have passed have shown more than enough intent for the 

betterment of the service members, especially those who are 

transitioning into their respective states and going into those institutions of higher learning, definitely making sure that those individual states are provided waivers. And then states who are in the 

process of course, again, showing intent where they have legislation, have good momentum going within their respective states, 

that the VA really consider providing them a waiver. And then of 

course the states who have no intent whatsoever, then that is more 

where the conversation needs to happen with between, I would say, 

members of Congress who are from those particular states, are part 

of the congressional delegation, should go back and begin to have 

conversations. 

Like our VFW colleagues here, we have presented along with the 

Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs, to the 

National Conference of State Legislatures last year when they had 

their D.C. conference. So we have been very much engaged with 

them on multiple fronts to ensure that there is some compromise 

between all the stakeholders from the local, state and federal level. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Dr. Wescott. 

Dr. WESCOTT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We certainly appreciate the 

option of the extension, but we are relatively certain that with a 

fair and equitable waiver process, that will be worked out with the 

VA, that we can have our states either compliant or with a waiver 

in hand by July 1 or, the requirement of the bill as it is. I know 

we only have, like I said, seven at the present time. But we are 

committed that regardless of whether a state gets a waiver or not, 

we will continue to push for those states to come into compliance. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you all for your responses. I appreciate that. 

I now recognize the ranking member for any questions he may 

have. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will begin with Mr. Wescott. Mr. Wescott, you should know I 

have concerns about H.R. 476. Do you believe that the states 

should be able to have additional powers to regulate schools with 

the state authorizing agencies? 

Dr. WESCOTT. Certainly, Congressman Takano, I certainly do. 

I think that additional reasonable criteria, as I have said in my 

written testimony, is critical in allowing states to protect the veterans, and certainly I am a strong believer in state sovereignty. On 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
20 

the other hand, I do think we need to have awareness that we are 

administering a federal program. And it has always been our 

standard in NASAA that there would be one high standard for individuals that come to seek approval for their programs. 

Mr. TAKANO. So you don’t see this legislation as usurping the authority of the states to be able to regulate? I mean, I am concerned 

that my state of California, the state approving agency was able to 

catch a bad actor, and I am concerned that this bill would weaken 

California and other states’ ability to do that. 

Dr. WESCOTT. Well, our position is certainly we do not oppose 

this section. We are pleased that the requirement there is that the 

secretary will have to consult with the state approving agency before he would make a decision as to whether that provision would 

be fair and equitable. 

We also think that—we have always felt that there should be one 

standard as much as possible across all sectors of education in the 

state. We were never exactly wild about the deemed approved provisions, but we understood the reason for deeming approved accredited degree programs. 

So that would be our position on that provision. 

Mr. TAKANO. This is a question for any one of the panel who care 

to answer. Do you think it is important for the Guard and reservists to be able to accrue time toward their educational benefits 

while they are hospitalized due to war-related injuries? 

Mr. MOROSKY. Congressman, absolutely. When a service member 

gets deployed overseas and gets wounded, typically that should be 

considered active duty time. There is no reason why it shouldn’t. 

The time spent in recovery should be considered additional service 

to the country and that should be the same absolutely between active duty and reserve component members. 

Mr. NEIWEEM. We strongly support the bill, Ranking Member. 

And for example in my case, being deployed as a reservist, it would 

have applied to me had I been injured or something. The time for 

the benefit that I accrued, I had 40 percent of the maximum payable benefit, could have possibly been less. 

So we strongly support the legislation and thank you for introducing it. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Takano, we support it, but also what we need 

to take into consideration is that that individual was called up on 

Title 32 orders. So being under those orders and being on active 

duty, all benefits that are applicable to you as an active duty member should not be waived for the simple fact that you were harmed 

in some way during your time under those particular orders, which 

are federal orders, and while you are in service to your nation. So 

we totally support the legislation and ensuring that the individual 

has all benefits afforded to them while under those federal orders 

and, of course, in service to their country just like any other individual who is in active duty and in that capacity. 

Mr. TAKANO. Do—— 

Dr. WESCOTT. Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Yes. Go ahead, sir. 

Dr. WESCOTT. I would also say that the National Association of 

State Approving Agencies, though we did not speak to it in our 

written testimony, would be strongly supportive of this legislation 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
21 

as well. Certainly their service, and then the time that they spend 

for medical recovery, should all be considered toward eligibility for 

the GI Bill. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you for that. And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield 

back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Takano. 

Ms. Radewagen, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Takano for holding this hearing today to review important legislation that will affect our veterans. I want to thank the panel as 

well. 

I also want to thank my colleague on the other side, Representative Rice, for asking me to join her as an original cosponsor on her 

bill H.R. 1382, Boosting Rates of American Veteran Employment 

Act or BRAVE. 

This cost-neutral measure would allow the secretary of the VA 

to give preference to companies that have high concentrations of 

veteran employees when awarding VA contracts. Currently, the VA 

gives preference for these contracts to veteran-owned small businesses, but not to businesses that actively employ veterans. The 

BRAVE act would allow the VA to consider the percentage of veterans employed by a prospective contractor when awarding federal 

contracts. The fact that this isn’t already a stipulation for the VA 

to consider when awarding contracts is shocking, to say the least. 

So I fully encourage my colleagues to join Representative Rice 

and my fellow cosponsors on this commonsense legislation that will 

further the committee’s goal of ensuring that our veterans have 

every opportunity to be gainfully employed following their service 

to our nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question for Dr. Wescott. Can you please give us a little 

bit of information on what you believe should be the appropriate 

number of compliance visits completed in one year? And in your estimation, are these compliance visits necessary or are they 

unneeded exercises in paperwork shuffling? 

Dr. WESCOTT. I very much appreciate that question and the opportunity to respond to it. 

Certainly one of what we have suggested in this legislation, or 

in the chairman’s bill, is that for those who enroll at least 20 veterans that they receive a compliance visit every other year. But at 

the same time we would suggest that those schools that have a 

demonstrated record of compliance be allowed to be granted a waiver. Because I certainly believe that when you have schools that 

have demonstrated year after year that they are compliant, even 

though they would fall within the category of those that we would 

say would possibly get a compliance every two years, it is paper 

shuffling just to visit those schools. 

If we could reduce the number of overall compliance visits, but 

allow state approving agencies to step up and make supervisory 

and technical assistance visits to help schools, then we can on the 

front end prevent problems that might occur and then become apparent during a compliance survey. We are strong believers in preventative medicine, if you will, in this area and we think our veterans deserve no less. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
22 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Ms. Radewagen. Mr. McNerney, you 

are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really proud to 

have introduced H.R. 1313, the Service to Disabled Veterans 

Owned Small Business Relief Act, which allows spouses to retain 

the status for three years. Mr. Morosky, do you have any idea how 

many families that might benefit over the course of a year, or what 

proportion of businesses that might help? 

Mr. MOROSKY. No, I do not know, Congressman, but I would be 

happy to take that for the record and get back to you on that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. I would appreciate that. In your testimony, you stated that the Service to Disabled Veteran Owned and 

Small Business Relief Act only covers Section 38 of the U.S. Code 

and that the contract is with the VA. So it only applies to contracts 

with the VA. Why do you think that the transfer of the SDVOSB 

status should apply across the entire federal government, not just 

the VA, and how would we go about doing that? 

Mr. MOROSKY. Any veteran-owned small business, any veteran 

who receives preference for contracting as a result of their status, 

could fall into the same category that you are describing. You 

know, imagine the situation. You have got a veteran-owned small 

business, and one day something terrible happens. The surviving 

spouse needs time to be able to restructure the business accordingly. You know, we would be supportive, and we would, you know, 

like to work with you on extending that protection further. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Neiweem. Sorry. Do you think 

the federal government should be able to say whether a state like 

California can regulate for-profit schools? Now, Mr.—I am following 

up with a question of Mr. Takano. He asked that question about 

schools in general. What about for-profit schools? 

Mr. NEIWEEM. So we do not oppose the section that was described, and we certainly support the intent of what is happening 

here. You know, IAV has long raised flags among some for-profit 

colleges that have aggressively recruited student veterans. And we 

also support closing the 9010 loophole to remove the oftentimes target on the backs of service members. 

But we do feel in this instance—you know, we do not oppose it— 

having standards across the board and if those institutions, you 

know, do not perform to standard, that students will stop going to 

them. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is there a special risk with for-profit schools? 

Mr. NEIWEEM. I think currently across the board in the veteran 

community we are still looking at statistics and trying to get better 

outcome data to be able to quantify these things. But, anecdotally, 

there is numerous stories of students that have gone to for-profit 

colleges that have had poor experiences and—or been able to secure 

work afterwards. So we are still looking at more data, but, you 

know, one thing I would say, and it is not the jurisdiction of this 

committee specifically, is to close the—have Congress close the 

9010 loophole. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. One other question. You mentioned you supported H.R. 473, the Accountability Act, but that was introduced in 

January 22nd. You support it conditionally based on further analVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:27 May 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-629.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
23 

ysis. Do you—when do you believe that you will have a complete 

response on that? 

Mr. NEIWEEM. Yes, sir, thank you for the question. We currently 

have no position until we can do further study on the variety of the 

sections. We are relying on more of information from our membership. But I will say, we support a lot of the intent. 

And a reading through VA’s testimony today, some of the content 

in there is kind of troubling how strongly they push back. I mean, 

they—you know, the testimony says that they believe that, you 

know, it could dissuade, you know, highly talented SES employees 

from going to VA, because they could be facing, you know, punitive 

action. 

They also talk about the SES rating scale as problematic, because it would prevent certain, you know, good grades, so to speak, 

with the SESes. 

Well, many of our members have been responding that they are 

frustrated, that is happening right now, that great, you know, ratings are being given and they are not seeing that. So, you know, 

this—we cannot forget where we were at last summer. And a lot 

of veterans are out there that are still very frustrated that that 

could happen. 

And so this is a measure that is trying to change the way things 

occurred, and so we would look forward to more conversations with 

VA to make sure we can have some accountability and not, you 

know, push back so strongly when a measure comes to correct that 

sort of behavior that we saw last summer that we know now existed. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you. Ms. Rice, you are recognized now for 

five minutes. 

Ms. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I am going to be 

bold and say that I speak for everyone on this panel in saying that 

I think one of the greatest national disgraces we have in this country right now is that we have such a high number of homeless and 

jobless veterans. There—the number one is too high. 

Now, Congressman Zeldin and I have some of the most expensive 

real estate in our congressional districts—New York State, obviously, everyone knows it is impossible. And I have actually heard 

some horror stories just in terms of the difficulty in, specifically, in 

purchasing co-ops, just because of the legal parameters that actually—that co-ops represent. 

And this is just to everyone on this panel, because I think this 

is a critical issue. I mean, how—I mean, I hope—I think everyone 

supports Congressman Zeldin’s bill, but any other ways, any other 

stories that you have heard in terms of difficulties, not just in your 

state, but across the country, that might be able to inform ways 

that we can be better in this field? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Ms. Rice, I know currently—I definitely will take 

that for the record, but just to also inform the Committee, currently my colleague, Mark Walker, who actually oversees all our 

homeless policy legislative initiatives for The American Legion, is 

currently right now in Los Angeles. He was flown out there yesterday morning. We are currently launching at one of our Legion 

posts in Los Angeles, what is called The Veterans Benefit Center. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
24 

Ms. RICE. Say it again. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. The Veterans Benefit Center. So we have right 

now, as of currently, have already seen about 357 veterans to help 

them adjudicate their process. But also the reason we flew him out 

there yesterday was so he can put up a homeless veterans, pretty 

much, task force. And bringing in all the stakeholders within Los 

Angeles and also, of course, within the State of California to ensure 

everything from HUD service providers, community service providers, all the key stakeholders that are involved in that particular 

holistic approach, and helping the reintegration process. 

So, unfortunately, I cannot answer that, but I can definitely take 

it for the record, so when he does fly back in on Friday, I can 

present this to him and I am sure that he can give you a very big 

comprehensive, I guess, answer to your question, of course. Not 

just in Los Angeles, but he has been—we have been flying him 

around across the country in addressing these issues. And as we 

do these programs, he is there putting together everyone in the 

local communities and ensuring that we can have the holistic approach and, of course, within the reintegration process. 

Ms. RICE. Well, I would love to—and as I am sure everyone on 

the Committee would love to see the results, because it would be 

great to, if they have success where they are setting these up, to 

be able to export that everywhere else. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. RICE. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. If there are no further questions for our panel, 

you are now excused. And I want to thank you all very much for 

your testimonies today. I believe it has been very helpful to hear 

from each and every one of you, and I appreciate it. 

I want to now recognize our final panel of witnesses today. First, 

I want to welcome back General Robert Worley, the Director of the 

Education Service at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and he 

is accompanied by Mr. Tom Leney, Executive Director of the Small 

and Veterans Business Programs at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Ms. Kimberly McLeod, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; and Mr. John 

Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel at the U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs. We also have with us Ms. Terry Gerton, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Veterans Employment and Training 

Service at the Department of Labor. 

Thank you all for being here today. General Worley, let’s begin 

with you. Welcome, and you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT WORLEY, ACCOMPANIED BY: MR. 

TOM LENEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF VA SMALL AND VETERAN BUSINESS PROGRAMS, MS. KIMBERLY MCLEOD AND 

MR. JOHN BRIZZI OF VA’S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT WORLEY 

Mr. WORLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and other members of 

the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss legislation pertaining to the Department of VetVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:27 May 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-629.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
25 

erans Affairs programs. I am accompanied today by Mr. Tom 

Leney, Executive Director of VA Small and Veteran Business Programs and Ms. Kimberly McLeod and Mr. John Brizzi of VA’s Office of General Counsel. 

One of the bills on the agenda today affects programs or laws administered by the Department of Labor. Accordingly, we respectfully defer to the Department of Labor regarding H.R. 474. 

H.R. 456 would allow an individual entitled to educational assistance under Chapter 33 to receive payment for the application fee 

to apply to an approved program of education at an institution of 

higher learning. We recommend H.R. 456 be effective one year 

from enactment. The VA would need to make modifications to the 

Benefits Delivery Network and the Long-Term Solution to implement this legislation. 

H.R. 473 would amend Chapter 7 of Title 38 by adding new sections 715, 717, and 719. VA has numerous legal concerns about 

Section 715. Several of the VA’s concerns are shared by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. VA also has policy concerns about the implementation of Section 715, Section 717, and 719. 

Section 2 of H.R. 475 would require VA to make changes and improvements to the Veterans Benefits Administration information 

technology systems and submit a report to Congress on the changes 

made no later than 180 days after enactment. The VA supports 

Section 2. However, we would require at least 24 months from the 

date of enactment to report on the IT changes. VA IT costs are estimated to be $30 million, which matches the amount the committee 

has proposed to authorize for VA. 

VA has concerns about the provisions in Section 3. Section 3A 

would allow an additional year for state legislators to enact laws 

and public educational institutions to make changes in policy in 

implementing Section 702 of The Choice Act. 

The changes in Section 3B would require additional corresponding changes to states’ statutory or policy provisions governing tuition and fee charges at public IHLs. As such, VA recommends Section 3B be effective for any quarter, semester, or term 

as applicable that begins one year from the date of enactment, or 

July 1st, 2016, whichever is later. The Department is still working 

through the costs associated with this provision. 

VA also has concerns with Subsection H of H.R. 475. We recommend specific criteria for a benefit election be added to this legislation in order to eliminate subjectivity. While VA supports Section 5 and the intent of Section 6, we do not support providing the 

amount of an educational assistance to which a Veteran is entitled 

through an internet Web site. 

VA supports the provisions of H.R. 476 that would clarify approval requirements, limit the amount of tuition and fee payments 

for enrollment in flight programs, and improve the compliance survey process. However, VA does not believe that we should be interjected into the states’ additional approval requirements for non-accredited courses. 

VA supports the intent behind H.R. 643, the Veterans Education 

Survey Act of 2015. However, the Benefits Assistance Service proVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:27 May 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-629.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
26 

gram office in VA is currently administering a similar survey with 

the help of J.D. Power & Associates. 

H.R. 1038 would amend Chapter 7 of Title 38 by adding Section 

714 to require VA to retain a copy of any reprimand or admonishment received by an employee of VA in the employee’s permanent 

record as long as the employee is employed by the Department. VA 

does not support H.R. 1038. 

H.R. 1141 would amend the term ‘‘active duty’’ under Chapter 33 

of Title 38 to include certain time spent receiving medical care 

from the Department of Defense as qualifying active duty service 

performed by members of the Reserve and National Guard. 

VA defers to DoD regarding the change to qualifying active duty 

service under the post-9/11 GI Bill. The Department is still evaluating the benefit and IT costs associated with this legislation. 

VA does not oppose the provisions in H.R. 1187, H.R. 1313, and 

the draft legislation that would amend VA’s procurement authorities to allow a preference for offerers that employ Veterans as determined by VA. VA would be pleased to work with a staff to provide technical assistance as requested. 

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

opportunity to appear before you today, and we would be happy to 

respond to your questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT WORLEY APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you, General. And, Ms. McLeod, I 

apologize for mispronouncing your name earlier. But at this time, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Gerton, you are now recognized for five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TERESA GERTON 

Ms. GERTON. Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking 

Member Takano, and distinguished Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to participate in today’s legislative hearing. As the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Veterans Employment 

and Training Service at the Department of Labor, I appreciate the 

opportunity to discuss legislation to re-authorize the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, or HVRP. 

VETS administers HVRP to help homeless veterans re-enter the 

labor force. The Agency provides grants to both public and private 

entities to provide the services necessary to assist in reintegrating 

homeless veterans into meaningful employment. HVRP operates on 

the principle that when homeless veterans attain meaningful and 

sustainable employment, they are on a path to self-sufficiency, and 

their vulnerability to homelessness is diminished. 

Each HVRP participant receives customized services to address 

his or her specific barriers to employment. Services may include, 

but are not limited to, occupational, classroom and on-the-job training, as well as job search, placement assistance, and post-placement follow-up services. 

Grantees under this program are competitively selected for a 

one-year award. If additional funding is appropriated, VETS may 

consider awarding an additional option year for up to two successive years to eligible grantees. Grantees must be in compliance 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
27 

with the terms of their grant. And DoL does not guarantee optionyear funding for any grantee. 

The program succeeds not only because of the hard work and 

local connections of our grantees, but also because of the collaborative efforts of our government partners at the federal and state 

levels. These efforts help ensure that homeless veterans receive a 

robust, comprehensive network of support. 

H.R. 474, The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program’s Reauthorization Act of 2015, would extend HVRP’s authorization to 

2020. The current authorization is set to expire at the end of fiscal 

year 2015. The Department supports the five-year extension to the 

HVRP authorization. HVRP is one of the few nationwide federal 

programs focusing exclusively on helping homeless veterans to reintegrate into the workforce. 

The Bill would also expand the eligibility for services under 

HVRP to include not only homeless veterans but also veterans participating in VA-supported housing programs for which certain 

rental assistance is provided and veterans who are transitioning 

from being incarcerated. 

Under current legislative authority, veterans who participate in 

the HUD–VASH program are ineligible for HVRP, because they are 

not technically homeless. VETS believe housing programs, such as 

HUD–VASH, are critical to the rehabilitation and success of homeless veterans, because the availability of housing and health services improves their job readiness and employability. 

Finally, under H.R. 474, veterans who are transitioning from incarceration would also be eligible for HVRP services. For veterans, 

having an arrest record is a major barrier to employment, and can 

lead to homelessness. VETS believes that it is critical to begin delivering employment support to incarcerated veterans prior to their 

release in order to better prepare them to secure civilian employment. While VETS support the goals of this legislation, these 

changes could mean a substantial increase in the eligible population. To accommodate these changes within existing funds, VETS 

would need to establish service priorities to reach those with the 

greatest needs and avoid duplication. VETS look forward to working with Congress to ensure that the goals of the Bill are met. 

We at the Department of Labor remain committed to the Administration’s goals of ending veteran homelessness, and we look forward to working with this subcommittee to ensure the continued 

success of our efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERESA GERTON APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you, Ms. Gerton, for your remarks, 

and I will now yield myself five minutes for questions. I am going 

to go right to you General Worley. As a manager, do you think it 

would be instructive for you to be able to review an employee’s file 

and see what type of disciplinary issues they have had over their 

time with the Department? 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
28 

Mr. WORLEY. Mr. Chairman, as a manager, I would—with respect if you are speaking specifically to admonishments and reprimands, which I assume you are—we look at those as tools. They 

are at the lower end of the disciplinary spectrum. We see those as 

tools to help rehabilitate an employee to take care of an activity or 

a mistake or some kind of behavior. Once that is completed, of 

course, the goal is that we have a fully productive employee that 

does not have any further problems in that regard. 

So from the perspective of keeping that in their record permanently, it becomes much more of a punishment rather than a rehabilitative tool. We see admonishments and the reprimands as being 

in that category. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Of course, if rehabilitation was part of the record 

as well, you would have an understanding of that and, you know, 

where they have come from and that seems to me that would be 

fair enough in many situations, at least if I was the manager, that 

would be my aspiration, is to be able to know all sides of the person I am working with. 

But another question too, as I understand the VA has some procedural issues with the pension rescission and provision of H.R. 

473. Don’t you think the average American would agree that if you 

are convicted of a felony, not just a crime related to your job performance, that the government should not necessarily be providing 

you a lifetime annuity for that period of service? 

And do you think that the current standard of requiring that a 

senior executive be convicted of treason or supporting terrorism is 

really the standard that we should be employing? That, to me, 

seems to be a pretty high bar. 

Mr. WORLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could defer that question to Ms. 

McLeod to speak for the Department. 

Ms. MCLEOD. I do think that the standard of treason is a different standard, and you cannot really compare that to an employee who may have been convicted of a felony. 

It is difficult in a hypothetical situation to know what type of felony that employee would be convicted of, so that, you know, recouping a portion of their pension would be a reasonable sort of response to that conviction. I think what makes the legislation difficult are the practical application, or the practical application of 

the legislation to include—there would be some responsibility 

placed on other agencies to both notify the VA. 

OPM is the one that hands out annuities to employees. They 

would have to be the ones to determine the percentage of that annuity that that employee received during that time when that conviction affected or—yeah, it affected their performance. VA would 

need to receive that notice from either federal or state law enforcement bodies. We would then have to review the record of those convictions to determine what time period their conviction affected 

their performance, in order to report that to OPM to take back 

those annuities. There are also constitutional issues that are at 

work here that we share with Justice and OPM in terms of applying that legislation to senior executives. 

So there are some, you know, both legal and practical and policy 

issues with carrying out that legislation. Of course, we understand 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
29 

the intent. We just think that enforcing that intent through applying it would be very, very difficult for the VA. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, I appreciate your response. It just seems to 

me if you are convicted of a felony relating to your job performance 

then you should not be subsequently rewarded. With that, I yield 

back my time, and I recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Worley, I want 

to ask a question related to H.R. 476 and the provision that requires VA approval of additional state criteria. Do you believe that 

this provision is necessary? And what I am getting at is, are states 

now abusing the current law and are they applying different criteria to different types of schools? 

Mr. WORLEY. Thank you, Ranking Member Takano. First, I 

would like to point out VA very much respects the authority of the 

State Approving Agencies and the job they do in approvals, as well 

as suspensions and withdrawals. We have, of course, a very vested 

interest in that work. We monitor it, and we review it. It is in statute and the regulations that they have the authority to add criteria 

in their approval process that might be tailored to their state. 

By our calculation, and we are still looking at this, about a third 

of the states have additional criteria that they use. Most of it is administrative in nature. They might have additional criteria for attendance or they might have additional criteria to comply with additional state standards for higher education. None of these have 

posed any issues from VA’s perspective so far. 

So while we very much support the idea in this Bill that standards be applied equitably, we do not see at the present time, the 

need for VA to be in the middle of that process. 

Mr. TAKANO. So, I mean, we—so you have not seen—I mean, 

there is not really a problem being posed to change the law to require that—to impose the additional requirement that the VA approve any additional state criteria that you believe that the current 

law with regard to state approving agencies is adequate, there is 

no problem with it? 

Mr. WORLEY. We have not seen any widespread problems to date, 

Congressman Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. I am—I just do not understand why there is a reason to change the current law. I am not seeing it justified. I am 

somewhat comfortable with equitable application, but if states—I 

mean, I think it would pose an additional layer of federal review 

if states were to be subject to, you know, some sort of an appeal 

of the criteria they set. 

I want to switch gears here a little bit. I just want to ask Ms. 

Gerton, Assistant Secretary Gerton, what does the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program do to help veterans obtain funds to 

cover their food and shelter costs as they await their first paycheck? 

Ms. GERTON. Thank you, Congressman Takano. We recognize 

that that is often a real challenge, as most employers pay in arrears. We do several things to work with our grantees to make sure 

that they are able to provide intermediary support to veterans who 

are participating in the HVRP program. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
30 

The first is that we actually provide them technical assistance to 

understand all the variety of programs that they could take advantage of. We make sure in both their grant application and then in 

practice that they are well connected into the community services 

network in their local communities. And, particularly, that they are 

aware of other grantees who may be receiving the VA grants for 

SSVF programs, and that they are aware of Department of Transportation’s supported transportation mechanisms to help veterans 

get to and from. 

We try to make sure that they are aware of all of the community 

resources that can be brought to bear to help veterans get through 

that transition period from when they successfully obtain employment through the Program to when they actually get their first 

paycheck and can pay those intermediary bills. 

Mr. TAKANO. Wonderful. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 

my time. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Ms. Rice, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Worley, I have a question for you with respect to H.R. 1382. I think that—correct me if 

I am wrong—but you made the suggestion that we should include 

a provision that if someone contracting with the federal government voluntarily came forward and said that they miscalculated 

the number of veterans so that they did not—there is a, however 

unintentional, false statement about that, that they should not be 

subject to being debarred from any future federal contracts. Is 

that—can you explain your position on that? 

Mr. WORLEY. May I defer to Mr. Leney on that—— 

Ms. RICE. Oh, sure. 

Mr. WORLEY. Question. 

Ms. RICE. Yes. 

Mr. WORLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. LENEY. Thank you. Congressman Rice, with respect to that 

section of the draft Bill, what we recommended there be an allowance for mitigating the debarment if somebody who recognizes they 

have made an error and had misrepresented and comes forward 

and admits it, because we think that will promote people doing so, 

as opposed to when they recognize they have made an error, if 

there is no mitigation for reporting it, we think their incentive will 

be to hide it. 

Ms. RICE. Well, so maybe this is my prosecutorial background, 

but what that, to me, what that is doing is giving license to people 

to make an intentional false statement up front and knowing that 

they can voluntarily at some later time come forward and say, 

‘‘Oops, we made a mistake, and we don’t want to be debarred.’’ 

Maybe I am not—maybe I am too cynical. Do you understand what 

I am saying? 

Mr. LENEY. Yes. I think the issue is timing. If we discover it, and 

then they admit it, that is different than somebody who comes forward and self reports. Federal acquisition regulations currently 

allow for self-reporting as a mitigating factor in debarment. And 

what we would suggest is we have consistent rules across the, you 

know, acquisition spectrum. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
31 

Ms. RICE. I appreciate that input. I think it becomes—I think it 

is less relevant when you look at how specific the requirements are. 

I do not think that there is—we are building in a lot of room for 

making mistakes or misstatements that can be later corrected, selfcorrected, or discovered by the VA. 

I think there—one of the issues with the VA is that we do not 

have enough built-in accountability. And I think that Secretary 

McDonald is going a long way to address the issues of a lack of accountability, whether it is, you know, the VA being in the business 

of building hospitals and not being accountable for $800 million 

and coming and asking for another $1 billion. I mean, you have to 

have accountability. And I think that you are begging the question. 

You are encouraging people to make a misstatement rather than 

people to come forward when they realize a mistake has been 

made. 

So I could be jaded. But that is the way I see it. I appreciate your 

input, and I do look forward to working with you outside of this 

context on this Bill. Thank you. 

Mr. LENEY. We look forward to that as well. 

Ms. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you. If there are no further questions, the Panel is now excused. And if there are no further questions, I want to thank everyone here today for taking time to come 

and share your views on these 11 bills. It is very important to the 

legislative process, and we appreciate your insight and feedback 

very much. 

I would also like to announce that the subcommittee will be holding a markup on some or all of these bills on April 16th. 

Now, I ask unanimous consent that the following organizations 

be allowed to submit testimony for the record. U.S. Department of 

Defense, School Advocates for Veterans Education and Success, 

Paralyzed Veterans of America, Easter Seals Incorporated, and the 

National Association of Veterans Programs Administrators. Without objection, so ordered. 

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on any of the bills under consideration this afternoon. Without objection, so ordered. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

MARK TAKANO, RANKING MEMBER 

Today we are examining 11 bills, 5 of which directly relate to veterans’ education 

benefits. 

As a former educator, I enjoy my time on this Subcommittee because we all share 

an understanding of how education helps veterans successfully transition into civilian life. I believe that the majority of these bills move us toward this subcommittee’s 

purpose: increasing economic opportunity for our nation’s Veterans. 

The GI Bill Fairness Act, which I introduced, would close a gap faced by our National Guardsmen and Reservists who have been called, and then recalled to war 

throughout operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was shocked when I first heard 

that brave men and women with combat injuries who are receiving medical treatment on active-duty military orders are not allowed to count their recovery time towards earning education benefits. This is a no brainier, a cost of war, let’s do right 

by these injured servicemembers and give them the benefits they need and deserve. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
32 

I am happy to hear that the Department of Defense agrees: this is the right thing 

to do. 

I also want to recognize several of my colleagues’ bills. Ms. Rice has introduced 

her first bill as a Representative, the BRAVE Act, which requires VA to consider 

the number of veteran employees a contractor has before giving them new work 

with the VA. I am confident her legislation will result in an increase in the number 

of jobs available to veterans and I applaud her efforts in getting right to work for 

veterans on Capitol Hill. Mr. McNerney’s bill, the Service Disabled Veteran Owned 

Small Business Relief Act, allows surviving spouses to retain their deceased spouses 

preferred status of their businesses for three years. And Mr. Murphy’s bill, the Reducing Barriers for Veterans Education Act, will help veterans pay for their college 

application fees. I strongly support all of these pieces of legislation. 

I generally agree with the legislation being offered for scrutiny today, but there 

is one provision in H.R. 476, the GI Bill Education Quality Enhancement Act, that 

infringes on States’ rights to govern their educational institutions. I fear that this 

provision will have serious negative impacts on our veterans. 

Director Worley and I agree, States should retain the right to implement additional standards for schools that educate and train our veterans as they see fit, as 

is the case under current law. In fact, I believe it was through these additional 

standards that the California Department of Veterans Affairs was able to suspend 

and ultimately withdraw approval for Corinthians Colleges, Inc., a company that 

was shut down after the Department of Education found widespread abusive and 

deceptive practices. 

I am concerned that the provision in H.R. 476 would hinder our states’ ability to 

protect veterans from predatory schools, particularly those that take veterans, 

money for the benefit of their shareholders and leave our heroes with unsustainable 

debt and worthless degrees. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill is otherwise important for veterans and tax payers but 

on behalf of California Veterans, I ask you to reconsider this provision. 

I yield back. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
33 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 98629.001
34 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 98629.002
35 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 98629.003
36 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 98629.004
37 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 98629.005
38 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 98629.006
39 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 98629.007
40 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 98629.008
41 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 98629.009
42 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 98629.010
43 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 98629.011
44 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 98629.012
45 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 98629.013
46 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 98629.014
47 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 98629.015
48 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 98629.016
49 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 98629.017
50 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 98629.018
51 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 98629.019
52 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 98629.020
53 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 98629.021
54 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 98629.022
55 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 98629.023
56 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 98629.024
57 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 98629.025
58 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 98629.026
59 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 98629.027
60 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 98629.028
61 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 98629.029
62 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 98629.030
63 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 98629.031
64 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 98629.032
65 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 98629.033
66 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 98629.034
67 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 98629.035
68 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 98629.036
69 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 98629.037
70 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 98629.038
71 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 98629.039
72 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 98629.040
73 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 98629.041
74 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 98629.042
75 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 98629.043
76 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 98629.044
77 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 98629.045
78 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 98629.046
79 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 98629.047
80 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 98629.048
81 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 98629.049
82 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 98629.050
83 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 98629.051
84 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 98629.052
85 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 98629.053
86 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 98629.054
87 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 98629.055
88 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 98629.056
89 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 98629.057
90 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 98629.058
91 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 98629.059
92 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 98629.060
93 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 98629.061
94 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 98629.062
95 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 98629.063
96 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 98629.064
97 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 98629.065
98 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 98629.066
99 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 98629.067
100 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 98629.068
101 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 98629.069
102 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 98629.070
103 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 98629.071
104 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 98629.072
105 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

The Department of Defense (DoD) appreciates the opportunity to discuss potential 

improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill as proposed in H.R. 1141. Post service education benefits have been a cornerstone of our military recruiting efforts since 1985, 

and a major contributor to the continued success of the All-Volunteer Force. Money 

for education has been and remains at the forefront of reasons cited by young Americans for joining the military. We fully expect the Post-9/11 GI Bill to continue to 

have this impact and we are seeing that happen in the form of unprecedented recruiting success. 

For today’s hearing, the subcommittee requested that DoD comment on H.R. 1141, 

the ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015.’’ This Bill would consider active duty performed 

under the authority of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12301(h) as qualifying active duty 

for the purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits. Reserve component members wounded in combat are often given orders to active duty under this provision 

to receive authorized medical care; to be medically evaluated for disability; or to 

complete a required healthcare study. However, section 3301(1)(B), of title 38, U.S. 

Code, does not include active duty performed under 12301(h) as qualifying active 

duty for purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance. 

Currently, when a member of the Reserve Component on active duty sustains an 

injury due to combat operations, the Service member is not discharged and instead 

returns to service—either deployed or Selected Reserve; none of the time spent in 

recovery is qualifying time for purposes of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In this case, the 

Service member would return to Selected Reserve status with less qualifying time 

than those who served an entire period of active duty without an intervening injury. 

As a result, the Service member would not receive an educational benefit equivalent 

to the other members of his or her cohort. In effect, the Service member is being 

penalized for being wounded or injured in theater. This legislation would correct 

this inequity by simply extending eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill to service 

under 12301(h). 

DoD recognizes the inequity of not including this active duty time for purposes 

of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and has included a provision similar to this Bill in our 

FY16 legislative proposal package. However, although the DoD proposal would include only active duty performed after enactment, H.R. 1141 would be retroactive, 

categorizing all duty performed under 12301(h) since September 11, 2001, as qualifying active duty for purposes of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We estimate that approximately 5,000 Reserve Component members performed active duty under 12301(h) 

each year since September 11, 2001. Accordingly, we believe that H.R. 1141 would 

generate an additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Given that both 

the funding and administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill fall under the purview of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs, we would defer to that agency to determine the 

costs and effects of the Bill on their Department. DoD does not object to this section, 

provided Congress identifies appropriate and acceptable offsets for the additional 

benefits costs. DoD has always supported equivalent benefits for equivalent service 

and this change would meet that goal. 

f 

SAVES 

Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano and distinguished members of the 

Economic Subcommittee, on behalf of the national association of School Advocates 

for Veterans’ Education and Success, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 

bills that may directly affect the success of our student veterans and the operation 

of Veterans’ Centers on our school campuses. 

School Advocates for Veterans’ Education and Success is a national, non-profit association whose members are college and university Veterans’ Program and Service 

Managers. Our mission is to bring a consolidated voice to the issues that affect veterans’ education and success by creating a strong network of partners to provide 

communication, advocacy, and support for educational and training institutions. Our 

perspective comes from all sectors: public, not-for profit and for-profit private colleges and universities. 

H.R. 456 Reducing Barriers for Veterans Education Act of 2015 

H.R. 456 proposes to amend title 38, United States Code, to include college application fees as part of the benefits under Post 9/11 GI Bill Education Assistance Program. The admissions application fees for colleges can create a barrier for recently 

separated veterans who are balancing the transition process of supporting families, 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
106 

moving, and reintegrating into the labor force or simply waiting to be accepted to 

their school(s) of choice. 

H.R. 456 allows payment up to $750 for application fees that will be charged 

against entitlement according to Title 38, Section 3315A, National Tests. This section addresses the dollar amount that equates to a month of entitlement: 

‘‘(c) Charge Against Entitlement.—The number of months of entitlement 

charged an individual under this chapter for a test described in subsection (a) 

shall be determined at the rate of one month (rounded to the nearest whole 

month) for each amount paid that equals—— 

(1) for the academic year beginning on August 1, 2011, $1,460; or 

(2) for an academic year beginning on any subsequent August 1, the amount for 

the previous academic year beginning on August 1 under this subsection, as increased by the percentage increase equal to the most recent percentage increase determined under section 3015(h).’’ 

SAVES supports the portion of H.R. 456 that allows payment of Application fees 

to institutions under the Post 9/11 GI Bill however, we recommend amending Title 

38, USC, under section 3313 which includes the payment of all mandatory fees for 

student veterans and dependents using transferred benefits. 

Section 3313 addresses the fees as follows: 

‘‘(a) Payment.—The Secretary shall pay to each individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter who is pursuing an approved program of 

education (other than a program covered by subsections (e) and (f)) the amounts 

specified in subsection (c) to meet the expenses of such individual’s subsistence, 

tuition, fees, and other educational costs for pursuit of such program of education.’’ 

Completing a Bachelor’s degree in 36 months is very difficult for many student 

veterans. Indeed, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, ‘‘the 

median time to earn a degree was 55 months for 2008 bachelor’s degree recipients 

graduating from public institutions, 45 months for graduates of private nonprofit institutions, and 103 months for graduates of private for-profit institutions’’ (http:// 

nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=569). According to the Principles of Excellence, 

Veterans Program and Services Managers and their staff spend many hours assisting student veterans with budgeting and financial matters to plan for the costs of 

their programs. Subtracting entitlement for their application fees is a tough beginning to their college careers. 

H.R. 643 Veterans Education Survey Act of 2015 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into a contract with a nongovernment entity to conduct a survey of individuals who have used or are using 

their entitlement to educational assistance under the educational assistance programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

Many Institutions of Higher Learning have dedicated departments that are adept 

at defining data points, collecting data and measuring outcomes. According to the 

Executive Order 13607, establishing the Principles of Excellence ‘‘The Secretaries of 

Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Education shall develop a comprehensive strategy for 

developing service member and veteran student outcome measures that are comparable, to the maximum extent practicable, across Federal military and veterans 

educational benefit programs, including, but not limited to, the Post-9/11 GI Bill and 

the Tuition Assistance Program’’ [Sec. 3. (c)]. To fairly compare institutions, we 

must be asking the same questions to ensure standardized data points, which must 

be clearly articulated to our institutions and their Institutional Research departments. A few institutions can’t be using the metric system while the rest are using 

yardsticks, and a yardstick is not a very efficient way to measure a mile. As institutions, we’re good at measuring outcomes so, to the extent practicable, the student 

outcome measures should rely on existing administrative data. This will minimize 

the reporting burden on institutions participating in these benefit programs. Student outcome measures should permit comparisons across federal educational programs and across institutions and types of institutions. To do so, it is time to establish a common set of standards and a common measuring device that allows point 

in time comparisons and trends. 

Given the importance of data to inform and support evidence based decisions, 

SAVES supports H.R. 643 directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into 

a contract with a non-government entity to conduct a survey of individuals who 

have used or are using their entitlement to educational assistance and conduct a 

survey of Institutions of Higher Learning whose programs are approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs for educational assistance. 

H.R. 476 GI Bill Education Quality Enhancement Act of 2015 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
107 

The State Approving Agencies (SAAs) play a critical role in the approval process 

for veterans’ education and training. SAVES believes that the role of the SAAs 

should be brought into the 21st century by providing a clear structure that emphasizes training and consistent guidelines. State Approving Agencies are in a position 

to provide optimal support for institutions of higher learning by providing timely, 

consistent and clear summaries of VA policies, guidelines, and best practices. SAAs 

should provide approval oversight in cases where no other federal agency already 

has oversight. SAAs should also provide on-the-ground training and assistance for 

schools, respond to inquiries and questions, and clarify VA guidance to ensure accurate and appropriate application by schools. Training must be a priority. The support SAAs provide Non-College Degree (NCD) programs and apprenticeship programs would be invaluable. 

The formal definition of ‘‘deemed approved’’ as stated in PL 111–377 remains unclear. We would recommend clear procedural guidance for those programs that still 

require specific approval. We support the continued approvals of NCD programs, apprenticeships, and new institution or campuses. For those Institutions of Higher 

Learning that have already been evaluated and approved by accrediting agencies 

and/or federal and state agencies, no additional action on the part of the SAA should 

be required. This will save time and money to build a stronger training process for 

programs and educational facilities. NCD programs at Institutions of Higher Learning and certificate programs that are not vocational in nature should follow degree 

program approvals for those institutions. In all cases we support the Secretary’s authority to approve/disapprove programs, and in no case should the Secretary’s authority be omitted from the approval process or to the administration of federal veteran’s education programs. 

We support the expansion in scope of SAAs to provide training and to collaborate 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide thorough guidance for all educational institutions/facilities. We recommend a best practice that focuses on consistent policies and implementation among and between states as should be the 

processing among and between RPOs. 

We believe that combining compliance with training constitutes a conflict of interest. The process of Compliance Surveys can be daunting and confusing. Effective 

and consistent training and a clear process will help institutions maintain compliance with the rules governing the administration of these programs. The VA needs 

more staff to adequately conduct compliance surveys; however, it should continue 

to be the VA’s responsibility. It would be beneficial for all partners to have written 

official guidance on all changes included in PL 111–377. The lack of regulatory guidance means schools have no official source document for the administration of education and training programs. At a minimum, schools must know the rules governing the administration of these programs. What’s more, the rules must be consistent nationwide. We offer that high-volume schools with a solid track record of 

successful compliance visits do not require surveys annually. Instead, we suggest 

that the VA use risk-based scheduling for determining the need for annual compliance surveys. We also recommend that the VA track their findings and compile the 

overall findings, including the type of discrepancies and payment errors. Additionally, as a basis for risk-based scheduling, summarize the information to be used to 

identify common errors among schools and evaluate trends over time as recommended by the United States Government Accountability Office report published 

in February 2011, titled VA Education Benefits: Actions Taken, but Outreach and 

Oversight Could Be Improved. 

SAVES supports the expansion of duties for SAAs but strongly recommends their 

role be redefined to focus on training and approval of new IHL programs, Non-College Degree programs, apprenticeships, and vocational training and licensure/certification examinations. 

FLIGHT TRAINING

Current legislation authorizes unlimited payment of tuition and fees for eligible 

beneficiaries attending a public school. However, the high cost of some programs, 

such as flight training, has become unmanageable. The National Association of 

State Approving Agencies’ (NASAA) recommendation concerning flight training is 

reasonable as it relates to capping the amount the VA will pay for flight course tuition and fees each year. H.R. 476 will help level the playing field for private IHLs 

with flight that have been offering approved flight degree programs for decades. 

In the interest of reducing the high cost of the Post 9/11 Education program, 

SAVES supports the portion of H.R. 476 regarding capping the annual amount payable for flight training. SAVES agrees that payment for flight training at institutions of higher learning be limited to only those eligible individuals enrolled in degree programs that require flight training for degree completion. Payment for flight 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
108 

courses should not be permitted in the case of flight training that is not specifically 

required as part of a standard college degree, including undeclared, undecided, general studies, liberal studies, and other similarly termed programs or statuses as it 

pertains to IHL public or private. 

f 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the Subcommittee, the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) thanks you for the opportunity 

to submit a statement for the record regarding the proposed legislation. The bills 

introduced are intended to make adjustments and corrections in existing programs 

and extend the expiration date on several other important programs. We support 

your effort to help the men and women that have honorably served their nation and 

are in the process of successfully transitioning back to the civilian world. 

H.R. 456, the ‘‘Reducing Barriers for Veterans Education Act of 2015’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 456, the ‘‘Reducing Barriers for Veterans Education Act of 

2015.’’ This legislation will provide funds for veterans using the GI Bill who are required to pay an additional charge for application fees. Often the additional fees are 

not budgeted in a veteran’s college expenses. Some programs require additional fees 

that can amount to several hundred dollars, placing an unforeseen burden on the 

veteran before starting their college courses. This legislation will eliminate the financial barrier that some veterans face when pursuing educational programs that 

require additional application fees. 

H.R. 473, the ‘‘Increasing the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability 

to Veterans Act of 2015’’ 

PVA generally supports H.R. 473, the ‘‘Increasing the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability to Veterans Act of 2015,’’ which would give the Secretary more 

leverage as he continues his campaign to improve the VA healthcare system. This 

legislation will allow the Secretary to reduce benefits of Senior Executive Employees 

that have been convicted of certain crimes. Section 3, the Reform of Performance 

Appraisal System for Senior Executive Service Employees is troublesome for our organization. This limits the recognition of employees that have contributed more 

than a position requires while maintaining a personal goal of improving service to 

veterans. The forced distribution of bonuses paid to senior employees, although intended to sharply limit the number of bonuses paid, can discourage those that are 

overachievers. 

H.R. 474, the ‘‘Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Programs Reauthorization 

Act of 2015’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 474, the ‘‘Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Programs Reauthorization Act of 2015,’’ which would extend through FY2020 the VA’s homeless 

veterans’ reintegration programs. Many of the programs that have been successful 

components of the effort to eliminate homelessness among veterans will expire in 

FY 2015. These programs have provided job training, counseling, and placement 

services to homeless veterans to expedite their reintegration into the labor force. 

Veterans that participate in these programs include: (1) homeless veterans, (2) veterans who are participating in the VA supported housing program which provides 

rental assistance through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 

(3) veterans who are transitioning from being incarcerated. 

H.R. 475, the ‘‘GI Bill Processing Improvement Act of 2015’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 475, the ‘‘GI Bill Processing Improvement Act of 2015’’ which 

will make changes and improvements to the information technology system of the 

VA. Section 2 places an emphasis on the information technology solution for processing original and supplemental claims and requires electronic processing of the 

claims which will insure accuracy and eliminate delays in future claims. 

H.R. 476, the ‘‘GI Bill Education Quality Enhancement Act of 2015’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 476, the ‘‘GI Bill Education Quality Enhancement Act of 

2015.’’ This legislation will clarify the process of approving courses of education that 

are recognized for use by veterans using VA benefits. The legislation will allow state 

agencies to approve certain programs that meet criteria determined by VA to be a 

program which shall be approved for VA educational benefits. The state approving 

agency may qualify certain flight training programs as eligible for the Post 9/11 GI 

Bill since they are required in a flight training curriculum. The state approving 

agency may also approve flight training programs in an institution of higher learning in which flight training is required to earn the degree being pursued. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
109 

H.R. 643, the ‘‘Veterans Education Survey Act of 2015’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 643, the ‘‘Veterans Education Survey Act of 2015.’’ This legislation directs the VA to enter into a contract with a non-government entity to conduct a survey of individuals who have used or are using their entitlement to educational assistance under the educational assistance programs administered by the 

VA. 

H.R. 1038, the ‘‘Ensuring VA Employee Accountability Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 1038, the ‘‘Ensuring VA Employee Accountability Act.’’ This 

legislation requires VA to retain all records which document any reprimands or admonishment received by VA employees. These records must be retained as long as 

the employee is employed by VA. Retaining records of employee reprimands is critical to evaluating an employee’s personal performance and determining if that performance is part of a larger problem within a program of VA. This documentation 

is necessary for the Secretary to evaluate problems and make changes needed to 

correct ongoing problems in the VA. 

H.R. 1141, the ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 1141, the ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015’’ which would include 

time spent receiving medical care from the Department of Defense as active duty 

time for the purpose of eligibility for Post 9/11 GI Bill. We have no doubt that this 

time should be considered active duty time toward qualifying for the Post 9/11 GI 

Bill. This legislation would be retroactive to the date of the enactment of the Post 

9/11 GI Bill. 

H.R. 1187, Legislation to Modify the Loan Limit of the VA Loan 

PVA supports H.R. 1187. This legislation makes adjustments in the maximum 

amount of the loan guaranteed under section 3710 of title 38, the VA Home Loan. 

Home prices vary from each region of the country, from each metropolitan community within a region, and from each neighborhood within a community. A fixed maximum limit on the VA loan amount that a veteran can borrow limits where the veteran can live. This legislation will give veterans who reside in high-cost areas where 

average home prices exceed the VA Home Loan maximum greater flexibility in the 

type and location of homes they can purchase using the VA Home Loan. 

H.R. 1313, the ‘‘Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Relief Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 1313, the ‘‘Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 

Act.’’ This legislation will make changes in the law that certifies Service Disabled 

Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) to help with the transition of that 

business when the veteran passes away. Currently if the veteran business owner 

is rated less that 100% when passing away from a non-service connected illness or 

injury, the surviving spouse only has one year to transition the business out of 

SDVOSB status with VA. If the SDVOSB has contracts with any other federal agency, the business immediately loses its SDVOSB status upon the passing of the veteran and all business must stop. This legislation will allow the business to retain 

the SDVOSB status for three years upon the passing of the veteran to allow for a 

transition of the business. This three year period would apply to SDVOSB contracts 

with the VA and all federal agencies. 

H.R. 1382, Legislation Addressing VA Procurement Contracts 

PVA supports proposed legislation to authorize the VA to award contracts for procurement of goods or services to businesses that employ veterans. Unfortunately, 

employing veterans is not a high priority for businesses. This is understandable 

since the goals of a business are to pay bills, pay employees, buy necessary capitol 

equipment and supplies, and attempt to make profit. However, some businesses do 

make an effort to employ veterans and based on their experience hiring veterans, 

continue to employ veterans. Those businesses should be recognized, if not by all 

federal government procurement, at least by VA. Legislation to authorize VA to 

award contracts will not change the current pattern of awarding contracts to favored businesses. Among businesses that submit proposals and meet the requirements of the contact, the contract must be awarded to the business that demonstrates an effort and successfully employs veterans. Without Congressional oversight this requirement, if passed into law, risks becoming simply another policy that 

is overlooked by the VA in the procurement of goods and services. 

Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano and Members of this Subcommittee, PVA appreciates the opportunity to comment the bills being considered. 

We thank you for continuing the work in this Subcommittee to ensure that veterans 

have the best available programs, options, and opportunities as they transition to 

the civilian world. 

Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
110 

Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the following information is provided regarding federal grants and contracts. 

Fiscal Year 2014 

No federal grants or contracts received. 

Fiscal Year 2013 

National Council on Disability—Contract for Services—$35,000. 

Disclosure of Foreign Payments 

‘‘Paralyzed Veterans of America is largely supported by donations from the general public. However, in some very rare cases we receive direct donations from foreign nationals. In addition, we receive funding from corporations and foundations 

which in some cases are U.S. subsidiaries of non-U.S. companies.’’ 

f 

WRITTEN STATEMENT KATY BEH NEAS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC

AFFAIRS EASTER SEALS, INC. 

On Bill (H.R. 474) Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program Reauthorization 

Act 

Dear Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for holding this hearing on proposed legislation to help increase access 

to critical employment and education benefits and services for America’s veterans. 

Easter Seals is a leading non-profit organization that assists veterans, military families, and others to reach their potential and succeed in their communities by providing and connecting them to local services and supports. Easter Seals lends our 

support to Chairman Wenstrup’s Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Programs Reauthorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 474) and we ask that the Subcommittee consider minor 

changes to help improve delivery of services to veterans who are homeless or atrisk of homelessness. 

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program 

(HVRP) helps to ensure veterans who are experiencing challenges, including unemployment and homelessness, can access the specialized job training and local supports they need to bounce back and find meaningful employment. HVRP is the only 

federal nationwide program focused exclusively on the employment of veterans who 

are homeless. Through the program, community-based organizations, including nonprofits and faith-based groups, provide job training, counseling, and placement services to help homeless veterans reintegrate into society and the labor force. Easter 

Seals affiliates operating in six states operate eight HVRP grants, including two focused on assisting homeless female veterans. HVRP exemplifies the communitybased, public-private partnership required to help veterans overcome obstacles and 

successfully reintegrate into civilian life. 

Easter Seals has seen first-hand the transformational impact HVRP and its federally-funded services have on Americans who have honorably served our nation. 

Shaneece, a young woman from New York who served in the U.S. military, got 

her life back on track as a result of the support services and employment assistance 

she received through HVRP. Shaneece joined the U.S. Army in 2011 ‘‘eager to serve’’ 

and worked as a generator mechanic. Her plan to temporarily move back in with 

her parents after she completed her military service unraveled due to complications 

at home. With no options, Shaneece used her car as a home—using the back seat 

as her bed and the trunk as both a dresser and filing cabinet to store clothes, blankets and her military papers, including her DD 214 separation documents. Despite 

the sub-zero weather, she slept in her car at night and filled her days looking, unsuccessfully, for jobs. After many nights on the street, she visited Easter Seals in 

New York City. She had run out of options and heard Easter Seals could help. ‘‘I 

felt so hopeless,’’ Shaneece remembered, ‘‘you feel like you have no more support. 

I was working hard but still coming up short.’’ 

Easter Seals specializes in person-centered services to help individuals thrive in 

their communities. Our New York affiliate operates HVRP grants in Syracuse and 

throughout New York City, including one focused on helping homeless female veterans connect to employment and other services. Through HVRP, Easter Seals New 

York implements a team approach to provide each veteran with the wrap-around 

services they need to return to employment. Shaneece came to Easter Seals with 

multiple barriers. She was street homeless, had low self-confidence, and had no 

prospects for employment. As part of the team approach, an Easter Seals case manager immediately went to work to get her situated for the night in a temporary shelter. At the same time, an Easter Seals social worker helped her apply for and reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:27 May 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\98-629.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
111 

ceive the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits she earned during her 

military service and an Easter Seals employment specialist worked with Shaneece 

to update her resume, including translating her military experiences into civilian 

language. Shaneece received a call-back for an interview for a job that she eventually won. She works full-time as a program support assistant for a VA center in 

Brooklyn helping other veterans during their reintegration. ‘‘I feel like I’m a different person. I’m a more improved individual,’’ Shaneece said. ‘‘I see myself going 

places. I’m grateful for the help Easter Seals has given me.’’ 

Shaneece is one of about 17,000 homeless veterans in nearly 150 communities 

across the country who benefit each year from HVRP services. In addition to Easter 

Seals New York, Easter Seals operates HVRP grants in Oregon (Jackson, Josephine, 

Marion & Polk Counties and the cities of Medford, Grants Pass, and Salem), Indiana (eight county area in central Indiana) and in Washington, DC and the surrounding Maryland (Baltimore, Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties) and Virginia region (Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties). HVRP is 

successful due to the holistic, individualized care coordination model that recognizes 

veterans face multiple barriers to securing a job and maintaining stable housing. 

HVRP’s intensive, hands-on, veteran-centered approach is critical and not found in 

traditional job training and employment programs. The Department of Labor noted 

in a congressional budget justification that ‘‘helping homeless veterans requires a 

substantial amount of outreach and job development with employers as well as the 

coordination of individually tailored support services and training interventions.’’ 

Nationwide, HVRP has been an important tool in helping to decrease veterans’ 

homelessness by 33 percent or 24,837 veterans since 2010 (HUD/VA report). H.R. 

474 would provide certainty that this proven veterans program will continue by reauthorizing HVRP through FY 2020. In addition, H.R. 474 expands the definition 

of who is eligible for the program to include veterans who are transitioning from 

being incarcerated and veterans participating in the VA supported housing program. 

Easter Seals supports the changes proposed in H.R. 474 and recommends other 

minor updates to help improve implementation. 

Expand Eligibility of HVRP Services: 

In addition to the eligibility expansions contained in H.R. 474, Easter Seals recommends that HVRP eligibility be expanded to include all National Guard and Reserve members who have honorably served, regardless of their activation status. The 

current HVRP definition of veteran only allows Guard or Reserve veterans who were 

activated or who have a service-connected disability to access HVRP services. In 

2014 testimony, Easter Seals shared a story of a homeless woman who approached 

our local affiliate after honorably serving in the U.S. Army National Guard. Because 

her Guard unit was never activated or deployed during her six year military career, 

she could not access HVRP services. Easter Seals was able to assist her through 

a separate program we offer but she could have benefited greatly from the supportive services available through HVRP. 

Easter Seals Recommendation: As H.R. 474 advances, we encourage you to amend 

Sec. 3 (Clarification of Eligibility for Services) to include at the end of the section 

the following: 

‘‘(4) all veterans who have been honorably discharged from the National Guard 

and Reserves.’’ 

Include Greater Flexibility to Address Individualized Needs of Veterans: 

While HVRP has been successful in reducing veteran homelessness, greater flexibility should be given to service providers, on a case-by-case basis, to more effectively address the unique needs of homeless veterans or veterans who are at-risk 

for homelessness. Easter Seals appreciates the need for uniform program guidelines 

to better manage and oversee a grant program. But the reality is that veterans who 

seek help in finding stable housing or a job come to these programs with very 

unique needs that don’t always fit nicely within the parameters of the program. 

Shaneece, the young woman living in her car in New York, could have benefited 

from greater HVRP flexibility. HVRP can be used to pay for temporary transportation expenses to help participants get to job interviews and work. Shaneece was 

living in transitional housing on Staten Island when she secured her job in Brooklyn. The quickest route to get Shaneece to her job is by car. The program would 

not allow Easter Seals to fill her E–Z Pass card to temporarily cover toll fares along 

her route but would allow the purchase of transit cards to cover ferry and subway 

fares, which would have greatly increased the length of her work commute. In most 

cases, public transportation is the best and preferred option. However, this was a 

unique situation where driving to work was the better option. One delay in her carboat-train-bus commute could have impacted her ability to get to work on-time and 

remain employed. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
112 

Easter Seals Recommendation: As H.R. 474 advances, we encourage you to add 

the following report language: 

‘‘The Committee recognizes the individualized barriers and unique challenges 

faced by veterans who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. As such, the 

Committee provides the Secretary of Labor the authority to waive a rule, on a 

case-by-case basis, if a waiver greatly improves the veteran’s ability to find stable housing and to become gainfully employed.’’ 

Create Service Delivery Efficiencies Through Multi-Community and Regional 

Awards: 

The Department of Labor awards single community grants to non-profits and 

faith-based organizations. Four Easter Seals affiliates operate eight separate HVRP 

grants in individual service territories. Despite the fact our affiliates represent the 

same Easter Seals family, the current HVRP structure does not foster systematic 

collaboration or coordination among these otherwise connected entities. The organizations that operate on the same program cycle could find themselves in competition 

with each other in future grant completions. Easter Seals believes multi-community 

or regional grants would promote service delivery efficiencies and best practice sharing. Demonstrating the use of regional grants to national non-profits is consistent 

with authority Congress recently gave to the Secretary of Labor in the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (Public Law 113–128). Section 169(b) of that law 

grants the authority to conduct regional projects to develop and disseminate best 

practices and models for implementing employment and training services and address the employment and training needs of specialized populations. A similar 

model is in place through the Department of Labor’s Senior Community Service Employment Program. The multi-community or regional grant model encourages and 

fosters regular coordination while also maintaining local autonomy to meet unique 

community challenges. 

Easter Seals Recommendation: As H.R. 474 advances, we encourage you to add 

the following report language: 

‘‘The Committee recognizes the role of HVRP in decreasing veterans’ homelessness by helping homeless veterans or veterans who are at risk of homelessness 

through job training, counseling, and placement services. The Committee directs 

the Secretary of Labor to conduct a pilot to demonstrate the use of regional, 

multi-community awards to national organizations to test service delivery efficiencies and to improve outcomes.’’ 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 474, a bill to improve and extend DoL’s Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program. Easter Seals is proud of its 

partnership with the Department of Labor to create veteran success stories, like 

Shaneece, through job training, counseling, and placement services. We urge this 

Subcommittee to quickly advance H.R. 474 with Easter Seals’ recommendations. 

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on H.R. 474 and other legislation to increase access to community-based 

services and supports for our nation’s veterans. 

f 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS 

(NAVPA), SUBMITTED BY KEITH GLINDEMANN, VICE PRESIDENT 

‘‘Legislative Hearing on H.R. 456; H.R. 473; H.R. 474; H.R. 475; H.R. 476; H.R. 

643; H.R. 1038; H.R. 1141; H.R.1187; draft bill, ‘‘To amend title 38, United States 

Code, to authorize the Secretary of VA, in awarding a contract for the procurement 

of goods or services, to give a preference to offerors that employ veterans;’’ and a 

draft bill, ‘‘Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Relief Act’’ ‘‘A Review 

of Higher Education Opportunities for the Newest Generation on Veterans’’ March 

24, 2015. 

Introduction 

Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, the National Association of Veterans Program 

Administrators (NAVPA) is pleased to be invited to provide written comments for 

this hearing. NAVPA is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization founded in 

1975 by school certifying officials. Our organization represents close to 400 educational institutions nationwide. We voluntarily serve NAVPA in an effort to better 

serve the veterans on our campuses. 

NAVPA recognizes the significant higher education opportunities that are afforded this generation of veterans. We are committed, in partnership with the DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:27 May 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\98-629.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
113 

partment of Veterans’ Affairs, to ensure the success of the programs funded to provide educational opportunities for our veterans and their family members. 

H.R. 475: SEC. 6. Ability for Schools to See Remaining Entitlement 

NAVPA endorses SEC. 6. Provision of Information Regarding Veteran Entitlement 

to Educational Assistance. This provision would give School Certifying Officials the 

ability to see what remaining entitlement a veteran student had remaining. With 

today’s veterans often changing between schools or needing to enroll in programs 

close to enrollment deadlines the ability to see what GI Bill entitlements a student 

had remaining would be beneficial to the student and the College/University that 

they are wanting to attend. Students need to know prior to enrolling how much entitlement they have remaining so that they can make strong financial decisions. If 

a student does not have enough entitlement they can look at other possible funding 

sources so that they will not run out of funds prior to the end of term. This can 

help them to make educated decisions rather than reactionary ones. Additionally it 

can help schools to make determinations in the applying of Yellow Ribbon funds, 

and the counseling of students on their financial options. 

H.R. 476: SEC. 5. Compliance Surveys 

Current statutory requirements require that any institution with at least 300 GI 

Bill recipients have a compliance survey conducted annually. This requirement is 

mandated regardless of the results of the prior year’s survey. This requirement results in overburdened inspectors revisiting schools that have proven to be good stewards, and in full compliance. NAVPA fully supports H.R. 476 SEC 5. Here it asks 

for the VA to waive compliance surveys for institutions and establishments that 

have a record of compliance. This will allow the VA and the State Approving Agencies to concentrate on the institutions most at risk as well as providing more timely 

compliance surveys for smaller schools. This will help strengthen the survey program as a whole. Additionally this could also allow SAAs to be freed up to provide 

additional technical assistance and training. We feel that potential compliance 

issues could be avoided by having better trained SCO’s on the front end of the process. 

H.R. 1141: SEC. 2. GI Bill Fairness 

When our Service Members go to war their dedication to duty, and the risk of 

life and limb know no separation between Active Duty and Reservists. The missions 

are performed the same, and dangers are equally faced. Therefore it is only fair that 

our Reservists who are harmed in the performance of their duties are able to have 

the time that they are receiving medical care for their injuries count towards their 

qualifying time for the Post 9/11 GI Bill. What greater support can we show these 

Service Members who have sacrificed so much that we truly support them? They 

are not asking to be given anything other than what they have earned. NAVPA 

urges that Congress look at this carefully and do what is not only correct, but our 

duty. 

Closing 

In closing, on behalf of the membership institutions of NAVPA, we thank you for 

the opportunity to provide comments on these very important issues with the committee today. We look forward to working with you on veteran education issues in 

the future. 

Æ 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER