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

43–059 2009

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2721, H.R. 3786, 

H.R. 6070, H.R. 4255, H.R. 6221, H.R. 6224, 

H.R. 6225, AND H.R. 6272 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 19, 2008 

Serial No. 110–93 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONALD J. CAZAYOUX, JR., Louisiana 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

MALCOM A. SHORTER, Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota, Chairwoman 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

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. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

June 19, 2008 

Page 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2721, H.R. 3786, H.R. 6070, H.R. 4255, H.R. 

6221, H.R. 6224, H.R. 6225, and H.R. 6272 ....................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin .............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin .................................. 34 

Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member ............................................. 2 

Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman ............................................. 35 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, R. Keith Pedigo, Associate Deputy 

Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo .................................................................. 58 

American Legion, Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr., Deputy Director, National Economic 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement of Mr. Sharpe ................................................................. 45 

Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California .............................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of Congressman Cardoza ............................................... 36 

Carter, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ... 7 

Prepared statement of Congressman Carter .................................................. 37 

CTIA—The Wireless Association, Bobby Franklin, Executive Vice President ... 12 

Prepared statement of Mr. Franklin ............................................................... 42 

Disabled American Veterans, Kerry Baker, Associate National Legislative 

Director ................................................................................................................. 19 

Prepared statement of Mr. Baker ................................................................... 43 

Filner, Hon. Bob, Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of Congressman Filner ................................................... 35 

Lofgren, Hon. Zoe, a Representative in Congress from the State of California . 4 

Prepared statement of Congresswoman Lofgren ........................................... 36 

Paralyzed Veterans of America, Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director 21 

Prepared statement of Mr. Daley .................................................................... 47 

United States Olympic Committee, Charles Huebner, Chief of Paralympics ..... 10 

Prepared statement of Mr. Huebner ............................................................... 39 

Vietnam Veterans of America, Richard F. Weidman, Executive Director for 

Policy and Government Affairs ........................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman ............................................................. 50 

Welch, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont ... 9 

Prepared statement of Congressman Welch ................................................... 38 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

U.S. Department of Defense, Hon. Michael L. Dominguez, Principal Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, statement ............ 60 

U.S. Department of Labor, Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary 

for Veterans’ Employment and Training, statement ......................................... 61 

OnPoynt Communications, Dallas, TX, Rebecca Noah Poynter, Owner, and 

Co-Founder, Military Spouse Business Association, statement ....................... 62 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

Page

iv 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to R. Keith 

Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, letter dated June 23, 2008, and VA responses ................... 64 

Hon. James B. Peake, M.D., Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, to Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

letter dated August 18, 2008, transmitting Administration Views for 

H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225, and H.R. 6272 .......................................................... 65 

Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Charles Huebner, Chief, 

U.S. Paralympics, letter dated July 1, 2008, and response letter dated 

October 24, 2008 ........................................................................................... 66 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2721, H.R. 3786, 

H.R. 6070, H.R. 4255, H.R. 6221, H.R. 6224, 

H.R. 6225, AND H.R. 6272 

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth 

Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Hall, and Boozman. 

Also Present: Representative Filner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 

The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic 

Opportunity hearing on pending legislation will come to order. 

I would like to call to the attention of the Subcommittee the fact 

that the Honorable John Carter of Texas has asked to submit a 

written statement for the hearing record on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Rebecca North Poynter. If there is no objection, I ask 

for unanimous consent that her statement be entered into the 

record. Hearing no objection, so entered. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Poynter appears on p. 62.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Today, we have eight bills before us that 

seek to authorize the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to 

make a grant to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to 

provide and develop activities for servicemembers and veterans 

with physical disabilities; allow military servicemembers to terminate certain contracts when called to active-duty service or ordered 

to change permanent duty assignment; require the VA to develop 

and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to distribute a compact 

disk of benefits information to servicemembers preparing to depart 

from the military; amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

(SCRA) to allow a military spouse to claim the same State as the 

servicemember in regards to State and property taxes, and voter 

registration; and reauthorize the Service Members Occupational 

Conversion and Training Act (SMOCTA) 1992. 

Some of you might recall on February 13 of this year, we conducted a hearing on expiring programs. In this hearing, we received recommendations on ways to improve on the programs and 

expand on veterans’ rights. One such recommendation came from 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

2 

Mr. Matthew Tully of Tully and Rinckey, LLC, who specializes in 

law under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act, also known as USERRA. Mr. Tully brought up an example of how a servicemember who had sought injunctive relief 

from his employer, but the court denied his request. Mr. Tully recommended that the Subcommittee consider amending USERRA to 

allow servicemembers such as the one who is cited to ensure equitable relief as available to USERRA victims when the courts decide 

it is appropriate. 

I share the concerns expressed by Mr. Tully and recently introduced H.R. 6225, the ‘‘Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008.’’ 

This bill will amend Title 38 by changing ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall’’ and it 

is our expectation that more courts will use this remedy when 

deemed appropriate that equitable relief is warranted. This legislation is a step in the right direction to providing greater protections 

and safeguards to those who have answered the call to duty. 

A second bill that I recently introduced is H.R. 6224, the ‘‘Pilot 

College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008.’’ This bill 

contains similar language that I proposed in H.R. 5684, the ‘‘Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008,’’ which would improve 

existing education for our veterans. 

H.R. 6224 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a five-year pilot project to expand on existing work-study activities for veterans. Currently, veterans who qualify for work 

study would be limited to working on VA-related work. My bill 

would allow those veterans the option of working in academic departments and student services. This change would put them at 

par with students that qualify for the work-study position under 

programs not administered by the VA. 

Furthermore, this bill would conform to existing PAYGO rules by 

providing for discretionary appropriations. 

I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and 

other Members of the Subcommittee to discuss these two legislative 

proposals and those being considered in today’s legislative hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin appears on p. 34.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I now recognize Mr. Boozman for any remarks he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today, we will hear 

testimony on eight bills covering diverse issues facing veterans and 

their families. I especially want to thank you for including H.R. 

6221, a bill that will close a possible loophole in VA’s disabled veterans business contracting and acquisition programs. This is something that we have introduced together. Again, I appreciate you 

bringing it forward. 

I would offer one thought on the bill to reauthorize the long-expired Service Members Occupational Training Act, SMOCTA. The 

goal of SMOCTA was to retrain veterans with few or no transferable military skills and skills better suited to today’s job market. 

This is a worthy goal, and I support it and commend our colleague 

from Vermont for bringing this issue before us. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

3 

There are several ways to offer retraining, and I would like to 

explore with you, Madam Chair, and with Mr. Welch whether or 

not it would be more effective to reauthorize SMOCTA or take several SMOCTA concepts and use them to expand VA’s existing onthe-job training, apprenticeship programs for recently discharged 

veterans, and those who have passed their eligibility date for VA 

benefits. 

Given the current awareness of education and training for veterans, we may have an opportunity here to put more veterans into 

good jobs. I know that you share those goals, Madam Chair, and 

I look forward to working with you and Mr. Welch and our colleagues on the Committee to make that happen. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on 

p. 35.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

I would like to welcome our panelists testifying before the Subcommittee today. Joining us is our full Committee Chairman, the 

Honorable Mr. Bob Filner of California, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren 

of California, the Honorable Dennis Cardoza, also of California; the 

Honorable John Carter of Texas. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Who would like to live in California. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. The Texas cavalry here. And the Honorable Peter Welch of Vermont, one of the smaller, less-populated 

States well represented here on the Subcommittee. All of your full 

written statements will be made part of the hearing record and we 

welcome all of you to the Subcommittee. Thank you for the bills 

that you have introduced that we are considering today. 

Chairman Filner, you are recognized. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. BOB FILNER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE 

ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, AND A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. ZOE 

LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. JOHN R. CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS; AND HON. PETER 

WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF VERMONT 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER 

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly thank you and 

your Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for the leadership you have 

shown over the last year and a half. You have been an incredibly 

productive, incisive Subcommittee and we appreciate everything 

you have done. 

I would like to just spend a few minutes on H.R. 4255, the 

‘‘United States Olympic Committee Paralympics Program Act of 

2007.’’ For many servicemembers and veterans who have been severely injured from service to our country, their rehabilitation can 

be a disheartening experience. Many become concerned about having the same quality of life that they had prior to their injuries. 

Programs administered by the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) 

Paralympic Military Program, can enhance and improve the quality 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

4 

of life for these men and women by introducing them to an active 

lifestyle while they heal from their wounds. 

Today, the USOC programs have been providing support for severely injured veterans since 2003, introducing them to adaptive 

sport techniques. These opportunities will enable our veterans to 

face their new physical realities and to continue living an active 

lifestyle through adaptive sports. 

We know there is a growing population of veterans who have 

survived serious injuries that would benefit from the good work 

being done by the USOC, and that is why I have introduced this 

bill to support our heroic men and women as they transition 

through this very difficult phase in their lives. 

This bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

make a grant to the U.S. Olympic Committee to provide Paralympic instruction, competitive activities, and program development activities for servicemembers and veterans with physical disabilities. 

The purpose of the program is to enhance the rehabilitation of 

current severely injured servicemembers and veterans and to reduce the chance of secondary medical conditions. Up to now, more 

than 1,200 injured veterans have been introduced to Paralympic 

sports as a result of these training programs, but much more needs 

to be done in order to continue to provide this dynamic rehabilitative environment. 

I hope you can support this bill. I am sure many of you have seen 

what getting involved in these programs can do for the self-esteem, 

the sense of well-being, the sense of a future for these veterans. It 

is one of those programs we visit that moves us. I know it moves 

us to tears sometimes to see how these men and women have overcome some very serious injuries. We know how to not only keep 

them alive on the battlefield, but how to evacuate them quickly and 

get superior help, whether in theater or in Germany. But that 

means there is a lot of healing and rehabilitation work to do. 

I haven’t seen a program that does more for their sense of wellbeing than this program, and I hope that we, and the Department 

of Veterans Affairs, can aid the U.S. Olympic Committee in this effort. I think you are going to hear more about that in later testimony. 

They do an incredible job. When you see these veterans have a 

sense of confidence and a sense of their own future, it is really remarkable. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Filner appears on 

p. 35.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Chairman Filner, for working 

so closely with this Subcommittee and your valuable leadership on 

the full Committee. We have had the opportunity in earlier hearings before the Subcommittee, to hear from some of those who benefited from these important programs, and we thank you for introducing this important bill. 

Ms. Lofgren, thank you for being here at the Subcommittee. You 

are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ZOE LOFGREN 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you so much, Chairman Herseth Sandlin 

and Ranking Member Boozman. I appreciate the opportunity to tesjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

5 

tify on behalf of the bill I have introduced, the ‘‘Servicemembers 

Telecom Relief Act.’’ 

A constituent call first alerted me to this problem where servicemembers have been called up or dispatched to a different part of 

the country and they have difficulty dealing with their cell phone 

contract. Oftentimes we enter into multiyear contracts when we get 

our phones, and although many service providers have express policies that would allow active duty military to terminate, sometimes 

those policies are overlooked and not every single provider has 

them. So this bill would provide certainty. 

It would allow members of the Armed Services to suspend or terminate contracts for telecommunication services when those services are of no use to them because of their call to active duty or 

an involuntary extension of the period of military service or deployment overseas to locations where the services aren’t available. 

When a soldier is called up, the last thing they need to be worried about is their cable bill. As one mother called and told me with 

her son in Iraq, she said her son is over there risking his neck; he 

shouldn’t have to deal with a cell phone company. 

So I don’t mean to suggest that most cell phone companies have 

been abusive in that. In fact, telecom providers have reached out 

to my office, offering helpful suggestions for potential changes that 

would harmonize the bill as introduced with the Communications 

Act and have been very collaborative, and I do appreciate this. 

However, I think having some certainty in this area would be important. 

I want to clarify that the bill is narrower than H.R. 3298, introduced by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. But I support his bill. In 

fact, I am a cosponsor of his bill. This would be encompassed if the 

Committee moves that bill or, this is a unique issue, we could move 

this bill. Silicon Valley, I guess, is ground zero for high tech, and 

it is something that has caught my attention. I think it would be 

another thing we can do for our brave men and women who are 

doing so much for us. 

So I appreciate the opportunity to testify and the leadership of 

all of you in making sure we do the right thing for these brave 

Americans. 

[The prepared statement of Congresswoman Lofgren appears on 

p. 36.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Congresswoman Lofgren. We 

appreciate that you have worked with the telecom companies and 

other providers, and appreciate your support of Mr. Murphy’s bill 

as well. We will be moving to a markup next week and be looking 

at different bills for consideration, and look forward to hearing 

some of the thoughts of others that are testifying today on your 

bill, in the hopes that we can integrate some of the provisions of 

yours into a broader bill, given we have already had a hearing for 

Mr. Murphy’s as well. Thank you for working with those in the industry. 

Mr. Cardoza, welcome to the Subcommittee. You are now recognized. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

6 

STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS CARDOZA 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you inviting me here today to testify on an issue that I am sure you will 

agree will make life just a little bit easier for our Nation’s veterans. 

Madam Chair, I have a veterans advisory committee that I meet 

with regularly in my district, and in these meetings, veterans time 

and time again have told me that veterans, the rank and file veterans especially, are simply unaware of the benefits that they are 

eligible for. In several instances, veterans have told me upon being 

discharged and returning to the United States, they must sit 

through a transitional process meeting explaining some of their 

benefit programs immediately upon exiting the plane. 

Madam Chair, I am sure you will agree that after fighting for 

our country and being away from loved ones for months at a time, 

the last thing our troops have on their mind is their benefits. They 

want to see and hug their family and their children. They are tired 

from an exhausting flight; they are longing to see their families 

waiting just beyond the gate. 

Yet, this process meeting may be the only time that some veterans hear about their benefits. More often than not, this is a 

missed opportunity. Others have told me that in their briefings 

with the VA representative they only have 5 minutes, with a dozen 

other veterans awaiting their 5-minute briefing as well. 

The veterans receive incomplete information. They are handed a 

few pamphlets. They oftentimes feel rushed and are unable to ask 

questions that they may have thought of right after they leave the 

meeting because of time constraints. 

I respectfully ask that this Subcommittee consider for a moment 

how in the world anyone can explain all the available benefits to 

which a veteran is entitled in 5 minutes, let alone answer potential 

questions. 

Madam Chair, my bill, H.R. 2721, is quite simple. It would require the Secretary of the VA to issue a comprehensive CD–ROM 

to returning veterans that clearly explains the benefits to which 

they are entitled. The CD would inform returning veterans and 

their families in plain English about how to access and navigate 

VA so they know about all the benefits they have earned and how 

to go about receiving them. 

This would provide a one-stop source for veterans where they can 

simply pop a CD into their computer whenever they wish to look 

up the information so no benefit slips through the bureaucratic 

cracks. I understand VA currently outlines some of the information 

on their Web sites or in pamphlets. This information is not comprehensive, however. 

My bill requires full, complete and updated information be provided on a VA Web site as well. However, a CD, in my opinion, is 

still necessary and would benefit districts like mine with large 

rural areas where access to the Internet may not always be reliable 

or, in some cases, even available. 

This bill only fixes the process, not the symptoms, and it is just 

one small step in the right direction to ensure our veterans who 

served so honorably receive the benefits they earned. I believe if we 

fix the broken informational process, we are going a long way toward solving some of the benefit problems. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

7 

Giving the troops the informational tools they need to ensure 

they are actually receiving their well-deserved benefits is the least 

we can do on behalf of a grateful Nation. 

Thank you again for allowing me to be here and give testimony 

on behalf of the bill. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Cardoza appears on 

p. 36.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Cardoza. 

You may be interested to know that Mr. Boozman and I recently 

attended a field hearing with our colleague Mr. Donnelley in Indiana, in which we realized there, as we did in other parts of the 

country and other testimony we have taken, people are falling 

through the cracks in getting access to information about their benefits, whether they are Reservists who are in smaller detachments 

that are now being deployed, whether it is full units in the National Guard and the different States on how they have handled 

demobilization, and certainly those that are going through the 

Transition Assistance Program (TAP), which is not mandatory at 

our active-duty bases around country. 

So we appreciate it. We think it is a great idea. We appreciate 

the bill you are bringing forward and a way, a step forward in the 

right direction of sharing information in a way that is reliable, that 

will allow servicemembers and their family members to go back 

with reliable information to help answer their questions. 

So, again, we thank you for your testimony and the bill you have 

introduced. 

Mr. Carter, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CARTER 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the 

Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me to be here to talk 

about an issue that I think is pretty important to our veterans, our 

servicemembers, and I want to thank you for all that you do for 

our veterans and servicemembers. I am pleased to serve on the 

Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. We work on many of the same issues, and I am proud 

to work with you on those issues. 

I want to talk today about H.R. 6070, the ‘‘Military Spouses Residency Relief Act.’’ This, like many things that happen here in Congress, started when a former constituent whose husband was still 

a constituent came to me to meet in the office here in DC. I say 

that for scenario because her husband had chosen Fort Hood, 

Texas, as his residency, as he could under the Servicemembers 

Civil Relief Act, and they had been transferred to the Pentagon. He 

was, I believe, a major. 

But she, in turn, could not claim Fort Hood as a residency. She 

had a business that just did business in Texas, and yet she was 

paying taxes in Virginia, she had to register to vote in Virginia, 

and vote for a different Congressman. She had to get a new drivers 

license. In other words, she was not given the same courtesy of 

claiming the residency of the families’ choice that her husband had, 

that we had given to him as a member of the service. This seemed, 

to me, to not be a fair thing to happen. She pointed out that she 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

8 

actually made more income than her major soldier did, but they 

honored the Army and they were proud to be part of it. 

It seemed to me that this is something that we ought to be able 

to fix. I think it will provide relief. Remember, we say now, and I 

know this is said at Fort Hood all the time, we recruit a soldier, 

but we retain a family. The vast majority of our servicemen and 

women today that are in our military service are married, many 

with children, and so we are now a married military. We need to 

provide the relief to these spouses that we give to the soldier, and 

that is that she or he should be able to choose the residency that 

her spouse, his or her spouse shows as their residency so the family 

has the same residency, they get their same services from the same 

Congressional district, they vote for the same Congressman or Congresswoman, and they have a relationship to where they choose to 

call home. 

We can do this with this bill. This will allow the wife to choose 

that place, or where her husband has chosen. It helps with land titles, it helps with titles to vehicles. If there is a divorce, it is very 

important if there should be a divorce in the family. It helps voter 

registration, it helps with vehicle registration, and most of all, it 

helps with income taxes versus other taxes in the States where 

they have chosen to be residents. 

This has no effect whatsoever—it is revenue-neutral for the U.S. 

Government, but it is important to the revenue of the families of 

our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, and I would respectfully 

request that this is a simple matter that will make a major difference in the lives of these folks. 

The average loss that every spouse makes on a move is somewhere between $5,500 and $7,200. Every time they make a move. 

Almost 90 percent of our spouses work. It is critical we give the 

same relief to the spouse that we give to the soldier. 

I would hope that you would support this idea and this bill so 

that we can make this family united in their residency and domicile. 

I thank you for allowing me to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Carter appears on 

p. 37.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Carter. 

I do support this bill and this concept. We look forward to getting 

some additional input from the folks who will be testifying later, 

but I certainly agree with you that in light of whether it is the example you provided in some of the temporary assignments to people here in the Pentagon, but also the other moves that we know 

our military families make on such a frequent basis, that we will 

be looking to simplify their lives in those transitions, not the complexities of the jurisdictional issues they face when spouses can’t 

claim the same benefit as it relates to residency. 

So we appreciate your testimony and sharing with us your constituent’s experience, your concern, and all the other examples you 

gave about how this can become very complicated for families and 

a way of cutting through some of this jurisdictional matters that 

they are facing to make it easier for them. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

9 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you for allowing me to be here and thank 

you for admitting the evidence that Ms. Poynter submitted to the 

Committee. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Welch, we have pending votes, as you know, but I think we 

have time to wrap up our first panel with your testimony. 

You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH 

Mr. WELCH. I really appreciate it, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin 

and Ranking Member Boozman. We are all grateful to you in Congress because you have been doing something all of us know we 

need to do, and that is respect the service of our soldiers. 

I am here to testify on behalf of a reauthorization of the Service 

Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act. As you know, 

that had been authorized in the nineties and it was to assist veterans returning home to get employment after their military careers. It worked. And expired. The question is will we reauthorize 

it. 

What I think is so tremendous about this program is that it focuses on soldiers and their future because when they come back, 

there is an enormous amount of dislocation, as you know. Sometimes soldiers have very bad injuries. They have to contend with 

that. This Congress, with your leadership, has paid a lot of attention to increasing veterans benefits, particularly in the area of 

healthcare, because the cost of the war has to include the cost of 

caring for the warrior. 

But what soldiers want is what any other American wants, and 

that is hope. It is about getting on with the future, and that is 

about having a job where you can feel good about showing up for 

work, where you can pay your bills, and take care of your family, 

be a provider. 

What this does is recognize that these employment-based programs have to be a very important component of making our soldiers get integrated back into life. It was a practical program, in 

that it worked with employers who were willing to work with veterans by reimbursing them for an 18-month period that would 

allow workers to get the skills they needed to do sometimes retraining, some job programming. So it is a practical and proven 

program that helps our soldiers get back into normal life, and most 

of us, normal life includes a job that we really value. 

So you know better than I all the compelling reasons to do what 

we can for our soldiers. This is a program, this is relatively inexpensive, proven to be effective, talks about the future, and gives 

soldiers an opportunity to develop their skills in civilian life. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here before you 

and again applaud you for the tremendous work you have done on 

a bipartisan basis to help us meet our commitment to our soldiers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Welch appears on 

p. 38.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Welch, for introducing 

this bill. You are right about the proven effectiveness of the program, and we look forward to working with you to ensure reauthorjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

10 

ization, with perhaps looking forward and seeing if there might be 

some changes that might be necessary. 

I know that Mr. Boozman will want to visit with you as we head 

down to votes perhaps, or now, since we have a little bit of time, 

about some of his thoughts about the Reauthorization Act. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Chair, again, I appreciate you bringing 

this forward. I think it is something that we need to do, I think 

something that we are committed to doing. I think what we would 

like to do is work with you to have some ideas of tweaking things. 

Mr. WELCH. I would be delighted. As you know, Peter King had 

very similar legislation in another bill, and has been a leader in 

Congress as well. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. We look forward to working with you, and hopefully getting this thing done. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you for your commitment to our 

Nation’s servicemembers and veterans. 

We will resume this Subcommittee hearing after this series of 

votes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BOOZMAN [presiding]. Thank you all for bearing with us. The 

only thing we have to do here is vote, and that is one thing we 

can’t put off. 

Let’s go ahead and get the second panel. 

Joining us on our second panel of witnesses is Mr. Charles 

Huebner, Chief of Paralympics for the United States Olympic Committee, and Mr. Bobby Franklin, Executive Vice President of CTIA, 

the Wireless Association. We are very pleased that you are here at 

the Subcommittee today. In the interest of time and respect to all 

the panelists here today, we ask that you limit your testimony to 

5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be put in the record. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Let’s start with Mr. Huebner. 

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES HUEBNER, CHIEF OF PARALYMPICS, UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; AND BOBBY 

FRANKLIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA—THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES HUEBNER 

Mr. HUEBNER. Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for allowing us to be here again. I am really going to update you a little 

bit on what we have been doing with the Paralympic Military Program. As you know and the Subcommittee knows, the Paralympic 

movement exists today because of injured veterans following World 

War II using sport as rehabilitation. 

USOC today spends more than $12 million annually on 

Paralympic Programs. All of these funds, of course, have been from 

private sources. Paralympic organizations throughout the U.S. 

spend an additional $30 million at the local level to provide sports 

and physical activity programs for persons with physical disabilities, including veterans and injured military personnel. 

I would like to ad lib a little bit. Looking at the some of the testimony from some of our other partner organizations that we work 

with, I just want to clarify, and maybe even assist some of their 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

11 

testimony. What we do is not exclusive competition or just elite 

competition. The priority focus of the Paralympic movement is, one, 

to send a team to the games. But 95 percent of the participants 

that participate in community-based Paralympic Programs will 

never go to the Paralympic games. 

Our focus at the USOC with our partners is to provide physical 

activity as part of rehabilitation for persons with physical disabilities. The majority of the population that we touch on a daily basis 

will never, ever see the Paralympic games. 

Let me give you a couple examples of that. Veteran Kortney 

Clemons, who currently resides in Chula Vista, California, was injured in Iraq. Kortney participated in our Paralympic Military 

Sport Camp 3 years ago. Last month, he graduated from Penn 

State University. Last week he started an internship at San Diego 

Adaptive Sports and Recreation, and is pursuing his career interest 

to be a therapeutic recreational specialist in community Paralympic 

Programs. 

He is just one example. Kortney is not going to the Paralympic 

games. He is one example of what we are trying to do in looking 

at the rehabilitation process by using sport as a platform to re-engage in life, education and employment, and that is a primary focus 

of what we are trying to do. 

In the past 2 weeks, the USOC and our partners, including 

Paralympic organizations, veteran organizations, parks and recreation offices, and Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) chapters 

accomplished the following: 20 veterans participated in a 

Paralympic veterans program in Alabama led by Paralympic mentor Carlos Leon, a Marine veteran; 18 veterans participated in a 

Paralympics veterans program in Oklahoma, led by Army veteran, 

Paralympic mentor and, sir, I have to do this, University of Arkansas graduate, John Register. 

The USOC launched a pilot program at Fort Lewis, Washington, 

last week focused on providing programming and physical activity 

support to more than 700 individuals in the Warrior Transition 

Unit at Fort Lewis. 

In collaboration with Mesa Parks and Recreation, Arizona Disabled Sports, and Arizona PVA, more than 85 athletes participated 

in Paralympic track and field events in Tempe, Arizona, including 

15 injured veterans. 

We also have developed and are implementing community sports 

programs that are recreational in nature, supporting VA facilities 

in Augusta, Tampa, Richmond, Minneapolis, San Diego, Palo Alto, 

Birmingham, Chicago, Cheyenne, Atlanta, and Oklahoma City. 

Our focus in what we are trying to develop with the Paralympic 

Military Program is not to develop elite athletes. The primary focus 

and what lacks today greatly in the United States is the availability of community-based programs for injured military personnel 

and veterans to participate in upon their return home. That is a 

major concern of ours. 

There are a lot of great events that our partners and us put on 

on an annual basis that people come to for a week and participate 

in. Our biggest concern in the thrust of everything we are doing 

and the resources that H.R. 4255 would provide for veterans is to 

make sure that there are programs existing in their communities 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

12 

when they go home. That is the major emphasis to what we are 

trying to develop, ensuring that community programs and 

Paralympic mentors are available to veterans upon return home. 

Those programs are not at VA facilities. I am going to read you 

a direct quote from a Paralympic mentor. I emphasize community 

and I emphasize collaboration because it is cost-efficient and it is 

effective and we can reach more people. This is what a veteran 

said: ‘‘The reason I do, as one veteran said, I spent a year of my 

life in a hospital rehabbing. The last place I want to go with family 

or friends to play basketball is the hospital.’’ 

Our programs are focused on creating programs in the community, and we see ourselves as an extension of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs and other entities, the Department of Defense, to 

support injured military personnel with community programs. 

When I say we, it is not just the U.S. Olympic Committee. It is organizations look the Parks and Recreation Association, which has 

6,000 programs in communities all over the United States; it is organizations like the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and the 

PVA that we collectively will be efficient from a cost perspective 

and, most importantly, more effective in reaching more people. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you today. 

I am available for any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huebner appears on p. 39.] 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. I think what we will do, go ahead, Mr. 

Franklin, and do your testimony. What we are trying to do is make 

it easier for you all. I think that would probably be the easiest 

thing. 

STATEMENT OF BOBBY FRANKLIN 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Very good. I thank the Chair. Good afternoon. 

Since Arkansas was already invoked at this panel, let me start by 

saying that after 20 years in Washington, I still consider Russellville, Arkansas, home, with my family and friends there. 

My name is Bobby Franklin, I serve as Executive Vice President 

of CTIA, the Wireless Association. We at CTIA are proud to count 

among our vast membership wireless carriers, equipment manufacturers, and applications developers that collectively provide amazingly innovative products and services that keep Americans connected in their day-to-day needs. 

Let me first make one point very clear. CTIA’s wireless carriers 

already allow members of the U.S. Armed Forces facing military 

deployment to terminate contract-based wireless service without 

penalty. Additionally, many of our carriers have taken steps to create special military programs that allow servicemembers to suspend service so they may retain their phone numbers upon their 

return. 

While CTIA and our highly-competitive industry generally oppose government mandates, in an effort to combat unverified reports of contract problems with deployed servicemembers, CTIA’s 

board of directors charged us to actively support Federal legislation 

allowing our servicemembers to terminate wireless contracts without penalty when they are deployed abroad or to a location that 

does not support the service from that particular carrier. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

13 

We do have three suggestions for the legislation to improve H.R. 

3786. First, the bill should be amended to make sure the definitions of ‘‘covered services’’ conform to the definitions in the Communications Act. This will hopefully eliminate any potential confusion 

about what is or is not covered by the legislation. 

Second, we propose a clarification of the bill’s provisions on proration to better reflect the way that wireless service is both purchased and used. By accommodating the way our billing systems 

work, you will help keep the cost of wireless service continuing to 

decline for all users. 

Thirdly, we believe any fines should be capped at no more than 

$10,000 dollars, and that such penalties should be levied only in 

cases where there is a knowing and a repeated violation of the law. 

These suggestions are consistent with the recommendations we 

offered this Subcommittee at your April hearing on Congressman 

Patrick Murphy’s bill, H.R. 3298. We are pleased to report that 

Congressman Murphy has incorporated our suggestions into a revised version of his legislation. We are also happy to report, and 

I think Congresswoman Lofgren mentioned on the earlier panel 

that we have been working closely with both her and her staff and 

hope to achieve the same outcome with respect to the bill before 

the Subcommittee today, H.R. 3786. 

Finally, let me just share that the wireless industry recognizes 

the sacrifice and the dedication of the members of our U.S. Armed 

Forces, and we are pleased to work toward enactment of appropriate legislation to benefit servicemen and servicewomen facing 

military deployment. In fact, CTIA and its member companies are 

hopeful that this Committee, as well as this Congress, can address 

this legislation just as soon as possible. 

I thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Franklin appears on p. 42.] 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Huebner, one of the problems, one of the criticisms that we 

have heard in the past, and I am glad that you seem to have addressed it in your testimony, but one of the criticisms that we have 

is that the program is only about elite competition, things like that. 

It sounds like you are doing a lot of things to try and address 

that. How many current partners do you have to help provide ongoing programming at the community level? 

Mr. HUEBNER. Sir, our focus is to have 75 Paralympic sport clubs 

created by the end of this year, where the focus in those communities is participation. It is participation in physical activity. We 

are working with the National Recreation and Parks Association, 

we are working with Paralympic organizations. We have more than 

43 signed up already. We will be in 75 communities by the end of 

this year. But the absolute emphasis, you don’t get to elite 

Paralympic sport just by joining a participation club. It is very important. We understand that research shows physical activity for 

persons with physical disabilities does some very important things 

like reduce stress, reduce depression, raise self-esteem, things very 

important to veterans coming home from a very difficult environment. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

14 

We are very focused on creating participation programs, and this 

is the most important piece; participation programs at the community level that they can go to every day, not drive 8 hours to go 

participate in a physical activity with their friends and their family, but in their backyard, in their community that they go home 

to. That is our primary focus. The majority of those programs are 

in the community. So we see ourselves very strongly as an extension of the VA system, not developing programs within VA facilities. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Good. 

On average, how many Paralympians are veterans compared to 

nonveterans? 

Mr. HUEBNER. I am very proud to say the beauty of participating 

in programs is some people are going to have more athletic talents 

than others. I am very much aware of that because I never had the 

opportunity to make an Olympic team. But we have six veterans 

right now that will serve, veterans of the Iraq or Afghanistan campaign that will represent this country again. 

Our team size is about 205. Ninety percent of the population that 

we deal with on a daily basis, Olympic or Paralympic, in terms of 

athletes, will never participate in the Olympic or Paralympic 

games. The majority of the program is at the community level are 

participatory and I noted in the DAV comments to exclude the 

word competitive. Our programs at the community level are participation and focused on physical activity. Only a very few raised up 

to that level of being able to represent this country at the Olympics 

or Paralympics. When they do, it is a great story. It is great to hear 

about a veteran like Kortney Clemons succeed, not only in participation in sports, but also in employment and in education. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. If H.R. 4255 were to pass, what would be the impact on your organization? 

Mr. HUEBNER. When I talk about our organization and our programs, I am talking about collaboration with organizations like the 

PVA, Paralympic organizations around the country. Those dollars 

would specifically be focused on veterans to support, develop, and 

train, which is extremely cost-efficient. 

I mean, I talked with Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin about 

this; a rural community in South Dakota, to go in and develop a 

program would not make efficient sense from a cost perspective or 

participation perspective if it was for one veteran. But if we can 

train a parks and recreation in a rural area to support that veteran, they already have existing programming, they have existing 

buildings. What we are doing is providing the training and ongoing 

technical assistance to allow communities all over the country to 

expand programs focused on veterans. 

We could significantly increase the number of people participating in physical activity on a daily basis. There is a great need 

in the country for that. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Is there anything we can do to help you serve the 

recently-injured veteran? 

Mr. HUEBNER. Sir, everything you have been doing has been outstanding. Our role has been in collaboration with numerous other 

organizations. The greatest need now is there is a great lack of programming around the country. There are a lot of great events, but 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

15 

events last a week and then somebody goes home. What we want 

to make sure, and we see this all the time, you are familiar with 

our Paralympic military sport camp, people come to the Olympic 

training center and have the greatest week of their life, 50 or 100 

people. What we are most concerned about is when those 100 people go home to their 100 communities, is there a program for them 

to participate in, because it is our understanding, and yours more 

so, that is when bad things start happening. 

When you get back to your home community and the resources 

of the program isn’t there at the local level to immediately integrate you, that is our primary focus with what we are trying to do 

with the Paralympic Military Program, and H.R. 4255 would allow 

matching dollars to support the dollars we and other organizations 

are investing to significantly increase participation, as well as programming at the community level. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. 

I think I can speak for Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We really do appreciate your hard work. I personally feel like this is a great program. 

We can always improve and we can always better support. But as 

somebody that chased athletics awful hard in my youth, unsuccessfully, I might add, again, getting these men and women where they 

are concentrating on a goal, I think it does play an important part 

of the healing process. And, again, something that can be a lifelong 

thing that they can pursue. 

Mr. HUEBNER. Sir, one last point. I know employment is important for veterans. The people that are driving this program for us 

are veterans. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Franklin, how does the wireless industry inform not only 

their employees, but the servicemembers, about the policy to not 

charge cancelation fees when a servicemember is deployed? If Congress made this policy into law, do you believe this will reduce the 

incidence where we have the same problems we have now? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. I do believe that this will help. I think, the fact 

that Congress is taking up this legislation and addressing it will 

go a long way to help us make sure that all servicemembers know 

that the policies, and in the case if the bill passes, the law, will 

state that this is what should happen. 

We do a lot, our companies do a lot of training of their customer 

service employees, but when you have 260 million subscribers and 

tens of thousands of customer service reps, I am not here to say 

mistakes don’t happen. But I think that with the policies in place 

and with Congress paying attention to this, it is my hope that all 

servicemembers recognize this availability. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Are you aware of any complaints in the last couple of years with 

this type of thing? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. We have unverified reports. We have certainly 

heard, but have not been able to verify, the fact that some servicemembers have had difficulty getting out of their contracts. But it 

certainly, as I said before, it is not the policy of the companies and, 

as I said in response to your first question, I think the fact that 

you all are looking at this and helping publicize the fact that these 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

16 

policies exist for most of the carriers in this country, that it will 

certainly help the servicemembers. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Currently, how long does a servicemember, how 

long are they able to reserve their phone number, and is that policy 

adequate or does that need to be extended? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. I would like to get back on the technical answer 

to this because it has to do with how long a company can pool a 

number that is not being used in service. So there are specific rules 

that our companies must follow, the FCC has, the North American 

Numbering Administrator has, that we must follow. So I would like 

to get back to the Subcommittee on the answer to that. 

I do know and am proud that many of our member companies 

have, on their own, initiated servicemember policies to allow them 

to suspend. The question is for how long. When it comes to how 

long we can suspend, our hands may be tied by another agency. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I am going to turn things over to Mr. Hall. I do 

want to thank you. The Subcommittee will probably have a couple 

more questions in writing that we would like answered. But I do 

want to thank you for your openness and willingness to work with 

us on this to make sure these men and women, as they are deployed, they have enough to hassle with, and we all agree with 

this, I know that you agree with us and the people that are out 

in the field working, serving the veterans agree that they have 

enough hassle without dealing with this. 

So thank you very much. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. HALL [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

I regret missing your testimony. Permit me to ask you a couple 

of questions anyway. I did have the opportunity to read it. 

I will briefly ask, and forgive me if these questions have already 

been asked. Mr. Franklin, which bill do you think would better 

serve our servicemembers, the Lofgren bill or the Murphy bill? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. We are in support of both bills. Assuming that 

the suggestions on how to improve both bills are taken, we are 

really agnostic to both of those bills. We assume that you all will 

need to make that decision. I know that Madam Chairman Herseth 

Sandlin mentioned in her opening statement that there might be 

a way to pool those bills together, and we would be supportive of 

either or both, assuming the suggestions we made were incorporated. 

Mr. HALL. How much time elapses between when a servicemember requests to terminate a contract and when that contract 

is actually terminated? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. I think that, in most cases, it can be done very 

quickly. Again, each company has, in some cases, multiple billing 

systems, and it could technically be a difference of what part of the 

country you lived in, depending on what billing system that company is using, to answer with great specificity, but the policy of the 

industry and of the companies is that once they receive the order 

or a copy of the order from the servicemen and women showing 

that they are being deployed or moving to an area that doesn’t 

have service by that particular company, then the policy is for 

them to terminate that contract. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

17 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Franklin, to your knowledge, how many of the 

telecoms have international service? Can you estimate? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Well, international service plans are offered by 

many of the companies. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that 

they have the facility in another country. 

Mr. HALL. Like towers in Iraq or Afghanistan? 

Mr. FRANKLIN. Correct. 

Mr. HALL. Even more difficult. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. But they may have partnerships with wireless 

carriers internationally. In fact, they do—many of them do offer 

international plans, perhaps not in every part of the world where 

the servicemen and women are. That is why we do have these policies to let them out of the contract. 

Mr. HALL. Right. In such locations that service exists, I assume 

that there is work or discussion going on about changing the contract or exchanging it for one that would allow the servicemember 

to transfer the remainder of their contract to one that covers that 

area and allows communication with home. 

Mr. FRANKLIN. In the case of transferring their contract to another provider, I am not sure that would work. But certainly if they 

want to take up service with a U.S. provider that does have a relationship or service with somebody that provides service where they 

are being deployed, that option exists, absolutely. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Huebner, if H.R. 4255 were to pass, what would be the impact on your organization? 

Mr. HUEBNER. The impact is on the movement, not so much our 

organization. We have implemented a strategy to provide programming for veterans in communities all over the United States in the 

communities that they return home to, and we are doing that in 

partnership with numerous organizations like the National Recreation and Parks Association, Paralympic organizations, Paralyzed 

Veterans of America, and others. So the impact would be on increasing significantly the ability to reach more veterans in their 

home communities with very cost-efficient programming because 

all the programs I just mentioned are investing their own resources 

to provide that support to veterans. 

Right now in America, just to give you an example of physical 

disabilities, 21 million Americans have a physical disability in the 

United States. Less than 10 percent of them participate in daily 

physical activity. Our goal with H.R. 4255 is to increase significantly the number of veterans that return home and can participate in daily community programs in their local community. 

Mr. HALL. Can the USOC military Paralympic Program survive 

without Federal assistance? 

Mr. HUEBNER. Sir, we are surviving with private investment and 

with our partnership with those organizations. We can grow exponentially by having an investment to match the investment of all 

the organizations we are working with. We can reach more veterans. That is the bottom line. But, yes, we will survive, we will 

continue on. We are moving on with or without any Federal support. But my point to you is that with an investment to match the 

private investment that already exists, estimated more than $42 

million, we can substantially reach more veterans. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

18 

Mr. HALL. Do you work with Professional Ski Instructors of 

America, Adaptive Program, and other private athletic organizations who already have adaptive sports programs? 

Mr. HUEBNER. That is where you get your efficiency. We have 

identified communities that already have programs. We have also 

identified numerous communities that don’t. The role is to provide 

training and technical assistance. For example, in a rural area, to 

create a specific program in a rural area is not efficient. To work 

in collaboration with the Parks and Recreation that already has 

buildings and staff and provide them the equipment and expertise 

to serve that maybe one veteran in a rural area is very efficient. 

That is our focus with what we are trying to do, working with established programs today, as well as identifying markets that don’t 

have, and I will give you an example, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, there is not a comprehensive program to serve injured personal or veterans. We will have one established with the City of 

Colorado Springs by the end of this year. 

Mr. HALL. Well, thank you very much, both of you, for your patience and your testimony. Thank you, Ranking Member Boozman, 

for filling in as Chair. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you for being here. My only frustration is 

some of them are playing golf. My frustration is going out and 

playing with them and just getting trounced. So thank you very 

much. 

Mr. HALL. My frustration has been beaten down the hill by an 

adaptive skier in a sit-ski while being a certified level II alpine ski 

instructor. That is good. 

Mr. HUEBNER. Sir, both of you, obviously that is a great story for 

us to tell America and that is an important part of what we do just 

not for Americans but all veterans, to say I can come back from 

Iraq like Kortney Clemons did, go back to school. I can pursue a 

new career and I can be involved in physical activity which, as we 

talked about earlier, he can run a little bit faster than I can. 

Mr. HALL. Well, thank you very much for the work that you do 

and for your advice and counsel to the Subcommittee. This panel 

is now excused. Have a wonderful afternoon. 

We now invite Panel Three to the witness table. Participating on 

our third panel are Mr. Kerry Baker, Associate National Legislative Director of Disabled American Veterans; Mr. Joseph Sharpe, 

Deputy Director of the National Economic Commission for the 

American Legion; Mr. Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director for the Paralyzed Veterans of America; and Mr. Richard 

Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and government Affairs for 

the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). 

Mr. HALL. Gentleman, without objection, your full written statement will be entered into the record and you will be for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Baker, you are now recognized. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

19 

STATEMENTS OF KERRY BAKER, ASSOCIATE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; 

JOSEPH C. SHARPE, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; RICHARD DALEY, 

ASSOCIATE LEGISLATION DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND RICHARD F. WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, 

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA 

STATEMENT OF KERRY BAKER 

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting the DAV to present this testimony on various bills 

before the Subcommittee today. H.R. 3786, H.R. 6070, and H.R. 

6224 are all outside the scope of DAV’s mission. We nonetheless 

have no opposition to their favorable consideration. 

H.R. 2721 would require the VA and DoD to develop and distribute to members of the Armed Forces upon their discharge information in a compact disk format that explains benefits for which 

veterans are eligible under the laws administered by the Secretary. 

This legislation would improve outreach services and is therefore 

deserving of DAV’s support. 

The information contained on such a disk should be all inconclusive in regards to VA benefits and military benefits. Considering 

the lack of effective outreach in relation to older groups of veterans, 

Congress should consider whether this type of information should 

be disseminated to older groups in addition to discharging members. 

The DAV presented testimony in the House Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs on 

May 22, 2008, regarding the issue of outreach. In that hearing, the 

DAV outlined serious flaws in VA’s outreach efforts in relation to 

older groups of veterans. This legislation could serve as a vessel to 

improve those outreach efforts in a cost-effective manner. 

H.R. 4255 would amend the law to authorize VA to provide assistance to the Paralympic Program of the United States Olympic 

Committee. The DAV has concerns regarding this bill. Since 1991, 

the DAV and the VA have co-hosted the National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic in Snowmass, Colorado. The sole purpose of this program is to promote rehabilitation by instructing severely disabled veterans in adaptive alpine and Nordic skiing and 

provide an introduction to other adaptive activities and sports. 

The winter sports clinic provides profoundly disabled veterans 

opportunities for self-development and challenge. The participants 

have an opportunity to develop winter sports skills and take part 

in a variety of adaptive workshops. This event evolved from VA’s 

efforts in rehabilitation and adaptive sports. 

It should be noted that the winter sports clinic hosted by DAV 

and VA is purely for rehabilitative purposes and is in no way competitive in nature. As written, this bill has the potential to change 

that, something that both DAV and VA oppose. 

Many disabled veterans that participate in the winter sports clinic have never even before attempted such sports activities. Bringing a competitive atmosphere into that clinic we believe would do 

more harm than good. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

20 

This bill is obviously well-intended and therefore DAV does not 

wish to stand in its way. However, we also cannot allow unintended consequences to occur that may jeopardize the two decades 

of success in helping to rehabilitate severely disabled veterans at 

the winter sports clinic has achieved. Therefore, rather than opposing this legislation, we ask that it be amended to exclude competitive sports from being injected into the DAV and VA’s winter sports 

clinic. 

H.R. 6221 would require VA to include in each contract in which 

it enters for the acquisition of goods and services a provision that 

requires the contractee to comply with the contracting goals and 

preferences for small business concerned owned or controlled by 

veterans. The DAV supports this legislation. 

H.R. 6225 would amend the law relating to equitable relief with 

respect to a State or private employer. This legislation could have 

direct effect on service-connected disabled veterans because many 

obtain employment due to their service-connected disabilities. 

Those same individuals have enforceable rights of employment or 

re-employment. When those rights are violated, the victims of such 

violation should not be subject to the whims of discretion that some 

courts may choose to abuse. The DAV therefore supports this legislation. 

H.R. 6272 would authorize discretionary appropriations to carry 

out the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training 

Act 1992. Under this law, the Secretary of Defense is required to 

carry out a program to assist eligible persons in obtaining employment through participation in programs of significant training for 

employment in stable and permanent positions. Servicemembers 

separated involuntarily who have service-related disabilities rated 

at 30 percent or more are among those affected. Therefore, the 

DAV supports this bill as well. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. On behalf of the 

DAV, I am pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker appears on p. 43.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Baker, for your testimony. Now, Mr. 

Sharpe, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH C. SHARPE, JR. 

Mr. SHARPE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I appreciate this opportunity to share the views of the American 

Legion on a couple of benefit-related legislative initiatives brought 

before us today, the first being H.R. 6272, the ‘‘SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008.’’ 

Every year, over 250,000 servicemembers are discharged from 

the Armed Services. These former service personnel are actively 

seeking either employment or the continuation of former, or vocational education. SMOCTA was developed as a transitional tool designed to provide job training and employment to eligible veterans 

discharged after August 1, 1999. 

When created, SMOCTA was the only Federal job training program available strictly for veterans and the only Federal job training program specifically designed for the use by State veterans employment personnel to assist veterans with barriers to employment. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

21 

SMOCTA is a unique job training program because it has successfully returned veterans to the civilian workforce. The American 

Legion strongly endorses this bill. 

The other bill that we are very concerned with is H.R. 6221, the 

‘‘Veteran-Owned Small Business Protection and Clarification Act.’’ 

The American Legion views small businesses as the engine that 

keeps the American economy on track. It is the driving force behind America’s past economic growth, and will continue to be the 

major factor as we move forward into the 21st century. 

The American Legion supported legislation in the past that 

sought to add service-connected disabled veterans to a list of specified small business categories receiving 3 percent set-asides. 

Despite enactment of Public Law 106–50 the Veteran Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act 1999, agency compliance has been minimal. However, VA has sought to raise those 

veteran procurement goals to 9 percent. Therefore, the American 

Legion supports H.R. 6221, which is intended to assist VA in reaching those new goals by ensuring that every contract up for bid be 

considered for a veterans service disabled-owned company. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to present the American Legion’s views on these important and timely topics, and I welcome any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharpe appears on p. 45.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Sharpe. We will get back 

to questions after the other witnesses. 

Mr. Daley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD DALEY 

Mr. DALEY. Representative Hall, Ranking Member Boozman, I 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to share our views on 

the proposed legislation. My written comments are submitted for 

the record. I will limit my remarks to the time limited. 

Starting with the written comments, my verbal has changed from 

the written comments submitted because of some meetings that we 

have had. 

I wanted to address H.R. 4255, the ‘‘United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act.’’ While we have previously mentioned concerns about H.R. 4255, in recent days, we have had the 

opportunity to talk with different Committee staff as well as with 

Mr. Huebner from the Paralympics. We see this potential expanding relationship between the VA and the USOC as an opportunity 

to benefit disabled veterans. Furthermore, we look forward to 

working with Paralympics to address our concerns about the impact of this new relationship on longstanding partnerships that we 

and other veteran service organizations had developed with the VA 

to support sports and recreation programs for disabled veterans. 

We are encouraged that satisfactory solutions to our concerns may 

be achieved. 

H.R. 6224, the ‘‘Pilot College Work-Study Programs for Veterans 

Act.’’ As we stated in testimony on similar legislation earlier this 

year, PVA supports the provisions of H.R. 6224, the ‘‘Pilot College 

Work-Study Programs Act.’’ This legislation would create a fiveyear pilot program for on-campus work-study positions that may 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

22 

include work in academic departments, such as tutoring, research 

assistants, teaching assistants, lab assistants, and other services, 

including financial aid and cashier, admission. Just about any position that is available on the campus will be included in this program. We believe that the work-study program can be very beneficial for many students. 

‘‘The SMOCTA Reauthorization Act.’’ The PVA supports the 

SMOCTA Reauthorization Act. We recommended the reauthorization of the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training 

Act, SMOCTA program, or a program similar to that, in the hearing last October. SMOCTA was established during the downsizing 

of the military for veterans discharged after August 1, 1990. 

This program was a cooperative venture between the Department of Defense—they funded it, and the U.S. Department of 

Labor and the VA. It was considered one of the better programs to 

serve transitioning military veterans. The program provided assistance in the form of reimbursements to employers to provide training for veterans that led to permanent employment. The program 

also included funds for assessment, for training programs, for supportive services for the trainee. The Disabled Veterans Outreach 

Program specialist and the local veterans employment representatives staff that is on the State level developed the employment 

training programs. The veterans eligible for this assistance were 

those with military occupations that were not transferable, those 

that were unemployed for long periods of time, or those that have 

a 30 percent or greater disability. 

The SMOCTA program, we think, would be a real benefit because it would give the State employment workers something to go 

out to the manufacturers and employers and say, I have something 

to talk to you about. The Federal government is going to help you 

with training new employees. 

I think it is a win-win situation. A similar program would help 

the men and women transitioning today, the many men and 

women, and the Reserves and the Guard members who are reentering the workforce. I thank you for this opportunity and I am 

available for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley appears on p. 47.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Daley. And Mr. Weidman, you are 

now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Chairman Hall, Mr. Boozman, and in absentia, 

Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today to testify on a number of important pieces of legislation. In 

regard to H.R. 2721, Mr. Garza is on the right track in that denial 

of knowledge of benefits, services and earned rights is tantamount 

to denial of those services, benefits and rights that are earned by 

virtue of military service. We would suggest, instead of locking the 

VA or DoD into a CD–ROM, our experience in working with young 

troops at Walter Reed and elsewhere is: the more portable it is and 

the more cool it is, the more they are likely to hang on to it. 

And right now at the TAP program, they get all this paper, and 

most of it never makes it back home. If you give them a memory 

stick, that also doubles as a key chain and it looks sharp, they will 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

23 

keep that. And that plugs into any computer, and it accomplishes 

the same task with having those key sites, as well as the information that is a contained in Federal benefits for veterans and their 

families booklet that is updated every year based on changes by the 

Congress and in regulation. 

Incidentally, even here at the flagship at Walter Reed, every 

time I go down there, I take the most current version, about 30 of 

them, with me. And I go down several times a month. The young 

people still have outdated versions of it. And no matter how much 

VA and DoD swear they have the most current information, they 

don’t. And so those things are all gone, boom. And I put any extras 

on the table and they are all gone when I come back the next week. 

So getting good information out, we can’t do too much of that. It 

really needs to be done. The second bill is H.R. 3786, the cell 

phones, VVA is for that. The one thing that we would urge you to 

be very cautious of is watering down this bill by inserting the word 

‘‘knowingly.’’ That word ‘‘knowingly’’ was inserted in the Veterans 

Preference Act, Veterans Economic Opportunity Act, Employment 

Opportunity Act. And it has basically gutted that Act for any enforcement and enforcement of veterans preference in Federal employment. 

And the same thing is true when people say ‘‘the contract will 

be immediately terminated’’—as of what date? As of the date of the 

orders are supplied or as of the date of the end of a billing period? 

That may be anywhere from 30 to 90 days. Those things need, I 

would suggest, to be pinned down to make sure that the Act really 

accomplishes the protection you are seeking. H.R. 6070, anything 

that we can do to assist the spouses and the families of those who 

are deployed overseas we should do. And this is one of the very 

minimum things that can be accomplished in a few things that 

there is no cost but should be done. 

H.R. 6221, in regard to subcontracting, I hope that Committee 

staff and the Members will work with us. There are a number of 

problems with subcontracting that need to be addressed. This is 

only one. And the whole intent of P.L. 109–461 having to do with 

VA procurement needs to be significantly tightened up, if I may 

suggest, particularly when it comes to subcontracting. And specifically it needs to be locked into Black Letter Law that the information on who prime contractors are subcontracting with cannot in 

any manner, shape or form be considered private information or 

proprietary information and denied to the Congress and to the veterans advocates. It is public money and we have a right to know 

how much money is being spent with what company. And therefore, we haven’t been able to track subcontracting on any of the 

major primes in any agency including VA. 

In regard to Federal work-study, just to ensure that there is no 

match, this can only help and we would encourage this. You can 

call it a pilot program but it needs to go nationwide. And one of 

the reasons that program works and works well is the money follows the veteran where he or she can get a placement that is going 

to be congruent with their course of study and advance their future 

career. 

In regard to H.R. 6225, in terms of injunctive relief, in most 

cases, I think we need to look to tax relief for those few employers 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

24 

who are bearing the cost of this war along with those who are 

being mobilized in serving. And we need to look to incentives more. 

But at the same time, we need to tighten up the stick and Ms. 

Herseth Sandlin deserves great credit for introducing this bill to 

improve sanctions, and particularly injunctive relief. 

In regard to governmental institutions, one of the worst violators 

of USERRA is State and local and county governments all across 

the Nation. In regard to the Paralympics, we share with one codicil. We fully support this bill. And that is that it be specifically 

written in either to the Black Letter Law or to the Committee report that anything that is done with this program be congruent 

and complimentary and not, in any way, deleterious to the current 

winner games or to the wheelchair games currently under operation by VA. 

Last, but by no means least, has to do with H.R. 6272. And I 

thank Mr. Welch for introducing this legislation. It is a much needed tool. And the only thing I can suggest, though, is that we change 

the name of it to warrior opportunity conversion, something other 

than SMOCTA. ‘‘Schmata’’ is a Yiddish word that means something 

unclean. And in certain parts of the country, it was met with ridicule by employers. And being from New York, you know exactly 

what I mean, Mr. Hall. 

When we first got SMOCTA through, that acronym came out of 

nowhere and it didn’t help us, let us put it that way, market the 

program, but it is an important program. And in this room in 1982, 

I testified on behalf of what became the Emergency Veterans Job 

Training Act, which essentially was the same program. And that 

later, the emergency was dropped later in the eighties and it became the Veterans Job Training Act. And then that expired. And 

due to the military conversion or downsizing subsequent to the 

Cold war in the first Gulf war, we got the servicemembers through. 

And we did get that renewed several years later, but we didn’t get 

any funding for it and, therefore, the program died. 

This program, particularly when used in conjunction with the opportunity tax credit for disabled vets that Mr. Rangel got through 

Ways and Means in 2006, December 2006, proved to be very important marketing tools that can be used by disabled veteran outreach 

program workers, local veterans’ employment representatives 

(LVERs) and others. 

For the record, since Labor has not publicized these two documents implementing that Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) 

for disabled vets, which is a very important tool, I would, with permission of the Chair, submit these to be included with the record, 

so at least the Congress can start to do what the Department of 

Labor is not doing. 

Last, but by no means least, I would be remiss if I didn’t say that 

the Department of Labor and the service delivery mechanism that 

will use these tools, or theoretically use these tools, is severely 

compromised if indeed not broken. I would point out to the distinguished members of the panel here that conspicuously absent is 

any senior representative from the Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service of the United States Department of Labor here 

this afternoon to listen to what could be the essential tool that 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

25 

their people will pick up and use out in the field in order to get 

jobs for those young men and women returning. 

If it sounds like we are somewhat angry at this lack of diligence 

and this lack of passion for the job to be done, it is because it is 

justifiable. I have gone overtime, and I thank you very much for 

your indulgence Mr. Chairman and I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman, and referenced attachments, appears on p. 50.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Are you suggesting that I 

should not say SMOCTA in front of my Slovak Catholic mother? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Yes, sir, I am. And I am not going to go into the 

exact translation, but it is not something you want to say in front 

of your mom. 

Mr. HALL. Do you believe, Mr. Weidman, that under H.R. 2721, 

a CD with veterans information is a good way to bridge the outreach gap between Federal agencies and veterans? You are talking 

about these information—the data sticks. There also are some that 

are transponders for Internet receivers and senders that are also 

doubled as data sticks. These sticks would enable the veteran to 

not only download or open up files that are in storage on the device, but also connect directly to a VA Web site. Would that strike 

you as a good idea? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. The hot links are important. And the one thing 

that we spend a lot of time—the more time I spend with these 

young folks, the more I realize—find out what works, including in 

gifts that we give them. And it needs to be cool and it needs to be 

portable. Particularly for those in the combat arms. They like 

things that they can carry with them. That is why I suggest even 

in addition to that electronic device you do something that is a trifold or a quad-fold card that is die cut the same size as a credit 

card they can stick in their wallet. 

If you give that to them at the Transition Assistance Program or 

at the military hospital where they are recuperating from wounds, 

they will take that and stick it in their wallet, and you have all 

the key links in the Web sites of all the agencies on there. And 

they will pull it out when they need it. They are never going to find 

that tri-fold brochure that is 5 by 11, they are never going to find 

a thick booklet. But this they will find and they will pull it out of 

their wallet or they will use the electronic device. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Daley, would that address your concern about veterans from rural areas? 

Mr. DALEY. Sure. The word has to get out there in the smaller 

towns, the rural areas. And I think that would really, really help. 

And, of course, we have the veterans one-stop locations there that 

they can go for information. So the more information we give them, 

the better. 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely. And sir, do you believe that if VA formalizes their agreements to work with the USOC that the VA will no 

longer support the national veterans wheelchair games or other 

similar events? 

Mr. DALEY. That was a concern. But after talking with Mr. 

Huebner, that is not his goal at all. Everything that we have done 

in the past we will keep doing the same way. He has a broader injbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

26 

terest to reach out into the communities, as he said, to get more 

people involved in activities and more veterans involved in activities of recreation and sports. So yeah, I think it is going to be a 

good situation. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. Mr. Baker, DAV concerns on H.R. 2721 

are that the VA is not conducting outreach efforts to older groups 

of veterans, and you suggest disseminating this information to this 

group. Do you think a compact disk is not the most effective tool 

for this population? And what would you suggest? For instance, is 

this generation of veterans going to benefit from electronic media 

like a CD or would a pamphlet or reading material be more effective? 

Mr. BAKER. I think the answer to that is mixed. Some of them 

are going to benefit. Some obviously aren’t that computer literate. 

And that is certainly not the catchall answer to the older group. 

I believe the testimony we presented back in May on the older vets 

addressed some laws that are currently in existence that Congress 

has implemented in the past years that is meant to address older 

vets, and the VA just hasn’t complied with. That is one avenue. 

This information or in written format is possibly one avenue to go 

about complying with that. First, they have to be identified, which 

is one of the requirements of the previous laws, and then it has to 

be assessed as to what they know and don’t know about their benefits. But this could be certainly a potential mechanism for delivering that information. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. And Mr. Sharpe, should the SMOCTA just 

be reauthorized or is there room for improvement? 

Mr. SHARPE. Both. 

Mr. HALL. Or would you also suggest another name? 

Mr. SHARPE. That is not an issue for us. But it is a concern that 

we do have a training program that meets the demands for today’s 

employers and what is going on tomorrow. And if we can improve 

it more, the better. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. My time has expired, I will recognize 

Ranking Member Boozman for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appreciate the 

testimony. We would like perhaps to submit some questions as they 

come up as we work with these things. As always I appreciate your 

testimony. You have really given us some good thoughts as to the 

different areas. On the Paralympic Committee, we have a little difference of opinion, but I think all of us agree that the primary 

thing that we are trying to do with all of these things is to serve 

the entire population. And that means guys that are just wanting 

to play pick-up all the way up to competing at a very, you know, 

at the top level. 

So I think I would really like to work with you and get that done, 

but I think we can get that done. Rick, the things about trying to 

get the information out, you know, what is the most valuable tool 

of doing that, I agree, and that might change. So you might want 

to look at maybe working with the author about maybe giving a 

range or something. But again, working with you guys, working 

with everybody to try and figure out how we can get the information out, that is a challenge. And I have been to many TAP programs and stuff, and I think the want to is there. I don’t have any 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

27 

doubts in my mind. It is just difficult when you are dealing with 

people that are sometimes seriously injured, sometimes they are 

home, and I have been to the ceremonies when they come home, 

and they have their minds seeing a kid sometimes that they have 

never seen before. 

So you just have the whole gamut. But trying to use the technology that we have to get the message out so that they can keep 

it, and more importantly, have something to rely on or somebody 

to rely on in the future to get the information. So again, thank you 

all very much for your testimony and taking the time to be here 

today. It is very helpful. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. And if I may just follow up 

with Mr. Sharpe. You alluded to improvements in SMOCTA. Could 

you please elaborate on that? 

Mr. SHARPE. Again, our biggest concern is that with any training 

program, that the servicemembers are given the skills that will 

help them for today’s economy. In many cases, many of the training 

programs that are currently in existence do not do that. Employers 

are looking elsewhere for skilled employees, and there is no need 

for that. There is no need for them to have to look overseas. We 

feel that our veterans should be trained with all up-to-date technology that will meet today’s demands and plus in the future. So 

that is the kind of training program we are looking for. 

Mr. HALL. Under H.R. 6224 you state that veterans should be 

permitted to participate as VA work study students in Federal 

agencies. Do you propose that veterans be given internships at Federal agencies? 

Mr. SHARPE. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. And do you think that the requirements stated under 

H.R. 6221 should be extended to all Federal agencies, not just VA? 

Mr. SHARPE. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. And last Mr. Baker, regarding H.R. 4255 

again, should not the veteran be able to decide whether he or she 

would like to compete? It would be beneficial if we had both competitive and recreational noncompetitive programs available. 

Mr. BAKER. I agree 100 percent. I completely agree with that I 

should probably clarify something after speaking with Mr. Huebner 

during the break as well as listening to his statement. There is a 

chance we might be mistaken or misinterpreting the intent of the 

legislation. And we only want to make sure that the winter sports 

clinic in Snowmass doesn’t become a competitive environment. Because that is literally the first time a lot of these people get on 

some of these devices, and it is strictly rehabilitation. That is not 

to say this law wouldn’t promote some competitive nature elsewhere throughout the country. That is our only concern, is to shield 

that from becoming a competitive event. 

Mr. Huebner assures me that that is not the aim. I will certainly 

bring that message to our people in the DAV that run that program. Maybe they can get together to work out any differences or 

get a better understanding of the intent of the law. But I don’t 

want to give that impression that we are against any competitive 

nature in the whole arena. 

Mr. HALL. Thanks for the clarification. I would say that the same 

thing applies to children and to nonveterans. There are some peojbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

28 

ple who, by temperament, take well to competition and thrive in 

it. Yet, there are others who like to just compete against themselves, if you will, or try to get pleasure and improve their performance in whatever sport it is, be it adaptive or not. 

I think that making the whole range seems like a good thing to 

me. Mr. Boozman, do you have any more questions? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No, I don’t. 

Mr. HALL. Well, thank you to our third panel for testifying before 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for your patience and your continued 

dedication to our Nation’s veterans. You are now excused. 

And we invite our fourth panel to the witness table. Joining us 

on the fourth panel is Mr. Keith Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under 

Secretary for Policy and Program Management for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Ms. Diane Hartmann, 

Director of National Programs and Special Events for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Welcome. Thank you for being here 

and thank you for your patience. As usual, your full written statement will be entered into the hearing record. Feel free to adjust it, 

shorten it, or elaborate on it. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Pedigo, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF R. KEITH PEDIGO, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, 

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY DIANE HARTMANN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PROGRAMS AND SPECIAL 

EVENTS, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. PEDIGO. Mr. Hall and Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

pleased to be here today to provide the Department of Veteran Affairs’ views on pending legislation. Accompanying me is Diane 

Hartmann, Director of National Programs and Special Events. VA 

is still reviewing H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225, and H.R. 6272 and will provide views on those bills in a subsequent views letter. 

[The Administration views from VA for H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225, 

and H.R. 6272 appear on p. 65.] 

H.R. 2721 would require VA to develop and the Secretary of Defense to distribute to members of the Armed Forces, upon their discharge or release from active duty, a compact disk containing information that VA determines would help veterans. That information 

would include the benefits for which veterans may be eligible under 

the laws administered by VA, and a comprehensive explanation of 

how to apply for benefits and a list of all VA facilities. 

The bill would also require VA and DoD to maintain an Internet 

Web site with information clearly explaining VA benefits and other 

things. VA supports this bill. It would clearly enhance VA’s already 

rigorous outreach and information dissemination efforts. H.R. 3786, 

the ‘‘Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act,’’ and H.R. 6070, 

the ‘‘Military Spouses Residency Relief Act,’’ if enacted, would affect servicemembers. 

Therefore, VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding the 

merits of these bills. H.R. 4255, the ‘‘United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of 2007’’ would authorize VA to 

make a grant to the U.S. Olympic Committee to plan, develop, 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

29 

manage and implement the Paralympic Program for veterans and 

members of the Armed Forces. It also would require VA to inform 

all veterans with physical disabilities of the Paralympic Program, 

encourage their participation and require that VA ensure access to 

and appropriate use of facilities by program participants. VA opposes this bill because it is unnecessary, would divert funds intended for veterans care to nonveterans and would benefit only a 

limited number of veterans. 

VA has an established office of national programs and special 

events that oversees highly successful and well-attended rehabilitative programs for disabled veterans. This office works with the 

USOC to help elite level athletes to compete in their Paralympic 

Programs. That office currently oversees four national events; the 

National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic, the National Veterans Wheelchair Games, the National Veterans Golden Age 

Games and the National Veterans Creative Arts Festival. Also, a 

pilot summer sports clinic scheduled for later this year in San 

Diego, California, is specifically designed for veterans with serious 

disabilities. 

Each year, thousands of disabled veterans have the opportunity 

for self-development through participation in these events. Among 

other things, a bill would require VA to notify and encourage participation of catastrophically injured veterans, many of whom 

would not be able to participate in these events. VA currently allows the USOC to distribute materials about the Paralympic Program at any of VA’s offices of national programs and special 

events. Additional notification is unnecessary. Although we applaud the USOC’s efforts to bring more veterans into their elite 

athletic competitions, we believe the VA’s events are much more 

suited to providing the services veterans need. VA’s goal is to introduce sports and other recreation to disabled veterans and make it 

a part of their daily lives. Our existing partnership with the USOC 

allows those who rise to elite athletic performance to take their 

training to the next level through the USOC Paralympic Program. 

We are in the process of estimating the costs that would be associated with enactment of this bill and will provide them for the 

record. 

[The Committee did not receive the costs for H.R. 4255, as introduced, since the provisions of that bill were included in S. 2162, 

which became Public Law 110–387 on October 10, 2008.] 

H.R. 6224, the ‘‘Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans 

Act of 2008,’’ would require the VA to conduct a five-year pilot 

project to test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the 

scope of certain work study-related activities to include work study 

positions available on-site at educational institutions. 

These positions in the program may include those in academic 

departments and in student services. The bill would require VA 

personnel to supervise veterans in these positions. While VA supports the principle of exploring possible expansion of the work 

study allowances under the current statute, we do not support this 

bill because the activities now described in that section relate primarily to activities that support VA’s mission of services and assistance to veterans and their dependants, whereas the types of activities proposed would not relate to that mission. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

30 

In addition, VA’s supervision of the work study participants 

would be administratively burdensome given the range of activities 

that would be involved throughout the university. This concludes 

my statement, Mr. Hall. I would be happy to entertain any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo appears on p. 58.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Pedigo. And we look forward to the 

view’s letter on H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225, H.R. 6272 and the cost estimate of the other bill, H.R. 4255. 

In the report from the Office of the Inspector General for VA, it 

seems that VA makes purchases for the Department of Defense. 

Yet, the VA has a memorandum of agreement with the Department 

of the Army to have the Army do purchases for the VA. Why is 

that? 

Mr. PEDIGO. Mr. Hall, I am not at all familiar with that issue. 

But I would be happy to try to get you a response for the record. 

[The answer is included in the response to Question 1 of the 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record, which appears on p. 64.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. You can add that to the package of things 

you are sending us. Under H.R. 6224, you state that it would be 

administratively burdensome for the VA to supervise work study 

participants as outlined in the bill. Could the VA delegate supervisory duties to the university? 

Mr. PEDIGO. I believe that would be a possibility. We do have 

some programs that we administer where we do delegate responsibility. And if given the statutory authority to do that, I think that 

that would be an improvement to that proposal. 

Mr. HALL. Is the Office of National Programs and Special Events 

(ONPSE) a permanent office? 

Mr. PEDIGO. Mr. Hall, I am going to ask Ms. Diane Hartmann 

to respond to that question. 

Ms. HARTMANN. Thank you, sir. The Office of National Programs 

and Special Events was formed in 2001. It is a permanent office. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. Hartmann. And what is the current 

budget of ONPSE? 

Ms. HARTMANN. I am sorry. 

Mr. HALL. The current budget of the Office of National Programs 

and Special Events. 

Ms. HARTMANN. Right now the budget is $4.6 million. That includes the operational costs of the events as well as staff. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. And last, to Mr. Pedigo, thank you for taking part in our round table discussion on outreach. Regarding H.R. 

2721, I would assume and encourage you to coordinate with the 

outreach effort that we discussed with the Ad Council, and to make 

it as holistic as possible, as you develop this concept of whether it 

is a compact disk or a memory stick or whatever device seems to 

be most widely accepted among our veterans in different age 

groups. I am sure you are thinking that way, but I just wanted to 

mention that because some of us in this room maybe weren’t at the 

round table discussion. And that is all the questions I have. I will 

turn now to Ranking Member Boozman for his questions. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you Chairman Hall. First of all thank you 

all so much for your hard work for veterans and we really do apjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

31 

preciate you Mr. Pedigo and Ms. Hartmann for all that you do. I 

am a little confused about the recreational therapy programs. Let 

me just read this, and then I will follow up. The Committee staff 

Members have attended several of the Paralympic Military Sports 

summits, and that means held their significant resistance at the 

VA Medical Center level defending recreational therapy programs. 

Please describe who has overall responsibility for the recreational 

therapy program of VA and is there a budget line item for the program. I think earlier we heard testimony to the effect that when 

you actually go out and talk to these men and women, there is a 

problem in the sense they don’t want to be at the hospital their 

whole life or that kind of situation, you know, playing basketball 

or whatever they are doing. So can you address that for me. 

Ms. HARTMANN. Yes, sir, I can. First of all, the Recreation Therapy Program is part of patient care service, which is under the Veterans Health Administration. The National Programs Office is separate from that. Originally all of our national programs started in 

recreation therapy and they were separated and elevated to a higher level. As far as the—— 

Mr. BOOZMAN. And are they on-site? 

Ms. HARTMANN. Yes, sir. Well, the national office is, but our 

planning staff is around the country because our events move from 

one location, one Medical Center to another year to year. So I have 

staff in the field that it is constantly working on events. We usually 

work 3 years of programs during the year. As far as the question 

about the difficulty of staff getting to these programs, that is true. 

About 8 years ago, it was very difficult for recreation therapists 

and caregivers as well as veterans to have funding to get to these 

events. Once this program was elevated, there was quite a bit of 

policy developed and consistency put together among the programs 

so that these programs would be recognized as part of medical care 

and part of recreation therapy. That our veterans who are attending would be given caregivers when necessary to go with them. And 

those caregivers would be given official travel and administrative 

leave. There still are issues that the funding to get the participants 

as well as the VA staff to these programs is not always part of the 

budget of the Medical Center. A lot of the money is fundraised at 

a local level. And a lot of the money that gets the participants 

there are raised by our service organizations. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Can you—I guess I would really like to know 

what kind of money that we are talking about how much that 

budget item would be to fully fund that. 

Ms. HARTMANN. To fund staff and participants. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes ma’am. 

Ms. HARTMANN. Sir, we can work out, those numbers. 

[The answer is included in the response to Question 3 of the 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record, which appears on p. 64.] 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, I really feel strongly that for certain individuals, and the Chairman addressed it. There are individuals that 

want to exercise and compete at all different levels. But I really do 

think part of the healing process, part of the rehabilitation, this 

stuff really can be very, very important, for certain individuals. Not 

necessarily for everybody, although there probably is something for 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

32 

everybody if we can find it. But the ability to actually access it is 

real important. Now, I have been pleased because it seems like my 

experience has gotten a little bit better in some locations. But I 

would like to know again what kind of money that we are talking 

about. And so how would you address the problem, the criticism of 

people not wanting to be in that setting all the time, the guy that 

gets out of the hospital—do you see what I mean? 

Ms. HARTMANN. I understand. I don’t believe that I am the appropriate person to address that. I do not have a clinical background so it would be inappropriate for me to say that. As an observer, truly nonclinician I see very positive aspects just from the 

first time someone is introduced to a new activity or sport to when 

the end of the day after they have had a lesson. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. But if that were a concern, if you were able to say 

yeah, this is a positive thing, if the clinicians told you that, would 

you agree that we are not funding that like we should based on if 

it was a very positive thing? 

Ms. HARTMANN. Yes, I would. I think that the recreation therapy 

programs at VA could absolutely benefit, and our veterans would 

definitely benefit by additional funding. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Good. That is very helpful. I mean you all, you 

know you all work with the money that you are given and we ask 

a lot of you. But like I said that is very helpful. Thank you Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. I also am curious, Ms. 

Hartmann, about the noncompetitive programs and special events. 

If you are not the person to describe them, or if you are, would you 

do that a little bit? If not, maybe you could send us a summary of 

what they are. If it is a separate budget that the Office of National 

Programs and Special Events has, I am curious about the statement that it would benefit only a limited number of veterans I 

think if it were structured, as we see it being structured in terms 

of applying to all competitive and noncompetitive individuals, it 

should benefit a great number of veterans. Certainly considering 

the number of serious injuries that we are seeing in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, it would be good if Operation Enduring Freedom returnees today it have these kinds of recreational and/or competitive 

programs available to as many of them as possible. 

Ms. HARTMANN. I will be happy to try to clarify the competitive 

and noncompetitive. We have two programs now, our winter sports 

clinic and our summer sports clinic which are noncompetitive. They 

are clinics. They are an introduction to sports and leisure activities. 

The winter sports, of course, having the key basis around winter 

activities, and the summer will be summer sports. 

In addition to those two components of both summer and winter, 

we also introduced the leisure activities, which are activities that 

the veterans can take home and do that they don’t need a mountain for, such as scuba diving or trap shooting or rock climbing. 

Those types of things where they can go home to their local community and do it; cycling, kayaking for the summer games. They 

don’t have to have an ocean to kayak or to do cycling. So additionally we will do golf, which we have already in two of our programs. 

So those are the noncompetitive. The wheelchair games, the golden age games and the creative arts festival are all competitive. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

33 

They are competitive locally where through the recreational therapy programs they are introduced to these activities, and then the 

therapists work with them. And of course, we have the organizations like PVA who have the local chapters who do a lot of local 

programs for the veterans to get involved and to learn—I mean to 

really develop the competitive skills. Then they come to the national program to compete. In the national program with our partnership through the Paralympics, we have been able to identify 

some veterans that have the elite level potential. And they have 

gone on to both the Paralympic Military Program. And as Mr. 

Huebner said, this year we have six veterans who are part of the 

Paralympic team. Four of those individuals actually rehabbed at 

VA Medical Centers and were introduced to sports through VA 

recreation therapy programs and participate at our national programs. 

I have to tell you that I think the concept is extremely supported 

by VA, and especially by I know my staff, the concept. Because we 

have no way of knowing where the funding will come from, we 

have to assume that it is going to come from existing dollars. And 

therefore, we strongly feel that if we are going to put the existing 

dollars into recreation therapy, it should be within VA’s programs 

that exist already instead of out into the community. Therefore, 

more veterans would be able to benefit by the use of that money. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. And just lastly, could I ask if you have a 

rough number of disabled veterans who are taking advantage of 

these programs and approximately what percentage that might be 

of the total number of disabled veterans? 

Ms. HARTMANN. I can tell you that this past year at the national 

events, we had 1,638 veterans. I do not know the percentage versus 

the number of disabled veterans, but I will be happy to find that 

number for you. 

[The answer is included in the response to Question 2 of the 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record, which appears on p. 64.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. Ms. Hartmann, Mr. Pedigo, 

thank you for the work that you are doing and for testifying before 

the Subcommittee today. It is very important that we in Congress 

continue to reevaluate existing laws and review legislative proposals so that we may provide our men and women in uniform, and 

our veterans and their dependants the benefits and safeguards that 

they need to reintegrate back to civilian life. This hearing has provided us with good feedback and I look forward to continuing this 

important dialogue. Again, thank you for your patience and the 

work that you do. Thank you to all of our panelists for participating in today’s legislative hearing. This hearing now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

(34) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Today we have eight bills before us that seek to: authorize the VA to make a 

grant to the United States Olympic Committee to provide and develop activities for 

servicemembers and veterans with physical disabilities; allow military servicemembers to terminate certain contracts when called to active duty service or ordered to change permanent duty assignment; require the VA to develop and DoD 

to distribute a compact disk of benefits information to servicemembers preparing to 

depart from the military; amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow a 

military spouse to claim the same state as the servicemember in regards to state 

and property taxes, and voter registration; and reauthorize the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act of 1992. 

Some of you might recall that on February 13, of this year, we conducted a hearing on expiring programs. In this hearing, we received recommendations on ways 

to improve on the programs and expand on veterans rights. One such recommendation came from Mr. Matthew Tully of Tully and Rinckey LLC who specializes in law 

under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, also 

known as USERRA. 

Mr. Tully brought up an example of how a servicemember who had sought injunctive relief from his employer but the court denied his request. Mr. Tully recommended that the Subcommittee consider amending USERRA to allow servicemembers, such as the one that was cited, to ensure equitable relief is available to 

USERRA victims when the courts decide it’s appropriate. 

I share the concerns expressed by Mr. Tully and recently introduced H.R. 6225, 

Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008. This bill will amend Title 38 by changing 

‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall’’ and it is our expectation that more courts will use this remedy 

when deemed appropriate that equitable relief is warranted. This legislation is a 

step in the right direction to providing greater protections and safeguards to those 

that have answered the call to duty. 

A second bill that I recently introduced is H.R. 6224, the Pilot College Work Study 

Programs for Veterans Act of 2008. This bill contains similar language that I proposed in H.R. 5684, the Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008, which would 

improve on existing educational entitlements for our veterans. 

H.R. 6224 would direct the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to 

conduct a 5-year pilot project to expand on existing work-study activities for veterans. Currently, veterans that qualify for work-study would be limited to working 

on VA related work. My bill would allow those veterans the option of working in 

academic departments and student services. This change would put them at par 

with students that qualify for a work-study position under programs not administered by the VA. 

Furthermore, this bill would conform to existing paygo rules by funding this pilot 

program from discretionary appropriations. 

I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and other Members of 

the Committee to discussing my two legislative proposals and those being considered in today’s legislative hearing. 

It is very important that Congress continue to reevaluate existing laws and review legislative proposals so that we may provide our men and women in uniform, 

our veterans and their dependents the benefits and safeguards they need to reintegrate back to civilian life. This hearing has provided us with good feedback and 

I look forward to continuing this important dialog. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

35 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Thank you Madame Chair. 

Today, we will hear testimony on eight bills covering diverse issues facing veterans and their families. I am especially pleased that you have included my bill, 

H.R. 6221, a bill to close a possible loophole in VA’s disabled veteran business contracting and acquisition programs. I am also very pleased that you are an original 

cosponsor of H.R. 6221 and I look forward to working with you on this wide range 

of bills. 

I would offer one thought on the bill to reauthorize the long-expired Servicemembers’ Occupational Training Act or SMOCTA. The goal of SMOCTA was to retrain veterans with few or no transferable military skills in skills better-suited to 

today’s job market. This is a worthy goal and I support it and commend our colleague from Vermont for bringing this issue to us. 

There are several ways to offer retraining and I would like to explore with you 

whether it would be more effective to reauthorize SMOCTA or take several 

SMOCTA concepts and use them to expand VA’s existing On-the-Job-Training (OJT) 

and apprenticeship programs for both recently discharged veterans and those who 

have passed their eligibility date for GI Bill benefits. 

Given the current awareness of education and training for veterans, we may have 

an opportunity here to put more veterans into good jobs. I know you share that goal 

and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Welch and our colleagues on the Committee to make that happen. 

I yield back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Filner, 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on H.R. 4255, the United States Olympic 

Committee Paralympics Program Act of 2007, which I introduced earlier this Congress. 

For many servicemembers and veterans who have been severely injured from 

service to our country, their rehabilitation can be a disheartening experience. Many 

become concerned about having the same quality of life that they had prior to their 

injuries. 

Programs administered by the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) Paralympic Military Program can enhance and improve the quality of life for these men and women 

by introducing them to an active lifestyle while they heal from their wounds. 

Today, the USOC programs have been providing support for severely injured military servicemembers and veterans since 2003, introducing them to adaptive sport 

techniques. These opportunities will enable our veterans to face their new physical 

realities and to continue living an active lifestyle through adaptive sports. 

We know that there is a growing population of veterans that have survived serious injuries that would benefit from the good work being done by the USOC. This 

is why I have introduced H.R. 4255, the United States Olympic Committee 

Paralympic Program Act of 2007, to support our heroic men and women as they 

transition through this difficult phase in their lives. 

H.R. 4255, will authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make a grant to the 

USOC to provide: paralympic instruction, competition activities, and training program development activities for servicemembers and veterans with physical disabilities. 

The purpose of the program in my bill is to enhance the rehabilitation and quality 

of life of current severely injured servicemembers and veterans and to reduce the 

chance of secondary medical conditions. 

To date, more than 1,200 injured veterans have been introduced to paralympic 

sports as a result of these training programs, but much more needs to be done in 

order to continue to provide this dynamic rehabilitative environment. 

I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting my bill H.R. 4255 and our nation’s severely injured veterans. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

36 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Zoe Lofgren, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and distinguished colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of my bill H.R. 

3786, The Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act. 

As the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs observed in the report accompanying the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, ‘‘Congress has long recognized that the men and 

women of our military services should have legal protections so they can devote 

their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation.’’ The bill I offer today for 

your consideration is but a modest step in providing those legal protections, but it 

is an important one. 

A constituent call first led me to examine this issue, but further research and discussions disclosed other instances in which servicemembers had difficulties suspending or terminating contracts for telecommunication services after receiving orders for overseas deployment. Although many service providers have express policies 

for suspension or termination of telecommunication contracts for those called to active service, those policies weren’t always followed. Some degree of certainty regarding the rights and obligations of servicemembers is therefore necessary. 

H.R. 3786 provides that certainty. The bill allows members of the armed services 

to suspend or terminate contracts for telecommunications services when those services are no longer of any use to them because of a call to active duty, an involuntary 

extension of the period of military service, or deployment overseas to locations 

where those services are not available. In so doing, the bill tracks similar provisions 

in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act that allow someone called to active service 

to terminate leases for a house, apartment, or automobile. 

Extending this relief to telecommunication services makes sense. At a time when 

soldiers must concentrate on their mission and their safety, they shouldn’t be worrying about bills for their cell phones, cable, or Internet service back home. As the 

mother of one soldier serving in Iraq put it, her son ‘‘is over there risking his neck, 

and he shouldn’t have to deal with a cell phone company.’’ 

In no way do I mean to suggest that this bill is in response to widespread negligence or malfeasance by telecommunication service providers. In the overwhelming 

majority of cases, those providers have demonstrated their commitment to our 

troops and have been flexible in dealing with contract disputes. Indeed, most service 

providers adhere to the letter and spirit of their policies providing for contract cancellations or suspensions for servicemembers put on active duty. 

This legislation merely provides additional recourse—and peace of mind—in the 

handful of cases in which there is uncertainty about a servicemember’s obligations 

after being called to active duty. At that time, the cable bill should be the furthest 

thing from the mind of someone charged with defending our country. 

Representatives of the telecommunications industry have reached out to my office 

to recommend changes to harmonize this legislation with the Communications Act 

and to refine certain other provisions. I appreciate the cooperative spirit in which 

those suggestions have been made and intend to adopt many of them should this 

bill proceed to markup. 

Finally, I wish to clarify that while my bill is narrower than H.R. 3298, introduced by Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, I do support his bill, which I have cosponsored. I chose to focus exclusively on telecommunications services because of the 

unique importance of those services to my constituents in Silicon Valley. We are 

acutely aware of the growing role that telecommunications play in keeping us connected to one another. Advances in telecommunications technology have extraordinarily enhanced the ability of our active servicemembers abroad to stay in touch 

with loved ones back home. My bill ensures that telecommunication services remain 

a benefit rather than a burden to those servicemembers. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about this important legislation. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis A. Cardoza, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, 

Thank you for inviting me here today to testify on an issue that I’m sure we will 

all agree will make life just a little bit easier for our Nation’s veterans. 

We continue to owe a debt of gratitude to our brave servicemen and women for 

their sacrifices to support and defend our great nation. This Congress is working 

tirelessly to ensure our veterans are afforded the honorable treatment and benefits 

that they deserve. But beyond providing benefits for our brave servicemen and 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

37 

women when they return home, we must ensure our veterans are actually receiving 

the benefits they have earned. 

In meeting with veterans throughout my district, time and time again I have 

heard about the difficulty of navigating the Veterans Administration bureaucracy, 

and I have heard about cases of incomplete or untimely submission of paperwork. 

However, I have also heard too many times that veterans simply are unaware of 

the benefits they are eligible for. 

In several instances, veterans have told me that upon being discharged and returning to the U.S., they must sit through a transitional process meeting explaining 

some of their benefits programs immediately upon exiting the plane. Madam Chair, 

I’m sure you will agree that after fighting for our country and being away from 

loved ones for months at a time, that the last thing on our troops’ minds is their 

benefits. They are tired from the battlefield. They are tired from an exhausting 

flight. They are longing to see their families and put their arms around a mother, 

a father, a wife, a husband, a daughter, or a son. This process meeting may be the 

only time some veterans hear about their benefits and more often than not this is 

a missed opportunity. There is a time and a place for this meeting to occur; when 

families and loved ones are waiting beyond the gates, that certainly is not the time. 

Others have told me that in their briefings with a VA representative, they only 

have 5 minutes, with dozens of other veterans awaiting their 5-minute briefing. The 

veterans receive incomplete information, they are handed a few pamphlets, they feel 

rushed, and they are unable to ask any questions because of the time constraints. 

I respectfully ask the Subcommittee to consider for a moment how in the world can 

anyone explain all of the available benefits to which a veteran is entitled in 5 minutes—let alone answer any questions he or she may have. 

Our Nation’s veterans, many readjusting to civilian life after returning from combat, deserve the best treatment and care available. They are entitled to all the benefits they have earned. The last thing veterans deserve is to be given incomplete information or the run-around by governmental red tape. 

Madam Chair, my bill, H.R. 2721, is quite simple. It would require the Secretary 

of the VA to issue comprehensive CD–ROMs to returning veterans that clearly explain the benefits to which they are entitled. The CD would inform returning veterans and their families in plain English about how to access and navigate the VA 

so they know about all the benefits they have earned, and how to go about receiving 

them. 

This would provide a one-stop source for veterans where they can simply pop a 

CD into their computer whenever they wish to look up information so no benefit 

slips through the bureaucratic cracks. I understand that the VA currently outlines 

some information on their website; this information is not comprehensive. My bill 

also requires full, complete, and updated information to be provided on the VA 

website. However, a CD is still necessary and would benefit districts like mine with 

large rural areas where access to the Internet may not always be reliable. 

This bill only fixes the process, not the symptoms, and is just one small step in 

the right direction to ensure our veterans who served so honorably receive the benefits they have earned. But I believe that if we fix the broken informational process, 

we are going a long way toward solving the benefits problem. Our veterans should 

be able to depend on our country, just as our country depended on them, and I believe that giving troops the informational tools they need to ensure they receive 

their well-deserved benefits is the least we can do on behalf of a grateful Nation. 

Thank you again for allowing me to be here, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John R. Carter, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 

Section 1: Short Title 

• Names the bill the ‘‘Military Spouses Residency Relief Act.’’ 

Section 2: Guarantee of Residency for Spouses of Military Personnel 

• Amends section 705 of the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act to state that the 

spouse of an active duty servicemember may maintain his or her voter registration in the same state as the servicemember regardless of where military orders 

send them. 

Section 3: Residency for tax purposes 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

38 

• Amends section 511 of the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act to state that a 

spouse of an active duty servicemember may maintain the same state of residency as the servicemember for state taxation. The section specifically states 

that personal property and income taxes shall be taxed by the state of domicile, 

not the state where they live due to military orders. 

Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, good morning. First, I 

would like to thank you for your commitment to our veterans and servicemembers. 

It has been an honor to work hand-in-hand with you as a member of the Military 

Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee in an effort to 

improve the lives of those that have given so much for our Nation’s freedom. I am 

honored to be here and happy to discuss H.R. 6070, the Military Spouses Residency 

Relief Act with you. 

As you are all aware, the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act (SCRA) provides basic 

civil relief to our men and women in the Armed Services in exchange for their voluntary service. These range from relief from adjudication while deployed in combat 

to maintaining a single state of domicile regardless of where their military orders 

may send them. This state of domicile provides an important stability for our soldiers, airmen, and marines. Though their orders may send them to Texas, Virginia, 

and California, they are able to simplify their state income tax requirements, maintain property titles and driver’s license in a single state, and continue to vote for 

the elected officials from their hometown. Without the SCRA protections, the 

servicemember would see all of these concerns change every time they move to a 

military installation located in a different state. 

However, the composition of the military has changed since SCRA was first written. It is no longer enough for this Committee, the Congress, and the Department 

of Defense to provide relief to just the men and women that have volunteered to 

protect us. We no longer deal with a primarily unmarried fighting force. The saying 

‘‘We recruit a soldier but retain a family’’ could not be any more accurate. While 

our servicemembers receive this important civil relief, we do not offer the same protections to those that bear the same stress and responsibility as the member—their 

spouse. Over the course of their spouse’s career, they face multiple changes of voter 

registration and drivers’ licenses, will pay income tax to a state they never intended 

to live in, and likely not have their name on any property titles leading to a feeling 

that they are second class citizens. 

My bill would amend the SCRA to allow a military spouse to claim the same state 

of domicile as the servicemember for the purposes of state income and property 

taxes as well as voter registration. This policy would prevent a military family from 

suddenly losing up to 9.3 percent of their income if they were to be restationed from 

Fort Hood to Fort Irwin, up to 8.25 percent if they were to move from Fort Bliss 

to Schofield Barracks, or up to 8.97 percent if they were to go from Lackland Air 

Force Base to McGuire Air Force Base. This is a significant loss of income that occurs only because of government orders. 

H.R. 6070 also affords legal protections to spouses that they do not currently have 

because they do not have their names on deeds and titles. While this may not seem 

a pressing issue, consider the legal ramifications should a servicemember and his 

or her spouse decide to end their marriage. While this is a worst case scenario that 

I would hope as few of our men and women in uniform must endure, it is a realistic 

situation that this Congress should address. 

In closing, in a time when retention and recruitment is so important, we must 

take every opportunity to remove potential disincentives to serving in our Nation’s 

military. While you and I may not think of this as one of the most pressing issues 

for our servicemembers, for these husbands and wives, it is one more stressful 

change they have to deal with as they help lead their families through restationing 

and deployment. I urge the Committee to join myself and 68 other Members of Congress in support of this important change to the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter Welch, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont 

Thank you Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 6272, the 

SMOCTA Reauthorization Act, authorizing discretionary appropriations to carry out 

the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act of 1992. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

39 

The SMOCTA program was authorized throughout the nineties to assist veterans 

in finding employment after their military careers. Our veterans deserve this program today. 

This important program was originally established to respond to the needs of veterans who had been hurt by the downsizing of the military, especially personnel 

whose specialty did not have direct applicability in the civilian employment market. 

Specifically, veterans eligible for assistance were those with military occupations 

that were not transferable into the private sector; those that were unemployed for 

a long period of time; and those with a 30 percent or greater service-connected disability. 

SMOCTA reimbursed employers to offset their cost of training recently separated 

servicemembers for stable and permanent positions that involve significant training, 

usually lasting between 6 and 18 months. Besides the reimbursements to employers, 

SMOCTA provided funds for assessments, development of training plans, and supportive services for the trainee. In exchange for this assistance, employers guaranteed jobs for veterans. 

According to the Paralyzed Veterans of America, SMOCTA was considered one of 

the better programs to serve transitioning military personnel. 

Today, with a tough economy and the high demands we place on our veterans, 

the rational for reestablishing SMOCTA is stronger than ever. 

According to a May, 2008 Bureau of Labor Statistics report, Gulf War-era II veterans aged 18 to 54 years had a higher unemployment rate (6.5 percent) than did 

non-veterans (4.7 percent) in 2006. In addition, at 7.5 percent in 2006, the unemployment rate of Gulf War-era II veterans aged 25 to 34 years was higher than the 

2006 unemployment rate of non-veterans in the same age group (4.6 percent). 

As disturbing as those figures are, the situation will likely only become more dire 

for new veterans. More and more of those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan 

will return home as civilians, and they will find an economy that is on the brink— 

an economy that just experienced its sharpest 1-month increase in unemployment 

in 22 years, to 5.5 percent in May from 5 percent in April. 

If you serve your country in the military, you should have the opportunity to return home, find a job, have a career, and support your family. Our brave men and 

women in uniform have given us so much. They deserve to come home with the support necessary to provide for themselves and for their families that have already 

sacrificed so much. 

It is our job, as Members of Congress, to make sure that our Nation lives up to 

its commitment to our veterans. It is a simple pact we have made with our troops— 

and one we are obligated to fulfill: After they have sacrificed to serve our country 

on the battlefield, we must do all we can to serve them here at home. 

A reauthorization of SMOCTA could not be more timely. Simply put, more troops 

are coming home from battle at a time when there are fewer jobs for American 

workers. In addition, the global economy is becoming more and more complex and 

demanding of new skills. We know our troops possess the work ethic, the intelligence, and the discipline to succeed in any environment, from the battlefield to the 

boardroom. As Members of Congress, we need to ensure that veterans are as 

equipped to compete for jobs in the economy as they were trained to defeat our adversaries in combat. 

SMOCTA reauthorization has the support of many of the Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs), including the American Legion and Paralyzed Veterans of America, 

and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. 

I thank the Subcommittee for your consideration of this important legislation and 

am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Charles Huebner, 

Chief of Paralympics, United States Olympic Committee 

1. Paralympic Sport, which is sport for physically disabled individuals, began as 

a rehabilitative tool for injured World War II service personnel. 

2. In 1998 Congress mandated that the USOC should serve as the National 

Paralympic Committee for the U.S. 

3. Since that time the USOC has grown its Paralympic division and today spends 

more than $12 million on Paralympic programs. 

4. In recognition of a need coupled with the USOC’s expertise, U.S. Paralympics 

has launched programs that introduce Paralympic sport to injured active duty 

and veteran servicemen and women as a tool for their rehabilitation and a vehicle for a return to an active lifestyle. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

40 

5. While the USOC is pleased that some of these programs have so far produced 

five individuals who will represent the U.S. at the Paralympic Games in Beijing this summer, the principal purpose of these programs is to bring the 

USOC’s experience and expertise to bear in this area in order to serve a deserving population. 

6. The USOC intends to partner with a number of community-based and veterans 

service organizations to create Paralympic programs in communities across the 

nation. 

7. The bill under consideration, ‘‘the United States Olympic Committee 

Paralympic Program Act of 2007,’’ (HR 4255) will serve to expedite the creation 

of these programs and, therefore, enable the USOC to serve more members of 

this deserving population more effectively. 

Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. My 

name is Charles Huebner and I am the Chief of Paralympics, for the United States 

Olympic Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on HR 4255, the ‘‘United 

States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of 2007,’’ that would create an 

opportunity for the U.S. Olympic Committee, in collaboration with Veterans, 

Paralympic, and community-based organizations, to serve as an extension to the Department of Veterans Affairs in providing programs and mentors to disabled Veterans in communities throughout the United States. 

By way of a brief background, the USOC is an organization chartered by Congress 

through what was formally known as the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports 

Act. In amendments to the Act in 1998 the USOC was given the additional responsibility of serving as the National Paralympic Committee for the United States, a 

function that in most other countries is governed by a separate organization. 

Paralympic activity is sports for physically disabled athletes, and the Paralympic 

Games are held approximately 2 weeks after the Olympic Games and at the same 

Olympic venues. 

The Paralympic Movement began shortly after World War II, utilizing sports as 

a means of rehabilitation for injured military personnel returning from combat. The 

Paralympic Games have become the second largest global sporting event behind the 

Olympic Games, with more than 180 Countries and 4,000 physically disabled athletes expected to participate in the 2008 Paralympic Games in Beijing. 

The USOC today spends more than $12 million dollars annually on Paralympic 

programs, all of these funds, of course, from private sources. And Paralympic organizations throughout the U.S. spend an additional $30 million dollars at the local level 

to provide sports and physical activity programs for persons with physical disabilities. 

The Paralympic movement today exists because of the needs of injured veterans. 

And when I speak of the Paralympic movement, I am not talking about a small 

number of persons that will make future Paralympic teams, I am speaking of a 

movement and individuals with physical disabilities that are using the simple platform of sports to re-enter life. I’m talking about a population that is educated, employed, is active in their communities, promotes excellence and inspires Americans 

to achieve and overcome obstacles. Let me give you a few examples. 

Veteran Kortney Clemons, who currently resides in Chula Vista, California, was 

injured in Iraq in 2003. In 2004 Kortney participated in a Paralympic Military Sport 

Camp conducted at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

Last month he graduated from Penn State University. Last week he started an internship at San Diego Adaptive Sports and is pursuing his career interest of being 

a Therapuetic Recreation Specialist in the Paralympic movement. 

Veteran Scott Winkler of Augusta, Georgia, was injured in Iraq. Last Saturday 

in Tempe, Arizona, Scott earned the honor of representing his country again, this 

time at the Paralympic Games. More importantly, Scott founded a local program in 

Augusta to provide physical activity for injured military personnel and persons with 

physical disabilities. 

In the past 2 weeks, the USOC and our partners accomplished the following: 

• Twenty Veterans participated in a Paralympic Veterans program in Alabama 

led by Marine Veteran and Paralympic mentor Carlos Leon; 

• More than 18 veterans participated in a Paralympic veterans program in Oklahoma led by Army Veteran, Paralympic mentor and University of Arkansas 

graduate John Register, and; 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

41 

• The USOC launched a pilot program at Ft. Lewis, Washington, focused on providing program support and mentors for the more than 700 individuals currently in the Warrior Transition Unit at that base. 

In 2008, the USOC and our partners will provide ongoing programming at the 

community-level for more than 2,000 Veterans. We expect to increase this number 

significantly in 2009. 

In 2008 we will also celebrate as five former members of the United States military who were injured in defense of their country again don a uniform, but this time 

the uniform of Team USA, to represent their country at the 2008 Paralympic 

Games. This is a great story for America, and the American people. 

By utilizing our experience, expertise and understanding of the impact of sport 

on the physical and mental and emotional rehabilitation process for young men and 

women that are newly disabled, the USOC Paralympic Military and Veterans Program that introduced Paralympic sport to these men and women is serving as an 

effective vehicle for their return to an active lifestyle. Components of the Paralympic 

Military and Veterans Program include national training of community leaders to 

implement Paralympic sport; clinics and mentor visits at military and VA installations; development of local community-based programs in targeted markets that 

have military or VA installations; and ‘‘Paralympic Military Sports Camps,’’ conducted at our Olympic Training Centers in Colorado Springs and Chula Vista, California. These Military Sports Camps provide an introduction to Paralympic Sport, 

and also the introduction of Paralympians that serve as mentors to injured military 

personnel and veterans. We would like to invite members of this Committee to attend our sport camp scheduled for Oct. 27–November 2, 2008 at the U.S. Olympic 

Training Center in Chula Vista, California. 

Despite the success of this and similar programs directed at injured and disabled 

active duty and veteran military personnel, we recognize that there is much more 

that we can and should do. As successful as the Paralympic Military and Veterans 

Program has been, we have only scratched the surface and intend to do more. Currently there is a significant lack of Paralympic community-based programs throughout the United States. We have been most fortunate in developing a very positive 

and productive working relationship with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Since 

then we have collaborated on certain activities but have been limited financially and 

programmatically. We believe that this legislative proposal, accompanied by supportive funding, would serve as a vehicle for the VA and USOC and our partners 

like the Paralyzed Veterans of America and National Recreation and Parks Association which has programs in 6,000 U.S. communities, to cost efficiently serve a significantly larger universe of veterans for whom Paralympic sport would serve as a 

valuable rehabilitation activity to reintegrate into communities with family members and friends. We would envision an expansion of Paralympic Community-Based 

programs to target a larger number of veterans and their families, and create similar programs at community facilities of some of our Paralympic partners such as the 

Lakeshore Foundation in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the City of Colorado 

Springs, Colorado, the home of Fort Carson, where a Paralympic Community-based 

program does not exist today. These programs would be community extensions of 

VA programs that are identified in collaboration with our partners at the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

This legislation, and the interest of this Subcommittee that is giving this proposal 

a hearing, is testimony to the need of veterans for activities and programs that enable them to return to a full and active life. The United States Olympic Committee, 

through its Paralympic Division, wants to be an active participant in serving a most 

deserving segment of our population. We have learned that these various 

Paralympic sport programs, whether they be the USOC’s, the Department of Veterans Affairs’, or those of Paralympic organizations, make a positive difference in 

the lives of those who are being served. We are confident that the expertise that 

we have developed in Paralympic programs, and in collaboration with numerous 

agencies like DSUSA, PVA, DAV, and the American Legion, can and will have a 

significant impact on veterans that are newly disabled to re-enter their communities 

as active members. 

Thank you for your consideration of this important piece of legislation and for 

your ongoing concern for and support of our Nation’s veterans. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

42 

Prepared Statement of Bobby Franklin, 

Executive Vice President, CTIA—The Wireless Association 

Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to testify on H.R. 3786, the Servicemembers Telecom Relief Act. My name is Bobby Franklin, and I serve as the Executive Vice President for 

CTIA—‘‘The Wireless Association (‘‘CTIA’’). The Association I represent is proud 

to count among its members wireless carriers, equipment providers, and applications developers. CTIA’s carrier members collectively serve 95 percent of America’s 

approximately 260 million wireless consumers. Our members provide consumers 

with a wide array of services, equipment, and applications that permit Americans 

to stay connected to their families, friends, and businesses no matter where they 

go. 

CTIA’s carrier members, as a matter of their respective corporate policies, permit 

members of the U.S. armed forces facing deployment to terminate contract-based 

service without penalty. Additionally, many carriers (including the six largest, representing nearly 93 percent of ‘‘post-paid’’ consumers) have policies regarding contract suspension which offer a servicemember the ability to stop service and reserve 

his or her existing telephone number for a set period of time. Our members take 

these obligations seriously, and they train their customer service representatives to 

implement these policies with care and consistency. 

Notwithstanding these efforts, unverified reports have circulated here and in 

many state capitals suggesting that wireless carriers have not released from contracts servicemen and servicewomen who are serving in military units posted overseas or in locations within the U.S. where they cannot use their wireless phones. 

These reports have generated a variety of legislative proposals both in Congress and 

in state legislatures. While CTIA has determined that these unverified reports are 

contrary to the policies of our member companies, and while we generally oppose 

Federal mandates of any sort, we want to put an end to these suggestions. For that 

reason, CTIA’s Board of Directors has authorized us to support Federal legislation 

that would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to address these well-intentioned but unjustified concerns at both the Federal and state level. 

While we support enactment of legislation to provide a template for when and 

how contracts may be terminated when a servicemember receives deployment orders, CTIA has several suggestions for how to improve H.R. 3786. These suggestions 

are consistent with the recommendations we offered the Subcommittee when it held 

a hearing in April on H.R. 3298, Representative Patrick Murphy’s 21st Century 

Servicemembers Protection Act. CTIA’s suggestions fall into three categories. 

First, the descriptions of the covered services in the ‘‘Covered Contract’’ portions 

of the bill should be amended to conform to the definitions used for these services 

in the Communications Act. This will eliminate any potential for confusion regarding what services are intended to be covered by the regime imposed by the legislation. 

Second, we propose a clarification of the bill’s provisions on ‘‘Arrearages and 

Other Obligations and Liabilities’’ to better reflect the way that wireless service is 

purchased. The vast majority of the more than 260 million wireless subscribers in 

the United States purchase service on a ‘‘post-paid’’ (as opposed to ‘‘pre-paid’’) basis, 

and nearly all ‘‘post-paid’’ consumers subscribe to flat-rate ‘‘bucket’’ plans that allow 

them to use a fixed number of minutes per billing cycle for a flat fee. These flat 

fee plans have been an overwhelming consumer and competitive success and allow 

consumers a broad choice of plans to suit their widely varying calling needs. These 

plans do not make any distinction regarding whether the consumer uses all of the 

covered minutes on the first day or last day of the billing cycle, or whether the consumer distributes the minutes equally over all days covered in a particular billing 

cycle, and carriers employing this business model do not pro-rate a flat fee if a consumer deactivates service in the middle of a billing cycle. Accommodating a pro-rating requirement would require an industrywide expenditure of millions of dollars for 

billing system modification and customer care retraining. Because of the magnitude 

of the compliance costs associated with this type of pro-rating, and the relatively 

small number of service termination requests, CTIA recommends modifying the legislation to better accommodate existing industry practices. 

Third, while CTIA’s carrier members have individual corporate policies that provide for contract termination without penalty when a servicemember provides appropriate deployment orders, and while our carriers train their customer service 

representatives to follow these policies, errors can happen. In the event of such a 

mistake, the limit of any customer harm is the imposition of an early termination 

fee, which generally is less than $200 (and increasingly is being pro-rated so as to 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

43 

decline across the term of the contract). Given this, the penalty provisions in the 

bill should be clarified and narrowed to cap fines at no more than $10,000. Additionally, CTIA asks that any legislative history accompanying the bill clarify that fines 

at that level should only be levied in cases where there is knowing and repeated 

violation of the law. 

The wireless industry recognizes the dedication of members of the U.S. armed 

forces and is pleased to work toward enactment of appropriate legislation to benefit 

servicemen and servicewomen facing deployment. CTIA and its members look forward to working with the Subcommittee and sponsors of both H.R. 3786 and H.R. 

3298 to ensure that this issue is addressed during the remaining days of the 110th 

Congress. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today, and I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Kerry Baker, 

Associate National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), 

I am honored to present this testimony to address various bills before the Subcommittee today. In accordance with our congressional charter, the DAV’s mission 

is to ‘‘advance the interests, and work for the betterment, of all wounded, injured, 

and disabled American veterans.’’ We are therefore pleased to support various measures insofar as they fall within that scope. 

H.R. 2721 

Congressman Cardoza introduced H.R. 2721 in June 2007. This bill would amend 

title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) 

to develop, and the Secretary of Defense to distribute to members of the Armed 

Forces upon their discharge or release from active duty, information in a compact 

disc read-only memory format that lists and explains the health, education, and 

other benefits for which veterans are eligible under the laws administered by the 

Secretary. The DAV does not have a resolution on this issue; however, this legislation would improve outreach services and is therefore deserving of DAV’s support. 

The DAV believes the information contained on such a disc should be all-inclusive 

in regards to both the Department of Veterans Affairs benefits and military benefits. Further, considering the lack of effective outreach in relation to older groups 

of veterans, Congress should consider whether this type of information should be 

disseminated to older groups of veterans in addition to discharging servicemembers. 

The DAV presented testimony to the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on 

Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs on May 22, 2008, regarding the issue of 

outreach. In that hearing, the DAV outlined serious flaws in VA’s outreach efforts 

in relation to older groups of veterans. Although, this initiative could not correct 

such flaws, this legislation could easily serve as a vessel to improve those outreach 

flaws in a cost-effective manner. 

H.R. 3786 

The Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act, H.R. 3786, introduced by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren in October 2007, would amend the Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act to allow individuals called to military service to terminate telecommunications contracts entered into before the individual receives notice of a permanent 

change of station or deployment orders. The DAV has no resolution on this issue. 

Additionally, this legislation is outside the scope of DAV’s mission. We nonetheless 

have no opposition to its favorable consideration. 

H.R. 4255 

The United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of 2007, H.R. 

4255, introduced by Chairman Filner in December 2007, would amend title 38, 

United States Code, to authorize the Secretary to provide assistance to the 

Paralympic Program of the United States Olympic Committee. The DAV has concerns regarding this bill. 

Since 1991, the DAV and the VA have co-hosted the National Disabled Veterans 

Winter Sports Clinic in Snowmass Village, Colorado. Known as the ‘‘Miracles on a 

Mountainside,’’ the Winter Sports Clinic is the world leader in promoting rehabilitajbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

44 

tion. The sole purpose of this program is to promote rehabilitation by instructing 

severely disabled veterans in adaptive Alpine and Nordic skiing, and to provide an 

introduction to other adaptive activities and sports. 

The Winter Sports Clinic provides profoundly disabled veterans opportunities for 

self-development and challenge. Participants have an opportunity to develop winter 

sports skills and take part in a variety of adaptive workshops. These activities include: Adaptive skiing in sit-skis, mono-skis, and bi-skis; instruction in adaptive Alpine and Nordic skiing for stand-up skiers; alternate activities include scuba diving, 

rock climbing, wheelchair self-defense, sled hockey, horseback riding, target shooting, snowmobiling, and various additional programs, seminars and activities. 

This event evolved from the pioneering efforts of the VA in rehabilitation and 

adaptive sports. Mr. Sandy Trombetta, founder and director of the Winter Sports 

Clinic, began bringing VA patients to a nearby mountain resort to participate in disabled ski programs in the early 1980s. As a recreation therapist at the VA Medical 

Center in Grand Junction, Colorado, he recognized the physical and mental healing 

that skiing and other winter sports can provide to veterans with disabilities. Just 

a few years after the first Winter Sports Clinic held in 1987 with 20 staff members 

and about 90 veterans, it became apparent more support was needed due to the 

therapeutic benefits and popularity of the Clinic. The DAV answered that call and 

has become a co-sponsor of the event since 1991. 

Last year, 391 veterans participated in the event, which is further broken down 

as follows: 133 new veterans; 30 new OIF veterans; 49 female veterans; 44 states 

represented; and 88 VA medical facilities represented. The youngest participant was 

20 years old and the oldest was 85. The breakdown by periods of war was as follows: 

6 World War II veterans; 13 Korean war veterans; 96 Vietnam War veterans; 42 

Gulf War veterans; 51 Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans; and 18 Operation Enduring Freedom veterans. 

It should be noted that the Winter Sports Clinic hosted by DAV and VA is purely 

for rehabilitative purposes, and is in no way competitive in nature. As written, this 

bill has the potential to change that, something that both DAV and VA opposes. 

Many disabled veterans that participate in the winter sports clinic have never before attempted such sports activities. Bringing a competitive atmosphere into that 

clinic we believe would do more harm than good. 

Section 3, paragraph (c) of the bill states, amongst other things, that a program 

under that section includes a program that ‘‘promotes . . . competition.’’ The activities described in that same section are, among others, instruction and ‘‘competition 

in paralympic sports.’’ 

This bill is obviously well-intended and therefore the DAV does not wish to stand 

in its way. However, we also cannot allow unintended consequences to occur that 

may jeopardize the two decades of success in helping to rehabilitate severely disabled veterans that the winter sports clinic has achieved. 

Therefore, rather than opposing this legislation, we ask that it be amended to exclude ‘‘competitive’’ sports from being injected into the DAV and VA’s Winter Sports 

Clinic in Snowmass Village, Colorado. 

H.R. 6070 

The Military Spouses Residency Relief Act, H.R. 6070, introduced by Congressman Carter in May 2008, would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee the residency of spouses of military personnel. The DAV has no resolution on 

this issue. Additionally, this legislation is outside the scope of DAV’s mission statement. We nonetheless have no opposition to its favorable consideration. 

H.R. 6221 

The Veteran-Owned Small Business Protection and Clarification Act of 2008, H.R. 

6221, introduced by Congressman Boozman in June 2008, would amend title 38, 

United States Code, to require the Secretary to include in each contract in which 

he enters for the acquisition of goods and services a provision that requires the contractee to comply with the contracting goals and preferences for small business concerns owned or controlled by veterans. Essentially, this legislation would require 

compliance with title 38, United States Code, section 8127 when the Secretary enters into a contract, memorandum, agreement, or other arrangement applicable 

thereto. The DAV has a standing resolution to support legislative measures that assist service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. Although this legislation supports both veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, it is nonetheless in compliance with our resolution. The DAV therefore supports this legislation. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

45 

H.R. 6224 

The Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008, H.R. 6224, introduced by Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin in June 2008, would direct the Secretary to conduct a 5-year pilot project to test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of certain qualifying work-study activities under title 38, United 

States Code. The DAV has no resolution on this issue. Additionally, this legislation 

is outside the scope of DAV’s mission. We nonetheless have no opposition to its favorable consideration. 

H.R. 6225 

The Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008, H.R. 6225, introduced by Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin in June 2008, would amend title 38, United States Code, 

relating to equitable relief with respect to a State or private employer. By changing 

title 38, United States Code, section 4323(e), from, ‘‘[t]he court ‘may use’ its full equity powers . . .’’ to, ‘‘[t]he court ‘shall use’ its full equity powers . . .,’’ applicable 

courts will no longer be able to use discretion in determining whether to use their 

power to vindicate the rights of those individuals entitled to the enforcement of such 

rights with respect to state and private employers. 

This legislation could have direct effect on service-connected disabled veterans because many obtain employment due to their service-connected disabilities. Those 

same individuals have enforceable rights of employment or reemployment. When 

those rights are violated, the victims of such violations should not be subject to the 

whims of discretion that some courts may choose to abuse. The DAV therefore supports this legislation. 

H.R. 6272 

The SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008, H.R. 6272, introduced by Congressman Welch in June 2008, would authorize discretionary appropriations to carry out 

the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act 1992. In addition 

to the amounts authorized under 4495 of the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act 1992, this bill would authorize $60 million per fiscal year for 

years 2009 through 2018. 

Under this law, title 10, United States Code, section 1143, the Secretary of Defense is required to carry out a program to assist eligible persons in obtaining employment through participation in programs of significant training for employment 

in stable and permanent positions. Those entitled to this program are, among others, members separated involuntarily and who have a service-connected disability 

rated at least 30 percent by VA. 

This bill has obvious beneficial effects regarding employment opportunities for 

service-connected disabled veterans. The DAV therefore supports this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on behalf of DAV. We hope you will 

consider our recommendations. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr., 

Deputy Director, National Economic Commission, American Legion 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion’s views on the 

legislation being considered today. The American Legion commends the Committee 

for holding a hearing to discuss these important issues. 

H.R. 4255, United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of 

2007 

This bill seeks to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to the Paralympic Program of the United 

States Olympic Committee. 

The purpose of this bill is to provide support to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) for the Paralympic Program; to increase the participation of physically disabled members of the Armed Forces and veterans with service-connected 

disabilities, through regular participation in physical activity and sports; to promote 

lifelong health of members of the Armed Forces and veterans with service-connected 

disabilities through regular participation in physical activity and sports; and to provide training to physically disabled members of the Armed Forces and veterans in 

their communities. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

46 

The U.S. Olympic Committee Paralympic Division was formed in 2001 to increase 

support for Paralympic sport in the United States. The USOC Paralympic Division 

coordinates the preparation and selection of athletes to U.S. Paralympic Teams, for 

both summer and winter games. The U.S. Paralympic Military Program provides 

post-rehabilitative support and mentoring to American servicemen and women who 

have sustained physical injuries. Veterans are introduced to adaptive sport techniques and opportunities through clinics and camps, and are also connected with ongoing Paralympic sports programs in their hometowns. The Veterans Paralympic 

Performance Program (VP3) supports Paralympic-eligible military veterans in their 

efforts to represent the USA at upcoming Paralympic Games. 

Through its Paralympic Military Program, the USOC looks to channel America’s 

returning wounded servicemembers into adaptive sports programs. USOC is 

partnering with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the National Recreation 

and Park Association to promote adaptive sports to wounded servicemembers 

through the DoD’s Heroes to Hometowns program. The American Legion supports 

such programs of the United States Olympic Committee that promote Americanism, 

and facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration of our disabled veterans and 

servicemembers. This funded program will extend more opportunities for disabled 

veterans, who in turn will provide them the opportunity to achieve and maintain 

an improved quality of life, and once again experience the pride of being a United 

States citizen representing their community and nation. In turn, The American Legion also supports the United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act 

of 2007. 

H.R. 2721, To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop, and the Secretary of Defense to distribute to members of 

the armed forces upon their discharge or release from active duty, information in 

a compact disk read-only memory format that lists and explains the health, education, and other benefits for which veterans are eligible under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

Since 1919, The American Legion has been advocating for returning servicemembers and providing them with assistance in understanding and accessing their 

benefits. The American Legion supports the distribution of benefit information on 

compact disk. Additionally, we offer a few suggestions: 

1. Any comprehensive benefits information package should include a comprehensive reference guide of available veteran service organizations (VSOs) with a 

detailed description of what services they offer transitioning servicemembers. 

2. Digital information should complement, rather than replace, a paper manual 

or guide to veterans’ benefits. 

3. Any comprehensive guide should also include Department of Defense (DoD) assistance information. 

4. A system to update information must be in place to ensure the accuracy of the 

information being distributed. 

5. The information should be available to download free of charge from Department of Veterans Affairs and DoD websites. 

H.R. 6070, Military Spouses Residency Relief Act 

This legislation seeks to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee 

the residency of spouses of military personnel. 

The American Legion supports this legislation as it will help to ensure that the 

spouses of military personnel are indeed able to effectively participate in the democratic process. 

The American Legion also recommends: 

1. That appropriate laws and guidelines be developed at Federal, state and local 

levels with the intent that all military absentee voters and their families will 

have their votes counted in every applicable election. 

2. That the sending and receiving of blank and completed military absentee ballots be accomplished electronically as much as possible. 

H.R. 6272, The SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008 

This proposed legislation would authorize discretionary appropriations to carry 

out the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act 1992 

(SMOCTA). SMOCTA was developed as a transitional tool designed to provide job 

training and employment to eligible veterans discharged after August 1, 1990. When 

created, SMOCTA was the only Federal job training program available strictly for 

veterans and the only Federal job training program specifically designed for use by 

state veterans’ employment personnel to assist veterans with barriers to employment. Veterans eligible for assistance under SMOCTA were those with a primary 

or secondary military occupational specialty that DoD determined was not readily 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

47 

transferable to the civilian workforce or those veterans with a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent or higher. SMOCTA is a unique job-training program 

because it successfully returned veterans to the civilian workforce. 

The American Legion strongly endorses this bill along with the proposed funding 

request. 

H.R. 6224, The Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008 

This legislation would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a fiveyear pilot project to test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of 

certain qualifying work-study activities under title 38, United States Code. The bill 

refers to work study positions on college campuses to include positions as ‘‘tutors, 

research, teaching, and lab assistants.’’ The American Legion recommends that students should also be allowed and encouraged to participate as a VA Work Study student at veteran offices within the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Department of Labor (DoL), Department of Defense, (DoD) and Department of State. The 

College Work Study Program could also include veteran service organizations 

(VSOs) and military family support offices and other offices that focus on the reintegration of returning Reserve and Guard members as well. 

The American Legion endorses this bill to include the $10 million funding authorization. 

H.R. 6221, Veteran-Owned Small Business Protection and Clarification Act 

of 2008 

H.R. 6221 seeks to amend Title 38, United States Code, to require the VA Secretary to include in each contract the Secretary enters for the acquisition of goods 

and services a provision that requires the contractee to comply with the contracting 

goals and preferences for small business concerns owned or controlled by veterans, 

and for other purposes. 

The American Legion has urged Congress to require reasonable set-asides of Federal procurements and contracts for businesses owned and operated by veterans. 

The American Legion supported legislation in the past that sought to add serviceconnected disabled veterans to the list of specified small business categories receiving 3 percent set-asides. Despite enactment of Public Law 106–50, the ‘‘Veteran Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999,’’ agency compliance 

has been minimal; however, VA has sought to raise their veteran procurement goals 

to 9 percent. Therefore, The American Legion supports H.R. 6221 which is intended 

to assist VA in reaching their new goals by ensuring that every contract up for bid 

be considered for a service disabled owned company. 

H.R. 6225, to amend title 38, United States Code, relating to equitable relief 

with respect to a State or private employer 

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) 

protects civilian job rights and benefits of veterans and members of the armed 

forces, including National Guard and Reserve members. USERRA also prohibits employer discrimination due to military obligations and provides reemployment rights 

to returning servicemembers. 

Since September 11, 2001, nearly 600,000 National Guard and Reserve members 

have been activated for military duty. During this same period, the Veterans Employment and Training Service of the Department of Labor has provided USERRA 

assistance to well over 400,000 employers and servicemembers. Therefore, The 

American Legion supports this legislation that would greatly increase the authority 

of the courts to use its full equity powers to ‘‘administer temporary or permanent 

injunctions, temporary restraining orders, and contempt orders, to vindicate fully 

the rights or benefits of persons under this chapter, 4323 Title 38.’’ 

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing The American Legion this opportunity to present its views on the aforementioned issues. We look forward to working with the Committee to help increase the earned benefits for our Nation’s veterans. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Richard Daley, 

Associate Legislation Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today on the various bills that have been introduced. We appreciate the efforts of this Subcommittee to address the different needs of the men 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

48 

and women who are currently serving in the War on Terror and those men and 

women who served during past conflicts. 

H.R. 2721, BENEFITS INFORMATION ON COMPACT DISK 

PVA supports H.R. 2721, a bill that will require the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop and the Department of Defense to distribute to all servicemembers upon discharge a compact disk (CD) that explains all healthcare, compensation, education, and other benefits and services available from the VA. This 

initiative would seem to support the idea of greater outreach that PVA and all other 

veterans’ service organizations have been advocating for the VA to conduct. Furthermore, it reinforces the fact that this newest generation of veterans is very much in 

tune with the information age. The only caution we would offer is that this initiative 

still may not benefit a great many veterans who may live in highly rural areas, or 

may have limited or no access to computer and Internet services. 

H.R. 3786, THE ‘‘SERVICEMEMBERS TELECOM CONTRACT RELIEF ACT’’ 

PVA fully supports the provisions of this proposed legislation. Just as we testified 

in 2003, when motor vehicle leases were added to the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act, it makes no sense to require a servicemember to maintain a cellular phone, 

cable or satellite television, or Internet contract when they will have no opportunity 

to use it while on active duty and deployed. The inability of the servicemember to 

take advantage of the service should preclude his or her requirement to pay for that 

service. 

H.R. 4255, THE ‘‘UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE PARALYMPIC 

PROGRAM ACT’’ 

While we generally supported this legislation in the past, we now have serious 

concerns about the long-term impact that this association between the VA and the 

USOC could have on the programs that the veterans service organizations have developed with VA that serve a similar purpose. To this point, the USOC has not been 

completely open and forthright with any of the veterans’ service organizations who 

have longstanding partnerships with the VA to conduct the National Veterans 

Wheelchair Games, the Winter Sports Clinic, and similar sports and recreation programs. We believe that there needs to be assurances that VA continues to have 

independence administering sports and recreational activities for disabled veterans, 

assurances that the USOC has yet to provide. We also believe separate funding 

should be provided outside of the direct healthcare dollars appropriated to the VA. 

Ultimately, the concepts outlined in this legislation are what need to be reinforced— 

that sports and recreation programs are about improved health and rehabilitation, 

not elite competition. 

PVA became aware of the VA–United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Military 

Paralympic Program by its association with VA, as co-presenter of the National Veterans Wheelchair Games. The NVWG, established in 1981 by VA, is a week-long, 

multi-sport event designed to introduce the newly injured veteran to a variety of 

wheelchair sports and recreation activities in hopes that this participation will lead 

to a healthy lifestyle. PVA’s involvement began in 1985 due to its unique expertise 

in sports and recreation programs for our members and other severely disabled veterans. We have contributed countless financial and personnel resources throughout 

the years to these types of programs. Moreover, approximately 80 percent of the 550 

total average participants at the Games each year are PVA members. As a result, 

PVA has a vested interest and commitment to the Games and we are seriously concerned with this new relationship that the VA is developing with the USOC. 

H.R. 6070, THE ‘‘MILITARY SPOUSES RESIDENCY RELIEF ACT’’ 

PVA supports the ‘‘Military Spouses Residency Relief Act.’’ This legislation would 

amend the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to state that a military spouse 

who moves out of state because of the servicemember’s military orders would have 

the same option to claim one state of domicile regardless of where they are stationed. 

This logical correction in the law will ease transition for military families from 

one location to another. Both parties in a marriage should be able to file taxes together paying to one state, own property together claiming the same residence, vote 

at the same location, and have their driver’s licenses from the same state. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

49 

H.R. 6221, THE ‘‘VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS PROTECTION AND 

CLARIFICATION ACT’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 6221, the ‘‘Veteran-Owned Small Business Protection and 

Clarification Act.’’ Almost universally, Federal agencies are not living up to standards established for initiating contracts with veteran-owned businesses and disabled 

veteran-owned small businesses. Public Law 106–50 originally outlined the responsibility of Federal agencies to provide at least 3 percent of contracts with veteranowned small businesses and 3 percent of contracts with disabled veteran-owned 

small businesses. Due to the intransigence of Federal procurement officers, new legislation was passed in 2003—P.L. 108–183—that made 3 percent a mandatory Federal procurement policy. 

This bill will clarify the process of placing contracts for the VA. If the VA places 

a contract with any government entity for goods or services and that entity contracts for those goods or services, then the requirement for using a veteran-owned 

business will apply. This will help veteran-owned businesses receive their share of 

Federal contracts from VA, as Congress has intended all along. 

H.R. 6224, THE ‘‘PILOT COLLEGE WORK STUDY PROGRAMS FOR 

VETERANS ACT’’ 

As we stated in testimony on similar legislation earlier this year, PVA supports 

the provisions of H.R. 6224, the ‘‘Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans 

Act.’’ This legislation would create a 5-year pilot program for on-campus work-study 

positions that may include work in academic departments serving as tutors, research assistants, teaching assistants, and lab assistants or work in student services 

including positions in career centers and financial aid, campus orientation, cashiers, 

admissions, records, and registration offices. We believe this work-study program 

can be very beneficial for many students. 

H.R. 6225, THE ‘‘INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VETERANS ACT’’ 

PVA fully supports the language change to the section of Title 38 that governs 

enforcement of employment of reemployment rights with respect to state or private 

employers. The War on Terror has provided unexpected hardship for many National 

Guardsmen and Reservists seeking employment or a return to a previous job. This 

simple language change from ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall’’ will give the servicemember a greater 

hope that a meaningful decision will be made when it comes to his or her employment or reemployment following military service. PVA appreciates the efforts of this 

Subcommittee, and Ms. Herseth Sandlin in particular, to ensure that servicemembers are not punished by a state or private employer with loss of a job when 

they are called to serve. 

THE ‘‘SMOCTA REAUTHORIZATION ACT’’ 

PVA supports the ‘‘SMOCTA Reauthorization Act.’’ We recommended the reauthorization of the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act 

(SMOCTA) program, or a program similar to that at a hearing before this Subcommittee last October. SMOCTA was established during the downsizing of the 

military for veterans discharged after August 1, 1990, to help those veterans that 

had limited transferable job skills. This program was a cooperative venture funded 

by the Department of Defense and administered by the VA and the Department of 

Labor. This was considered one of the better programs to serve transitioning military personnel. 

This program provided assistance in the form of reimbursements to employers 

who provided training for veterans that led to permanent employment. The program 

also included funds for assessments, development of training plans, and supportive 

services for the trainee. The Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) staff developed the 

employment and training plans. Veterans eligible for assistance were those with 

military occupations that were not transferable; those that were unemployed for a 

long period of time; and those with a 30 percent or greater service-connected disability. 

At this time we are facing a similar situation with a large number of young men 

and women leaving the military, many of whom will not have transferable job skills. 

A similar program would help these men and women transitioning from the military 

today, and those Reserve and Guard members reentering the workforce. 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, we appreciate the 

emphasis you have placed on providing for the needs of the men and women who 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

50 

have served and continue to serve in harm’s way. We look forward to working with 

you to ensure that the best benefits and services are made available to them. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you might have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Richard F. Weidman, 

Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs, 

Vietnam Veterans of America 

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman. On behalf of VVA National President John 

Rowan and all of our officers and members we thank you for the opportunity for 

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) to appear here today to share our views on several items of pending legislation. I will briefly summarize the most important points 

of our statement. 

H.R. 2721, Directs: (1) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) to develop and maintain, in a compact disk (CD) read-only memory format, 

information that lists and explains the health, education, and other benefits for which veterans are eligible through the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA); (2) that a copy of such CD be included as part of the preseparation counseling provided to each member of the Armed Forces 

being discharged or released from duty; and (3) the Secretary, Secretary 

of Defense, and head of any other relevant government agency to each 

maintain an Internet website containing an explanation of the benefits 

administered by that Secretary or agency head to which veterans are entitled, and how veterans can secure those benefits. 

The concept behind this bill is sound in that depriving veterans of the knowledge 

and existence of services, entitlements, and benefits is tantamount to denying the 

benefits. Several years ago, VVA joined with then Congressman Ted Strickland in 

suing VA to force them to start doing outreach to veterans again. This suit was precipitated by the infamous Laura Miller memo in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) ordering the end to marketing and outreach events. In many cases this 

memo even led to the denial of VA participation in ‘‘Stand Down’’ events for homeless veterans, as well as the severe curtailing of any efforts to educate veterans as 

to their earned rights. In the days leading up to actual filing, I asked the VISN Directors at a so-called Leadership Board for a show of hands as to how many were 

doing significantly less outreach than a year before, and about seven raised their 

hands. I then asked how many were doing somewhat less, and 8 raised their hands. 

I asked how many were doing about the same, and three raised their hands. Only 

one felt he was doing more (and it turned out later that this person was confused 

by the question). So, we filed suit. 

VVA won that suit. The Federal Court held that VVA had standing to sue the 

VA, that VVA was correct that Title 38 compelled an affirmative responsibility on 

VA to do outreach to inform veterans of the rights, benefits, and services they have 

earned by virtue of military service to country, and that VA needed to do more. It 

was therefore no accident that the ‘‘theme’’ of the 75th Anniversary of the VA was 

officially stated as ‘‘to inform every veteran in America of their rights and benefits.’’ 

(Of course that did not happen.) 

In preparation for this hearing, VVA asked the Secretary’s office what was the 

aggregate budget for outreach in the current Fiscal Year, and the two previous Fiscal Years, and how it was apportioned. The answer was that they did not have such 

a figure, as each and every little program and local facility had their own funds for 

marketing, education, and outreach as part of their budget allocation, but that it 

was not tracked centrally, and apparently it is not centrally coordinated or directed 

either. This is a case of how to ensure that the whole is far less than the sum of 

the parts. 

The idea of giving servicemembers the information in an electronic format at separation or demobilization is a good one, but it must be highly portable, and not necessarily a CD–ROM. (For instance, a ‘‘memory stick’’ containing the information 

that is also a key chain might work better, and be more likely not to be lost or 

tossed.) 

A supplement to this would be a card that contains all of the key Web sites which 

is the size and shape of a credit card, and so can be put in the separating servicemember’s wallet and kept until they feel they have a need to use it would be a very 

inexpensive supplement to this electronic device. 

VVA favors this proposal, with a bit of modification, and the addition of a reporting mechanism to the Committee. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

51 

H.R. 3786, Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act—Allows a person in 

military service to terminate a telecommunications contract for cellular 

phone service, cable or satellite television service, or internet service at 

any time after: (1) entry into military service; or (2) the date of the station or deployment orders. Requires for termination that: (1) the contract is executed by or on behalf of a person who thereafter and during 

the term of the contract enters military service (or receives order to enter 

military service) under an order specifying a period of not less than 90 

days (or who enters military service under an order specifying a period 

of 90 days or less and who, without a break in service, receives orders 

extending the period of military service to a period of not less than 90 

days); or (2) the person enters into the contract while in military service 

and thereafter receives military orders for a permanent change of station outside of the continental United States, or to deploy with a military unit for a period of not less than 90 days, to a location that does 

not support continuation of the service under the contract. 

This is an important update of protections and relief to our servicemembers, and 

VVA favors passage. Cell phone contracts can be very difficult to break, and are the 

most common communication device of choice, along with e-mail, of our young 

servicemembers. 

H.R. 6070, Military Spouses Residency Relief Act, amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee the residency of spouses of military personnel. 

As this is apparently a problem for some spouses, VVA generally favors the concept of this proposed legislation. Anything and everything that can be done to make 

the life and lot of military spouses a bit easier is something that VVA strongly favors, and the spouses (and the children and parents) also sacrifice much for our 

country. 

H.R. 4255, United States Olympic Committee Paralympics Program Act of 

2007, Authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make a grant to the 

U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) to plan, develop, manage, and implement the Paralympics Program for veterans and members of the Armed 

Forces. Directs the USOC to use a grant to recruit, support, encourage, 

schedule, facilitate, supervise, and implement paralympic instruction 

and competition activities, training and technical assistance, and coordination and program development activities for veterans and members of the Armed Forces with physical disabilities. Sets forth outreach, 

coordination, application, and memorandum of understanding requirements. 

Regaining a sense of physical prowess has been proven to often carryover to all 

areas of one’s life for significantly disabled individuals, so investing in this sort of 

programs can increase the success of other programmatic programs for disabled veterans. Therefore VVA generally supports this bill, but as always, we believe that 

even in this case there must be built in accountability mechanisms to ensure that 

the intent is carried out effectively and efficiently, and that proper fiscal accounting 

is ensured. 

H.R. 6221, Veteran-Owned Small Business Protection and Clarification Act 

of 2008, amends title 38, United States Code, requiring the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to include in each contract the Secretary enters for the 

acquisition of goods and services a provision that requires the contractee to comply with the contracting minimums and preferences for 

small business concerns owned or controlled by veterans, and for other 

purposes. 

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) strongly favors this bill. We also urge that 

it be made clear to VA, and therefore to very large contractors like McKesson (which 

currently has a $3 Billion plus contract with VA with no or virtually no veteran or 

service disabled veteran owned subcontractors) that failure to comply will result in 

prohibiting the contractor from bidding on future contracts. Heretofore there has 

been little or no effort to monitor or ensure compliance with the 3 percent minimum 

sub-contracting requirement at VA (or elsewhere, for that matter). 

Further, it needs to be made explicit in Title 38 and elsewhere in Federal law 

that information on sub-contracting is public information, and cannot under any circumstances be considered to be private, privileged, or proprietary information of 

prime contractors. This ruse has been used in the past to deny information on subcontracting by major Federal contractors to the service disabled veterans business 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

52 

owner community. After all, this is the public’s money, and the public has a right 

to know how, and with whom, it is spent. 

H.R. 6224, Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008, directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a 5-year pilot project 

to test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of certain 

qualifying work-study activities under title 38, United States Code. 

VVA favors this so-called pilot, as long as there is no ‘‘match’’ that has to be provided by the sponsoring academic or research entity, which would then allow the 

veteran to market themselves to the type of entity that will give them the best experience toward eventually reaching their career goals irrespective of ready ‘‘match’’ 

funds, usually one that is complementary to their course of study. The requirement 

under Federal Work Study Programs for an up to 25 percent match often serves as 

an impediment to the student securing the best possible assignment to further their 

future success. 

Further, VVA can see no reason why this program cannot be taken nationwide 

after the first 2 years of successful operation. Lastly, there needs to be strict reporting guidelines so that the Congress can successfully fulfill your all-important oversight function expeditiously. 

H.R. 6225, Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008, amends title 38, United 

States Code, relating to equitable relief with respect to a State or private 

employer. 

VVA salutes you, Madam Chairwoman, for moving to strengthen protections of 

employment for mobilized servicemembers. While incentives and education of employers has proven to be the best strategy for gaining general compliance, the lack 

real sanction measures that will be respected by recalcitrant or unscrupulous employers has long been a significant weakness in the law. You are to be congratulated 

for taking action to ‘‘put more teeth’’ into enforcement of this vital program. 

Having noted that we favor this initiative, VVA also suggests to the Committee 

that there is not enough staff at the Veterans Employment & Training Service 

(VETS) of the United States Department of Labor (USDoL) who are adequately 

trained and supervised to do proper investigations regarding re-employment. VVA 

would hope that the Appropriations Committee would add to the number of VETS 

staff and to the VETS training budget enough additional resources to close this gap 

between what needs to be done and what is now happening in many states. 

VVA further suggests that a very small percentage of businesses are bearing a 

disproportionate share of the burden of paying for these wars in which we are currently engaged, in that they are the ones who DO support their employees who are 

also Guard and Reserve members when they are deployed. These employers pay the 

cost of lost productivity, the cost of hiring and training a temporary employee while 

the Guard member or reservist is on active duty, and in many cases the cost of retraining the returning servicemember whose skills have become outdated and the 

cost of helping that person readjust to civilian life again. 

Therefore, VVA strongly urges the Congress to consider two options: First, to provide tax incentives for those employers who have Guard and Reservists on their 

payroll who are activated for the proportional number of months in a given year 

that their employee was away; and, two, to make available training dollars through 

USDoL to both train the temporary replacement worker and the returning servicemember when they come back to the job. These two measures together would materially strengthen the support for the National Guard and Reserves from the employer community, but we believe it would greatly reduce the number of problems 

with re-employment rights, therefore reducing the number of complaints dramatically. 

What we are really suggesting is that we look to better educate the employers as 

to what is their responsibility under the USERRA law BEFORE there is a problem 

and everyone gets emotional, but also that the employers’ perspective and needs 

should be taken into account. Frankly, VVA believes that providing real incentive 

for voluntary compliance will prove to be far more effective than any or all enforcement efforts. 

Essentially we are urging that at the same time as you move to ‘‘strengthen the 

stick’’ to try and ensure better compliance, VVA thinks that much more needs to 

be done to ‘‘sweeten the carrot’’ that will provide real incentives for private sector 

employers to comply. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

53 

H.R. 6272, SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008, authorizes discretionary 

appropriations to carry out the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act 1992. 

Although this is the last bill on which we comment in this statement, this is one 

of the most important bills to assist disabled and separating veterans that Congress 

will consider this year. VVA has held for thirty years that the nexus or central 

event in the readjustment process is assisting veterans to come to the point where 

each can obtain and sustain meaningful employment at a living wage. While a decent job will not solve their PTSD or TBI or blindness or other problems stemming 

directly from their service to country in the military, it will go a long way toward 

ameliorating those problems and making them more likely to be overcome. 

In 1982 this Committee created what was then known as the ‘‘Emergency Veterans Job Training Act’’ (EVJTA) as a tool to assist Vietnam and disabled veterans 

to obtain employment. It was created largely in response to very high unemployment rates of veterans in the recession 1982–83. While there were some significant 

problems with initial implementation (caused mostly by David Stockman and the 

Office of Management & Budget trying to sabotage the program), the program created a significant tool that was utilized by Disabled Veteran Outreach Program 

(DVOP) personnel and others to create job positions for veterans that would not 

have otherwise existed. The program was so successful that it was renewed several 

years later. And the term ‘‘emergency’’ was dropped, making it the Veterans Job 

Training Act (VJTA). 

The VJTA was also a very successful program, and was highly valued by both employers and by veteran advocates who were able to use it to ‘‘get their foot through 

the door’’ to speak with employers regarding strong candidates whom they were trying to ‘‘market’’ to employers. Unfortunately, this program was allowed to lapse to 

the dismay of veteran advocates and many in the employment placement community. 

There was enough of a clamor for a VJTA type of placement tool during the 

downsizing of the military following the victory of the United States in the Cold War 

and the dissolution of the Soviet empire that the Congress created the Service Members Occupational Conversion & Training Act (SMOCTA). Essentially SMOCTA was 

a re-packaged version of the earlier VJTA program. Despite the unfortunate acronym, this program was very successful and resulted in many veterans obtaining decent jobs that led into successful careers. Once again, after the perceived crisis had 

passed the veterans community and our advocates on this distinguished Committee 

were successful in securing the renewal of the authority for the program, but never 

succeeded in obtaining the appropriations necessary to operate this worthy employer 

incentive program. 

Today there is another perceived crisis in regard to the difficulties of returning 

Global War on Terror (GWOT) warriors in obtaining decent jobs. This problem is 

real for many, especially those who return disabled, those in combat arms with no 

immediately convertible secondary MOS or prior civilian credentialed skills, and 

those from very rural or other areas where job opportunities are few. While VVA 

strongly favors early enactment of H.R. 6272 and immediate full funding of this program, VVA does urge that this not be another ‘‘flash in the pan’’ that will disappear 

after the perceived immediate crisis no longer is in the media headlines. Such a tool 

is something that is needed to assist many veterans to get the type of work that 

will sustain these veterans and their families, and in more cases than not turn into 

viable careers for these individuals. 

I would be remiss if I did not note that the primary service delivery mechanism 

for ensuring widespread usage of this important tool is still significantly compromised, if indeed not broken. There simply must be significantly greater and 

much more meaningful accountability measures imposed on the state workforce development systems regarding the DVOP and the Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) grants programs, or the entire structure needs to be Federalized 

and the DVOP/LVER staff put under direct and immediate control of the USDoL– 

VETS state directors. And then those state directors held accountable for overall 

performance in each state.) We hope that even at this late date in the 110th Congress that you and your distinguished colleagues will embark on a serious dialog 

with all stakeholders concerned in order to take meaningful action in this regard, 

this year. 

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) thanks you for the opportunity to appear 

here to today to offer our thoughts and views on these vital veterans’ issues. I will 

be pleased to answer any questions that the Committee may have. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

54 

CLASSIFICATION 

WOTC 

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

CORRESPONDENCE 

SYMBOL 

OWI 

DATE 

April 3, 2007 

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 20–06 

TO: ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES 

ALL STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS 

FROM: EMILY STOVER DeROCCO /s/ Assistant Secretary 

SUBJECT: Reauthorization of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Other 

Program Changes 

1. Purpose. To announce the reauthorization of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–432) 

and provide procedural guidance to the states for processing requests for certification under the amended program. 

2. References. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–432); 

Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–311); Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 14–05, dated February 9, 2006; Internal 

Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986, Sections 51 and 51A, as amended; Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA) Handbook No. 408, Third Edition, November 2002 (the Handbook); and the May 2005 Addendum to the Handbook. 

3. Background. Legislative authority for the WOTC program and the Welfareto-Work Tax Credit (WtWTC) expired December 31, 2005. Congress has reauthorized and extended the WOTC program through December 31, 2007. Congress has also modified certain provisions with respect to individuals who 

begin work for an employer after December 31, 2006. 

4. Authorization. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–432) 

was signed into law on December 20, 2006. Section 105 of the Act provides a 

2-year extension of the WOTC program through December 31, 2007, effective 

retroactively to January 1, 2006. 

In addition, the following statutory changes apply with respect to individuals 

who begin work for employers on or after January 1, 2007: 

• The earnings test for ex-felons is eliminated; • The maximum age for food stamp recipients is increased; • The certification request filing deadline is increased; and • The WtWTC provisions are merged into the WOTC 

Explanation of Specific Statutory Amendments and Provisions. Section 105 of 

the Act: 

a. Amends the statutory definitions of two WOTC target groups in IRC Section 51 as follows: 

1. Ex-Felons—removes economic eligibility determination based on 

family income. 

2. Food Stamp Recipients—increases eligibility age from 18–25 to 18– 

40. 

b. Extends the certification request filing date from 21 to 28 days after the 

new hire begins work for the employer. 

c. Repeals IRC Section 51A by merging the WtWTC into the WOTC and 

creating a new WOTC target group I, entitled ‘‘Long-term family assistance recipient.’’ The new target group retains the statutory definition 

and the more generous tax credit provisions over a 2-year period of the 

former WtWTC. With respect to this target group only: 

• First-year WOTC is increased from 35 to 40 percent of qualified firstyear wages, which are capped at $10,000. 

• Second-year WOTC is retained at 50 percent of qualified second-year 

wages, again capped at $10,000 for a maximum 2-year credit of 

$9,000. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

55 

• Wages taken into consideration are calculated in the same manner 

as for the other WOTC target groups. Therefore, wages no longer include certain amounts excludable from the recipient’s gross income. 

• The minimum employment or retention period is calculated in the 

same manner as for the WOTC. Therefore, the 180 days of service 

formerly required for certified WtWTC employees no longer applies 

to this target group under the consolidated WOTC. Note: For the 

other adult target groups (except Summer Youth), ‘‘the 40-percent 

rate applies to qualified first-year wages only if the employee works 

at least 400 hours or more. If the employee works at least 120 hours, 

but fewer than 400 hours, the credit is 25 percent of qualified firstyear wages capped at $6,000 ($3,000 for Summer Youth).’’ 

5. Program Administration. Under the reauthorizing legislation, state workforce agencies’ (SW As) certification and program operation responsibilities for 

the consolidated WOTC program remain the same as those described in the 

Handbook and the May 2005 Addendum to the Handbook. These include procedures for: (a) determining target group eligibility and issuing certifications and 

denials; (b) establishing working partnerships with different participating 

agencies at the state and local levels for resolving technical issues and issuing 

conditional certifications; (c) conducting verification activities; (d) complying 

with quarterly report responsibilities; and (e) records retention. 

6. IRS Form 8850. IRS Form 8850, Pre-Screening Notice and Certification Request for the Work Opportunity Credit, and the instructions for Form 8850 have 

been revised. The February 2007 revised form and instructions are available 

at www.irs.gov. 

SW As are reminded of the guidance provided in Announcement 2002–44, 

‘‘Electronic Submission of Form 8850,’’ contained in the IRS’ Internal Revenue 

Bulletin (IRB) No. 2002–17, published on April 29, 2002. This announcement 

describes the requirements that must be met should SW As choose to establish 

systems to accept electronic submission of IRS Form 8850. The text of Announcement 2002–44 is available at http://www.uses.doleta.gov/pdf/Appendix 

IV/Appendix_IV_3_Announcement 2002-44.pdf. 

7. Reporting Authority. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has extended the information collection requested for the WOTC/WtWTC administrative and streamlined reporting form 

without changes. ETA Form 9058—Report 1 and ETA administrative forms 

9057, 9059, 9061–9063, and 9065 are approved under OMB No. 1205–0371 

through August 31, 2009. SW As should continue to use the current certification and reporting forms until further notice. A package including revised reporting and administrative forms, updates to the May 2005, Addendum to the 

Handbook, a new Fourth Edition of ETA Handbook 408, a Fact Sheet ‘‘Employers: 9 ways to Earn Federal Income Tax Credits for Your Company,’’ and a revised Technical Assistance and Compliance Review Guide will be submitted to 

OMB for clearance. Training on WOTC program amendments, provisions, and 

new reporting and administrative forms is being planned and will be provided 

through webinars. 

8. Action Required. SW A administrators are requested to: 

a. Provide this information to appropriate program staff, employers and 

their representatives, participating agencies, and other interested partners. They are to ensure that the SW As and participating agencies administer the WOTC in accordance with the guidance provided in the 

Handbook; the May 2005 Addendum to the Handbook; and the Internal 

Revenue Code 1986, Section 51, as amended. 

b. Ensure that State WOTC Coordinators receive a copy of the new legislation. Title I, Section 105 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 

(P.L. 109–432) is available at http://thomas.1oc.gov/home/thomas2.html. 

9. Inquiries. Direct all questions to the appropriate Regional WOTC Coordinator. 

RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE: 

None Continuing 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

56 

CLASSIFICATION 

WOTC 

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

CORRESPONDENCE 

SYMBOL 

OWI 

DATE 

September 11, 2007 

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 5–7 

TO: ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES 

ALL STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS 

FROM: EMILY STOVER DeROCCO /s/ Assistant Secretary 

SUBJECT: Reauthorization of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Other 

Program Changes 

1. Purpose. The purpose of this guidance is to announce the reauthorization of 

the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) Program under the Small Business 

and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 (P.L. 110–28) and provide procedural 

guidance to the states for processing requests for certifications under the consolidated program. 

2. References. The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 (P.L. 

110–28); Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–432); Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–311); Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 20–06, dated April 7, 2007; Internal Revenue Code 

(IRC) of 1986, section 51, as amended; Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Handbook No. 408, Third Edition, November 2002 (the Handbook); 

and the May 2005 Addendum to the Handbook. 

3. Background. On December 20, 2006, the President signed into law the Tax 

Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–432). This legislation not only 

extended the WOTC Program (retroactively to January 1, 2006) through December 31, 2007, but also merged the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit (WtWTC) 

into WOTC and repealed permanently section 51(A) of the IRC. Congress also 

amended certain statutory definitions with respect to new hires that began to 

work for an employer after December 31, 2006. For additional information, see 

TEGL No. 20–06, dated April 3, 2007. 

4. Authorization. The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 

(P.L. 110–28) was signed into law on May 25, 2007. Section 8211 of the Act 

provides a 44-month extension of the WOTC Program through August 31, 

2011. 

Explanation of Specific Statutory Amendments and Provisions. Section 8211 of 

the Act: 

a. Renames the High-Risk Youth group (D) and calls it Designated Community Resident (DCR). 

b. Amends the statutory definition of a DCR to mean an individual certified by the state workforce agency (SWA) as having: 

• attained age 18 but not 40 on the hiring date, and 

• his/her principal place of abode within an Empowerment Zone (EZ), 

Renewal Community (RC), or Rural Renewal County (RRC). 

Eligibility Determination of DCRs. Eligibility determination of a new hire as 

a member of the DCR target group involves verification of the following two 

requirements: 1) age; and 2) location of the individual’s principal place of 

abode [residence] in an EZ, RC, or RRC. Age should be verified by looking at 

documents submitted by the employers/consultants with the request or requiring from employers one or several of the recommended documents in 

section E. 

Examples of Documentary Evidence., p. VII–32 of the November 2002, Third 

Edition, ETA Handbook 408. Verifying the residential location of a potential 

DCR as in an EZ, RC, or RRC requires reviewing the instructions for IRS 

Form 8850. EZs, RCs and RRCs are all listed in these IRS instructions. SWAs 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

57 

can verify whether a DCR’s address is located in a Rural Renewal County online by visiting the following Web site at: www.usps.gov and following these 

simple steps: 1) click on Find a ZIP Code; 2) enter and submit the Address 

and ZIP Code; and 3) click on Mailing Industry Information. SWAs should 

download and print the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Mailing Industry Information sheet, and keep a copy in the case file of the new hire, employer, or consultant. 

c. Limits ‘‘qualified wages’’ for Designated Community Residents to those 

paid for services performed while the individual is residing in an EZ, RC, 

or RRC. 

d. Defines a Rural Renewal County as a county that: 

• is outside a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); and 

• during the 5-year periods, 1990 through 1994, and 1995 through 

1999, had a net population loss. 

e. Clarifies that ‘‘ticket holders’’ are included in the vocational rehabilitation referral target group by adding at the end of its statutory definition 

the following clause: 

• an individual work plan developed and implemented by an Employment Network pursuant to Subsection (g) of section 1148 of the Social Security Act with respect to which the requirements of such Subsection are met. 

f. Expands the definition of the ‘‘Qualified Veteran’’ target group to include 

‘‘disabled veterans’’ who are entitled to compensation for a service-connected disability and: 

• have a hiring date which is not more than 1 year after having been 

discharged or released from active duty in the Armed Forces of the 

United States; or 

• have aggregate periods of unemployment during the 1-year period 

ending on the hiring date that equal or exceed 6 months. 

g. Defines the terms ‘‘compensation’’ and ‘‘service connected’’ as having the 

meanings under Section 101 of Title 38 of the United States Code, pertaining to veterans benefits as follows: 

• Section 101(13) defines ‘‘compensation’’ as a monthly payment made 

by the Secretary to a veteran because of a service-connected disability; and 

• Section 101(16) defines ‘‘service-connected,’’ with respect to a disability, as meaning that the disability was incurred or aggravated in 

the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 

h. Increases the amount of ‘‘qualified wages,’’ for disabled veterans only, 

from $6,000 to $12,000. 

5. Program Administration. Under the reauthorizing legislation, SWAs certification and program operation responsibilities for the consolidated WOTC program remain the same as those described in the November 2002, Third Edition 

of ETA Handbook 408 and the May 2005 Addendum. These include procedures 

for: a) determining target group eligibility and issuing certifications and denials; b) establishing working partnerships with different participating agencies 

at the state and local levels for resolving technical issues and issuing conditional certifications; c) conducting verification activities; d) complying with 

quarterly report responsibilities; and e) complying with records’ retention time 

periods. 

6. IRS Form 8850. IRS Form 8850, Pre-Screening Notice (PSN) and Certification 

Request for the Work Opportunity Credit, and the instructions for this form 

have been revised. The June 2007, PSN form and its instructions are available 

at www.irs.gov. 

7. Funding. ETA issued Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 funding advances from Continuing Resolutions (CRs) to the SWAs for WOTC Program implementation 

and elimination of existing backlogs. The CR advances covered activities 

through February 15, 2007. Funding for the merged WOTC Program was 

passed as part of the FY 2007 funds appropriated in the Revised Continuing 

Appropriations Resolution Act of 2007 (P.L. 110–5). 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

58 

8. Reporting Authority. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB extended the information collection requested for the WOTC/WtWTC administrative and reporting forms without substantial changes. ETA Form 9058—Report 

1 and administrative forms 9057, 9059, 9061–9063, and 9065 are approved 

under OMB No. 1205–0371 through August 31, 2009. SWAs should continue 

to use the current certification and reporting forms until further notice. A 

package including revised reporting and administrative forms, the Spanish 

versions of IRS Form 8850 and ETA Form 9061, the revised May 2005 Addendum to ETA Handbook 408 (the Handbook), and a revised Technical Assistance 

and Compliance Review Guide will be submitted to OMB for emergency clearance. Training on WOTC program amendments, provisions, and new reporting 

and administrative requirements is being planned and will be provided. 

9. Action Required. SWA administrators are requested to: 

a. Provide this information to appropriate program staff, employers, and 

their representatives, participating agencies (PAs), and other interested 

partners. They are to ensure that the SWAs and PAs administer the 

WOTC in accordance with the guidance provided in this TEGL, the 

Handbook, the May 2005 Addendum to the Handbook, and the Internal 

Revenue Code 1986, Section 51, as amended; and 

b. Ensure that state coordinators receive a copy of the new legislation, Title 

VIII, Part I., Subpart A., section 8211 of the Small Business and Work 

Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 (P.L. 110–28) available at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas2.html. 

10. Inquiries. Direct all questions to the appropriate Regional Coordinator. 

RESCISSIONS EXPIRATION DATE: 

None Continuing 

f 

Prepared Statement of R. Keith Pedigo, 

Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program 

Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today 

to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) views on pending legislation. 

Accompanying me is Diane Hartmann, Director of National Programs and Special 

Events. VA is still reviewing H.R. 6221, H.R. 6225, and 6272 and will provide views 

on those bills in a subsequent views letter. 

H.R. 2721 

H.R. 2721, would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop, and the 

Secretary of Defense to distribute to members of the Armed Forces upon their discharge or release from active duty, in a compact disk read-only memory format, information that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines would help veterans. 

That information would include the benefits for which veterans may be eligible 

under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a comprehensive 

explanation of how to apply for benefits, and a list of all VA facilities and contact 

information for them. The bill would also require the secretaries of Veterans Affairs 

and of Defense, along with the head of any other relevant government agency, to 

maintain an Internet website with information clearly explaining VA benefits, how 

to secure those benefits, and how veterans’ family members may request copies of 

the compact disk. 

VA supports this bill. VA recognizes the importance of providing benefit information to separating servicemembers and their families. This bill would support expansion of VA’s extensive outreach efforts. 

We estimate at least 250,000 compact disks would be needed each year to provide 

one to every separating servicemember. An additional 50,000 copies would be needed to provide upon request. At an estimated cost of $1.00 per copy, which would include distribution costs to each service, the total cost for all copies would be 

$300,000 annually. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

59 

H.R. 3786 

H.R. 3786, the ‘‘Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act,’’ would amend the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to permit servicemembers to terminate certain telecommunications contracts before their expiration if the contract was entered before 

the servicemember entered service or received permanent change-of-station orders 

or deployment orders. 

Because this bill if enacted would affect active-duty servicemembers, we defer to 

the Department of Defense (DoD) regarding the merits of H.R. 3786. 

H.R. 4255 

H.R. 4255, the ‘‘United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of 

2007,’’ would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make a grant to the U.S. 

Olympic Committee (USOC) to plan, develop, manage, and implement the 

Paralympic program for veterans and members of the Armed Forces. It also would 

require the Secretary to inform all veterans with physical disabilities about the existence of the Paralympic program and to encourage their participation, as well as 

require the Secretary to ensure access to and appropriate use of VA facilities by program participants. VA opposes this bill because it is unnecessary, would divert 

funds intended for veterans’ care to nonveterans, and would benefit only a limited 

number of veterans. 

VA has an established Office of National Programs and Special Events (ONPSE) 

that oversees highly successful and well-attended national rehabilitative programs 

for disabled veterans. This office already works with the USOC to help elite-level 

athletes compete in their Paralympic programs. ONPSE currently oversees four national events: National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic, National Veterans 

Wheelchair Games, National Veterans Golden Age Games, and National Veterans 

Creative Arts Festival. Also, a pilot summer sports clinic, scheduled for September 

28 through October 3 in San Diego, California, is specifically designed for veterans 

with amputations, traumatic brain injuries, burn injuries, or post-traumatic stress 

disorder. The goals of these events are to reach disabled veterans during their recovery from traumatic injury or disease, introduce them to adaptive recreational activities, and challenge them with activities that give them a sense of accomplishment 

and enable them to redefine their capabilities. Veterans service organizations support these events, which, although they are open to all disabled veterans who meet 

the eligibility criteria, are particularly geared toward first-time participants. Each 

year, thousands of disabled veterans have the opportunity for self-development 

through participation in these events. 

Certain provisions in H.R. 4255 are prescriptive, such as requiring VA to notify 

all veterans with physical disabilities about the existence of the Paralympic program 

and to encourage their participation. Under this provision, VA would have to notify 

and encourage the participation of catastrophically injured veterans, who cannot 

participate in these events. VA currently allows the USOC to distribute materials 

about the Paralympic program at any of VA’s ONPSE events. Additional notification 

is unnecessary. 

VA is particularly concerned by the provision that would grant access to VA facilities to all individuals—not necessarily veterans or servicemembers—participating in 

the Paralympic program. VA’s resources should be limited to the medical rehabilitation of eligible veterans and not diverted to provide access to facilities for non-veterans. 

Further, H.R. 4255 would require VA to support a program that would benefit 

only a small number of elite athletes. Although we applaud the USOC’s efforts to 

bring more veterans into their elite-athlete competitions, we believe VA’s rehabilitative events are much better suited to providing the services veterans need. For example, last year, 28 veterans participated in USOC programs as opposed to over 

1,500 veterans who participated in VA’s Winter Sports Clinic, Wheelchair Games, 

or Golden Age Games. VA’s programs are designed to include veterans of all ages 

and levels of impairment and are aimed primarily at medical rehabilitation. 

VA’s goal is to introduce sports and recreation to disabled veterans and make it 

a part of their daily lives. Our existing partnership with the USOC allows those who 

rise to elite athletic performance to take their training to the next level through the 

USOC Paralympic program. 

We are in the process of estimating the costs that would be associated with enactment of this bill and will provide them for the record. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

60 

H.R. 6070 

H.R. 6070, the ‘‘Military Spouses Residency Relief Act,’’ would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to protect spouses of servicemembers from losing or acquiring domicile or residency for purposes of elections and taxation if the spouse is absent from a state because the spouse is accompanying a servicemember who is absent from the state in compliance with military orders. 

Because this bill if enacted would affect active-duty servicemembers and their 

spouses, we defer to DoD regarding the merits of H.R. 6070. 

H.R. 6224 

H.R. 6224, the ‘‘Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008,’’ 

would require the Secretary to conduct a 5-year pilot project to test the feasibility 

and advisability of expanding the scope of certain work-study activities, to include 

work-study positions available on site at educational institutions. The positions in 

this program may include those in academic departments (tutors or research, teaching, and lab assistants) and in student services (positions in career centers, financial 

aid, campus orientation, admissions, records, and registration offices). The bill 

would require the Secretary to issue regulations providing for the supervision by VA 

personnel of these positions. 

While VA supports the principle of exploring the feasibility of expanding the scope 

of qualifying activities for the provision of work-study allowances under 38 U.S.C. 

§ 3485, we do not support this bill because the types of activities now described in 

that section relate primarily to activities that support VA’s mission of services and 

assistance to veterans and their dependents, whereas the types of activities proposed for evaluation apparently would not need to relate to that mission. In addition 

VA supervision of the work-study participants concerned would be administratively 

burdensome, given the breadth of the types of activities or functions that would be 

involved throughout a university. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to entertain any 

questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael L. Dominguez, 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense 

Mr. Chairman and Members of this distinguished Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to provide views on draft legislation. Our comments on one of the bills 

is below. 

H.R. 3786, the bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow 

individuals called to military service to terminate telecommunications contracts entered into before the individual receives notice of a permanent 

change of station or deployment orders. 

While the Department generally supports this provision, it needs additional clarification with respect to whom it applies. Section (b)(1) talks about entering military 

service under a call or order specifying a period of not less than 90 days. It is unclear if this refers to someone with no military status, as opposed to a reservist, who 

enters active duty. Those having no military status are not usually considered to 

be under a call or order to active duty. 

More importantly, this legislation is applicable to only those who receive orders 

for a permanent change of station (PCS) outside the continental United States or 

orders to deploy with a military unit for a period of 90 days to certain locations that 

do not support continued telecommunication service under contract. This excludes 

a person with a PCS move from Hawaii or Alaska into the Continental U.S. Also, 

the new legislation would not cover the PCS move from one point to another inside 

the Continental U.S., where the service could not be maintained. 

On H.R. 2721, we will submit a separate DoD–VA joint views letter. We are currently working with the VA in understanding the implication of this provision. 

We do not have comments on any other DoD-related proposed legislation (including H.R. 6070) and for those legislation that are VA-related, we defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

61 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, 

Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and 

Training, U.S. Department of Labor 

Madam Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members 

of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit for the record the following testimony 

to this Subcommittee on several bills and draft bills. I will address the bills in the 

order they are listed in your letter of invitation. 

H.R. 4255, United States Olympic Committee 

Paralympic Program Act of 2007 

This bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance 

to the Paralympic Program of the United States Olympic Committee among other 

purposes. We defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

H.R. 3786, Servicemembers Telecom Contract Relief Act 

This bill amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow individuals called 

to military service to terminate telecommunications contracts entered into before 

the individual receives notice of a permanent change of station or deployment orders. We defer to the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Federal Communications Commission. 

H.R. 2721 (no title) 

This bill amends title 10, United States Code, ‘‘to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop, and the Secretary of Defense to distribute to members of 

the Armed Forces upon their discharge or release from active duty, information in 

a compact disk read-only memory format that lists and explains the health, education, and other benefits for which veterans are eligible under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.’’ We defer to DoD and VA. 

H.R. 6070, Military Spouses Residency Relief Act 

This bill amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to guarantee the residency 

of spouses of military personnel. We defer to DoD. 

H.R. 6272, SMOCTA Reauthorization Act of 2008 

This bill reauthorizes the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training 

Act (SMOCTA) of 1992. In addition to the authorized funding levels contained in 

the original Act, the bill further authorizes appropriations in the amount of $60 million annually for fiscal years 2009 through 2018. This reauthorization impacts 

§ 1143, title 10 U.S.C. SMOCTA was originally authorized by P.L. 102–484. 

The original version of SMOCTA was implemented jointly by DoD, VA, and the 

Department of Labor (DoL). The program was authorized in title 10 U.S.C. (DoD), 

and funded through DoD appropriations. SMOCTA was initiated during a time 

when the military was downsizing its active duty force. Military personnel who soon 

would be veterans as a result of this downsizing were targeted as the population 

to be served. Military personnel who had no readily transferable skills were the 

main focus. 

SMOCTA established a veterans’ job training program that became effective October 23, 1992. The program was carried out by payments to employers who employed 

and trained eligible persons. Employers had to apply to VA for approval of a training program. When a program was approved by the VA regional office of jurisdiction, that office furnished the employer an approval letter. 

SMOCTA provided assistance in the form of reimbursements to employers with 

approved programs to offset the cost of training provided to recently separated 

servicemembers for stable and permanent positions that involved significant training (6–18 months). Besides the reimbursements to employers, SMOCTA provided 

funds for assessments, development of training plans and supportive services for the 

trainee. Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives developed employment and training plans and assisted in 

the recruitment, referral and placement of those individuals. 

DoL believes that this program has been superseded by other initiatives to provide employment and training assistance, such as the services offered by the Workforce Investment Act 1998 (WIA), and the Jobs for Veterans Act that mandates a 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

62 

priority of service for veterans in WIA programs and in all other DoL funded employment and training programs. 

WIA provides individuals more training choices and greater control over their 

training. WIA offers comprehensive employment services, including job counseling, 

job search and referrals, resume preparation, and other assistance. It also provides 

intensive training through community colleges and other training providers for 

those who need skills or need to change or upgrade their skills. These services are 

easily accessed through WIA’s network of more than 3,000 One-Stop Career Centers 

operated by states and local governments nationwide. Innovative programs such as 

‘‘Helmets to Hardhats’’ have been training returning veterans in skilled construction 

trades. Returning veterans are also eligible for VA veterans’ education assistance. 

The VETS Transition Assistance Program (TAP) provides information to veterans 

about these programs and resources prior to their discharge from the service. 

Today’s military is highly trained and skilled. Their overall lower than average 

unemployment rates are a testament to employers’ positive attitudes toward employing this generation of veterans. We are hearing from employers that they want 

to hire today’s veterans because they see them as a valuable resource to their enterprises. 

H.R. 6221, Veterans-Owned Small Business Protection and 

Clarification Act of 2008 

This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include in each contract entered into by the VA for the acquisition of goods and services a provision 

that requires the contractor to comply with the contracting goals and preferences 

for small business concerns owned or controlled by veterans. We defer to VA. 

H.R. 6225, Injunctive Relief for Veterans Act of 2008 

The bill amends section 4323(e) of title 38, U.S. Code, to require that injunctive 

relief and other equitable remedies under the Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act be granted by courts at their discretion in appropriate 

cases. The Department of Labor has no objection to the provisions of this bill. 

H.R. ———, Pilot College Work Study Programs for Veterans Act of 2008 

This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct 

a 5-year pilot project to test the feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope 

of certain qualifying work-study activities under title 38, United States Code. We 

defer to VA. 

That completes my testimony, and I would be happy to provide responses to questions for the record. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Rebecca Noah Poynter, 

Owner, OnPoynt Communications, Dallas, TX, and Co-Founder, 

Military Spouse Business Association 

I am Rebecca Noah Poynter, an Army wife, owner of OnPoynt Communications 

and a co-founder of the Military Spouse Business Association, www.milspousebiz.org. 

I am a writer and often address military family topics in national publications including The Washington Post and The Military Times. 

Under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Relief Act which became Federal law in 1940, 

military members are allowed to declare a permanent state of residency while on 

active duty. Under the law, a servicemember can claim a single permanent state 

of residency or ‘‘home state’’ for the duration of his or her military service. The 

spouse who is not covered under this law, must change residency with each move 

to a new state. On average military families move every two to three years. 

As the wife of a U.S. Army soldier, changing residency and not sharing a home 

state with my husband, has been an inconvenient, confusing and expensive burden. 

The total cost is being paid by nearly one million active duty military spouses in 

time, money and income. This is not by choice either, as it is our spouses, the 

servicemembers, who are ordered to move by the military. By constantly moving, 

military spouses regularly sacrifice personal choices and professional aspirations to 

achieve the mission assigned. In addition to these sacrifices, military spouses are 

unfairly and repeatedly penalized by having to comply with state residency and tax 

requirements. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

63 

Each time a military spouse moves to a new state she must obtain a driver’s license at a cost, re-register her car for a couple of hundred dollars; and figure out 

how, when and for whom to vote in the new state. She is not able to have consistent 

Congressional representation nor is she likely to share the same representative as 

her spouse. 

Additionally the majority of military spouses, nearly 70 percent, are employed or 

seeking employment (because of a move). If their next military assignment is to a 

high income tax state as compared to the last one, then income can be reduced by 

as much as 10 percent. 

Through my association with Military Spouse Business Association, a nationwide 

networking organization established for military spouses who own their own and obviously portable businesses, I met several spouses including Navy spouse, Joanna 

Williamson, who were also frustrated with administrative and state tax burdens 

that accompanied every move. Hearing their stories and knowing my own, it was 

time as military spouses to engage in ‘‘a joint mission’’ for the betterment of our 

own lives. 

We took the issue to Congressman John Carter who represents Fort Hood, the 

largest military installation in the United States. He said it was up to Congress to 

look after our military families and it just didn’t sound fair for married couples to 

have to reside in different states nor did the administrative and financial burdens 

on military spouses seem necessary. 

In May, Congressman Carter introduced the Military Spouses Residency Relief 

Act, H.R. 6070. The bill extends to spouses the option of a permanent state residency as provided to the servicemember, essentially offering us a home state too. 

Military spouses bear the burden of handling the challenges associated with the 

constant moving of military life. Here are a few examples based on the 92 percent 

likelihood that the spouse is a female: While he can register the car in his home 

state, she can’t. He votes in his home state, she votes in the one where they reside. 

She has a new congressman at each location; he keeps his familiar representative. 

He has one driver’s license, which can be renewed by mail. She must stand in a 

long line at the state department of motor vehicles to obtain a new one and pay 

the fee. When the servicemember is deployed, the home front frustration amplifies. 

‘‘Honey, next time you have a break there in Iraq, please send me a copy of your 

military orders and your driver’s license. And where is the power of attorney? I have 

to register the car.’’ The Military Spouses Residency Relief act can eliminate these 

hassles. 

H.R. 6070 can also address the ‘‘camouflage barrier’’, my nickname for the financial strife the majority of us as employed spouses face with every move. A RAND 

Corp. study confirms the average spouse income shrinks by more than $5,500 annually as compared to a civilian counterpart because of moving. My encounter came 

on the last one; I was happily working for a big company when we got military assignment orders to relocate. I was thrilled to transfer my job at the same pay with 

the same employer to the new location. Then I discovered the new state has a high 

income tax and was shocked to find my income was more than $500 a month less. 

It really hurt our family’s financial stability. 

With a single permanent state, employed military spouses may protect their income if they are moved to a high income tax state. For those with portable businesses or professions, a growing and positive trend among military spouses, a single 

home state can lessen administrative and tax burdens. 

Congressman Carter says of H.R. 6070, ‘‘We’re making the inter-state moves easier on our military families since the reason they’re moving is by order of the U.S. 

Government.’’ Through the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act, Congress offers 

us the very things our Nation’s military spouses have truly earned—equality, recognition, and common sense treatment. 

f 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

64 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

June 23, 2008 

Mr. R. Keith Pedigo 

Associate Deputy Under Secretary 

for Policy and Program Management 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

U.S. Department of Veterans of Affairs 

810 Vermont Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Mr. Pedigo: 

In reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ‘‘Pending Legislation’’ on June 19, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by no later then July 

16, 2008. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 226– 

4150. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

Questions from the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Hearing on Pending Legislation 

June 16, 2008 

Question 1: In the report from the Office of Inspector General for VA, it seems 

that the VA makes purchases for the Department of Defense. Yet the VA has a 

memorandum of agreement with the Department of the Army to have the Army do 

purchases for the VA. Why is that? 

Response: Additionally, VA has a need to obtain acquisition support for construction contracts at the field level. As a result, VA entered into an agreement with the 

Army Corps of Engineers to utilize their services at the discretion of the VA field 

activity. The need is based on the increased volume of construction projects and limited resources to support their development and completion. 

Question 2: Do you have a rough number of disabled veterans who are taking 

advantage of these programs and approximately what percentage that might be of 

the total number of disabled veterans? 

Response: The number of veterans that participated in the national programs in 

FY 2007 was 1,638. An additional 3,000 veterans participated at the local level festivals for the Creative Arts. 

Veterans must be enrolled to participate in the national program; however, you 

do not need to have a disability to participate in the Golden Age Games or the Creative Arts Festival. As of January 2008, the total number of veterans receiving VA 

Disability Compensation is 2.9 million; however, not all of these veterans are enrolled in the VA Healthcare System. 

Question 3: What is the travel cost for employees to attend recreational events? 

Response: Estimated travel costs for VA employees attending the five National 

Rehabilitative Special Events are $684,000. This is for 360 employees who attend 

the five events as coaches and caregivers. 

Estimated travel costs for veteran participants to attend the five National Rehabilitative Special Events are $3,230,000. This estimate is based on 1,750 veterans. 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

65 

Question 4: What is the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ position on H.R. 

6221, H.R. 6225, and H.R. 6272? 

Response: The views are included in the attached letter from Secretary Peake 

to Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin dated August 18, 2008. 

Question 5: In your written testimony you state that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is currently in the process of estimating the cost for the enactment 

of H.R. 4255. Could you provide that cost estimate? 

Response: The Committee did not receive the costs for H.R. 4255, as introduced, 

since the provisions of that bill were included in S. 2162, which became Public Law 

110–387 on October 10, 2008. 

f 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

August 18, 2008 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Madam Chairwoman: 

When Department witnesses testified at the Subcommittee’s June 19, 2008 hearing on eight bills, they promised to provide for the record VA’s views on H.R. 6221, 

6225, and 6272 as introduced. I do so in this letter. 

H.R. 6225 would amend the law regarding enforcement of certain veterans’ rights 

with respect to State or private employers. As this is a matter within the purview 

of the Department of Labor, we defer to the views of that department. 

We defer to the views of the Departments of Labor and Defense with regard to 

H.R. 6272, which would authorize appropriations for the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act of 1992. Those departments co-administer the 

‘‘SMOCTA’’ program. 

We understand the purpose of H.R. 6221 to be that where VA enters into interagency agreements to have other executive agencies perform contracting actions on 

behalf of VA, any such agency would be required to comply with the service-disabled 

veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) and veteran-owned small business (VOSB) 

contracting requirements of section 8127 of title 38. The bill as currently drafted 

would fail to achieve this purpose. Specifically, while the bill would require VA to 

include a clause in such interagency agreements that other agencies shall comply 

with section 8127, it fails to provide sufficient authorization for the other executive 

agencies to act on such a requirement notwithstanding their own statutory procurement authorities. 

Even if this were corrected, VA could not support this legislation for several reasons. First, it is unnecessary, because as documented by the Small Business Administration and VA’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, VA has 

achieved its SDVOSB and VOSB contracting goals this past fiscal year and has 

nearly reached them as of April 30, 2008, for the current fiscal year. Second, VA 

enters into such interagency agreements only when it lacks adequate acquisition 

staff to conduct needed procurements on a timely basis. VA is concerned that other 

agencies would balk at entering into interagency agreements with VA if they would 

be subject to VA-specific socio-economic requirements with which they lack familiarity. This could lead to situations where necessary VA contracts are not awarded 

or awards are delayed, negatively impacting VA’s ability to administer its programs 

of benefits and service to veterans. 

Third, enactment of this provision could increase the costs of such contracts by 

limiting the pool of competitors. Also, the language of the bill contains unclear language relating to ‘‘contracts’’ with ‘‘other persons’’ to acquire goods and services. VA 

is uncertain what this language is meant to address. As indicated above, VA enters 

into interagency agreements with other executive agencies to perform contract actions on behalf of the Department only when VA lacks sufficient acquisition capacity—it does not do so with individuals or private sector companies. Finally, VA is 

concerned with the retroactive nature of the bill that, if enacted, would apparently 

require pre-existing agreements to be amended to reflect the change in law. The curjbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

66 

rent text of the bill would require VA modify such agreements existing as of June 

1, 2007, which is even prior to the effective date of section 8127 of title 38. 

VA remains strongly committed to SDVOSBs and VOSBs and that commitment 

is reflected in VA’s small business contracting achievements. However well-intended, H.R. 6221’s enactment would impede VA’s ability to procure goods and services in a timely and cost-efficient manner. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the 

submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program. 

Sincerely yours, 

f 

James B. Peake, M.D. 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

July 1, 2008 

Mr. Charles Huebner 

Chief, U.S. Paralympics 

1 Olympic Plaza 

Colorado Springs, CO 80900 

Dear Mr. Huebner: 

Thank you for testifying before the house Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. As part of the hearing record, I am requesting your views on 

the following: 

1. Please describe how the USOC/U.S. Paralympics intends to form partnerships 

with other organizations specializing in disabled sports. As part of your response, please include the names of organizations generally considered to be 

candidates for partnership. 

2. Please expand on your statement regarding expanding Paralympic programs 

for disabled military personnel and disabled veterans. Would such an expansion include international events in which participation would be limited to disabled veterans and disabled military personnel? If so, what would be a nominal 

timeline and milestones to hold the first of such an event at the international 

level? 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. 

Sincerely, 

John Boozman 

Ranking Member 

cc: Steve Bull 

U.S. Paralympics 

Colorado Springs, CO 

October 24, 2008 

The Honorable John Boozman 

Congressman, The Great State of Arkansas 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressmen Boozman, Thank you for your letter requesting information on 

how the USOC Paralympic Veterans Program is forming partnerships with other organizations and what our plans are to expand programs to international events with 

participation by international veterans. 

The U.S. Olympic Committee has built it’s Military and Veterans program on the 

philosophy of partnership. This allows the USOC to collaborate with existing programs and develop new programs in areas of need. This is the most cost efficient 

model that will have the most impact in reaching a larger number of Veterans at 

the community level. 

Organizations that we currently collaborate with in terms of sharing expertise, 

equipment, and resources include: 

• The Paralyzed Veterans of America; • Disabled Sports USA and it’s more than 89 chapters; 

• The Lakeshore Foundation; 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

67 

• The Department of Veteran Affairs and regional VA facilities; 

• Warrior Transition Units; 

• The Semper Fi Fund; 

• The American Legion; 

• BlazeSports Clubs; and 

• The National Recreation and Parks Association and it’s 6,000 rec organizations. 

We also are forging new partnerships with USOC member organizations such as 

the YMCA and Boys and Girls Clubs. 

Each relationship is different based on opportunity and need. 

Currently, we are developing the 2009 program calendar which includes numerous events. A draft of the calendar is attached. As we speak, the USOC is hosting 

an event at our training center in Chula Vista that has participation from six soldiers from the United Kingdoms Battle Back program. This is the first program that 

has included international participation. We are looking to expand those opportunities in 2009. 

I hope this answers your questions. Again we appreciate your leadership in supporting veterans. The USOC and our partners are projected to provide services for 

more than 3,900 injured military personnel and veterans in 2008 with a focus on 

ensuring physical activity opportunities are available at the community level. 

Amazing Awaits, 

Charlie Huebner 

Chief of Paralympics 

Secretary General, Paralympics 

Æ 

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING