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

87–672 2015

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2942; H.R. 3056; 

H.R. 3614; H.R. 4031; H.R. 4037; 

H.R. 4038; H.R. 4147; H.R. 4150; AND H.R. 4151 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC 

OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014 

Serial No. 113–59 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

PAUL COOK, California 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

DAVID JOLLY, Florida 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

NANCY DOLAN, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

BILL FLORES, Texas, Chairman 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

PAUL COOK, California 

BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio 

MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking 

Member 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

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. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2942; H.R. 3056; H.R. 3614; H.R. 4031; H.R. 

4037; H.R. 4038; H.R. 4147; H.R. 4150; AND H.R. 4151 .................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Hon. Bill Flores, Chairman ..................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Mark Takano, Ranking Member ................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs .......................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 30 

Accompanied by: 

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

of Labor 

Hon. Keith Kelly, Assistant Secretary, Veterans’ Employment and Training 

Service, U.S. Department of Labor ..................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 39 

Accompanied by: 

Ms. Demetra Nightingale, Chief Evaluation Officer, U.S. Department 

of Labor 

Mr. Steve Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National Economic Commission, The 

American Legion .................................................................................................. 17 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 43 

Mr. Pete Hegseth, Chief Executive Office, Concerned Veterans for America .... 19 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 50 

Mr. Ryan Gallucci, Deputy Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars ...... 21 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 52 

Mr. William Hubbard, Vice President of External Affairs, Student Veterans 

of America ............................................................................................................. 23 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 58 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Wounded Warrior Project ........................................................................................ 62 

Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Paul R. Varela, Director ............................ 67 

VetsFirst ................................................................................................................... 73

Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, (APSCU) ..................... 77 

Senior Executive Association .................................................................................. 80 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2942; H.R. 

3056; H.R. 3614; H.R. 4031; H.R. 4037; H.R. 4038; 

H.R. 4147; H.R. 4150; AND H.R. 4151 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:17 p.m., in Room 

340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bill Flores [chairman of 

the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Flores, Cook, and Takano. 

Also present: Representatives Miller, Bilirakis, and Reichert. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BILL FLORES 

Mr. FLORES. Good day, everyone. The subcommittee will come to 

order. Before we begin I would like to ask unanimous consent that 

our colleagues Chairman Miller, Mr. Gus Bilirakis, and Mr. David 

Reichert be allowed to sit at the dais, make opening statements, 

and ask questions. Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

I want to thank all of you for joining us here today to discuss 

legislation pending before the subcommittee concerning education 

benefits and employment programs for our returning 

servicemembers and veterans. 

This afternoon we have nine important pieces of legislation before us. I will focus my remarks on two of these bills which I introduced earlier this year. The first is H.R. 4037, the Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 

2014. This bill would streamline VA’s vocational rehabilitation and 

employment, known as the VR&E program. This program helps 

disabled veterans become employment ready and also assists the 

most severely disabled veterans reach a point of maximum independent daily living. As I have said multiple times, I believe this 

program is one of the greatest resources our VA has to help our 

veterans with disabilities overcome many challenges they encounter when trying to find employment. However, I believe improvements need to be made to ensure that our most disabled veterans 

do not get lost in the shuffle while enduring long wait times to see 

a counselor. 

My bill would authorize the Secretary to prioritize VR&E services based on need so that they are able to triage cases as they 

come in based upon the severity of the veteran’s disability or on 

other factors as determined by the Secretary. It would also require 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
2 

that any education or training courses a veteran pursues through 

the VR&E be approved for G.I. Bill benefits and would allow for 

home adaptations that are currently being completed for VR&E 

participants to be completed under specially adapted housing rules 

to ensure that our veterans are receiving high quality adaptations 

to their homes. The bill would also redefine eligibility for voc rehab 

for veterans with a ten percent disability. This provision would further streamline this benefit and help severely disabled veterans get 

the benefits and services they are qualified to receive in an expedited fashion. 

My second bill is H.R. 4038, the Veterans Benefits Administration Information Technology Improvement Act of 2014. This bill 

would require the VA to improve and finish the IT systems that adjudicates G.I. Bill and VR&E claims. At this day and age veterans 

should not have to endure long delays in receiving their earned 

education and VR&E benefits due to a lacking and/or outdated IT 

system. Through this legislation VA would be able to adjudicate to 

the maximum extent possible all G.I. Bill claims in a paperless environment and would be able to accurately track services and outcomes provided by the VR&E program to veterans. 

Through multiple GAO reports and hearings during this Congress the subcommittee has been shown the need to improve these 

systems. I know the ranking member also has a bill on this as well 

and I look forward to working with him to combine our two pieces 

of legislation to ensure these IT programs are improved to better 

serve America’s veterans. I believe that both of these bills are critical to VA’s successes and will allow the VA to more efficiently and 

thoroughly assist our veterans as they work toward a successful 

life following their service. 

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

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. I look forward to a productive 

and meaningful discussion. 

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

opening statement he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK TAKANO, RANKING MEMBER 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Chairman Flores. Good afternoon. I 

would like to thank everyone for joining us and to thank the witnesses for taking time to testify and answer our questions. 

We do have a number of bills before us today which seek to reauthorize the VA Advisory Committee on Credentialing; prioritize 

VR&E services; help veterans obtain their license or credentialing 

through legislation; require a longitudinal study; and create a survey for users of the G.I. Bill. I support my colleagues’ bills that aim 

to improve the lives of our veterans and of the nine pieces of legislation I have sponsored two bills which seek to help our veterans 

attending college. 

My first bill, H.R. 3056, the Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act, would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry 

out a three-year pilot program on the provision of outreach and 

support services to veterans pursuing higher education. I see this 

program as supplementing VetSuccess On Campus, which uses 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
3 

credentialed and experienced vocational rehabilitation counselors to 

provide services to student veterans. The Warriors’ Peer-Outreach 

Program will provide peer to peer services by employing veterans 

who have used the G.I. Bill. The VA will train veterans to assist 

individuals who may have a difficulty in adjusting or may need 

services or support that the institution is not equipped to provide. 

Again, this pilot program is designed to explore a new approach 

to on campus services for veterans and to act as a supplement to 

other federal programs with similar goals. I believe it has the potential to help many veterans across the country and I hope all our 

stakeholders will support it. 

Today we will also be discussing H.R. 4147, the Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act, which would require the VA to report on the 

current status of the long term solution for education claims processing, provide an action plan to improve it, and outline the anticipated cost of upgrading the system. I find it unfortunate that the 

VA has not completed this system and want to know when and 

how they plan to do so. Complete automation would provide the VA 

a more powerful system that is more responsive to the needs of our 

veterans. I may add that I look forward to working with Chairman 

Flores on combining our bills, I believe they are complementary, 

with regard to the Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing to review 

these bills. I look forward to the testimony and suggestions from 

our panelists. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Chairman Miller of the full 

committee will be joining us to discuss his bill, H.R. 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 

2014. We will yield to Chairman Miller when he arrives. 

In the meantime it is an honor to be joined by my friends and 

colleagues to discuss their bills. I thank each of you for being here. 

Mr. Cook is not here yet. We will have him speak as soon as he 

gets here. Ms. Kirkpatrick is not here but she submitted a statement for the record. Hearing no objection, we will enter hers into 

the record. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Bilirakis, you are now recognized. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it and 

thanks for allowing me to sit in on the panel today. Again, I want 

to thank you for holding this legislative hearing. And I appreciate 

the opportunity to speak on my bill, H.R. 4151, the G.I. Bill Survey 

Act. 

Members of the committee understand the many challenges our 

veterans have in transitioning into civilian life after service to our 

great nation. 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 in our military services have answered the call to protect 

the liberties we are entitled to. Likewise we must answer the call 

for our veterans, I am sure you all agree. Through the G.I. Bill veterans can use these benefits to cover tuition, housing, books, and 

supplies, testing, and certification fees, and other education related 

expenditures. 

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


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
4 

participated in this program. By fiscal year 2011 the Post-9/11 G.I. 

Bill had the largest number of participants and highest total of obligations when compared to previous G.I. Bills 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 G.I. Bill program. One of the biggest problems we continue to encounter when discussing the G.I. Bill is the 

lack of data available regarding its participants. This goes beyond 

simply performance and outcome measures but it also includes 

basic demographic information. 

In May of 2013 the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, 

conducted a study on the challenges student veterans pursuing 

higher education and the obstacles regarding VA’s management on 

the program that also affects veterans’ academic success. The GAO 

reported the following, and I quote, ‘‘it is unclear the extent to 

which veterans are achieving successful academic outcomes and VA 

lacks a plan for using student outcomes data from its new data collection efforts to improve its education programs.’’ And I quote 

again, ‘‘current data on student veterans are outdated or incomplete.’’ 

The GAO recommended the VA to create a plan to use new data 

on student outcomes to improve program management. The VA 

agreed with the recommendations and noted a number of actions 

it was taking to address these issues. Although that is progress 

this committee has not received any information regarding their efforts or progress on this initiative. Without objection from the 

chairman, I would like to submit the summary of the GAO report 

for the record. 

Mr. FLORES. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. To safeguard this important resource 

and to ensure our nation’s veterans that their success into civilian 

life is a top priority of ours, I have introduced H.R. 4151, the G.I. 

Bill Survey Act. This comprehensive study would encompass several elements to better understand the effectiveness of the Transition Assistance Program, known as TAP, and what improvements 

can be made to VA education benefits. 

The first step in making the positive changes to a program is to 

fully understand its benefits and drawbacks. H.R. 4151 would require the Secretary of VA to contract with a third party entity to 

conduct a survey of G.I. Bill users. The survey would be a comprehensive study of veterans’ experiences when using their education benefits. The survey would prove beneficial to both the VA 

and Congress by providing a better understanding of a veteran’s 

experience from the processing end of VA to their experiences with 

the school certifying official and how their education benefits and 

this program have benefitted them. 

I appreciate the support for H.R. 4151 by the American Legion, 

the VFW, and the Student Veterans of America who came to testify 

before this committee, as well as the support from the Association 

of Private Sector Colleges, Wounded Warrior Program, and then 

also the VetsFirst. They all submitted their testimonies for the 

record. 

I encourage my colleagues on this committee to support this bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope we can come together to keep 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
5 

our promise to our veterans and ensure that the men and women 

who dedicated their lives to serving our nation have the viable resources to successfully transition into civilian life. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the balance of the time. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Reichert, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ranking Member Takano and other members of the subcommittee, 

thanks for having me here today at this legislative hearing. And 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Military Skills to 

Careers Act, which is H.R. 3614. 

I introduced this legislation to help our veterans transition their 

military skills and expertise into long term civilian jobs. And it 

sounds like from listening to the description of other bills, these are 

all really going to fold nicely and neatly together. And that is, hey, 

it is happening here in Congress so that is shocking, right? Also 

there is Senate support for this bill so that is exciting, too. The 

Senate and the House of Representatives working together, and I 

understand veterans issues bring people together and that is a 

good thing. 

Some examples of the jobs included in this act, some of the skills 

that some of our military folks will learn that are compatible with 

this act are inclusive of electricians, truck drivers, healthcare professionals, IT workers. I have a nephew who just got out of the Marines and he is a, will soon be getting out of the Marines, and he 

is a diesel mechanic. So those professions, all taught, all performed 

within the military, are really applied to our public life. And we 

have got to make it easier for our veterans to transition into those 

jobs. So by making licensing and credentials in those chosen fields 

more accessible we can do this. This legislation would open opportunities to those veterans struggling to find employment. 

Additionally I want to mention that Senator Richard Burr, as I 

kind of alluded to, ranking member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee has been an outstanding partner in this effort and I am 

pleased to have his leadership on this legislation in the Senate. 

When our veterans return from active service the last thing they 

should have to fear is unemployment. After all, they sacrificed to 

keep us safe. We have responsibility to ensure their security when 

they return. And a big part of that is being able to find a job and 

provide for themselves and their families. I am sure you all know 

families that are wondering, what am I going to do? What is my 

family going to do? How are we going to feed our kids? Where are 

we going to live? How are we going to pay for this? Those are worries we need to remove. We have to remove those. It is up to us 

to be their champions. 

According to figures released last week by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistic the unemployment rate for veterans who 

served on active duty since 9/11 was nine percent in 2013. Although this represented a decline from 2012, newly separated veterans are still entering the toughest civilian labor market in a generation. 

In my own State of Washington we have 675,000 veterans, Mr. 

Chairman, and the largest military base on the West Coast. Some 

people do not realize that, right in Washington State, the large 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
6 

military base on the West Coast in the Seattle-Takoma area. And 

over the next few years the Joint Base Lewis-McChord is set to discharge 6,000 troops per year, 6,000 per year just out of one base 

looking for work. I want those troops to know that we have a 

bright future waiting for them. That we are working for them and 

they do not have to worry. 

All too often recently separated veterans are facing hurdles 

transitioning their military skills to civilian employment, or identifying occupations in which they are interested that lead to long 

term employment and security. As our servicemembers and their 

family reintegrate back into communities we have the opportunity 

and the duty to guarantee the success for our greatest generation. 

As a part of this most important mission I introduced the Military 

Skills Act as a step to ensuring we are helping to secure bright futures for our men and women. 

I often hear from members of the business community in Washington State seeking highly qualified candidates with expertise 

compatible with skills gained in the military. Our challenge in Congress is to find ways to help veterans seeking employment. One 

way that this can be done is through reforms to the state license 

and certification process for veterans. Generally private sector businesses are looking for specific licenses and certifications to determine the most qualified candidate to fill the job position. Even 

though a veteran may have the qualifications and skills necessary 

for the job they are too often turned away because they lack the 

documentation. To address this many states including Washington 

have led through example by passing laws allowing veterans to obtain licenses or certifications in their training from the military so 

that they meet state standards. This helps streamline the application process, eliminates the need for veterans to go through redundant and sometimes costly training. In turn businesses are able to 

hire veterans who have the necessary credentials to proficiently get 

the job done. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, simply all it does is 

say let the veterans take a test. If they pass the test, they get a 

job. I should have just said that instead. I yield back my time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Reichert. Mr. Cook, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. H.R. 4150, the Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act, 

there is a mouthful, ensures that veterans are receiving effective 

and successful employment training services. This bipartisan bill 

authorizes an independent organization to collect, analyze data on 

the effectiveness of the Department of Labor’s Veterans Employment and Training Service. 

The study will focus on veterans who have received intensive 

services from two programs under VETS, excuse me that acronym 

I just referred to, the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program and the 

local veterans employment representatives, LVER. The study will 

track the employment status of veterans who receive these services, determine if the program contributed to their employment, 

monitor the employment retention rate, and determine if the services provided helped them increase their average earnings. A report 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
7 

on the findings will be presented to the Committee on Veterans Affairs in the House and Senate every year for the next five years. 

Congress has a duty to provide our veterans with the best employment services possible. Simply authorizing these program is 

not enough. We have to follow up and ensure that they are working 

as intended. An analysis of long term outcomes is precisely the 

type of oversight Congress needs to determine the effectiveness of 

these programs and to ensure their success. 

I think today you are hearing a lot of similar programs, as my 

distinguished colleague had mentioned earlier. It is all about follow 

up. If it is not working, we have got to change. To bottom line is 

the success rate should be much higher. I am a veteran and I am 

very, very passionate about people that have served. That is one 

of the things that we have as an ingredient of military service. 

When you go out on a patrol in a combat situation, you want to 

follow up that everybody has got enough water, that you have protection, that you have the codes, the radio frequencies. If you called 

in a preposition bombardment, mortars, what have you, that you 

have it. That is your job. And with such a poor record in getting 

these people into the right position, I think it is incumbent upon 

us in keeping with the philosophy and taking care of our troops 

that we find out how we can make it better, if we have got to make 

changes, and the appropriate funding hopefully will follow that out. 

I want to thank Congresswoman Titus for the support on this important bill. And once again, the follow up and the feedback when 

we get on this can hopefully help us achieve better results and take 

care of our men and women. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Cook. And again, as a reminder to 

everyone, when Chairman Mill arrives we will allow him to speak 

to support his legislation. 

I now want to recognize our first panel of witnesses today. Joining us is Mr. Curtis Coy, the Deputy Under Secretary for Economic 

Opportunity at the Department of Veterans Affairs. We also have 

with us the Hon. Keith Kelly, Assistant Secretary of the Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service at the Department of Labor who 

is accompanied by Ms. Demetra Nightingale, if I messed that name 

up, I am sorry, the Chief Evaluation Office of the Department of 

Labor. I thank all of you for being with us today and for your service during your time on active duty with our armed forces. Before 

I recognize Mr. Coy, I would like to point out again the Department 

of Labor was again late with its testimony. We would ask you to 

exercise appropriate diligence in providing that on time in the future. So Mr. Coy, let us begin with you. You are recognized for five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS COY 

Mr. COY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Takano, who just left. Thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today to provide VA’s views on seven pending legislative bills affecting VA’s programs. Other bills under discussion today would affect programs or laws administered by the Department of Labor 

and respectfully we defer to DOL on those bills. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
8 

We are encouraged seeing so many legislative proposals aimed at 

improving the Education and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program for our nation’s veterans. VA supports H.R. 

2942 that reestablishes the VA’s Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee. This legislation would allow VA to receive recommendations and receive advice from the committee with 

regard to licensing and certification programs. 

While VA appreciates the intent of 3056, which would establish 

a three-year pilot program to provide outreach services to veterans 

using the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, VA does not believe this legislation is 

necessary as it would create a program similar to our existing 

VetSuccess on Campus Program. 

H.R. 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014 would enable the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to remove any individual from the senior executive service if 

the Secretary determines the performance of the individual warrants such removal. VA is committed to continuing our dialogue 

with the committee about effective accountability throughout VA 

but believe the Secretary has the tools under current law and regulations to address performance. 

VA appreciates the committee’s focus to improve aspects of the 

Vocational, Rehabilitation and Employment Program through H.R. 

4037. VA is unable to support the provisions of the bill but agrees 

with the intent to redefine the employment rehabilitation rate and 

note our own internal efforts to improve our performance measure 

calculations. We are also working to establish whether policies 

needed to further restrict the approval of courses approved for 

Chapter 30 or 33. We would request clarification on Section 4 of 

this bill which would expand the eligibility for specially adapted 

housing grants to Chapter 31 veterans but agree that modifications 

to adapt veterans’ homes are best managed by SAH personnel with 

expertise and experience. While we are unable to support Section 

6, which redefines serious employment handicap, we are happy to 

work with the committee on drafting technical language to ensure 

qualified veterans receive necessary services. 

VA is unable to support H.R. 4038, which makes IT improvements to reduce redundancy and process educational and vocational rehabilitation and employment claims more efficiently. VA 

recognizes the committee’s efforts to improve our IT processes but 

notes that with competing resources affecting all veterans served at 

VA, we need the flexibility to prioritize resources based on the 

needs of the entire department. 

VA requests clarification on the ‘‘system’’ being referenced in 

H.R. 4147, which requires the Chief Information Officer and the 

Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity to develop an 

annual report detailing VA’s plan for the system used to administer 

VA educational benefits. We would be happy to provide information 

to the committee on the areas of interest once clarified. 

Finally, VA supports the intent behind H.R. 4151 which would 

require VA to administer a survey to individuals who have used VA 

education benefits. We are currently administering a similar survey with the assistance of a private contractor and will investigate 

the feasibility of combining the requirements of H.R. 4151 with 

VA’s current resources. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
9 

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

the opportunity to appear before you today. I would certainly be 

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

the subcommittee may have regarding our views as presented 

today. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CURTIS COY APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX] 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Coy. Chairman Miller, we have reserved five minutes for you for your bill, or such time as you may 

need. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that I can revise and extend my remarks. 

Mr. FLORES. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. And thank you for letting me 

speak out of order. And I am not going to use my entire time, nor 

use the entire statement that I have prepared. But I want to emphasize that H.R. 4031 in no way is meant to disparage the SES 

employees that are out there, the hardworking employees. It is 

really meant to help them. Every day well over 300,000 employees 

at the VA go to work to do the right thing and I think most of the 

members here would agree with that. But more than a dozen examples of a very shocking trend have actually now arisen and we 

have listed them on our House Web site at veterans.house.gov/accountability. In fact, if you look at the recent VA preventable 

deaths that have been linked to mismanagement in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Columbia, South Carolina, Augusta, Georgia, and Memphis, 

Tennessee, the VA executives who presided over the negligence are 

more likely to have received a bonus or a glowing performance review than any type of punishment. And I think it is past time to 

end this complacency. 

Now some have said that this bill would erode employee rights. 

To them I asked, why should government executives who are paid 

extremely well to serve the veterans of this country have the right 

to fail in their jobs with little threat of serious punishment? Not 

a single member of Congress would allow their staff to do the 

same. And those seeking VA healthcare, should they not have the 

right to know that VA executives who preside over mismanagement 

and negligence will be punished swiftly and accordingly? 

There are those who will say VA already has the necessary tools 

to properly discipline and fire failing executives. And I ask, if that 

is the case why have we not seen evidence in support of that particular argument? The reality is to those who closely follow that we 

see something very differently. And in instance after instance 

where mismanagement has led to veterans suffering, department 

officials have repeatedly pointed to non-disciplinary actions such as 

employee retirements, transfers, or bureaucratic slaps on the wrist 

such as a temporary written warning in a disingenuous attempt to 

create the experience of accountability. 

It is common knowledge within VA and throughout the government that it is easier to transfer a failing executive or leave them 

unchecked than it is to fire them. And I do not think that is what 

the citizens of this country want to do. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
10 

So I would ask all members to consider the primary mission of 

our committee. We are here to support veterans and everything 

else should take second place. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your time. 

And I yield back. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFF MILLER APPEARS IN THE AP- PENDIX] 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Chairman Miller. Mr. Kelly, you are 

now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH KELLY 

Mr. KELLY. Good afternoon, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member 

Takano, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. As most 

of you know, my name is Keith Kelly and I am the Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training at the Department 

of Labor. Today I am accompanied by the department’s Chief Evaluation Officer Demetra Nightingale. I will use my time here to 

highlight some of the department’s views on DOL-related legislation. 

The first bill I would like to discuss is H.R. 3614, as we have already heard from one of your colleagues, the Military Skills to Careers Act. This bill would require each state to administer an exam 

and issue a credential or license to a veteran without requiring any 

veteran should that veteran meet the certain criteria. H.R. 3614 

would require the State to establish this program as a condition of 

receiving funding to employ disabled veteran outreach program 

specialists and local veteran employment representatives, more 

commonly referred to as DVOPS and LVERs. The department supports the intent of the legislation. However, we do have serious 

concerns about withholding DOL funding from states if they do not 

comply because it is those very DVOPS and LVERs that provide 

the critical intensive employment service to veterans, the 

transitioning servicemembers, and their families. This legislation 

would jeopardize these services and penalize the very people this 

bill is aimed at helping. 

What is more, DOL is concerned that the administrative burdens 

on the states in complying with this legislation would be very significant. The reality is that some states have hundreds of different 

credentials and licenses that are issued by dozens of different state 

agencies and this bill would apply to them all. In fact, the majority 

of states have already adopted legislation aimed at streamlining 

credentialing and licensing for veterans. 

There are a variety of legislation and regulatory approaches that 

have proven successful in different states and DOL is already 

working with the Department of Defense and the states to assist 

them in these efforts. For instance, we are working on a pilot program to analyze and compare transferrable skills. In addition the 

department is providing technical support to certain states to 

award credit for military training and experience. 

Now to the second piece of legislation that we have also have 

heard about from one of your colleagues. I would like to discuss 

H.R. 3150, the Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act. H.R. 4150 would give the Secretary of Labor acVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
11 

cess to the National Directory of New Hires Information. At this 

time DOL does not have authority to readily access these earnings 

data from state unemployment agencies and as a result of that we 

strongly support this provision. Without such authority the process 

of obtaining earnings data is time consuming, costly, and burdensome. Moreover, the bill directs the Secretary to conduct a study 

of veterans and the long term impact of DOL services. We estimate 

the cost to successfully complete this longitudinal study will be 

about $10 million over five years. 

Ultimately the department welcomes the opportunity to better 

understand the current impact of the services we provide for veterans so that we may continue to further enhance our programs 

and therefore improving veterans’ quality of life. We are ready to 

ensure that the legislation and the resulting study are well crafted. 

Thus we do look forward to working with the committee on clarifying the goals and objectives of that survey. 

The Department of Labor sincerely appreciates the support of the 

committee and we strive to provide higher quality, better targeted 

services to our nation’s veterans. Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my 

statement. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH KELLY APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX] 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I will now recognize myself 

for five minutes for questions. Mr. Coy, let us begin with you. You 

heard Chairman Miller’s opening comments a few minutes ago. 

Would you agree that there have been an alarming number of instances where the VA’s SES employees have acted improperly? 

Mr. COY. As a 14-year senior executive in the government, I have 

heard of some of those stories but I am not familiar with the individual ones. So it would be irresponsible for me to comment on any 

one of those individuals. Most of those were, from what I understand, on the VHA side of VA. 

Mr. FLORES. Can you tell us if any of VA’s SES employees have 

been fired or disciplined over the past year because of problems 

like this? 

Mr. COY. What I do know, Mr. Chairman, is that the Secretary 

has, to use your term, fired or removed 6 SESs in the past two 

years. Three of them were senior executives in their first year or 

probation, and three were senior executives that were career senior 

executives outside of the probationary one-year period. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. We have heard that mentioned in earlier 

hearings. Can you, actually during a February 26th Subcommittee 

on Health hearing Dr. Benishek asked Under Secretary for Health 

Dr. Petzel to provide a list of everything VA has done to hold employees accountable in response to the preventable veteran deaths 

in Pittsburgh, Augusta, Columbia, Memphis, and Atlanta. And Dr. 

Petzel at that hearing, I saw this myself, said that he would provide that by the end of the week. It has been almost a month since 

that information was requested. So do you have, can you tell me 

when the VA will provide that information to Dr. Benishek’s 

Health Subcommittee? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
12 

Mr. COY. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with specifics on what 

is holding up that information. But I will most certainly take that 

for the record and take that on. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. We would appreciate that. There are also reports that the IG has laid out for us that there is evidence that the 

VA was complicit in multiple preventable deaths in those same locations and that managers in those locations still received bonuses. 

Can you tell us how that would, how that situation would occur? 

Mr. COY. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with those very 

specific cases. I will take that for the record and ensure that you 

get a response back. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Thank you. It is also, one of the things that 

the subcommittee noted, and I think is one of the things that frustrates Chairman Miller. I am not putting words in his mouth, but 

it frustrates him, it frustrates me, and that is that all but one of 

VA’s SES employees in fiscal year 2012 received high performance 

ratings. And it just seems like, you know, here we are. We have 

had these preventable deaths. We have got a backlog that, while 

it is coming down is still unacceptably high, and only one person 

get something less than a high rating. That just does not seem like 

the way the real world would treat these types of issues. So do you 

find that a little strange? That all but one SES employee wound 

up with a superior rating? 

Mr. COY. Well Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, I have been a 

senior executive for 14 years. So I have hired and managed many, 

many senior executives. Before that I spent about seven years as 

a managing associate at PricewaterhouseCoopers, where I was on 

the annual board of evaluation. And for 24 years before that as a 

naval officer. I would suggest that while I am not familiar with the 

exact cases that you are referring to, one of the things that separates the Senior Executive Service from other entities is the bar for 

admission is incredibly high. That process to become a senior executive is outlined in very stringent requirements by the Office of 

Personnel Management. 

One of the things that I take very, very seriously is I try and hire 

the very, very best. I think I have done that in the time I have 

been at VA and in my 14 years as a senior executive. I would also 

suggest that one of my key responsibilities as a senior executive, 

as a leader in VA, and as a key manager, is to ensure that those 

people, those SESs that work for me, performance is not only acceptable but above acceptable. And it is my responsibility to ensure 

if I see them veering off course five or ten degrees to bring them 

back to the straight and narrow. I think I have been very successful in doing that and I think many, many senior executives at VA 

also would reflect that. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Coy. We will, obviously we are 

going to continue the debate on this particular question. We do look 

forward to your responses to the questions that we propounded to 

Dr. Petzel. 

Mr. COY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Takano, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Coy, you write that VetSuccess on Campus, 

VSOC, and the pilot program in the Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot 

Program Act are similar. How are the programs similar when the 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
13 

VSOC personnel have more experience and the participants in the 

pilot program will not be equally experienced or trained? 

Mr. COY. Thank you, Mr. Takano. There are some unique differences from your legislation and the VetSuccess on Campus program. One of the things for the VetSuccess on Campus program is 

over the past number of years we have grown that program from 

about eight pilot sites to now 94 sites with 71 different counselors. 

One of the things that we have established in the last couple of 

years is a mentoring program and we are doing that on two fronts. 

Actually, we are doing it on three fronts. The one front is 

leveraging work study students which are veterans at each of those 

campuses to engage fellow veterans that help them in that process. 

We are also working with VHA’s programs in what we call our 

PAVE program, which is VHA’s Peer Advisors for Veteran Education, to provide also a model to enable VR&E to do that. 

We are also establishing a pilot program that we are hiring 16 

AmeriCorps volunteers. Those AmeriCorps volunteers are 6 veterans, five spouses of veterans, one civilian, and then two pending 

hires that we think will be veterans as well. So we think between 

those three programs, the AmeriCorps program, and our 

AmeriCorps volunteers that we are hiring are going to help us be 

the boots on the ground at those VSOC sites such that they will 

be engaging with those veterans on campus and we hope to have 

those veterans be expanded such that they are recent college graduates similar to your piece of legislation. 

I would also suggest that the work study program students, 

those are students who have been in school. They have been 

through the, sort of the initial piece of their freshman year, early 

years, and they have seen what you need to do to get through those 

things. So we have those work study students as well. And then 

finally we also are developing the PAVE program in conjunction 

with our VHA partners and their behavioral health and psychologists. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well along those lines, since VSOC is currently 

found at 94 campuses, do you think that the Warriors Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act can be a supplement that could quickly extend to a great number of campuses? 

Mr. COY. I think it could very well be. And if enacted we could 

leverage that program and take pieces of that program and also 

use it across the other 94 campuses as well. 

Mr. TAKANO. And similarly the Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot 

Program is currently limited to three campuses. Would the VA be 

more inclined to support it if it included more campuses instead of 

just three? 

Mr. COY. Congressman Takano, I would suggest that we would 

take all the help we can certainly get and we would love to do all 

the schools we can get. One of the interesting things is as I look 

at the number of schools that have for example over 1,000 beneficiaries, or 1,000 folks going to school using G.I. Bill, that number 

is 135 right now today. It could change tomorrow to 136 or 134. 

But it is right around there. And that accounts for less than two 

percent of all the G.I. Bill campuses. So any efforts that we could 

expand the program, whether it be by three or by 50, we would certainly love to do that. My concern would be, however, that reVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
14 

sources would come with that. In other words, we take our current 

VSOC program and we hire, we take an experienced VR counselor 

and put them on campus full-time. And we think that is incredibly 

valuable. And then we backfill that individual with an entry level 

VR counselor. We did the AmeriCorps program at VSOC sites because we thought it was critical that we had that VA person, that 

experienced counselor, to sort of see that program though. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. 

Mr. FLORES. Ranking Member, if it is okay with you I would like 

to go ahead and have a quick second round? 

Mr. TAKANO. Sure. 

Mr. FLORES. If that is okay. Secretary Kelly, I did not want you 

to leave unquestioned so we will have a second round. You had a 

recommendation for H.R. 3614 that DOL should provide only the 

states technical assistance instead of requiring that the states submit all licensing and credentialing exams to DOL. Can you expand 

on that recommendation? 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. Yes, I would be happy to. First I would 

like just to share with the committee because this is as of last 

week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Report on Veterans 

Employment that just came out last week, there is significant improvement with regard to veterans unemployment dropping over 

this last year from 2012. And actually in fact both for the most recent Gulf War era veterans, it has been almost a ten percent drop. 

And just to share that improvement is being made. And I want to 

thank the committee, the administration, and all of us that are implementing the programs and the changes you have made. Some 

things are working and they are working in the correct direction. 

Mr. FLORES. May I interrupt you for a minute? Do you have that 

by age cohort? 

Mr. KELLY. Yes, I do. 

Mr. FLORES. Particularly 18 to 29. 

Mr. KELLY. What is used in there the Gulf War II era veterans 

which takes it all the way back, I think, from September 12th forward. And I think that takes it all the way up 35. I do have the 

data. I will definitely get it specifically to you by the age cohort. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. 

Mr. KELLY. But that one has made almost the largest gain in the 

drop of unemployment almost to ten percent, from 9.9 down to nine 

percent. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. 

Mr. KELLY. With regard to your specific question, you know, that 

we do have concerns about this. We do, let me reiterate, appreciate 

the intention of the bill. And the concerns we have, we are first and 

foremost opposed to withholding the state funding to hire the 

DVOPS and the LVERs. Our result is we see this would penalize 

the very people that this legislation is aimed at helping, and hopefully even help drive down those unemployment numbers. The 

DVOPS and LVERs are the individuals at the state level that do 

provide the critical employment services. 

There is a second part with the concern with this bill and it is 

too broad as it is currently written in that all licenses and credentials issued by a state would be included in that. And I do have 

numbers on some of the states on the hundreds of licenses and creVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
15 

dentials that are offered out there by various state agencies, it is 

almost overwhelming sometimes. 

And finally many states are already working to streamline the 

licensing process for veterans and transitioning services. Every 

year a legislature meets more are getting on board to do that. So 

it is for those reasons that we have concerns with the bill as it is 

written. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Thank you, Secretary Kelly. Mr. Coy, one last 

question for you. In your written testimony on Section 5 of H.R. 

4037 you stated that the VA has the authority that it needs to 

prioritize voc rehab services. So if you already have this authority, 

the two-part question is A, how does VA prioritize those? B, what 

is the filter that they use for the prioritization? 

Mr. COY. We currently are going through a change in two or 

three or four things. Prior to this review we used to prioritize those 

veterans who were Post-9/11 veterans would get, if you will, head 

of the line privileges. We are now looking across the board with respect to how we would set up a priority system similar to VHA’s 

priority one, two, three, four, and laying those things out. As you 

know, most recently our new Direction of Vocational Rehabilitation 

and Employment, Jack Kammerer testified in front of this committee, I believe. And one of his responsibilities he has been tasked 

with by me is to sit down and establish a program to do just that. 

But we do believe that we have the current authority to be able 

to do that. The devil is in the details, most certainly. We need to 

figure out, you know, this balance of fair versus priority. And who 

gets head of the line privileges, but making sure that nobody gets 

the back of the line privileges. And so striking that balance is going 

to be a challenge. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Coy. Mr. Takano, I recognize 

you for five minutes for a second round. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Coy, with regard to 

H.R. 4031, what is the Secretary’s general feeling about this attempt to give him enhanced flexibility with regard to the SES? 

Mr. COY. Thank you, Congressman Takano. That is a great question. I believe the Secretary’s views on this are pretty clear that he 

believes that he has the authority to do that. I have met very few 

individuals in my career, and that has been a long one, that does 

not have any, or that has the moral integrity and the honor that 

Secretary Shinseki does. He takes SES performance incredibly seriously. I have been in his office where he has ensured that everyone 

under his responsibility is clear on what the goals and strategic intent of his office and where the VA is headed. I would suggest that 

Secretary Shinseki’s views on this are such that he has the authorities to do those things and he has in fact done that. He has 

removed people. He has reduced people’s pay. He has reassigned 

people. He has suspended people. He has done all of those actions 

specifically in the last two years I know. 

Mr. TAKANO. So would he view the intent of this legislation for 

H.R. 4031 as a helpful additional tool? Or is he saying that he has 

enough authority as it is to provide the discipline and order for the 

SES? 

Mr. COY. I believe that the view of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs is that the Secretary currently has the tools available to 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
16 

him or her to do, to ensure that senior executives within the Department of Veterans Affairs are held accountable and he has in 

fact used that tool on several occasions. 

Mr. TAKANO. Is there any thought that providing this flexibility 

for the Department of Veterans Affairs could be used as an example for enhanced flexibility in other departments of the federal government? 

Mr. COY. That is, if you will, an opinion question on my part. 

And my opinion? This is Curt Coy’s opinion. I would suggest that 

it could have a detrimental effect on recruiting and attracting candidates to the Department of Veterans Affairs if the Department of 

Veterans Affairs had a different SES system, if you will, than other 

departments in the government. The SES system that is in place 

now has what is generally considered adequate safeguards to ensure that senior executives, if action has been taken, they can go 

to the MSPB if necessary. That has happened at VA. And in fact 

MSPB at one point reversed a decision, and then they went back 

as I understand it. So there are those tools in place where SESers 

have due process. And so there might be a concern from the perspective of this particular bill that some of that due process may 

not be available to senior executives. 

Mr. TAKANO. Do you believe in your opinion that removing these 

protections could in fact turn these SES positions into expanded political appointees? 

Mr. COY. I do not know that I am qualified, sir, to make that 

judgment. I would say again my experience as a senior executive, 

before I came over here I laid out the, I looked up the Senior Executive Service and refreshed myself and this is what the Office of 

Personnel Management defines a Senior Executive Service as comprised of men and women charged with leading the continuing 

transformation of government. These leaders possess well honed 

executive skills and share a broad perspective of government and 

public service commitment which is grounded in the Constitution. 

Members of the SES serve in key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Ranking Member Takano. Well, I have 

a parting comment on this particular issue. I was a senior executive in the private sector for 30 years and I never went to an organization and worried what the due process policies were. I just worried about how well I was going to be able to execute my position 

and the responsibilities under my authority. And I hope that we 

can, my encouragement for the VA is to embrace these reforms that 

we are proposing because they are desperately needed, it sounds 

like. 

With this the first panel is excused with our thanks. We appreciate you joining us, Mr. Coy and Mr. Kelly. And we now invite the 

second panel to join us. 

Before you leave, Mr. Takano, without objection we are going to 

change the rules so we can carry on with one member. Okay? You 

do not object? Okay, good. 

All right. With our second panel today we have Steve Gonzalez, 

who is the Assistant Director for the National Economic CommisVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
17 

sion at the American Legion; Mr. Pete Hegseth, Chief Executive 

Officer at Concerned Veterans for America; Mr. Ryan Gallucci, 

Deputy District Director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars; and Mr. 

William Hubbard, Vice President of External Affairs at Student 

Veterans of America. And I apologize to those of you whose names 

I butchered. I thank all of you for being here, for your service to 

our nation while you were in uniform, and for your hard work and 

advocacy for veterans today. Mr. Gonzalez, we will begin with you. 

You are now recognized for five minutes. 

Statements of Mr. Steve Gonzalez, Assistant Director, National 

Economic Commission, The American Legion; Mr. Pete Hegseth, 

Chief Executive Officer, Concerned Veterans for America; Mr. Ryan 

Gallucci, Deputy Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars; 

And Mr. William Hubbard, Vice President of External Affairs, Student Veterans of America 

STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. On 

behalf of the National Commander Dan Dellinger and the 2.4 million members of the American Legion, we thank you and your colleagues for the work you do in support of our servicemembers and 

veterans, as well as their families. The hard work of this subcommittee in creating significant legislation leads a positive impact 

on our military and veterans community. 

H.R. 2942, enactment of legislation to reestablish the Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee, PCLAC, 

will benefit servicemembers as well as those who eventually employ veterans in the civilian workforce, easing the placement of 

qualified veterans in civilian careers and matching civilian employers with skilled veteran employees. The Department of Veterans 

Affairs currently lacks subject matter experts that can provide 

knowledgeable recommendations to improve VA’s licensing and certification. Therefore the American Legion believes that it is extremely important that the PCLAC be reauthorized. The American 

Legion strongly supports H.R. 2942. 

H.R. 3056, the American Legion believes strongly in the power 

of peer to peer support and has called for the development of peer 

to peer rehabilitation programs. However, we have several concerns 

with H.R. 3056. One, the commissioning of the pilot on only three 

college campuses. Two, the possibility of funding being diverted 

from existing programs such as VetSuccess on Campus that already provides such services. And three, the possibility of redundancy. For more details on these concerns please refer to our written testimony. The American Legion does not support H.R. 3056 as 

written. 

H.R. 3614, the American Legion’s Resolution Number 52 holds 

that we support action that will require Congress through the Secretary of Labor to ensure that each workforce center in the various 

states offering labor exchange services have sufficient funding to 

provide at least one DVOP and LVER staff to provide services to 

all veterans requiring employment and training assistance residing 

within the state. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
18 

As such, the American Legion cannot support any legislation 

which will withhold funding to these programs, even as a penalty. 

The American Legion does not support H.R. 3614 as written. 

H.R. 4031, the American Legion is deeply concerned with the 

lack of accountability within the VA. This legislation will provide 

tools to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to better manage senior 

executive service employees and hold them accountable when they 

fail to perform their duties in a manner that better serves the veterans entrusted to their care. The American Legion supports H.R. 

4031. 

H.R. 4037, the American Legion does not have a resolution or position on H.R. 4037. 

H.R. 4038, the American Legion believes that in order to ensure 

the continued success of the delivery of education benefits and accurately track the outcomes of VA’s VR&E system, the VA will 

need to maximize the usage of paperless IT systems and be 

proactive in this area to prevent any kind of backlog as such, as 

has been seen with disability claims. The American Legion supports the passage of H.R. 4038. 

H.R. 4147, prior to the passage of the post-9/11 G.I. Bill, the VA 

delivered education benefits were relying on a combination of manual processes and legacy IT systems. However, the Department 

also determined at the time that its legacy systems were insufficient to support the demands for processing the new benefit. This 

report will allow policymakers to assess the status of the system, 

the plan of the system, the plan of action with regard to the finalization of the system, and the anticipated cost. The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 4150, Congress and other key stakeholders lack essential 

information needed to assess the performance of many programs in 

the Department of Labor’s VETS. The American Legion believes 

that a longitudinal study conducted by a third party will help to 

identify lapses in program stewardship and will allow for the Department of Labor’s VETS to make improvements to existing programs and services. The American Legion supports this bill. 

Lastly, H.R. 4151, since the 2009 implementation of the post-9/ 

11 G.I. Bill, education benefits have significantly increased for 

service members, veterans, and their families. However, the VA 

has yet to conduct an impact study—a survey or a study to evaluate the experiences of those individuals using the G.I. Bill benefit. 

In order to evaluate how such a robust benefit has impacted the 

lives of veterans who are transitioning from the military to civilian 

life, such an assessment on return on investment for policymakers, 

advocates, and taxpayers is much need. The Legion supports this 

bill. 

The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

the bills being considered by the Subcommittee. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Chairman. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Hegseth, you are recognized for five minutes. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
19 

STATEMENT OF PETE HEGSETH 

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

Takano, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

My name is Pete Hegseth, and I am the CEO of Concerned Veterans for America. We are an organization of veterans and military 

families dedicated to fighting for the freedom and prosperity here 

at home that we fought for while in uniform. 

We are a growing organization of veterans and military families 

who refuse to accept the status quo in Washington. I am an Army 

veteran myself, having served three tours since 9/11—Guantanamo 

Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan. 

And today I am speaking on behalf of the members of Concerned 

Vets for America, and every veteran and their supportive families 

who feel like second-class citizens in their own system. 

I am here for every veteran who has waited and waited and waited for a disability claim, for every veteran who calls the VA Hotline 

and then sits on hold, for every veteran who waits weeks and even 

months for a medical appointment, every veteran who receives substandard care, and tragically I am here for every veteran who has 

died because they have not received the care they needed when 

they needed it. 

You have seen the stories, I have seen the stories, and it is long 

overdue that things change at the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

It is time for accountability, it is time for transparency, and it is 

time for results. 

These stories motivate my testimony here today, as well as my 

organization’s full support of the bipartisan House Resolution 4031, 

the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability 

Act of 2014. No sober observer of VA’s track record, especially in 

the last few years, can look you, me, or any other veteran in the 

eye and defend the status quo. The status quo is simply unacceptable, and everyone knows it, especially those to access or I should 

say attempt to access VA’s impenetrable, and woefully ineffective 

bureaucracy. 

The answer for years has been to spend more money. But as Secretary Shinseki says often, VA has all of the resources it needs. 

Since 2009, the budget for VA has increased by $66 billion dollars. 

But what VA and many in its army of advocates will not publicly 

admit is that VA’s problem has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with a calcified culture of mediocrity. 

At VA, nearly all employee performances rewarded, regardless of 

outcome, poor employee performance is routinely ignored or covered 

up, and veterans are left holding the bag—wanting and waiting. 

What we have today is a VA that is very good at protecting managers and staff, and not very good at serving veterans. 

Omar Bradley, of World War II fame and a former Veterans Administrator, once said, ‘‘We’re dealing with veterans, not procedures, with their problems, not ours.’’ Bradley’s creed has been 

turned on its head. VA is obsessed with procedure and so engulfed 

in its own cultural problems, they are not serving veterans the way 

our Nation expects. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
20 

Now I am not saying VA leadership managers and employees are 

bad people, they are not. Many of them are veterans and many of 

them do an excellent job. But with any bureaucracy over time, institutional incentives can distort human behavior in ways that become self-serving and process driven as opposed to customer service 

oriented and outcome driven. 

This has clearly happened at VA, as not a single senior VA manager has been fired under this Administration. Not one. To the contrary, in 2011 and 2012 every SCS received a performance rating 

of fully successful, while the back-load and other problems exploded. Tell me this: if basic accountability is not enforced at the 

top, how can performance be corrected throughout and organization? 

That is what House Resolution 4031 seeks to combat, providing 

the VA Secretary with the tools necessary to bend the incentive 

curve. The Bill would simply empower the VA Secretary to fire 

under-performing managers, specifically members of VA senior executive service. These are the folks who run the hospitals, lead the 

regional offices, and run entire departments. The ability to cut 

through red tape and actually fire bad managers is the same power 

we give our Secretary of Defense, which Secretary Gates used quite 

effectively in cleaning up the 2007 mess at Walter Reed. 

Why should the VA Secretary not have those same basic tools? 

Now, of course, VA has opposed this reform measure and is peddling their own watered down version. That is to be expected, as 

no bureaucracy would demand more accountability of itself. Some 

in Washington also derived the Bill as an issue of employee rights, 

saying it would undermine existing civil service rules. 

Critics mainframe the issue as a matter of employee rights, but 

what rights are they defending? The right of a poor-performing VA 

executive to fail at their job? The right of a VA leadership to retaliate against whistle blowers, or the right to continue granting extravagant bonuses to failing managers? It takes a very expansive 

understanding of employee rights to oppose the bill on those 

grounds. 

Far from being an attack on dedicated public servants, H.R. 4031 

would instead empower and attract better managers. This bill 

would also bolster the best employees while sending a clear message to poor performers, that results matter. We think it would attract perform-minded individuals. 

In closing, the key question before this Committee and this Congress is simple—who will you stand with, under performing bureaucrats who can’t be fired, or veterans who are being underserved? The answer to that question is crystal clear. 

Thank you for this opportunity, and I welcome your questions, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETE HEGSETH APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Hegseth, well said, and that is obviously a 

YouTube that I would like to play over and over again. So, Mr. 

Gallucci, you are recognized for five minutes. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
21 

STATEMENT OF RYAN GALLUCCI 

Mr. GALLUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on behalf 

of the VFW. I also want to thank this Subcommittee for its hard 

work over the last year, advancing critical legislation, like in-state 

tuition for veterans. We encourage you to keep up the hard work 

and look forward to working with you to accomplish our shared 

goals. For the VFW’s full thoughts on today’s bills, I will refer you 

to my prepared testimony, as I will only speak briefly to each of 

them. 

First, on H.R. 2942, the VFW supports this bill and we echo the 

sentiment of my colleague from the American Legion, who laid out 

the case for why this Advisory Committee must be extended. 

Next, on H.R. 3056, the VFW supports Ranking Member 

Takano’s efforts to better understand the impact of peer support for 

student veterans; however, we question the need for a pilot program to do this. We worry that a pilot would duplicate what already happens on the grounds, thanks to our colleagues from Student Veterans of America, as well as through VA work study and 

programs like VSOC, VITAL, and Veteran Centers of Excellence. 

Recently, I discussed the peer support with Kenneth Wiseman, 

the VFW Student Veteran Outreach coordinator for Virginia, and 

a graduate student at Old Dominion University. Through his work 

around Virginia, Ken helps schools and student veterans understand the programs and support available to them. Just last week, 

Ken visited Virginia Western Community College’s new Veteran 

Center, which will soon host 6 VA work study veterans to offer 

peer support. Ken’s home campus, Old Dominion, hosts nearly a 

dozen VA work study veterans to do the same. 

The VFW believes that in lieu of a pilot, Congress should instead 

look to programs like those at Old Dominion to better understand 

how schools, student veterans, and VA are working together to deliver peer services. 

The VFW agrees that we know far too little about the student 

veteran experience and we should study peer support models to 

identify promising practices and potential shortcomings. However, 

to do so, the VFW recommends studying a diverse selection of 

schools already implementing peer support programs. The VFW 

fully supports the goal to report on the efficacy of peer support for 

student veterans, and we look forward to working with the Committee on this issue. 

Next, H.R. 3614. The VFW supports the concept of this bill to 

streamline licensing opportunities for veterans. Prior to this hearing, I visited the Army’s recruiting website, goarmy.com, which 

touts the valuable career skills soldiers receive. To the VFW, it 

seems unreasonable that these skills would not easily translate to 

civilian jobs as we all know, and we look forward to working with 

the Committee on ways to fix this. 

On H.R. 4031, the VFW shares Chairman Miller’s concerns over 

accountability for VA management. We support the intent of this 

bill to give VA broader authority to remove SES employees for poor 

performance, but have some concerns over the proposal as it is 

written right now. Any changes must protect that intricate link beVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
22 

tween political appointees and civil servants, but the VFW agrees 

that the current system makes it nearly impossible for VA to remove an SES. 

As a result, the VFW recommends changing the disciplinary procedures to ensure that SES employees must respond to notices 

within 30 days, with some appeal rights intact, in lieu of today’s 

open-ended process. 

Recently, VFW Commander-in-Chief Bill Thien testified that it is 

a privilege to work for VA, not a right. We look forward to working 

with Chairman Miller to reinforce this message. 

H.R. 4037, the VFW supports the intent of your bill, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that VR and E helps the veterans who need it the 

most. VR and E is nearly at capacity for offering rehabilitative 

services and as the military draws down, we share your concerns 

that without responsible changes, VR and E may be stretched too 

thin. However, the VFW worries that restricting eligibility will 

cause some veterans to fall through the cracks. 

Although we cannot support this bill in its current form, we do 

look forward to working with you on meanful reforms that will ensure VR and E conserve those who need it without restricting access. 

On H.R. 4038 and 4147, the VFW supports both of these bills 

and we thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Takano 

for ensuring that VA invests in its education IT systems and can 

report on potential shortcomings to make necessary improvements. 

H.R. 4151, the VFW supports Congressman Bilirakis’ efforts to 

understand the student veteran experience. Since we do not know 

enough about today’s student veterans, many draw conclusions 

based on bad information. In my office, my colleagues and I joke 

that by Department of Education standards, none of us are considered a college graduate. 

We need quality information to demonstrate veteran success, 

coupled with Ranking Member Takano’s report on peer services, 

and SVA’s recent report on student veteran outcomes, we believe 

this bill will allow us to better understand the unique experiences 

of student veterans, protecting our investment in future veteran 

leaders. 

Finally, on a longitudinal study on vets, the VFW believes that 

the Department of Labor VETS can provide a critical gateway to 

civilian employment for many veterans, particularly through the 

DVOP and LVER network. Unfortunately, services vary across the 

country and we struggle to evaluate what works and what doesn’t. 

Recently, the VFW referred a small business owner in Indiana 

to his local LVER, and we are proud to report that the next day 

he had several interviews lined up with viable candidates. 

So, we believe that this system can work, but we must have 

proper oversight to ensure that vets can deliver the services veterans need. We support this draft concept, and we look forward to 

working with the Committee to advance it. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my 

statement. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF RYAN GALLUCCI APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
23 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Gallucci. Mr. Hubbard, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HUBBARD 

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting Student 

Veterans of America to submit our testimony regarding pending 

legislation intended to increase support for military service members and veterans. 

Student Veterans of America is the largest and only national association of military veterans in higher education. Our mission is 

to provide military veterans with the resources, support, and advocacy needed to succeed in higher education and after graduation. 

We currently have nearly 1,000 chapters or student veteran organizations at colleges and universities in all 50 states that empowers veterans in their transition and through a higher education. 

This on-the-ground perspective, which comes from every corner of 

this Nation, and our experience in supporting thousands of G.I. bill 

beneficiaries, provides the framework for our testimony regarding 

these important issues. 

The two bills we would like to address today are H.R. 4150, and 

H.R. 4151 from the Offices of Congressmen Cook and Bilirakis, respectively. 

Looking at H.R. 4150, Veterans Employment and Training Services Longitudinal Study Act of 2014, on March 24 we released our 

initial findings of our Million Records project, an SVA—lead research study of veterans in higher education in collaboration with 

the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Student 

Clearinghouse. 

As we look at H.R. 4150, we find it to be complimentary to our 

research, and within the spirit of seeking data-driven decisions on 

programs to support veterans in higher education. 

Since our organization’s inception, we have held that the life 

cycle of the veteran’s transition from the military, to school, and 

onwards to civilian careers, is a highly inter-dependent process. 

Each component of this process builds on the proceeding steps, and 

this legislation seeks to empower veterans through several critical 

stages. 

For example, the Department of Labor’s Veterans Employment 

and Training Service, VETS, builds bridges for millions of veterans 

across—over the coming years as they pursue gainful careers in 

post-graduation. However, the current lack of coordination and understanding of the breadth of impact surrounding this part of the 

transition process is a crucial gap that must be addressed. 

SVA applauds the interest and moving towards the goal of gaining greater clarity on the impact of job counseling, training, and 

placement of veterans. In 2012, a GAO report noted that the Federal government has sponsored 6 different programs, serving at 

least 880,000 participants at a cost of $1.2 billion. 

Such a broad variety of resources might be seen as a positive attribute and certainly reflects the sea of goodwill that has developed 

over the past decade. However, without coordination, duplicative 

efforts and inefficiencies threaten to stymie the full potential of 

these resources. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
24 

A study as this legislation proposes would enable decision makers at multiple levels to understand what is working. As well, the 

study would highlight areas for change. SVA is in full support of 

H.R. 4150, and applauds the legislation for being fully inclusive of 

all individuals of any kind in educational assistance. 

Turning to H.R. 4151, the Veterans Education Survey Act of 

2014, SVA stands in strong favor of Congressman Bilirakis’ legislation, H.R. 4151. It is right for some Americans to ask, what are we 

receiving for our investment in the G.I. Bill? Indeed, this is a crucial question as more than $34 billion has been spent on millions 

of veterans who have sought and are seeking degrees in higher 

education. 

As previously noted, our Million Records Project has sought to 

answer that question. H.R. 4151 is an important piece of legislation 

because it answers another key element of this investment in our 

veterans—what motivates veterans to pursue the paths that they 

do. 

We know that a majority of service members elect to pursue 

higher education as they transition out of the military. With an expected one million new veterans to enter the civilian population 

over the next several years, the importance of empowering veterans 

in higher education will continue to increase. 

Through the Million Records Project there are several data 

points that we have gained great insight on, and when paired with 

the data that would be collected through a study directed by this 

legislation, the picture will become even clearer. This legislation 

will add another element to that picture, factors that impact the 

past veterans’ pursuit in higher education. 

The more data available on these topics, the better. Since 2000, 

over 4 million veterans have benefitted from the use of the G.I. 

Bill, and American taxpayers can expect that this generation of 

veterans will positively impact the American economy, in magnitudes that will continue for several generations to come. 

Student Veterans of America is appreciative of the opportunity 

to provide this testimony. We thank the Chairman, the Subcommittee members for their time and attention and devotion the 

cause of veterans in higher education, and we look forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee, the House Veterans Affairs 

Committee, and Congress to ensure the success of all generations 

of veterans through education. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing Student Veterans of 

America the opportunity to participate in this important hearing. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HUBBARD APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Hubbard, and I thank all of you for 

your testimony. I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. 

This is a question for all of Panel 2. If the VA is resistant to reforming the SES employment protocols, what sort of a message 

does that send to our veterans? Let us start with Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, at this moment I am not pretty 

much the person that would deal with this particular issue. My colleague, who is not here today, would be more than happy to followVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
25 

up with your staff with a written statement on the record on your 

particular question, Chairman. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Mr. Hegseth, you were pretty passionate 

about this subject. What message do you think this sends to our 

veterans? 

Mr. HEGSETH. I think it sends a signal of detachment from reality, that the bureaucrats or employees or those who—and let me 

be clear. Most SES, use that word, ‘‘bureaucrats,’’ I don’t mean it 

pejoratively. These are folks that want to do well by veterans, but 

are detached from the outcomes and the realities that are actually 

coming down the pike and what veterans are experiencing. And 

when they see failures and they read the headlines and they wait 

in line, and then they do not see anything change at the top and 

then they read about bonuses for executives of failing departments, 

it tells them the very department that was meant to serve them 

is actually serving the interests of other people who can protect 

those interests easily, because they’ve got access and lobbyists and 

protections here in Washington, and it is the veteran who is left 

hanging. 

So I do think it creates a perception that VA is disinterested and 

detached from what actually happens in the lives of those veterans 

and reinforces the separation a lot of veterans feel right now from 

a department that should be serving them, and leaders who should 

be pounding the table for reform, which is why we believe the argument the VA has pushed forward, that this would discourage good 

managers is false—is utterly false. 

Why, as a good manager, would you want to enter a bureaucracy 

where you cannot effect change, where you cannot reform it so that 

it is better in the way it provides outcomes? So, we’d like to believe 

that these changes would encourage better employees. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Mr. Gallucci, what reflections do you have? 

Mr. GALLUCCI. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to 

speculate on what VA’s—on why VA would come out in opposition 

to this. But from our perspective, one of the concerns that we have 

is to keep the pendulum swinging too far in the wrong direction, 

which is why we look forward to working with the Committee to 

put forward good legislation that will make sure we can hold senior 

executive service members accountable for the decisions that they 

have made. 

What we wrote about in our prepared remarks discussed that the 

SES exists to bridge the gap between political appointees and the 

career civil servants. What we would hate to see is them to hold 

the SES to the same standard as political appointees, in which you 

have just another level of political appointee, where SES is going 

to be fired at the whim of whoever is in that Administration. 

We agree there needs to be a bridge between those two, and that 

is why we look forward to working with the Committee and Chairman Miller to make sure that have a responsible bill for the SES 

accountability. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Hubbard, what sort of a message do you think 

it sends to our veterans and front line VA employees if we don’t 

reform the SES system? 

Mr. HUBBARD. At this time, Student Veterans of America finds 

it out of the scope of our mission to comment on this bill. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
26 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gallucci, you had a thoughtful suggestion on H.R. 4031 that I do remain concerned that the 

approach that you have recommended remains too close to the status quo, so we do look forward to working with you in terms of trying to find a way to hold SES employees accountable, but also we 

can’t have a status quo. We have got too many things that are not 

working at the VA that we would like it to—bonuses being paid 

and veterans continue to suffer. So we will keep working with you 

on that. 

Continuing on to another question for Mr. Gallucci, you had 

some testimony on my Voc Rehab bill about the need to prioritize 

service and ensure the most severely injured veterans receive care 

first. Can you elaborate on how you would see that working? 

Mr. GALLUCCI. This the discussion we look forward to having. 

Obviously, the VFW, we would oppose restricting access to the program for veterans who are currently eligible. We worry that some 

veterans would slip through the cracks. 

However, we certainly recognize that the program is getting close 

to a point where it may not be able to deliver the rehabilitative 

services that veterans need. By the very nature of the program, it 

is designed to rehabilitate veterans who—because of their service 

connected disability, need to find a new career path. And that is 

why we look forward to working with you on ways to come up with 

it. 

One of the issues that I brought up in our written testimony is 

the ratio of Voc Rehab counselors to Voc Rehab participants. Right 

now the independent budget—veteran service organizations report 

that at about 145 to 1, which is well above VA’s acceptable ratio 

of 125 to 1. So that demonstrates to us that there is some stress 

on the system. 

So, though we do have concerns about the bill as written in restricting access to some veterans who may need it, who may have 

a low service connected disability but a significant barrier to employment, that is why we want to have an open and ongoing conversation about the best way to do that. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Mr. Hubbard, I have got sort of a two-part 

question, but I would like to start with how would you define success for student veterans? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Sir, I would define success for our student veterans in terms of them being able to make a clear transition to 

educational institutions, for them to have a smooth process which 

would consist of working with the administration at their universities as well as their peers on campus, and then translating that 

success over to a gainful employment; to be able to find a career 

that is both fulfilling and also able to pay the bills. You know, individuals can’t just land jobs. That is not the goal. The goal is to find 

careers for these veterans if they can actually contribute to society 

in a positive way, and frankly, really impact the American economy. 

Mr. FLORES. I like your definition. Based on that definition, I 

have a question for you and Mr. Gallucci, both. Can you talk a little bit more about the need for hard data that truly shows success 

for student veterans? We’ll start with you, Mr. Hubbard. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
27 

Mr. HUBBARD. Sure. Absolutely. So a lot of speculation and anecdotal evidence has been provided both ways about how student veterans are faring, in both education and then beyond. Without actual hard evidence data, this is just speculation. There is no actual 

ability to create programmatic change or effect policy. 

So being able to look at that base line of data, understanding 

how student veterans are faring in education, from that point forward you can actually make data-driven decision and you are basing your information on something that you know, versus something that you think. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Mr. Gallucci, can you add to that? 

Mr. GALLUCCI. I think it is very important. Like I spoke about 

in my oral remarks, neither myself nor my colleagues at the VFW 

are considered college graduates by Department of Education 

standards. And that really comes from—— 

Mr. FLORES. They include a bunch of us. 

Mr. GALLUCCI. Exactly. I think probably everybody at this table 

would not be considered a graduate by those standards. And what 

we saw over the last couple of years is we were creating a false 

narrative about student veteran performance and higher education, 

and I have to thank my colleagues from Student Veterans of America for putting out their report that demonstrates that veterans are 

on par with their civilian peers, and actually do better than their 

non-traditional peers in higher education. 

What worried me about that report yesterday, though, is that the 

non-traditional data is more than 20 years old. So, we have a responsibility to find quality data on veterans. 

One of the things that I wanted to talk about is the importance 

of studying peer-to-peer support in higher education. This is one of 

the reasons why we encourage the Subcommittee and Representative Takano to adjust fire on their bill on peer-to-peer support. We 

think peer-to-peer support is critical on college campuses, but one 

of the problems that we see is that we know this is happening. We 

know it is happening in droves around the country. But the problem with commissioning a new pilot is that if these sites know that 

they are being studied, those sites are going to behave differently. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. 

Mr. GALLUCCI. We already have this happening in the community and if we want to do it responsibly, I believe that we should 

study what is already happening and then adjust programs within 

VA and within the veteran’s community accordingly. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gallucci. Mr. Gonzalez, can 

you go into more detail about the view that you expressed related 

to the Department of Labor’s current ability to track outcomes, and 

how H.R. 4150 would help to address this problem? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, we knew in the past that many of the outcomes that the Department of Labor lacks has affected, or I should 

say, the DVOPS and LVERS and how the resources are being allocated or how the resources are being actually delivered to the veterans, transitioning into whatever state that they are—respective 

state that they are going back into, whether it is their home state 

or the current state that they are stationed at. 

One of the problems we have seen in the past with a lot of the 

inability for Department of Labor to even know what is going on 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
28 

is how is money—how is the funding going into the state, how 

DVOPS and LVERS are in some cases of being not just allocated 

to help veterans look for employment, but also the whole entire 

population which goes against their mandate. 

The Department of Labor, through many past GAO reports have 

shown the lack of Department of Labor’s VETS program or Department of Labor in general ability to actually acquire this type of information. Now knowing and being able to acquire such an information again will allow for advocates but also policymakers like 

yourself, Chairman, and this Committee to figure out is the money 

being used for the right reasons. And the reason we say that is, as 

we all know, the draw downs are coming. The Army alone will be 

shedding roughly about 140,000 soldiers within the next couple of 

years, where guess what? Welcome to society. Here you go. 

We know in the past that the Army’s spending—and that is the 

other part to this, is that this particular issue is not just going to 

affect the Department of Labor, but it is also going to affect the Department of the Defense. If we cannot find those individuals employment, Department of Defense is on the hook for paying unemployment benefits, and as we well know, in the last—I don’t know, 

ten years or so, the Department of Defense has spent $9 billion in 

unemployment benefits. 

Now that money, which people don’t realize, comes out of operating budgets of each respective service, which again, goes back to 

our National security. It goes back to our readiness, which that is 

a topic of conversation right now within the public, is how do we 

continue to have readiness? And if we are drawing down and we 

cannot find them employment, will DoD better be able to cough up 

the money, because someone is paying for it and DOD is on the 

hook. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So, it has bigger implications, Chairman. 

Mr. FLORES. You did get into a vicious spiral, so—because you 

hurt readiness more and then the budgets get tighter and the more 

people—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. You reduce the uniform strength. It does get to that 

spiral that none of us want to see. 

This is my last question to Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Gallucci, and Mr. 

Hubbard. Assuming for a minute that H.R. 4038 becomes law and 

the VA has upgraded its IT systems related to the G.I. Bill. What 

are some of the positive things that you think would happen by 

doing this, and Mr. Hubbard, we will start with you first. 

Mr. HUBBARD. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question? 

Mr. FLORES. Sure. Yes. Assuming for a minute that H.R. 4038— 

it is my bill related to having the VA upgrade its IT systems with 

respect to the G.I. Bill to go to a rule space processing system. 

What are some of the positive outcomes that you think would happen and would be experienced by our student vets? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Well, for starters, I think the ability to have a 

clear system that they understand and can be responsive, that is 

the number one outcome. Student veterans who put in for the benefits who don’t get them processed ultimately even just one month 

being missed can have a detrimental impact long-term. You might 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
29 

miss the first month of classes, university might hold the degree, 

you might not be able to graduate. And the lasting effects of this 

can range for years. You know, an individual loses time on their 

G.I. Bill benefits and ultimately it will effect their ability to graduate. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Mr. Gallucci, same question. 

Mr. GALLUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. I 

think the reason that we support this or we want to see VA finish 

its IT resources for education is because we have already seen significant progress on automation within processing G.I. Bill claims. 

So they have reduced the wait time significantly on initial claims, 

and then on supplemental claims are almost fully automated. So 

veterans are not having to wait months to receive their benefits. 

We have seen some hiccups in the system; we want to prevent 

those. We think it is a good thing if they finish their IT resources 

because then we will have something concrete in place, something 

that veterans can rely on, something that they can work off of, and 

when they—as my colleague Will was saying that when they show 

up to school they know that their check is going to arrive on time, 

that they can pay the rent and pay the bills. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Chairman, for the question and again 

I will pretty much agree with my colleagues but also to talk about 

that would be also is allowing it to streamline such a system to ensure that we do not have the same mistakes we have seen with 

backlog claims, is first of all. 

Second, the other problem is making sure that by streamlining 

it it allows for one less burden for an individual who does have 

other issues. It can be taking of family, going to school full-time. 

I use myself as an example. When I went to school, I was a fulltime student. I worked full-time, and I was also in the Reserves. 

Mr. FLORES. Wow. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So having that, that is one less burden as myself, 

as a student veteran, as a drilling reservist, and as well as a fulltime employee, as a second job, it allows for one less burden for 

myself to have to worry about and having such a system will allow 

myself to, again, pay my bills, pay the school on time, and not be 

held accountable for basically the issues that VA has occurred, and 

again just also prevent one other disaster, especially again with the 

draw-down happening, you are going to see more and more student 

veterans entering actual institutions of higher learning. So you 

want to be proactive and not reactive in this situation. 

Mr. FLORES. Okay. I want to thank each of you for your testimony today. Again, thank you for your service to our country while 

you were in uniform and thank you again for your advocacy on behalf of our Nation’s veterans, one of our Nation’s most important 

resources for our future. 

If there are no further questions, and I do not think there are 

since we have a bunch of empty chairs, I want to thank each of you 

for being here today and taking the time to share your views on 

these nine bills. This is very important to the Legislative process 

and we appreciate your insight and your feedback and your passion. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
30 

We also want to announce that the Subcommittee will be holding 

a markup on some or all of these bills on April the 8th. I ask unanimous consent that the following organizations be allowed to submit testimony for the record: The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, Vets First, Disabled American Veterans, 

Wounded Warrior Project, and the Senior Executive Association. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five 

Legislative days to revise and extend remarks and include extraneous material on any bills under consideration this afternoon. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Again, I want to ask you for your forbearance. We started about 

an hour late in order to accommodate votes, but we appreciate everybody in the audience. We appreciate the VA and the Department of Labor for their forbearance, as well, and for our current 

panel of witnesses. 

The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:51 p.m. the meeting of this subcommittee was 

adjourned] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and 

Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today to provide VA’s views on pending legislation affecting 

VA’s programs, including the following: H.R. 2942, H.R. 3056, H.R. 

4031, H.R. 4037, H.R. 4038, H.R. 4147, and H.R. 4151. Other bills 

under discussion today would affect programs or laws administered 

by the Department of Labor (DOL). Respectfully, VA defers to DOL 

on H.R. 3614, the ‘‘Military Skills to Careers Act,’’ a bill to improve 

the recognition by states of skills learned in the military by Veterans when issuing licenses and credentials, and H.R. 4150, the 

‘‘Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study 

Act of 2014,’’ a bill directing DOL to enter into a contract for the 

conduct of a longitudinal study of job counseling, training, and 

placement services for Veterans provided by that Department. Accompanying me this morning is Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel. 

H.R. 2942 

H.R. 2942 would amend section 3689(e)(5) of Title 38, United 

States Code, to reestablish VA’s Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee with a new termination date of December 31, 2019. VA may appoint new members of the Committee 

without regard to the individuals who served as members before 

the date of enactment of this bill. 

The Committee would advise the Secretary of the requirements 

of organizations or entities offering licensing and certification tests 

to individuals receiving VA education benefits and other related 

issues as the Committee determines to be appropriate. 

VA supports this legislation. If reestablished, the Secretary 

would be able to receive recommendations and seek advice from the 

Committee with regard to licensing and certification programs. 

VA estimates that, if enacted, there would be no benefit costs or 

savings associated with H.R. 2942. VA did not have administrative 

costs available at the time of the hearing. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
31 

H.R. 3056 

H.R. 3056, the ‘‘Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act,’’ 

would direct VA to carry out a 3-year pilot program on the provision of outreach and support services to Veterans pursuing higher 

education under that Department’s Post 9/11 Educational Assistance Program (chapter 33 of Title 38, United States Code). VA 

would select three institutions of higher learning at which the pilot 

program should be carried out, to include: One 4-year public university, one community college, and one private, not-for-profit college. To be eligible to participate in the pilot program, the institution is required to: 

1) Provide office space to use information technology equipment 

and appropriate support services for the individual who will provide peer-outreach and peer-support services at the institution. 

2) Cooperate in providing data required to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot program. 

Priority selection for the pilot program will be given to institutions of higher learning with existing peer outreach programs for 

Veteran students and institutions of higher learning located in 

states with large Veteran populations. 

In carrying out the pilot program, the Secretary shall provide 

peer-outreach and peer-support services to Veterans of Operation 

Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New 

Dawn who are students at an institution where the Secretary carries out the pilot program. Emphasis will be placed on individuals 

who have difficulty adjusting to an institution, or who need services or support that the institution is not equipped to provide, by 

employing: 

1) Veterans who are using chapter 33 benefits to pursue a program of education leading to a degree at the institution of higher 

learning; 

2) Those who have used entitlement to educational assistance 

under chapter 33 to complete a program of education and graduate 

from such an institution during the 18-month period preceding the 

date on which the Veteran is hired to perform services under the 

pilot program; and 

3) Veterans who have served on active duty in a theater of combat operations (with special consideration given to Veterans who 

have recovered or are recovering from a mental health condition). 

The Secretary shall provide training for Veterans hired under 

the pilot program and develop requirements and measures for assessing the impact and effectiveness of the services provided, including: 

1) Developing and disseminating an online survey; 

2) Developing and disseminating (not earlier than 18 months 

after the start of the pilot program) a follow-up online survey instrument to gather data, including data to assess engagement with 

peer support, experience-accessing services, and adjustment to 

higher education; and 

3) Tabulating the number of Veterans who meet on an individual 

basis with peers, the number of referrals the individual makes, and 

the outcome of the referrals. 

The pilot program would terminate 3 years after the date of commencement or the last day of the academic year that ends no more 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
32 

than 180 days after the date that is 3 years after the date of commencement. 

H.R. 3056 would require the Secretary to submit a report to the 

Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than months after completion of the pilot 

program. The report would include a description of the implementation and operation of the program and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the peer-outreach services provided under the program. 

VA does not support this legislation because we do not believe it 

is necessary. If enacted, it would create a pilot program similar to 

VA’s VetSuccess on Campus (VSOC) program. The legislation also 

calls for VA to carry out the pilot program on only three campuses, 

thus limiting the population pool we would be reaching to effectively conduct outreach. The VSOC program aims to help Veterans, 

Servicemembers, and their qualified dependents succeed and thrive 

through a coordinated delivery of on-campus benefits assistance 

and counseling, leading to completion of their education and preparing them to enter the labor market in viable careers. The VSOC 

program provides a VA Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) 

at each VSOC school, with requisite space for using information 

technology equipment and in a private setting to discuss matters 

specific to the individual’s needs. In fiscal year 2013, the VSOC 

program expanded to 62 campuses, bringing the total number of 

VSOC sites to 94. 

The proposed legislation would require VA to employ Veterans to 

provide peer outreach and peer support to certain Veterans. However, VSOC VRCs partner with Veterans Health Administration 

Vet Center Outreach Coordinators on many campuses, to provide 

peer-to-peer counseling and referral services. These individuals ensure Veterans receive the support and assistance necessary to pursue their educational and employment goals. 

VA estimates that, if H.R. 3056 was enacted, there would be no 

benefit costs. Administrative costs are estimated to be $211,000 in 

the first year, and $652,000 over 3 years. Information technology 

costs, which include information technology equipment for full time 

equivalents, installation, maintenance, and information technology 

support, are estimated to be $6,000 in the first year, and $18,000 

over 3 years. 

H.R. 4031 

H.R. 4031, the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014,’’ would amend chapter 7 of Title 38, 

United States Code, by adding a new section 713 that would, notwithstanding any other provision of law, enable the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to remove any individual from the Senior Executive Service (SES) if the Secretary determines the performance of 

the individual warrants such removal. The Secretary could remove 

the individual from Federal service or transfer the individual to a 

General Schedule position at any grade he determines appropriate. 

The bill would require notice to the House and Senate Veterans’ 

Affairs Committees within 30 days after removing an individual 

from the SES, and the reason for the removal. It provides that ‘‘[a] 

removal under this section shall be done in the same manner as 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
33 

the removal of a professional staff member employed by a Member 

of Congress.’’ VA opposes this legislation. 

The purpose and principles Congress provided in 5 United States 

Code § 3131 to govern the SES include ensuring employment conditions that attract and retain highly-competent senior executives, 

protect them from arbitrary or capricious action and prohibited personnel practices, ensure compliance with the civil service rules, and 

secure protection from improper political interference. 

The SES is comprised of men and women charged with leading 

the Federal Government. The leadership provided by those serving 

in the SES is critical, as is the need for effective performance management for the SES, and indeed all Federal employees. VA is committed to continuing our dialog with the Committee about effective 

accountability and performance management throughout VA, including the SES within VA, but we believe this bill would generate 

serious unintended consequences that would prove counterproductive. Further, as detailed below, under current law, the Secretary already has tools to address the performance of SES managers who have not met acceptable standards. 

First, enactment of H.R. 4031 would have a chilling effect on 

VA’s ability to recruit and retain high-quality leaders and managers, especially when VA is in competition with other Federal 

agencies for those leaders. Enactment of the bill would significantly 

diminish workplace protections for VA SES. This would jeopardize 

VA’s ability to recruit senior managers from outside the Department as well as promising General Schedule employees that VA 

hopes to advance to SES leadership (a critical part of succession 

planning). We believe this change, if enacted, would diminish VA’s 

ability to best serve Veterans, as well as be an effective steward 

for the U.S. taxpayer. 

Second, we believe employees who are removed would (and 

should) still retain due-process protections. Thus, actions taken by 

the Secretary under the authority provided by H.R. 4031 could still 

lead to lengthy litigation, even if the intent of the legislation was 

to make removal from the SES a non-appealable action. 

As noted above, the Secretary already has tools under current 

law and established regulations to address executive performance. 

SES statutes give agencies the authority to manage executives and 

remove individuals from the SES who perform unacceptably. A career executive can be removed if rated unsatisfactory after an appraisal period. The law requires certain procedural steps within the 

agency that promote deliberation and fairness but cannot restrict 

the agency head’s final action. An executive removed for performance has no appeal right. To encourage high performers to join the 

SES, the statute provides fallback to a position of a level at which 

they formerly excelled, which preserves the agency’s long-term investment in the employee. The Secretary also has the ability to effect a reduction in pay as a response to poor performance, as well 

as reflect that judgment in performance evaluations and performance awards. Secretary Shinseki has utilized all of these tools to 

address performance and accountability. 

We believe restriction of this bill to VA executives will not diminish the systemic threat it poses to the Government-wide SES 

Corps. Should H.R. 4031 be enacted, it would set precedent for 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
34 

other agencies. This could be viewed as a fundamental abrogation 

of Federal commitments to senior executives and should not be 

done without thorough consideration of the implications for the 

SES Corps and executive management of Federal programs 

throughout the Government. 

While VA believes H.R. 4031, if enacted, could have broad negative effects on its ability to recruit and retain managerial talent, 

we cannot estimate with any specificity the budget impact of this 

measure. 

H.R. 4037 

H.R. 4037, the ‘‘Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014,’’ would make certain improvements relating to training and rehabilitation for Veterans 

with service-connected disabilities. Section 2 of H.R. 4037 would 

add a new section 3123 to chapter 31 of Title 38, United States 

Code, for calculating the rate at which Veterans are determined to 

be rehabilitated to the point of employability during a fiscal year. 

Under this new section, the Secretary would be required to divide 

the number of Veterans who participated in a chapter 31 rehabilitation program and those determined to have been rehabilitated to 

the point of employability during a fiscal year by the sum of the 

number of Veterans who participated in a chapter 31 rehabilitation 

program during the fiscal year and the number of Veterans who 

were entitled to participate in a chapter 31 rehabilitation program 

during the fiscal year but did not complete the program. 

VA cannot support this section as drafted because the required 

calculation would not validly measure the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program outcomes. VA agrees that 

it is important to improve calculations to measure success, however, the required calculation would not accurately measure the 

percent of Veterans made employable and would only account for 

VA’s success at preparing individuals for jobs, not VA’s success at 

helping Veterans obtain jobs. VA is currently improving performance measures and is ready to work with the Committee to further 

refine its performance measures. No costs would be associated with 

this section. 

Section 3 of the draft bill would add a requirement to section 

3104(b) of Title 38, United States Code, that any courses of education or training pursued by a Veteran as part of a chapter 31 rehabilitation program be approved for purposes of either chapter 30 

or 33, unless this requirement is waived by the Secretary as 

deemed appropriate. This new section would apply with respect to 

a course of education or training pursued by a Veteran who begins 

a program of rehabilitation on or after the date that is 1 year after 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

VA supports the intent behind this section and is examining the 

need for a policy that would require the approval of the Director, 

VR&E Service, for Veterans participating in a chapter 31 rehabilitation program to enroll in schools that are not approved for purposes of chapters 30 and 33. VA has the authority under section 

3115 of Title 38, United States Code, to approve any course of 

training at any facility if VA determines that it will meet the 

unique rehabilitation needs of a Veteran participating in a chapter 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
35 

31 rehabilitation program, and an approved course is not available 

for that Veteran. This flexibility is necessary to cover the special 

needs of chapter 31 program participants in certain cases, such as 

when a Veteran requires specialized, non-college degree training, 

and an appropriate training facility is located near the Veteran’s 

residence but has not been approved for purposes of chapters 30 or 

33 education benefits because it has not been in operation for 2 

years. Maintaining the flexibility to approve such courses of training under section 3115 allows VA to provide individualized services 

based on a Veteran’s unique personal needs. Before approving any 

course or training facility for a chapter 31 program, VA ensures it 

meets the requirements of 38 Code of Federal Regulation §§ 21.120 

through 21.162 and 21.290 through 21.299. No costs would be associated with this section. 

Section 4 of the draft bill would expand eligibility for specially 

adapted housing (SAH) to disabled Veterans who are eligible for a 

chapter 31 vocational rehabilitation program and are referred for 

assistance pursuant to section 2107 of Title 38, United States Code. 

VA cannot support the section as written because it is not clear if 

Congress intends to establish a new category of eligibility for the 

smaller SAH grant, which would be provided in addition to chapter 

31 assistance, or if Congress intends to move the authority for the 

housing modification authorized under chapter 31 so that it is only 

administered as a type of SAH grant under chapter 21. If the latter, VA agrees that any significant modifications to adapt Veterans’ 

homes are best managed by SAH personnel with extensive construction expertise and experience. Our VR&E counselors work collaboratively with SAH personnel to meet the adapted housing 

needs of chapter 31 Veterans. VA is ready to work with the Committee on drafting technical language that would ensure services 

are provided to Veterans in need of assistance. VA is unable to estimate costs for this section as additional clarification of this section 

is needed. 

Section 5 of the draft bill would add a new section 3104(c) to 

Title 38, United States Code, giving the Secretary authority to 

prioritize the provision of chapter 31 services based on need. The 

Secretary would be required to consider disability ratings, the severity of employment handicaps, qualification for a program of 

independent living, income, and other appropriate factors in evaluating need. Section 5 would also require the Secretary to submit to 

Congress a plan describing any changes with regard to prioritizing 

the provision of chapter 31 services not later than 90 days before 

making any changes. 

VA cannot support this section because VA does not believe legislation is needed to prioritize vocational rehabilitation services. VA 

currently has authority to provide vocational rehabilitation services 

based on the rehabilitation needs of individuals. In addition, under 

section 3120 of Title 38, United States Code, VA is required to provide independent living programs first to Veterans for whom the 

reasonable feasibility of achieving a vocational goal is precluded 

solely as a result of a service-connected disability. Furthermore, income is not a factor used to determine VR&E services to be provided to Veterans. No costs would be associated with this section. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
36 

Section 6 of the draft bill would amend the definition of ‘‘serious 

employment handicap’’ in section 3101(7) of Title 38, United States 

Code, to mean a significant impairment resulting from the serviceconnected disability that is directly related to the Veteran’s ability 

to prepare for, obtain, or retain employment consistent with the 

Veteran’s abilities, aptitudes, and interests. The current definition 

requires that the employment handicap results in substantial part 

from a service-connected disability rated at least 10 percent disabling that significantly impairs the Veteran’s ability to prepare 

for, obtain, or retain employment consistent with his/her abilities, 

aptitudes, and interests. A Veteran is currently entitled to chapter 

31 services if the Veteran has a service-connected disability rated 

at 10 percent and is in need of rehabilitation because of a serious 

employment handicap as currently defined in section 3101(7). 

Under the legislation’s new definition, for a Veteran to qualify for 

chapter 31 services based on a serious employment handicap, there 

must be a direct relation between the service-connected disability 

that causes the impairment and the Veteran’s ability to prepare 

for, obtain, or retain employment. In contrast, under the current 

definition, the service-connected disability that causes the impairment need only be a ‘‘substantial’’ cause of the impairment for a 

Veteran to qualify for chapter 31 services based on a serious employment handicap. 

VA cannot support this section as written because its meaning 

is not clear. VA is unable to determine whether the change in the 

current definition of ‘‘serious employment handicap’’ would establish entitlement to chapter 31 services for more or fewer Veterans. 

VA would be pleased to provide technical assistance to draft bill 

language that would ensure qualified Veterans receive necessary 

services. VA is unable to estimate costs that may be associated 

with this section. 

H.R. 4038 

H.R. 4038, the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Administration Information 

Technology Improvement Act of 2014,’’ would make certain improvements in information technology to help VBA reduce redundancy and process claims more efficiently. Section 2 of H.R. 4038 

would require the Secretary to ensure that all original and supplemental claims, for chapter 33 educational assistance, are adjudicated electronically, and that rules-based processing is used to 

make decisions on such claims with little human intervention. Section 2 would also require the Secretary to ensure that payments of 

subsistence allowance for Veterans participating in a chapter 31 rehabilitation program are processed and paid out of one corporate 

information technology system, and that the information technology system supports more accurate accounting of services and 

outcomes for Veterans participating in a chapter 31 rehabilitation 

program. The Secretary would also be required to submit a report 

to Congress on any changes made in information technology pursuant to section 2, but not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

VA does not support this provision because VA needs the flexibility to prioritize information technology needs and resources 

based on the needs of the entire Department. VA has deployed 6 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
37 

major releases for the Post-9/11 GI Bill Long-Term Solution (LTS), 

which provides an end-to-end claims processing system utilizing 

rules-based, industry-standard technologies for the delivery of education benefits. On September 24, 2012, end-to-end automation of 

select Post-9/11 GI Bill supplemental claims was activated in LTS. 

Since this deployment, over 4,600 claims are automatically processed per day with no human intervention. Approximately 80 percent of all Post-9/11 GI Bill supplemental claims are fully or partially automated. While VA has rules and automation for processing Post-9/11 GI Bill supplemental claims, VA would have to develop these mechanisms for original claims. Eligibility determinations for original Post-9/11 GI Bill claims are very labor-intensive. 

Currently, LTS is in a sustainment phase with limited development. VA would need development funding to enhance LTS with 

functionality to process all original and supplemental claims to the 

maximum extent practicable, with little human intervention. Original claims currently are being processed in an average of 19 days. 

VA would need a minimum of 24 months from receipt of funding 

to report on the changes made under this provision. 

With respect to chapter 31, VA already has plans in place to ensure claims are processed and paid from one system and is actively 

planning for development of a new information technology casemanagement system for chapter 31 claims. VA is currently betatesting a phased transition to one chapter 31 payment system 

using the Corporate Subsistence Allowance Module (SAM). This 

phased approach enables VA to minimize the risks associated with 

payments to Veterans during the transition. As with any phased 

system change, there will be a transition period in which some 

processing is accomplished in one system and some in another. It 

is unclear whether this provision of H.R. 4038 would restrict VA 

from continuing a phased approach for this transition, potentially 

adversely affecting services to Veterans. If beta-testing of CWINRS 

SAM continues as expected, national deployment is expected to 

begin by November 2014. VA is also validating the business requirements for a new information technology case-management 

system that will better reflect the business and data reporting 

needs of the chapter 31 program. 

VA estimates that, if enacted, no benefits costs would be associated with H.R. 4038, however, VA estimates administrative costs 

to be $3 million, and information technology costs to be $30 million 

for section 2(a) and $15 million for section 2(b). 

H.R. 4147 

H.R. 4147, the ‘‘Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act,’’ would require VA to submit to Congress a report regarding ‘‘the information 

technology system of the Department of Veterans Affairs that is 

used in connection with the administration of [VA] educational benefits . . . ’’ The bill also references a plan ‘‘with respect to such system that was submitted to Congress prior to the date of the report,’’ but VA is unclear to which plan the bill refers. 

The bill uses the singular ‘‘system,’’ but VA has a number of different systems related to separate educational benefits, many with 

differing rules and requirements. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
38 

H.R. 4147 also requires an annual briefing to be held by the 

Chief Information Officer and the Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity. We are unclear if this is in addition to annual 

reports. 

VA, thus, does not support the bill as drafted, but recommends 

we discuss with Committee staff the specific areas of interest. The 

Department will be glad to provide information on those areas of 

interest, once identified. 

H.R. 4151 

H.R. 4151, the ‘‘Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014,’’ would 

require VA to work with a private contractor to administer a survey to individuals who have used or are using VA education benefits under chapters 30, 32, 33, and 35 of Title 38, United States 

Code. The survey would collect the following information: 

• Demographic information to include: 

Æ The highest level of education completed by the individual; 

Æ The military occupational specialty or specialties performed 

by the individual while they were serving in the armed forces; 

and 

Æ Whether the individual has a service-connected disability. • The individual’s opinion of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), as well as the effectiveness of TAP, including the 

instruction on how to use VA education benefits. 

• The resources the individual used to support the decision to 

go to school using his/her VA education benefits. 

• The resources used to decide on the program of study in 

which to enroll. 

• The individual’s goal when he/she enrolled in the program of 

education. 

• The nature of the individual’s experience using VA’s education benefits computer-processing systems. 

• The nature of the individual’s experience working with the 

certifying official at his/her school. 

• Services or benefits provided by the school to the Veteran. • Type of educational institution the individual attended. • Whether the individual completed his/her program of study, 

how many credit hours he/she completed, and any degrees or 

certificates he/she obtained. 

• The employment status of the individual and whether his/ 

her employment status was different prior to starting the program of study. 

• Whether the individual was enrolled on a full-time or parttime basis. 

• The individual’s opinion on the effectiveness of VA’s benefits 

program he/she used to complete the program of study. 

• Whether the individual was ever entitled to or used a rehabilitation program under chapter 31. 

• Any other matters VA determines appropriate. 

The survey would be conducted electronically and by any other 

means the contracting agency deems appropriate. 

H.R. 4151 would require VA to enter into a contract not later 

than 180 days after enactment of this Act, and the survey would 

be completed 180 days after VA enters into the contract. The surVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
39 

vey would be submitted to the Senate and House Committees on 

Veterans’ Affairs not later than 1 month before the survey is administered. VA would submit a report to Congress not later than 

90 days after completion of the survey, as well as any recommendations related to the results of the survey. VA would also submit an 

unedited version of the results of the survey. 

While VA supports the intent behind this legislation, the Benefits Assistance Service (BAS) is currently administering a similar 

survey with the help of a private contractor, J.D. Power and Associates. BAS expects to receive fiscal year to date results from the 

survey by September 30, 2014. The current survey collects much of 

the information required by this bill, although the survey would 

need to be modified to include questions about military occupational specialty; whether the Veteran has a service-connected disability; the effectiveness of TAP; the Veteran’s experience with the 

school certifying official; the effectiveness of the Veteran’s program 

of study; the Veteran’s experience with VA’s computer systems; and 

whether the Veteran has eligibility under VA’s chapter 31 vocational rehabilitation program. 

To prevent duplication of work, VA would investigate the feasibility of combining the requirements in H.R. 4151 with VA’s current survey within available resources and would work with the Office of Management and Budget to change the survey in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act as appropriate. VA would save 

expenditures by using the currently existing survey, as opposed to 

starting the process from the beginning. VA expects to receive fiscal year to date results from the current survey by September 30, 

2014. VA would need 1 year from the date of enactment to complete the required survey. 

VA estimates that, should H.R. 4151 be enacted, General Oper- ating Expenses (GOE) would be $263,000 to enter into a contract 

with a non-Government entity to create a new survey of a statistically-valid sample of individuals who have used or are using educational assistance under chapters 30, 32, 33, and 35 of Title 38, 

United States Code. Alternatively, to incorporate the additional 

questions into the existing survey, GOE are estimated to be 

$106,000. 

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

opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to respond to questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may 

have regarding our views as presented. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH KELLY

Introduction 

Good afternoon, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and 

distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. As the Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) at 

the Department of Labor (DOL or Department), I am honored to 

testify before you. I am accompanied today by the Department’s 

Chief Evaluation Officer, Demetra Nightingale. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department’s views 

on pending legislation and for your continuing support of our NaVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
40 

tion’s veterans, transitioning service members, and their families. 

The Department will continue to work with the Members of the 

Committee to ensure that the men and women who serve this 

country have the employment support, assistance, and opportunities they need and deserve to succeed in the civilian workforce. 

While this hearing is focused on numerous bills pending before 

the Subcommittee, I will limit my remarks to those pieces of legislation that have a direct impact on DOL, including: H.R. 3614, the 

Military Skills to Careers Act; and H.R. 4150, the Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act of 2014. 

DOL respectfully defers to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

on the remaining pieces of legislation. 

H.R. 3614—The Military Skills to Careers Act 

The first piece of legislation that I will address is H.R. 3614, the 

Military Skills to Careers Act. H.R. 3614 would require that a 

State establish a program under which the State administers an 

examination and issues a license or credential to a veteran, without 

requiring any training or apprenticeship, if the veteran: (1) Receives a satisfactory score on the relevant State examination; (2) 

has been awarded a military occupational specialty that is substantially equivalent to, or exceeds, the State requirements; (3) has engaged in the occupation for at least two of the five preceding years; 

and (4) pays any fees required by the State. H.R. 3614 would require the State to establish such a program as a condition of a contract or grant from DOL to hire and support Disabled Veterans’ 

Outreach Program (DVOP) Specialists or Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVERs). 

Each State would be required to submit a description of the results of the exams administered to the Secretary of Labor (Secretary), who would summarize those results in a report to Congress 

and the Secretary of Defense at least once a year. H.R. 3614 would 

also allow the Secretary to waive the requirement to establish such 

a program if the State certifies that, in issuing licenses or credentials, the State: (1) Takes into account previous military training; 

(2) permits veterans to completely satisfy, through examination, 

any training or testing requirements for which a veteran has previously completed military training; and (3) for any credential or license for which a veteran is unable to completely satisfy such requirements through examination, substantially reduces the required training time based on the military training received by the 

veteran. 

The Department supports the intent of H.R. 3614 and looks forward to working with Members of Congress to ensure that separating service members and veterans are able to successfully translate their military training and experience to civilian occupations. 

DOL also supports efforts to encourage States to apply consistent 

measures when awarding credit for military training and experience towards certain occupational licensing requirements. Greater 

uniformity will help enable a comparison of military training and 

experience to nationwide requirements for licensure. 

However, withholding funding that supports DVOP and LVER 

staff is not the right approach to achieve this goal. That approach 

could have the unintended consequence of penalizing veterans and 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
41 

States who rely on these critical personnel to help them attain employment. A better and more practical approach would be to provide assistance to States that are working hard to make progress 

in streamlining licensing and credentialing processes for veterans 

and disseminate best practices to other States. At the same time, 

States should continue to be funded by DOL to employ veteran-employment specialists to provide services to veterans and conduct 

outreach to employers to encourage the hiring of veterans. 

In addition, the Department is concerned that, by including all 

licenses and credentials issued by a State, H.R. 3614, as currently 

drafted, is overly broad. Some States issue hundreds of different licenses and credentials. For instance, Illinois has close to 400 different occupational licenses and California has 350 occupational licenses. In fact, more than half of the States, thirty-four of them, 

have over 100 different occupational licenses. As a result, the administrative burdens could be significant. Moreover, State licensing 

boards use a variety of mechanisms and methods that are specific 

to each industry and State in establishing licensing criteria. As a 

result, DOL recommends that the legislation authorize DOL to provide Technical Assistance to assist the States and to establish any 

necessary reporting systems. 

The majority of States have adopted legislation aimed at supporting service members who seek to qualify for licenses and credentials based on their military education, training, and experience. There are a variety of different legislative and regulatory approaches that have been adopted and proved successful in different 

States. The Administration will continue to work with States to develop and implement solutions that work at the State and Federal 

level to assist veterans. 

The Department, in collaboration with the Department of Defense, has been working with States to help improve their licensing 

and certification practices. Two such projects are currently under 

way: one to analyze and compare transferable skills from military 

training to civilian credentials for a set of key military occupations; 

and a second to provide information and technical support to selected States to award credit for military training and experience 

toward State occupational licensing requirements. The latter demonstration project provides assistance to efforts in 6 States to facilitate and accelerate licensing of veterans for selected occupations 

(EMT/Paramedic; Licensed Practical Nurse; Physical Therapy Assistant; Registered Nurse; Police Patrol Officer; and Commercial 

Bus and Truck Drivers). 

We note that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has 

worked with the States to obtain a waiver of the road test for veterans, to facilitate the process of obtaining Commercial Driver’s Licenses. DOT also has responsibilities for Emergency Medical Service occupations although other health occupations would be relevant to the Department of Health and Human Services. Results 

and promising practices will be disseminated to assist the efforts 

of other States. We look forward to sharing the results of the Department of Labor efforts with the Committee as they become 

available. 

H.R. 4150—The Veterans Employment and Training Service 

Longitudinal Study Act 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
42 

H.R. 4150, the Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act of 2014, would direct the Secretary to enter 

into a contract with a non-government entity to conduct a statistically valid longitudinal study of veterans and the job counseling, 

training, and placement services for veterans provided by the Department. In addition, H.R. 4150 would give the Secretary access 

to the National Directory of New Hires information. 

I’ll first note the provision that would make the National Directory of New Hires available to the Secretary. At this time, DOL 

does not have authority to readily access earnings data nationally, 

and for that reason, we strongly support the provision. Without 

such authority, the process of obtaining earnings data involves 

timely and costly negotiation with States and significant delays in 

studies often occur. The Department looks forward to working with 

the Committee to provide technical assistance. In particular, the 

Department recommends that the legislation amend Section 453(j) 

of the Social Security Act to provide DOL the same authority to access the NDNH that other Federal agencies currently have. 

The Department also looks forward to conducting the type of longitudinal study called for in the legislation. The Department welcomes the opportunity to have a survey to better understand the 

impact of our services on the employment outcomes of veterans. We 

look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that the legislation, and the resulting study, is appropriately crafted. 

The Bill calls for a survey of the following groups: (1) Veterans 

who received intensive services through the Department’s programs; (2) veterans who received services but did not get an intensive service; and (3) veterans who did not seek or receive services 

from the Department’s programs. The study could be done by either following the same cohorts of individuals within each group 

over five years or conducting a survey sample of these three groups 

of veterans each year. Under both approaches, the Department recommends a mixed-method study that uses a combination of administrative data and surveys. 

Based on DOL’s conversations with Congressional staff, we understand that the intent of this legislation is to create a longitudinal study of the same veterans in each of these three groups over 

five years. Therefore, a survey would be the primary source of information. A nationally representative sample of individuals in the 

three groups would be surveyed each year over the course of the 

study, starting in year two. This type of study would assess the 

short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes of veterans, based on 

their responses to questions about whether they had received these 

services at specific times and would follow up on their employment, 

educational activities, income, and other meaningful measures of 

well-being. 

The survey would also ask veterans their opinions about the 

services they sought or received. A complementary statistical analysis of program administrative data could be done to analyze the 

characteristics of veterans served in the programs and their outcomes, although it may not be possible to directly link the program 

data to the longitudinal survey. The Department would provide 

yearly reports to Congress on the outcomes of the three cohorts of 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
43 

individuals in the survey beginning after the first year during 

which the survey will be developed and tested. 

Another approach would be to create a cross-sectional study that 

looks at a representative sample of veterans each year for each of 

the three groups. This type of study would require a slightly different mixed-method approach. The characteristics and outcomes of 

veterans would come from program administrative data and a survey would be conducted periodically, say every two years, of samples of veterans in each of the groups. Again, the survey would include questions about the veteran’s use of services and their opinions of the usefulness of the services they received. In this type of 

study, it may be possible to link administrative program earnings 

data to the survey data for a richer analysis. We would deliver results to Congress each year, based on the data-collection schedule. 

Either approach to the survey has challenges that could affect 

the timeline for reports to Congress. The Department would need 

to determine whether it can obtain reliable contact information to 

draw a representative sample from each group in a timely manner, 

and whether the sample should select from the entire nation or 

from selected States. Access to the National Directory of New Hires 

and cooperation from States and partner agencies with necessary 

information will be essential. 

The estimated cost of the study is $10 million. This cost includes 

a longitudinal study of outcomes across the above dimensions for 

five years as well as three surveys of the same 12,000 veterans, 

4,000 in each group, over the course of the study. The cost also includes the production of yearly reports to Congress, as well as a 

larger report that includes the results of the survey. 

The Department believes that this type of study could be a tremendous opportunity to learn about the impact of the Department’s 

services for veterans. By studying the three groups of veterans over 

time, the Department could obtain more complete data on the longterm outcomes of veterans who receive services from the Department and the key factors influencing those outcomes. In addition, 

the study would allow the Department to examine trends in program satisfaction and the long term employment and standard of 

living outcomes. The results would allow the Department to better 

tailor services to services to assist veterans with their immediate 

and long-term employment needs. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my Statement. Thank you again for 

the opportunity to testify today on these Bills. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE GONZALEZ

Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of National Commander 

Dan Dellinger and the 2.4 million members of The American Legion, we thank you and your colleagues for the work you do in support of our service members and veterans as well as their families. 

The hard work of this Subcommittee in creating significant legislaVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
44 

1The American Legion, ‘‘Resolution No. 326: Support Licensure and Certification of ActiveDuty and Reserve Personnel’’, Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The American Legion, Indianapolis, Indiana, August 28 – 30, 2012, http://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/ 

123456789/2195/2012N326.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March 10, 2014). 

tion has left a positive impact on our military and veterans’ community. 

H.R. 2942 

To amend Title 38, United States Code, to reestablish the Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the past fifteen years, The American Legion has been working with both Federal and State lawmakers, as well as industry 

leaders, to streamline the military-to-civilian licensing and certification process. Our research has shown that licensing and certification (credentialing) requirements for civilian employment pose a 

barrier to a smooth transition from military service to civilian employment. 

At our 2012 National Convention, The American Legion passed 

Resolution No. 326: Support Licensure and Certification of ActiveDuty and Selected Reserve Personnel,1 which mandates support for 

efforts to eliminate employment barriers that impede the timely 

and successful transfer of military job skills to the civilian labor 

market. Enactment of legislation to reestablish the Professional 

Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee (PCLAC) will benefit service members, as well as those who eventually employ veterans in the civilian work-force easing the placement of qualified 

veterans in civilian careers, and matching civilian employers with 

skilled veteran employees. The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) 

currently lacks subject matter experts that can provide knowledgeable recommendations to improve VA’s licensing and certification, 

improve the quality of State Approving Agency (SAA) approval 

process, review applications used by the SAA’s, and develop and 

update material on licensing and certification for use in training 

SAA staff. 

Therefore, The American Legion believes that it is extremely important that the PCLAC be reauthorized. It will bring in those subject matter experts to assist VA where they lack expertise in assessing certification and licensing programs, as well as assisting in 

the development of new material to support SAA’s in the field. 

Legislative gains in veteran licensing and credentialing have 

been made with the passage the Legion-supported Veteran Skills 

to Jobs Act. However, its more work to be done, and as such, The 

American Legion believes there is a definite need to resume this 

independent body with expertise in matters relating to licensing 

and credentialing which can present new solutions to VA’s senior 

leadership and congressional members as well as other stakeholders. 

The American Legion strongly supports H.R. 2942. 

H.R. 3056: Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot 

program on the provision of outreach and support services to veterans pursuing higher education under the Post-9/11 Educational 

Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
45 

2 List of American Legion Posts on college campus: University Veterans Post 360, Indiana 

University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Indiana; NDSU Post 400, North Dakota 

State University in Fargo, North Dakota; Florida Post 397, Hodges University, Florida; Lance 

Corporal Andrew ‘‘Andy’’ Nowacki Post 807, Lake Erie College, Ohio; Colorado State UniversityPueblo American Legion Post, CSU–Pueblo, Colorado; Saddleback Valley American Legion Post 

862, Saddleback College, California; and UND Post 401, University of North Dakota, North Dakota). 3 United States Department of Veterans Affairs, ‘‘Welcome to VetSuccess.VA.GOV’’, https:// 

www.vetsuccess.va.gov/public/vetsuccess-on-campus.html (access March 16). 4 Ibid. For a complete list of VSOC locations and VSOC Counselor contact information can be 

found at the following link: VetSuccess on Campus Locations and Contacts. 5The American Legion, ‘‘Resolution No. 27: Veterans GI Bill Education’’, Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The American Legion, National Executive Committee of The American Legion, Indianapolis, Indiana, October 16 – 17, 2013, http://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/ 

123456789/2760/2013F027.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March 15, 2014). 

The American Legion applauds Representative Takano and his 

colleagues for their work in support of America’s service members, 

veterans, and their families, and for introducing this legislation. 

However, The American Legion has several concerns with H.R. 

3056, Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act: (1) The commissioning of the pilot on only three college campuses; (2) the possibility of funding being diverted from existing programs, such as 

VetSuccess on Campus (VSOC), that are already providing such 

services; (3) the possibility of redundancy. 

The American Legion believes strongly in the power of peer-topeer support, and has called for the development of peer-to-peer rehabilitation programs, in Resolution No. 136, passed at the 2012 

National Convention. Similarly, The American Legion recognizes 

the impact that peer-to-peer support has had on currently attending service member and veteran students throughout all levels and 

types of institutions of higher learning (IHL). This impact has been 

evident through the creation of American Legion posts on college 

campuses 2 across spectrum of IHL. The American Legion has collaborated closely with our partners in the VSO community and Department of Veterans Affairs on the state and local levels in an effort to bring peer-to-peer support to currently enrolled students. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs has commissioned VSOC to 

provide a cross-cutting system designed to serve student veterans 

attending college or university. One of VSOC mandates is to provide ‘‘peer-to-peer counseling’’ 3 to those servicemembers and veterans currently enrolled in college. VOSC began as a pilot program 

in 2009 at the University of South Florida, and by fiscal year 2013, 

had expanded to a total of 94 sites. 4 The American Legion through 

Resolution No. 27: Veterans GI Bill Education Improvement 5 believes that Congress should look to existing programs like VSOC, 

in order to ensure that we maximize this success and improve what 

has already been accomplished through VSOC, rather than creating new pilot programs that can have an adverse impact on the 

success of such VA existing programs. 

To properly reflect the diverse experiences of veterans in higher 

education and to produce a quality report on the success of peer 

support in higher education, The American Legion recommends examining and assessing VSOC’s existing peer-to-peer services, and 

IHLs that already have a successful peer support program. This 

will give policymakers the opportunity to assess the existing programs’ barriers and to formulate solutions. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
46 

6The American Legion, ‘‘Resolution No. 52: Support Legislation that Would Return Disabled 

Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) 

Funding to a Staffing Grant’’, Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The American Legion, National Executive Committee of The American Legion, Indianapolis, Indiana, October 16–17, 

2013, http://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/123456789/2213/2012N052.pdf?sequence=1 

(accessed March 15, 2014). 7Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General Report No. 12-03869-179 

‘‘Healthcare Inspection: Mismanagement of Inpatient Mental Health Care Atlanta VA Medical 

Center Decatur, GA-APR 2013. 8http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-hospital-knew-human-error-caused-legionnaires-outbrea/k 

The American Legion looks forward to working with Rep. Takano 

and the subcommittee to improve peer-to-peer programs through 

existing initiatives. 

The American Legion does not support H.R. 3056 in its current 

form. 

H.R. 3614: Military Skills to Careers Act 

To amend Title 38, United States Code, to improve the recognition by States of skills learned in the military by a veteran when 

issuing licenses and credentials. 

The American Legion’s Resolution No. 52: Support Legislation 

that Would Return Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) 

and Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) Funding 

to a Staffing Grant holds that we ‘‘support action that would require the Congress through the Secretary of Labor to ensure that 

each workforce center in the various states offering labor exchange 

services have sufficient funding to provide at least one DVOP/ 

LVER staff to provide services to all veterans requiring employment and training assistance residing within the state’’. 6 As such, 

The American Legion cannot support any legislation which would 

withhold funding to these programs, even as a penalty. 

The American Legion does not support H.R. 3614 as written. 

H.R. 4031: Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014 

To amend Title 38, United States Code, to provide for the removal of Senior Executive Service employees of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs for performance, and for other purposes. 

The past several years have seen a growing number of instances 

of troubled management within VA facilities, with little visible administrative action taken by VA Central Office (VACO) to address 

those responsible for the actions in question. Whether the incidents 

were ‘‘negligence and mismanagement by Mental Health Service 

Line (MHSL) leadership [that] contributed to the death of a Mental 

Health (MH) unit inpatient at the Atlanta VA Medical Center’’,7 or 

the more widely publicized incident in the Pittsburgh, PA VA Medical System where VA officials knew ‘‘for more than a year it had 

an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, but failed to warn patients’’,8

the response, or lack of transparent response has been consistent. 

The claims side of the picture is no better, with service center managers at VA receiving large bonuses and accolades despite presiding over Regional Offices that have seen backlog figures soar to 

double or more the previous figures, even in the midst of a concerted effort by VA to finally tame and eliminate the backlog. 

When leadership in these positions fails, there are little to no consequences apparent to outside observers. Veterans need to have 

confidence that the system will correct itself and weed out those 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
47 

outliers contributing to a lack of confidence in the VA, an institution ostensibly created to serve veterans. This legislation gives the 

Secretary the authority needed to effectively run the Department. 

The American Legion is deeply concerned with the lack of accountability within the VA. This legislation would provide tools to 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to better manage Senior Executive Service employees, and hold them accountable when they fail 

to perform their duties in a manner that better serves the veterans 

entrusted to their care. 

When veterans see a Regional Office losing ground and wait 

times increasing in the fight to reduce the claims backlog, they 

grow frustrated when leadership continues as if nothing was 

wrong. When veterans see mismanagement practices in their 

healthcare system that put patient health at risk, veterans want 

to see leadership change to show a commitment from the top down 

that says their health and safety are the top priority of VA. This 

bill gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the tools he needs to 

help convey that message back to veterans and help ensure veterans have faith and trust in the systems designed to provide 

health care to them and to care for their wounds of war. 

The American Legion supports H.R. 4031. 

H.R. 4037: Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014 

To amend Title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements in the law administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

relating to training and rehabilitation for veterans with serviceconnected disabilities, and for other purposes. 

At this time, The American Legion does not have an official position regarding H.R. 4037. The American Legion’s goal is to ensure 

that veterans who incur an injury, illness or disability during military service can properly receive quality assistance in obtaining 

suitable employment once they leave the Armed Forces. Therefore, 

as a general Legion policy, any legislation passed that modifies the 

current rules for eligibility or priority in a federal veteran program, 

should also ensure that successful comparable programs are available to those veterans who find themselves no longer eligible. 

The American Legion does not have a resolution or position on 

H.R. 4037. 

H.R. 4038: Veterans Benefits Administration Information 

Technology Act of 2014 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make certain improvements in the information technology of the Veterans Benefits 

Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs to process 

claims more efficiently, and for other purposes. 

Currently, veterans apply for enrollment in the U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA), Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) through a combination of manual processes and IT 

systems. It is true that the VA’s handling of education benefits 

claims seems to be generally successful, with $27 billion in benefits 

already provided nationally since 2009 to about 938,000 veterans, 

service members, and their families. 

However, The American Legion believes that in order to ensure 

the continued success of the delivery of education benefits, and acVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
48 

9 VA’s two other line administrations are the Veterans Health Administration and the National Cemetery Administration. 10The regional processing offices are located in Atlanta, Georgia; Buffalo, New York; 

Muskogee, Oklahoma; and St. Louis, Missouri. 11 National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, ‘‘Education Program Beneficiaries’’, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, January 2014, http://www.va.gov/VETDATA/docs/ 

QuickFacts/Education-Beneficiaries.pdf (accessed March 18, 2014). 12The American Legion through ‘‘Resolution No. 27: Veterans GI Bill Education NinetyFourth National Convention of The American Legion, National Executive Committee of The 

American Legion, Indianapolis, Indiana, October 16–17, 2013, http://archive.legion.org/ 

bitstream/handle/123456789/2760/2013F027.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March 15, 2014). 13The American Legion, ‘‘Resolution No. 304: Support Full Funding and Staffing for the Veterans Employment and Training Services (VETS)’’, Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The 

curately track the outcomes of VA’s VR&E program, VA will need 

to maximize the usage of paperless IT systems, and be proactive 

in this area to prevent any kind of backlog such as has been seen 

with disability claims. 

The American Legion supports the passage of H.R. 4038. 

H.R. 4147: Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act 

To direct the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Deputy Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

for Economic Opportunity to submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 

regarding the information technology of the Department that is 

used in administering the educational benefits administered by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), one of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) three line administrations, 9 provides 

assistance and benefits, such as educational assistance, through 

four veterans’ regional processing offices. 10 According to a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Education Program Beneficiaries report released January 10, 2014, 11 twenty-three states account for 

80% of VBA beneficiaries’ workload with a 42% increase in VBA 

beneficiaries’ workload from 2009 to 2010 due in part to the Post9/11 GI Bill program being fully implemented. 

Prior to the passage of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, better known as the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA delivered education benefits by relying on a combination of manual 

processes and legacy IT systems. However, the department also determined at that time that its legacy systems were insufficient to 

support the demands for processing the new benefit. This report 

will allow policymakers to assess the status of the system, the plan 

of the system, the plan of action with regard to the finalization of 

the system, and the anticipated cost. Under The American Legion’s 

Resolution No. 27: Veterans GI Bill Education, 12 we support the 

passage of H.R. 4147. 

The American Legion supports the passage of H.R. 4147. 

H.R. 4150: Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act of 2014 

To amend Title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary 

of Labor to enter into a contract for the conduct of a longitudinal 

study of the job counseling, training, and placement services for 

veterans provided by the Secretary, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion through Resolution No. 304: Support Full 

Funding and Staffing for the Veterans Employment and Training 

Services (VETS) 13 has long championed full funding and staffing 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
49 

American Legion, Indianapolis, Indiana, August 28–30, 2012, http://archive.legion.org/ 

bitstream/handle/123456789/2171/2012N304.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March 10, 2014). 14 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), ‘‘Veterans’ Employment and Training, Better Targeting, Coordinating, and Reporting Needed to Enhance Program Effectiveness’’, 

December 2012, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650876.pdf (accessed March 16, 2014). 15 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), ‘‘VA Education Benefits: Student 

Characteristics and Outcomes Vary across Schools’’, July 25, 2013, http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-567 (accessed March 17, 2014). 

for the Department of Labor’s Veterans Employment and Training 

(VETS) program, and believes that collecting data and resetting 

performance metrics is integral to the wise stewardship of a program. 

According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report 

entitled, ‘‘Veterans’ Employment and Training, Better Targeting, 

Coordinating, and Reporting Needed to Enhance Program Effectiveness’’, it is estimated that the Federal government spends 

around $1.2 billion on 6 veterans’ employment and training programs, two of which are Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 

(DVOP) and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVER), 

which serve about 888,000 participants.14 The Department of 

Labor (DOL) has yet to conduct impact evaluations that assess 

their program effectiveness to determine whether outcomes are attributable to program participation of veterans and not other factors. As a result, Congress and other key stakeholders lack essential information needed to assess each program performance. 

Crucial to properly administering the DVOP and LVER employment services is collection and analysis of past performance data 

in order to gauge the effectiveness of federally-funded programs 

and services which the states administer. DOL’s inability to gauge 

the results and effectiveness of their own programs, as well as 

their inadequate oversight of performance measure at the state 

level, is cause for concern of accountability. 

The American Legion enjoys the unique benefit of having a large 

contingent of members who are DVOPs and LVERs and who sit on 

various commissions and councils which advise The American Legion with regard to policy. Based on testimony supplied by these 

members, The American Legion believes a longitudinal study conducted by a third party would help to identify lapses in program 

stewardship and will allow DOL–VETS to make improvements to 

existing programs and services. The American Legion supports the 

‘Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study 

Act of 2014.’ 

The American Legion supports H.R. 4150. 

H.R. 4151: Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014 

To direct 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 under the educational assistance programs administered 

by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

In 2012, the Department of Veterans Affairs has dispersed nearly $11 billion of VA education benefits to almost 1 million veterans.15

Since the 2009 implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, education 

benefits have significantly increased for service members, veterans, 

and their families. The Post-9/11 GI Bill provides payments for tuition and fees at accredited institutions of higher learning (IHL), as 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
50 

16The American Legion, ‘‘Resolution No. 27: Veterans GI Bill Education’’, Ninety-Fourth National Convention of The American Legion, National Executive Committee of The American Legion, Indianapolis, Indiana, October 16 – 17, 2013, http://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/ 

123456789/2760/2013F027.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed March 15, 2014). 

well as disbursing a separate payment for housing expenses and a 

stipend for books. The VA’s education and training benefits are intended to provide resources which afford opportunities to veterans 

which they may have missed due to his or her military service, and 

to ease transition from military service to the civilian workforce. 

Despite this huge expenditure of funds, the VA has yet to conduct an impact survey and/or study to evaluate the experiences of 

those individuals using the GI Bill benefit, in order to evaluate how 

such a robust benefit has impacted the lives of veterans who are 

transitioning from the military to civilian life. Such an assessment 

would ascertain the return-on-investment for policymakers, advocates, and taxpayers. The American Legion, as author of the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, known as the GI Bill, continues to take a great interest in veteran education benefits, and 

as such, supports H.R. 4151 through Resolution No. 27: Veterans 

GI Bill Education 16 as sound legislation which will help to ensure 

that we are able to examine the extent to which this benefit provides effective transitioning tools to service members and veterans. 

The American Legion supports H.R. 4151. 

The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

the Bills being considered by the Subcommittee. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER B. HEGSETH

Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. It’s a 

privilege to take part in these proceedings. 

My name is Pete Hegseth and I am the Chief Executive Officer 

for Concerned Veterans for America, an organization of veterans 

and military families dedicated to fighting for the freedom and 

prosperity here at home that we fought for while in uniform. Our 

organization represents a growing number of veterans, military 

families, and concerned Americans—young and old—who refuse to 

accept the status quo in Washington, especially as it pertains to 

our veterans, our military, and our country’s fiscal future. 

I received my commission from Princeton University in 2003, and 

have served three tours with the U.S. Army since 9/11; first at 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, second in Iraq, and most recently in Afghanistan. I’m currently an infantry Captain in the Minnesota 

Army National Guard, and recently graduated with a Masters in 

Public Policy from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of 

Government. I’m before this committee today as a veterans advocate, and certainly do not purport to speak on behalf of the military. 

I am speaking, however, on behalf of the membership of Concerned Veterans for America—and every veteran, and their supportive families, who feel like second-class citizens in their own 

system. I’m here for every veteran who has waited and waited and 

waited for disability claims resolution, only to be denied and 

thrown into an even longer appeals backlog. For every veteran who 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
51 

calls a VA hotline, and then sits on hold for hours. For every veteran who waits days, weeks, and even months for basic health care 

appointments. For every veteran who receives sub-standard care 

because, through no fault of their own, they live near a poorly-run 

VA facility. And, tragically, I’m here for every veteran who passed 

away because they didn’t receive the care they needed when they 

needed it. You’ve seen the stories. I’ve seen the stories. And it’s 

long overdue that things change at the Department of Veterans Affairs. It’s time for accountability. It’s time for transparency. And 

it’s time for results. 

This context and these stories motivate my testimony today, as 

well as my organization’s full support of House Resolution 4031, 

the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability 

Act of 2014. No sober observer of VA’s track record, especially in 

the past few years, can look you, me—or any veteran—in the eye 

and defend the status quo. The status quo is unacceptable—and everyone knows it; especially those who access, or I should say attempt-to-access, VA’s impenetrable, unaccountable, and woefully 

ineffective bureaucracy. 

This situation, of course, is not for a lack of trying. The Obama 

administration, this committee, legislators from both sides of the 

aisle, and traditional Veterans Service Organizations—of which I 

am a member—have made very well-intentioned and repeated attempts to make VA work. Everyone wants to help veterans; there 

is no doubt about that. For years, and understandably so, the overwhelming answer has been to spend more money, hire more staff, 

and fund more programs. 

As Secretary Shinseki says repeatedly, VA has all the resources it needs. Since 2009, VA’s budget has increased by over $66 billion, 

or 67%. But what VA and its army of advocates will not admit publicly is that VA’s problems have nothing to do with money—and everything to do with a calcified culture of mediocrity, as opposed to 

a dynamic culture of excellence. At VA, nearly all employee performance is rewarded (regardless of outcomes), poor employee performance is routinely ignored (or covered up), and veterans are left 

holding the bag—wanting and waiting. 

What we have today is a VA that is really good at serving and 

protecting managers, staff, and bureaucrats—and not so good at actually serving veterans. Omar Bradley, of World War II fame and 

former VA administrator, once said, ‘‘We are dealing with veterans, 

not procedures; with their problems, not ours.’’ Bradley’s creed has 

been turned on its head; today’s VA is the exact opposite. VA is obsessed with procedure, and so engulfed in it’s own cultural problems, that they’re not serving veterans they way our nation expects. 

I’m not saying VA leadership, managers, and bureaucrats are 

bad people—they’re not, and they’re certainly not the enemy. Many 

of them are veterans, and many of them do an excellent job. But 

with any bureaucracy, over time, institutional incentives can distort human behavior in ways that become self-serving and processdriven, as opposed to customer-service focused and outcome-driven. 

This has clearly happened at VA—as not a single senior VA manager has been fired under this administration. Not one. Tell me 

this, if basic accountability is not enforced at the top, how can inVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
52 

centives—and therefore behavior—be corrected throughout the organization? 

That is what H.R. 4031 seeks to combat, providing the VA Secretary with the tools necessary to bend the incentive curve. The 

Bill would simply empower the VA Secretary to fire underperforming managers, specifically members of VA’s Senior Executive 

Service. These are the folks who run the hospitals, lead regional offices, and run entire departments. The ability to cut through redtape, and actually fired bad managers, is the very same power the 

Secretary of Defense enjoys—which Secretary Gates used quite effectively in cleaning up the 2007 mess at Walter Reed. Why should 

the VA Secretary not have the same tools? 

Of course, VA opposes this reform measure—and is peddling 

their own, watered down versions. That’s to be expected, as it’s 

rare that any bureaucracy would demand more accountability for 

itself. Some in Washington also deride the Bill as an issue of ‘‘employee rights.’’ They argue that H.R. 4031 would eliminate key employment protections and undermine existing civil service rules. 

Critics may frame the issue as a matter of employee rights, but 

what ‘‘rights’’ are they defending? The ‘‘right’’ of a poor performing 

VA executives to continue failing at their jobs, at great cost to veterans, their families and the taxpayers? The ‘‘right’’ of VA employees to retaliate against whistle-blowers who report problems plaguing the department? Or the ‘‘right’’ to grant—and accept—extravagant bonuses for employees when VA’s performance is failing? It 

takes a very expansive understanding of ‘‘employee rights’’ to oppose this Bill on those grounds. 

Far from being an attack on dedicated public servants, H.R. 4031 

would instead empower them. By bringing greater accountability to 

an underperforming organization, this Bill would bolster the best 

employees, while sending a clear signal to poor performers that results matter. If anything, these reforms will finally attract reformminded leaders to VA, where they are desperately needed. 

The key question before this committee—and this Congress—is 

simple: who will you stand with? Underperforming bureaucrats 

who can’t be fired? Or veterans who are underserved? The answer 

to that question is crystal clear. I urge you to consider this question as you consider H.R. 4031. Thank you for the opportunity to 

address this important topic, and I welcome your questions. 

STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI

With Respect to H.R. 2942, H.R. 3056, H.R. 3614, H.R. 4031, 

H.R. 4037, H.R. 4038, H.R. 4147, H.R. 4151, and a draft Bill entitled the ‘‘Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal 

Study Act of 2014’’ 

Chairman Flores, 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 (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to present the VFW’s stance 

on legislation pending before this Subcommittee. 

With deep proposed reductions in the military’s active duty force, 

the VFW believes that offering quality transitional, educational 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
53 

and career-development opportunities for the men and women slated to leave military service remains a national imperative. 

We thank this committee for its hard work in the first session 

of the 113th Congress moving critical legislation to make this possible—particularly the recently-passed in-state tuition protection 

for college-bound veterans. The VFW encourages you to continue 

your bipartisan work to improve civilian training and career opportunities for our veterans, and we look forward to working with you 

to accomplish this critical mission. 

H.R. 2942, to amend Title 38, United States Code, to reestablish the Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory 

Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

The VFW supports Ms. Kirkpatrick’s Bill, which will extend a 

critical advisory committee on professional licenses and certifications for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). At a time 

when the Department of Labor anticipates a significant influx of 

veterans into the civilian workforce, VA must have the ability to 

evaluate professional licenses and certifications for which veterans 

may choose to use their earned education benefits. This advisory 

committee provides critical expertise to VA with which to evaluate 

professional licenses and credentials. 

The VFW has long acknowledged that not all veterans entitled 

to VA education benefits will choose to use those benefits for a traditional college degree. This is why we fully support allowing veterans to use these benefits for relevant professional training, as 

well as licensure and certification evaluations that will lead to 

quality careers. 

H.R. 3056, Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act 

The VFW supports Rep. Takano’s efforts to better understand 

the positive impact of peer support for student veterans going back 

to college. However, we have concerns over this Bill’s proposal to 

commission a pilot program on peer-to-peer support for student veterans. 

The VFW already believes that peer support works and we believe this can be demonstrated through the rapid growth of nearly 

1,000 Student Veterans of America (SVA) chapters on college campuses around the country. VFW posts in college communities have 

also helped to cultivate significant peer-to-peer support for student 

veterans on college campuses with tremendous success for future 

veteran leaders. 

VA has also commissioned two unique programs designed to 

serve student veterans on college campuses, VetSuccess on Campus 

(VSOC) and Veterans Integration to Academic Leadership (VITAL), 

which offer unique VA support services to veterans. VSOC assists 

veterans on more than 90 campuses and VITAL was recently expanded to 15 campuses. In 2010, the Department of Education also 

awarded grants to 15 college campuses to commission Centers of 

Excellence for Veteran Student Success (CEVSS) to deliver support 

services to student veterans. 

VSOC, VITAL and CEVSS all have the authority to hire student 

veterans as VA Work Study participants, and many campuses are 

already taking advantage of this resource to deliver peer-to-peer 

services. The VFW believes that Congress should look to these proVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
54 

grams to better understand how to best deliver peer-to-peer support services to veterans on campus. 

Finally, the VFW supports Rep. Takano’s goal to report on the 

efficacy of peer-to-peer support services for veterans in higher education. However, in lieu of commissioning three new peer support 

programs, the VFW recommends identifying current peer-to-peer 

support programs commissioned through the VA Work Study program to support VSOC, VITAL and CEVSS, and reporting on their 

efficacy. 

To properly reflect the diverse experiences of veterans in higher 

education and to produce a quality report on the success of peer 

support in higher education, the VFW recommends expanding the 

proposed report to reflect a geographically diverse selection of fouryear public schools, community colleges, and private non-profit universities; as well as examples of non-profit online programs, elite 

non-profit schools, for-profit campus-based programs, and for-profit 

online programs. 

The VFW agrees with Rep. Takano that we know far too little 

about the experiences of student veterans in higher education. The 

first statistically valid report on student veteran outcomes in higher education was released by SVA only earlier this week. The VFW 

supports studying examples of current peer support models to demonstrate success, and we look forward to working with Rep. Takano 

and the subcommittee to make this happen. 

H.R. 3614, Military Skills to Careers Act 

The VFW supported this Bill’s Senate companion, S. 492, in testimony last year, and we support Rep. Flores’ efforts to help close 

the civilian/military licensing and credentialing gap. This Bill takes 

reasonable steps to ensure that states will allow experienced military professionals to sit for licensing exams, while still ensuring 

states have the autonomy to issue professional licenses as they see 

fit. States will not have to relax their standards for professionals 

operating within their borders, but experienced veterans will not be 

unnecessarily burdened with satisfying duplicative training requirements. 

However, the VFW has some concerns over the specific language 

of this Bill, and we want to work with the subcommittee to ensure 

that states will not be penalized for holding military-trained professionals to standards established by professional trade associations, 

but enforced by the states through licensing procedures. 

H.R. 4031, Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014 

Chairman Miller’s Bill would provide the Secretary the authority 

to remove a Senior Executive Service (SES) employee based on performance. Accountability within VA management is a growing concern. Without defined authority to remove an SES employee from 

a position or from employment, accountability for poor performance 

will never be reached. 

Section 7543 of title 5, U.S.C., provides the authority to suspend 

or remove a member of the SES. This provision of law provides for 

two things: First, an agency may remove or suspend a senior executive only for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or failure 

to accept a direct reassignment. Second, it provides that members 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
55 

of the SES are entitled to at least 30 days advance written notice 

of why disciplinary action is being proposed, at least 7 days to respond to the notice for suspension or removal, representation by an 

attorney or other representative, and a written decision with specific reasons. The agency may also provide for a hearing to allow 

the SES member a chance to answer questions. The problem with 

this scenario is that it allows SES employees to engage in a perpetual back-and-forth with their superiors through archaic legal 

processes. This means that SES employees can rarely be sanctioned 

or removed for poor performance, as Chairman Miller has rightly 

pointed out. 

This Bill will provide the Secretary the authority to remove SES 

employees when the Secretary determines that poor work performance warrants such removal. While it is important for the Secretary to have the ability to quickly remove employees, and specifically members of the SES, it is also important to recognize that 

members of the SES are career employees who serve as the link 

between political appointees and the civil service employees of the 

department, and that allowing removal without due process or the 

ability to appeal could jeopardize the unique roll of the SES. 

The VFW would support this legislation if it were amended to 

place a 30 day limitation, with one opportunity for an additional 

30 day extension, on the title 5 provision that allows at least 7 

days for an SES employee to respond to the notice of suspension 

or removal. This would force notified SES members to quickly respond to their notification, thereby decreasing the time it takes to 

remove an underperforming SES member. SES members must also 

retain their appeal rights through the Merit Systems Protection 

Board. These changes would send a clear message to underperforming employees, but provide needed protection for positions that 

were designed to provide and retain institutional knowledge and 

reduce cronyism. 

H.R. 4037, Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014 

The VFW supports the intent of Rep. Flores’ Bill to ensure that 

VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program 

has the ability to provide rehabilitative services to veterans who 

need it the most. The VFW also supports Flores’ initiative to more 

accurately measure success within the program. 

By design, VR&E is supposed to offer intensive rehabilitative 

services to veterans who must be retrained in a new civilian industry because of their service-connected disability. Under current law, 

any veteran with a service-connected rating of 10 percent or more 

is eligible for VR&E. 

Through this legislation, Rep. Flores hopes to ensure that VR&E 

can continue to meet an increasing demand for rehabilitative services among veterans who need it the most—specifically disabled 

veterans with significant barriers to employment. 

The VFW understands that VR&E in its current form is nearly 

at capacity for offering rehabilitative services to disabled veterans. 

According to VA’s own data, VR&E counselors are already working 

beyond a reasonable capacity, with counselors serving veterans at 

a ratio of 145:1, when VA’s standard of service is 125:1. With more 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
56 

and more service members projected to leave the military in the 

coming years, the VFW shares Rep. Flores’ concerns that VR&E 

may not be able to adequately serve the veterans who will need it 

the most if changes are not made to the current system. 

However, the VFW worries that restricting eligibility for VR&E 

will lead to some disabled veterans falling through the cracks. 

Though the VFW cannot support this Bill in its current form, we 

look forward to working with Rep. Flores to develop meaningful reforms for VR&E that will ensure VA can deliver quality rehabilitative service to veterans who need it without restricting access. 

H.R. 4038, Veterans Benefits Administration Information 

Technology Improvement Act of 2014 

The VFW supports Rep. Flores’ Bill to ensure that VA prioritizes 

the completion of its information technology (IT) solution for processing VA education benefit claims. The VFW acknowledges the 

significant progress VA has made in the timeliness and accuracy 

of its GI Bill benefit processing. However, we share the subcommittee’s concerns that as Veterans Benefits Administration sees success in education benefit processing, they have now shifted resources to focus solely on the disability claims backlog. The VFW 

understands VBA’s urgency in seeking to resolve the backlog, but 

we must not neglect the mission to properly serve student veterans. By completing the IT solution, we ensure that education 

benefits can continue to be processed in a timely, accurate manner. 

H.R. 4147, the Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act 

The VFW supports Rep. Takano’s Bill to commission a report to 

Congress on the status of VA’s education IT systems. Similar to 

H.R. 4038, the VFW believes that VBA has an obligation to process 

timely and accurate education benefits. Critical to this is the 

development and completion of VBA’s education IT systems. This 

report is a responsible way to demonstrate progress in IT development, identify potential shortcomings and develop a course of action to complete tasks. To the VFW, this Bill is responsible governance and we support its quick passage. 

H.R. 4151, the Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014 

The VFW proudly supports Rep. Bilirakis’ efforts to commission 

a survey of student veterans currently using their earned GI Bill 

benefits. Without statistically valid information on the student veteran experience or student veteran outcomes, these special interests groups in higher education have been able to make vague assertions about the student veteran population based off of assumptions drawn from incomplete Department of Education data. While 

the VFW can only speculate as to their motives, we believe this 

false narrative does a disservice to the 1 million beneficiaries currently enrolled in VA education benefit programs and threatens the 

long-term viability of programs like the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

For example, some special interests point to low graduation rates 

among student veterans at schools with high military populations 

like American Military University and University of Maryland University College as indications that these schools fail to properly 

serve their student veterans. What is missing from this narrative 

is that the graduation rate reported by these schools to the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
57 

ment of Education likely includes very few, if any, veterans, since 

the Department of Education counts only first time, full time students. 

Student veterans—particularly student veterans who enroll in 

non-traditional programs like those offered by AMU or UMUC— 

usually start their studies on a part-time basis while serving in the 

military, or they bring significant transfer credits into their programs after completing military service, meaning they are never 

considered first time, full time students, and thus are never 

tracked by the Department of Education. 

Moreover, when the Department of Veterans Affairs recently 

launched its new comparison tool and the raw data used to compile 

it, the VFW was surprised to learn of all the programs across higher education that reported abysmally low graduation rates. The 

VFW took a closer look at many of the schools who reported graduation rates of five percent or lower, only to realize on the Department of Education’s College Navigator website that each of these 

schools were likely comprised of non-traditional students, like student veterans. Because of these unique circumstances, we often 

joke that among all of the veterans in our office, none of us are considered a college graduate by Department of Education standards. 

Only this week did we start to scratch the surface on understanding how student veterans fare in higher education when SVA 

released its 1 Million Records Project, tracking outcomes for nearly 

1 million veterans who attended college on VA education benefit 

programs after 9/11. We applaud SVA for its groundbreaking findings, which demonstrated that student veterans fare well in higher 

education when compared to traditional students as tracked by the 

Department of Education. However, this report only scratches the 

surface and does not capture attitudes and impressions of student 

veterans currently using their GI Bill benefits. This is the gap in 

information that Rep. Bilirakis’ report would fill in. 

The original GI Bill returned $7 to the American economy for 

every dollar spent on a veteran. Historians credit the original GI 

Bill for building the American middle class as we know it. The 

VFW believes that the Post-9/11 GI Bill has the potential to be a 

similarly transformative benefit for today’s college-bound veterans, 

but in times of fiscal uncertainty, we have to be able to demonstrate this to the American public. We encourage Congress to 

quickly pass this legislation to better quantify the experiences of 

veterans in higher education. 

Draft Bill, Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act of 2014 

The VFW has long believed that the services provided by the Department of Labor’s Veterans Employment and Training Service 

(VETS) could provide a critical gateway for veterans into meaningful civilian employment after military service. The key piece to providing career opportunities rests with Disabled Veterans Outreach 

Program specialists (DVOPs) and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVERs) located at American Jobs Centers around the 

country. Unfortunately, the VFW has seen that not all DVOPs and 

LVERs have the same capability, and not all veterans and employers know what they have to offer. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
58 

Recently, the VFW was approached by a small business owner in 

Indiana who was looking to hire a couple of veterans to round out 

his company. We directed the business to the local LVER. In less 

than a day the LVER had identified several potential candidates 

and the business had lined up interviews. 

The VFW believes that businesses want to hire veterans, and 

DVOPs and LVERs stand uniquely poised to make these connections. Unfortunately, we have not properly evaluated what works 

and what does not work in communities around the country. To 

better understand the veteran hiring experience, the VFW supports 

the subcommittee’s draft legislation to conduct a longitudinal study 

on the outcomes for veterans who utilize DVOP and LVER services. 

We look forward to working with the committee to pass this legislation. 

Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, this concludes my 

statement and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Information Required by rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives 

Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, VFW 

has not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2013, nor has 

it received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM HUBBARD

Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America to submit 

written testimony regarding pending legislation intended to increase support for military servicemembers and veterans. 

Student Veterans of America (SVA) is the largest and only national association of military Veterans in higher education. Our 

mission is to provide military veterans with the resources, support, 

and advocacy needed to succeed in higher education and after graduation. We currently have nearly 1,000 chapters, or student veteran organizations, at colleges and universities in all 50 states, 

that assist veterans in their transition to and through higher education. This on-the-ground perspective, which comes from every 

corner of this nation, and our experience in supporting thousands 

of GI Bill beneficiaries, provides the framework for our testimony 

regarding these important issues. 

H.R. 2942, a Bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to reestablish the Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

SVA supports the reestablishment of this Committee as it is 

clear that this committee is a necessary entity. While the Department of Veterans Affairs currently performs outreach and auditing 

for licensing and certification programs, the extension would 

streamline those efforts and contribute to clear communication 

with State approving agencies presently act in a similar capacity. 

For these reasons, SVA sees this as a committee of necessity to address existing gaps by allowing applicable military experiences to 

be translated to civilian recognition. 

H.R. 3056, Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
59 

SVA stands firmly with the intent behind the legislation proposed by Rep. Takano in establishing metric-proven success of 

peer-to-peer support networks for veterans in higher education. 

With close to 1,000 chapters across the country which operate on 

this model, SVA strongly believes in the importance of peer-to-peer 

support in higher education—indeed a core precept of our organization. 

However, with ample evidence available already, both anecdotal 

and data-driven, of the success of peer-to-peer programs with regards to veterans pursuing postsecondary degrees, SVA does not 

support H.R. 3056. At present, SVA provides tools and resources 

for student veterans to act both formally and informally to support 

their veteran peers throughout their educational experience. In addition to a breadth of day-to-day support provided by chapter leaders for student veterans at the local level, SVA also provides an 

array of programmatic training that encourages outcomes which 

mirror the intent of this legislation. Our Leadership Institute Series teaches practical skills that apply directly to supporting effective peer-to-peer mentoring, as well as skills which translate beyond school and focus on building fulfilling careers. 

Others have also seen this approach of peer-to-peer support as a 

successful model, and have implemented it widely. In Washington 

State, the VetSuccess AmeriCorps program has been an excellent 

example of success, placing 64 AmeriCorps members on as many 

as 32 college campuses for the 2013–14 academic year. With rigorous reporting and metrics associated with that program, SVA believes that no additional proof is necessary to substantiate the positive impact that peer-to-peer support can have. 

SVA stands with the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American 

Legion in accepting that peer-to-peer support in higher education 

is a known factor of success of veterans in higher education, with 

no further legislation required to execute additional study. 

H.R. 3614, Military Skills to Careers Act 

This Bill seeks to ensure that military professionals have the opportunity to sit for licensing exams, allowing veterans the opportunity to successfully translate their military expertise and effectively integrate into the civilian workforce. 

The skills veterans learn in the military match those required for 

civilian job licenses, and this legislation would permit veterans to 

obtain only those licenses for which they are qualified. We know 

there exists substantial overlap between the training of veterans, 

state licenses that do not fully credit military experience, and current labor market needs. 

This legislation recommends allowing for the recognition of the 

investment that our Department of Defense has made in our service members, now veterans. It makes it possible for economic needs 

for critical skills positions, which align directly with veterans’ prior 

training and experience, to be addressed. SVA carries reservation 

in establishing this legislation as a precursor to awarding grants 

or contracts to states, which may ultimately inhibit the overall intent of this Bill. 

SVA would look forward to providing further input on this legislation to achieve an outcome that we would fully support. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
60 

H.R. 4037, Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act 2014 

Vocational rehabilitation is a crucial component in the transition 

process as veterans move from active service to the civilian population. The Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills provide notable examples of the role that education plays in this transition process. 

American taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in programs 

that empower veterans to seek education that will allow them to 

attain gainful employment and meaningful careers. 

Chairman Flores’ Bill seeks to ensure that the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program is equipped to provide rehabilitation programs to the veterans who have the greatest demand 

for these services. 

In the Bill’s current form, SVA does not support H.R. 4037, 

though we feel this issue should stay at the forefront of discussion. 

With some changes to the language, which would otherwise potentially lead to some veterans being caught in a gap, SVA would support this legislation. 

H.R. 4038, Veterans Benefits Administration Information 

Technology Improvement Act of 2014 

SVA is in strong favor of Chairman Flores’ Bill, H.R. 4038. Educational benefits claims processing is a persistent issue for veterans 

who would benefit from spending their time on their studies versus 

trying to manage a claim to an earned benefit. Even a small percentage of claims going unprocessed or delayed is unacceptable, as 

the impact is immediate and with lasting effects. 

For those who have experienced challenges in their claims being 

processed, they know all-too-well what kind of chain effect this can 

have on their ability to attend school and gain the full value of 

their educational benefits. Electronic adjudication of these benefits 

will greatly reduce user-error, and speed up the processing time for 

these benefits. An automated benefits processing of educational 

benefits should be a top priority of the Department of Veterans Affairs and SVA encourages the swift passage of H.R. 4038. 

H.R. 4147, Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act 

As with Chairman Flores’ legislation, H.R. 4038, this legislation 

proposed by Rep. Takano is a key component of modernizing the 

technical capabilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Public 

knowledge of the state of the IT infrastructure is a critical firststep in being able to address additional issues that stem from an 

inability to clearly understand what upgrades need to be performed. This understanding, along with an action plan to address 

finalizing each system, will send a clear signal that the Department of Veterans Affairs is actively seeking to follow-through on 

their intent to bring these systems to full implementation. 

SVA stands behind Rep. Takano on H.R. 4147 to pursue the upgrade of information technology infrastructure necessary to support 

the education benefits claims of veterans as they seek higher education. 

H.R. 4150, Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act of 2014 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
61 

On March 24th, we released our initial findings of our Million 

Records Project, an SVA-led research study of veterans in higher 

education in collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs 

and the National Student Clearinghouse. As we look at H.R. 4150, 

we find it to be complementary to our research, and within the 

spirit of seeking data-driven decisions on programs to support veterans in higher education. 

Since our organization’s inception, we have held that the lifecycle 

of a veteran’s transition from the military, to school, and onward 

to civilian careers, is a highly interdependent process. Each component of this process builds on the preceding steps, and this legislation seeks to empower veterans through several critical steps. 

The Department of Labor’s Veterans Employment and Training 

Service (VETS) can build a bridge for millions of veterans over the 

coming years as they pursue gainful careers post-graduation, for 

example. However, the current lack of coordination and understanding of the breadth of impact surrounding this part of the transition process is a crucial gap that must be addressed. SVA applauds the interest in moving towards the goal of gaining greater 

clarity on the impact of job counseling, training, and placement of 

veterans. 

In 2012, the GAO noted that the federal government has sponsored 6 different programs serving at least 880,000 participants at 

a cost of $1.2 billion dollars. Such a broad variety of resources 

might be seen as a positive attribute, and certainly reflects the sea 

of goodwill that has developed over the past decade. However, without coordination, duplicative efforts and inefficiencies threaten to 

stymie the full potential of these resources. 

A study, as this legislation proposes, would enable decision makers at multiple levels to understand what is working. As well, the 

study would highlight areas for change. 

SVA is in full support of H.R. 4150, and applauds the legislation 

for being fully inclusive of all individuals entitled to any kind of 

educational assistance. 

H.R. 4151, Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014 

SVA stands in strong favor of Rep. Bilirakis’ legislation, H.R. 

4151, ‘‘Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014’’. It is right for some 

American’s to ask, ‘‘What are we receiving for our investment in 

the GI Bill?’’ Indeed, this is a crucial question as more than $34 

billion dollars has been spent on millions of veterans who have 

sought, and are seeking, degrees in higher education. 

As previously noted, our Million Records Project has sought to 

answer that question. H.R. 4151 is an important piece of legislation 

because it answers another key element of this investment in our 

veterans, ‘‘What motivates veterans to pursue the paths that they 

do?’’ 

We know that a majority of our service members elect to pursue 

higher education as they transition out of the military. With an expected 1 million new veterans to enter the civilian population over 

the next several years, the importance of empowering veterans in 

higher education will continue to increase. As individuals gain degrees in higher education, their earning power increases significantly. We also know that veterans who earn an initial degree in 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
62 

higher education have a much greater potential to pursue additional degrees, increasing their overall opportunity to contribute to 

the economy. 

Through the Million Records project, there are several data 

points have gained great insight on, and when paired with the data 

that would be collected through a study directed by this legislation, 

the picture will become even clearer; a holistic narrative will form, 

enabling policy makers to base their decisions on accurate data. 

From the research of the Million Records Project, we have identified what school sectors are performing well, what graduation rates 

for veterans looks like, and time-to-completion of degree, among 

many other critical attributes. 

This legislation would add another element to that picture: factors that impact the paths veterans pursue in higher education. As 

a customer satisfaction survey, policy regarding what can be done 

to improve the effectiveness of the educational benefits for veterans 

becomes increasingly applicable. The more data available on these 

topics, the better. 

Since 2000, over 4 million veterans have benefited from use of 

the GI Bill, and the American taxpayers can expect that this generation of veterans will positively impact the American economy in 

magnitudes that will continue for several generations to come. SVA 

encourages the swift passage of this important legislation, and applauds the efforts of all policy makers who are making it clear that 

an investment in our veterans and their education is an investment 

in this country’s future. 

SVA finds the following Bill outside the scope of our mission and 

does not wish to offer comment at this time: 

H.R. 4031, Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014 

Student Veterans of America is appreciative of the opportunity 

to provide this testimony. We thank the Chairman, Ranking Member and the Subcommittee members for their time, attention, and 

devotion to the cause of veterans in higher education. We look forward to continuing to work with this Subcommittee, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and the Congress to ensure the success 

of all generations of Veterans through education. 

Thank you for allowing Student Veterans of America the opportunity to participate in this important Hearing. 

WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT

Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) to provide views on pending economic opportunity-related legislation. We 

welcome this opportunity to address several of the measures before 

you today. 

Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act 

H.R. 3056 would require the Secretary of VA to carry out a 

three-year pilot program to provide peer outreach and support services at institutions of higher learning—with an emphasis on assisting veterans who may have or be having, difficulty in adjusting to 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
63 

1Franklin, et al, 2013 Wounded Warrior Project Survey Report, vi (July 2013). 

2David Rudd, Jeffery Goulding, and Craig Bryan, ‘‘Student Veterans: A National Survey Exploring Psychological Symptoms and Suicide Risk.’’ 42(5) Professional Psychology: Research and 

Practice, 354, 357–358 (2011). 3 Id. These exceed the cutoff score for PTSD in accordance with the PCL–M score for OIF/ 

OEF veterans, Dept. of Veterans’ Affairs and the National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet, ‘‘Using 

the PTSD Checklist,’’ available at: http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/assessments/assessment-pdf/pcl-handout.pdf. 4 Rudd et al., supra note 6, at 357–358. 

5 Jennifer Steele, Nicholas Salcedo, and James Coley, ‘‘Service Members in School: Military 

Veterans’ Experiences Using the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Pursuing Postsecondary Education,’’ 

RAND Corporation (2011). 6 Id. at 36. 

7 Id. at 39. 

8Williams, et. al, ‘‘A Scoping Study of One-to-One Peer Mentorship Interventions and Recommendations for Application with Veterans with Postdeployment Syndrome,’’ 27 J. Head Trauma Rehab. 261, 270 (2012). 

such institution, or who may need services or supports that such 

institution is not equipped to provide—by training and employing 

fellow veteran students (or recent graduates) as peer mentors. 

With the Post 9/11 GI Bill, Congress has provided this generation of veterans an especially valuable gateway to economic success. Wounded warriors are using this benefit; in fact, almost one 

third of the nearly 14,000 wounded warriors who responded to our 

2013 survey were enrolled in school.1 However, some of our wounded warriors are facing stark challenges in pursuing higher education. In many instances, their injuries—and particularly the invisible wounds they have incurred—create obstacles their studentpeers do not experience or even understand. Some wounded warriors simply need modest accommodations and supports. But without such supports some are struggling, dropping out, or even failing. 

Studies confirm the experiences our warriors have reported to 

WWP education-services staff. For example, one study found that 

the ‘‘average’’ student-veteran has experienced moderate anxiety, 

moderately severe depression, and symptoms of PTSD.2 Specifically, nearly 46 percent of the sample experienced ‘‘significant 

symptoms of PTSD,’’ 3 almost 35 percent suffered from severe anxiety, and nearly 24 percent had severe depression.4 Another study 

found that most of the student veteran survey and focus group participants encountered substantial transition challenges while 

adapting to life on campus.μA5 Among these students, one of the 

most frequently discussed challenges was coping with service-related disabilities and PTSD.6 Overall, about 68 percent of survey 

respondents rated the extent to which they had to cope with such 

disabilities, and of those, 55 percent reported it as a moderate or 

major challenge.7

As is apparent from our own extensive surveying, peer support 

and mentor relationships are vital in assisting warriors in their 

transition and throughout their recovery process. Particularly, peer 

support has played unique roles in military/veteran populations in 

decreasing stigma associated with seeking mental health care and 

improving adherence, increasing knowledge of treatment resources, 

and augmenting or teaching self-management. 8 Notably, peer support relationships tend to support and encourage self-advocacy 9

and empowerment and they have been found to foster increased 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
64 

9 Id. at 272. 

10 Repper & Carter, ‘‘A Review of the Literature on Peer Support in Mental Health Services,’’ 

20(4) J. of Mental Health 392, 396 (2011). 11 Id. at 400. 12 Id. 

stability in work, education and training.10 In some cases, peer 

mentors are even more successful than professional qualified clinicians because they promote hope and belief in the possibility of recovery and their relationships with mentees foster increased selfesteem and social inclusion, engagement, and increased social networks 11 all of which are key for success in post-secondary education. Furthermore, peer support relationships are mutually beneficial—employment as a peer mentor adds to self-esteem, confidence, and personal recovery and increases chances of further employment and continued recovery.12

WWP was founded on the principle of warriors helping warriors, 

and we pride ourselves on outstanding service programs that advance that principle, including our own Peer Mentor Program. Underscoring the benefit of warriors reaching out to other warriors, 

our annual survey found that more than one half of our alumni reported that talking with another OEF/OIF/OND veteran was the 

most effective resource they have used (and that has assisted them) 

for coping with their mental health concerns.13

Having current or recent graduate student peer mentors on campus to assist warrior-veterans—many of whom are battling PTSD, 

depression, anxiety, or a combination of these disorders would be 

an important step in assisting these warriors successfully make the 

transition to an educational program and increase their likelihood 

for success in such program. As such, WWP supports H.R. 3056. 

Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation 

and Employment Act 

H.R. 4037, the Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014 is aimed at making certain 

improvements to VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment 

Program (VR&E), including steps would: (1) Direct VA to revise the 

formula to calculate the rate of veterans who were rehabilitated 

under the program; (2) make the approval of courses for a VR&E 

education program more similar to that of the GI Bill; (3) expand 

eligibility for specially adapted housing to veterans who are permanent and totally service-connected and are eligible to participate in 

VR&E; (4) authorize VA to prioritize provision of VR&E services 

for veterans based on need, as determined by reference to disability 

ratings, severity of employment handicaps, income and other factors, and (5) liberalize the definition of the term ‘‘serious employment handicap.’’ 

WWP certainly appreciates the focus H.R. 4037 places on VR&E 

and welcomes many of its provisions. We do have concerns, however, regarding the implications of the proposed broad grant of authority the Bill would give VA to set priorities for providing VR&E 

services, and what that might portend for disabled veterans who 

are not afforded priority under regulations VA might then promulgate. Given the wide latitude this provision of H.R. 4037 would 

give VA, it is conceivable that such authority would be broadly exercised, with the result that some veterans’ applications for VR&E 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
65 

would get expedited attention while others could face long waits. 

While one could appreciate the benefit of establishing a limited 

‘‘compelling need’’ situation under which VA could, for example, expedite consideration of a case presenting exceptional circumstances, 

the language of H.R. 4037 invites a much broader approach. Drawing priority distinctions based on disability ratings is especially 

problematic, given the long waits many face in the course of the 

adjudication and appeals processes. It bears emphasizing that 

VR&E is an entitlement—an earned benefit. Given its mission, the 

VR&E program itself should be a VA priority, with funding commensurate with that priority. That funding should be sufficient to 

ensure that veterans are afforded timely service, and there should 

be no need to consider setting priorities. Indeed, for Congress to 

grant VA authority to set priorities could actually be read to signal 

that the program need not be fully funded. While we do not suggest 

that to be the intent of the provision, we would urge the Subcommittee to reconsider this provision. 

We would also urge the Subcommittee to address other areas— 

including through legislation—where the VR&E program needs attention, particularly with staffing levels and the need for more staff 

training. With military careers often cut short by life-altering injuries, it is particularly important that this generation of wounded 

warriors be afforded the tools, skills, resources, education, and support needed to secure employment and develop fulfilling careers. 

Congress designed the VR&E program to give disabled veterans 

the help they need to gain success in the workforce and it should 

be a key transitional pathway for wounded warriors. But too often 

the program is failing them. 

Wounded warriors and WWP’s field staff—who work daily with 

our wounded warriors across the country—report wide-ranging variability in program administration and education/employment plan 

approvals, counselor skills, experience, understanding of battle-incurred TBI and PTSD, and interpretation and knowledge of the 

program’s services. Though some warriors report positive experiences and have worked with dedicated counselors, this represents 

the exception and not the norm. 

Warriors have reported instances of VR&E counselors challenging their employment aspirations by denying them access to 

their program of choice and pressing them instead to pursue ‘‘any 

job’’ as a goal. In other instances, wounded warriors seeking to go 

back to school to earn a second degree—to better compete in the 

job market—have met objection from counselors who view VR&E 

simply as a ‘‘jobs program.’’ Still, others, particularly those with 

TBI and PTSD, have encountered VR&E counselors who do not appear to understand those conditions. 

Additionally, warriors report delays in receiving VR&E services, 

difficulty communicating and scheduling with their counselors, and 

reduced opportunities to achieve successful and timely rehabilitation. The size of counselors’ caseloads has particularly limited their 

ability to provide adequate on-going support and assistance to veterans throughout the course of their education or training program, 

especially to those with TBI and PTSD who need such supports. 

The following comments are emblematic of the experiences of 

many: 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
66 

14 U.S. Government Accountability Office, ‘‘VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment: 

Further Performance and Workload Management Improvements are Needed,’’ GAO–14–61 

(2014). 15 Id. at 27 and 32. 16Franklin, et al, 2013 Wounded Warrior Project Survey Report, 108 (July 2013). 

‘‘In my experience working with Voc Rehab counselors, many of 

my veterans were exasperated by their counselors and oftentimes 

felt as though their counselors had such a large caseload that they 

were not getting the attention needed. . . and more often than not 

being brushed off when they asked for assistance.’’ 

‘‘While many of the Voc Rehab staff are sensitive to the veteran’s 

needs, they do not seem to, as a whole, have an understanding of 

where the veteran is coming from . . . they are quick to write off a 

veteran’s career choice due to their disability rather than take into 

account things such as passion, determination, and drive.’’ 

‘‘Many veterans have to justify why they want a specific degree 

or [employment goal] and that doesn’t always match up with what 

the counselor believes that veteran can be successful at based on 

their history or [medical] diagnosis.’’ 

The recent Government Accountability Office Report on VR&E 

highlights the program’s workload management challenges and 

gaps in VR&E staff training.14 The wide variability in counselor 

caseloads among the regional offices is particularly concerning, as 

is the fact that the program is just now—at the end of 2013 and 

into 2014—providing new staff training courses on mental health 

to improve counselors’ ability to assist veterans with PTSD and 

other mental health issues. 15

VR&E counselors need to be sensitive and not only understand 

the struggles, but also the strengths, of warriors with TBI and 

PTSD so that they, in turn, can help warriors recognize that they 

are not ‘‘broken,’’ but continue to have great potential. They must 

be partners in the warriors’ rehabilitation, not critical gatekeepers 

who too readily dismiss ‘‘unrealistic’’ aspirations. In working with 

this generation, counselors must also understand the very profound 

disorientation experienced by warriors whose lives and life-plans 

have been upended and out of their control. As one put it, ‘‘For me 

the most difficult part [of the transition] is finding purpose. [I] 

never really had to think about my purpose when I was in the 

Corps.’’ 16 A VR&E counselor must have the sensitivity, training 

and experience to help that warrior find new purpose, or to link 

him to appropriate professional help. But even the most capable, 

empathetic counselor—challenged with 150 other ‘‘cases’’ to manage—is unlikely even to have sufficient time to provide that warrior the needed level and kind of support. More appropriate staffing 

levels must be a component of refocusing and re-energizing this important program. In all, we urge this Committee to make the 

VR&E program a greater priority through budgetary, programmatic, and outcomes-based action. 

Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014 

H.R. 4151 directs the Secretary of VA to contract with an independent agency to conduct a survey of individuals, who have used, 

or are currently using, their education benefits under chapters 30, 

32, 33, and 35 of Title 38. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
67 

17See WWP statement for the record, House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing on ‘‘The Value of Education for Veterans at Public, Private, and For-Profit 

Colleges and Universities,’’ June 20, 2013. 18Franklin, et al, 2013 Wounded Warrior Project Survey Report, 71 (July 2013). The percentage of alumni using the Post 9/11 GI Bill has continued to increase (53% in 2012, some 46% 

in 2011, and nearly 28% in 2010) while the percentage of alumni reporting the use of VR&E 

continues to decline (21% in 2012, down from almost 25% in 2011, and some 36% in 2010). 

WWP would welcome a comprehensive survey on warriors’ experiences using their earned educational benefits. WWP’s concerns regarding wounded warrior-student experiences on campus and in 

educational programs has been raised before this Committee.17

Such a survey would be invaluable in determining the effectiveness 

of these education programs and would shed light on veteran experiences in each of these programs. 

But, as we outlined above in our discussion on VR&E, we urge 

this Committee to expand the scope of the Bill to include users of 

VR&E in this survey to better understand veteran experience with 

the program as an effort to remedy the program’s gaps. Simply 

asking whether the veteran was entitled to VR&E and if he/she 

participated in the program, as this Bill requires, would be to lose 

an important opportunity. In our 2013 annual survey—of those 

pursuing an education—only about 20 percent of our warriors were 

using VR&E while 54 percent opted to use the Post 9/11 GI Bill 

to finance their education.18 Given that VR&E provides counseling 

and other supports and is limited to service-connected disabled veterans, it is striking that the majority of our alumni are selecting 

the Post 9/11 GI Bill—which does not provide the counseling and 

assistance that VR&E offers. Some warriors and field staff offer the 

reasoning that the Post 9/11 GI Bill is easy access and a swifter 

means to get an education. Many others report it is because they 

would have ‘‘more freedom to pursue what they want, not what the 

vocational counselor tells them.’’ 

Including survey questions on VR&E—particularly questions focused on illuminating the reasons why service-disabled veterans 

choose the Post 9/11 GI Bill over VR&E would better assist VA in 

recognizing if more outreach and education is needed on VR&E and 

the services it provides. More importantly, questions related to veteran experiences with VR&E counselors and other staff, and on the 

timeliness and adequacy of services provided, are critically important to gain an understanding of where critical gaps in the program lie so VR&E administrators can begin addressing those 

gaps—whether through increased staffing, staff training, and/or 

through greater programmatic oversight or even program re-design. 

Thank you for your consideration of WWP’s views on these 

issues. 

DISABLE AMERICAN VETERANS (DAV), PAUL R. VARELA, DIRECTOR

Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting DAV to submit testimony for this legislative hearing of the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. As you know, DAV is a non-profit veterans 

service organization comprised of 1.2 million wartime service-disVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
68 

abled veterans dedicated to a single purpose: empowering veterans 

to lead high-quality lives with respect and dignity. DAV is pleased 

to be here today to present our views on the Bills under consideration by the Committee. 

H.R. 2942, To amend Title 38, United States Code, to reestablish 

the Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

H.R. 2942 would reauthorize the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee 

and extend its operational authority to December 31, 2019. 

The Committee would advise the Secretary with respect to the 

requirements of organizations or entities offering licensing and certification tests to individuals for which payment for such tests may 

be made under chapter 30, 32, 33, 34, or 35 of Title 38 and such 

other related issues as the Committee determines to be appropriate. 

Members of the Committee would be appointed by the Secretary, 

without regard to the prior composition of the Committee. 

DAV does not have a resolution on this issue and has no position 

on this legislation. 

H.R. 3056, the Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act 

H.R. 3056, would direct the Secretary of Veteran Affairs to carry 

out a three-year pilot program to place peer counselors providing 

outreach and support services to veterans utilizing Post-9/11 GI 

Bill benefits under Chapter 33. The pilot would provide peer-outreach and peer-support services to students veterans of Operation 

Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New 

Dawn at one four-year public university, one community college 

and one private non-profit college. Peer counselors must either be 

using, or have successfully used, their entitlement to educational 

assistance under Chapter 33. 

The program also looks to pair veterans with peers of similar 

service and educational pursuits to establish an immediate relationship, someone not only familiar with the military service, but 

with experience utilizing their own Chapter 33 benefits. A preference would be given to those potential peer counselors that have 

served in combat operations, with special consideration given to 

veterans who have recovered or are recovering from a mental 

health condition. The Bill seeks to maximize supportive services to 

post-9/11 veterans to ensure their successful completion of their 

educational goals. 

The Secretary would be required to provide training to the veterans employed by the pilot program and to develop requirements 

and measures for assessing the effectiveness of program services. 

The program would also makes as a condition of implementation at 

an institution of higher learning the employment of a post-9/11 veteran that has used or is using benefits under Chapter 33. For a 

school to be eligible to participate, they would need to provide office 

space with the capability for veterans to use information technology 

equipment and appropriate information technology support services 

for the individual who will provide peer-outreach and peer-support 

services at such institution. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
69 

DAV does not have a specific resolution on this Bill, but does not 

oppose its favorable consideration. 

H.R. 3614, the Military Skills to Careers Act 

H.R. 3614, the Military Skills to Careers Act, would make grants 

to states that agree to adhere to certain standards in how they implement their professional licensing and certification programs. 

In order to be eligible for a grant, a state would be required to 

issue licenses or credentials to veterans without requiring them to 

undergo any training or apprenticeship if the veteran receives a 

satisfactory score on completion of the state’s required examination, has been awarded a military occupational specialty that is 

substantially equivalent to or exceeds the requirements of the state 

for the issuance of the license or credential; has engaged in the active practice of the occupation to be licensed or certified for at least 

two of the five years preceding the date of application; and pays 

any fees required by the state for the license or credential. 

The legislation would allow the Secretary to waive some of these 

requirements if the state certifies to the Secretary that it already 

takes into account previous military training for the purposes of 

issuing licenses or credentials; permits veterans to completely satisfy through examination any training or testing requirements for 

a license or credential with respect to which a veteran has previously completed military training; and for any credential or license for which a veteran is unable to completely satisfy such requirements through examination, substantially reduces training 

time required to satisfy such requirement based on the military 

training received by the veteran. 

States would be required to submit annual reports to VA about 

their licensing and credentialing programs for veterans with a description of the results of these exams, disaggregated by occupational field. 

DAV supports H.R. 3614 in accordance of DAV National Resolution No. 168, which calls for states to establish a clear process so 

military training meets civilian certification and licensure requirements once they leave the military. 

H.R. 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management 

Accountability Act of 2014 

H.R. 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014, would provide the Secretary with a new 

authority to remove any individual from the Senior Executive Service if the Secretary determines the performance of the individual 

warrants such removal. The Secretary would be able to remove the 

individual completely from federal service or transfer the individual to a General Schedule position at any grade the Secretary 

determines appropriate. 

DAV agrees that the Secretary must have the ability to hold all 

employees accountable for performing their duties in order to ensure that veterans receive all of the benefits and service they have 

earned from their service. We have long advocated that VA must 

place accountability at the core of its efforts to reform the claims 

processing system and end the backlog. While H.R. 4031 is intended to provide the Secretary with new tools to remove employees, the Secretary recently testified that he already has sufficient 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
70 

tools to hold all of his employees fully accountable and it is not 

clear how this legislation would interact with VA’s existing accountability and due process statutes affecting VA employees. DAV 

is also concerned about the potential for adverse impact of this legislation on VA’s ability to hire and retain quality employees. 

DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal and has no position on this legislation. 

H.R. 4037, the Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014 

H.R. 4037, the Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014, would make changes to eligibility and prioritization rules for veterans seeking Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Voc Rehab) services. 

Section 2 of the Bill would create a new metric that determines 

the percentage of veterans ‘‘rehabilitated to the point of employability.’’ This percentage would be calculated by dividing the number of veterans who complete their rehabilitation plans each year 

into the number of veterans participating in vocational rehabilitation programs during that year plus the number entitled to participate in the program. 

DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal but would not oppose its favorable consideration. While this new metric would provide information about the percentage of veterans completing their 

rehabilitation plans, we would also ask that VA refine its metric 

for assessing how many veterans are ‘‘rehabilitated’’ and gainfully 

employed as a result. Currently VA’s standard measure requires 

that a veteran retain employment for just 60 days in order to be 

considered a successful ‘‘rehabilitation;’’ we would suggest that the 

length of employment should be tracked and measured at long intervals, such as 6 months or one year. 

Section 3 of this Bill would require that all education and training courses paid for by VR&E be approved courses for purposes of 

existing VA education support programs under Chapter 30 and 33. 

While this would remove some of the burden facing VR&E counselors in determining appropriate courses and providers for veterans, we are concerned that it could unnecessarily limit the ability 

of veterans to receive appropriate training and education at nonapproved locations. Although there is a waiver provision contained 

in this section, it is unclear how and when waivers should be 

granted, as well as whether the waiver would be authorized at the 

local level, or whether Central Office approval would be required. 

This additional administrative function has the potential to create 

additional obstacles in efficiently administering the VR&E program. 

We have greater concerns about the impact of this provision in 

relation to courses and training that would be considered under the 

Independent Living (IL) program. Participants within this program 

often require more specialized and unique services that may fall 

outside those typically authorized by VA’s educational programs. 

This provision could significantly restrict a VR&E counselor’s ability to approve the unique courses and training required by IL participants, who are not anticipated to be looking for work anytime 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
71 

in the near future. IL’s goal is to improve the quality of their lives, 

and VR&E needs wide latitude to accomplish this noble mission. 

DAV recommends that the Committee work with VA and veterans organizations to refine this language to ensure that VR&E 

retains sufficient flexibility to meet both participants and programmatic needs. 

Section 4 of this Bill would allow veterans to receive assistance 

under the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) program when it is determined by VR&E that the veteran has need for these services 

due to the disability or disabilities that entitled them to vocational 

rehabilitation services. This provision would leave the facilitation 

and implementation of needed home adaptions to the VA office 

most familiar with the administration of this program. 

DAV has no resolution on this proposal but would not oppose its 

favorable consideration. 

Section 5 of the Bill would authorize the Secretary to create a 

priority system for processing veterans applications for vocational 

rehabilitation services. In determining ‘‘priority processing,’’ the 

Secretary would consider the need of the applicant, including income, disability evaluations, severity of employment handicaps, 

whether the veteran is eligible for IL services and income. The construct of this provision is similar to how VA provides priority to 

certain claims for disability compensation and pension. While we 

understand the desire to ‘‘prioritize’’ work, we would remind the 

Subcommittee that VR&E has yet to reach its intended counselor 

to client ratio of 1:125. Without adequate staffing and resources, it 

is unlikely they will be able to keep pace with current and future 

demands, regardless of any efficiencies that might be gained 

through prioritizing their work-load. 

DAV has no resolution on this proposal but would not oppose its 

favorable consideration. 

Section 6 of this Bill would change the definition of ‘‘serious employment handicap,’’ one of the criteria used to determine if veterans are entitled to receive vocational rehabilitation services. 

Under this new definition, the bar to receive services would be 

raised for veterans with disability evaluations rated 10 percent and 

veterans seeking access to services beyond the 12 year eligibility 

period, resulting in a significant number of veterans losing their 

entitlement to receive this valuable assistance. 

Essentially, this provision would restrict access to vocational rehabilitation services by imposing more stringent requirements 

upon those veterans necessitating a Serious Employment Handicap 

(SEH) determination to receive access to service. The current definition of ‘‘serious employment handicap’’ is ‘‘ . . . a significant impairment, resulting in substantial part from a service-connected 

disability rated at 10 percent or more, of a veteran’s ability to prepare for, obtain, or retain employment . . . ’’ If this section were 

enacted, that definition would change to ‘‘ . . . a significant impairment, resulting from the service-connected disability, that is directly related to the veteran’s ability to prepare for, obtain, or retain employment . . . ’’ 

In accordance with DAV National Resolution No. 001, DAV 

strongly opposes this section because it would effectively remove 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
72 

one of the most valuable benefits currently available to thousands 

of disabled veterans seeking to transition into civilian employment. 

H.R. 4038, the Veterans Benefits Administration Information 

Technology Improvement Act of 2014 

H.R. 4038 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to the 

maximum extent possible, to make improvements to VBA’s information technology (IT) systems to ensure that all original and supplemental claims for veterans educational assistance are adjudicated electronically, and processed using a rules-based method. 

The Bill would require the Secretary to reduce redundancy and inefficiencies by ensuring that payments of subsistence allowance for 

veterans participating in this program are processed and paid out 

of only one corporate IT system. The Secretary would also be required to enhance the IT system supporting veterans participating 

VA’s educational programs to ensure more accurate accounting of 

services and outcomes. 

Although DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal, we are 

not opposed to its favorable consideration. 

H.R. 4147, the Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act 

H.R. 4147, the Student Veterans IT Upgrade Act, would require 

VA to study and report on the current status and future plans for 

the IT system used to administer educational services. This provision would require VA’s Chief Information Officer, in coordination 

with the Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, would 

be required to submit this report in 180 days to the Committees 

on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The report would include VA’s current plan to update these 

IT systems, a detailed implementation plan, and a financial analysis of the costs involved. 

DAV has testified on several occasions before the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity regarding 

the current state of VR&E’s IT infrastructure, which lacks adequate capacity and capability. In its present state, it does not allow 

veterans to file claims for vocational rehabilitation benefits and 

services electronically. We have recommended that rather than 

continue to patch and upgrade the current Corporate WinstonSalem, Indianapolis, Newark, Roanoke, Seattle (CWINRS) system, 

that VR&E be integrated into the Veterans Benefit Management 

System, and we would recommend that any forward looking IT 

plan for VBA take this approach for all business lines. 

Although DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal, we are 

not opposed to its favorable consideration. 

H.R. 4150, the Veterans Employment and Training Service 

Longitudinal Study Act of 2014 

H.R. 4150 would authorize a long-term longitudinal study to examine the effectiveness of the job counseling, training and placement services for veterans provided by the Veterans Employment 

and Training Service (VETS) in the Department of Labor. The 

study would be performed by a non-government entity over a period of at least five years, using a statistically valid sample of veterans who have received services, as well as those who did not seek 

or receive any services from VETS. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
73 

The provision specifies a number of questions that the longitudinal study must address, and includes one question about whether 

the veteran participated in a VA vocational rehabilitation program. 

We would recommend that additional questions be included about 

the effectiveness of the VR&E program services in order to increase 

the value of this research. 

Although DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal, we do 

not oppose its favorable consideration. 

H.R. 4151, the Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014 

H.R. 4151 would require the Secretary to contract with a nongovernment entity to conduct a survey of individuals who have received or are receiving educational assistance under one of VA’s 

many education programs under chapters 30, 32, 33, and 35 of 

Title 38, United States Code. The purpose of the survey would be 

to provide insights into how veterans accessed, used, valued and 

benefited from VA education programs. The survey, which could be 

done electronically, must be completed no later than 180 days after 

VA enters into the contract. We would recommend that additional 

questions be included about the VR&E education and training program services in order to increase the value of this research. 

Although DAV has no specific resolution on this proposal, we do 

not oppose its favorable consideration. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our testimony. 

VETSFIRST TESTIMONY

SUBMITTED BY HEATHER L. ANSLEY, ESQ., MSW; VICE PRESIDENT

OF VETSFIRST

Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation 

and Employment Act of 2014 (H.R. 4037) 

This legislation would make changes to aspects of VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program in an effort to improve access to services for veterans with significant barriers to employment. In general, we have concerns about proposed 

changes that limit access to employment services for any veterans 

living with disabilities. Specifically, Section 5 of this legislation 

would allow VA to prioritize the provision of VR&E services based 

on level of need. We are concerned that establishment of such priorities could lead to problems in accessing services for veterans 

who could greatly benefit from VR&E services but who are not 

deemed a priority for VA. Section 6 of this legislation would amend 

the definition of ‘‘serious employment handicap.’’ VetsFirst is concerned about limiting access to services and believes that this legislation should be amended to provide access to training, educational, 

or other benefits that could help impacted veterans in returning to 

the workforce. 

Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act 

of 2014 (H.R. 4150) 

We support this legislation. This survey will provide important 

data that will help the Department of Labor and other stakeholders determine the long-term impact of employment services for 

veterans. Because it will include measures on disability, this surVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
74 

vey may also provide important information about a disability’s impact on long-term employment. 

Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014 (H.R. 4151) 

We support this legislation. The survey’s requirement to collect 

data including whether or not the individual has a service-connected disability may be helpful in determining the influence that 

disability had, if any, on an individual’s choice of school; goal for 

education or training; and the services that the individual received 

from the school. We also appreciate the inclusion of a question regarding VA’s VR&E program which we believe will help with efforts to determine why veterans who are eligible for VR&E might 

instead pursue other educational benefits. 

Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit for the record VetsFirst’s views on three of the 

Bills under consideration today. 

VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal Association, represents the 

culmination of over 65 years of service to veterans and their families. We advocate for the programs, services, and disability rights 

that help all generations of veterans with disabilities remain independent. This includes access to VA financial and health care benefits, housing, transportation, and employment services and opportunities. Today, we are not only a VA-recognized national veterans 

service organization, but also a leader in advocacy for all people 

with disabilities. 

Improving Veterans’ Access to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Act of 2014 (H.R. 4037) 

VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) services 

are critical to helping eligible servicemembers and veterans with 

service-connected disabilities receive the skills and training necessary to help them reintegrate into the workforce and their communities. Without access to quality vocational rehabilitation services, many veterans with disabilities may be unable to successfully 

transition to the workforce and a long-term career. This legislation 

would make changes to aspects of VR&E’s program in an effort to 

improve access to services for veterans with significant barriers to 

employment. 

Section 4 of this legislation would allow veterans who are receiving rehabilitation assistance through VR&E and who are referred 

for assistance under Chapter 21 to receive assistance for needed 

housing modifications. Specifically, this provision would add to the 

types of disabilities that qualify for assistance under Chapter 21 

those that are disabilities for which the veteran is eligible for 

VR&E and is referred by VR&E for housing modification assistance. Access to housing modifications is critical for the successful 

rehabilitation of many veterans with significant disabilities. Thus, 

VetsFirst supports efforts to increase accessibility to housing modifications. 

Section 5 of this legislation would allow VA to prioritize the provision of VR&E services based on level of need. According to the 

legislation, a determination about need for services should include 

disability ratings, the severity of employment handicaps, qualification for a program of independent living, income, and any other apVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
75 

1 38 U.S.C. § 3101(7). 

propriate factors. VetsFirst supports access to services for veterans 

with disabilities who have the most significant need for vocational 

rehabilitation services. However, VetsFirst is concerned that establishment of such priorities could lead to problems in accessing services for veterans who could greatly benefit from VR&E services but 

who are not deemed a priority for VA. 

Any prioritization must include provisions for ensuring that all 

eligible veterans receive needed services. Delays to receiving services that result from wait lists would be unacceptable and may impact long-term employment outcomes. Congressional review of any 

prioritization and its implementation would be helpful in ensuring 

continued access for all eligible veterans. An alternative to 

prioritization would be better workforce allocation within VR&E to 

ensure that VA is better able to meet the needs of all eligible veterans. 

Section 6 of this legislation would amend the definition of ‘‘serious employment handicap.’’ Currently, a serious employment handicap is defined as ‘‘a significant impairment, resulting in substantial part from a service-connected disability rated at 10 percent or 

more, of a veteran’s ability to prepare for, obtain, or retain employment consistent with such veteran’s abilities, aptitudes, and interests.’’ 1 This legislation would modify that definition by requiring 

that a significant impairment result from a service-connected disability that is directly related to a veteran’s ability to return to 

work. 

If implemented, some veterans who are currently eligible for 

VR&E services under the current definition would likely no longer 

be able to receive these services. VetsFirst believes that veterans 

who need assistance with vocational rehabilitation should be able 

to access services if needed to help them be successful in returning 

to the workforce. Although these veterans may be eligible for programs that are available to all Americans seeking employment, access to those programs may be limited. VetsFirst believes that this 

legislation should be amended to provide access to training, educational, or other benefits that can provide impacted veterans with 

a pathway to employment. 

Veterans Employment and Training Service Longitudinal Study Act 

of 2014 (H.R. 4150) 

This legislation would require the Department of Labor to contract with a non-government entity to conduct a longitudinal study 

of veterans who received job counseling, training, and placement 

under Chapter 41 and those who did not seek the same assistance. 

The survey will include information about the disability ratings of 

individuals, their employment status, whether services provided by 

disabled veterans’ outreach program specialist or local veterans’ 

employment representatives were helpful, and whether the individual received VA educational assistance or participated in VA’s 

VR&E program. 

VetsFirst supports this legislation. This survey will provide important data that will help the Department and other stakeholders 

to determine the long-term impact of employment services for veterans. Because it will include measures on disability, this survey 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
76 

may also provide important information about the impact it has on 

long-term employment. 

Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014 (H.R. 4151) 

This legislation would require VA to contract with a non-government entity to conduct a survey of individuals who have used or 

are using VA educational benefits under Chapters 30, 32, 33, and 

35. The survey will collect important information about beneficiaries, including the services received from their educational institutions, opinions about the effectiveness of the VA programs 

through which they received benefits, and eligibility for and use of 

VA’s VR&E program. Upon completion of the survey, VA will be required to provide Congress with the results of the survey and resulting recommendations. 

VetsFirst supports this legislation. The survey’s requirement to 

collect data including whether or not the individual has a serviceconnected disability may be helpful in determining the influence 

that disability had, if any, on an individual’s choice of school; goal 

for education or training; and the services that the individual received from the school. We also appreciate the inclusion of a question regarding VA’s VR&E program which we believe will help with 

efforts to determine why veterans who are eligible for VR&E might 

instead pursue other educational benefits. 

We urge swift passage of this legislation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony concerning 

VetsFirst’s views on these important pieces of legislation. We remain committed to working in partnership to ensure that all veterans are able to reintegrate in to their communities and remain 

valued, contributing members of society. 

Information Required by Clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the House of 

Representatives 

In fiscal year 2012 United Spinal Association served as a subcontractor to Easter Seals for an amount not to exceed $5000 through 

funding Easter Seals received from the U.S. Department of Transportation. This is the only federal contract or grant, other than the 

routine use of office space and associated resources in VA Regional 

Offices for Veterans Service Officers that United Spinal Association 

has received in the current or previous two fiscal years. 

Heather L. Ansley is the Vice President of VetsFirst, which is a 

program of United Spinal Association. 

Ms. Ansley began her tenure with the organization in December 

2009. Her responsibilities include managing the public policy advocacy, veterans benefits services, and veterans outreach activities for 

VetsFirst. She also works to promote collaboration between disability organizations and veterans service organizations by serving 

as a co-chair of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Veterans and Military Families Task Force. 

Prior to her arrival at VetsFirst, she served as the Director of 

Policy and Advocacy for the Lutheran Services in America Disability Network. 

Before arriving in Washington, D.C., she served as a Research 

Attorney for The Honorable Steve Leben with the Kansas Court of 

Appeals. Prior to attending law school, she worked in the office of 

former U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof (R–MO) where she asVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
77 

sisted constituents with problems involving federal agencies. She 

also served as the congressional and intergovernmental affairs specialist at the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Region VII 

office in Kansas City, Missouri. 

Ms. Ansley is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of 

Missouri-Columbia with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. Ms. 

Ansley also holds a Master of Social Work from the University of 

Missouri-Columbia and a Juris Doctorate from the Washburn University School of Law in Kansas. 

She is licensed to practice law in the State of Kansas and before 

the United States District Court of Kansas. 

ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, (APSCU) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On behalf of APSCU, our member institutions and the military 

and veteran students we serve we welcome the opportunity to provide our views on legislation that will impact private sector colleges 

and universities and the military and veteran students enrolled at 

our institutions. 

H.R. 2942: We recognize the value of VA advisory committees. 

The reestablishment of the Professional Certification and Licensure 

Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) allows key 

stakeholders to make important recommendations to the Secretary 

which will assist the VA in its efforts to better serve our veteran 

students. 

H.R. 3056, Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act: While we 

support the spirit of the Bill, we believe that other government and 

nongovernment programs are already providing peer-support and 

other similar services to veterans and we encourage Congress to review the existing efforts before creating a similar program. Additionally, the legislation makes a glaring omission. As drafted, the 

Bill only provides for piloting a peer-outreach program at public 

and private nonprofit institutions ignoring the fact that private sector colleges and universities educate more than 325,000 military 

veterans, servicemembers, and their family members. 

H.R. 4151, Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014: We support 

gaining more information on the educational experiences of student 

veterans at postsecondary institutions. APSCU is committed to 

using strong data and evidence to strengthen our sector’s support 

of the military and veterans’ community and having good data will 

assist all institutions in their efforts to improve services to students. 

Thank you for allowing APSCU to present our views on legislation impacting private sector colleges and universities and the military and veteran students we support. We welcome the opportunity 

to work with this subcommittee and members of Congress to support student veterans and student servicemembers. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DAKDUK, VICE PRESIDENT OF MILITARY

AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, THE ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Chairman Flores, Ranking Member Takano, and members of the 

subcommittee, I am writing on behalf of the Association of Private 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
78 

Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), our member institutions, their faculty and the nearly four million students who attend 

private sector institutions. Our institutions provide a full range of 

higher education programs to students seeking career-focused education. We provide short-term certificate programs and diploma 

programs, two-and-four-year associate and baccalaureate degree 

programs, as well as a small number of master’s and doctorate programs. We educate students for careers in over 200 occupational 

fields including information technology; allied health; automotive 

repair; business administration; commercial art; and culinary and 

hospitality management. 

Since 2009, over one million veterans have used the Post-9/11 GI 

benefits to pay for their education. Private sector colleges and universities have educated more than 325,000. Private sector institutions continue to grow as the education choice for veterans because 

our schools offer focused academic delivery and flexible schedules, 

which veterans favor. 

We understand the challenges that arise when our military men 

and women transition back to civilian life and enter into postsecondary education. Our military and veteran students are not the 

fresh-out-of-high school, first-time, full-time student living on campus and attending college thanks to the generosity of family. Our 

military and veteran students are like many of our new traditional 

students—working, with a spouse and children and paying for their 

education with money they have earned. 

Servicemembers and veterans attend our institutions because we 

design courses to be relevant, concentrated, and suited to the personal goals of our students. This education foundation is of a particular benefit to military students and veterans seeking a promotion, advance in rank or supplementing skills attained during 

their service. This type of purposeful, tailored education ensures 

that veteran and military students nimbly move from the classroom onto their next academic or professional goal. The ability to 

offer courses on-base, online, and on the student’s schedule is of 

tremendous value. Because of our longer school days and yearround academic programming, our students can often complete an 

associate’s degree in 18 months or a bachelor’s degree in just over 

three years. 

Private sector colleges and universities are providing skills that 

put Americans back to work. Today, in America, there is a very 

real skills gap that is impeding job creation and economic growth. 

Our institutions are working to bridge this gap by combining postsecondary education and career skills in ways that equip veteran 

students with workplace skills. 

Of veteran graduates, 75 percent earned certificates and associates degrees while 25 percent earned bachelor’s and graduate degrees. 

Forty percent of all the veteran graduates earned credentials in 

healthcare fields, one of the fastest growing industries in the country. These occupations range from medical, dental and veterinary 

assistants to nurses and technologists of various types with weighted average annual median salaries of $33,000 for certificate and associate degree holders to $56,000 for bachelor and graduate degree 

holders. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
79 

Another 20 percent of veteran graduates earned credentials in 

skilled trade programs, such as construction, maintenance and repair, and engineering technologies. According to the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, the United States will need more than 1 million 

additional workers to fill these jobs by 2020. The weighted average 

annual median salary for graduates earning their certificates and 

associate degrees in these fields was $44,000. 

Ten percent of veteran graduates earned awards in computer and 

information programs like computer programming, computer 

graphics, computer systems networking, and information technology. The weighted average annual median salary is $57,000 for 

certificate and associate degree holders and $89,000 for bachelor 

and graduate degree holders. The U.S. will need nearly 3 million 

additional computer and IT workers by 2020. 

We want to work with you to provide our service members and 

veterans, particularly young combat veterans, with the tools and 

resources to make an informed, thoughtful decision about which 

educational opportunity will best prepare them for the workforce. 

On behalf of APSCU, I welcome the opportunity to provide our 

views on legislation impacting private sector colleges and universities and military veterans enrolled at our institutions. 

H.R. 2942: Having previously served on the VA Advisory Committee on Education, I recognize the value of VA advisory committees. The reestablishment of the Professional Certification and Licensure Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) allows key stakeholders to make important recommendations to the 

Secretary which will assist the VA in its efforts to better serve our 

veteran students. 

H.R. 3056, Warriors’ Peer-Outreach Pilot Program Act: The VA 

has recently expanded the Vet Success on Campus program to 94 

sites nationwide. Outside of the government, the nonprofit group 

Student Veterans of America (SVA) has established over 900 campus-based veteran groups and is still growing. The American Legion, too, has created posts on several campuses to support student 

veterans. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) has created an outreach program where VFW posts engage and support student veterans in their communities. Finally, colleges and universities already utilize the VA work-study program to support student veterans. While we support the spirit of the Bill, we believe there are 

other government and nongovernment programs that exist to provide peer-support and other similar services to veterans and we encourage Congress to review the existing efforts as it considers creating a similar program. Additionally, the legislation makes a glaring omission. As drafted, the legislation only provides for piloting 

a peer-outreach program at public and private nonprofit institutions ignoring the fact that private sector colleges and universities 

educate more than 325,000 military veterans, servicemembers, and 

their family members. If Congress wants to reach a broad group of 

students, it needs to include private sector colleges and universities 

in this endeavor. 

H.R. 4151, Veterans Education Survey Act of 2014: We support 

gaining more information on the educational experiences of student 

veterans at postsecondary institutions. APSCU is committed to 

using strong data and evidence to strengthen our sector’s support 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
80 

of the military and veterans’ community and having good data will 

assist all institutions in their efforts to improve services to students. 

Thank you for allowing APSCU to present our views on legislation impacting private sector colleges and universities and the military and veteran students we support. We welcome the opportunity 

to work with this subcommittee and members of Congress to support student veterans, student servicemembers, and their families. 

SENIOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION

March 24, 2014 

The Hon. William Flores, and Hon. Mark Takano 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, 

Cannon House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Flores and Ranking Member Takano: 

The Senior Executives Association (SEA) represents the interests 

of career federal executives in the Senior Executive Service (SES), 

and those in Senior Level (SL), Scientific and Professional (ST), 

and equivalent positions. On behalf of the Association, and of SEA 

members who serve at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), I 

am writing to oppose H.R. 4031, the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014. This proposal not 

only sets the dangerous precedent of politicizing the career executive corps, it will not achieve the goal we all share—to provide the 

Nation’s veterans with the highest quality care. 

The stated purpose of H.R. 4031 is to hold senior level employees 

accountable by allowing the Secretary of the VA to terminate Senior Executives ‘‘in the same manner as the removal of a professional staff member employed by a Member of Congress.’’ SEA 

questions the necessity of this Bill since Senior Executives can already be removed for poor performance. 

We will appreciate your considering the following points since 

they speak to both the lack of justification for the Bill, but also the 

danger of enacting this legislation. 

Annually, VA Senior Executives are subjected to a multi-step approval process before being granted their final performance rating 

for the year. They are given initial ratings by their direct supervisors which are then reviewed by Performance Review Boards at 

the subcomponent (VBA/VHA/NCA) level, and subsequently go to a 

VA-wide Performance Review Board. At each level the Performance 

Review Board has the option to increase, lower, or maintain the 

rating level based on a review of the Senior Executive’s performance. Senior Executives are rated on a wide variety of categories 

based of their individual performance plans and organizational performance. Finally, the rating goes to the agency head for reviewin this case, Secretary Shinseki—who makes a final decision 

whether to raise, maintain or lower the rating. According to Secretary Shinseki (in a letter to Chairman Miller, 1/31/14), ‘‘Results, 

or lack thereof, for which employees and executives are responsible 

and accountable, are factors when evaluating performance. This includes levels and outcomes of patient care, results of relevant inVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Jul 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\87-672.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
81 

vestigations and audits, as well as individual and organizational 

performance and results.’’ 

Should poor performance be evident based on the rating process, 

an agency can take action to remove the Senior Executive. By law, 

Senior Executives must be removed from the SES if they receive 

two unsatisfactory ratings within five consecutive years or two less 

than fully successful ratings within three consecutive years. 

In a hearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee in 

February, Undersecretary for Health Robert Petzel stated that in 

the past year 3,000 employees at the VA had been removed, including fourteen Senior Executives over the past two years. In the letter to Chairman Miller, Secretary Shinseki stated: ‘‘I believe VA 

has sufficient authority to take swift action and hold employees 

and executives accountable for performance.’’ 

Instead of ensuring strong performance (by which Senior Executives can already be held accountable through consistent, fair and 

transparent application of the existing performance management 

system), this legislation could well have the unintended effect of 

politicizing the career SES. Allowing the Secretary to terminate 

Senior Executives would place the Executives at the mercy of 

media and Congressional pressure, rather than providing an honest 

assessment of performance and accountability. 

In the 19th century the federal service was professionalized 

under the Pendleton Act to put an end to the patronage system 

that had allowed the civil service to become an arm of whichever 

political party held power at the time. To guarantee fair treatment 

of employees and preserve the integrity of the civil service, protections were put in place to provide due process for federal employees 

and a barrier to undue political influence so that federal employees 

could fairly carry out the laws passed by Congress without fear of 

political retribution. 

As it currently stands, career Senior Executives enjoy far fewer 

protections than other federal employees. The unfortunate reality 

of the past few years has been that the rhetoric surrounding federal employees is largely driven by optics rather than the policy 

needs of the American people. SEA is concerned that H.R. 4031 

would allow Senior Executives to be subjected to a trial by media 

that pressures political appointees to remove them without cause. 

With fear of retribution by an agency head, the career SES could 

well become a politicized corps that bends with the political winds, 

rather than serving the American people free from political influence. SEA strongly supports holding employees accountable for 

their performance. Should an employee need to be removed, then 

an agency already has the means to do so. Federal employees are 

routinely fired and red tape is not the problem. 

SEA has become aware of some Veterans Service Organizations 

that are advocating for providing the Secretary of VA the same firing authority as the Defense Secretary. This is based on a quote 

by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates where he talked about 

firing people at the top to change the culture during the Walter 

Reed scandal. However, the people that former Secretary Gates 

fired in order to change the culture were political appointees. Further, there appears to be confusion between career Senior Executives and political appointees generally. Across the government, 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
82 

and at the VA, there are non-career Senior Executives who are political appointees, and, like all political appointees, they serve at 

the pleasure of the agency head. It is unclear to SEA that this distinction between career and political appointees is being accurately 

applied in the case of the VA. 

In discussing this legislation with many Congressional offices, it 

appears that the underlying concern has more to do with the SES 

performance appraisal process than the accountability process. SEA 

has long advocated for stronger transparency and fairness for the 

SES performance management system and stands ready to work 

with you to strengthen the system, rather than unfairly punishing 

Senior Executives through a measure that will do nothing to truly 

improve the quality of care and service given to the Nation’s veterans. 

I look forward to answering any questions about the SES system 

that you may have. 

Sincerely, 

Carol A. Bonosaro, President 

Æ 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER