U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

73–293 2013

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3329, H.R. 3483, 

H.R. 3610, H.R. 3670, H.R. 3524, H.R. 4048, H.R. 

4051, H.R. 4052, H.R. 4057 AND H.R. 4072 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (EO) 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012 

Serial No. 112–49 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada 

ROBERT L. TURNER, New York 

BOB FILNER, California, Ranking 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JERRY McNERNEY, California 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

HELEN W. TOLAR, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (EO) 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana, Chairman 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Ranking 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

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 

March 8, 2012 

Page 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3329, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3610, H.R. 3670, H.R. 

3524, H.R. 4048, H.R. 4051, H.R. 4052, H.R. 4057 and H.R. 4072 .................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman Marlin A. Stutzman ............................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement of Chairman Stutzman ................................................. 38 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, Ranking Democratic Member ........................................... 2 

Prepared Statement of B. Braley .................................................................... 38 

Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis ............................................................................................. 3 

Hon. Timothy J. Walz .............................................................................................. 4 

Hon. G. K. Butterfield ............................................................................................. 5 

Prepared Statement of G. K. Butterfield ........................................................ 39 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Richard F. Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and Government 

Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America ............................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Weidman ............................................................. 40 

Mr. Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ...................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Gallucci ............................................................... 55 

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

The American Legion ........................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Gonzalez .............................................................. 60 

Executive Summary of Mr. Gonzalex ............................................................. 65 

Mr. Jason R. Thigpen, Co-Founder and President, Students Veterans Advocacy Group ............................................................................................................ 12 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Thigpen ............................................................... 66 

Executive Summary—Student Veterans Advocacy Group ............................ 68 

The Hon. Steve Gunderson, President and CEO, Association of Private Sector 

Colleges and Universities (APSCU) .................................................................... 24 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Gunderson ........................................................ 69 

Executive Summary of Hon. Gunderson ........................................................ 72 

Dr. Allen L. Sessoms, President, University of the District of Columbia, 

On Behalf of: American Association of State Colleges and Universities 

(AASCU) ................................................................................................................ 26 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Sessoms ............................................................... 73 

Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ............ 30 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Coy ...................................................................... 74 

Accompanied by: 

Mr. C. Ford Heard, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement Policy, Systems and Oversight Office of Acquisitions, Logistics and Construction 

Mr. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of General 

Counsel 

MG Ronald G. Young USA (Ret.), Director, Family and Employer Program 

and Policy, U.S. Department of Defense ............................................................ 32 

Prepared Statement of MG Ronald G. Young ................................................ 78 

Mr. Ismael ‘‘Junior’’ Ortiz, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor .................................... 33 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Ortiz .................................................................... 79 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

Page

iv 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Mike McIntyre (NC 07) ................................................................................. 83 

U.S. Transportation Security Administration ....................................................... 83 

Mr. Terry ‘‘T.P.’’ O’Mahoney, Chairman, Texas Veterans Commission .............. 85 

Dr. R. Scott Ralls, President, North Carolina Community College System ....... 87 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America ........................................................... 90 

Disabled American Veterans .................................................................................. 93 

Paralyzed Veterans of America .............................................................................. 96 

Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) ........................................................................... 101 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Letters to Hon. G. K. Butterfield (NC-01) ............................................................. 102 

Letter from Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs 

to The Honorable Marlin Stutzman ................................................................... 105 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3329, H.R. 

3483, H.R. 3610, H.R. 3670, H.R. 3524, H.R. 4048, 

H.R. 4051, H.R. 4052, H.R. 4057 AND H.R. 4072 

Thursday, March 8, 2012 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Marlin A. Stutzman 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present:Representatives Stutzman, Bilirakis, Johnson, Braley, 

and Walz. 

Also Present: Representative Butterfield. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MARLIN STUTZMAN 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Good morning and welcome, everyone, to the 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, a Subcommittee of the 

Veterans’ Affairs Committee. 

Today we will receive testimony on the following bills: H.R. 3329 

introduced by our colleague, Ms. Linda Sanchez; H.R. 3483 introduced by Congressman Butterfield; H.R. 3524 introduced by our 

Ranking Member, Mr. Braley; H.R. 3610 introduced by Ms. Fox; 

H.R. 3670 introduced by Congressman Walz; H.R. 4048 introduced 

by another EO Subcommittee Member, Mr. Johnson; H.R. 4051 and 

H.R. 4052, two bills that I have introduced; and H.R. 4057 introduced by Mr. Bilirakis; and H.R. 4072, a bill introduced by Chairman Miller. 

So we have got a good list of bills today that we are going to be 

discussing. 

Briefly my first bill, H.R. 4051, sets up a pilot program to increase opportunities to attend the TAP, Transition Assistance Program, by expanding TAP to offer classes at multiple off-base locations. 

And my second bill, H.R. 4052, sets up a progam to identify 

through a list of criteria schools that do a good job educating veterans. 

While I understand that some of the bills on today’s agenda 

would make significant organizational changes to the Department 

of Labor and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Committee, 

after it provided copies of these bills to staff several days prior, provided a formal hearing notice to both departments on Friday, February 17th, some 21 days ago. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

2 

Yet, we did not receive VA’s testimony until 6:38 p.m. last 

evening and Labor’s testimony at 6:55 p.m. last evening and I personally find this unacceptable. And while I understand that it may 

have been out of the control of today’s witnesses, I hope this situation is taken care of in the future. 

I also thank the sponsors for their bills and I look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses on each particular bill. 

I would also ask unanimous consent to allow Members with bills 

before us today to join us on the dais for the purpose of presenting 

their bills. Hearing no objection, I will recognize them shortly for 

their remarks. 

I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his opening remarks. 

Mr. Braley. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STUTZMAN APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY, 

RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. 

Frank Capra made a great film during World War II called Why 

We Fight to give the American people some understanding of what 

was at stake in the Global War on Terror that existed at that time. 

Mr. Chairman, you have heard me talk on this Committee before 

about the profound impact that my father’s service in World War 

II had on me. And that is why this hearing is so important today. 

Next week on Sunday, it will be the 31st anniversary of my father’s death and I will be on the island of Guam that day escorting 

an 88-year-old marine from my hometown of Waterloo, Iowa back 

to Iwo Jima where my father served 67 years ago. 

And the reason this hearing today is important is because the 

same issues that faced my father and that 88-year-old veteran 

when they came home from World War II are facing today’s veterans. And the bills in today’s hearing seek to provide an improved 

veterans’ benefits which is something we all care about. 

These bills will increase access to education, provide employment 

protection for disabled veterans, extend vocational rehabilitation 

and employment benefits, and improve contracting procedures. 

This Subcommittee has been committed to improving employment opportunities for our Nation’s veterans. We have conducted 

oversight hearings and field hearings to examine the unemployment problems facing our Nation’s veterans and passed legislation 

to try to mitigate those problems. 

Yet, few times have we discussed the unique needs of those with 

service-connected injuries. That is why I am pleased to have introduced H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection 

Act, which seeks to provide service-connected disabled veterans 

with employment protections in the workplace. 

My bill would provide service-connected disabled veterans and 

protect them against employment discrimination while they seek 

treatment for injuries they sustained while in the service or aggravated due to their military service. It would provide up to 12 weeks 

of unpaid leave in a calendar year. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

3 

Currently under the Family Medical and Leave Act, caregivers 

are provided with up to 26 work weeks of unpaid leave in a calendar year for up to five years to care for their spouse, parent, 

child, or next of kin who is a servicemember and sustained an injury or illness during service. 

While caregivers are given this much disabled protection, those 

that have been directly inflicted with an injury or service-connected 

disability do not enjoy similar protections. It is time to remedy this 

inequity. 

I am also interested in making sure our veterans have good information when deciding to go back to college. I appreciate that 

Chairman Stutzman has introduced legislation that would recognize educational institutions that provide superior service to veterans as well as improve the TAP Program to provide information 

about post-secondary education. 

I also appreciate Representative Bilirakis’ legislation that would 

improve outreach and transparency for veterans regarding information about going back to school. I believe having clear and reliable 

information is absolutely essential in helping veterans make good 

choices about post-secondary education. 

I look forward to working with Members of the Committee to 

make sure our veterans are receiving unbiased advice on the use 

of their GI Bill benefits and adequate information about the schools 

they may want to attend. They have served our country and deserve to have the best education possible including ongoing support 

once they are enrolled. 

Common-sense legislation to provide employment protection for 

veterans who need medical treatment for their service-connected 

injuries or to provide complete information about educational opportunities is how we protect those who served and have volunteered to protect us. 

So thank you for holding the hearing. I look forward to a very 

robust conversation about these important bills and ways to improve them, and I yield back. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. 

At this time, I am going to let any other Member who wishes to 

speak on their bill and we will start with, Mr. Bilirakis, if you 

would like to address or make any comments regarding his bills. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very much. 

I also want to thank the Ranking Member. 

I have H.R. 4057, the Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act, in today’s legislation hearing. What 

my bill boils down to is that the veterans need to be armed with 

information. They need to know what resources are available to 

them. 

They need to know the value of services provided by specific institutions of higher education and training, but most importantly 

they deserve to have the resources in place to enable them to deVACREP180 with DISTILLER

4 

cide how their hard-earned GI benefit can best be used to meet 

their individual needs. 

This is exactly what my bill aims to do. It would require the secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a five-pronged 

policy to improve outreach and transparency to veterans and members of the armed forces with regard to institutions of higher learning. 

Specifically the policy would include, one, how to advise veterans 

and servicemembers about current educational and vocational 

counseling available, the best way to track and publish feedback 

from students and state approving agencies about the quality of instruction and accreditation, recruiting practices and post-graduate 

employment at institutions, the merit of and the way that state approving agencies will share information with accrediting agencies 

about the state approving agencies’ evaluation of the institution of 

higher learning, the way information about institutions of higher 

learning is provided to individuals participating in TAP, and the 

most important and effective way to provide veterans and members 

of the armed forces with information about post-secondary and 

training opportunities. 

Lastly my bill would require that the secretary of VA conduct a 

market survey to determine if programs exist that would allow veterans and servicemembers to assess their level of college readiness 

and what post-secondary and training opportunities would coincide 

well with their skills and interests. 

I appreciate the widespread support for this bill and I look forward to testimony on this bill and working with my colleagues to 

move it forward in the legislative process. 

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. Walz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. 

And thank you to my colleagues for putting forward such great 

legislation. 

I would like to speak just a minute on my piece of legislation 

along with Mr. Bilirakis, H.R. 3670, again one of those you would 

find hard to believe that we would actually need to do this, but this 

is in relationship to USERRA, Uniformed Services Employment 

and Reemployment Act. 

The idea of this was is just to guarantee and make sure that 

when our servicemembers, whether it be active forces, guard, or reserves, when they go to do their duty to this Nation, when they 

come back home, the one thing they can count on is that their employment rights would be there. They would be able to maintain 

their seniority. They would be able to get their job back. They 

would be able to leave off, if you will, right where they were and 

try and stay on equal with their peers in that community. That is 

a pretty easy thing to do. 

And the vast majority of our employers are good actors in this. 

Unfortunately, one of the ones that does not seem to think this applies is the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration. They 

do not. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

5 

And I want to be very clear about this. The women and men who 

serve in the TSA do this Nation a great service every single day. 

They are on duty. They are on watch and they are providing security for our needs, from airports across this country. 

But with that being said, there have been far too many cases 

brought to my attention of TSA does not adhere to USERRA and 

that is the way they see it. And, unfortunately, they were invited 

here today to explain to me why it was so important that they not 

look like a model employer. 

If the U.S. Government cannot be the model employer in taking 

care of our veterans, who can be? And how in goodness gracious 

can we go to the private sector and demand when USERRA comes 

after them. 

This is a very simple and basic piece of legislation. I would encourage my colleagues to support this. And let’s just ask TSA to 

play by the rules, honor the services of our veterans, and there are 

so many in that service, and make sure their jobs are guaranteed. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. [Presiding] Thank you. 

Yeah, Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized, sir. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member, 

colleagues, thank you very much for letting me come by today and 

give you some information about a bill that I recently introduced. 

You have been very courteous in doing this. 

Mr. Chairman, I think all of us can agree that we owe our veterans every opportunity to get a quality education and enter the 

workforce with the tools needed to compete. These returning heroes 

face an inequity that forces those who attend public colleges to pay 

more out of pocket in tuition than veterans who attend private 

schools. 

This inequity has caused many veterans to drop out of college, 

transfer, or assume tremendous financial burdens to attend school. 

My bill, H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act, addresses 

this problem by granting veterans equal benefits to attend any 

public or private institution. 

In January 2011, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Improvements Assistance Act became law reducing education benefits for 

veterans and separating education benefits for veterans who attend 

public institutions from veterans who attend private institutions. 

Before that act was passed, veterans could receive tuition and fee 

benefits up to the amount charged by the most expensive public institution in each state. Now, the education benefit for a veteran attending a private institution is capped at $17,500. The education 

benefit available to a veteran who attends a public institution is 

capped at the in-state tuition which is often less than $17,500. 

So often veterans who attend private institutions are eligible for 

more education benefits than those who attend public institutions. 

At East Carolina University, which is in my district, in-state tuition and fees are $5,300 per year. Out-of-state tuition and fees are 

$17,900 per year. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

6 

Under current law, a veteran with North Carolina residency attending this school would have his full tuition covered. A veteran 

who is not a resident of my state would be charged $17,900, but 

would only receive $5,300 in education benefits. 

So he or she would owe $12,500 out of pocket. However, if that 

veteran chose to attend a private institution which costs $17,900, 

he or she would receive $17,500 in education benefits and only pay 

$400 out of pocket. 

That is unfair, Mr. Chairman. There are 516 veterans at University of North Carolina institutions and 715 veterans at North Carolina community colleges who would be immediately assisted by this 

law. 

Air force veteran Ed Bailey who attends ECU received GI benefits to cover full tuition and fees for his first academic year only 

to face $6,000 in charges in the fall of 2011 after the bill passed. 

With five semesters left, this young veteran must pay $30,000 over 

the next two years or continue his education elsewhere or discontinue it completely. 

If we do not correct this problem, up to 30,000 veterans could 

face paying as much as $75,000 in out-of-pocket tuition costs in a 

tough economy and at a time when 13 percent of veterans are unemployed. 

Finally, we must continue to invest in the Post-9/11 GI Bill to 

provide timely educational benefits to enable each veteran to attend the institution of his or her choice. Let’s treat all of our veterans fairly by passing the Veterans Education Equity Act out of 

this Committee and helping it become law. 

I respectfully ask for bipartisan support on this bill. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield. Appreciate that very 

much. 

With us today, we have Mr. Richard Weidman from the Vietnam 

Veterans of America. 

Welcome, sir. 

And also Mr. Ryan M. Gallucci from the VFW. 

Welcome, sir. 

And we have Mr. Steve Gonzalez from The American Legion. 

Of course, welcome. 

And, finally, we have Mr. Jason Thigpen from the Student Veterans Advocacy Group. 

Thank you very much for being here, for your testimony. And we 

will begin with Mr. Weidman. 

You are recognized, sir, for five minutes. Thanks so much for 

being here. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

7 

STATEMENTS OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM 

VETERANS OF AMERICA; RYAN M. GALLUCCI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF 

FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; STEVE L. GONZALEZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; JASON R. THIGPEN, CO– 

FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, STUDENT VETERANS ADVOCACY 

GROUP 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the views of Vietnam Veterans of America here this morning. 

I will work down through the list and summarize most of the 

major points. 

In regard to H.R. 3329, VVA does favor this bill and I will leave 

others to elaborate on reasons for it. 

H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, VVA has 

no objection to this bill. 

H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act, 

that was introduced by Mr. Braley, we believe that this is a strong 

bill and it is important that anything we can do to protect the 

rights of veterans and to extend periods including—because there 

are many reasons why people are not ready for school when they 

first come out. 

The PEW Charitable Trust recently, actually last week, published a report that showed the difficulty extending for years for 

some of those, particularly combat vets who return. 

H.R. 3610, Streamlining the Workforce Development Programs 

Act of 2011, let me comment that VVA staunchly opposes eliminating any of the tiny but effective worker training programs at 

the Department of Labor. 

Veterans comprise 14 percent of the labor force. Veterans receive 

.2 percent of the Workforce Investment Act monies. 

The myth is that VA does everything for everybody and the answer to that is it is not true. If you are not service-connected, they 

cannot even help you with voc rehab. So it is important that we 

have access to those programs. 

Particularly HVRP or Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program 

is far and away the most cost-effective, most cost-efficient grant administered by or through the Department of Labor. It is a resultsoriented program where if they do not make the placements, they 

do not get the money. And it is more accountable and a cost per 

placement that is about a fifth of that which is the mean average 

of cost of placements in other programs at Labor. 

So we would be opposed to moving that because many of the recipients, most of the recipients actually of those HVRP grants are 

also multi-service agencies that help homeless veterans. And those 

1,200 faith-based and community-based organizations are absolutely essential. Because they operate on a shoestring, the only way 

they can come up with a match for the VA’s Grant and Per Diem 

Program is if they are successful in administering and scoring and 

then again getting the following year renewed HVRP. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

8 

And if both of them are at VA, then they do not have any match 

and, therefore, would be frozen out of the game. So if we can circumvent that, we would not have exactly the same problems. 

The Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 supposedly gave veterans priority of service in all Workforce Investment Act programs. However, regulations implementing most of that act were not published 

until December of 2008. It took over six years for them to even promulgate the draft regulations. The regulations became effective in 

calendar year 2009, program year 2008. 

[THE ATTACHMENT APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. WEIDMAN. And I just call your attention to a chart that we 

have put together because Labor does not put it together of the 

number of disabled vets who have participated in Workforce Investment Act. 

And in Iowa, there were a total of seven in that 12 months. That 

is seven out of 28,849 adults served with Workforce Investment 

Act. 

In the State of Minnesota, there were 29 veterans served out of 

45,000 adults served. 

And the figures are even tougher for where the unemployment 

among vets is which is the young group of under 24. 

Under 24 in the State of Minnesota, out of 3,897, only three veterans were served in the whole state. 

For the State of Florida, for the same period, only four disabled 

veterans were served out of 18,686 adults served. 

That under anybody’s definition does not qualify for priority of 

service and it is clear to us anyway that—and incidentally, the 

overall vet figure for the State of Florida was 77 veterans out of 

207,000 adults served by Workforce Investment Act. 

My point is this. If we are going to have laws, then they need 

to mean something because these are not just stats of whether or 

not somebody scored in a game. This has to do with whether or not 

these veterans can have a shot at having a decent life and getting 

retrained for the job force that is available today in their area. And 

it has been a dismal failure. 

In addition to what is already contemplated being moved over to 

VA, if Labor cannot turn that around, then I would suggest that 

14 percent of all Workforce Investment Act and any other training 

dollars at the Department of Labor be moved over under the deputy under secretary of VA for economic opportunity because clearly 

Labor does not care about us. 

Labor is not taking the actions they should be taking to make 

sure that the state workforce development agencies implement veterans’ priority of service and, yet, the services are very much needed, particularly by our returning veterans. 

I see I am over time and I thank you for your indulgence. And 

I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much 

for holding this hearing and your strong leadership of all the Members of this Committee. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

9 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Appreciate it very 

much. 

Now we will recognize Mr. Ryan Gallucci from the VFW. 

You are recognized, sir, for five minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI 

Mr. GALLUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Braley, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, on behalf of more than two million members of 

the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our auxiliaries, I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to share our thoughts on today’s pending 

legislation. 

With Iraq drawing to a close, withdrawal from Afghanistan on 

the way, proposals to scale back the active duty and continued high 

unemployment among today’s veterans, the VFW believes economic 

opportunity for today’s war fighters remains a national imperative. 

I hoped to quickly discuss VFW’s position on each of today’s bills, 

but in the interest of time, my remarks will first focus on H.R. 

3610, 4072, 4052, and 4057, and I invite the Committee to review 

my full remarks which have been submitted for the record. 

The VFW opposes H.R. 3610 and encourages the Committee to 

take the appropriate steps to preserve veterans’ workforce development programs through H.R. 4072. 

H.R. 3610 seeks to effectively terminate DoL veterans’ workforce 

development programs leaving states to carry out similar programs 

on an ad hoc basis. The bill would also reduce oversight of veterans’ programs by limiting audits to once every four years rather 

than today’s annual requirement. 

With this in mind, the VFW supports H.R. 4072 which would 

move current DoLVETS’ programs to the jurisdiction of VA. The 

VFW believes by placing all veterans’ services under a single authority, we will improve oversight and efficiency. 

However, the VFW has concerns regarding implementation 

should either H.R. 4072 or 3610 become law. 

First, VFW requests clarity on TAP inclusion within the jurisdictional shift. Next if DVOP and LVER positions should be consolidated, training must be modified to ensure that all employees are 

fully trained to the new standard. 

The VFW also seeks assurances that no jobs would be lost in 

combining DVOPs and LVERs. 

Congress must also protect funding for DoLVETS’ programs 

through H.R. 4072 should H.R. 3610 gain momentum. 

The VFW believes the shift from DoL to VA will ultimately ensure better services for veterans. However, any transition of authority must happen with minimal interruptions for the veterans 

who rely on the services and the employees who deliver them. 

Next the VFW supports the concept behind H.R. 4052, but has 

some concerns about specific evaluation metrics and implementation. 

The VFW recommends that VA offer a comparison of degrees 

conferred by a school or transfers when applicable to its total student body rather than graduation rates. 

The VFW also has concerns over SOC membership and Yellow 

Ribbon which we outlined specifically in our prepared remarks. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

10 

The VFW would need assurances that VA would not preclude 

quality schools which diligently serve their student veterans, but 

either do not wish to sign on to SOC for academic reasons or do 

not need to participate in Yellow Ribbon. 

The VFW would also recommend specific caps on the number of 

schools that VA could recognize in an effort to mitigate confusion. 

Next the VFW wants to thank Congressman Bilirakis for introducing H.R. 4057, a bill that reflects the ideas put forth by the 

VFW and a broad coalition of veterans’ advocates and education 

stakeholders. 

In light of recent Senate investigations and threats to the GI 

Bill, the VFW believes it is a top priority for VA to ensure that potential student veterans are well prepared to make a responsible 

educational choice. 

Post-9/11 GI Bill stands to be a transformative benefit for our 

Nation’s heroes which is why student veterans must have reasonable access to counseling on how to best use the benefit and have 

recourse should they become victims of fraud, waste, or abuse. 

In addition to mandating a VA action plan to improve consumer 

education, the VFW would prefer to see Section 3697A of Title 38 

also amended to ensure counseling for student veterans changes 

from a labor intensive opt in to an opt out model. 

GI Bill success story Senator Frank Lautenberg is currently 

drafting legislation in the Senate to improve student veteran consumer education. We encourage the Subcommittee to work with the 

senator to build a comprehensive bill that can move quickly and 

help fulfill the promise we made to offer quality education to our 

Nation’s heroes. 

The VFW supports H.R. 3329. However, the delimiting date for 

voc rehab must be eliminated altogether. The obligation to ensure 

our service-disabled veterans are employable has no expiration 

date. 

The VFW supports H.R. 3483 to ensure equitable reimbursement 

for all public school students, student veterans. Today’s nonresident students deserve an equitable benefit without ridiculous 

out-of-pocket burdens. 

The VFW also supports H.R. 3524, but we have concerns about 

how employers may respond to the length of time outlined in this 

bill and ask the Committee to responsibly discuss an appropriate 

timeframe. 

We also continue to call on the VA to adapt its scheduling practices taking into account the life demands of today’s veterans. Veterans who have earned the right to receive care at VA must not 

be punished in the workplace. 

The VFW supports H.R. 3670. After 9/11 standing up TSA required certain exemptions, but ten years later, it is time to close 

the USERRA loophole. Both our veterans and TSA stand to benefit 

from this bill. 

The VFW supports H.R. 4048 ensuring that VA and all Federal 

agencies comply with veterans’ contracting preference. 

VFW also supports H.R. 4051. Servicemembers have no way to 

reasonably anticipate all of the challenges they may face once they 

transition into civilian life which makes TAP after separation critical. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

11 

I think I was able to cover everything. Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Braley, this concludes my statement, and I am happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Gonzalez from The American Legion, you are recognized for 

five minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE L. GONZALEZ 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity for allowing me to present The American Legion’s view on 

several pieces of legislation being considered by the Committee 

today. 

The Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011 

aims to consolidate and streamline redundant and ineffective Federal workforce development programs to increase accountability, reduce administrative bureaucracies, and put Americans back to 

work. 

The legislation consolidates 33 programs into four funding 

streams of workforce investment funds. One of great concern is the 

veterans’ workforce investment fund which will provide formula 

funds to states for employment and training services to America’s 

veterans. 

The bill authorizes $218 million annually for fiscal year 2013 

through 2018. In comparison to the other three investment funds, 

the veterans’ workforce investment fund will be underfunded, illequipped, and a disservice to America’s veterans utilizing this program to reenter the workforce. 

Even though the key provision of this legislation is to address 

the overlapping programs provided by the Federal Government, it 

does little, if anything, to address the differences in eligibility objectives and service delivery to their respective clients, in this case 

America’s veterans. The American Legion opposes this bill. 

The American Legion, however, does support H.R. 4072, Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improvement Performance Act of 2012 which aims to improve employment services for 

veterans consolidating various programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Our country’s economic and social environments have changed 

dramatically. However, the policy and operational direction governing the provision of employment services to veterans remain 

from an earlier era. Veterans’ employment services as they are now 

organized and delivered will not be adequate or effective for helping servicemembers and veterans find jobs in the 21st century. 

If priority of service is intended to enhance a veteran’s probability of securing gainful and meaningful civilian employment as 

he or she transitions from the military, then the emphasis must be 

placed on priority of delivering service at the time of transition. 

The American Legion supports placing all of DoL vets’ programs 

dedicated to serving veterans under Department of Veterans Affairs, in turn increasing the coordination between the various eduVACREP180 with DISTILLER

12 

cation, rehabilitation, and employment programs whose sole goals 

are to enable veterans to successfully compete in the workforce. 

Veterans’ employment services need to be totally reengineered to 

meet the new reality of a highly automated, integrated, and consumer focused environment. 

Lastly, The American Legion supports H.R. 4057, Improving 

Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2012. 

One of the biggest hurdles veterans face is the information that is 

disclosed is provided through so many formats and descriptors as 

it renders this information all but useless for consumers who wish 

to compare colleges. Higher education information has to be positively provided to consumers in a manner that explains both its 

meaning and how to use it. 

Second, state approving agencies are the boots on the ground in 

the area of oversight and outreach for the GI Bill. If the state approving agencies are to provide service in this area, VA must work 

with the SAAs to secure adequate funding to provide such services. 

Requiring the VA to report clear, concise consumer data to veterans is the minimum necessary action for policymakers to take if 

they want higher education information to have any impact on consumer choice. And H.R. 4057 does just that. 

This concludes my testimony. The American Legion appreciates 

the opportunity to comment on the bills being considered by the 

Subcommittee. I will be more than happy to answer any questions 

you might have. Thank you very much. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE L. GONZALEZ APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

And now Mr. Jason Thigpen from the Student Veterans Advocacy 

Group. 

Sir, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JASON R. THIGPEN 

Mr. THIGPEN. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis and Ranking Member Braley and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify here in front of you today. 

Our efforts to assist and ensure veterans are able to utilize their 

earned education benefits as intended is an economical benefit to 

our local and national community. 

While the current economy causes us to make budget constraints, 

it would be short-sighted not to consider those who would be affected most when essentially taking educational opportunities and 

benefits away which are veterans, not foundations. 

This is simply not right, especially considering the only reason 

our Nation did not implement a draft on this War on Terror is because of the volunteer effort our servicemembers and veterans 

made. 

The unintended result of the adverse changes made to the GI 

Bill will most certainly be a detriment to the short and long-term 

economic success of our Nation, the United States of America. 

The detrimental impact suffered by student veterans across 

North Carolina and approximately 40 other states due to the 

change in Federal law, the Post-9/11 Veterans Education AssistVACREP180 with DISTILLER

13 

ance Act of 2010 on January 4th of 2011. As a direct result of this 

change in law, thousands of student veterans and prospective student veterans alike face a never before issue of in-state residency 

for tuition purposes. 

In a sense, our active servicemembers and current student veterans who by and large had no idea their state of residency for tuition purposes would invariably be the determining factor as to 

whether they could afford much less attain the educational benefits 

promised to them for their sacrifices they made to protect our Nation. 

One student veteran e-mailed me stating after proudly serving 

my country for more time deployed than home with my family, 

while losing friends in Iraq, then moving my family to North Carolina for a better tomorrow, it is just not fair for my country to take 

the educational benefits from me, leaving me to have to move my 

family back to Washington and in with our family just so I could 

afford to pay the $10,000 a year out of pocket just to use my GI 

Bill. This is not the kind of principles I was taught from my time 

of service. 

As student veterans attending UMC Wilmington and North 

Carolina, as supporters for both our active servicemembers and 

veterans and as a disabled American veteran myself, I was nearly 

brought to tears during another student veteran saying I am supposed to graduate in December of 2012 and may not be able to 

now. 

Another student veteran e-mailing stating had it not been for 

close friends and family in the last few months helping me out, I 

would be living out of my car. That is simply not right. 

I met with student veterans across North Carolina system and 

now across the Nation. 

Three-quarters into the semester, another states I may have to 

drop out of school by week’s end. I received an e-mail from the 

school’s finance office that said I have a week to pay the balance 

of $3,500 I owe to the school while using my GI Bill. 

According to Public Law 111–377, the Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2010, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a potential cost savings of $1 million over the 2011 to 2015 

period and a savings of $734 million over the 2011 to 2020 period. 

From the inception of the GI Bill in the 1940s, nearly eight million servicemembers were transformed from the educational benefits never known before. The yield to this was a $7.00 yield for 

every $1.00 invested into our veterans getting their education. 

According to a working group comprised of UMC system officials 

named UMC Serves in their April 2011 report to the President, 

veterans earn better grades and have a 75 percent graduation rate. 

With the exception of white males, veterans in all other races and 

gender groups earn more money than their non-veteran counterparts. 

Veterans start more small businesses. In general, veterans outperform non-veterans. 

To realize this potential, our state must actively and Nation 

must actively support military affiliated students and its system of 

public higher education. We want these students to choose our university system schools. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

14 

Additionally, one must consider the estimated economical impact 

on our Nation expected to be $26.5 billion in 2013 due to our veterans getting their education. 

Setting aside the simple fact that the educational benefits were 

promised as in signing a promissory note which is past due, veterans just wanted to collect what was promised to them, getting 

their education, the outcome of which, by changing this law is 

many of our veterans will no longer be able to achieve their educational goals, leaving more unemployed, whereby owning fewer 

businesses directly resulting in an inverse effect, contradicting the 

economical forecast previously researched and authored, yielding a 

now negative return. 

Now we have an opportunity. Our group has done research within the budget to help offset the cost that this bill has been scored 

to cost at $137 million a year for the first three years. We found 

nearly $311 million within our budget that could more than cover 

the cost to offset this. This would be a positive economical impact 

on our Nation. 

Would you rather have our veterans going to school or staying 

in the unemployment line? I think that is simple. 

I am going to quote Theodore Roosevelt here and state a man 

who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough 

to be given a square deal afterwards. 

Thank you so much. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASON R. THIGPEN APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

And now I will recognize myself for five minutes to start the 

questioning. 

To all the VSOs on the panel, when Congress passed the Post9/11 fixed bill that was authored in the Senate, it left about $700 

million in mandatory offsets on the table, money they will never be 

able to use. 

I believe nearly every VSO, correct me if I am wrong, with the 

exception, of course, of the VBA, supported the PI 111–275. It appears that H.R. 3483 will require about $1.4 billion in mandatory 

offsets, an amount that would clearly be a challenge for this Committee to identify. 

My question is, why did your organizations support, if it did, why 

did it support legislation that reduced the tuition and fee payments 

for out-of-state veteran students like Mr. Thigpen here without a 

grandfather clause in the first place? 

Whoever would like to begin. 

Mr. WEIDMAN. VVA did not support that and we said at the time 

it was going to do a terrible disservice to the students who moved 

or in any, many cases returned to where their family was or where 

their wife’s family was from where they had legal residence at the 

time that they separated. And we said this is short-sighted and we 

were shouted down by some of our younger colleagues. 

And there oftentimes is some value in knowing the history and 

the history of the Cold War GI Bill is something that we knew very 

well because we lived through it. And that is reason. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

15 

All of the things that are in incidentally, the 4057, are things 

that did exist when your father participated in getting the Cold 

War GI Bill passed lo many years ago and then required, because 

the same thing happened after Vietnam as is happening today with 

some both for-profit and some not-for-profit schools, not being 

square with the veterans and putting out good information. 

So everything that that bill and more is asking for was done 40 

years ago. So let’s not go through a painful period where veterans 

are left with debt and/or have to drop out of school before we get 

to the point where we give people good intel. 

Without good intel, you do not make good decisions out in the 

battlefield and right now there is not good intel available to veterans about whether or not the school that is hustling them is, in 

fact, worth going to. 

But in any case, the fix on the tuition assistance, we said we had 

no objection, but it is more than that. We support it. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Anyone else? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Sir, I recently just came into this new portfolio, 

overtaking this portfolio of The American Legion, overseeing now 

education. My predecessor prior to me was one of the advisors and 

why The American Legion supported it. 

Coming into this new role, I have been able to literally, as Mr. 

Weidman so highly suggested, is understanding what the history 

is, what has been some of the implications from the actual GI Bill, 

and what is happening throughout history. 

And that is why we are kind of looking at this from a different 

perspective now and actually analyzing what will be the best outcome for actually veterans within entering post-secondary institutions, sir. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Anyone else want to comment? 

Mr. GALLUCCI. I want to build on what Mr. Gonzalez was just 

saying. At the time, I would have to look back through the VFW’s 

testimony to see exactly what they said, but at the time I was 

working for another veterans’ organization and I know that 

through our discussions, we were kicking and screaming about 

some of these changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

I am a student veteran myself. I graduated before the Post-9/11 

GI Bill went into effect. However, my brother uses the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill and is affected by these changes. And it is something that we 

need to be very vocal about and do the right thing now. And I think 

we have an opportunity to do that. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. THIGPEN. Our organization formed as a result of this. Myself 

as a student veteran in my senior year doubling in accounting and 

finance, I tend to get a little involved with analysis of matters such 

as this. 

I think our organization wants to make it clear that we do not 

believe that this was an intended impact or result having signed 

that law. We feel truly that this is an un—there is no way to forecast that this was going to be the impact felt by this. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

16 

But distinguished Members of the Committee, we have an opportunity to be heroes again to our servicemembers and veterans and 

I think we should take that opportunity with your help. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much. 

I do not want to go over my time because I believe we have votes 

at 11:30, so I will go ahead and recognize Mr. Braley for five minutes, the Ranking Member. Thank you. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Weidman, thank you for the strong support that you 

and VVA have voiced for the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act. 

I want to come back to you and talk about the Disabled Vets 

Workplace Investment Act and specifically some of the observations 

you made about that. 

Mr. Gallucci, in our written remarks, you did address the VFW’s 

support for my bill, but also raised some concerns about the potential effects on the businesses and corporations we are encouraging 

to employ veterans. So I just want to engage you briefly in that 

conversation because I get it. I know that employers are always 

concerned. 

But part of what we do in these legislation hearings is set the 

legislative history for bills that eventually get passed so that when 

people want to look back and divine the intent of Congress, they 

have a better sense of what we intended when we introduced this 

legislation. 

And what I am talking about in this bill is not a one-week vacation for disabled veterans for every month they have in the workforce. What we are talking about is the worst case scenario where 

disabled veterans like some of the ones I see at Walter Reed or at 

Bethesda with lifetime disabilities that are going to flare up at unforeseen moments when they are hopefully in the workforce and requires an accommodation for a worst case scenario that could take 

up to 12 weeks in a calendar year to accommodate. 

And I am assuming that you know people who are members of 

your organization who have had that exact problem occur to them. 

Mr. GALLUCCI. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman 

Braley. 

I do want to respond to that. You are absolutely right. I know 

personal friends who I deployed with who are affected by this and 

this has actually been a personal issue that I had to deal with in 

my own experiences as well. 

What the VFW is talking about here is to continue this discussion about what an appropriate period of time would be. We absolutely support your bill and we absolutely support the intent of 

what you are trying to do because this is a major problem for our 

veterans. 

What happens now is many times a veteran will go to a VA medical center and be prescribed with a long rehabilitative process. 

You need to come in once a week every week for the next six 

months in order to go through this intensive treatment program. 

For instance, one of the ones that comes to mind is prolonged exposure therapy for those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Some of these appointments are only available during the 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

17 

day, say, well, you can come in from ten a.m. to noon on Wednesdays for the next six months, just as an example. 

And that can put an incredible burden on a servicemember who 

has to hold down a job at the same time. You can exhaust all of 

your sick leave within that time and there has to be accommodations made to allow them to go to those appointments to get the 

treatment that they are entitled to which is why we do support 

your bill. 

But what we were really trying to express is that we have an 

open and candid discussion about what the period of time would be 

and where an appropriate level would be because at the same time 

what we are trying to do is make sure that we see the veterans’ 

employment crisis now, particularly for young veterans of Iraq and 

Afghanistan, and the last thing we would want is an unintended 

consequence where employers come back to this Committee and 

say, well, our veterans are not ready to enter the workforce, they 

come with all this extra baggage. And so we think it is an important discussion to have. 

Mr. BRALEY. And I welcome that conversation and want to thank 

you for your comments about your own personal experience and the 

people that you served with because one of the things we know is 

we want to encourage employers to do everything they can to address the alarming rate of unemployment among our veteran population. 

But at the same time, they deserve the protection for the sacrifices they have made and we should all be willing to have that 

conversation. 

Mr. Gonzalez, thank you and The American Legion for your support of this legislation. 

And, Mr. Thigpen, I want to talk to you about your observation 

because Mr. Walz and I represent states that were involved in the 

longest single deployment of any combat unit in Iraq and then 

their reward when they came home was to have the Pentagon cut 

their orders short deliberately by one, two, three, four, and five 

days so they would be denied the benefit of an additional measly 

$250 a month in additional educational assistance benefits under 

the GI Bill. 

And we went to war over that decision and got those orders 

changed and learned that nearly 20,000 National Guard members 

around the country had been denied that same benefit and were 

not even aware of it. 

So we appreciate your bringing light to this serious problem 

about how educational assistance benefits are impacted by the decisions we make and I want to thank you for your testimony. 

But before I leave, Mr. Weidman, I want to come back to you because can you tell us—you shared statistics from Minnesota, Iowa, 

and Florida about the low-level of participation rate for veterans in 

the Disabled Vets Workforce Investment Act. 

So based on your analysis of those rates, why is that? What is 

causing that to happen or not happen? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Well, there is a history behind why that particular clause made it into the Jobs for Veterans Act which was 

misnomered, by the way, in retrospect, of providing priority of servVACREP180 with DISTILLER

18 

ice for veterans which means veterans go to the head of the line 

if they are otherwise eligible for that title or that program. 

And disabled veterans go in front of all the vets and the special 

disabled, meaning those with 30 percent or more service-connected 

disabled, go to the very end of the line. This is not rocket science 

stuff, but the states do not do it. 

OEO, the old Office of Economic Opportunity, was created because, frankly, racism in many of the job services and to reach populations who had been excluded. And it was not just in the southern states. And OEO transmogrified into MDTA or Manpower Development Training Act which transmogrified into SETA and which 

also then transmogrified in the Job Training Partnership Act and, 

hence, to today which is Workforce Investment Act. 

At the local level, even though they are starting to retire now, 

the people who ran those OEOs, MDTA offices were those of my 

generation who did not go. And you do not hear it much anymore, 

but people used to say to us, we asked them for their support, and 

they would say, well, you know, I mean, I oppose the war. I said 

what the hell makes you think that everybody who fought it supported it. Supporting the veterans is a whole different deal and 

that is why we had to start VVA. 

So the prejudice that was there within the society was strongest 

in ETA, Employment and Training Administration. That act of 

2002 did many other things, many of which were really bad, only 

complicated and made worse a situation that was not very good, 

that led us to seek legislative remedy. 

So it is partly cultural and the other part of that is nobody has 

been checking for the last ten years. U.S. DoL does not do any 

checking, particularly the Employment and Training Administration. 

And the figures that I quoted to you, those have been brought 

to the very top or to the number two person who is the chief operating officer at U.S. DoL and it has been basically deep sixed and 

ignored and they are going to continue to ignore it until The Hill 

focuses their attention appropriately. Let me put it that way. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, with that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, 

and I recommend to the Chairman that we conduct a future hearing on this important topic and that we see some significant change 

in those numbers. 

Mr. WEIDMAN. That would be great. I also because there are so 

many important topics here today did not get a chance to point out 

the appendix to my statement. And I encourage you to look at that 

because not only did VVA sign that, but two of my colleague organizations, The American Legion and the VFW, also signed on to the 

Military and Veteran Students Educational Bill of Rights. 

And they are all simple things. They are all straightforward and 

it is information that should be required from every single educational institution that wants to receive government monies. If 

they do not want to comply, that is fine. Then you do not get any 

government money. But there should be standards that we hold 

people to and mostly it has to do with transparency and accountability. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Thank you. 

Now I will recognize Mr. Johnson for five minutes. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

19 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would first like to say a few words about legislation I recently 

introduced, H.R. 4048, the Improving Contracting Opportunities for 

Veteran-Owned Small Businesses Act. 

This legislation is straightforward. It would clarify that small 

business provisions of the Veterans First Contracting Program, 

Public Law 109–461, pertain to contracts awarded through the 

Federal supply schedule or FSS for the purposes of meeting the 

percentage goal of contracting with service-disabled veteran-owned 

small businesses. 

Past VA statements regarding the application of the small business provisions in Public Law 109–461 now codified in Title 38, 

Section 8127 of the United States Code have created confusion regarding FSS purchases. 

My legislation would clarify that these small business provisions 

do apply to FSS purchases. It is not intended to expand the original intent of the law. By law, all Federal agencies are required to 

contract with SDVOSBs. 

In 1999, Public Law 106–50 established a goal of awarding three 

percent of Federal contracts to SDVOSBs. Additionally, executive 

order 13360 which was issued by President Bush in 2004 requests 

that Federal agencies increase Federal contracting and subcontracting opportunities for service-disabled veteran businesses. However, most Federal agencies have not reached this goal. 

Additionally, while the small business goal report for 2010 reports 20 percent of VA contracts are with SDVOSBs, but Linda 

Fynn of VA OIG testified at the July 28th House Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee that, and I quote, although VA reported 

awarding 23 and 20 percent of its total procurement dollars respectively to VOSBs and SDVOSBs in fiscal year 2010, VA OIG projected that these figures were overstated by three to 17 percent because of awards made to ineligible businesses. 

I strongly believe America would greatly benefit from contracting 

with more veteran-owned small businesses and I am hopeful that 

the clarification in H.R. 4048 will help to create more contracting 

opportunities for SDVOSBs. 

I would like to, in getting to my questions, I would like to thank 

the VFW and The American Legion for their support of my bill 

4048. 

Mr. Weidman, I understand from your written testimony that the 

Vietnam Veterans of America are unsure of the intent of this legislation and which of your two interpretations may be correct. 

First question. Has my statement helped to clarify what the intent of H.R. 4048 is? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. It does. And also, I had a long discussion with 

some of your staff about this and would be glad to discuss it directly with you, that if you do not make it abundantly clear in the 

Committee report that is referenced, if you will, in the black letter 

law, that then they give it to general counsel. 

And I do not know how much experience you have had in dealing 

with VA general counsel, but if they can goof it up, seemingly they 

do. 

Mr. JOHNSON. This is my first term, sir, and I can assure you 

that I have experienced that abundantly. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

20 

Mr. WEIDMAN. So what I am saying is in the Committee report 

to take out all the wiggle room in which case after having talked 

to Mike about the intent, we would strongly favor this bill. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have any new concerns other than those 

you just stated about the legislation? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Well, it comes down to the biggest thing is not— 

I do not know how you address this, Congressman. The acquisition 

leadership believes it is not their mission to assist veteran-owned 

and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, meaning it is not 

their mission, meaning not VA’s mission. And so—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Why do you—— 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am going completely off script now because that 

dumbfounds me. It absolutely dumbfounds me that the VA does not 

think that it should be part of their mission to assist these businesses. 

Why do you think that would be true? Does that come from the 

top? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. That does not come from the 10th floor. That 

comes from the chief of acquisitions that it is not their purview. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. I will look forward to asking him some 

questions then at the appropriate time. 

Mr. WEIDMAN. That would be great. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Thigpen, what other avenues—I am sorry for 

moving on, but I have got limited time—what other avenues has 

your group undertaken to resolve the out-of-state tuition issue for 

NC student veterans? 

Mr. THIGPEN. Thank you, sir. 

We have been addressing this on a state level in North Carolina 

for approximately a year. Our organization formed in response to 

the change in law and we saw it was directly impacting our fellow 

student veterans actually at UMC Wilmington. 

Once we started to see further impact was actually felt on more 

than just a local level, actually throughout North Carolina, we had 

other student veterans reaching out to us seeking our assistance to 

help represent them with regard to their residency for tuition purposes which we have done. I wish we could get out there and represent every single one individually, but we simply cannot do it. 

We try to work with our state legislators. We have got a tremendous amount of support. Facts being what they are, we are here 

today trying to make sure that we do not leave any veteran behind. 

So to address this just on a state level in North Carolina, we would 

leave so many other states and so many other veterans nationwide 

behind in this. We want to see it happen on a Federal level. Let’s 

take care of all of our student veterans in every state. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I have additional questions, but I 

see my time is expired, so I will yield back. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thanks so much. 

And I now recognize Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank each of you for being here again. This is one of the most 

enjoyable parts of this job is coming, learning. I appreciate the 

preparation that is put into this and it helps us understand and 

serve our constituents much better. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

21 

And I kind of segue off to something Rick said. I also think this 

panel is very healthy for the way things are at. It is good to see 

a mix here of young veterans and slightly less young veterans, if 

you will. 

Mr. WEIDMAN. I think you mean veterans who it is astounding 

that they stand up and take nourishment. 

Mr. WALZ. Yes. I would include myself in that group. But I do 

want to thank you. I think it brings a real perspective and it brings 

a problem-solving ability to us that is sorely missing many times. 

So thank you for that. 

I wanted to get out and I struggle with this idea in how we make 

sure there is a fairness. My first concern is that fairness to those 

veterans to make sure they get the benefits they so richly earn, but 

making sure that we do get them a useable skill with their education, making sure we are investing all those dollars wisely for 

them and for the taxpayers so that they can take a place in society. 

And with that, I know that sometimes our blanket generalizations, there are some very good for-profit universities out there and 

there are some suspect ones. And we need to make sure that we 

are using a laser and a scalpel and not the ax, if you will, to make 

sure we are differentiating. 

And so I am really curious just maybe to hear, and I do not 

know, maybe start with you, Mr. Thigpen, and I know each of you 

have expertise in this across the board, just something as simple 

as how are we going to determine which institutions deserve 

awards for excellence in service because I am trying to get this all 

together and I love to be data-driven, but I would have to think my 

illustrious institution would probably be penalized because my undergraduate degree was the best six years of my life and I think 

they did a nice job. 

And I am wondering how when we make these determinations, 

how we did that. So, Mr. Thigpen, I know this is somewhat subjective, but just help me understand how you see it of how we would 

do this. 

Mr. THIGPEN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

And just for the record, I am on ten years right now, so I have 

got you beat there. 

With regard to H.R. 4052, 4057, we strongly support that. We 

cannot be here just to support our veterans in being able to properly use their GI Bill benefits through whatever institution they 

decide to go through. We need to make sure that there is transition 

not just in coming home and entering the college that they choose 

to get their higher education from, but we also need to make sure 

that there is further assistance in assisting them to transition into 

the working community alike. So these bills help ensure that that 

is going to be possible. 

I think what our organization has found by and large is that 

there needs to be a separate Committee for our institutions comprised of student veterans that are not accountable per se to an advisor or the institution itself for listening to their feedback and 

being bombarded with not being able to actually assist the student 

veterans that they purport to represent. 

You know, they need to represent the student veterans first and 

then so long as they are accountable to the system, doing things 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

22 

in the proper manner, I think that is going to be the only way we 

are going to actually be able to really service and assist our student 

veterans nationwide. 

In addition to that, our organization has started student vets and 

it is going to be a Web site portal to create consistency across the 

board nationwide for any veteran coming home wanting to go to 

school no matter what state they live in. It will be we call it a onestop shop that they can submit every single form to whatever 

school they want to go to and have every opportunity to be able to 

see that. 

And that is going to create consistency across the board because 

that is going to be the last component that is left. If we can create 

consistency across the board for student veterans in Washington 

State, Ohio, Florida, Texas, Maine, we will ensure better success 

within the corporate community. 

Mr. WALZ. Do you think, Mr. Thigpen, that we can get that? I 

want to be very clear. I would like to have this, you know, the good 

housekeeping seal of approval, if you will, that these are the places 

you can go. But I also want to be very fair as we put that stamp 

on folks because I think it could be very, very powerful on where 

it is at. And so I think you are right on how we get that. 

Rick, do you think it is VVA’s, you know, ten principles here that 

you should adhere to and are graduation rates in some of these, 

you know, we want to be as objective as possible, but we also want 

to, and I know this, I hear from my veterans who say, you know, 

the reason I really like this school is their flexibility to work with 

us on this, they have been good about that? 

I mean, there are some intangibles here. And I see my time is 

up. If I could, maybe we will come back again. But, Rick, what do 

you think is—— 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Well, the statement that is appendix one was 

worked on by the veterans’ organizations working with the White 

House and others over the course of about two months. So we put 

a lot of thought in it and a lot of work into it. 

And one of the things that is key is VA take the step forward. 

You can now go to www.va.gov and look up any hospital in the 

country, whether it is Minnesota or Indiana or any place, and you 

can look at all the various criteria about how this hospital is doing 

in each category. And you will get a yellow if it is caution, green 

if it is exceeding standards, and a red for that one if it is not meeting standards. 

There is no reason why that same technology, which VA already 

owns, cannot be applied and used on the VBA’s part of the site and 

the educational services part of the site to make it clear and interactive. 

Right now if you look at that section, it is densely worded and 

it is like reading a credit card contract which if you have ever tried 

to do that, actually read it, I mean, you know, it will bore you to 

tears and you will fall asleep even though somewhere in there you 

know that you are getting the short end of the stick. 

And so they can make it appropriate to where younger veterans, 

and that is primarily who we are talking about, will have the information and then look further. And that is where it should happen. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

23 

And VA’s job is to make all of that disclosure readily available 

to any member of the veterans’ community or their families because it is families can use the 21st GI Bill, 21st century GI Bill 

if a veteran does not want to and spouses also it would be available 

to. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. No, I appreciate that. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Walz. I appreciate it very much. 

And thanks for the information and I know we will have further 

discussion on this. 

I welcome you to come to my office and discuss this with me and 

most of the Members have a lot of interest in this area. So it is 

a priority for us. 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Chairman, can I just make—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yeah, go ahead. 

Mr. BRALEY. —one brief observation that came out of Mr. 

Thigpen’s testimony? And that is in the State of Iowa right now 

any veteran is eligible for the in-state tuition. And you mentioned 

that this effort is ongoing in North Carolina. So while we have a 

responsibility to address this at the Federal level, there is nothing 

preventing states from taking action on their own to do the right 

thing by veterans. 

Mr. THIGPEN. You are exactly right. We have been saying the 

same thing. If a state is going to purport and sell itself to be military friendly, we need to hold them accountable to that. 

Mr. BRALEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. THIGPEN. We are still working on that. The facts speak for 

themselves. North Carolina has not done it yet. We are seeking 

your assistance. You guys get to be the heroes here. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

I thank the panel and I ask the second panel to come forward. 

This panel is comprised of the Honorable Steve Gunderson who is 

a former Member of this body and is now the president and CEO 

of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities. 

And we will also hear from Dr. Allen Sessoms who is the president of the District of Columbia who is representing—I do not 

know if that is right here in the script, but the president of the District of Columbia who is representing, I guess the University of 

District of Columbia. He is representing the American Association 

of State Colleges and Universities. 

And now we will begin with Congressman Gunderson. Thank you 

very much. 

And I know we are supposed to have votes around 11:30, so 

hopefully we can at least finish up with the testimony. 

You are recognized, sir. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

24 

STATEMENTS OF STEVE GUNDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (APSCU); ALLEN L. SESSOMS, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON BEHALF OF: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (AASCU) 

STATEMENT OF STEVE GUNDERSON 

Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And I want to begin with two personal comments, if I might. 

First of all, I have to say to you, Mr. Chairman, I had the honor 

and privilege of working with your dad. And you are continuing his 

legacy of service in this particular area and I just got to commend 

you. He was a dear, dear friend when we were both here and really 

think a lot of that. 

Second, I need to tell all of you, I need to say thank you. While 

I sit here, my 87-year-old father who is a veteran is being cared 

for in the VA hospital in Tomah, Wisconsin with pneumonia and 

congenital heart disease at this moment. And so on behalf of my 

family, we say to all of you thank you for what you do for these 

particular veterans. 

On behalf of the association and the roughly 230,000 veteran students who choose to attend private-sector colleges and universities 

using their Post-9/11 GI benefits, I want to thank you for this opportunity to support all of the legislative issues that are in front 

of you. 

We have looked them over and there is only one concern that we 

have. And I have been motivated by listening and learning myself 

because the one issue that I think we have to look at on this issue 

that Congressman Walz brings up which is the graduation rates, 

it really indicates the problem. 

And I am veering totally off my prepared testimony here. It really indicates the issue and the challenge for serving veterans properly. 

If you would have your staff go to the Chronicle on Higher Education, this week’s issue, it is focused on graduation rates. But 

when you look at that data, it is for all students. 

The Department of Education calculates graduation rates based 

on first-time, full-time students. Most of our veterans are not firsttime, full-time students. They are veterans. They are returning to 

school after their military service. And so they do not even come 

into the calculations for what these graduation rates are. 

So we stand ready to work with all of you to find ways in which 

we can develop the information that is easily understood and correctly used by veterans to make the right determinations on where 

they should pursue their education. 

I would also like to recognize the VFW. And you have all been 

aware of the coalition that was brought together on this issue of 

veterans’ education. The VFW needs a special commendation for 

bringing a rather diverse group of us together around a common 

issue. And I think that becomes important. 

It is important also, I think, to recognize something about the 

veterans and the ability of all post-secondary education to provide 

a quality education. It is meaningless if it does not also provide 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

25 

their objective which is job placement, one of those issues you have 

just been talking about. 

Today, as you know, our country has an 8.3 percent national unemployment rate, yet veterans’ unemployment rates are much 

higher than that, especially for the younger veterans. 

The key to narrowing this gap and reducing veterans’ unemployment has to be an all hands on deck approach from all post-secondary education. We must be part of the solution and accountable 

for national experience and outcomes for all students, especially 

the veterans. 

Policymakers, those of you on that side of the dais, are tasked 

with a critical imperative to ensure that all stakeholders work collaboratively to provide our veterans with the tools and resources 

that they need to make the right decisions. 

The pivotal transition period as soldiers become students is often 

wrought with challenges. As a result, many veterans fail to achieve 

their academic goals. We believe the legislation in front of you begins this effort. 

Specifically many of the bills direct the secretary of the VA to develop a comprehensive policy to ensure that veterans have the tools 

necessary to make informed decisions about their post-secondary 

education. 

We believe the academic success of our veteran students is a 

shared responsibility for the VA, the student, and all of our institutions. The VA should ensure the veterans are provided with the information and resources. The veterans should use the information 

to make informed education decisions. And our institutions should 

provide the quality of education veterans deserve through their 

benefits. 

In closing, I want you to understand that the veterans’ education 

is often different than that of the typical 18 to 24-year-old who goes 

into college on a first-time, full-time basis. They appreciate, as you 

will see in my written testimony, the ability to have flexible and 

focused delivery of curriculum. 

I talked to this wonderful veteran, Alexander Garrido in Miami. 

He is returned from Iraq and he told me this story about the fact 

that he could have gone to the University of Miami, he could have 

gone to Florida International, USF. He chose one of the private-sector colleges. Why? Because it offered him the flexibility of scheduling and the focus of one course intensively at a time. And he 

said, Steve, he said, that is how I now learn. It is different than 

when I was in school. 

So we stand ready to work with all of you. We commend what 

you are doing, and I yield back the balance of my time or the 28 

seconds I exceeded. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE GUNDERSON APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. JOHNSON. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman for yielding 

back. 

We will begin with questioning at this point. Oh, I am sorry. Dr. 

Sessoms, you have a statement. You are recognized. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

26 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN L. SESSOMS 

Mr. SESSOMS. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Allen Sessoms, president 

of the University of District of Columbia, the only public institution 

of higher education here in our Nation’s capitol. 

I am testifying on behalf of the American Association of State 

Colleges and Universities, commonly known as AASCU. AASCU 

represents 420 institutions and university systems across 49 states, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and providing me the opportunity to present testimony in support of H.R. 3483, the Veterans 

Education Equity Act of 2011, introduced by the Honorable G.K. 

Butterfield of North Carolina. 

I ask that my testimony be entered into the record. 

If enacted, H.R. 3483 would remedy a serious inequity that currently exists under the Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits Program. 

The current structure of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits 

Program provides a tuition assistance benefit to a veteran who attends one of our country’s prestigious public colleges or universities 

that is equal to the in-state tuition rate charged by the institution. 

This benefit is worth on average about $8,244 per year. 

On the contrary, if one of our veterans chooses to attend an outof-state private institution, he or she will automatically qualify for 

up to $17,500 per year. Simply put, a veteran who chooses to attend a public institution is entitled to on average less than half of 

the benefit a veteran who chooses to attend a private institution receives. 

In addition to the disparate treatment of our veterans attending 

public versus private institutions, the current Post-9/11 GI Bill 

benefit structure also asks our veterans to pick up the difference 

between in-state and out-of-state tuition. 

This can amount to over $13,000 per year in some states and averages $4,282 across the country. Not only are we providing our 

veterans with different tuition benefits depending on the type of institution they choose to attend, we are also asking them to pick up 

the tab if they choose to attend a public institution in a different 

state. 

In a metropolitan area such as the national capitol region where 

students regularly travel across state lines to earn their degrees, 

this significantly limits the number of institutions our veterans 

may realistically choose from. 

For example, veterans attending the University of District of Columbia but living in Maryland or Virginia are required by District 

of Columbia law to pay the nonresident tuition rate of $13,380. 

This amounts to $7,000 per year for a full-time baccalaureate student. 

The Yellow Ribbon Program does provide a $500 tuition assistance benefit to our nonresident veterans. However, this is only a 

fraction of a nonresident tuition premium. 

The current GI 9/11 Bill structure also harms those who have recently relocated to a state and enrolled in a state’s public instituVACREP180 with DISTILLER

27 

tion but do not yet qualify for in-state tuition. Many states have 

enacted minimum residency requirements that students must meet 

to be eligible for in-state tuition rates. 

For example, in the District of Columbia to receive the in-state 

tuition rate, a veteran or any resident, citizen must reside in the 

District of Columbia for a full year to become eligible. This may 

cause a recently relocated veteran to put off pursuing a degree 

until he or she is eligible for a lower tuition rate. 

Passage of this bill is especially important at a time when unemployment for our veterans is extremely high. According to recent 

statistics from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Hire Our Heroes 

Program, unemployment for veterans age 18 to 24 is 30 percent. 

For those in the national guard, it is 14 percent. These numbers 

are well above the national average. 

Our research has shown that individuals with more than a high 

school diploma are more likely to be employed. Passing H.R. 3484 

will give our veterans a greater opportunity to select the post-secondary program and institution best suited for them and by doing 

so put them on a path to employment. 

As a grateful Nation, we are committed to providing our veterans 

with the maximum benefits they vitally deserve. Let’s make sure 

we are also providing the flexibility our veterans need to use them. 

On behalf of the 420 members of the American Association of 

State Colleges and Universities, I urge Congress to pass the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011 without delay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLEN L. SESSOMS APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

We will now begin with questioning for this panel and we will 

go as long as we can. 

What steps have your members taken to improve the amount of 

data that is collected on veteran students? 

Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, each of our schools tries to do 

that individually. We do not yet have collective data for all of our 

schools across the country. 

The one thing I can share with you is that earlier this week at 

our board meeting, we looked at our operating plan for the next 

year and the board said will you please find ways to lift up the 

data collection, the information and the service to the veterans as 

one of your priorities in the next fiscal year. 

So within the next year, I might be able to come back to you and 

say we have one central data collection point, but we do not have 

that today. 

As I also indicated, that is going to take a major investment because the data under the National Center for Education Statistics, 

the first-time, full-time, that is not the data we need to accurately 

reflect what these veterans are doing and what outcomes they 

have. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. I thank the gentleman for his answer. 

And for the sake of time, I am going to submit the rest of my 

questions written. And I hope that the panel would respond in 

writing to those. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

28 

I am going to yield now to Mr. Braley if he has questions. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, I want to thank you both for testifying. 

And I am glad to hear you say, Mr. Gunderson, that the key is 

job placement because I think when we look at the alarming problem of unemployment with our Nation’s veterans, the thing that we 

want to see happen no matter what type of educational institution 

they attend is that they have a job waiting for them at the end of 

their educational journey, whether it is six years in the case of Mr. 

Walz or ten years in the case of our previous witness. 

But one of the things that I guess I am going to ask you both 

is why haven’t more states done what my state has done and said 

this is an important enough priority, we are going to make in-state 

tuition apply to every veteran regardless of where they separated? 

Mr. SESSOMS. Let me try to answer it for the public universities. 

Every issue related to the funding of public universities has become 

exceptionally political in states. And it requires significant political 

will on the part of state legislators to do that. 

I would argue that in the case of Iowa, there may be more political will than there is in the case of, say, the District of Columbia 

where we had discussions just the beginning of the week and there 

is resistence to that. There is resistence to subsidizing out-of-state 

residents. 

I think it is very important to do that. We are pushing as a university to do that in significant cases, certainly in the case of veterans, but others as well. It is just a very hard political nut to 

crack right now in this economic environment. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, just in response to your question, I can tell 

you it is not because we do not face those same economic pressures. 

Mr. Walz just showed me a headline from today that the University of Northern Iowa which is a regents institution ten miles from 

my home in Waterloo is cutting 70 academic programs in response 

to those economic pressures while at the same time taking on this 

responsibility of giving veterans an affordable choice. 

So I think that is the answer to critics who are standing in the 

way of doing the right thing by our veterans. 

Mr. SESSOMS. Well, let me comment, Congressman. I can only 

agree with you. I think we want to do that, but we are politically 

constrained. 

I think the University of Northern Iowa, I know it very well, I 

know the president there, is also reviewing another dozen programs for restructuring because of the pressures. We are all doing 

that. 

I think it would be very helpful if a clear message was sent from 

Congress that this is something that they, in fact, would like to see 

nationally. That would sort of help give us a political push. But I 

can only agree with you. 

Mr. BRALEY. Do you know whether most state universities’ tuitions are set by a governing board of some type or the state legislature or do they have the discretion individually to make this opportunity available to veterans? 

Mr. SESSOMS. It is rare that the institution can treat residents 

and nonresidents in the same way. There is a law in general defined by the state. In very many cases, in fact, I would guess in 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

29 

half the cases, the tuition and fee structure is actually set by the 

state legislature. 

It is rare that an institution can set it itself, but it can not violate state law when it comes to residents and nonresidents. There 

is nothing an institution individually can do about that. It requires 

the state to make a determination that that is for these particular 

classes of students something that they will agree to across the 

board. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman yields back. We will go to Mr. 

Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for your testimony, as I said, helping us understand this. 

And, Representative Gunderson, I wish the best for your father. 

St. Tomah is in my sphere of responsibility, so I get over there and 

look at that. It is a beautiful institution with committed staff. And 

I assure you your father will get the best care anywhere as he deserves. 

Mr. GUNDERSON. Well, you do not have to worry. He has been 

well served throughout his aging process by the Veterans Administration and we have no doubt about that. But thank you. 

Mr. WALZ. And I do appreciate these comments. I concur with my 

colleague from Iowa. Contrary to popular belief, we share a lot of 

commonality from Minnesota and Iowa. And of the things we share 

is that 34th Division and those soldiers. 

And I would have to say something. As we are getting at the 

heart of this, because I, too, will echo that sentiment on job placement and career potential, of not just providing all the options and 

then a hit and miss and take it and decide that a couple years at 

a post-secondary was not the right way and you used your GI Bill 

and now you are going somewhere else. 

We know some of that is going to happen. It is personal choice, 

but something I think we could use more around here, and I will 

commend the states of Iowa and Minnesota and public/private partnerships. We have got that same red bull division that Mr. Braley 

was talking about. They are deployed again. They are in Kuwait 

bringing the troops out. 

So they have been there on another year deployment, but this 

time we are not going to make the mistake we made last time. We 

already know that of that brigade combat team 511 of them are either going to go to school or unemployed. We are there matching 

them up right now in Kuwait this week as we speak with a job fair 

there, not once they get back, not once they had unemployment. 

Every one of those 511 will either be matched up with a proper 

institution and a proper track or they will have a job when they 

come back matched up with the employers. That database is there. 

It is a captive audience. The first sergeants and the commanders 

have assisted in that. That is the right proactive way to go. 

And I think the more information we push out trying to do that, 

as you are saying, and getting good data is certainly going to—well, 

it is to serve our veterans better, but let’s just be brutally honest. 

It is going to save money in the long run too. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

30 

And so I want to thank you both for being a part of this and 

helping. I think what I will do in the essence of time with the 

Chairman is submit questions if we have them and yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

And Members are encouraged to submit their questions in writing, and I thank the panel for being with us today. 

And you will get us answers to those questions, correct? Okay. 

Thank you. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I now call up our third panel which includes Mr. Curtis Coy from 

the Veterans Benefits Administration. He is accompanied by Mr. C. 

Ford Heard from the Office of Acquisitions, Logistics and Construction and Mr. Keith Wilson from VA’s Education Service. 

We also have Major General Ronald Young from the Department 

of Defense and Deputy Assistant Secretary Junior Ortiz from the 

Department of Labor. 

Let’s start with Mr. McCoy. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Coy. I apologize. 

Yes, Mr. Coy, you are recognized. 

STATEMENTS OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

ACCOMPANIED BY: C. FORD HEARD, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PROCUREMENT POLICY, SYSTEMS 

AND OVERSIGHT, OFFICE OF ACQUISITIONS, LOGISTICS AND 

CONSTRUCTION AND KEITH WILSON, DIRECTOR, VA’S EDUCATION SERVICE; RONALD G. YOUNG, DIRECTOR, FAMILY 

AND EMPLOYER PROGRAM AND POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE; ISMAEL ‘‘JUNIOR’’ ORTIZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY 

Mr. COY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee, good 

morning. I am pleased to be here today to provide the views of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs on pending legislation concerned 

with veteran education, employment, and small business contracting issues. 

Joining me today is Ford Heard, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement Policy and Mr. Keith Wilson, our Director 

of Education Services. 

I apologize for the delay in providing VA’s testimony. As noted 

in my written testimony, VA defers to other departments and agencies on several bills. 

In my oral statement, I would like to highlight VA’s views on the 

remaining bills. 

I want to begin by stating that every initiative has the admirable 

goal of assisting our Nation’s veterans and servicemembers. 

H.R. 3329 would extend the period during which a veteran may 

be afforded a rehabilitation program under Chapter 31. VA supports extending the period of eligibility. Individuals may need voc 

rehab services during mid-life when disabilities worsen or when 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

31 

changing careers or later in life when in need of independent living 

services. 

By extending the period of eligibility, VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Program will be able to provide individuals 

who meet those eligibility entitlement criteria under Chapter 31. 

In addition, by extending the period of eligibility, VR&E Program 

will be in line with the Post-9/11 GI Bill period of eligibility. 

H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equality Act, would revise 

the formula for the payment of tuition and fees for individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill and pursuing programs of education at public institutions of higher learning. 

While VA supports the intent to provide payment equality or equity to individuals training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA does 

not support this legislation as written. 

Separate rules for tuition and fee changes would add another 

level of complexity to the program for both beneficiaries and 

schools. We continue to receive complaints from beneficiaries regarding understanding exactly how much they will receive in tuition and fees under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

This bill would exacerbate that problem. We would be happy to 

work with the Subcommittee to satisfy what we understand to be 

the overall intent of the legislation. 

Although we regret we were unable to estimate cost of this proposal at this time, VA notes that any change in benefit levels 

would increase the total cost of the program and would necessitate 

the identification of offsets. 

H.R. 4048, improving contracting opportunities for veteranowned small businesses would amend Section 8127 by adding a 

new subsection providing for the purposes of meeting under Subsection A, the Secretary shall include the acquisition of goods and 

services through the use of Federal supply schedule of GSA. 

VA is continuing to analyze this legislation and will provide its 

views to the Committee when we complete that analysis. 

VA respectfully defers to the Department of Labor on the merits 

of H.R. 4051, the TAP Modernization Program, but we would note, 

however, that VA, of course, will be a component of those TAP 

briefings and as a result, there is a cost impact for VA that is noted 

in my written statement. 

H.R. 4052, Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act, 

would establish an honorary education and veterans’ education 

award to recognize institutions of higher learning that provide superior services to veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, we have seen some great examples of schools that 

have shown leadership and energy in providing great support and 

services to veterans. We think we should take opportunities to recognize those schools and that can be a model for others for what 

they provide to our veterans. 

We do have some concerns with some of the provisions of the bill 

as written, particularly the criteria with respect to Yellow Ribbon 

and the collection of graduation rates and some of that data. We 

would need additional resources as well to implement this legislation. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

32 

4057, Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for 

Veterans, would direct VA to develop a comprehensive policy to improve outreach and transparency to veterans and members of the 

armed services. 

VA supports providing veterans with better information about 

their educational opportunities, but does not believe legislation is 

necessary because policies and programs are in place already at 

VA, the Department of Education, and DoD. 

And we will continue to work with these agencies to enhance 

that level of data sharing and information sharing. As well, we are 

in the process of also revising our TAP Program as an initiative for 

both VA and DoD. 

4072, Consolidating Veteran Employment Services, would transfer a number of functions performed under program—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Coy, I apologize. We are going to have to take 

the rest of your testimony—— 

Mr. COY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. —written, your time has expired, for the sake of 

time so we get all the testimony in. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. JOHNSON. General Young, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD G. YOUNG 

General YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Braley, and 

distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for your invitation to participate in this hearing and to share DoD’s views on 

a number of pieces of legislation that have been introduced. 

In my capacity as the Director of Family and Employer Programs 

and Policy under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, I have oversight into only one of the bills before your Committee today, but welcome the opportunity to provide you with the 

requested comments and concerns of the Department of Defense as 

a whole. 

The department has comments on four of the bills. The Department of Defense opposes a provision in House Resolution 3610, a 

bill that would among other things repeal Section 509 of Title 32, 

USC Code, the National Guard Youth Challenge Program of opportunities for civilian youth. 

Mandated by Congress since 1993, over 100,000 students have 

successfully graduated from the program with 80 percent earning 

their high school diploma or GED. On average, 26 percent go on 

to college, 20 percent enter the military, and the remainder join the 

workforce and career jobs. There are 33 youth challenge programs 

in 27 states and one territory across the country. 

The number of high school dropouts each year is a national security issue and can cost the American economy billions in lost productivity and earnings over the students’ lifetime. The 12 million 

students projected to drop out over the next decade will cost our 

economy more than $3 trillion. 

A recent RAND cost-benefit analysis study reported that the 

Youth Challenge Program generates $2.6 in benefits for every dollar spent on the program. The estimated return on investment in 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

33 

the Challenge Program is 166 percent. It is for those reasons that 

we oppose eliminating the Youth Challenge Program. 

H.R. 3670 would require the Transportation Security Administration to comply with USERRA. If legislation is passed, I am not 

aware of any cost the department would incur. 

Over the last three years, ESGR has handled about 20 USERRA 

cases that involve TSA. During this same period, 75 percent of all 

cases were resolved including administrative closures. In fiscal 

year 2011, eleven cases we handled and eight were resolved for a 

resolution rate of 73 percent. 

ESGR will continue to assess guard and reserve servicemembers 

employed by TSA in addressing all their USERRA issues. 

Furthermore, if 3670 were to amend Public Law 107–71, we are 

prepared to assist TSA with USERRA training materials and training opportunities for their supervisors and employees. 

Concerning H.R. 3524, the department does not oppose H.R. 

3524. However, we do suggest that the legislation further clarify 

the status of the persons that would be absent from positions with 

the Federal Government. 

My reading of the resolution speaks to them being in a furlough 

status or I believe a leave of absence status and perhaps a more 

appropriate status would be an administrative leave status that we 

would like to work with you on. 

Regarding H.R. 4072, the Department of Defense believes that 

the separating servicemembers including guard and reserve need 

effective services to help them successfully transition to the civilian 

workforce. However, DoD defers to Department of Labor and Veterans Affairs on the specifics of this bill. 

I thank you for this opportunity here today and for your support 

of our servicemembers, veterans, families, employers, and for the 

4,800 ESGR volunteers across the country. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD G. YOUNG APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for your testimony, General Young. 

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

STATEMENT OF ISMAEL ‘‘JUNIOR’’ ORTIZ 

Mr. ORTIZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Braley, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today and to discuss 

the U.S. Department of Labor’s view on pending legislation. 

I am Junior Ortiz, DoL’s Employment and Training Service, and 

I would like to begin by apologizing to the Committee for the lateness of the department’s testimony. 

While there are numerous bills on the agenda, my testimony will 

focus on H.R. 3524, 3610, 4051, and 4072. 

H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act, 

would extend certain protections under USERRA to individuals receiving treatment for service-connected disabilities. 

As directed or as drafted, the department has a few technical 

concerns regarding the bill’s potential interaction with the Family 

and Medical Leave Act and USERRA’s reemployment eligibility 

provisions. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

34 

However, we look forward to working with the Subcommittee to 

better understand the intent of the legislation and to provide technical assistance. 

The next bill I would like to discuss is H.R. 3610. The bill repeals 

most of labor grants programs for veterans. These programs include the JVSG Program that funds DVOP’s and LVER staff, the 

Transition Assistance Program, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, and the Veterans Workforce Investment Program. 

In their place, the bill establishes a single veterans’ workforce investment fund to provide states with resources for employment 

services to veterans. 

Disabled veterans currently get the intensive service they need 

from specialized DVOP staff. H.R. 3610 would repeal the DVOP 

Program without assuring that the same services will be provided 

by the remaining LVER staff that are included in the legislation. 

Similarly, repealing the HVRP programs could leave thousands 

of homeless veterans without the intensive service this program 

provides including veteran stand-downs, homeless female veterans, 

and Homeless Veterans with Families Program. 

If the bill is enacted, transitioning servicemembers and their 

spouses could also lose the valuable needed services provided by 

TAP. 

In 2011, DoL provided more than 4,200 TAP employment workshops generating 145,000 participants. This number is expected to 

increase dramatically as TAP becomes mandatory in the transition 

services under the VOW Act. However, this legislation would leave 

DoL without the authority or funding to fulfill the VOW Act mandate and to provide these needed services. 

In conclusion, the department has concerns of the potential impact H.R. 3610 has on veterans and looks forward to working with 

the Subcommittee to ensure that the veterans and others receive 

the high-quality service they need to succeed in the workforce. 

Next I would like to discuss H.R. 4051 which would authorize 

three-year grant program requiring DoL to provide TAP to veterans and their spouses on off-base locations. DoL has concerns 

with this legislation for the following reasons: 

To begin with, the current TAP employment workshops are designed specifically for transitioning servicemembers and their 

spouses. As a result, the curriculum is not appropriate for all veterans. However, one-stop career centers provide specific workshops 

for all veterans on resume writing, interviewing, and how to conduct job search. 

As such, the proposed legislation appears to be duplicative and 

we would look forward to working with the Subcommittee to identify any needed program improvements. 

Finally, I would like to discuss H.R. 4072 that would transfer 

most veterans’ employment services and protection from the DoL to 

VA. Veterans’ services are integrated into the larger DoL workforce 

system which includes over 2,500 one-stop career centers and veterans’ services are provided by and with the support of numerous 

agencies within the department including ETA and OFCCP. 

In 2010, this system served over 1.7 million veterans ensuring 

priority of service were provided when doing so. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

35 

Much of what DoL does for veterans and other eligible persons 

concentrates on maximizing the employment and training opportunities developed through our relationship with the state workforce 

agencies. 

DoL is also a worker protection agency with extensive experience 

protecting eligible veterans and servicemembers from discrimination under various statutes such as USERRA, VEOA and VEVRAA. 

The proposed legislation would transfer USERRA and VEVRAA responsibilities to the VA and would leave VEOA responsibility to 

DoL. 

The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service in partnership 

with the Department of Labor agencies serves veterans and 

transitioning servicemembers by providing resources and expertise 

to assist and prepare them obtaining meaningful careers, maximize 

employment opportunities, and protect their rights. 

DoL looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and our 

partners to ensure that we provide effective assistance to veterans. 

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

happy to entertain any questions the Members may have. Thank 

you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ISMAEL ‘‘JUNIOR’’ ORTIZ APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz. 

You know, I thank the members of the panel for their testimony. 

I find it astounding that with three weeks to prepare for this hearing the testimony of the Department of Labor and VA avoid taking 

a position on what is admittedly the most controversial bill on today’s agenda, Chairman Miller’s H.R. 4072. 

Mr. Coy says they are, quote, ready to discuss these organizational issues with the Subcommittee and our Department of Labor 

partners at any time. 

The Department of Labor after reciting a litany of services, 

VETS and other Department of Labor agencies provide to veterans, 

fails to identify any technical issue that would prevent a continuation of those services after VETS moves to VA. 

Secretary Ortiz concludes his testimony by saying the Department of Labor looks forward to working with the Subcommittee 

and our partners to ensure that we provide effective assistance to 

veterans. 

Gentlemen, that is exactly why we are here today. 

To summarize, VA fails to state whether they would like to assume responsibility for VETS and its programs and the Department of Labor fails to identify any substantive reasons why VETS 

and its Federal staff, programs, and funding would create havoc 

with veterans’ employment programs under their auspices. 

Votes have just been called. For the sake of time, I am going to 

yield to the Ranking Member to ask a question. We will do one 

quick round and then we will submit additional questions for the 

record and ask the panel to respond in writing. 

With that, Mr. Braley, I yield to you. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, General Young, thank you for your testimony in support of 

the bill that I have pending before the Committee today. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

36 

And we look forward to working with you to address the concern 

you have raised that specifically impacts classification of Federal 

employees. And my staff will follow-up with you to talk about that. 

Mr. Ortiz, I appreciated your comments about that same bill in 

your written statement. And one of the things I was struck by in 

looking at the concerns you have identified is they seem very remarkably similar to concerns expressed before Congress passed the 

Americans With Disabilities Act, before Congress passed the Family Medical Leave Act. 

Anything that we do that impacts what employers do with their 

personnel, policies, and practices always sets off alarms. But I 

think that the purpose behind this legislation I have introduced is 

to stand up for veterans, disabled veterans, and make sure they 

are getting protections in the workplace that they have earned with 

their blood. 

So we look forward to working with your department as well and 

as we continue to work on this important legislation. 

With that, I will yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

Mr. Stutzman. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. 

And I apologize I was not here for most of the hearing due to a 

budget meeting. 

But, Mr. Coy, I do have a question. When can we expect the final 

regulations for Public Law 11–275? 

Mr. COY. That is the VRAP legislation, sir? 

Mr. STUTZMAN. The fix bill, the GI Bill. 

Mr. COY. I am not prepared to answer that, sir. We will have to 

take that for the record and we will get back to you as quickly as 

we can. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. All right. And then in your testimony, you 

state that VR&E Service already has a commercial off-the-shelf 

system that assesses the servicemember’s readiness to attend postsecondary training. 

Would VR&E consider making this tool available to veterans on 

their Web site and is the use of this tool going to be part of any 

TAP Program? 

Mr. COY. That tool, sir, that we have now is an off-the-shelf product and we buy licensing for it for our VRE counselors. It is not 

really a good tool for someone to do a self-assessment or do it 

downloading from the Web. 

We are looking at a number of different sort of off-the-shelf tools, 

but that particular VR&E tool we are looking at right now and trying to figure out how we could possibly use that with respect to 

sort of a bigger Web-based situation. 

With respect to the TAP Program, we are working very, very 

hard with DoD and Department of Labor of completely revamping 

the entire TAP Program and tools like that in terms of readiness 

assessments for our veterans and servicemembers as part of that 

new TAP. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Okay. And then finally, do you know approximately how many veterans does VR&E turn away every year due 

to delimiting date expiration? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

37 

Mr. COY. We went back and looked at our records and it is on 

average about 500. 

Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you. I will yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

And I would remind the panel we will be submitting additional 

questions that because of time and the voting schedule we are not 

going to be able to get to at this point. And we would ask the panel 

to respond to those questions in writing. 

In addition to our panels, we have statements for the record from 

Congressman Butterfield, Congressman McIntyre, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, the Paralyzed Veterans of 

America, Disabled American Veterans, the Texas Veterans Commission, the North Carolina Community College System, Congresswoman Sanchez, Wounded Warrior Project, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. 

I ask unanimous consent these statements be included in the 

record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF G.K. BUTTERFIELD APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIKE MCINTYRE APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRY ‘‘T.P.’’ O’MAHONEY APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX]

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. R. SCOTT RAILS APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS

OF AMERICA APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. JOHNSON. I would also ask that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials associated with today’s hearing. 

Again, hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I would like to recognize—well, we are not going to have closing 

remarks today for the sake of time. 

There being no further business before this Subcommittee today, 

we intend to hold a markup on some of these bills on March 29th, 

and with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(38) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Marlin Stutzman, Chairman 

Good morning. Today, we will receive testimony on the following bills: H.R. 3329, 

introduced by our colleague, Ms. Linda Sanchez, H.R. 3483, introduced by Congressman Butterfield, H.R. 3524, introduced by our Ranking Member, Mr. Braley, H.R. 

3610, introduced by Ms. Foxx, H.R. 3670, introduced by Congressman/Mr./Sgt Major 

Walz, H.R. 4048, introduced by another EO Subcommittee Member, Mr. Johnson, 

H.R. 4051 and H.R. 4052, two bills I introduced, H.R. 4057, introduced by Mr. Bilirakis, and H.R. 4072, a bill introduced by Chairman Miller. 

Briefly, my first bill, H.R. 4051 sets up a pilot program to increase opportunities 

to attend the Transition Assistance Program by expanding TAP to offer classes at 

multiple off-base locations. My second bill, H.R. 4052 sets up a program to identify, 

through a list of criteria, schools that do a good job educating veterans. 

While I understand that some of the bills on today’s agenda would make significant organizational changes to the Department of Labor and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Committee, after provided copies of this bills to staff several days 

prior, provided a formal hearing notice to both Departments on Friday, February 

17th, some 21 days ago. 

And yet we did not receive VA’s testimony under 6:38 PM last evening and Labor’s testimony at 6:55 PM last evening. I find this unacceptable and while I understand that it may have been out of the control of today’s witnesses I hope this situation is rectified in the future. 

I thank all the sponsors for their bills and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on each bill. I would also ask unanimous consent to allow Members with bills 

before us today to join us on the dais for the purpose of presenting their bills. Hearing no objection, I will recognize them shortly for their remarks. 

I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his opening remarks. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Braley, 

Ranking Democratic Member 

The bills included in today’s hearing seek to provide and improve veterans’ benefits. These bills will increase access to education, provide employment protection for 

disabled veterans, extend vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits, and 

improve contracting procedures. 

This Subcommittee has been committed to improving employment opportunities 

for our nation’s veterans. We’ve conducted oversight hearings and field hearings to 

examine the unemployment problems facing our nation’s veterans and passed legislation to try and mitigate these problems. Yet, few times have we discussed the 

unique needs of those with service-connected injuries. That is why I am pleased to 

have introduced H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act, which 

seeks to provide service-connected disabled veterans with employment protections. 

H.R. 3524 would protect service-connected disabled veterans against employer discrimination while they seek treatment for injuries they sustained while in service 

or aggravated due to their military service. It would provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in a calendar year. Currently Public Law 110–181, under the Family and 

Medical Leave Act, provides caregivers with up to 26 work weeks of unpaid leave 

in a calendar year for up to five years to care for their spouse, parent, child or next 

of kin who is a servicemember and sustained an injury or illness during service. 

While caregivers are given this much deserved protection, those that have been directly inflicted with an injury do not enjoy similar protections. It is time to remedy 

this inequity. 

I am also interested in making sure our veterans have good information when deciding to go back to college. I appreciate that Chairman Stutzman has introduced 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

39 

legislation that would recognize educational institutions that provide superior service to veterans, as well as improve the TAP program to include information about 

post-secondary education. 

I also appreciate Rep. Bilirakis’s legislation that would improve outreach and 

transparency for veterans regarding information about going back to school. I believe having clear and reliable information is essential in helping veterans make decisions about post-secondary education. 

I look forward to working with Members of this Committee to make sure our veterans are receiving unbiased advice on the use of GI Bill benefits and adequate information about schools they may want to attend. They have served their country 

and deserve to have the best education possible, including ongoing support once 

they are enrolled. 

Common sense legislation to provide employment protection for veterans who 

need medical treatment for their service-connected injuries or to provide complete 

information about educational opportunities is how we protect those who have volunteered to protect us. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. G. K. Butterfield 

Chairman Stutzman and Ranking Member Braley, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before your Subcommittee. 

We owe our veterans every opportunity to get a quality education and enter the 

workforce with the tools needed to compete. These returning heroes face an inequity 

that forces those who attend public colleges to pay more out-of-pocket in tuition 

than veterans who attend private institutions. This inequity has caused many veterans to drop out of college, transfer, or assume tremendous financial burdens to 

attend school. H.R. 3483, the Veterans’ Education Equity Act, addresses this problem by granting veterans equal benefits to attend any public or private institution. 

In January 2011, the Post-9/11 Veterans’ Educational Improvements Assistance 

Act became law, reducing education benefits for veterans and separating education 

benefits for veterans who attend public institutions from veterans who attend private institutions. Before that act was passed, veterans could receive tuition and fees 

benefits up to the amount charged by the most expensive public institution in each 

state. Now, the education benefit for a veteran attending a private institution is 

capped at $17,500. The education benefit available to a veteran who attends a public 

institution is capped at in-state tuition, which is often less than $17,500. So, often 

veterans who attend private institutions are eligible for more education benefits 

than those who attend public institutions. 

The table below illustrates how my bill would improve current law by showing 

its impact on Post-9/11 GI Bill education aid available to veterans at three institutions in North Carolina: 

Institution 

In-state 

tuition and fees 

2011–2012 

Out-of-state 

tuition and fees 

2011–2012 

Total out of 

pocket cost for 

non-resident 

under current 

law 

Total out of 

pocket cost for 

non-resident 

under H.R. 

3483 

Elizabeth City State University (Public) 

Elizabeth City, North Carolina $3,828 $13,572 $9,744 $0 

East Carolina University (Public) 

Greenville, North Carolina $5,317 $17,896 $12,579 $396 

Bennett College (Private) 

Greensboro, North Carolina $16,794 $16,794 $0 $0 

At Elizabeth City State University (ECSU), in-state tuition and fees are $3,828 

per year and out-of-state tuition and fees are $13,572. Under current law, a veteran 

with North Carolina residency attending ECSU would have his full tuition covered. 

A veteran who is not a resident of North Carolina would be charged $13,572 but 

only receive $3,828 in education benefits, so he would owe $9,744 out-of-pocket. At 

East Carolina University (ECU), in-state tuition and fees are $5,317 per year and 

out-of-state tuition and fees are $17,896, so a veteran with North Carolina residency 

who attends ECU would have his full tuition covered. A veteran who is not a resident of North Carolina would be charged $17,896 but only receive $5,317 in eduVACREP180 with DISTILLER

40 

cation benefits, so he would owe $12,579 out-of-pocket. However, if that veteran 

chose to attend Bennett College which costs $16,794, his education benefits would 

cover full tuition and fees. 

There are 516 veterans at University of North Carolina institutions and 715 veterans in North Carolina Community Colleges who would be immediately assisted 

by this law. In my District, Air Force veteran Edward Bailey, who attends ECU, 

faced $6,000 in charges before classes began in fall 2011 after the Post-9/11 Veterans’ Educational Improvements Assistance Act became law. He was forced to take 

out a $5,000 loan and borrow $1,000 from friends to stay in school. With five semesters of college left, he must find a way to pay for $30,000 in tuition and fees or continue his education elsewhere. Marine Corps veteran Nan Lopata, who also attends 

ECU, received GI benefits to cover full tuition and fees for her first semester in 

spring 2011, only to face $6,800 in charges before her second semester in fall 2011. 

She was unable to afford to continue as a full-time student, potentially delaying her 

graduation. Two other students attending ECU—James and Mary Murtha—received 

full tuition GI benefits for their first three academic years before receiving bills in 

fall 2011 totaling $38,000 to complete their senior years. Their father, active duty 

Marine Corps Colonel Brian Murtha, was forced to withdraw $36,000 from his retirement funds. We owe it to veterans and their families to protect the benefits they 

were promised when they joined our military. 

Veterans have limited options when their Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits do 

not cover their expenses. Veterans may participate in the Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement Program which can cover a portion of the tuition and fees that 

exceed the base Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit where it exists. However, the Yellow Ribbon Program is only available at institutions which opt into agreements with the 

U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs Veterans’ Administration to match the amount 

not already covered by the basic Post-9/11 GI Bill. In North Carolina, only 7 out 

of 74 public institutions participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program, forcing many 

veterans to pay out-of-pocket tuition and fees that are not covered by Post-9/11 GI 

Bill education benefits. 

For those reasons, this bill has broad support including 57 bipartisan cosponsors. 

Additionally, veterans’ service organizations (VSOs) including the Student Veterans 

Advocacy Group (SVAG), Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the American Legion, American Veterans (AMVETS), 

American Military Retirees Association (AMRA), and the Armed Forces Foundation, 

have endorsed this bill. The bill is supported by the American Association of State 

Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), the Association of American Universities (AAU), the University of 

North Carolina System, and the North Carolina Community Colleges System. 

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) preliminary cost estimate of H.R. 3483 is $1.4 to $1.5 billion over 10 years. When averaged, the annual cost would be only 

a 2 percent increase from the roughly $7.7 billion spent on the Post-9/11 GI Bill in 

2011. The CBO also provided a preliminary cost estimate if the bill were to include 

a 3 year sunset provision of $400 million over 3 years. The CBO’s preliminary estimate also indicated that up to 30,000 veterans would benefit from this bill. I urge 

the Subcommittee to consider offsets based on efficiencies which do not compromise 

service or benefits for our veterans. 

Lastly, legislation to address inequities in tuition and fees benefits under the 

Post-9/11 Veterans’ Educational Improvements Assistance Act is not unprecedented. 

In fact, Chairman Miller introduced H.R. 1383, the Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act, 

which exempts certain veterans who were enrolled in private colleges from the 

$17,500 tuition cap. That bill made private institutions more affordable for veterans 

and unanimously passed the House before being enacted in August 2011. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill in similar bipartisan fashion, and I look forward to your Subcommittee’s approval. If we do not correct this problem, up to 

30,000 veterans could face paying as much as $75,000 in out-of-pocket tuition costs 

in a tough economy, and at a time when 13.1 percent of veterans are unemployed. 

Let’s treat all of our veterans fairly by passing the Veterans’ Education Equity 

Act out of Committee and helping it become law. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Richard Weidman 

Good afternoon Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished 

Members of the House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. On behalf of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) National President John Rowan and our officers 

and members, we thank you for the opportunity to appear today to share our views 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

41 

on H.R. 3329, H.R. 3483, H.R. 3610, H.R. 3670, H.R. 3524, H.R. 4048, H.R. 4051, 

H.R. 4057 and H.R. 4072. 

I ask that you enter our full statement in the record, and I will briefly summarize 

some of the most important points of our statement. 

H.R. 3329, introduced by Representative Linda T Sanchez [D–CA], extends from 

12 to 15 years after discharge or release from active-duty service the authorized period for veterans with service-connected disabilities to enroll in certain Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA) vocational training and rehabilitation programs. 

VVA favors this bill, as it is often the case that returning servicemembers have 

to spend a significant number of years readjusting and acclimating to civilian society after their return, especially from a combat zone. The Pew Charitable Trusts 

produced an excellent report on this very subject in 2011 that we recommend to the 

Members of the Committee. (A copy of same was provided to key staff on both sides 

of the aisle.) Anything that affords more opportunity for deserving veterans to be 

trained in marketable skills is a good thing in the view of VVA. 

H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, introduced by Representative G.K. Butterfield (D–NC), revises the formula for the payment by the Department 

of Veterans Affairs of tuition and fees for individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program and pursuing programs 

of education at public institutions of higher learning to include, as an additional 

payment formula, the greater of: 1) the actual net costs for in-state tuition after applying the receipt of any tuition waivers, reductions, scholarships, or other assistance; 

or 2) $17,500 for the academic year beginning on August 1, 2012 (such amount to 

be increased each subsequent year by the average percentage increase in undergraduate tuition costs). 

VVA has no objection to this bill. 

H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act, is introduced by 

Representative Bruce Braley (D–IA). This legislation would entitle a person who is 

absent from employment by reason of the receipt of medical treatment for a serviceconnected disability to: 1) be retained by the person’s employer; 2) the seniority and 

other rights and benefits determined by seniority that the person had on the commencement of such treatment plus the additional seniority and rights and benefits 

that the person would have attained if the person had remained continuously employed; and 3) be considered on furlough or leave of absence during such treatment 

and therefore entitled to other rights and benefits not determined by seniority as are 

other persons of similar seniority, status, and pay who are on furlough or leave of 

absence, and terminates such entitlement when a person knowingly provides written 

notice of the intent not to return to such position following treatment. 

This bill would also allow the absent employee to use any vacation, annual, medical, or similar leave with pay accrued before the commencement of the treatment. 

It also provides that an employer shall not be required to comply with the requirements of this Act if: 1) the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make such 

compliance impossible or unreasonable; 2) such compliance would pose an undue 

hardship on the employer; or 3) the employment in question is for a brief, non-recurring period without a reasonable expectation of continuing indefinitely or for a significant period. This proposal limits the application of this Act to periods of absence 

of not more than 12 workweeks during any 12-month period. 

The bill applies health insurance continuation requirements to absences from employment described in this Act. It would prohibit any employer discrimination or acts 

of reprisal against an absent employee. 

Vietnam Veterans of America strongly favors enactment of this legislation to protect the rights of veterans who have service-connected disabilities from losing their 

jobs because they have to take time to properly address the wounds, maladies, injuries, and illnesses that are adjudged by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to be directly connected to and resulting from the individual’s military service. 

Frankly, this is legislation that should have been enacted forty years ago to protect the veterans who served in Vietnam from reprisals from employers, including 

Federal agencies, because they had to take time to seek treatment for service-connected conditions. It was all too often a common story from Vietnam veterans that 

as they were all but felled from injuries such as PTSD and conditions resulting from 

exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides, tropical parasites, hepatitis C due 

to blood transmissions. Too many of these veterans were fired for seeking necessary 

medical help. 

Even though this will not be of widespread help to our generation, or the fine 

young Americans who have served since 9/11 who have been the subject of discrimination and/or firing because they had to seek and receive treatment for their service-connected conditions over the past decade, it will be of significant assistance to 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

42 

returning veterans in the future. We salute Mr. Braley for his bold leadership on 

this important issue, and urge early enactment of this legislation. 

H.R. 3610, Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011, introduced 

by Representative Virginia Foxx [R–NC], legislation would consolidate and streamline redundant and ineffective Federal workforce development programs to increase 

accountability, reduce administrative bureaucracies, and put Americans back to 

work. 

VVA staunchly opposes eliminating any of the (tiny but highly effective) Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs for veterans, including the VWIP program. 

Furthermore, VVA strongly believes that the Homeless Veterans Readjustment Program (HVRP) should stay at the United States Department of Labor (DoL), but 

needs to be funded at the full authorized level of $50 million per year. This program 

is far and away the most cost-effective, cost-efficient program administered by the 

DoL. The primary reason why it needs to be at DoL is so that it can be used as 

‘‘match’’ funds by the highly effective, cost-effective community-based organizations 

(CBOs) and faith-based organizations (FBOs) which need to ‘‘match’’ VA Grant & 

Per Diem grant monies. 

For more than 40 years the veteran community-based organizations (VCBOs), although never properly funded, have continued to deliver the most cost-effective and 

cost-efficient services to veterans, especially veterans most in need. 

While we need a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that provides easy access 

to quality medical care, and we need other Federal and state entities, it has consistently been the community-based organizations, and (often) the veteran service organizations (VSOs), that have been there for the veterans most in need. Unless this 

match requirement can be met another way, or surmounted by other means, we will 

oppose any move toward transferring the HVRP program to the VA. 

Furthermore, it has been a decade since the inappropriately named ‘‘Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002’’ was enacted. (It was inappropriately named because the Employment & Training Administration (ETA) and the rest of DoL did everything they 

could to prevent ‘‘priority of service’’ from occurring at DoL or at the so-called Workforce Development Agencies. Sadly, for these reasons, not many veterans have ever 

gotten a job via this act, despite the noblest of intentions of the Congress.) Even 

though VVA repeatedly brought these failings to the attention of the top leadership 

of DoL, the previous Administration’s appointees there seemingly did everything 

they could to keep from promulgating regulations to implement the provisions of 

this law until the very last month they were in office. 

The provisions have now been promulgated in regulation, but it appears from afar 

that the Chief Operating Officer at the Department of Labor in the current Administration has little or no interest in enforcing ‘‘priority of service’’ in Workforce Investment Act programs. It also seems to be the case that those inside of DoL who 

have tried to raise some very appropriate questions about this terrible (and some 

would suggest anti-veteran) record of non-achievement in regard to participation of 

military veterans being able to enter into WIA-funded programs at the state and 

local level, have been silenced and in some cases had their character besmirched unfairly. 

The absolutely abysmal record of veterans participating in WIA training is demonstrated by the charts of states in Appendix I to this statement. 

While we applaud the good intentions, strong leadership, and hard work of Representative Foxx, we would like to see some of that resolve applied to guaranteeing 

that returning veterans get a fair deal in seeking classroom vocational training programs or On-the-Job-Training placements. Right now veterans are not getting anything like a fair deal, much less ‘‘priority of service’’ in these programs. As bad as 

the participation of veterans in WIA across the country, we have good reason to believe that many state and Service Delivery Area (SDA) entities could not survive 

even a cursory audit of this paltry tax record. (In plain word, imagine how bad their 

record would look if they hadn’t exaggerated veteran participation!) 

Whatever else this proposed legislation in its final form does, it must set aside 

a proportional amount of WIA funds in each state to be at least the proportion of 

veterans in the population of those who are unemployed or who have dropped out 

of the labor force solely because they are so discouraged by looking for work to no 

avail that they become clinically depressed and hence unable to continue to look for 

work. 

VVA also urges Congresswoman Foxx and her colleagues to reiterate ‘‘priority of 

service’’ as a requirement for any and all employment & training programs funded 

by or through the DoL. Further, VVA strongly urges creation of meaningful redress 

measures and sanctions for those states and for those SDA delivery areas which do 

not adequately demonstrate ‘‘priority of service’’ for veterans is occurring in all DoLfunded programs. As a last resort, the funding should be recaptured from the state 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

43 

and contracted out to entities (i.e., CBOs, VSOs, faith-based organizations, and 

other private or non-profit service providers) within that state who value veterans, 

and which have the expertise, creativity, and the will to assist veterans into jobs 

that will lead to a career. 

Mr. Chairman, VVA urges you to also ask the General Accountability Office 

(GAO) to look into this area to discern whether this public record of the participation rate of veterans in WIA programs in each state is either incomplete or inflated, 

why ‘‘priority of service’’ to military veterans is not occurring at the service delivery 

level as required by law, and recommend course(s) of action for both DoL (in cooperation with VA) and the Congress to correct any deficiencies found. 

VVA looks forward to working with the distinguished Members of this storied 

Subcommittee, and with the distinguished Members of the HELP Committee, to improve on the bill as introduced, so that VVA and others in the veterans’ community 

can enthusiastically endorse this proposed legislation. 

H.R. 3670, To require the Transportation Security Administration to comply with 

the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, introduced by 

Representative Timothy Walz (D–Mn), this legislation amends the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act to require the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) to comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act when carrying out certain personnel decisions with respect to the employment of 

air transportation passenger and property screeners. (Please note that Senator Joseph 

Lieberman (D–CT) has introduced a companion bill, S.1990.) 

As usual, Command Sergeant Major Walz is to be commended for his efforts to 

address a real problem for National Guard and Reserve personnel. VVA strongly favors enactment of H.R. 3670, to require the Transportation Safety Administration 

(TSA) to abide by the ‘‘Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Act’’(USERA). There is no reason for TSA, or any other Federal agency or entity, 

to not be subject to the requirements of USERA. 

VVA strongly favors speedy enactment, and expedited implementation, of this proposed law. 

It has come to the attention of VVA that there are parts of the VA and of DoD 

that have abridged the rights of returning veterans who are demobilized from active 

duty, and qualify for protection under USERA. VVA strongly urges this Subcommittee to work with the appropriate Subcommittee of the Government Oversight 

& Reform Committee to make violation or abridgement or threatened abridgement 

of a servicemember’s rights under USERA a ‘‘prohibited personnel practice’’ that 

shall subject a manager or supervisor who commits such an act to immediate reprimand, up to and including suspension and possible dismissal in any and all Federal entities. At minimum, such an act should result in a two-year suspension of 

awarding a bonus for any reason to that manager. 

Further, VVA urges this Subcommittee to work with that same Subcommittee on 

the Federal Workforce of the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform to 

strengthen veterans’ preference. There should be no exception of any Federal department, agency, or entity from being subject to veterans’ preference in all hiring, 

at all grades. 

While the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998 (VEOA) strengthened 

veterans’ preference in many ways, it is now way past time to correct a number of 

flaws in the VEOA. The statute made it a ‘‘prohibited personnel practice’’ to violate 

the rights of a veterans’ preference-eligible person. First among those flaws is that 

the word ‘‘knowingly’’ was slipped into the law before ‘‘violate a person’s veterans’ 

preference rights.’’ This has enabled those same SES folks to avoid punishing managers and supervisors for the past fourteen years. Frankly, if a manager or supervisor does not know veterans’ preference laws by the time he or she gets into a position of authority, then they should be removed and dismissal proceedings started 

for either misfeasance and/or incompetence. (Incidentally, the word ‘‘knowingly’’ 

does not appear in the language that defines all other ‘‘prohibited personnel practices,’’ only in the veterans’ preference clause.) 

It is also time to admit that the Senior Executive Service (SES) is a failure that 

has not met any of the supposed goals of the program that were used to justify exempting SES from veterans’ preference laws. As it has played out at the VA, at 

DoD, and at other departments and agencies, this exemption has enabled ‘‘Jody’’ 

(those who avoided the draft or enlistment to serve our country in the armed forces) 

to make sure that there are very few veterans or surviving spouses in SES positions. There is a generally patronizing attitude toward veterans that has been allowed to flourish in many quarters of the Federal government. Even as the size of 

the Federal workforce shrinks, these outrageous abuses must end. 

I would be remiss if I did not note that the current Administration has tried very 

hard to increase the hiring of veterans and the use of tools for agencies to increase 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

44 

the employment of veterans, particularly disabled veterans. There has, as perhaps 

you might come to expect, a great deal of lip service and passive resistance from 

the careerists. It has however resulted in some gains for veterans, but we must not 

only keep the pressure on them to do better, but also move to strengthen the law. 

Frankly there are very few things that you can do to really assist veterans, particularly disabled veterans, and dramatically improve their lives while also strengthening the effectiveness of the Federal workforce that do not cost money in a time 

of both real and perceived austerity. 

Making the veterans’ preference laws stronger is one of those few no-cost things 

you have the latitude to accomplish even in a tough year which can really improve 

the lives of disabled veterans. VVA urges you and your colleagues to seize this moment of opportunity, and act with alacrity and determination. 

H.R. 4048, Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned Small Businesses Act of 2012, introduced by Representative Bill Johnson (R–OH), would amend 

title 38, United States Code, to clarify the contracting goals and preferences of the 

VA with respect to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans. 

This legislation can be read in two very different ways with very different consequences: 1) that the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and the misnomered ‘‘strategic sourcing initiative’’ (which is not based on any statute we can locate, and 

which has less than nothing to do with national security) has precedence over small 

business in general and service-disabled veteran- owned small business ‘‘Vets First’’ 

provisions of law in particular; or 2) that Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small 

Businesses (SDVOSBs) and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) who are on 

the delegated (from the General Services Agency) Federal Supply Schedules shall 

have preference over all others on the VA-run FSS. 

If the intent is the second meaning, then VVA can enthusiastically support this 

proposed law. 

If, however, the intent is to let the VA continue to ignore much of small business 

law that has been on the books for years, and to ignore the ‘‘Vets First’’ contracting 

provisions of Title 38, then VVA must rigorously oppose this legislation. The Veterans Entrepreneurship Task Force (VET–Force) will also vigorously oppose this 

legislation if that is the case. 

As there was no summary on thomas.loc.gov that made clear the intent of HR 

4048, and there were no remarks upon introduction that we could locate, the bill 

as written leaves us in a bit of a quandary. If we are in a quandary as to what 

was intended, we can only speculate and marvel at the mess the VA General Counsel’s office (never mind the Acquisitions people) will make of this proposal should 

it become law as currently worded, with no clear and unequivocal Committee report. 

We urge that this be re-written and expanded for clarity, and a clear Committee 

report be written, no matter which way the Committee decides to proceed. 

H.R. 4051, TAP Modernization Act of 2012, introduced by Representative Marlin 

A. Stutzman (R–IN), would direct the Secretary of Labor to provide off-base transition training. 

The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) has needed a significant overhaul for 

some time. The common vernacular description of the TAP program as it exists on 

military bases today is ‘‘death by power-point.’’ Many of those slides in the standard 

presentation date back to when some of the separating servicemembers were in elementary school. What is particularly needed is not only an up to date and interactive experience that will engage those separating, but also to deliver this program 

to those who are members of the National Guard and the Reserves demobilizing, 

and are nowhere near a military base where this program is currently offered. 

It is also true for many of the active duty servicemembers when they separate 

from the service and return home that they are not near a military base that offers 

TAP. Reportedly, this is the most rural Armed Forces we have fielded since World 

War I, with about 40% coming from towns of 25,000 or less. What this means is 

that we must alter our paradigm and shape these very important services in such 

a way that the service(s) and vital information for these veterans and their spouses 

can be delivered where the new veterans can seize this opportunity, and in such a 

manner that they will grasp this important set of services and information. 

Our Nation spends a great deal of time and treasure to train these young Americans to be effective soldiers, sailors, Marines, and members of the Air Force and 

Coast Guard. This prepares them to be not only the best trained and equipped 

armed forces in the world, but the best in the history of the world. Surely we can 

spend the time and resources to train these young Americans to successfully reintegrate into civilian life. 

VVA does favor enactment of this legislation at an early date, but urges that you 

and your colleagues consider speeding up the pilot to a much faster pace than three 

years in only five states. The services are needed now, not in the distant future. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

45 

H.R. 4057, Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act 

of 2012, introduced by Representative Gus M. Bilirakis, (R–FL), would amend title 

38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a comprehensive policy to improve outreach and transparency to veterans and members of 

the Armed Forces through the provision of information on institutions of higher 

learning. 

VVA commends Congressman Bilirakis for continuing the tradition in his family 

of bold advocacy for the men and women who have pledged their life and limb in 

defense of the Constitution. 

VVA favors enactment of this proposed legislation, but we strongly urge that it 

be strengthened. Let me be blunt: VVA has good reason to believe that some predatory for-profit schools set out to enrich themselves and their investors by taking the 

hard-earned GI Bill for the 21st Century dollars, and then arranging ‘‘easy financing’’ of additional costs from what turns out to be a finance company owned by the 

same investors that locks these brave young people into a debt structure that is a 

heavy burden at exorbitant (if not usurious in the biblical sense). Then it is only 

after wasting time and all of their benefits that these veterans discover that the 

schools are not really properly accredited, that their ‘‘degrees’’ are phony and worthless as said ‘‘credentials’’ are not accepted by employers or licensing agencies or 

graduate schools. 

In the most extreme of these cases, the future has literally been stolen from these 

veterans. These predators are practicing ‘‘Stolen Valor’’ in the extreme. 

Let me state that VVA does not believe that all distance learning is bad, nor that 

being a for-profit school inherently means that the school can’t offer fair value for 

a fair price. They can – but the predatory for-profit schools do not. 

We ask that you take into account these considerations: 

(1) Basic Eligibility Threshold: No GI Bill or TA dollars if the graduate is not eligible to get licensed in that field. In the Military and Veteran Students Educational 

Bill of Rights, one provision is, ‘‘If receiving a degree or certificate will fulfill the 

licensing requirements in a particular field.’’ As our friend and colleague Ted 

Daywalt, founder and president of VetJobs always says, a program’s graduates must 

be eligible for state licensing so that graduates can actually get a job in the area 

they studied for (for example, a nursing program must be approved so that its graduates can be licensed to practice nursing). You could also suggest basic eligibility 

thresholds for graduation and job placement rates (such as, no GI Bill dollars if a 

school has a terrible graduation or job placement rate). 

(2) Risk-Based Audits and Reviews: Senator Webb is proposing a risk-based review system where State Approving Agencies would be tasked with performing an 

audit if one of these triggers occurred: rapid GI enrollment, student complaints, 

high drop-out rates, high loan default rates, or legal action by a state or the feds 

against a particular college. To quote from the Military and Veteran Students Educational Bill of Rights: ‘‘Review any institution that shows a rapid increase in student dropout rates or student loan defaults, an increase in student complaints, a 

state lawsuit or probation, etc. VA and DoD should decertify or terminate from TA 

and GI Bill eligibility any institution of higher education that has been put on probation or terminated by a state government from its student aid program, has been 

found by a government agency to have engaged in grossly deceptive recruiting practices, or has admitted fraud or been successfully sued for fraud. VA and DoD should 

share information with the Departments of Education and Justice, and communicate information on adverse findings by those agencies with the State Approving 

Agencies for institutions that may require additional inspections or remedial action.’’ 

(3) Data Collection, Student Disclosures and Reporting: Here’s the applicable 

paragraph from the Educational Bill of Rights: ‘‘Track the data on school performance and student outcomes under Tuition Assistance, Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI 

Bills, and Top-Up. Currently DoD and VA track dollars out the door, but not what 

those dollars have bought. (No agency is currently tracking even dollars out the door 

under Top-Up.) At a minimum, DoD and VA should track the number of credits 

earned and whether students remain enrolled, have successfully completed a program, or have dropped out. Metrics should be regularly reported to Congress.’’ 

(4) Disclosures. You’ve got a serious list in the attached Educational Bill of Rights: 

‘‘Disclose relevant educational and financial information to DoD/VA and to prospective students in plain language and in easily accessible, obvious places on all materials and Web sites: 

i. The actual costs per credit hour and/or degree or other relevant measures, 

including all lab and student fees; 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

46 

ii. Whether or not credits are transferrable to that state’s public universities 

and community colleges; 

iii. If receiving a degree or certificate will fulfill licensing requirements in a particular field; 

iv. If the institution of higher learning (IHL) has been accredited by what national and/or regional accrediting entity; 

v. That programs of study have been approved for GI Bill benefits by a State 

Approving Agency; 

vi. Whether the institution is a public, private non-profit, or private for-profit 

institution; and if it is a for-profit entity, it should be required to disclose its 

profitability, executive compensation, and shareholder return annually and 

semi-annually, as well as what percent of its budget goes to marketing and recruitment; to career placement; and to actual instruction; 

vii. What the overall graduation and job placement rates have been for the past 

five years, as well as in the specific field of study in which a prospective student 

is considering majoring; 

viii. What the dropout rates have been over the past five years; The student 

debt and default rates on loans at one year, two years, and three years after 

a student has graduated or has otherwise left the school; 

ix. Whether the college has dedicated support staff to assist students 

x. negotiate the educational terrain, especially support staff for military, veterans, and military families - in particular disabled veterans (it’s one thing to 

get into a school; it’s quite another to attain a degree while juggling family and 

work and studies); and whether or not the college has certified counselors available to assist students seek scholarships and other forms of financial aid; 

xi. The qualification level of the teaching and tutoring staff, e.g., what percentage of instructors have achieved a terminal degree in their field of discipline; 

xii. Whether or not the school has a career placement office with paid, dedicated 

staff to assist students in their job search upon graduation; or, in the case of 

online institutions, what is the availability of career placement services for students and alumni; 

xiii. What percentage of the institution’s budget is spent on advertising, marketing, recruitment, commissions, and sales; how much has been taken as profit 

over an institution’s past five fiscal years; and the total annual individual executive compensation package for the senior corporate or college staff over the 

past years, as well as shareholder returns quarterly and annually over the 

same period.’’ 

H.R. 4072, Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved Performance 

Act of 2012, introduced by Representative Jeff Miller (FL–1), would amend title 38, 

United States Code, to improve employment services for veterans by consolidating 

various programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

VVA supports the part of this bill that would create the position of Deputy Undersecretary of VA for Veterans Employment and Economic Opportunities, and move 

the DoL Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) to VA. While this begs 

the question as to the lack of accountability of the state workforce development 

agencies in regard to the proper deployment of the veterans’ personnel to work on 

assisting veterans, especially disabled veterans, to obtain and sustain meaningful 

employment at a living wage, it is at least a start in the right direction. 

VVA still strongly believes that all of the veterans’ staff positions currently known 

as Disabled Veteran Outreach Program specialists (DVOPs) and Local Veteran Employment Representatives (LVERs) that are currently state employees should be federalized. VVA holds that this is necessary because there is presently no effective 

oversight of how the states are utilizing these personnel. Experience would suggest, 

however, that we are lucky if we are able to get the equivalent of one day a week 

of these half-time LVERs and DVOPs devoted to veterans. At minimum VVA strongly urges you to authorize only full-time positions as veterans’ personnel, and ensure 

that there is a meaningful oversight system to ensure veterans get their money’s 

worth of effort from each full-time position funded by DoL to serve only veterans. 

Lastly, we need more meaningful objective measures than the current mass scale 

manifestation of the ‘‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’’ logical fallacy. We need real placements, not the current phony system. 

However, VVA opposes the part of this bill that would move the HVRP grant program from DoL to the VA per VVA 2011 National Convention resolution: ‘‘HV–7 

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program to Remain at the US Department of Labor (DoL) and be fully funded at $50M’’; resolved, that Vietnam 

Veterans of America opposes the transition of the HVRP Program from the US Department of Labor and further, that DoL should be held accountable for this proVACREP180 with DISTILLER

47 

gram’s function, oversight, and performance. Additionally, VVA urges full funding 

to the authorized level for the HVRP program.’’ 

As noted above, the key issue here is that the very effective CBOs and faith-based 

organizations (FBOs), which operate on a very close margin, need the HVRP funds 

from DoL to serve as ‘‘match’’ funds in order to receive ‘‘Grant & Per Diem’’ funds 

from VA. Frankly, these CBOs and FBOs produce effective services to very poor and 

homeless veterans at much less cost than government can get the job done. Veterans tend to trust them more than the VA or other government agencies when beginning the process of trekking the long road back from the street to a productive 

role in society. If this ‘‘match’’ problem can be surmounted, then VVA would reconsider this position. 

Many thanks for the opportunity to appear here today to share the views of VVA. 

Appendix I 

MILITARY & VETERAN STUDENTS EDUCATIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS 

The VSOs and MSOs indicated below urge the Administration to establish an 

interagency working group, from among the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Education, and Justice, to develop appropriate protocols to protect active duty 

servicemembers, reservists and members of the National Guard, veterans and family members who seek to use their GI Bill and Tuition Assistance benefits to pursue 

higher education from unethical and predatory institutions of higher learning. Several of our ideas on reining in the abuses that we know have been harming troops 

and veterans are offered below. We defer to the Administration on the appropriate 

agency or mechanism to implement these ideas, and are available to provide more 

specifics as needed. We have referred to the Military Student Bill of Rights developed by the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges Consortium (SOCC) as a touchstone on this issue. We also encourage reference to section 559 of the FY’12 National 

Defense Authorization Act. 

1. REQUIRE (either through strong Memoranda of Understanding from both DoD 

and VA or through Executive action) all institutions of higher learning that want 

to accept students under Tuition Assistance or the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bills 

to: 

a. DISCLOSE relevant educational and financial information to DoD/VA and to 

prospective students in plain language and in easily accessible, obvious places on 

all materials and Web sites: 

i. The actual costs per credit hour and/or degree or other relevant measures, 

including all lab and student fees; 

ii. Whether or not credits are transferrable to that state’s public universities 

and community colleges; 

iii. If receiving a degree or certificate will fulfill licensing requirements in a particular field; 

iv. If the institution of higher learning (IHL) has been accredited by what national and/or regional accrediting entity; 

v. That programs of study have been approved for GI Bill benefits by a State 

Approving Agency. 

vi. Whether the institution is a public, private non-profit, or private for-profit 

institution; and if it is a for-profit entity, it should be required to disclose its 

profitability, executive compensation, and shareholder return annually and 

semi-annually, as well as what percent of its budget goes to marketing and recruitment; to career placement; and to actual instruction. 

vii. What the overall graduation and job placement rates have been for the past 

five years, as well as in the specific field of study in which a prospective student 

is considering majoring. 

viii. What the dropout rates have been over the past five years; 

ix. The student debt and default rates on loans at one year, two years, and 

three years after a student has graduated or has otherwise left the school; 

x. Whether the college has dedicated support staff to assist students negotiate 

the educational terrain, especially support staff for military, veterans, and military families - in particular disabled veterans (it’s one thing to get into a school; 

it’s quite another to attain a degree while juggling family and work and studies); and whether or not the college has certified counselors available to assist 

students seek scholarships and other forms of financial aid; 

xi. The qualification level of the teaching and tutoring staff, e.g., what percentage of instructors have achieved a terminal degree in their field of discipline; 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

48 

xii. Whether or not the school has a career placement office with paid, dedicated 

staff to assist students in their job search upon graduation; or, in the case of 

online institutions, what is the availability of career placement services for students and alumni; 

xiii. What percentage of the institution’s budget is spent on advertising, marketing, recruitment, commissions, and sales; how much has been taken as profit 

over an institution’s past five fiscal years; and the total annual individual executive compensation package for the senior corporate or college staff over the 

past years, as well as shareholder returns quarterly and annually over the 

same period. 

b. REQUIRE institutions of higher learning to report data on graduation and 

dropout rates and other relevant measures of their commitment to providing quality 

higher education to the National Center for Education Statistics’ College Navigator. 

c. MANDATE that any institution of higher learning that receives Tuition Assistance, Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill funds has a career placement office with 

dedicated, paid staff to assist students in their job search upon graduation; or, in 

the case of online institutions, provides career placement services for students and 

alumni. 

d. MANDATE institutions of higher learning provide support services for military, 

veterans, including disabled veterans, and their families. 

e. MANDATE under penalty that no institution of higher learning may provide 

incentive payments to recruit; and that no financial incentives may be offered to 

current or former students to recruit; nor may a school use GI Bill or TA dollars 

for recruiting or marketing. 

f. MANDATE under penalty that any institution of higher learning receiving GI 

Bill or Tuition Assistance dollars must be brought under the rules of Title IV of the 

Higher Education Act governing institutions that receive Pell grants and Federal 

student loans. 

g. ENSURE that currently enrolled students will be given sufficient notice if an 

institution of higher learning declines to sign the MOU. 

2. CLOSE the 90/10 loophole. A cornerstone of any effort must be closing the loophole in which GI Bill and Tuition Assistance funds are considered ‘‘private’’ funds, 

not ‘‘federal’’ funds in the 90/10 equation. This has opened the floodgates to extreme 

targeting of military and veteran students by predatory for-profit colleges, and has 

led to the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars. (Note: The American Legion does 

not have a Resolution that supports this proposal). 

3. MANDATE counseling about educational benefits and the potential for abuse 

to the uneducated consumer student. Active duty troops should be informed by DoD 

and VA personnel about educational opportunities available to them - and their families - and the risks for abuse by predatory institutions, prior to receiving benefits. 

National Guard and military families should also receive counseling through appropriate avenues. Potential students should be told about the College Navigator. 

Those who are considering enrolling in an institution of higher learning, and those 

who are about to separate from service, should attend mandatory sessions that focus 

on what factors potential students need to consider when choosing a school. Similarly, all levels of command, from company commander through installation commander, should be alert to the risks of predatory institutions and take steps if necessary to bar these recruiters and their principals from coming onto their base. All 

levels of command should be encouraged to disseminate information through publications and periodic briefings by MSO and VSO representatives. Institutions of 

higher education should not themselves be given a platform to conduct education 

counseling under Chapter 36 or other avenues. 

4. DEVELOP an online college comparison tool (e.g., a mandatory, not a voluntary, College Navigator) that can assist students compare actual costs, transferability of credits, eligibility to get licensed, key indicators or measures of student 

success, e.g., drop-out rates, graduation rates, student loan default rates, and job 

placement successes. This tool would also catalog an online database of student complaints. And this College Navigator should allow for social media integration so that 

potential students can rate schools by learning of the experiences of students at 

these institutions. 

5. ESTABLISH an Ombudsman system at VA and DoD to take student complaints at a toll-free number, such as 1–800–GI BILL1, facilitated through existing 

infrastructure at the VA call center in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Student complaints 

could be made available online and connected to College Navigator, with all personal information redacted, so prospective students might see complaints about the 

schools they are considering. Require VA to develop an Education Benefits Customer Service portal, where student veterans can file complaints about benefits and 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

49 

report fraud waste and abuse. Veteran complaints should be assigned a case file and 

tracked as the VA works with agencies to find resolution to the problem. 

6. TRACK the data on school performance and student outcomes under Tuition 

Assistance, Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills, and Top-Up. Currently DoD and VA 

track dollars out the door, but not what those dollars have bought. (No agency is 

currently tracking even dollars out the door under Top-Up.) At a minimum, DoD 

and VA should track the number of credits earned and whether students remain 

enrolled, have successfully completed a program, or have dropped out. Metrics 

should be regularly reported to Congress. 

7. REVIEW any institution that shows a rapid increase in student dropout rates 

or student loan defaults, an increase in student complaints, a state lawsuit or probation, etc. VA and DoD should decertify or terminate from TA and GI Bill eligibility 

any institution of higher education that has been put on probation or terminated 

by a state government from its student aid program, has been found by a government agency to have engaged in grossly deceptive recruiting practices, or has admitted fraud or been successfully sued for fraud. VA and DoD should share information 

with the Departments of Education and Justice, and communicate information on 

adverse findings by those agencies with the State Approving Agencies for institutions that may require additional inspections or remedial action. 

8. ADDRESS access to military installations in CONUS and overseas. Installation 

commanders should utilize the rule against commercial solicitation on their base, as 

well as JAG procedures to ban predatory commercial entities. They should be encouraged to enter into MOUs with community and non-profit schools to teach on 

post; no national educational entity, e.g., Kaplan or Colorado Tech, should have 

entre into a national MOU with DoD or one of the services to have unfettered access 

to all bases. It should be in the province of a local commander and his/her educational officers to determine who is authorized to teach on campus, but there 

should be no limit to the number of MOUs they can sign. Access to bases by former 

servicemembers should be limited if they are paid by schools to recruit on base. 

9. TRADEMARK or otherwise protect such terms as ‘‘GI Bill’’ and ‘‘Military 

friendly’’ but provide a carve-out for recognized VSOs. (Web sites owned by for-profit 

lead generators include GIBillAmerica.com, MilitaryGIBill.com, GIBill.Com, 

GIBenefits.com, and US–Army-Info.com.) The Federal government has already 

trademarked terms such as ‘‘Social Security,’’ ‘‘Medicare,’’ ‘‘No Guts, No Glory,’’ 

‘‘PTSD Coach,’’ ‘‘VetBiz,’’ and ‘‘MyFuture.com.’’ 

10. DESIGN a method of recourse for servicemembers and veterans who have lost 

their benefits because they were duped or tricked by a predatory practice by an institution of higher learning. If a troop or veteran has wasted his/her benefits on a 

worthless degree or certification because of misrepresentations made by unscrupulous representatives of predatory for-profits, they should be permitted to petition the 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to have them reinstated. 

The undersigned organizations have endorsed this military and veteran students’ 

educational Bill of Rights: 

John R. ‘‘Doc’’ McCauslin 

Chief Executive Officer 

Air Force Sergeants Association 

Rear Adm. (Ret.) Casey Coane 

Executive Director 

Association of the U.S. Navy 

Tom Tarantino 

Deputy Policy Director 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

Vice Adm. (Ret.) Norbert R. Ryan, Jr. 

President 

Military Officers Association of America 

Joe Wynn 

Legislative Liaison and Regional Director 

National Association for Black Veterans 

President, Vets Group 

Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Gus Hargett 

President 

National Guard Association of the U.S. 

Carl Blake 

National Legislative Director 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

50 

Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Michael Dakduk 

Executive Director 

Student Veterans of America 

Peter Gaytan 

Executive Director 

The American Legion 

Raymond C. Kelley 

National Legislative Director 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. 

Ted Daywalt 

President 

VetJobs 

Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW 

Vice President of Veterans Policy 

VetsFirst, United Spinal Association 

Rick Weidman 

Executive Director for Policy & 

Government Affairs 

Vietnam Veterans of America 

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Funding Statement 

March 8, 2012 

The national organization Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is a non-profit veterans’ membership organization registered as a 501(c) (19) with the Internal Revenue Service. VVA is also appropriately registered with the Secretary of the Senate 

and the Clerk of the House of Representatives in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. 

VVA is not currently in receipt of any Federal grant or contract, other than the 

routine allocation of office space and associated resources in VA Regional Offices for 

outreach and direct services through its Veterans Benefits Program (Service Representatives). This is also true of the previous two fiscal years. 

For Further Information, Contact: 

Executive Director of Policy and Government Affairs 

Vietnam Veterans of America 

(301) 585–4000, extension 127 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

51 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER


73293.001 73293.002
52 

The State Of WIA Adult Priority Of Service 

During PY ’09, WIA Adult (plus supplemental Recovery Act funding) was a $1.352 

billion program for job training and intensive job search for low income adults. The 

Jobs For Veterans Act of 2002 (JVA) was written to guarantee veterans priority of 

service in WIA and all other Federal employment and training programs. A decade 

after the JVA, The percentage of veterans enrolled in WIA Adult has actually declined in the decade; 53% of the states saw a decline of less than 20% and 14% declined even more sharply. Only 16% have met priority of service. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER


73293.003 73293.004
53 

• Despite massive jumps in unemployment during PY ‘09, 35 states and the District used over 20% of their WIA Adult slots for those already employed. 25% 

of the states allocated over 30% of their slots for those already employed with 

Florida allocating 85%. None of the 35 states met veterans’ priority of service. 

In only three states did the percent of total veterans exceed the percent of nonlow income non-veterans in a program Congress intended to address low income 

employment concerns. • PY ’09 WIA Adult was particularly disturbing in terms of providing services to 

veteran sub-populations with significant barriers to employment. If you remove 

from consideration the five states that co-enroll, in PY ’09 there were 197, 839 

non-low income non-vets exiting WIA Adult; the lowest priority group. There 

were only 1,295 service disabled veterans served in those states; approximately 

one for every three counties. In PY ’09, in the states without co-enrollment, 

there were 1,428 veterans recently separated in the Gulf War era who exited 

WIA. Contrast that to 60,199 non-low income non-veterans who already had 

jobs when they entered a program to help people find jobs. • The first quarter of the present WIA Adult program year is just as bad. In the 

46 non-co-enrollment states, there were 2,850 veterans exiting contrasted to 

29,521 non-low income non-vets (the lowest priority group). 61% of the Workforce Investment Areas exited nine or fewer veterans in the twelve week period. 

Only 36% exited more than nine veterans. 3% exited no veterans. 111 service 

disabled veterans exited nationally during the 1st quarter; roughly two per 

state in twelve weeks. Nothing looks any better during this program year. 

Required Federal Contractor Outreach Would Get Far More Veterans Into 

WIA Adult 

PL 107–288 (HR 4015) November 7, 2002 Jobs For Veterans Act 

2035 (a) (1) Any contract in the amount of $100,000 or more entered into by any 

department or agency of the United States for the procurement of personal property 

and non-personal services (including construction) for the United States, shall contain a provision requiring that the party contracting with the United States take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified covered veterans. 

This section applies to any subcontract in the amount of $100,000 or more entered 

into by a prime contractor in carrying out any such contract. 

The Jobs For Veterans Act Of 2002, reacting to several GAO studies, most notably 

in September 2001,critical of the Federal contractor program’s impact on One Stop 

life, for the first time formally gave a staff person in the One Stop employer relations responsibilities with an eye toward more closely integrating employers into 

One Stop life and linking LVERs with WIA for the purposes of facilitating priority 

of service: 

Expansion Of LVER Duties To Deal With Federal Contractors And WIA In 

Veterans 

‘‘(b) PRINCIPAL DUTIES.—As principal duties, local veterans’ employment representatives shall—— 

‘‘(1) conduct outreach to employers in the area to assist veterans in gaining employment, including conducting seminars for employers and, in conjunction with employers, conducting job search workshops and establishing job search groups; and 

‘‘(2) facilitate employment, training, and placement services furnished to veterans 

in a State under the applicable State employment service delivery systems. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER


73293.006
54 

DoL reiterated the importance of a strong employer relations outreach program 

in 20 CFR Part 1010 RIN 1293–AA15 Federal Register of December 19, 2008 when 

they state DoL funded employment and training programs should work with employers to ensure that the value a veteran brings to the table is understood and to address 

any concerns that employers may have about hiring veterans. 

The Office Of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) Has Defined What 

Veterans Affirmative Action In Hiring Means For Federal Contractors 

In the Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 152 /Wednesday, August 8, 2007 /Rules and 

Regulations, OFCCP formally defined Federal contractor responsibilities in providing affirmative action in hiring qualified veterans. They mandated active outreach not only with neighboring LVERs but also with many other entities as a term 

of maintaining compliance with their contract obligations. 

(1) The contractor should enlist the assistance and support of the following persons 

and organizations in recruiting, and developing on-the-job training opportunities 

(OJT) . . . to fulfill its commitment to provide meaningful employment opportunities 

to such veterans: 

(i) The Local Veterans’ Employment Representative in the local employment service 

office nearest the contractor’s establishment; 

(ii) The Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office nearest the contractor’s establishment; 

(iii) The veterans’ counselors and coordinators (‘‘Vet-Reps’’) on college campuses; 

(iv) The service officers of the national veterans’ groups active in the area of the 

contractor’s establishment; 

Federal contractors are not at all expected to be passive in their outreach to those 

serving veterans’ needs: 

(2) Formal briefing sessions should be held, preferably on company premises, with 

representatives from recruiting sources. Plant tours, clear and concise explanations 

of current and future job openings, position descriptions, worker specifications, explanations of the company’s selection process, and recruiting literature should be an integral part of the briefing. Formal arrangements should be made for referral of applicants, follow up with sources, and feedback on disposition of applicants. 

Federal Contractors Are An Under Tapped Resource In Every WIA Area In 

Every State 

There are Federal contractors contractually required to provide affirmative action 

in hiring to veterans in two thirds of the nation’s counties. They are far from a 

small handful of major defense contractors. In March 2011, there were over 57,000. 

Federal contractors are found in rural America, in small town America as well as 

large cities. They represent every industry with over one third found in manufacturing which is important for the legion of mid-life veterans displaced from lifelong 

careers in manufacturing. Contractors are a valuable vastly underutilized resource 

for veterans in search of work. Federal contractors should be providing the link between the LVERs and WIA enrollment of far more veterans since WIA enrolls those 

they believe might find work and having LVERs aggressively working their core of 

Federal contractors and local veteran owned businesses provides veterans the job 

leads that would make WIA comfortable making the enrollment decision. 

Conclusions 

There is no shortage of veterans showing up at WIA to enquire about services. 

Besides their own outreach efforts, the LVERs and DVOPs of the nation’s public 

Employment Service referred 129,855 veterans for WIA services during Program 

Year ‘09. 

There is no conspiracy in every part of the Nation to not serve veterans in WIA. 

It’s simply a matter of habit in a program which is judged by its performance standards. Staff select to enroll those that they have had success with in the past and 

they don’t have a familiarity with veterans. Linking the LVERs closely with WIA 

makes sense; targeting contractually obligated Federal contractors and veteran 

owned business to help WIA help veterans find work. 

Proposed 

A $4,000,000 Challenge Grant To The States To Integrate WIA/LVERs And CoEnroll Veterans 

State and local WIA will only come to the table and enroll many more veterans 

when there is an incentive to make changes. Were moral persuasion the deciding 

change factor, priority of service would have been achieved years and years ago. 

State Veteran Service Organizations will not only pass resolutions of support and 

appear before the State Council. They will also lend a hand in the employer outreach effort. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

55 

$40,000 Private Sector Grant To Strengthen WIA Intensive For Veterans In The 

668 WIA Entities 

An innovative video/Internet based individualized job search workshop that integrates updated local Federal contractor information will be made available for free 

to all 668 WIA entities for use with LVER/DVOR coordinated workshops for co-enrolled veterans. Focusing on strengthening WIA Intensive provides a far less costly 

veteran participation experience for WIA entities. 

A $55,000 DoL Contract To Provide Enhanced Contract Information To LVERs/ 

DVORs And WIA 

The Department of Labor will partner with the existing system for providing Federal contract information to bring the presentation online in a password protected 

environment. Central Contract Registry data will be integrated to allow LVERs access to the name and phone numbers of Contract contacts to make their outreach 

far more time effective. 

DoL Veterans Employment And Training Will Revise The VETS–100 Form For 

Federal Contractors 

The Department of Labor will simplify the annual required VETS -100 form for 

Federal contractors. To facilitate employer compliance with the OFCCP required 

outreach requirement, the revised form will require the signature of an LVER for 

submission as well as the signature and contact information for the person responsible for the business’ veterans affirmative action policy. 

States Will Be Allowed To Consider Veterans As An Acceptable Category For UC 

Profiling 

Since co-enrollment of claimants who are veterans would be encouraged and there 

would be additional targeted resources available in WIA Incentive for veterans provided by a private grant, veterans could be considered as a target population should 

states wish to do so. States would additionally be strongly encouraged to adopt the 

Wisconsin model and automate their UC systems to automatically WOTC pre-certify 

all UCX claimants on the fifth week of their claim as they will have met the requirements for the tax credit that week. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Ryan M. Gallucci 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

On behalf of the more than 2 million men and women of the Veterans of Foreign 

Wars of the U.S. (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on today’s pending legislation. With the conflict in Iraq drawing to 

a close, withdrawal from Afghanistan on the horizon, and proposals to scale back 

our nation’s active duty military, the VFW believes economic opportunity for today’s 

war-fighters is a national imperative that continues to demand the kind of decisive 

action we saw with last year’s passage of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. Recent unemployment numbers indicate that veterans of the current conflicts remain unemployed at a higher rate than their civilian counterparts, with young veterans and 

female veterans experiencing unemployment rates well over twice the national average. The VFW is happy to see that this Subcommittee continues to take this situation seriously, and we are honored to share our thoughts on today’s bills in an effort 

to ensure our veterans have the opportunities they have earned to succeed in a cutthroat economy after leaving military service. 

H.R. 3329, to amend title 38 United States Code, to extend the eligibility 

period for veterans to enroll in certain vocational rehabilitation programs: 

The VFW believes that our Nation has an obligation to ensure that our serviceconnected disabled veterans are employable, and this obligation has no expiration 

date. Unfortunately, today’s service-connected disabled veterans are relegated to a 

12-year window in which to receive vocational rehabilitation, or Voc Rehab, services. 

The VFW continues to believe that this delimiting date for Voc Rehab services is 

unacceptable and we will continue to advocate for Vocational Rehabilitation for Life. 

If our nation’s recent economic downturn has taught us anything it is that industries constantly evolve. Job descriptions can alter drastically and some jobs can go 

away altogether, which is why service-disabled veterans must always have access 

to the training and career counseling services available through Voc Rehab. The 

VFW is proud to support H.R. 3329, as it extends the current delimiting date on 

Voc Rehab to 15 years. However, our organization believes that this delimiting date 

must ultimately be eliminated altogether. 

H.R. 3483, Veterans Education Equity Act of 2012: 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

56 

In 2008, the VFW played a key role in securing the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, offering 

unprecedented educational opportunities for today’s veterans. The purpose of the 

Post-9/11 G.I. Bill was simple: Offer a free public education for those who served 

after 9/11. Unfortunately, since the bill was designed to reimburse student-veterans 

at the cost of an in-state public education, student-veterans who chose to attend private schools were subject to wildly disparate reimbursement rates for their academic 

programs based on geography. In an effort to offer an equitable benefit for studentveterans who wished to attend private schools, Congress established a reimbursement cap of $17,500 regardless of the state in which the program was administered. 

Unfortunately, the $17,500 cap only applies to students-veterans who enroll at private colleges and universities, meaning student-veterans attending public schools 

are still only entitled to receive the highest in-state tuition and fee payments, regardless of whether or not they meet residency requirements for the state. As a result, many student-veterans who do not qualify for in-state tuition face significant 

out-of-pocket costs to attend the public school of their choice, unlike their counterparts whose education at a private school may nearly be fully financed. According 

to the Congressional Budget Office, this inequity affects 25,000–35,000 veterans 

each year; veterans who may not have been able to satisfy residency requirements 

due to the rigors of military life. H.R. 3483 will extend the $17,500 reimbursement 

cap for non-resident public school student-veterans, and the VFW is proud to support this bill. H.R. 3483 will ensure equitable reimbursement rates for all studentveterans regardless of the academic program they choose, as we intended. 

H.R. 3610, Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011: 

The ‘‘Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011’’ is an attempt 

to reduce bureaucracy and increase accountability across all federally-funded state 

workforce investments. For the purpose of this hearing, I will limit my comments 

to the sections that directly impact programs for military veterans. 

Currently 27 workforce initiatives receive Federal funding, including Chapters 20 

and 41 of title 38 and Chapter 11 of title 10. These three programs provide funding 

for the Department of Labor Veterans Employment and Training Program 

(DoLVETS), which funds the operations of the disabled veterans outreach program 

(DVOP) specialists and local veterans’ employment representatives (LVER), the 

homeless veterans reintegration programs, and military transition assistance program (TAP). The VFW is concerned with how the bill affects the implementation 

of these programs. The current veteran workforce program is not perfect, but it already supports an infrastructure to train workforce employees, provides employment 

outreach and training to veterans in local communities, offers $36 million in homeless veterans transitional housing grants, and provides resources for 

servicemembers to transition from military service to civilian life. H.R. 3610 seeks 

to effectively terminate these specific programs, leaving it to the discretion of the 

states to carry out veterans’ employment and transition services on an ad-hoc basis. 

At a time when veteran unemployment is disproportionately high, tens of thousands of servicemembers are scheduled to leave military service, and veteran homelessness appears to be in decline, the VFW believes that ending these programs to 

reproduce them at a state level will be detrimental to the veterans who rely on the 

services. Unlike other workforce investment programs, Department of Labor’s veteran-specific systems have strict annual reporting mandates, and frequent audits 

have demonstrated that the programs are cost effective in their current form. Not 

only will H.R. 3610 appropriate equal funding for fewer veteran services, but the 

bill will also reduce oversight of the quality and reporting of employment trends by 

requiring reports only every four years. The VFW opposes H.R. 3610 and encourages 

the Committee to take the appropriate steps to preserve veterans’ workforce development programs, which we will continue to discuss with H.R. 4072. 

H.R. 3670, to require the Transportation Security Administration to comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act: 

Currently, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

(USERRA) protects members of the National Guard and Reserve from employment 

discrimination based on military service obligations. Over the past decade, USERRA 

has become vitally important to our nations Reserve forces. Without it, regular deployments, both stateside and abroad, would greatly exacerbate unemployment 

problems for our Reserve Component servicemembers, who already face significant 

disadvantages in a competitive job market as a result of increased operational 

tempo. USERRA helps ensure that members of the Guard and Reserve who are 

called to active duty can return to their civilian jobs and their seniority when they 

return from military service. Today, USERRA protects all civilian and Federal employees with the exception of one Federal employer, the Transportation Security AdVACREP180 with DISTILLER

57 

ministration (TSA). In an effort to quickly stand up a new and effective law enforcement agency to ensure security after 9/11, Congress created TSA with a specific exemption from traditional employment protections, including USERRA, for its employees. More than a decade later, TSA is still not required to hold positions and 

promotions for employees who are called away to serve. The VFW believes it is time 

for this loophole to be closed. The Reserve Component employees at TSA must receive the employment and reemployment rights they have earned, and TSA should 

come into compliance with the rest of the Federal government. Closing this loophole 

is not only beneficial for our servicemembers, but the VFW believes the TSA will 

also benefit by offering our military’s best and brightest the opportunity to pursue 

a meaningful civilian career without the persistent threat of possible termination for 

service obligations. In discussions with TSA, officials have not indicated this change 

will have any adverse effects on security, so closing the loophole would not impact 

TSA’s effectiveness in the field; it would simply offer Reserve Component employees 

the piece-of-mind they deserve. It is our hope that the passing of this legislation will 

send a clear message that veteran employment is an extremely important issue, and 

the Federal government must take a leadership role in its promotion. We thank the 

Committee for taking the lead on this initiative and offer the support of the VFW 

for H.R. 3670. 

H.R. 3524, Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act: 

The VFW supports H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act, 

but also has concerns about potential effects on the businesses and corporations that 

we are encouraging to employ veterans. 

The legislation guarantees that a veteran who must be absent from work to receive medical treatment for a service-connected disability cannot be terminated from 

their job because they are seeking such medical attention. The VFW fully supports 

affording veterans employment protections as they receive care in conjunction with 

an injury incurred through their military service. Such protections are critical to 

helping veterans be productive in the workforce. 

This legislation outlines a limitation of 12 workweeks during any 12 month period, and we understand that questions have been raised about the necessity for a 

protection that covers a full week per month. Though the perils of a life of military 

service often cause veterans to need regular visits as they work to overcome the visible and invisible wounds of war, we must achieve a balance that does not jeopardize 

the career potential of a veteran seeking medical treatment. Potential employers are 

cognizant of the struggles a veteran faces, and they often are willing to make limited sacrifices to employ a veteran. Over the years, the VFW has worked with companies to promote veteran entrepreneurship and employment. Congress must do everything in its power to ensure veterans have every career opportunity, and that 

effort must focus on eliminating unnecessary hardships veterans encounter while 

seeking care. 

To help ensure the partnership between veterans and employers is an enduring 

one, and to provide the best possible care while minimizing interference in the career endeavors of our disabled veterans, we strongly believe VA must reform their 

medical care appointment practices and procedures with an emphasis on efficiency 

for the veteran. VA must do much more to ensure timely access to high-quality and 

efficient care. Among other things, we believe VA must prioritize the consecutive 

scheduling of appointments, must begin open access scheduling and provide expanded hours for appointments, and must put in place measures to prevent the 

need to reschedule an existing appointment. We understand that VA aims to alleviate these concerns through the Patient-Aligned Care Team model of care, and we 

fully support these and other efforts to streamline the impact of a veteran’s care 

regimen at VA on their daily lives. 

Veterans who have earned the right to receive care at VA must not be punished 

in the workplace as a result; yet these protections are critical to prevent medical 

conditions from being used as a precursor to termination from employment. Such 

practices must be eliminated wherever they are found, and this added protection is 

a welcome change for veterans. Veterans want to be productive members of society, 

and providing the tools and opportunities to that end must always be a top priority. 

H.R. 4048, Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned 

Small Businesses Act of 2012: 

H.R. 4048 clarifies provisions of the Veterans First Contracting Program (P.L. 

109–461) as it pertains to contracts awarded through the Federal Supply Schedule 

(FSS) for the purpose of meeting the percentage goal for contracting with ServiceDisabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), and the VFW is proud to 

support this bill. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

58 

Sections 502 and 503 of P.L. 109–461 authorized a set of special contracting tools 

that make it easier for contracting officers to offer contracts to SDVOSBs. These 

tools include a statement of priorities relative to other set-aside groups, such as 8(a), 

as well as dollar thresholds for certain type of procurement actions such as sole 

source contracts. It also provides continuation of veteran-owned status for surviving 

spouses of 100-percent service disabled veteran owners for a period of 10 years. 

Past VA statements regarding the application of the small business provisions is 

P.L. 109–461, now codified in title 38 U.S.C. Section 8127, have created confusion 

regarding FSS purchases, leading VA to the perception that they must first satisfy 

other contracting set-aside mandates before seeking out SDVOSBs for FSS contracts. VA has even admitted that under certain circumstances, SDVOSBs seemed 

to be last in line to receive FSS work. The VFW believes that veterans should come 

first, as outlined in P.L. 109–461. H.R. 4048 would simply clarify that the small 

business provisions of Section 8127 apply to FSS purchases and do not expand the 

original intent of the law. By law, all Federal agencies have a goal to award at least 

three percent of their contracts to SDVOSBS. We understand that VA awarded 

nearly $450 million last year to SDVOSBs through the Federal Supply Schedules 

and we believe this clarification will encourage SDVOSBs to qualify for VA procurements through the FSS, and ensure all government agencies play by the same rules 

with regard to veteran set-aside contracts. 

H.R. 4051, TAP Modernization Act of 2012: 

As the debate on whether or not to mandate participation in the military’s transition assistance program (TAP) unfolded, the VFW learned that many 

servicemembers on active duty failed to understand why they would need to participate in the program. However, once servicemembers left the military, many wondered why they never received comprehensive training and information on how to 

access their earned benefits and successfully transition from military to civilian life. 

Unfortunately, a veteran has no way to reasonably anticipate all of the challenges 

he or she may face once out of the military, which is why the VFW believes TAP 

resources must be available to veterans after they have transitioned off of active 

duty. The VFW supports H.R. 4051 and its pilot program to offer off-base TAP to 

communities where veterans have been hit disproportionately hard by difficult economic times. 

H.R. 4052, Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2012: 

The VFW supports the idea behind this bill, but has some concerns about the 

bill’s specific criteria for the Secretary to determine Excellence in Veterans Education Awards. The VFW believes that VA would be interested in offering this kind 

of rating to schools that consistently go above and beyond to best meet the needs 

of their student-veterans, and we support offering this kind of easy-to-understand 

evaluation for student-veterans. The difficulty is determining quality criteria with 

which to evaluate institutions. The VFW believes student-veteran advisory boards, 

student-veteran services, and additional criteria determined by VA are good criteria. 

However, we are concerned that membership in Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) and graduation rates would not effectively capture whether or not a 

school serves the needs of its student-veterans. Graduation rates are a flawed statistic as currently compiled by Department of Education since the department only 

tracks first-time, full-time college attendees. The VFW believes today’s graduation 

statistics are nearly irrelevant for non-traditional students like student-veterans 

and could skew decisions when used to evaluate how schools best serve their student-veterans. The VFW recommends instead that VA evaluate schools on a ratio 

of degrees conferred compared to enrollment each year. Discussions with the National Center on Education Statistics indicate that schools must already report these 

data points to the Department of Education, meaning the data should be readily 

available. 

SOC membership poses the perpetual question about universal acceptance of credits and reduced residency policies. The VFW wholly supports the mission of SOC 

and we encourage schools to sign on, but we understand that some colleges and universities must reserve the right to evaluate transferred credits on a case-by-case 

basis, only award credit where appropriate, and hold fast to reasonable residency 

requirements for all students. The VFW would support criteria that a school is either a member of SOC or offers a clear policy on evaluating and accepting military 

college credits. Two examples of non-SOC schools that have excellent track records 

in serving today’s veterans are Georgetown University and Columbia University. 

Both schools have dedicated considerable resources to attracting veterans to their 

campuses and offering the tools they would need to succeed. The VFW would need 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

59 

assurances that VA would not preclude schools like Georgetown and Columbia from 

recognition solely for failing to participate in SOC. 

The VFW also has questions over how VA will evaluate Yellow Ribbon participation. For example, many state schools do not necessarily need to sign Yellow Ribbon 

agreements since their enrollment policies already ensure that student-veteran costs 

are completely reimbursed through the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. For example, my alma 

mater, the University of Rhode Island (URI), is not a Yellow Ribbon participant, but 

Chapter 33 already covers the full cost of education. The VFW would need assurances that schools like URI, which have instituted proactive policies to best meet 

the financial needs of student-veterans, would not be penalized for non-participation 

in Yellow Ribbon. 

Finally, the VFW has questions over how many schools VA could recognize and 

whether VA should establish a reasonable threshold for its schools of excellence. We 

agree with the three-year evaluation model, but caution that recognizing too many 

schools could only lead to further confusion for student-veterans when choosing an 

academic program. The VFW suggests limiting the awards to one school from each 

of the following categories in each state: Public, 4-year; public, 2-year; private, nonprofit; proprietary. The VFW would also suggest that VA develop a ‘‘Top 10’’ list for 

schools in each of these categories nationwide. 

H.R. 4057, Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2012: 

Last year, a Senate investigation spearheaded by Sen. Tom Harkin (D–IA) indicated that veterans may not be receiving the quality education we had intended 

through the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. The VFW believes this investigation caught the attention of deficit hawks on Capitol Hill, who subsequently asked the Congressional 

Budget Office to score several scenarios on how to scale back the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill 

benefit. The VFW believes this is the wrong approach. The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill stands 

to be a transformative benefit for today’s veterans. The VFW believes it has the potential to mold our nation’s next Greatest Generation of leaders, and any efforts to 

scale back the benefit are a disservice to the men and women who have fought in 

defense of our Nation for the last decade. With this in mind, the VFW sought to 

understand why numbers seemed to indicate that proven battlefield leaders were 

making potentially bad decisions on how to use their education benefits. The VFW 

discovered a critical gap in VA’s efforts to provide quality information to potential 

student-veterans with which they could make an informed, data-driven educational 

decision. When we prepare our troops to go to war, we ensure they have the best 

possible training to make life or death decisions in a moment’s notice. When we prepare our veterans for college, the VFW believes we must offer the same due diligence in preparing them to choose a quality school. 

Since VA implemented the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, the department has primarily focused on ensuring student-veterans receive timely, accurate payments to finance an 

education. The VFW agrees that this had to be VA’s top priority for the fledgling 

benefit. Unfortunately, as more and more veterans sought to take advantage of their 

earned educational opportunities, VA was left without the proper resources to ensure that veterans knew how best to use their benefits. Under Section 3697A of title 

38, VA is obligated to offer educational and career counseling to any separating 

servicemember or G.I. Bill eligible veteran. Unfortunately, this counseling is only 

offered through a meticulous ‘‘opt-in’’ process, and total available counseling is 

capped at $6 million each year. In 2011, the VA proudly touted that nearly 1 million 

veterans were enrolled in G.I. Bill programs. However, during the same year, only 

6,400 veterans received counseling on their benefits through Section 3697A. 

The VFW believes that Congress must remove the cap to VA’s educational counseling and mandate that VA contact veterans at different touch points prior to utilizing their educational benefits in an effort to deliver this counseling. Veterans who 

do not wish to receive educational counseling must still have the option to refuse 

it, but the VFW believes that creating an ‘‘opt-out’’ system ensures that all potential 

student-veterans understand their benefit and understand the importance of their 

educational choice. 

Unfortunately, even with robust consumer education, student-veterans may still 

become the victims of fraud, waste, or abuse. Veterans may be coerced into choosing 

an academic program of little value to their career aspirations based on misinformation or dubious enrollment practices. If a veteran feels he or she has been a victim 

of fraud, waste or abuse, VA must offer a clear method of reporting and recourse 

through which to track student-veteran complaints. VA must then leverage the information gleaned from these complaints to find remedies for students by working 

with State Approving Agencies, accrediting bodies, the departments of Education, 

Justice and Defense, and all other pertinent stakeholders. If a veteran receives an 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

60 

overpayment in education benefits or files a fraudulent benefits claim, VA has the 

ability to quickly take action against the veteran. VA must have the same capability 

to protect its beneficiaries against schools that fail to deliver on their educational 

promises. 

The VFW proudly supports H.R. 4057, which offers a critical first step in ensuring 

that student-veterans are properly informed about their benefits and have proper 

recourse for fraud, waste and abuse. However, in addition to creating Section 3698 

in title 38, the VFW wants to see Section 3697A amended to ensure that VA must 

contact veterans prior to delivering G.I. Bill benefits, ensuring they can ‘‘opt-out’’ 

of counseling. The VFW believes that VA is already taking proactive steps to ensure 

current service-members receive this kind of information through the transition assistance program (TAP) and that veterans who apply for G.I. Bill benefits are exposed to critical information before tapping into their benefits. We applaud these 

steps, but would prefer a legislative solution to ensure that policies remain consistent beyond VA’s current administration. World War II veteran and G.I. Bill success story Sen. Frank Lautenberg will introduce legislation with many of these ideas 

to help improve consumer education and consumer protection for student-veterans. 

We encourage the Subcommittee to work with the Senator and his staff to discuss 

how to best implement the kinds of protections we know our veterans need. 

Since the original G.I. Bill of World War II, our Nation has seen time and again 

that educating our veterans helps ensure future prosperity. We have a unique opportunity today to ensure that our veterans can use the benefits they have earned 

to receive the quality education we have promised to them. The VFW looks forward 

to working with the Subcommittee on H.R. 4057 and other pieces of legislation to 

ensure that we keep our promise. 

H.R. 4072, Consolidating Veteran Employment Service for Improved Performance Act of 2012: 

H.R. 4072 will protect veterans’ workforce programs by moving the agency authority from Department of Labor to Department of Veterans Affairs. The VFW supports 

this bill, believing that placing all veteran issues under a single authority will improve oversight and efficiency. 

However, the VFW has concerns regarding implementation of H.R. 4072 should 

it become law by itself or in conjunction with H.R. 3610. First, the VFW requests 

that Congress gives clarity in scope of the jurisdictional shift by including Section 

1144 of title 10, the TAP program, in Section 2, paragraph (a) of H.R. 4072, as well 

as including conforming amendments that will affect title 10. Also, if DVOP and 

LVER positions are consolidated, as recommended in H.R. 4072, National Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service Institute must be modified to ensure that all current and future employees are fully trained to the new standard. The VFW must 

also have assurances that no positions will be lost in combining the two job descriptions into one. Congress must also pay attention to H.R. 3610 to ensure that if both 

bills are enacted that H.R. 4072 is amended to prevent the defunding of the DoL– 

VETS workforce investment programs. 

The VFW believes that shifting responsibility for veterans’ employment programs 

to VA will ultimately ensure better service for our nation’s veterans. However, we 

must ensure that any legislation that passes ensures that veterans’ workforce programs remain fully funded, and that any transition of authority happens with minimal interruptions for both the veterans who rely on DoL–VETS services and the 

highly-trained employees who deliver those services. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee 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 2012, nor has it received any Federal grants in 

the two previous Fiscal Years. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Steve L. Gonzalez 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the 2.4 million members of The American Legion I thank you for this 

opportunity to submit The American Legion’s views on the legislation being considered by the Subcommittee today. We appreciate the efforts of this Subcommittee to 

address the different needs of the men and women who are currently serving and 

those who served during past conflicts. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

61 

H.R. 3329 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the eligibility period for veterans 

to enroll in certain vocational rehabilitation programs. 

The number of servicemembers, National Guard, and reservists who separate 

from active duty with service-connected disabilities has risen as a result of the engagement of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The program’s purpose 

is to counsel and rehabilitate veterans, with an emphasis on employment and independent living. The program provides comprehensive services and assistance to enable veterans with service-connected disabilities and employment handicaps to 

achieve maximum independence in daily living, to become employable, and to obtain 

and maintain suitable employment. 

However, the period of eligibility for VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) benefits is 12 years from the date of separation from the military or 

the date the veteran was first notified by VA of a service-connected disability rating. 

Many servicemembers and veterans do not understand their eligibility to VR&E 

services and the benefits of the program until later in life when they become so disabled that their disabilities create an employment barrier and, by, changing section 

3103 of title 38, United States Code, veterans will be given ample opportunity to 

pursue these benefits in a reasonable time frame. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 3483: Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide equity for tuition and fees for 

individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs who are pursuing programs 

of education at institutions of higher learning, and for other purposes. 

Currently, the Post 9–11 Veterans’ Educational Improvements Assistance Act 

capped the education benefit amount for veterans who enroll in private schools at 

$17,500 and limited the education benefit for those who enroll in public schools to 

the amount charged for resident tuition and fees. The Veterans’ Education Equity 

Act of 2011 would remedy this inequality and allow all veterans to receive up to 

$17,500 in education benefits. However, if in-state tuition exceeds $17,500, the bill 

would cover the full cost of tuition. 

The current law unintentionally burdens a significant number of America’s 

servicemembers and veterans, requiring them to pay out-of-pocket thousands of dollars in nonresidential tuition rates. This legislation is absolutely essential to thousands of veterans who were promised funding for their college education. Already 

numerous veterans have had to drop out, transfer, or assume tremendous financial 

burdens due to the recent change in law. This legislation is vital to give all veterans 

an equal opportunity to afford the school of their choice. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 3610: Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011 

The Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011 (H.R. 3610), aims 

to consolidate and streamline redundant and ineffective Federal workforce development programs to increase accountability, reduce administrative bureaucracies and 

put Americans back to work. The legislation consolidates 33 programs into 4 funding streams or Workforce Investment Funds and, is as follows: 

• A Workforce Investment Fund, which would provide formula funding to states 

for job training services to adults, unemployed workers, and youth seeking employment. The bill authorizes $4.3 billion annually for fiscal years (FYs) 2013– 

2018; 

• A State Youth Workforce Investment Fund, which would provide formula funds 

to states to serve the nation’s disadvantaged youth, with a focus on school completion. The bill authorizes $1.9 billion annually for FYs 2013–2018; 

• A Targeted Populations Workforce Investment Fund, which would provide formula funds to states for assistance to special populations, including Native 

Americans and migrant and seasonal farm workers. The bill authorizes $581 

million annually for FYs 2013–2018; and 

• A Veterans Workforce Investment Fund, which would provide formula funds to 

states for employment and training services to U.S. veterans. The bill authorizes $218 million annually for FYs 2013–2018. 

In comparison to the other three investment funds, the Veterans Workforce Investment Fund will be underfunded, ill-equipped, and a disservice to America’s 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

62 

servicemembers and veterans utilizing this program to reenter the workforce. Even 

though the key provision of this legislation is to address the overlapping programs 

provided by the Federal government, it does little, if anything, to address the differences in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery to their respective clients, in 

this case, America’s veterans. 

The American Legion opposes this bill. 

H.R. 3670 

To require the Transportation Security Administration to comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) became law in 1994 in an effort to protect military reservists’ civilian employment 

when they are called on to serve the Nation in a full-time capacity. In the Post-9/ 

11 era, operation tempos have increased dramatically, and reserve forces, to include 

the National Guard, have been called on regularly to serve both at home and abroad 

as an operational force. USERRA is designed to protect the employment of these 

servicemembers as they serve by requiring employers to retain the positions of reservists who have been called to active duty. However, due to a loophole in the law, 

there is one employer who is exempt from these provisions: the United States 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA). 

As an agency of the United States government, TSA has a responsibility to fully 

comply with the law, and, according to USERRA, to be a ‘‘model employer’’ in the 

protection of employment and reemployment rights of our nation’s veterans and Reservists. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 3524 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide certain rights for persons who 

receive treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities incurred in or aggravated by 

service in the uniformed services, and for other purposes. 

During the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, more veterans are returning to the 

United States with disabilities such as traumatic brain injury and Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder, or PTSD. While people with these disabilities do not necessarily 

show physical signs of injury, these conditions are still considered disabilities under 

the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60. The WLAD also 

prohibits discrimination based on disability. 

Reemployment rights have been a source of struggle between employers and returning servicemembers for a long time. The House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

often hears about veterans’ struggling to obtain employment. But for those who do 

have a job and are deployed, they often return to find themselves unemployed. 

Anecdotally, the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs has been informed that employers don’t want to deal with deployments, have spent time and resources training 

temporary staff, and may not want to reemploy the servicemember for other reasons; USERRA enforcement helps alleviate these concerns. 

Veterans and military personnel face a number of issues when returning to civilian life. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 

(USERRA) is a Federal law designed to protect military personnel with respect to 

their civilian careers. Specifically, the Act intends to ensure that military personnel 

(1) are not disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their military service; 

(2) are promptly reemployed in their civilian jobs upon their return from military 

duty; and (3) are not discriminated against in employment based on past, present, 

or future military service. 

However, USERRA does not require employers to allow veterans with service-connected disabilities to be absent from the workplace to receive treatment for their 

disabilities and therefore may often be the target of employment discrimination. 

There is a need to clarify and strengthen USERRA to require employers to accommodate the absences of service-connected veterans for medical services. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 4048: Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned Small 

Businesses Act of 2012 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the contracting goals and preference of the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to small business concerns 

owned and controlled by veterans. 

America has benefited immeasurably from the service of its 22 million living veterans, who have made great sacrifices in the defense of freedom, preservation of deVACREP180 with DISTILLER

63 

1http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24 

2Survey of Business Owners – Veteran-Owned Firms: 2007. U.S. Census Bureau. http:// 

www.census.gov/econ/sbo/get07sof.html?17 

mocracy, and the protection of the free enterprise system. Due to the experience veteran’s gain in the military, the success rate of veteran-owned businesses is higher 

than non-veteran-owned businesses. The current Global War on Terror has had a 

devastating impact on the Armed Forces and has exacerbated this country’s veterans’ unemployment problem, especially within the National Guard and Reserve 

components. According to the most current Federal data available, veterans owned 

2.4 million businesses. Another 1.2 million firms were at least 50 percent veteran 

owned 1 within the fifty states and District of Columbia. According to this survey, 

veteran-owned and co-owned firms accounted for 13.5 percent of all non-farm businesses in the United States, employed 11 million people (4.9 percent of total U.S. 

employment) and generated $1.655 trillion in receipts. 2

The barriers to entry for small businesses are numerous: weak policies and rules 

that limit the effectiveness of tools that are supposed to facilitate contracting opportunities; inadequate workforce training to help contracting officers, small business 

advocates, and program offices to successfully use contracting tools; and a lack of 

coordination among and accessibility to agency training and outreach events designed to help small businesses navigate the contracting system. Action must be 

taken to remove these barriers and ensure small businesses get access to Federal 

contracts. The American Legion fully understands and support Title 38 section 8127 

and 8128 does not automatically award VA government contracts to SDVOSB / 

VOSB; however, when qualified SDVOSB / VOSB are being overlooked or ignored 

by the VA this is cause for great concern. 

VA and SBA should develop a comprehensive partnership to assist veterans who 

are interested in participating in Federal procurement, with each department utilizing their resources to ensure proper implementation. As interpreted by Federal 

Court, the VA is mandated by law to purchase all products and services from 

SDVOSB / VOSB as mandated by the Veteran First law, as long as those SDVOSB 

/ VOSB meet both the legal and contract requirements. Any regulations, policies, 

and procedures disseminated by the VA that deny SDVOSB / VOSB their contracting preference and priority as defined by the United States Court of Federal 

Claims is a violation of law. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 4051: TAP Modernization Act of 2012 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to provide off-base transition training, and for 

other purposes. 

Unfortunately, many of the thousands of servicemembers who are currently leaving the service are from combat arms and non-skilled military specialties. These 

military acquired skills are not readily transferable to the civilian labor market. 

However, these individuals do possess significant skills in the areas of leadership, 

strategic planning, risk assessment, and management. These are skills that any employer would find beneficial to accomplishing their organizational goals. 

Annually, the Department of Defense (DoD) discharges approximately 160,000 

servicemembers. New delivery methods and innovative ways are needed to reach 

America’s servicemembers through the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). H.R. 

4051 allows for veterans and their spouses to be better informed on education, employment and business opportunities once they transition into the civilian workforce; 

as well as provide information on military occupations that require licenses, certificates, or other credentials at the local, state, or national levels. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 4052: Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2012 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to establish an honorary Excellence in Veterans Education Award. 

The American Legion has no position on this bill. 

H.R. 4057: Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act of 

2012 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to develop a comprehensive policy to improve outreach and transparency to veterans 

and members of the Armed Forces through the provision of information on institutions of higher learning, and for other purposes. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

64 

In 1945, The American Legion helped pave the way for affordable post-secondary 

education with the passage of the first GI Bill. In 2009, the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

brought a new era of assistance for a new generation of servicemembers and veterans to pay for post-secondary education. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill has changed the role of an institution in administering benefits. Tuition and fee benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill are paid directly to the 

post-secondary institution, while the monthly housing allowance, books and supplies 

stipend, and rural relocation payment are paid directly to the student by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA determines student eligibility and works 

with the School Certifying Official (SCO) at each post-secondary institution to have 

the student’s enrollment certified and administer benefits. Because the tuition and 

fee portion of the benefit is paid directly to the post-secondary institution, institutions have the information necessary to identify Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries. 

Since the Post-9/11 GI Bill went into effect in August 2009, there has been dramatic growth in both the number of beneficiaries and benefits payments under the 

program. In fiscal year 2010, over $5 billion in education benefits were expended 

for the Post-9/11 GI Bill alone. An additional $3 billion supported the other remaining education benefit programs administered by the VA. The increase in beneficiaries and Federal dollars expended has led to demand for more information for: 

(1) veterans and military servicemembers looking to use their educational benefits; 

and (2) policymakers to assess the effectiveness of benefits programs and return on 

investment. 

Currently, there are some data collection mediums in its infancy stages (e.g., 

Scorecard); while there are others who have done extremely well at data collection 

(e.g., College Navigator and College Portrait) who has been able to capture total estimated costs; student demographics; student success and progress; and educational 

outcomes; allowing you to be an informed consumer when choosing your post-secondary institution. Contrary to popular belief, transparency is not a vile word, but 

rather a word and action that will provide enough information that the decision 

maker(s) can mitigate the adverse effect of potential decisions, in this case, choosing 

the appropriate post-secondary institution. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

H.R. 4072: Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved Performance 

Act of 2012 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve employment services for veterans 

by consolidating various programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for 

other purposes. 

Many of the benefits and services provided to the men and women now leaving 

active duty are rooted in programs and organizations established in the closing days 

of World War II, more than half a century ago. Since that time, profound changes 

have occurred in the Nation and the armed services and in the individuals who 

served in uniform. Our country’s economic and social environments have changed 

dramatically; however, the policy and operational direction governing the provision 

of employment services to veterans remain from an earlier era. Service members 

and veterans’ employment services, as they are now constituted, organized, and delivered, will not be adequate or effective for helping servicemembers and veterans 

find jobs in the 21st century. 

If priority of service is intended to enhance a veteran’s probability of securing civilian employment as he/she transitions from the military, then the emphasis must 

be placed on priority for delivering services at the time of transition. 

The American Legion supports placing all DoL–VETS programs dedicated to serving veterans under Department of Veteran Affairs; in turn, increasing the coordination between the various education, rehabilitation and employment programs whose 

goals are to enable veterans to successfully compete in the workforce. Veterans’ employment services need to be totally reengineered to meet the new reality of a highly 

automated, integrated, and customer-focused environment. Components of Federal 

programs must be better integrated and consolidated to better serve transitioning 

veterans, as well as those dealing with disabilities or facing employment barriers. 

Furthermore, The American Legion finds that divided responsibility for employment 

assistance of veterans leaves neither DoL nor VA fully and completely accountable 

because neither has ultimate control over program success or failure. As such, veterans will be served better if DoL–VETS were placed under the management of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

65 

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. 

Executive Summary 

The American Legion supports H.R. 3329. The American Legion believes 

servicemembers and veterans do not understand their eligibility to VR&E services 

and the benefits of the program until later in life when they become so disabled that 

their disabilities create an employment barrier and, by, changing section 3103 of 

title 38, United States Code, veterans will be given ample opportunity to pursue 

these benefits in a reasonable time frame. The American Legion supports H.R. 3483. 

The American Legion believes the current law unintentionally burdens a significant 

number of America’s servicemembers and veterans, requiring them to pay out-ofpocket thousands of dollars in nonresidential tuition rates. This legislation is absolutely essential to thousands of veterans who were promised funding for their college education. The American Legion opposes H.R. 3610. Key provision of this legislation is to address the overlapping programs provided by the Federal government 

to veterans; however, it does little, if anything, to address the differences in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery to their respective clients, in this case, America’s veterans. 

The American Legion supports H.R. 3670. The American Legion believes as an 

agency of the United States government, TSA has a responsibility to fully comply 

with the law, and, according to USERRA, to be a ‘‘model employer’’ in the protection 

of employment and reemployment rights of our nation’s veterans and Reservists. 

The American Legion supports H.R. 3524. The American Legion believes there is 

a need to clarify and strengthen USERRA to require employers to accommodate the 

absences of service-connected veterans for medical services. The American Legion 

supports H.R. 4048. The American Legion believes any regulations, policies, and 

procedures disseminated by the VA that deny SDVOSB / VOSB their contracting 

preference and priority as defined by the United States Court of Federal Claims is 

a violation of law; furthermore, enforcement of the rule of law is vital to Department 

of Veterans Affairs compliance. The American Legion supports H.R. 4051. The 

American Legion believes H.R. 4051 allows for veterans and their spouses to be better informed on education, employment and business opportunities once they transition into the civilian workforce; as well as provide information on military occupations that require licenses, certificates, or other credentials at the local, state, or national levels. 

The American Legion has no position on H.R. 4052. The American Legion supports H.R. 4057. The American Legion believes that transparency which provides 

enough information to the decision maker(s) to allow servicemembers and veterans 

to make fully-informed decisions about institutions of higher learning can help to 

mitigate some of the issues associated with this choice, and help to ensure that their 

choice which is in line with their goals and objectives. The American Legion supports H.R. 4072. The American Legion supports placing all DoL–VETS programs 

dedicated to serving veterans under Department of Veteran Affairs; in turn, increasing the coordination between the various education, rehabilitation and employment 

programs whose goals are to enable veterans to successfully compete in the workforce. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

66 

Prepared Statement of Jason R. Thigpen 

Distinguished Committee members – My name is Sergeant Jason R. Thigpen of 

the U.S. Army National Guard. I am the Co-Founder and President of the Student 

Veterans Advocacy Group. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify here 

today, on a bill we helped draft, HR 3483 – ‘‘The Veterans Education Equity Act of 

2011’’. 

The Student Veterans Advocacy Group is an organization run by student Veterans, for student Veterans and their dependents. Our mission is to ensure all Veterans, and/or their dependents, are provided the full educational benefits intended 

and promised to them upon the completion of their time-in-service, under conditions 

other than a dishonorable discharge. 

The detrimental impact suffered by student Veterans across North Carolina, and 

approximately 40 other states, due to the change in Federal law, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–377) on January 4, 2011. 

As a direct result of this change in law thousands of student Veterans, and prospective student Veterans alike, faced the never-before issue of in-state residency for tuition purposes. 

In a sense, our active-servicemembers and current student Veterans whom, byin-large, had no idea their State of residency for tuition purposes would invariably 

be the determining factor as to whether they could afford, much less, attain the educational benefits promised to them - for the sacrifices they made to protect our nation. 

One student Veteran emailed stating, 

‘‘After proudly serving my country for more time deployed than home with my family, while losing friends in Iraq, and then moving my family to North Carolina for 

a better tomorrow . . . it’s just not fair for my country to take the education benefits 

from me, leaving me to have to move my family back to Washington and in with our 

family just so I could afford to pay the $10,000 out of my pocket, for something promised to me of which I sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears for. It’s just not right. This 

is not the kind of principles I was taught from my time in service.’’ 

As student Veterans attending UNC–Wilmington, as supporters for both our active-servicemembers and Veterans, and as disabled American Veteran – I was nearly brought to tears when hearing another student Veteran say, 

‘‘I’m supposed to graduate in December 2012, and may not be able to now.’’ 

Another student Veteran emailed stating, 

‘‘Had it not been for close friends and family, in the last few months, helping me 

out, I would be living out of my car. I’m not quite sure how these sudden changes 

in the GI Bill happened, but it’s not what I was promised when I signed up. It’s almost like being tossed in the deep in of the pool with a ruck-sack full of boulders.’’ 

I met with a student Veteran, also attending UNC–Wilmington, regarding this 

issue. He was literally crying, preventing him from even speaking for nearly five 

minutes. I was so affected by his pain tears came to my eyes. Three-quarters of the 

way into the semester he states, 

‘‘I may have to drop out of school by weeks-end . . . I received an email from the 

school’s finance office that said I still have a balance of about $3,500 owed to the 

school, which must be paid within one week in order to not be dropped by the 

school.’’ 

According to Public Law 111–377, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance 

Act of 2010, 

‘‘The Congressional Budget Office estimates a potential cost savings of $1 million 

over the 2011–2015 period, and a savings of $734 million over the 2011–2020 period.’’ 

From the inception of the GI Bill in the 1940s, nearly 8 million servicemembers 

were transformed from the educational benefits, never known before. There was 

nearly a 7-dollar yield per 1-dollar investment into our Veterans, due to the GI Bill. 

Not only did the GI Bill allow the military to become competitive with respect to 

many other jobs available nationwide, but it created an advantage for 

servicemembers to attain a college degree. This invariably lead to them getting better grades, better jobs, owning more businesses, and thusly paying more taxes, leading into one of the greatest investments, providing economic success for both a short 

and long-term basis. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

67 

According to a working group comprised of UNC system officials named UNC 

SERVES, in their April 2011 Report to the President: 

‘‘Veterans earn better grades and have a 75 percent graduation rate. With the exception of white males, veterans in all other race and gender groups earn more money 

than their non-veteran counterparts. Veterans start more small businesses. In general, Veterans outperform non-Veterans.’’ 

‘‘To realize this potential our state must actively support military-affiliated students in its systems of public higher education. We want these students to choose a 

UNC education and we want them to live and work in North Carolina. The UNC 

SERVES Working Group believes that educating servicemembers yields a high return 

on investment for North Carolina and the nation. And, in doing so the University 

makes a significant down payment on the promise of UNC Tomorrow to be more demand-driven, relevant and responsive to the needs of North Carolina.’’ 

Additionally, one must consider the estimated economic impact on the state, ex- pected to be nearly $26.5 Billion in 2013. Setting aside the simple fact that the educational benefits were promised, as in signing a promissory note, which is past due, 

Veterans just want to collect what was promised to them. It stands to reason that 

when changing such key variables, which have such a strong bearing on the economical prosperity of Our State and/or Nation’s economy - when taking away Veterans educational benefits – the forecasted models previously used are no longer 

valid. As a result, our Nation has sacrificed the Billions of dollars, previously forecasted, for a ten-year savings plan of about $734 Million. 

The outcome of which - is many of our Veterans will no longer achieve their educational goals, leaving more unemployed, whereby owning fewer businesses, directly 

resulting in an inverse affect, contradicting the economic forecasts previously researched and offered, yielding a negative return. Without change, there is no savings of $734 Million, due to the detrimental affects, both societal and economical alike, Our State and Nation will suffer. 

We now have an opportunity to resolve this, without the worry of seeking the esti- mated $137 Million per year needed to fund this bill. By utilizing the following costsaving measures with respect to the current Federal budget, we can more than fully 

fund this bill . . . .we can save nearly $175 Million more at a time our Nation could 

use it. 

1. Based on the 2010 figures of over 75.6 Million outpatient visits to VA medical 

treatment facilities – reports of over-mailing, most likely due to a software 

printing error, of medical appointment reminders with blank pages following 

the actual reminders being mailed out to the patients, sometimes up to four per 

patient per month. Conservative estimate of this occurring 1.5 times per outpatient visit yields a saving of: (Office of VA, Veterans Health Administration) 

75.6 (# of outpatient visits in 2010) * 1.5 (occurrences) = $113.4 Million * .75 

(total cost estimate per mailing) = $85.05 Million 

2. Transportation of brokered claim files among VA Regional Offices – Which 

could easily be done electronically from one centralized location saving: = 

$740,000 (est. spent by VARO each year) 

3. Overpayments of near $85 Million in transportation costs to VA Health Facilities, which could be recaptured by offering competitive awarding bid contracts, at a savings of: (Veterans Health Administration – Audit of Oversight Patient Transportation Contracts, ’10) = $85 Million 

4. By creating more competitive contract administration in the VHA’s Home 

Resp. Care Program, the cost could be reduced substantially and prevent overpayment of nearly $17 Million, saving: = $17 Million 

5. Through more stringent oversight of the acquisition processes, all inclusive, 

of medical equipment and supplies, there could be savings of: = $ 41 Million 

6. Through the utilization of better controls in clinical sharing agreements for 

both monitoring and negotiated practices when using non-competitive of the 

same for professional personnel, could save: = $ 60 Million 

7. Rather than making ‘‘market’’ purchases of heart-related items/replacements, 

using national contracts through competition would yield a substantial savings 

of nearly: = $ 22 Million 

TOTAL POTENTIAL SAVINGS FOUND: = $ 310.79 Million (per year) 

TOTAL YEARLY OFFSET TO SIGNING OUR BILL, HR 3483 = $137 MILLION 

LEAVING A DIFFERENCE REMAINING FOR OTHER VA PROGRAMS OF $ 

173.79 MILLION. 

Signing this bill into law would equalize education benefits for Veterans who attend public or private institutions of higher learning. In addition, the bill would reduce or eliminate the financial burden Veterans must pay out-of-pocket for their 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

68 

education. Currently, Veterans who enroll in private institutions are eligible for 

more benefits than Veterans who enroll at public institutions, including both community colleges and universities alike. This legislation would enable all veterans, 

regardless of whether they choose to attend a public or private institution, to be eligible to receive up to $17,500 in education benefits per academic year. 

The result is a better future economical outlook and investment in our Nation, 

for now and tomorrow. With your help and sponsorship of HR 3483 – ‘‘The Veterans 

Education Equity Act of 2011’’ . . . .you have a true chance to be heroes for thousands of our student Veterans across this great nation. 

Thanks so much for your time and consideration. 

Authored and advocated by: 

Jason R. Thigpen 

Co-Founder/President 

Student Veterans Advocacy Group 

Web site: www.mysvag.org 

Email: jasonthigpen@studentveteransadvocacygroup.org 

Phone: (910) 392–5936 

Executive Summary—Student Veterans Advocacy Group 

Distinguished Committee members – My name is Sergeant Jason R. Thigpen of 

the U.S. Army National Guard. I am the Co-Founder and President of the Student 

Veterans Advocacy Group. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify here 

today, on a bill we helped draft, HR 3483—‘‘The Veterans Education Equity Act of 

2011’’. 

The detrimental impact suffered by student Veterans across North Carolina, and 

approximately 40 other states, due to the change in Federal law, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–377) on January 4, 2011. 

As a direct result of this change in law thousands of student Veterans, and prospective student Veterans alike, faced the never-before issue of in-state residency for tuition purposes. 

From the inception of the GI Bill in the 1940s, nearly 8 million servicemembers 

were transformed from the educational benefits, never known before. There was 

nearly a 7-dollar yield per 1-dollar investment into our Veterans, due to the GI Bill. 

Not only did the GI Bill allow the military to become competitive with respect to 

many other jobs available nationwide, but it created an advantage for 

servicemembers to attain a college degree. This invariably lead to them getting better grades, better jobs, owning more businesses, and thusly paying more taxes, leading into one of the greatest investments, providing economic success for both a short 

and long-term basis. 

According to a working group comprised of UNC system officials named UNC 

SERVES, in their April 2011 Report to the President: ‘‘Veterans earn better grades 

and have a 75 percent graduation rate. With the exception of white males, veterans 

in all other race and gender groups earn more money than their non-veteran counterparts. Veterans start more small businesses. In general, Veterans outperform non-Veterans.’’ 

Without change, many of our Veterans will no longer achieve their educational 

goals, leaving more unemployed, whereby owning fewer businesses, directly resulting in an inverse affect, contradicting the economic forecasts previously researched 

and offered, yielding a negative return. We now have an opportunity to resolve this, 

without the worry of seeking the estimated $137 Million per year needed to fund 

this bill. By utilizing the following cost-saving measures with respect to the current 

Federal budget, we can more than fully fund this bill . . . .we can save nearly $175 

Million more at a time our Nation could use it. 

Signing this bill into law would equalize education benefits for Veterans who attend public or private institutions of higher learning. In addition, the bill would reduce or eliminate the financial burden Veterans must pay out-of-pocket for their 

education. Currently, Veterans who enroll in private institutions are eligible for 

more benefits than Veterans who enroll at public institutions, including both community colleges and universities alike. This legislation would enable all veterans, 

regardless of whether they choose to attend a public or private institution, to be eligible to receive up to $17,500 in education benefits per academic year. The result 

is a better future economical outlook and investment in our Nation, for now and tomorrow. With your help and sponsorship of HR 3483 – ‘‘The Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011’’ . . . .you have a true chance to be heroes for thousands of our student Veterans across this great nation. 

Authored by: 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

69 

Jason R. Thigpen 

Co-Founder/President 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Gunderson 

MR. CHAIRMAN. On behalf of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), and approximately 230,000 veteran-students who choose to attend private sector colleges and universities (PSCUs) using their Post-9/11 GI Bill 

benefits, I want to thank Chairman Marlin Stutzman (R–IN) and Ranking Member 

Bruce Braley (D–IA) for the opportunity to further express support for legislation 

that would truly strengthen consumer protections for our veterans and ensure that 

every institution of higher education lives up to the standard of educating our nation’s best and brightest. Please, also, allow me to briefly recognize the other organizations for their leadership on this issue, and in whose company we graciously 

joined in signing the recent letter to Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R–FL) and 

Ranking Member Bob Filner (D–CA). Most notably, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 

who have been tireless advocates for our veteran-students and were responsible for 

bringing this broad coalition together to advocate good policy instead of politics-asusual. Finally, Terry Hartle and the American Council on Education deserve recognition for their outstanding research and education efforts about military and veteran education. 

APSCU is the primary advocacy organization for our nation’s private sector colleges and universities (PSCUs), sometimes referred to as ‘‘proprietary’’ or ‘‘career’’ 

schools. We represent 1,650 schools, 2,000 members, and about one-half of the 3.8 

million PSCU students nationwide. Mr. Chairman, the roots of our schools can be 

traced back to the early 1800s when Americans needed skills to succeed in burgeoning commercial trades and women aspired to work outside of the home yet were 

not welcome to attend most of the all-male traditional colleges. Throughout the centuries, as the educational needs of our global society evolved, PSCUs became early 

pioneers of a student-centric, flexible postsecondary delivery models. Today, our 

schools continue to break new ground by offering cutting-edge programming and 

technology to keep pace with the expectations of a 21st century student body and 

workforce. Our schools cater to the needs of our students by providing a veritable 

al la carte menu of educational options, which empowers each student to choose the 

delivery of education that best meets their needs and provides access to an education often otherwise beyond their reach. In the opinion of some, PSCUs are the 

‘‘schools of last resort,’’ and for countless students and graduates, PSCUs are the 

only schools who open their doors to a population of Americans who desperately 

need a second-chance, such as a single-mom desperate to make a better life for her 

children or a high-school dropout who could use a helping hand to get back on track. 

The PSCU model of postsecondary inclusivity and access appeals not only to those 

in need of a second-chance, but also to working professionals eager to reach the next 

professional step, deployed servicemembers who use education as a portal from the 

front lines of battle, or veterans transitioning from soldier to civilian. We can also 

boast about the PSCU graduates or students who have used their education to reach 

professional heights most people only dream about achieving, such as: former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and current Democratic 

candidate for Illinois’ 8th Congressional District, Lt. Col. Tammy Duckworth (ANG); 

the first black, female American tennis star player to achieve a World No. 1 rank 

and Chief Executive Officer of her interior design firm, Venus Williams; and celebrity chef, restauranteur, author, and television personality, Bobby Flay. 

Today however, we shine the spotlight on the educational needs of our country’s 

often unsung heroes: our veterans. Heroes like Cpl. Alexander Garrido (USN) who 

is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and is now working his way through 

his Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice after receiving his Associates Degree in 

2011. Alexander is one of the two million veterans who enlisted in the military to 

serve in the Post-9/11 wars, OIF and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and since 

the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill have continued to alter the traditional perception of what a college student looks like, as the number of students who attend 

college or university immediately after high school, attend full-time, live on campus, 

and rely on their parents to pay for their education grows smaller and smaller. For 

many, being a wounded combat-veteran and not setting foot in a classroom in 15 

years would have deterred the pursuit of a postsecondary degree, but Alexander discovered that Keiser University in Miami allowed him to learn at his own pace, oneclass-at-a-time. The school was instrumental in Alexander’s achieving Dean’s List 

and finishing with high honors. Alexander is a wonderful example of the 230,000 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

70 

students PSCUs have educated under the new Post-9/11 GI Bill. Some on Capitol 

Hill, and even in this room, question the value of the education that PSCUs offer 

to veteran-students. Let me be clear: APSCU firmly believes in the fundamental 

right of our veterans to use the educational benefits they earned through their extraordinary service to our country at the school that serves their needs best, however every postsecondary institution must be held to the highest standard when it 

comes to educating America’s ‘‘New Greatest Generation.’’ Every sector of higher 

education has dealt with individual episodes of abuse or misbehavior, and it is incumbent upon Congress to ensure that the actions of the few are not held against 

the many, and that fact and data preside over anecdote. So, what are the facts? The 

number of students who used Post-9/11 GI benefits to attend PSCUs almost doubled 

between the first- and second-year of the benefits, from 76,746 to 152,130. The share 

of students who used Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to attend PSCUs also increased 

slightly from 23 percent to 25 percent in the same time-frame. It is critical to note 

that while there was growth in the number and percentage of students educated at 

PSCUs using Post-9/11 GI benefits, the percentage of the total amount of benefits 

received by PSCUs remained constant at 37 percent. In other words, PSCUs were 

able to educate more students with the same share of total benefits. About onethird, or 30 percent, of Yellow Ribbon Program participants are PSCUs. In addition, 

PSCUs represent 45 percent of all schools that offer the Yellow Ribbon Program to 

an unlimited number of veterans and that make the maximum Yellow Ribbon contribution. To truly appreciate the extent to which PSCUs participate in the Yellow 

Ribbon Program, 77 percent offer it to an unlimited number of veterans and 61 percent make the maximum school contribution. 

Veterans have historically attended PSCUs because we have consistently offered 

flexible administrative and academic policies, career-focused curricula, credit for 

past training and experience, and support services that strive to meet their unique 

academic and personal needs. After being mission-focused, many veterans feel more 

comfortable in career-focused programs, which allow them to hone the skills learned 

in the military and receive the necessary training to transition into the workforce. 

PSCUs also know that veterans may require support with integration into the higher education culture, such as helping cope with service-related disabilities, assistance socializing with peers or instructors, or other creating a school-based veteran 

support network. According to a number of publications ranging from the RAND 

Corporation’s ‘‘Servicemembers in School: Military Veteran Experiences Using the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill and Pursuing Postsecondary Education’’ to The Chronicle of Higher Education, veteran-students largely chose PSCUs and community colleges to pursue their postsecondary degrees, citing cost, convenience, geography, and support 

systems. PSCUs also know that veterans may require support with integration into 

the higher education culture, such as helping cope with service-related disabilities, 

assistance socializing with peers or instructors, or other creating a school-based veteran support network. In a February 9, 2012 Military Times commentary entitled, 

‘‘Colleges Can Learn From For-Profits Emphasis on the Consumer’’ the author notes 

that, ‘‘the consumercentric attributes of some for-profit schools offer lessons for their 

public and nonprofit counterparts regarding how higher education institutions best 

serve the needs of our troops and veterans.’’ 

But, the power to offer such a distinctive, viable postsecondary alternative is 

meaningless if it fails to achieve students’ primary objective: job placement. Our 

country is currently experiencing an employment paradox: an 8.3 percent national 

unemployment rate yet hundreds-of-thousands of jobs remained unfilled. So, during 

our five-year long recession, sectors such as manufacturing, and jobs including electricians, plumbers, and medical technicians, have fallen victim to a widening skills 

gap, as the population ages and industries are transformed by the adoption of new 

technology, which outpaces the skill-sets of workers. Many prognosticate that our 

future workforce will likely endure an even wider skills gap if the K–12 educational 

system continues to focus largely on preparing students for college degree attainment without the adoption of meaningful academic standards, accountability for student outcomes, or recognition of the dichotomy between the skills necessary for academic success in postsecondary education and the skills demanded by the employers. The workforce of tomorrow will be comprised of the human byproducts of an 

educational system that has largely failed to teach the skills necessary to succeed 

in high-demand fields requiring specialized training. As Dr. Tony Carnevale Director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce has noted, 

‘‘In a recession, the economy goes to sleep, but when it awakens, there will be a 

need for higher-skilled people to fill skill-intensive jobs.’’ Who better than the men 

and women returning home from the Post-9/11 wars to translate the intensive training and preparation into a postsecondary degree and into high-demand jobs? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

71 

As the previous panelists shared, veterans of OEF and OIF experience a higher 

unemployment rate than their non-veteran peers, and the unemployment rate for 

young veterans aged 18–24 stands at 20 percent compared to 16 percent for their 

non-veteran peers. Post-9/11 era veterans have returned to civilian life deserving 

employers to line up to hire them, but instead face the sad reality of the unemployment line. While the unemployment rate for young combat veterans is down from 

a staggering 31 percent in December 2011, some veteran employment experts predict that it could reach 50 percent in the next two years, especially for National 

Guard and reservists, who currently make up half of our current U.S. military force. 

The attacks on September 11th awakened a visceral sense of patriotism not felt by 

our country since the attack on Pearl Harbor, and for many young men and women 

it became the ‘‘Call of Duty,’’ which transformed recent high school graduates into 

soldiers fighting for the protection of our country’s most cherished tenants. But 

while they were deployed, the economy and the employment climate deteriorated. 

Our returning heroes, many of whom enlisted immediately following high school, experienced hurdles finding meaningful employment because of a number of factors, 

including veterans’ inability to translate their military skills into language employers understand, some employers’ reticence to hire a veteran because of a perceived 

mental or physical impairment, and, notably, the recession. Afghanistan and Iraq 

veterans were more likely than non-veterans to be employed in recession-impacted 

job sectors, such as mining, construction, manufacturing, transportation and utilities, information, and professional and business services, and less likely to be employed in industries that experienced growth during the recession, such as health 

care and education. Again, two million veterans will have returned from the Post9/11 wars once the drawdown is complete, and as the Department of Defense proceeds with a planned reduction in force, it is imperative that Congress work to ensure that our veterans, particularly young combat veterans, are not only provided 

with the tools and resources to access a postsecondary education through their generous benefits, but also the tools and resources to make an informed, thoughtful decision about which educational opportunity will best prepare them for the workforce. 

As part of a diverse coalition comprised of veteran service and postsecondary organizations, APSCU sent letters to the Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Filner, 

as well as to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the White House, affirming our commitment to protect every veteran who seeks to use his or her Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill benefits, regardless of which higher education institution they choose to 

attend, and enabling veterans to make informed decisions about their higher education options. APSCU appreciates the speed with which Congressman Bilirakis (R– 

FL) responded to the recommendations proposed in our letter by introducing H.R. 

4057, the Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act of 

2012, and the priority given to H.R. 4057 by Chairman Stutzman and Ranking 

Member Braley during the hearing. The transition from soldier to student is often 

wrought with unexpected challenges for many veterans because institutions of higher education are unprepared to fulfill the unique needs of veteran-students and veteran-students are unprepared to navigate the wave of educational options before 

them. As a result, many veterans fail to achieve their academic goals. H.R. 4057 

directs the Secretary of the VA to develop a comprehensive policy to ensure that 

veteran-students have the tools necessary to make informed decisions about their 

postsecondary education. Ultimately, there is a shared responsibility for the academic success of our veteran-students, including the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA), the student, and the institution. It should be incumbent upon the VA to ensure that veterans are provided with the information and resources about their educational options, the veterans to utilize the information to make informed education 

choices, and the institutions to provide the quality of education veterans deserve 

with the benefits they earned. 

APSCU member institutions take great care and responsibility to ensure that the 

transition from servicemember to student-veteran, especially those entering postsecondary education fresh from the battlefields of the Post-9/11 wars, is tailored to 

meet the unique need of the student, and that the transition from student-veteran 

to employee is successful. Our veterans have earned their education benefits 

through their tremendous sacrifice to our country and subsequently, it is their 

choice to select the school and education that will lead to academic and professional 

success. We must ensure that our veterans are provided with every advantage when 

they are presented with the numerous and distinct postsecondary choices where 

they will ultimately invest their education benefits and invest in their futures. Additionally, every institution of higher education entrusted with a key transitional role 

in the lives of our veterans, as soldiers become students, must be held accountable 

for the outcomes of their veteran-students. APSCU supports the Subcommittee’s efVACREP180 with DISTILLER

72 

forts to ensure that our veteran-students are supported and protected at every institution of higher education. 

Executive Summary 

The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU) is the primary advocacy organization for our nation’s private sector colleges and universities 

(PSCUs), sometimes referred to as ‘‘proprietary’’ or ‘‘career’’ schools. We represent 

1,650 schools, 2,000 members, and about one-half of the 3.8 million PSCU students 

nationwide. APSCU, and our member institutions, want to ensure that our veteranstudents are well-prepared to enter postsecondary education and that every institution of higher education lives up to the standard of educating our nation’s best and 

brightest. Our schools cater to the unique needs of non-traditional students by providing a wide range of educational options, which empowers each student to choose 

the type of education that fits their needs best and provides much-needed access to 

an underserved population. 

Today however, we shine the spotlight on the educational needs of our country’s 

often unsung heroes: our veterans. Two million veterans enlisted in the military following September 11, 2001 to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, veterans have continued to alter the traditional perception of what a college student 

looks like, as the number of students who attend college or university immediately 

after high school, attend full-time, live on campus, and rely on their parents to pay 

for their education grows smaller and smaller. PSCUs have educated 230,000 veteran-students under the new Post-9/11 GI Bill, and APSCU believes in the fundamental right of our veterans to use the educational benefits they earned through 

their extraordinary service to our country at the school that serves their needs best. 

However every postsecondary institution must be held to the highest standard when 

it comes to educating America’s ‘‘New Greatest Generation.’’ The number of students 

who used Post-9/11 GI benefits to attend PSCUs almost doubled between the firstand second-year of the benefits, from 76,746 to 152,130. The share of students who 

used Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to attend PSCUs also increased slightly from 23 percent to 25 percent in the same time-frame. It is critical to note that while there was 

growth in the number and percentage of students educated at PSCUs using Post9/11 GI benefits, the percentage of the total amount of benefits received by PSCUs 

remained constant at 37 percent. In other words, PSCUs were able to educate more 

students with the same share of total benefits. Additionally, about one-third, or 30 

percent, of Yellow Ribbon Program participants are PSCUs. In addition, PSCUs represent 45 percent of all schools that offer the Yellow Ribbon Program to an unlimited number of veterans and that make the maximum Yellow Ribbon contribution. 

To truly appreciate the extent to which PSCUs participate in the Yellow Ribbon 

Program, 77 percent offer it to an unlimited number of veterans and 61 percent 

make the maximum school contribution. 

Veterans have historically attended PSCUs because we have consistently offered 

flexible administrative and academic policies, career-focused curricula, credit for 

past training and experience, and support services that strive to meet their unique 

academic and personal needs. After being mission-focused, many veterans feel more 

comfortable in career-focused programs, which allow them to hone the skills learned 

in the military and receive the necessary training to transition into the workforce. 

PSCUs also know that veterans may require support with integration into the higher education culture, such as helping cope with service-related disabilities, assistance socializing with peers or instructors, or other creating a school-based veteran 

support network. PSCUs also know that veterans may require support with integration into the higher education culture, such as helping cope with service-related disabilities, assistance socializing with peers or instructors, or other creating a schoolbased veteran support network. 

Two million veterans will have returned from OEF/OIF once the drawdown is 

complete, and as the Department of Defense proceeds with a planned reduction in 

force, it is imperative that Congress work to ensure that our veterans, particularly 

young combat veterans, are not only provided with the tools and resources to access 

a postsecondary education through their generous benefits, but also the tools and 

resources to make an informed, thoughtful decision about which educational opportunity will best prepare them for the workforce. The transition from soldier to student is often wrought with unexpected challenges for many veterans because institutions of higher education are unprepared to fulfill the unique needs of veteranstudents and veteran-students are unprepared to navigate the wave of educational 

options before them. As a result, many veterans fail to achieve their academic goals. 

H.R. 4057 directs the Secretary of the Veterans’ Affairs to develop a comprehensive 

policy to ensure that veteran-students have the tools necessary to make informed 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

73 

decisions about their postsecondary education. Ultimately, there is a shared responsibility for the academic success of our veteran-students, including the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA), the student, and the institution. It should be incumbent 

upon the VA to ensure that veterans are provided with the information and resources about their educational options, the veterans to utilize the information to 

make informed education choices, and the institutions to provide the quality of education veterans deserve with the benefits they earned. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Allen L. Sessoms 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee. I am Dr. Allen Sessoms, President of the University of the District 

of Columbia, the only public institution of higher education here in our Nation’s 

Capital. I am testifying on behalf of the American Association of State Colleges and 

Universities, commonly known as ‘AASCU.’ AASCU represents 420 institutions and 

university systems across 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam 

and the Virgin Islands. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and providing me the opportunity to present 

testimony in support of H.R. 3483, The Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, introduced by the Honorable G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina. I ask that my testimony be entered into the record. 

If enacted, H.R. 3483 would remedy a serious inequity that currently exists under 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits program. 

In short, The Veterans Education Equity Act addresses the harm to veterans enrolled at an out-of-state institution of higher education resulting from the passage 

of the Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act, Public Law 111–377. 

After passage of the 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs began the unenviable task of implementing the legislation 

in a very short period of time. The VA established a tuition and fee payment schedule for each state in order to do so. In creating this structure, the VA separately 

determined the highest amount in tuition and in required fees charged to a student 

attending a public institution rather than combining tuition and required fees into 

one amount. This structure resulted in veterans attending public institutions having 

all or nearly all of their tuition and fee charges paid via their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits regardless of whether they were an in-state or out-of-state student. 

In January 2011, this changed when the Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act was signed into law. The major focus of the legislation was to revamp the tuition and fee structure first established by the VA. The legislation established two criteria. Those students who attend public institutions receive benefits 

equal to in-state tuition and fee charges, while veterans attending private institutions receive the lesser of $17,500 or their actual charges for tuition and fees. Congress when drafting this legislation thus created an inequity that resulted in veterans who attend an institution located outside of their home state saw a tremendous reduction in their benefit amount. This benefit is worth, on average, about $ 

8,244 per year. On the contrary, if one of our Veterans chooses to attend an outof-state private institution, he or she will automatically qualify for up to $17,500 

per year. Simply put, a Veteran who chooses to attend a public institution is entitled to, on average, less than half of the benefit a Veteran who chooses to attend 

private institution. 

In addition to the disparate treatment of our Veterans attending public versus 

private institutions, the current Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit structure also asks our 

Veterans to pick up the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition. This 

can amount to over $13,000 per year in some States, and averages $4,282 across 

the country. Not only are we providing our Veterans with different tuition benefits 

depending on the type of institution they choose to attend, we are also asking them 

to pick up the tab if they choose to attend a public institution in a different State. 

In a metropolitan area such as the National Capital Region, where students regularly travel across State lines to earn their degrees, this significantly limits the 

number of institutions our Veterans may realistically choose from. For example, 

Veterans attending the University of the District of Columbia, but living in Maryland or Virginia, are required under District of Columbia law to pay the non-resident tuition rate of $13,380. This amounts to $7,000 per year for a full-time baccalaureate student. The Yellow Ribbon program does provide a $500 tuition assistance 

benefit to our non-resident Veterans; however this is only a fraction of the non-resident tuition premium. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

74 

The current Post 9/11 GI Bill tuition structure also harms those who have recently relocated to a State and enroll in that State’s public institution, but do not 

yet qualify for in-State tuition. Many states have enacted minimum residency requirements students must meet to be eligible for in-State tuition rates. For example, 

in the District of Columbia, to receive the in-State tuition rate, a Veteran must reside in the District for a full year to become eligible. This may cause a recently relocated Veteran to put off pursuing a degree until he or she is eligible for a lower 

tuition rate. 

Passage of this bill is especially important at a time when unemployment for our 

veterans is extremely high. According to recent statistics from the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce’s ‘‘Hiring Our Heroes’’ program, unemployment for veterans aged 18–24 

is 30%. For those in the National Guard, it is 14%. These numbers are well above 

the national average. Other research has shown that individuals with more than a 

high school diploma are more likely to be employed. Passing H.R. 3483 will give our 

Veterans a greater opportunity to select the postsecondary program and institution 

best suited for them and by so doing, put them on the path to employment. 

As a grateful Nation, we are committed to providing our Veterans with the maximum benefits they rightly deserve. Let’s make sure we also are providing the flexibility our Veterans need to use them. On behalf of the 420 members of the American 

Association of State Colleges and Universities, I urge Congress to pass the Veterans 

Education Equity Act of 2011 without delay. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Curtis L. Coy 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to provide the 

views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on pending legislation concerned 

with Veterans education, employment, and small business contracting issues. Joining me today are C. Ford Heard, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement Policy, Systems and Oversight, Office of Acquisitions, Logistics and Construction, and Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration. 

VA is providing our insight on several bills on the agenda. Other bills under discussion today affect programs or laws administered by the Department of Labor 

(DoL), Department of Education (ED) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Respectfully, we defer 

to those agencies’ views with respect to the following bills: H.R. 3524 (rights for persons receiving treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities affected by service 

in the uniformed services – DoL), H.R. 3610 (consolidation and streamlining Federal 

workforce – DoL and ED), H.R. 3670 (requiring the TSA to comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act – DHS), and H.R. 4051 

(providing for off-base transition training – DoL). VA regrets we did not have sufficient time to formulate costs for four measures, H.R. 3483, H.R. 4048, H.R. 4052 

and H.R. 4072. I want to begin by stating that every initiative has the admirable 

goal of assisting our Nation’s Veterans and Servicemembers. 

H.R. 3329 

H.R. 3329 would amend section 3103, title 38, United States Code, to extend the 

period during which a Veteran may be afforded a rehabilitation program under 

chapter 31 of that title. Chapter 31 entitles a person with a service-connected disability and an employment handicap to participate in a rehabilitation program depending on the degree of disability and severity of employment handicap. Under 

current law, a Veteran generally may be afforded such a program for up to 12 years, 

beginning on the date of the Veteran’s discharge or service-connected disability notification. H.R. 3329 would extend that period of eligibility to 15 years. 

VA supports extending the period of eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services, provided that Congress finds funding offsets. Individuals may need vocational 

rehabilitation services during mid-life when disabilities worsen or when changing 

careers, or later in life when in need of independent living services. By extending 

the period of eligibility, VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) 

program will be able to provide individuals who meet the eligibility and entitlement 

criteria for services under chapter 31 with the assistance they need. 

VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 3329 would result in benefit costs to VA of 

$4.4 million for the first year, $25 million for five years, and $57.9 million over ten 

years. There are no significant administrative costs associated with this bill because 

the caseload increase would be minimal. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

75 

H.R. 3483 

H. R. 3483, the ‘‘Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011,’’ would revise the formula for the payment by VA of tuition and fees for individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill and pursuing programs of education 

at public institutions of higher learning (IHLs). 

Currently, resident and non-resident students pursuing a program of education at 

public IHLs receive the actual net cost for in-state tuition and fees charged by the 

institution. This bill would allow non-resident students to receive an amount above 

the net in-state charges in some instances. H.R. 3483 would amend section 3313 

(c)(1) of title 38, United States Code, to require VA to pay individuals pursuing a 

program of education at public IHLs, the lesser of 1) the actual net cost for tuition 

and fees assessed by the institution for the program of education, or 2) the greater 

of either the actual net cost for in-state tuition and fees, or $17,500 (for the academic year beginning on August 1, 2011, with such amount to be increased each 

subsequent year by the average percentage increase in undergraduate tuition costs). 

VA would be required to implement these changes to the payment of educational 

assistance for the academic year beginning on or after the date of enactment. 

While VA supports the intent to provide payment equity to individuals training 

under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA cannot support this legislation as written. 

Separate rules for tuition-and-fee charges would add another level of complexity 

to the program for both beneficiaries and schools. We continue to receive complaints 

from beneficiaries with regard to understanding exactly how much they will receive 

in tuition and fees under the Post-9/11 GI Bill program. This bill would exacerbate 

that problem. 

Furthermore, VA continues to work aggressively on the Long-Term Solution (LTS) 

to further enhance processing of Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. As of June 2011, VA and 

the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlanta (SPAWAR) have developed 

five major releases for the LTS system. VA’s plans to achieve full automation of a 

subset of Post-9/11 GI Bill claims is expected with release 6.0 in July 2012. This 

enhanced functionality, originally planned for June 2011, was delayed to accommodate changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill required by P.L. 111–377, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. 

The enactment of this legislation would severely hamper VA’s deployment efforts 

and delay automation of claims. The changes made by this legislation would lead 

to very complicated processing scenarios in the LTS. Some of the major rules in the 

LTS system regarding payment amounts would need to be updated; as a result, and 

would cost additional money for system testers. Additionally, since the amount of 

educational assistance would be based on the actual net cost for tuition and fees 

versus the greater of the actual net cost for in-state tuition and fees and $17,500, 

VA would have to apply a blended set of rules to each claim that falls under these 

provisions. 

As written, the effective date for the proposed legislation would be the date of enactment. However, VA estimates that we would need one year from date of enactment to make the system changes necessary to implement the proposed legislation. 

VA would be happy to work with the Subcommittee to provide technical assistance. 

In addition, although we regret we were unable to estimate the costs of this proposal in time for this hearing, VA notes that any change in benefit levels that would 

increase the total cost of the program would necessitate the identification of offsets. 

VA will provide a cost estimate at a later time. 

H.R. 4048 

Section 8127 of title 38, United States Code, requires VA to establish annual acquisition dollar goals for VA contracts with small businesses owned and controlled 

by Veterans and service-disabled Veterans. In addition, section 8127 provides acquisition set-aside authority for such businesses and establishes priority for them over 

all other small business preferences in VA acquisitions. 

H.R. 4048, the ‘‘Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned Small 

Businesses Act of 2012,’’ would amend section 8127 by adding new subsection (k) 

providing that ‘‘[f]or purposes of meeting the goals under subsection (a), the Secretary shall include the acquisition of goods and services through the use of a Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration.’’ 

VA is continuing to analyze this legislation, and will provide its views in writing 

once we complete that analysis. 

H. R. 4051 

H. R. 4051, the ‘‘TAP Modernization Act of 2012,’’ would direct the DoL to provide 

the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) during a three-year period to Veterans 

and their spouses at locations other than military installations in three to five 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

76 

states selected by DoL. DoL would select states that have the highest rates of Veteran unemployment and would provide a sufficient number of training locations to 

facilitate access by participants to meet the need in each state. DoL also would include in any TAP contract a requirement for experts in subject matters relating to 

human resources practices, including resume writing, interviewing and job searching skills, and the provision of information about post-secondary education. 

Reports to Congress would be required in each year of the training, and after the 

termination of the three-year period of TAP training required by this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States would submit to Congress a report on the training, to include the feasibility of carrying out off-base transition training at locations 

nationwide. 

VA defers to the DoL on the merits of the bill, however, VA is required to participate in TAP briefings. Therefore, we note the following impact on VA. Assuming the 

effective date of this legislation would be October 1, 2012, VA’s estimated administrative expenses would be $1.3 million the first year and $4.5 million over three 

years. 

H.R. 4052 

H.R. 4052, the ‘‘Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2012,’’ would 

add a new section 3698 to title 38, United States Code, directing VA to establish 

an honorary ‘‘Excellence in Veterans Education Award’’ to recognize IHLs that provide superior services to Veterans. The award would be valid for three years (however, it may be withdrawn at any time VA deems appropriate) and the IHL that 

received it would be noted on the list of institutions approved for Veteran education 

benefits, which is maintained on VA’s Internet Web site. VA would grant the Award 

to IHLs only if: (1) the head of the IHL has a student Veteran advisory board or 

a student Veteran advisor from whom the head seeks advice; (2) the IHL participates in the Yellow Ribbon G.I. Bill Education Enhancement Program (Yellow Ribbon Program) under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, contributes the maximum amount under 

the program, and ensures that all such amounts are made available to all Veterans 

enrolled at the IHLs who qualify for the Yellow Ribbon program; (3) the IHL has 

a Veterans support program that provides services VA considers appropriate; (4) the 

IHL is a member of the Servicemembers Opportunity College; (5) the average graduation rate for all of the IHL enrolled students is at least as great as the average 

national graduation rate for all students enrolled in the same type of institution, 

as determined by VA; and (6) any other criteria VA considers appropriate. 

VA has concerns with some of the provisions in the bill as written. 

Implementing a program that awards IHLs for their service to Veterans will give 

them incentive to provide better service. By listing exceptional institutions on VA’s 

GI Bill Web site, Veterans would have more knowledge regarding the best institutions available for them to attend. We are concerned, however, about the criterion 

regarding measurement of the graduation rates. The legislation would not require 

IHLs to measure the Veteran-graduation rates, and VA does not currently track 

them. VA recommends that language be included to require IHLs to track and report such rates. 

With regard to the criteria pertaining to the IHL participation in the Yellow Ribbon Program, it appears that a school would be required to provide Yellow Ribbon 

benefits to every Veteran attending more than ‡ time in order to qualify for the 

Award. We note that currently there are few schools that provide Yellow Ribbon 

benefits to every eligible Post-9/11 GI Bill Veteran. Also, because Veterans’ in-state 

costs are fully covered at most public schools, many public institutions do not participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program. Therefore, it appears these schools would be 

excluded from the excellence award although they may provide other forms of superior service to Veterans. Similarly, many institutions that are not IHLs would be 

excluded from this recognition. 

This legislation requires that VA determine if the IHL has a student Veteran advisory board and a Veterans support program that provides services VA considers 

appropriate. Since this information is not currently collected, tracking the availability of such information would be a significant administrative undertaking for VA 

and schools. VA would need additional resources to implement the legislation. 

VA will provide a cost estimate at a later time. 

H.R. 4057 

H.R. 4057, the ‘‘Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans 

Act of 2012,’’ would add a new section to chapter 36 of title 38, United States Code, 

directing VA to develop a comprehensive policy to improve outreach and transparency to Veterans and members of the Armed Forces through the provision of information on IHLs. Specifically, the policy would include the following elements: (1) 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

77 

the most effective way to inform individuals of the educational and vocational counseling provided by VA, (2) a centralized way to track and publish feedback from students and State Approving Agencies (SAAs) regarding the quality of instruction and 

accreditation, recruiting practices, and post-graduation employment placement of 

the IHLs, (3) the value of and manner in which a SAA shares information regarding 

that agency’s evaluation of an IHL with an accrediting agency recognized by the ED, 

(4) the manner in which information regarding IHLs is provided to individuals participating in the Transition Assistance Program, and (5) the most effective way to 

provide Veterans and Servicemembers with information regarding available VA 

postsecondary education and training opportunities. 

In order for VA to develop the aforementioned comprehensive policy, H.R. 4057 

would direct the Department to conduct a market survey to determine the availability of a commercial, off-the-shelf, online tool that would allow a Veteran or 

Servicemember to assess whether that individual is academically ready to attend 

postsecondary education and training opportunities, or would need any remedial 

preparation before beginning such opportunities. The survey would also determine 

whether a similar tool would be available to provide Veterans and Servicemembers 

with a list of providers of postsecondary education and training opportunities based 

on criteria selected by those individuals. 

This measure also would direct VA, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment, to submit to the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees a report describing the comprehensive policy to improve outreach and transparency required by 

this bill, VA’s plan to implement such policy, and the results of the market survey, 

as well as whether VA plans to implement the tools described in the survey, if available. 

VA supports providing Veterans with better information about their educational 

opportunities, but does not believe legislation is necessary because of policies and 

programs already in place at VA, ED, and the Department of Defense (DoD). VA 

has outreach programs within its Education Service, VR&E Service, and Benefits 

Assistance Service (BAS). These are proven outreach mechanisms that can easily 

emphasize this information. 

If the intent for this bill is to increase outreach efforts in a more targeted nationwide method, VA believes existing mechanisms would satisfy that intent. For example, ED currently provides information about the quality and accreditation of IHLs 

participating in the Federal student financial aid programs. The National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary Federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education. Section 1094 of title 20, United States Code, requires institutions to complete surveys conducted as a part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). VA believes that ED is best-positioned 

to explain the informational resources available that fulfill the intent of the legislation. VA continues to work and coordinate with ED and can enhance the level of 

information sharing between agencies in order to simplify the information for Veterans and members of the Armed Forces to interpret and use. 

VA’s improvement measures for the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) are in 

line with the proposed legislation. TAP is currently being revised and enhanced as 

an initiative for both VA and DoD. 

VR&E Service currently has commercial, off-the-shelf tools available to evaluate 

and assist Veterans and Servicemembers in determining academic readiness. 

In previous years, VA conducted customer satisfaction surveys with beneficiaries 

to determine if they are satisfied with the overall customer experience and determine which areas of service need improvement. To acquire the information for this 

legislation, a similar survey could be completed with students and SAAs about the 

quality of the instruction and accreditation, recruiting practices and post-graduation 

employment placement provided by the IHLs. 

VA has concerns with providing a report within 90 days of enactment, as would 

be required by H.R. 4057. Until VA has an opportunity to discuss the reporting requirements with ED, VA is unable to clearly identify what resources would be needed to meet the 90-day reporting requirement. 

It seems to us that each Department (VA, ED, DoL, DoD) would need to agree 

to share data through a central repository, make collection and presentation of such 

data consistent with student privacy laws, and develop a method to track and collect 

post-graduate employment information. Discussions must first take place between 

agencies to determine what systems can be integrated or if systems need to be developed to capture feedback from students and SAAs. 

Information sharing between agencies and a centralized tracking and feedback 

system regarding quality of instruction, accreditation, recruiting practices, and postgraduate employment will require extensive coordination between several Federal 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

78 

Agencies. A system meeting the criteria of this legislation does not currently exist 

to our knowledge. 

Assuming enactment on October 1, 2012, VA estimates the administrative costs 

associated with H.R. 4057 would be $2.3 million in FY2013, $4.3 million over five 

years, and $7.5 million over ten years. Information technology costs cannot be provided since it is unclear if systems could be integrated or if systems need to be developed to capture feedback from students and SAAs. 

H.R. 4072 

H.R. 4072, the ‘‘Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved Performance Act of 2012,’’ would transfer a number of functions performed under programs relating to Veterans employment and all personnel, assets, and liabilities pertaining to such programs from the DoL to VA. Specifically, these programs from 

chapters in title 38, United States Code, would include: (1) job counseling, training, 

and placement services for Veterans under chapter 41; (2) employment and training 

of Veterans under chapter 42; (3) administration of employment and employment 

rights of members of the uniformed services under chapter 43; and (4) homeless Veterans reintegration programs under chapter 20. 

VA and DoL share a strong interest in providing Veterans with the information, 

education, and skills to transition successfully to civilian careers. VA is ready to discuss these organizational issues with the Subcommittee and our DoL partners at 

any time. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you.’ 

f 

Prepared Statement of MG Ronald G. Young 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, thank you for your invitation to participate in this hearing and share 

the Department views on a number of pieces of legislation that have been introduced. 

In my capacity as Director of Family Programs and Policy for the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Reserve Affairs, I have oversight into only one of the bills before 

your Committee today, but welcome the opportunity to provide you with the requested comments and concerns of the Department of Defense as a whole. 

The Department has no comment regarding H.R. 3329 extending the period of eligibility, from twelve years to fifteen years, for veterans to enroll in certain vocational rehabilitation programs. This provision would not impact benefits provided by 

the Department of Defense. 

The Department has no comment on H.R. 3483, as the changes to the Post-9/11 

Educational Assistance Program would not impact benefits provided by the Department of Defense to Service members. All changes proposed in this legislation would 

solely impact benefits provided by other Federal agencies. 

The Department of Defense opposes a provision in H.R. 3610, a bill that would, 

among other things, repeal section 509 of title 32, United States Code, ‘‘National 

Guard Youth Challenge Program (NGYCP) of opportunities for civilian youth.’’ Mandated by the Congress since 1993, over 100,000 students have successfully graduated from the program, with 80% earning their high school diploma or General 

Equivalency Diploma. On average, 26% go on to college, 20% enter the military, and 

the remaindered join the workforce in career jobs. 

• There are 33 ChalleNGe sites operating in 27 states and one territory. 

• The program design provides a framework and direction to intervene in the 

lives of high school dropouts. 

• Findings for the ChalleNGe program indicate that its goals and objectives are 

being achieved. 

• NGYCP graduates attained an average of a two grade equivalency gain in pre 

and post-testing of the Test of Adult Basic Education. 

• 72% of NGYCP graduates reported positive placement activities within 30 days 

of graduation. 

• The ChalleNGe program continues to enable high school dropouts to become 

productive, contributing members of their communities. 

The high number of high school dropouts each year is a national security issue 

and can cost the American economy billions in lost productivity and earnings over 

the students’ lifetime. The 12 million students projected to drop out over the next 

decade will cost our economy more than $3 trillion. According to a recent MDRC 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

79 

study, the National Guard Youth Challenge Program is one of the most effective 

intervention programs for youth. In addition, a recent RAND Cost Benefits Analysis 

study reported that the ChalleNGe program generates $2.66 in benefits for every 

dollar spent on the program. The estimated return on investment (net benefits divided by costs) in the ChalleNGe program is 166 percent. It is for these reasons that 

we oppose eliminating the ChalleNGe program. 

H.R. 3670 would require the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to 

comply with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

(USERRA). If the legislation is passed, I am not aware of any costs the Department 

of Defense would incur. The Department’s lead agency on USERRA, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), currently handles inquiries and USERRA 

cases. Over the last three fiscal years, ESGR handled 20 USERRA cases that involved TSA. During this same period, 75% of all cases were resolved, including administrative closures. Eleven of the cases occurred in FY11, with 8 of the 11, approximately 73%, resulting in resolution or an administrative closure. If this legislation is enacted, ESGR would continue to assist Guard and Reserve Service members 

employed by TSA in addressing all USERRA issues. Furthermore, if H.R. 3670 were 

to amend public law 107–71, the Department of Defense would provide the appropriate USERRA training resources and assistance in order to inform and educate 

TSA supervisors and employees on their rights and responsibilities under the Federal law. 

The Department does not oppose H.R. 3524, providing certain rights for persons 

receiving treatment for illnesses, injuries, and disabilities incurred in or aggravated 

by service in the uniformed services. However, the Department suggests the legislation further clarify that for persons absent from a position of employment in the 

Federal government by reason of receipt of medical treatment for a Service connected disability and who is entitled to be retained by the Federal employer, will 

not be on furlough, but rather placed in an appropriate administrative leave category. 

The Department does not have comment regarding H.R. 4048, which clarifies contracting goals and preferences with respect to veteran-owned small businesses. If 

passed into law, the Department would comply with these requirements. 

The Department does not have comments regarding H.R. 4051, which directs the 

Secretary of Labor to provide transition assistance training. This legislation would 

not impact the transition assistance programs currently being provided by the Department of Defense. 

The Department does not have comments regarding H.R. 4052, to recognize excellence in veterans education. This legislation would not impact Department of Defense programs. 

The Department concurs with the objective of H.R. 4057, to improve outreach and 

transparency of educational opportunities to Service members and veterans during 

the transition assistance program. However, the Department of Defense defers to 

the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Education regarding how best to provide 

greater information to these populations. 

Regarding H.R. 4072, the Department of Defense believes that separating servicemembers, including the Guard and Reserves, need effective services to help them 

successfully transition to the civilian workforce. However, the Department of Defense defers to the Departments of Labor and Veterans Affairs on the specifics of 

this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today, and for your support of our Service members, veterans, their families, and employers. I look forward 

to your questions. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Ismael Ortiz 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley and members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Labor (DoL 

or Department) on pending legislation aimed at helping Veterans and transitioning 

Service Members succeed in the civilian workforce. 

President Obama and Secretary Solis are committed to ensuring that the men and 

women who serve this country have the employment support, assistance and opportunities they deserve. As a result, the Administration has undertaken initiatives to 

train, transition and employ Veterans; encouraged the Federal hiring of Veterans; 

and called upon the private sector to hire and employ America’s Veterans. DoL, 

through the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) and other agencies, is playing an important role in these and other initiatives by providing Veterans and transitioning Service Members with resources and expertise to assist and 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

80 

prepare them to obtain meaningful careers, maximize their employment opportunities and protect their employment rights. 

While this hearing is focused on numerous bills before the Subcommittee, I will 

limit my remarks to those pieces of legislation that have a direct impact on the Department of Labor, including H.R. 3524, H.R. 3610, H.R. 4051, and H.R. 4072 and 

will provide the relevant cost estimates at a later time. I respectfully defer to the 

Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA), Department of Education (ED) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) on the remaining pieces of legislation. 

HR 3524—Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act 

H.R. 3524, the ‘‘Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act,’’ would amend the 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994 

(P.L. 103–353) to extend USERRA protections to individuals with service-connected 

illness, injury, or disabilities by creating a new section 4320 in Title 38, United 

States Code (38 U.S.C. 4320). The legislation would also amend USERRA’s anti-discrimination provisions in section 4311 to define ‘‘service-connected disability’’ as any 

injury, disease, illness or other disorder formally determined by the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to have been incurred in or permanently aggravated by a period 

of active service in the uniformed services. Consistent with USERRA’s existing language regarding persons absent from work while fulfilling military obligations, persons undergoing treatment for a service-connected disability would be deemed to be 

on furlough during such absence, and would retain all seniority and non-seniority 

benefits similar to current USERRA protections. 

This bill, as drafted, would have a significant impact on relationships between 

employees with past, present, or future military obligations and their current and 

prospective employers. Both parties would have to become familiar with their respective rights and obligations under the new law, in addition to making any necessary adjustments in work schedules or similar arrangements to comply with the 

law. As drafted, the bill raises technical concerns about its interaction with 

USERRA’s reemployment eligibility provisions, as well as with the Family and Medical Leave Act. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee to provide any 

requested technical assistance and to better understand the intent of the legislation, 

to help ensure that it does not unintentionally harm Veterans’ employment relationships. 

HR 3610—Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011 

H.R. 3610, the ‘‘Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011,’’ consolidates over two-thirds of current workforce programs and repeals several programs that target particular populations. We will comment here only on the parts 

of the bill that affect VETS programs. As part of this consolidation, the bill repeals 

the authorization for most Veterans grant programs, including the Transition Assistance Program, the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, the Homeless Veterans 

Reintegration Program, and the Veterans Workforce Investment Program. Instead, 

the bill establishes a single Veterans’ Workforce Investment Fund to States that will 

serve as the primary resource for supporting the workforce system’s services to Veterans. This funding will be allotted based on the percentage of each States’ relative 

share of the Nation’s unemployed Veterans. 

H.R. 3610 requires each local area to hire one or more Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) staff as part of its Veterans Workforce Investment 

Fund activities. LVER staff would conduct outreach to employers and facilitate services to Veterans, including disabled Veterans. Currently, the intensive services that 

are needed by disabled Veterans are provided by specialized staff as part of the Disability Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP). The passage of H.R. 3610 would repeal 

the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program without assuring that the same services 

would be provided by the remaining LVER staff. 

Other provisions contained in H.R. 3610 would result in significant changes to 

current Veterans services, such as the elimination of HVRP program which provides 

an intensive, holistic case management approach to serving homeless Veterans with 

the critical component of placement into meaningful sustainable jobs that break the 

cycle of homelessness. This could leave thousands of homeless Veterans without the 

intensive services this program provides. 

H.R. 3610 would also repeal the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). During 

FY2011, VETS provided 4,203 TAP Employment Workshops to nearly 145,000 participants, at both domestic and overseas locations. If the bill were passed, the Department would not have the authorization or funding to provide these needed services. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

81 

While DoL is committed to Federal fiscal responsibility and supports efforts to 

streamline the training and employment services provided to Veterans, the Administration is still reviewing this bill in light of its broader scope and significant implications for the workforce system. The Department believes it is absolutely critical 

that any reform allow for sufficient accountability and ensure that Veterans receive 

the services they need to obtain a job. DoL looks forward to working with the Subcommittee to ensure that Veterans and others receive the high-quality services they 

need to succeed in the workforce. 

HR 4051—TAP Modernization Act of 2012 

H.R. 4051, the ‘‘TAP Modernization Act of 2012,’’ would require the Secretary of 

Labor to provide the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) under title 10, U.S.C., 

section 1144 (10 U.S.C. 1144) ‘‘to eligible individuals at locations other than military 

installations in not less than three and not more than five States selected by the 

Secretary’’ during the three year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 

this bill. 

Unlike the TAP Employment Workshops currently provided to transitioning Service Members and their spouses under 10 U.S.C., 1144, an ‘‘eligible individual’’ for 

this program would be a Veteran or the spouse of a Veteran. The Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshop is designed specifically for transitioning Service Members and their spouses and as such, the curriculum is not appropriate for 

all Veterans. However, One-Stop Career Centers typically provide specific workshops on resume writing, interviewing, and how to conduct a job search. Thus, the 

relevant components of the Employment Workshop are already available to all Veterans. If the intent of the legislation is to increase outreach to unemployed Veterans, 

DoL is already involved in Veteran-targeted outreach initiatives. These include the 

Gold Card initiative, which provides up to 6 months of case management and intensive services to eligible Post 9/11 era Veterans, and an initiative with the Army to 

provide additional employment assistance to Army Veterans who are drawing unemployment compensation benefits. 

As workshops are already provided for job seekers at One-Stop Career Centers, 

coupled with the ongoing initiatives specifically focused on unemployed Veterans, 

this proposed legislation appears to be duplicative. We look forward to working with 

the Subcommittee to identify any needed program improvements. 

HR 4072—Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved Performance 

Act of 2012 

H.R. 4072, the ‘‘Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved Performance Act of 2012,’’ would transfer all responsibilities, functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the programs under title 38, Chapters 41, 42, 43 and 20 of 

the United States Code from the Department of Labor to VA by October 2013. The 

intent of this legislation appears to be to transfer all Veteran related services and 

programs from DoL to VA. 

Within the Department of Labor, VETS has primary responsibility for many of 

these programs, including the Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) Program, 

Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops (TAP), the Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program (HVRP) and the Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). However, other DoL agencies, such as the 

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs (OFCCP), are also directly involved in the administration of 

programs that would be transferred by H.R. 4072. 

VETS’ core mission is employment for Veterans. The agency’s functions to meet 

that core mission fall into two categories: (1) employment and training services; and 

(2) labor law enforcement. In doing its work, it is of course essential that VETS coordinates its activities with other Federal agencies, such as the VA and DoD in the 

Transition Assistance Program, to ensure our men and women who served in the 

Armed Forces are taken care of. 

The ‘‘One-Stop System’’ is the cornerstone of the Nation’s workforce system and 

is administered by DoL, along with partner programs funded by the Departments 

of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and 

Agriculture. The One-Stop system, which consists of over 2,500 One-Stop Career 

Centers throughout the country, ensures the coordinated delivery of employment 

and training services to employers and individuals seeking upward mobility. 

Much of what DoL does for Veterans and other eligible persons concentrates on 

maximizing the employment and training opportunities developed though our relationship with State Workforce Agencies. For instance, VETS offers employment and 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

82 

1Those with disabilities, those recently discharged, and those who served during a war, campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge is authorized. 2 Coverage of contractors and Veterans varies according to when the contract was entered into. For contracts entered into before December 1, 2003, the contract dollar threshold is $25,000, 

and the Veterans covered are: (1) special disabled Veterans; (2) Veterans of the Vietnam era; 

(3) Veterans who served on active duty in the Armed Forces during a war or in a campaign 

or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized; and (4) Veterans separated from 

the service for one year or less. For contracts entered into on or after December 1, 1993, the 

contract dollar threshold is $100,000, and the Veterans covered are: (1) disabled Veterans; (2) 

Veterans who served on active duty in the Armed Forces during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized; (3) Veterans who, while serving on active duty in the Armed Forces, participated in a United States military operation for which an 

Armed Forces service medal was awarded pursuant to Executive Order No. 12985; and (4) Veterans separated from the service for three years or less. 

training services to eligible Veterans primarily through the Jobs for Veterans State 

Grant (JVSG) program. This program provides grants to State Workforce Agencies 

to hire, train, and support employment staff. The DVOPs and LVERs funded by 

these grants provide intensive services to those Veterans that face barriers to employment and reach out and educate employers on the benefits of hiring Veterans. 

DoL is not only an employment and training agency; it is also a worker protection 

agency with a vital role in enforcing the employment rights for Veterans and Service 

Members. VETS is responsible for promulgating regulations interpreting, administering, and helping enforce the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). USERRA provides employment and reemployment rights to eligible Service Members and Veterans by protecting those individuals from adverse discrimination due to their past, present, or future military service, status or obligations. VETS’ professional investigative staff accepts and investigates complaints filed by individuals who believe that their employment or reemployment rights have been violated by public or private-sector employers. In addition, VETS staff provides technical assistance and briefings on the law to the public. 

Many employment disputes arise from misunderstandings on employee and employer rights and obligations under the law, and, as a result, VETS seeks to resolve 

issues at the earliest possible opportunity. Since September 11, 2001, VETS has received and investigated on average, approximately 1,375 cases per year. VETS conducts thorough and complete investigations, including obtaining all documentary 

evidence and witness statements. VETS also has subpoena authority and uses it 

when necessary. 

VETS works with the employers and claimants to achieve a satisfactory resolution. When VETS is unable to resolve the issue, the claimant may request that the 

case be referred to either the U.S. Department of Justice (for non-Federal employers) or the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) (for Federal-sector employers) for those 

agencies to determine whether they will provide representation in Federal District 

Court or before the Merit Systems Protection Board, respectively. In the alternative, 

the claimant may elect to pursue relief as a pro se litigant or through private counsel at his or her own expense. 

In addition to its USERRA responsibilities, VETS is also responsible for investigating complaints received pursuant to the Veterans’ Employment Opportunities 

Act of 1998 (VEOA; 5 U.S.C. 3330a) from preference-eligible Veterans who have alleged that their Veterans’ preference rights in Federal hiring or during a reductionsin-force (RIFs) have been violated. The proposed HR 4072 fails to include VETS’ 

Veterans’ preference among those functions to be transferred to VA. 

Another enforcement program that would be transferred to the VA under the bill 

is DoL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforcement of 

Sections 4212 (a)(1) and 4212 (a)(2)(A) of the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment 

Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA). VEVRAA prohibits Federal contractors and subcontractors (‘‘contractors’’) from discriminating against protected Veterans 1 and requires them to ensure equal opportunity for protected Veterans in all aspects of employment, such as recruitment, including listing job openings with appropriate employment services, hiring, training, and promotion. 2

OFCCP enforces two other laws that require nondiscrimination and affirmative 

action by contractors, in addition to VEVRAA: Executive Order 11246 (which covers 

race, national origin, color, sex, and religious discrimination) and Section 503 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (which covers disability discrimination). Today, OFCCP 

conducts a robust program that monitors the more than 179,000 contractor establishments (or facilities), with contracts totaling over $700 billion – covering approximately one quarter of American workers—for compliance with all three of these 

laws. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

83 

If enforcement of Sections 4212(a)(1) and 4212(a)(2)(A) of VEVRAA were to be 

moved from DoL to the VA, care must be taken to avoid adverse effects on contractors’ compliance with those sections. Under its two other authorities, OFCCP already conducts thousands of investigations of contractors’ employment practices 

every year, and practices related to the employment of protected Veterans is fully 

integrated into OFCCP’s systems. 

Conclusion: 

VETS has a core mission of providing employment and reemployment services to 

Veterans and transitioning Service Members, as well as protecting their employment rights. In doing this, VETS partners with other DoL agencies as well as VA 

and DoD. DoL looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and our partners 

to ensure that we provide effective assistance to Veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to entertain any 

questions you or the other Members of the Committee may have. 

f 

Statements For The Record 

HON. MIKE MCINTYRE 

Testimony to the House VA Committee 

March 5, 2012 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner, and Members of the Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee: 

I submit this testimony in support of the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, 

H.R. 3483, legislation I sponsored with Congressman G.K. Butterfield. This important measure would equalize veterans’ tuition benefits under the Post 9/11 G. I. Bill 

and change an inequity in existing law which allots more education funds to veterans enrolled in private colleges than those in public institutions. I would also like 

to highlight my constituent, Sgt. Jason Thigpen, who is testifying today, and the organization he started, the Student Veterans Advocacy Group at the University of 

North Carolina at Wilmington, which was instrumental in formulating this legislation. 

As you know, the Post 9/11 Veterans’ Educational Improvements Assistance Act 

capped the education benefit amount for veterans who enroll in private colleges at 

$17,500 and limited the education benefit for those who enroll in public colleges to 

the amount charged for resident tuition and fees. The current law unintentionally 

burdens a significant number of American veterans, requiring them to pay thousands of dollars out-of-pocket in non-residential tuition rates. This could add up to 

more than $100,000 in certain states. 

The Veterans’ Education Equity Act of 2011 would remedy this inequality and 

allow all veterans to receive up to $17,500 in education benefits. However, if resident tuition exceeds $17,500, the bill would cover the full cost of tuition. The bill 

makes no changes to existing law for veterans who choose to attend private colleges 

and universities. 

This legislation is absolutely essential to thousands of veterans who were promised funding for their college education. Already, numerous veterans have had to 

drop out, transfer, or assume tremendous financial burdens due to the recent 

change in law. This legislation is vital to give all veterans an equal opportunity to 

afford the school of their choice. Therefore, I respectfully request your important 

consideration and support of this measure that will restore equal education benefits 

for all veterans. 

Mike McIntyre 

Member of Congress 

f 

U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

MAR -6 2012 

The Honorable Marlin Stutzman 

Chairman 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

84 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Stutzman: 

Thank you for your letter of February 17,2012, regarding the Subcommittee on 

Economic Opportunity’s legislative hearing scheduled for March 8, 2012. I appreciate the opportunity to share the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) 

views on H.R.3670. 

Enclosed for your consideration is the TSA’s Statement for the Record regarding 

H .R. 3670, legislation which would grant Transportation Security Officers rights 

under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. We 

share the Subcommittee’s support of our Nation’s veterans, and TSA is proud that 

more than 15,000 veterans are counted among the Agency’s employees. Representing nearly 25 percent of our workforce, veterans are working throughout TSA 

to provide the highest level of security for the traveling public. 

I hope this information is helpful. If we may be of further assistance, please call 

the Office of Legislative Affairs at 571-227-2717. 

Sincerely yours, 

Peter W. Hearding 

Deputy Assistant Administrator 

for Legislative Affairs 

Enclosure 

Thank you, Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this written statement 

for the record about the ways the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

supports our military personnel in the employment process in addition to facilitating 

travel for soldiers and their families throughout the United States. 

TSA is proud to count many uniformed servicemembers among our employees. 

Over 10,000 veterans—or approximately 20% of the Transportation Security Officer 

(TSO) workforce—serve on TSA’s front line securing our Nation’s transportation sector. TSA has endeavored to ensure that our policies and procedures are consistent 

with the law, and structured to promote the substantive rights to which veterans’ 

are specifically entitled under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). 

Employment Protection for Service Members 

TSA is authorized under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) to 

set the qualifications, conditions and standards of employment for TSOs, notwithstanding any other provision of law. ATSA, δ111(d), 49 U.S.C. δ44935, note. If enacted, H.R. 3670 would amend δ111(d) of ATSA to expressly state that the TSA Administrator would be required to comply with USERRA. Specifically, if amended, 

δ111(d) of ATSA would read as follows (new text added by H.R. 3670 is in bold font): 

(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY—Except as provided in paragraph (2), 

andnotwithstanding any other provision of law, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security may employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the 

compensation, terms, and conditions of employment of Federal service for such 

a number of individuals as the Under Secretary determines to be necessary to 

carry out the screening functions of the Under Secretary under section 44901 

of title 49, United States Code. The Under Secretary shall establish levels of 

compensation and other benefits for individuals so employed. 

(2) UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT 

RIGHTS ACT—In carrying out the functions authorized under paragraph (1), the Under Secretary shall be subject to the provisions set 

forth in chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code. 

TSA’s policies for veterans afford TSOs the same substantive rights enumerated 

in H.R. 3670. In 2006, TSA established policies and procedures for employment and 

reemployment of members of the uniformed service-consistent with the provisions 

of USERRA (38 U.S.C. δδ 4301-4344) in the form of TSA Management Directive 

1100.30-17, Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment, which is supplemented by a more detailed Handbook and available to all TSA employees. The policy, updated and expanded in 2009, addresses: predeployment procedures for both 

the employee and management; leave and other benefits afforded to 

servicemembers; and the responsibilities of employees, human resources specialists 

and supervisors/managers regarding reemployment rights of servicemembers. The 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

85 

Handbook also addresses the special considerations that apply to returning employees who suffer a service-connected disability including reassignment to another position for which the employee qualifies if the employee can no longer perform the essential functions of the position held prior to his or her military service. 

Through the application of this policy, TSA demonstrates its commitment to treating both TSO and non-TSO uniformed service employees with equal respect. TSOs 

who believe their USERRA rights have been violated may contact the Department 

of Labor (DoL) for assistance and TSA works closely with DoL to address any disputes that arise. TSA has worked diligently to educate supervisors and human resources specialists policies related to uniformed services employment and reemployment while establishing relationships with the interagency partners. As a result, 

most issues are resolved before they reach the DoL complaint stage. Based upon the 

fact that TSA has these policies in place, we believe that H.R. 3670 is unnecessary. 

Facilitating Travel through Risk-Based Security Measures 

In addition to supporting our veteran employees by protecting their USERRA 

rights, TSA is also committed to expediting the screening process for our uniformed 

servicemembers. U.S. servicemembers are entrusted with the responsibility to protect our citizens with their lives. TSA recognizes that these members pose very little 

risk to security and has developed procedures at our security checkpoints to allow 

military personnel to move safely and expeditiously through our nation’s airports. 

—Military personnel traveling in uniform with a valid military ID are not required to remove their footwear unless it alarms the walk through metal detector at the checkpoint while family members who want to accompany a deployed 

military servicemember to the boarding gate, or greet them returning from deployment at the arrival gate, may receive passes to enter the secure area of the 

airport after being properly screened. 

—To facilitate the screening of injured and wounded servicemembers, TSA has 

partnered with the Department of Defense (DoD) to develop a process to inform 

us when our injured military heroes are traveling through our Nation’s airports. 

—TSA will soon begin incorporating active duty U.S. Armed Forces members with 

a valid Common Access Card, traveling out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport into the TSA Pre ✔ TM. If TSA is able to verify the servicemember 

is in goodstanding with the Department of Defense, they will receive TSA 

Pre ✔ TM screening benefits, such as no longer removing their shoes or light 

jacket and allowing them to keep their laptop in its case and their 3-1-1 compliant bag in a carry-on. Building on its initial success, TSA envisions expanding 

TSA Pre ✔ TM benefits to active duty servicemembers at additional participating 

airports in the coming months. 

Of course, nothing will guarantee that a passenger receives expedited screening. 

To remain effective, TSA must retain the ability to employ random and unpredictable security measures at any point in the process. TSA’s goal at all times is to 

maximize transportation security to stay ahead of evolving terrorist threats while 

protecting privacy and facilitating the flow of legitimate commerce. 

This Subcommittee plays a vital role in advancing legislation that assists our Nation’s military personnel and enables us to repay the debt of gratitude owed to those 

who defend the rights and liberties enjoyed by all Americans. The Subcommittee’s 

continued vigilance on behalf of veterans ensures that those who nobly defend our 

Nation are rewarded for their service. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this 

written statement to discuss how the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 

supports our military personnel in the employment process in addition to facilitating 

travel for soldiers and their families throughout the United States. 

f 

TERRY ‘‘T.P’’ O’MAHONEY 

March 7, 2012 

The Honorable Jeff Miller 

Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

2416 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Miller: 

On behalf of the nearly 1.8 million veterans in Texas, I would like to thank you 

for the significant leadership, vision and hard work you have given to improve their 

lives and the lives of their families. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

86 

As Chairman of the Texas Veterans Commission, and as a former member of the 

Texas Workforce Commission, I would also like to commend you for sponsoring 

House Resolution 4072. Your legislation very closely tracks the ‘‘Texas Model’’ of 

placing the veteran employment function within the state’s veteran affairs agency. 

Since 2006, when those functions were combined within the Texas Veterans Commission, Texas has excelled at finding employment for our veterans. Today, we lead 

the nation, by far, in finding jobs for our Texas veterans. In the last fiscal year, 

38,714 veterans found work with assistance provided by over 170 Veteran Employment Specialists at TVC. When veterans help veterans, amazing things happen: one 

of every three jobs created in the top 10 funded states were created in Texas; Texas 

spends one-third as much as the median cost to hire a veteran among the top 10 

states; and, though Texas received 7 percent of the nation’s veteran employment 

funding in the last year, it accounted for 18 percent of the veterans entering into 

employment after receiving assistance from veteran employment specialists. 

It is with this experience in mind, and in the hope of assisting your effort to build 

on the success of this model, that I respectfully offer the following observations and 

principles for HR 4072: 

1. The ‘‘one-stop’’ concept should be preserved.When the veterans’ employment function was combined within the Texas Veterans Commission, state legislators were careful to ensure that veteran employment specialists continue to work 

within the workforce centers. 

2. Remove the option allowing non-veterans to serve as veteran employment specialists.You may want to consider removing the language in HR 4072 

(Sec. 4) that would allow states to hire a non-veteran to serve as a veteran employment specialist if no veteran is available. It has been our experience in Texas that 

qualified veterans are always available to assist their fellow veterans. 

3. Ensure that ‘‘intensive services’’ are preserved.Veterans who, for a variety 

of reasons, have significant barriers to employment should be accommodated. Accordingly, Texas Veterans Commission recommends that you consider including intensive services as part of the ‘‘Principal Duties’’ outlined in the consolidation portion of your bill (Sec. 4). 

4. Ensure that the legislation provides the flexibility necessary to the 

states to implement the changes by the most appropriate and effective 

means. 

Because Texas is unique, we have a unique interest in ensuring that HR 4072 

preserves our effective model for combining veterans employment and allows other 

states to capitalize on the success we’ve enjoyed. Specifically, Texas Veterans Commission is concerned that language in HR 4072 (Sec. 4) requiring that consolidation 

occur ‘‘in a state under the applicable state employment service delivery systems’’ 

could have a severe unintended consequence for Texas. Without greater specificity, 

the clause might be misinterpreted as a requirement to return Texas’ veteran employment functions back to the Texas Workforce Commission. We simply request 

that alternative language specifying that the consolidation occur ‘‘in a state under 

the appropriate veterans’ employment agency,’’ be considered as an alternative. 

5. Preserve and enhance veterans’ employment funding through performance outcomes. 

I know you are as committed as we are to being fully prepared to meet the increased needs of a military drawdown. The costs of defending freedom will not end 

with the withdraw of troops from Iraq and the impending drawdown in Afghanistan. 

At the same time, taxpayers must be assured that funding for veteran employment 

assistance is used effectively. To promote the greatest return on investment for veteran employment dollars, Congress should require performance outcomes in the annual funding formula for states. Such a measure will incentivize states to excel at 

training and employing veterans. 

I sincerely thank you, the Committee, and your staff for your leadership and consideration. I stand ready to answer any questions or provide any information you 

may need to assist your efforts. 

Thank you for all you do on behalf of our nation’s veterans. 

Sincerely, 

Terry ‘‘T.P.’’ O’Mahoney 

Chairman, Texas Veterans Commission 

cc: Committee on House Veterans’ Affairs 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

87 

DR. R. SCOTT RALLS 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to enter testimony into the record regarding H.R. 3483, the Veteran’s Education Equity Act of 2011. I represent a System of 58 colleges that provides education and 

workforce training to almost 900,000 North Carolinians annually—approximately 

one out of every eight adults in our state. 

Ours is a system that grew out of an innovation to foster statewide economic prosperity through workforce development. Founded on the concept of educating and 

training persons for jobs they had not previously performed, our colleges have transformed into centers of education and innovation, responsive to a 21st century knowledge-based economy whose employers not only demand - but expect - a highly 

skilled, highly trained workforce that we are called upon to provide. Our ‘‘open door’’ 

philosophy is rooted in the belief ascribed to by one of our founders, Dr. Dallas Herring, where we take every student from where they are in life and take them as 

far as they can go to be productive members of our society. 

Since 2008, our colleges have grown by over 33,000 students, or roughly the size 

of one of our flagship state universities, North Carolina State University. Whether 

it is due to job layoffs, constricting family finances, or persons with 4-year degrees 

coming to our colleges to be retrained for job-ready fields of work, more individuals 

are turning to our community colleges as the pathway to further their educational 

goals. Those returning in increasing numbers also include our nation’s servicemen 

and women. 

North Carolina is proud to be the most military friendly state in the union. With 

major military bases at Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Seymour Johnson, and Cherry 

Point, our state takes tremendous pride in supporting members of our country’s 

armed services and their families. Through partnerships like those at Coastal Carolina Community College in Jacksonville, Fayetteville Technical Community College 

in Fayetteville, Wayne Community College in Goldsboro or Craven Community College in New Bern, our colleges maintain close connections with our armed services 

to ensure that our military members are well served and equipped with the skills 

they need to be successful in their military careers and beyond. 

Equally important is the value we place on our United States veterans. Whether 

relocating in our state to begin retirement, or in many cases to begin a second career, our community colleges provide the instruction and training for our veterans 

to succeed in a new phase of their lives. As a System, we are concerned that 

changes made in the Post 9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Improvements Act of 

2011 (PL 111-377) caused unintended consequences to our non-resident veterans. 

While acting in good faith to contain the overall program costs, the bill had the net 

effect of reducing benefits for veterans who for tuition purposes are classified as outof-state residents. 

The interpretation being made to limit tuition and fees at public institutions to 

the applicable institution’s in-state tuition rate for both in-state and out-of-state 

Veterans unintentionally disadvantages out-of-state veterans who wish to attend 

public institutions in North Carolina. In the 2010-11 academic year, over 700 veterans attending North Carolina’s community colleges were adversely affected by this 

interpretation. One student at Pitt Community College expressed the hardships she 

now faced in terms of deferring her education because of the inability to now afford 

tuition. ‘‘I was told I had full benefits no matter where I lived . . . I feel this is (a) 

mistreatment to veterans who have served their country’’. When discussing the 

plight of former military servicemen and women, another student-veteran remarked, 

‘‘They are now being told that their out-of-state tuition won’t be covered as it once 

was, causing many of them to be unable to afford their education.’’ 

Fortunately, the bill you have before you for consideration, H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, will enable Veterans to receive this benefit that 

they previously enjoyed prior to changes to the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Due to the leadership of North Carolina Congressman G.K. Butterfield, and joined by Howard Coble, 

Walter Jones, Larry Kissell, Mike McIntyre, Brad Miller, David Price, Mel Watt and 

50 other Representatives, H.R. 3483 will allow the affected veteran population to 

receive the greater of (1) actual net costs for in-state tuition or (2) $17,500 for the 

academic year beginning on August 1, 2011. 

University of North Carolina System President Tom Ross and I co-authored a letter to the state’s congressional delegation respectfully requesting action to remedy 

this situation for our veterans. Recently, our college presidents, working in concert 

with our local college boards of trustees, endorsed H.R. 3483 as a part of our system’s Federal agenda. Trustees had the opportunity to visit with our delegation last 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

88 

month to reiterate their support for this legislation. While this cannot be done without a cost, we sincerely believe that an educational opportunity for all of our servicemen and women is a price worth paying. It is in our state’s best interest to educate 

servicemembers. As President Ross and I acknowledged last year, servicemembers 

are our best students—they graduate on time and they continue to grow our state’s 

economy. With thousands of men and women set to return from tours of duty overseas, we owe it to them to reinstate this education benefit as recognition of their 

service to our country. This seems to be a small price to pay in exchange for what 

they have given to us. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express our system’s support of this important 

piece of legislation. 

Please insert the total number of undergraduate military servicemembers using 

GI Bill grants charged out-of-state tuition rates for each of the following school 

years: 

College 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 

Alamance * 1 0 0 1 

Asheville-Buncombe 6 8 10 19 27 

Beaufort Co. 0 0 0 0 0 

Bladen 

Blue Ridge 0 0 0 1 1 

Brunswick 0 1 0 0 1 

Caldwell 2 1 0 2 5 

Cape Fear n/a n/a n/a 49 108 

Carteret 

Catawba Valley 0 0 0 0 0 

Central Carolina 

Central Piedmont 16 12 11 15 29 

Cleveland 

Coastal Carolina 7 10 11 35 59 

Coll. Of Albermarle 26 14 10 8 6 

Craven * * * 22 69 

Davidson County * * * 3 * 

Durham 

Edgecombe 

Fayetteville * * * 63 155 

Forsyth 2 1 2 5 10 

Gaston * 1 4 6 9 

Guilford 10 2 3 7 22 

Halifax 0 0 0 0 0 

Haywood 0 2 0 3 3 

Isothermal 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

89 

College 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 

James Sprunt 0 0 0 0 0 

Johnston 0 0 0 0 0 

Lenoir 0 0 0 2 1 

Martin * 1 0 0 0 

Mayland 

McDowell 

Mitchell 

Montgomery 

Nash 0 0 3 5 1 

Pamlico 0 0 0 0 1 

Piedmont 1 0 0 3 4 

Pitt 15 19 17 30 53 

Randolph 4 2 8 13 22 

Richmond 0 0 0 1 3 

Roanoke-Chowan 0 1 0 1 1 

Robeson 0 0 0 0 1 

Rockingham 

Rowan-Cabarrus * * * 9 16 

Sampson 

Sandhills * * * * * 

South Piedmont 

Southeastern 0 0 0 0 0 

Southwestern 1 0 0 2 0 

Stanly 0 0 0 3 4 

Surry 0 0 0 0 0 

Tri-County 

Vance-Granville * * 2 2 3 

Wake 25 42 47 57 85 

Wayne 0 0 0 5 13 

Western Piedmont * * * 1 1 

Wilkes 0 0 1 3 1 

Wilson * 0 0 0 0 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

90 

College 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 

TOTAL 115 118 129 375 715 

* no data available 

f 

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Testimony of Ramsey Sulayman 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, on behalf of 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s 200,000 Member Veterans and supporters, I thank you for inviting me to submit this testimony and share the views 

of our members’ on these important pieces of legislation. 

My name is Ramsey Sulayman and I am a legislative associate with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). I am a major in the United States Marine 

Corps Reserve, have seen life on active-duty and the reserves, and I deployed as 

part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, serving as an infantry platoon commander and 

company executive officer with a reconnaissance unit operating on the western border with Syria. The view expressed in this testimony are those of IAVA and do not 

reflect any position held by the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps has two missions: 

winning battles and making Marines. The first mission is what we are known for: 

Marines have demonstrated their prowess in war for over 236 years. The second is 

a duty I believe continues throughout life. As the saying goes, there are no ex-Marines. I’m proud to continue to serve through my work at IAVA and to say to all 

members of our armed forces, past and present, ‘‘I’ve got your back.’’ 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER


73293.005
91 

Bill # Name/Subject Sponsor Position 

H.R. 3329 Extend VocRehab eligibility to 15 years Rep. Sanchez, Linda Support 

H.R. 3483 In state tuition fix to the Post-9/11 GI Bill Rep. Butterfield Support 

H.R. 3524 Leave for veterans seeking treatment for injuries Rep. Braley Support 

H.R. 3610 Moving Vet employment services to the States Rep. Foxx Oppose 

H.R. 3670 Extending USERRA protections to the TSA Rep. Walz Support 

H.R. 4048 Veterans preference to the GSA catalogue Rep. Johnson Support 

H.R. 4051 Extending TAP off base Rep. Stutzman Support 

H.R. 4052 Recognizing GI Bill friendly schools Rep. Stutzman Support 

H.R. 4057 Consumer education for student veterans Rep. Bilirakis Support 

H.R. 4072 Moving VETS program from DoL to VA Rep. Miller Support 

H.R. 3329—IAVA supports H.R. 3329, extending veterans’ eligibility to apply for 

VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment benefits from 12 to 15 years. Given 

the experience from past wars, most notably Vietnam, we should lay the foundation 

to help veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who may not show disabling conditions for 

years to come. Extending the eligibility to apply for Voc Rehab benefits is a prudent, 

low-cost step that can be taken before any need arises; which is to say, before it 

is too late to do much good. 

H.R. 3483—IAVA supports H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 

2011, and its attempt to address an inequity with the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Currently, 

GI Bill payments for out-of-state students are limited to the cost of in-state tuition. 

Veterans attending a private school in the same state can receive up to $17,500 in 

tuition and fee assistance. Veterans who choose to attend a public school in a state 

where they do not legally reside often incur a sizable debt burden to make up the 

difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates. Ideally, we would prefer 

that all schools that receive GI Bill funds treat all veterans and their dependants 

as in-state residents. However, bringing the out of state tuition and fee cap on par 

with the cap for private schools is an acceptable compromise. 

H.R. 3524—IAVA supports H.R. 3524, the Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act. The decrease in the rate of fatalities during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in comparison with historical levels has been a welcome development. However, 

many more servicemembers survive with either physical or mental health injuries. 

When these veterans re-enter civilian life and the workforce, their injuries still require treatment and this often entails extended absence from a veteran’s place of 

employment. H.R. 3524, assures that veterans can more fully recover from their 

service-connected injuries while remaining employed. 

H.R. 3610—IAVA opposes H.R. 3610. IAVA recognizes that the intent of H.R. 

3610 reflects valid concerns about tailoring employment help for veterans to local 

economies: the needs in Silicon Valley might differ substantially from the manufacturing centers in Michigan. However, IAVA opposes the methods H.R. 3610 proposes 

to meet this goal. We believe that transferring veterans employment funding and 

services to the states removes valuable Congressional oversight and risks lowering 

standards for these programs. Among our most pressing concerns is that states 

could choose not to receive grant funds, thereby eliminating services altogether. Our 

fears are not allayed by the argument that such a circumstance is ‘‘unlikely.’’ Furthermore, the fact that spending is now solely at the discretion of the states means 

the funds currently used to help veterans could be used for other purposes, thereby 

diluting their effect and lessening the help available for transitioning or displaced 

veterans. Additionally, programs that are now successful could have their funding 

cut or their focus shifted as states focus on other employment priorities. Therefore, 

IAVA opposes passage of H.R. 3610. 

H.R. 3670—IAVA supports H.R. 3670. USERRA is a critical reemployment safeguard for members of the Guard and Reserves. IAVA believes that USERRA protections should be extended to all state and Federal employees. H.R. 3670 addresses 

this gap in USERRA protection for the Transportation Security Administration 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

92 

(TSA). In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security employed nearly 47,000 veterans, many of them in the TSA. It is only reasonable that Guardsmen and Reservists who are employed by the Federal government receive the same protections as 

their peers who are employed in the private sector. 

H.R. 4048—IAVA supports H.R. 4048, extending veterans preference to veteranowned small businesses that wish to list services to the Federal government in the 

GSA catalogue. Extending contracting preference to veteran-owned business has historically been an effective and sensible method of ensuring that veterans find quality employment after leaving service. At a time where veteran unemployment is 

staggering, this bill will provide more opportunities for veteran business owners to 

offer goods and services to the country that they have fought to protect. 

H.R. 4051—IAVA supports H.R. 4051, the TAP Modernization Act of 2011. It’s 

smart policy to allow veterans who have already been through the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and their spouses the opportunity to retake the program. TAP 

is taken at the very end of a servicemember’s time in service and during a transition that, even in the best of circumstances, is hectic. The opportunity to retake TAP 

as a refresher is a valuable resource. IAVA endorses H.R. 4051, but we believe that 

the pilot program should be scaled up quickly, ahead of schedule and to more locations if it proves successful. IAVA understands that limiting the scope and geography of the pilot program is necessary initially; however, we suggest incorporating 

a set of benchmarks to determine the efficacy of the program prior to the three and 

a half year deadline set in the current version of the legislation. 

H.R. 4052—IAVA supports H.R. 4052, the Recognizing Excellence in Veterans 

Education Act of 2012. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is the most significant veterans’ benefits in the last half-century. One of the key obstacles for many veterans to effectively 

utilize the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the lack of good information available to help them 

make sound educational and job training choices. H.R. 4052, will help bring clarity 

to this process. This program will serve as a beacon marking veteran-friendly 

schools with the Excellence in Veterans Education Award. The criteria for awarding 

the Excellence in Veterans Education Award are excellent indicators that an educational institution places value on its student veterans, from the academic (graduation rates) to the financial (full participation in the Yellow Ribbon program). 

H.R. 4057—IAVA supports H.R. 4057, the Improving Transparency of Educational Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2012. IAVA’s main priority is to ensure 

transparency and accountability in GI Bill benefits and their use. IAVA believes 

that the GI Bill is the most effective program available for transforming our generation of veterans into the ‘‘New Greatest Generation.’’ IAVA also realizes that, like 

the original GI Bill, unscrupulous actors whose goals are to take advantage of veterans by poaching their hard earned benefits is a threat to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

If we do not preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, we will 

lose this transformational benefit. IAVA advocates a three-prong strategy to ensure 

that VA educational benefits are used wisely: 1) data collection, 2) consumer education, and 3) regulation enforcement through market means. 

H.R. 4057 stresses the first two and IAVA supports this approach. We believe that 

the availability of clear and equivalent data, available in an easily accessible and 

transparent format, is an essential element to ensure smart use of VA educational 

benefits. All schools, regardless of profit goal or government support, should have 

to provide this information so that students can assess how a given school meets 

their needs. IAVA believes that College Navigator, a site run by the Department of 

Education, is an excellent model. However, the data is inconsistent; not all schools 

report the same data. Mandating that all schools report the same data is crucial. 

While IAVA supports the goals of H.R. 4057, as well as the legislation itself, we 

would like to address some areas of potential concern. We are pleased to see a broad 

definition of post-secondary education and training opportunities, but are concerned 

that emphasis on ‘‘commercially available off-the-shelf online tool(s)’’ will have limitations. We are concerned that an existing tool currently in the government’s toolbox 

(like College Navigator) might be bypassed for a commercial option, like GIBill.com 

or EducationConnection.com, which are a funnel sites for mostly for-profit schools. 

H.R. 4072—IAVA supports H.R. 4072, the Consolidating Veterans’ Employment 

Services for Improved Performance Act of 2012. Given that the unemployment rate 

for OIF/OEF-era veterans has hovered around 25% higher than the civilian rate, 

IAVA continues to scan the horizon for innovative approaches to solve the veteran 

unemployment crisis. H.R. 4072 takes a different tactic than most, focusing on a 

veterans’ first point of contact when they leave service: veteran employment services. Two of the critiques we at IAVA hear most often from veterans is that a multitude of overlapping services cloud options rather than clarify them. Additionally, 

competing programs and services muddle rather than sharpen the focus on getting 

vets employed. By bringing the Department of Labor Veterans Employment and 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

93 

Training Service (DoL VETS) into the Department of Veterans Administration (VA), 

duplication of effort will be minimized by creating synergies and leveraging resources within one department while still maintaining the capability to leverage 

across executive branch departments. 

This idea is not new, but has never coalesced into action. Now is the time for action. Under the current system, DoL VETS receives funding from DoL to execute 

VA priorities. It is like having one member of the House of Representatives located 

in the Senate. Aligning the resources of VETS with the veteran-centric mission of 

the VA results is an obvious streamlining of control, communication and resources. 

IAVA recognizes that there are many questions to be answered and details to be 

considered. However, we feel that H.R. 4072 is thorough in its application and intent. H.R. 4072 transfers VETS on a one-for-one basis in funding and importance 

from DoL to VA and IAVA’s support for H.R. 4072 is contingent on that point. VETS 

must remain well funded and maintained at the organizational rank at VA that it 

currently occupies at DoL. 

Caring for the men and women who defend freedom is a solemn responsibility 

that belongs to lawmakers, business leaders, and everyday citizens alike. In the past 

several years, we have seen a turning point in the way we care and provide for our 

nation’s warriors. Despite critical successes, however, veterans’ education and employment services are still not up to standard. We must remain ever vigilant and 

continue to show the men and women who volunteer to serve their country that we 

have their backs. Thank you for your time and attention. 

f 

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), a non-profit organization 

comprised of 1.2 million service-disabled veterans focused on building better lives 

for America’s disabled veterans and their families, I am pleased to offer our statement for the record on the bills under consideration today. 

H.R. 3329, Vet Success Enhancement Act of 2011 

H.R. 3329 would amend section 3103, title 38, United States Code, to extend the 

eligibility period for veterans to enroll in vocational rehabilitation programs from 

the current twelve-year period to fifteen-years. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment’s (VR&E’s) VetSuccess program assists veterans with service-connected disabilities in preparing for, finding and keeping jobs suitable to their skill sets. For 

veterans with severe service-connected disabilities that impact their ability to immediately work, other services are offered to help them live as independently as possible. Veterans are eligible for VR&E’s VetSuccess program if they have an other 

than dishonorable discharge as well as a service-connected disability rating of at 

least 10 percent, or a memorandum rating of 20 percent or more from the VA. The 

VetSuccess program is also open to active duty military who expect they will be separated with an honorable discharge and who also have a memorandum rating of 20 

percent or more from the VA. 

Under current law, the basic period of eligibility for VetSuccess cannot exceed 12 

years from either the date of separation from active duty, or the date the veteran 

was notified by VA of their service-connected disability rating. This 12-year eligibility period can only be extended if a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor determines that a veteran has a serious employment handicap. 

We certainly appreciate the intent to extend the eligibility period offered by this 

legislation, but in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 222, we would recommend 

it be amended to completely remove any time limit for eligibility to VR&E benefits 

for qualified disabled veterans. Despite efforts to keep veterans informed of their 

benefits, not all disabled veterans are aware of their possible entitlements to VR&E 

programs at the time they are awarded service-connection for disabilities. Many veterans do not necessarily see themselves as needing vocational rehabilitation until 

later in life, which often occurs after the 12-year eligibility rule excludes them from 

the benefit. Just as VA puts no time limit on when a veteran may submit a claim 

for disability compensation, we assert that there should be no time limit for access 

to VR&E benefits either. Moreover, removing the time limits on eligibility could also 

help reduce the backlog of disability compensation claims since veterans seeking 

VR&E benefits after 12 (or even 15) years have passed would not have to submit 

new claims, or reopen old ones, in hopes of being granted a new service-connection 

to once again make them eligible for VR&E benefits. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

94 

Although passage of H.R. 3329 would be a positive step forward, DAV recommends that the legislation be amended to remove any delimiting period for eligibility to VR&E benefits. 

H.R. 3483, Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011 

H.R. 3483, the Veterans Educational Equity Act of 2011, would provide equity 

under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill to veterans attending college who do not meet residency requirements at public schools. 

The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill offers veterans of the current conflicts the opportunity to 

further their education. Recent changes allow veterans attending private schools to 

receive up to $17,500 in tuition and fee payments from VA. However, those attending public schools are only entitled to receive the highest in-state tuition and fee 

payments, regardless of whether or not they meet residency requirements for the 

state. As a result, many who do not qualify for in-state tuition face significant outof-pocket costs to attend the public school of their choice, as opposed to those who 

chose education to attend private school that may nearly be fully financed. If adopted, this bill would extend the $17,500 reimbursement cap for student-veterans attending public schools who do not meet residency requirements for in-state tuition. 

Although DAV does not have a specific resolution pertaining to this legislation, 

we are not opposed to its favorable consideration. 

H.R. 3524, Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act 

H.R. 3524 would extend Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA) protections—including retention, seniority and benefits—to 

covered individuals who are absent from employment for medical treatment of a 

service-connected disability. The bill would allow employees taking such leave to either take unpaid leave or they could choose to use any vacation, annual, medical, 

or similar leave with pay that accrued prior to their medical treatment. The bill 

would limit the application of this Act to periods of absence for not more than 12 

workweeks during any 12-month period. 

Currently under USERRA, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for disabled veterans; however, employers are not specifically required by 

law to allow veterans with service-connected disabilities to be absent from the workplace to receive medical treatment for them. 

DAV strongly supports passage of H.R. 3524, consistent with DAV Resolution 197, 

which calls for extending job protections under USERRA to cover employee leaves 

of absence due to medical treatments related to service-connected disabilities. 

H.R. 3610, Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act of 2011 

H.R. 3610 would consolidate Federal job training programs in an effort to improve 

their effectiveness and reduce costs. The bill would consolidate 33 of the 47 Federal 

job training programs into several block grant funds for distribution to the states. 

The Workforce Investment Funds would provide job training services to adults, unemployed workers, and youth seeking employment. The State Youth Workforce Investment Fund would assist disadvantaged youth with a focus on school completion. 

The Veterans Workforce Investment Fund would deliver employment and training 

services to veterans. Lastly, the Targeted Populations Workforce Investment Fund 

would assist special populations such as Native Americans and seasonal farm workers. The legislation would require state and local leaders to set ‘‘common performance measures’’ for all employment and job training programs and an independent 

evaluation of DoL programs every five years. Governors would determine the workforce areas that best serve their states and use the various block grants accordingly. 

States would then submit one statewide workforce development plan to the Federal 

government for all job training and related programs. 

DAV has concerns about the effect such a consolidation would have on veterans’ 

jobs and training programs administered by the DoL Veterans Employment and 

Training Service. Although DAV has long been concerned about the effectiveness of 

the DoL’s ability to effectively manage veterans’ employment and training programs, 

we do not believe that H.R. 3610 would create a more effective or accountable program to help our nation’s veterans find meaningful employment. Instead, DAV supports alternate legislation, H.R. 4072, which would move DoL’s current veteran employment programs into the VA, in order to create greater collaboration and synergy 

with related VA programs, such as the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment 

and the Education services. As such, DAV does not support passage of H.R. 3610. 

H.R. 3670 

H.R. 3670 would amend the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to require 

the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to fully comply with USERRA 

when making and carrying out personnel decisions. When TSA was established to 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

95 

address aviation security following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress allowed transportation security officers to be included in a select category of Federal 

employees considered vital to national security, and therefore exempt from 

USERRA. As a result, TSA employees who may be called up from reserve to active 

duty status do not enjoy all of USERRA’s job protections to prevent them from suffering loss as a result of their service. Although TSA claims to have adopted some 

of the USERRA protections voluntarily, this legislation would apply the full 

USERRA protections to all TSA employees. 

Consistent with the intent of DAV Resolution 213, DAV supports passage of H.R. 

3670 in order to ensure that veterans, including disabled veterans, do not suffer employment losses as a result of continued service in our nation’s armed forces. 

H.R. 4048, Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned Small 

Businesses Act of 2012 

H.R. 4048 would amend Section 8127 of title 38, United States Code, to require 

VA to include the value of goods and services procured through the Federal Supply 

Schedule (FSS) when determining whether they are meeting the goals established 

for contracting with veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses 

(SDVOSBs). The FSS is comprised of large contracts negotiated by the General 

Services Administration that allow Federal customers, including VA, to purchase 

more than four million products and services from over 8,000 commercial suppliers. 

Although VA as a matter of practice is currently including FSS purchases in its current annual reporting under Section 8127, this legislation would codify this practice 

for this and future Administrations. 

DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue; however, we are not opposed 

to the passage of this legislation as it could prove beneficial to disabled veteran 

business owners. 

H.R. 4051, TAP Modernization Act of 2012 

H.R. 4051 would direct the Secretary of Labor to establish a three-year pilot program to provide Transition Assistance Program (TAP) training at off-base locations 

within three to five states having the highest rates of veteran unemployment. The 

selection of locations within each of the chosen states would have to be done at a 

sufficient number of locations to meet the needs of the state’s specific population. 

While the purpose of the pilot program is to offer TAP at locations other than military installations, and thereby eliminate some of the obstacles and restrictions inherent in such locations, it could be offered at a National Guard or reserve facility 

as long as that facility is not located on an active duty military installation. Annual 

reports from the Secretary of Labor would be required each year by March 1, and 

following completion of the pilot program, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) would be required to evaluate and report to Congress on the feasibility of 

expanding the pilot program to other locations nationwide. 

DAV has long supported expanded access to TAP for all military personnel, including members of the National Guard and Reserves as detailed in Resolution No. 

217. Consistent with the intention of this resolution, DAV supports passage of H.R. 

4051 to further extend access to this important benefit. 

H.R. 4052, Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2012 

H.R. 4052 would establish an honorary award within the VA to recognize institutions of higher learning that provide superior services to veterans, based upon specified criteria established by the Secretary. 

DAV has no resolution on this matter and has no position on this legislation. 

H.R. 4057, Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2012 

H.R. 4057 would direct VA to develop a comprehensive policy to improve outreach 

and transparency to help educate veterans and members of the Armed Forces about 

institutions of higher learning that they may be interested in attending. The legislation is designed to provide veterans considering enrolling in such institutions with 

information to guide their decisions, including the creation of a mechanism to allow 

veterans access to feedback from students as well as State Approving Agencies. The 

legislation would also require VA to conduct a market survey to determine whether 

an off-the-shelf online tool exists to help veterans in making decisions about postsecondary education and training opportunities. 

DAV has no resolution on this matter and has no position on this legislation. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

96 

H.R. 4072, Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved Performances Act of 2012 

H.R. 4072 would essentially move the Veterans Employment and Training Service 

(VETS) from the Department of Labor (DoL) to the VA, placing it inside the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). The bill would transfer all current functions, 

personnel, assets, and liabilities under the following programs from DoL to VA: 

• Job counseling, training, and placement services for veterans under chapter 41 

of title 38, United States Code. • Employment and training of veterans under chapter 42 of such title. • Administration of employment and employment rights of members of the uniformed services under chapter 43 of title 38. • Homeless veterans reintegration programs under chapter 20 of such title. 

Funding for these programs, which is currently requested as part of DoL’s budget, 

would become part of VA’s annual budget request. A new Deputy Under Secretary 

for Veterans’ Employment and Training would be established within VA to oversee 

these functions, along with any other employment, unemployment, and training programs affecting veterans. This legislation would also consolidate the current positions of Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) and Disabled Veterans 

Outreach Program (DVOP) Specialist into a new position called Veterans Employment Specialist. Current LVERs and DVOPs, who are employed directly by states, 

would be retained and reclassified to these new positions. Although their basic job 

functions would remain the same, rather than having LVERs work only with nondisabled veterans and DVOPs work only with disabled veterans, all Veterans Employment Specialists would be responsible for assisting all veterans. However, in 

performing their work, Veterans Employment Specialists would provide priority of 

service to disabled veterans as required by current law. Further, states would be 

required to give hiring preference for these positions to disabled veterans first, then 

to non-disabled veterans before non-veterans. 

DAV has long been concerned about the effectiveness of the DoL’s veteran employment and training programs. Both GAO and DoL’s Office of Inspector General Office 

(OIG) have found numerous areas of concern over the years related to outreach, 

seamless transition, internal controls, and the measuring and reporting of performance goals and outcomes for veterans, yet such problems remain. Management problems at VETS and continuing high veteran unemployment rates further raise doubts 

about the effectiveness of DoL’s VETS program. At the same time, VA has been expanding its focus on employment as evidenced by the Vocational Rehabilitation service’s change to the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service (VR&E), as 

well as the recent establishment of the position of Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity responsible for VR&E, Education and Home Loan Guaranty 

services. 

In this environment, DAV supports passage of H.R. 4072 with the following recommendation to strengthen the intent of the legislation. Rather than create a new 

Deputy Under Secretary within VBA, DAV recommends that a new Under Secretary 

for Economic Opportunities be created to oversee a new Veterans Economic Opportunities Administration (VEOA), consisting of the transferred VETS programs, along 

with the existing VR&E and Education services. Creation of this fourth administration with VA would help to increase collaboration and synergy amongst VA’s employment, training and education programs benefiting veterans. In addition, it 

would allow VBA to keep its focus on the enormous challenge of transforming the 

broken claims processing system in order to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the 

staggering backlog of pending claims. 

In addition, DAV would urge the Committee to ensure that as this legislation 

moves forward, it retain and strengthen, whenever possible, the priority of providing 

services to disabled veterans, and the preference for hiring disabled veterans, within 

VA’s employment programs and VA in general. Furthermore, it is vital that Federal 

funding for veterans employment programs be protected, which may require the creation of new line items within VA’s budget submission. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. 

f 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Chairman Stuzman, Ranking Member Bilirakas, and members of the Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), thanks you for the opportunity to 

submit a statement for the record regarding the proposed legislation being considered by the Subcommittee. PVA appreciates the fact that you are addressing these 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

97 

important issues that affect the economic wellbeing of veterans. We support your 

effort to help these men and women that have honorably served their Nation as 

they transition successfully back to the civilian world. 

H.R. 3329 

PVA supports H.R. 3329, legislation to extend the eligibility period for vocational 

rehabilitation programs from the current length of twelve years to the proposed 

length of fifteen years. Today’s regulations require veterans to apply for Vocational 

Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) services within 12 years of the date of their 

military separation or upon notification by VA of a service-connected disability rating conferring eligibility. Although many veterans may not understand their eligibility or the value of VR&E services, other veterans who are initially eligible may 

not need the services until after the 12-year delimiting period has expired. Some 

service-connected injuries will have an aggravated effect on the veteran as they get 

older. This could create limitations on employment functions that a veteran once 

had at a younger age. Although the veteran still has the economic need and the desire to continue employment, their service-connected disability will require the veteran to modify or learn new employment skills. 

Although PVA supports H.R.3329, The Independent Budget (IB), co-authored by 

PVA, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, believes the time limit for accessing VR&E programs should be eliminated entirely. 

In fact, the FY2013 edition of the IB recommends that Congress eliminate the 12- 

year delimiting period for Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment services to ensure that veterans with employment barriers or problems with independent living 

qualify for services for the entirety of their employable lives. 

H.R. 3483, the ‘‘Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 3483, the ‘‘Veterans Educational Equity Act of 2011.’’ This bill 

would change the existing law that allows for more educational funds to veterans 

who are enrolled in private colleges than those in public institutions. The current 

law unintentionally burdens some veterans by requiring them to pay additional fees 

not provided by the Post-9/11 GI Bill when attending some out-of-state public institutions. Many veterans that qualify for the Post-9/11 GI Bill do not live in their 

original home state. When these veterans attend a local institution they are penalized with a much higher tuition as an out-of-state student. This legislation will also 

allow the veteran to receive up to $17,500 in educational benefits; however, if the 

in-state tuition exceeds $17,500, this legislation would provide payment for the total 

tuition. Passage of H.R. 3483 will allow veterans to focus on obtaining their education without worrying about which state they must live in to avoid excessive unreimbursed tuition fees. 

H.R. 3524, the ‘‘Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 3524, the ‘‘Disabled Veterans Employment Protection Act.’’ Of 

the men and women that have honorably served both at home and abroad, many 

are exiting military service with lifelong injuries or disabling conditions as a result 

of their service. Unfortunately, some employers have discriminated against these 

men and women as they must take time away from work to address their medical 

problems. PVA supports this legislation that will protect those veterans that must 

take time away from work to attend to their service-connected injuries or medical 

conditions. We would also note that many of the same protections are already afforded to any individual with a disability under the provisions of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. 

H.R. 3610, the ‘‘Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act’’ 

PVA opposes the provisions of H.R. 3610, the ‘‘Streamlining Workforce Development Programs Act.’’ At first glance, this legislation appears to be a response to the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that identified 47 job training programs throughout the Federal government that seemingly overlap or provide similar 

services. However, viewing these programs as simply duplicative and redundant 

undervalues the nature of many of these programs and ignores the full scope of objectives of these programs and the populations of people in this country that they 

serve. 

H.R. 3610 would consolidate 33 of those programs outlined in the GAO report into 

what are described as four ‘‘flexible’’ funds. These funds include: 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

98 

• Workforce Investment Fund providing job training services to adults, youth, unemployed workers; 

• State Youth Workforce Investment Fund focused on disadvantaged youth to encourage school completion; 

• Veterans Workforce Investment Fund for employment services to veterans; and, 

• Targeted Populations Workforce Investment Fund to assist ex-offenders, refugees, migrant and seasonal farmworkers and Native Americans. 

Additionally, the legislation would require the development of common performance measures for all employment and job training programs and would give states 

greater flexibility in determining workforce system service areas. 

PVA has the unique perspective of examining the proposed legislation both 

through the lens of a veterans’ service organization as well as an organization that 

serves the broader community of people with disabilities. First, we oppose this legislation viewing it from the perspective of the disability community. While it seems 

that the legislation proposes to shore up some requirements of state workforce 

plans—plans which state governors are required to submit to the Department of 

Labor in order to receive funding under this legislation—to directly address the employment training and job placement needs of people with disabilities, it is unclear 

how those individuals with the most significant disabilities, such as PVA members 

with catastrophic spinal cord injury, would fare under this system. It is particularly 

troubling that this bill eliminates Title VI of the Rehabilitation Act—the Supported 

Employment program—created specifically for those individuals with the most severe disabilities who often face the greatest challenges in obtaining and retaining 

employment. Too often, under broad, generic job training programs, those who are 

hardest to serve become casualties of the performance measurement system. 

Second, we oppose this legislation viewed from the perspective of the veterans’ 

community. We appreciate the fact that the bill eliminates the weaker phrasing of 

state plan provisions in current law that only requires ‘‘an assurance that veterans 

will be afforded the employment and training activities by the State to the extent 

practicable’’ and instead requires these activities to be ‘‘in accordance with the Jobs 

for Veterans Act.’’ Presumably, this provision is intended to draw the attention of 

state workforce plan developers to the specific requirements of the Jobs for Veterans 

Act. However, H.R. 3610 excepts sections 4103A and 4104 of title 38—the provisions 

that govern the Disabled Veteran Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans 

Employment Representatives (LVER) from the above stated provision. Of great concern is that the bill actually repeals the DVOP and LVER sections from law altogether. 

It appears that funds in the newly consolidated Veterans Workforce Investment 

Fun would be used to hire ‘‘one or more local veterans’ employment representatives 

to carry out employment, training, and placement services.’’ Local workforce areas 

would be required to give preference in hiring to service disabled veterans, veterans 

or if none of the above are available to anyone with expertise in serving veterans. 

These staff would be ‘‘administratively responsible’’ to the director of the one stop 

center. 

In addition to repealing the DVOP and LVER programs, H.R. 3610 also repeals 

the Veterans Workforce Investment Program included in the Workforce Investment 

Act, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) as well as employment 

and job training assistance under Section 1144 of Title 10. The underlying assumption of these repeals seems to be that these are duplicative and redundant programs 

identified by the GAO report and thus can be dealt with under the four consolidated 

workforce investment funds. However, we would highlight the fact that the HVRP 

is perhaps the most cost-effective, cost-efficient program in the Federal government. 

Every year the HVRP is funded well-below its authorized level, and yet, its outcomes reflect great success in serving homeless veterans. 

H.R. 3610 takes a broad swipe at consolidating programs deemed to be ‘‘unnecessary and duplicative.’’ Unfortunately, the bill flatly ignores the fact that many of 

these programs are the best option available for veterans and people with disabilities. 

H.R. 3670 

PVA supports H.R. 3670, legislation to protect the employment and reemployment 

rights of veterans and members of the Guard and Reserve who have taken time 

away from employment to fulfill their obligation to the nation. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) was passed to protect 

the men and women that take time away from their place of employment to fulfill 

their military obligations. Every day veterans of the current conflict return to their 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

99 

home communities and to their jobs they left because of the protection provided by 

USERRA. 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created in the wake of 9/ 

11 to strengthen the security of the nation’s transportation system. In the rapid assembly and deployment of the TSA to provide needed transportation security, some 

of the existing Federal requirements were waived to expedite the formation of this 

new agency. The protection of workers provided by USERRA was one of those Federal requirements. It is unfortunate that this Federal agency has grown to more 

than 50,000 employees and is not required to comply with USERRA. As a result we 

have veterans that are returning from protecting their country (some in harm’s way) 

and are not allowed to return to their chosen careers in the TSA. Perhaps the exclusion of Federal requirements was necessary in order to rapidly stand up this agency 

in 2002, but it makes no sense to allow the agency to continue to be exempt from 

USERRA. PVA supports this legislation that will ensure that veterans have a job 

to return to after serving their nation. 

H.R. 4048, ‘‘Improving Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned small 

Businesses Act of 2012’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 4048, the ‘‘Improving Contracting Opportunities for VeteranOwned Small Business Act of 2012.’’ This legislation would ensure that proper priorities outlined in title 38 U.S.C, δ8127 are followed when the VA chooses to initiate 

a contract under the Federal Supply Schedule. PVA has long been a proponent of 

contracting preference being provided to service-disabled veteran-owned and veteran-owned small businesses. This preference should be applied in any contracting 

activity that the VA conducts. 

H.R. 4051, the ‘‘TAP Modernization Act of 2012’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 4051, the ‘‘TAP Modernization Act of 2012.’’ This legislation 

would require the Department of Labor (DoL) to conduct the Transition Assistance 

Program (TAP) training off military bases in locations away from current locations 

that have traditionally offered TAP. This legislation could prove particularly beneficial for Guard and Reserve members that are returning to their communities away 

from mobilization stations and major military installations after their deployment. 

A large number of these veterans are from rural areas and do not have the access 

to support programs for veterans that would be available in metropolitan areas. Additionally, not every Guard and Reserve member has had the benefit of the broad 

array of information that is provided through the TAP program. This legislation 

would require a three-year pilot program to be presented in three to five states selected by the VA. Considering the current unemployment rate of veterans, we believe that it is imperative that the VA make an effort to provide this service in five 

states. This effort will be evaluated by the Comptroller General to determine its 

value with assisting unemployed veterans. 

The expansion of TAP through this legislation would also coincide with the rollout of the new version of TAP by the DoL’s Veterans Employment and Training 

Service (VETS). After twenty years of presenting the same basic TAP program, 

VETS, in coordination with the VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) have created a new TAP to ensure its relevance and compatibility to today’s job market. This 

new TAP is currently being evaluated after being tested in several locations and will 

be in use nationwide in 2013. Taking a new TAP program out to areas away from 

major cities or military bases will reach a new audience of veterans that critically 

need all information pertaining to support, programs and opportunities currently 

available for veterans. 

H.R. 4052, the ‘‘Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2013’’ 

PVA does not oppose H.R. 4052, the ‘‘Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2013.’’ 

H.R. 4057 

PVA supports H.R. 4057, legislation to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

develop a comprehensive policy to improve outreach and transparency for effectively 

informing veterans about educational and vocational counseling opportunities and 

requires VA to create a central means for tracking feedback about the quality of 

higher education institutions. It also instructs the VA to examine the best ways in 

which state approving agencies share information about their evaluations of institutions of higher learning and the manner in which information about these instituVACREP180 with DISTILLER

100 

tions is provided to TAP participants. Finally, it requires the VA to include in this 

policy the most effective way to provide veterans and members of the military with 

information regarding postsecondary education and training opportunities available 

to them. The need for transparency of this information along with outreach to the 

veteran by the VA is critical. 

Although the VA should not be providing information to influence specific choices 

the veteran may make for their future, many educational and training programs are 

aggressively pursuing the veteran often with misleading promises. Without the latest information readily available and presented to veterans explaining the relevancy 

and the successful outcomes from the wide range of available career programs, veterans could make decisions that could be detrimental to their future success. However, this effort will require additional designated funding in order for it to receive 

priority in the VA. Without funding, it could become another attempt to help veterans that never materializes. 

H.R. 4072, the ‘‘Consolidating Veteran Employment Services for Improved 

Performance Act of 2012’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 4072, the ‘‘Consolidating Veterans Employment Services for 

Improved Performance Act of 2012.’’ The proposed legislation would shift the organization and responsibilities of the Veterans Employment and Training Service 

(VETS) out of DoL and into the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Additionally, 

the legislation would consolidate the duties of the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives 

(LVER) into a single veterans employment representative. This legislation closely 

resembles a recommendation included in The Independent Budget for FY2012. The 

IB states: 

In order to achieve better outcomes for veterans, all veterans’ programs designed to enhance economic security, such as those focused on employment, 

education, and business assistance, should be centralized into a single new administration inside the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

While the IB recommendation called for this alignment to be commensurate with 

the three administrations within VA, we support the plan outlined in this legislation 

that would place principle control for VETS under the Veterans Benefits Administration. 

Both Congress and the Administration have demonstrated their concern for the 

employment of veterans. With new initiatives from Federal agencies to assist veterans, and directions from the Administration to address unemployment among veterans, veterans still maintain an unemployment rate several percentage points 

above the national average. Combining the Federal government’s efforts to assist 

veterans with employment, entrepreneurship, career counseling, and education and 

training programs should create a synergistic effect and at the same time eliminate 

any duplication of programs. This will maximize the combined Federal effort and 

as one united effort, should be easier to monitor results and make necessary modifications in programs if needed. Ultimately, the move of VETS to the VA will ensure 

that veterans receive the highest priority in these employment, education and training programs. 

Once again, PVA would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 

proposed legislation. We appreciate the strong focus that the Subcommittee has 

placed on expanding opportunities for success of veterans in education, the workforce, and the business community. 

Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives 

Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the following information is provided regarding Federal grants and contracts. 

Fiscal Year 2012 

No Federal grants or contracts received. 

Fiscal Year 2011 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal Services Corporation—National Veterans Legal Services Program—$262,787. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

101 

1 J Steele, N Salcedo, J Coley. ‘‘Military Veterans’ Experiences Using the Post-9/11 GI Bill and 

Pursuing Postsecondard Education.’’ RAND Corportation, November 2010. Accessed: http:// 

www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND—MG1083.pdf 2Wounded Warrior Project Policy & Programs Survey, November 2011. 

Fiscal Year 2010 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal Services Corporation—National Veterans Legal Services Program—$287,992. 

f 

WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT (WWP) 

Chairman Stutzman, Ranking Member Braley, and members of the Subcommittee: 

Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) welcomes this opportunity to share an important perspective on H.R.4057 and is pleased to offer our views on this legislation. 

This bill would require VA to develop a comprehensive policy to ensure better outreach and greater transparency by providing information on institutions of higher 

learning to veterans who consider accessing their educational benefits. Consistent 

with the important goal of establishing a comprehensive policy to foster transparency relating to veterans’ higher education options, we recommend that the bill 

be revised, as discussed below, to help ensure that post 9-11 warriors gain access 

to additional information critical to their academic success. 

As an organization dedicated to honoring and empowering Wounded Warriors, 

and appreciative of the critical importance of education in helping warriors achieve 

their goals, WWP welcomes this Committee’s consideration of H.R. 4057 and the importance of developing more information to assist veterans in using their education 

benefits. 

The post-9/11 GI bill plays a vital role in enabling access to higher education for 

veterans who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq to advance their education, and 

achieve economic empowerment, and veterans are availing themselves of that valuable benefit. The FY2013 budget projects post-9/11 expenditures will approach $10 

billion. A 2010 RAND study focused on veterans’ experience using the post-9/11 GI 

bill found that close to a quarter of surveyed students identified the post-9/11 GI 

bill benefits as a major aspect of their decision to enroll in higher education. 1 While 

institutions of higher education receive substantial Federal monies for their warrior 

populations, who often face injuries that hinder their academic success, the availability of specialized services to support those veterans has not kept pace with the 

program’s growth. 

As returning veterans, and particularly Wounded Warriors, begin to make the 

often difficult transition from military service, the generous benefits available under 

the post 9/11 GI Bill offer a promising path to employment and new careers opportunities and advancement. With the increasingly large number of veterans taking 

advantage of their educational benefits, VA should be establishing metrics to measure veterans’ success and to track the availability of appropriate campus-based support. 

In our experience, the road to higher education, and to making informed choices 

among often wide-ranging options, can be very difficult to navigate. For those without counseling options such as those provided through VA’s vocational rehabilitation 

program, there may be little to guide the individual in making informed choices, 

particularly as it relates to the extent of pertinent support a school provides veterans. Even the most careful researcher would have great difficulty identifying the 

kinds and levels of support at most institutions. Student-veterans themselves are 

often uncertain of what specialized services, if any, are available. In a survey of over 

500 WWP alumni who have enrolled in courses of higher education, more than 44% 

indicated that they were unsure if their campus had a dedicated disability services 

support staff member, over 55% were unsure if mental health services were offered 

on campus, and over a quarter of respondents did not know if the campus offered 

any type of academic support services such as tutoring. 2 Veterans who may know 

of services they should be able to access on campuses often have trouble navigating 

the process of getting those benefits and lack a clear understanding of where to go 

for information. 

The 2010 RAND study found that over 66% of veterans who were able to access 

a campus veterans program office found that resource to be ‘‘quite helpful’’ or ‘‘extremely helpful’’ in pursuing their academic goals compared with only approxiVACREP180 with DISTILLER

102 

3Steele et al, 28. 

mately 29% of respondents rating the VA phone hotline the same way. 3 These data 

underscore how important campus investment and involvement with their student 

veteran population really is. We believe VA must do more to require institutional 

recipients of post-9/11 GI bill funds to make such services available to the studentveterans who enroll and ensure that information is easily accessible so that warriors 

are able to make informed decisions before applying and enrolling. 

We applaud the principle underlying H.R. 4057 that veterans availing themselves 

of benefits under the GI bill should have ready access to relevant information. This 

is an important starting point, but, as drafted, the measure falls short of ensuring 

that its impact would address in a systematic manner the critical issues post-9/11 

warriors face. As more and more veterans enroll in institutions of higher education, 

it is important that VA collect pertinent—and accurate—data that is easily accessible to student-veterans. Because campus-based support services must be tailored 

to meet warrior-specific injuries and academic needs, we recommend that H.R. 4057 

be amended to include language that would make modest but important improvements, specifically to require institutions of higher education to provide information 

on the following: 

1. The size of their student-veteran population and student-veteran academic 

performance and retention and graduation rates; and 

2. The specific support services dedicated, and available to, student-veterans at 

such institution (and, as pertinent, at each campus of such institution). 

While we also appreciate the bill’s effort to develop information on student-outreach, we recommend revising the language in new section 3698(b)(5) that calls on 

VA to identify ‘‘the most effective way’’ to inform veterans of their educational benefits and post-secondary educational opportunities. Given the range of individual 

backgrounds and disabilities among warriors pursuing higher education, outreach 

strategies should be multi-faceted. We strongly advise against a one-size-fits-all approach, and recommend accordingly that the language be revised to refer to ‘‘effective ways’’ in lieu of ‘‘the most effective way’’ to conduct outreach. In essence, VA 

should be encouraged to pursue wide-ranging approaches to reach out to and engage 

veterans. 

We would be pleased to work with the Committee to draft language in advance 

of any markup to address the important issues discussed above. With such changes, 

WWP would be pleased to enthusiastically support H.R. 4057. 

f 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Letters Submitted To Hon. G.K. Butterfield 

May 18, 2011 

The Honorable GK Butterfield 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-3301 

Dear Mr. Butterfield: 

We write to bring your attention to an important and urgent matter for a select 

group of Veteransusing the Post 9/11 GI Bill benefit in North Carolina. 

On January 4, 2011, the President signed S. 3447, The Post-9/11 Veterans 

EducationalAssistance Improvements Act of 2010 into law. The Act makes several 

improvements to theoriginal program and we are grateful for all that you did personally to strengthen it. Regrettably,the bill also has unintended consequences and 

we hope that we can work together to fix onespecific issue as expeditiously as practicable. 

Under Section 102 of the Act, Congress provides financial assistance to 

servicemembers for ahigher education at public, private and foreign institutions. 

The Act provides for a $17,500upper limit for tuition and fees for qualified 

servicemembers on an annual basis. The UnitedStates Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) interprets the Act to limit tuition and fees at publicinstitutions to the applicable institution’s in-state tuition rate for both in-state and out-of-stateVeterans. 

This is certainly reasonable for Veterans who are residents of the state of 

NorthCarolina. However, because North Carolina’s in-state tuition rate is sharply 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

103 

lower than the out-of-state tuition rate, this change unintentionally disadvantages 

out-of-state Veterans who wish toattend public institutions in North Carolina. The 

out-of-state Veteran seeking a public highereducation in North Carolina must pay 

the difference between the in-state and out-of-state ratefrom other sources of funds, 

select another college, or delay a higher education. This is not whatwas intended. 

We strongly urge Congress to correct this oversight quickly by permitting the 

$17,500 upperlimit without deference to an in-state tuition rate for out-of-state Veterans seeking a highereducation at public institutions. We estimate that as many 

as 1000 students in North Carolina areaffected for the 2011-2012 academic year. 

What makes this situation particularly troubling isthat the VA notified colleges and 

universities in late March of their interpretation - long afterstudents have applied 

for and received notice of their favorable admission. This group ofstudents gained 

admission under one set of rules but will enroll under new rules that require 

asubstantial out of pocket expense through no fault of the student. Again, this cannot be what youintended. 

It is in North Carolina’s best interest to educate servicemembers. Service members are our beststudents - they graduate on time and they continue to grow North 

Carolina’s economy—so longas they remain here. Many of the affected students have 

lived in North Carolina as active dutyservicemembers for quite some time regardless of their official residency. And, many of themdo not make the decision to get 

their degree until it is too late to establish residency for tuitionpurposes in North 

Carolina. Not only do we owe them the education that they seek but we needthem 

to help us build North Carolina’s future. 

We are aware of other efforts to make ‘‘technical corrections’’ to the The Post-9/ 

11 VeteransEducational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. Thus far none of the 

existing bills include asolution for our issue in North Carolina. We respectfully request your help as we try to resolvethis issue as soon as practicable. Please feel free 

to call us or our staff, Kimrey Rhinehardt(UNC) at 919-943-0381 or Jennifer Willis 

(NCCCS) at 919-807-6957, to discuss this issuefurther. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas W. Ros, 

President 

The University of North Carolina 

Scott Ralls 

President 

The North Carolina Community College System 

November 17, 2011 

Honorable G.K. Butterfield 

United States House of Representatives 

2305 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Butterfield, 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is pleased to offer our support 

for your legislation to remedy the disparity between in-state and out-of-state tuition 

rates faced by some veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The Veterans Education 

Equity Act of 2011 will help bring fairness and parity to the benefits used by those 

who have fought for our Nation as they make the transition to civilian life. 

The GI Bill was intended to help veterans attend institutions of higher learning, 

particularly public institutions, but the difference between in-state and out-of-state 

tuition rates has proven to be an obstacle for many veterans. Veterans classified as 

out-of-state students are reimbursed for tuition and fees at in-state tuition rates, 

which are often significantly lower. Qualifying for instate tuition is made all the 

more difficult because servicemembers move frequently around the country and the 

world. This scenario means that tuition at some of the leading universities in our 

country is still out of reach for some veterans unless they accrue significant debt. 

IAVA believes that veterans have already paid their debt through service to our Nation in a time of war. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill offers our nation’s veterans an exceptional opportunity to 

gain the formal education which, along with the skills and decision-making abilities 

gained through their military experience, will allow them to take their place as 

America’s New Greatest Generation. IAVA has been a staunch advocate for granting 

out-of-state students tuition benefits equal to at least what students attending private schools receive. The Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011 will achieve this 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

104 

goal, helping remedy the disparity and easing the burden on veterans. It will also 

guarantee parity and the efficient use of benefits. 

IAVA believes that our New Greatest Generation deserves the chance to contribute to our Nation in peace with the distinction they did in war. We are proud 

to offer our assistance and thank you for this important legislation. If we can be 

of help, please contact Ramsey Sulayman, IAVA Legislative Associate, at (202) 544- 

7692, or ramsey@iava.org. 

Sincerely, 

Paul Rieckhoff 

Founder and Executive Director 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) 

February 21, 2012 

The Honorable G.K. Butterfield 

United States House of Representatives 

2305 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Butterfield: 

On behalf of the more than two million men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our Auxiliaries, we thank you for introducing 

H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, which provides equality in 

educational assistance for veterans using Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits. This bill will 

lessen the tuition disparity between veterans attending out-of-state public institutions and veterans attending private institutions. 

The VFW played a significant role in the original passing of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill 

and consequently has a vested interest in a fair implementation of its benefits. The 

benefit was designed to offer veterans of the current conflicts the opportunity to receive a free education at the public school of their choice. Unfortunately, veterans 

who do not qualify for residency status at many public schools must bear the burden 

of the additional tuition and fees not covered by the current payment model. Furthermore, veterans who choose to attend private schools can now receive up to 

$17,500 in reimbursement. As a result, veterans without residency status at public 

schools can often carry a significantly higher tuition burden than veterans at private schools. 

We believe that this disparity is unfair to veterans who choose to attend public 

schools, as the benefit intended, yet cannot establish residency. Due to the nature 

of military life, obtaining residency status can often be difficult. Servicemen and 

women must constantly move across the country and even around the world, which 

can prevent them from establishing domicile in any one state. We must take these 

extenuating circumstances into account and offer an equitable benefit for veterans 

who choose to attend both public and private schools. 

Recognizing that the men and women who serve today are the future leaders of 

our great nation, the VFW helped pass the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, and we will continue 

to work to ensure the benefit is administered fairly. The VFW thanks you and your 

staff for your attention to this issue, and we stand ready to assist in ensuring our 

brave servicemembers receive the quality educationalopportunities they deserve 

through their earned military and veterans’ benefits. We are pleased tooffer our support for H.R. 3483 and urge you to move the bill in Congress. 

Sincerely, 

Raymond C. Kelley, Director 

VFW National Legislative Service 

December 20, 2011 

Honorable G. K. Butterfield 

United States House of Representatives 

2305 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Butterfield: 

On behalf of the 2.4 million members of The American Legion I would like to express support for H.R. 3483, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2011, which provides for the equalization of benefits for veterans who choose to attend public universities and colleges. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

105 

Current law caps education benefits for veterans attending private institutions at 

$17,500 per year, while stipulating that veterans attending public colleges and universities receive only the amount charged for tuition and fees. The result of this is 

an undue burden in out- of-pocket expenses on some veterans who attend public colleges. By providing up to$17,500 for all veterans regardless of the institution they 

opt to attend, this measure remedies this issue while ensuring that educational benefits earned in service to our country are not undermined , but remain available and 

equitable for all veterans. 

Again, The American Legion fully supports enacting H.R. 3483 and applauds your 

leadership in addressing this critical issue facing our nation’s veterans. 

Sincerely, 

FANG A. WONG 

National Commander 

f 

Letters Submitted To Hon. Marlin Stutzman from Eric K. Shinseki, 

Secretary, Veterans Affairs, Washington 

THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

WASHINGTON 

April 2, 2012 

The Honorable Marlin Stutzman 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On March 8, 2012, Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefit Administration, 

testified before your Subcommittee on numerous bills of interest to the Department. 

At that time, Mr. Coy indicated that we would like to provide the Committee our 

views and cost estimates on additional bills after having the opportunity for further 

review. By this letter, we are providing our costs on two of these bills, which deal 

with VA educational assistance benefit issues: H.R. 3483, the ′′Veterans Education 

Equity Act of 2011′′ and H.R. 4052, the ′′Recognizing Excellence in Veterans Education Act of 2012,′′ as well as our views and costs on H.R. 4048, the ′′Improving 

Contracting Opportunities for Veteran-Owned Small Businesses Act of 2012.′′ The 

Administration’s position on H.R. 4072 is still under development. 

H.R. 3483 

H.R. 3483 would change the educational assistance payable for certain individuals 

under the Post-9/11 GI Bill who are pursuing programs of education at institutions 

of higher learning. Specifically, the bill would change the tuition and fees payable 

for non-resident students attending a public institution that currently charges less 

than $17,500 annually for the comparable in-state tuition and fees at that institution. 

VA estimates benefits costs of enactment of H.R. 3483 to be $710.8 million in the 

first year, $4.0 billion over five years, and $9.0 billion over ten years. 

H.R. 4052 

H.R. 4052 would direct VA to establish the ′′Excellence in Veterans Education 

Award,′′ to recognize institutions of higher learning that offer exemplary services to 

Veterans. The award would be valid for three years and institutions that receive 

such award would be annotated on the list of institutions approved to receive VA 

education benefits that appears on a VA Web site. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

106 

VA estimates, that if H.R. 4052 were enacted, VA would need 11 additional FullTime Equivalents (FTE) for data collection, analysis, and communication with institutions of higher learning and the bill would cost $726 thousand for the remaining 

six months of FY2012, $6.3 million over five years, and $14.9 million over ten years. 

H.R. 4048 

H.R. 4048 would require VA to report amounts associated with purchases from 

the Federal Supply Schedules in measuring VA’s service-disabled Veteran-owned 

and Veteran-owned small business contracting achievements. As that already is 

VA’s practice pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR Chapter 1, 

Section 4.606, we consider this bill unnecessary. Enactment of H.R. 4048 would not 

result in any additional costs to VA.We appreciate this opportunity to comment on 

this legislation and look forward to working with you and the other Subcommittee 

Members on these important legislative issues. 

Sincerely, 

Eric K. Shinseki 

Æ 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER