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

43–049 2008

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884, 

H.R. 4889, H.R. 4539, H.R. 3646, H.R. 5664, 

H.R. 3798, H.R. 3393, H.R. 3298, H.R. 3467, 

H.R. 3889, H.R. 3681 AND H.R. 5684 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 16, 2008 

Serial No. 110–83 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 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 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

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 

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 

VACANT 

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 

VACANT 

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. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

April 16, 2008 

Page 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884, H.R. 4889, H.R. 4539, H.R. 

3646, H.R. 5664, H.R. 3798, H.R. 3393, H.R. 3298, H.R. 3467, H.R. 3889, 

H.R. 3681 and H.R. 5684 ..................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin .................................. 47 

Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, prepared statement of ...... 48 

WITNESSES 

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

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service .................................................... 38 

Prepared statement of Hon. Ciccolella ........................................................... 82 

U.S. Department of Defense: 

Thomas L. Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs .................................................................................................. 39 

Curtis L. Gilroy, Ph.D., Director for Accession Policy, Military Personnel 

Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness ....................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gilroy ................................ 83 

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

Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration ................................................................................................................... 42 

Prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo .................................................................. 86 

American Legion, Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic Commission ........................................................................................................................ 20

Prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin .............................................................. 62 

Buyer, Hon. Steve, Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs, and a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana ............. 4 

Prepared statement of Congressman Buyer ................................................... 49 

Davis, Hon. Artur, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama ... 16 

Prepared statement of Congressman Davis ................................................... 57 

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

Prepared statement of Congressman Filner ................................................... 48 

Hayes, Hon. Robin, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina ................................................................................................................ 14 

Prepared statement of Congressman Hayes .................................................. 53 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Patrick Campbell, Legislative 

Director ................................................................................................................. 26 

Prepared statement of Mr. Campbell ............................................................. 72 

Military Officers Association of America, Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA 

(Ret.), Deputy Director, Government Relations ................................................. 27 

Prepared statement of Colonel Norton ........................................................... 78 

Murphy, Hon. Patrick J., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................ 17 

Prepared statement of Congressman Murphy ............................................... 59 

Paralyzed Veterans of America, Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director 23 

Prepared statement of Mr. Daley .................................................................... 69 

Rodriguez, Hon. Ciro D., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas ..................................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of Congressman Rodriguez ............................................ 50 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

Page

iv 

Stearns, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida .... 10 

Prepared statement of Congressman Stearns ................................................ 51 

Yarmuth, Hon. John A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Kentucky ............................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement of Congressman Yarmuth .............................................. 52 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Justin Brown, Legislative 

Associate, National Legislative Service .............................................................. 22 

Prepared statement of Mr. Brown .................................................................. 66 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

CTIA—The Wireless Association, Jot D. Carpenter, Jr., Vice President, Government Affairs, letter ......................................................................................... 93 

Disabled American Veterans, Kerry Baker, Associate National Legislative 

Director, statement .............................................................................................. 95 

National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Kyle McSlarrow, President and Chief Executive Officer, letter ............................................................. 96 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Letters: 

Hon. Steve Buyer, Ranking Republican Member, and Hon. Michael Michaud, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to 

Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, letter 

dated January 28, 2008, Regarding the Stimulus Package [An identical 

letter was sent to Hon. John Boehner, Minority Leader, U.S. House of 

Representatives.] .................................................................................................. 97 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic 

Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Patrick Campbell, Legislative Director, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, letter dated April 

30, 2008, Mr. Campbell’s responses .................................................................... 98 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic 

Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, 

Assistant Secretary, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor, letter dated April 30, 2008, and response letter dated 

June 23, 2008 ....................................................................................................... 100 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic 

Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Curtis L. Gilroy, Ph.D., 

Director for Accession Policy, Military Personnel Policy, Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of 

Defense, letter dated April 16, 2008, and DoD responses ................................ 101 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic 

Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Keith Pedigo, Associate 

Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans 

Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, letter dated 

April 16, 2008, and VA responses ....................................................................... 103 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884, 

H.R. 4889, H.R. 4539, H.R. 3646, H.R. 5664, 

H.R. 3798, H.R. 3393, H.R. 3298, H.R. 3467, 

H.R. 3889, H.R. 3681 AND H.R. 5684 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth 

Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Donnelly, Hall, 

Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN 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. 

For those of you that monitor this Committee’s activities more 

closely, you know it is a bipartisan Subcommittee. 

The Ranking Member has a number of other responsibilities 

today in other Committees as well as on the floor and he has asked 

me to begin the Subcommittee hearing in his absence. He will join 

us as soon as possible. 

I would also like to ask unanimous consent to allow Counsel to 

pose questions to the witnesses on the third and fourth panels. Seeing no objection, so ordered. 

I would also like to call attention to the fact that the Cellular 

Telephone Industry Association, the Wireless Association, and the 

Disabled American Veterans have asked to submit written statements for the hearing record. If there is no objection, I ask for 

unanimous consent that their statements be entered for the record. 

Hearing no objection, so entered. 

Today we have 13 bills before us that seek to protect our Nation’s 

veterans from possible foreclosure and financial burdens incurred 

while serving one’s country, update U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) housing construction guidelines, expand education programs while meeting the current retention needs of the Armed 

Forces, strengthen employment and reemployment rights for returning servicemembers, veterans, and minimize recidivism among 

incarcerated veterans. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

2 

According to a Congressional Research Service report updated 

January 25th, 2008: ‘‘The original GI Bill provided up to $500 annually for education expenses. This is the equivalent of an estimated $5,890 in 2007 dollars. An additional $50 was provided 

monthly for living expenses in 1944, which is equivalent to $589 

monthly or $5,301 annually in 2007 dollars. Thus, the total education benefit including the living allowance in 1944 would have 

been worth $11,191 annually or $1,243 monthly in 2007 dollars.’’ 

Keeping this historical perspective in mind, I, along with Ranking Member Boozman, have introduced H.R. 5684, the ‘‘Veterans 

Education Improvement Act,’’ which seeks to address the educational needs of our brave men and women in uniform. 

This bipartisan bill is the product of numerous hearings held by 

our Subcommittee since the beginning of the 110th Congress which 

allowed for close evaluation of the Montgomery GI Bill and input 

from Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), education leaders, 

government agencies, and other policy experts. 

H.R. 5684 would help address current Montgomery GI Bill 

(MGIB) shortfalls along with other important improvements including substantially increasing the amount of basic education assistance for veterans equal to the average cost of the tuition at a 4- 

year public college or university, provides veterans with a monthly 

cost-of-living stipend, extends the time limitation for use of education benefits from 10 years to 15 years, and more fully accommodating the transition from military to civilian life. 

I would like to add that H.R. 5684 includes unique provisions 

that allow the overall assistance to be used for business courses, 

preparatory courses for exams, and to repay Federal student loans. 

It dramatically expands the opportunity for servicemembers to enroll for the benefits even if they are beyond the initial opportunity 

for automatic enrollment, provides increased funding for state approving agencies, an important partner in administering the benefits with the VA, rewards veterans for their service by eliminating 

their educational entitlements from being considered as income 

when applying for Federal financial aid. It also increases on-the-job 

training and dependent education benefit to 85 percent, supplements reporting fees given to colleges and universities, creates a 5- 

year pilot program to expand work study programs for veterans, increases the VA’s full-time employees by 150 to help administer the 

new requirements, provides funding for updating existing IT systems, and rearranges the advance pay process to prevent any 

breaks in benefits. 

H.R. 5684, one of the many bills we are considering today, provides specific improvements and adjustments meant to make it 

easier, not harder, for veterans to access the education benefits 

they have earned following their service and contributes to the 

overall national economy. 

In addition, this bill will make changes with minimal disruption 

of the current VA information technology (IT) system and to the 

beneficiaries. 

The ‘‘Veterans Education Improvement Act’’ is a well-crafted bill 

that provides the VA the resources to administer the new changes, 

to update and improve the MGIB to better reflect today’s world, 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

3 

and ensure that today’s veterans have the resources they need to 

continue or begin their education when they return from service. 

I appreciate the support of many of today’s witnesses for this bill 

that addresses necessary changes to veterans education benefits. I 

look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and other 

Members of the Committee to continue to improve education entitlements for the veterans that we serve. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin appears on p. 47.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Joining us today and seated at the dais 

is Chairman Bob Filner, and Ranking Member Steve Buyer. And 

also joining us on the first panel is the Honorable Ciro Rodriguez, 

all of whom are distinguished Members of the Committee. All of 

their written statements will be entered into the hearing record. 

We will begin with Chairman Filner. 

Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. BOB FILNER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE 

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

BUYER, RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON 

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, AND A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA; HON. CIRO D. 

RODRIGUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF TEXAS; AND HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER 

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and we appreciate 

your leadership in this Congress. 

Because of your leadership, I think this Congress will soon be 

taking up a GI Bill for the 21st century that updates the educational benefits as you have proposed, looks at the housing program I will speak to today, and also allows the Guard and Reserve 

units to participate in the GI Bill to a much greater extent than 

they are currently allowed. 

I believe we are moving along in a major effort to do something 

that had such an impact on our society in 1944, the original GI 

Bill. 

Let me just talk about another part of that original bill and that 

is the Home Loan Program that so many of the veterans after 

World War II were able to take advantage of. 

In a meeting in my district, we heard from active-duty service 

men and women veterans, VA experts, mortgage brokers and lenders from the area. Based on that meeting, we saw the program 

being irrelevant, not only to the current crisis, but before then in 

terms of its loan values, equity requirements, refinancing caps, and 

fees that are imposed. We want to update the program to make it 

relevant to the veteran today. 

One bill that I want to make sure we take quick action on is H.R. 

4883, which prevents foreclosure on active-duty personnel. We have 

had anecdotal testimony of young people coming back and finding 

that they were, going to lose their home soon after their tour of 

duty was over. That is unacceptable. Active-duty servicemembers 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

4 

should not have to face that consequence. What we have done in 

H.R. 4883 is prevent any foreclosure for at least a year after they 

return from active duty. 

H.R. 4884, another bill introduced, is sort of a complement to 

your bill that you just described in terms of updating the Home 

Loan Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It increases 

the maximum home loan guaranty to $715,000, decreases the equity requirements to refinance a home loan, requires the VA Secretary to review and streamline the process of using a guaranteed 

home loan to purchase a condominium. Right now condominiums 

are subject to a great deal of regulation and red tape and it is hard 

to finance a condominium through the VA Home Loan Program. 

In addition, we want to reduce the home loan refinancing fees to 

1 percent, extend the adjustable rate mortgage demonstration program to the year 2018, extend the so-called hybrid adjustable rate 

mortgage demonstration project to 2012, and provide a yearly adjustment of the VA home loan to match the consumer price index. 

There are many people in my district, around the country, who 

are facing the prospect of foreclosures and the value of their home 

falling. They are not able, given the restrictions of the VA program, 

to use that at all, no matter what their situation is or what they 

may be qualified for they are not able to make use of a program 

that was meant to give them some loan guarantees. 

What we do in H.R. 4884 is to make that possible for veterans 

in the situation that they find themselves today, but even without 

the crisis, to make it fit the 21st century. 

In addition, I have another bill, H.R. 4889, to recodify the socalled REAP Program, the Reserve Education Assistance Program, 

entitlements that provide now up to 36 months of education benefits to certain members of the Reserve forces who were called on 

or ordered to active-duty service in response to war and national 

emergency. 

Without going into details now, it allows for far more flexibility, 

support, and help for those in the Reserve who have given so much 

of their life and time on active duty. 

I look forward to working with you. I thank you for your leadership and bringing all these bills up for consideration today. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Filner appears on 

p. 48.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

your leadership in introducing a number of those bills, particularly 

as they relate to veterans’ housing, and your support of our efforts 

here on the Subcommittee to address all of the issues within our 

jurisdiction, but most recently veterans’ education. 

I would now like to recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Buyer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE BUYER 

Mr. BUYER. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, I 

am very pleased that you have included my bill, H.R. 4539, the 

‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost Reduction 

Act of 2007,’’ for the Subcommittee’s consideration. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

5 

When this bill was introduced last December, the full extent of 

the mortgage and financial sector crisis had not yet appeared and, 

frankly, this bill was intended to improve the day-to-day operations 

of the Loan Guaranty Program. But events since we introduced 

H.R. 4539 have convinced me of the need to make the kind of 

changes included in my bill. 

I recognize that Chairman Filner has a similar bill, H.R. 4884, 

and I take that similarity as a confirmation of the need to improve 

the Loan Guaranty Program. I believe that between us, veterans 

will find it easier to achieve the American dream. 

I would ask unanimous consent to include in the record a copy 

of the January 28, 2008, letter co-signed by Mr. Mike Michaud and 

I that sent to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner regarding the 

need to include the VA Loan Guaranty Program in the recent stimulus package in the hearing record. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Seeing no objection, so ordered. 

[The letter to Speaker Pelosi appears on p. 97. An identical letter 

was sent to Leader Boehner and will not be reprinted.] 

Mr. BUYER. In the letter, Madam Chairwoman, what Mr. 

Michaud and I were asking to do was that as the Freddie Mac rate 

was increased to the limit of $720,000, the FHA loan limits be 

matched to the VA, yet the VA was excluded from the stimulus 

package. And Mr. Michaud and I sent that letter to the Speaker 

and Mr. Boehner. 

At the time when I had spoken to Mr. Boehner, he and the 

Speaker basically had an agreement. A lot of amendments and requests came to them and they made the judgment that the agreement that they struck with the President, that they would hold to 

it. 

And as painful as a lot of the corrections and the fixes that they 

were learning were, they held on tight to their agreement. And to 

me, it is sort of what can happen if you do not allow the Committee 

to do its work. If somebody writes a bill under the pressure of the 

moment, mistakes can happen. 

Now, I had made a request to Chairman Filner to do a stimulus 

fix under suspension. He had declined to do that, Madam Chairwoman. And, frankly, I am not upset over that because you are 

doing your due diligence. So he has a bill. I have a bill. You have 

some ideas. Mr. Boozman has some ideas. And I think we are at 

a moment here where we are going to have a good meeting of the 

minds. 

The stimulus package says 125 percent of the area median price 

of a home as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development not to exceed 175 percent of the Fannie/ 

Freddie conforming limit of $417,000, which is $729,750. 

So when you look at the loan limits that Mike Michaud and I 

had included in our bill, when you look at the loan limits that the 

Chairman included in his, they do not even match the stimulus. 

So if we really want to do this, we really should match it to the 

stimulus fix and then you can come in and look at some of the improvements that we have done in the bill. 

I guess my counsel to you, Madam Chairwoman, is you can take 

the best out of proposals, some that Mr. Michaud and I have done, 

some that the Chairman has done, some recommendations that we 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

6 

are going to hear today, and we will give great deference to your 

leadership. 

What we had sought to do in the bill, H.R. 4539, beyond this increase now, was increase the maximum loan amount guaranteed by 

VA to 125 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming limit, and we believe that this would enable the servicemembers and the veterans 

living in the high-cost areas to purchase homes using the VA Loan 

Guaranty Program. 

This goes right at the heart of the issue that Mr. Filner was talking about when he held this hearing out there with regard to San 

Diego being one of the highest cost-of-living index in the country. 

The pain of access to affordable housing that he has is much different than I have in rural Indiana and that you have in the Dakotas. And we are most hopeful that this would help address these 

issues. 

What we also sought to do here is the intent with regard to the 

President, the Speaker, and Leader Boehner in increasing the FHA 

loan limits when you have individuals who are in subprime loans 

was to be able to move them into the Federal guaranteed loans. 

Well, do not leave veterans out of the equation. And you and I have 

had that personal conversation. 

And we also seek to extend some of the fees through 2017. These 

fees provide the funds the VA needs to pay for the guaranty on 

homes that go into foreclosure. These fees have also provided 

PAYGO offsets for improvements to VA benefits. 

We also seek to increase the guaranty amount for certain refinanced loans by making VA refinancing more attractive and competitive in the marketplace. 

The Michaud/Buyer bill also reduces the equity requirement for 

a VA guaranteed refinancing loan to zero. This is especially important for those servicemembers and veterans whose home equity has 

decreased solely because of the current market forces despite the 

fact that they are not behind on their mortgage payments. 

We also want to make loans more affordable in the high-cost 

areas. The legislation would limit the total loan guaranty fees to 

the maximum dollar amounts in effect on the day of enactment. 

Also, to encourage an increase in the supply of affordable housing, H.R. 4539 would increase the guaranty amount of 30 percent 

of the mortgage. 

And, finally, this legislation would require the Secretary to provide a small measure of assistance in offsetting closing costs associated with the purchase of a home. The Secretary would determine 

the amount based on the income of guaranteed fees in the previous 

year. 

Madam Chairwoman, as you know, in regards to your comments 

on the GI Bill, H.R. 5684, I mention this because it is a good bill 

and you have worked with our side of the aisle in a bipartisan 

manner. And there are a few changes that I feel are important. 

I believe that the train is moving quickly and there is not a lot 

of time here in this Congress. So for this restructuring here with 

regard to VA education programs, the question is whether it is feasible to do it in a comprehensive fashion? It may not be comprehensively. And I note you are trying a major incremental movement. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

7 

I am in the process of drafting an extension and reorganization 

of Chapters 30, 32, 34, 35, and 36 into one or two chapters to 

standardize the administrative rules and education and training 

options to those receiving education benefits. 

I hope that we can work together on this approach to bring some 

order to these programs in the not too distant future. 

Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank you for your bipartisan 

manner in which you have included H.R. 4539 and several other 

bills from our side of the aisle in today’s hearing. 

I would also end with this remark, that the issue with regard to 

Guard and Reserve is not in your bill. I know the Chairman had 

made comments as though it is in the bill. And I think what that 

does is it puts the Chairman and I in agreement, and I know you 

also have been a very strong advocate of the Guard and Reserve. 

And we do not want to do anything that would exasperate the 

gap. So as we work on the improvements with regard to the active 

duty, if, in fact, we have a moment in time, we should capture it. 

And I want to work with you to do that, whether it is to do only 

that which is within our jurisdiction or we try to add that and we 

have a joint referral with the Armed Services Committee. We will 

work with Dr. Snyder. 

I think if we are going to move, and you have the sincerity to 

make this major move, I want to join with you and do everything 

I can with Mr. Filner or anybody else on the Committee to satisfy 

equity and fairness with regard to the Guard and Reserve. 

Now, there is going to be a price. It will come with mandatory 

funding. I will speak with Mr. Boehner. I will speak with the Budget Committee on our side. You will not find opposition from my side 

of the aisle with regard to a mandatory fix, if we take what you 

are doing and we do the equity fix in Guard and Reserve and working with the Armed Services Committee, I believe that when individuals of good will share sentimentalities, that it is a prescription 

for success. 

And that is what I have always felt in all the work I have ever 

done with you. And that is where I want to proceed in this. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Buyer appears on 

p. 49.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the Ranking Member, and I will 

just make a couple of remarks before recognizing our colleagues on 

the first panel for their testimony. 

I appreciate the words of the Ranking Member and I appreciate 

the leadership that you and Mr. Michaud demonstrated as the 

train was moving quickly a few months ago in putting a stimulus 

package together. 

I know that since our conversation that I have spoken with leadership, both on the Financial Services Committee with jurisdiction 

as well as with leadership on our side of the aisle. I know that 

Chairman Filner has done the same, because of our desire to want 

to look at another vehicle to make that fix, if indeed there is another stimulus or other strategy or avenue that we are looking at 

to continue to grapple with the crisis that we are seeing in housing, 

not only how veterans are affected but other constituents with 

whom we work and who we serve. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

8 

As it relates to veterans’ education, again, your words are appreciated. You are right. Mr. Boozman and I have worked hard when 

he was the Chairman of the Subcommittee and when I was Ranking Member and in this Congress to address the issues of equity 

for National Guard men and women and Reservists. 

The purpose of the bill that we introduced in a bipartisan way 

purposely did not include those provisions, although I believe 

Chairman Filner may have been referring to work that I have been 

undertaking with Counsel to work and fashion a separate bill for 

Guard and Reservists that would be entirely within the jurisdiction 

of the Armed Services Committee. 

We wanted to avoid joint referral for a number of reasons as it 

related to increasing basic pay, the basic benefit in the Montgomery GI Bill, as well as include a number of the very unique provisions that our bill includes that we uncovered during the series 

of hearings that we have had with this Subcommittee. 

I certainly share your sentiment and I think all of us do on the 

Subcommittee as well as our colleagues on the full Committee, of 

trying to undertake something in a more comprehensive way, if 

that is going to be possible. We want to make sure that, depending 

on which track the train is on, we have a lot of different options 

on the table. 

If the comprehensive approach is indeed the track we are on, 

then I think we are all in agreement that we want to make sure 

your efforts, as well as other efforts of those on the Subcommittee, 

are brought together. I know we will all work in good faith with 

the leadership on the respective sides to do that, based on our hard 

work here in the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. 

However, I am not sure that is the track that we will be on. I 

hope so. We have great working relationships with people on the 

Armed Services Committee that undertook some of this work even 

in the ‘‘Defense Authorization Act’’ of last year. 

Again, I appreciate your sentiments. I know how hard you have 

been working as it relates to the comprehensive fix and a reorganization and how beneficial that could be to veterans and their 

education benefits and the administration of those benefits. 

Again, I thank you. 

Mr. BUYER. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes, I would. 

Mr. BUYER. Then let us step off together and work, step off together meaning off of the good work that was done in the last Congress with regard to Dr. Snyder and John McHugh. 

So as we try to move the jurisdictional issues, right, and as you 

are formulating your legislation, please work with our staff and we 

will step off together because it will take the leadership of Mr. 

Skelton and Mr. Hunter because this is mandatory spending on 

their side. So it is going to take some major movement. 

So with that, I yield back. I thank the gentlelady for her comments. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank you. 

Mr. Boozman, would you like to be recognized? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I want to apologize. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. We have all been saying such great 

things about you. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

9 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Well, I apologize. I am participating in the ‘‘Clean 

Water Act,’’ which is a very important thing. And so I am just kind 

of running back and forth. The other Member of my Committee is 

on the Farm Bill, so he is over doing that. 

So, again, we appreciate you, Madam Chair, in working with us. 

And I want to compliment the guys that are bringing some very, 

very good legislation before the Committee. We have some really 

good things to work with. And so thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on 

p. 48.] 

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

I would now like to recognize our distinguished colleagues on the 

full Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. Rodriguez, we will start with you. You are recognized for 5 

minutes. Thank you for being here and thank you for introducing 

the bill that we are considering today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, let 

me personally thank you and the Subcommittee for giving me this 

opportunity to speak to you regarding H.R. 5664, a bill that I introduced to correct the bureaucratic oversight in the way that the Veterans Administration advises contractors constructing or renovating housing for disabled veterans. 

I was extremely moved by last June’s hearing and testimony before this Subcommittee concerning specially adapted housing. 

There is little doubt that funding levels available to the individual 

disabled veterans to have their homes adjusted to meet their needs 

is too low. 

My bill does not address that particular issue. Rather, it seeks 

to ensure that veterans whose homes are updated under this program benefit from all of the modern technology and construction 

practices that can be provided. 

Mr. Gonsalves, President and Founder of Homes for Our Troops, 

pointed out in the hearing that service men and women with injuries that would have killed them in previous wars are now living 

to see another day and are in need of truly special home adaptations. 

The primary guidance that the VA provides the contractors who 

draw up the plans and specifications to modify homes under this 

grant program is VA Pamphlet 2613, entitled ‘‘Handbook for Design, Specially Adapted Housing.’’ 

As Mr. Carl Blake, the National Legislative Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, pointed out, much, if not all, of the 

guidance found in the pamphlet is still applicable today. However, 

I feel, that it focuses too much on veterans who find themselves in 

wheelchairs with lower extremities and paralysis or amputations. 

While certainly still valid, we find increased number of veterans 

returning home from current conflicts with alternative injuries 

such as upper limb amputations or blindness. The guide was last 

updated in 1978. By comparison, the current Army Corps of Engineers Housing Design Guide is dated 1994 and that of the Air 

Force is 2004. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

10 

The time has come to ensure that the guide contains updated directions to architect and engineering firms and contractors who 

will do the noble work of ensuring our disabled veterans have 

homes that respect the dignity of which they have sacrificed. 

I propose in my bill that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs update 

the guide at least on a 6-year basis. 

I also wish to express my intent that the field agents who approve the construction plans under this program view the pamphlet 

as a guide rather than a definitive set of requirements. It should 

be just looked at as a guide to help out, not one that is a definitive 

set of requirements. 

After consulting with several VSOs in preparing for this testimony, I need to clarify the wording of the bill. Rather than requiring the VA to update plans and specifications on a 6-year basis, it 

is better stated that the pamphlet itself is updated every 6 years. 

Contractors actually derive the plans and specifications based on 

each veteran’s home and the pamphlet. And I would hope that if 

the Committee considers my bill in the future markup that such 

language is made clear. 

I want to thank you very much for this opportunity and just indicate now that, we can make these homes much more adaptable. We 

can, for example, allow additional electrical outlets, allow for 

swinging doors, allowing for other types of, updates, based on the 

individual handicaps or difficulties that they have in getting 

around. 

And so thank you, Madam, and I want to thank you once again 

for allowing me this opportunity to present the bill. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Rodriguez appears on 

p. 50.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Again, thank you for your leadership on this important issue on 

veterans’ housing. 

Mr. Stearns, thank you, too, for introducing the bill that we are 

considering today and look forward to hearing from you. You are 

recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS 

Mr. STEARNS. Good afternoon, and thank you, Madam Chair, for 

this opportunity to testify on my bill, H.R. 3646, the ‘‘Veterans Effective Training Job Opportunities and Benefits Act of 2007,’’ or the 

‘‘VET Jobs Act.’’ 

My colleagues, I think this bill is an important step in helping 

our veterans gain gainful employment when retiring from the service. When warriors return home from combat, they often face an 

uphill battle. For many servicemembers, the transition from active 

duty to veteran status and returning to a full, meaningful civilian 

life is daunting and fraught with many challenging obstacles and 

bureaucratic barriers. 

Many times, these brave service men and women require job 

training for entirely new careers. Although statistics show that 

eventually veterans in general enjoy a favorable employment in the 

Nation’s job market, many veterans initially find it difficult to compete successfully in the labor market. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

11 

That is why for over a decade, the Federal Government has provided job training benefits to veterans through the Department of 

Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labor. 

The mission statement for the Department of Labor Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service, VETS Program, is to, ‘‘Provide 

veterans and transitioning servicemembers with the resources and 

services to succeed in the 21st century workforce by maximizing 

their employment opportunities, protecting their employment 

rights, and meeting labor market demands with qualified veterans 

today.’’ 

Additionally, the Department of Labor offers servicemembers 

leaving the military with a service-connected disability the Disabled Transition Assistance Program or DTAP. This includes a 3- 

day workshop, plus additional hours of individual instruction to 

help determine their job readiness and address the special needs 

of disabled veterans. 

However, this is the identical DTAP Program offered to all 

transitioning disabled veterans across the Nation. This 3-day program provider valuable support, but it only provides general employment information and at no time addresses the specific needs 

of the community in which the veteran lives and serves. 

Unfortunately, this means that frequently there is a void of information on local labor market conditions that result in veterans 

using their benefits to train for jobs that do not exist in their own 

communities. 

Mr. Jeffrey Askew, who is Director of the Marion County Veterans Service Center in my hometown of Ocala, Florida, has said 

many veterans have used their Federal job training benefits for information technology—IT career training. However, Ocala has little 

demand for IT professionals and veterans are often advised to move 

to Orlando where there are many more opportunities for them. 

Upon finally getting settled back into civilian life, it is frustrating and unfortunate to say the least to be forced to uproot one 

more time and move your family to an unknown city. 

I am concerned about this problem and I believe, my colleagues, 

I have an easy solution. Currently there is a maze of Web sites 

with confusing and sometimes out-of-date information on employment conditions. My legislation would provide better information to 

veterans on their local job market needs. 

The ‘‘VET Job Act’’ directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and 

the Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on the greatest employment needs in various job markets around the United States 

and post the results on the VA web site. These results would then 

be updated annually to reflect the current and possible changing 

needs in the local job market. 

With this tool, veterans could simply plug in their zip code and 

see a list of the occupations that are in most demand within their 

commuting area and subsequently use their Federal job training 

most effectively. 

The Department of Labor already has the infrastructure in place 

for this kind of research, so this is a practical low-cost solution. In 

fact, the Congressional Budget Office has unofficially scored this 

proposal as having insignificant cost, insignificant cost for immeasurable benefit to our veterans. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

12 

Further, the ‘‘VET Job Act’’ has broad bipartisan support and has 

been endorsed by many veterans’ organizations including the 

American Legion, the American Veterans (AMVETS), Veterans of 

Foreign War of the United States, the Blinded Veterans of America, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. In addition, my bill 

has 44 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. 

So, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

and allowing me this opportunity to talk about the ‘‘VET Jobs Act’’ 

and I look forward to working with you and the Ranking Member 

on passing this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Stearns appears on 

p. 51.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Stearns, and thank you 

for taking time out of your busy schedule to join us today to speak 

about your important bill. Certainly the efforts that you make on 

the full Committee and on other Subcommittees to address employment needs and other needs to make the disruption in their lives 

during that transition as small as possible. 

Certainly Mr. Boozman and I have been working on this Subcommittee to address some of the issues that you are trying to get 

at in your bill. Again, we appreciate the introduction of it and the 

opportunity to hear from you directly today. Thank you. 

I would now like to invite the second panel to the witness table. 

Joining us on our second panel of witnesses are a set of other colleagues and it includes the Honorable John Yarmuth, the Honorable Robin Hayes, and the Honorable Artur Davis, as well as the 

Honorable Patrick Murphy. 

I welcome all of you gentlemen to our Subcommittee. As I have 

done with the other witnesses, we thank you each for introducing 

bills that we think get at the heart of the issues that we have analyzed and explored throughout a number of hearings in this Subcommittee. 

We are pleased to have you here. Thank you for joining us. I 

know the schedules can be unpredictable, but we look forward to 

hearing directly from you. 

I would like to go ahead and start with Mr. Yarmuth. You are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. JOHN A. YARMUTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY; HON. 

ROBIN HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; HON. ARTUR DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA; AND HON. PATRICK J. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. YARMUTH 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the 

Subcommittee. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today to discuss the ‘‘Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act.’’ 

As a small pilot program, the Incarcerated Veterans Transitional 

Program or IVTP has reduced recidivism by 90 percent among participants and saved the taxpayers $1.6 million in each of the six 

locations where it has been implemented over the last 3 years. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

13 

We are here today because by expanding this tremendous level 

of success to a national scale, we could provide hope for thousands 

of men and women who return to civilian life after years of serving 

their country. 

In my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, Richard Waddell returned home 10-percent disabled and suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, honorably discharged after 9 years service 

in the National Guard, Army, and Marines. He had no job, no support, and a family to feed. Out of desperation, he turned to robbery 

and was apprehended by law enforcement while buying groceries 

for his family. 

Unfortunately to this point, Richard’s story is far from unusual 

among American’s veterans. Where his story departs is that when 

he was released from jail for the second time, he met an IVTP representative. The IVTP worker first helped him with the essentials, 

clothes, food, and transportation. And from there, the dignity and 

respect that Richard had earned serving our Nation returned. 

Thanks to the help of IVTP, Richard was able to activate his VA 

benefits and register for disability and he now has an apartment 

and holds a good job. Next week, he will begin college. And a future 

that once seemed bleak at best is now bright and full of promise. 

IVTP has similarly aided 328 veterans in Kentucky by 

partnering veterans transitioning out of prison with a professional 

mentoring staff composed of veterans to help them get back on 

their feet. Of those 328, just 22 returned to criminal activity after 

engaging in the program, a recidivism rate of seven percent. 

That number is impressive by any standard, but for a veteran 

population that sees over half of its ranks return to prison, the success of this program is extraordinary. Abandoning this success and 

the men and women who served our country would not only be 

counterproductive, but would also send a message that our veterans only matter when our country needs them and not when they 

need our country. 

The ‘‘Second Chance for American Veterans Act’’ would expand 

the highly successful IVTP pilot to a competitive grant program in 

24 locations across the United States. Providers would assist veterans who are exiting the corrections system by connecting them 

with transitional housing, employment services, mental health and/ 

or substance abuse services and other community support. 

After all that our veterans have given for this country, providing 

them with such vital, effective, and proven services should be an 

obligation, not an option. But this is not only about giving or forgiving. This is also a matter of working for our National interests. 

In Kentucky, we have the most rapidly growing prison population in the Nation, a fact that has had a devastating effect on the 

fiscal reality of the commonwealth. To keep a convict in prison for 

a year, Kentucky spends over $18,000. By comparison, Volunteers 

of America, which currently administers this program, spends between $700 and $1,200 to give a veteran the tools to stay out of 

prison and contribute to society for a lifetime. 

At a time when we search to find new approaches to stimulate 

the economy and get a handle on America’s ever-growing deficit, 

the ‘‘Second Chance for Veterans Act’’ offers the opportunity to support a program with a proven track record of providing immediate 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

14 

and substantial return on our investment while also repaying a 

debt to those in uniform who sacrificed to serve our country. 

This is a unique win-win for government. Still, the Department 

of Labor has chosen not to continue this highly successful program 

and without action by Congress, thousands of worthy veterans in 

need would be abandoned by the Nation they served, left to bounce 

around our overcrowded prison system. 

So I thank the Committee for looking into this legislation and I 

strongly urge the Members to support passage of H.R. 3467, the 

‘‘Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act.’’ Thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Yarmuth appears on 

p. 52.] 

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

Mr. Hayes, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN HAYES 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, Mr. Hall. Thanks for bringing wisdom to the Subcommittee today. 

Chairwoman Herseth and other Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to be here to address your Subcommittee on an issue that impacts our National Guardsmen. 

Today I am proud to stand before this Subcommittee in support of 

a critical piece of legislation, ‘‘National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007.’’ 

As the Subcommittee is aware, the National Guard operations 

tempo has increased exponentially since September 11th and the 

Federal duties they have been charged with have created a unique 

situation. 

Previously, National Guard doing Federal missions were called 

up under title 10 to active-duty status. The Global War on Terror 

(GWOT) became increasingly apparent and there needed to be a 

mechanism to allow the National Guard to perform Federal missions in Title 32 status. It is obvious that good staff work has 

helped put this together because this was difficult to find. I thank 

Ms. Shirley for her effort. 

It has become clear that unified State, Federal cooperative employment of the National Guard provides a uniquely powerful tool 

to address domestic security needs. Some examples of this type of 

Federal Title 32 duty are air sovereignty, providing air defense for 

our Nation, airport security, operations in support of natural disasters, fighting wildfires, and border security to name a few. 

More and more often we see operations in which the Federal 

Government provides the funds, the State Governors provide the 

authority and control to execute operations to secure the homeland. 

This means that a greater number of National Guardsmen are 

performing such duties, which unfortunately, are not covered under 

the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act (USERRA). Prior to September 11th, there were essentially no 

operational missions conducted by the Guard under Title 32, so 

there was no loophole in the protection afforded Guardsmen for 

their Federal service. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

15 

To address the loophole, I along with Congresswoman Madeleine 

Bordallo of Guam, introduced H.R. 3798, the ‘‘Employment Act.’’ 

The bill would amend the ‘‘Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994,’’ USERRA, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to include full-time National Guard duty for exemption 

from the USERRA 5-year limit on service. 

Passage of the legislation will ensure that National Guard members are not forced to choose between keeping their civilian jobs 

and serving our Nation. 

Since USERRA already authorizes exemptions for service supporting critical active-duty missions, this amendment would simply 

correct a disparity in the treatment of National Guard members. 

It is essential that we make sure all our Nation’s heroes are 

given adequate opportunity to support Federal missions without it 

affecting their civilian job. The Guard has increasingly been called 

on since September 11th. North Carolina has been one of the highest mobilization rates at over 97 percent. 

Whether protecting our skies, saving lives in national disasters, 

enhancing security, there is no doubt that the Guard is an essential part of the total force. America’s Guardsmen should never be 

put in a position where they are forced to choose to support a critical mission or to protect their civilian jobs. 

Seven years into fighting the Global War on Terror, we are starting to see a small but increasing number of Guardsmen bumping 

up against their 5-year USERRA protection. According to statistics 

provided by the Guard Bureau, since September 11th, 6,984 of our 

soldiers have been called up to perform Federal missions under 

Title 32. Currently, 1,719 Guardsmen are performing duty under 

Title 32 orders. 

Air Guard has especially been impacted, particularly those airmen performing air sovereignty alert missions. They are by no 

means alone in their situations. This loophole affects the entire National Guard. 

If the ‘‘Guard Employment Protection Act’’ is not passed, National Guardsmen may be forced again to choose between their jobs 

and serving the Nation. Unfortunately, this is already starting to 

occur. The problem would get worse as we near the current 

USERRA 5-year protection limit. 

The Guard is performing critical missions under Article 32. We 

need to close this loophole. Legislation is fully supported by the Enlisted Guard Association and the United States National Guard Association. I believe they are in the room today. They have included 

their letters of endorsement for the record. 

[The letters are attached to Congressman Hayes prepared statement, which appears on p. 53.] 

The Bureau and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) also favor 

the closing of the loophole to protect the Guardsmen. Citizen soldiers fight to protect our Nation and our freedom. The very least 

we can do is protect their right to serve and retain their livelihood 

for themselves and their families. 

Thank you very much for your serious consideration of this Act. 

I know all the Members of the Subcommittee obviously share my 

commitment to the Guard and strongly urge passage of the legislation. Thank you very much. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

16 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Hayes appears on 

p. 53.] 

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

Mr. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARTUR DAVIS 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, and thank 

you, Mr. Hall. Good to see you as well. 

Now, let me begin by thanking the Chairwoman for her leadership since she came to the Congress 4 years ago on these issues. 

It is much appreciated. 

Let me thank the Committee for giving me an opportunity to testify today on the ‘‘Reservist Access to Justice Act,’’ H.R. 3393. I am 

proud to co-sponsor this legislation which deals with the employment rates of our Guards and Reservists. 

I am happy to cosponsor this bill with Jason Altmire from Pennsylvania whose district has one of the highest percentages of 

Guards and Reservists serving in the country and with Tim Walz 

from Minnesota who is the highest Ranking Member of the Guard 

serving in the U.S. Congress right now. 

It would be inconceivable, Madam Chairwoman, to think, any 

single one of us, that any employer in this country would terminate 

someone because he or she served America. It would be inconceivable to any of us in this room that any employer in this country 

would decline to promote someone or cause someone to suffer an 

adverse condition of employment because he or she served this 

country. 

But as inconceivable as it is to us, as illegal as it is under current law, it happens. Let me give the Committee some numbers to 

put this in perspective. 

Between October 1st, 1996, and June 30th, 2005, 10,061 complaints were filed with the Department of Labor by Guards and Reservists alleging that, exactly what I just described, happened to 

them at places of businesses around this country. 

About 70 percent of individuals who believe they experience discrimination, actually did not even file a lawsuit, were not aware of 

their protections under the law, or the law was so weak that it was 

not worth their while or worth the while of counsel. We do have 

a Federal statute. Mr. Hayes referenced it. It is called USERRA. 

It is a good statute, but in many ways, it does not have teeth. 

Guards and Reservists who file suit under this statute are 

doomed to a second-class kind of litigation status. They are limited 

substantially in the damages they can collect. If a judge finds that 

they have been fired because of their status as a Guard or Reservist, right now the judge does not have the authority to even put 

them back at work. They cannot get punitive damages as many individuals do who sue after being wrongfully discriminated against 

and they face a variety of other procedural hurdles. 

Well, this bill, H.R. 3393, seeks to give us the USERRA that our 

country deserves and that our Guardsmen and Reservists deserve. 

Let me outline some of its specific provisions. 

Importantly, this bill would expand the availability of the damages that are available. Without getting into too much technical 

lawyer talk today, right now Guard and Reserve members often 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

17 

cannot get compensatory damages. Only in limited circumstances 

can they get those damages. This bill would make those damages 

automatic unless an employer can show a good faith reliance on the 

law that would bring Guards and Reservists in line with all of the 

kinds of employment litigants around the country. 

Our bill would provide for punitive damages in the worst and 

most egregious cases of discrimination. That is what the law normally provides. When African Americans or women or other individuals believe that they have been discriminated against because 

of their status and their employer is an especially bad case offender, they can get punitive damages. This bill would allow the 

same opportunity for Guards and Reservists. 

This bill would hold State governments accountable. It might 

amaze us that any entity funded by taxpayers would practice discrimination against our citizen soldiers, but some do for various 

reasons. Right now they are exempt from USERRA. We would hold 

them accountable. 

We also would allow plaintiffs when they win these cases to get 

attorneys’ fees. As the lawyers in the room recognize as a practical 

matter, it is tough to get good lawyers to bring employment discrimination cases unless they know they will have a chance to recover the cost of their labor because sometimes the damage awards 

are not great enough to compensate them. 

I end simply by saying this. There have been 600,000 individuals 

who have been called up to serve this country since we were attacked on September 11th. At one point in 2005, nearly 50 percent 

of the soldiers in theater were members of the Guard and Reserve. 

Sometimes the numbers have even gone higher than that. 

These individuals who constitute the best citizen soldier force on 

God’s Earth deserve the strongest level of protection we can give 

them and they ought not be second-class litigants in any court. 

And I thank the Committee for its consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Davis appears on 

p. 57.] 

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

Mr. Murphy, welcome to the Subcommittee. You are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. MURPHY 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Ms. Chairwoman. I would 

like to thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member 

Boozman, and also Congressman Hall, for holding this hearing and 

giving me an opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill, H.R. 3298, 

the ‘‘21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act.’’ 

I would also like to thank the Members of the Committee staff 

for your continued great work. 

I would also like to ask the Committee again to grant permission 

for letters of support for this bill written by the Veterans of Foreign 

Wars, the Association of the United States Army, the Military Officers Association of America, the Fleet Reserves Association, and 

the National Guard Association of the United States be entered 

into the record. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

18 

[The letters are attached to Congressman Murphy’s prepared 

statement, which appears on p. 59.] 

Mr. MURPHY. Soon after my election to Congress, a friend of 

mine, Captain John Gross, a Judge Advocate General (JAG) attorney who does legal assistance work with the 101st Airborne Division, the Screaming Eagles, contacted me to let me know about a 

growing problem that many deployed servicemembers are currently 

facing. 

He explained to me that many of the soldiers he worked with 

have had their credit reports damaged during their deployment 

over issues concerning their contracts with cellular telephone or 

Internet service providers. This JAG attorney was able to put one 

of his own contracts on hold during his deployment, but to do so, 

he was forced to pay a costly fee. 

Looking into this further, I also discovered that some financial 

institutions were slow or unwilling to reduce servicemembers’ interest rates during their deployment even though these creditors 

are already required to do so by law. 

I learned that when servicemembers and their families ran into 

problems with service providers and creditors, they not only had to 

deal with the strain of deployment, but also faced repeated harassment by collection agencies. 

We owe the men and women of our Armed Forces better than 

this. For decades, the ‘‘Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act’’ and its 

successor, the ‘‘Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,’’ (SCRA) have provided crucial financial protection for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Guardsmen. 

As we continue to send a new generation of servicemembers into 

harm’s way, it is our obligation as Members of Congress to update 

and modernize SCRA for today’s troops. 

The ‘‘21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act’’ expands the 

SCRA to cover service contracts such as cell phones, utilities, cable 

television, or internet access. Similar to provisions that currently 

exist for residential and automobile leases, this legislation will 

allow troops with deployment orders to more easily terminate or 

suspend their service contract without fee or penalty. 

Currently creditors who knowingly or negligently fail to reduce 

interest rates upon notification from a soldier with deployment orders face no specific penalty. 

Another provision of my bill would add a penalty to those creditors who refuse to reduce interest rates after they are already required to do so under SCRA. 

As a veteran of the United States Army and the War in Iraq, I 

know how important it is that our troops be able to focus on accomplishing their mission and coming home safely without worry about 

their credit rating or whether bill collectors are harassing their 

families. 

Since this bill’s introduction, my staff and I have worked with 

the industries that will be affected by this legislation. In doing so, 

we have developed compromised language that I believe maintains 

the intent of the bill as introduced while alleviating the concerns 

of the companies that will be affected by the passage of this legislation. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

19 

Notably we have adjusted the penalties to remove imprisonment 

and made the size of any civil damages more reasonably tied to the 

size of the violation. It is with great hope that the Committee will 

adopt this revised language when the bill moves to markup. 

We realize that there will still be a few adjustments that could 

be made to the language of the bill and my staff and I are eager 

to work with the Committee and do what it takes to get these protections enacted into law as soon as possible. 

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is about doing 

what is right for our troops. 

With that, I would like to again thank you, Madam Chairman, 

and the Ranking Member, as well as Congressman Hall for giving 

me the opportunity to speak today, and I am happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Murphy appears on 

p. 59.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for your military service to the country and for introducing this important bill. 

I want to thank all three of you for taking the time to testify 

here. We have appreciated your insights and we appreciate your 

hard work and dedication to our Nation’s veterans. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thanks, ma’am. Ma’am, I would like to note on the 

record, I see Congressman Hayes’ watch of the 82nd Airborne Division. I mentioned the 101st Screaming Eagles. That is the second 

best airborne unit in the entire world following behind the great 

all-American division of the 82nd Airborne. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Very good. Thank you, gentlemen. 

I would now like to invite panel three to the witness table. Joining us on our third panel of witnesses today, we have Mr. Ronald 

Chamrin, Assistant Director of the Economic Commission for the 

American Legion; Mr. Justin Brown, Legislative Associate of National Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) 

of the United States; Mr. Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director for the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA); Mr. Patrick 

Campbell, Legislative Director for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA); and Colonel Robert Norton, Deputy Director of Government Relations for the Military Officers Association 

of America (MOAA). 

Gentlemen, welcome to the Subcommittee. We are not sure when 

the next set of votes will be called, but we do have another panel 

after you. In the interest of time and respect to all the panelists 

today, I would like to ask you to limit your testimony to 5 minutes. 

I know that we have a lot of bills under consideration here and 

so that may be difficult, but your entire written statement has been 

entered into the Committee record. 

Mr. Chamrin, we will begin with you and you always get us off 

to a right start in keeping to your 5 minutes, so you are recognized. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

20 

STATEMENTS OF RONALD F. CHAMRIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

ECONOMIC COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; JUSTIN 

BROWN, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE 

SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED 

STATES; RICHARD DALEY, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATION DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; PATRICK CAMPBELL, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN 

VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, 

USA (RET.), DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, 

MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

STATEMENT OF RONALD F. CHAMRIN 

Mr. CHAMRIN. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to present the American 

Legion’s view on pending legislation before the Subcommittee 

today. 

America needs a historic investment in the educational future of 

this Nation’s veterans. 

When the American Legion wrote the first draft of the ‘‘Servicemen’s Readjustment Act 1944,’’ it changed the course of American 

history. A generation of heroes was able to join the middle class, 

achieve homeownership, earn higher education, and live the American dream. 

More famously known as the GI Bill, it was hailed by many as 

the greatest piece of legislation ever. Sadly, as the generations 

passed and memories dimmed, the GI Bill benefits were so drastically reduced that many veterans either declined or denied even 

the opportunity to participate in the program. 

Few veterans today have the luxury of attending school without 

also holding a job and many colleges are completely out of reach 

simply due to financial barriers. The time to change history is once 

again upon us. 

No longer can we continue to call each piece of legislation in the 

110th Congress a GI Bill. A true GI Bill encompasses such benefits 

as housing, employment, job counseling and training, healthcare, 

and education for veterans. These are the true tools for seamless 

transition from warrior back to citizen. 

A true GI Bill also accounts for the operational force of today’s 

military. The DoD Manpower Data Center reports that since 2002 

and as recent as February of 2008, the average cumulative length 

of activation for all Reserve forces in support of GWOT is 438 days. 

This accounts for 631,000 Reserve forces that are activated in support of the Global War on Terror. 

On H.R. 4883, the American Legion supports this legislation. 

This legislation would greatly assist those veterans that are deployed to a combat zone and have little time to successfully transition from active-duty military to the civilian sector. It is unfair to 

expect servicemembers to concentrate on fighting the battle overseas and then simultaneously attend to all their personal matters 

at home. 

Moreover, veterans have a positive track record of following 

through with payments. During the fourth quarter of 2007, only 

2.83 percent of homeowners using the VA’s Loan Guaranty Program were seriously delinquent. This is much lower when comwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

21 

pared to 6 percent of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgages and a whopping 14.4 percent for the subprime mortgages. 

And I will discuss pending legislation to amend the VA Loan 

Guaranty Program. The American Legion supports elimination of 

the VA home loan funding fee and petition Congress to appropriate 

funding to sustain the VA Home Loan Program when the funding 

fee is eliminated. 

Currently only service-connected disabled veterans are exempt 

from the funding fee. The VA funding fee charged to veterans was 

enacted to defray the cost of the VA Guaranty Home Loan Program. Congress is not required to appropriate funding for this program. However, because veterans must now buy into the program, 

it no longer serves the intent of helping veterans afford a home. 

Approximately 80 percent of all VA Home Loan participants 

must pay the current funding fee. In some aspects, the funding fee 

makes the VA Home Loan Program less beneficial than the standard private loan. This has had a negative effect on many veterans 

who choose not to participate in this highly beneficial program and 

loan originations have been declining. 

A long overdue remedy to the refinancing laws is needed. In 

order to strengthen the Loan Guaranty Program, the law should be 

amended to remove the 10 percent equity requirement in order to 

refinance a home and to increase the refinancing limit a veteran 

can obtain to match the maximum loan guaranty amount. 

Specially adaptive housing is and will continue to be an important issue as severely wounded veterans heal and transition out of 

VA polytrauma facilities. For fiscal year 2008, as of March 31st, 

550 veterans have had grants approved and 1,500 veterans are in 

some stage of pursuit today. 

I just want to note that there are 7,200 veterans currently being 

tracked by the VA Loan Guaranty Service that are eligible for specially adaptive housing, but they are not taking advantage of it 

right now. These veterans could request adaptive housing at any 

time. 

Studies required every 6 years to update plans and specifications 

are not the proper solution. Rather, update the publication, have 

continuous oversight, and constant updates to veterans, Congress, 

and interested parties would better serve the veteran community. 

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the housing crisis affecting 

veterans. The National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that 

930,000 veterans pay more than 50 percent of their income toward 

housing, be it renting or owning a home. 

When testifying before your Subcommittee, economists, lenders, 

Realtors, and other experts painted a bleak outlook for the future 

in terms of veterans defaulting and foreclosing on their homes. 

If a veteran loses his or her job, has a financial emergency, or 

some other factor leading to delinquency, nearly one million veterans could be close to losing their homes. 

In conclusion, the American Legion appreciates the opportunity 

to present its views on programs that will affect veterans, servicemembers, and their families. An anonymous author once wrote, a 

veteran is someone who at one point in their life wrote a blank 

check made payable to the United States of America for the 

amount up to and including my life. That is honor. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

22 

And there are way too many people in this country who no longer 

understand it. We believe that the Subcommittee does understand 

it and the American Legion thanks you. 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, this 

concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin appears on p. 62.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Brown, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JUSTIN BROWN 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members 

of this Subcommittee, on behalf of the 2.3 million members of the 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our auxiliaries, 

I would like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to testify. 

The issues under consideration today are of great importance to 

our members and the entire veteran population. 

In the history of our Nation, there have always been great men 

and women who put everything on the line for our country. Our 

Nation is full of these heroes who join together to create the world’s 

strongest, most impressive, and smartest military. 

However, our military is not maintaining the quality of the force. 

According to a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

report, the percentage of high quality recruits in the Army fell to 

49 percent in 2006. This is the lowest level in more than 20 years 

and the lowest among the services. Also, the total number of medical and criminal waivers has risen steadily from 111⁄2 percent of 

recruits in 2004 to 16.9 percent of recruits in 2006. 

From 1973 to 1985, similar recruitment standards produced veterans that were three to four times more likely to be homeless than 

their nonveteran counterparts even without most of this group suffering the stresses and strains of combat or the mental and physical problems that follow. 

The risks and costs of joining the Army are becoming more and 

more apparent to young men and women who are eligible for recruitment. To join today’s military is to risk death, it is to risk 

mental and physical impairment, it is to risk one’s marriage, it can 

risk the custody of one’s children, it can risk employment, and it 

can risk economic success. 

Meanwhile, the military’s strongest recruitment tool of a college 

education is fast eroding as potential recruits learn of the shortfalls 

and failures of the current benefits provided to those who risk everything for our Nation. 

There are two strategies to solve the issue and respectively there 

are two outcomes. The Army and Marine Corps have not met their 

goal of high quality recruits since 2003. DoD’s response has been 

to lower recruitment standards, thereby enlarging the pool of eligible recruits to meet their recruitment needs. 

The consequence of such actions is creating a situation in which 

the military becomes the employer of last resort. This will likely 

lead us to larger expenditures in the long term than investing in 

a robust, attractive, proven recruitment tool, a GI Bill that pays for 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

23 

the full cost of education, tuition, room and board, fees, and a costof-living stipend. 

Increased funding although necessary is not the only issue with 

our current GI Bill. Our veterans in the military need a GI Bill 

that incentivizes going to the best college possible, not the cheapest. Also, a new GI Bill ought to equitably distribute benefits to 

veterans. A single payment system becomes inhibitive to many and 

too generous for others. 

Our military’s welfare ought to be considered a cost of war. We 

can pay it now as an investment or pay it later in much great cost 

to our government and our veterans. If we decide to defer this cost, 

it will be for increased appropriations for permanent housing for 

homeless veterans, increased appropriations for the expansion of 

the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program, and increased appropriations due to veterans’ further reliance on the VA medical 

and benefit systems. 

The VFW asks that America does its best to ensure our veterans 

a normal life with the same opportunities as those who chose to go 

to a college or as those who chose to go into the workforce, vice 

serving their Nation. It is simple and readily apparent, that if we 

continue to fail to provide our young men and women a bridge from 

the all volunteer force back to a civilian lifestyle, fewer high quality 

young men and women will volunteer to serve their country. 

In conclusion, the VFW supports all of the bills before the Subcommittee today. However, we do not agree with the provisions 

within some of these bills and we do not favor some of these bills 

in comparison to others that are not being considered in today’s 

hearing. 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of this Subcommittee, this 

concludes my testimony, and I will be pleased to respond to any 

questions you or the Members of this Subcommittee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears on p. 66.] 

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

There are about 13 minutes remaining in this vote. There are 

about four votes, approximately 45 minutes. 

Mr. Daley, I am going to recognize you for 5 minutes and then 

I am going to recognize Counsel for the Ranking Member to summarize or read statements that he had intended to put forth on his 

bills before the Subcommittee and any others. I will have to leave 

and then resume with Mr. Campbell once we return. 

So, Mr. Daley, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD DALEY 

Mr. DALEY. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member 

Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee, the Paralyzed Veterans 

of America would like to thank you today for the opportunity to 

testify on various pending legislation. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee’s focus on such a broad range 

of issues. In the interest of time, I will limit my comments to just 

a few of the bills while the rest of them are submitted for the 

record. 

On H.R. 5664, specially adaptive housing, while PVA supports 

the intent of H.R. 5664, we have serious concerns with the lanwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

24 

guage of the bill as it is written. The legislation specifically calls 

for the VA to regularly update specially adaptive housing plans and 

specifications furnished to the veterans by the VA. 

The VA is now responsible for providing plans and specifications 

to the veterans who are eligible for the specially adaptive grant. It 

provides assistance to the veterans through the application of ideas 

presented in the Handbook for Design, Specially Adaptive Housing 

VA Pamphlet 2613. 

We believe that the language of the bill should read the Secretary shall update the Handbook for Design at least once every 6 

years. The update should include considerations for new and 

unique disabilities to include vision impairments, impairment specifically by limb amputation, or some of the serious burn situations 

that we are having now from the War on Terror. 

PVA was fortunate to participate in the hearings held last year 

regarding the application of specially adaptive housing grant. We 

are well aware of the unique challenges faced by many of the veterans with complex disabilities incurred while serving in the War 

on Terror. 

However, it is important to understand that the basic accessibility concepts in the VA Pamphlet 2613 are not outdated as implied during that hearing. 

If there is a fault, it is that it seems to be basically centered 

around wheelchair accessibility, but wheelchair accessibility is basically the pamphlet centers around a lot of universal design concepts that are good for a lot of disabilities. 

Furthermore, the accessibility recommended in the suggested VA 

Pamphlet 2613 actually exceeds ‘‘Americans With Disabilities Act’’ 

recommendations as well as fair housing accessibility guidelines. 

With that thought in mind, PVA supports the legislation if the language can be changed to reflect the intent of the bill. 

The bill, H.R. 3889, the study of the vocational rehabilitation, 

PVA fully supports H.R. 3889, a bill that would require the VA to 

conduct a longitudinal study of veterans who enter the vocational 

rehabilitation program beginning with fiscal year 2008. 

We believe that the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment 

(VR&E) is critical to the reintegration of severely disabled veterans 

into civilian life. The primary mission of VR&E program is to provide veterans with service-connected disabilities all the necessary 

services and assistance to achieve maximum independence and 

daily living and to maximize the extent feasible to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable employment. 

In fact, PVA places such an importance on vocational rehabilitation that last year, we designed our own vocational rehabilitation 

program to further support what the VA is currently doing. 

The concept of the program is to provide vocational rehabilitation 

services under a PVA corporate partnership that augments many 

of the existing vocational programs. PVA believes that by introducing the veteran with a spinal cord injured disability to vocational rehabilitation counseling soon in their rehabilitation process 

is beneficial for the veteran. 

The partnership that the VA and Healthnet Federal Services 

has, PVA opened its first vocational rehabilitation office in the Spinal Cord Center of the VA Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia, 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

25 

in July of 2007. The workload in our pilot office has grown rapidly 

and our PVA vocational rehabilitation counselor in Richmond is 

currently carrying a caseload of more than 107 veterans. Encouraged by our rapidly growing caseload in Richmond, the establishment of productive relationships with the VA’s Veterans Health 

Administration and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment, 

PVA recently opened a second vocational rehabilitation office in 

Minneapolis under the corporate sponsorship of TriWest. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Daley, I am sorry. I am going to have 

to cut you off because I still want to get Mr. Brinck recognized before I have to get over to the Capitol. Okay? 

Mr. DALEY. Okay. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And then—— 

Mr. DALEY. Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley appears on p. 69.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. You bet. Thank you, Mr. Daley. 

Mr. Brinck. 

Mr. BRINCK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman for extending the 

courtesy to me. I will just very quickly summarize Mr. Boozman’s 

two bills that you have been so good to bring before the Committee. 

H.R. 3681, the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007,’’ will 

authorize VA to use national electronic media to advertise veterans’ 

benefits, employment at the VA, whatever they would deem appropriate. 

I know when we were researching the background on this bill, 

there seemed to be difference of opinion among the VA staff as to 

whether they were currently authorized under law to spend appropriated funds in that manner. This would make it clear that the 

Congress’ intent is to modernize the way VA does this outreach. 

The second bill, H.R. 3889, would require VA to conduct a 20- 

year longitudinal study for those participating in vocational rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the data that the Department has on the 

outcomes of vocational rehabilitation and you could probably also 

say the other business lines within VBA is relatively sparse. And 

I would note that the Department’s testimony, while it opposes the 

bill, has some, I think, good technical corrections that will improve 

the bill and we would certainly like to consider those as we move 

forward. 

And, finally, I would like to read Mr. Boozman’s statement in 

support of H.R. 5684, your GI Bill. It says, ‘‘as an original cosponsor of your GI Bill, H.R. 5684, I believe that unlike some other of 

the nearly 40 veterans’ education bills that have been introduced, 

H.R. 5684 is an approach that is manageable and affordable. Veterans will get between 17,000 and 18,000 per school year, not 

counting other Federal aid, and VA will not be required to retool 

its system to pay the benefits.’’ 

‘‘I am very pleased that we will be taking action on improving 

education benefits for our veterans and I look forward to passing 

the bill next week.’’ 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

I will return hopefully in not too much time. 

Thank you for your patience and we will resume with Mr. Campbell. Thanks. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

26 

[Recess.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Thank you for waiting. Sorry it 

took longer than we anticipated. 

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

STATEMENT OF PATRICK CAMPBELL 

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is kind of like icing the kicker. But, no. It is 

very good to be back. 

Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

this opportunity to testify. It is very good to be here and not have 

to leave to go to class or go study for the Bar. It truly is wonderful. 

We want to start off by saying that IAVA believes that H.R. 

5684, the ‘‘Veterans Education Improvement Act,’’ with its substantial increases in the level of education benefits and innovative 

modifications to Chapter 30, will help veterans across the country 

to see a considerable improvement in their education benefits. 

We thank the Chairwoman and this Committee for their hard 

work in creating this bill. And we look forward to working with you 

to make sure that this bill is the best bill it can be. 

With that, as we have 13 bills, we are going to try to get to, what 

recommendations we feel would be good additions to this bill. 

IAVA does have some concerns that this bill does not address key 

structural flaws with the current benefit system. First, flat rate 

education benefits creates an incentive for veterans to go to the 

cheapest school and does not reward veterans for challenging themselves. 

The genius behind the original 1944 GI Bill was that it challenged veterans to be all they could be by rewarding those who 

challenged themselves and attended better and more expensive 

schools. 

However, under this proposal, a veteran attending a community college in rural America will be pocketing almost $7,000 while 

other veterans will still need to take out loans or to work to see 

their education paid for. 

If you look at my testimony on page 2, you will see how this current proposed benefit in this program is broken out between 4 different schools, Southeast Technical in your State, Madam Chairwoman; the University of Arkansas; my school, California Berkeley; 

and Notre Dame, which two of the distinguished Members went to. 

Now, I am the first to admit when I was wrong. When I originally read this bill, I thought the $500 benefit, the monthly stipend 

was going to be starting right away. Because it is not starting for 

2 years, you actually need to subtract $4,500 from the amount that 

I have given. So let me make a few little adjustments here. 

If you attend Southeast Technical under the current bill for the 

next 2 years, you will only be getting $2,350 more than you would 

need to go to Southeast Technical. If you were to go to University 

of Arkansas, this bill would leave $4,108 to be able to afford to go 

to the University of Arkansas. If you were to go to University of 

California, it would be $12,200, and Notre Dame, $35,600. 

Now, IAVA would like to see that the $500 be implemented right 

away and just included in the original benefit. There is no reason 

to make it a monthly stipend, just make it part of the initial increase. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

27 

If you still want to wait 2 years, we encourage you to not make 

it a monthly stipend, but increase the benefit in 2 years because, 

otherwise, you are going to get in a situation where Reservists are 

not going to be able to get this benefit. I am worried that they are 

not going to be able to get this benefit because the way it is structured right now, it says that those people taking ‘‘under this chapter’’ and because Reservists take under Chapter 1607, a different 

chapter, it would exclude them from this bill. 

Also, for many veterans, as I just laid out, attending schools in 

high cost urban areas, this benefit will not cover the full cost of an 

education. It will not cover the cost at any of the University of California campuses, nor 14 of the California State Universities. 

IAVA believes that we need to make a commitment to our veterans that if a veteran wants to attend a public university anywhere in the country, it should be covered by the GI Bill. 

We, therefore, recommend modifying this bill to provide an incentive for veterans that challenge themselves by creating a tuition 

credit to a set amount, preferably the average tuition cost at a public university. This will ensure every public university is within 

reach for our service men and women and that the benefit will 

challenge those to be the best they can be. 

Lastly, IAVA is concerned that this bill does not have a mechanism for keeping the benefit up with the rising cost of education. 

By looking at the second chart on my testimony on page three, you 

will see that in 10 years, we will be in the same situation we are 

right now where 2-year universities will be the only type of benefit 

available to veterans who depend on their GI Bill benefits to pay 

for school. 

IAVA recommends linking yearly increases of education benefits 

to be based on the rising cost of education as tracked by the Department of Education and not on the consumer price index as is 

done now. 

We appreciate the work that you and the Committee have done 

on this bill. We look forward to working with you to ensure that 

we keep our promise to veterans that they can go to school both 

now and tomorrow. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell appears on p. 72.] 

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

Colonel Norton, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.) 

Colonel NORTON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is good to 

see you again and we thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to appear before you today on behalf 

of the Military Officers Association of America. 

Listening to Patrick, I just want to say it is just an honor for me 

personally to work with this distinguished young American veteran 

and a number of the other folks at this table. Patrick has been a 

tireless advocate for the GI Bill representing the brave young men 

and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we really appreciate the work that he and his colleagues in IAVA have 

done on the GI Bill. 

In a hearing before this Subcommittee, Madam Chairwoman, in 

January, I stated that MOAA’s top two priorities for the GI Bill 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

28 

this year are, first, to raise rates to cover at least the average cost 

of a public college education and, second, to authorize Reservists to 

earn GI Bill benefits for multiple tours of active duty. 

We are very pleased to see that H.R. 5684, your bill, addresses 

the first priority and then some. The upgrades in H.R. 5684 are 

substantial. We thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member Boozman, for the bill and we support it. 

Our second priority, however, permitting Reservists to accrue GI 

Bill benefits as they serve on active duty is not addressed in H.R. 

5684. However, I was very encouraged to hear you and Chairman 

Filner and the full Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Buyer, talking about the need for what Mr. Buyer called an ‘‘equity fix’’ in this 

regard and the fact that you share the sentiment that we need to 

do more for our Reserve warriors. 

And for that reason, MOAA strongly supports as a first step passage of Chairman Filner’s H.R. 4889 to integrate the operational 

Reserve GI Bill into title 38. 

When General Petraeus completed his testimony before Congress 

last week, the President announced that the Army rotations to Iraq 

and Afghanistan will be reduced to 12 months going forward, that 

can only mean that there will be more deployments of Guard and 

Reserve units. 

If the Army is going to be able to sustain operations in both 

countries for the indefinite future, it can only do that through increased deployments and call-ups of our Guard and Reserve troops. 

They are bearing a bigger share of the operational load and that 

will only increase in the future. They should not be denied credit 

for all of their active-duty service. The principle on this issue is 

quite simple. Same service, same battlefield, same benefits. 

MOAA also strongly supports legislation to improve financial 

protections for our troops under the ‘‘Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act.’’ H.R. 3298 would allow a servicemember who receives a permanent change of station or deployment order to terminate its cell 

phone or similar personal services contract without steep financial 

penalty. 

Chairman Filner’s H.R. 4883 would protect a returning servicemember for 1 year from a mortgage foreclosure or property seizure 

action. MOAA urges the Subcommittee to endorse both measures. 

MOAA and our colleagues in the Military Coalition also strongly 

support H.R. 3393 to strengthen reemployment rights protections 

for our activated troops under the ‘‘Uniform Services Employment 

and Reemployment Rights Act.’’ 

In addition, we recommend the Subcommittee adopt legislation 

to assign one Federal agency the responsibility to track and report 

both formal and informal claims under the USERRA as recommended by the GAO. 

I want to close, Madam Chairwoman, by offering a few remarks 

on what we see as an historic opportunity before this Subcommittee and the Congress. 

I met the author of the GI Bill named for him, the late G.V. 

Sonny Montgomery, on a number of occasions. Early this decade, 

Mr. Montgomery spoke at the first press conference of the Partnership for Veterans Education, giving his endorsement of a new total 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

29 

force GI Bill that would match benefits to the average cost of a 

public college education. 

Today there is a rising tide in both chambers to do the right 

thing on the GI Bill this year. And, of course, you and your fellow 

colleagues on the Subcommittee were talking about that at the beginning of this hearing. 

There are different approaches to that goal, but it is a goal that 

more and more lawmakers are recognizing and embracing in both 

the House and Senate. We at MOAA fervently hope that Members 

of this Subcommittee and the entire Congress will be able to look 

back with enormous pride years from now on their work today on 

the GI Bill. 

As with the great World War II GI Bill, the GI Bill that bears 

Mr. Montgomery’s name and which helped the fragile all volunteer 

force experiment to succeed, we believe this is a rare moment to 

make a new GI Bill for a new century and a new force. 

A better GI Bill will be an engine for quality recruiting and a 

sound investment not only in and for our warriors but for the future of our great Nation. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Norton appears on p. 78.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony of 

all of our witnesses. 

Let me start with posing a question to all of you, but most directly in response to verbal testimony you provide to the Subcommittee to Mr. Brown, Mr. Campbell, and Colonel Norton. 

Given that there is broad agreement as you heard at the outset 

of this Subcommittee hearing for a comprehensive approach, can 

you describe to me how you have been working with the House 

Armed Services Committee as it relates to addressing the provisions for Selected Reserve within their jurisdiction? 

Colonel NORTON. Well, first, I would like to say, Madam Chairwoman, that while—the issue of jurisdiction is a real one, inside 

baseball, if you will, and the issue of mandatory spending is a real 

one, the fact of the matter is that soldiers on the battlefield serve 

together. They deploy together. They go into harm’s way together. 

And we believe there is a way to overcome the jurisdictional, the 

territorial turf battles involving this issue. 

And I agree with you and Ranking Member, Mr. Buyer, that I 

think Representative Snyder is a key guy, a key Member to move 

this issue. And I am also encouraged by the fact that a senior Defense Department official said before your Subcommittee in January that he sees no objection from the Department in moving the 

Reserve GI Bill, the operational GI Bill under Chapter 1607, title 

10, over here to title 38. And that is where I would start on any 

discussion on this. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Before other responses, I agree 

that we should not allow jurisdictional issues to result in a lack of 

focus of those of us on Committees, but perhaps do not have direct 

jurisdiction over these issues to make noise and advance the effort. 

However, we undertook that last year. We undertook the jurisdictional change last year working with all of you and we did not 

get it done. Now, we made some steps forward to, perhaps, that 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

30 

way and I agree that Dr. Snyder is a key Member on this Committee, on the Armed Services Committee, in doing so. 

We do not want to limit our options in making improvements. I 

would hope that you would all keep us apprised as to your work 

with other key Members both on the House Armed Services and 

the Senate Armed Services Committee as it relates to finally enacting a jurisdictional change that will ease the way of addressing the 

equity issues for the National Guard and Reserve. 

That is why I posed the question, because we, on this Committee, 

are always assisted enormously by your efforts, when we know that 

you working alongside with us are making inroads with Committees that have the jurisdiction as of today versus the jurisdiction 

that we wish we had today. 

Mr. Campbell or Mr. Brown, do you care to also address this 

question? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. We have been working with Members of the 

House Armed Services Committee, but not with the staff. I know 

I have talked to your staff about this before. We have been dealing 

directly with Members, talking about the need for having this fix. 

We have not approached the staff directly. 

Mr. BROWN. Madam Chairwoman, I concur with Patrick’s comments. We have been actively engaging the individual Members in 

regards to increasing the GI Bill and especially in regards to the 

Reserve and Guard issues, but we have not actively talked about 

jurisdictional issues. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Let me just say before moving on to other 

questions, some of what we have been working on outside of the 

formal Committee hearing process is also inside baseball in keeping all of our strategic options open in getting this objective 

achieved. 

While I understand the concern that the bill under consideration 

today that Mr. Boozman and I introduced does not include some of 

the provisions that you would ultimately like to see enacted, it does 

not include provisions I would ultimately like to see enacted. 

Mr. Boozman and I, as you know, have been pretty loud advocates for addressing the equity issue and working with our colleagues both here in the House and in the Senate. 

However, I think that one could make the argument that if we 

can get momentum behind this bill, that will improve our position 

to make the case that we also have to address the equity issue for 

Guard and Reserves if we move this bill, because then you have a 

greater gap if you do not do so. 

I just want to lay that out so you understand my thinking to try 

to keep all options on the table as we continue these rather onerous 

negotiations with a lot of different players not only in our chamber 

but over in the Senate. 

Mr. Campbell, in your testimony, I just want to make sure that 

I am clear so that we can get on the same page with regard to facts 

and we know what sources everyone is using. 

You state that the average cost of a public school education is 

$17,336 a year. We contacted the U.S. Department of Education 

who informed us that for the 2007–2008 school years, tuition and 

fees were $6,185, room and board, $7,404 for a total of $13,589. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

31 

That information comes from the College Board’s annually updated 

publication of trends and college pricing. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I used the same one, but on the next page where 

it talks about, the same exact document that you are using, there 

is actually miscellaneous expenses, that we need to be talking 

about when discussing the total cost of education, not just tuition, 

room and board. The next page says that the total cost is 17,336 

per year for a public school for next year. 

So one of the things while we were going through this, I had my 

staff looking at tuition, room and board, but then you also have 

miscellaneous expenses. 

And so what I normally like to do when I reference the total cost 

of education, I look at what people can apply for in terms of financial aid because the Department of Education authorizes a student 

up to a certain amount. This expected number is what would be required to actually go to school and make that your full-time job. 

And so that is what that number is. And I can get you the reference, but it is the same exact document that you are talking 

about. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. I would appreciate if you could get 

us that information. That assumes that the student is not doing 

any part-time work, no work study, et cetera, right? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Exactly. Our premise is that school should be 

their full-time job. 

[The information was provided by Mr. Campbell in the post-hearing questions and responses for the record, which appear on p. 72.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Let me explore a little with you on this 

issue of the structural flaw that you think that there is a possibility that veterans will choose the cheapest alternative, you cited 

Southeast Tech and you cited University of Arkansas and Notre 

Dame and University of California. 

I am interested in exploring this further with you and I am interested in what your fellow panelists would think about this. But, 

part of what we have tried to do on the Subcommittee as well is 

to make sure that veterans have a lot of flexibility in utilizing their 

GI Bill benefits. 

While I am certain that there might be a subset of veterans that 

might make those types of economic decisions and not challenge 

themselves as much as we may think they have the potential to do, 

I also know that a number of students who go to Southeast Technical Institute choose Southeast Technical Institute because of 

their areas of interest and wanting to be trained for a specific vocation, a specific growing industry, that they do not necessarily think 

a 4-year college degree is better suited to them. 

How do we grapple with that issue? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I definitely agree that you need to compare apples to apples, and 4-year universities like Berkeley, University of 

Arkansas are not for everyone. 

If you look at my testimony, in 2000, RAND did a study and 

came out with the fact that 90 percent of veterans go to 2-year colleges while 38 percent of all students usually attend 2-year colleges. 

So what we are talking about is most people end up going to 2- 

year colleges for their first 2 years and then try to transfer. Now, 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

32 

that does not mean currently 90 percent of veterans are going to 

2-year colleges. 

In 2000, of the veterans going to school, 90 percent of them went 

to 2-year colleges at some point in their college career. So this is 

twice as much as the average student. 

So structurally there is a problem where we incentivize, going to 

the cheapest school. I mean, when you have a choice between going 

to a school where you can fully afford it and not have to work and 

you are going to be able to keep some money versus really challenging yourself, by going out on the limb, because for a lot of these 

guys, I mean—let us talk about my unit. 

Half my guys that I went overseas with had GEDs. When they 

come home and they wanted to go to Louisiana State University, 

they could not do it because they could not handle the academic 

rigor while having two jobs at the same time. If they are going to 

go to a harder school, school needed to be their full-time job versus 

if they go to ULL, which is the University of Louisiana Lafayette, 

the curriculum is a lot easier. They could just go and they did not 

have to try at all. 

And the reason why I know this is because when I contacted the 

VA about, what are the top 25 schools that, GI Bill users are going 

to, University of Phoenix tops the list. Eight of the top ten schools 

are, some form of correspondence courses. 

So, I understand that for some people 4-year universities are not 

the way to go. That is why you create an incentive, so people can 

choose. You want that flexibility. 

That is also why IAVA is recommending that you have a tuition 

cap of some sort that flexes, that says we will give up to, we suggest at least $6,000. I would say 80 percent of the people would 

never get anywhere near that $6,000. 

But for those people who are making decisions, can I go to a 

tougher school? Can I go to a tougher school versus can I go to a 

tougher school and work a job? Another job or two jobs just to afford to go there, this tuition will challenge them and give them the 

way to make going to school their full-time job. 

Mr. CHAMRIN. Madam Chair, could I comment on that? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Please. Then I want to recognize Counsel 

for the Ranking Member for follow-up questions he may have. 

Mr. CHAMRIN. The American Legion views all veterans as equal. 

So regardless of what they did when they did it, a veteran is a veteran. They should have equal status. 

With a flat rate, what that will do is inadvertently have some 

veterans who served side by side be able to afford, say, a college 

in Maryland for $10,000 a year. But if they want to go to another 

private school, say Duke University, who is another ACC school, 

they will receive that flat rate, but they will not be able to pay for 

the whole thing and they will have to take out loans. 

They can serve side by side, but that flat rate does not have the 

equity. So some sort of fix would be probably advantageous to the 

veteran so there is no, how would I say, people are not jealous of 

another person for going to a school when they cannot. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Because of their personal finances? 

Mr. CHAMRIN. Let us say someone gets into Duke University. It 

is an ACC school, costs about $30,000 a year. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

33 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Right. 

Mr. CHAMRIN. I believe that the H.R. 5684 pays what, $17,000 approximately a year? So they are short $13,000. If a veteran who 

serves side-by-side decides to go to the University of Maryland, it 

costs about ten to eleven thousand dollars a year. They will be able 

to pay for that school and get additional money. 

So now you are having two different tiers of veterans going to 

college, but they are receiving two different—one will be in debt 

and then one will receive an overpayment, yet they served the 

same exact timeframe while in service. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But I think inherent in your point there 

is assuming that one of the veterans has an economic background 

either before going into the service or while in service or other 

members of his or her family that have the wherewithal to make 

up the difference in tuition. 

Mr. CHAMRIN. If a veteran is able to go to Duke University, able 

to go to Wake Forest, they should be able to go and not have to 

take out a full $17,000 loan to cover the difference that the GI Bill 

will not pay for regardless of where they come from, their economic 

status. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chamrin—you are going further 

than I think Mr. Campbell was going in that you think it should 

be the full cost of tuition of the veteran’s choice. 

Mr. CHAMRIN. Right. And similar to the World War II GI Bill for 

a veteran to go to Harvard, pay for Harvard. If a veteran wants 

to go to South Dakota, pay for South Dakota. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I understand what you are saying there, 

although in my opening statement, I looked at the 2007—I cited a 

recent report that compared the dollar amount in 2007 dollars and 

what the original GI Bill was. 

Now, I know we want to do some things on this Committee that 

are not directly in our jurisdiction, but we also have the issue of 

the rising cost of tuition at private universities as well as public 

colleges and universities, and we are trying to grapple with that 

issue too. 

I hear what you are saying, and we have seen even a modification of Senator Webb’s bill as it relates to the average cost by 

State. My concern with that is then you are going to have the possibility of veterans maybe going to California schools instead of to 

South Dakota schools based on the overall amount of what benefit 

they can reach. 

So, there are unintended consequences with all of this, and I appreciate everyone’s perspective as to how our bill is constructed, 

changes you would like to make versus the standard of what you 

are describing. Do all the panelists still advocate that as a top priority, that we cover the cost of full tuition of the college or university of the veteran’s choosing? 

Mr. BROWN. The Veterans of Foreign Wars does advocate for 

that. We are actively engaged in trying to get a GI Bill that is 

going to pay for the full cost of education at any university. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But that does not mean you are opposed 

to bills that have been introduced in the House or the Senate that 

fall short of that? 

Mr. BROWN. No. We are not. Correct. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

34 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I would now like to recognize—— 

Colonel NORTON. Madam Chairwoman, if I could just add our position, is that we support increasing the benefit to cover at least 

the national average cost. And with the Partnership for Veterans 

Education over the last 7 years and the Partnership includes all 

the major education associations, the idea of benchmarking the 

benefit so that it keeps pace year after year after year with the cost 

of education. 

That way, in a sense, you kind of overcome the debates because 

you have a single standard and you are able to match that standard year after year, as you indicated, as measured by the Department of Education’s data. 

I think that would be a great way, for example, for recruiters to 

basically market, if you will, the GI Bill, because you have a very 

clear idea of what is out there, what you get, and what you receive 

when you complete your service. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Very good point. While the bill that Mr. 

Boozman and I introduced does not necessarily have that inflation 

adjustment, some of the figures that you cite in some of the testimony that was submitted assumes there would be no Congressional 

intervention to make up for that in better budget times. We certainly appreciate the point you are making, especially as it relates 

to giving young men and women who may be considering entering 

the service, to give those recruiters some more concrete information, if it was in law, that it is always going to keep pace rather 

than wondering at what point in ad hoc fashion Congress might intervene. 

Mr. Brinck. 

Mr. BRINCK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the 

courtesy you are extending to me. 

Just a comment before I ask a couple of questions. I think it is 

a basic fallacy to equate the quality of an education with the cost 

of an education. Certainly the elite universities in this country offer 

first-rate education. 

But there are certainly lots of State-supported institutions, you 

know, you could take any of the major universities, the University 

of Michigan, the Cal system, are all recognized as wonderful institutions that provide a first-rate education. 

So I think making an argument based on the cost of an education 

is just inappropriate. 

Now, do each of your organizations support H.R. 5684? Mr. 

Chamrin. 

Mr. CHAMRIN. At this time, we have not taken a position. We certainly do not oppose. And there are actually a lot of provisions that 

we like in the bill. But at this very moment in time, we have no 

position on this bill. 

Mr. BROWN. At this time, the VFW does support H.R. 5684. However, it is not our favorite bill in regards to education. We believe 

that it needs to be based on a system that is relevant to the entirety of the country and the different geographic regions and the 

different costs of education. 

Mr. DALEY. Paralyzed Veterans of America, we would support some of the things in H.R. 5684. But the reduced fee of $50 a 

month for the E–1 or E–2 to put in, that is still a lot of money. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

35 

And there was not a cost for the World War II veteran to go or the 

Vietnam era veteran to go. They did not have to put in money to 

be part of the program. So that is one thing that we would oppose 

about the program. And, of course, we certainly want to see the 

Guard and Reserve included in any program, but that is another 

issue. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. IAVA has not taken a position on this bill. 

Colonel NORTON. As I testified, we support H.R. 5684. 

Mr. BRINCK. Thank you. 

Changing the subject slightly, Colonel Norton, you mentioned the 

USERRA enforcement. 

Does each of your organizations have an opinion on what one 

Federal agency should be responsible for USERRA enforcement? 

Colonel NORTON. No, Mr. Brinck, we have not looked into the 

technical side of that at this point in time. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. If I had to speak on behalf of our organization, 

I would say we prefer the Office of Special Counsel, but that is just 

me shooting off the hip. 

Mr. DALEY. Counsel, we do not have a position on that, but possibly the Department of Justice could take it over. That is some of 

the talk among some of the veterans groups. But it certainly needs 

more enforcement than it has now. 

Mr. BROWN. The VFW does not have a position on this. 

Mr. CHAMRIN. Like everyone else, we do not have a position on 

this. 

Mr. BRINCK. Okay. If there was a bill floating around out there 

that the Department of Veterans Affairs said would essentially 

cause VA to administer, have to administer the bill for the benefit 

program in a manner that would cause a significant increase in the 

backlog of claims processing for education benefits, would you support that bill? 

Colonel NORTON. Put in those terms, no. But I think there are 

fixes that can be made in terms of administrative software support, 

et cetera. I mean, those systems, current systems, are 30 years old 

in the VA. So they have to be modernized in any case. 

Mr. BRINCK. But if such a bill passed today and it takes some 

amount of time to put new systems in place to replace the old antiquated systems, and you are exactly right, by the way, would you 

still support such a bill? 

Mr. CHAMRIN. The American Legion would. We would support 

the bill. If it passes tomorrow and it takes a year to get the benefit 

online, it is going to take a year from 6 months from now. It is 

going to take a year from a year from now. The more we wait, the 

longer that these veterans are not able to afford the cost of college. 

Colonel NORTON. Mr. Brinck, this was an issue, is an issue that 

was raised by Senator Akaka with respect to Senator Webb’s S. 22. 

And Senator Akaka, however, has agreed to cosponsor the bill. And 

so the similar concerns that you are asking us about and raising 

apparently have been addressed to the Chairman of the Senate 

Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s satisfaction. So we think other approaches should be looked at as well. 

Mr. BRINCK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Let me pose a question to all of you 

about Congressman Murphy’s bill on the service providers. In seekwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

36 

ing to protect servicemembers from creditors and increased interest 

rates for credit cards and some of the issues that have arisen for 

servicemembers with cell phone contracts, do you think that the 

proposed changes in H.R. 3298 could influence providers in the future to adopt stricter policies for new applicants? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have been waiting for someone to ask me this 

question. And, I mean, I—— 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thanks for the thumbs up. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate it. I appreciate it. 

I spent my first day back from Iraq in a Cingular Wireless store 

for 51⁄2 hours suffering probably my worst fit of Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder that I ever had, screaming at people because they 

would not give me a phone. And I had paid the entire 14 months 

I was on deployment, about $15 a month, so that I could keep my 

service, on the premise that when I got home, I would get, to be 

able to turn on my service. 

And, it is funny because I had to actually leave Cingular Wireless, go and sign up with Verizon. That was the only way for me 

to get a phone and to get my service turned on that day. 

To put in context, we landed 2 days before Hurricane Rita was 

about to hit. I was with the Louisiana National Guard. So getting 

a phone was not just about me being about to talk to my family. 

It was about the fact that we had to evacuate in a day and a half 

and my family did not know if I was going to be okay. 

And so, what I could not understand is while I was fighting with 

them, they kept coming up with these rules that my father was 

originally on the account and because the account was made on my 

father’s account and not mine, I was, therefore, denied any protections under the ‘‘Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,’’ so that even if 

I had wanted to cancel the contract right there, they said, oh, you 

do not even have that right. And I replied I have been a customer 

with you guys for 31⁄2 years. I have been paying just so I could keep 

my phone and now you are telling me no. 

It took 7 months for me to get this resolved, and a complaint to 

the Federal Communication Commission. And the taste that was 

left in my mouth was that we do not have adequate protection for 

servicemembers dealing with service contracts. A veteran needs to 

be able to know that they can go away, keep their phone number, 

and keep their service and not have to pay a fee because if you cancel the contract, you are fine. But if you try to keep the contract, 

you are at their will. There are no protections whatsoever at that 

point for you. You pay whatever fee they want. And after 6 months, 

I started getting bills for the full rate. It was insanity. Like this 

was a huge—I am sorry. I get a little passionate about this. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Would H.R. 3298 as drafted, as written, 

would it have solved the particular problems you experienced? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. And specifically it is modeled after the ‘‘Illinois Cell Phone for Servicemembers Act’’ that was passed a couple 

years ago. That has been quite successful in Illinois. Basically it allows you to suspend service. And it gives you that right. 

Right now you do not have that right, so, therefore, the cell 

phone companies or the service providers can decide the circumstances in which that will happen. It also deals directly with 

making contracts on behalf of, not just making contracts by. That 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

37 

is a huge difference for a lot of people who are using their parents 

as a creditor in order to get onto the service contract in the first 

place. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Does anyone else care to respond to the 

question about whether or not the providers would put stricter controls on new applicants? Mr. Campbell, the answer to the question 

is that, you are not worried based on what you see in the bill and 

maybe what Illinois’ experience has been, that providers would 

then put stricter controls on even new applicants that are going in? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I mean, there are cell phone companies all over 

bases, all over the place. They know this is happening. And I am 

not worried. If anything, the rules that I had to follow while I was 

there could not get any stricter. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Anyone else care to comment? 

[No response.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I apologize to our fourth panel. You have 

been very patient. I think this may be just one vote, but I will 

make sure that Mr. Lara here updates you so you can know how 

much time you may have to be doing other business either on cell 

phones or being away from the Committee hearing room for a time. 

I thank you for your patience. In light of that, we may have some 

additional follow-up questions that we will want to submit to you 

in writing. I appreciate your testimony, your service to the country, 

to our Nation’s veterans, and your willingness to come together to 

address 13 different bills, not all of which address all the same topics, but we do want to move on a number of these bills. Your insights are important to us in a more formal setting in addition to 

all of the work that has been undertaken with you, with Committee 

staff on both sides of the aisle. 

I thank you for your testimony today. We will take a short recess 

and then we will come back and begin our fourth panel. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Sorry to keep you waiting, but we do 

want to make use of the 20 minutes or so that we might have before I head back for another vote to hear from our witnesses on the 

fourth panel today. 

Participating, we have the Honorable Charles Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training Service in 

the U.S. Department of Labor; Mr. Thomas L. Bush, Principal Director of Manpower and Personnel for the U.S. Department of Defense; Dr. Curtis Gilroy, Director of Accession Policy, Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense; and Mr. Keith Pedigo, Associate Deputy 

Under Secretary for Policy and Program management for the U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs; accompanied by Mr. John Brizzi, 

Staff Attorney of the Office of General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Your written statements have been entered into the hearing 

record. I appreciate all of you being back to the Subcommittee to 

address the important bills that are being considered today. 

We will start with you, Secretary Ciccolella. You are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

38 

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; THOMAS L. BUSH, PRINCIPAL 

DIRECTOR OF MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CURTIS L. GILROY, 

DIRECTOR FOR ACCESSION POLICY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND KEITH PEDIGO, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, POLICY AND PROGRAM 

MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; 

ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN BRIZZI, STAFF ATTORNEY, OFFICE 

OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss 4 of the 13 bills that you are looking at today. I will just move very quickly through them. 

H.R. 3646 is a joint study on employment needs by the Department of Labor and Department of Veterans Affairs. The bill mandates a study to be conducted by both the agencies on the fields 

of employment for which the greatest need for employees exist in 

various geographic areas. 

The Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics develops 

a 10-year national level industry and employment projections and 

they prepare and they publish career information on those projections already. Projections are done on a biannual basis. The last 

projections were done in 2007 for the period 2006 through 2016. 

The national projections data that they produce are provided to 

the State workforce agencies and the States also collect labor market information themselves. They share it with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, and in particular, the Department of Veterans Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment folks, to assure 

that disabled veterans are not placed in education and training 

programs for jobs that are unavailable in the local economy. 

We do not believe that the joint study that would be required by 

the bill would produce more or better data than the information 

that we already have. However, listening to the testimony by Congressman Stearns, it appears to me that what we have here is an 

accessibility and a presentation issue. And we would be very 

pleased to work with the Committee on how to work this out so we 

make this stuff absolutely available. 

H.R. 3393 is the improvement to ‘‘Veterans Employments Rights 

Act.’’ The bill would make a number of very, very significant 

changes to the enforcement and the remedies for USERRA, give 

the courts discretion to award $20,000 in liquidated damages, and 

authorize the court to award punitive damages that are essentially 

unlimited. 

States would also be required in USERRA cases to waive their 

sovereign immunity under the 11th amendment to the Constitution. 

We are concerned that we have not had a sufficient amount of 

time to study the impact that the changes to this law would have. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

39 

And these are far-reaching changes. We believe that as a further 

issue, we need to discuss these changes with our enforcement partners. 

It is also not clear the impact that these changes would have on 

the hiring of veterans. I would be pleased to go into a little bit 

more detail during the question and answer period if you would 

like. 

H.R. 3798 is the reemployment rights following certain National 

Guard duty. Congressman Hayes presented this bill. We would 

support this proposal. We just need to understand from the Department of Defense under what circumstances the exemptions would 

take place because the bill does not make that entirely clear. 

But having said that, there are certain types of duty, airport security duty and patrol duty that absolutely make sense to be counted as exempted from the 5-year limit. So I think the thing here, 

and I think DoD would agree, is that the exclusions from the 5- 

year limit have to be well-defined in order to preserve the intent 

of USERRA which is to protect noncareer military service. 

H.R. 3467 is the ‘‘Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act’’ and 

the bill would authorize VA to establish a workforce reentry program between 2008 and 2011 at something like $15 million. It 

would provide a prisoner reentry program for veterans in 24 locations. Congressman Yarmuth presented that bill today. 

The Administration supports the intent of the bill. However, we 

think that most of the services, which are very similar to the recently concluded Incarcerated Veteran Transition Program, which 

is a very successful program, most of these services could be provided through the ‘‘Second Chance Act’’ that the President signed 

earlier last week. 

In fact, what we have done is we have been working closely with 

the Department of Labor unit that is actually responsible for the 

prisoner reentry initiative to incorporate veteran-specific issues 

that we had in the Incarcerated Veteran Transition Program into 

the next round of the prisoner reentry initiative grants. And that 

round will be awarded effective 1 July. 

There are some differences in what we did in the IVTP, the Incarcerated Veteran Transition demonstration, and the prisoner reentry initiative, but we think we can probably work those out. 

Madam Chair, that concludes my testimony. I have 1 second left, 

so I would be happy to answer any questions when that time 

comes. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Ciccolella appears on p. 82.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much. 

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

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. BUSH 

Mr. BUSH. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity 

to share the views of the Department on bills that are being considered by this Committee. 

The success the Department is experiencing in recruiting and retaining Guard and Reserve members over the last 61⁄2 years is due 

in large part to the support of Congress. You have recognized the 

expanded role that Reserve components are playing in national defense and have been very generous with the pay and additional 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

40 

benefits that are now available to members of the National Guard 

and Reserve and their families. 

Some of the bills being considered by the Subcommittee today 

would continue that support for National Guard and Reserve members and I will focus my remarks on those bills that directly affect 

the Guard and Reserve. 

H.R. 4889, the ‘‘Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 

2008,’’ as currently drafted would reinstate the retention aspects of 

the Reserve Education Assistance Program, yet would recodify the 

program into title 38. 

As I have previously testified, the Department does not support 

placing what would again become a military force management 

program under the administration of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. Therefore, the Department does not support H.R. 4889. 

Two bills would amend the ‘‘Servicemembers Civil Relief Act,’’ 

H.R. 3289 and H.R. 4883. Although the Department is preparing 

a formal views letter for the Committee on those bills, I can report 

that the Department generally supports both bills. 

In fact, H.R. 4883, which would extend the post-service limitation 

on the sale, foreclosure, and seizure of property from 90 days to 1 

year, is a recommendation included in the final report from the 

Commission on the National Guard and Reserves and appears to 

have broad support within the Department. 

Regarding H.R. 3298, the ‘‘21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act,’’ the Department’s views letter is likely to offer several 

recommendations regarding the right of servicemembers to bring 

action in their own name and to strengthen the protections proposed in the bill. 

Two bills would amend the ‘‘Uniform Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act.’’ Although USERRA is under the purview of the Department of Labor, DoD offers the following comments. 

H.R. 3798 would provide a limited exclusion of the 5-year 

USERRA limit for National Guard members who perform certain 

federally-funded State duty. While we think it may be appropriate 

to provide such an exclusion, we need to work with our partners 

at the Department of Labor and this Committee to ensure any exclusion is well-defined and consistent with the purposes of other 

duty that is excluded from the 5-year USERRA limit. 

H.R. 3393, the ‘‘Reservist Access to Justice Act of 2007,’’ would 

allow courts to award punitive damages in cases of an employer 

who willfully fails to comply with USERRA. While this may be appropriate in some isolated cases, we are concerned with the chilling 

effect this may have on all employers. 

As I previously stated, Congress, and particularly this Committee, has been very supportive of the Guard and Reserve. I would 

like to thank you for your unwavering support of the 1.3 million 

members of the National Guard and Reserve. 

This concludes my remarks, and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gilroy appears on 

p. 83.] 

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

Mr. Gilroy, you are recognized. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

41 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. GILROY, PH.D. 

Mr. GILROY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, and staff, 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you again 

to discuss how we might best enhance the educational benefits of 

our servicemembers and our veterans. 

As before, I will limit my remarks to the effects of any proposed 

legislative initiatives to the active-duty force. Specifically, I will 

limit my remarks to H.R. 5684 that you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member Boozman have sponsored. 

There are some very attractive features to this bill and there is 

much that the Department of Defense sees of value in it. 

I personally congratulate both of you and your staffs for carefully 

crafting a very unique piece of legislation. I have six points to 

make regarding that legislation. 

First, your bill increases the basic benefit from about $1,100 a 

month to $1,450 a month, which is the average cost of a public 4- 

year institution, and also the value of the so-called ‘‘tipping point’’ 

about which we spoke in previous hearings. This is the point at 

which the benefit may begin to have a negative effect on retention. 

The Department supports this increase in the basic benefit. 

Your bill also adds a $500 a month stipend for living expenses 

for full-time students and something less for part-time students. 

Although this is somewhat more generous than we would like, we 

do support some level of increase, and perhaps we can work with 

the Committee on what that number might be. 

Third, your bill permits members to use their GI Bill benefits to 

pay off their student loans. We like that. 

And veterans who apply for other financial aid would not be required to report the value or the moneys received from the Montgomery GI Bill benefits as income. We also like that. 

Fourth, your bill does not eliminate the $1,200 member contribution, but there really is not any need since it is not a deterrent to 

enrollment, as we have seen. Today, 97 percent of new recruits sign 

up for participation in the Montgomery GI Bill under the current 

situation. But what your bill does is allow them to pay it over a 

2-year period. We could also support you on this. 

Sixth, your bill gives veterans more time to use their benefits. 

That is point number five. Fifteen years instead of 10 years. We 

support you on that. 

Although less generous than the Senate Bill S. 22 and its House 

cousin, H.R. 5740, your bill addresses nearly all of the significant 

issues as we see them. It is much simpler and straightforward to 

implement since it is an amendment to the current Montgomery GI 

Bill in title 38. Compared to S. 22, it is far less costly and does not 

add to the bureaucracy, and it does not create an unnecessary 

strain on retention. 

Now, one feature of educational benefits that is not included in 

your bill that is a priority for this Administration is transferability 

of benefits for all servicemembers, to spouses, and children. Transferability, we feel, is important to a volunteer force where families 

also serve. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

42 

As you know, half of our force is, in fact, married. The adage that 

we enlist soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen 

and, yet, we retain families is really true. 

In summary, H.R. 5684 has been thoughtfully prepared and we 

look forward to working with you on this piece of legislation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you and for 

promulgating and continuing to protect educational benefits for our 

servicemembers and our veterans. And I would be prepared and 

happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you 

again. 

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

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

STATEMENT OF KEITH PEDIGO 

Mr. PEDIGO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am pleased to be 

here today to discuss a number of bills that would affect several 

benefit programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

With me today is Mr. John Brizzi, Staff Attorney from our Office 

of General Counsel. 

Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 5684, the ‘‘Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008,’’ contains numerous amendments to title 38 

of the U.S. Code that are intended to improve the basic educational 

assistance programs offered by VA. We estimate that enactment of 

this bill would result in direct cost to VA of $22.3 billion over 10 

years. VA cannot support this legislation without identified offsets 

for these costs. 

H.R. 4889, the ‘‘Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 

2008,’’ proposed to recodify the statutory provisions of Chapter 

1607 of title 10 of the U.S.C. to a new Chapter 33 of title 38 of 

U.S.C. VA does not support this bill as it would inappropriately 

place the Reserve Force Management Program under VA rather 

than the Department of Defense where it currently resides. 

Finally, we cannot support this proposal without identified offsets as it would result in a $1.2 billion additional net direct benefit 

cost to VA over the next 10 years. 

H.R. 3467, the ‘‘Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act,’’ 

would establish a grant program for referral and counseling services to assist at-risk veterans transitioning from institutional living 

into the workplace. While VA strongly supports efforts to assist 

these at-risk veterans, we note that most of the services proposed 

under this legislation could be provided through the ‘‘Second 

Chance Act’’ which the President signed into law last week. 

Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 3646 would direct the Secretaries of 

Veterans Affairs and Labor to conduct a joint study with annual 

updates on fields of employment for which the greatest need for 

employees exists in various geographic regions. The Department of 

Labor, in many States, currently conduct these types of studies. 

Consequently, we defer to the Department of Labor on this issue 

and cannot support this bill. 

H.R. 3889 would amend Chapter 31 of title 38 by adding a new 

section 3122 to require VA to conduct a 20-year longitudinal study 

of a statistically valid sample of the veterans who begin participating in a program of vocational rehabilitation during fiscal year 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

43 

2008. Because VA is currently developing a proposal to conduct its 

own long-term study of issues affecting program outcomes, we do 

not support this bill as it would duplicate those efforts. 

H.R. 4539, the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty 

Cost Reduction Act of 2007,’’ would amend title 38 of the U.S. Code 

to make several key changes to the home loan benefit. While we 

do not object to certain provisions of the bill, we would not support 

its enactment in its present form. VA estimates that this bill would 

result in cost savings of $1.8 billion over 10 years. 

H.R. 4884, the ‘‘Helping Our Veterans Keep Their Homes Act of 

2008,’’ contains a number of provisions similar to those of H.R. 

4539. While we do not object to certain provisions of this bill, we 

would not support its enactment in its present form. The VA estimates that this bill would result in a cost savings of $8.1 million 

in fiscal year 2008, but would cost $1.93 billion over 10 years. 

H.R. 5664 would amend title 38, section 2103 to require the Secretary to update VA’s plans and specifications for suitable adapted 

housing at least once every 6 years. VA does not support enactment 

of this bill as section 2103 currently authorizes the Secretary to 

furnish model plans and specifications for suitable housing units 

for eligible veterans. 

VA does this by providing our Handbook for Design for Specially 

Adapted Housing to all veterans who are eligible for the specially 

adapted housing assistance. We do not believe legislation is required to ensure that this handbook is updated and, therefore, do 

not support this bill. 

Finally, H.R. 3681, the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 

2007,’’ would add a new section 532 to title 38 to authorize the Secretary of VA to purchase advertising in national media outlets for 

the purposes of promoting awareness of benefits under laws administered by VA. We do not believe enactment of this bill is needed 

as current law provides sufficient authority for the Secretary to 

purchase such advertising as appropriate. Therefore, we do not 

support enactment of the bill. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo appears on p. 86.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Well, let me start with just an observation, Mr. Ciccolella. I 

think that in light of Mr. Stearns’ testimony and what we heard 

from Mr. Daley with the PVA, you are saying is if indeed you can 

demonstrate to Mr. Stearns and to the Subcommittee that you have 

these statistics, this issue of availability and accessibility, then perhaps his bill can be modified to achieve that objective. 

We plan on working with Mr. Stearns and if you could assist us 

in that to address his first question, which I anticipate was show 

me the statistics, that they do exist, then it becomes the issue of 

making sure they are available to veterans that can calculate within their area of commuting what is available. 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Absolutely. And if there is something that is 

missing, we will try to identify that and factor that in as well. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bush, thank you for your testimony. I know in previous Subcommittee hearings, we have engaged in a bit of a back and forth 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

44 

on this jurisdictional issue. I know that on a hearing that we had 

on January 17th, you stated that if the 10-year post-service REAP 

benefit were included in the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act,’’ 

that Chapter 1607 would, ‘‘Look exactly like the Chapter 30 benefit. It no longer serves the DoD recruiting and retention purpose.’’ 

If that is the case, why would you continue to oppose? Why does 

the Administration continue to oppose moving Chapter 1607 from 

DoD to VA authority? 

Mr. BUSH. The way this bill is crafted, it takes the pre-2008 ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act’’ provisions and transfers them. 

So what the bill would do is repeal the 10-year post-service authorization. It repeals some of the other improvements that were made 

in the 2008 authorization. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So it is not on moving the jurisdiction? 

It is the way it is currently written that if we can make modifications so it does not affect what was signed into law in the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act’’? 

Mr. BUSH. If the bill was modified to reflect the current provisions of 1607, our only concern would be transferring the funds 

that we have in the DoD education trust fund to VA because we 

look at that as those funds will help us offset the attrition that we 

anticipate will occur when people now will use the benefit when 

they leave as opposed to stay with us. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. I appreciate that clarification. 

Maybe that is something we can work toward as we make incremental progress on this issue, at least progress from some of our 

perspectives. 

Mr. BUSH. I think that would be helpful. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Great. 

In your statement, you talk about H.R. 3393 and your concern 

about the negative message that may send to the Nation’s employers. As we heard Mr. Davis, who introduced the bill, explain, the 

issue of punitive damages is current law as it relates to the most 

egregious instances. 

If we simply made some changes for National Guard men and 

women and Reservists, if there is a violation of their employment 

or reemployment rights similar to what is in current law for others 

who may be discriminated against, do you think that will have an 

impact on hiring Guard and Reservists? 

Mr. BUSH. USERRA is a not very friendly employer law. This 

would make it less employer friendly. There are cases when employers may find a reason not to hire, not advance a Guard and Reserve member. 

And it is hard, and I think Secretary Ciccolella can probably talk 

to that in greater detail, but what we would rather do is try to 

reach out and work with employers to encourage them to, you 

know, reemploy their Guard and Reserve members, employ Guard 

and Reserve members. If there is a problem, we try to resolve those 

through our National Committee for Employer Support and Guard 

and Reserve. You know, it is the carrot approach as opposed to the 

stick approach. 

There may be times when it is appropriate to have punitive damages and this bill may be appropriate. But we are concerned with 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

45 

the effect it would have on employers as they consider hiring 

Guard and Reserve members. And that is our concern. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. My time is running low here. Most of the 

Members stayed over there to vote, so they are not going to give 

me as much time in holding it open. I am going to have to leave 

in just a couple minutes and we will talk about how we want to 

handle that in just a moment. 

But I wanted to get to you, Mr. Gilroy, on the issue of transferability. Two questions. Was this just proposed this year as reflected 

in the President’s State of the Union Address and do you have any 

estimated costs of transferability of the benefit? 

Mr. GILROY. Well, with regard to your first question, the services, 

particularly the Army, have been asking for transferability of benefits for some time now, and it has been near the top of their list 

of items which they believe soldiers in the field really want. 

The President announced in his State of the Union Address, this 

past January, that it was very important to him as well. 

We also know that it is an important issue for the Chairman. 

Again, we hear it from the field as the senior leaders talk to troops. 

That is the primary reason why it was included in the President’s 

State of the Union message. Transferability is becoming more and 

more of an issue of concern to servicemembers. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I do not doubt that because I have talked 

to a number of servicemembers back home. You may have heard 

me say this previously. A friend of mine I graduated high school 

with, if he could transfer some of those benefits to his three daughters or even to his wife for her, to get her graduate degree, he 

would more than readily do that. 

I am interested in pursuing this, although I know that there are 

some VSOs that are concerned about moving this now over some 

of the other priorities we have been working on. If we could maintain an open dialog as it relates to estimated costs, and as it relates to transferring the whole benefit. Some people do not like 

incrementalism, but I prefer action over inaction and some results 

over none. I would just encourage you to maintain a dialog as you 

work with Secretary Gates and others in each of the branches. 

I have some follow-up questions I want to pose in writing to both 

you and Mr. Pedigo. I know Mr. Brinck has some questions. We are 

going to submit those in writing because you have been waiting a 

long time. I would come back if you had the time to stay, but I 

have been probably testing your patience with how long this has 

taken with the interruption of votes. 

Thank you for your testimony, your insights on these many bills 

that we are considering, and one of the things that I wanted to ask 

and wish I had the time to was on the issue on the Guard and Reserve equity. I appreciate the DoD being supportive of the bill Mr. 

Boozman and I have introduced, but if that were to move and actually get signed into law, we have actually exacerbated the gap as 

Mr. Buyer pointed out. 

I would like to get your thoughts given where the percentage is 

currently and where it might end up if we do not make some other 

changes to Guard and Reserve benefits. We will be pursuing that 

with you as well. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

46 

Thank you for your service to our Nation’s servicemembers, to 

our Nation’s veterans, for working so closely with us and with our 

staff here on the Committee. We will look forward to seeing you 

again. Thank you. 

The hearing now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Today we have thirteen bills before us that seek to: protect our nation’s veterans 

from possible foreclosure and financial burdens incurred while serving one’s country; 

update VA housing construction guidelines; expand education programs while meeting the current retention needs of the Armed Forces; strengthen employment and 

reemployment rights for returning service members and veterans; and minimize recidivism among incarcerated veterans. 

According to a Congressional Research Service Report updated January 25, 2008 

‘‘the original GI Bill provided up to $500 annually for education expenses. This is 

the equivalent of an estimated $5,890 in 2007 dollars. An additional $50 was provided monthly for living expenses in 1944, which is equivalent to $589 monthly, or 

$5,301 annually in 2007 dollars. Thus, the total education benefit, including the living allowance, in 1944 would have been worth $11,191 annually, or $1,243 monthly 

in 2007 dollars.’’ 

Keeping this historic perspective in mind, I along with Ranking Member Boozman 

have introduced H.R. 5684, the Veterans Education Improvement Act which seeks 

to address the educational needs of our brave men and women in uniform. This bipartisan bill is the product of numerous hearings held by our Subcommittee since 

the beginning of the 110th Congress, which allowed for close evaluation of the Montgomery GI Bill and input from veteran service organizations, education leaders, government agencies, and other policy experts. 

H.R. 5684 would help address current MGIB shortfalls, along with other important improvements, including: 

• Substantially increases the amount of basic education assistance for veterans 

equal to the average cost of the tuition at a 4-year public college or university; 

• Provides veterans with a monthly cost of living stipend; and 

• Extends the time limitation for use of education benefits from 10 years to 15 

years, more fully accommodating the transition from military to civilian life. 

I would like to add that H.R. 5684 includes unique provisions that: 

• Allows the overall assistance to be used for business courses, prepatory courses 

for exams, and to repay federal student loans; 

• Dramatically expands the opportunity for service members to enroll for the benefits, even if they are beyond the initial opportunity for automatic enrollment; 

• Provides increased funding for State Approving Agencies, an important partner 

in administering the benefits with the VA; 

• Rewards veterans for their service by eliminating their educational entitlements 

from being considered as income when applying for federal financial aid; 

• Increases On the Job Training and dependent education benefit to 85 percent; 

• Supplements reporting fees given to colleges and universities; 

• Creates a 5-year pilot program to expand work-study programs for veterans; 

• Increase the VA’s full time employees by 150 to help administer the new requirements; 

• Provides funding for updating existing IT systems; and 

• Rearranges the ‘‘advance pay’’ process to prevent any break in benefits. 

H.R. 5684 provides specific improvements and adjustments meant to make it easier, not harder for veterans to access the education benefits they’ve earned following 

their service and contributes to the overall national economy. In addition, this bill 

will make changes with minimal disruption of the current VA IT system and to the 

beneficiaries. 

The Veterans Education Improvement Act is a well crafted bill that provides the 

VA the resources to administer the new changes to update and improve the Montgomery GI Bill to better reflect today’s world, and ensure that today’s veterans have 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

48 

the resources they need to continue or begin their education when they return from 

service. I appreciate the support of many of today’s witnesses for this bill that addresses necessary changes to veterans’ education benefits. 

I look forward to working with Ranking Member Boozman and other Members of 

the Committee to continue to improve education entitlements for veterans. Those 

serving in our Armed Forces deserve to be protected as best we know how—not just 

with weaponry, armor and other equipment, but also healthcare, education, and 

support for the families who await their return. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Good afternoon. We have a lot of business to transact this afternoon so in the interest of time, I will forego my usual clever and highly insightful analysis so that 

we may hear from our witnesses. I would say that we have an interesting mix of 

bills before us and I am eager to hear the various points of view. 

I yield back. 

Honorable John Boozman Remarks on H.R. 3681 and H.R. 3889 

Thank you Madam Chairwoman. My first bill on the agenda is H.R. 3681, the 

Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007. Over the years, Congress has given VA 

millions of dollars to increase outreach to raise awareness of veterans benefits. I 

suspect anyone who watches or listens to sports or other types of entertainment in 

the national media has seen or heard ads for each of the military services. But when 

was the last time any of us saw a TV advertisement in prime time or a continuing 

radio campaign designed to achieve those goals? 

VA produces significant amounts of brochures and posters. And VA staffs meet 

with lots of service organization posts and other small venues. These are nice from 

a personal contact standpoint, but relatively inefficient in getting the word out on 

veterans benefits. 

That is the purpose of H.R. 3681, to authorize VA to use modern electronic media 

to promote the programs earned by service to the nation. Staff tells me there has 

been a body of opinion at VA that the Department was prohibited from spending 

on this type of outreach. My bill will put an end to that type of out-of-date thinking. 

My second bill, H.R. 3889 is designed to develop a database of outcomes experienced by those who participate in the VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program. Unfortunately, there is relatively little data on how the program improves the lives of our more seriously injured veterans. Conducting a 20 year longitudinal study that requires annual reports to Congress will make future management decisions easier for VA and legislative decisions more accurate for Congress. 

As a matter of fact, each of VBA’s business lines should be conducting longitudinal 

studies, but that is a matter for another time. 

Finally, as an original cosponsor of your GI Bill, H.R. 5684, I believe that unlike 

some of the other nearly 40 veterans education bills that have been introduced, H.R. 

5684 is an approach that is manageable and affordable. Veterans will get between 

$17,000 and $18,000 per school year not counting other federal aid and VA will not 

be required to retool its system to pay the benefits. I am very pleased we will be 

taking action on improving education benefits for our veterans and I look forward 

to passing the bill next week. 

I hope my colleagues will support H.R. 3681 and 3889 at our markup next week 

and thank you for including these bills in today’s agenda. 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 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the Subcommittee on three important pieces of legislation to address the needs of veterans. 

Like most Americans, our nation’s heroes see homeownership as an integral part 

of the American dream. Unfortunately, for many service members and veterans, 

that part of the American dream can become a nightmare when coupled with frequent deployments, the high cost of purchasing a home and rising interest rates. 

Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs offers veterans VA-guaranteed 

loans through common lending institutions, including banks, savings and loan assowwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

49 

ciations and mortgage brokers. For veterans that qualify, the VA will guarantee a 

portion of the loan to the lender, thereby protecting the lender for the guarantee 

amount. 

Unfortunately, the current VA loan program is not sufficient to meet the needs 

of our veterans because, too often, the loan amount is insufficient to purchase a 

home, does not offer alternatives for veterans with less than perfect credit and does 

not incorporate younger veterans that may lack the necessary financial track record 

to prove they are a good risk. 

As Chairman of the Committee, I am especially concerned about the affects of the 

housing market and home foreclosures on our active duty service members and veterans. These courageous, young men and women should never be forced to worry 

about their homes, while they are serving overseas and dealing with the intense 

stresses of deployment. 

I have introduced two bills that improve the VA home loam program. H.R. 4883 

will prohibit foreclosure of property owned by a service member for one year following a period of military service. 

The second, H.R. 4884, Helping Our Veterans to Keep Their Homes Act of 

2008 will: 

• increase the maximum home loan guarantee amount to $625,500; 

• decrease the equity requirement to refinance a home loan; 

• require the VA Secretary to review and streamline the process of using a guaranteed home loan to purchase a condominium; 

• reduce the home loan funding fees to one percent; 

• extends the adjustable rate mortgage demonstration project to 2018; 

• extend the hybrid adjustable rate mortgage demonstration project to 2012; and 

• provide a yearly adjustment of the VA home loan to match the consumer price 

index. 

Madam Chair, when our service members return home, it is our solemn obligation 

to protect and serve them with the same commitment and dedication with which 

they protected and served us. Both H.R. 4883 and H.R. 4884 would demonstrate just 

such a level of commitment and I ask for your support. 

Each day members of the National Guard and Reserve serving in support of contingency operations both at home and abroad experience the inequity of educational 

benefits that exist between members of Active Duty and Reserve Forces. 

I also urge you to support H.R. 4889, a bill to recodify Reserve Education Assistance Program entitlements from the Department of Defense to the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

Currently, REAP provides up to 36 months of education benefits to certain members of the Reserve Forces, who are called or ordered to active duty service in response to a war or national emergency. 

This cost neutral legislation would augment timeliness and quality of receipt of 

benefits while enabling better support for recruitment and readjustment outcomes, 

as intended by Congress. This bill is an important administrative step in establishing readjustment benefits for activated Guard and Reserve members who are 

subject to the same hardships, and face the same enemy fire, as active duty troops. 

As you will hear later today, this legislative proposal is a top priority for most 

of the veteran service organization, many of which have endorsed my bill. I urge 

all my colleagues to join me and these veterans service organizations in supporting 

our nation’s Reserve Forces by cosponsoring H.R. 4889. 

Again, thank you for including H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884 and H.R. 4889 in today’s 

Subcommittee hearing. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the 

negative impact the recent subprime foreclosures have had on our veterans and 

service members and ensure our veterans are afforded the education entitlement 

they deserve. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Buyer, Ranking Republican Member, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

and a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, I am very pleased 

you have included my bill, H.R. 4539, the Department of Veterans Affairs Loan 

Guaranty Cost Reduction Act of 2007, for the Subcommittee’s consideration. 

When I introduced the bill last December with Mike Michaud, the full extent of 

the mortgage and financial sector crisis had not yet appeared and frankly, this bill 

was intended to improve the day-to-day operations of loan guaranty program. But 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

50 

events since I introduced H.R. 4539 have convinced me of the need to make the 

kinds of changes included in my bill. 

I would note that subsequent to introduction of H.R. 4539 by Mike Michaud and 

I, Chairman Filner introduced a similar bill, H.R. 4884, and I take that similarity 

as confirmation of the need to improve the loan guaranty program. I believe that 

between us, veterans will find it easier to achieve the American dream. 

I also ask unanimous consent to include a copy of a January 28, 2008 letter to 

Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner cosigned by Mike Michaud and me regarding 

the need to include the VA loan guaranty program the recent stimulus package in 

the hearing record. I was very disappointed it was not addressed when the stimulus 

package increased the loan limits for FHA mortgage loans to move people from risky 

subprime loans to federally guaranteed loans. I did appropriately bring this matter 

to you and thank you for your attention. 

In addition to the details of the bill, I note that VA’s loan Guaranty program is 

not experiencing the same financial difficulties as the broader market because VA 

maintained its standards while others did not. I must also emphasize that H.R. 

4539 has no affect on VA’s underwriting standards. 

Madame Chairwoman, H.R. 4539 would do the following: 

• Increase the maximum loan amount guaranteed by VA to 125 percent of the 

Freddie MAC conforming limit. This will enable service members and veterans 

living in high cost areas to purchase homes using the VA loan guaranty. 

• Extend some of the fees through 2017. These fees provide the funds VA needs 

to pay for the guaranty on homes that go to foreclosure. These fees have also 

provided PAYGO offsets for improvements to other VA benefits. 

• Increase the guaranty amount for certain refinanced loans making VA refinancing more attractive and competitive in the marketplace. 

• My bill reduces the equity requirement for a VA-guaranteed refinancing loan 

to zero. This is especially important for those service members and veterans 

whose home equity has decrease solely because of the current market forces despite the fact that they are not behind on their mortgage payments. 

• To make loans more affordable in the high cost areas, my bill would limit the 

total loan guaranty fees to the maximum dollar amounts in effect on the day 

of enactment. 

• To encourage an increase in the supply of affordable housing, H.R. 4539 would 

increase the guaranty amount to 30 percent of the mortgage. 

• And finally, my bill would require the Secretary to provide a small measure of 

assistance in offsetting closing costs associated with the purchase of a home. 

The Secretary would determine the amount—if any—based on the income from 

guaranty fees in the previous year. 

Madame Chairwoman, as you know, I support your GI Bill, H.R. 5684. I mention 

this because it is a good bill and you have worked with our side in a bipartisan 

manner to make a few changes we felt important. Additionally, we all know the 

train is moving quickly on this issue so major restructuring of all VA education programs is not feasible at this time. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am in the process 

of drafting an extensive reorganization of chapters 30, 32, 34, 35 and 36 into one 

or two chapters to standardize the administrative rules and education and training 

options to those receiving education benefits. I hope we can work together on this 

approach to bring some order to these programs in the not too distant future. 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, I thank you again for the bipartisan manner in 

which you have included H.R. 4539 and several other bills from our side of the aisle 

in today’s hearing. I look forward to working with you and all the Members of the 

full committee to improve the VA loan Guaranty program. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ciro D. Rodriguez, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to speak regarding H.R. 5664, a bill that I introduced to correct a bureaucratic oversight in the way that the Veterans Administration advises contractors constructing or renovating housing for disabled veterans. I was extremely 

moved by last June’s hearing before this subcommittee concerning Specially Adaptive Housing. 

There is little doubt that funding level available to individual disabled veterans 

to have their homes adjusted to meet their needs is too low. My bill does not address 

that particular issue, rather it seeks to ensure that veterans whose homes are upwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

51 

dated under this program benefit from all that modern technology and construction 

practice can provide. 

As Mr. Gonsalves, President and Founder of Homes for Our Troops, pointed out 

in the hearing, ‘‘service men and women with injuries that would have killed them 

in previous wars are now living to see another day, and are in need of truly ‘special’ 

home adaptations.’’ The primary guidance that the VA provides contractors who 

draw up plans and specifications to modify homes under this grant program is VA 

Pamphlet 26–13, titled Handbook for Design: Specially Adaptive Housing. As Mr. 

Carl Blake, National Legislative Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America 

pointed out: much, if not all, of the guidance found in the pamphlet is still applicable today. However, I feel that it focuses too much on veterans who find themselves 

in wheelchairs with lower extremity paralysis or amputation. While certainly still 

valid, we find increasing numbers of veterans returning home from current conflicts 

with alternative injuries such as upper-limb amputation or blindness. The guide 

was last updated in 1978. By comparison, the current Army Corps of Engineers 

housing design guide is dated 1994 and that of the Air Force, 2004. 

The time has come to ensure that the guide contains up-to-date direction to architect and engineer firms and contractors who will do the noble work of ensuring our 

disabled veterans have homes that respect the dignity by which they sacrificed. I 

propose in my bill that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs update the guide on at 

least a six-year basis. I also wish to express my intent that the field agents who 

approve the construction plans under this program view the pamphlet as a guide 

rather than a definitive set of requirements. 

After consulting with several VSOs in preparing for this testimony, I need to clarify the wording of my bill. Rather than requiring the VA to update plans and specifications on a six-year basis, it is better stated that the pamphlet itself is updated 

on a six-year basis. Contractors actually derive the plans and specifications based 

on each veteran’s home and the pamphlet. I would hope that if the committee considers my bill in any future mark-up that such language is made clear. Thank you 

for allowing me the opportunity to speak today and for considering my bill, H.R. 

5664. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 

Executive Summary 

For many service members, the transition from active duty to veteran status, and 

returning to a full meaningful civilian life is daunting, fraught with many challenging obstacles and bureaucratic barriers. Many times, these brave service men 

and women require job training for entirely new careers. 

My legislation, H.R. 3646, the Veterans’ Effective Training Job Opportunities and 

Benefits Act of 2007, or the VET JOBS Act, would provide better information to veterans on their local job market needs. The VET JOBS Act directs the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on the greatest 

employment needs in various job markets around the country and post the results 

on the VA website. These results would then be updated annually to reflect the current and possibly changing needs in the local job market. 

The VET JOBS Act has broad bipartisan support and has been endorsed by many 

veterans’ organizations, such as the American Legion, AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Blinded Veterans of America and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. In 

addition, my bill has 44 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

my bill, H.R. 3646, the Veterans’ Effective Training Job Opportunities and Benefits 

Act of 2007, or the VET JOBS Act. This bill is an important step in helping our 

veterans find gainful employment when retiring from service. 

When warriors return home from combat, they often face another uphill battle. 

For many service members, the transition from active duty to veteran status, and 

returning to a full meaningful civilian life is daunting, fraught with many challenging obstacles and bureaucratic barriers. Many times, these brave service men 

and women require job training for entirely new careers. 

Although statistics show that eventually veterans in general enjoy a favorable employment rate in the nation’s job market, many veterans initially find it difficult to 

compete successfully in the labor market. That’s why for over a decade, the federal 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

52 

government has provided job-training benefits to veterans through the Department 

of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labor. The mission statement for the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) program 

is to ‘‘provide veterans and transitioning service members with the resources and 

services to succeed in the 21st century workforce by maximizing their employment 

opportunities, protecting their employment rights and meeting labor-market demands with qualified veterans today.’’ 

Additionally, the Department of Labor offers service members leaving the military 

with a service-connected disability, the Disabled Transition Assistance Program 

(DTAP). DTAP includes a three-day workshop plus additional hours of individual instruction to help determine job readiness and address the special needs of disabled 

veterans. However, this is the identical DTAP program offered to all transitioning 

disabled veterans across the nation. 

This three-day program is valuable support, but it only provides general employment information and at no time addresses the specific needs of the community in 

which the veteran lives. Unfortunately, this means that frequently there is a void 

of information on local labor market conditions that results in veterans using their 

benefit to train for jobs that don’t exist in their communities. 

Mr. Jeffrey Askew is Director of the Marion County Veterans’ Service Center in 

my hometown of Ocala, Florida. He said many veterans have used their federal job 

training benefits for Information Technology (IT) career training. However, Ocala 

has little demand for IT professionals, and veterans often are advised to move to 

Orlando where there are more opportunities. Upon finally getting settled back into 

civilian life, it is frustrating and unfortunate—to say the least—to be forced to uproot one more time and move your family to an unknown city. I am concerned about 

this problem, but I believe there is an easy solution. 

Currently, there is a maze of websites with confusing and sometimes out of date 

information on employment conditions. My legislation would provide better information to veterans on their local job market needs. The VET JOBS Act directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Labor to conduct a joint study on 

the greatest employment needs in various job markets around the country and post 

the results on the VA website. These results would then be updated annually to reflect the current and possibly changing needs in the local job market. With this tool, 

veterans could plug in their zip code and see a list of the occupations that are most 

in demand within their commuting area, and subsequently use their federal job 

training most effectively. The Department of Labor already has the infrastructure 

in place for this kind of research, so this is a practical, low cost solution. In fact, 

the Congressional Budget Office has unofficially scored this proposal as having ‘‘insignificant’’ costs. Insignificant costs for immeasurable benefit to our veterans. 

Furthermore, the VET JOBS Act has broad bipartisan support and has been endorsed by many veterans’ organizations, such as the American Legion, AMVETS, 

Veterans of Foreign Wars, Blinded Veterans of America and the Paralyzed Veterans 

of America. In addition, my bill has 44 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. 

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to testify on the VET JOBS Act. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to help our veterans obtain quality 

employment. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John A. Yarmuth, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky 

Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act. As a small pilot program, the Incarcerated 

Veterans Transitional Program or IVTP has reduced recidivism by 90 percent 

among participants and saved the taxpayers 1.6 million dollars in each of the six 

locations where it has been implemented over the last three years. We’re here today 

because by expanding this tremendous level of success to a national scale, we could 

provide hope for thousands men and women who return to civilian life after years 

of serving their country. 

In my hometown of Louisville, Kentucky, Richard Waddell returned home 10 percent disabled and suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, honorably discharged after nine years service in the National Guard, Army, and Marines. He had 

no job, no support, and a family to feed. Out of desperation, he turned to robbery, 

and was apprehended by law enforcement while buying groceries for his family. 

Unfortunately, to this point, Richard’s story is far from unusual among America’s 

veterans. Where his story departs is when he was released from jail for the second 

time, he met an IVTP representative. The IVTP worker first helped him with the 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

53 

essentials—clothes, food, and transportation—and from there, the dignity and respect that Richard had earned serving our nation returned. Thanks to the help of 

IVTP, Richard was able to activate his VA benefits and register for disability, and 

he now has an apartment and holds a good job. Next week he will begin college, 

and a future that once seemed bleak at best is now bright and full of promise. 

IVTP has similarly aided 328 veterans in Kentucky, by partnering veterans 

transitioning out of prison, who are at risk of homelessness upon their release, with 

a professional mentoring staff composed of veterans to help them get back on their 

feet. Of those 328, just 22 returned to criminal activity after engaging the program, 

a recidivism rate of seven percent. That number is impressive by any standard, but 

for a veteran population that sees over half of its ranks return to prison, the success 

of this program is extraordinary. Abandoning this success, and the men and women 

who served our country, would not only be counterproductive, but also send the message that our veterans only matter when our country needs them and not when they 

need our country. 

The Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act, would expand the highly successful IVTP pilot to a competitive grant program in twenty-four locations across the 

U.S. Providers would assist veterans who are exiting the corrections system by connecting them with transitional housing, employment services, mental health and/or 

substance abuse services, and other community support. 

After all that our veterans have given for this country, providing them with such 

vital, effective, and proven services should be an obligation not an option. But this 

isn’t only about giving, this is also a matter of working for our national interest. 

In Kentucky, we have the most rapidly growing prison population in the nation, a 

truth that has had a devastating effect on the fiscal reality of the Commonwealth. 

To keep a convict in prison for a year, Kentucky spends over 18,000 dollars. By 

comparison, Volunteers of America, which currently administers the program, 

spends between 700 and 1,200 dollars to give a veteran the tools to stay out of prison and contribute to society for a lifetime. 

At a time when we search to find new approaches to stimulate the economy and 

get a handle on America’s ever-growing deficit, the Second Chance for America’s 

Veterans Act offers us the opportunity to support a program with a proven track 

record of providing immediate and substantial return on our investment, while also 

paying a debt to those in uniform who sacrificed to serve our country. This is a 

unique win-win in government. 

Still, the Department of Labor has chosen not to continue this highly successful 

program, and without action by Congress, thousands of worthy veterans in need 

would be abandoned by the nation they served; left to bounce around our overcrowded prison system. 

I thank the committee for looking into this legislation and strongly urge you to 

support passage of H.R. 3467, the Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robin Hayes, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Purpose of Legislation: This bill would amend the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA) to authorize the Secretary of 

Defense to include Full Time National Guard Duty for possible exemption from the 

USERRA 5-year limit on service. The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to 

exempt National Guard service supporting critical homeland defense missions or 

other missions as deemed appropriate. Since USERRA already authorizes exemptions for service supporting critical active duty missions, this amendment would 

simply correct a disparity in the treatment of National Guard members. 

Background: Currently, certain types of active duty service are exempted from 

the five-year reemployment limit under the Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA). These exemptions cover service during 

a time of war or national emergency, support of missions where others have been 

ordered to duty under an involuntary call-up authority, and for other critical missions or requirements. 

After the events of September 11, 2001, voluntary active duty in support of Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) were exempted 

from the USERRA 5-year limit on reemployment. However, full-time National 

Guard duty performed under Title 32 is not covered under those exemptions. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

54 

As part of the new operational reserve construct, National Guard personnel will 

be used in ever-increasing numbers to support certain operational requirements 

while serving in a Title 32, full-time National Guard duty status. Indeed, section 

512 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (Public Law 108–375) added a new chapter 9 to Title 32 to authorize this type 

of service. Despite this fact, there is no authority under USERRA to exempt this 

type of National Guard service. 

Examples of National Guard employment when such a USERRA exemption might 

be appropriate include airport security following the terrorist attacks of September 

11, the recent southwest border security mission, Hurricane Katrina, and the Air 

Sovereignty Alert missions defending the United States from air attacks. As we continue to pursue the Global War on Terror, and the National Guard continues to be 

utilized at a high rate, more of these missions may identify themselves. 

Conclusion: If the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007 is not 

passed, National Guard members may be put into a position where they are forced 

to choose whether they support a critical mission, such as Katrina or a mission in 

support of the Global War on Terror or return to work with their civilian employers. 

This is already starting to occur. Like their counterparts supporting critical active 

duty missions, they should not be forced to make the choice of whether to keep their 

civilian jobs or support critical national security missions. 

The lack of a USERRA exemption for Title 32 Federal full-time National 

Guard duty is a clear disparity that needs to be addressed. H.R. 3798 will 

close this loophole and protect our citizen soldiers. This legislation is fully 

supported by the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS) and the 

Enlisted Guard Association of the United States (EANGUS). 

Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member Boozman, representatives of our Veterans’ Service Organizations, thank you for the opportunity to be here to address 

your Subcommittee on an issue that impacts our National Guardsman. Today, I am 

proud to stand before this Subcommittee in support of a critical piece of legislation: 

The National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007. 

As this Subcommittee is aware, the National Guard operations tempo has increased exponentially since September 11th, and the Federal duties they have been 

charged with have created a unique situation. Previously, National Guard doing 

Federal missions were called up to Title 10 active duty status, but with the Global 

War on Terror, it became increasingly apparent that there needed to be a mechanism to allow the National Guard to perform Federal missions in Title 32 status. 

It has become clear that unified state-federal cooperative employment of the National Guard provides a uniquely powerful tool to address domestic security needs. 

Some examples of this type of Federal Title 32 duty are Air Sovereignty Alert (ASA) 

providing air defense for our Nation, airport security, operations in support of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, fighting wildfires, and border security to 

name a critical few. 

More and more often, we see operations in which the Federal government provides the funds and the State governors provide the authority and control to execute 

operations to secure the homeland. This means that a greater number of National 

Guardsmen are performing such duties, which unfortunately are not currently covered under USERRA. Prior to September 11th, there were essentially no operational 

missions conducted by the National Guard under Title 32 so there was no loophole 

in the protection afforded National Guardsmen for their Federal service. 

To address this loophole, I introduced H.R. 3798, The National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007, with Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam as 

my Democratic original cosponsor. The bill would amend the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 1994 (USERRA) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to include Full Time National Guard Duty for possible exemption 

from the USERRA 5-year limit on service. Passage of this legislation will ensure 

that National Guard members are not forced to choose between keeping their civilian jobs and serving our Nation. Since USERRA already authorizes exemptions for 

service supporting critical active duty missions, this amendment would simply correct a disparity in the treatment of National Guard members. 

It is essential that we make sure all of our nation’s heroes are given adequate 

opportunity to support Federal missions without it affecting their civilian jobs. The 

National Guard has increasingly been called up since September 11th, and North 

Carolina has one of the highest mobilization rates at over 97 percent. Whether they 

are protecting our skies, helping save lives during a national disaster such as Hurricane Katrina, enhancing our border security, or doing another Federal mission, 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

55 

there is no doubt that the National Guard is an essential part of the total force. 

America’s National Guardsmen should never be put in a position where they are 

forced to choose whether to support a critical mission, such as a mission in support 

of the Global War on Terror, or return to work with their civilian employers in order 

to protect their jobs. 

At seven years into fighting the Global War on Terror (GWOT), we are starting 

to see a small but increasing number of National Guardsmen bumping up against 

their 5 year USERRA protection for their civilian jobs. According to statistics provided by the National Guard Bureau, since September 11th, 6,984 of our citizen soldiers have been called up to perform Federal missions under Title 32. There are currently 1,719 Guardsmen performing duty under Title 32 orders. The Air National 

Guard has especially been impacted, particularly those airmen performing the Air 

Sovereignty Alert mission. They are by no means alone in their situation, as this 

loophole in employment protection affects the entire National Guard. 

If the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007 is not passed, National 

Guard members may be forced to choose between keeping their civilian jobs and 

serving our nation. Unfortunately, this is already starting to occur and the problem 

will likely get worse as people near the current USERRA 5-year job protection limit. 

The National Guard is performing critical Federal missions under Title 32 and it 

is essential that this loophole be closed so that we protect those whose service protects us. 

This legislation is fully supported by the Enlisted Guard Association of the United 

States (EANGUS) and the National Guard Association of the United States 

(NGAUS) and I have enclosed their letters of endorsement for the record. The National Guard Bureau and Department of Defense also favor closing this loophole to 

protect our National Guardsmen. Our citizen soldiers fight to protect our nation and 

our freedom and the very least we can do is protect their rights to serve and also 

retain livelihood for themselves and their families. 

Thank you for the serious consideration of the National Guard Employment Protection Act. I know all the Members of this Subcommittee share my commitment to 

the National Guard, and therefore strongly urge passage of this legislation. 

Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States 

Alexandria, VA. 

October 11, 2007 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

The Honorable Duncan Hunter 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS) 

is the only military service association that represents the interests of every enlisted 

soldier and airmen in the Army and Air National Guard. With a constituency base 

of over 414,000 soldiers and airmen, their families, and a large retiree membership, 

EANGUS engages Capitol Hill on behalf of courageous Guard persons across this 

nation. 

As you begin negotiations for conference on the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 1585), we write to express our strong support for fully 

authorizing the President’s Budget request for the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) and 

to maintain an Army-led Joint Program Office in accordance with the Memorandum 

of Agreement. In particular, we write to express our concerns that section 132 of 

the House bill and section 1029 of the Senate bill would delay fielding of this critical 

program. 

Providing robust intra-theater lift capabilities over the ‘‘last tactical mile’’ of combat operations plays a critical role in supporting the modern war fighter. However, 

the current inventory of intra-theater transports is increasingly inadequate for this 

mission due to increased use in current combat operations, which not only stresses 

older aircraft such as the C–23 Sherpa but also rapidly ages newer rotorcraft aircraft as well. The Army C–23 in particular is an aging aircraft which is not pressurized, not certified for medical evacuation missions and incompatible with the standard cargo pallets. This important intra-theater lift mission cannot continue to be 

supported by a rapidly aging, overstretched and inadequate fixed wing fleet. 

Once fielded, JCA will provide the rapid, reliable and flexible intra-theater lift capabilities on an asymmetric battlefield. The JCA will ease the strain on our present 

fleet and afford the immediate need for greater maximum loads at smaller, 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

56 

unrefined landing strips. This will get critical equipment and supplies into the fight 

faster in support of the war fighter. 

The need for improved intra-theater lift has repeatedly been studied and validated 

by the Department of Defense (DOD) through the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council (JROC). The Army and Air Force, in coordination with the National Guard 

Bureau, meet the joint validated requirement through the capabilities provided by 

the JCA. 

Additionally, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled against the 

JCA bid protest is a testament to the program’s joint acquisition management. The 

joint requirements call for fielding a total of 78 aircraft to the Army, Air Force, National Guard and Army Reserves. Also, on June 20, 2006, the Army and Air Force 

Vice Chiefs of Staff signed a Memorandum of Agreement that clearly laid out the 

joint requirements for the program that meet both Army and Air Force operational 

capabilities. 

As importantly, current planning would assign the JCA to Army and Air National 

Guard units in 19 states and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico. JCA will provide an added critical capability to state emergency management and homeland security missions. In addition, JCA will help National Guard units across the country 

replace missions lost to BRAC 2005, retain personnel with needed skills and recruit 

new members. This is the right mission at the right time for the National Guard, 

and one that is strongly supported by Governors and Adjutants General across the 

country. 

Legislative language in the Senate and House versions of the Defense Authorization Bill, as currently written, would delay the fielding of JCA aircraft. In particular, the Senate, in section 1029, has included language that would shift responsibility of the Joint Cargo Aircraft program from the Army to the Air Force divesting 

the Army of any fixed-wing aircraft missions. Such a directive would undermine 

Army fixed-wing capabilities essential to supporting critical combat missions and 

protecting the homeland. The Army-led program is on schedule and has met all of 

its milestones. Shifting responsibility to the Air Force at this point would set the 

program back at least two to three years—if not more—due to differing fielding 

timelines between the services. 

The Army, Air Force and the National Guard have worked together to provide a 

workable Joint solution to an important Joint capability gap. Given the critical need 

for improved intra-theater lift capabilities, we believe that it is critical that the JCA 

program continue to move forward without delay. To this end, we respectfully request your support in conference for fully authorizing the Joint Cargo Aircraft program in fiscal year 2008 as submitted to Congress in the President’s Budget, and 

removing any legislative provisions or requirements that could impede the program’s progress. 

Thank you for your consideration and strong support for the men and women of 

our armed forces. 

Working for America’s Best! 

MSG Michael P. Cline, USA (Ret) 

Executive Director 

National Guard Association of the United States 

Washington, DC. 

November 19, 2007 

The Honorable Robin Hayes 

130 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Hayes: 

Thank you for sponsoring H.R. 3798. 

The service of our men and women of the National Guard ordered to full-time National Guard duty under Title 32 must be protected by the same reemployment 

rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

(USERRA) as are afforded our members ordered to active duty under Title 10. 

Although not readily visible to the American public and media, the men and 

women of the National Guard ordered to serve on full-time National Guard duty 

under Title 32 after September 11, 2001 are playing an indispensable role in maintaining the National Guard as ready operational force in the Global War on Terror. 

As with the active forces, the sacrifice of these men and women involves spending 

extended periods away from civilian occupations. They should have the same rights 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

57 

i Jill Carroll. The Christian Science Monitor. While Reservists Serve, Their Jobs Don’t Always 

Wait. April 10, 2008. iiKimberly Hefling. Associated Press. Iraq War Vets’ Suicide Rates Analyzed: High Numbers 

Found Among Members of Guard, Reserves. February 13, 2008. iiiGAO. Posthearing Questions Related to Federal Agencies’ Activities Regarding the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. GAO–08–397R Military Personnel. Senate 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. 1/9/08. iv Id. 

under USERRA upon completion of their duty to return with certainty to their civilian jobs as those protecting Reserve Component members serving on active duty 

under Title 10. 

NGAUS strongly supports H.R. 3798 now before the 110th Congress which would 

establish a National Guard Employment Protection Act that would apply the benefits of USERRA to individuals ordered to full time National Guard duty under section 502(f) of Title 32 on or after September 11, 2001. 

Our young men and women ordered to serve full-time in the National Guard 

under Title 32 in the Global War of Terror deserve the same re-employment rights 

as those protecting their active duty counterparts. Thank you again for your efforts. 

Sincerely, 

Stephen M. Koper 

Brigadier General, USAF, (ret) 

f 

President 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Artur Davis, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for holding today’s hearing to examine proposals to protect the jobs, housing and educational opportunities of our brave men and women of the U.S. Guard and Reserves. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Reservist Access to Justice Act (RAJA), 

H.R. 3393, that I cosponsored with Reps. Altmire and Walz. 

All of us recognize that our military service men and women are offering the highest personal service to their country as the war continues. Since 9/11, more than 

600,000 reservists and guardsmen have been mobilized.i Defense Department Data 

shows that while members of the Guard and Reserve have made up about 28 percent of all U.S. forces deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, there were periods during 

2005 when they made up nearly half of all U.S. troops in combat.ii These deployments have taken a toll on the mental health, family lives, and economic stability 

of these brave men and women. 

Understanding the role of reservists in the military, Congress acted in 1994 to ensure that when reservists and guardsmen answer the call of duty and return home, 

they also have the right to return to their civilian jobs. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) prohibits employer discrimination against members of the military, on the basis of their military service, in hiring 

or in reemployment. Unfortunately, studies and reports familiar to this Subcommittee show that—due to a number of factors—USERRA has not kept all of our 

reservists and guardsmen from falling through the cracks. 

For example, a Christian Science Monitor article published this weekend bore the 

title, ‘‘While Reservists Serve, Their Jobs Don’t Always Wait.’’ The article outlines 

the story of Marine Reservist Steve Duarte, who held his civilian job for 19 years. 

Yet when he returned from Iraq in 2003, he was told that he would be let go at 

the end of the week. When his efforts with the Departments of Labor and Defense 

led nowhere, Duarte hired a private attorney and spent $12,000 of his own money 

for fees. Several years later, he won his lawsuit and was awarded almost $400,000. 

Duarte is not an isolated case. Numbers indicate that: 

• 10,061 formal complaints were filed with DOL from October 1, 1996 through 

June 30, 2005.iii

• Nearly 10,000 informal complaints were filed with the Office of Employment 

Support for the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), and over 2,000 formal complaints 

were filed with the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) and Office of Special Counsel (OSC) during fiscal years 2004–2005 (a total of almost 

16,000).iv

• Though numbers show slight improvement, the June 2006 Status of Forces Survey showed that military personnel reported being briefed on USERRA 1.8 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

58 

v Id. 

viSection 4323(e) of USERRA allows the court to make discretionary use of its equity powers 

in order to vindicate the rights and benefits of the veteran. In the case of Bedrossian v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 409 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2005), the court declined to grant Dr. 

Bedrossian an injunction to prevent his employer from firing him. By amending Section 4323(e) 

to read that the court ‘‘shall use its full equity powers’’ instead of ‘‘may use its full equity powers,’’ RAJA ensures that courts can act to prevent discriminatory firings. 

times on average (up from 1.3 in 2004). The number of servicemembers who had 

never been briefed on USERRA decreased from 27 percent in 2004 to 21 percent 

in 2006.v

• According to the GAO, about seventy percent of reservists facing difficulties in 

being reemployed or promoted did not seek any type of redress. 

We must agree that these numbers are unacceptable. However, recent court decisions have weakened service members’ ability to use USERRA to enforce their 

rights. These include allowing service members to be subject to binding arbitration 

agreements and limiting the types of relief the court can provide. My bill, H.R. 3393, 

will correct and clarify gaps in USERRA that have allowed employers to escape 

their legal obligations to the military service members they hire. 

For example, in 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Michael Garrett, USMCR, was fired 

from his position with Circuit City stores following more than 10 years of work-related problems due to his service and training in the Marine Corps Reserve. When 

he sued the company, Circuit City responded with a motion to compel arbitration 

on the basis of a binding arbitration agreement that had been distributed to all employees in 1995. While the district court found that USERRA superseded the arbitration agreement, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that because 

Congress has not explicitly stated that USERRA plaintiffs ‘‘procedural’’ (as opposed 

to ‘‘substantive’’) rights are superseded by USERRA, the agreement was enforceable. 

The Reservist Access to Justice Act will provide needed clarity on this issue by 

amending the Federal Arbitration Act to exempt USERRA plaintiffs from binding 

pre-dispute arbitration agreements. 

This legislation also addresses the need to ensure that injunctive relief is available to reservists who have been fired in violation of USERRA. Current law holds 

that only violations that result in ‘‘irreparable injury’’ can be prevented by a court 

injunction. Firings are not considered ‘‘irreparable’’ injury, since a court can award 

backpay if it finds that the firing was discriminatory. However, the unique goals of 

USERRA—to ensure that the jobs of service members are protected—cannot be 

achieved if the Court cannot act to prevent a discriminatory firing. H.R. 3393 

strengthens USERRA by clarifying that the court ‘‘shall’’ use its equity powers to 

protect military service members.vi

Additional key provisions of RAJA would accomplish the following: 

1. Expand Availability of Liquidated Damages in USERRA disputes. Section 4323(d) of USERRA currently allows for liquidated damages only in disputes with a State or local government, or a private employer. Further, because liquidated damages are determined by doubling the amount of actual 

damages, a veteran may still end up without any monetary relief. RAJA will 

extend section 4323(d)(C) by making it applicable to the Federal Government. 

RAJA will also ensure that liquidated damages are always available by making 

the amount of damages equal to the actual amount of damages or $20,000, 

whichever is greater. 

2. Make compensatory damages automatic absent a showing of good faith 

by the employer. Section 4323(d) allows for a range of discretionary relief, 

including compensatory damages. RAJA will make the award of damages the 

default outcome, except where the employer can show that the USERRA violation was made in good faith. 

3. Provide for Punitive Damages in the Worst Cases of Discrimination. 

USERRA currently does not provide the court with additional remedies to 

deter the most egregious violations of service members’ employment rights. 

RAJA would make punitive damages available as a remedy in cases where the 

discriminator acted with ‘‘malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the person.’’ 

4. Holds State Governments Accountable. RAJA provides that States that accept federal funds for any state programs or activities have waived their sovereign immunity in cases of USERRA actions. 

In addition to these key provisions, my office is currently finalizing the drafting 

of several additional provisions which would further re-invigorate USERRA. These 

provisions would do the following: 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

59 

1. Clarify the Definition of Successor in Interest. In Coffman v. Chugach 

Support Services, Inc., 411 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2005), a court found that 

Coffman had no remedy under USERRA. While the USERRA definition of ‘‘employer,’’ includes a ‘‘successor-in-interest,’’ the definition does not make clear 

that a merger or transfer of assets need not occur for a successor company to 

take on the reemployment obligations of the original company. In USERRA’s 

legislative history, Congress stated its intent to apply factors used in Leib v. 

Georgia-Pacific Corp., 925 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1991) to define ‘‘successor-in-interest.’’ RAJA will codify Congress’ intent so that a company like Chugach, 

which interviewed all 100 of the previous contractors’ employees and hired 97 

of them, would be considered a successor-in-interest for the purposes of protecting USERRA plaintiffs. 

2. Ensure that Prevailing Plaintiffs Receive Attorneys’ Fees. Currently, 

USERRA makes the award of attorneys’ fees discretionary. By requiring the 

award of attorneys’ fees where appropriate, USERRA will ensure that reservists are able to turn to private attorneys to represent them when they are unable to find relief through government channels. 

The views and recommendations of a number of experts were considered in the 

drafting of this legislation. As a result, H.R. 3393 has been endorsed by the National Defense Committee, The Military Officers Association of America, the Military Coalition, and the Reserve Officers Association. In a letter of support signed 

by representatives of 32 member organizations, the Military Coalition states, ‘‘Since 

September 11, 2001, more than 600,000 members of the Guard and Reserve have 

served the nation on active duty in the war on terror. Over 132,000 have served 

multiple tours and thousands more are in the call-up pipeline. For these selfless patriots and their families returning to home, hearth, and jobs is second only to accomplishing their mission. . . . The Military Coalition appreciates your introduction 

of this legislation. Your bill is a very positive step in helping sustain the Guard and 

Reserve as full partners in our operating forces. TMC strongly supports H.R. 3393 

and pledges to work with you and all of Congress to secure its enactment.’’ 

I urge you to join these organizations and support this legislation. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Murphy, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania 

First, I would like to thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member 

Boozman for holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf 

of my bill, H.R. 3298, the 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act. 

Soon after my election to Congress, a JAG attorney who does legal assistance in 

the 101st Airborne contacted me to let me know about a growing problem that many 

deployed servicemembers are currently facing. 

He explained to me that many of the soldiers he worked with have had their credit reports damaged during their deployments over issues concerning their contracts 

with cellular telephone or Internet service providers. This JAG attorney was able 

to put one of his own contracts on hold during his deployment, but to do so he was 

forced to pay a costly fee. 

Looking into this further, I also discovered that some financial institutions were 

slow or unwilling to reduce servicemembers’ interest rates during their deployments, 

even though these creditors are already required to do so by law. 

I learned that when servicemembers and their families ran into problems with 

service providers and creditors, they not only had to deal with the strain of deployment, but also faced repeated harassment by collection agencies. 

We owe the men and women of our Armed Forces better than this. 

For decades, the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act and its successor, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) have provided crucial financial protection for 

our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Guardsmen. Now, as we continue to 

send a new generation of servicemembers into harm’s way, it is our obligation as 

Members of Congress to update and modernize SCRA for today’s troops. 

The 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act expands SCRA to cover service 

contracts such as cellular phones, utilities, cable television, or Internet access. Similar to provisions that currently exist for residential and automobile leases, this legislation will allow troops with deployment orders to more easily terminate or suspend their service contracts without fee or penalty. 

Currently, creditors who knowingly or negligently fail to reduce interest rates 

upon notification from a soldier with deployment orders, face no specific penalty. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

60 

Another provision of my bill would add a penalty to those creditors who refuse to 

reduce interest rates as they are already required to do under SCRA. 

As a veteran of the United States Army and the war in Iraq, I know how important it is that our troops be able to focus on accomplishing their mission and coming 

home safely, without worrying about their credit rating or whether bill collectors are 

harassing their families. 

Since this bill’s introduction, my staff and I have worked with the industries that 

will be affected by this legislation. In doing so, we have developed compromise language that I believe maintains the intent of the bill as introduced while alleviating 

the concerns of the companies that will be affected by passage of this legislation. 

It is my hope that the Committee will adopt this revised language when the bill 

moves to mark-up. 

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is about doing what’s right for 

our troops. With that, I would again like to thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking 

Member for giving me the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to answer 

any questions. 

Fleet Reserve Association 

Alexandria, VA. 

22 August 2007 

The Honorable Patrick Murphy 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1007 Longworth Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Fax: 202–225–9511 

Dear Representative Murphy: 

The Fleet Reserve Association strongly supports, ‘‘The 21st Century Service Members Protection Act’’ (H.R. 3298) to expand current credit protections for service 

members to terminate or suspend certain service contracts entered into before the 

individual receives notice of a permanent change of station or deployment orders. 

Under current law, only residential leases (90 days or more) and vehicle leases 

(180 days or more) can be canceled. Your proposal expands these protections to include other services such as cell phone service, cable/satellite television, Internet 

service, auto insurance and utility payments. In cases of fees paid in advance, a 

company would have 30 days from the effective date of termination to provide a refund. 

The bill also increases the potential penalty for companies that do not provide interest rate reduction to those eligible under the Service Members Civil Relief Act, 

which mandates a six percent rate cap on loans incurred prior to the service member coming on active duty. 

The Association appreciates your leadership on this legislation and stands ready 

to assist you in its passage in the 110th Congress. The FRA point of contact is John 

Davis, FRA’s Director of Legislative Programs at the above numbers or 

(john@fra.org). 

Sincerely, 

JOSEPH L. BARNES 

National Executive Secretary 

JLB:jrd:aal 

Association of the United States Army 

Arlington, VA. 

12 September 2007 

The Honorable Patrick Murphy 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1007 Longworth Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Murphy: 

On behalf of the 105,000 members of the Association of the United States Army, 

I write to express our support for your legislation, the 21st Century Servicemembers 

Protection Act, H.R. 3298. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

61 

The Association of the United States Army strongly believes that military members called to defend our great nation should not be penalized by steep termination 

fees in contracts involving cellular phone service, car insurance, utilities, cable television, or Internet access. Also, we appreciate your recognition of the fact that serious penalties are warranted for unscrupulous lenders who knowingly fail to reduce 

interest rates for deploying servicemembers. 

The Association of the United States Army applauds and supports your efforts to 

provide greater protections for military members and their families. We look forward to working with you to secure enactment of this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

GORDON R. SULLIVAN 

General, USA Retired 

GRS/WBL/rmw 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

Washington, DC. 

November 15, 2007 

The Honorable Patrick Murphy 

1007 Longworth Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Murphy: 

On behalf of the 2.4 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our 

Auxiliaries, I’d like to offer our support for H.R. 3298, legislation that would expand 

the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to cover service contracts such as cellular phone service, car insurance, utilities, cable television, or Internet access. This 

legislation would allow troops with deployment orders to terminate or suspend their 

service contracts without fee or penalty. This important legislation would also create a penalty of up to $10,000 for creditors who refuse to reduce interest rates as required by SCRA. As of currently, there 

is no penalty for creditors that choose not to adhere to SCRA; this legislation would 

ensure our service members being sent into harm’s way are taken care of. 

The VFW commends you for introducing this legislation and we look forward to 

working with you and your staff to ensure its success. Thank you for your continued 

support of all America’s veterans. Also, thank you for your service in the 82nd Airborne. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis Cullinan, Director 

National Legislative Service 

Military Officers Association of America 

Alexandria, VA. 

August 30, 2007 

The Honorable Patrick Murphy 

The Honorable Tim Walz 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representatives Murphy and Walz: 

On behalf of the nearly 367,000 members of the Military Officers Association of 

America (MOAA), I am writing to express our support for your legislation, the 21st 

Century Service Members Protection Act, H.R. 3298. 

MOAA strongly believes that military members called to defend our great nation 

should not be penalized by steep termination fees in contracts involving cellular 

phone service, car insurance, utilities, cable television. or Internet access. Also, we 

appreciate your recognition of the fact that serious penalties are warranted for unscrupulous lenders who knowingly fail to reduce interest rates for deploying service 

members. 

We would recommend further review of potential unintended consequences in the 

lease termination provisions in the bill. In many states a landlord would be required 

to hold and protect for a specified period personal property of a deployed service 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

62 

member who has terminated a lease. This requirement is intended to protect tenants from retaliation. However, the bill would apparently result in criminal penalties for holding tenants’ property that may be in their interest. 

MOAA applauds and supports your efforts to provide greater protections for military members and their families. We look forward to working with you to secure 

enactment of this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

VADM Norbert R. Ryan, Jr. USN (Ret.) 

President 

National Guard Association of the United States, Inc. 

Washington, DC. 

September 10, 2007 

The Honorable Patrick Murphy 

1007 Longworth Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Murphy: 

As a vital part of our Nation’s Armed Forces, National Guard members continue 

to perform their federal active duty mission with distinction but not without risks 

to their legal interests at home. 

While serving on active duty, National Guard members requires full protection of 

their civil legal interests and, where appropriate, relief from performing certain contractual obligations adversely affected by their active duty service. 

NGAUS strongly supports H.R. 3298 now before the 110th Congress which seeks 

to expand the protections available to National Guard members under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act with respect to terminating or suspending contracts for 

cellular phone service, cable or satellite television service, Internet service, automobile insurance, water, electricity, oil, gas, telephone and other utilities. 

Our young men and women, who are selflessly serving our states and nation, deserve the protections they need to obtain relief from contractual obligations for services that they will not require during deployment. 

NGAUS thanks you for your continued support of the National Guard. 

Sincerely, 

Stephen M. Koper 

Brigadier General, USAF, (ret) 

f 

President 

Prepared Statement of Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, 

Economic Commission, American Legion 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion’s view on pending 

legislation before the Subcommittee today. 

America needs a historic investment in the educational future of this nation’s veterans. When The American Legion wrote the first draft of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act 1944, it changed the course of American history. A generation of heroes was able to join the middle class, achieve home ownership, earn higher education and live the American dream. More famously known as the GI Bill, it was 

hailed by many as the greatest piece of legislation ever. Sadly, as the generations 

passed and memories dimmed, the GI Bill benefits were so drastically reduced that 

many veterans either declined or were denied even the opportunity to participate 

in the program. Few veterans today have the luxury of attending school without 

also holding a job, and many colleges are completely out of reach simply due to financial barriers. 

No longer can we continue to call each piece of education legislation in the 110th 

Congress a GI Bill. A true GI Bill encompasses such benefits as housing, employment, job counseling and training, health care, and education for veterans. These 

are the true ‘‘tools’’ for seamless transition from warrior back to citizen. The time 

to change history is once again upon us. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

63 

H.R. 4883, A bill to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide 

for a limitation on the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property owned 

by a servicemember during the 1-year period following the service 

members period of military service. 

The American Legion supports this legislation. This legislation would greatly assist those veterans that were deployed to a combat zone and had little time to successfully transition from active duty military service to the civilian sector. Members 

of the Reserve components would be the largest benefactors of an extension from 

90 days to 1 year. Enactment of this legislation would provide veterans an extended 

period of time to become employed, correct all their finances and assist them in the 

transition process. 

In the most unfortunate of circumstances, lenders are unwilling to negotiate and 

assist veterans who are in default status even though these veterans are in a good 

position to correct the situation. It is unfair to expect servicemembers to concentrate 

on fighting a battle overseas and then simultaneously attend to all their personal 

matters at home. Moreover, veterans have a positive track record of following 

through with payments. During the fourth quarter of 2007, only 2.83 percent of 

homeowners using the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA’s) Loan Guaranty program were seriously delinquent. This is much lower when compared to 6 percent 

for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgages, and a whopping 14.44 percent for the subprime mortgages. 

H.R. 3798, National Guard Employment Protection Act 

Protecting employment rights of National Guard soldiers who are training to support their missions in the Global War on Terror is the right thing to do. This bill 

would improve current law by amending Title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.) to 

protect the reemployment rights of members of the National Guard who were ordered to active duty in support of national or state emergencies. 

PENDING LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE VA LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM: H.R. 4884, H.R. 4539, H.R. 5664 

Since the VA Home Loan program was enacted as part of the original Servicemen’s Readjustment Act 1944 (the GI Bill), VA has guaranteed more than 18.2 million home loans totaling nearly $938 billion for veterans to purchase or construct 

a home, or to refinance another home loan on more favorable terms. In the last five 

years (2001–2006), VA has assisted more than 1.4 million veterans in obtaining 

home loan financing totaling almost $197 billion. About half of these loans, just over 

730,000, were to assist veterans to obtain a lower interest rate on an existing VA 

guaranteed home loan through VA’s Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loan Program. 

The American Legion supports the elimination of the VA Home Loan funding fee 

and petition Congress to appropriate funding to sustain the VA Home Loan program 

when the funding fee is eliminated. Currently, only service-connected disabled veterans are exempt from this funding fee. However, for all other eligible veterans, the 

VA funding fee charged to veterans was enacted to defray the costs of the VA guaranteed home loan program. The fee, currently 2.15 percent on no downpayment 

loans for first-time use, is intended to enable the veteran who obtains a VA home 

loan to contribute toward the cost of this benefit. Congress is not required to appropriate funding for this program; however, because veterans must now ‘‘buy’’ into the 

program, it no longer serves the intent of helping veterans afford a home. 

In some aspects, the funding fee makes the VA Home Loan program less beneficial than a standard, private loan. Approximately 80 percent of all VA Home Loan 

participants must pay the current funding fee to VA to defray the cost of appropriating funding for the home loan program. This has had a negative effect on many 

veterans who choose not to participate in this highly beneficial program. 

The American Legion supports the reinstatement and extension of the adjustable 

rate mortgage and hybrid adjustable rate mortgage project, not just for the immediate future, but indefinitely. The adjustable rate mortgage authority would enable 

VA the flexibility to assist more veterans in obtaining affordable homes. 

The American Legion supports allowing spouses of deceased veterans to gain eligibility for the VA Home Loan program. The current eligibility for a home loan for 

spouses are: an unremarried spouse of a veteran who died while in service or from 

a service-connected disability, or are a spouse of a serviceperson missing in action 

or a prisoner of war. It is unfair for a veteran’s spouse only to become eligible for 

the home loan if the veteran dies of a service-connected disability. Moreover, veterans are more likely than not to be the primary income provider for the household 

and contribute the majority of payments to mortgages for the family. Upon death 

of a veteran, the mortgage payments must continue to be paid and the burden falls 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

64 

on the surviving spouse. Many times the spouse elects to relocate to a smaller, more 

economical home that is within their means. By allowing spouses to gain eligibility, 

many elderly widows/widowers will be able to enter the VA Loan Program. 

A long overdue remedy to the refinancing laws is needed. In order to strengthen 

the Loan Guarantee program, the law should be amended to remove the 10 percent 

equity requirement in order to refinance a home and to increase the refinancing 

limit a veteran can obtain to match the maximum loan guarantee amount; currently 

$417,000. Under current law, a veteran who wishes to refinance their home is limited to a loan of $144,000. 

Specially adaptive housing (SAH) is and will continue to be an important issue 

as severely wounded veterans heal and transition out of VA Polytrauma facilities. 

Since 1948, SAH assisted over 34,000 veterans totaling $650M. For FY 2008 as of 

March 31, 2008, 550 veterans have had grants approved and 1,500 veterans are in 

some stage of pursuit of grant today. 

It is important to note that there are 7,200 veterans currently being tracked by 

the VA Loan Guarantee Service that are eligible, but not taking advantage of SAH 

at this time. These veterans could request specially adaptive housing assistance at 

any time and as the Global War on Terror continues, more veterans will require 

special adaptations to their homes. Studies required every six years to update plans 

and specifications are not the proper solution. Rather, continuous oversight and constant updates to veterans, Congress, and interested parties would better serve the 

veteran community. 

Housing Crisis Affecting Veterans 

The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) report, ‘‘Vital Mission, Ending Homelessness Among Veterans’’ reports that currently, over 930,000 veterans 

pay more than 50 percent of their income toward housing, be it renting or owning 

a home. (476,877 rent/453,354 own) When testifying before your Subcommittee; 

economists, lenders, realtors, and other experts painted a bleak outlook for the future in terms of veterans defaulting and foreclosing on their homes. If a veteran 

loses his or her job, has a financial emergency, or some other factor leading to delinquency, nearly 1 million veterans could be close to losing their homes. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the overall default 

rate grew by 29 percent, reaching a point at which just over 1 in every 100 mortgages was in default, almost a 28-year high. The foreclosure start rate did reach 

a 28-year high, rising by 55 percent. (GAO–08–78R Default and Foreclosure Trends 

(October 2007)). 

In comparison to the subprime mortgage crisis, the VA Home Loan program is 

helping veterans maintain their homes through supplemental services. The VA Loan 

Guarantee Service reports that in 2007, there were 58,836 reported defaults: 

• Only 16,000 had VA-Veteran assistance through the Supplemental Servicing 

program provided by the VA. • Approximately 8,400 saved loans with assistance with the VA Home Loan program supplemental servicing. • Just 8,100 homes foreclosed. 

PENDING LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH A STUDY OF VETERAN TRENDS 

AND PROGRAMS: H.R. 3646, H.R. 3889 

A joint study to ascertain the needs of employees between Department of Labor’s 

(DOL) Veterans’ Employment and Training Services (VETS) and VA, as proposed 

in H.R. 3646, must also have Department of Defense (DOD) involvement to determine what military occupational skills can successfully translate over to the civilian 

sector. In the Armed Forces, unique occupations are performed to approved military 

standards that may meet or exceed the civilian license or certification criteria. Upon 

separation, many former military personnel, certified as proficient in their military 

occupational career, are not licensed or certified to perform the comparable job in 

the civilian workforce, thus hindering chances for immediate civilian employment 

and delaying career advancement. This situation creates an artificial barrier to employment upon separation from military service. 

Unemployment, underemployment, difficulty translating military skills to the civilian sector and the state of our economy are proving to be obstacles to employment. Younger veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OIF/OEF) are experiencing employment obstacles at an alarming rate. A report by 

the DOL–VETS finds that 11.3 percent of veterans ages 20 to 24 were unemployed 

in 2007, compared to only 8.1 percent of nonveterans in the same age group. Moreover, a separate report by VA (Employment Histories Report Final Compilation Report, Associates Inc. September 28, 2007) shows a rise in the figure for those who 

stopped looking for work because they couldn’t find jobs or returned to school from 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

65 

just 10 percent of young veterans in 2000 to 23 percent in 2005. VA even reports 

a higher percentage of unemployed veterans, 18 percent of veterans aged 20–24 who 

sought jobs within one to three years of discharge were unemployed. 

A longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation program proposed in H.R. 

3889 has the potential to greatly assist VA’s efforts in rehabilitation and other aspects of benefits and health care. The requirement to provide annual reports enforces greater oversight of this vital program. In addition to the requirements set 

forth by the legislation, The American Legion recommends that the Secretary report 

on all aspects of employment and housing and other related data of the families of 

veteran sample source. 

PENDING LEGISLATION TO AMEND VETERANS’ EDUCATION BENEFITS: H.R. 4889 

The American Legion strongly agrees with H.R. 4889, The Guard and Reserves 

Are Fighting Too Act of 2008, and fully supports the intent of the bill that would 

move the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) from Chapter 1607, Title 

10, U.S.C., to a new chapter under Title 38, U.S.C. Recodification of REAP benefits 

would place the administration and oversight authority under VA and the Veterans’ 

Affairs Committees. Traditionally seen as a recruitment tool, Montgomery GI Bill 

(MGIB) benefits can also be viewed as a readjustment tool that more closely falls 

in line with the purview of VA for seamless transition from active-duty to the classroom. 

However, The American Legion has concerns regarding the technical language. If 

H.R. 4889 were enacted in its current form, the positive veterans’ education provisions contained in the FY 08 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would be 

removed. Therefore, The American Legion most strongly recommends making technical corrections to H.R. 4889 to contain the new veterans’ education provisions enacted under Title 10, U.S.C., by the NDAA. The language would then fully match 

the legislative intent to transfer of all REAP benefits to Title 38, U.S.C. 

The most notable positive provision in the NDAA in regards to veterans’ education 

is the portability of benefits of REAP beneficiaries. The NDAA enacted legislation 

in Title 10, U.S.C., to allow Reservists to use their Chapter 1607 educational benefits for 10 years after separation from the Reserves and permits Reservists to reclaim previously earned 1607 benefits and use them for 10 years following any subsequent separation, if they rejoin the Armed Forces. 

This is important because we must understand that many of the Reservists, who 

have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, have already left the service due to multiple 

deployments, injuries, family, or retirement. Reservists should not be penalized because they served in the war, but chose to separate before the war ended. 

Additionally, the NDAA authorizes an accelerated payment program; allowing Reservists with three cumulative years of active-duty service to qualify for education 

benefits at 80 percent of the active-duty rate, and creates a buy-up program for 

service members eligible for Chapter 1607 benefits. 

The American Legion has no official position at this time on H.R. 5684, 

Veteran Education Improvement Act and H.R. 3681, the Veterans Benefits 

Awareness Act 

The American Legion has no official position on H.R. 3393, Reservist Access to Justice Act; H.R. 3298, 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act; 

and H.R. 3467, Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act. 

CONCLUSION 

The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present its views on programs that will affect veterans, servicemembers and their families. An author once 

wrote, ‘‘A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a ‘blank check’ 

made payable to the United States of America for an amount ‘up to and including 

my life.’ That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no 

longer understand it.’’ We ask that this Subcommittee take into consideration the 

recommendations of The American Legion as your colleagues address these issues. 

Many steps should be taken to ensure that those who have put on the uniform and 

have written a ‘‘blank check’’ to this country (to include the ultimate sacrifice) continue to receive the thanks of a grateful nation. We also ask the Subcommittee not 

to forget the sacrifices and contributions made by America’s veterans and their families as the legislation that you deliberate upon will have lasting effects on them. 

The American Legion looks forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee 

to assist the nation’s veterans. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my testimony. 

f 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

66 

Prepared Statement of Justin Brown, Legislative Associate, 

National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of this Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the 2.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 

United States and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to testify. The issues under consideration today are of great importance 

to our members, and the entire veteran population. 

In the history of our nation there have always been great men and women who 

have put everything on the line for our country. Our nation is full of these heroes, 

who join together to create the world’s strongest, most impressive, and smartest 

military. However, our military is not maintaining the quality of the force. According to a recent GAO report, the percentage of high quality recruits in the Army fell 

to 49 percent in 2006—the lowest level in more than 20 years and the lowest among 

the services. Also, the total number of medical and criminal waivers has risen steadily from 11.5% of recruits in 2004 to 16.9% of recruits in 2006 (10.1% of 2006 recruits were waived for pre-service drug use, criminal charges, or convictions). 

From 1973–1985, similar recruitment standards produced veterans that were 

three to four times more likely to be homeless than their non-veteran counterparts, 

even without most of this group suffering the stresses and strains of combat or the 

mental and physical problems that follow. 

The risks and costs of joining the Army are becoming more and more apparent 

to young men and women who are eligible for recruitment. To join today’s military 

is to risk death; it is to risk mental and physical impairments; it is to risk one’s 

marriage; it is to risk the custody of one’s children; it is to risk employment; and 

it is to risk economic success. The military’s strongest recruitment tool of a college 

education is fast eroding as potential recruits learn of the shortfalls and failures of 

the current benefits provided to those who risk everything for their nation. 

There are two strategies to solve the issue and respectively there are two outcomes. The Army and Marine Corps have not met their goal of high-quality recruits 

since 2003. DoD’s response has been to lower recruitment standards, thereby enlarging the pool of eligible recruits, to meet their recruitment needs. The consequence 

of such actions is creating a situation in which the military becomes the employer 

of last resort. This will likely lead us to larger expenditures in the long term, than 

investing in a robust, attractive, proven recruitment tool—a GI Bill that pays for 

the full cost of education: tuition, room, board, fees, and a cost-of-living stipend. 

Increased funding, albeit necessary, is not the only issue with our current GI Bill. 

Our veterans, and military, need a GI Bill that incentivizes going to the best college 

possible, not the cheapest. Also, a new GI Bill ought to equitably distribute benefits 

to veterans. A single payment system becomes inhibitive to many and too generous 

for others. 

The GI Bill is a cost of war; we can pay it now as an investment, or pay it later 

in much greater costs to our government and our veterans. If we decide to defer this 

cost it will be for increased appropriations for permanent housing for homeless veterans, increased appropriations for the expansion of the Incarcerated Veterans 

Transition Program, and increased appropriations due to a further reliance on the 

VA medical and benefits system. 

The VFW asks that America does its best to ensure our veterans a normal life 

with the same opportunities as those who chose to go to college, or as those who 

chose to go into the workforce, vice serving their nation. It is simple, and readily 

apparent, that if we continue to fail to provide our young men and women a bridge 

from the all volunteer force back to a civilian lifestyle, fewer high-quality young men 

and women will volunteer to serve their country. 

H.R. 3298, 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act. 

We support this legislation, which would expand the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act (SCRA) to cover service contracts such as cellular phone service, car insurance, 

utilities, cable television, or Internet access. This legislation would allow troops with 

deployment orders to terminate or suspend their service contracts without fee or 

penalty. The current SCRA legislation applies no penalties for creditors who refuse 

to reduce interest rates as required; this legislation would create a penalty mechanism thereby increasing the likelihood for companies to comply with the law. This 

is important because many deployed men and women are coming home to large bills 

that were not efficiently canceled by service providers. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

67 

H.R. 3393, Reservist Access to Justice Act of 2007. 

The VFW believes that there is great need for reform to the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 2004 (USERRA). The original intent 

of USERRA was to provide employment protections to veterans in Reserve and 

Guard units who were being deployed. The current USERRA is not getting the job 

done as many veterans are returning from deployments without their previous employment. 

H.R. 3393 would correct some previous court decisions that favored employers. 

The bill would hold federal, state or private employers liable for up to $20,000 in 

liquidated damages if they willfully discriminated against employees who are activated to active-duty status. The bill would also increase the likelihood that the 

courts would award injunctive relief to those making USERRA claims. The bill 

would stipulate that veterans are not bound to pre-arbitration agreements. 

The VFW strongly supports these necessary reforms to USERRA, and supports its 

swift passage. Our Reserve and Guard units should come home to their previous 

employment if they choose to do so. They have served in the name of their country 

and should be treated honorably. 

H.R. 3467, Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act. 

The Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act would extend and provide funding 

for the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program (IVTP). During its pilot phase, 

IVTP stated it reduced recidivism rates amongst participants by 90 percent. IVTP 

also recorded that 90 percent of its participants were moved into permanent housing, and 72 percent became gainfully employed. Under this assumption, IVTP has 

saved taxpayers millions of dollars a year in incarceration costs and has stimulated 

local job growth and economic development by providing former offenders with jobs. 

The pilot program stopped receiving funding as of September 2007. If this program 

continues to reduce recidivism rates for veterans and offsets the cost of the program 

with the cost of incarceration, the VFW supports this program and this legislation. 

H.R. 3646, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of 

Labor to conduct a joint study on the fields of employment for which the 

greatest need for employees exists in various geographic areas. 

The VFW supports this legislation, which would assist veterans in finding employment based on the needs of local employers. While the VFW is aware of the strong 

unemployment levels of recently separated servicemembers, and the importance of 

locating potential employment opportunities for veterans, it is also important to give 

these veterans access to training and education should they want to pursue a technical vocation, college degree, or certification. It is the VFW’s belief that increased 

transitional benefits, the GI Bill and Vocational Rehabilitation in particular, are the 

best answer to employment issues facing veterans, especially in regards to our recently separated servicemembers. 

H.R. 3681, Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007 

The VFW supports this legislation, which would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to advertise in the national media in regards to veterans benefits. The 

VFW believes that targeted national media campaigns could be conducive to ensuring America’s veterans are receiving necessary information in a timely manner. 

Other departments frequently utilize national media and advertisement with great 

success. In particular, DoD uses national media extensively for recruitment. It is the 

belief of the VFW that our government should be as proactive in their approach to 

veteran’s welfare as they are in making them. 

H.R. 3889, To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs to conduct a longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation programs administered by the Secretary. 

The VFW supports this legislation, which would provide information in regards 

to the effectiveness of the VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation program. The VFW would 

like to see this, and similar studies, conducted on all educational, transitional, and 

employment benefits, as very little is known in regards to the end results provided 

by our current transitional benefits. Such a study, and tracking, of the benefit and 

participants would provide Congress and the VA invaluable information as to what 

is, and what is not, working in regards to benefits that are currently being distributed for the purpose of employment and education. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

68 

H.R. 3798, National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007. 

The VFW supports this legislation that would ensure that the National Guard receives equal employment protections under USERRA. This legislation clears up a 

legal loophole for employers of National Guard members. The National Guard, like 

our Reserve components, deserves full employment protections while serving our 

country. 

H.R. 4539, Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost Reduction 

Act of 2007. 

The VFW would like to see the loan fees of the VA home loan guarantee program 

repealed. While this legislation does not repeal the fees, it would make them more 

feasible for veterans using the program by extending them over a period of time. 

The VFW strongly supports provisions of the bill that would increase the max loan 

VA can guarantee to 125% of the Freddie Mac conforming limit, currently $521,250. 

This legislation would also reduce the equity requirement for the VA to guaranty 

a mortgage refinance from 10 percent currently to 0 percent. We also support the 

provisions that would raise refinance loans to the conforming limit and increase the 

guaranty for affordable housing (as determined by VA and HUD) to 30% of the total 

loan. This legislation also authorizes VA to use a portion of the previous year’s fee 

revenue to reduce closing costs. 

H.R. 4883, To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for a 

limitation on the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property owned by a servicemember during the one-year period following the servicemember’s period of military service. 

This legislation would temporarily increase servicemembers’ foreclosure relief 

from 90 days to one year. This legislation would help families that have been caught 

in the subprime mortgage crisis and/or are in risk of default on their mortgage due 

to military service. This legislation could be the difference between a servicemember’s family having a home or being homeless. 

H.R. 4884, Helping Our Veterans to Keep Their Homes Act of 2008. 

The VFW supports this legislation, that would: increase the maximum home loan 

guarantee amount to $625,500; decrease the equity requirement to refinance a home 

loan; require the VA Secretary to review and streamline the process of using a guaranteed home loan to purchase a condominium; reduce the home loan funding fees 

to one percent; extend the adjustable and hybrid rate mortgage demonstration 

projects to 2018; and provide a yearly adjustment of the VA home loan to match 

the consumer price index. 

H.R. 4889, The Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008. 

The VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would recodify chapter 1607 of 

title 10, United States Code, by adding it to title 38, United States Code. This in 

effect would transfer responsibility of the National Guard and Ready Reserves educational benefits from the Department of Defense to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This would greatly simplify an already complicated system and allow for the 

greatest amount of transitional assistance in one location, the VA. Since the introduction of transportability in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008— 

which allows National Guard and Reservist to use their benefit following their service—the VFW believes that their educational benefits should be the responsibility 

of the VA. 

H.R. 5664, To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to update at least once every six years the plans and specifications for specially adapted housing furnished to veterans by the Secretary. 

The VFW supports this legislation. That would require VA to periodically update 

its publications so that they reflect current times and methods. The current Handbook For Design: Specially Adapted Housing, that is printed and distributed by VA, 

was last updated in April 1978. Having a title date that is thirty years old could 

easily, and would likely be, misconstrued as old out-of-date material. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

69 

H.R. 5684, Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008. 

The VFW supports this legislation, which would provide for an increased monetary benefit. It would also increase the time limitation for use from ten years to fifteen years. It does not repeal the $1,200 buy in, but it would make it more palatable 

by distributing the buy in over a 24-month period, instead of a twelve month period. 

H.R. 5684 would extend the amount of programs that the educational benefit could 

be used for and could also be used to repay student loans. The bill would allow for 

active-duty military to enroll in the GI Bill program at any time during their service. This benefit would not be counted against veterans applying for additional financial aid. The bill would also provide funding for additional employment for the 

VA to implement the legislation and calls for a five-year pilot program for on-campus work-study positions. Also, of importance is the bill’s section calling for an upgrade in the antiquated VA’s informational technology system that is used for the 

administration of educational benefits. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you or the Members of this Subcommittee may have. Thank 

you. 

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 pending legislation. We appreciate the 

Subcommittee’s focus on such a broad range of issues. 

H.R. 3298, the ‘‘21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 3298, the ‘‘21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act’’. This 

bill is a necessary complement to other legislation previously passed that aids service members with their transfer or deployment when the departure was not 

planned. This will allow the servicemember to terminate a contract without penalty 

when the individual is required to relocate. Service contracts entail a specific number of days, months, or years to protect both the provider of the service and the 

user. When a man or woman is serving in a branch of the military, standard contracts that are written for, and used in the civilian world must grant this leeway 

with a time commitment. Those that have chosen to serve in the military should 

not be penalized by a contract when called to serve this nation. 

H.R. 3393, the ‘‘Reservist Access to Justice Act of 2007’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 3393, the Reservist Access to Justice Act of 2007. This bill reinforces the intent of Congress when they passed improvements to the Uniformed 

Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) in 2004. It is unthinkable that some employers have spent large amounts of money in the legal system to prevent a Reservist or National Guardsman from returning to his or her job 

after performing their service in the armed forces. H.R. 3393 would give reservists 

the right to bring their case in state or U.S. district court. It would make injunctive 

relief mandatory and provide for punitive damages in the worst cases of discrimination. 

H.R. 3467, the ‘‘Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 3467, the ‘‘Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act’’. This 

will provide funding for the Incarcerated Veterans Transitional Program (IVTP) for 

fiscal years 2008 through 2011. It will expand the program allowing more veterans 

to participate during these years. The success of the program has been documented 

with the three-year pilot program that ended in 2007. It has proven to be extremely 

effective in reducing the recidivism of veterans, improving the quality of life for the 

veterans, and saving the taxpayer the estimated $33,600 per year cost for incarceration. This program could help turn these men and women that served their nation 

honorably into upstanding citizens once again. 

H.R. 3646 

PVA supports H.R. 3646, a bill that requests a joint study of employment opportunities for veterans. With more that 220,000 active duty military personnel leaving 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

70 

the military each year, every state will have thousands of veterans looking for employment. The 110th Congress has introduced several new bills that are intended 

to help these new veterans as they seek training, education, or employment. 

H.R. 3646 can be another tool for these men and women as they plan their transition from military to civilian life. This bill calls for the Department of Labor and 

the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study to locate employment opportunities and the fields of employment for which the greatest need for employees exists. This would indicate opportunities by zip codes or regions of a state. The Department of Labor has most of this information in their data base. 

By posting this information on the VA’s web site, the veteran will be able to identify employers in their home state and review the requirements for employment. 

This could be a useful tool for the veteran when looking for employment opportunities or planning employment training using the Montgomery GI Bill. 

H.R. 3681, the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007’’ 

PVA fully supports H.R. 3681, the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Awareness Act.’’ This bill 

would allow the VA to use national media outlets to conduct outreach to veterans 

around the country. Many veterans leave the service with very little knowledge of 

benefits available. Some service members participate in the Transition Assistance 

Program (TAP) prior to their separation from the military. In TAP they receive information about searching for a job and VA benefits. Though it has been used more 

widely in recent years, this program is still not mandatory for service members and 

it is not a standard program where all servicemembers in all branches receive the 

same information. PVA and other veterans’ service organizations have continuously 

expressed concerns about the VA not making an effort to reach out to veterans who 

have earned and deserve healthcare and benefits. 

We believe it is the responsibility of the VA to use whatever means necessary to 

inform veterans and their families of the benefits and services available to them. 

VA must ensure that the needs of the men and women who have served and sacrificed are provided for. 

H.R. 3889, Longitudinal Study of VA Voc Rehab 

PVA fully supports the H.R. 3889, a bill that requires the VA to conduct a longitudinal study of veterans who enter the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment 

(VR&E) program beginning in FY 2008. We believe that VR&E is critical to the reintegration of severely disabled veterans into civilian life. The primary mission of 

the VR&E program is to provide veterans with service-connected disabilities all the 

necessary services and assistance to achieve maximum independence in daily living 

and to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable employment. 

In fact, PVA places such an importance on vocational rehabilitation that last year 

we designed our own vocational rehabilitation program to further support what the 

VA is already doing, and to go above and beyond current services. The concept of 

the program is to provide vocational rehabilitation services under a PVA-corporate 

partnership that augments the many existing vocational programs. PVA believes 

that by introducing veterans with SCI disability to vocational rehabilitation counselors specializing in SCI disability that are able to provide extensive vocational-oriented services early in the medical rehabilitation process and who can continue to 

provide services as needed, the productivity and employment rates for this group of 

veterans will improve. 

In partnership with VA and Health Net Federal Services, PVA opened its first 

vocational rehabilitation office in the SCI Center of the VA Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia in July 2007. The workload in our pilot office has grown rapidly and 

our PVA vocational rehabilitation counselor in Richmond is currently carrying a 

caseload of more than 70 veterans. 

Buoyed by our rapidly growing caseload in Richmond, the establishment of productive relationships with the Veterans Health Administration and VR&E, PVA just 

recently opened a second vocational rehabilitation office in Minneapolis under the 

corporate sponsorship of Tri West. In fact, the ribbon cutting for that office will be 

this Friday, April 18, 2008. We are confident that our continuing efforts in this initiative as well as the continuing efforts of our VA partners will result in the 85 percent unemployment rate among PVA members becoming a sad statistic of the past. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

71 

H.R. 4539, the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost 

Reduction Act of 2007’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 4539, the Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost 

Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation will increase the maximum amount of the 

home loan guaranty that the VA provides to veterans. It will cap funding fees on 

loans and provide incentives for using the VA loan for affordable housing. The bill 

will update the existing VA Loan Guaranty Program with the hope that more veterans will become homeowners. 

H.R. 4883 

H.R. 4883 will amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for a limitation on the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property owned by a servicemember during the 1-year period following the servicemember’s period of military service. PVA 

supports this legislation that will protect the servicemember from losing his or her 

home because they were away defending this nation. 

H.R. 4884 the ‘‘Helping our Veterans to Keep their Homes Act of 2008’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 4884, the ‘‘Helping our Veterans to Keep their Homes Act of 

2008’’. H.R. 4884 will amend Title 38, United States Code, to make improvements 

in the home loan guaranty program increasing the total amount of the loan guaranty and restricting fees to make the program more attractive for veterans to use. 

H.R. 4889, ‘‘The Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 4889 the ‘‘Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008’’. 

This legislation will recodify the educational benefit for the Guard and Reserve from 

the current Title 10, to Title 38, United States Code. Along with this recodification, 

Congress will make significant changes in the educational benefits for those servicemembers that are playing a significant role in the War on Terrorism. Many of the 

young Guard and Reserve members worked in a part time position, attended school, 

or worked in a position that paid less than a living wage. This legislation will allow 

Guard and Reserve members to return to school or enroll in a training class to further their career. 

Recent surveys show that veterans returning home from military duty face a 

bleak job market. Eighteen percent of the veterans who recently returned from tours 

of duty are unemployed. Of those employed since leaving the military, 25 percent 

earn less than $21,800 a year, according to the VA. This legislation will provide 

these veterans with the money needed to continue their education while employed, 

or looking for employment. 

H.R. 5664, Specially Adapted Housing 

While PVA supports the intent of H.R. 5664, we have serious concerns with the 

language of the bill, as it is written. The legislation specifically calls for the VA to 

regularly update specially adapted housing ‘‘plans and specifications’’ furnished to 

veterans by the VA. The VA is not responsible for providing plans and specifications 

to veterans who are eligible for the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) grant. It provides assistance to the veteran through application of ideas presented in the Handbook for Design: Specially Adapted Housing (VA Pamphlet 26–13). We believe that 

the language of the bill should read ‘‘The Secretary shall update the Handbook for 

Design at least once every six years. The update should include consideration for 

new and unique disabilities to include vision impairments, impairments specific to 

upper limb amputation, and burn injuries.’’ 

PVA was fortunate to participate in the hearing held last year regarding application of the SAH grant. We are well aware of the unique challenges faced by many 

new veterans with complex disabilities incurred while serving in the War on Terror. 

However, it is important to understand that the basic accessibility concepts in the 

VA Pamphlet 26–13 are not outdated, as implied during that hearing. If there is 

a fault, it is that it seems to focus on wheelchair accessibility. But what most people 

do not realize is that basic wheelchair accessibility is meant to cover the concept 

of universal home design. Furthermore, the accessibility recommendations suggested 

in VA Pamphlet 26–13 actually exceed American’s With Disabilities Act (ADA) recommendations as well as the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines. With these 

thoughts in mind, PVA can support the legislation if the language is changed to reflect the actual intent. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

72 

H.R. 5684, the ‘‘Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008’’ 

PVA supports most of the provisions of this bill. We realize that legislation intended to replace existing landmark legislation such as the Montgomery GI Bill, will 

receive many modifications to satisfy various parties before if becomes law. With 

that in mind, we have only a few concerns. The Fee to participate in the program 

should be removed. 

There was no charge for the educational benefit for the veterans of WWII or the 

Vietnam era veterans. The veterans of the current conflict should not have to pay 

for this benefit. Although it is a reduced fee of $50 per month (for 24 months) from 

$100 per month, it is still a large amount of money from an E–1 or E–2 in the service. 

The bill does not include educational benefits for the Guard and Reserve. Without 

these military components, the nation could not conduct the War on Terror. They 

are fighting and paying the cost war along with the regular forces. We have an obligation to provide the same educational benefits that the regular forces receive. We 

should not have to inform these veterans that perhaps a law will be passed next 

year, or 2010, that will give them equal educational benefits. 

The extension of time to use the program is helpful for veterans who may need 

more time to complete there education. We favor the provision of including veterans 

in the program discharged with a General Discharge. The 5–Year pilot program for 

on-campus work-study positions can be helpful for many students. Using the educational assistance program for business courses and seminars is an innovative use 

of the program. 

Increasing the fees paid to the schools will help the institutions with processing 

the veterans. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, Members 

of the Committee, I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to express 

our concerns on these issues. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Patrick Campbell, Legislative Director, 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), thank you for this opportunity to testify in front of this 

Subcommittee again, especially with so many important pieces of legislation being 

considered at one time. 

I. H.R. 5684 ‘‘Veterans Education Improvement Act’’ 

In January, IAVA along with the other Veteran Service Organizations (VSO) sitting with me today presented to you our top priorities for reforming the education 

benefits for veterans. After months of discussion and debate, the VSO and Education community united behind two critical reforms. We need a GI Bill that: 

1. Fully Covers the Cost of Education at any Public School in the Country 

2. Compensates Guard/Reserve Servicemembers for Serving Multiple Tours 

We are happy to see that this Committee is continuing to focus on the plight of 

servicemembers attempting to earn a degree with substandard education benefits. 

If enacted, H.R. 5684 would mean a considerable improvement in education benefits 

for veterans across the country. 

IAVA is encouraged to see provisions that would increase the monthly rate for 

education benefits under Chapter 30 to $1950/month, an increase of 77%. At most, 

a veteran would receive $17,550/yr. which is slightly above the average cost of a 

public school education, currently at $17,336/yr. according to the College Board. 

We also support the inclusion of a 5-year usage extension, allowing servicemembers to pay back their student loans, and many of the administrative changes contained in the bill. By adding additional staff, money for information technology and 

increasing the per-veteran fee paid to schools for GI bill administrators, veterans 

who depend on this benefit will experience substantially better customer service. We 

thank the chairwoman and this committee for their hard work on this bill. 

However, to borrow a phrase used in the 1944 debates about the original GI bill, 

‘‘Not all that glitters is gold.’’ I have testified before this Committee that the current 

Chapter 30 benefit structure is fundamentally flawed and unfortunately, this bill 

fails to address key structural issues with the benefit. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

73 

First, flat-rate education benefits create an incentive for veterans to attend the 

cheapest school possible and do not reward veterans for challenging themselves. 

Second, for many veterans attending school in high-cost urban areas even $17,550/ 

yr will not cover the full cost of a public school education. Third, requiring veterans 

to burn months of entitlement to pay for up front costs, such as tuition and books, 

will discourage veterans from completing a 4-year degree. Last and most importantly, there is no mechanism for this benefit to keep up with the rising cost of education. 

1. Flat Rate Benefits Create Disincentives 

The genius behind the original 1944 GI bill was that it challenged veterans to ‘‘be 

all they could be’’ by rewarding those veterans who attended more challenging and 

consequently more expensive schools. The benefit, which paid for the full cost of tuition and provided a monthly living stipend, was a promise to the veteran: ‘‘You 

worry about getting accepted and the government will cover the cost.’’ Unfortunately, when the GI bill transferred to a flat monthly rate in 1977, veterans were 

forced to choose between more difficult schools that would require them to work a 

second job or attending cheaper and easier schools where they would be able to 

pocket some of their education benefits. 

A veteran attending a community college in rural America will be pocketing almost $7,000/yr. (over $11,000 if they apply for a Pell grant) under this proposed 

benefit scheme, while other veterans will still need to take out loans or work to see 

their education paid for. 

SE Tech. (SD) U. of Ark. Cal. Berkeley Notre Dame 

Tuition: $3,800 $6,038 $8,382 $36,850 

Room & Board: $5,900 $7,982 $13,848 $9,830 

Other Expenses: $1,000 $3,138 $3,076 $2,350 

Total Cost of Educ.: $10,700 $17,158 $25,308 $49,030 

vs. H.R. 5684 Benefits $6,850 $392 ($7,758) ($31,480) 

This phenomenon explains why many veterans choose the cheapest path to earning a college degree and why online courses have the highest rates of GI Bill users, 

and why, according to a RAND study from 2000, ‘‘90 percent of veterans go to twoyear colleges’’ compared to ‘‘38 percent of all students’’ (Asch, Fair and Kilburn, 

RAND, 2000). IAVA recommends modifying H.R. 5684 to provide veterans an incentive to challenge themselves by providing tuition credits up to a set amount, preferably at least the average cost of tuition at public university (currently $6,185/year, 

according to the College Board. 

2. Benefit Does Not Cover Full Cost of Education at Many Public Schools 

IAVA believes that any new education benefit should renew the promise made to 

our men and women in uniform back in 1944, by guaranteeing that these veterans 

will be able to attend any public university with their GI bill benefits. Although this 

benefit will cover the full cost of education at any public school in Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas and South Dakota, the benefit falls well short for public institutions 

in California and New York. In California alone, the benefit will not cover the cost 

of education at any of the University of California campuses nor fourteen of the 

California State Universities. In New York, the overall benefit is slightly below the 

typical cost of education at a State University of New York (SUNY) campus—currently estimated at $17,630/yr.—and the cost of education at many SUNY campuses 

exceeds that estimate. 

3. Burning Future Entitlement Discourages Finishing Degrees 

IAVA agrees that charging advance payments used to help veterans pay for initial 

education costs from the final months of a veteran’s education entitlement, as provided for in Section 19 of H.R. 5684, would be a marked improvement from the current system. However, IAVA also believes that H.R. 5684 should abandon the advance payment scheme altogether in exchange for up front tuition payments made 

directly to the school. 

Currently, veterans can only use one month of education entitlement every year 

to help defray the large startup cost associated with paying for tuition and fees. The 

current value of one month of entitlement is $1,101 ($1,950 under H.R. 5684) and 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

74 

that amount does little to help a veteran pay the $6,185 average tuition payment 

for a four-year public university. Furthermore, if a veteran were to use advance payments for all four years of their education, by the time they got to their final semester they would have no educational benefits left. Either option, taking or not taking 

advance payments leaves the veteran in a Catch-22. IAVA recommends modifying 

H.R. 5684 to strike the advance payment system and provide tuition credits paid 

directly to the school that are not charged against a veteran’s monthly entitlement. 

4. Value of Benefit Diminishes Rapidly 

There is no mechanism for this new benefit to keep up with the rising cost of education. Since H.R. 5684 does not modify the current yearly increases linked to the 

Consumer Price Index, every year a veteran remains in service the value of their 

education benefit dwindles. The cost of education has outpaced inflation by over 

100% since 1984 and 34% since 1996. Based on the previous increases to the CPI 

(Bureau of Labor & Statistics) and Total Charges for education (College Board) this 

is what the new education benefit will look like in five and ten years. 

5 years SE Tech. (SD) U. of Ark. Cal. Berkeley Notre Dame 

Cost of Education (40% increase) $14,980 $24,021 $35,431 $68,642 

H.R. 5684 Benefit (18% increase) $20,743 $20,743 $20,743 $20,743 

Difference $5,763 $(3,278) $(14,688) $(47,899) 

10 years SE Tech. (SD) U. of Ark. Cal. Berkeley Notre Dame 

Cost of Education (82% increase) $19,501 $31,270 $46,124 $89,357 

H.R. 5684 Benefit (30% increase) $22,885 $22,885 $22,885 $22,885 

Difference $3,385 $(8,385) $(23,238) $(66,472) 

In ten years, we will be in the same situation we are right now where two-year 

universities will be the only type of education available to veterans who depend on 

their GI Bill benefits to pay for school. IAVA recommends linking yearly increases 

to education benefits to be based on the rising cost of education as tracked by the 

Department of Education and not on the Consumer Price Index as it is done now. 

5. Conclusion 

IAVA estimates that H.R. 5684 will cost approximately $1.8 billion in FY2009. 

The chart below breaks down that approximation into cost estimates of each of the 

various new provisions. 

New Education Benefits: $1.66 billion 

Chapter 30: $1.47 billion 

Chapter 1607: $189 million 

Buy-in Adjustment: $112 million 

150 Full Time Employees: $10 million 

State Approving Agencies: $13 million 

Increasing Fee/Veteran: $5 million 

Work Study Program: $10 million 

IAVA recommends that H.R. 5684 be amended to ensure that all public universities will be covered by these new education benefits. IAVA suggests that H.R. 5684 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

75 

should accomplish this goal by creating an additional tuition payment, no less then 

$6,185/yr., that is paid directly to the school. IAVA also recommends that H.R. 5684 

is amended so that yearly increases are linked to the growing cost of education to 

ensure that this benefit will remain robust for the next generation of servicemembers. 

II. H.R. 4883 Extension of Servicemember Civil Relief Act Homeowner 

Protections 

This bill will extend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for a limitation on the sale, foreclosure or seizure of property owned by a servicemember during 

the one-year period following the servicemember’s period of military service. The 

current protection of 90 days from adversarial proceedings is inadequate for many 

returning veterans, especially while they are facing the daunting task of readjusting 

to civilian life. IAVA endorses this straight forward and helpful measure. 

III. H.R. 4884 ‘‘The Helping Our Veterans to Keep Their Homes Act’’ 

H.R. 4884 will allow veterans to refinance their home loans up to the full value 

of their residence or farm, limit fees for VA loan guarantees to only 1% of the total 

loan value, extend a series of demonstration projects, raise the overall ‘‘maximum 

guaranty amount’’, emplace yearly increases to the maximum loan guaranty based 

on the Consumer Price Index and require the Secretary of the VA to review the loan 

process for condominium purchases. Veterans, much like their civilian counterparts, 

are struggling to keep their homes and lives in tack even with foreclosure clouds 

hanging over this nation. 

The provisions of this bill will allow veterans to refinance their home loans and 

take advantage of both lower interest rates and the security of VA’s home loan guaranty. The increase to the ‘‘maximum guaranty amount’’ and the linking of this maximum to the CPI will ensure that veterans’ home loans will continue to be a valuable benefit for generations to come. There does however appear to be a minor typo 

in section 2(e) of this bill. The bill should read ‘‘by ‘striking 25 percent of’ and inserting ‘150 percent of.’ ’’ IAVA endorses this timely and important legislation. 

IV. H.R. 4889 ‘‘The Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act’’ 

IAVA strongly endorses recodification of Chapter 1607, education benefits for Reservists who have served at least one active-duty deployment, from Title 10 to Title 

38. Education benefits for these servicemembers should be considered a readjustment benefit and therefore should be administered by the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, not the Department of Defense. H.R. 4889 would recodify Chapter 1607 into 

Title 38, without making any substantial changes to the Chapter 1607 program. 

However, H.R. 4889 does not contain any of the amendments to Chapter 1607 contained in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act. IAVA believes that H.R. 

4889 must not only contain the provisions included in the NDAA, but also deal directly with two issues. 

First, H.R. 4889 must clarify that Reserve and National Guard servicemembers 

deployed from or retiring into the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) are still entitled to 

portability of their education benefits after they separate from the military. This 

was the original intent of the legislation passed in the NDAA, but the Department 

of Veterans Affairs has interpreted the portability provision extremely narrowly, 

which has caused much angst and confusion among the veteran community. 

Second, benefits for Reserve/National Guard servicemembers should be based on 

the cumulative length of their active-duty deployments and not on their single longest deployment. This fix would eliminate a glaring inequity faced by reservists serving multiple deployments. Currently Marine Reservists serving more frequent but 

shorter tours never qualify for the higher level of REAP benefits. The average Marine reservist has been deployed on multiple 9-month tours and therefore might 

have served 18 months of active-duty but still receive $220/month less in educational benefits then an Army National Guardsman who served the same amount 

of active duty. IAVA strongly endorses modifying the current Chapter 1607 structure of benefits to be based on cumulative service and by adding intermediary qualification steps that increase the level of education benefits for every six months of 

service (see attachment). 

IAVA can not endorse H.R. 4889, until the issues mentioned above are addressed. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

76 

V. H.R. 4539 ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost 

Reduction Act’’ 

As stated above, IAVA is supportive of allowing veterans to refinance their home 

loans up to the full value of their residence or farm and raising the overall ‘‘maximum guaranty amount’’ which would be provided for in this bill. IAVA is also supportive of programs that reduce the closing cost of affordable homes. 

IAVA is unable, however, to comment on the provision concerning ‘‘limitation on 

amount of fee’’ because the text of that section relies on a reference to a provision 

in the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(2)) that appears to be completely unrelated to limitations on fees. IAVA is generally supportive 

of increases for loan guaranties for affordable housing, though we are curious why 

the veteran must be ‘‘first owner-occupant’’ to qualify for the benefit. Lastly, IAVA 

recommends that H.R. 4539 provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs further guidance in establishing regulations concerning ‘‘maximum income amount[s]’’ that 

would determine eligibility for this program. 

VI. H.R. 3646 Joint Employment Study 

This bill will direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Labor 

to conduct a joint study on the fields of employment for which the greatest need 

for employees exists in various geographic areas. IAVA only recommends that the 

findings of these studies be integrated in the Department of Veterans Affairs Transition Assistance Programs’ (TAP) presentations to separating active personnel and 

be sent to the pertinent National Guard and Reserve centers across the nation. 

VII. H.R. 5664 Reviewing Adaptive Housing Plans & Specifications 

H.R. 5664 directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at least once every 

six years the plans and specifications for specially adapted housing furnished to veterans by the Secretary. IAVA has no position on this bill. 

VIII. H.R. 3798 ‘‘National Guard Employment Protection Act’’ 

This bill will extend Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 

Act (USERRA) protections to National Guard servicemembers who are ‘‘ordered to 

perform training or other duty’’ with or without their consent that is above and beyond the required normal one weekend a month and two weeks a year. USERRA 

provides meaningful protections for these citizen soldiers and should be extended to 

all forms of involuntary call-ups. IAVA strongly endorses this legislation. 

IX. H.R. 3681 ‘‘Veterans Benefit Awareness Act’’ 

H.R. 3681 will authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to advertise in the national media to promote awareness of benefits administered by the Secretary. IAVA 

has testified many times that we believe that the VA is a passive system that waits 

for the veteran to ask for help. H.R. 3681 will allow the VA to reach out to many 

veterans across this country by advertising in the national media and alerting them 

that they are entitled to benefits. This provision is long overdue and IAVA emphatically endorses the Veterans Benefit Awareness Act. 

X. H.R. 3393 ‘‘Reservist Access to Justice Act’’ 

The Reservist Access to Justice Act will expand USERRA protections to apply to 

all federal, state and private employers. The purpose of USERRA was to encourage 

‘‘noncareer service in the uniformed service by eliminating . . . disadvantages to civilian careers . . . minimiz[ing] disruption . . . by providing prompt reemployment 

[and] prohibit[ing] discrimination against’’ 38 U.S.C. 4301(a) (2007). IAVA believes 

that the federal government should be held to at least the same standard as the 

private sector when dealing with our service men and women. 

This bill will set a minimum recovery for a successful USERRA claim. A veteran 

will receive compensation for either their lost wages and benefits or $20,000, whichever is greater. Many veterans fail to pursue USERRA discrimination claims 

against their employers, because the prospects of a long legal fight with the possibility of a minuscule recovery leaves a veteran little reason to vindicate their rights. 

Furthermore, other forms of discrimination claims have similar recovery guidelines. 

Although IAVA is strongly supportive of this provision, we suggest that USERRA 

remedies adopt the Title VII tiered model that sets higher penalties for discrimination claims against larger employers. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

77 

H.R. 3393 will allow for punitive damages against employers whose discrimination against servicemembers is ‘‘done with malice or reckless indifference.’’ This provision would directly affect repeat offenders that continue to ignore USERRA protections even after the employer is made aware of the existence and relevance of these 

protections. This bill will also require courts to use their full equity powers, including injunctions, ‘‘to vindicate fully the rights and benefits of persons’’ protected 

under USERRA. This will allow courts to enjoin employers from firing an employee 

while a USERRA claim is being processed. 

Lastly, the bill would definitely clarify that USERRA claims would be exempt 

from binding arbitration agreements, even in spite of recent court decision to the 

contrary. Congress had clearly intended to exempt USERRA complaints from binding arbitration agreements. The USERRA statute states, ‘‘In the case of an action 

against a private employer . . . the district courts of the United States shall have 

jurisdiction of the action.’’ USERRA also ‘‘supersedes any . . . contract, agreement, 

policy, plan, practice . . . that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right 

or benefit . . . including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise 

of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit.’’ This very committee stated 

that USERRA claims are not to be preempted by binding arbitration in House Report 103–65. ‘‘It is the Committee’s intent that, even if a person protected under the 

Act resorts to arbitration, any arbitration decision shall not be binding as a 

matter of law.’’ 

IAVA strongly endorses this H.R. 3393 ‘‘Reservist Access to Justice Act.’’ 

XI. H.R. 3298 ‘‘21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act’’ 

The ‘‘21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act’’ is a long over due overhaul 

of the Servicemember Civil Relief Act. Arguably the most important provision of this 

bill is the section that allows for the termination or suspension of service contracts 

made by a servicemember or on behalf of a servicemember. 

While I was in Iraq, I was required to pay a monthly fee to my cell phone provider 

in order to keep my cell phone contract current. Even after paying 12 months of 

fees to Cingular wireless, when I returned home I was unable to get a replacement 

phone with my old number without paying a deposit of $500. I spent five hours of 

my first day back from Iraq in the mall just trying to get my service restored. It 

took over 7 months for the whole issue to get resolved and it involved filing a complaint to the FCC and switching service providers. 

IAVA is encouraged to see that this protection has been expanded to contracts 

made on behalf of a servicemember, because many servicemembers are sharing contracts with their families and therefore are being denied protections because they 

are not the ‘‘name on account.’’ 

H.R. 3298 also creates a meaningful remedy for violations of the 6% interest cap 

provided for in section 207 of the Servicemember Civil Relief Act. Currently there 

is no penalty for a creditor who simply ignores this important protection. This bill 

would allow for the recovery of damages caused by higher interest rates and provide 

a penalty up to $10,000 for creditors who willfully or negligently violate this protection. 

IAVA strongly endorses this legislation. IAVA also recommends that H.R. 3298 

adopt section 3 of the Veterans Education Tuition Support Act, H.R. 2910, which 

clarifies that student loans do qualify for the 6% interest rate cap. 

XII. H.R. 3467 ‘‘Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act’’ 

The ‘‘Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act’’ extends programs that provide 

counseling, job placement, healthcare and housing to veterans to help veterans in 

the transition from prison or mental institutions to the workforce. Based on the 

demonstration project called the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program, this 

model has been shown to reduce veteran recidivism rates by 90%. IAVA supports 

the authorization and appropriation of $15 million for this program. 

XIII. H.R. 3889 Longitudinal Study of Vocation Rehabilitation Programs 

H.R. 3889 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation programs administered by the Secretary. 

IAVA has no position on this bill. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Patrick Campbell 

Legislative Director 

Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) 

f 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

78 

Prepared Statement of Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.), 

Deputy Director, Government Relations, 

Military Officers Association of America 

MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, on behalf of the nearly 370,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am honored to have this opportunity to present the 

Association’s views on various legislative proposals before the Subcommittee today. 

MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the federal government. 

STATEMENT 

MOAA appreciates the work of this Subcommittee for holding a number of hearings in recent years on educational and other benefits legislative proposals that support our veterans’ reintegration to civilian life following active military service. 

This Statement offers our views and recommendations on a number of bills before 

the Subcommittee today that we believe are important to the needs of the military 

community and veterans. 

H.R. 5684 (Rep. Herseth-Sandlin, D–SD, At Large). MOAA strongly supports 

H.R. 5684 and we are very grateful for the bipartisan support for the substantial 

MGIB upgrades in the bill. During a time of war, our service men and women deserve no less. 

MOAA is particularly pleased that H.R. 5684 includes a number of longstanding 

MOAA priorities, including: 

• Higher reimbursement rates that would cover at least the average cost of a public college/university education 

• Extension of the post-service usage period to 15 years (from 10 years) 

• Prohibition against counting MGIB benefits as income when applying for federal financial aid 

• More flexible rules for the use of benefits—such as for licensing or certification 

prep courses and business-related courses 

• An opportunity for currently serving members who declined to enroll in the 

MGIB to withdraw that decision and enroll in the program 

MOAA is also grateful for the new monthly stipend provision of $500 for full time 

study/training and $250 for half-time study; and, for the bill provisions that would 

improve the capability of the VA Education Service to more efficiently and effectively administer GI Bill benefits. 

A Coherent Approach to the New GI Bill 

Over the course of a number of hearings before this Subcommittee and the full 

Committee, we have urged restructuring the MGIB to reflect the way our combined 

active duty and reserve forces team is used today to accomplish operational missions 

at home and overseas. 

A ‘‘total force’’ approach to the MGIB essentially means that educational benefits 

should be structured according to the type and length of duty performed by our 

service men and women. It no longer makes sense to have multiple GI Bill programs 

that reflect Cold war policies and procedures. 

Active duty service entrants earn benefits according to the duration of their initial 

service contract, usually two to four years. 

Historically, National Guard and Reserve recruits received about 47–50 percent 

of the three-year active duty contract rate. That changed in the late 1990s. Reserve 

initial entry rates dropped to 29% of the active duty rate and have remained stagnant for the five long years of this war. 

MOAA continues to urge that the Department of Defense restore the 47–50 percent ratio of the basic reserve MGIB with the active duty program. We are confident 

that would help sustain quality recruiting in this difficult recruiting period. 

Alternatively, DoD and the Armed Services Committees should consider either 

converting the basic reserve MGIB program authorized under Chapter 1606, 10 

U.S.C. to a service-funded ‘‘tuition assistance’’ program, or relinquishing jurisdiction 

to the Veterans Affairs Committees. 

Operational Reserve Service Should be Included in H.R. 5684 

The FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act established readjustment benefits under Chapter 1607, 10 U.S.C. for operational reservists who serve on active 

duty on contingency operation orders. This change accomplished MOAA’s and the 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

79 

Partnership for Veterans’ Education’s top priority for the MGIB in 2007 and we are 

very grateful to Congress for it. 

Two inequities, however, remain for operational reservists with respect to their 

GI Bill benefits. First, reservists are limited to crediting the single longest tour of 

active duty until they acquire 36 months of active duty service. Second, for those 

who do complete an aggregate of 36 months service, they are limited to 80% of the 

Chapter 30 MGIB rate—the two-year contract rate—instead of the 100% rate their 

36 months of cumulative active duty service has earned them. 

Since 9/11 more than 150,000 reservists have served multiple active duty tours. 

Some have already served 36 months active duty and thousands more will reach 

that level soon. 

The only way for the Army to meet sustained deployment rotations under 

the newly announced 12 month tours for active Army soldiers is to increase 

reliance on National Guard brigade combat teams and other federal reserve 

force assets. 

If you serve the nation on active duty in the war on terror, your GI Bill 

benefits should be equal for the same service performed. 

MOAA strongly recommends that the Subcommittee amend H.R. 5684 to include an accrual provision that would authorize our Guard and Reserve 

warriors to earn active duty MGIB benefits as they serve up to a maximum 

of 36 months. 

Other Legislative Proposals 

MOAA respectfully recommends that the Subcommittee examine recently re-introduced Senate and House proposals, such as S. 22, in structuring a new GI Bill for 

today’s service men and women. S. 22, for example, includes a reserve accrual authority discussed above, an innovative public-private partnership with independent 

colleges, a geographic housing allowance (an alternative approach to H.R. 5684’s flat 

rate stipend), and an authority for Service Academy and ROTC Scholarship recipient graduate commissioned officers to enroll in the GI Bill in exchange for a service 

extension agreement. 

During MOAA’s legislative presentation before a joint hearing of the House and 

Senate Veterans Affairs Committees on 3 April 2008, we strongly endorsed Senate 

bill, S. 22, as reintroduced by Senator Jim Webb (D–VA) with original cosponsors 

Senators John Warner (R–VA), Frank Lautenberg (D–NJ) and Chuck Hagel (D–NE). 

MOAA urged that 

‘‘the [House and Senate Veterans Affairs] Committees ‘deconflict’ the 

statutory authority for the MGIB in Chapter 30, 38 U.S.C. with the 

proposed new GI Bill for the 21st century, S. 22 (Revised). We believe 

desirable features in the MGIB should be incorporated into the proposed new Chapter 33, 38 U.S.C., or vice versa. To maintain two GI 

Bill program authorities at the same time will undoubtedly cause 

confusion and be difficult to administer.’’ 

In this regard, MOAA has no preference whether the most desirable features of 

H.R. 5684 and other pending GI Bill legislation should be incorporated into Chapter 

30, 38 U.S.C. or in Chapter 33 (the proposed ‘site’ for S. 22). We strongly believe, 

however, that only one Chapter should be used to create a ‘‘total force’’ approach 

to the GI Bill for our 21st century warriors. 

MOAA also respectfully requests the Subcommittee consider including two other 

initiatives in the final version of H.R. 5684. 

VEAP ‘Decliner’ Enrollment. <20,000 servicemembers who declined to enroll in 

VEAP remain on active duty. This cohort has at least 22+ years service and most 

will retire in the near term. 

VEAP Participants with zero-balance accounts were permitted to enroll in the MGIB in the late ’90s if they agreed to pay $2700—the out-of-pocket cost for a full 

VEAP account. Only 11% of that group agreed to pay the $2700 fee to get into the 

MGIB. Consistent with this policy, it would not be unreasonable to expect VEAP 

Decliners still on active duty to pay $2700 with a COLA-adjustment as a condition 

of MGIB enrollment. Based on the earlier VEAP–MGIB conversion, we estimate 

that the cost would be very low since only about 2200 (11%) would elect to enroll. 

MOAA recommends the Subcommittee include a VEAP Decliner MGIB enrollment 

opportunity in Section 9—Opportunity to withdraw election not to enroll in educational assistance program—of H.R. 5684. 

Surviving Spouses of Dual-Military Couples. The second initiative concerns certain surviving spouses of dual-military couples. There are cases in today’s force 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

80 

where a military surviving spouse of a military member who died in the line of duty 

is ineligible for the MGIB; e.g., Service Academy or SROTC Scholarship commissioned officers are ineligible for the MGIB. Under current law, the military surviving spouse is also denied use of Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits while continuing to serve on active duty (See: Chapter 35, Section 3501(d), 38 U.S.C.). 

MOAA recommends a law change to permit military surviving spouses who elect 

to remain on active duty but are ineligible for the MGIB to be authorized to use 

Chapter 35 DEA benefits while continuing to serve. 

H.R. 4889, the Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008 (Chairman 

Bob Filner, D–CA). 

At a hearing before this Subcommittee on 17 January, in response to a question 

from Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, a senior DoD official stated that the Department of Defense no longer objected to the recodification of the Reserve Educational 

Assistance Program (REAP) in Title 38. 

The FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) established readjustment benefits for operational reservists entitled to REAP under Chapter 1607, 10 

U.S.C. With the NDAA change, however, the DoD must ‘‘pay for’’ a veteran’s benefit—namely REAP readjustment benefits—for our National Guard and Reserve 

warriors following their separation from military service. 

Under a ‘‘total force’’ approach to the GI Bill, active duty and reserve forces’ readjustment educational benefits should be overseen and administered under Title 38. 

(Basic reserve educational benefits for enlistment—Chapter 1606, 10 U.S.C.—have 

no readjustment purpose and could remain in Title 10 subject to the judgment of 

the House Armed Services and the Veterans Affairs Committees). 

MOAA strongly agrees with the Department of Defense’s conclusion that the 

Chapter 1607 program no longer belongs in Title 10 since its purpose is to support 

veterans’ readjustment. 

MOAA strongly recommends that H.R. 4889 be incorporated as an amendment to H.R. 5684 in full Committee markup of H.R. 5684. 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) Legislation 

H.R. 3298, 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act (Rep. Patrick J. 

Murphy, D–PA) 

H.R. 3298 would amend the SCRA to allow individuals called to military service 

to terminate or suspend a service contract, after the date of entry into service or 

the date of the military orders, if: (1) the service contract (such as cellular phone, 

cable or satellite television service, Internet service, utilities or automobile insurance) is executed before the individual is called to service for a period of at least 

90 days; or (2) the person enters into the contract while in military service and 

thereafter receives orders for a change of permanent station to a location outside 

the United States, or to deploy with a military unit for a period of at least 180 days. 

H.R. 3298 would establish penalties against anyone who: (1) holds property or 

funds of a person in military service who lawfully terminates a contract; or (2) violates the 6% limit on interest rates charged to servicemembers during a period of 

military service. 

MOAA strongly believes that military men and women called to defend our nation 

should not be penalized by steep termination fees for personal services contracts 

such as cell phone service, cable and satellite TV or Internet service. MOAA strongly supports H.R. 3298. 

H.R. 4883 (Chairman Bob Filner, D–CA). H.R. 4883 would amend the SCRA 

by extending from 90 days to one year the limitation on the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property owned by a servicemember following release from a period of active 

duty service. 

In this particularly difficult ‘‘mortgage meltdown’’ environment, our nation’s defenders should be given every reasonable extension on their mortgage payment obligations upon return from active duty service. MOAA strongly endorses H.R. 4883. 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) 

H.R. 3393, Reservists Access to Justice Act of 2007 (Rep. Artur Davis, D– 

AL). H.R. 3393 would amend the USERRA by allowing a court, if it determines that 

a federal, state, or private employer’s failure to comply with a veteran’s reemployment rights was willful, to require the employer to pay the individual the greater 

of any loss of wages or benefits, or $20,000. The bill would require—current law permits—a court to exercise injunctive relief to fully vindicate such rights. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

81 

H.R. 3393 also would authorize a court to require a state or private employer to 

pay punitive damages for violations found to be with malice or reckless indifference 

to the individual’s federally protected reemployment rights. In addition, the bill 

would make federal arbitration procedures inapplicable to claims for veterans’ employment and reemployment rights and benefits. 

MOAA and our colleagues in The Military Coalition endorsed H.R. 3393 in 

a letter to Representative Davis on 3 October 2007 (copy enclosed with this 

Statement). 

In addition to the protections proposed in H.R. 3393, MOAA also recommends the 

Subcommittee establish a single office in the government to be responsible for overseeing and tracking USERRA claims, whether formal or informal. MOAA addressed 

this issue in our legislative presentation before the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees on 3 April: 

‘‘The routine activation of National Guard and reserve service men and women 

is a fact of life in today’s world. Under ‘operational reserve’ policies, reservists can 

expect to be on active duty for at least one year of every five years they serve on 

inactive (drill) duty. But the reality in the war on terror is otherwise: over 150,000 

Guard and Reserve members already have served multiple tours of active duty in 

the last five years and tours often stretch to 15 months or longer. 

In this context, MOAA believes it’s imperative to regularly review and update, as 

necessary, the laws, procedures and resources for ensuring the reemployment rights 

of reservists under the USERRA. 

In its most recent Report, ‘‘Military Personnel: Federal Agencies Have Taken Actions to Address Servicemembers’ Employment Rights, but a Single Entity Needs to 

Maintain Visibility to Improve Focus on Overall Program Results’’ (GAO–08–254T, 

8 November 2007), the GAO noted that: 

• No single agency is accountable for overseeing the USERRA complaint resolution process 

• Required reports to Congress on USERRA complaints do not include informal 

complaints data from the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) 

network of ombudsmen 

• USERRA information outreach and servicemember reporting of employer information has improved 

• The four Federal agencies responsible for USERRA complaints do not systematically track disability-related complaints. Disability-related complaints and 

other complaints are not distinguished 

MOAA agrees with the GAO’s recommendation that Congress should establish in law ‘a single entity accountable for maintaining visibility over the 

entire USERRA complaint resolution process.’ Support passage of H.R. 

1632.’’ 

H.R. 3798, National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007 (Rep. 

Robin Hayes, R–NC). H.R. 3798 would establish reemployment rights under the 

USERRA for certain National Guard service men and women called to active duty 

in their state under Title 32 to accomplish a mission requested by the Secretary of 

Defense. 

This proposed change appears to conform with post-September 11, 2001 lawchanges that authorize members of the National Guard to be ordered to state active 

duty under Title 32 at the request of the President or the Secretary of Defense to 

perform a homeland security or national security mission within the limits of a particular state. Although such duty is performed in the interest of the national security, Guard members currently are not authorized reemployment rights for performing such duty. 

MOAA strongly recommends passage of H.R. 3798 to protect the reemployment rights of certain National Guard service men and women who are performing a national security mission while serving on state active duty under 

Title 32. 

H.R. 4539, Dept. of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost Reduction Act 

of 2007 (Rep. Steve Buyer, R–IN, Ranking Member, House Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs). H.R. 4539 is a bipartisan bill that would increase the maximum 

loan VA can guarantee to 125% of the Freddie Mac conforming limit ($417,000 X 

1.25); extend some of the loan fees to 2017 (as a PAYGO offset); add refinancing 

of VA loans to the conforming limit; reduce the equity needed for VA to guaranty 

a refinance to 0% from the current 10%; and, for other purposes. MOAA supports 

H.R. 4539. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

82 

Conclusion 

MOAA appreciates the opportunity to present our views on legislation that supports our service men women and veterans. We look forward to working with the 

Members of the Subcommittee to ensure that our 21st century warriors, including 

members of the National Guard and Reserve, and veterans receive the benefits that 

match their service and sacrifice during this time of war. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary, 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor 

Chairman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Committee. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss four bills introduced in the 

House of Representatives and referred to this Subcommittee for action. 

H.R. 3646 

H.R. 3646 mandates a study, to be conducted jointly by the Secretaries of Labor 

and Veterans’ Affairs, ‘‘on the fields of employment for which the greatest need for 

employees exists in various geographic areas . . .’’ 

The Department of Labor’s (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) develops tenyear National-level industry and employment projections and prepares and publishes career information based on those projections. Projections are done on a biennial basis; the most recent set, released in December 2007, covers 2006 to 2016. BLS 

provides the National projections data files through DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) to state workforce agencies to use as a starting point for 

developing state and area projections. In addition, the states currently collect labor 

market information and share it with the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) service to better assist disabled 

veterans in making an informed choice on the type of career they would like to pursue. This information is used to assure disabled veterans are not placed into education or training programs for jobs that are unavailable in the local economy. 

The Department urges the Congress to fund the President’s FY09 budget request 

for BLS so we and the states can continue to produce the occupational employment 

and wage information, and the national projections that underlie the state and area 

projections that VR&E and others who work with veterans are already using. We 

do not believe that the joint study that would be required if this bill became law 

would produce more or better data than the information described above, which is 

already available and used in the federally-funded workforce investment system to 

assist in matching veterans with good jobs and promising careers. Accordingly, the 

Department opposes this bill. 

H.R. 3393 

H.R. 3393 would make a number of significant changes to the enforcement and 

remedies provisions of USERRA. For example, the bill would give the court the discretion to award $20,000 in liquidated damages if it finds that the employer willfully violated USERRA. In addition, it would authorize the court to award punitive 

damages, subject only to Constitutional limits, against State and private employers 

of 15 or more employees if the court determined that the violation was done with 

malice or reckless indifference to the service member’s USERRA rights. States 

would also be required in USERRA cases to waive their sovereign immunity under 

the 11th amendment of the U.S. Constitution or otherwise. 

In general, the Department supports efforts to strengthen the ability of service 

members to reclaim their civilian employment upon leaving military service. However, the Department cannot support this bill, as drafted, because it is concerned 

that the far-reaching provisions of this bill, particularly its provision for unlimited 

punitive damages, could have a chilling effect on employers’ desire to hire service 

members. The provision requiring states to waive various rights would also deserve 

thorough debate. 

H.R. 3798 

The Department would like to work with the Subcommittee and the Department 

of Defense to further explore the intent of this proposed legislation. USERRA was 

intended to encourage noncareer service—as opposed to career service—in the uniwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

83 

formed services. The Department therefore is concerned that, as drafted, this legislation could extend USERRA protection to certain members of the National Guard 

well beyond the existing five-year limit on military service while working for a single employer. 

H.R. 3467 

H.R. 3467 would authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a 

workforce reentry program for fiscal years 2008–2011 at $15 million per year. Additionally, the bill would: provide for a prisoner re-entry program for veterans in 24 

locations across the country that would provide counseling and referral services, in 

addition to job training; vest the authority for this program with the Secretary of 

VA; make relevant state agencies, including state and local workforce investment 

boards, and non-profit organizations eligible to receive grants to provide services to 

incarcerated veterans; and require grantees to submit an evaluation of the program 

three years after receiving the grant. 

The Administration supports the intent of the ‘‘Second Chance for America’s Veterans Act.’’ However, we would note that most of the services proposed under this 

legislation, which mirrors the recently concluded Incarcerated Veterans Transition 

Program (IVTP), could be provided through the Second Chance Act, which the President signed into law last week. 

Among other things, the recently enacted Second Chance Act formally authorizes 

key features of the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative (PRI), which provides recently released ex-offenders—including veterans—the support and services they need to successfully reintegrate into mainstream society. 

We fully recognize the promising early results of the Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program demonstration, and believe the lessons learned and best practices 

from that demonstration can be incorporated into the PRI. These lessons include: 

active collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs; pre-release counseling; 

veterans’ benefits counseling; coordination with other programs for housing and 

other assistance; and discharge upgrade consideration. 

VETS will work closely with DOL’s Employment and Training Administration and 

with VA to assure that IVTP best practices are incorporated into the Prisoner Reentry Initiative and that eligible veterans receive priority of service. 

That concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Thomas L. Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense 

and 

Statement of Curtis L. Gilroy, Ph.D., Director for Accession Policy, 

Military Personnel Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense 

Introduction 

Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. We are 

pleased to appear before you today, on behalf of the Department of Defense (DoD), 

to testify about pending legislation that affects programs available to active duty 

members, National Guard and Reserve members, and veterans. The pending bills 

that directly affect DoD are H.R. 4889, H.R. 5684, H.R. 3393, and H.R. 3798. The 

changes proposed in these bills will significantly alter the Montgomery GI Bill 

(MGIB) and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP), which provide 

educational assistance benefits to Active, Guard and Reserve members who have 

served in support of contingencies, and the impact of activation of members of the 

Reserve components on their employers. 

Program Changes and Enhancements 

For today’s hearing, you asked that we comment on several bills that would modify educational assistance programs, home loan programs, employer relations and 

support, and provisions of the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act. Our comments will 

focus on the implications of the proposals on military force management, specifically 

military recruiting and retention, and the relationship of the Department of Defense 

with the Nation’s businesses and employers of Service members. As for the amendments affecting the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act, H.R. 3798 and H.R. 4883, the 

Department is in general support of these bills. We will submit a separate views 

letter to address minor technical change recommendations. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

84 

We will defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs for those bills that impact 

programs under their purview, specifically H.R. 4884, H.R. 4539, H.R. 3889, H.R. 

3681, H.R. 3646, H.R. 3467, and H.R. 5664. 

Reserve Educational Assistance Program 

The Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) was developed to reward 

National Guard and Reserve members who served in support of a contingency operation and National Guard members who performed federally funded state duty at 

the request of the President or Secretary of Defense to respond to a national emergency, and to provide an incentive to continue to serve following a mobilization 

when pressure to separate may be strong. However, the retention aspect of REAP 

was lost with enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (NDAA 2008) when Congress added the 10-year post-service eligibility provision to REAP. 

H.R. 4889, the Guard and Reserves are Fighting Too Act of 2008, would 

eliminate the 10-year post-service eligibility thereby restoring the retention incentive and recodify chapter 1607 (REAP) of title 10, as a new chapter in title 38. This 

bill is substantively flawed. Although we support restoring REAP as a retention incentive, the bill would inappropriately, move a reserve force management program 

to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Second, H.R. 4889 would require the Secretary of Defense to transfer to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the funds that are in the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund. These are funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 

and programmed to be spent on the Department’s reserve component retention incentive programs and should remain with DoD to fund what would be a restored 

DoD incentive program. The Department needs the dollars in the Education Benefits Fund programmed for REAP if this bill is enacted as drafted, or to fund other, 

alternative retention programs and additional recruiting efforts to make up for the 

losses in skilled manpower that will result from the FY 2008 NDAA revision of 

REAP. 

For these reasons, the Department does not support H.R. 4889. 

Veterans Educational Assistance Program 

H.R. 5684, the Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008 would make 

significant changes to Chapter 30, title 38, United States Code. As we have testified 

before, the Department does not believe that the basic structure of the Montgomery 

GI Bill is broken. However, we do recognize that some changes to the program 

would be advantageous. Since the administration and funding for the MGIB fall 

within the VA, we focus on only those aspects of the bill that would have an impact 

on military force management and defer to VA for other comments. There are some 

attractive features of this bill which we support, but we do have some concerns. 

First, we regret that H.R. 5684 does not make changes to the existing transferability provision currently in section 3020, title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.). The 

Department’s number one imperative with regard to the MGIB is opening up of the 

authority for the Service Secretaries to allow all career members the ability to 

transfer their unused education benefits to family members, consistent with strong 

messages from the field and fleet, and the President’s specific request that was presented in his State of the Union Address. As a result, the Administration cannot 

support this bill in lieu of the Administration’s transferability proposal, which will 

be transmitted shortly. 

Second, research sponsored by the Department and conducted at Clemson University by the Lewin Group suggests that negative retention effects begin to intrude 

when the monthly benefit exceeds $1,400 to $1,500. Therefore, we are confident that 

this bill, as currently structured with a monthly benefit of $1,950, would encourage 

untimely separation among many members who otherwise would have elected to remain in the military. In turn, this would demand new investments to hike retention 

incentives as a counterbalance. This challenge could be offset by targeting those who 

have completed at least six years of service—the timeframe recognized in current 

law (e.g., section 1174, title 1, U.S.C.) as the point at which special benefits would 

be required to recognize career oriented service members making a transition from 

the military. Six years should represent the minimum service period required to 

qualify for the expanded benefits available under H.R. 5684. 

Section 2 of H.R. 5684 would increase the monthly educational benefit from the 

current $1,101 to $1,450 for those whose initial tour was three years or more. This 

benefit level is in line with the average cost of a four-year public education (tuition, 

fees, room, and board) as estimated using data from the Department of Education— 

a benchmark we believe would not negatively impact our force management programs. We support this provision. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

85 

Section 3 would extend the current 10-year delimiting period for MGIB usage to 

15 years. This provision has no impact on military force management and is directly 

applicable to military veterans. We defer to the VA for comment relating to program 

and administration costs. 

Section 4 would add a $500 monthly educational stipend to the basic benefit for 

those pursuing an approved program of education on at least a half-time basis. 

While the basic benefit as proposed in this bill would cover the average tuition, fees, 

room, and board at a 4-year public institution, we recognize that students may have 

other expenses. The College Board has estimated that books, supplies, and personal 

expenses average just over $2,200 per academic year, or about $245 per month. If 

available only to new Service members who would elect a four or more year initial 

term of service, the Department could support a stipend at the $245 level, as it 

would increase experienced man-years across the Department. As an example, even 

a modest increase in four or more year enlistments in the Army above the current 

58% would have a significant positive effect on military readiness. 

Section 5 would make changes to the way the current pay reduction required for enrollment is administered by extending the current reduction of $100 per month 

for the first 12 months of service to $50 per month for the first 24 months. In essence, this would be like a small pay raise for our most junior troops at a time they 

may most need it. Although there could be a first year decrement to the General 

Treasury of about $90 million, in the second and subsequent years there should be 

no impact on treasury receipts. We would support this provision. 

Section 8 would allow the use of MGIB benefits to repay federal student loans. 

Currently, new enlistees who receive college loan repayment under the provisions 

of Chapter 109, title 10, United States Code, are ineligible to use that period of service to qualify for the MGIB. This provision would allow young men and women the 

opportunity to serve and use their earned MGIB benefits for either pre-service education or post-service education, or a combination of the two. This provision would 

be very advantageous to those young men and women who choose to stop or drop 

out of college to serve their country, but who fully intend to continue their education 

either during or after service. We would support this increased flexibility in the use 

of educational benefits. 

The Department is in general support of increasing flexibility in the use of MGIB 

benefits as specified in section 6, 7, and 9 through 19. However, we defer to the VA 

for comment as it affects their program, the costs and its administration. 

Other Program Changes 

H.R. 3393, the Reserve Access to Justice Act of 2007, would provide an additional Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) 

enforcement mechanism to the U.S. District Court, in the case of a civilian employer, or the U.S. Court of the Federal Circuit, in the case of a Federal employer, 

who willfully fails to comply with the provisions of USERRA. Under chapter 43 of 

title 38, U.S.C., as it would be amended by this bill, the court may require the employer to compensate the affected employee the greater of any loss of wages or benefits suffered by reason of the employer’s failure to comply with USERRA or $20,000, 

in addition to any other rights and benefits the employee may have. The court may 

also award punitive damages when the employer has 15 or more employees. Actions 

may also be brought against States as employers and State officials. 

The Department is not aware of any data that would indicate a need for this legislation. On the contrary, we are concerned about the negative message its enactment may send to the Nation’s employers. With over 630,000 RC members who have 

been activated, a large number of employers are affected by the temporary loss of 

an employee to military service and it is inevitable that some conflicts will arise 

even though reservists’ employment rights are protected by law. To give perspective 

to the problems that have arisen, between September 11, 2001 and September 30, 

2007, data show that 513,248 Guard and Reserve members were deactivated. During this timeframe, the Department of Labor received 6,606 cases filed by Reserve 

or Guard members. This represents less than 1.3% of the deactivated population. 

The Department believes USERRA is working well, and employers continue to support to their Reserve component employees. 

We would rather reach out to employers and work with them to resolve problems, 

as we do through Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve organization. Therefore, we suggest the Congress not take this decisive action without compelling evidence of its need and certainty that it will not do more harm than good. 

H.R. 3798, the National Guard Employment Protection Act of 2007, would 

amend USERRA to specify that the Secretary of Defense may designate service by 

a member of the National Guard in a state status under the provisions of section 

502(f), title 32, U.S.C., as service that is exempt from the five-year cumulative servwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

86 

ice limitation on USERRA protections. The Department supports the intent of this 

bill, but would like to work with the Subcommittee and DOL to further explore the 

intent of this legislation. 

H.R. 3298, the 21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act, would amend 

the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to allow individuals called to military service 

to terminate or suspend certain service contracts entered into before the individual 

receives notice of a permanent change of station or deployment orders and to provide penalties for violations of interest rate limitations. The Administration’s position on this bill is under development and will be forwarded under separate cover. 

Conclusion 

Today, the volunteer military stands ready, willing, and able to defend our great 

nation, as well as its values and principles. Credit for our success in attracting and 

retaining high-quality people to serve in uniform belongs in large measure to the 

Congress and to your Committee for providing military members with the benefits 

embodied in the educational assistance programs. Few areas, if any, are more important to DoD than recruiting and retention. We recognize our duty to man the 

All-Volunteer Force with high-quality, motivated, and well-trained men and women. 

The MGIB education benefit has been a major contributor to recruiting achievements for our active forces and a major contributor to both recruiting and retention 

of our Guard and Reserve forces for more than 20 years and REAP has been an 

effective new retention tool for sustaining membership in the Selected Reserve as 

evidenced with more than 58,000 Reserve component members having used the this 

benefit during the three and a half since it was authorized. As we move through 

the 21st century, we must continue to build upon the remarkable legacy of the visionaries who crafted preceding versions and improvements in the GI Bill. I thank 

this Committee for its dedicated support to the men and women who currently 

serve, and those who have served, our great nation. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Keith Pedigo, 

Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, 

Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

pleased to be here today to discuss a number of bills that would affect several benefit programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Accompanying me today is Mr. John Brizzi, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel. At 

the outset, I would note that several bills on the agenda affect programs or laws 

administered, respectively, by the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Labor (DOL). 

Accordingly, my testimony today does not address the following bills: H.R. 3298 and 

H.R. 4883 (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act amendments—DoD), and H.R. 3393 and 

H.R. 3798 (veterans’ reemployment rights amendments—DOL). VA respectfully defers to the views of those Departments with regard to these bills. 

Education Benefits 

H.R. 5684 

Madam Chairwoman, your bill, H.R. 5684, the ‘‘Veterans Education Improvement 

Act of 2008,’’ contains numerous amendments to title 38, United States Code, that 

are intended to improve the basic educational assistance programs administered by 

VA. 

If enacted, H.R. 5684 would accomplish the following: 

• Increase the full-time 3-year benefit rate for the Montgomery GI Bill—Active 

Duty (MGIB–AD) to $1,450 monthly and increase the full-time 2-year monthly 

benefit rate for MGIB–AD to $1,250 for pursuit of approved programs of education for months beginning on or after January 1, 2009. The bill also states 

that the rate increases shall apply with respect to a payment of educational assistance for the month beginning after the date that is 90 days after the date 

of enactment of the Act. • Extend the delimiting date for MGIB–AD from 10 years to 15 years, effective 

for an individual who is entitled to educational assistance 90 days after the date 

of enactment. • Create a monthly stipend for those entitled to education benefits under MGIB– 

AD. Those who are in a program of education at an Institution of Higher Learning (IHL) at the half-time or more rate would receive a monthly stipend of $500. 

Individuals in a program of education at an IHL at a less-than-half-time rate 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

87 

would receive a stipend of $250. This proposal would become effective 2 years 

after the date of enactment. • Change the pay reduction for enrollment into MGIB–AD from $100 for 12 

months to $50 over 24 months. This proposal would become effective 90 days 

after the date of enactment. • Amend 38 U.S.C. §§ 3452(b) and § 3501(a)(5) to include business courses and 

seminars related to the operation of a business and continuing education 

courses, as approved programs of education. These changes would become effective 2 years after the date of enactment. • Amend 38 U.S.C. §§ 3452(b) and § 3501(a)(5) to include preparatory courses for 

licensure or certification tests as approved programs of education. These 

changes would become effective 2 years after the date of enactment. • Allow an individual with entitlement to MGIB–AD to use his or her benefit to 

repay federal student loans accrued under title IV of the Higher Education Act 

1965. The individual would have to be on active duty when the loan is repaid 

and the payment could not exceed $6,000 over a 12-month period. Payments 

would be made on a monthly basis and the payment of educational assistance 

could not exceed the individual’s amount of entitlement. These changes would 

become effective 2 years after the date of enactment. • Allow an individual who previously elected not to enroll in MGIB–AD to enroll 

in the program as long as the individual is on active duty and his or her pay 

is reduced or the individual otherwise pays $1,200 no later than 90 days after 

discharge. This section would apply to individuals who serve 2 years on active 

duty and 4 years in the Selected Reserves. These changes would become effective 90 days after the date of enactment and would apply to individuals serving 

on active duty on the date of enactment. • Amend 20 U.S.C. § 1087vv(j) to provide that the receipt of MGIB–AD educational assistance shall not be considered as part of the Expected Family Contribution calculation for federal financial aid. Thus, federal financial aid would 

be calculated as if an individual is not in receipt of MGIB–AD benefits. • Extend to January 1, 2014, the on-the-job and apprenticeship training program 

benefit rate increases that expired on January 1, 2008. This provision would become effective 90 days after the date of enactment. • Amend 38 U.S.C. § 3674(a)(4) to set funding for State Approving Agencies at no 

more than $19 million per fiscal year. This amendment would become effective 

on the date of enactment. • Allow individuals separated with a general discharge (under honorable conditions) to be eligible to receive MGIB–AD. This amendment would become effective for individuals who are discharged on or after 90 days following the date 

of enactment. • Increase annual reporting fee amounts in 38 U.S.C. § 3684 from $7 to $21, and 

$11 to $21, respectively. This amendment would become effective 90 days after 

the date of enactment. 

• Expand the work-study program to include students attending a program of 

education at the half-time or more rates. This amendment would become effective 90 days after the date of enactment. 

• Create a pilot work-study program that would expand work-study positions at 

educational institutions. Examples of some eligible positions would include tutors, lab assistants, and positions in campus orientation. The Secretary would 

be required to prescribe regulations to carry out the program and to provide for 

the supervision of the work-study positions. An amount of $10 million would be 

authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012 to 

carry out the purpose of this provision. This provision would become effective 

on the date of enactment. 

• Require the Secretary to increase the number of full-time equivalent employees 

(FTE) for the Education Service business line in the Veterans Business Administration by 150 additional employees. This provision would become effective on 

the date of enactment. 

• Require VA’s Director of Education Service and VA’s General Information Officer to submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives an action plan describing how VA intends to upgrade 

the information technology (IT) system used to administer education benefits. 

VA would be required to update the Committees annually on any progress made 

in upgrading the systems. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $8 million for fiscal year 2009 and $3 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 

2012. This provision would become effective on the date of enactment. 

• Amend 38 U.S.C. § 3680(d)(2) to charge entitlement for an advanced payment 

against the final month of the individual’s entitlement. An individual would be 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

88 

limited to one advance payment per academic year. This provision would be effective 90 days after the date of enactment. 

We estimate that enactment of H.R. 5684 would result in direct costs to VA of 

$595 million during the first year, $8.6 billion for 5 years, and $22.3 billion over 

10 years. VA cannot support this legislation without identified offsets for these 

costs. 

Furthermore, as noted in the State of the Union address, the President is committed to expanding MGIB to include transferability of benefits from servicemembers to their spouses and children. The Administration’s first priority is to transfer 

the benefit to family members of those committed to a career in service, an initiative 

our senior uniformed leaders enthusiastically support and one that is more supportive of the current makeup and retention of the all-volunteer force. VA defers to 

DoD on how the various legislative proposals will affect DoD’s ability to recruit and 

retain the all-volunteer force. As a result, VA cannot support this bill in lieu of the 

Administration’s transferability proposal, which will be transmitted shortly. 

We offer the following comments on how the several provisions of H.R. 5684 would 

affect program implementation: 

• Section 2 of the bill appears to have conflicting effective date provisions. While 

this section would, in section 2(a), amend 38 U.S.C. §§ 3015(a)(1)(A) and 

(b)(1)(A) to reflect higher rates for full-time MGIB–AD pursuit for months beginning on or after January 1, 2009, it also provides, in subsection 2(b), that 

the benefit rate increases shall be effective with respect to payments of educational assistance for months beginning after the date that is 90 days after the 

date of enactment. To avoid this conflict, we recommend simply making the 

amendments to 38 U.S.C. § 3015, as proposed in section 2(a) of the bill, effective 

on the date of enactment of the Act. • Section 4 of the bill would establish a stipend for individuals receiving MGIB– 

AD; however it does not indicate whether VA should pay an individual the full 

stipend amount versus a prorated amount when he or she attends school for 

a partial month versus a whole month. • Section 6 would include business courses and seminars as approved programs 

of education. This is problematic because an individual attending a 2-day business seminar under the proposed full-time MGIB–AD rate ($1,450) would only 

be entitled to $96.66, well short of the amount necessary to cover the cost of 

most business seminars. VA believes the more advantageous way to pay for 

seminars (and charge entitlement) would be similar to the way that VA administers payment for Licensure or Certification tests. If we were to administer this 

in the same way we administer payments for Licensure or Certification tests, 

an individual would be refunded the cost of the seminar (up to $2,000) and his 

or her entitlement would be charged by dividing the amount of the seminar payment by the applicable full-time rate. 

• The provision added by section 8 that would allow an individual with entitlement to MGIB–AD to use his or her benefit to repay a federal loan accrued 

under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1995 might be read to permit a 

borrower to repay a PLUS loan that he or she obtained for a child’s education 

as well as a loan for the borrower’s education. Accordingly, we believe this provision should be clarified. 

• The amendment in section 10 of the bill to 20 U.S.C. § 1087vv(j) to provide that 

the receipt of MGIB–AD educational assistance shall not be counted as part of 

the Expected Family Contribution for federal financial aid likely would increase 

federal student loan amounts for MGIB–AD recipients and could result in additional subsidy costs to be paid by the Department of Education. 

• The language in section 11(a) of the bill is not complete. That subsection states 

that ‘‘Subsection (c) of such section is amended. . . .’’ However, the applicable 

section of law is not identified. Based on our review of the other provisions in 

section 11, we believe the intended reference is to section 103(c) of the ‘‘Veterans Earn and Learn Act of 2004,’’ Pub. L. No. 108–454, 38 U.S.C. § 3032 note. 

• Section 12 would authorize reimbursement from VA’s readjustment benefits account to state approving agencies (SAAs) for certain expenses incurred in the 

administration of VA education benefit programs, not to exceed $19 million in 

any year. VA supports section 12 subject to identified offsets. The current funding amount is limited to $13 million. For FY 2008, the Omnibus Appropriations 

bill (P.L. 110–161) made available an additional $6 million from General Operating Expenses for these reimbursements. However, without relief for future 

years, we anticipate that funding at the reduced level would cause SAAs to reduce staffing proportionately, severely curtail travel and outreach activities, and 

perform fewer approval/supervisory duties under their VA contracts. Some 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

89 

SAAs might decline to contract with VA altogether, requiring that VA employees assume their duties. 

• Section 16 of the bill would establish a 5-year work-study pilot program that 

would be effective on the date of enactment. Because VA would need to promulgate regulations to implement this provision, we recommend making this provision effective at a later date. We also note that section 16 authorizes appropriated dollars for only 4 fiscal years of the 5-year pilot program. 

• Section 17 of the bill would require the Secretary to increase the number of employees of the Education Service by 150 additional employees. VA does not support this section because it inappropriately directs internal staffing decisions 

made by the Secretary. The Education Service staffing level provided for in the 

FY 2009 President’s Budget already enables us to improve timeliness and accuracy of claim processing, reducing the average days to process original education claims from 32 in 2007 to 19, and the average days to process supplemental claims from 13 to 10. 

• The intent and desired outcome of the provisions in section 19 are unclear. Generally, an individual is entitled to 36 months of educational assistance. On average, an eligible individual uses 17 months of this entitlement before his or her 

eligibility period expires. If an individual were to receive an advance payment 

equal to 1.5 months of his or her entitlement, VA would charge 1.5 months 

against the 36 months. The individual would then have 34.5 months of benefits 

remaining. Regardless of when VA assesses entitlement charge, the result will 

be the same—the individual will have used 1.5 months of entitlement and have 

34.5 months of entitlement remaining. 

H.R. 4889 

Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 4889, the ‘‘Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act 

of 2008,’’ proposes to recodify the statutory provisions of chapter 1607 of title 10, 

United States Code (Educational Assistance for Reserve Component Members Supporting Contingency Operations and Certain Other Operations (REAP)), in a new 

chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code. Under current law, educational assistance under a program established under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 16162 is paid 

to entitled servicemembers by the Education Benefits Fund at the Department of 

Defense (DoD) through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

VA does not support H.R. 4889. This bill would inappropriately place a reserve 

force management program under VA rather than the DoD where it currently resides. Additionally, the current funding structure for the REAP program is sound 

budget and programmatic policy because it helps ensure policymakers fully consider 

the cost of promised future benefits when making personnel and benefit decisions. 

We also note that several sections of H.R. 4889 would need to be amended to align 

the proposed chapter 33 codification with REAP as it currently exists in title 10. 

Finally, we cannot support this proposal without identified offsets for the additional $1.2 billion in direct benefit net costs that VA would bear over the next 10 

years. Since the effective date for this bill would be October 1, 2009, there is no 

funding impact in fiscal year 2009. While VA funding needs would increase by 

$183.2 million in FY 2010, $718.9 million over 5 years, and nearly $1.6 billion over 

10 years, the anticipated transfers from DoD’s Education Benefit Trust Fund 

(EBTF) totaling approximately $383.2 million, partially offset VA’s appropriation requests for the Readjustment Benefit (RB) account. The initial transfer from EBTF 

of $183.2 million covers the entire FY 2010 resource requirement; therefore the VA 

RB appropriation for FY 2010 would not be affected. A subsequent transfer of approximately $200 million from the EBTF to the RB account, results in a net increase of $335.7 million over 5 years, and nearly $1.2 billion over 10 years in VA’s 

RB appropriation request. Because VA currently administers the REAP benefit for 

DoD, the administrative or staffing impacts of H.R. 4889 would be minimal/negligible. 

Vocational Rehabilitation 

H.R. 3467 

H.R. 3467, the ‘‘Second Chance for ’s Veterans Act,’’ would establish a grant program for referral and counseling services to assist at-risk veterans transitioning 

from institutional living into the workplace. The bill is intended to reduce recidivism, increase employment, and assist these veterans in locating permanent housing. 

The Administration supports the intent of the bill. However, we would note that 

most of the services proposed under this legislation, which mirrors the recently conwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

90 

cluded Incarcerated Veterans Transition Program (IVTP), could be provided through 

the Second Chance Act, which the President signed into law last week. 

Among other things, the Second Chance Act formally authorizes key features of 

the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative (PRI), which provides recently released ex-offenders—including veterans—the support and services they need to successfully reintegrate into mainstream society. 

H.R. 3646 

Madam Chairwoman, H.R. 3646 would direct the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs 

and Labor to conduct a joint study, with annual updates, on the fields of employment for which the greatest need for employees exists in various geographic regions, 

as determined by the Secretaries. The bill would also require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make the findings of the study (with the annual updates) available 

on VA’s Internet website. We defer to DOL on this issue. VA does not support H.R. 

3646. 

H.R. 3889 

H.R. 3889 would amend chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, by adding a 

new section 3122 to require VA to conduct a 20-year longitudinal study of a statistically valid sample of the veterans who begin participating in a program of vocational rehabilitation under that chapter during fiscal year 2008. 

The annual report would include any data necessary to determine the long-term 

outcomes of those veterans included in the study. Data elements could be added as 

necessary, but the report would contain at least the following information collected 

during the year covered by the report: 

• Number of veterans who suspended participation • Number of months veterans served on active duty • Average disability rating • Types of other VA benefits received • Types of Social Security benefits received • Unemployment benefits received • Average number of months veterans were employed • Starting and ending salaries of veterans • Number of veterans enrolled in institutions of higher learning • Average number of college credits and degrees obtained • Average number of visits to VA medical facilities • Average number of visits to non-VA medical facilities • Average total household income • Percentage of veterans who own their principal residences • Average number of dependents. 

VA supports efforts to determine the long-term outcomes of the veterans participating in vocational rehabilitation programs under chapter 31 of title 38, United 

States Code. However, since VR&E is currently developing a proposal to conduct its 

own long-term study of issues affecting program outcomes, we do not support H.R. 

3889 because it duplicates efforts the Department is already taking. We also cite 

additional concerns with provisions of H.R. 3889 as outlined below: 

• Effective Date—The bill would be effective on the date of enactment and would 

require data collection on veterans who began participation during fiscal year 

2008. VA would need to attempt to retroactively collect data on veterans who 

began participation from October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2008. Some of the 

required data may only be available by self-report. Self-reporting of events that 

occurred more than 6 months in the past could be unreliable. Some veterans 

may have begun and dropped out of the program by the time the bill is enacted 

into law; therefore, it may not be possible to obtain the cooperation needed for 

self-reporting in some cases. VA is currently conducting a study of those veterans who dropped out of the program before completion. That study should be 

available soon, and we will make it available to the Committee. 

• Single Cohort—The bill requires only a single cohort of veterans to be followed 

during this study—those veterans who began participation in a vocational rehabilitation program during fiscal year 2008. Concerns regarding data collection 

on this cohort have been expressed. Moving the initial cohort to the fiscal year 

following enactment of the bill into law and adding additional cohorts would 

permit more reliable data collection and increase the validity of the results of 

the study. We recommend following participants who entered a program during 

the first, third, and fifth years following enactment of the bill into law. 

• Identification of Participants—Participants in vocational rehabilitation programs under chapter 31 include veterans and servicemembers. The bill identiwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

91 

fies only veterans as subjects of this study. We believe servicemembers should 

also be included. 

• Funding—H.R. 3889 does not contain provisions to fund VA for the additional 

general operating expenses required to administer this program. 

• Data Collection—Designation of the initial cohort should not occur before the 

coordination of all methods of data collection is in place. For data elements that 

are only available through self-report, VA may be required to obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and Budget for any collection instrument developed for this study. 

• Required Reporting Elements— 

• Unemployment Benefits, Number of Months Employed, and Salary: Several 

states will not provide this information to VA due to privacy concerns. Selfreport of this information may not be reliable. 

• Visits to Non-VA Medical Facilities, Total Household Income, Owning Principal Residence: This information would be obtained by self-report and may 

not be reliable. 

We estimate that enactment of H.R. 3889 would result in a cost of approximately 

$11 million over the 20-year duration of the study, beginning in fiscal year 2009. 

Housing 

H.R. 4539 

H.R. 4539, the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Loan Guaranty Cost Reduction 

Act of 2007,’’ would amend title 38, United States Code, to make several key 

changes to the home loan guaranty benefit veterans currently enjoy. While we do 

not object to certain provisions of this bill, we would not support its enactment in 

its present form. 

The bill would amend the maximum guaranty entitlement available to veterans 

for purchase, construction and refinancing loans. Currently the maximum guaranty 

amount is 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limitation, for a single 

family home, as adjusted annually. This means that the current VA maximum guaranty is $104,250 on a no-downpayment loan of $417,000. In high cost areas, defined 

by Freddie Mac as Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands, the maximum 

guaranty amount is $156,375 on a no-downpayment loan of $625,500. 

H.R. 4539 would increase the maximum guaranty amount so that it would be 

equal to 25 percent of 125 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. Because lenders generally accept the 25 percent guaranty in lieu of a downpayment, 

an increase to the maximum guaranty translates into more purchasing power for 

veterans. 

Two proposals in H.R. 4539 would make changes to the VA funding fee. First, the 

statutory funding fees would be extended to October 1, 2017. Second, the funding 

fee would be capped so that the highest funding fee a veteran would pay would be 

based on the Freddie Mac conforming loan limitation in effect on the date of enactment, not necessarily the limitation in effect at the time of loan origination. For example, if this bill were enacted today, a veteran obtaining a $450,000 loan in January of 2009 would pay a funding fee based on today’s Freddie Mac loan limitation 

of $417,000. 

Funding fee collections are used to offset the costs of paying claims and other expenses incurred by the Department as part of providing the home loan benefit to 

veterans. VA opposes capping the funding fee based on the current conforming loan 

limitation. H.R. 4539 would increase the maximum amount of a VA housing loan 

guarantee by 25 percent; VA would need to increase the funding fee to offset additional costs (or reduced savings) associated with this increase. 

H.R. 4539 would also increase the maximum guaranty amount for certain refinance loans, sometimes referred to as ‘‘regular’’ refinances, while eliminating the existing equity requirement. Currently, the law limits VA’s guaranty of regular refinance loans to $144,000, and limits the size of these loans to 90 percent of the value 

of the security for the loan. This means that a veteran who has no equity in his 

or her home is able to obtain a regular VA refinance loan for only 90 percent of 

the home’s appraised value, and the maximum loan he or she may effectively borrow 

is $144,000. The statutory changes proposed in H.R. 4539 would provide many veterans who obtained conventional or subprime mortgages with an avenue to refinance into a VA guaranteed home loan. However, borrowers with higher loan-tovalue (LTV) ratios have a higher incidence of default than otherwise comparable 

borrowers. Removing the 90 percent LTV cap on VA ‘‘regular’’ refinances would 

therefore introduce additional risk and cost to the VA guaranteed housing loan portfolio. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

92 

H.R. 4539 further would increase the guaranty available to a veteran whose income ‘‘is below a maximum income amount’’ (as determined by the Secretary) for 

purposes of purchasing ‘‘affordable housing’’. Additionally, VA would be required to 

use $14 million of the Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund to reduce closing 

costs for VA guaranteed home loans for affordable homes. We cannot support either 

of these proposals. First, VA lacks the requisite expertise, staffing, and statutory 

mandate to address the myriad issues involved in affordable housing programs. Additionally, administering the closing-cost provision of this bill would be difficult at 

best, given the fixed amount of money available for the assistance. We also note 

that $14 million over 10 years ($1.4 million each year) would yield an insignificant 

amount of assistance to veterans. If we estimate that 20 percent of last year’s 

130,000 loans were made to ‘‘low-income’’ veterans for purchase of ‘‘affordable housing,’’ each of those 26,000 veterans would receive only $53 in closing-cost assistance. 

Finally, we would like to point out two technical problems in the bill as it is drafted. First, section 2(b)(1) refers to a non-existent 38 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(C)(iii). We believe the correct citation should be to section 3729(b)(2)(C)(ii). Second, we believe 

that section 2(g)(2) of the bill would create a statutory inconsistency within the Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund. Currently, the Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund expressly precludes loans made pursuant to the Native American Direct 

Loan Program. Therefore, by referring to 38 U.S.C. § 3762 (the Native American Direct Loan Program), the proposed change seems to conflict with existing 38 U.S.C. 

§ 3722(e). 

VA estimates that H.R. 4539 would result in a cost savings of $1.24 million in 

fiscal year 2008, $237.7 million by fiscal year 2013, and $1.8 billion over 10 years. 

H.R. 4884 

H.R. 4884, the ‘‘Helping our Veterans to Keep Their Homes Act of 2008,’’ contains 

a number of proposals similar to provisions contained in H.R. 4539. While we do 

not object to certain provisions of this bill, we would not support enactment in its 

present form for the following reasons: 

Section 2(a) of H.R. 4884 proposes to eliminate the equity requirement for regular 

refinance loans. As discussed earlier, elimination of the current requirement for a 

10 percent equity position would provide veterans who obtained conventional or 

subprime loans an avenue to refinance into a VA home loan, but would also increase 

risk and cost in the VA guaranteed home loan portfolio. 

Section 2(b) of H.R. 4884 would make the VA funding fee a flat 1 percent of the 

total loan amount. Under current provisions found in 38 U.S.C. § 3729(b), the funding fee ranges from 0.05 percent on a rate reduction loan, up to 3.30 percent of the 

loan amount for no-downpayment loans to veterans who have had more than one 

VA guaranteed loan (not counting a rate reduction loan). 

Funding fee collections are used to offset the costs of paying claims and other expenses incurred by the Department as part of providing the home loan benefit to 

veterans. The current fee structure on VA guaranteed housing loans appropriately 

targets the highest fees to the highest risk loans. VA opposes changes to its fee 

structure that would encourage risky borrowing practices by lowering fees on the 

riskiest kinds of loans. Such changes would also likely result in additional cost to 

VA. 

Subsections 2(c) and 2(d) of H.R. 4884 would extend VA’s authority to conduct its 

demonstration projects on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) and hybrid ARMs, as 

VA’s authority to offer these options to veterans expires in fiscal year 2008. Since 

the inception of this project, VA has guaranteed over 227,000 ARMs and hybrid 

ARMs, making up approximately 11 percent of VA’s business. 

At this time, we do not object to making the provisions of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3707 and 

3707A permanent, provided Congress identifies offsets for the increased direct 

spending. 

H.R. 4884 also proposes an increase in the maximum guaranty amount. This provision is similar to that contained in H.R. 4539. However, H.R. 4884 would increase 

the maximum guaranty amount to 25 percent of 150 percent of the Freddie Mac 

conforming loan limit (CLL), which would enable veterans to purchase homes in 

more costly areas. 

Section 2(f) of H.R. 4884 would provide for an annual increase in the amount of 

guaranty by applying the 12-month increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban 

Consumers (CPI–U). This provision, as drafted, would conflict with the current 

method for increasing the maximum guaranty—the statutory tie to the Freddie Mac 

conforming loan limit. As such, we cannot support this proposal as drafted. 

Finally, section 2(g) of this bill calls on the Department to review and streamline 

the process of guaranteeing loans obtained in conjunction with the purchase of condominiums. We agree that it is appropriate to conduct such a review and have alwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

93 

ready begun the process by reviewing our existing regulatory requirements regarding condominiums. 

VA estimates that H.R. 4884 would result in a cost savings of $8.1 million in fiscal year 2008, but would cost the government $168.7 million by fiscal year 2013, 

and $1.93 billion over 10 years. 

H.R. 5664 

H.R. 5664 would amend 38 U.S.C. § 2103 to require that the Secretary update 

VA’s plans and specifications for suitable adapted housing at least once every 6 

years. VA does not support enactment of this bill. 

Currently, section 2103 authorizes the Secretary to furnish, without cost, model 

plans and specifications of suitable housing units to eligible veterans. VA does this 

by providing our Handbook for Design: Specially Adapted Housing (VA Pamphlet 

26–13) to all veterans who are eligible for Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) assistance. This handbook is intended to educate the veteran and his or her family on 

the types of adaptations that may improve the safety of the home, as well as increasing the veteran’s independence. In addition, VA hopes to increase the architect’s sensitivity to the needs of severely injured veterans and stimulate awareness 

of the design challenges he or she may face during the planning stage. On a practical level, this handbook provides model design assistance to our severely injured 

veteran population, as well as their architects to assist them in developing construction plans to provide the best possible homes for these veterans. 

We agree that it is important to maintain models that are current and that incorporate new technologies as they become available. VA believes this type of guidance 

should be kept modern and up-to-date in order to provide the most beneficial assistance to this special population of veterans. As such, we are now in the process of 

updating the current handbook, and we would anticipate updating it every 3 or 4 

years, or more frequently, as industry or veterans’ needs require. We do not believe 

legislation is required to ensure that this handbook is updated and, therefore, do 

not support H.R. 5664. 

VA anticipates no costs associated with enactment of this provision during the 

first 5 years, but we estimate a cost of $122,000 over 10 years. 

Outreach 

H.R. 3681 

H.R. 3681, the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007,’’ would add a new section 532 to title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to purchase advertising in national media outlets for the purpose of promoting 

awareness of benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. Madam Chairwoman, we do not believe enactment of this bill is needed. Current law provides sufficient authority for the Secretary to purchase such advertising, as appropriate. 

Therefore, we do not support enactment of this bill. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to respond 

to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

CTIA, The Wireless Association 

Washington, DC. 

April 14, 2008 

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman 

Rep. John Boozman, Ranking Member 

House Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Re: H.R. 3298 

Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman: 

On behalf of the members of CTIA—The Wireless Association (‘‘CTIA’’), I am 

writing to share the wireless industry’s views on H.R. 3298, the ‘‘21st Century Servicemembers Protection Act.’’ I respectfully request that this letter be included in the 

record of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity’s April 16 hearing on H.R. 

3298. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

94 

CTIA commends the Committee for its attention to this issue, and we thank the 

bill’s sponsor, Representative Patrick Murphy, for his and his staff’s willingness to 

work with the wireless industry to improve the legislation. 

CTIA’s service provider members, as a matter of corporate policy, permit members 

of the U.S. armed forces facing deployment to terminate 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 the affected consumer an opportunity to stop service and reserve his or her 

existing telephone number for a set period of time. CTIA therefore does not oppose 

Representative Murphy’s proposal to amend Title III of the Servicemembers Civil 

Relief Act (‘‘SCRA’’) to allow a servicemember to terminate his or her contract for 

wireless service upon either receipt of military orders for a deployment of more than 

90 days or a change in permanent station to a location where service covered by 

the contract is not supported. 

Rep. Murphy’s proposed amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (dated December 19, 2007) includes a number of improvements over the introduced version of 

H.R. 3298. Nonetheless, there are several provisions of the bill that still could be 

improved, and these are detailed below. 

Covered Contracts: The amendments to the SCRA proposed by H.R. 3298 are 

intended to cover contracts for ‘‘cellular phone service.’’ Because ‘‘cellular phone 

service’’ is not defined in either H.R. 3298 or the Communications Act 1934, as 

amended, CTIA recommends striking the term and replacing it with ‘‘commercial 

mobile radio service’’ as such term is defined by section 332(d) of the Communications Act 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)). 

Preservation of Existing Carrier Military Service Suspension Programs: 

In response to the needs of military personnel facing deployment, many carriers 

have implemented service suspension programs that allow individual consumers to 

place their account(s) on ‘‘hold’’ status for between 12 and 24 months, depending on 

the carrier. The suspension process generally allows consumers to reserve their existing wireless telephone number(s) without incurring any monthly or other recurring fees, and for many customers it offers an attractive option short of contract termination. Because the Murphy bill is silent on how suspension would work in any 

particular context, and since neither the bill nor the SCRA’s definitions section define ‘‘suspend’’ or ‘‘suspension,’’ it is unclear whether existing carrier suspension programs would continue to be permissible or require modification. Since efforts to define these terms or otherwise conform existing carrier suspension programs to a government-imposed standard could upset these pro-consumer carrier practices, CTIA 

recommends that the scope of the bill be narrowed to exclude all references to ‘‘suspend’’ or ‘‘suspension.’’ 

Arrearages and Refunds: The vast majority of the more than 255 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 customer 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, CTIA recommends that the first sentence in the proposed 308(e) be 

expanded by adding at the end ‘‘except that any such unpaid amounts shall be due 

in full for any contract period in which the servicemember utilized the service if the 

contract provides for service on a flat rate basis.’’ 

Penalties: CTIA remains concerned that the penalty provisions included in the 

proposed 308(h)(1) have the potential to be unreasonable in relation to the size of 

any harm that could accrue to a servicemember should a carrier representative fail 

to terminate a contract appropriately. While CTIA’s members have individual corporate policies that provide for contract termination without penalty when a servicemember provides appropriate deployment orders, mistakes 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 decline across the term of the contract). Given this, and the equitable relief 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

95 

provisions in the proposed 308(i), the penalty provisions in the bill should be clarified and narrowed to cap fines at no more than $5,000. Additionally, CTIA asks that 

the 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 Federal legislation 

to benefit servicemen and servicewomen facing deployment. CTIA and its members 

look forward to working with the Committee and the bill’s sponsor to improve H.R. 

3298 as it moves through the legislative process. 

Sincerely, 

Jot D. Carpenter, Jr. 

f 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

Prepared Statement of Kerry Baker, 

Associate National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to submit for the record, the views of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) on the various bills under consideration today. In accordance with its 

congressional charter, the DAV’s legislative mission is focused on benefits and services provided to veterans because of service-connected disabilities. We are therefore 

pleased to support the bills insofar as they fall within that scope. 

The DAV does not have mandates from its membership to support issues addressed within H.R. 4883, H.R. 4884, H.R. 3393, H.R. 3298, H.R. 3467, H.R. 3646, 

H.R. 4539, H.R. 4889, H.R. 5664, and H.R. 3798. The provisions of these bills are 

also mostly outside the scope of DAV’s mission. Nonetheless, after reviewing the 

bills, we have no objection to their favorable consideration. 

H.R. 3681 

The ‘‘Veterans Benefits Awareness Act of 2007,’’ or H.R. 3681, would authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) to advertise in the national media to promote awareness of benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. This is truly 

a novel undertaking, one that DAV does not oppose. 

We note that this legislation as currently written authorizes, but does not require, 

the Secretary to advertise various benefits in the media. This distinction is important. Advertising healthcare or compensation and pensions benefits in the media 

will attract an unknown number of new beneficiaries into the system—a purpose 

for which any positive outreach program is designed. These actions will increase 

VA’s claims backlog as well as the demand for its medical services. 

There are currently over 800,000 claims pending in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). This amount of backlogged claims is historic. However, the DAV 

has stated on the record that legislation benefiting veterans should never be withheld merely because of its effect on VA’s claims backlog. We nonetheless believe that 

enhanced outreach efforts should focus on discharging and newly discharged service 

members. 

The newest generation of our veterans is also the most unfamiliar generation in 

relation to benefits earned through their service. This problem could be solved in 

part by enhanced outreach through improvements and expansion of the Transition 

Assistance Program (TAP), Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP), and 

Benefits Delivery at Discharge Program (BDD). 

Many veterans of World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam War went years, 

if not decades, prior to becoming aware of their rightful benefits. Enhancing outreach to our newest veterans through these programs could help ensure these new 

generations receive timely benefits, rather than benefits decades after their service. 

H.R. 3889 

House bill 3889 would require the Secretary to conduct a longitudinal study of the 

VA’s vocational rehabilitation program. While DAV does do not oppose the intent 

of this bill, we do have concerns. 

The bill requires the study to begin during fiscal year 2008, which would require 

VA, or a contractor thereof, to begin gathering data in the arrears. The bill also requires the study to be conducted over the course of 20 years. We believe this length 

of time is unrealistic. A more logical timeframe would be no longer than 10 years, 

and a possible extension thereafter. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

96 

Much of the reporting criteria is unknown, such as unemployment benefits received by veterans, the number of months such veteran was employed, starting and 

ending salaries, the average number of visits to VA medical facilities, etc. These statistics are not readily available to VA and would have to be gathered from the veteran, who would not be required to participate in such a study. 

If VA contracted this study privately, the cost of such a long-term project may outweigh the studies benefits to the Department. We believe the funds needed for such 

a potentially high-cost, long-term private contract would be better spent within the 

Department. There would also be certain logistical barriers to a private contractor 

obtaining access to the types of information requested by the study the bill requires. 

Therefore, while we do not oppose the intent of this bill, we ask that the Committee to consider these concerns. 

H.R. 5684 

The ‘‘Veterans Education Improvement Act of 2008’’ would amend title 38, United 

States Code, to make certain improvements in the basic educational assistance program administered by the Secretary. While the DAV has no resolution specifically 

pertaining to this bill, we nevertheless support the bill since the Independent Budget Veterans Service Organizations have advocated for a GI Bill for the 21st century 

in the Independent Budget for FY 2009. 

Since the inception of the GI Bill, every generation of warriors has had this benefit to ease transition back into civilian life, which provided them an opportunity 

for education and served as an investment in the future of our nation. Today’s GI 

Bill is not meeting the needs of our veterans, and skyrocketing education costs are 

forcing veterans to shoulder the bulk of college expenses. 

Moreover, young veterans are more likely to become unemployed and homeless. 

A new approach to veterans’ transition, stabilization, and education is needed. The 

increasing cost of education is diminishing today’s GI Bill as a veterans’ education 

benefit. According to the Department of Education, the national average cost of undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board charged to full-time students in degreegranting institutions for the 2005–06 academic school year was $17,447. A veteran 

in receipt of the active duty fulltime GI Bill benefit for the same period received 

$9,306, approximately 53 percent of the total cost of education. 

While we agree the bill would certainly enhance educational benefits beyond what 

is currently provided, we suggest an amendment to the bill. Rather than setting a 

specified limit of tuition cost as the bill currently proposes, we suggest the bill cover 

the full cost of tuition plus books, fees, and expenses; but limited to an amount not 

to exceed the average cost of tuition for in-state colleges in the veterans’ particular 

state wherein he/she attends college. Additionally, we suggest the bill also cover 

room and board at a rate equal to the average college dormitory for the applicable 

school, or the average dormitory rate for the applicable state if no dormitory exists 

at the veteran’s school of choice. 

These minor changes would ensure that no veteran is prohibited from pursuing 

his or her desired course of higher education merely because of financial constraints. 

Despite our recommended changes, we nonetheless support the bill due to its obvious improvements in educational benefits for our nation’s veterans. 

f 

National Cable and Telecommunications Association 

Washington, DC. 

April 16, 2008 

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman 

The Honorable John Boozman, Ranking Member 

House Committee on Veteran’s Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member Boozman, 

On behalf of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), 

thank you for inviting the cable industry to comment on H.R. 3298, the 21st Century 

Servicemembers Protection Act. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

97 

NCTA is the principal trade association for the cable television industry in the 

United States, representing cable operators serving more than 90 percent of the nation’s cable TV households and more than 200 cable program networks. The cable 

industry is the nation’s largest broadband provider of high speed Internet access 

after investing $110 billion over 10 years to build out a two-way interactive network 

with fiber optic technology. Cable companies also provide state-of-the-art digital 

telephone service to millions of American consumers. 

The cable industry strongly supports H.R. 3298 which would ensure that military 

personnel who receive orders to deploy for military action or for a change of permanent station are given the absolute right to terminate contracts for telephone service, multichannel video service, Internet access or any utility without penalty, and 

to receive a refund for any services paid in advance. This legislation addresses one 

of the many financial issues faced by military personnel when they are deployed or 

mobilized. Military personnel should have the right to cancel or suspend service contracts when they are called to leave their homes and families to defend our nation. 

Quite simply, our troops should not be obligated to pay for services they will not 

be using while they serve our country, nor should they face penalties such as early 

termination fees during deployment. 

We also believe the measure could be strengthened to ensure that all providers 

of multichannel video service and all providers of Internet access service, as defined 

under existing law, are covered by the bill. In that regard, we would recommend 

the following clarifying language— 

• On page 2, beginning on line 9, strike ‘‘cable or satellite television service’’ and 

insert ‘‘video programming service provided by a multichannel video programming distributor (as such term is defined in section 602(13) of the Communications Act 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(13))’’. 

• On page 2, line 10, strike ‘‘Internet service,’’ and insert ‘‘Internet access service 

(as such term is defined in section 231(e)(4) of the Communications Act 1934 

(47 U.S.C. 231(e)(4))’’. 

Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to express our support for H.R. 

3298. We applaud your leadership on this issue, and we commend Reps. Patrick 

Murphy and Tim Walz for introducing this important legislation which recognizes 

the commitment and sacrifice of our brave and heroic military personnel. 

Sincerely, 

Kyle McSlarrow 

f 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

January 28, 2008 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

Speaker 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Madame Speaker: 

We are writing to alert you to an important improvement to the stimulus package 

that will greatly benefit America’s veterans. This proposal, which has already been 

introduced, H.R. 4539, is at the center of one of the guiding principles for the overall 

package—to help provide relief to some subprime mortgage holders to refinance into 

federal insured loans; thereby helping to stabilize the economy. The proposal to increase the FHA loan limit is noble but we should also widen the availability of mortgage access in the country to provide incentives for our nation’s veterans to participate and benefit as well. 

As you know, the stimulus package contains provisions to address the problems 

in the home loan market and will raise the Freddie Mac rate to over $720,000. Current law limits the maximum VA loan guaranty rate to the Freddie Mac maximum. 

We strongly suggest adding our bill, H.R. 4539, the VA Loan Guaranty Cost Reduction Act of 2007, to improve on the stimulus package for veterans. It is important to note that the Department of Veterans Affairs has estimated that our bill will 

actually save taxpayer dollars by increasing the overall fee revenue to VA while simultaneously making the program more attractive to lower-income veterans. A brief 

outline of our bipartisan bill includes the following: 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

98 

• Raise the VA loan guaranty limit to 125 percent of the Freddie Mac 

limit. • Cap the funding fees at today’s maximum amounts. For example, a vet- eran who now pays a 3.35% funding fee on the current maximum $417,000 loan 

pays a fee of about $14,000. Under this bill, the veteran could borrow up to the 

new maximum loan of $521,250 but the funding fee would remain at $14,000. 

That is effectively a rate reduction of nearly 1% in that price range. • Reduce the equity requirements for all refinance loans from the current 10% down to 0%. This reduction applies to both VA-guaranteed and nonguaranteed loans. This will help some of the veterans experiencing difficulties 

in today’s sub prime mortgage market to refinance their home loans through 

the VA program which also has a very aggressive program to avoid foreclosure. • Promote the creation of ‘‘affordable housing’’ by increasing the loan 

guaranty amount to 30% for housing that meets ‘‘affordable housing’’ 

qualifications (as determined by VA in consultation with HUD). This will encourage construction of more affordable housing units that offer entry to home 

ownership for veterans. 

• Provide closing cost assistance paid to the borrower for affordable 

housing units. The amount would be determined by VA based on projections 

of the number of borrowers and the available negative subsidy created through 

the fee program. The subsidy cost may not exceed $14 million over 10 years. 

We urge you to include the provisions of H.R. 4539 in the stimulus package. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Michaud 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Health 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Steve Buyer 

Ranking Member 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

cc: Chairwoman Slaughter 

Ranking Member Dreier 

[An identical letter was sent to Hon. John Boehner, Minority Leader, U.S. House 

of Representatives, on January 28, 2008.] 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

April 30, 2008 

Patrick Campbell 

Legislative Director 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

308 Massachusetts Ave., NE. 

Washington, DC 20002 

Dear Mr. Campbell: 

In reference to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Pending 

Legislation on April 16, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed 

hearing question. 

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 materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide answers consecutively on letter-size 

paper, single spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before 

the answer. 

Due to delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Orfa Torres by 

fax at 202–225–2034. In the interest of time and the necessity to publish all responses please reply no later than May 30, 2008. If you have any questions please 

call 202–226–4150. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

99 

Questions from the Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Hearing on Pending Legislation 

April 16, 2008 

Question 1: During our hearing you were requested to provide the Subcommittee 

on Economic Opportunity the reference for your data on the average cost of a public 

school education which you determine to be $17,336. Please provide your reference 

for your data and explain how you determined the average cost of a public school 

education to be $17,336. 

Response: In my testimony on April 16th, 2008, I stated that ‘‘the average cost 

of a public school education [is] currently at $17,336/yr. according to the College 

Board.’’ The reference for that statistic can be found on page 7 of the ‘‘Trends in 

College Pricing 2007’’, table 2, ‘‘Average Estimated Undergraduate Budgets 2007– 

8’’ (see table below). 

The statistic that the Chairwoman was using to estimate the cost of education at 

a public university was derived from page 6 of the same report, ‘‘Average Published 

Charges for Undergraduates.’’ 

I think the real issue at hand is what numbers should be considered the ‘‘full cost 

of education’’ in determining benefits for veterans. According to the Department of 

Education the appropriate statistics to be using when determining the full cost of 

an education is the ‘‘Cost of Attendance’’ and that phrase is clearly defined by statute (20 U.S.C. § 1087II—Cost of Attendance) to include: 

1. Tuition and fees 

2. Allowance for Books, Supplies, Transportation and Miscellaneous Personal expenses 

3. Room & Board Costs 

While the chart highlighting ‘‘Avg. Published Charges’’ incorporates Tuition, Fees 

and Room and Board, it also leaves out projections for ‘‘Books, Supplies, Transportation and Miscellaneous Personal expenses.’’ That is why IAVA adopts the average 

estimated undergraduate budgets as the true estimate of the cost of a public school 

education. 

We need a GI Bill that will cover the full cost of attendance and ensure veterans 

can make going to college their full time job. 

f 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING


43049A.001
100 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

April 30, 2008 

The Honorable Charles S. Ciccolella 

Assistant Secretary 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

Dear Secretary Ciccolella: 

In reference to the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on Pending 

Legislation on April 16, 2008, please answer the enclosed hearing question. 

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 materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide answers consecutively on letter sizepaper, single spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before 

the answer. 

Due to delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Orfa Torres by 

fax at 202–225–2034. In the interest of time and the necessity to publish all responses please reply no later than May 30, 2008. If you have any questions please 

call 202–226–4150. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Washington, DC. 

June 23, 2008 

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

U.S. House of Representatives 

331 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity on April 16, 2008, to testify 

on pending legislation before the Committee. Subsequent to the hearing, the Subcommittee forwarded a question for the record to the U.S. Department of Labor. A 

response to that question is enclosed. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee and for your 

continued support of employment services for America’s veterans. 

Sincerely, 

Charles S. Ciccolella 

Assistant Secretary for 

Veterans’ Employment and Training 

Enclosure 

Answer to a Question for the Record By Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella 

Assistant Secretary For Veterans’ Employment and Training, U.S. 

Department of Labor 

For a Hearing of the Subcommittee On Economic Opportunity 

Committee On Veterans’ Affairs, United States House of Representatives 

April 16, 2008 

Question 1: In your written and oral testimony for the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing, your state that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) opposes H.R. 3646, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of 

Labor to conduct a joint study on the fields of employment for which the greatest 

need for employees exists in various geographic areas. You mentioned that DOL is 

opposed to this bill since the DOL Bureau of Labor Statistics already develops a tenwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

101 

year national level industry and employment projections, which is also published. 

These projections are provided to the state workforce agencies and the states also 

collect labor market information. Please provide the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity the latest publication of this report and the available statistics. 

Response: As stated in my testimony, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS) develops ten-year national-level industry and occupational 

employment projections and prepares and publishes career information based on 

those projections. These projections are available online at http://www.bls.gov/emp/ 

home.htm. 

BLS provides the national projections data files through DOL’s Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) to state workforce agencies to use as a starting point 

for developing state and area projections. The information available from the state 

workforce agencies can be accessed though the DOL Web site CareerOneStop: http:// 

www.careerinfonet.org/acinet/select_state.asp?from=&next=lmil&id=11,1&nodeid=13 

&soccode=. 

f 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

April 16, 2008 

Dr. Curtis L. Gilroy 

Director, Accession Policy 

Office of the Undersecretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness 

U.S. Department of Defense 

1300 Defense Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301 

Dear Mr. Gilroy: 

In reference to our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ‘‘Pending Legislation’’ on April 16, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions as soon as possible. 

As you may know, we have a scheduled Subcommittee markup on April 23, 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) 225– 

3608. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

Hearing Date: April 16, 2008 

Committee: HVA 

Member: Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin 

Witness: Mr. Gilroy 

Cost of Four-Year Public Education 

Question 1: One of the stake holders asserts that $1,101 to $1,450 a month will 

not cover the average cost of a four-year public education. Do you disagree with 

their assertion that the average cost is $17,336 a year? 

Response: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), an element of 

the Department of Education, estimated that the average undergraduate tuition, 

fees, room, and board charged for full-time students at a public four-year school during school year 2006–2007 was $12,805. Based on the typical nine-month school 

term, this would equate to a monthly cost of $1,423. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

102 

The $17,336 figure appears to be the school year 2007–2008 enrollment weighted 

average cost for a public four-year school (in-State) taken from a publication of the 

College Board, a private organization, and includes not only tuition, fees, room, and 

board, but also books, supplies, transportation, and other expenses. The tuition, 

fees, room, and board as estimated in this publication for school year 2006–2007 

was $12,837, only $32 more than the NCES average. The College Board estimate 

for school year 2007–2008 is $13,589 ($1,508 per month). 

Percentage of Active Duty Benefit Covered by Chapter 1606 

Question 2: Chapter 1606 now pays about 29 percent of the current GI Bill compared to about 47 percent when the GI Bill was first passed. What percentage of 

the active duty benefit would Chapter 1606 recipients receive if H.R. 5684 were enacted into law? How can we amend H.R. 5684 to provide a similar benefit that was 

enacted in the original (47 percent) GI Bill? 

Response: Enactment of H.R. 5684 would increase the Montgomery GI Bill 

(MGIB) basic benefit rate in 2009 to $1,450 for a person who completes three years 

of service on active duty. The projected monthly benefit rate in 2009 for MGIB for 

the Selected Reserve (MGIB–SR) is $327. This is based on a projected Consumer 

Price Index (CPI) adjustment of 3.3 percent. The significant increase in the MGIB 

benefit provided in H.R. 5684 compared to the modest CPI adjustment for the 

MGIB–SR benefit would result in Guard and Reserve members receiving a benefit 

of just under 23 percent of the MGIB rate. 

To increase the MGIB–SR benefit rate in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 to 47 percent of 

the MGIB benefit rate proposed in H.R. 5684, the bill would have to include an 

amendment to chapter 1606 of title 10 specifying a basic monthly benefit rate of 

$682 (47 percent of $1,450) beginning in FY 2009. This would result in an increase 

to the Department of Defense budget of approximately one billion dollars over the 

five-year period beginning in FY 2009. 

Portability for 1607 Benefits for Ready Reserve 

Question 3: Can an individual called up from the Individual Ready Reserve obtain portability for their 1607 REAP benefits? If not, what section of the law should 

we amend to allow for this portability? 

Response: No, an individual cannot obtain portability for their 1607 REAP benefits. The amendment made to section 16164 of title 10 by section 530 of Public Law 

110–181, dated January 28, 2008, does not permit members of the Individual Ready 

Reserve to use the REAP benefit if they separate from the Ready Reserve. Section 

16164 of title 10 would have to be further amended to provide portability of the 

REAP benefit to Individual Ready Reserve members. The Department provided the 

attached amendment as a drafting service to both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

How to Simplify H.R. 5684 to Simplify Administration of Reserve Benefits 

Question 4: How can we simplify H.R. 5684 to ease the administration of Guard 

and Reserve benefits? 

Response: The amendments in H.R. 5684 to chapter 30 of title 38 adequately 

cover National Guard and Reserve members who meet the active duty service requirement and any other eligibility requirements. However, the Committee is also 

considering a bill that would recodify chapter 1607 of title 10 as a new chapter in 

title 38—H.R. 4889, ‘‘The Guard and Reserves are Fighting Too Act of 2008.’’ 

If Congress were to repeal chapter 1607 in favor of recodifying the provisions into 

title 38, as proposed in H.R. 4889, it would simplify administration of the Reserve 

Education Assistance Program (REAP) benefit. That is, if the REAP eligibility requirements were codified in chapter 30 of title 38 rather than recodifying all of 

chapter 1607 as a new chapter in title 38. The REAP benefit amounts are tied to 

the chapter 30 benefit. Furthermore, with the recent amendment to chapter 1607 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (section 530 of Public Law 110–181, dated January 28, 2008), the REAP program is now virtually identical to the chapter 30 program, with the exception of the monthly benefit rate and 

the active service requirement. By amending chapter 30, rather than creating a new 

chapter in title 38 for REAP, any changes to the chapter 30 program would be applicable to National Guard and Reserve members who are eligible for educational assistance based on their contingency service without need to consider changes to another chapter in title 38 to maintain parity between the programs. 

f 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

103 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

April 16, 2008 

Mr. Keith Pedigo 

Associate Deputy Under Secretary 

Policy and Program Management 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, 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 April 16, 2008, I would appreciate it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions as soon as possible. 

As you may know, we have a scheduled Subcommittee markup on April 23, 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 lettersize 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) 225– 

3608. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman 

Economic Opportunity Subcommittee 

House Veterans Affairs Committee 

April 16, 2008 

Pending Legislation 

Question 1: You state that the transfer of benefits is a key priority. Could each 

Secretary of the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Forces, etc.) do it today under Title 

38 U.S.C. § 3020? 

Response: Yes, however title 38, U.S.C. § 3020 limits the authority for transferability of benefits to service members in critical skills who reenlist/extend for a period of 4 years or more. The Department of Defense (DoD) would like to see this 

authority expanded to include all career service members regardless of skill or specialty. 

Question 2: How many military branches are implementing the program under 

Title 38 U.S.C. § 3020? 

Response: Currently, the Army is using the authority under title 38 U.S.C. 

§ 3020 as an integral tool in its reenlistment program. No other Service is currently 

using the authority. 

Question 3: If the funding for the SAAs could not be secured, is VA prepared 

to take over the duties of the SAAs? How much would it cost VA to train and perform those duties? 

Response: Yes, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is prepared (and required by law) to take over those duties. It is not possible to determine cost to train 

and perform these duties because the amount of work needed is dependent on how 

many (if any) State Approving Agencies (SAA) would no longer desire to contract 

with VA for the contract amounts offered. 

Question 4: Do you not support H.R. 3889 because you are already doing a 

study? Is it a one-year study or is it longer than one year? 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

104 

Response: Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E) Service expects to 

award a contract for the VR&E Service participant research study in fiscal year 

(FY) 2008. This is a year long study to validate the findings of the veterans employability research study (VERS). Additionally, VR&E Service is developing plans to 

conduct a long-term study of VR&E outcomes. 

Question 5: How much do the VA home loan fees generate on an annual basis? 

Response: From FY 2002 through FY 2008, VA has collected over $3.12 billion 

in funding fees. 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 FY 2008 

$508,795,542 $629,446,827 $491,453,430 $405,108,773 $430,630,160 $417,005,212 $237,759,267 

Question 6: The income generated from the fees, do they fund other veteran programs or do they go back to the Treasury? 

Response: We assume that the income to which the question refers is the current 

negative subsidy estimate associated with the loan guaranty financing account. 

Funding fees collected from the VA loan guaranty program do not fund other veteran programs. VA holds the estimated amounts that are sufficient to fund all future expenses on loans guaranteed or made in a particular year. Any amount of 

funding fee collections in excess of these expenses (referred to as the ‘negative subsidy amount’) is returned to Treasury at the end of the year. In FY 2007, the 

amount of funding fees in excess of the future anticipated expenses totaled $87.1 

million, which was returned to Treasury at the end of the fiscal year. 

Æ 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING