[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 748; 2551; 3286; 3419; 4138; DRAFT BILL,
``TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES''; DRAFT BILL, THE ``VETERANS SUCCESS ON CAMPUS ACT
OF 2016''; DRAFT BILL, THE ``GI BILL OVERSIGHT ACT OF 2016''; DRAFT
BILL, ``TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TO CARRY OUT A RESEARCH
PROGRAM TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
IN ADDRESSING NEEDS OF CERTAIN MINORITY VETERANS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-64
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-153 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Minority Member
Chairman MARK TAKANO, California
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan DINA TITUS, Nevada
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas RAUL RUIZ, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana KATHLEEN RICE, New York
RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LEE ZELDIN, New York JERRY McNERNEY, California
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa
MIKE BOST, Illinois
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Don Phillips, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio, Chairman
LEE ZELDIN, New York MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa Member
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois KATHLEEN RICE, New York
JERRY McNERNEY, California
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Page
A Legislative Hearing On The Following Bills: H.R. 748; H.R.
2551; H.R. 3286; H.R. 3419; H.R. 4138; A Draft Bill Entitled,
``To Make Certain Improvements In The Laws Administered By The
Secretary Of Veterans Affairs Relating To Educational
Assistance, And For Other Purposes''; A Draft Bill Entitled,
The ``Veterans Success On Campus Act Of 2016''; A Draft Bill
Entitled, The ``GI Bill Oversight Act Of 2016''; And A Draft
Bill Entitled, ``To Direct The Secretary Of Labor To Carry Out
A Research Program To Evaluate The Effectiveness Of Transition
Assistance Program In Addressing Needs Of Certain Minority
Veterans....................................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable Brad Wenstrup, Chairman................................ 1
Honorable Mark Takano, Ranking Member............................ 2
Honorable Jeff Miller, Full Committee Chairman................... 3
Honorable Dina Titus, Member..................................... 5
WITNESSES
Honorable David McKinley, (WV-01)................................ 6
Honorable Paul Cook, (CA-08)..................................... 7
Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic
Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs............................................ 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 28
Accompanied by:
Ms. Carin Otero, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for HR
Policy and Planning, Office of Human Resources and
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Honorable Martha McSally, (AZ-02)................................ 10
Mr. Sam Shellenberger, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of
Labor.......................................................... 12
Prepared Statement........................................... 35
Mr. Davy Leghorn, Assistant Director, Veterans Employment and
Education Division, The American Legion........................ 18
Prepared Statement........................................... 38
Dr. Joseph W. Wescott, Legislative Director, National Association
of State Approving Agencies.................................... 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 41
Mr. Walter Ochinko, Policy Director, Veterans Education Success.. 21
Prepared Statement........................................... 43
Mr. Jared Lyon, President & CEO, Student Veterans of America..... 23
Prepared Statement........................................... 50
Mr. Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.................. 25
Prepared Statement........................................... 55
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 58
A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON THE FOLLOWING BILLS: H.R. 748; H.R. 2551; H.R.
3286; H.R. 3419; H.R. 4138; A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED, ``TO MAKE CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES''; A
DRAFT BILL ENTITLED, THE ``VETERANS SUCCESS ON CAMPUS ACT OF 2016''; A
DRAFT BILL ENTITLED, THE ``GI BILL OVERSIGHT ACT OF 2016''; AND A DRAFT
BILL ENTITLED, ``TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TO CARRY OUT A
RESEARCH PROGRAM TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TRANSITION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM IN ADDRESSING NEEDS OF CERTAIN MINORITY VETERANS
----------
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U. S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Brad Wenstrup
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Zeldin, Costello, Radewagen, Bost,
Miller, Takano, Titus, and Rice.
OPENING STATEMENT OF BRAD WENSTRUP, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Wenstrup. Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee
will come to order.
Before we begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
our colleague, Chairman Miller, be allowed to sit at the dais,
to make an opening statement, and ask questions.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I want to thank--you don't or you do object?
Mr. Takano. I don't object.
Mr. Wenstrup. Okay. Good. Good.
I want to thank you all for joining us here today to
discuss legislation pending before the Subcommittee concerning
education benefits, employment recognition programs for our
returning servicemembers and veterans, as well as
accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This afternoon, we have nine important pieces of
legislation before us, and I want to thank our colleagues for
bringing these bills forward. While, well intentioned, some of
the bills before us have, of course, what we would normally
see, discretionary and mandatory costs engaged with them. So,
before they move, I do look forward to working with the Ranking
Member to identify needed offsets to pay for some of these
bills.
I also want to remind everyone that this hearing is only a
legislative hearing and we are here to have an open dialogue so
we can make necessary changes or omissions before we consider
marking up any of these bills.
In the interest of time, I am not going to summarize the
legislation before us, but before I yield to Ranking Member
Takano, I do want to make some comments on the draft bill
entitled, the GI Bill Oversight Act. While I share everyone's
concerns about the need to aggressively pursue, and if
necessary, withdraw GI Bill approval for schools that use
deceptive or fraudulent marketing practices, I am concerned
with the unintended consequences of this bill as it is
currently drafted, and we can talk about that.
I believe that VA and the State-approval agencies already
have the legislative authority to examine these schools, but to
require the Department and the IG to take such a strong step
forward based on a class action lawsuit or an investigation, by
a state or Federal entity, without any due process that allows
the school to present their side of the story, may be unwise.
I would also be concerned about what constitutes an
investigation and possible liability the VA or the IG may face,
based on taking drastic action on unsubstantiated allegations.
I appreciate, as always, Mr. Takano and his staff, having
indicated a willingness to see if we can come to resolution on
these concerns with the legislation as we move forward.
With that being said, I am eager to discuss each of the
nine pieces of legislation before us today, and I am grateful
to my colleagues who have introduced these bills and to our
witnesses for being here to discuss them with us.
I look forward to a productive and meaningful discussion. I
will now yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Takano, for any
opening statement that he may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK TAKANO, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this
hearing on nine bills to improve employment and educational
opportunities for veterans. I want to offer my sincere
gratitude to you for including two of my draft bills which
involve issues of particular interest to me.
You and your staff have really gone out of your way to
include my bills, and I want to publicly say how much I
appreciate what you have done. My first bill, the GI Bill
Oversight Act, triggers VA and IG action to identify and weed
out the bad actors in higher education, who use highly
deceptive practices to recruit GI beneficiaries into their
programs.
My second bill improves the Transition Assistance Program
for women veterans, veterans with disabilities, Native American
veterans, insulative veterans, and others. I have offered both
bills in draft form because I want to start a discussion around
these issues, with the goal of eventually crafting meaningful
legislation that will enhance veterans' experience using the GI
Bill and TAP.
I also want to extend my gratitude to Representative
Radewagen for becoming the original cosponsor of my bill, to
study TAP improvements for certain groups of veterans. I hope
that both bills--that both bills will eventually enjoy
bipartisan support.
We have several important bills on the docket, and I wanted
to keep my remarks brief so we can listen to the witnesses'
testimony. I do want to commend Representative Titus for her
excellent work on the support for Student Veterans with
Families Act. Veterans with families should not have to choose
between using their GI Bill benefits to pursue a degree and
finding safe and affordable child care to care for their
children.
Wonderful. I applaud this bill for removing a significant
barrier to education for student veterans.
Finally, I want to thank Chairman Wenstrup for following
through on the discussions we have had about the need to codify
the VetSuccess on Campus Program. Student veterans have
benefited greatly from the VSOC program, and I am pleased with
the efforts of this Subcommittee to make this program
permanent.
I thank the witnesses for being here this afternoon and
look forward to having the benefit of their views and the
opportunity to ask questions.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
I will now yield to Chairman Miller, Chairman of the Full
Committee, to discuss his bill, H.R. 4138.
Chairman Miller, you are now recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JEFF MILLER, FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you and Mr. Takano for not only holding this hearing, but
allowing me to testify today, and thank you, Mr. Takano for not
objecting to my sitting at the dais with you.
H.R. 4138 would provide the secretary of veterans affairs
with, yet, what I think is another tool that he or she could
use to hold the department's employees accountable when it is
warranted, while also being fair to the taxpayers of this
Nation.
This bill would allow the secretary to recoup any
relocation expense paid to a VA employee when the secretary
deems it necessary.
The bill would also provide notice to the employee, prior
to the recoupment and the opportunity for that employee to
appeal the recoupment to a third-party Federal entity.
This bill closely mirrors another bill which I introduced,
H.R. 280, which gave the secretary the authority to recoup any
bonuses when deemed necessary, and which passed out of the
House by a voice vote in March of 2015.
I realize many people, once again, believe that this is
another partisan attack on the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and that it could hurt retention and recoupment, and I think
that is one of the reasons that the VA is opposed to this one
piece of legislation.
It is unfortunate, however, that while they continue to
tout how they are supportive of true cultural change and
accountability within the department, when Congress acts to
give them those tools and the ability to change the culture,
they rebuff it or they say they already have the authority, and
it is not necessary, yet we see time and time again that these
tools that they have are really replaced with words, and there
are really no concrete efforts or actions on their part.
The reason I introduced this bill was, in fact, to help the
secretary and to give him the statutory authority to recoup
these relocation expenses, when warranted. Because as many of
you remember, with Diana Rubens and Kim Graves, it was evident
that the department was unclear as to what authority they had
to recoup the money.
This bill would clear up any uncertainty the department or
the lawyers may have as to what they are or are not able to do.
I am not here to re-hash the ultimate outcome of the Rubens and
the Graves cases. I do know, however, that many of us were
disappointed in the department's inability or, in fact, their
unwillingness to recoup the hundreds of thousands of dollars
that the American taxpayers funded to make Ms. Rubens' and Ms.
Graves' self-designed moves occur.
Despite comments expressed by me, Members of Congress,
VSOs, the media, and the general public, in these two cases,
the secretary was always unclear as to whether or not they even
had an option for the department to recoup those expenses under
current law. VA has said as in the past and, again, in their
testimony today, that they already had that ability to,
``Collect debts owed by employees when employees have been paid
incorrectly.''
VA has not, however, been able to articulate whether Ms.
Graves' or Ms. Rubens' transfers and the over $400,000 that
their moves caused the American taxpayers would be categorized
as improper payments. To erase this ambiguity, I introduced
this bill that is before you today, H.R. 4138 to give the
secretary again, yet another tool to instill real and measured
accountability that would spread across the entire department.
And furthermore, if the bill were law during the cases
mentioned above, then it would have allowed the secretary to do
what was right for veterans and taxpayers alike, so that when a
VA employee inappropriately receives almost half a million
dollars as a result of their behavior, behavior that some felt
fell short of the department's values and their missions, the
secretary would be able to act in a meaningful way.
I think this is a common sense piece of legislation, and
that it is our duty to provide the secretary with every means
possible as we continue to work together to try and transform
the Department of Veterans Affairs into an organization that
the veterans of this country deserve.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Takano, thank you very much for your
time; it is an honor, and I yield back.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
Next, we recognize Ms. Titus for any remarks she may have
on her bill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DINA TITUS
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I want
to thank you and Ranking Member Takano, for including two
pieces of legislation that I have introduced, and I thank Mr.
Takano for his kind words when he mentioned one of them
earlier.
The first is H.R. 748, which is the GI Bill STEM Extension
Act, which I introduced along with my friend, Mr. McKinley,
from West Virginia, in that that would provide an additional
nine months of educational benefits to help veterans who pursue
degrees in the STEM fields. STEM fields often have many lab
courses associated with them, and this can take longer than the
standard four-year curriculum, and so that is why they need an
additional amount of time.
The ability to analyze, communicate, and motivate, which is
honed in the military makes veterans ideal candidates for STEM
fields. Now, with the growth and demand for STEM experts
expected to outpace other professions in the next two decades,
this legislation will help meet the need for a highly qualified
workforce, enable us to better compete in the global economy,
and create new employment opportunities for our Nation's
heroes.
I appreciate the support that I have gotten from some of
today's witnesses, and I would like to work with Mr. McKinley
to incorporate these changes that have been suggested.
The second bill is H.R. 3419 that Mr. Takano mentioned, the
Student Veterans with Families Act, and it would provide
critical support service for student veterans with children. We
know that student veterans can be different from the
traditional college student; many of them are far likelier to
have families of their own, and this means they have to juggle
a possible academic career with currently meeting that family's
needs.
There are currently about 70,000 veterans who are single
parents. Many of them are eligible to use the GI Bill benefits,
and some of these are currently enrolled in educational
programs.
The GI Bill provides stipends for books, housing, living
expenses, but not for any kind of child care. So students with
any children aren't provided any additional support to help
balance their studies and their responsibilities. And if
student veterans aren't able to complete their degrees and take
advantage of the GI Bill, then that is a shortcoming, and we
are failing our Nation's heroes.
This legislation would provide grants to schools to fund
spots on existing child care facilities, build new facilities,
or facilitate care closer to campus.
Again, I appreciate the comments and suggestions that you
have all submitted in your written statements, and I look
forward to incorporating them in the legislation as it moves
forward, especially the suggestion to add priority of service
caveats.
So those are the two bills that are included that I
introduced, and I very much thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
It is an honor to be joined by our colleagues, Mr. McKinley
of West Virginia and Mr. Cook of California. I thank all three
of you--both of you for being here--there should be a third
one.
Mr. McKinley, you are now recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DAVID MCKINLEY
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Chairman Wenstrup and thank you,
also, Ranking Member Takano.
Members of the Committee and my cosponsor, thank you. Thank
you for inviting me here today to discuss H.R. 748, the GI Bill
STEM Extension Act. The rationale for this legislation is
simple; it is twofold. We know there is a shortage of STEM
graduates in our country, and we have also heard from our
veterans how difficult it is for them to make that transition
back from a military environment into an academic setting,
especially for them to do it within the prescribed period of
time.
For example, engineering, I am just one of two licensed
engineers in Congress and it takes now, at Purdue, it is a
five-year program. And similar to that, in many programs across
America, engineering and STEM education, is longer than four
years. As a result, we put this bill together to address both
issues.
As a background further, only four percent is--from our
research, only four percent of our American undergraduates are
in STEM education. In China, however, it is 22 percent.
So, in America, nearly 40 percent of our undergraduates in
engineering are here on a student visa and then they take that
degree, that education process and go back to their country to
compete with us in America from their foreign--from their
country.
So, we wanted--we thought that we, as a country, can do
better. We have already--as Congressman Titus has said they are
ready and deserving qualified students, veterans that need our
help to work with them. The genesis of this bill came from
discussions with the students from the roundtables that I would
have around the district talking to the students at the
campuses, and they would tell me how long--like four years,
four and a half years, five years, five and a half years, so
you get their engineering or their science degree. They needed
help.
So we knew there was this--the one thing they kept
emphasizing is this trip. They had been overseas for two or
three years. They come back and go in an academic setting, that
caused them time to get back into that grooves, so to speak, as
to be able to do that.
So, we are trying to help them. These veterans need that
flexibility and financial resources to complete their degree.
Due to the extended nature of most STEM course programs,
student veterans take on additional debt to complete their
degree or sometimes they will choose to postpone their degree
or some never complete their education because of the
additional costs that are incurred with that.
Our bill will reduce--will also help reduce that
possibility of student debt. If costs are a concern--and they
should be at some factor--well, many--one way that we
considered doing in this piece of legislation is controlling
the costs by limiting the number of slots that could be made
available to our veterans, just like we do in the medical
profession. There, perhaps if we were to limit it to 5,000
students a year to be eligible for this help, that would make
it a very manageable cost to be able to do that, to be able to
help out in our STEM education.
So, working with the Committee and the stakeholders, we
believe this legislation creates a pathway to graduate an
additional 5,000 professionals into the STEM program to help
grow America.
We look forward to working with this Committee and outside
stakeholders to improve the bill and move it forward. And,
remember, this transition from a military environment to an
academic campus is not always an easy one if you are, been away
from that for years. We owe it to the men and women who
deserve--everything that they have done for us--to help them
return to civilian life and help them pursue their dreams and
help our country.
So, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, Congresswoman
Titus, thank you all very much, all of you, and the Committee
Members for being here today, and I hope that you will give
serious consideration as to how we can help our veterans. Thank
you.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. McKinley.
Mr. Cook, you are now recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF PAUL COOK
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Chairman Wenstrup, for the opportunity
to speak today on a bill that is especially important to me. As
a combat veteran, I am deeply concerned that the men and women
of our Armed Forces continue to struggle to find jobs upon
their return to civilian life. These individuals have not only
displayed great courage serving their country, but have
acquired distinctive skills that make them ideal candidates for
employment.
Veterans who serve this country honorably should never
struggle to find employment, which is why I have introduced
H.R. 3286, the Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing
American military veterans active of 2005, the HIRE Veterans
Act would establish a self-funded program within the Department
of Labor that encourages private sector employers to hire and
retain veterans; specifically encourages effective voluntary
private sector investments to recruit, employ, and retain men
and women, who have served in the United States military, and
with annual presidential awards to private sector employers,
recognizing those efforts and for other purposes.
To ensure proper oversight, the sec stair of labor would be
required to provide Congress with annual reports on the success
of the programs and the hiring, and the retention of veterans.
The program would be completely voluntary and it would be
funded through a small fee, paid by willing employers when
applying for the award.
The bill goes beyond simply recognizing that a business
hires a veteran; it is critical that we establish a nationwide
gold standard that creates a strong and consistent brand. This
Act is an opportunity for Americans to see which companies
truly live up to the employment promises they make to veterans.
It is our duty to ensure veterans receive the benefits and
resources they are earned through their services to this
country and this includes encouraging meaningful job
opportunities. This bill creates an innovative system to
encourage and recognize employers who have made veterans a
priority in their hiring practice and incentivizing the
creation of thousands of jobs for veterans.
I want to thank Ranking Member Takano for cosponsoring the
HIRE Veterans Act. I would just like to add that part of the
reason that I think this bill is very, very important, is we
have done a terrible job on this. Over the years, you know, we
have had people who have come back from combat, wounded, and
everything else, and for a variety of reasons, they can't get a
job.
And with the help of employers, this is going to reward or
incentivize and recognize those employers that have stepped up
to the plate and helped make that very difficult transition for
some people who have served our country.
I want to thank the Committee for having me here today, and
I welcome any questions.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
And I thank you all for bringing forth these bills and
speaking on them at today's hearing.
Unless there are any questions for our colleagues, you are
now excused, and at this time, I would like to recognize our
second panel of witnesses today.
First, I want to welcome back Mr. Curt Coy, Deputy Under
Secretary for Economic Opportunity at the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, who is accompanied by Ms. Carin Otero,
Associate Deputy, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning
at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and we also have
Mr. Sam Shellenberger, who was the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Operations at the Veterans' Employment and Training Service
at the U.S. Department of Labor.
Very brief titles. I have to say your card must be very
full. But I want to thank you all for being with us today.
Mr. Coy, when you are ready, we will begin with you. You
are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY
Mr. Coy. Good morning. I am falling apart here.
Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano,
and other Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today and for your proactive interest in
improving our programs.
Accompanying me this afternoon, as you mentioned is Ms.
Carin Otero, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
office of the human resources.
There are a couple of bills under discussion today that
would affect programs or laws administered by the Department of
Labor. Respectfully, we defer to our labor department
colleagues on those bills.
H.R. 748 provides up to nine additional--up to nine months
of additional Post-9/11 GI Bill to an every single who has used
all of their 36 months of benefits and is enrolled in a
science, technology, or mathematics STEM program that requires
more than the standard credit hours for completion or has
earned a post-secondary degree in a STEM field and is enrolled
in a program of education leading to a teaching certification.
VA supports the intent of the proposed legislation, but
there are a few nuances we would like to address and would be
happy to work with the Committee to resolve them.
H.R. 2551 authorizes VA to treat a pre-apprenticeship
program in the same manner as an apprenticeship program, and
would provide a monthly housing allowance for beneficiaries who
are not paid as part of the pre-apprenticeship program. VA
generally supports the intent of the proposed legislation, but
has some concerns with implementation of this bill, as outlined
in my written testimony.
Again, we would be happy to work with the Committee, as
well as our colleagues at Labor.
H.R. 3419 authorizes the secretary to make grants to
educational institutions who either establish or expand child
care center or pay the costs of providing child care services
at a center.
Although VA supports the goal of providing affordable child
care for those enrolled in higher education, VA does not
support this bill, as written. We have concerns with the
potential establishment of a child care center, due to life
cycle costs involved to sustain it, as well as the management
challenges associated with a variety of state and local laws.
We would be happy to work with the Committee to outline our
concerns.
With respect to the bill, with several educational systems
provisions, VA, again, thanks the Committee for your proactive
support.
Section 2, which would allow the proration of entitlement
charges for licensing and certification examinations and
national tests. This would certainly benefit veterans and their
families by reducing the negative impact of the exam or test
reimbursement on their remaining entitlement benefit.
We would, however, suggest the provision specify the amount
of benefit payment equalling one month of entitlement. Again,
we would be happy to work with the Committee to address this.
VA supports Section 3, which would authorize VA to round
down the cost-of-living adjustments to the nearest who he will
dollar for Chapter 30 and Chapter 35. VA also supports the
reauthorization of the veterans advisory committee on
education, through December 31, 2021, as described in Section
4. This is a valuable Committee, providing expert advice.
Section 5 authorizes VA to provide training requirements
for school certifying officials. If an educational institution
does not ensure that a school-certifying official meets the
training requirements, VA may disapprove any course of
education offered by the educational institution. A also
supports this section.
VA does not support, however, Section 6, which authorizes
VA to reduce the amount of monthly housing stipend on a pro
rata basis if an individual reduces the number of course hours
at the beginning of an academic period. Authorizing VA to
offset an individual's monthly housing stipend in this manner
could create a financial burden on veterans and their families.
VA prefers to focusing on strategies to minimize their
frequency and magnitude of overpayments, rather than more
aggressively recouping over payments in a manner that may be
detrimental to beneficiaries.
Section 7 would prohibit an educational institution for
using or merging VA reporting fees with the amounts available
with their general funds. VA does not support Section 7.
Educational institutions are already required to use
reporting fees solely for supporting veterans and their
programs.
VA also opposes 4138, which would authorize the secretary
to recoup relocation allowance, paid to or on behalf of
employees of VA. VA agrees Federal employees should be held
accountable and supports action taking to collect debts when
employees have been paid incorrectly, and has established a
strong internal policy implementing the Federal Claims
Collection Act.
Section 2 of the GI Bill Oversight Act requires VA's Office
of the Inspector General to research and conduct investigations
involving institutions of higher learning that are defendants
in a class action lawsuit for deceptive or misleading practice
or being investigated by a Federal or a state agency or have
been found guilty by any state or state--Federal or state
agency of deceptive or misleading practices. It is my
understanding that the Committee has the VA OIG comments for
Section 2 separately.
Section 3 of this bill requires VA to disapprove courses of
education in IHL found guilty by OIG of deceptive or misleading
practices. VA currently has this authority but supports the
general intent behind the legislation.
VA currently has 79 full-time counselors at 94 campuses
under our VetSuccess on Campus Program. We are supportive and
appreciate I have to codify the existing program. One minor
point, however, education and vocational services are available
to servicemembers, veterans, and their dependents, but the bill
refers to veterans only. As such, VA recommends that the bill
be expanded to servicemembers and dependents.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today, and I would
certainly be pleased to respond to any questions that you or
any Members of the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Curtis L. Coy appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Mr. Coy. We are going to
shift gears for just a moment from this panel and I would like
to recognize Ms. McSally for comments on her bill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MARTHA MCSALLY
Ms. McSally. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, for allowing
me to speak on behalf of my bill today, H.R. 2551, the
Veterans' Entry to Apprenticeship Act.
As a veteran myself, I know personally when somebody raises
their right hand and volunteers to defend our Nation, we commit
to doing all we can to assist them when they return.
Part of that process means helping our veterans transition
to civilian life after their service. Unfortunately, we are not
living up to that responsibility. A 2015 GAO Report revealed
for veterans age 18 to 34, the unemployment rate was 20 percent
higher than unemployment rate for non-veterans. We can and must
do better for our war heroes.
I am here today to talk about a common sense solution that
would help our veterans get needed skills to better their
career options. Under current law, GI Bill benefits cannot be
used to cover the cost of Department of Labor approved pre-
apprenticeship training, which is required to enter certain
trade fields.
This can often be an insurmountable barrier for a veteran
wanting to enter apprenticeship programs with their GI Bill to
gain new skills for good jobs. Pre-apprenticeship programs are
classroom-based courses that prepare individuals to enter a
more advanced level of apprenticeship training. These programs
lay the ground work for an enrollee to enter a skilled trade,
including providing counselling to put them on a path to enter
the workforce.
My bill, H.R. 2551, removes barriers to these valuable
programs and provides our veterans the ability to use their
educational benefits under the GI Bill to learn these critical
workplace skills. In a nutshell, the bill helps veterans obtain
good-paying jobs and these are the benefits they have earned.
Increasingly, we have seen an expansion of pre-
apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs in high-tech fields.
In my own district, a veteran-owned manufacturing company that
creates products for the semiconductor, aerospace, optics, and
mining industries has utilized these programs to their
advantage. Pre-apprenticeship programs have made it possible
for this company to recruit and train the talent needed to
ensure it can flourish, while providing veterans the
competitive wages that they deserve.
As another example, the Arizona Department of
Transportation offers a pre-apprenticeship program in highway
construction that includes hands-on instruction and trips to
job and training sites. The course includes training to ensure
a seamless transition to a U.S. Department of Labor registered
apprenticeship program.
With these benefits, it is only common sense that we expand
access to these programs for veterans looking for work. My
bipartisan bill comes at a time when our skilled workforce is
aging steadily, and our Nation is seeking--is seeing a
significant shortage of new workers to fill these high-skilled
jobs.
According to a study conducted in 2012, 53 percent of
skilled U.S. workers were 45 years or older; 20 percent were
over 55; likewise, there are as many as 500,000 manufacturing
jobs currently going unfilled because employers say they cannot
find qualified workers.
With an increasing number of Post-9/11 veterans looking to
enter the workforce, and an estimated 573,000 unemployed
veterans in 2014, now is the perfect time to encourage our war
fighters to pursue careers in apprenticeship--apprenticeable
occupations; that is a new word. This would be a win, not just
for our veterans, but also for local employers, as well.
In closing, I want to thank Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard,
for her strong leadership and being my wing-woman on this
important issue. Additionally, I would like to thank the other
33 cosponsors, many of whom are Members of this Committee, as
well as the various groups that are supporting this bill,
including the National Guard Association of the United States,
the Reserve Officers Association, the Enlisted Association of
the National Guard United States, the National Roofing
Contractors Association, the National Association of Home
Builders, and the Associated General Contractors of America for
their support.
Lastly, I would like to thank the Committee for giving me
this time to speak before you today, and I appreciate your
consideration of this bill.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Ms. McSally.
Mr. Shellenberger, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF SAM SHELLENBERGER
Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano,
and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
giving me the opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
As deputy assistant secretary for operations and management
of the Veterans' Employment and Training Service at the
Department of Labor, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
the department's views on pending legislation and proposals
that impact veterans' employment. As a Navy veteran, the son of
an Army Air Corps veteran and the father of an Army officer, I
take DOL's mission to help veterans, transitioning
servicemembers, and military families personally.
I am pleased to report that the employment situation for
veterans continues to improve. Last month marked 23 months out
of the past two years where veteran unemployment was lower than
non-veteran unemployment; still, DOL will not rest until all
veterans find meaningful employment.
I will limit my remarks today to proposed bills that have a
direct impact on the programs administered by the Department of
Labor. These include the Veterans Entry to Apprenticeship Act,
the HIRE Vets Act, and a draft bill to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Transition Assistance Program, in
addressing the needs of certain minority veterans.
The Veterans Entry to Apprenticeship Act would allow
covered veterans to utilize their education benefits for pre-
apprenticeship programs.
Since the administration of the provisions of this bill
would fall to the VA, the department will defer to that agency
for specific concerns related to the legislation overall;
however, the department does reiterate its support for
registered apprenticeship programs as a proven pipeline for
veterans to meaningful civilian careers.
Pre-apprenticeship programs, when properly structured,
represent an excellent opportunity to expand the aperture of
apprenticeship pipelines for our veterans.
With regard to the HIRE Vets Act, DOL applauds the intent
of this bill and all efforts to ensure that our veterans find
civilian employment following separation from the military;
however, we would like to note some concerns regarding our
ability to successfully implement the program, as currently
drafted. I have addressed these concerns in more specific
detail in my written testimony. For example, the Medallion
Award Fund as contemplated in the bill, is not self-executing.
DOL would not have access to the fees in the fund unless
and until Congress appropriates those fees to the agency. And
it is difficult to determine a reasonable fee that employers
would contribute that would be sufficient to enable vets to
carry out many of the requirements of the bill. DOL would
likely require additional staff in order to verify the
information provided in the applications; however, if the
criteria, instead, were limited to measuring only entered and
retained veteran employment rates, there may be opportunities
to leverage existing Federal and state databases just to
confirm those numbers.
Lastly, I will touch on Mr. Takano's Transition Assistance
Program evaluation bill. As a partner agency in the Transition
Program, and as a member of the TAP performance management
working group, DOL is currently conducting evaluations to
assess the long-term outcomes of TAP. The Department of Labor's
chief evaluation office conducted an assessment in 2013 and
based on those findings, awarded a contract to conduct a two-
part evaluation of the outcomes of the DOL employment workshop.
The first part will analyze the impacts of the workshop on
employment-related outcomes for separating servicemembers. Data
collection is currently underway and is expected to occur
through fiscal year 2017. The analyses are expected to be
conducted and finalized in fiscal year 2017.
The second part of the study consists of the pilot to
evaluate differential impacts of delivery approaches, such as
the use of social media for the employment workshop. The
intervention design and feasibility analysis is currently
underway for that study.
While the department supports the intent and the spirit of
the draft legislation, DOL would prefer to wait until the
current evaluation work is concluded in the summer of 2017
before beginning another research program on TAP.
The department looks forward to continuing our work with
the Subcommittee to ensure that our veterans have the resources
they need to successfully compete in the civilian workforce.
The improving employment situation for veterans is a resounding
testament to the impact of Federal programs and the nationwide
response from public and private stakeholders, acting
nationally and within local communities.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, this concludes my oral remarks. Thank you
for the opportunity to be part of the hearing, and I will look
forward to responding to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Sam Shellenberger appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, I thank you for your remarks, and at
this time, I will yield myself five minutes for questions, and,
first, for Mr. Coy, regarding Chairman Miller's bill, HR 4138,
it is the authority to collect the debt if an employee has been
improperly paid, however, I am not clear if they are able to do
so, if the payment at the time was correct but it was later
found that the employee received the payment through some ill-
gotten means, if there was some misbehavior to get to that
point, if you would have the authority to recoup it.
So, can you tell us what exact authority they currently
have, the secretary currently has, and if this authority was
available for the secretary at the time, say, of the relocation
expenses that were paid to Ms. Rubens and Ms. Graves; could he
have rescinded that if he wanted to?
Mr. Coy. If I may, Ms. Chairman, I would like Mr. Otero to
answer that; our H.R. expert.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you.
Mr. Coy. Karen?
Ms. Otero. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. The department has
a current authority that allows if an improper payment is made,
that it allows us to recoup the payment and we have the Federal
Claims Collection Act.
In the case of Ms. Rubens and Ms. Graves, in our
investigation of the matter, their superiors made the decision
to offer a relocation, and so once it was authorized, the
relocation, in fact, became allowable, the relocation
occurred--
Mr. Wenstrup. I appreciate that, but that is not my
question.
Ms. Otero. Yes.
Mr. Wenstrup. My question is, hypothetically, if they found
that the reason that it was okayed by the supervisor was
through some nefarious behavior, would the secretary have the
authority to take that away if this bill is passed?
Ms. Otero. The secretary would have the authority to manage
the decision made by the higher-level official who authorized
the payment.
Mr. Wenstrup. I don't--
Ms. Otero [continued]. And so that would be outside--
Mr. Wenstrup [continued]. I am asking you yes or no, and I
am not getting that. I want to know--I want the secretary to
have the ability to recoup taxpayer dollars if the person used
some nefarious behavior to get to where they got.
So whether the supervisor was duped into this situation or
whatever the case may be, if that person acted in a way that
was not correct or nefarious in some way, will the secretary
have the authority to take that back, because--that is really
what I am asking here.
I understand in that situation, the supervisor may have
gone ahead and done it, but if the supervisor was misled by
information, they are clean. But the point is, going back
further, if it was bad behavior that led to the supervisor's
decision, does the secretary have the authority under this
bill, then, to retract that payment?
Ms. Otero. I don't think with this bill makes--would make a
difference. I do believe that if there was nefarious behavior,
I believe it would be uncovered in an investigation, in theory,
if it was, in theory, nefarious behavior.
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you. I appreciate that, and I
will move on from there.
Going back to Mr. Coy, the GI Bill Oversight Act would
require VA and the VA OIG to take certain steps when a school
is under an investigation by state or Federal entities. And,
you know, anyone can bring forward allegations and initiate an
investigation, if you will, so I want to get your opinion on
whether you think it is prudent to require the VA and the VA
OIG to take action, based on allegations or investigations
before facts and substantiated allegations?
Mr. Coy. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. I think
you are referring to--
Thank you, Sam. I think you are referring to Section 3,
that if the OIG finds someone guilty or an institution guilty,
that we should automatically withdraw the funds from that
school.
My concern, and right now, we--what we say is, we support
the intent, but we have some concerns or issues about it. One
of the concerns I would certainly have is, OIG generally does
investigations, and once that investigation is done, you know,
it would be handed over to us, the education folks, or some
other body, for example, FTC or Justice, you know, for any
criminal intent.
So there is an issue of whether or not--what the definition
of guilty is, if you will.
The other issue is, is we certainly have a concern that we
would need some ability for discretion, with respect to this.
The way the current bill is written, it is almost an absolute
is.
So, the two concerns I would suggest is, A, OIG
investigating and determining ``guilt,'' which I think the way
the bill is written, and so we have a little bit of concern
about that, and then, secondly, if there was some definition of
guilt there, there is also an extent of--what is the extent of
the deceptive marketing that is there?
Doing an automatic withdrawal, without having any
discretion to leverage some judgment in there, is the kinds of
things that we would be happy to work with the Committee to try
and resolve those particular issues.
Mr. Wenstrup. And I think that is what we need to work on
and clarify is, really, what stage--really, what does that
mean? You don't want one school competing with another;
therefore, launching an investigation or allegations and have
this take place, where we would want to be able to clarify
that.
Mr. Coy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Takano for
five minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coy, thank you for signing the memorandum of
understanding with the Federal Trade Commission in November of
2015 to involve the FTC in carrying on investigations and
making the VA's determinations of deceptive or misleading
practices by IHLs in violation of Title 38, Section 3696.
My question to you is, has the VA referred any cases to the
FTC since the VA/FTC MOU was signed?
Mr. Coy. No, sir, we have not.
Mr. Takano. Well, I also want to thank you for your support
of the intent behind my legislation. We had been working with
the OIG to address their concerns and this process will
continue.
But please describe how the VA uses its existing discretion
to protect veterans from wasting their hard-earned, but limited
GI Bill entitlement.
Mr. Coy. Thank you, Mr. Takano. We have been--especially as
of late, in the last several years--been working very hard and
very diligently to try and make sure that veterans--that
veterans are informed consumers. And what we do with that is,
we want to make sure that--we have done a number of things.
There is a public law that we certainly implemented, as
well as the president's principles of excellence, and we have
gotten 6,000 schools. We created the GI Bill comparison tool.
So far in just the las few years, since its inception, we have
had over 2.5 million folks use it. You know, I think most folks
are familiar with the comparison tool, but we have caution
flags that are available on there.
We have added a number of features like outcome measures at
particular schools and those kinds of things.
We also have our GI Bill feedback tool that has been built
in just the last few years. That GI Bill feedback tool so far
has already received about 3800 valid complaints. We have
resolved about 3500 of them. This year alone, we received 890
complaints and referred those to schools. So, we think the
feedback tool is a valuable mechanism to be able to do that.
We also, as a result of some of those complaints, we have
conducted 109 risk-based compliance reviews; in other words,
they have gone outed to schools and taken a look at them and
seeing if some of the issues we have are true, and what are the
resolution of those particular issues.
We have also looked at--we trademarked the GI Bill, and so
far, we have already used that authority 21 times to call
somebody up and say, we think you are using the term ``GI
Bill'' improperly.
Finally, I would suggest that in the last five years, we
have withdrawn authority for the GI Bill to about 33 schools
working with our VSA partners in the field, to, in fact, do
withdrawals of those 33 schools, based upon fraud, misleading
or deceptive practices.
Mr. Takano. Well, with regard to that action you--the last
action that you described, what would trigger it? What sort of
triggers make that happen?
Mr. Coy. There are a number of triggers. One, it could be
through the GI Bill complaint system that we have. And the way
we work with that is someone submits the complaint, the first
thing we do is, we find out whether or not that complaint is a
valid complaint. There are some complaints that aren't really
for the principles of excellence and the kinds of things. Their
complaint is about parking tickets and so on and so forth, and
we sort of scrape those away.
Mr. Takano. But how bad does it have to get in order to
rise to the level of an action that--of withholding a--
Mr. Coy. In nine times out of ten, it is an individual
judgment. We also have our SAAs. Joe Wescott is on the next
panel, and we work very closely with the SAAs. So we may have
an SAA go look at the issue. We may send out our own team to go
do it.
Each one is a little bit different. If you look at the 33
schools, some are very small, and so that is a different
methodology than we would do for somebody that is a little bit
larger.
For example, when DoD suspended tuition assistance for the
University of Phoenix, we did risk-based compliance reviews of
all 83 of their campuses.
Mr. Takano. Okay. It seems to me that there needs to be
more consistency and a firmer idea of a procedure within the
Department. And, anyway, my time is up and I yield back.
Mr. Wenstrup. Ms. Titus, you are now recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. I would just like to ask
you, Mr. Coy, about the childcare bill that I introduced. I
introduced that because I was meeting with a group of student
veterans at UNLV, and one single mother told me that she loved
going back to school. She wanted to get a degree. She
appreciated the GI Bill, but she was afraid she was going to
have to drop out because she could not balance being a single
mother with being a full-time student.
So I would just ask you if you know what the percentage is
of students who use the GI Bill but do not complete their
degree program, how many of those are women? And if you do any
interviews with students who enroll but do not complete to ask
them why they possibly had to drop out before graduating?
Mr. Coy. If you are asking, and I will try and understand
the question back, so you are asking how many of our GI Bill
students did not complete their degree because of a childcare
issue or concern?
Ms. Titus. Now, I doubt if you have that information.
Mr. Coy. No, ma'am, I do not.
Ms. Titus. But I was going to say how many of them do not
complete their degree? How many of them are women? And do you
do any outreach to those who do not complete their degree to
ask them why not?
Mr. Coy. I think we can probably get the statistics on the
number of women that are not completing their degrees. Part of
the problem with that, just to caveat it is, these students
have 15 years to use their GI Bill benefits, so somebody may
not go back to school next semester, but they will go in two
years from now. So it doesn't mean that they are not going to
complete their degree. It just means that they haven't done it
just yet.
Ms. Titus. I think you will find there are statistics that
show that if you don't complete your degree within a certain
amount of time, you don't ever go back.
Mr. Coy. I would agree with that--
Ms. Titus. So I think that--
Mr. Coy [continued]. --that is true.
Ms. Titus [continued]. --kind of is a wash there.
Mr. Coy. I--no, I would agree that that probably in many
cases, that is true.
Ms. Titus. Do you think you could find some of those
statistics for me? Because I think that would help to provide
some support for the need for childcare to help people to
complete their degree program. It is not all women, but it will
be largely women.
Mr. Coy. I would be happy to try and see if we can get
those statistics for you.
Ms. Titus. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wenstrup. If there are no further questions, the panel
is now excused.
And I now invite our third and final panel to the table.
Joining us is Mr. Davy Leghorn, Assistant Director for the
Veterans Employment and Education Division at The American
Legion; Dr. Joseph Wescott, Legislative Director for the
National Association of State Approving Agencies; Mr. Walter
Ochinko, Policy Director for Veterans Education Success; Mr.
Jared Lyon, President and CEO of Student Veterans of America;
and Mr. Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director of the National
Legislative Service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States.
I thank you all for being here today, for your service to
our Nation in uniform, and for your hard work and advocacy on
behalf of our Nation's veterans. It is greatly appreciated.
Mr. Leghorn, we will begin with you, and you are now
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVY LEGHORN
Mr. Leghorn. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of our
National Commander, Dale Barnett and the more than two million
members of The American Legion, thank you for the opportunity
to explain our positions on legislation before the
Subcommittee.
Our positions on the nine pieces of legislation addressed
today are a matter of record. The American Legion would like to
focus the duration of our time on two pieces of legislation.
There is a lot of talk these days about the top one percent
and the middle class. But no one likes to talk about the bottom
one percent that reside on the reservations and insular
territories and commonwealths. The American Legion would like
to thank Ranking Member Takano and Representative Radewagen for
proposing legislation that would require the Department of
Labor to take a closer look at the effectiveness of TAP in
addressing the unique needs of veterans in marginalized
populations.
The American Legion recognizes that different groups of
people or communities have their own set of challenges. Paths
to gainful employment differ greatly from locality to locality.
In an effort to provide programs and services to the majority
of our veterans, sometimes small pockets of veterans are
overlooked. The American Legion sees that what works everywhere
else in the country often does not work for our Native
American, Alaskan Native, and Pacific Insular veterans.
To give the Committee a snapshot of what Native American or
Alaskan Native veterans return to after service, they go back
to a community with close to 30 percent of the population
living below the poverty line and where nearly 40 percent of
the population do not work or have given up on looking for
work.
Private sector jobs are practically nonexistent due to a
lack of development, and the closest job could be 50 to 100
miles away from tribal territory. But chances are they are not
even going to get that job, because they have bad credit and do
not have reliable transportation.
Health is declining because of bad diet, and the closest
adequate health care provider is hundreds of miles away. In
fact, the only thing there isn't a lack of nearby are predatory
businesses who target the low-income population, fleecing them
out of their last dollar.
This bleak snapshot is nearly the same for our Pacific
island veterans who are only faring marginally better than
their counterparts on reservations and tribal lands.
In the tribal lands and Pacific islands, there are very few
jobs. In these places, local and Federal government are often
the largest employers. These communities are dying. They need
rural and economic development more than they need another
veteran with a polished resume.
The way to revitalize these communities is by teaching our
veterans to become local business leaders and job creators. For
our veterans going back to these areas, their TAP classes need
to focus more on SBA's Boots to Business Entrepreneurship
course, with some emphasis on the agriculture industry and USDA
programs.
It is our hope that the results from this proposed study
would assist DoD in making TAP more relevant to our veterans in
marginalized populations and close the loopholes that prevent
our Native American, Alaskan Native, and insular veterans from
accessing Federal veterans benefits.
Lastly, The American Legion would like to draw attention to
the draft legislation which focuses on improving the
administration of the post 9/11 GI Bill. While The American
Legion supports efforts here to reduce the occurrence of
overpayments, we offer one caveat regarding Section 6.
The American Legion does not believe a veteran student
enrolls in a college course with the intention of dropping it
later for secondary gain. Extenuating circumstances are often
the reason for the courses being dropped. For the students
attending college full-time, their rent and living expenses are
not reduced when they drop a course. Reducing their living
stipend in this instance imposes a burden that might result in
some students dropping out of school and will cause more
problems than this legislation intends to solve.
While all full-time students are affected, the full-time
students at brick and mortar universities stand to lose the
most with this change. The American Legion would like to see
some protections for these full-time students who unwittingly
become part-time students through no fault of their own.
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and Distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, The American Legion thanks you for
the opportunity to testify this afternoon. We look forward to
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Davy Leghorn appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Mr. Leghorn. Dr. Westcott,
you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH WESTCOTT
Mr. Westcott. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
Members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am
pleased to appear before you today on behalf of The National
Association of State Approving Agencies and provide comments on
certain bills pending before this Committee. I am accompanied
today by our Legislative Committee Vice Chair, Retired Sergeant
Major Robert Haley.
H.R. 2551, The Veterans Entry to Apprenticeship Act, NASA
supports this Bill, particularly as it could serve to increase
enrollment and improve apprenticeship programs, but would offer
the following recommendations.
First, to ensure only quality programs are approved, we
believe that approval authority should rest with the state
approving agency.
Second, specific approval criteria should be developed in
addition to those items identified in the bill, such as
requiring that hours should be credited towards total required
hours in the apprenticeship program.
And the state approving agency should find that there exist
a reasonable certainty that the apprentice program will be
available at the end of the training period.
The GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016. NASA supports this bill,
but we would like to see the language of the bill expanded to
include non-college degree schools approved for GI Bill
benefits.
We recommend Section 2 be modified to specify the purpose
and scope of the Inspector General's investigation, and to add
to Subsection (b)(ii) that students provide to the Inspector
General any information that might be relevant to the
investigation.
We also would recommend adding the requirement that the
Inspector General will notify the appropriate state approving
agency upon commencing an investigation and share their
findings at the conclusion thereof. Also, state approving
agencies should retain both the approval and disapproval
authority.
Proposed legislation, a bill to make certain improvements
in the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
relating to educational assistance and for other purposes. NASA
supports this bill, but would suggest recommendations regarding
Section 5.
While we agree that the training of school certifying
officials should be a requirement, that training should not
solely be the responsibility of the VA. In the past, state
approving agencies regularly provided one-on-one targeted
training to certifying officials.
Prior to fiscal year 2012, when the ASAs began assisting
the VA with compliance surveys, state approving agencies
conducted supervisory visits at 80 to 90 percent of our active
facilities every year. On-site training of SCOs was a core
component of these supervisory visits. Now, as a result of
conducting compliance surveys on behalf of the VA, we only
visit approximately 15 percent of our active facilities each
year.
While we provide training to the extent we can in
conjunction with compliance surveys, it is clear that the
compliance survey assignments have greatly reduced our ability
to regularly visit and train certifying officials. We would
suggest that this reduction in on-site training during SA
supervisory visits has played a roll in the increased
percentage of GI Bill overpayments due to certifying official
errors as discussed in the GAO Report from October 2015.
We would ascertain that a better balance of supervisory
visits and compliance survey visits will result in better
training and oversight, as well as fewer overpayments. As such,
we believe that the development of the training recommended in
the GAO Report should be a collaborative effort between VA and
NASA, with input from school certifying officials. We would
also suggest the following modifications.
First, in Subsection A, program disapproval authority would
primarily reside with state approving agencies. Second, NASA
recommends limiting any requirement for off-site training to
those institutions with more than 20 GI Bill recipients
annually. This will mitigate what could be perceived as an
onerous training requirement for schools with few GI Bill
recipients. However, we do believe reasonable and proper online
training should be mandatory for all certifying officials.
Mr. Chairman, today, over 55 SAs composed of approximately
175 professional and support personnel are supervising over
14,000 active facilities with more than 100,000 programs. We
are extremely grateful for the opportunity to once again appear
before this Committee to share our views. And we remain
committed to working with you, our VA partners, VSO
stakeholders, and educational institutions on these and other
initiatives designed to provide our veterans a path to a better
future.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering any of your
questions that you or Committee Members may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Joseph Westcott appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, thank you, Doctor. Mr. Ochinko, you are
now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF WALTER OCHINKO
Mr. Ochinko. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting Veterans
Education Success to testify on the GI Bill Oversight Act of
2016. Veterans Education Success believes that the GI Bill
Oversight Act seeks to address a critical shortcoming in the
management of GI Bill educational benefits of the VA, the lack
of enforcement to protect veterans from the predatory behavior
of some schools.
When it comes to oversight of the GI Bill, VA's practice to
date has been to focus on managing and tracking benefit
payments. Protecting veterans' hard-earned educational benefits
and taxpayers' investment from fraud or abuse receives far too
little attention.
Last month the House approved a bipartisan bill reported
out of this Subcommittee, the Career Ready Student Veterans
Act. The bill would prohibit participation of the GI Bill by
any school that recruits students using misleading information
about its accreditation and the ability of graduates to
subsequently get jobs in their field of study.
Misrepresentation by some schools, however, goes beyond
accreditation issues. As demonstrated by 14 Federal and state
settlements, some predatory schools also provide students with
misleading information about costs, transfer of credits, job
placement rates, post-graduation salaries, and other issues
where reliable data are key to student veterans making an
informed choice.
Only one of the 14 settlements resulted in the posting of a
caution flag on the GI Bill college comparison tool. My written
testimony contains an attachment summarizing the findings of
these 14 Federal and state settlements. Although the
settlements resulted in $276 million in fines, which provided
some relief to students, veteran students were not made whole.
The GI Bill benefits they used at these predatory schools are
gone forever, underscoring the importance of ensuring that all
schools provide veterans accurate information when they are
shopping for a school.
Fortunately, statutory protection is already in place.
Unfortunately, they are not being enforced. In 1974, Congress
enacted Section 3696 of Title 38, which prohibits VA from
allowing veterans to enroll in schools that engage in
misleading and deceptive advertising and recruiting. Some of
these same schools that provide misleading information to
veterans about accreditation today were engaged in the same
behavior in 1974.
In the July 2015 letter to eight U.S. senators, VA asserted
that the Department lacked the authority to disapprove funds to
schools. A recent report by the Yale Veterans Law Clinic
concluded that Section 3696 obligates VA to exclude schools
involved in misrepresentation from participation of the GI
Bill, and that both VA and state approving agencies have clear
authority to do so.
For more than 40 years, neither VA nor SAAs have enforced
Section 3696. Looking for indications of fraudulent and
aggressive recruiting was only added to the SAA compliance
survey checklist in August 2014. According to a former SAA
director, compliance reviews focus on whether the payments to
the schools are accurate.
In December of 2015, the Virginia SAA withdrew the approval
of ECPI's Medical Career Institute for violating the Section
3696. VA declined to release the SA compliance reports, leaving
unchallenged ECPI's assertions that it had done nothing wrong.
And this is not the first time that VA declined to support the
actions of SAAs.
Section 3696 required the VA to negotiate a memorandum of
understanding with the Federal Trade Commission to investigate
schools suspected of misleading veterans, but that MOU was not
signed until November 2015, more than 40 years after the
enactment of Section 3696.
Perhaps the most obvious example of VA's inaction in the
face of evidence that a school engages in misleading
advertising and recruiting, is the May 2016 FTC settlement with
Ashworth College. The FTC found that many programs offered by
this school did not meet state requirements for those careers,
including teachers and massage therapists, and that claims made
about credit transfers were often not true.
In reaching the settlement, Ashworth College admitted no
wrongdoing. The settlement appears to meet the criteria set
forth in Section 3696 for terminating the school's
participation in the GI Bill, even though the FTC investigation
was not requested by VA, and the settlement was announced about
five months before the completion of the VA/FTC MOU.
What action has the VA taken? Ashworth College is still
approved to receive the GI Bill educational benefits. The GI
Bill College Comparison Tool contains no warning to veterans
about the FTC settlement and findings. Ashworth is still listed
as subscribing to and following the principles of excellence on
the GI Bill College Comparison Tool.
VA's failure to revoke approval of Ashworth or any of the
schools already successfully sued by state attorneys general or
Federal agency raises questions about the processes in place to
respond to findings of deceptive and misleading advertising,
sales, or enrollment practices.
Before closing, I would like to acknowledge VA's recent
action to suspend the principles of excellence designation of a
school that the FTC is investigating for misleading advertising
and recruiting, and initiate compliance reviews of all the
school's campuses. Note that the school's eligibility to
participate in the GI Bill has not been affected, because the
investigation is ongoing, and that is probably appropriate. VES
applauds VA's action and believes that it is an encouraging
sign.
Finally, combating fraud and abuse by predatory schools
needs to be a top Federal, as well as a top VA, priority. The
GI Bill Oversight Act would help to elevate the priority placed
on protecting veterans and increase the efforts to enforce VA's
existing statutory and regulatory requirements to prohibit
misrepresentation and deceptive recruiting.
By engaging the VA's Office of Inspector General, the
enforcement process, the bill jumpstarts departmental
enforcement by turning to an existing well-trained, resourced
and audit investigation-oriented organization. Equally
important, however, is changing the mindset of VA that paying
benefits is only one part of VA's mission to serve veterans.
VA must do more than simply track the dollars out the door.
It must take seriously its statutory obligation to protect
veterans from deceptive recruiting and protect taxpayers'
investments from fraud, waste, and abuse.
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and Subcommittee
Members, thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for
your commitment to ensuring that veterans can make an informed
choice when they use their hand-earned GI Bill educational
benefits.
[The prepared statement of Walter Ochinko appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Ochinko. Mr. Lyon, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JARED LYON
Mr. Lyon. Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting Student
Veterans of America to submit our testimony on the important
and timely issues covered today, including the GI Bill STEM
Extension Act of 2015, the GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016, and
the Support for Student Veterans with Families Act.
We cover these and additional issues in greater depth in
our written testimony.
Established in 2008, Student Veterans of America is the
voice for the interests of veterans in higher education. The
myriad of programs supporting our success, rigorous research,
seeking ways to improve the landscape and advocacy throughout
the Nation, we place the student veteran at the top of our
organizational pyramid.
To start, we would like to discuss the GI Bill STEM
Extension Act of 2015. For most veterans hoping to enter
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, or
STEM fields, they face the challenge that these majors often
require more courses than they can fit into a traditional
college schedule. The additional time that it takes for a
veteran to complete a STEM degree easily pushes graduation
passed the standard four years allotted for the current post 9/
11 GI Bill.
A 2015 Georgetown University study reviewed the economic
value of college majors in the United States. This study showed
that individuals who completed a STEM degree earned an average
of $65,000 a year when starting their careers, whereas non-STEM
degree graduates earned $15,000 less annually.
We are here today in support of H.R. 748 and propose
feedback that would make this legislation even more cost-
effective. We estimate that the GI Bill STEM Extension Act will
support 33,000 veteran STEM majors, enabling those student
veterans to successfully complete their degrees without any
additional financial burden.
STEM majors contribute an average of $260,000 more in taxes
than non-STEM majors over their lifetime. This increase in tax
revenue could equate to an additional $8.6 billion in tax
revenue, a return on investment for the American economy of $8
for every $1 spent.
This economic gain is in addition to the national security
imperative to have more STEM professionals in our country, and
we fully support the GI Bill STEM Extension Act of 2015. We
look forward to continuing the discussion on how to improve the
economic impact of STEM majors in the United States by
motivating transitioning servicemembers to enter into these
fields of study.
On the GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016, I am pleased to note
that we continue to work hard to protect veterans pursuing
their higher education. Sadly, due in part to the 9010
loophole, we continue to see predatory practices affect
veterans at schools with the wrong priorities. I am simply
tired of hearing student veterans tell me, ``I wish I had
known.''
The GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016 focuses on the right
issues to protect student veterans from questionable schools.
With this intent in mind, we feel that the language triggering
an investigation should heavily weigh on an institution's
actions that are found guilty, not institutions with ongoing
investigations. We strongly support the intent of this
legislation and believe this to be a critical area of
discussion.
Finally, we support the Student Veterans with Families Act,
and we would like to highlight data from our annual member
census which illustrates a significant concern among single
parents who served in the military and are currently enrolled
in higher education. How is it that they pay for childcare?
Our study shows that 49 percent of current student veterans
have indicated that childcare had a negative or extremely
negative impact on their financial situation. Additionally, 20
percent of student veterans indicated that their current
childcare status had a negative impact on their personal
academic goals as they pursue their degrees.
An increasing number of veterans are going to school, and
the need for childcare continues to rise. That is why we
applaud Congresswoman Titus on the introduction of this
legislation. We strongly support the intent of this legislation
and propose an administrative change to effect the use of
funds, limitations, and authorizations of appropriation
sections. We hope to address this in further detail for
additional consideration of this important discussion.
We thank the Chairman, Ranking Members, and Subcommittee
Members for your time, attention, and devotion to the cause of
veterans and higher education. As always, we welcome your
feedback and questions, and we look forward to continuing to
work with this Committee to ensure the success of all
generations of veterans through higher education. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Jared Lyon appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Lyon. Mr. Morosky, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY
Mr. Morosky. Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking
Member Takano, Members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to present VFW's views on today's
pending bills.
Mr. Chairman, the VFW supports the GI Bill STEM Extension
Act, which would grant an additional nine months to post 9/11
GI Bill benefits to student veterans pursuing degrees in
specified fields of science, technology, engineering, and math
that require more than the standard 128 credit hours for
completion.
Those who graduate with STEM degrees position themselves
for employment in increasingly high demand, good-paying jobs.
Veterans who choose to enter these programs should be given the
opportunity to complete them without exhausting their benefits
before earning their degrees.
The VFW supports the Veterans Entry to Apprenticeship Act.
By allowing veterans to use their education benefits to enroll
in pre-apprenticeship programs, this bill would help them build
the necessary skills they need to enter and succeed in the
registered apprenticeship programs of their choice.
The HIRE Vets Act would give private sector employers
recognition for their superior effort to recruit, employ, and
retain veterans and provide charitable service for the
veterans' community through the HIRE Vets Medallion Program.
The VFW supports the HIRE Vets Act, but would like to offer two
suggestions to improve the bill.
First, one of the qualifications for the Medallion is that
the employers guarantee continued employment to Guard and
Reservists following active duty service. Under USERRA,
employers are already required by law to preserve that
employment. The VFW suggests that this provision be replaced
with an employer-sponsored USERRA training program. This will
ensure that both the supervisors and the veteran employees
understand their rights and responsibilities under USERRA.
Second, we suggest that the training program requirement
for the Silver Medallion be rephrased to emphasize the program
would provide specific training that is geared to bridge any
gaps between a veteran's military training and the requirements
to perform the new job. The VFW wants to thank Congressman Cook
for his vision, and we look forward to working with him to
improve the bill.
The VFW supports the intent of the Support Student Veterans
with Families Act to authorize VA to give grants to schools to
provide childcare for student veterans, and we would like to
offer a recommendation to strengthen it.
The bill requires at least 75 percent of new childcare
services funded by the grant must go to student veterans. While
we do not see a significant harm in allowing excess services to
be used by non-veteran students and faculty, we would object to
any student veteran being denied services or placed on a
waiting list behind a non-veteran under any circumstances.
To prevent this from happening, we suggest that the bill be
amended to include a priority of service clause for student
veterans. With that change, the VFW would fully support the
bill, and we look forward to working on it with Congresswoman
Titus.
The VFW also supports H.R. 4138, believing that when a VA
employee games the relocation expense program for personal gain
or unintentionally receives payments that are not authorized,
the Secretary must have the authority to recoup those funds.
The VFW supports the Veterans Success on Campus Act to make
VSOC a permanent program in Title 38. Beginning as a pilot
program on one campus in 2009, VSOC has grown to 94 campuses
nationwide. By assigning VR&E counselors to these campuses,
student veterans are provided with convenient access to
education and career counseling, as well as information on VA
health care and other benefits.
The VFW believes VSOC greatly enhances a student veteran's
ability to successfully transition to civilian life, and we
strongly support codifying it as a permanent VA program.
The VFW supports the GI Bill Oversight Act, which takes
comprehensive steps to eliminate deceptive and misleading
practices sometimes conducted by institutions of higher
learning. By requiring OIG to conduct investigations on schools
that are already under investigation by state or Federal
agencies or are defendants in class action lawsuits or have
been found guilty of deceptive or misleading practices, this
bill ensures that the proper level of oversight is exercised
over potentially bad actors.
Veterans attending those schools would be provided with
information on how to transfer their credits. An investigation
would be made public as part of the GI Bill Comparison Tool. It
would also rightly grant VA the authority to disapprove these
courses of education and restore lost benefits for veterans who
are enrolled and receiving benefits when the disapproval
occurs.
The VFW supports most provisions of the draft bill that
makes several changes to the way the GI Bill is administered.
These include pro-rating post 9/11 GI Bill benefits for
licensing and credentialing exams, extending authorization of
the Veterans Advisory Committee on Education, training for
school certifying officials, and clarifying the use of
reporting fees by schools.
We do, however, oppose the provision to extend the rounding
down of the percentage increase VA may pay in educational
assistance, as this could potentially require veterans to spend
more money out of their own pockets to pay for the education
benefits they have already earned.
Finally, the VFW supports the draft bill that would require
research on how the Transition Assistance Program addresses the
unique needs, challenges, and post-military service aspirations
of women veterans, veterans with disabilities, Native American
veterans, and other groups that the Secretary considers
appropriate. We believe this data could be useful in the
continuing effort to ensure that the TAP curriculum is as
effective as possible for all transitioning veterans.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to
answer any questions you or the other Members of the Committee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Aleks Morosky appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Wenstrup. Well, I want to thank all of you for your
valuable testimonies here today. We have been called to vote,
and we have agreed to submit our questions for the record for
you. But I do appreciate the input that you have provided for
us today on all these issues. It is greatly appreciated. So I
do want to thank you for you taking the time to come and share
your views. It is important to the legislative process that we
hear from you and appreciate your feedback.
I would also like to announce that the Subcommittee will
tentatively be holding a markup on some or all of these bills
on April 28th. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the
written statement of the Office of the Inspector General of the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs be included in the hearing
record. Without objection, so ordered.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on any of the bills under consideration
this afternoon. Without objection, so ordered.
This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Curtis L. Coy
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, and other
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to discuss legislation pertaining to the Department of Veterans
Affairs' (VA) programs, including the following: H.R. 748, H.R. 2551,
H.R. 3419, H.R. 4138, a draft bill to make certain improvements in the
laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to
educational assistance, a draft bill entitled ``GI Bill Oversight Act
of 2016'', and a draft bill entitled ``Veterans Success on Campus Act
of 2016.'' There are a couple of bills under discussion today which
would affect programs or laws administered by the Department of Labor
(DOL). Respectfully, we defer to that Department's views on H.R. 3286
and a bill to direct the Secretary of Labor to carry out a research
program to evaluate the effectiveness of the Transition Assistance
Program in addressing needs of certain minority Veterans. Accompanying
me this afternoon is Ms. Carin Otero, Associate Deputy Assistant
Secretary, HR Policy and Planning, for the office of Human Resources
and Administration.
H.R. 748
H.R. 748 would add a new section 3320 of chapter 33 of title 38,
United Stated Code, which would authorize VA to provide up to nine
months of additional Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to an individual who
has used all of his or her Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance. An
eligible individual is an individual who:
Is or was entitled to educational assistance under
section 3311 of title 38;
Used all of the educational assistance to which the
individual is entitled; and (A) Is enrolled in a program of education
leading to a post-secondary degree that requires more than the standard
128 semester (or 192 quarter) credit hours for completion in biological
or biomedical science; physical science; science technologies or
technicians; computer and information science and support services;
mathematics or statistics; engineering; engineering technologies or an
engineering-related field; a health profession or related program; or a
medical residency program; or (B) has earned a post-secondary degree in
an above-referenced field and is enrolled in a program of education
leading to a teaching certification.
VA supports the intent of the proposed legislation, subject to the
availability of funds. However, VA has concerns regarding the phrases
``is or was entitled to educational assistance'' and ``is enrolled in a
program of education'' from the perspective of implementation and
recommends that the draft bill be amended to clarify these phrases. As
currently drafted, individuals who have been enrolled in a science,
technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) program of education for
only one day, week, or month at the point they exhaust the normal 36
months of entitlement would be eligible for the additional nine months
of educational assistance, even though that entitlement would not allow
them to complete the STEM program. Additionally, it could also be
interpreted to mean that individuals who enroll in a STEM program for
the first time after they have exhausted all 36 months of basic
entitlement in a non-STEM program would be eligible for the additional
entitlement. Provision of educational assistance in these circumstances
would not serve the purpose of the legislation.
To implement this legislation, VA would need to make modifications
to its existing information technology (IT) systems. Specifically, it
would need to make modifications to the VA Online Certification of
Enrollment (VA-ONCE) and the Long Term Solution (LTS) in order to
verify eligibility and allow for the award of additional months of
educational assistance. VA estimates that it would require one year
from the date of enactment to make the IT system changes necessary to
implement the proposed legislation.
We estimate enactment of this legislation would result in benefit
costs of $94.2 million in fiscal year (FY) 2017, $515.6 million over
five years, and $1.2 billion over 10 years. We estimate the information
technology (IT) cost to be $3 million, which includes the design, code
development, testing, and deployment of the new functionality in
existing IT systems. We do not estimate any administrative costs
associated with this proposed legislation.
H.R. 2551
H.R. 2551 would amend chapter 36 of title 38, United States Code,
by adding a new subsection 3687A to authorize VA to treat a pre-
apprenticeship program in the same manner as an apprenticeship program
for the purpose of providing educational assistance. A pre-
apprenticeship program may be covered under the proposed legislation if
the program is recognized under or compliant with any standards for a
postsecondary pre-apprenticeship program required by the State in which
the program is located, or, in the case of a program for which a State
does not require any such standards, if the curriculum of the program
is approved by a sponsor and the sponsor certifies to VA that the
program will prepare an individual with skills and competencies needed
to enroll in a registered apprenticeship program. The program must also
maintain conduct and attendance policies in accordance with a sponsor
if the State does not require such standards. The term ``sponsor''
would be defined to mean an entity that formally supports the pre-
apprenticeship program, including a Registered Apprenticeship program;
a department or agency of a State or local government; an institution
of higher learning; or any other public, private, or nonprofit entity
that VA determines to be a sponsor for purposes of this section. VA and
the Department of Labor will work collaboratively to ensure consistency
in the definitions.
A ``covered individual'' for purposes of this bill would be an
individual who is entitled to educational assistance and seeking to use
such assistance for a program of apprenticeship. A covered individual
enrolled in a pre-apprenticeship program would receive educational
assistance equal to the amount and kind received by an individual in an
apprenticeship program. However, if the covered individual is not paid
as part of the pre-apprenticeship program, he or she would receive a
monthly housing allowance (MHA). The MHA would be equal to the monthly
amount of the basic allowance for housing payable under section 403 of
title 37 for a member with dependents in pay grade E-5 residing in the
military housing area that encompasses all or the majority portion of
the zip code area of the pre-apprenticeship program. The covered
individual's entitlement would be charged at a rate equal to the rate
charged for an apprenticeship program.
The proposed legislation would apply to an individual who enrolls
in a program of pre-apprenticeship beginning on or after the date of
enactment of the bill.
VA generally supports the intent of the proposed legislation, but
has concerns with implementation of this bill.
First, the proposed bill would place the onus of certifying
programs as ``pre-apprenticeship'' on either the State in which the
program is located or on VA. However, the bill provides no guidance
regarding what standards should be used by either entity to make such
determinations. Additionally, VA would be responsible for approving
programs in States that do not require any standards for pre-
apprenticeship programs. Similarly, the bill does not provide VA with
adequate standards for approving such programs. Second, because the
proposed legislation would authorize pre-apprenticeship programs for
all educational assistance programs, it poses significant problems with
regard to the MHA requirement in the proposed section 3687A(c). This
bill would provide that if the enrollee is not paid as part of the pre-
apprenticeship program, ``each monthly allowance for housing payable''
to the enrollee shall be an amount equal to the basic housing allowance
of an E-5 with dependents in the same zip code as the pre-
apprenticeship program. This requirement would cause confusion since
only chapter 33 pays a ``monthly allowance for housing'' based on the
Department of Defense's basic allowance for housing. All other
educational benefit chapters (e.g., chapter 30) provide a monthly
training assistance allowance. Therefore, the intent of the proposed
legislation is unclear as it targets ``each monthly allowance for
housing payable to the individual under such assistance.'' An
individual enrolled in a pre-apprenticeship program may receive
markedly more in benefit payments than if he/she was enrolled in a
degree or non-degree program under chapter 30, 32, or 35 of title 38,
or chapter 1606 of title 10. This inequity could negatively impact
other types of training. VA recommends the proposal be amended to
provide payment rates for pre-apprenticeships under chapter 30, 32, 35,
or 1606 that are consistent with the amounts payable for
apprenticeships under those benefit programs.
We estimate enactment of this legislation would result in benefit
costs of $15.8 million in FY 2017, $83.4 million over five years, and
$184.6 million over 10 years. Additionally, we estimate the IT cost to
be $5 million, which includes the design, code development, testing,
and deployment of the new functionality in existing IT systems. We do
not estimate any administrative costs associated with this proposed
legislation.
H.R. 3419
H.R. 3419 would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make
grants to eligible educational institutions to provide childcare
services to students on campus.
Section 2(a) would amend chapter 36 of title 38, United States
Code, to add a new section 3699. The new section 3699 would have five
parts:
1. Section 3699(a) would state that the purpose of the grant is to
provide childcare services on the campus of the educational institution
to students enrolled in courses of education offered by the educational
institution.
2. Section 3699(b) would provide the criteria for determining if
the educational institution would be eligible for the grant.
Specifically, the school would have to (1) offer a course of education
that is approved as provided in 38 U.S.C. chapters 34, 35 and 36 by the
State Approving Agency where the educational institution is located,
and (2) submit to VA an application that includes the information and
assurances VA may require.
3. Section 3699(c) would outline how the educational institution
must use the funds. Specifically under paragraph (1)(A), the
institution would establish or expand a childcare center on the campus
of the educational institution, or under paragraph (1)(B), the
institution would pay the costs of providing childcare services to
students enrolled in courses of education offered by the educational
institution at a childcare center located on the campus of the
educational institution. Additionally, paragraph (2) would require that
at least 75 percent of the new childcare services funded by the grant
be provided to students who are Veterans.
4. Section 3699(d) would limit the number of grants to 50 for FY
2016.
5. Section 3699(e) would state that there is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
VA supports the goal of providing affordable childcare to those
enrolled in higher education, but cannot support this bill as written
for a number of reasons.
VA has concerns with the potential establishment of a childcare
center due to the lifecycle costs involved to sustain it, as well as
the management challenges associated with the variety of State and
local laws and licensing requirements. Additionally, because the
provisions of this draft legislation are not clearly defined, VA has
multiple concerns as outlined below:
There are not basic requirements for either the childcare
services that will be provided or the licensing and staffing of the
center.
Childcare services would be available to ``students
enrolled in courses of education offered by the educational
institution'', which implies that any student, including those who are
not Veterans, could receive these services. The bill only requires that
``at least 75 percent'' of such services be granted to students who are
Veterans. Additionally, there are no other specific eligibility
criteria for Veteran students who would receive these childcare
services.
The bill would prescribe no limit to childcare services
based on the age of the child or economic indicators. Also, the bill
would not require a link between the times the services are available
to times when the student is attending class or engaged in related
activities.
VA could determine the required information and
assurances needed to apply for the grant, but the bill would provide no
criteria for determining the basic requirements of who would be
eligible to apply for a grant, how the grants would be awarded, or
limits on the amount of each grant.
Given the administrative duties that would be required to
establish the framework necessary to develop and implement such a grant
program and the fact that almost six months of FY 2016 have already
passed, it would not be possible for VA to provide 50 grants during FY
2016. Establishing grant criteria and the process of administering a
grant generally requires VA to engage in rulemaking.
VA is unable to determine the costs of enactment of this proposal.
There are numerous factors that can affect the cost of childcare, such
as the size of the childcare facility, the number of children, the age
of the children, the duration and array of childcare services offered
at the facility, the location of the facility, etc.
Draft Bill - ``To make certain improvements in the laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to educational assistance''
Section 2 of the proposed legislation would amend 38 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 3315(c) and 3315A to allow for the proration of entitlement
charges for licensing and certification examinations and national tests
under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Specifically, the charge against an
individual's entitlement for payment for licensing and certification
examinations and national tests would be prorated based on the actual
amount of the fee charged for the test. Section 2 would also add that
an individual entitled to educational assistance under chapter 33 would
be entitled to educational assistance for ``[a] national test that
evaluates prior learning and knowledge and provides an opportunity for
course credit at an institution of higher learning as so described.''
The amendments made by this section would apply to a test taken
more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this legislation.
VA supports section 2. This would benefit Post-9/11 GI Bill
beneficiaries by reducing the negative impact of exam/test
reimbursement on remaining benefit entitlement and increasing the
months of training available for the beneficiaries, thus expanding
educational opportunities.
Currently, under sections 3315 and 3315A, an individual is charged
entitlement for the reimbursement of fees associated with a licensing
or certification exam, or a national test, in whole months. More
specifically, VA charges an individual one month of entitlement for
each $1,759.08 reimbursed for the academic year beginning on August 1,
2015, rounded to the nearest whole month. Regardless of the cost of the
test, be it $50 or $1,600, the Veteran is charged one full month of
entitlement.
As noted in its FY 2016 legislative proposal, VA believes the law
should be amended to charge entitlement for reimbursement of VA
approved exams at a prorated number of days of entitlement based on the
ratio of the cost of the test to the statutory amount. However, it
should be noted that, as this legislation is currently written, the
provisions would no longer specify the amount of benefit payment
equaling one month of entitlement. VA suggests that the draft language
be further amended in order to retain that amount. We would be happy to
provide technical assistance to accomplish this.
The Department believes that mandatory costs associated with this
section of the legislation would be insignificant. Also, there would be
no administrative costs associated with this section of the
legislation. However, we do estimate the IT cost to be $500,000 in
order to make the system adjustments necessary to prorate the
entitlement charge calculations in the LTS.
Section 3 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3015(h)(2) and 3564(b)
to provide that an increase in the amount of educational assistance
after FY 2013 and before FY 2025 would be rounded down to the next
lower whole dollar amount and that any increase after FY 2024 would be
rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount.
VA supports section 3. Public Law 108-183 (Veterans Benefits Act of
2003) extended a previous authority in title 38, United States Code, to
authorize VA to round down the yearly cost-of-living adjustments for
basic educational assistance to the next lower whole dollar amount
through FY 2013. Following the expiration of that authority on
September 30, 2013, the yearly increases in educational assistance
under the Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (MGIB-AD), the Reserve
Educational Assistance Program, and the Dependents Educational
Assistance Program are rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount.
This proposed legislation would reinstitute through FY 2024 the
authority to round down to the next lower whole dollar amount to
generate cost savings. For example, the current monthly rate under the
MGIB-AD is $1,789. If the monthly rate for educational assistance
increased based on the Consumer Price Index and National Center for
Education Statistics by 5.4 percent ($96.61) under current law, the
MGIB-AD monthly rate would be rounded to the nearest whole dollar--
$1,886, rather than $1,885 under the proposed legislation.
We estimate enactment of section 3 would result in benefit savings
of $872,000 in FY 2017, $7.4 million over five years, and $25 million
over 10 years. This cost estimate reflects the most current estimates
for the cost of living adjustments (COLA) in out-years. A slight change
in the COLA in a given year can dramatically affect these estimated
savings.
Section 4 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3692(c) to re-authorize the
Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education (VACOE) through December 31,
2021. VACOE provides advice to the Secretary on the administration of
education and training programs for Veterans and Servicemembers,
members of the National Guard and Reserve Components, and dependents of
Veterans under chapters 30, 32, 33, and 35 of title 38, United States
Code, and chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code. Section 201 of
Public Law 114-58 (the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring
Authorities Act of 2015) extended VACOE statutory authority through
December 31, 2016.
VA supports section 4. If reauthorized, the Secretary would be able
to continue to receive recommendations and seek advice from VACOE in
order to enhance VA's educational assistance programs.
The administrative costs associated with enactment of section 4
would be insignificant.
Section 5 would authorize VA to provide training requirements for
school certifying officials employed by educational institutions that
offer courses of education approved under chapter 36 of title 38,
United States Code. If an educational institution does not ensure that
a school certifying official meets the training requirements, VA may
disapprove any course of education offered by the educational
institution. A ``school certifying official'' is defined as an employee
of an educational institution with primary responsibility for
certifying Veteran enrollment at the educational institution.
VA supports legislation that would require school certifying
officials to meet certain training requirements as determined by VA. VA
currently provides guidance and training opportunities for school
certifying officials via webinars, the School Certifying Official
Handbook, and on the GI Bill website. Currently, VA does not have the
authority to require school certifying officials to complete this
training or to disapprove educational programs if the training is not
completed. The proposed legislation would provide VA with this
authority. However, VA suggests that the proposed requirements be
formally codified in chapter 36 of title 38, United States Code, and
would be happy to provide technical assistance to accomplish this.
There would be no benefit or administrative costs or savings
associated with enactment of section 5.
Section 6 would amend subsection (i) of section 3313 of title 38,
United States Code, to authorize VA to reduce the amount of the monthly
housing stipend on a pro rata basis if an individual reduces the number
of course hours after the beginning of an academic period.
Specifically, if VA determines that an individual received a monthly
housing stipend at the beginning of a month and then reduced the number
of course hours and was not entitled to the full amount of the payment
received for that month, VA may reduce the amount payable for the
subsequent month by an amount equal to the amount of the overpayment.
The amendments made by this section would apply to a month that
begins on or after August 1, 2017.
VA does not support section 6.
In many cases, the monthly housing stipend is the sole source of
funds that students use to pay for housing, food, utilities, and other
basic necessities while attending school. Authorizing VA to offset an
individual's monthly housing allowance the month after the individual
is overpaid due to a reduction in his or her course hours could create
a significant financial burden on students and their families. For
example, an individual that relies on the monthly housing stipend to
pay rent each month would be faced with a shortage of funding in order
to maintain his or her housing while still being enrolled in school.
VA prefers to focus on strategies to minimize the frequency and
magnitude of overpayments, rather than more aggressively recouping
overpayments in a manner that may be detrimental to Veterans and
eligible dependents. VA is already taking steps to reduce overpayments
resulting from enrollment changes. Specifically, a plan has been
developed to require beneficiaries to verify their enrollment status
each month before VA releases the monthly housing payment, which is
consistent with other education benefit programs. VA plans to add this
functionality in its IT systems, subject to the availability of IT
development funds.
There would be no benefit or administrative costs or savings
associated with this section. We estimate the IT cost associated with
enactment of this section to be $2 million, which includes the design,
code development, testing, and deployment of the new functionality in
existing IT systems.
Section 7 would amend section 3684(c) of title 38, United States
Code, to place a limitation on the use of reporting fees payable to
educational institutions and joint apprenticeship training committees.
Currently, section 3684(c) of title 38, United States Code, states that
VA shall pay an annual reporting fee to any educational institution
that furnishes education or training and submits reports or
certifications to VA. The reporting fee is computed for each calendar
year by multiplying $12 by the number of eligible individuals enrolled
in VA's education and vocational rehabilitation and employment
programs. In addition, VA also provides $15 for an eligible individual
whose educational assistance payment is sent to the school for
temporary custody and delivery at the time of registration. Section 7
would prohibit an educational institution or joint apprenticeship
training committee from using or merging reporting fees from VA with
the amounts available for the general fund of the educational
institution or joint apprenticeship training committee.
VA does not support this proposed change that would prohibit
schools from using or merging reporting fees with their general funds.
Educational institutions are already required to use reporting fees
solely for making certifications or otherwise supporting programs for
Veterans, and it is possible for VA to verify compliance with this
requirement without the establishment of a separate account for
reporting fees. Consequently, VA views the proposed change as unduly
cumbersome for educational institutions and joint apprenticeship
training committees.
In addition, VA notes that under Public Law 113-175, Sec. 406 the
reporting fees were decreased to $9 and $13 for the one-year period
beginning September 26, 2014. Subsequently, Public Law 114-58, Sec.
410 extended those amounts for one additional year, until September 26,
2016. Based on VA's interpretation, those rates would automatically
increase to $12 and $15 if the proposed change was to be enacted prior
to September 26, 2016. VA is unsure whether or not this was intended.
There would be no benefit or administrative costs or savings
associated with enactment of this section.
H.R. 4138
H.R. 4138 would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
recoup relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of employees of VA.
Under this bill, the Secretary may direct an employee to repay the
amount, or a portion of the amount, paid to or on behalf of the
employee under title 5 for relocation expenses, if the Secretary
determines such repayment appropriate under regulations to be
prescribed by the Secretary and the employee is provided prior notice
and an opportunity for a hearing. The VA has several concerns about
H.R. 4138 and opposes this bill for the reasons expressed below.
The authority that would be provided to the Secretary under H.R.
4138 already exists under current law. Under the Federal Claims
Collection Act, the Secretary may collect a debt owed by an employee if
an employee has been paid incorrectly. H.R. 4138 and current law would
not, however, allow the Secretary to collect relocation expenses, where
such expenses are appropriately paid by VA to or on behalf of an
employee and there is no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing on the part of
the employee in applying for or accepting the relocation expenses.
VA is already challenged to recruit and retain highly-qualified
staff and subject matter experts necessary to transform the Agency.
Enactment of this legislation would allow the Agency to recoup
relocation expenses paid directly to employees, as well as payments
made to vendors such as relocation companies. Consequently, employees
could be responsible for paying back expenses, which could pose a
significant financial burden on affected employees. While this bill
would only address the repayment of relocation expenses, it is another
in a number of separate personnel policy bills aimed solely at the VA,
creating a disparity in the treatment of one group of career civil
servants. Prior legislation established an abbreviated review process
before an administrative judge for certain VA employees who are subject
to adverse action. The implementation of provisions that reduce or
remove important rights, protections, and incentives for VA employees,
which are available to the majority of Federal employees in other
agencies, compounds the challenges facing the Agency by making
employment with VA significantly less attractive.
Subsection 1(c) of H.R. 4138 states that the authority provided
under H.R. 4138 would apply ``to or on behalf of'' a VA employee ``for
relocation expenses before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.'' VA has a number of legal concerns with this subsection.
First, the legislation would authorize the Secretary recoup relocation
expenses if ``the Secretary determines such repayment appropriate
pursuant to regulations'' prescribed under an open-ended provision that
provides no guidance as to the types of relocation expenses that can be
recouped and the reasons for recoupment. Even under the lenient
``intelligible principle'' standard for delegations of legislative
authority, see Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 472
(2001), this authorization raises non-delegation doctrine concerns.
Second, authorizing the Secretary to recoup relocation expenses
paid to or on behalf of any VA employee even before the promulgation of
the Secretary's regulations may have an impermissible retroactive
effect. A bill has a ``retroactive effect'' if it increases an
employee's liability for conduct that preceded the enactment of the
bill. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products., 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994) (a
bill has a ``retroactive effect'' if it ``increases a party's liability
for past conduct''). Under the bill, the Secretary could promulgate
regulations that would require an employee to repay relocation expenses
based on conduct that preceded the enactment of the bill. Because the
employee was not aware that he or she would have to repay the
relocation expenses at the time of the conduct, the bill may have a
``retroactive effect'' and may implicate the employees' due process
rights to fair notice. See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.
559, 574 (1996). Recouping the relocation expenses based on new
regulations may also be considered a taking, entitling the employee to
``just compensation'' for the amount of repayment.
VA believes strongly that Federal employees must be held
accountable and supports taking action to collect debts owed by
employees when employees have been paid incorrectly and has established
strong internal policy implementing the Federal Claims Collection Act
in VA Financial Policy, Volume XII -Chapter 4, Employee Debts, dated
May 2010. However, because current law allows the Secretary to collect
such debts, new legislation is not required to accomplish this goal.
Establishing a new bill aimed solely at VA employees would be
counterproductive and could have unintended consequences. The vague
language in the bill that allows for an employee to be directed to
repay relocation expenses when it is determined that such repayments
are ``appropriate,'' could make employment in VA significantly less
attractive than in other Federal agencies or in the private sector.
This may discourage outstanding VA employees from applying for
promotion or reassignment opportunities with the Agency and impair VA's
ability to recruit top talent, including Veterans.
Draft Bill - GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016
Section 2 requires VA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to
conduct investigations into institutions of higher learning (IHLs) that
are defendants in class action lawsuits for deceptive or misleading
practices, are being investigated by any Federal or State agency for
deceptive or misleading practices, or have been found guilty by any
Federal or State agency of deceptive or misleading practices. VBA
defers to VA OIG regarding the requirements and position of Section 2
of this bill.
Section 3 of this bill requires VBA Education Service to disapprove
courses of education at an IHL found guilty by OIG of deceptive or
misleading practices. In general, the Department supports the intent
behind the legislation.
Draft Bill - Veterans Success on Campus Act of 2016
Section 2(a) of this bill proposes to amend chapter 36 of title 38,
United States Code, to add a new section 3697B. The title of this new
section would be ``On-campus educational and vocational counseling.''
The new 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3697B would have three sections:
1. Section 3697B(a) states the Secretary shall provide educational
and vocational counseling services for Veterans at locations on the
campuses of IHLs, as selected by VA. These services shall be provided
by VA employees who provide such services under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3697A.
2. Section 3697B(b) provides the criteria for the selection of IHLs
to participate in these services, specifically (a) the IHL must provide
appropriate space on campus where counseling services can be provided,
and (b) VA will seek to select locations where the maximum number of
Veterans would have access to these services.
3. Section 3697B(c) provides guidance on reporting requirements.
This section states that no later than 180 days after enactment, and
each year thereafter, VA will submit a report to Congress. This report
must contain the following: the average ratio of counselors providing
these services to Veterans who receive these services at each location;
a description of the services provided; recommendations for improving
the provision of these services; and any other matters VA determines
appropriate.
While VA already provides the VetSuccess on Campus (VSOC) program
under the Secretary's current authority at 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3115
and 3116, we are supportive of legislation to codify the existing
program. VSOC aims to help Veterans, Servicemembers, and their
qualified dependents succeed and thrive through a coordinated delivery
of on-campus benefits assistance and counseling, leading to completion
of their education and preparing them to enter the labor market in
viable careers.
VA has one concern with the language in the draft legislation, as
it refers to the population served. Educational and vocational
counseling services, as outlined in 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3697 and
3697A, are available to Servicemembers, Veterans, and, in some
instances, their eligible dependents. VA recommends that Servicemembers
and dependents be added to Section 2(a) of the draft legislation.
There would be no benefit or administrative costs associated with
enactment of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to respond
to questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Prepared Statement of Sam Shellenberger
Introduction
Good afternoon, Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing. As Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Operations and Management of the Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS) at the Department of Labor (DOL or Department),
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Department's views on
pending legislation and proposals impacting veterans' employment. As a
former surface warfare officer in the United States Navy, I take DOL's
mission to help veterans, transitioning service members, and military
families personally, and I thank the Committee for all of your work on
behalf of my fellow veterans. While the employment situation for
veterans continues to improve-last month marked 23 of 24 months with
veterans' unemployment being lower than nonveteran unemployment-DOL
will not rest as long as any veteran needs assistance finding
meaningful civilian employment.
Although this hearing is focused on several bills under
consideration by the Subcommittee, I will limit my remarks to the
proposed legislation that has a direct impact on the programs
administered by DOL, specifically H.R. 2551, ``Veterans' Entry to
Apprenticeship Act,'' H.R. 3286, ``Honoring Investments in Recruiting
and Employing American Military Veterans Act of 2015'' or the ``HIRE
Vets Act,'' and a draft bill to ``direct the Secretary of Labor to
carry out a research program to evaluate the effectiveness of
Transition Assistance Program in addressing needs of certain minority
veterans.''
H.R. 2551 - ``Veterans' Entry to Apprenticeship Act''
H.R. 2551, the ``Veterans' Entry to Apprenticeship Act,'' would
allow covered veterans to utilize their education benefits for pre-
apprenticeship programs. These education benefits are the same as if
covered veterans were enrolled in a registered apprenticeship program.
The administration of the provisions of this bill would fall under the
VA, and therefore, the Department will defer to that agency for
specific concerns related to the legislation overall.
However, the Department reiterates its support for registered
apprenticeship programs as a proven pipeline for veterans to meaningful
civilian careers. The Department of Defense's SkillBridge program has
yielded valuable results by allowing transitioning service members to
enter that pipeline earlier by bringing civilian apprenticeship
programs onto military installations. Pre-apprenticeship programs-when
properly structured-represent an excellent opportunity to expand the
aperture of apprenticeship pipelines for our veterans.
Pre-apprenticeship services and programs are designed to prepare
individuals to enter and succeed in Registered Apprenticeship programs.
Pre-apprenticeship programs with a documented partnership with at least
one Registered Apprenticeship program sponsor helps expand the
participant's career pathway opportunities with industry-based training
coupled with classroom instruction. Quality pre-apprenticeship programs
contribute to the development of a diverse and skilled workforce by
preparing participants to meet the basic qualifications for entry into
one or more Registered Apprenticeship programs. Through a variety of
unique designs and approaches, pre-apprenticeship programs can be
adapted to meet the needs of differing populations being trained, the
various employers and sponsors they serve, and specific opportunities
within the local labor market.
H.R. 3286 - ``Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American
Military Veterans Act of 2015'' or the ``HIRE Vets Act''
H. R. 3286, the ``Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing
American Military Veterans Act of 2015'' or the ``HIRE Vets Act,''
would attempt ``to encourage effective, voluntary private sector
investments to recruit, employ, and retain men and women who have
served in the United States military, with annual presidential awards''
recognizing such investments. DOL applauds the intent of this bill and
all efforts to ensure that all of our veterans find civilian employment
following separation from the military. However, we would like to note
some concerns regarding our ability to successfully implement the
program as currently drafted. Specifically:
1.The HIRE Vets Medallion Award Fund contemplated in the bill is
not self-executing, so DOL will not have access to the fees in the fund
unless and until Congress appropriates those fees to the agency. If
those fees are not appropriated, it is unclear whether any existing
VETS appropriation could be used to fund the HIRE Vets Medallion
Program. Additionally, section 5 of the bill appears to set up a system
where the entire funding for the program (after the first year) is paid
for out of the fees collected under section 5(a). Thus, if VETS is able
to identify another appropriation which is available for the program
costs, DOL may not be able to use those funds to supplement the amount
in the HIRE Vets Medallion Award Fund without additional action by
Congress. Finally, it is difficult to determine a ``reasonable fee''
that employers would contribute under section 5(a) that would yield
enough resources to allow VETS to fulfill the many requirements of the
bill.
2.Expanding DOL's capability to meet the existing criteria would
require additional staff in order to ``verify all information provided
in the applications, to the extent that such information is relevant in
determining'' whether applicants should receive a HIRE Vets Medallion
and/or what medallion they should receive. Some examples of information
that DOL would need additional staff to verify are: the entered and
retained employment rates of veteran employees at the Silver, Gold, and
Platinum levels; the success in coaching, mentoring, and leadership
programs at the Gold and Platinum levels; and the Guard and Reserve
employee compensation and tuition assistance programs at the Platinum
level. Either these criteria would need to be modified or eliminated or
DOL would need to significantly increase the number of fulltime
employees at VETS in order to carry out the program.
If the criteria instead were limited to measuring only entered and
retained employment rates, there may be ways to leverage existing
federal and state databases to confirm entered and retained veteran
employment without adding a prohibitive number of new fulltime
employees at VETS, provided that VETS is given authority to accesses
those databases for this purpose. Many private sector organizations and
publications, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation's Hiring
Our Heroes program Annual Hiring Our Heroes awards, recognize employers
and individuals that have demonstrated leadership in addressing the
challenges faced by veterans, transitioning service members, and
military spouses in their search for meaningful employment.
Limiting the initial scope of the program to focus on Platinum
level employers in the first year might allow DOL to gauge interest in
the program, and reduce the amount of funding needed to initially stand
up the program. A smaller initial HIRE Vets Medallion program would
presumably be closer in scope to the recognition program of DOD's
Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) office.
3.The Department of Justice has raised constitutional concerns
under the First Amendment with section 4(b), which prohibits displaying
the medallion when the ``employer did not receive such medallion
through the HIRE Vets Medallion Program,'' or ``after the end of the
calendar year following the calendar year in which such medallion was
issued to such employer through the HIRE Vets Medallion Program.'' DOJ
suggests that the prohibitions in section 4(b) should be revised to
require a connection to commercial activity and a false or misleading
effect and can provide technical assistance to this effect.
4.Finally, VETS also has concerns with the regulatory timeline
provided for in the legislation.
With these concerns in mind, we recommend the Subcommittee consider
refining the specifics of the HIRE Vets Medallion program to match the
capabilities of DOL or enhancing the capabilities of DOL to match the
specifics of the proposed program. In order to pare down the HIRE Vets
Medallion program to DOL's existing capabilities, the bill could (1)
allow shifting the review of applications from the national DOL office
to a third party verifier while providing additional funding for this
new function, (2) reduce the number of medallions to be issued by
eliminating the bronze level award which requires only hiring one
veteran, complying with existing USERRA regulations, and providing
charitable resources in support of veteran support organizations, and/
or (3) eliminate some of the criteria for the Silver, Gold, and
Platinum levels, and/or (4) require self-attestation instead of
government verification of the information used to make HIRE Vets
Medallion award decisions. Some of these changes were included in the
Senate companion, and we would encourage the Subcommittee to similarly
consider their inclusion.
Draft bill - ``To direct the Secretary of Labor to carry out a research
program to evaluate the effectiveness of Transition Assistance Program
in addressing needs of certain minority veterans.''
This draft bill would direct the Secretary of Labor, in
collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary
of Defense, to carry out a research program to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Transition Assistance Program in addressing the
differentiated needs, challenges and post-military service aspirations
of women veterans, veterans with disabilities, Native American veterans
and other groups of minority veterans identified by the Secretaries.
The Transition Assistance Program (TAP) was signed into law as part
of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991. For approximately
twenty years the program was evaluated largely through output measures
of attendance in the different sections of TAP, including military
services pre-separation counselling, the VA benefits briefings, and the
DOL Employment Workshop (DOLEW). This performance evaluation approach
to TAP changed with the passage of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011
and the convening of the White House Veterans Employment Initiative
(VEI) Task Force in late 2011. The VEI Task Force not only redesigned
the overall TAP program, but also created the TAP Performance
Management Working Group to develop and coordinate a comprehensive
evaluation strategy.
In conjunction with the VEI Task Force, VETS redesigned the DOLEW
and implemented the new curriculum in FY 2013. Since that redesign,
VETS has delivered the DOLEW to over 600,000 transitioning service
members and spouses. The DOLEW consistently rates very high in customer
satisfaction. In the latest participant survey, 92 percent of
respondents said the DOLEW enhanced their confidence in transition
planning, and 94 percent said they will use what they learned in the
DOLEW in their transition planning. On April 1, 2016, VETS fielded a
revised DOLEW curriculum with changes based on customer satisfaction
input and comprehensive feedback from various stakeholder groups,
including Veteran Service Organizations, private sector employers,
career transition professionals, and transitioning service members.
VETS is confident the DOLEW will continue to receive high marks in
customer satisfaction.
As a partner agency in TAP and as a member of the TAP Performance
Management Working Group, DOL is conducting evaluations to assess the
long-term outcomes of TAP. The first of these efforts is capturing the
common outcome measures for TAP participants who receive employment
services through the American Job Center (AJC) system. The TAP
participant characteristic was added as a new reporting element for
AJCs beginning July 1, 2013, and indicates that a participant attended
the DOLEW within the past three years. This will be reported with
outcome measures such as the Entered Employment Rate, the Employment
Retention Rate, and the six months average earnings. Outcomes for each
of the three measures will be available by the end of FY 2016.
The DOL Chief Evaluation Office conducted an evaluability
assessment in 2013 and based on those findings, awarded a contract to
conduct a two part formal evaluation of the outcomes of DOLEW. The
first part is a quasi-experimental design (QED) impact analysis to
analyze the impacts of the DOLEW program on employment-related outcomes
for separating military service members. Data collection is currently
underway, and is expected to occur from FY16-17. The analyses are
expected to be conducted and finalized in FY17. The second part
consists of a small pilot to evaluate differential impacts of new
delivery approaches for the DOLEW (e.g., the use of social media or
other modes to enhance delivery or to serve as refreshers of TAP
lessons, or variations in the visual design of TAP or outreach
documents). The intervention design and feasibility evaluation analysis
is currently underway. While DOL appreciates the desire for more
specific information on the smaller demographic groups, we believe the
ability to get statistically valid samples on these is extraordinarily
limited. The current evaluations in the field, however, will provide
useful information that could be used to design more specific
evaluations of particular subgroups in the future.
While the Department supports the intent and spirit of the draft
legislation, DOL would prefer to wait until the aforementioned study is
concluded in the summer of 2017 before beginning another research
program on TAP. In an effort to ensure that VETS and VA's Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment officials continue a collaborative
relationship, both agencies have renewed their commitments through
national and local memoranda of agreement to advance, improve, and
expand the employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected
disabilities and employment barriers.
Further, should Congress conclude that another research program is
warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of TAP in addressing the
differentiated needs, challenges and post-military service aspirations
of women veterans, veterans with disabilities, Native American veterans
and other groups of minority veterans identified by the Secretary, then
DOL hopes the Subcommittee would consider funding such a study through
the Department's Chief Evaluation Office to allow the experts in that
office to craft the parameters of that evaluation optimally to answer
Congress' questions.
Conclusion
The Department looks forward to continuing our work with this
Subcommittee to ensure that our veterans have the resources they need
to successfully compete in the civilian workforce through expanded
opportunities in apprenticeship programs and that our transition
programs are evaluated to ensure they are meeting the needs of our
transitioning service members and veterans. The improving employment
situation for veterans is a resounding testament to the impact of our
federal programs and the nationwide response from public and private
stakeholders acting nationally and within local communities. Mr.
Chairman, Ranking Member Takano, distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my written statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to be a part of this hearing. I welcome your questions.
--------
Prepared Statement of Davy Leghorn
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, on behalf of our National Commander, Dale Barnett,
and the more than 2 million members of The American Legion, America's
largest wartime veteran's service organization, thank you for this
opportunity to testify regarding our position on pending and draft
legislation before this subcommittee.
H.R. 748: G.I. Bill STEM Extension Act of 2015
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to provide additional educational assistance under
the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to certain eligible individuals.
The American Legion wants our veterans to succeed and would like to
see more veterans enter Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
(STEM) fields. Recent studies from the Department of Education has
shown that for delayed-start or non-traditional students, such as
veterans, it takes close to 6 years to graduate. Considering the
shortage of skilled workers with degrees in STEM subjects, this bill
would incentivize more veterans to enter a field where there is a
critical shortage and high yearly job growth. The American Legion
supports this bill that would allow extension of Title 38 education
benefits up to nine months.
Resolution No. 312 \1\: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and
Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Learning
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Resolution No. 312: ``Ensuring the Quality of Servicemembers
and Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Learning''
(August 2014)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation.
H.R. 2551: Veterans Entry to Apprenticeship Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that veterans may
attend pre-apprenticeship programs using certain educational assistance
provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
The American Legion has identified that the GI Bill can be a useful
tool to help employers defray the costs of training of veterans by
developing an on-the-job training or apprenticeship programs thereby
benefiting both the veteran and employer. Which is why The American
Legion passed a resolution directly supporting the development of joint
projects to enhance apprenticeship opportunities for eligible
transitioning Servicemembers through their educational benefits.
Resolution No. 297: \2\ Support The Development Of Veterans On-The-
Job Training Opportunities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Resolution No. 297: ``Support The Development of Veterans On-
The-Job Training Opportunities'' (August 2014)'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation.
H.R. 3286: Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employment American
Military Veterans Act of 2015
To encourage effective, voluntary private sector investments to
recruit, employ, and retain men and women who have served in the United
States military with annual presidential awards to private sector
employers recognizing such efforts, and for other purposes.
Outside of contracting preferences and tax credits, Presidential
recognition might go a long way to incentivize non-government
contractor businesses to hire veterans. H.R. 3286 is a step in the
right direction by rewarding exemplary companies who employ our
veterans with a Presidential medallion. This is a low-cost measure that
would hopefully spur private industry to hire more veterans and allow
the Department of Labor (DOL) to implement a real-time data collection
to properly measure veteran's hiring at the local level.
Resolution No. 331 \3\: Support Improvements in the Reporting
Programs Available to and Administered by Veterans' Employment and
Training Service
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Resolution No. 331: ``Support Improvements in the Reporting
Programs Available to and Administered by Veterans' Employment and
Training Service''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation.
H.R. 3419: Support for Student Veterans with Families Act
To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make grants to
eligible educational institutions to provide child care services on
campus.
The American Legion wants our and all veterans to succeed and would
always support measures that assist veterans in obtaining their degree
if it is necessary. As a veteran service organization with a broader
focus on the wellbeing of veterans, their families and their community,
this is a subject of interest to The American Legion and we have
started looking into how much childcare poses as a barrier to veterans
obtaining their degree. The American Legion will share our findings
with Congress once we have conducted further analysis of this matter.
The American Legion is looking into this issue.
H.R. 4138
To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recoup relocation
expenses paid to or on behalf of employees of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
The recent scandal involving senior executives at the Department of
Veterans Affairs abusing the travel and relocation system provoked
outrage in the veterans' community, including the veterans who make up
The American Legion. National Commander Dale Barnett fumed that even
their ``punishments'' (later voided by the Merit Systems Protection
Board) did not account for hundreds of thousands of dollars did not
amount to harsh consequences for their actions and stated:
``It boggles the mind to see the level of protection VA employees
have from their own wrongdoing when the very veterans they are supposed
to be serving slip through the cracks, some of whom will sleep on the
streets with empty bellies this Thanksgiving.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Legion to VA: `Demoted officials being rewarded''' - PR
Newswire, November 25, 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion firmly stands behind the intent of full
accountability within the VA for those employees, at any level, who
transgress against the veterans they serve. In testimony between a
joint session of the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs
this past February, Commander Barnett posed the question ``In service
to our country [America's veterans] held up their end of the
accountability bargain. How do you think they assess their nation's
ability to do the same for their fellow veterans?''
This legislation is aimed at enabling the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to recoup relocation expenses from VA employees under
circumstances to be determined by the Secretary. While The American
Legion is a staunch supporter of accountability, generally matters of
personnel management are left to VA to determine. Because this
legislation reaches into the normal pay and benefits system for
employees, and relocation expenses are used properly by thousands of
well-meaning VA employees for the right reasons, it is important to
fully research the matter and develop a resolution with the full
backing of the over two million members of The American Legion.
We are interested in continuing to work closely with this
Committee, the Senate and VA to fully understand the implications of
this legislation and develop a solution that best serves veterans as we
work internally with our Legionnaires to develop resolution guidelines
that would provide clear direction on this question in the future.
The American Legion is looking into this issue.
Draft Bill
To direct the Secretary of Labor to carry out a research program to
evaluate the effectiveness of Transition Assistance Program in
addressing needs of certain minority veterans.
The American Legion recognizes that different groups of people or
communities have their own set of challenges. Paths to gainful
employment differ greatly from locality to locality. In an effort to
provide programs and services to the majority of our veterans,
sometimes small pockets of our veteran populations are overlooked. The
American Legion has seen and acknowledges what works everywhere else in
the country often does not work for our Native American and Insular
Veterans.
In the Native American territories, Pacific territories and
commonwealths there are very limited jobs. In some places, local and
federal government are often the largest employers. These communities
need more rural and economic development than they need another veteran
with a polished resume. These communities need our veterans to become
local business leaders and to create jobs within their respective
communities. The emphasis for veterans going back to these areas should
be on entrepreneurship and the agro-eco industry. Our resolution urges
Congress to require the Department of Labor to review and update the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to ensure effectiveness in helping
Servicemembers transition into gainful employment. The results from
this study would assist DOL in making TAP more relevant and effective
for our veterans in marginalized populations.
Resolution No. 94 \5\: Improve Transition Assistance Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Resolution No. 94: ``Improve Transition Assistance Program''
(August 2015)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation.
Draft Bill
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to disapprove, for purposes of the educational
assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, courses of
education offered by institutions of higher learning determined by the
Inspector General to be guilty of deceptive or misleading practices,
and for other purposes.
The American Legion believes that veterans are one of our nations
true assets, and they should be treated with respect. Ensuring our men
and women who proudly served receive their education benefit is crucial
to The American Legion. Recently, The American Legion has seen a trend
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and Veteran Affairs (VA) enforcing
punitive measures on institutions of higher learning that have employed
deceptive or misleading marketing practices to swindle veterans out of
their earned educational benefits and award them with worthless
degrees.
The American Legion applauds the VA, DOD and this Committee on
moving forward in making a veterans search for post-secondary education
less of a minefield. This bill will enable the VA to be proactive and
weed out the bad-actors who pose as barriers to our veterans in
obtaining their degrees. Further, this bill will improve the quality of
education available to veterans, ensure the maximum usage of the Post-
9/11 GI Bill and increase the success rate the veteran student.
Resolution No. 312 \6\: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and
Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Learning
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Resolution No. 312: ``Ensuring the Quality of Servicemembers
and Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Learning''
(August 2014)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this draft legislation.
Draft Bill
To make certain improvements in the laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to educational assistance, and
for other purposes.
While The American Legion supports this effort to improve the
administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill and reduce the occurrence of
overpayments, we would like to offer one caveat regarding Section 6.
The American Legion does not believe a student enrolls in a college
course with the intention of dropping it later for secondary gain.
Extenuating circumstances are often the reasons for courses being
dropped. For the students attending college full-time, their rent and
living expenses are not reduced when they drop a course. Reducing their
benefits in this instance might result in these students having to drop
out of school and will cause more problems than this proposed
legislation intends to solve. While all full-time students will be
affected, the full-time students at brick and mortar schools stand to
lose the most with this change. The American Legion would like to see
some protections for these full-time students who become part-time
students in response to extenuating circumstances.
Resolution No. 312 \7\: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and
Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Learning
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Resolution No. 312: ``Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and
Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Learning''
(August 2014)
The American Legion supports this draft legislation, with some
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reservations to Section 6.
Draft Bill
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to provide educational and vocational counseling for
veterans on campuses of institutions of higher learning, and for other
purposes.
This bill would allow the Vet-Success program under VA's Office of
Economic Opportunity to become permanent and require an annual report
to be shared with Congress regarding programmatic progress. The data
collected will allow VA to direct and improve the services currently
administered on college campuses and hopefully result in higher
graduation rates for our veterans.
Resolution No. 312 \8\: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and
Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Learning
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Resolution No. 312: ``Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and
Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Learning''
(August 2014)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this draft legislation.
Conclusion
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, The American Legion thanks you and this
subcommittee for the opportunity to explain the position of the more
than 2 million veteran members of America's largest wartime veteran's
service organization.
For additional information regarding this testimony, please contact
Mr. Matthew Shuman at The American Legion's Legislative Division at
(202) 861-2700 or [email protected]
--------
Prepared Statement of Dr. Joseph W. Wescott
Introduction
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano and members of the
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am pleased to appear before you
today on behalf of the over fifty-five member state agencies of the
National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA) and appreciate
the opportunity to provide comments on bills pending before this
committee. I am accompanied today by our Legislative Committee Vice-
Chair and Judge Advocate, Retired Sergeant Major Robert Haley. Given
the large number of bills being considered, we will keep our comments
brief and focus our testimony on those areas in which we feel we can be
of most assistance to this committee.
H.R. 748 GI Bill STEM Extension Act of 2015
The past several years has seen considerable concern regarding a
shortage of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
workers to meet the demands of our labor market. As such, NASAA
strongly supports the intent of this bill, but recommends that the
legislation be amended to clarify those who would qualify for this
benefit.
H.R. 2551 Veterans' Entry to Apprenticeship Act.
NASAA supports this bill, particularly as it could serve to
increase enrollment in approved apprenticeship programs. However we
offer the following recommendations. First, to ensure only quality
programs are offered, we believe that approval authority should rest
with the State approving agency. This is not specified in the current
proposal. Second, specific approval criteria should be developed in
addition to those items identified in H.R. 2551 to include: 1) the
training establishment offering training must submit to the appropriate
State approving agency a written application for approval; 2) there
should be a maximum program length of 12 weeks, not to exceed 600
hours; 3) hours should be credited towards total required hours in the
apprentice program; and 4) the State approving agency must find that
there exists a reasonable certainty that the apprentice program for
which the eligible veteran or person is to be trained will be available
at the end of the training period. It is important to remember that
pre-apprenticeship programs vary greatly from state to state. It is the
State approving agencies, providing that local, ``boots on the ground''
oversight and supervision that are best positioned to ensure that the
intent of Congress is indeed delivered.
H.R. 3286 Hire Vets Act of 2015
NASAA supports this bill and sees in it yet another opportunity to
encourage employers to hire veterans. We would also see in this bill an
opportunity to highlight or bring attention to the Apprenticeship and
On-The-Job training programs which can be approved under the GI Bill.
As we testified before this Committee last November, we believe ``OJT
and Apprenticeship programs under the various chapters of the GI Bill
provide a tremendous opportunity to put our Nations veterans back to
work immediately in meaningful and rewarding careers that are needed in
our economy.''
H.R. 3419 Support for Student Veterans with Families Act of 2015
This proposed legislation would authorize the Department of
Veterans Affairs to make up to 50 grants in FY2016 to eligible
educational institutions to provide child care services on campus for
student veterans. NASAA strongly supports the intent of this bill and
we believe it would encourage institutions to provide affordable
childcare to veterans enrolled in higher education and support success
in their educational program. We would like to see clarifying language
added to clarify eligibility and implementation.
H.R. 4138 To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recoup
relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of employees of the
Department of Veterans Affairs
NASAA neither supports nor opposes this legislation at this time.
[Discussion Draft] Veterans Success on Campus Act of 2016
NASAA supports this bill. We would like the implementation language
modified to specify that resources be shared with or otherwise
available to neighboring campuses.
[Discussion Draft] To direct the Secretary of Labor to carry out a
research program to evaluate the effectiveness of Transition
Assistance Program in addressing needs of certain minority
veterans.
NASAA strongly believes that we should attempt to eradicate any
barriers to employment or aspirations for any groups of veterans and
when possible, that the Transition Assistance Program should be
designed to appropriately address the needs of veterans which are
substantially different. NASAA supports this bill.
[Discussion Draft] GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016.
NASAA supports this bill but we would like to see the language of
the bill expanded to include all schools approved for GI Bill r
benefits by replacing the phrase ``institutions of higher learning''
with the term ``institutions.'' This will allow for the inclusion of
non-college degree schools. We recommend Section 2 be modified to
specify the purpose and scope of the Inspector General Investigation,
to add to subsection (b)(2) that students provide to the Inspector
General any information that may be relevant to the investigation and
to add the requirement that the Inspector General will also notify the
appropriate State Approving agency upon commencing an investigation and
share their findings. Also, it is critical that State approving
agencies retain both approval and disapproval authority. Therefore, we
recommend in Section 3 replacing ``The Secretary'' with ``The State
approving agency or the Secretary when acting in the absence of the
State approving agency.'' This change clarifies and codifies that State
approving agencies have the primary statutory authority to protect our
Veterans and their families from those who would engage in unscrupulous
conduct. Further, in Sections 2 and 3, we respectfully suggest that the
word ``guilty'' not be used to describe administrative findings.
[Discussion Draft] A Bill to make certain improvements in the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to
educational assistance, and for other purposes,
NASAA supports Sections 2 through 4, as well as Sections 6 (with
reservation) and 7 in their current form. NASAA supports the intent of
Section 5, but while we agree that training of school certifying
officials should be a requirement, we do not agree that training should
solely be the responsibility of the VA. In the past, State approving
agencies regularly provided one-on-one, targeted training to certifying
officials. Prior to fiscal year 2012, when SAAs began assisting the VA
with compliance surveys, State approving agencies conducted supervisory
visits at 80%-90% of our active facilities every year. On-site training
of SCOs was a core component of these supervisory visits. Now, as a
result of conducting compliance surveys on behalf of the VA, we only
visit approximately 15% of our active facilities each year. While we
provide training to the extent we can in conjunction with compliance
surveys, it is clear that the compliance survey assignments have
greatly reduced our ability to regularly visit and train certifying
officials. We do not think it is unreasonable to conclude that the
reduction in on-site training during SAA supervisory visits has played
a role in the percentage of GI Billr overpayments due to certifying
official errors, as discussed in the GAO report from October 2015 on
Additional Actions Needed to Help Reduce Overpayments and Increase
Collections. We believe that working towards a better balance of
supervisory visits and compliance survey visits will result in better
training and oversight as well as fewer overpayments due to school
errors. With that in mind, regarding section 5 of the proposed
legislation, we believe that the development of the training
recommended in the GAO report should be a collaborative effort between
VA and NASAA, with input from school certifying officials. We believe
this would help ensure the efficacy of the program. Should the
committee choose to move forward with section 5 of the proposed
legislation at this time, we would suggest the following modifications.
First, in subsection (a), program disapproval authority should
primarily reside with the State Approving Agency, as stated above.
Second, NASAA recommends limiting any requirement for off-site training
to those institutions with more than 20 GI Billr recipients annually.
This will mitigate what could be perceived as an onerous training
requirement for many of the schools with a very small GI Billr student
cohort, which in turn could result in many high-quality programs being
withdrawn at the schools' request. However, reasonable and proper
online training should be mandatory for all certifying officials.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, today, over fifty-five SAAs, composed of
approximately 175 professional and support personnel are supervising
over 14,000 active facilities with more than 100,000 programs. We are
extremely grateful for the opportunity to once again appear before this
committee to share our positions on these important pieces of proposed
legislation. We remain committed to working closely with our VA
partners, VSO stakeholders and educational institutions on these and
other initiatives designed to protect the quality and the integrity of
the various GI Bill r programs and the Veterans and family members who
have sacrificed so much for this great Nation. I thank you again for
this opportunity and I look forward to answering any questions that you
or committee members may have.
Prepared Statement of Walter Ochinko
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Veterans Education Success (VES) appreciates the opportunity to
share its perspective on Representative Takano's GI Bill Oversight Act
of 2016. VES is a non-profit organization focused on protecting the
integrity and promise of the G.I. Bill and other federal educational
programs for veterans and servicemembers.
VES believes that the G.I. Bill Oversight Act seeks to address a
critical shortcoming in the management of G.I. Bill educational
benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-the lack of
enforcement to protect veterans from the predatory behavior of some
schools. When it comes to oversight of the G.I. Bill, VA's practice to
date has been to focus on managing and tracking benefit payments. Any
other oversight issues, such as protecting veterans' hard-earned
educational benefits and taxpayers' investment from fraud or abuse,
receives far too little attention.
Some Schools Engage in Misleading and Deceptive Advertising and
Recruiting
Last year, VES research demonstrated that 20 percent of the 300
G.I. Bill-approved degree programs it examined did not lead to jobs
because they lacked the appropriate accreditation or failed to meet
state-specific criteria required for licensure or certification. These
schools recruit students by misleading them about the schools'
accreditation and the ability of graduates to subsequently get a job in
their field of study. To help address this problem, the House approved
the Career Ready Student Veterans Act last month, a bill that received
bipartisan support from this Committee.
Because our research only examined a small number of degree
programs, we reported that our findings were just the ``tip of the
iceberg.'' Indeed, over a dozen settlements by five different federal
agencies and nine state Attorneys General since 2012 provide credible
evidence that VES's findings were not an anomaly. Please refer to the
summary of federal and state settlements attached to this statement.
The basis for all but one of these settlements were findings of
misleading and deceptive advertising and recruiting, including
misrepresenting costs, quality, accreditation and the transferability
of credits, job placement rates, and post-graduation salaries. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One of the settlements involved violations of ED's incentive
compensation regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA's reaction to these settlements has been extremely limited-
posting a caution flag for only one of the five federal settlements and
for none of the state Attorneys General settlements. \2\ And, all of
the schools continue to participate in the G.I. Bill, despite a Vietnam
era statute that obligates VA to deny revenue from veterans educational
benefits to schools that engage in deceptive and misleading advertising
and recruiting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For six of the nine schools with state AG settlements, VA has
posted an unrelated caution flag indicating that the institution is
subject to Department of Education Heightened Cash Monitoring.
Ban on Deceptive and Misleading Advertising and Recruiting Enacted in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1974
Sec. 3696 of Title 38 was enacted in 1974 as part of the Vietnam
Era Veterans' Readjustment Act. It requires the VA Secretary to:
``not approve the enrollment of an eligible veteran or eligible
person in any course offered by an institution which utilized
advertizing, sales, or enrollment practices of any type which are
erroneous, deceptive, or misleading either by actual statement,
omission, or intimation.''
Why did Congress determine that G.I. Bill protections against
misleading and deceptive advertising and recruiting were necessary 40
years ago?
The Senate Veterans Committee Report acknowledged that any increase
in the amount of federal funds a veteran has available to purchase
educational services served as a strong economic incentive for certain
schools to seek out and enroll those veterans. \3\ But these same
schools were offering low quality education and using erroneous or
misleading advertising, sales, or enrollment practices. The result was
degrees or certificates that did not qualify veterans for jobs in the
fields that they studied. Such problems date back to the 1940s with the
enactment of the original G.I. Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Report of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate, to
accompany S. 2784, Report No. 93-907, June 10, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate Committee Report cited specific and credible evidence
that such problems existed:
FTC investigative file provided to the committee,
Brookings Institution Study for the Office of Education,
Proceedings of the National Invitational Conference on
Consumer Protection in Post-Secondary Education, and
Boston Globe investigative series.
It's instructive that one of the examples detailed in the Boston
Globe series is a predatory school that misled the Massachusetts State
Approving Agency about its accreditation and succeeded in enrolling
veterans who, when they graduated, learned that they could not obtain
the state license necessary for employment. This same school operated 6
of the degree programs that our 2015 research found did not lead to the
necessary state licensure or certification. Not only did history repeat
itself, but the same ``bad actors'' continue to repeat their activity.
VA Has Not Enforced Sec. 3696 for 40 Years
To enforce Sec. 3696, schools must maintain a complete record of
all advertising, sales, or enrollment materials utilized by or on the
behalf of the institution during the past year, which are to be made
available to state approving agency (SAA) or VA inspectors. In August
2014, the VA finally added a requirement to the compliance survey form
asking inspectors to determine ``Does the school use fraudulent and
unduly aggressive recruiting?'' According to a former SAA director,
SAAs rarely, if ever, review advertising materials during compliance
reviews. \4\ Rather, they focus on whether the payments to the schools
were accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In December 2015, the Virginia SAA withdrew the approval of
ECPI's Medical Career Institute for violating Sec. 3696. This is the
only known SAA action taken under this statutory requirement. VA
requested an SAA inspection based on veteran complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Sec. 3696 requires the Secretary to ``enter into an
agreement with the FTC to utilize the commission's services in carrying
out investigations and making the Secretary's determinations'' of
deceptive or misleading advertizing, sales, or enrollment practices.
The implementing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between VA and the
FTC was not signed until November 2015, more than 40 years after the
enactment of Sec. 3696, and only after significant pressure from
veterans organizations and the White House. VA has clearly been
dragging its feet. Even now, it is not clear that VA has referred any
cases to the FTC for investigation, as required by the MOU.
VA Has a Statutory Obligation to Protect Veterans
In February 2016, the Veterans Legal Clinic at the Yale School of
Law briefed Congressional staff on a Memorandum titled ``VA's Failure
to Protect Veterans from Deceptive Recruiting Practices.'' \5\ Their
work was spurred by a July 2015 letter from the VA Under Secretary of
Benefits, Allison Hickey, to eight U.S. Senators, which stated that the
Department had limited authority to take action against educational
institutions that use deceptive marketing practices. The Under
Secretary wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://static1.squarespace.com/static/556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/
t/57028cde9f72667cfc9d1a8f/1459784926780/Yale-VES+Memo+.pdf
The authority for the approval of educational programs is
specifically granted to the State Approving Agencies (SAAs) under Title
38 of the United States Code. Any course approved for benefits that
fails to meet any of the approval requirements should be immediately
disapproved by the appropriate SAA. VA is prohibited, by law, from
exercising any supervision or control over the activities of the SAAs,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
except during the annual performance evaluations.
VA has also told veterans groups that they cannot take intermediate
steps, such as a suspension of funds to a school.
After researching statutes, their structure, regulations, and
legislative history, Yale Law School determined there was a very clear
answer: VA was wrong. Although SAAs do maintain authority to approve
and disapprove courses, so does VA and both can take intermediate
steps, such as suspending courses. Yale Law School concluded there was
no ambiguity in the statutes and no basis whatsoever for VA's position
that it lacked authority to act to stop deceptive recruiting. Indeed,
Sec. 3696 obligates VA to not approve veterans enrollment in courses
offered by institutions that use erroneous, deceptive, or misleading
advertising, sales, or enrollment practices.
VA Has Taken No Action in Response to the FTC Settlement with Ashworth
College
As just one example of VA's failure to adhere to 38 USC 3696, VA
has failed to do anything about a recent federal sanction against a
school for misleading and deceptive recruiting. On May 26, 2015, the
Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with Ashworth College
based on findings that the school had misled students about the
training they received and their ability to transfer credits to another
school. \6\ The FTC found that (1) many programs offered by this school
did not meet state requirements for those careers, including teachers
and massage therapists, and (2) claims made about credit transfers were
often not true. In reaching the settlement, Ashworth College admitted
no wrongdoing. The FTC settlement was announced about 5 months before
the completion of the MOU with VA and the FTC investigation was not
requested by VA. The settlement, however, appears to meet the criteria
set out in Sec. 3696 for terminating the school's participation in the
G.I. Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/
ashworth-college-settles-ftc-charges-it-misled-students-about
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of April 11, 2016, however, Ashworth College is still approved
to receive G.I. Bill educational benefits. Furthermore, the G.I. Bill
College Comparison Tool contains no warning to veterans about the FTC
settlement and findings. And, ironically, Ashworth is still listed as
subscribing to and following the Principles of Excellence on the G.I.
Bill College Comparison Tool.
VA's failure to revoke approval of Ashworth or any of the other
schools already successfully sued by state Attorneys General or federal
agencies raises several questions about the processes in place to
detect and respond to findings of deceptive and misleading advertising,
sales, or enrollment practices.
What standard of proof should the VA utilize to enforce
findings of false advertising, sales, or enrollment practices by
participating schools?
What facts or findings by another government agency are
sufficient to trigger a VA response of suspension or withdraw of
approval from participation in GI Bill benefits?
Does VA consider a settlement that is based on findings
of fact by a government agency, but that does not include admission of
wrongdoing by the school, to be insufficient evidence to withdraw a
school's approval?
What is the basis for a determination that a school has
violated Sec. 3696?
Has the VA referred any cases to the FTC since the VA/FTC
MOU was signed in November 2015?
VA's Recent Action Against DeVry: Harbinger of Stronger Enforcement?
On March 6, 2016, the Veterans Advisory Committee on Education
outlined the issues discussed at their fall meeting and offered
Secretary MacDonald recommendations. \7\ The Committee noted that
compliance and enforcement of the Principles of Excellence Executive
Order was a priority concern because of the absence of any standard
operating enforcement plan, aside from the discovery of a violation
during a compliance survey. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://static.politico.com/6f/db/0eff47e14e7ea18730dd924a0aa6/
va-panel-recommendations.pdf
\8\ The POE establishes behavioral expectations for schools that
enroll veterans using their GI Bill educational benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help manage expectations of participating schools and
systematize oversight, the Committee called for establishment of a
compliance framework that includes a checklist for VA employees to
measure compliance and standards for school probation and/or removal.
\9\ In conjunction with the framework, the Committee also recommended
additional caution flags on the G.I. Bill College Comparison Tool so
that veterans are informed about other government actions related to
G.I. Bill participating schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In contrast, DOD already has an assessment process in place to
help ensure compliance with the MOUs schools must sign in order to
participate in Tuition Assistance. The assessment process includes a
range of penalties and a commitment to share findings with appropriate
federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About a week later, VA announced suspension of DeVry University's
participation in the POE program. To be designated a POE school, an
institution must agree to avoid aggressive recruiting and abide by
federal laws and regulations, including those prohibiting
misrepresentation and incentive compensation of recruiters. VA's
actions were based on a review of the FTC lawsuit against DeVry, which
allege that the school had deceptively advertised job placement rates
and salary levels; VA also cited the Department of Education's notice
of intent to place limitations on DeVry based on related conclusions
and the significant number of complaints VA had received from veterans
about misrepresentations by DeVry. Finally, VA posted caution flags on
the G.I. Bill College Comparison Tool calling attention to the FTC and
ED actions.
It is worth emphasizing that the FTC lawsuit is ongoing, and, as
with many legal actions against predatory schools, the lawsuit could
end up in a settlement. DeVry continues to participate in the GI Bill
and can continue to enroll veterans. Acting on the basis of a lawsuit
is a departure for VA, which has only posted caution flags on the G.I.
Bill College Comparison Tool about one of five federal settlements. VES
applauds VA's action and believes that it is an encouraging sign.
Conclusion
The G.I. Bill Oversight Act would help to elevate the priority
placed on protecting veterans and increase the efforts to enforce VA's
existing statutory and regulatory requirements to prohibit
misrepresentation and deceptive recruiting. By engaging the VA Office
of Inspector General in the enforcement process, the bill jump-starts
Departmental enforcement by turning to an existing, well trained,
resourced, and audit/investigation oriented organization. Equally
important, however, is changing the mindset at VA that paying benefits
is only one part of VA's mission to serve veterans; VA must do more
than simply track the dollars out the door. It must take seriously its
statutory obligation to protect veterans from deceptive recruiting and
protect taxpayers' investment from waste, fraud, and abuse.
While a more proactive VA is an important step in helping to
protect veterans from predatory schools, more effective coordination,
cooperation, and data sharing among all federal agencies-ED, DOD, CFPB,
FTC, Justice, and the SEC-are also critical.
Combating fraud and abuse by predatory schools needs to be a top
federal as well as a top VA priority.
Thank you for opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Walter Ochinko
Policy Director
Veterans Education Success
[email protected]
Attachment
State Attorneys General and Federal Agency Settlements with Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Agency Settlement date Settlement amount Findings VA action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alta (Westwood College) CO-AG March 2012 $4.5 million Provided Heightened Cash
misleading Monitoring Caution
information to Flag
students on job
placement rates,
tuition, and
transferability of
credits. Veterans
were falsely told
that their GI Bill
benefits would
cover the cost of
tuition.(a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alta (Westwood College) IL-AG Nov. 2015 $15 million Misrepresented Heightened Cash
costs and Monitoring Caution
employment Flag
opportunities in
its criminal
justice
program.(b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashworth FTC May 2015 $11 million(c) Many programs did None
not meet state
licensure
requirements for
those professions,
including teachers
and massage
therapists, and
the claims made
about credit
transfers were
often not true.(d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATI Justice Aug. 2013 $3.7 million Misleading ATI filed for
recruiting bankruptcy in Jan.
practices at 2014
campuses in Texas
and several other
states.(e)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint (Ashford College) IA-AG May 2014 $7.5 Misleading None
recruiting
practices.(f)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation (Sanford Brown, NY-AG Aug. 2013 $10.25 million Significantly Heightened Cash
Briarcliff, American Continental University, inflated job Monitoring Caution
Colorado Technical University) placement rates Flag
and provided
misleading
information about
credit
transfers.(g)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDMC (Argosy) CO-AG Dec. 2013 $3.3 million Falsely claimed Heightened Cash
that PhD graduates Monitoring Caution
could become Flag
licensed clinical
psychologists even
though its program
was not accredited
by the American
Psychological
Association.(h)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDMC (Art Institute) SF City Attorney June 2014 $4.4 million Used illegal Heightened Cash
marketing Monitoring Caution
practices, Flag
including
providing
misleading data on
placement rates,
actual or average
salaries, and
graduation/
completion
rates.(i)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDMC Justice Nov. 2015 $95.5 million Violated the Dept. Settlement with
of Education U.S. Government
incentive Caution Flag
compensation
regulations.(j)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDMC 40 state AGs Nov. 2015 $103 million Used misleading
and deceptive
recruiting
practices.(k)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education Affiliates(Fortis Institute and numerous Justice June 2015 $13 million Misrepresented job Heightened Cash
other brands) placement Monitoring Caution
rates.(l) Flag
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan FL-AG June 2014 Misleading None
recruiting
practices.(m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice July 2015 $1.3 million Used unqualified None
instructors who
did not meet
minimum Texas
standards in its
medical assisting
program.(n)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premier Education Group (Salter College) MA-AG Dec. 2014 $3.75 million Misrepresented job None
placemement rates
and used deceptive
enrollment
tactics.(o)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) http://www.denverpost.com/smart/ci--20172161/colorado-attorney-general-reaches-settlement-westwood-2-
(b) https://www.cfpbmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2014/11/IL-AG-second-amended-complaint.pdf
(c) The $11 million fine was waived because of the school's inability to pay.
(d) https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ashworth-college-settles-ftc-charges-it-misled-students-about
(e) http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-civ-953.html#sthash.fla0snpj.dpuf
(f) http://www.ashfordsettlement.com/faqs.html
(g) http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-announces-groundbreaking-1025-million-dollar-settlement-profit
(h) https://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/press/news/2013/12/05/attorney--general--suthers--announces--consumer--protection--settlement--argosy--unive
and htttp://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/12/05/argosy-university-pays-colorado-33m.html
(i) http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-wins-4-4M-settlement-with-for-profit-art-5559635.php
(j) http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/profit-college-company-pay-955-million-settle-claims-illegal-recruiting-consumer-fraud-and
(k) http://kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-Stream.aspx?viewMode=ViewDetailInNewPage&eventID=%7B15E27858-880A-4479-A5F6-
B1966D22274F%7D&activityType=PressReleasej
(l) http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/profit-education-company-pay-13-million-resolve-several-cases-alleging-submission-false
(m) The Florida AG entered into a voluntary assurance of compliance with Kaplan. http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JMEE-9L6QDA/$file/
KaplanAVC.pdf#sthash.YDI8hEsG.dpuf
(n) http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtx/pr/profit-college-kaplan-refund-federal-financial-aid-under-settlement-united-states
(o) http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-releases/2014/2014-12-12-salter-college.html#sthash.fla0snpj.dpuf
--------
Prepared Statement of Jared Lyon
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Established in 2008, Student Veterans of America has grown to
become a force and voice for the interests of veterans in higher
education. With nearly 1,400 chapters across the country, we are
pleased to share the perspective of those most directly impacted by
this subject with this committee. With a myriad of programs supporting
their success, rigorous research development seeking ways to improve
the landscape, and advocacy throughout the nation, we place the student
veteran at the top of our organizational pyramid. As the future leaders
of this country, nothing is more paramount than their success in school
to prepare them for productive and impactful lives.
GI Bill STEM Extension Act of 2015
For most veterans hoping to enter the science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics fields, also known as the STEM fields,
they are faced with the harsh reality that entrance into these majors
requires starting their college career at the pre-college math level,
such as pre-calculus and pre-algebra. This holds true for many of the
sciences such as chemistry, physics, and biology. The additional time
that it takes for a veteran to complete a STEM degree easily pushes
graduation passed the standard 36 months allotted by the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. We at SVA see that the extra year need for graduation completion
discourages many veterans from pursuing STEM degrees. A plan to provide
one extra year of GI Bill benefits to STEM degree-seeking veterans
would alleviate this concern, giving veterans the extra time needed to
complete their degree.
A study done by Georgetown University in 2015 reviewed the Economic
Value of College Majors in the United Sates. That study uncovered that
the highest annual wages earned after graduation came from the career
STEM field. Individuals who complete a STEM degree earn an average of
$65,000 a year when starting their career whereas non-STEM degree
graduates earned $50,000 annually. Additionally, this study revealed
that the least popular undergraduate majors for student to pursue were
all in the STEM fields. It is our hope that the GI Bill STEM Extension
Act of 2015 will influence transitioning service member to pursue STEM
degrees without the discouragement of incurring additional debt.
Additionally, it is our hope that this bill will encourage current STEM
majors to complete their degree as opposed to changing to a degree that
requires less time in school.
We propose some changes to the language in H.R. 748. The new
language the GI Bill Extension Act will authorize 33,000 veteran STEM
majors in need of an additional year of GI Bill benefits to ability the
complete their degree. To achieve this we recommend the following
changes:
1.A one-time stipend of $30,000 to cover ALL expenses. It will be
the veteran's responsibility to spend the money on tuition and rent.
2.This benefited will only be available to veterans.
3.Restrict usage to only the classes required to achieve the
degree.
4.First priority given to students that require the most number of
credit hours to achieve their degree.
5. Limit the use of degrees listed in lines 5-13 on page 3 of the
legislation. Delete lines 14-21.
6.If the veteran does not complete the program, excluding death in
the family, personal illness (including PTS), unexpected relocation,
unexpected family illness (including caretaking of family members), the
amount paid will be reimbursed over a period of 6 years of $5,000 a
year.
7.Veterans who receive less than 100% of the GI Bill will receive
the percentage they are qualified for of the one-time payment of
$30,000. Veterans who qualify for 100% GI Bill tuition will be awarded
before individuals who are not qualified for 100% GI Bill payments.
With STEM majors paying an average of $260,000 more in taxes than
non-STEM majors over their lifetime, we see a return on investment, if
this Bill were to move forward, of $8.6 Billion. $7.6 Billion more than
the cost to the government to fund this initiative. That is a return of
around $8 for every $1 spent.
Because of this, SVA fully supports the GI Bill Extension Act of
2015 and hopes to remain part of the discussion on how to improve the
economic impact of STEM majors in the United States by motivating
transitioning service members to enter into these fields of study.
The GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016
Over the past eight years, Student Veterans of America has worked
hard to protect veterans pursuing their higher education degrees.
Unfortunately, primarily due to 90/10, we have seen predatory practices
on veterans by less than reputable educational institutions. Year after
year, we hear of stories where veterans were cheated by ``bad actors''
in the educational realm with no recourse to recoup their hard-earned
GI Bill benefits.
The GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016 is a step in the right direction
in protecting student Veterans from less than honorable institutions.
Requiring the Inspector General to investigate institutions of higher
learning that have been found guilty by any Federal or State agency for
deceptive or misleading practices, will help protect Veterans from
these predatory institutions.
However, we do propose some changes to the language. We would
recommend removing lines 15 to 22 on page 2 of the Draft Bill. We find
that by instigating an investigation by the Inspector General when an
institution is currently being investigated at the State or Federal
level or in any class action lawsuit for deceptive or misleading
practices is too broad in nature. We feel that an investigation after
an institution if found guilty is more appropriate. Sections (1) ``is
the defendant in a class action lawsuit for deceptive or misleading
practices'' and (2) ``is under investigation by any Federal or State
Agency for deceptive or misleading practices'' is triggering an
investigation before the outcome of the case is determined. We feel
that allocating Federal resources to every school under investigation
or in a lawsuit might overwhelm the Inspector General and target
schools under investigation but are considered by the general education
community as ``good actors''. Section (3) ``has been found guilty by
any Federal or State agency of deceptive or misleading practices'' is
much more focused and we feel this language will help capture the ``bad
actors'' of the educational industry.
Our suggestion would be to reword line 18 to 22 (sections 3699,
(a), (1) and (2)) to be more specific or remove section (1) and reword
the term ``investigation'' in section (2) to something less direct.
Additionally, we support the concept of notifying students when an
investigation has started (3699, (b), (A), (B) - Line 1 to 7 on page
3). This will allow a more informed consumer, which is a subject we
always support.
Although we support the GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016, we feel that
there is some room to improve the language of the Bill to fully capture
the ``Bad Actors'' that abuse the GI Bill and veterans while still
protecting reputable institutions. We would absolutely welcome the
chance to be a party in the furthered discussion of this Bill.
The Support for Student Veterans with Families Act
A Census Survey done by Student Veterans of America (appendix A:),
shows that there is a significant concern among single parents who
served in the military and are currently enrolled in higher education
in regards to accessing and paying for child care. With over 70,000
single veteran parents attending institutions of higher learning, this
is a topic that we cannot ignore. Our study shows that 49% of current
student veterans have indicated that childcare had a negative or
extremely negative impact on their budget. Additionally, 20% of student
veterans indicated that their current childcare status had a negative
impact on their academic goals.
As more service members enter into the student arena, we see the
issue of childcare increasing with no Federal initiative to help these
families. That is why we are pleased that H.R. 3419 - Support for
Student Veterans with Families Act was proposed. The discussion on how
to help veterans attending higher education, although not new, has been
overlooked for some time. We applauded the committee for taking action
on this particular issue.
Student Veterans of America supports the general concept of H.R.
3419, and we value the diligence that has gone into this Bill, however,
we do have some concern over the effects of specific language in the
Bill. Precisely the Use of Funds, Limitations, and Authorization of
Appropriations sections. Under the section ``Use of Funds'' we would
recommend removing section (A) ``establish or expand a child care
center on the campus of educational institutions'' which would then
negate the need for section (2) where ``at least 75 percent of the new
child care services funded by the grant to students [.] are veterans''.
We feel this particular language is would be difficult for an
institution of higher education to achieve without excessive
programmatic issues associated with the implementation of the program.
We do, however, support the language in section (B) in ``Use of Funds''
where the VA would ``pay the cost of providing child care services to
students enrolled in courses of education offered by the educational
institution at a child care center located on the campus of the
educational institutions'', but would recommend including language such
as, ``if the educational institution did not have child care then a
payment would be made to the veteran to supplement the cost of child
care off campus''.
Finally, SVA would caution against the language used in section (e)
``Authorization of Appropriations''. Student Veterans of America would
like to see a specific amount of funds as opposed to an arbitrary
amount.
Bill 2551: Veterans' Entry to Apprenticeship Act
Student Veterans of America supports the Veterans' Entry to
Apprenticeship Act. Skills such as blue print reading, tool use, and
map reading are important trade skills generally not taught during an
apprenticeship. These are skill needed before one starts an accredited
apprenticeship and allowing the GI Bill to be used to gain this
valuable information can help veteran enter into high need skill based
programs.
Although there are many schools that offer pre-apprenticeship
programs and certification options, not all schools are accredited. In
many instances, accreditation of the degree or program you complete may
be required in order to become certified to work in the field. Because
of this, we highly suggest the langue in this Bill applies to only
programs that are accredited. The language in section 3687A; (3), (4),
and (5) seem to suppress any concerns of abuses.
Bill 3286: HIRE Vets Act
Although Student Veterans of America primarily deals with
educational issues, it is important where our students end up after
completion of their degree. The HIRE Vets Act is a great way for
transitioning service members and student veterans to seek out
organizations that have a history of hiring and retaining veteran
employees.
Student Veterans of America has always remained steadfast that an
informed consumer can make the best decisions for himself or herself.
The HIRE Vets Act will help veterans make these informed decisions.
Because of this, we support the HIRE Vets Act and look forward to
promoting these prestigious organizations with exemplary veteran
employment practices.
Bill 4138: To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recoup
relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of employees of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Student Veterans of America supports any Bill that allows the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to cut down on waste and abuse. Any abuse
of funds in the VA not only hurts the VA as a whole but additionally
all programs administered by the VA. The latest scandal where $275,000
of VA funds were used for questionable moving expenses could have
helped veterans get a degree or fund other much-needed VA programs.
We applaud Chairman Miller for his dedication to stop waste in
abuse in the VA. We hope that this Bill moves forward and we at Student
Veterans of America support this legislation.
Draft Bill: Sec. 4 Training for School Certifying Officials.
This Bill, requiring the Secretary of Veteran Affairs to train
school certifying officials, is a much-needed change in how institution
decide who should be a School Certifying Official. Although there is
currently an educational program to train VA Certifying Officials, this
training is not mandatory. The online training schedule can be found
at: http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/school--training--resources.asp
It is estimated to take anywhere from a week to 3 weeks to
complete. We feel that schools who do not have trained certifying
officials should not be eligible to offer courses or educational
assistance to veterans given that the training is minimal. We would
recommend, however, to allow 90 days for the School Certifying Official
to complete the online training. This would insure that if a trained
certifying official left the institution, the university would have
appropriate time to find a replacement and train them as a certifying
official.
Student Veterans of America supports this Bill. It would add
oversight to institutions and require their certifying official to
learn about the GI Bill, which could lead to more informed student
veterans.
Draft Bill: Sec. 6 Reduction of Amount of Housing Stipend Payments for
Reduction of Course Hours.
Student Veterans of America understand that sometimes it is
necessary for an individual to change their full time student status to
part time. We also agree that when an individual changes their status,
their BAH should be reduced and over payments should be reimbursed. We
have reservations with removing future BAH payments to recoup
overpayments in the past.
If a student were to disenroll from a class and become part-time
because of family issues in the last month of a semester, not only
would their BAH be reduced but all overpayments for the past few month
would be removed from that current months BAH. We feel that this might
lead to having a veteran, who already having personal issues, finding
themselves in a financial struggle.
We support section (2) (line 2 to 7 on page 5) in its entirety,
however, we would recommend striking line 8 - 17 respectfully. By
deduction overpayments of future BAH payments, you can put veterans in
an undue financial burden. Student Veterans of America agrees will all
supplementary sections represented in this draft Bill.
Draft Bill: Research Program to Evaluate Effectiveness of Transition
Assistance Program in Addressing Needs of Certain Minority
Veterans.
Student Veterans of America prides itself on the amount of data
collection and analysis we preform each year. From the Million Records
Project to the NVEST project, we increasingly learn more about student
veterans. We see the value in data and how it can help decision makers
chose the right response for a particular problem.
Requiring the Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
and Secretary of the Department of Defense, to evaluate the Transition
Assistance Program will help capture much needed data. Being that the
target audience is women veterans, veterans with disabilities, Native
American Veterans, and other groups of minority veterans' status we
feel that any information on these minority groups can help determine
policy decisions in the future.
Any data on veterans is valuable in understanding the issues
veterans face. We support this Bill and look would be pleased to add to
this subject.
Draft Bill: Veterans Success on Campus Act of 2016.
Informed consumers is a subject that Student Veterans of America
feels strongly about. We maintain that the sooner a transitioning
service member is able to understand their GI Bill Benefits, which
school is most appropriate for them, and how to achieve their overall
goal, the more likely that individual will transition into the work
force as an employable, highly trained, military veteran.
Authorizing on-campus educational and vocational counseling is
progress and we hope to see this Bill move forward. We would also like
to see this same education and vocation counseling before a veteran
enters into the education realm. We feel the best time to instruct a
transitioning service member about their future in education and the
work force is before they transition out of the military. We would
strongly recommend applying this same language to the Transition
Assistants Program.
Final Thoughts
SVA's motto is ``Yesterday's Warriors, Today's Scholars, Tomorrow's
Leaders''. It is our goal to help Veterans transition from Military
Warriors into Civilian Leaders. The GI Bill is paramount in this
transition and currently helps over one million veterans to attend
higher education. We thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the
Subcommittee Members for your time, attention, and devotion to the
cause of veterans in higher education. As always, we welcome your
feedback and questions, and we look forward to continuing to work with
this subcommittee, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the
entire Congress to ensure the success of all generations of veterans
through education.
Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, SVA has
not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2015, nor has it
received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
Appendix
SVA 2015 Census Survey - Student Veterans and Childcare
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdown by Relationship Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your current relationship status? Frequency Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single, Never married............................. 406 30.19%
Married........................................... 607 45.13%
Engaged, In a committed relationship.............. 127 9.44%
Separated......................................... 20 1.49%
Divorced.......................................... 163 12.12%
Widowed........................................... 5 0.37%
Decline to state.................................. 17 1.26%
Total............................................. 1,345 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdown by Parental Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any children (natural children,
adopted children, or stepchildren)? Frequency Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes............................................... 621 46.14%
No................................................ 711 52.82%
Decline to State.................................. 14 1.04%
Total............................................. 1,346 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdown by Single Parent Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you consider yourself a single parent? Frequency Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes............................................... 91 14.70%
No................................................ 523 84.49%
Decline to state.................................. 5 0.81%
Total............................................. 619 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdown by Childcare Status Impact on Academic Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What type of impact does your current childcare
status have on your progress towards academic Frequency Percentage
goal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extremely negative................................ 7 2.17%
Negative.......................................... 56 17.39%
Neither positive or negative...................... 119 36.96%
Positive.......................................... 86 26.71%
Extremely positive................................ 54 16.77%
Total............................................. 322 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdown by Childcare Status on Overall Life
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What type of impact does your current childcare
status have on your overall life? Frequency Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extremely negative................................ 5 1.56%
Negative.......................................... 26 8.13%
Neither positive or negative...................... 128 40.00%
Positive.......................................... 93 29.06%
Extremely positive................................ 68 21.25%
Total............................................. 320 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdown by Childcare Status Impact on Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What type of impact does your current childcare
status have on your budget Frequency Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extremely negative................................ 56 17.39%
Negative.......................................... 106 32.92%
Neither positive or negative...................... 93 28.88%
Positive.......................................... 36 11.18%
Extremely positive................................ 31 9.63%
Total............................................. 322 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdown by Stress Due to Scheduling Childcare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much stress does scheduling childcare add to
your life? Frequency Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None.............................................. 89 27.55%
Minor............................................. 93 28.79%
Moderate.......................................... 77 23.84%
Serious........................................... 38 11.76%
Not Applicable.................................... 26 8.05%
Total............................................. 323 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdown by Stress due to Paying for Childcare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much stress does paying for childcare add to
your life? Frequency Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None.............................................. 87 27.02%
Minor............................................. 43 13.35%
Moderate.......................................... 76 23.60%
Serious........................................... 86 26.71%
Not Applicable.................................... 30 9.32%
Total............................................. 322 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdowns by Stress due to Travel to and from Childcare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much stress does travel to and from childcare
add to your life? Frequency Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None.............................................. 109 33.96%
Minor............................................. 81 25.23%
Moderate.......................................... 78 24.30%
Serious........................................... 25 7.79%
Not Applicable.................................... 28 8.72%
Total............................................. 321 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 2015 Census Survey Student Veteran Breakdown by Current Enrollment Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your current enrollment status? Frequency Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time Student................................. 1,138 84.17%
Part-Time Student................................. 211 15.61%
Not currently enrolled/LOA........................ 0 0.00%
Graduated/Alum.................................... 0 0.00%
Enrolled, Full-Time/Part-Time Unknown............. 3 0.22%
Total............................................. 1,352 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of Aleks Morosky
Chairman Wenstrup, Ranking Member Takano and members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to present the VFW's views on today's pending
legislation.
H.R. 748, GI Bill STEM Extension Act of 2015
The VFW supports this legislation, which would grant an additional
nine months, or one academic year, of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to
student veterans pursuing degrees in specified fields of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) that require more than
the standard 128 credit hours for completion. Veterans would also be
eligible for the additional benefits if they have already earned a
degree in a STEM field and are pursuing a teaching certificate.
Those who graduate with STEM degrees position themselves for
employment in increasingly high demand, good paying jobs. Simply put,
the VFW believes that offering an additional nine months of education
assistance is a good investment in veterans' futures and, therefore,
our national economy. Veterans who choose to enter these programs
should be given the opportunity to complete them without exhausting
their benefits before earning their degrees.
H.R. 2551, Veterans' Entry to Apprenticeship Act
The VFW supports this legislation, which would require VA to treat
certain pre-apprenticeship programs as apprenticeship programs for the
purposes of providing educational assistance. Only those pre-
apprenticeship programs that are compliant with state standards or
approved by a sponsor in states that have no such standards would be
covered.
The VFW strongly supports allowing veterans to use their GI Bill
benefits for apprenticeship programs, preparing them for good paying
jobs in the high demand skilled labor field. Still, some veterans who
wish to enter a trade lack the basic qualifications needed for entry
into a registered apprenticeship program. By allowing them to use their
education benefits to enroll in pre-apprenticeship programs, this bill
would help them build the necessary skills and competencies they need
to enter and succeed in the apprenticeship programs of their choice.
H.R. 3286, Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American
Military Veterans Act of 2015 or ``HIRE Vets Act''
In much the same way the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve
(ESGR) program gives awards to employers in recognition of the support
they provide their employees who serve in the National Guard and
Reserve and their families, the HIRE Vets Act provides a private sector
employer recognition through the HIRE Vets Medallion program. The
program has four levels of awards, bronze through platinum, with each
level requiring the employer to hire and retain more veterans and
provide more services to their veteran employees.
The VFW supports H.R. 3286, but would like to offer two suggestions
to improve the bill. In Section 3(b)(1)(B)(ii) the bill states ``such
employer provides support to each of its employees who are performing
active duty service in the United States National Guard or Reserve,
including by providing to each such employee a guarantee of employment
following such employee's active duty service.'' Under the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) employers are
required by law to preserve employment for service members serving on
active duty. The VFW suggests that this provision be replaced with an
employer-sponsored USERRA training program. This will ensure that both
the supervisors and veteran employees understand their rights and
responsibilities under USERRA.
The VFW also suggests that Section 3(b)(1)(C)(iv) of the bill be
rephrased to emphasize the training program would provide specific
training that is geared to bridge any gaps between a veterans military
training and experience and the requirement to fulfill the duties of
the job they have been hired to perform. The VFW wants to thank
Congressman Cook for his vision and we look forward to working with him
to improve this legislation.
H.R. 3419, Support for Student Veterans with Families Act
The VFW supports the intent of this legislation, which would
authorize VA to make up to 50 grants to educational institutions for
the purpose of providing child care services to student veterans. The
funding could be used to establish or expand campus child care centers,
or to pay the cost of child care services. We believe that this is
warranted, as a lack of quality child care could significantly impact a
veteran's ability to successfully complete their education goals.
The bill requires that at least 75 percent of new child care
services funded by the grant must go to student veterans. While we do
not see significant harm in allowing excess services to be used by non-
veteran students and faculty, we would object to any student veteran
being denied services or placed on a waiting list behind a non-veteran
under any circumstances. To prevent this from happening, we suggest
that the bill be amended to include a priority of services clause for
student veterans. With that change, the VFW would fully support the
legislation.
H.R. 4138, A bill to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
recoup relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of employees of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
When government employees are asked to relocate in the interest of
the government, the department or agency requiring the relocation has
the authority to pay for the employee's travel and relocation expenses.
However, if an employee abuses the relocation expense program, it is
unclear if the Secretary has the authority to recoup any of the
relocation payment. H.R. 4138 provides the Secretary the clear
authority to require an employee to repay all or some portion of the
amount provided through the relocation expense program. The bill also
affords employees an opportunity for a hearing by another department or
agency before any repayment can be enforced.
The VFW supports H.R. 4138, believing that when an employee games
the relocation expense program for personal gain or unintentionally
receives payments that are not authorized, the Secretary must have the
authority to recoup those funds.
Draft Legislation, Veterans Success on Campus Act of 2016
The VFW supports this legislation, which would establish the
Veterans Success on Campus (VSOC) program as a permanent program in
title 38. Beginning as a VA pilot project at the University of South
Florida in 2009, the VSOC program has now grown to 94 campuses
nationwide. By assigning Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
counselors to these campuses, student veterans are provided with
convenient access to education and career counseling, as well as
information on VA health care and other benefits. The VFW strongly
supports VSOC, believing it greatly enhances student veterans'
opportunities for a successful transition to civilian life.
Accordingly, we codify it as a permanent VA program.
Draft Legislation, GI Bill Oversight Act of 2016
This bill takes comprehensive steps to eliminate deceptive and
misleading practices conducted by institutions of higher learning.
Section 2 requires the Office of the Inspector General (IG) to
conduct investigations on institutions of higher learning that are
under investigation by a state or federal agency, are the defendant in
a class action suit, or have been found guilty of deceptive or
misleading practices.
This Section also calls on the IG to inform beneficiaries who are
enrolled in an institution of higher education that the school is under
investigation and the reason for the investigation. Along with this
notification the IG will provide information that will assist students
in transferring credits to another institution of higher learning, and
as part of the GI Bill Comparison Tool, the Secretary will make this
information available to veterans who are researching their educational
options.
Section 3 provides VA with the authority to disapprove these
courses of education from receiving GI Bill funding and restore lost
benefits for beneficiaries who are enrolled and receiving benefits when
disapproval occurs.
The VFW supports this legislation. Veterans can only make quality
decisions regarding their education options if the information they use
to make those decisions is complete. This bill ensures that veterans
will have improved information as they search for a school and a
program that best meets their educational goals and needs, and if a
veteran is deceived into attending a program that is disapproved during
an academic period, the veteran should be made whole by reimbursing
that semester of education benefits back to the veteran. The VFW looks
forward to working with the Committee to pass this important piece of
legislation.
Draft Legislation, To make certain improvements in the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to
educational assistance, and for other purposes.
This legislation makes several administrative changes to the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, most of which the VFW supports.
Section 2 allows veterans to use their Post-9/11 GI Bill
entitlement for licensure and credentialing tests, based on the
prorated cost of the amount of the fee charged for the test. Often,
veterans need to take licensure and certification tests in order to
become credentialed in their chosen professions in their home states.
Currently, veterans may use the Post-9/11 GI Bill to pay for these
tests; however, they are charged a full month of benefits for each
test. This is not the case under the Montgomery GI Bill, which
subtracts only the exam fee from the overall entitlement to education
assistance. This is a more favorable system for the veteran, since
license and exam fees typically cost far less than a month of full time
tuition and fees at an institution of higher learning. The VFW supports
this section, which would allow veterans seeking licenses and
credentials to retain the maximum amount of educational assistance with
which to achieve other academic and professional goals.
Section 3 extends the rounding down of the percentage increase in
educational assistance VA may pay to certain institutions of higher
learning for ten years. The VFW opposes round downs, as they require
veterans to pay for their earned benefits.
Section 4 extends the authorization of the Veterans' Advisory
Committee on Education through 2021. The Advisory Committee is
currently set to expire at the end of 2016. The VFW supports the
extension, believing that the committee is critical to identifying the
challenges facing student veterans and presenting responsible solutions
to the Secretary directly from industry stakeholders.
Section 5 would mandate VA provide requirements for the training of
school certifying officials at schools approved for education
assistance. It would also authorize VA to disapprove those schools
whose certifying officials do not meet the requirements. An October
2015 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that
nearly one in four student veterans and 6,000 schools received
overpayments in 2014. These overpayments result in debts that must be
repaid. One of GAO's recommendations for reducing overpayments was
better training for school certifying officials. The VFW supports that
recommendation and this section of the bill.
The VFW supports section 6, which codifies VA's ability to adjust a
veteran's housing allowance payments on a prorated basis, in the case
where a veteran reduces his or her number of credits to below the full
time enrollment rate.
Section 7 clarifies that reporting fees paid to educational
institutions by VA must be used solely for making certifications
required by law or otherwise supporting veterans programs, and may not
be used for or merged with the school's general fund. The VFW supports
this section.
Draft Legislation, To direct the Secretary of Labor to carry out a
research program to evaluate the effectiveness of the Transition
Assistance Program in addressing the needs of certain minority
veterans.
The VFW supports this legislation, which would require research
into how the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) addresses the unique
needs, challenges, and post-military service aspirations of women
veterans, veterans with disabilities, Native American veterans, and
other groups as the Secretary considers appropriate. It would also
require recommendations on any changes that could be made to TAP to
address any differences that are identified. We believe this data could
be useful in the Department of Defense's continuing efforts to ensure
that the TAP curriculum is as effective as possible for all
transitioning veterans.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to
answer any questions you or the Committee members may have.
Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW
has not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2016, nor has it
received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
The VFW has not received payments or contracts from any foreign
governments in the current year or preceding two calendar years.
--------
Statements For The Record
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
(1 footnote)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide information on the Office of Inspector General's
(OIG) views regarding the draft bill titled GI Bill Oversight Act of
2016. The OIG has issued several audits and reviews in the past on
issues associated with the Post 9/11 GI Bill. \1\ Currently, we are
finalizing a national audit on tuition and fee payments under the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Audit of Post 9/11 GI Bill Housing Allowances and Book
Stipends, July 11, 2014; Audit of Initial Post 9/11 GI Bill Education
Payments, November 2, 2010; Audit of VA's Implementation of the Post 9/
11 GI Bill Long Term Solution, September 30, 2010; Review of Alleged
Inadequate Controls on Education Emergency Payments, September 14,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are concerned about several provisions in the draft bill and
appreciate the efforts of the Minority Subcommittee staff to address
them. We believe some provisions of the draft bill would pose a serious
threat to how the OIG conducts its work, including the impact the
requirements might have on an investigation. The OIG's responsibility
is to conduct an investigation to gather facts, not determine guilt. We
work with authorities such as U.S. Attorneys and state attorneys who
have responsibility for making a prosecutorial decision and prosecuting
a case. It is a judge or jury who makes a decision on guilt or
innocence.
Section 2 of the draft creates a new subchapter of chapter 36 of
Title 38 of the United States Code which identifies three situations
that would require the OIG to conduct an investigation. We understand
from Minority Subcommittee staff that section (a)(1) regarding class
action lawsuits will be deleted. We support that deletion.
In the current draft, the second provision would require the OIG to
investigate if the institution of higher learning is under
investigation by any Federal or state agency for deceptive or
misleading practices. If the investigation is Federal and relates to VA
benefits, the OIG would already likely be involved. However, when this
is not the case, conducting parallel investigations is duplicative and
may create confusion among possible witnesses. Not only is there a risk
of the inquiries interfering with each other, there is also a risk that
they may produce inconsistent findings. We could support a provision
that required coordination of efforts to produce a single report and,
if feasible, a single prosecution in situations where the issues under
investigation impact more than one Federal agency or a Federal agency
and a state entity.
The third provision would require the OIG to investigate when the
institution has been found guilty of deceptive or misleading practices.
If an institution of higher learning has already been found guilty of
deceptive or misleading practices, and VA is impacted, conducting a
second investigation may be duplicative. We would support a provision
requiring that VA take action when an institution of higher learning
has been found guilty of deceptive or misleading practices to determine
whether the conduct impacted VA's program and, if so, take corrective
action.
The new subchapter also includes a section regarding notice to
students. We understand that staff is considering changing the
notification requirement from the OIG to VA. We have concerns regarding
any required notifications by any official during an ongoing
investigation. Should the institution under investigation become aware
of the notice to students, such forewarning could prompt the
destruction of evidence, and it would give officials the opportunity to
compare statements and coordinate witness testimony. Moreover,
requiring any entity to identify and provide notice to every student of
an institution under investigation would create an enormous burden on
finances and staff workload.
Further with respect to the bill's counseling provision, requiring
the OIG to counsel students to take actions prejudicial to the
organization under investigation, prior to any findings being made,
runs contrary to the OIG's mandate to remain objective and neutral
during the course of an investigation. The OIG is an investigative body
and is not in a position to offer educational advice.
Lastly, if the investigation does not result in a finding of
wrongdoing and the institution loses business because of these
activities, VA could be subject to litigation if either the OIG or VA
suggests individuals transfer to another institution without actual
cause. prematurely.
Section 3 of the current draft again references a finding of guilt
by the Inspector General. If this section remains, it should be amended
to indicate that it is a court of law that determines whether an
institution of higher learning is guilty of deceptive or misleading
practices.
[all]