[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UPDATE OF THE POST-9/11 GI BILL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-99
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-757 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
Dakota Carolina
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOHN J. HALL, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
GLENN C. NYE, Virginia
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
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
__________
September 16, 2010
Page
Update of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 44
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 44
Hon. Walt Minnick................................................ 11
Prepared statement of Congressman Minnick.................... 45
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Defense, Captain Mark Krause, USN (Ret.), U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs Program Manager, Space and Naval
War Systems Center Atlantic, Department of the Navy............ 27
Prepared statement of Captain Krause......................... 70
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director,
Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration............ 29
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson............................. 71
______
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Alan G.
Merten, Ph.D., President, George Mason University.............. 6
Prepared statement of Dr. Merten............................. 50
American Legion, Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National
Economic Commission............................................ 16
Prepared statement of Mr. Madden............................. 60
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Tim Embree, Legislative
Associate...................................................... 17
Prepared statement Mr. Embree................................ 63
National Association of Veterans' Program Administrators, Faith
DesLauriers, Legislative Director.............................. 4
Prepared statement of DesLauriers............................ 46
Veterans of Modern Warfare, Donald D. Overton, Jr., Executive
Director....................................................... 13
Prepared statement of Mr. Overton............................ 56
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, James D. Wear,
Assistant Director, National Veterans Service.................. 14
Prepared statement of Mr. Wear............................... 58
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Disabled American Veterans, John L. Wilson, Assistant National
Legislative Director, statement................................ 78
Flink, Judith, Executive Director, University Student Financial
Services, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL, statement..... 80
National Association of State Approving Agencies, William D.
Stephens, President, statement................................. 86
Student Veterans of America, statement........................... 87
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Follow-up Letter:
Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National Economic
Commission, American Legion, to Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, letter dated October 19, 2010 90
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Faith DesLauriers, Legislative Director, National
Association of Veterans' Program Administrators, letter
dated September 20, 2010, and response letter dated
October 13, 2010......................................... 90
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Alan Merten, President, George Mason University, American
Association of State Colleges and Universities, letter
dated September 20, 2010, and response from Edward
Elmendorf, Senior Vice President, Government Relations
and Policy Analysis, American Association of State
Colleges and Universities, letter dated November 1, 2010. 92
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Donald O. Overton, Jr., Executive Director, Veterans of
Modern Warfare, letter September 20, 2010, and Mr.
Overton's responses, dated November 1, 2010.............. 96
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
James D. Wear, Assistant Director for Veterans Benefits
Policy, National Veterans Service, Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States, letter dated September 20,
2010, and Mr. Wear's responses, dated November 1, 2010... 97
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Robert Madden, Assistant Director, National Economic
Commission, American Legion, letter dated September 20,
2010, and response letter dated November 1, 2010......... 99
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Mark Krause, Department of Veterans Affairs Program
Manager, Space and Naval Warfare System Center Atlantic,
Department of the Navy, U.S. Department of Defense,
letter dated September 20, 2010, and DoD's responses..... 101
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Benefits, Veterans
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, letter dated September 20, 2010, and VA
responses................................................ 102
UPDATE OF THE POST-9/11 GI BILL
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:06 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Minnick, Teague, and Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economy
Opportunity Oversight Hearing on the Post-9/11 GI Bill will
come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and their written
statements be made part of the record.
Hearing no objection so ordered.
I would also like to state the fact that the Disabled
American Veterans, the University of Illinois, and the Student
Veterans of America have asked to submit written testimony for
the record. If there is no objection I ask for unanimous
consent that their statements be entered for the record.
Hearing no objection so ordered.
During the 111th Congress, we successfully passed the Post-
9/11 GI Bill to ensure that today's veterans are afforded
equitable benefits similar to those afforded to veterans who
served during World War II.
Furthermore, with the leadership of Representative Chet
Edwards of Texas, we successfully passed the Marine Gunnery
Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to provide education
benefits to the dependents of the men and women who passed away
due to injuries sustained in support of missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
While these legislative accomplishments are significant, we
must continue to provide the needed oversight while addressing
the shortfalls of existing education programs to assure that
student veterans receive their benefits in a timely manner
without delay or undue hardship.
To take another step toward that goal today, I hope this
hearing can focus on several critical issues related to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill program.
The ongoing effort to successfully implement the Long-Term
Solution (LTS) to ensure that the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) information technology (IT) systems are
sufficiently robust to efficiently manage the program, the
current status of the program as we begin the fall 2010 school
semester, and a discussion of what changes need to be made to
the program in order to better meet the needs of eligible
veterans.
Some of you may be aware that yesterday the full Committee
successfully passed H.R. 5360, the ``Housing, Employment and
Living Programs for Veterans Act of 2010,'' otherwise known as
the HELP Veterans Act, which is fully paid for without placing
a cost burden on the taxpayers.
This bill seeks to provide a number of important
improvements to VA education benefits, including increasing the
flight training allowance for chapter 30 recipients;
reauthorizing and extending the recently expired veteran work-
study program; and increasing the amount of reporting fees
payable to educational institutions that enroll veterans
receiving educational assistance.
I look forward to advancing this bipartisan bill as soon as
time on the House floor is identified. I also look forward to
working with my colleagues to consider other legislative
proposals that seek to address the current needs of our
Nation's veterans.
One such legislative proposal is H.R. 5933, the ``Post-9/11
Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010,''
which was introduced by Congressman Walt Minnick. I know
several of our witnesses have referenced this legislation today
and I look forward to learning more about how the proposals in
that legislation, as well as those included in similar and
related legislation, could potentially impact the Post-9/11 GI
Bill program and its implementation.
I would now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Boozman, for his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 44.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate the
excellent testimony submitted for this hearing, especially the
administrative issues raised by the schools.
It is clear that while not perfect, the level of benefits
paid to veterans and the schools on their behalf is excellent.
Unfortunately, administration of those benefits has not met the
same standard, because as VA and our staff noted in several
meetings before passage as part of the defense supplemental,
the program is significantly more complex than any of its
predecessors.
Despite some early missteps, I am fully aware of the
efforts that VA staff had put into developing the Long-Term
Solution, and I thank and appreciate them for their work.
One of the basic difficulties is the wide variation in how
public institutions in 50 States and the territories are funded
and managed and how that impacts VA's implementation of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
We are now entering the second year of the program and I am
very concerned about issues surrounding the management of
overpayments.
VA's basis position is that the veterans are responsible
for returning any overpayment to VA and that schools should
send overpayments to the veterans and the veterans send them to
the VA. This seems to be an unnecessarily bureaucratic process
that also entails significant opportunity for less than optimal
results.
We are also hearing about difficulties when schools send
money directly back to VA, as well as VA's concerns about how
some schools do not identify the veterans whose account should
be credited for returned overpayments and the resulting
attempts by VA to collect overpayments from veterans.
Perhaps, Madam Chair, it is time for a temporary moratorium
on chapter 33 collections until VA and the schools get the
rules for handling the overpayment straightened out.
Again, we appreciate our witnesses today and look forward
to the testimony.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 44.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Before we proceed I would like to ask unanimous consent for
the Honorable Walt Minnick of Idaho to be allowed to
participate in today's oversight hearing at a point in time
which he may be joining us.
Hearing no objection so ordered.
I would like to welcome all of our panelists who are
testifying before the Subcommittee today.
Joining us for the first panel of witnesses are Ms. Faith
DesLauriers, Legislative Director for the National Association
of Veterans' Program Administrators (NAVPA). She is accompanied
by Ms. Margaret Baechtold, Director of Veterans Support
Services at Indiana University. Also joining us on this first
panel is Dr. Alan Merten, President of George Mason University,
who is representing the American Association of State Colleges
and Universities (AASCU).
In the interest of time and courtesy to all of our
panelists here today we ask that you limit your testimony to 5
minutes, focusing your comments and recommendations on areas of
priorities in your written testimony.
The entire written statement that you have submitted to the
Subcommittee has been entered into the record.
Ms. DesLauriers, we will begin with you. Welcome, and you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF FAITH DESLAURIERS, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS' PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS; ACCOMPANIED BY
MARGARET BAECHTOLD, DIRECTOR, VETERANS SUPPORT SERVICES,
INDIANA UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
VETERANS' PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS; AND ALAN G. MERTEN, PH.D.,
PRESIDENT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
STATEMENT OF FAITH DESLAURIERS
Ms. Deslauriers. Thank you and good afternoon Chairwoman
Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Subcommittee.
Accompanying me today is Margaret Baechtold, Director of
Veterans Support Services at Indiana University.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
and for the opportunity to share the concerns and
recommendations of veteran program administrators, as well as
that of the population they serve regarding education benefits.
In keeping with the three areas that you asked for
information, the concerns that NAVPA hears from veterans
regarding their education benefits are that students pursuing
their education through distance learning should have the same
eligibility for housing stipends as students attending what is
defined as in-residence training.
Retired and separated veterans who earned and are otherwise
eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill have voiced their concern
and extreme disappointment in being denied the ability to
transfer their entitlement to their dependents.
Veterans have also voiced their concern that the ability to
pursue their educational endeavors are restricted to that which
is deemed by Congress to be traditional.
Students don't understand why VA distinguishes between
tuition and fees with different caps for each rather than
combining them into one maximum.
Students are concerned that VA remains unable to credit
refunds made by the schools to their accounts, and veterans are
receiving letters from the Debt Management Center (DMC),
although those students are current with their payment plans
negotiated with DMC, in an effort to repay the emergency
advance payments for fall 2009.
This particular issue is effecting their credit and their
ability to gain credit.
Feedback from NAVPA, the schools that administer the GI
Bill on campuses, there is a critical need for consistent
guidance as to the correct procedures for returning or
refunding payments, as well the assurance that those funds
returned to the VA will in fact be credited to the veteran's
debt or overpayment.
Many students who access their education benefits are
placed at a financial disadvantage because of VA's policy to
count class enrollment sessions versus enrollment sessions
during a standard semester.
It is imperative that there be an efficient communication
mechanism between schools and the VA.
Inconsistent guidance to schools among and between the
regional processing offices (RPOs) and education liaison
representatives (ELRs) continues to be problematic.
Responsibilities associated with the program have increased the
processing time for each claim at school level approximately
300 percent, yet institutions continue to be compensated at the
rate of $7 for each student enrolled.
We request that that be changed, it has not been changed in
over 30 years.
Reinstate the customer service units at each of the RPOs,
specifically to work with the veteran program administrators.
Improvements to chapter 33 that NAVPA believes are needed,
the GI Bill must remain an earned entitlement and not become a
need-based award. Leave other scholarships, grants, et cetera,
out of the equation.
Eliminate the inequities among rates paid to eligible
individuals for attendance at schools of different types;
public, private, foreign, graduate, undergraduate, resident or
non-resident.
There should be an elimination of annual State tuition and
fee maximums. That would improve timing of certification,
processing, and payment and accuracy of those payments.
Tie the living stipend to the training time for all forms
of course delivery and reduce the minimum training time
requirement to half-time, rather than more than half-time.
And, correct the rule that makes it impossible for a
reserve component member eligible at less than the 100 percent
tier of chapter 33 to combine Federal tuition assistance, which
is first pay, and chapter 33, which is second pay, in any way
that would cover all of their charges. Clarify non-duplication
of Federal programs.
NAVPA members fully support legislation that would expand
the student work study program and overpayments created by the
eligible individual as a result of a reduction or termination
in enrollment but, should be recovered from entitlement.
NAVPA recommends elimination of the multiple levels of
eligibility as it relates to required active-duty service.
Amend chapter 33 to expand educational and training
opportunities such as on-the-job training/Apprenticeships and
other viable and previously approved vocational training and
continue to work toward providing equity in benefit and
simplicity in rules regarding eligibility, payments, and the
overall administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to participate in
this hearing, to discuss current problems affecting veterans,
as well as educational institutions, and to recommend solutions
on behalf of our Nation's veterans, servicemembers and their
dependents, and the National Association of Veterans' Program
Administrators.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or the Committee
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DesLauriers appears on p.
46.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for your testimony.
Dr. Merten, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF ALAN G. MERTEN
Dr. Merten. Madam Chair Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member
Boozman, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name
is Dr. Alan Merten and I am President of the George Mason
University.
Today I represent and present the perspective of the
American Association of State Colleges and Universities related
to the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
programs. Thank you for holding this hearing.
When the Post-9/11 GI Bill was first introduced it, was
anticipated that colleges and universities would see a 20 to 25
percent increase in enrollment of veterans. At Mason, we saw a
30 percent increase in fall 2009 enrollment and a 79 percent
increase in spring 2010.
One of those newly enrolled veterans introduced President
Obama, Vice President Biden, Senator Webb, Senator John Warner,
and Secretary Shinseki at George Mason University when the bill
was introduced nationally on August 3rd, 2009.
Your Committee asked that we address three areas. Concerns
from veterans regarding their educational benefits. Second,
feedback from institutions about implementation and
administration of benefits. And three, improvements in the
program that we suggest are needed.
GI Bill benefits have been historically provided to the
veteran student. As Vietnam-era veterans, my wife and I
received benefits in this manner.
The creation and implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
benefit program altered this procedure by having the Veterans
Affairs issue the funds directly to the institution after a
certifying process.
The compressed timeline that the VA faced in implementing
this program created a difficult situation for many schools and
for veterans.
One of the major and universal issues faced by veteran
students is related to delays. While there have been some
delays in processing benefits, most benefit delays have
occurred in reprocessing and in payment of other allowances,
such as housing and book stipends.
Because of the changes in how the benefits are issued,
student veterans rely on their school officials to provide the
guidance and information they need.
The VA has often been slow in providing information beyond
the basic essentials regarding benefits to institutions and
veterans.
It is important to remember that the school official is not
a VA employee, and in many cases does this additional task as a
collateral duty.
As a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, the workload on these
staff members has increased to a point where many schools, like
us at George Mason, have had to hire additional personnel to
handle not only the certification process, but the billing
process as well.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill has also presented higher education
institutions with a number of challenges that include student
veterans with academic, mental health, and physical disability
needs.
The academic include veterans that require remedial
education before starting college, some because they have lost
skills in the years since high school and others because they
were not college-ready in the first place.
A recent RAND report indicates that one in five Post-9/11
veterans will suffer from combat stress or cognitive issues
such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic
brain injury (TBI). Few schools, and even fewer student health
centers are equipped to address these needs.
In addition to the mental health issues U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) indicates that there are over 36,000
servicemembers who have been wounded in action. Some of these
wounded warriors have catastrophic combat injuries that are not
typically found on campuses where disabilities have a far
different meaning.
More effort to understand how institutions operate and work
with the Federal Government must occur.
The VA interpretation of separating tuition and mandatory
fees related to a cost of an education is just but one example.
The higher education community refers to tuition and mandatory
fees as a single amount, not two separate ones.
Student veterans change majors, drop or withdraw from a
class, and have other circumstances that require the certifying
offer to review and re-certify the veterans benefits.
To further complicate the return of funds in an overpayment
situation, the VA established two procedures. One to use when
classes that have not begun, another after classes have begun.
Contrast this process with the return of Federal financial
assistant funds under the Higher Education Act. In these
situations institutions recalculate the eligible amount and
adjust accordingly. If a student has received an overpayment,
the overage is returned to the Federal Government, if the
student is eligible for additional funds, the school requests
the additional funds.
Our recommendation is including asking Congress to clearly
define the benefit amount for an individual. This entails,
among other things, eliminating the separate factor for tuition
fees.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill, which establishes a highest in-State
rate for the academic year, fails to take into account tuition
increases at institutions during the year. Some changes require
to incorporate and to accommodate these tuition and fee
increases that are midyear.
Another issue that Congress should address for the veteran
is related to providing a basic allowance for housing, a basic
housing allowance for nearly 70 percent of veterans who receive
some of their education online.
Basic housing allowance benefits are only awarded now to
veterans receiving their post-secondary education within the
classroom setting.
Finally, we ask Congress to consider requiring the VA to
collect and publish complete and timely data on the Post-9/11
GI Bill, including data on customer service by the VA to
veteran students and institutions.
Institutions like George Mason University stand ready to
work with the VA to provide and to ensure an ease of access for
veterans enrolling in post-secondary education.
The good news is that the VA has increased its outreach to
schools to work collaboratively and openly with the higher
education community to understand how the VA processes could be
improved to better and more effectively assist veteran
students.
The higher education community is prepared and eagerly
looks forward to working collaboratively with the VA to
streamline this program and reduce the confusion to
institutions, the VA, and more importantly the veteran.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Merten appears on p. 50.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Dr. Merten.
We have a pending vote, but we are going to see if we can
get through the questions that the Ranking Member and I have,
at least for the folks on our first panel.
We have in past Congresses, and in this one, tried to
grapple with the issue of other scholarships and other
resources that veterans have available, and maybe even before
they became eligible for education benefits with the VA they
had taken out loans or had been eligible for Pell Grants.
I think you both mentioned it in your written testimony and
referenced it briefly in the testimony you just provided, how
do we keep the GI Bill from becoming a needs-based award? Is it
related to VA being the last payer as it relates to how that
effects other types of financial aid the student may receive.
Dr. Merten. From a perspective of President, and I also
have to remember my wife always comments when someone asks me a
detailed question, don't expect Alan for the detailed answer,
he is just the President.
But from our perspective I would view and as a former
beneficiary of the GI Bill this benefit is an earned benefit,
pure and simple, and if there are other benefits that the
veteran receives, you know, that is a separate issue, but I
would hope this doesn't become a need base. This is a special
benefit. It is not merit, it is not need, it is an award, and I
think--hopefully that doesn't change.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Ms. DesLauriers.
Ms. Deslauriers. I believe it should not be reduced by any
other financial assistance, that the GI Bill should not be
reduced by any other assistance that is, the student receives
regardless of where it comes from unless it meets the
definition as currently defined in the law that it is another
active-duty benefit.
So I think everybody agrees that if the student gets
tuition assistance because they are on active duty, they should
not be able to duplicate that benefit with their GI Bill.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Ms. DesLauriers, in your estimation,
do you have any clear sense of what has prevented the VA from
being able to credit refunds made by the schools to the
students' accounts.
Ms. Deslauriers. No, ma'am.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Mr. Wilson may shed some light
on that for us.
Ms. Deslauriers. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Then we have the issue that we have
heard about and many of our colleagues have heard about
directly from constituents or those from the State Approving
Agencies that are working with some of these students. This is
the issue of the overpayments and the difficult position that
many veterans are being put in. If either of you could
elaborate on the problems that you are seeing from your vantage
point. I think Ms. DesLauriers you had mentioned when they get
their letters from the Debt Management Center or other
collection agencies that are actually calling and hounding our
veterans who relied on the information and the calculation of
benefits. I mean, I have heard a lot from some of my
constituents, and it is effecting their credit, their access to
credit, as you mentioned.
Do you want to elaborate at all and from your vantage point
of some of the problems that the students you are familiar with
are experiencing.
Ms. Deslauriers. I have one particular case, and I didn't
bring the student name with me, but I would be glad to provide
that for you, because she did authorize me to do that should
you ask.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Ms. Deslauriers. But the one case was a recent case of a
student who actually went into--she got the emergency money in
advance last year and she was paying her payments faithfully
every single month like was agreed, and all of a sudden she
started getting these letters from the Debt Management Center
indicating that her credit, it had been turned over to all of
these various credit agencies, and then she got notice from her
credit card company, they canceled her credit card. She could
no longer use her card. And I believe that she did speak with
her representative about it, and just by happenstance she ran
into him at a particular town meeting and was able to talk with
him, and I believe that he would address that, but those are
the kind of situations, and that is not just unique to my
campus.
Apparently something happened just recently--and I am sure
that Mr. Wilson can identify what could have happened in the
system that caused that to happen--but just in general when the
student has a debt then they are going to be turned over to the
collection agency, and they get letters to that effect.
Well the matter of fact is there is no debt. The school has
returned the money, it is just not being identified as having
been returned.
And I will tell you that one of the other issues is that
even the schools are sending checks to DMC and they are not
being cashed, they are actually going void, and then our checks
then become void, we have to stop payment on them, that costs
the schools money to stop payment on those checks and reissue
again. We have had that happen more than once with the same
student where the check is 90 day, 90 days, and it never was
cashed. So we don't really know that until we realize that our
accounts are not balancing.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Merten, you mentioned the problem of the ancillary
fees, and all of the problems associated with that, with them
occurring and then they are not there. And Ms. DesLauriers,
again, similar things.
I guess, as we have dealt with this it seems to me like,
and I would really just like your opinion, it seems like the
current situation that we are in really isn't workable. Do you
agree with that? I mean----
Ms. Deslauriers. Yes, sir.
Dr. Merten. Yeah, I particular--I mean your comments
before, it is time to step back a little. I mean here we have
something we have to do. I believe as a Nation we have this
obligation, so we have to do it.
Now if we have to do it there is really--if you want the
three players, there is the veterans, there is the
institutions, and there is it is Federal Government, Veterans
Affairs.
We have to ask ourselves what is--what are we trying to
accomplish and then what is the role of each of the three? And
I think in many cases we didn't do that, and now we have to do
it.
And if we--you know, it ain't rocket science, and it is
just--I think there is just things that weren't thought of
particularly how we as institutions operate and then how--and
what the requirement of the veteran--the returning veteran is
having enough difficulty getting used to college, and to add
these information burdens on it is unthinkable.
Mr. Boozman. Yeah. No, I agree, and we appreciate your help
in helping us sort that out, and we have had enough lapse in
time now. It is not like the law was just passed, we have given
it time, we have worked through a couple cycles, and so we have
experience.
So I guess the only comment I would make, Madam Chair, is
that you know, again, this is just something that we have to
pursue, and as you are, and I appreciate your leadership in
doing this. That we have to bring it to a head in working with
individuals like this and the rest of our panel, working with
VA that is also working so hard to get this done. Hopefully we
will be able to arrive at a solution.
Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. All right, thank you, Mr. Boozman, and
I know you made a recommendation in your opening remarks about
a temporary moratorium on the collection efforts.
I think as you and I both know, we knew we were going to be
in for some headaches, despite our support of this important
benefit, because a lot of these things weren't completely
thought through in the desire to move forward as quickly as
possible to deliver the benefits. And as we do that, we need to
recognize that we should be holding harmless the veteran.
We will work with the VA and with the institutions, while
at the same time protecting the taxpayer. We all know from
talking to our constituents that the veteran isn't being held
harmless, and in a time of terrible downturn in the economy and
tight credit, the last thing we need is for veterans credit
scores to be effected as they are trying to get through, invest
in themselves, and in many instances providing for their
families.
We are going to have to head down for votes and then we
will resume the questioning with Mr. Teague when we return for
the first panel. We may have a second round of questioning for
any further comments or questions that the Ranking Member or I
may have. Okay.
The hearing will be in recess.
[Recess]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We appreciate everyone's patience as
we have wrapped up the last votes for the day, so we can move
ahead with the remainder of our hearing.
Ms. DesLauriers, in the essence of time I may have some
additional questions that I will submit in writing that you can
take for the record, Mr. Boozman may as well, and so we are
going to move to our second panel.
But before we do and as you are taking your seats I do want
to recognize Mr. Minnick for statement. Welcome. Thank you for
joining us on the dais today.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WALT MINNICK
Mr. Minnick. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and
Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for allowing me to
join this hearing today.
I would also like to thank our panel of representatives
from the American Legion, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America, Veterans of Modern Warfare, and the Veterans of
Foreign Wars.
I thank them for their military service and for the insight
into what must be done to improve and simplify the new GI Bill,
which this Congress passed with strong bipartisan support last
year.
I would like to make a few brief remarks about the
importance of this bill, H.R. 5933, and the ``Post-9/11
Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act.''
In 1945, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs conducted
a lengthy hearing to review the effectiveness of the first GI
Bill, which was intended to give returning World War II
veterans a college education in return for their service in
saving the Nation from foreign aggression.
As we are doing today, Members of that Committee listened
to veterans' groups request upgrades to the first version of
the bill so that the benefits could be extended to things like
vocational education and correspondence courses. And now, two
generations later, we are doing the same thing today.
Just as the World War II GI Bill was upgraded to help
educate what is often referred to as the greatest generation,
we must upgrade and improve the new GI Bill to make it workable
so it can fully satisfy the educational needs of a new
generation of returning veterans.
As a veteran myself from the Vietnam-era, I have many
friends who volunteered to serve in that war so they could go
to college after they left the military and with their GI
benefits to obtain the education necessary to launch into
successful professional careers.
Having listened to many veteran service organizations and
veterans from my home State of Idaho and elsewhere, I have
introduced H.R. 5933 to offer the comprehensive improvements
needed to make the new GI Bill fit the needs of this
generations returning veterans.
To provide a brief example, students enrolling in an
excellent private college in my district, Northwest Nazarene
University in Nampa, Idaho, will directly benefit from this
bill in several ways.
By raising the maximum tuition cap to $20,000 per year H.R.
5933 will significantly increase the tuition benefits available
for veterans attending Northwest Nazarene, and other excellent,
but expensive, private colleges.
The bill will also afford a living allowance to veterans
opting to pursue their degrees online, a benefit they were
previously denied.
It will also reimburse travel costs for distance learners,
and includes a new $1,000 allowance for increasingly expensive
student books, both hard copy and electronic.
The bill will also make educational benefits available for
those veterans electing to pursue vocational education or other
technical training.
My offices in Idaho and Washington have listened to stories
shared by veterans who have been unable to take full advantage
of the new GI's benefits, benefits Congress intended to confer
with last year's legislation. Many others have had their
benefits reduced or unnecessarily limited because of the effect
of regulations imposed under the Bill.
To fulfill the promise we make to today's young people who
volunteer to put their lives in harm's way to serve in the
military and preserve our way of life, we must provide them
with the education they need after their military service to be
successful in today's high tech world.
This bill makes the corrections to last year's landmark GI
Bill required for us to redeem that promise.
In closing, I would like to thank Chairwoman Herseth
Sandlin for her support in this effort and very much look
forward to working with her, Chairman Filner, the Ranking
Member, and my Republican colleagues in moving this bill
through to passage in the remaining days of this Congress.
Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared Statement of Congressman Minnick appears on
p. 45.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Minnick, and I thank
you for your hard work and your efforts not only with this
Subcommittee and the full Committee, but working with a number
of our veteran service organizations, and clearly with your
constituents who have had concerns and have faced some barriers
in fully accessing the education benefits that were authorized
in the last Congress and what we can do the make the
improvements. I thank you and I thank you for joining us today.
I would now like to invite the second panel to the witness
table. Joining us on our second panel of witnesses is Mr.
Donald Overton, Jr., Executive Director for the Veterans of
Modern Warfare (VMW); Mr. James Wear, Assistant Director,
National Veterans Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States (VFW); Mr. Robert Madden, Assistant Director,
National Economics Commission of the American Legion; and Mr.
Tim Embree, Legislative Associate for the Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America (IAVA).
Thank you all for being here at the Subcommittee and we
look forward to your testimony.
Again, your written statements have been made part of the
hearing record, and so we ask that you keep your remarks to 5
minutes.
Mr. Overton, we will begin with you. You are now recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF DONALD D. OVERTON, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
VETERANS OF MODERN WARFARE; JAMES D. WEAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE
UNITED STATES; ROBERT MADDEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ECONOMIC COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; AND TIM EMBREE,
LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF DONALD D. OVERTON, JR.
Mr. Overton. Thank you. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking
Member Boozman, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity, on behalf of Veterans of Modern
Warfare and our National President, Mr. Joseph Morgan, we thank
you for the opportunity to present an update on the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
My name is Donald Overton and I currently serve as
Executive Director for VMW.
Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VMW members
across the Nation have been afforded the opportunity to pursue
educational endeavors at varying institutions of higher
learning, yet, far too many have been left behind.
It became readily apparent that this historically
significant legislation had a multitude of unforeseen
limitations. Hopefully, this Committee, along with your
colleagues in the 111th Congress, will correct these
limitations and ensure the maximum effectiveness of the most
generous investment in veterans' educational benefits since the
end of World War II.
H.R. 5933, or GI Bill 2.0, as it has been referred to,
remedies a multitude of concerns espoused by our student
veteran members. These would include the opportunity to pursue
vocational, apprenticeship, on-the-job training,
correspondence, and flight training educational programs; full
GI Bill credit for full-time National Guard service, to include
full-time title 32 Active Guard Reserve; a housing stipend for
distance learners, or those studying less than full-time;
Yellow Ribbon benefits to certain National Guard and Reserve
personnel members; and an equivalent book stipend for active-
duty students.
We are however concerned by certain language found within
the legislation. Our primary concern may be found at section
11, the proposed elimination of the cost of living allowance
for chapter 30, Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) recipients to afford
a cost of living allowance for chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill
recipients. Taking benefits from one class of veterans to pay
for another is an unjust policy consideration and should not
have been proposed. We urge you to eliminate this from any bill
that goes forward.
Given the prescribed effective date of August 2011, we
believe this will afford the VA and school administrators,
ample time to train and prepare for the adjusted benefit
package, which will also assuage what has been a primary
concern of school administrators, the lack of communication,
and training time by the VA.
Our Nation owes veterans much more than blood money,
especially to our veterans who have been disabled in service to
our country.
The central event in their readjustment process is being
able to secure gainful work at a living wage. Without a major
cultural transformation within the Department of Veterans
Affairs as prescribed by H.R. 3719, the ``Veterans Economic
Opportunity Administration Act of 2009,'' the most well
intention chapter 33 legislative remedies may be doomed to
failure.
H.R. 3719 establishes in the Department of Veterans Affairs
a Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration to be headed by
an Under Secretary for Veterans Economic Opportunity. It will
put under one roof the following VA programs. Vocational
rehabilitation and employment; educational assistance;
veterans' housing, loan, and related programs; veterans'
entrepreneurship; and homeless veterans.
This bill also would establish as an interagency committee,
the Department of Veterans Affairs-U.S. Department of Labor
(DoL), as well as the Small Business Administration Joint
Executive Committee on Economic Opportunity to recommend to the
secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Labor and the administrator
of the Small Business Administration strategic direction for
the joint coordination and sharing of efforts to promote and
administer veterans economic opportunity programs, as well as
overseeing the implementation of those efforts.
Unfortunately, we have seen time and again the VA's failure
to properly implement the benefit programs within their
purview. These failures have been particularly pervasive within
the Veterans Benefits Administration. It is imperative that
during this era of cultural transformation within the VA, under
Secretary Shinseki's bold leadership, that the Veterans
Economic Opportunity Administration be created.
Removing these relevant programs from the antiquated and
over-burdened Veterans Benefit Administration will ensure the
viability of veterans' economic opportunities for their
futures, a just reward from a grateful Nation.
Madam Chairwoman, VMW again thanks you for this opportunity
to express our views, and will be pleased to respond to any
questions you or your colleagues may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Overton appears on p. 56.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Overton.
Mr. Wear, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JAMES D. WEAR
Mr. Wear. Chairman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman,
and the Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 2.1
million members of the VFW and our Auxiliaries, we would like
to thank the Subcommittee for giving us the opportunity to
testify today on the veterans' concerns regarding their
education benefits and improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The VFW is very proud to have worked with this Subcommittee
to pass the Post-9/11 GI Bill in July of 2008. A generation of
veterans is now better equipped to seek higher education, with
hundreds and thousands of veterans in schools across the Nation
directly benefiting from the dedication, work, and leadership
of this Subcommittee and its staff.
Last year, VA had a quote, ``Spring 2010 GI Bill Benefit
Processing'' Web site. It was used to track their processing of
education enrollments during the 2009-2010 academic year. There
is no Web site to track the payment of educational benefits
during this 2010-2011 academic year.
VFW suggests the same type of Web site should be set up by
VA to track the processing of both chapter 33, Post-9/11 GI
Bill, and non-chapter 33 education payments made during this
academic year of 2010-2011.
VA is to be commended for having already processed over
150,000 chapter 33 enrollments, but VA's educational workload
reported this past Monday that there is 173,000, almost
174,000, non-chapter 33 enrollments still pending.
We believe that the VA needs to focus on not only chapter
33, but also on the timely processing of non-chapter 33
enrollments, Montgomery GI Bill, AEP, et cetera.
There are additional improvements that can be made by re-
examining the Post-9/11 GI Bill with an eye toward simplifying
and strengthening the benefits it provides. We offer a number
of suggestions to improve, simplify, and strengthen the
legislation with the goal of ensuring equitable benefits for
equivalent service.
The VFW offers its strong support for H.R. 5933, the
``Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of
2010.''
The VFW believes a number of changes can be made to the
Post-9/11 GI Bill to adjust the needs of today's
servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Many of these
changes are reflected in the Bill.
Of the many positive changes in this legislation, the
provisions that would allow Guard and Reserve members to count
active-duty service under title 32 towards chapter 33
eligibility is perhaps the most important. This change will
credit these men and women for their services in securing our
Nation's borders and airports, cleaning up the Gulf, saving
lives and property after natural disasters, such as Hurricane
Katrina. Making sure the Reserve component receives equitable
benefits for equivalent service is a top VFW priority.
To further strengthen the benefit, the legislation would
also eliminate the State-based payment cap, replacing it with a
guarantee that chapter 33 benefits will fully cover the cost of
any public undergraduate or graduate program in the Unites
States.
Further, it offers a dollar for dollar match up to $20,000
per year for all approved non-public institutions of higher
learning, IHLs, in the United States and foreign IHLs.
The VFW also supports providing housing stipends for
veterans pursuing a program of education at a foreign IHL, at a
half-time rate of training, through distance learning, and
utilizing the chapter 31 vocational rehabilitation program.
This legislation looks to expand the GI Bill to include on-
the-job training and apprenticeships.
The original GI Bill provided training for apprenticeships
and vocational training for World War II veterans. We believe
the Post-9/11 GI Bill should also provide our current veterans
with the same opportunities to seek careers in skilled trades.
These programs represent the most effective direct
employment programs available to our Nation's newest veterans.
Many veterans have transferable knowledge and technical skills
acquired in the military that gives them a head start on
earning a technical education that would help us re-energize
our economy.
The proposed change to the lump sum payment for books,
supplies, equipment, and other educational costs for
individuals on active duty pursuing a program of education is
also supported by the VFW.
This legislation will establish a process allowing a
veteran to take multiple licensure and/or certification tests
and that there would be no charge to the veterans entitlement
for these tests as long as they did not exceed $2,000. Again,
the VFW supports this.
By streamlining processes and opening new avenues to
education and training, veterans will be better equipped to
make their ambitions a reality.
Once again, thank you for hearing the voice of the VFW and
its members. We look forward to continuing to work with you to
improve the lives of America's veterans and their families.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you or the Members of your
Subcommittee may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wear appears on p. 58.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Wear.
Mr. Madden, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MADDEN
Mr. Madden. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Boozman for
allowing the American Legion to give its views on the
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Last fall, the number of veterans receiving delayed
payments rose by the tens of thousands. VA did not have enough
staff to take on the overwhelming task of processing Post-9/11
GI Bill claims on their antiquated system.
Measures were taken to increase productivity, including
hiring additional claims processors, mandatory overtime, and
having the VA Central Office also process claims.
One year later where are we? While the VA has made strides
in processing claims efficiently, the American Legion still
receives calls and e-mails from veterans and their families
about the financial burden they are forced to undergo due to
the delayed payment of housing allowance.
Yes, VA does have the updated IT system up and running, but
we still continue to receive information from the field that
veterans are forced to make drastic decisions in their
financial planning to make ends meet until they receive their
payment.
Just last week, I received multiple e-mails from student
veterans making note of the following issues with VA. One,
initial processing is very slow. Two, unable to get a person on
the phone to physically talk to about their issues. And three,
the amount of funding initially allocated was incorrect and
took time, long lengths to rectify.
Communication also seems to be a constant concern. RPOs
give schools one policy while another RPO gives another school
a different policy setting up veterans and their families for
failure.
If a veterans benefit are not processed correctly, they are
forced to navigate a maze of VA bureaucracy and departments
that don't talk to each other, VA Education Services and VA
Debt Management Center, and until these issues are rectified,
sometimes taking months, the veteran has to survive without
their monthly living allowance.
The American Legion consistently receives calls and e-mails
about the undue burden, the slow process of GI Bill payments,
and how it adversely affects them and their families. Veterans
are incurring undue debt to manage the time between payments,
and when they finally do receive those payments, many aren't
sure if they are correct.
Yes, the new IT system should allow veterans to self-
navigate their claim in December of 2010, but until then how
many veterans need to go through the stress and burden making
life changing decisions just to go to school.
This is an earned benefit that is designed to be a viable
transition for veterans to continue with their education and
make it a successful transition to employment. Veterans who
might suffer from PTSD and TBI need to have a hassle-free
transition. Going to college is a path to success, and if we
make this process harder for them, we are doing them a
disservice. This cannot continue on.
There are four additional issues that the American Legion
would also like to address. Housing allowance for distance
learners, full funding of title 32 Active Guard Reserves,
vocation and technical training correspondence and flight
training, and the transferability for those who have already
retired.
The American Legion has organizational resolutions which
advocate for these issues to be addressed. The American Legion
is excited to work with this Committee on getting these
measures passed and see equity brought to veterans and their
families.
The American Legion currently is the ardent supporter of
H.R. 5933 and looks forward working with the Committee to
getting this passed.
I thank you for the opportunity to give the American
Legion's position, and look forward to working with the Members
of the Subcommittee on veterans education. I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Madden appears on p. 60.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Madden.
Mr. Embree, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TIM EMBREE
Mr. Embree. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and Members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America's, nearly 200,000 members and supporters, thank you for
allowing us to testify at this critical hearing on the status
of the Post-9/11 GI Bill and recommended improvements.
My name is Tim Embree, I am from St. Louis, Missouri, and I
served two combat tours in Iraq in the United States Marine
Corps.
Our work on the new GI Bill is not done. Even though over
340,000 students have taken advantage of this historic new
benefit, tens of thousands of veterans are still waiting for
their chance to earn a first-class education.
Whether these students are pursuing vocational or distance
learning programs or are serving full-time in the National
Guard, too many young veterans can't take advantage of these
new GI Bill benefits, and many others already using the new GI
Bill have had their benefits cut by initially complicated
regulations in chapter 33.
In order to complete our work on the new GI Bill, IAVA
recommends swift passage of H.R. 5933, commonly referred to as
the new GI Bill 2.0.
H.R. 5933, introduced by Representative Minnick and co-
sponsored by Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, and supported by all
the veterans groups on this panel, will ensure that all student
veterans have access to the new GI Bill and will assist the VA
in delivering those benefits in a timely manner.
Over the past year, nearly one million people have visited
IAVA's new GI Bill Web site. We have provided direct help to
thousands of veterans trying to navigate their GI Bill
benefits, and we have trained hundreds of schools on the ins
and outs of the new GI Bill.
Our daily interactions with student veterans and schools
have revealed many concerns regarding the VA's handling of the
new GI Bill.
We do want to credit the VA for making some significant
improvements in their handling of the new GI Bill since last
year; however, we have been cautioning student veterans to
prepare for another rough fall. IAVA is deeply concerned that
the VA has been failing to communicate critical information to
students and schools missing key Congressionally-mandated
deadlines, and is already reporting a backlog of over 190,000
overall GI Bill claims.
Student veterans should be focusing on their studies and
not having to worry about keeping a roof over their heads.
Unfortunately without the new GI Bill 2.0 and better
communication, that won't be the case.
As you will see in our written testimony, the current form
of the new GI Bill's tuition benefits are both confusing and
completely unpredictable.
For example, IAVA member, Aaron Sanvick, moved his family
from California to Minnesota in order to utilize his hard
earned new GI Bill benefits in a State with relatively high
tuition rates. Aaron could have attended a number of more
prestigious colleges, but he was committed to not incurring any
student loans, and the Minnesota rates provided just that
opportunity.
He started school in early August and wasn't initially
concerned that the VA was late publishing the new tuition rates
for the fall. However, on September 1st, exactly one month
later, when the VA published the 2010-2011 rates, Aaron was in
for a big shock. His tuition rates had unexpectedly dropped by
40 percent. Aaron and his family now owe the school an
additional $8,400 for this academic year alone, forcing him to
take out student loans to avoid being kicked out of school.
Family budgets are tight, drastic and unexpected changes
like what happened to Aaron can be extremely destructive to the
student and their family. Sadly this is the second time the
tuition rates have dropped without warning. This year is
Minnesota and last year was Florida.
New GI Bill 2.0 will not only restore Aaron's benefits, but
will ensure that this never happens again.
New GI Bill 2.0 is a comprehensive effort to address the
concerns of tens of thousands of student veterans and their
families and involves changes that are large and small.
New GI Bill 2.0 helps veterans access valuable job training
by granting Post-9/11 GI bill benefits to veterans in
vocational, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training programs.
In today's rough job market this type of training is more
important than ever.
New GI Bill 2.0 also helps initial Guard servicemembers by
granting full GI Bill credit for full-time service. This will
reward National Guardsmen for responding to national disasters
such as the BP oil spill clean up, and the over 43,000 full-
time active Guard and Reservists.
We believe that the same uniform in the same service
deserve the same benefits.
This is also a historic precedence for the new GI Bill 2.0.
One year after the World War II GI Bill passed, the 78th
Congress realized they needed to amend the first World War II
GI Bill to include veterans who had been left behind,
ironically distance learners and vocational students, and to
patch up the tuition benefit. It was actually the upgraded
version of the World War II GI Bill that is currently lauded as
one of the landmark pieces of legislation in the 20th Century.
This is why if we act now and finish the work this Congress
began 2 years ago, the Post-9/11 GI Bill or new GI Bill will be
remembered as one of the greatest investments in our country's
veterans for the 21st Century.
History has shown us the importance of investing in our
country's veteran, and IAVA applauds the phenomenal work this
Committee continues to do on behalf of our Nation's veterans
and their families.
IAVA is proud to speak on behalf of the thousands of
veterans coming home every day. We work tirelessly so veterans
know we have their back. Working together with this Congress
and the Department of Veteran Affairs we will be able to
guarantee that every veteran is confident that America has
their back.
Thank you for your time today and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Embree appears on p. 63.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Embree. Let me just
start with you. You had mentioned what happened in Minnesota
and Florida, and this is really a question for anyone on the
panel.
My recollection is that most veteran service organizations
originally supported the individual State-by-State calculations
and caps. I am now wondering in light of some of the changes
that are being proposed and some provisions in H.R. 5933, as
you rightly identify, Mr. Embree, I have become a co-sponsor. I
am all for being as generous as possible, I just want to make
this a program that is a little bit easier to administer. That
has been my concern all along as you know.
Do each of the organizations present at the witness table
today oppose or support a State-by-State cap.
Mr. Embree. Well, ma'am, thank you for the question. From
talking with the veteran service organizations--in fact we have
formed a veteran service organization working group that has
been focused on this subject for quite a while now. We talk on
a regular basis. And the reason is, is because we realize it
needs to be simplification and upgrades to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.
We feel that by including all public schools and creating a
national baseline for all private schools, it simplifies it so
folks know going into the school year as well as students--or
students as well as schools both know going into the school
year what their numbers will be. It takes away the uncertainty,
it makes it easier for the VA to process the claims, and
ideally it will make it a simple process for everyone involved.
So we feel that by making a national standardized format
instead of a State-by-State format, we think it would be easier
to implement the GI Bill.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Anyone else on the panel.
Mr. Madden. Well, speaking for the American Legion, Madam
Chairman, we believe--we are not exactly opposed to the State-
by-State, we believe that this is a better recommendation for
fulfilling the tuition and fees.
Mr. Wear. The VFW also has found such variation from State
to State that a national one would make it a lot easier for all
the veterans and the schools to know what they are going to
expect, how much will it cost.
You know, the University of District of Columbia's tuition
and fees makes it so much lower, and when you look at many
other States, there is such a difference that a lot of the
people are worried, well gee, how much is it going to be? It is
this, you know, $40, $50 a credit, a lot more at various
schools across the--all across the United States.
So we think if you can get a national one, everybody would
have the same thing going in. They don't have to worry about
it. How much more do you have to worry about besides your
housing allowance and where to live and where the kids go, and
you know, your studies? Let us focus on letting that veteran
work on his studies, minimize the other things.
Mr. Overton. Madam Chairman, on behalf of Veterans of
Modern Warfare, while we wholeheartedly support streamlining
the benefit, we do have some concern with those States that are
potentially impacted by the cap. They are very veteran densely
populated States and there is varying impact there that we
would like to see a bit of a greater statistical analysis of
how many veterans are going to be potentially impacted and what
those implications are going to be not only to the State
economies--because let us face it, there are different regional
economic concerns around the country.
So we would at least like to see some additional statistics
come out of VA to better analyze and understand the impact of
this cap system, but we fully support a streamline, and
certainly $20,000 looks like a good starting point, but once
again, you know, given that current cap structure right now,
five States, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Texas
are going to be impacted by this proposal.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Have you given some thought to one of
the contributing factors to the complexity and some of the
delays? As I understand it, or the VA is that when the State
budgets started hitting these crises points they are the
perfect storm of trying to implement this on time and the
delays that some of the State legislatures had to make as it
related to their tuition rates for that particular academic
year. Do you believe that this type of proposal gets around
that problem.
Mr. Embree. Ma'am, if I may jump in. I do think it does
shrink that problem a bit, because now we are used to--we know
that the VA has been late before issuing tuition rates and the
schools have been dealing with it. By the schools knowing--if
you are a private school you know that you are at least getting
that baseline then plus the Yellow Ribbon program so you can
budget saying I know this many students can attend, or we know
we have this much money coming in, and then we have to figure
out the difference because we are part of the Yellow Ribbon
program. Or if we are a public school we know that when your
tuition rates do come out that the VA will honor that because
all public schools will be covered. And 75 percent of students
attend public schools, and the remaining folks in the private
schools are eligible for the Yellow Ribbon under this new bill.
It actually includes all folks, not just 100 percent students.
So it does make it easier for the schools to prepare and
for the VA to also know what amounts they need to issue.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. I guess the only thing I would ask is that in
the Bill there is the elimination of the COLA for the
Montgomery GI beneficiaries as the means to fund some of the
increased benefits for Post-9/11 beneficiaries. It seems like
the Post-9/11 students already receive more in educational
assistance than those in the Montgomery GI Bill program. Isn't
that a significant problem.
Mr. Overton. And I will address that on behalf of Veterans
of Modern Warfare. We see that.
One of the things I think the ultimate end game here is, is
to begin to probably sunset some of the previous GI Bill
benefits. If we are able to make chapter 33 comprehensive and
we are able to take those components of such things as the
trade schools and these other options that individuals that are
currently under chapter 30 MGIB benefits are now eligible to
utilize chapter 33 and we begin to look that we are getting
into that era where we are at about the ten-year limitation on
MGIB beneficiaries for those individuals that are now going to
be eligible for chapter 33, I think eventually that would also
enhance VA's ability to implement if we began to phase out some
of the older provisions as long as we ensure that chapter 33
has the mechanisms in place to supersede chapter 30
beneficiaries.
There is going to be a little bit of a gray area. There are
reasons for extensions in these benefits and such, so again, we
would caution and say let us make sure that we don't create a
scenario where we have negative implications on any class of
veteran out there.
Mr. Boozman. No, and I agree, and that to me really is a
concern, because that I think really would effect a number of
individuals.
I agree with you in the sense that I think one of the
things that really in working--both sides working together to
create the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee I think really has
been a benefit in the sense of allowing us to focus on these
kind of issues versus everything getting wrapped up in the past
with other benefits. I think it really has been very helpful
and I really again praise Congressman Buyer and Congressman
Filner in getting all that worked out early on.
And likewise, I appreciate your statement in support of
looking at the VA and trying to make it such that we can, you
know, again, make sure that we are spending adequate time, you
know, on these issues. So I appreciate that.
I really don't have any further questions. I just
appreciate all that you guys do as always. The testimony is
very, very good, very helpful as always, and we appreciate you
being here. Thank you very much.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Minnick.
Mr. Minnick. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate again all of your thoughts and the hard work
you have put into this issue and the hard work you all are
going to make in getting this through the legislative process.
In thinking about that one of the key issues is going to be
the--I think all except Mr. Embree indicated they would like
some further enhancements made in the interest of equality or
dealing comprehensively with the problem, but the biggest
obstacle to the success of this legislation is going to be the
extent to which, if at all, it makes the deficit worse, and I
think it is going to be very hard in a Congress where only a
quarter of the people have ever been in the service and where
there is strong momentum I think shared by all of us here
today, that we not worsen the deficit.
If we are going to make further improvements, we are going
to have to find other places where we can cut in order to make
this bill revenue neutral.
Do any of you have constructive thoughts as to areas we
might look beyond the pay fors that are contained in this
legislation? And I would appreciate creative thought from any
of the four of you, because I know the Chair is going to have
trouble getting it scheduled and getting it approved unless we
can assure that it is deficit neutral.
So Mr. Embree.
Mr. Embree. Yes, sir, thank you for bringing that up and
thank you again for your leadership, and ma'am, for your
leadership on this bill.
As you all are well aware H.R. 5933 has a lot of built in
pay fors. We do not agree with any sort of cut to any benefits.
We do agree to some freezes by making sure those veterans are
included now in chapter 33. We feel that the language is very
important that it does that by allowing folks that are National
Guardsmen that weren't included earlier under chapter 33,
active Guard Reserve, vocational schools, on the job training,
and things like that, we feel that is a very large pay for by
shifting them over. It is not any elimination of money, that is
shifting the money with the veterans. We are trying to get
everyone under one chapter.
We also have a list of pay fors that are included that we
do think together add up to quite a few dollars. Closing the
part-time loophole. There are a lot of veterans attending
school part-time that are eligible to receive nearly twice as
many benefits as a full-time student right now.
So the regulation created a part-time loophole, which says
that even though a part-time student qualifies for full living
allowance by taking just 1 hour extra than halftime they get
full--the burning of their entitlement is slower rate while
getting that full rate for Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).
We feel that is not a good way to spend GI Bill dollars. We
think if you go part-time you get part-time of your benefit for
living allowance, and if you go three quarters time you get
three quarters time, full-time full-time. That is going to save
a couple billion dollars over 10 years.
We also have included the active-duty loophole. Right now
there is unlimited tuition and fees to active-duty folks that
are taking classes through the GI Bill benefit. So we feel by
eliminating that that is going save millions of dollars over
those 10 years.
So by adding it all up we do believe that it is going to be
a large--it is going to take a large chunk away from the cost
of the bill, and we are also willing to look at other ways to
pay for it. I think the veteran service organizations are very
excited about finding a way to make this cost neutral to get it
implemented as quickly as possible before the October recess.
Mr. Minnick. Thank you. Mr. Madden.
Mr. Madden. I have to concur with Mr. Embree. We believe
that the pay fors that are included within this Bill should
possibly make this a neutral bill.
Obviously as an organization, we are not--we are opposed to
making or cutting any benefits that are currently being
received by veterans and their families.
Mr. Minnick. But if we have to make further cuts to make it
revenue neutral when we get a Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
score will you work with us in doing that.
Mr. Madden. We would love that opportunity to work with
you.
Mr. Minnick. Thank you.
Mr. Madden. Thank you.
Mr. Minnick. I yield back.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Minnick.
Yes, CBO gives us headaches, and we are going to keep
working to trying to work through that issue. The Post-9/11 GI
Bill had a pretty big price tag too, but the budget situation,
the public outcry about doing something about your debt and
deficits has gotten even more severe from when the Post-9/11 GI
Bill was added to the emergency supplemental. But we are
committed to working with you on this and continuing the
communication. The dialogue that I know that Mr. Minnick's
office has had with CBO, is not going to diminish my efforts
that I undertook in the last Congress and in this one, whether
it is in a budget negotiation or elsewhere to be able to make
this a priority and find offsets. I think that the American
public wants us to pay for our priorities, and this is a
priority that we share, and so that is the battle we have to
wage over here. Until we can get on the playing field to have
that fight we have to deal with what we have currently.
Mr. Madden and Mr. Embree, you stated that you have
concerns from what you are hearing from your members, other
student veterans, about the communication of critical
information. Certainly we have heard concerns about customer
service. I have got concerns from my constituents as it relates
to some of the regionalization and the ability of either State
Approving Agency officers or others who are trying to work to
get information.
Some of you had mentioned in your testimony the inability
of some of your members that are student veterans to get
answers, get access, and concerns that even the Web site is
difficult to navigate.
Tell me a little bit more about sort of specifically what
is the information that you feel the VA is not effectively
communicating that is the most critical to the student veterans
that could avoid some of the problems that we have experienced
over the past year.
Mr. Madden. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
The incidents that I receive at the assistance director
position is every student veteran comes to me and says, I don't
even know what is going on. I call the Call Center, I get an
answer from someone, I get another answer from somebody else.
And this is not referring to the RPOs, this is referring to
specifically the Call Center. They are not getting the answer
they need. They call back 2 days later they get a different
answer. They call back 2 days later they get a different
answer.
So I believe with the new IT system and them allowing them
to self-navigate their claim, knowing where their claim is
during the process, being able to see that, I believe that will
further educate them.
Obviously we are advocating for more outreach from the VA
on a constant basis, but we--I think that will fill some of the
disparity there with the new IT system and giving them the
ability to see where their claim is at that current time.
Mr. Embree. Yes, ma'am. One of the major issues we found
this past August, which was a similar issue we had last year
was a tuition and fee rates, the chart coming out late, and
that makes it impossible for students, as well as schools, to
budget for the following semester.
Now we do understand that some of the States were late
turning the information into the VA, so what we would like to
ask for is the VA to post the chart incomplete. Post what State
information they do have and then turn to the VSO community use
us as an asset to pressure the States to get those tuition and
fee rates turned into the VA so the VA can post those.
We want to remind the VA that we want to work with them on
this. They have done a much better job, they are improving, but
we need more communication and transparency with the veteran
service organizations so we can help them so if they have a
situation where they have a partial chart they can post what
information they do have and we can help them gather the rest
of the information.
Mr. Wear. Also when a veteran calls there should be a
method to keep track of on this day they were told (a), 2 days
later they are told (b). At some point you have got to be able
to pull up Jim Wear's record and say on Tuesday I told you
this, you call on Thursday or next Tuesday it is still that. So
there has to be some way where when the VA get a call from a
veteran they have to be able to pull up that person's
information. What did you ask? Here is what we told you. So
that they have a more consistent response, but centered on the
veteran.
Whether they call a Call Center or an RPO, those all should
go back to the veteran so when that veteran calls in again they
are going to go to that record, not necessarily, you know, here
is your question, oh, well here is our best guess or here is
our answer.
It would be better if they focused on what the veteran had
asked and use that as a tracking mechanism, the go back to that
point so that they can get that veteran, here is what we told
you. Well, okay, it has changed, but at least they would know
what the veteran had been told and should be able to then say
yes, no, be a little clearer on focusing bringing everything
back to the veteran.
Mr. Overton. And briefly, Madam Chairwoman, if I could just
address bringing us back to the concept of H.R. 3719 and the
establishment of the fourth arm within VA, creating that what
we look to do from the DoD/VA interface with a seamless
transition, we really need to look at that across the board.
Right now Labor has great programs and the DoL Vets program
under Assistant Secretary of VETS Jefferson, they do great
things, but there is no collaboration between these agencies.
We have a lot of great programs out there, so finding a way
to get these interagencies working together, and hopefully at
some point also bringing the House Veterans' Affairs Committee
and House Armed Services Committee back together again to begin
addressing this as that seamless transition issue.
There is grave concern over even the SPAWAR concept,
because once again we are looking at a DoD/VA interagency
agreement that has been broken in the past. So are we going to
be stuck in the same situation where DoD didn't provide VA with
the necessary resources to fully implement and we end up with a
he said she said game again in the future.
So we are concerned about that, but hopefully we can look
at creating this arm and having accountability with the new
Under Secretary bringing all those programs under a common
umbrella allowing it to start from the Military Entrance
Processing station all the way through with this electronic
record for life that then takes the individual through active
duty, through the transition process into the economic, you
know, whether it be education, going into small business, we
could create really I think the proper mechanisms to succeed at
this and really have some cost saving measures as well.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, thank you. I just have one final
question, just a point of a clarification,
Mr. Madden, from you testimony.
You stated that there are reports of veterans and their
family members losing their future payments instead of the $750
reduction the VA promised for obtaining the $3,000 emergency
payment. Can you just explain that a bit further for me.
Mr. Madden. Can you ask the question one more time? I am
sorry.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes. In your written testimony you had
stated that there are some reports from veterans and their
family members about losing future payments instead of the $750
reduction the VA promised for obtaining the $3,000 emergency
payment.
Mr. Madden. Originally they were told that they were going
to lose their future payments as opposed to taking the $750
out, and that is what I was told. So if that is wrong I
apologize, but----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Oh, no, I am not saying it is wrong,
The staff and I weren't entirely clear on----
Mr. Madden. Okay. I would be more than happy to get back
with you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So if you could take that for the
record.
Mr. Madden. Certainly.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin [continuing]. And explain a little bit
more some of the reports that you are hearing about.
Mr. Madden. Certainly.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
[Mr. Madden subsequently followed up in a letter, dated
October 19, 2010, which appears on p. 90.]
Mr. Madden. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, thank you for the testimony, the
ideas, and recommendations. I think that Mr. Overton, you used
the appropriate term of unforeseen limitations. Some were
foreseen, some were unforeseen limitations, unintended
consequences, a complex program and compressed timetable.
We just want to make sure that as we look at the types of
upgrades that are necessary to meet the needs of all eligible
veterans that we are taking the opportunity, as I think you all
recognize, of streamlining and simplifying the program in a way
consistent with moving toward the Long-Term Solution as well
and not missing the opportunity as we also seek to enhance the
benefits to serve more individuals and their families.
Thank you for your testimony, thank you for your service to
our Country and your ongoing service to our Nation's veterans.
Thank you.
I now invite our third panel to the witness table. Joining
us on our third panel is Captain Mark Krause, Department of
Veterans Affairs Program Manager, Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Center (SPAWAR) Atlantic, and Mr. Keith Wilson,
Director of Education Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Wilson is accompanied by the Honorable Roger Baker,
Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology at the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
Gentlemen, welcome back. I know you missed us as much as we
miss you during August, but we are looking forward to the
updates that you can provide the Subcommittee, as well as
comments on the testimony of our prior panels and questions
that the Ranking Member and I may have for you this afternoon.
Mr. Krause, we will begin with you. Again, written
statements have been made part of the record. We have heard a
lot from our first two panels as it relates to not just sort of
the ongoing state of affairs in implementing and administering
the Post-9/11 GI Bill, the progress that many of the witnesses
have identified that has been made to ongoing problems that we
know persist.
This Subcommittee has been very active in our oversight of
the administration of the new program, we know how important
the Long-Term Solution is. I believe Mr. Madden in response to
my last question identified that we hope this will alleviate
some of the problems in the lack of communication or some of
the critical information that some of the veterans have been
experiencing in their ability to navigate a system that I think
we hope will alleviate some of the other problems that we know
have been harder to rectify.
Mr. Krause, I will turn it over to you first, and you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF CAPTAIN MARK KRAUSE, USN (RET.), U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PROGRAM MANAGER, SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE
SYSTEMS CENTER ATLANTIC, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ROGER W.
BAKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY AND
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND
TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARK KRAUSE
Captain Krause. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin,
Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the current status of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Chapter 33
Long-Term Solution.
My testimony will address the current status of the Long-
Term Solution, critical milestone completion, program
challenges, future updates, and the ability of the Long-Term
Solution to support future policy changes.
The VA/SPAWAR Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution team delivered
and deployed releases 1.0 and 2.0 this year on the planned
critical milestone dates.
All chapter 33 veteran claim examiners have been
transitioned from the interim solution to the Long-Term
Solution to process chapter 33 educational benefits claims.
Since January 2010, the team has accomplished the
following. Enabled the VA to deliver chapter 33 benefits via a
centralized Web-based system that implements a flexible rules-
based engine. This will allow the VA to implement future
changes and enhancements to chapter 33 policy and legislation
in a more timely and efficient manner.
The VA/SPAWAR Team successfully implemented Agile
methodology within the VA and have established an effective,
engaged, and collaborative governance process to prioritize
capability development, resolve issues and make timely
decisions.
We have leveraged our Agile approach to implement
additional functionality as reprioritzed by the VA. Examples
include the Fry Amendment, Letter Generation, Fiscal Year 9/10
retro-active housing rate adjustments, significant interim
solution data errors, data conversion, switching from the
planned interface with the financial accounting system to the
older benefits delivery network financial system, developing a
user authentication solution due to the unavailability of the
benefits enterprise platform, and assuming an expanded role in
interface development with VA legacy systems.
Over the last several months, the VA/SPAWAR Chapter 33
Long-Term Solution team has continued to peel back the onion to
uncover and define more detailed chapter 33 requirements and
processes. This discovery revealed a number of factors that
increased the complexity and scope required by the Long-Term
Solution.
A summary of these discoveries included automating business
rules and streamlining the process to adjudicate claims were
more complex than originally anticipated. Converting and
remediating data conversion errors from the interim solution
into Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution was more challenging than
planned. Enhancing existing VA systems required to provide data
to the Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution has proven more difficult
than expected.
In the upcoming months, Long-Term Solution development will
focus on providing system interfaces and capabilities to
automate and streamline the claimant institution enrollment
validation process, as well as initiating and providing chapter
33 payment instructions to the Department of Treasury.
To date, all critical milestones have been met. We
delivered on release 1.0 on 31 March, delivered on release 2.0
on 30 June. The Long-Term Solution functionality planned for
each critical milestone was based on a limited understanding of
the requirements 14 months ago. On a biweekly basis, every 2
weeks at each sprint review, new requirements, user stories,
functionality, and changes in scope are discussed and re-
prioritized thru a detailed VA governance process.
Since then, the Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution Agile process
has continued to better define program requirements, revealing
additional technical complexities during releases 1.0 and 2.0
and resolving those complexities.
Due to the 4 extra weeks that were required to complete the
data conversion and housing rate adjustment and the complexity
of the Benefits Delivery Network (BDN), or the financial
interface, we expect to deliver the VAONCE, which is
essentially the VA online certification of enrollment data,
interface on 30 September for user testing, and do not
anticipate delivering the complete functionality planned for
release 3.0, which is automating the financial transaction/
authorization process currently required to authorize payments
for claims and a financial interface with the BDN financial
system, until the December 2010 time frame. The requirements
for release 4.0 scheduled for December 2010, are still being
defined.
Future updates to the Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution will be
determined by VA leadership.
Chapter 33 Long-Term Solution is a rules-based system that
will support future changes to the program, some of which we
heard requested briefly today, such as the expansion of
benefits, changes to payment procedures, and changes to policy
and law.
The bottom line up front, Madam Chairwoman, is by the end
of December we will have delivered the major functionality we
promised, we will have the financial interface done, we will
have the major automation of the financial processes that we
promised done. We have another team now working on a veterans
self-service capability in the E-Benefits portal. We are
leveraging our folks, and we are also working on that project
to deliver essentially to be able to view payment history, a
claim status, and right now we are looking at the possibility
of getting this by the end of December to allow you to change
your personal information.
So essentially, we still want to declare victory, as Mr.
Baker has so often told us in that at the end of December and
January on this project.
And Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I am
pleased to answer any questions you or any of the other Members
of the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Captain Krause appears on p.
70.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Krause.
Mr. Wilson.
STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth
Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to provide you an update on VA's implementation of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
My testimony will address the current status of education
claims processing for the fall 2010 enrollments and critical
milestones for VA's Long-Term Solution.
Joining me today are the Honorable Roger W. Baker,
Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, and Mr.
Mark Krause, VA Program Manager for SPAWAR, who has just
discussed implementation of the Long-Term Solution.
I am pleased to report that VA has made tremendous strides
in delivering Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits in a timely and
accurate manner. We have also made significant progress in the
development and deployment of our new processing and payment
system.
As of the end of August last year, VA had processed
payments for only 8,185 students for the fall 2009 semester.
For the current fall term, VA has already processed payments
for more than 135,000 students. The average time to process an
enrollment certification in August was 10 days, down from 28
days 1 year ago.
In June and August, we successfully deployed release 2.0
and 2.1 of the Long-Term Solution. Through these deployments,
we successfully converted over 600,000 chapter 33 claimant
records from our interim processing system into the Long-Term
Solution.
We also added greater functionality to that originally
planned for the Long-Term Solution. Its functionality was
expanded to enable payment of retroactive housing allowance
adjustments for those individuals eligible for the increased
rates in 2010.
Additionally, the Long-Term Solution was improved to
automatically generate letters to individuals to provide them
better information on their benefits.
The Long-Term Solution was also enhanced to facilitate
claims processing for the Fry Scholarship recipients.
VA is now processing all Post-9/11 GI Bill claims in this
new system, thereby replacing the interim system and its
associated manual job aids.
Our work is far from over, and as the Members know, we
continue to experience challenges. We have been unable to
deliver all the functionality in accordance with our timeline
we developed 2 years ago. Although we are processing all Post-
9/11 GI Bill claims in the Long-Term Solution, functionality to
automate key portions of the process has been delayed.
The interfaces with the VAONCE Certification of Enrollment
and the Benefits Delivery Payment System previously scheduled
for September 30th, 2010, are now scheduled for October 30th of
2010, and December 31st, 2010, respectively.
These delays are due to increased functionality needed to
improve immediate claims processing capabilities, challenges
with conversion of the data from the interim system, and a more
complete understanding of the complexities of the interface
with BDN.
Additionally, by working with our key stakeholders, we
continue to learn what is needed and make positive changes. We
are working to improve our debt-management processes, ensuring
that refunded payments are accurately credited to overpayments,
and ensuring that overpayments are handled in an effective
manner, thus minimizing negative impacts on students' pursuit
of their educational goals.
Our guiding principle for system development and deployment
has been, and will continue to be, to ensure that the
deployment schedule and delivered functionality do not have a
negative impact on our ability to pay veterans.
Additionally, building upon previous outreach strategies,
the Post-9/11 GI Bill has been featured at the September 10th
and 11th NASCAR events in Richmond, Virginia, in addition to
other outreach activities we have incorporated. The race
weekend was officially called the Post-9/11 GI Bill Weekend at
Richmond International Raceway. I will talk about this more in
our Power Point presentation.
While recognizing we will not meet all of the key
milestones in our aggressive development and deployment
schedule of the LTS, VA is nevertheless proud of its
achievements in overcoming significant challenges and
successfully transitioning from an inadequate temporary system
to a state-of-the-art processing system that promises to
deliver significantly improved automation and consistency.
VA has shown dramatic improvement over the last year in its
ability to deliver timely and accurate benefits derived from
this important legislation.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my oral statement. As
requested we have provided more detail in the form of a Power
Point presentation. I would like to move to that unless you or
other Members have questions at this point.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. That is fine. About how long is the
PowerPoint?
Mr. Wilson. I can make it as fast as you would like. It is
about 15 minutes normal speed.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let us try to do it in 5 to 10
minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. The first slide. Next slide. This slide
provides a good graphic representation of where we are at from
a claims processing perspective.
As I mentioned, last year at this time we processed and
paid about 8,000 claimants. We have paid, this chart shows
150,000, it was prepared more recently than my oral testimony,
so we are in very good shape from a claims processing
standpoint.
And I want to emphasize though that we do not consider
ourselves out of the woods. We are at the high watermark for
the fall enrollment period, there is a lot of work that
continues to need to be done, but we are in obviously much
better shape than we were at this time last fall.
Next slide.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. We have been able to accomplish this success
through a lot of hard work from our staff at the regional
processing offices. Our daily productivity for chapter 33
claims the 9.5 claims per person per day, and for chapter 30
claims it is 25.4 claims per day, which does exceed our current
goal. Basically we are processing in excess of 10,000 claims a
day at this point. Beginning last fall, we were processing
about 2,000 claims a day.
Next slide.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. This slide provides some basic information
concerning where we are at in terms of payments. We have paid
$4.7 billion to about 340,000 individuals or to their schools.
We have numbers there that show the split between private for
profit, private non-profit, and public institutions. We have
also in that total number we have paid $41.7 million under the
Yellow Ribbon program.
Next slide.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. This slide, it is a little bit busy, but it
provides a general overview of the functionality that was
originally envisioned for our four core releases versus the
functionality that was ultimately delivered.
Basically at this point we expected to have the
functionality that would allow us to interface with our systems
thereby allowing us to begin automating the process. As I
described in my oral testimony, those are due to be released
now in October and December.
Next slide.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. The causes of the LTS delays, I believe I
talked about that in my oral testimony, so I won't go over that
in detail again.
One of the specific questions we were asked, Madam Chair,
is how can Congress help? And there are two points that we have
made on this slide.
Number one, legislative action could potentially harm our
ability to continue to develop the Long-Term Solution, so we,
as has always been the case, look to continue being actively
involved with you as we are.
Also in terms of timeline what we have put on this slide is
looking at a potential of 24 or 36 months to incorporate
significant changes, if significant changes are called for in
our IT development. We can talk about that more or Mr. Baker
can talk about that more in detail if you chose to do so.
Next slide.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. Outreach. Outreach has been a major part of
what we have been doing over the last year. We have developed a
major outreach strategy to begin not reaching just the veterans
that we have been reaching already and the servicemembers, but
their family members as well. We have undertaken that in a
multifaceted approach, we have had a lot of information on the
Post-9/11 GI Bill appear in print media, radio, et cetera, we
have also developed some national events, worked with national
organizations in a way that we haven't done before, and we are
very pleased with what we are beginning to see. We think there
is a lot of potential, but I will talk about that in a little
more detail.
Next slide.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. Recently at the Air Guard 400 in Richmond over
last weekend, we partnered with TRG Motor Sports, Kevin Buckler
and TRG Motor Sports, as well as Land and Castle, the driver of
car 71, to sponsor a Post-9/11 GI Bill car in the race. We
sponsored the car in that race, we also sponsored the events at
the weekend.
We have had a tremendous amount of interest in that. We are
still collecting initial information concerning getting our
message out. The folks both at TRG, as well as Land and Mr.
Castle, worked very hard. They have a lot of connection with
the program themselves and showed a lot of commitment to
getting the message out.
Our Web site traffic for new people coming to our Web site
has been up 11 percent since that event. So obviously we got a
lot more work to do, we are learning a lot, but it is one more
potential for us to get information out on the program.
Next slide.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. NASCAR. We have been asked why NASCAR? For
NASCAR the demographics are very good for us. About a third of
the 75 million NASCAR fans are veterans servicemembers or have
close family members that are, so it worked very well for us.
Just anecdotally, my staff that was at the event, probably
90 percent of the people that approached us were in those
categories. It was a very good demographic for us. We also had
a lot of coverage, potential coverage with the viewership.
The Air Guard 400 was broadcast live on ABC, as well as on
the Armed Forces network across the globe with about 6.6
million viewers worldwide.
Next slide, please.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. We also at the Air Guard 400 kicked off a
series that we are calling ``My Story.'' We have put together a
series of short clips with the generous donation of time from
some of our veterans who have gone on camera and told us what
the impact of the Post-9/11 GI Bill has been on their lives.
Those were broadcast live at the event. We have all four of
them done now and will be using those for public service
announcements, other opportunities to get the message out. They
are very, very good.
Next slide, please.
[Slide]
Mr. Wilson. We have also been fortunate enough to work with
an individual by the name of Mike Rowe, who hosts a show called
Dirty Jobs on the History Channel. Mr. Rowe has done a public
service announcement for us. He focuses largely on the trades.
Has a very high interest in the trades. He was very generous
with his time, and we have had some success with that as well.
So we are very pleased with that as well.
Next slide.
That concludes the presentation. I would be happy to answer
questions that you or other Members may have, Madam.
[The prepared statement and referenced slides of Mr. Wilson
appears on p. 71.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Let me start,
if you can go to slide eight. Sorry, we don't need to go back.
This is the slide as to what Congress can do.
As you know, I think our Subcommittee counsel and staff
have worked closely to try to keep this Long-Term Solution on
track, and in some of the proposals. I know that there were
early efforts to try to make some changes, and we understood
the compressed timetable you were on both short term, long
term, but in my estimation some legislative action actually has
the potential to positively impact the full deployment of the
Long-Term Solution. Would you agree.
Mr. Wilson. I think the potential exists depending on what
that would be, yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. So the legislative action has
the potential to either positively or negatively impact.
Mr. Wilson. That is an accurate statement, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Can you give me an example of
what a significant system change would be in any of the pending
proposals to make improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Mr. Wilson. I would like to ask Mr. Baker to address that,
if he could, please.
Mr. Baker. From a technical standpoint, things that we can
change that allow us to just change the rules engine can be
done very quickly. Minor things that allow processing or that
say in this case pay a certain amount versus a variable amount.
Those sort of things will be very quick.
If we have to go in and add an entire new feature to the
system, some substantial change in the way that the system
anticipates processing the benefits, that would require getting
into the software and making code changes. That is going to
take quite a bit longer from our perspective.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Are you able to provide a concrete
example of that significant system change from any of the
pending bills, particularly H.R. 5933.
Mr. Baker. I apologize, I am not familiar enough with the
bills to do that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Mr. Baker. I don't know if Mr. Krause or Mr. Wilson can.
Captain Krause. Ma'am, one of the----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. How about the Senate version? How
about the S. 3447.
Captain Krause. From our point of view, I have talked to my
engineers and it is all about the data. I have a lot of
experience with Reserve databases and Reserve systems from the
Navy side. A lot of their data systems are 28, 30-year old
Cobalt systems, they don't play nice in a new environment, so
it is all about if we can get the data interfaces and get
access to that data, and then if the data is clean.
I know VA struggled for years with DoD data and not being
clean and having to--I know Keith has told me stories about
having to struggle with that. Well the Reserve data has its
problems too. So it is all about the data. We just have to work
with the National Guard folks and the Reserve folks to make
sure that we access the right database, the right authoritative
sources, and get that data and then clean it up.
So not an overwhelming challenge, but it will be a
challenge.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So it is more the concern that I think
Mr. Overton identified as it relates to the ongoing concerns
between sharing of information between DoD and VA into this new
system than it is any perhaps proposed legislative change that
could cause more of the problem.
Captain Krause. Right. I mean the Reserve systems and the
active-duty systems at least in Navy and the Army and the Air
Force, they have all been separate and they need to come
together and be integrated, which was what DIMHRS (Defense
Integrated Military Human Resources System) was all about. So
essentially that has to happen. And because it hasn't happened
yet I think the VA is going to have to, and myself supporting
them, our team supporting them, we are going to have to go out
and find those data sources and work with them.
So it will just add another complexity to it, but it is
handleable.
Mr. Wilson. If I can add to that a little bit. The degree
of change matters a great deal I believe from our perspective,
and I will try to come up with a couple of examples.
If we were to create a new category of entitled
individuals, for example, and they did involve Guard service,
for example, that could potentially be fairly complex, because
we wouldn't even know, for example, whether the eligibility
information we need to determine entitlement is actually
captured somewhere. So that would be an issue.
Looking at a little differently though and saying that we
create a different tier of benefit. We want to create, for
example, a 15 percent tier of benefit. That would be different
because we would be getting all the feed information the same,
we would just be adding another slice to the pie.
So just as an example something like that might be easier
to absorb.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. On page three of your slide when we
have over 150,000 of the Chapter 33 veterans paid for 2010 that
includes both from the spring and from the fall semester.
Mr. Wilson. Those are unique fall enrollments for this
current enrollment period. That was the information I captured
on this slide.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Do you have any estimates on how
many of those 150,801 might have received overpayments.
Mr. Wilson. I don't have that information available, but I
would be happy to look at it for the record and provide it for
the record.
[The VA subsequently provided the following information:]
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is unable to determine
the number of overpayments associated with the 150,801 Veterans
paid under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill when slide 3 was prepared. However, the
average number of education overpayments created on a monthly
basis for all education programs in FY 2009 was 9,576. That
average, not considering advance payments for chapter 33, rose
to 23,505 for FY 2010. The average monthly dollar amount of
overpayment established during FY 2009 for all education
programs was $10,040,925. That average rose to $26,360,574 for
FY 2010.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill program pays students' tuition and fees,
a books and supplies stipend, and, in most cases, a monthly
housing allowance. In the event a student withdraws from
classes after these payments are made, an overpayment occurs in
each of these benefit payments. Because the amounts paid to and
on behalf of Veterans under the Post-9/11 GI Bill are
significantly higher than in previous programs and include
tuition and fee payments covering the entire term, the number
and the amount of overpayments have increased.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Or at least look at the trend----
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Because this is, as we have discussed,
a significant problem and we would like to see some improvement
as it relates to dealing with that problem.
And that leads me to the question that came up from
Ms. DesLauriers, and that is this issue of veterans who
participated in the 3,000 emergency payment last November and
then they entered a repayment plan and were automatically sent
to Debt Management Center after 180 days. And why is this
happening? How are we going to fix this problem? And will these
veterans' accounts be cleared from the Debt Management Center.
Mr. Wilson. They will be cleared. We are aware that there
are situations where that is occurring. When we are made aware
of those situations we put those individuals directly in
contact with the Debt Management Center and we work it out
manually on a case-by-case basis, but it should not be
happening as a category of cases, and we are working hard on
that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Because of all these concerns, what are the
impediments to implementing a temporary moratorium on the
chapter 33 collections?
Mr. Wilson. There are some technical challenges with doing
that. I understand the interest in doing this from a conceptual
perspective. We have had some initial discussions within VA on
that. We do have technical concerns as to whether or not we
could make what would be needed would be code changes and
whether we could make those without creating additional risk
within the system.
Mr. Boozman. And again, I have the same concerns as the
Chair, the question that she brought up and we will probably
want to send some additional questions over, but I guess really
the bottom line is we have the current overpayment process, and
the question is, how do we adjust that? How do we fix it to
ensure that veterans for whom schools who return funds to the
VA are not subjected to the collection efforts?
And you mentioned that, but I guess, again, I pose the
question again just for emphasis on how important this is. I
mean this is something that we just simply have to get fixed
and cleared up. And so whatever efforts that we need to expend
in that way, it is just--I want you to know how important we
all feel like. That just simply has to be fixed.
Mr. Wilson. Dr. Merten did a very good job I think of
laying out the challenges and the different players, and he
laid out three different players involved with this, VA and the
schools and the student, and I can't disagree at all with what
he said. I believe he is right on point.
I would argue though that there is actually more players
than that involved within VA and within the schools. There are
entities within those establishments that are involved with
different points of the process as well. Within the schools,
you have the finance offices and the certifying officials that
often are not in the same location, may or may not, you know,
be working well together. The same is within VA. We have the
Debt Management Center involved, we have the regional
processing offices involved, and then you have the student
obviously involved in the entire process as well.
Every time there is a change in enrollment, for example, a
school will have a certifying official send us a change in the
enrollment, report the change of enrollment at some point
during that person's process workload, separate from that the
finance office will be refunding money, not necessarily at the
same time it is being reported to VA, and then within VA we are
processing that work as it comes into the RPO, crediting it,
having that information connected with the Debt Management
Center, and again, the veteran involved with all of this, and
it happens every time there is a change in enrollment.
There is obviously thousands of certifying officials,
thousands of debt management cases. There are a lot of cooks in
the kitchen, and from my perspective that is the core of the
problem, is there are a lot of people involved in something,
and it is very difficult.
We are working very hard, the schools are working very
hard, there is just a lot of moving parts in this.
Mr. Boozman. Again, thank you all for being here.
In follow up, we probably have some other things that we
would like to ask, and then perhaps maybe we could have some
sort of a deadline as to when they get back in regard to this,
you know, the true problems in implementing some sort of
temporary whatever.
But, you have kind of sketched over that as far as the
problems, but I guess we would really like to know
specifically, what, because the reality is we have just got to
fix this problem.
So if you can get back to us and staff with some more
concrete things I think that would be very helpful.
Mr. Wilson. I would be happy to do that. We have had a
series of meetings with schools. Just yesterday we received the
latest documents referring to our meetings and we are in the
process now of setting up another group of meetings. So we
would be happy to do that.
[The VA subsequently provided the following information:]
Question: What are the specific problems in ensuring a
consistent and consolidated message to schools and students
about education benefits?
Response: We are committed to providing the best possible
service to our veterans. As part of this commitment, VA has
employees who are responsible for maintaining direct contact
with participating schools to ensure that a consistent message
is communicated. VA's education liaison representatives (ELRs)
are the primary points of contact for school officials. ELRs
have a wide range of responsibilities in support of education
benefits programs and work closely with school officials to
inform them of changes in VA policies and procedures.
VA provides written policy guidance to all four Regional
Processing Offices (RPOs) and conducts uniform training on a
regular basis to ensure all RPOs and employees at the National
Call Center are receiving the same information. In addition,
RPO conference calls are conducted to address any training,
policy, or claims processing issues.
VA continues to send representatives to professional and
educational conferences to discuss the Post-9/11 GI Bill, hold
training for school certifying officials who work with veterans
at schools, and update the GI Bill Web site to provide the most
comprehensive information available.
Mr. Boozman. Good. Thank you very much.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Krause, if the critical milestones that were previously
discussed in past Subcommittee hearings were set over a year
ago, why are we just now in the process of defining release
4.0?
Captain Krause. Madam Chairwoman, throughout this project
we have used the Agile methodology and we have built as we go.
We had high level requirements when we started a year ago, but
we never had the detailed requirements. We literally do them in
many cases a month to 3 weeks in advance. That is how the Agile
process works. We get the sprint planning session together, we
get the subject matter experts together, we define the user
stories, get them detailed enough so the developers can build
them, and then in 2 weeks they have a tested developed product
that they show the subject matter experts, they like it, and
then we deploy it at the next milestone.
But about a year ago, we came under Mr. Baker's Project
Management Accountability System (PMAS). It is his system where
we do deliveries at least every 6 months--in this case every 3
months--and it is inflexible schedule dates, flexible
functionality requirements dates. That is how he is running his
software IT projects, that is how he is turning them around.
So on any given milestone date, you know, if we--for
instance this summer in order to protect the fall enrollment we
focused unexpectedly on going back and automating the
retroactive housing payments and doing some of the work needed
to be done to automate the date of conversion so that the claim
examiners didn't have to manually deal with hundreds of
thousands of claims, they could focus on the fall enrollment.
So from a business perspective from Mr. Wilson's
perspective it was all about protecting the fall enrollment and
making whatever adjustments had to be made to the IT systems,
even if they weren't planned, if they were out of scope we had
to do it in order to protect the fall enrollment.
So that was what this summer was about. And that is why
some of the functionality that we have delivered has been off a
little bit on the milestones, which is permitted under the PMAS
system, the Program Management Accountability System, as long
as you make the dates.
Now on this milestone three date, as we have briefed we
have going to deliver the VAONCE interface, but it is going to
be available for testing on the 30th, it won't be deployed on
the 30th, so we missed a date by 3 weeks because of some of the
additional data conversion. But at the end of October, we will
deliver the enrollment data, which will automatically populate
the screens for the claim examiners so they can do their work
more efficiently and quickly.
You know, we had to switch from going to the financial
accountability accounting system (FAS) for the VA, FAS is what
it is called, a modern system. We had to switch--in the summer
Mr. Wilson made the decision, and Mr. Baker, that we had to go
to the older more reliable BDN system. Well that was a change
and we had to adjust to that.
And so for that reason because of the additional scope we
did this summer and the concerns about the complexity of a
financial system and the importance of getting it right the
first time, we delayed it a few months to make sure we get it
right, and we do all the additional testing the VA wants to do
in November.
But as I briefed before, the bottom line is as we promised
in December we will have finished all the major functionality
that was expected from us. We will have a basis user interface
or veteran self-service capability which can be built on and
expanded, you know, part of the life cycle of the program.
So that is the plan, that is where we are. And we have
tried to keep the staff, your staff, informed as we have gone
along what the functionality of each of the releases have been.
And when we saw ourselves switching that functionality we made
sure that we did brief the staff within a week of making sure
that we had our ducks in a row before we talked to them.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Will you and your team continue to be
involved after December?
Captain Krause. We will. It looks like the plan is for us
continue to be involved after December, yes.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. As we continue to peel back the onion,
by the end of the spring semester next year, are we going to
have a complete interface functionality for the veteran?
Captain Krause. I think you will be working on this
application--I mean an application as I mentioned the last time
we met in January, these legacy systems last 30 years. You are
always modernizing them, you are always doing a change, the
users are always saying well I want this letter generation to
say this, not this. You have to update it and fix it for me.
So releases I think will be continual on this regardless of
whether SPAWAR does it or not for the next 10, 15 years. It is
part of the life cycle of a software program.
Typically 80 percent of the cost of a software application
is its life cycle cost which is the out years, which is after
you deploy.
So I think we are just going along with that plan. And as
the users come up with additional functionality they want in
the spring, somebody is going have to do that work. It doesn't
have to be us, it can be whoever does the work.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Do you believe that this VA has
acquired sufficient technical expertise throughout this process
to take it over on a day-to-day basis after December, after
May?
Captain Krause. As Mr. Baker briefed before, there will
have to be a transition. We are looking at transitioning some
of the things back to the VA sooner.
For instance, the hosting at Terremark, we are trying to
transition that back to Mr. Baker's team in the February time
frame. We are working with the technical acquisition center to
do that.
We are looking at moving the training back to the VA to get
that off our plates so the VA can take over that.
The OPTs, they will take over the operations of the system.
A lot of that is some of the minor changes.
We are interested in transitioning back to the VA. And do I
think they have the expertise. Under Mr. Baker and his
leadership I think they have acquired that technical expertise,
at least in my opinion very quickly over the last year. They
have a lot of good people that can take some of this on.
So it is all about the transition and working with Mr.
Baker to eventually do that.
Mr. Baker. If I could comment on that. We are going to
focus on having the expertise from an operations and
maintenance standpoint. We will continue to rely on SPAWAR for
the heavy development.
And I think Mr. Krause is right, by the end of this year we
will have met the objectives we laid out originally, but that
was 2 years ago, and change has occurred and there are more
things we would like to do on that system.
So we are planning right now for a smaller, but still
substantial budget for development during 2011.
I think your point relative to the Web site is spot on. One
of the things about user interfaces is it is impossible to get
them right the first time. You want to get them out, see what
the users say about them and then make changes that make them
more friendly, add functionality and add information to them.
I think we will see that occur with the Web site, we will
see that occur with the interface that the claims processors
use as we go along. I think all that is appropriate.
At some point, this system will have settled down and just
be day in, day out operations and maintenance, but I don't
think that will be until late 2011.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So any legislative changes we may make
would delay that further is your concern unless we manage this
from the legislative side effectively to do the streamlining
that may make some of the hurdles easier to get across.
Mr. Baker. The major thing I believe we would ask is in
looking at the various proposals we can do a quick analysis of
whether or not they can be implemented through the rules engine
or whether they would take software changes. And it may well be
that we can suggest things that would allow them to be
implemented in the rules engine versus a software change, so
that would be a very productive piece.
But my anticipation with any large piece of software is
there are going to be legislative changes. Just like user
interfaces, laws are seldom perfect the first time that they
are passed, and I think working together will just make the
program and software better.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I have a few other questions. But you
had said one of the things to protect the fall enrollment. Is
this part of why you did the interface with the benefits
delivery network instead of the financial accounting system,
and are you ultimately going to interface with the financial
accounting system?
Mr. Baker. We will ultimately interface with the financial
accounting system. FAS was not ready.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. When will it be?
Mr. Baker. I don't have that. As a matter of fact one of
the fundamental drivers for us to decide to go to BDN was
exactly that question. We have more ability to determine where
BDN and the Long-Term Solution are than we do on the FAS side
of the business in the vets net area. That has been more
problematic for us. I would say we are still working that area.
We took substantial risk out of the program by deciding
that we would go to BDN, because we knew it was available and
that we would go to FAS when it was available. We knew it would
be able to process these, however it is not there yet.
Mr. Wilson. Now in terms of protecting the fall enrollment
though, an important factor there was the ability to automate
those retroactive BAH payments. Because if that had not been
done successfully, we would have been in the position of having
to manually adjust 153,000 awards while we are doing that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, please continue to keep us
updated then as it relates to the FAS system, what the
transition and the interface will mean for the Long-Term
Solution. I understand why you made that decision, but I have
some ongoing concerns about our timetable and when the FAS will
be as reliable as BDN and what the improvements will be to the
long term system if you can move to the other interface, right?
Mr. Wilson. I will say one of the things I have learned in
watching the metrics of our operational systems is that BDN is
a very stable system. It has been in existence for a long
period of time.
While our long term is not BDN, I am much less, if you
will, fearful of that system today than I was a year and a half
ago when I first came in. You know, its reputation is that it
is an old system, but when you watch its performance day in and
day out it has been very stable for us. So I have come to trust
that system more than I did in the beginning.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, would you still be able to use
that system as a back up if you were to transition and
interface with the newer FAS system and there were problems? I
mean do we have that option?
Mr. Baker. They are substantially different systems.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So we have a risk whenever we make the
transition.
Mr. Baker. At some point we will cut over. I don't see that
as an unusual risk of moving from payment system A to payment
system B.
The data conversion is going to be much like what we just
went through and that will be where the risk is. Most
substantially it is in that data conversion, making sure the
payments come over correctly.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, that was part of the delay,
right? The complexity of the data conversion.
Mr. Baker. That is exactly right.
Captain Krause. Yes, ma'am. From the interim solution to
the Long-Term Solution, Mr. Baker is talking about now an
upcoming data conversion from BDN, which has a whole different
data model into a new system, FAS, which is a completely
different data model, different data structures. There will be
a similar challenge there.
Mr. Baker. But I think it should be said that we are doing
that type of conversion on a regular basis as we move veterans
from other programs out of BDN and into FAS as part of our
transition.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Baker, can you tell us how the LTS is
being used as the gateway to the VBMS and what is the
anticipated cost of the VBMS?
Mr. Baker. Of VBMS, the Veterans Benefit Management System?
Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Baker. In the spring as we looked at the compensation
and pension benefits, if you will, what I recognized was that
there are a lot of similarities between what Compensation and
Pension (C&P) does and what Education does. At that point, we
had gained enough confidence in the architecture, the rules
engine and the work flow that were being built for the
education system that it made sense to have the same underlying
architecture for the education benefits and for the
compensation and pension benefits so that some day I could have
one single system that actually just processed all benefits.
That is probably what I would refer to as the gateway from
that standpoint. In other words, I have proven it works here,
let us do the same thing again in my harder one.
The life cycle for VBMS, right now I would tell you is in
the range of $500 million. We are still defining as we go
along, we are moving to an Agile methodology for that as well.
Again, we have had success with Agile and we want to use
that on VBMS, but we are still wrestling with how to convert
what used to be a very heavy process system. The old paperless
process was built around defining all the requirements then
building it for 3 years, delivering it to the customer and
hoping they like it. We now use a much lighter process which is
what we used in the GI Bill benefit system.
From a scaling standpoint, it kind of makes sense. If you
look at the GI Bill as roughly $100 million, C&P is much more
than five times the size of education, and it is a much more
complex benefit than education.
So the life cycle cost still feels about right to me there,
but I am only doing it from a ballpark standpoint because we
really haven't nailed that directly in.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Wilson, I will just submit some additional questions
for you as it relates to the concerns that we have heard about
the Call Center, some of the inconsistencies that veterans
continue to suffer through, and a couple questions relating to
the VA's GI Bill benefits estimator versus what IAVA has put
together and how familiar you are with their calculator. And we
have just had some ongoing concerns as it relates to the
reliability of the information some of the veterans are
receiving.
But I want to thank each of you, all of our witnesses on
the panels today. I know that a lot of folks have been putting
in a lot of hard work in implementing the VA's IT systems on a
compressed timetable. I know you have had to make some
adjustments, I know you have done your best to keep us apprised
of some decisions that you have had to make to try to keep to
certain objectives that do have the veteran as the primary
focus in trying to manage expectations.
As you have made process, there is a lot more work to be
done, and the potential of other changes that we would like to
make on the legislative side, whether that happens this
Congress or not remains to be seen, but you know of some broad
interest in trying to move in that direction.
But I know it has been challenging to implement a very
complex, very comprehensive program. I know as Mr. Krause you
said that the data is the key and that is in part what concerns
us as it relates to DoD. As you said, the Reserve component
issues, and I think one of the witnesses from the earlier panel
had mentioned the need to move to sort of the life records
system, but we are a ways away from that.
We will continue to plug away and keep our noses to the
grindstone to continue to try to make progress, not just on
some of the ongoing issues as you are working with the short-
term interim solution, but what comes online with the new
releases on the Long-Term Solution.
Again, thank you all, I thank the Ranking Member and our
Committee staff, and we will take these suggestions and
recommendations from our panelists today under consideration
and continue to move this forward in a way that is good for our
Nation's veterans and their families.
Thank you, and the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
During the 110th Congress, we successfully passed the Post-9/11 GI
Bill to ensure that today's veterans are afforded equitable benefits
similar to those afforded to veterans that served during World War II.
Furthermore, with the leadership of Representative Chet Edwards of
Texas, we successfully passed the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David
Fry Scholarship to provide education benefits to the dependents of the
men and women who passed away due to injuries sustained in support of
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While these legislative accomplishments are significant, we must
continue to provide the needed oversight while addressing the
shortfalls of existing education programs to assure that student
veterans receive their benefits in a timely manner without delay or
undue hardship.
To take another step toward that goal today, I hope this hearing
can focus on several critical issues related to the Post-9/11 GI Bill
program:
The ongoing effort to successfully implement the
long-term solution to ensure that the VA's Information
Technology systems are robust enough to efficiently manage the
program.
The current status of the program as we begin the
Fall 2010 school semester.
A discussion of what changes need to be made to the
program in order to better meet the needs of eligible veterans.
Some of you may be aware that yesterday the full Committee
successfully passed H.R. 5360, the Housing, Employment, and Living
Programs for Veterans Act of 2010, otherwise known as the HELP Veterans
Act which is fully paid for without placing a cost burden on the
taxpayers. This bill seeks to provide a number of important
improvements to VA education benefits, including increasing the flight
training allowance for Chapter 30 recipients; reauthorizing and
extending the recently expired veteran work-study program; and
increasing the amount of reporting fees payable to educational
institutions that enroll veterans receiving educational assistance.
I look forward to advancing this bipartisan bill as soon as time on
the House floor is identified. I also look forward to working with my
colleagues to consider other legislative proposals that seek to address
the current needs of our Nation's veterans. One such legislative
proposal is H.R. 5933, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Improvements Act of 2010, which was introduced by Rep. Walt Minnick. I
know several of our witnesses have referenced this legislation today
and I look forward to learning more about how the proposals in that
legislation, as well as those included in similar and related
legislation, could potentially impact the Post-9/11 GI Bill program and
its implementation.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking
Republican Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the excellent testimonies submitted for
this hearing, especially the administrative issues raised by the
schools. It is clear that while not perfect, the level of benefits paid
to veterans and to schools on their behalf is excellent. Unfortunately,
administration of those benefits has not met the same standard because
as VA and our staff noted in several meetings before passage as part of
a defense supplement, the program is significantly more complex than
any of its predecessors. Despite some early missteps, I am fully aware
of the effort VA's staff has put into developing the long-term solution
and I thank them for their work.
One of the basic difficulties is the wide variation in how public
institutions in 50 states and the territories are funded and managed
and how that impacts VA's implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We
are now entering the second year of the program and I am very concerned
about issues surrounding the management of overpayments. VA's basic
position is that the veteran is responsible for returning any
overpayment to VA and that schools should send overpayments to the
veteran and the veteran send them to VA. This seems to be an
unnecessarily bureaucratic process that also entails significant
opportunity for less than optimal results.
We are also hearing about difficulties when schools send money
directly back to VA as well as VA's concerns about how some schools do
not identify the veterans whose accounts should be credited for
returned overpayments and the resulting attempts by VA to collect
overpayments from veterans. Perhaps Madam Chair, it is time for a
temporary moratorium on chapter 33 collections until VA and the schools
get the rules for handling overpayments straightened out.
I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Walt Minnick
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for allowing me to join this hearing today. I
would also like to thank our panel of representatives from the American
Legion, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Veterans of
Modern Warfare, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. I thank them for their
military service and for their insight into what must be done to
improve and simplify the new GI Bill which this Congress passed with
strong bi-partisan support last year.
I'd like to make a few brief remarks about the importance of this
process and this bill, H.R. 5933, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Improvements Act.
In 1945 the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs conducted a
lengthy hearing to review the effectiveness of the first GI Bill which
was intended to give returning World War II veterans a college
education in return for their service in saving the Nation from foreign
aggression. As we are doing today, members of that Committee listened
to veterans' groups request upgrades to the first version of the bill
so that the benefits would be extended to things like vocational
schools and correspondence courses.
And now, two generations later, we are doing the same thing today.
Just as the WW II GI Bill was upgraded to help educate what is often
referred to as the ``greatest generation,'' we must upgrade and improve
the new GI Bill to make it workable so it can fully satisfy the
educational needs of a new generation of returning veterans. As a
veteran myself of the Vietnam Era, I have many friends who volunteered
to serve in that war so they could go to college after they left the
military and with their GI benefits obtain the education necessary to
launch successful civilian careers.
Having listened to many veteran service organizations and veterans
from my home state of Idaho and elsewhere, I have introduced H.R. 5933
to offer the comprehensive improvements needed to make the new GI Bill
fill the needs of this generation's returning veterans.
To provide a brief example, students enrolling in an excellent
private college in my district, Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa,
Idaho, will directly benefit from this bill in several ways. By raising
the maximum tuition cap to $20,000 per year, H.R. 5933 will
significantly increase the tuition benefits available for veterans
attending Northwest Nazarene--and other excellent, but expensive,
private colleges.
The bill will also afford a living allowance to veterans opting to
pursue their degrees online--a benefit they were previously denied. It
will also reimburse travel costs for distance learners and includes a
new $1,000 allowance for increasingly expensive student books, hard
copy and electronic. This bill will also make the educational benefits
available for those veterans electing to pursue vocational education or
other technical training.
My offices in Idaho and Washington have listened to stories shared
by veterans who have been unable to take full advantage of the new GI
Bill's benefits. Benefits Congress intended to confer with last year's
legislation. Many others have had their benefits reduced by
unnecessarily limiting regulations.
To fulfill the promise we make to today's young people who
volunteer to put their lives in harm's way to serve in the military and
preserve our way of life, we much provide them with the education they
need after their military service to be successful in today's high tech
world. This bill makes the corrections to last year's landmark GI Bill
required for us to redeem this promise.
In closing I'd like to thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin for her
support in this effort and very much look forward to working with her,
Chairman Filner, the Ranking Member and my Republican colleagues in
moving this bill through to passage in the remaining days of this
Congress.
Thank you and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Faith DesLauriers, Legislative
Director, National Association of Veterans' Program Administrators
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Concerns NAVPA hears from veterans regarding their educational
benefits:
Students pursuing their education through Distance
Learning should have the same eligibility for housing stipends
as students attending what is defined as in-residence training.
Retired and/or separated veterans, who earned and are
otherwise eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, have voiced their
extreme disappointment in being denied the ability to transfer
their entitlement to their dependents.
Veterans have voiced their concern that the ability
to pursue their educational endeavors are restricted to that
which is deemed by congress to be traditional.
Students don't understand why VA distinguishes
between tuition and fees with different caps for each rather
than combining them into one maximum
Students are concerned that the VA remains unable to
credit refunds made by the schools to their accounts.
Veterans are receiving letters from the Debt
Management Center although these students are current with the
payment plans negotiated with DMC in an effort to repay the
emergency advance payments from fall 2009.
Feedback NAVPA has from schools:
There is a critical need for consistent guidance as
to the correct procedures for returning or refunding payments,
as well the assurance that funds returned to the VA will in
fact, be credited to veteran's debts/overpayments.
Many students who access their education benefits are
placed at a financial disadvantage because of DVA's policy to
count class enrollment sessions versus term enrollment periods.
It is imperative that an efficient communication
mechanism be established between schools and the VA.
Inconsistent guidance to schools among and between
RPOs and ELRs continues to be problematic.
Responsibilities associated with this program have
increased the processing time for each claim at the school
level approximately 300 percent yet institutions continue to be
compensated at the rate of $7 for each student enrolled in most
VA educational benefits, a rate that has not changed in over 30
years.
Reinstate the customer service units at each of the
RPO's specifically to work with Veterans' Program
Administrators.
Improvements to Chapter 33 that NAVPA believes are needed:
GI Bills must remain an earned entitlement and not
become a ``need-based award''--leave other scholarships,
grants, etc. out of the equation.
Eliminate inequities among rates paid to eligible
individuals for attendance at schools of different types--
public, private, foreign, graduate, undergraduate, resident or
non-resident.
Elimination of annual state tuition and fee maximums
would improve timing of certification, processing, and payment
accuracy.
Tie the living stipend to training time for all forms
of course delivery and reduce the minimum training time
requirement to half-time, rather than more than half-time.
Correct the rule that makes it impossible for a
reserve component member eligible at less than the 100 percent
tier of Chapter 33, to combine federal Tuition Assistance
(first pay) and Ch 33 (second pay) in any way that would cover
all their charges.
Clarify Non-duplication of a Federal program.
NAVPA members fully support legislation which would
expand the student work study program.
Overpayments created by the eligible individual as a
result of a reduction or termination of enrollment should be
recovered from entitlement.
NAVPA Recommends elimination of the multiple levels
of eligibility as it relates to required active duty service.
Amend Chapter 33 to expand educational and training
opportunities such as OJT/Apprenticeships and other viable and
previously approved vocational training opportunities.
Continue to work toward providing equity in benefit
and simplicity in rules regarding eligibility, payments and the
overall administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
__________
Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking member Boozman,
and Members of the Subcommittee. Accompanying me today is Margaret
Baechtold, Director Veterans Support Services, Indiana University. We
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and for the
opportunity to share the concerns and recommendations of veterans'
program administrators, as well as that of the population they serve
regarding educational benefits.
Concerns we hear from veterans regarding their educational benefits
Students pursuing their education through Distance
Learning should have the same eligibility for housing stipends
as students attending what is defined as in-residence training.
Veterans should not be penalized for being responsible,
disciplined adult learners, for putting their family first or
whatever reason (personal, professional, geographical, etc.)
one might have for choosing a mode of study other than that
which is strictly defined as ``in-residence'' training.
Veterans training under all other GI Bill programs receive full
benefit reimbursement for pursuit of programs through distance
learning.
Veterans have voiced their concern that the ability
to pursue their educational endeavors are restricted to that
which is deemed by congress to be traditional. This not only
restricts the method/modality by which they receive their
educational plans, but restricts their personal choice in
educational and training institutions, as well as careers.
Retired and/or separated veterans, who earned and are
otherwise eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, have voiced their
extreme disappointment in being denied the ability to transfer
their entitlement to their dependents.
Students don't understand why VA distinguishes
between tuition and fees with different caps for each rather
than combining them into one maximum, particularly for
determining the maximum payment allowed for enrollment at
private schools, out-of-state residents in the public sector,
and graduate/professional enrollments in both.
Students are concerned that the VA remains unable to
credit refunds made by the schools to their accounts.
Consequently, a debt or overpayment is created and payments are
withheld from living stipends, book stipends and kickers to
recoup a debt that does not exist. What is even more critical
is the fact that this is negatively impacting their credit
scores, credit card companies are cancelling their credit line
and in many cases veteran students who counted on the promise
of a housing allowance each month, are being evicted from their
homes for a debt that does not exist.
Veterans are receiving letters from the Debt
Management Center (DMC) stating ``The following information on
your delinquent indebtedness, along with your name and address,
was reported to a number of consumer reporting agencies''.
Although, these students are current with the payment plans
negotiated with DMC in an effort to repay the emergency advance
payments from fall 2009.
Feedback we have from schools administering education benefits:
There is a critical need for consistent guidance as
to the correct procedures for returning or refunding payments,
as well the assurance that funds returned to the VA will in
fact, be credited to veteran's debts/overpayments. Checks sent
to the VA are being held until they are no longer negotiable.
Schools are finding it necessary to track the check, stop
payment and issue another check. Often the cycle is repeated.
Even when the checks are cashed the debt is being charged to
the school rather than reconciling the students account with
the returned funds.
Many students who access their education benefits are
placed at a financial disadvantage because of DVA's policy to
count class enrollment sessions versus term enrollments
periods. This often results in a reduction of the veterans
student monthly entitlements and is contrary to the
disbursement of Title IV funds. Recommendation: Consider
changing the method of computing all credit hours earned in a
standard college term to maximize the GI Bill benefit to the
veteran.
It is imperative that an efficient communication
mechanism be established between schools and the VA. While
schools are not always privileged to the eligibility tier on
which payment will be made, there is an expectation that
schools will defer tuition and fee payments based on the
students' statement that they are eligible for Chapter 33.
Inconsistent guidance to schools among and between
RPOs and ELRs continues to be problematic.
Veterans' Program Administrators, often referred to
as Certifying Officials are the people who have the most
contact with individuals eligible to train under this newest GI
Bill. They are working untold hours to assist in the
administration of this program and to maintain compliance with
the rules governing all veterans' education programs. It is not
business as usual. The program complexities, counseling, fiscal
and reconciliation responsibilities associated with this
program have increased the processing time for each claim
approximately 300%. Institutions continue to be compensated at
the rate of $7 for each student enrolled in most VA educational
benefits. If the educational institution delivers an advance
payment check, compensation is increased to the rate of $11 for
that student. These fees have not changed since the inception
over 30 years ago; however, several programs have been added on
to the school VA veteran's program administrator's
responsibility at the institution. It is time and appropriate
for that fee, paid to the college or university, to be
increased. NAVPA recommends $50.00 per student and to eliminate
the difference in reporting fee for the certification of
advance payments. Fees should be designated for the office of
veterans' affairs for services, outreach, and professional
development.
Customer Relations/Communication continues to be
inconsistent and all too often inaccurate, regarding
information given to both the students and the schools by the
VA Call Center. Recommendation: Reinstate the customer service
units at each of the RPO's specifically to work with Veterans
Program Administrators.
Improvements to Chapter 33 that NAVPA believes are needed:
GI Bills must remain an earned entitlement and not
become a ``need-based award''--leave other scholarships,
grants, etc, out of the equation.
Eliminate inequities among rates paid to eligible
individuals for attendance at schools of different types--
public, private, foreign, graduate, undergraduate, resident or
non-resident.
Elimination of annual state tuition and fee maximums
would improve timing of certification, processing, and payment
accuracy. Recommendation: (1)Provide tuition and fee payments
for the public sector based on the actual cost (i.e. tuition
and mandatory fees) as certified by the educational
institution. (2)Provide tuition and fee payments for enrollment
in the private sector, foreign schools and for out of state/
non-residents attending public schools, based on actual cost,
as certified by the educational institution; not to exceed the
highest cost program in the public sector. That is, establish a
``national maximum'' (tuition and mandatory fees) allowed for
all education and training programs. For the purpose of
updating the National Maximum each year, it is recommended that
the effective date of the new rate be October 1 of each
academic year.
Tie the living stipend to training time for all forms
of course delivery and reduce the minimum training time
requirement to half-time, rather than more than half-time. For
example, allow 50% of the monthly living stipend for half- time
enrollment, 75% for three-quarter- time, and 100% for full-
time. Keep it simple as well as equitable--Use the Montgomery
GI Bill payment schedule as a successful model.
Develop an Education Benefits Web Portal. A web
portal will provide an efficient mechanism for information
exchange with, and access to, education systems by veterans and
other stakeholders, such as schools, state approving agencies,
etc. At minimum, provide access to Veterans' eligibility data
on VA-ONCE to verify benefits remaining, eligibility tier,
overpayments, etc.
Correct the rule that makes it impossible for a
reserve component member eligible at less than the 100% tier of
Chapter 33, to combine federal Tuition Assistance (first pay)
and Ch 33 (second pay) in any way that would cover all their
charges. This disadvantage also applies to ROTC scholarship
recipients.
Clarify Non-duplication of a Federal program. DVA
advisories concerning which programs would duplicate federal
benefits appears to conflict with current laws. A brief summary
of CFR 21.7143 (c) provides that; (1) payment of educational
assistance is prohibited for a unit course or courses which are
being paid for entirely or partly by the armed forces during
any periods he or she is on active duty; (2) payment of
educational assistance is prohibited for a unit course or
courses which are being paid for entirely or partly by the
Department of Health and Human Services during any period that
he or she is on active duty with the Public Health Service or
(3)for a unit course or courses being paid for entirely or
partly by the United stated under the Government Employees
Training Act.
NAVPA members fully support legislation which would
expand the student work study program. Allow veterans and other
eligible persons the opportunity to work in the college/
university veterans' affairs office and/or administrative or
academic departments at the degree granting institution of
higher learning in which the student is pursuing their academic
credentials. Additionally, allow them to take advantage of this
programs while enrolled at a minimum of \1/2\ time student
status, especially critical for summer sessions and other non-
standard length enrollment periods. Many veterans have not
graduated when their MGIB entitlement has expired after having
reached its 36th month. These veterans are still in school;
still have some time remaining relative to the delimiting date,
yet have no VA educational benefit to help them through the
remaining few months of school. We recommend that the VA Work-
study program not be limited to 36 months, rather be made
available to them as long as they have not reached their
delimiting date.
Eliminate overpayments--To establish an overpayment
puts unnecessary burden on the student and the Department of
Veterans' Affairs in the effort to recover the overpayment. We
are suggesting that an individual has 36 months of entitlement
under a single program and that an overpayment should not exist
until the eligible individual has used 36 months. Overpayments
created by the eligible individual as a result of a reduction
or termination of enrollment should be recovered from
entitlement.
The percentage or tier of eligibility for the Post-9/
11 GI Bill is the most complicating factor in determining
eligibility, processing claims and making other financial
awards by both the VA and the educational institutions. NAVPA
Recommends elimination of the multiple levels of eligibility as
it relates to required active duty service. The level of
benefit should be reduce to two levels, one level for a
cumulative period of active duty of 3 or more years and another
for less than 3 years. We suggest that to establish basic
eligibility, an otherwise eligible individual must serve on
active duty for 181 cumulative days following September 10,
2001, completed the initial obligated period of service and met
all other eligibility requirements.
NAVPA encourages the Secretary and Congress to amend
Chapter 33 to expand educational and training opportunities
such as OJT/Apprenticeships and other viable and previously
approved vocational training opportunities. Many veterans are
not interested in attending college, but have the skills
necessary to master a trade. Limiting training opportunities
(career options), consequently dilutes the readjustment element
of the program.
Continue to work toward providing equity in benefit
and simplicity in rules regarding eligibility, payments and the
overall administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to participate in this
hearing, to discuss current problems affecting veterans as well as
educational institutions, and to recommend solutions on behalf of our
nation's veterans, servicemembers and their dependents, and the
National Association of Veterans' Program Administrators.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of Subcommittee may have.
Prepared Statement of Alan G. Merten, Ph.D., President,
George Mason University, on behalf of American Association of
State Colleges and Universities,
Executive Summary
Concerns Heard from Veterans Regarding Educational Benefits
VA's delays and problems in implementing Chapter 33 are well-
documented in both hearing testimony and the press. Specific new
concerns are as follows:
Veteran students filling out help desk tickets on the
VA Web site are given unrelated information and directed to the
FAQ site, causing frustration
Continuing delays (2-3 months) in receipt of
Certificate of Eligibility from VA
Feedback from Schools Administering Educational Benefits
Despite implementation pressures facing the VA, VA did not make an
effort to understand how institutions operate and work with the Federal
Government. Specific examples are as follows:
VA did not take advantage of existing program models
directing federal funds to institutions on behalf of students
(e.g., Title IV programs under the Higher Education Act of
1965);
VA's interpretation of the higher education term
``tuition and fees'' caused significant confusion. The higher
education community usually refers to tuition and fees as a
single amount, not two separate ones; VA's separation of
``tuition'' and ``fees'' confused not only veteran students,
but institutions;
The VA did not issue clear, coherent, and consistent
Chapter 33 operational guidance to institutions, adding to
increased administrative burden on institutions;
VA's required fund return processes have caused
veterans to owe significant monies to the Federal Government
and do not align with the Return of Title IV Funds process
under the HEA, which does not disadvantage students in this
manner.
Needed Improvements to Chapter 33
AASCU recommends Congress consider the following:
Congress should clearly define the benefit amount for
which an individual veteran student is eligible and eliminate
the separate tuition and fee charts constructed by the VA;
Future legislation should clearly establish the
benefit equal to the established charges for the program of
education at a public institution, adhering to the underlying
tenet of the Post-9/11 GI Bill of covering the cost of public
education for veterans;
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) should be
implemented for online students due to enrollment patterns of
veterans;
Congress should consider requiring VA to collect and
publish more complete and timely data on Post-9/11 GI Bill
usage, including VA customer service data for students and
institutions.
__________
Madame Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Alan Merten
and I am president of the George Mason University. Today, however, I am
here to present the perspective of the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities (AASCU) related to the implementation of the
Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits program at its 430 institutions located in
49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands. Thank you for holding this hearing and providing the
opportunity to present this testimony. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is an
excellent, timely opportunity for veterans and their families to pursue
postsecondary education.
I would also like to note that AASCU is the contract administrator
for the Department-of-Defense-funded Servicemembers Opportunity
Colleges (SOC). The SOC Consortium is a network of approximately 1,900
colleges and universities offering educational services to our nation's
Armed Forces and veterans. In order to be included in the Consortium,
an institution must establish flexible policies appropriate for the
unique demands on servicemembers and dependents. These policies address
items such as enrollment and transfer of credit.
While national- and institutional-level data on the Post-9/11 GI
Bill program and veteran students on campus is lacking, some specific
data points about AASCU institutions serving veteran students are as
follows:
AASCU's San Diego State University, one of the many
military-friendly AASCU institutions, enrolled over 1,100
active-duty military, reservists, veterans, and military
dependents in Spring 2009;
Of the 7 brick-and-mortar campuses reported by the VA
as having enrolled the most veteran students using Post-9/11 GI
Bill benefits in 2009-10, 3 campuses (Old Dominion University,
Troy University, and University of Maryland-University College)
were AASCU members. These institutions enrolled over 5,000 of
the 12,000+ students on those 7 campuses (approximately 43
percent of enrollment), with University of Maryland-University
College alone enrolling over 3,000 veteran students;
In 2007-08 (prior to Post-9/11 GI Bill
implementation), according to the National Center for Education
Statistics, approximately 21 percent of all military
undergraduates (including active-duty, reserve, and veterans)
were enrolled at public 4-year institutions.
When the Post-9/11 GI Bill was first introduced it was anticipated
that colleges and universities would see a 20-25 percent increase in
enrollment of veterans. At Mason, we saw a 30 percent increase in our
Fall 2009 enrollment of veterans and a 79 percent increase in Spring
2010. One of those newly enrolled veterans introduced President Obama,
Vice President Biden, Senator Webb and Senator John Warner, and
Secretary Shinseki at George Mason University when the bill was
introduced nationally on August 3, 2009.
The Committee asked us to address three areas:
concerns heard from veterans regarding their
educational benefits,
feedback from institutions about implementation and
administering benefits,
improvements to the Chapter 33 program that AASCU
would suggest are needed.
Historically, GI Bill benefits were provided directly to the
veteran student. As Vietnam-era veterans, my wife and I received
benefits in this manner. The creation and implementation of the Post-9/
11 GI Bill program altered this dynamic by having the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) issue tuition and fee payments directly to the
institution after a certifying process. The compressed timeline the VA
faced in implementing this program created a difficult situation.
I would like to highlight some of the issues faced by veterans on
our campuses. The VA's delays and problems in implementing Chapter 33
are well-documented in both hearing testimony and the press. In fact,
VA has gone on record to say that its performance was not acceptable.
Thus, one of the major and universal issues being faced by veteran
students is delays. In addition to delays in processing original
benefits, many Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit delays have occurred in
reprocessing and in payment of other allowances, such as housing and
book stipends. In addition, delays of up to a year are occurring with
regard to appeals for claim re-evaluations.
Given that tuition and fee benefit payments are now directed to
institutions, veteran students rely more heavily on school officials to
provide guidance and information related to their benefits. The VA's
guidance to both institutions and veterans has been generally basic in
nature. This has frustrated both institution officials and the veteran
student population. Veteran students have informed institutions that
they find the VA Web site--which VA has heavily publicized as a way of
providing Post-9/11 GI Bill information to veterans and institutions
alike--difficult to navigate. Reportedly, VA's responses to inquiries
submitted online are often inadequate and do not address the specific
problem about which they have inquired. Students also find they cannot
get through to the VA toll-free number (a problem shared by
institutions). Institutions report that staff at the VA toll-free
hotline provide information to students that is later found to be
incorrect, which places more administrative burden on institutions.
The school official is not a VA employee and in many cases does
this task as a collateral duty. As a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
the workload on these staff members has increased to the point that
many schools like Mason have had to hire additional personnel to handle
not only the certification process but the billing process as well.
While the VA does pay schools an annual reporting fee of $7.00 for each
certified veteran, that amount hardly covers the costs. Senator Chuck
Hagel (R-Neb.) said, ``the biggest obstacle might be reintegrating
soldiers seamlessly into society,'' and he suggests that higher
education can do that better than any other institution. Higher
education can do this but it needs to be supported and equipped to
ensure this success.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill has also presented higher education
institutions with a number of challenges that many are not yet prepared
to meet. These include a number of student veterans with academic need,
mental health and disability issues.
There are academic issues that many veterans face. Some veterans
require some remedial education before starting college, some because
they have lost skills in the years since high school and others because
they were not college-ready in the first place. Some have received
their GEDs through the military. Some may benefit from first attending
community colleges whose open enrollment policies and education model
is often more conducive to adult learners.
A recent RAND report indicated that 1 in 5 Post-9/11 veterans will
suffer from combat stress or cognitive issues such as Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury. These potential student
veterans require additional support from university staff who must work
with military specific combat stress issues as the veteran attempts to
cope with battlefield experiences. Not all schools and not all student
health centers are equipped to address these needs.
In addition to the mental health issues, the Department of Defense
indicated recently that there are over 36,000 servicemembers who have
been wounded in action. Some of these wounded warriors have
catastrophic combat injuries that are not typically found on campuses
where disabilities have a far different meaning. Such injuries
represent a growing concern in higher education on how to be Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant since most institutions of higher
learning are only prepared for historic disabilities. Since this
service is mandated by law regardless of cost, there appears to be no
legally acceptable response if the institution were to fail in
providing these services.
Despite the implementation pressures facing the VA--which AASCU
fully understands--more effort on VA's part to understand how
institutions operate and work with the Federal Government should have
occurred. For many decades, programs directing federal funds to
institutions on behalf of students have existed, namely Title IV
programs under the Higher Education Act. Even a cursory examination of
these programs would have guided the VA toward a more efficient
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Further, the VA interpretation
of the higher education term ``tuition and fees'' caused significant
confusion. The higher education community usually refers to tuition and
fees as a single amount, not two separate ones; VA's separation of
``tuition'' and ``fees'' into two discrete charts, while well-
intentioned, was confusing for not only veteran students, but
institutions.
Other higher education officials have testified before Congress to
these same concerns. It is VA's seeming refusal to take into account
higher education's established operating procedures that has led to
many of the current implementation issues. While the delays above are
an administrative issue, VA has not issued clear, coherent, and
consistent Chapter 33 operational guidance to institutions. Campus
administrators must routinely address diverse issues involving veteran
students. Many of these issues are nuanced and need more than basic
operational guidance. While we understand VA's time constraints and
initial focus on getting benefits processed, unfortunately the lack of
clear and comprehensive guidance anticipating complex situations has
complicated and delayed the delivery of benefits.
Institutions have the opportunity to elect to receive Post-9/11 GI
Bill tuition and fee benefits for veteran students either
electronically or via individual checks. Institutional feedback is that
neither approach seems to be ideal. If institutions receive payments
electronically, the electronic funds transfer process does not allow
for individual annotations explaining why a particular tuition and fee
benefit is being returned to VA (e.g., a student having dropped from
full-time enrollment to part-time enrollment). If institutions opt to
receive individual checks for each veteran student, a cumbersome
reconciliation process is necessary for institutions to ensure the
correct monies are credited to veteran students' accounts.
A common concern is that administrative burden has increased
throughout the implementation of the program, mainly due to the
necessity to resolve over- or underpayments by VA. The issue of over-
and underpayment requires close examination. When students change
majors, drop or withdraw from a class, or have other life circumstances
affect their finances or attendance, the institution must recalculate
benefits. This reevaluation may result in either decreased or increased
benefit eligibility. The VA issued guidance on how to handle these
circumstances that required institutions to return all of the
originally issued benefit and start the certification process over from
scratch.
Contrast this process with the Return of Title IV Funds process
under the Higher Education Act. In these situations, institutions
recalculate benefit eligibility and adjust accordingly. If the student
has received an overpayment, the excess amount is returned to the
Federal Government. If a student is eligible for additional funds, the
school requests the additional funds. In both situations, however, the
student is not usually in a limbo state of having no funds credited to
his or her account.
If, for some reason, federal Title IV grant funds received directly
by a student (i.e., a refund of grant monies in excess of tuition and
fees) are later determined to be an overpayment and thus must be repaid
by the student, the institution can receive those funds from the
student and conduct appropriate fiscal transactions with the Department
of Education on the student's behalf. That way, the institution is
always acting on behalf of the student. However, this is not the case
with Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits administration.
VA's requirement that institutions return the entire initial
benefit amount issued has placed veterans in the position of owing
significant monies to the Federal Government. The VA is being extremely
diligent in pursuing these veteran students; however, there are
instances where funds returned to the VA by institutions were not
properly credited by the VA to individual students' accounts. These
processing issues have resulted in detrimental circumstances, as
highlighted by the document attached to this testimony (see Attachment
A).
To further complicate the return of tuition and fee funds in an
over- or underpayment situation, the VA established two different
procedures for the flow of funds. If classes have not begun, the
institution must return the funds directly to the Federal Government.
After classes have begun, VA directs that the payment--even if an
overpayment--should be issued to the student. The VA will then collect
any monies owed to the Federal Government directly from the individual.
This further complicates an already convoluted process. Further, based
on past experiences with over- and underpayments of Post-9/11 funds,
some schools are reluctant to issue a check for over $20,000 to a
student but would rather act as the responsible agent. By contrast, the
benefit adjustment process for Title IV education benefits is the same
throughout the entire academic calendar.
Given the above examples, it is difficult not to wonder whether if
VA had better consulted with the Department of Education and/or higher
education institutions during the ramp-up to Post-9/11 GI Bill
implementation, some of its 2009-10 performance failures might have
been mitigated and taxpayer money saved.
As noted earlier, Chapter 33 is a tremendous opportunity for
veterans and their families to pursue higher education; therefore, we
offer the following as suggestions to further enhance and improve the
current program.
First and foremost, Congress needs to clearly define the benefit
amount for which an individual veteran student is eligible. This
specifically entails eliminating the separate tuition and fee charts
constructed by the Veterans Administration as the means to determine
Post-9/11 GI Bill payment eligibility. The current tuition and fee
charts as constructed by VA are not only an interpretation of the
current Post-9/11 GI Bill language that we believe Congress did not
intend, but are also inconsistent with commonly accepted higher
education practices, as noted earlier.
Standard practice in most institutions of higher education is to
bill a student for tuition, required fees, and any other applicable
charges (e.g., room and board for a resident student) for a single
term. The bill is generally itemized--except at those institutions
charging a ``comprehensive fee'' that includes tuition, required fees,
room, and board--but usually not separated into one payment for tuition
and one payment for fees. Federal Title IV funds are also generally
applied to the total of tuition and fees rather than being divided into
one payment for tuition and one payment for fees.
Thus VA's interpretation of Post-9/11 GI Bill language to separate
``tuition'' and ``fees'' into two separate categories runs counter to
how higher education operates. This is not merely a semantic issue.
When the tuition and fee charts were originally issued by VA, this
method had the financial consequence of lowering Post-9/11 GI Bill
benefits for veteran students in California, where ``fees'' are
commonly used to characterize what other states call ``tuition.'' This
terminology is common knowledge in the higher education community and
to California residents. It was apparently unknown to VA. Fortunately,
public outcry from both veteran students and public and private
institutions in California--as well as Congressional concern--rectified
this problem. But VA's interpretation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill to
create these charts negatively affected veteran students and
institutions of higher education alike.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill establishes a highest in-state rate for the
academic year that fails to take into account tuition increases at
institutions during that academic year. For example, at Mason our
summer tuition rate increase was approximately 8 percent. Since this
increase was above the highest in-state rate established for the
academic year, it was not covered.
The underlying tenet of the Post-9/11 GI Bill is to ensure that
costs at a public institution are covered for a veteran student. As
such, any future legislation should clearly establish the benefit equal
to the established charges for the program of education at a public
institution. This removes any confusion between ``tuition'' and
``fees'' in different states and gives the veteran student a clearer
idea of what he or she is eligible for in advance of enrollment.
In addition, there is a notion being discussed of designating the
VA as the ``last payer'' for the veteran. While AASCU understands some
of the reasons for this notion, please understand that the idea will
not simplify Chapter 33 or reduce confusion for veteran students. Let
me be clear: Should Congress pursue this notion, it will again be faced
with rewriting this legislation within the next two years due to the
intolerable chaos it will inflict on both veteran students and program
administrators.
Even before the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Mason experienced a similar
issue with our ROTC program. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is an entitlement
for a veteran's service to the armed forces but it cannot be used in
conjunction with ROTC benefits, which are paid to a student for future
service. When we questioned this dilemma the VA stated that the student
has to choose which federal benefit he/she wishes to receive. A veteran
shouldn't have to forgo a benefit they have earned to take advantage of
another.
Another issue that Congress should address on behalf of veteran
students is related to providing a basic allowance for housing (BAH)
for online students. Currently, BAH benefits are only awarded to
veterans taking at least one course on campus. Nearly 70 percent of
active-duty servicemembers take online courses; thus, as students
transition to veteran status, they are already accustomed to utilizing
distance learning options. The lack of this benefit has resulted in
decisions creating further hardship. For example, a student who
otherwise would have taken an online course who now must travel to a
face-to-face classroom may incur transportation costs or child-care
costs that would have otherwise been avoided. Also, veteran students
recovering from service-related injuries (particularly those students
suffering from PTSD or TBI) report feeling forced to go into a
classroom to keep their BAH even though to them, a distance-learning
environment would better suit their recovery process.
Finally, AASCU would ask Congress to consider requiring VA to
collect and publish more complete and timely data on Post-9/11 GI Bill
usage, including data on customer service by VA to both veteran
students and institutions. As has been noted not only in testimony to
the House and Senate but in the higher education press and in other
media, VA's statistics related to Post-9/11 GI Bill usage and claims
processing are incomplete and confusing. Publishing more timely and
complete data would allow veteran students and taxpayers to better
understand VA's progress in administering this complex program.
Furthermore, given that this is a new program, a unique opportunity
exists for VA to use the data collected to refine and streamline its
processes and functions. In addition, it will be useful for the larger
higher education community to use the data in improving programs and
services for veteran students.
According to the American Council on Education 2009 report on
``Serving Those Who Serve: Higher Education and America's Veterans,''
only about 71 percent of eligible servicemembers use their VA education
benefits, only 6 percent use their full benefits, and on average, they
only use 17 months of a 36-month entitlement.
While many of the circumstances highlighted today are a direct
result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation process, institutions
like Mason stand ready to work with the VA in order to ensure ease of
access for veterans enrolling in postsecondary education. Many of the
issues discussed are operational in nature; thus legislative fixes are
not necessarily appropriate. Furthermore, institutions of higher
education were extraordinarily flexible and generous in the 2009-10
academic year at the request of VA when dealing with veteran students
whose Chapter 33 benefits were delayed by VA's implementation problems.
The good news is that the VA has increased its outreach to schools
and appears much more willing to work collaboratively and openly with
the higher education community to understand how the VA processes--and
their interface with higher education business practices--could be
improved to better and more effectively assist veteran students. We are
encouraged that this effort will continue and can resolve the
operational issues that have plagued implementation.
The initial unwillingness on the part of the VA to reach out to
schools hurt veteran students first and foremost. It also hindered the
efforts of higher education institutions across the country to assist
veteran students' enrollment and facilitate their success. The higher
education community is prepared and eagerly looks forward to working
collaboratively with the VA to streamline this program and reduce the
confusion to institutions, the VA, but most importantly the veteran.
Thank you again Madame Chairwoman. I look forward to your
questions.
__________
Attachment A
The Higher Education community presents the following scenarios
that lead to the return of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to the Department
of Veterans Affairs. This outline of common scenarios is provided in
response to VA concerns regarding the receipt of funds from
institutions.
1. Veteran enrolls but never attends class.
When a veteran applies for Post-9/11 benefits, the institution of
higher education must verify enrollment then complete and send the
veteran's Certificate of Eligibility (COE) to VA. Upon receipt of the
COE, VA calculates the veteran's benefit and remits payment to the
school, often prior to the start of class. Not infrequently, a veteran
will withdraw before classes begin but after payment of Post-9/11
benefits has been received by the school. This payment must be refunded
to VA.
2. Veteran's Post-9/11 benefits and other tuition-restricted
aid exceed cost of tuition and fees.
Veterans are frequently eligible for multiple types of financial
aid in addition to Post-9/11 benefits. Schools often receive other aid
for a veteran after his or her Post-9/11 benefits have been received.
When the combination of Post-9/11 benefits and other aid exceeds the
cost of tuition and fees, the excess payment must be returned to the
aid source. If we understand the proposed legislative change correctly,
VA is `last payer'; therefore the Post-9/11 benefits comprise the
excess payment and must be refunded to VA.
3. Veteran declines Post-9/11 benefits after they have been
paid by VA.
Veterans may change their mind and decide not to use their Post-9/
11 benefits after they have already received them. These benefit
payments must be refunded to VA.
4. School receives Post-9/11 benefit payments from VA on
behalf of veterans for whom school has not completed
Certificate of Eligibility.
In order to determine a veteran's eligibility for Post-9/11
benefits a COE must be submitted to VA by the school. If the school
receives a benefit payment without having submitted a COE the payment
must be refunded to VA.
5. School receives duplicate and inaccurate Post-9/11 benefit
payments from VA.
When schools receive a duplicate Post-9/11 benefit payment for the
same veteran, the duplicate payment must be refunded to VA. When
schools receive an under- or over-payment of Post -9/11 benefits for a
veteran, schools must refund the entire payment to VA and request VA to
remit the correct payment amount.
The table below contains specific examples of the situations
described above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Example
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Western Illinois University Veteran withdrew before
class after Post-9/11
benefits had been paid; WIU
refunded benefits to VA via
check in Dec 2009; VA
cashed the check in Feb
2010 but didn't process it
to the veteran's account
until Aug 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. University of Illinois Veteran received ROTC
scholarship after Post-9/11
benefits had been paid; UI
refunded benefits to VA via
ACH in early March 2010
according to VA's ACH
return policy; VA still has
not processed the refund
and was still requesting
payment from the veteran in
late Aug 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. University of Illinois Per veteran's request, UI
refunded Post-9/11 benefits
to VA via ACH in early
March 2010 according to
VA's ACH return policy; VA
did not process the refund
until late July 2010;
meanwhile VA reported
veteran as delinquent to
the credit bureaus, ruining
his credit and causing
Discover to cancel his
credit card.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. University of Illinois UI received $8,305.60 Post-9/
11 benefit payment from VA
on January 19, 2010 then
received another payment in
the amount of $9,343.80
from VA on May 13, 2010 for
the same veteran.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Illinois State University ISU received payment from VA
for a veteran's books and
supplies stipend (which
should have been remitted
directly to the veteran).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Illinois State University ISU certified a veteran's
Post-9/11 benefit
eligibility at 70 percent
but received payment from
VA in March 2010 at 60
percent; ISU questioned
VA's eligibility
calculation in March 2010
and was told by VA that 60
percent was correct; at
veteran's request, ISU
questioned VA again in
August 2010 and was told
student eligibility is 70
percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The George Washington University GWU received Post-9/11
benefit payments from VA
via check and ACH for the
same veteran.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of Donald D. Overton, Jr.,
Executive Director, Veterans of Modern Warfare
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, on
behalf of Veterans of Modern Warfare (VMW) and our National President
Joseph Morgan we thank you for the opportunity to present our views on
an ``Update on the Post-9/11 GI Bill.''
My name is Donald Overton and I am a 100% service-connected combat
disabled Army veteran of the first Gulf War currently serving as
Executive Director for Veterans of Modern Warfare. VMW is a 501(c)19
National Wartime Veterans Service Organization founded in 2006. VMW
represents active-duty, National Guardsmen, Reservists, and Veterans
who have served honorably in our Nation's armed forces from August 2,
1990 through a date to be prescribed by Presidential proclamation or
law.
Since the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill more than a year ago,
VMW members across the Nation have been afforded the opportunity to
pursue educational endeavors at varying institutions of higher
learning. However, far too many have been left behind. It became
readily apparent that this historically significant legislation had a
multitude of unforeseen limitations. Hopefully, this committee, along
with your colleagues in the 111th Congress, will correct these
limitations and ensure the maximum effectiveness of the most generous
investment in veterans' educational benefits since the end of World War
II.
Considering the current global economic climate, and our Nation's
fiscal obligations both foreign and domestic, veterans' education and
employment has fortunately remained a top national priority. VMW
salutes the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs for its ongoing
efforts and consideration of H.R. 3337 (Post-9/11 Veterans' Job
Training Act of 2009), H.R. 4765 (authorizing VA to receive work-study
allowances for certain outreach services provided through congressional
offices), H.R. 3813 (Veterans Training Act), H.R. 3719 (Veterans
Economic Opportunity Administration Act of 2009) and H.R. 5933 (Post-9/
11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010).
VMW staunchly supports these legislative initiatives, although we
are somewhat concerned by certain provisions. Since many of these
initiatives have been incorporated and seemingly culminated into H.R.
5933, we will focus our Chapter 33 benefits package comments on this
bill, while we address our concerns over effective and efficient
implementation. Without a major cultural transformation within the
Department of Veterans Affairs, as prescribed by H.R. 3719, the most
well intentioned Chapter 33 legislative remedies may be doomed to
failure.
Student Veterans Chapter 33 Concerns
Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits failed to provide:
the opportunity to pursue educational programs at
institutions other than institutions of higher learning,
including vocational, apprenticeship, on-the-job training,
correspondence and flight training;
full GI Bill credit for full-time National Guard
service, to include full-time Title 32 Active Guard Reserve and
state activation service;
housing stipend for distance learners, or those
studying less than full-time;
Yellow Ribbon benefits to certain National Guard and
reserve personnel members;
multiple licensing or certification testing
reimbursements; and
an equivalent book stipend for active-duty students.
Although this list is not exhaustive of the concerns of our student
veteran members, it does provide a framework from which to develop and
implement substantial legislative improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill
benefits package. These improvements will have a positive impact on the
lives of tens of thousands of Americans who have served in our Nation's
armed forces, as well as on their families and the global economy.
Chapter 33 Improvements
H.R. 5933 (Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements
Act of 2010) remedies a multitude of concerns espoused by our student
veteran members. This legislation would:
revise definitions concerning eligibility, and
include certain National Guard service as service qualifying
for such assistance;
revise assistance amounts (including monthly
stipends), and types of approved programs of education;
allow the pursuit of educational programs at
institutions other than institutions of higher learning,
including on-the-job training and apprenticeships, flight
training, and correspondence courses;
provide an assistance amount for programs of
education pursued while on active-duty;
repeal the limit on the use of such assistance for
the payment of only one licensing or certification test;
allow an individual entitled to supplemental
educational assistance to transfer such entitlement to the
post-9/11 program;
bar the duplication of benefits under other
educational assistance programs;
increase the amount of the reporting fee paid by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to an educational
institution for providing information concerning an
individual's enrollment in a program of education;
extend to certain National Guard and Reserve
personnel eligibility to receive public-private contributions
for additional educational assistance;
reauthorize through 2016 the Veterans' Advisory
Committee on Education;
revise cost-of-living adjustments under the
Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance program; and
provide an alternate subsistence allowance amount for
veterans entitled to such allowance because of service-
connected disabilities.
While we applaud these adjustments, VMW remains concerned by
language found in H.R. 5933 at:
Section 3 ``Modification of Amount of Assistance and Types of
Approved Programs of Education''
(a) . . .
(1) . . .
(A) . . .
(B) . . .
(C) . . .
(A) An amount equal to----
(i) . . .
(ii) in the case that such institution
is a non-public or foreign institution
of higher learning, the lesser of----
(I) . . .
(II)$20,000 for each academic
year
Establishing these tuition caps will have a negative impact on
student veterans attending private colleges within the following
states: Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.
There is no guarantee that the Yellow Ribbon program will be capable of
absorbing these monetary offsets, and without current statistical data
to analyze the number of student veterans potentially impacted, or the
overall extent of this provision, we would encourage a comprehensive
analysis prior to insertion of this provision in the legislation that
will ultimately be enacted.
Our other concern may be found at Section 11, the proposed
elimination of the Cost of Living Allowance for Chapter 30 Montgomery
GI Bill recipients to afford a Cost of Living Allowance for Chapter 33
Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients. Taking benefits from one class of
veterans to pay for another is an unjust policy consideration and
should not have even been proposed. We urge you to eliminate this from
any bill that goes forward.
Given the prescribed effective date of August 2011, we believe this
will afford the VA and school administrators' ample time to train and
prepare for the adjusted benefit package. This will also assuage what
has been the primary concern of school administrators: the lack of
communication and training time by the VA.
Implementation Improvements
Our Nation owes veterans much more than ``blood money,'' especially
to our veterans who have been disabled in service to our country. The
central event in their readjustment process is being able to secure
gainful work at a living wage.
H.R. 3719 (Veterans Economic Opportunity Administration Act of
2009), establishes in the Department of Veterans Affairs a Veterans
Economic Opportunity Administration, to be headed by an Under Secretary
for Veterans Economic Opportunity who will administer VA programs of
economic opportunity assistance to veterans and their dependents and
survivors. It will put under one roof the following VA programs: (1)
vocational rehabilitation and employment; (2) educational assistance;
(3) veterans' housing loan and related programs; (4) veterans'
entrepreneurship; and (5) homeless veterans.
This bill also would establish as an interagency committee the
Department of Veterans Affairs-Department of Labor-Small Business
Administration Joint Executive Committee on Economic Opportunity to
recommend to the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Labor and the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration strategic direction
for the joint coordination and sharing of efforts to promote and
administer veterans economic opportunity programs for education and
training, vocational rehabilitation, employment, small business, and
homelessness, and to oversee implementation of those efforts.
We have seen time and again the VA's failure to properly implement
the benefit programs within their purview. These failures have been
particularly pervasive within the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA). It is imperative that during this era of cultural transformation
within the VA, under Secretary Shinseki's bold leadership, that the
VEOA be created. Removing these relevant programs from the antiquated
and over-burdened VBA will ensure the viability of veterans' economic
opportunities for their futures, a just reward from a grateful Nation.
Conclusion
Madame Chairwoman, VMW again thanks you for this opportunity to
express our views, and will be pleased to respond to any questions you
or your colleagues may have.
Prepared Statement of James D. Wear,
Assistant Director, National Veterans Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN, RANKING MEMBER BOOZMAN AND MEMBERS OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars and our Auxiliaries, we would like to thank the subcommittee for
giving us the opportunity to testify today on veterans' concerns
regarding their education benefits and improvements to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill.
The VFW is very proud to have worked with this subcommittee to pass
the Post-9/11 GI Bill in July of 2008. A generation of veterans is now
better equipped to seek higher education, with hundreds of thousands of
veterans in schools across the nation directly benefiting from the
dedication, work and leadership of this subcommittee and its staff.
VA's latest education workload report dated September 7, 2010,
shows the number of non-Chapter 33 educations enrollments pending at
168,237. While VA recently reported that their automated data
integration system had allowed them to process 130,000 Chapter 33
enrollments so far this year, we believe that they also need to focus
on timely processing of non-Chapter 33 enrollments as well.
VA is to be commended for the timely processing of these claims and
for having the ``Spring 2010 GI Bill Benefit Processing'' Web site
available to track their processing of education enrollments during the
2009-2010 academic year. However, there is no analogous ``Fall 2010 GI
Bill Benefit Processing'' Web site to track current education payment
progress during the 2010-2011 academic year. VFW requests that VA have
a Web site to track the processing of both Chapter 33 and non-Chapter
33 education payments during the 2010-2011 academic year.
While VA's Web site will help to track enrollments, there are
additional improvements that can be made by reexamining the Post-9/11
GI Bill with an eye toward simplifying and strengthening the benefits
it provides. We offer a number of suggestions to improve, simplify and
strengthen the legislation with the goal of ensuring equitable benefits
for equivalent service.
The VFW offers its strong support for H.R. 5933, the Post-9/11
Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. We are
enthusiastic about the direction this legislation takes the Post-9/11
GI Bill. The VFW believes a number of changes must be made to the Post-
9/11 GI Bill to address the needs of today's servicemembers, veterans
and their families. Many of these changes are reflected in the bill.
Of the many positive changes in this legislation, the provisions
that would allow Guard and Reserve members to count active-duty service
under Title 32 orders toward Chapter 33 eligibility is perhaps the most
important. This change will credit these men and women for their
service securing our nation's borders and airports, cleaning up the
Gulf, and for saving lives and property during and after natural
disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. We need to reward this continuous
noble service with Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility. Making sure the
Reserve component receives equitable benefits for equivalent service is
a top VFW priority.
Because of variations in state tuition and fees, this legislation
would eliminate the state-based payment cap, in favor of the guarantee
that Chapter 33 benefits will fully cover the cost of public
undergraduate or graduate programs across the Unites States. Further,
it offers a dollar for dollar match up to $20,000 per year at all
approved non-public and foreign institutions of higher learning.
In the Post-9/11 GI Bill, half-time training was linked with less
than half-time training. This legislation separates those definitions
to clarify the difference between half-time training and less than
half-time training. This change will make the rate of benefit payment
easier for the veterans and the institutions of higher learning to
understand as well for VA to administer.
This legislation seeks to provide a housing stipend for half-time
students. VFW supports proportionate housing stipends. Current law does
not pay a living allowance for half-time students, yet students
enrolled with one credit more than half-time receive the full living
stipend. The legislation proposes that if veterans enrolled in a
program of education on a half-time basis the monthly housing stipend
would be 50 percent of full-time basic housing stipend. This would make
rates simpler to understand and greatly reduce the number of over
charges to veterans. The VFW supports proportionate housing stipends
for half-time students.
The VFW also supports providing housing stipends to veterans so
that they can focus on their studies knowing their housing costs will
be covered while pursuing a program of education at a foreign
institution of higher learning.
One of the primary purposes of the GI Bill is to serve as a
transition program. We encourage every veteran to attend classes in a
traditional classroom setting among their civilian peers. We believe
the GI Bill helps reintegrate veterans into civilian life by
encouraging socialization in the classrooms and lecture halls of
America. Nevertheless, the VFW supports providing housing stipends for
distance learning so veterans can focus on their studies knowing not
only are their housing costs provided for but their transportation
costs are minimized. Also, offering one of the newest technological
means of delivering learning to students helps educational institutions
keep down tuition and fees.
There are many essential well-paying jobs that require training not
provided in colleges or universities. This legislation would expand the
Post-9/11 GI Bill to include programs of education at institutions
other than institutions of higher learning to include On-the-Job
Training and Apprenticeships. The original GI Bill provided World War
II veterans benefits for apprenticeships and vocational training. We
believe the Post-9/11 GI Bill should also provide current veterans the
same opportunity to seek careers in skilled trades. These programs
represent the most effective direct employment programs available to
our nation's newest veterans. The legislation would include certified
Vocational Programs (non-degree granting institutions) and On-the-Job
Training (OJT)/Apprenticeship programs to allow veterans the
opportunity to learn a trade while receiving a living allowance,
tuition and book stipend. Many veterans have technical skills and
transferable credit acquired in the military that gives them a head
start on earning a technical education. We should encourage veterans to
invest in technical educations as these skill sets will help us to re-
build our cities and restart our economy.
Each veteran should receive a living allowance based on BAH and the
zip code of the OJT program. The annual $1,000 book stipend would best
be paid in $500 intervals at the beginning of the training and then six
months thereafter to aid the veteran in covering the cost of tools and
program supplies.
We support educational assistance for flight training and programs
of education taken by correspondence.
The VFW supports legislation which allows a lump sum for books,
supplies, equipment and other educational costs for individuals on
active duty pursuing a program of education.
This legislation would also establish a protocol allowing veterans
to take multiple licensure and certification tests at no charge to
their entitlement until the test costs exceed $2,000.00. The VFW
supports this.
This legislation ensures that supplemental education assistance
under Subchapter III of Chapter 30, transfers into Chapter 33. The VFW
supports the inclusion of these important incentives to assist the
Department of Defense (DoD) in managing its military retention
programs.
This legislation also adds to the Chapter 31 program an equitable
housing stipend for veterans utilizing the Vocational Rehabilitation
and Education programs. The VFW supports this.
These changes to the GI Bill are absolutely necessary to ensure
that veterans have every opportunity to pursue and complete programs of
learning that will not only help them make the transition from warrior
to civilian, but will also provide them the tools to become and remain
productive, taxpaying, members of society for a lifetime. By
streamlining processes and opening new avenues to education and
training, veterans will be better equipped to make their ambitions a
reality.
Once again, thank you for including the voice of the VFW and its
members; we look forward to continuing to work with you to improve the
lives of America's veterans and their families.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions you or the members of your subcommittee may
have. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Robert Madden, Assistant
Director, National Economic Commission, American Legion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Although the Post-9/11 Bill was the single greatest benefit offered
to the
Post-9/11 veteran, the implementation fell far short of the needs of
those new veterans. Delays in applying for and receiving benefits has
been the single greatest failure during the implementation in the past
year. The American Legion heard from hundreds of veterans and their
families discussing the issue of delayed or no payment. These late
payments caused veterans and families to drop out of school due to
financial hardship.
To alleviate some of these issues, the Department of Veterans
Affairs has increased the number of claims processors and is
implementing a new IT system to help streamline the claims process and
should have a self-navigating system that veterans can access by
December 2010. This will go a long way in addressing many of the
preliminary problems that still plague veterans and their family
members.
The American Legion recommends communication between Regional
Processing Offices (RPO) be uniform. There are schools that have
campuses across the nation and are therefore using multiple RPOs for
information. Institutions are receiving multiple policy protocols from
separate RPOs for the same situation which in turn causes confusion for
veterans and educational institutions. This process of getting
different responses from separate RPOs needs to be addressed and
communication must be accurate and similar across the Nation.
In order to properly serve the veterans and families of this
country, The American Legion recommends several changes to the Post-9/
11 GI Bill. Those changes include: Allowing housing allowance for
distance learners; addition of vocational, apprenticeship, on-the-job
training and flight training; transfer of educational benefits to
dependents of those who have retired from active duty, and inclusion of
Title 32 Active Guard Reserves to receive Federal benefits under
Chapter 33.
No matter what era, we should not forget the sacrifice of those who
served in our military. However, the latest generation of veterans and
their families have experienced a new hardship and experience due to
multiple deployments and a changing nature of war. These veterans
deserve the highest quality of service when receiving benefits and
should be granted the opportunity to choose their education and
employment path when returning to school.
__________
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
views on the status of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2008. The American Legion commends the subcommittee for holding
a hearing to discuss this very important and timely issue.
American men and women are serving in two wars, while also serving
this great nation in various capacities across the globe. Veterans who
have served since September 11, 2001 are entitled to education
benefits, not just any education benefits, but the most comprehensive
benefits since the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. The original
WWII benefit is said to have produced 50 years of economic prosperity
for America. With over 2 million servicemembers having served since
2001, the Post-9/11 GI Bill can do the same thing for this country and
give this new ``Greatest Generation'' an education.
The American Legion has not only been a lead supporter of the Post-
9/11 GI Bill, but also a concerned advocate during the implementation.
The 111th Congress has held hearings on the long-term and short-term
implementation strategies for administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). These hearings updated
Congress on VA's development of the information technology components
for the new law and the progress made during implementation. The
American Legion testified before Congress last year about its concerns
regarding VA's implementation strategies and urged VA to be ready to
fulfill its administrative duties ``right the first time.''
Since the passage and the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill,
VA had a rough and rocky start. Thinking they were fully prepared to
implement the biggest changes in GI Bill history, VA set out to put
their best foot forward in August 2009. They soon found that the
implementation system was flawed and there was no easy way to process a
Certificate of Eligibility or an actual claim. A processor for the old
Montgomery GI Bill needed only around 30 minutes to process a claim,
but for the components of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, this time ballooned to
close to 2 hours per claim. This time-intensive process compounded by a
lack of adequate staff fostered a significant backlog of education
claims.
Unfortunately, many veterans waited weeks and months just to get
their Certificate of Eligibility, and even longer to actually receive
benefits. These men and women gave up their jobs in order to better
their employment chances by going to school. It should be noted, to be
able to get the most out of the benefit, a veteran or family member
needs to take a course load of over half-time. In the worst case
scenarios, veterans who recently left the military were without a job
and without their education benefit from VA. The American Legion
received hundreds of calls and emails from veterans discussing their
financial difficulties and the possibility of homelessness was
sometimes mentioned. The American Legion responded to a number of these
veterans with Temporary Financial Assistance, one of our many programs
to assist veterans and their families.
When the cries for assistance reached its highest levels,, VA
responded and provided individuals who were in school an emergency
payment of up to $3,000. The American Legion applauded and still agrees
this was a smart decision to make, but now is seeing the backlash from
this decision. Now, there are reports of veterans and their family
members losing all of their future payments instead of the proposed
$750.00 reduction VA promised from the payment plan. VA has taken steps
to rectify this situation, but some of the damage has already been
done. Many veterans and their families called The American Legion
because they cannot get through to VA and need information. We take
pride in assisting them, but need VA's cooperation to get issues
resolved. The American Legion believes there needs to be more oversight
on decisions that are made to ensure proper implementation, so that the
veteran or his/her family member is not the one who suffers.
Another recurring issue is overpayment. There have been reports of
schools being overpaid, which is why many schools are waiting for the
add/drop period before sending in the veteran's enrollment
certification. In spite of this move by the schools, the veteran is
still being overpaid; consequently, the schools send back the money,
but it is not being reported back to the VA in a timely manner.
Ultimately, the veteran is then denied their housing allowance and
books stipend, until their payment is recouped by VA. This causes an
undue burden for the veteran and his/her family and causes, again,
another financial hardship. Every time a mistake happens, it does not
affect VA, but does manage to cause problems for the veteran. Closer
oversight on these issues would be the fix to many of these problems.
One of the main challenges VA faces is communication. One Regional
Office (RO) says the veteran can do something one way and then another
RO says the veteran cannot. Secondly, a veteran or family member will
call the 1-800 numbers for education assistance and will ask a
question. That same veteran will call back, get a different operator
and ask the same question. What the veteran receives, on occasion, is
multiple answers. The veteran needs to receive the same answer so he/
she can properly navigate the education process.
The American Legion also would like to bring to the Committee's
attention a flaw that exists in the Post-9/11 GI Bill. With all the
great benefits the Post-9/11 GI Bill offers, it has unfortunately left
out a few educational choices. The American Legion is a strong
supporter of allowing the Post-9/11 GI Bill to be used for non-degree
granting institutions. This employment path is a more traditional
choice, but vocational, apprenticeship, on-the-job training and flight
training are not payable by the current bill (Post-9/11). This
disparity has caused much concern for The American Legion. We have
found that not every veteran has the time or is considering attending
college. They might have a family and need to become gainfully employed
as soon as possible, which is something that vocational, on-the-job
training, apprenticeship and flight training offer. Instead, a veteran
may choose a more traditional path and attend a non-degree institution,
but cannot use their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to complete these
courses. Most of these education paths consist of a shorter training
time and can lead to immediate employment. The American Legion believes
that veterans should never be limited in the manner they use their
educational benefits.
The American Legion also sees other areas where the Post-9/11 GI
Bill can be improved. Those who have served since September 11, 2001
and retired before the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill should
be allowed to transfer their educational benefits to their dependents.
We also note the increased utilization of online distance learning.
Currently, those who attend classes strictly online are prohibited from
receiving the housing allowance. These men and women take these classes
due to the flexibility they offer. Veterans who attend these classes
have families and may need flexibility to be able to advance their
career and should be entitled to the housing allowance. The greatest
equity issue is those men and women who served during the crisis of
September 11, 2001. These Title 32 Active Guard Reserve members served
under federal orders but were not allowed to include their federal time
for eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. These men and women served
valiantly and with distinction. This is a must fix and needs to be
addressed immediately.
Currently, there are two bills, H.R. 5933 and S. 3447, which are
companion measures. These bills propose changes to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill to make the Post-9/11 GI Bill a stronger benefit for veterans and
their families. The American Legion supports both of these bills.
Veterans should be free to choose their school and get the education
they believe is best for them and their family.
Even with some challenges and missteps, The American Legion
continues to ensure veterans and their families get the necessary
assistance during this education transition. The American Legion
recently held the ``Veterans on Campus'' education symposium, which
tried to identify best practices on how to assist veterans in their
transition from the military to college life. We found a large number
of student-veterans and academia did not have sufficient information
about the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. VA needs to provide more outreach
to colleges and universities around the country to ensure these
student-veterans have a full range of knowledge concerning their
education benefits. The American Legion is excited about the final
implementation of the new IT for veterans. We hope this IT solution
helps resolve many of the application, payment and communication
problems that have been experienced.
Although the VA has taken many necessary steps in order to provide
a fluid transition for veterans and their families, we have seen
numerous bumps along the way. Sometimes, as in the case of the
emergency payment, VA has had to make some tough choices to correct
those problems. The American Legion will continue to monitor the
continued transition for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this
statement for the record. Again, thank you Madame Chairwoman, Ranking
Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee for allowing The
American Legion to present its views on this very important issue.
Prepared Statement of Tim Embree, Legislative
Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee,
on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's over two
hundred thousand members and supporters, I would like to thank you for
allowing us to testify before your subcommittee. As a representative of
IAVA, I also extend the gratitude of tens of thousands of our members
who can now afford to attend school, and become the Next Greatest
Generation.
I. Executive Summary:
Our work on the new GI Bill is not done. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a
historic commitment to this generation of veterans and over 300,000
students have taken advantage of this hard earned benefit. But, while
some student veterans are on the path to earning themselves a first
class future, tens of thousands of veterans are being left behind. Too
many young veterans find themselves unable to take advantage of these
GI Bill benefits and many others, already using the new GI Bill, have
had their benefits cut by needlessly complicated regulations in Chapter
33. In order to complete our work on the new GI Bill, IAVA recommends
swift passage of H.R. 5933, commonly referred to as the New GI Bill
2.0.
New GI Bill 2.0 finishes the Post-9/11 GI Bill and includes:
Vocational Training: Invaluable job training for
students studying at vocational schools.
Title 32 AGR: Grant National Guardsmen responding to
national disasters full GI Bill credit.
Distance Learners: Provide living allowances for
veterans in distance learning programs.
Tuition/Fees: Expand and simplify the Yellow Ribbon
Program.
Active Duty: Include a book stipend for active duty
students.
Over the past year IAVA has helped thousands of veterans navigate
through their GI Bill benefits and we have trained hundreds of schools
on the ins and outs of the new GI Bill. Our daily interactions with
student veterans and schools have revealed the following concerns
regarding the VA's handling of the new GI Bill.
Student veterans complete their assignments on time
and so should the VA: Nine months late updating the new BAH
rates and one month late publishing the 2010-11 tuition/fees
chart.
Delays are imminent: 160,000 backlogged GI Bill
claims, 60 percent more than any other time this decade with
the exception of last year. This will mean unacceptably long
wait times, yet again.
Processing remains plagued by repeated mistakes: Many
veterans have been erroneously denied benefits and are forced
to spend months trying to unravel the errors.
Lack of reliable information costs veterans: The
irrevocable choice between the new and old GI Bill is worth
thousands of dollars and VA still lacks good resources to help
inform that choice.
Refunds of overpayments: There are no guidelines for
schools to follow to repay the VA for erroneous tuition
overpayments and this results in veterans having their entire
GI Bill withheld.
II. Introduction
IAVA believes that by finishing the work Congress began two years
ago, this historic commitment to our veterans will be remembered as one
of the shrewdest investments in our country's men and women in uniform
for generations to come.
Today's veterans are our country's leaders of tomorrow. Hundreds of
thousands of combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have served
honorably and are now looking to utilize the Post-9/11 GI Bill to begin
the next chapter of their lives. Thanks to the most generous increase
in education benefits since World War II these veterans and their
families now have the opportunity to pursue a ``first-class''
education.
IAVA has gained unique insight into where implementation of the New
GI Bill has succeeded and where it has failed. For over two years, IAVA
has been assisting student veterans navigate this generous, yet
complicated, new benefit. Nearly 1 million people have visited our
premier GI Bill resource, www.newgibill.org. We offer the most accurate
benefits calculator, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and resources
where veterans can find answers to their GI Bill questions. As we have
stated over and over again, the VA must improve their outreach. By
working closely with IAVA and the VSO community the VA could be solving
problems before they arise rather than constantly reacting to the
latest crisis.
On top of the VA's rocky implementation, we recognize that the new
GI Bill is still a work in progress. Once finished, the new GI Bill
will be a shining moment in the history of our great republic. Everyday
we wait to pass upgrades to the new GI Bill, tens of thousands of
veterans are ineligible to access this new education benefit and many
others using the new GI Bill have had their benefits cut by one of the
many poorly written regulations in Chapter 33.
III. Lessons Learned for the New GI Bill's Sophomore Year
IAVA has been cautioning student veterans to prepare for another
rough autumn and has been pleading with the VA to be as transparent as
possible. The VA has made some significant improvements in their
handling of the new GI Bill since last year. However, IAVA is deeply
concerned that the VA has been failing to communicate critical
information to students and schools, missing key congressionally
mandated deadlines and will likely have unacceptably long delays in the
processing of GI Bill benefits again this semester.
A. Student veterans complete their assignments on time and so
should the VA.
The VA has owed over 150,000 student veterans additional living
allowance payments for over 9 months. In January the Department of
Defense's new housing rates took affect and in turn students attending
over 4,000 colleges were due an increase in their living allowances.
This increase amounted to over $200/month at some schools including
Long Island University, University of Massachusetts and University of
Connecticut.
``When are they going to adjust the BAH rates for 2010? No
matter who I call or email about this issue, I never get a
straight answer. I am currently living in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
and the rates were increased by $111 for my area as of Jan 1
2010. It is nearly August and they have yet to increase. Any
info you can provide me with would be helpful.''--Chris (IAVA
Vet)
Sadly, the VA's only mention of how they would handle the new rate
changes was a tweet from one of the VA's many twitter accounts on
December 18th and was not mentioned again for over 9 months.
@DeptVetAffairs: For GI Bill students: BAH rates will remain
the same to begin the spring semester. Any changes won't happen
until later in the spring.
Phone calls to the GI Bill call center left veterans even more
confused about when they could expect to be paid. IAVA believes that
keeping veterans like Chris in the dark for over 9 months about their
benefits is completely unacceptable. Thankfully, earlier this month the
VA finally made a public announcement on their Web site outlining how
they will handle this issue.
The living allowance payments were not the only benefit the VA has
been delinquent. The VA is mandated to issue the state tuition caps on
August 1st of each year to help veterans and schools adequately plan
for the fall semester. Unfortunately, the VA failed to publish this
tuition chart for exactly a month. As a result, students started school
with no idea what the new GI Bill would cover. Schools were asked to
submit enrollment certifications and the VA would just process the
tuition benefits later. Now the VA will have to go back and recertify
all the new GI Bill claims they received in the month of August during
the VA's busiest season of the year.
Why does this matter? Ask the student veterans attending schools in
Minnesota like Northwestern College who are now on the hook to pay an
additional $7,000 in tuition this year. These students started classes
in late August only to see their tuition benefits drop $300/credit a
week later. Northwestern was likely deferring those tuition costs in
the hopes that the GI Bill would be paying at least as much as last
year, but now those students will have to shell out an additional
$7,000 just to stay in class. The VA will claim that they did not know
all the tuition caps until September 1st, but they did know many of
them and should have published what they had as soon as they knew them.
``I just talked to the financial aid director at my school
here in St. Paul, Minnesota. I found out today that the VA has
cut the MN tuition cap at $450 per credit. It was listed on
their Web site as $750 until this week. Partially as a result
of the $750 rate, I made the decision to move my family from
California to Minnesota. Now I am faced with suddenly receiving
$4200 less per semester in assistance than I had anticipated .
. . . My school choice was directly affected by the amount that
I thought I would be receiving, based upon the VA's officially
posted rates. Also, there are those who have barely managed to
budget enough money to go to school. Now telling them that they
will be receiving significantly less than they had been
depending on could force them out of school. I understand that
budgets are tight everywhere. However, I feel cheated by
finding out after the fact. This is information they should
have given us months ago.''--Aaron (IAVA Vet)
B. Student veterans need to know that GI Bill delays are imminent.
``When I called today to check on my GI Bill status, the
telephone advisor told me that due to the upgrade that put them
behind for about a week they are estimating it can take around
41 days for them to process the enrollment information and get
the funds to the schools and vets.''--Brent (IAVA Vet)
Student veterans enrolling in school this Fall should be prepared
to wait a long time for their GI Bill benefits to process. The VA has a
GI Bill backlog of over 185,000 claims, nearly 50 percent more than any
other time this decade, except last year. And although the VA has kept
the number of outstanding new GI Bill claims at a steady rate ( 18,000)
the old GI Bill users are suffering because of it (over 168,000). These
delays are unacceptable and continue to put too much pressure on
student veterans. They should be trying to focus on their studies and
not worrying about keeping a roof over their heads due to the VA's
inability to manage information. The VA should also publish the
expected wait times prominently on their Web site, to help student
veterans have realistic expectations of when their benefits will
arrive.
IAVA recommends the VA implement the following concrete ideas: 1)
Post a waiting time widget on the VA's GI Bill homepage saying, ``Now
working on GI Bill claims from (fill in the date)'' and 2) Reinstitute
the practice of disclosing the date of the oldest pending GI Bill claim
in the Monday Morning Workload report.
C. Processing of new GI Bill claims remain plagued by repeated
mistakes.
In the haste to clear the deck of GI Bill claims, many veterans
have been erroneously denied benefits and are forced to spend months
trying to unravel the errors.
``Since January of this year I have been receiving letters
that I owe the VA for 2 semesters that they claim I dropped
out. I never did and have been given the run around by both the
VA and the school but neither side tell me anything. I have
been doing this for 6 months and worst of all is that they are
taking my entire check leaving me with nothing to purchase
books or to use to pay bills. Because of this I am in extreme
debt, I have a two-month-old baby, which needs diapers and baby
wipes and have fallen into depression again because the
creditors call me constantly asking for payment. I am not
working at the time because I want to focus on school. I am
getting disability and work-study payments, but even so I keep
going in the negative side in my bank account. I have no clue
how else to pressure the school and the VA to promptly fix the
situation and give me back the money they wrongfully took. If
you can't help me could you please send me to someone who
can.'' IAVA Vet
IAVA contacted the VA regional office on this student veteran's
behalf. They corrected his file, erased his debt and issued him a back
payment of over $7,900. He told IAVA that the VA finally paid him on
his daughter's birthday and that he can now buy her a real birthday
present. And while IAVA is eternally grateful to the Regional Offices
for continuing to solve the GI Bill issues we send their way, this
story is just the tip of the iceberg. Many other veterans don't even
know there has been a mistake or they give up when no one seems to be
willing to take up their cause. IAVA believes that the VA must do an
immediate audit of their GI Bill claims processing and publically
announce their error rates. Veterans who are fighting with the VA about
their benefits should know that they aren't alone.
D. Lack of reliable information costs veterans.
Veterans making the irrevocable choice between the old and new GI
Bill are forced to make that decision without immediate, reliable
access to key information that may affect tens of thousands of dollars
in their education benefits.
``My VA rep at my school told me to apply for the new post 9/
11 GI Bill because I had already collected the 36 months on the
old GI Bill. So, I applied for the new GI bill to get the extra
12 months of benefits and I just received an approval letter
for 3 days of the new GI bill benefits because I still had 3
days left on the old GI bill.''--Charles (IAVA Vet)
If Charles had known that he had 3 days remaining on the old GI
Bill he could have simply waited an extra couple of days before he
applied and he would have been able to attend school for at least
another academic year under the new GI Bill. Unfortunately for Charles
the lack of good information meant that he simply lost his new GI Bill
benefits.
Charles' story is a cautionary tale for all student veterans and
more importantly the VA. While the VA has spent most of their focus
making sure veterans know that their choice to use the new GI Bill is
``irrevocable'' (bold and italics on the VA form), they have failed to
show student veterans what that actually means to them personally. For
example, the VA's GI Bill benefits estimator is an inexcusable tool for
a Department that has spent millions on GI Bill information technology.
This tool does not help veterans compare benefits between the old and
GI Bill in any meaningful way.
``How do I determine what the amount is for so I can make sure
I'm getting the proper benefits? In other words, I want a
statement. I called the VA and they told me ``no''--there was
no statement and I would have to determine the benefits myself
by pro-rating book costs, BAH, etc. There must be an easier
way....''--Jonathan (IAVA Vet)
The VA has testified numerous times that they are scheduled to
unveil a student portal for veterans to track their GI Bill benefits by
the end of the year. Many student veterans and schools have requested
this functionality and IAVA sincerely hopes that the VA meets its own
internal deadline of Dec 2011. However, IAVA is deeply concerned that
veterans and schools have not been involved in the development of this
new functionality. We believe that the VA should immediately engage
student veterans, campus officials and veterans groups during the final
stages of development. IAVA also strongly encourages the VA to allow
school certifying officials access to student information. More often
than not the school certifying official is the only source of GI Bill
information the veteran ever receives.
E. The VA has no structure for schools to refund of overpayments.
Some errors in the certification and processing of GI Bill claims
are inevitable, and we must do everything we can to minimize those
errors. However, to not have a contingency plan when they do occur is
extremely irresponsible and has taken a profoundly negative toll on
student veterans who have been affected. If a school has been overpaid
there is no mechanism for the school to repay the VA directly. While
the school starts the refund process to the student veteran, the VA
will immediately put a hold on the student's GI Bill benefits whether
they were aware of the overpayment or not. Take the following case for
example:
``My school was underpaid and sent the VA a bill for a little
over $200. The VA thinks that is all they had to pay and sent
me a letter saying I have to pay all the money back. I did not
change classes or even drop any. I have tried to call them but
the phone is busy; I emailed them but they said to call them in
the reply. What am I supposed to do? School starts Fri . . . I
just got the letter today and my school said I have to contact
a rep myself. The appeal letter said it will be 3+ months for
it to process. Please Help!!''--Mickel (IAVA Vet)
One month later:
``I just withdrew from school because I did not have the money
to drive there without the VA paying me. I had no choice. The
school will try to send back every cent of the money they paid
them.''
Four months later, with the help of the Atlanta Regional Office, we
were finally able to get the VA creditors off Mickel's back and get him
the money he deserved; however, he had already dropped out of school
and was even further behind his civilian counterparts.
Student veterans like Mickel deserve better. In order to prevent
this from happening in the future, the VA should develop a simple
process for schools to refund overpayments directly to the VA and
improve communication between the Education Liaison Representatives
(ELRs) and the school certifying officials.
IV. H.R. 5933: New GI Bill 2.0
H.R. 5933 will improve the new GI Bill and ensure that all student
veterans have access to this generous education benefit. By simplifying
and streamlining the administrative rules, H.R. 5933 would enable the
Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) to process GI Bill claims in a
timely manner. H.R. 5933, which we have come to call the ``New GI Bill
2.0,'' is a comprehensive effort to address the concerns of tens of
thousands of student veterans and their families by including:
Vocational Training: Offering valuable job training
for students studying at vocational schools
Title 32 AGR: Granting National Guardsmen responding
to national disasters full GI Bill credit
Distance Learners: Providing living allowances for
veterans in distance learning programs
Tuition/Fees: Expanding and simplifying the Yellow
Ribbon Program
Active Duty: Including a book stipend for active duty
students
Even the original WWII GI Bill needed a tune up like H.R. 5933. One
year after the passage of the WWII GI Bill the House Committee on World
War Veterans Legislation (an early predecessor to this committee)
conducted a marathon four day long hearing to review the effectiveness
of this new benefit.
In a small touch of irony, veterans groups like the Legion, VFW,
and DAV collectively asked the committee, as we are today, to upgrade
the WWII GI Bill to include vocational schools, correspondence courses
and to simplify the tuition benefit.
Congress promptly responded and passed H.R. 3749, ``To Amend the
Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944.'' These upgrades finished the
work Congress had started and secured the WW II GI Bill as one of the
greatest investments in the 20th century. It was actually the amended
version of the WWII GI Bill that helped build America's middle class
and laid the foundation for what Tom Brokaw dubbed the ``Greatest
Generation.'' IAVA believes that just like the WWII GI Bill, the Post-
9/11 GI Bill needs the comprehensive improvements in H.R. 5933 to
become the smartest investment in the 21st century and to help lay the
foundation for the next greatest generation.
A. Invaluable Professional Job Training
H.R. 5933 will help veterans access valuable job training by
granting Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to veterans in vocational,
apprenticeship and On-The-Job training (OJT) programs. IAVA member
Charles Conrad returned home from war to face a bleak economy. He had
finished two tours, was released from his stop-loss orders and was
ready to begin the next chapter of his young life. Charles moved to
Pittsburgh and enrolled in the Pennsylvania Gunsmith School, a well-
known vocational school founded in 1949. Charles, like countless other
veterans, assumed that by combining his military experience with a
vocational certificate, he would make himself marketable in today's
rough job scene. Unfortunately, Charles was let down by the new GI
Bill. Currently, the Post-9/11 GI Bill does not pay for trade schools--
and now Charles is left struggling to pay down piles of bills.
I was depending on the housing allowance and without it I
can't even afford the school . . . It's a slap in the face to
me that I can't use the Post-9/11 GI Bill . . . It's like
saying a trade school isn't good enough for the new GI Bill,
but it is for the old GI Bill. Is there any way that trade
schools will ever be allowed under the new GI Bill?
Most people don't realize that a majority of WWII veterans used
their GI Bill benefits to attend vocational schools. Although there are
a limited number of vocational programs at the local community colleges
currently authorized, allowing veterans to enroll in the vocational
program of their choice would enable all of our war-fighters to use
their hard-earned new GI Bill benefits.
B. Full Credit for Full Time Served
H.R. 5933 will help National Guard servicemembers by granting full
GI Bill credit for full-time service. New GI Bill 2.0 classifies state
activations for national disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina and the BP
oil spill) and full-time Title 32 Active Guard Reserve (AGR) service as
qualifying service. This correction will help almost 30,000 Army
National Guard and 13,500 Air National Guard servicemembers serving on
Title 32 or ``state'' orders. This vital improvement will also ensure
that the thousands of National Guard troops from Louisiana, Alabama,
Florida, and Mississippi who are currently protecting our coastline
from the oil spewing in the Gulf will receive credit towards their
Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit.
IAVA member Sergeant First Class (SFC) Bradford Mingle has been
wearing our country's uniform every day for the past 19 years,
including during a recent tour in Afghanistan. SFC Mingle is part of
the Active Guard and Reserve program (AGR), which means he works full-
time for the National Guard. Imagine SFC Mingle's surprise and anger
when he applied for the New GI Bill, only to have the VA tell him he
hadn't served long enough to qualify for the full benefits.
I am an AGR soldier with 19 years active duty but I'm not
qualified to get what an Active Army Soldier gets? Is our
service not worth as much? Why are AGR Soldiers always left
out?
According to the current law, only one of SFC Mingle's 19 years of
active duty service actually counted toward his GI Bill eligibility.
Yet a full-time reservist doing the same job as SFC Mingle would
qualify for the full GI Bill simply because his or her checks were paid
for by the federal government, rather than the state government. Same
uniform, same service--vastly different benefits.
C. Fairness for Disabled Veterans Utilizing Distance Learning
Many disabled veterans and single parents are attending online
courses to achieve their dream of a college degree. But, under the
current rules, even if they are taking a full course load, they do not
qualify to receive the new GI Bill's substantial monthly living
allowance. If these veterans were able to take just one course at a
local college, they would qualify for the full living allowance. Yet
enrolling in a course at a brick-and-mortar institution is nearly
impossible for a single mother simultaneously struggling to keep food
on the table or for a disabled veteran who cannot navigate a flight of
stairs without assistance.
IAVA member Specialist (SPC) Weaver was awarded a bronze star for
his meritorious service during two tours in Iraq. He is currently at
home recovering from the fractured spine he sustained after being
ejected from a moving vehicle. SPC Weaver suffers from vertigo, hearing
problems and loss of mobility. Despite his injuries, SPC Weaver still
dreams of completing his education and has been looking to attend
college online, where he can complete his degree at his own pace. In
spite of his service, SPC Jeffrey Weaver cannot benefit from the New GI
Bill in its current form.
This seems quite absurd as it is fact that many service-
disabled veterans are undergoing treatments and have special
needs. Although I am not totally disabled, because of my
current conditions, it would be nearly impossible to collect on
the Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlements. This seems to be an issue
we need to raise to Congress.
A living allowance for students of online institutions would help
veterans to avoid having to choose between keeping a roof over a
family's head and concentrating on being a successful student. The
allowance would enable them to provide for their families while
increasing their future earning potential through education. The New GI
Bill was supposed to encourage student veterans to focus on their
education and not their financial situation--but without the New GI
Bill 2.0 upgrade, student veterans pursuing degrees through distance
learning are left out in the cold.
D. Simplify the Yellow Ribbon Program
New GI Bill 2.0 simplifies the tuition benefit by abolishing the
confusing state cap program and replacing it with a simple promise.
Under the current form of the New GI Bill, the tuition benefits are
confusing, and completely unpredictable. In California, tuition caps
have been raised three times this year alone. Worse, nationwide tuition
caps have fluctuated wildly since last year and states like Florida and
Minnesota have seen their benefits drop for no apparent reason.
Recently, in front of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, the
VA admitted to ``delays in determining the 2009-2010 maximum tuition,
and fee rates resulted in delayed processing of payments for students
attending school in those states.'' The VA later said that reforming
the tuition and fees benefit was its top priority fix for the New GI
Bill. Considering that the VA was late exactly a month publishing the
new tuition/fees chart this year, we need a GI Bill benefit that is
easy to calculate and is easily understood by those who use the benefit
as well as those who distribute it.
Under the proposed New GI Bill 2.0, if a student veteran attends a
public school, the New GI Bill will pay for the entire cost of tuition
and fees--no questions asked. If a student veteran attends a private
school, the VA will pay a nationally recognized, baseline amount. If a
private school is more expensive than the national baseline, the school
is encouraged to take part in the yellow ribbon program in order to
eliminate the remaining gap in education costs.
IAVA member Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Brian Pummill is in an
extreme, remote location in Afghanistan. LTC Pummill should be focused
solely on the mission at hand, but his thoughts are back at home as he
tries to explain to his college-bound daughter how the New GI Bill's
tuition benefit will work. Even after a long career successfully
navigating military bureaucracy, LTC Pummill is thoroughly perplexed by
the VA's confusing tuition and fee caps.
I don't understand how to calculate how much TUITION AND FEES
the VA will pay Saint Mary's College . . . I see calculations
that just compute this by $321/credit hour, but this doesn't
come close to the MAXIMUM FEES BY TERM of $12,438.00 indicated
for SMC. Since SMC's TUITION AND FEES for 2010-2011 are the
same for ALL FULL-TIME STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE CREDIT HOURS
THEY ARE TAKING, why wouldn't we take the Maximum fees by term
($12,438), multiply that by 2 ($24,876), then divide by 9
months ($2,764/month), to calculate the per month value of the
GI Bill at SMC, if that is the actual cost of Tuition and Fees
to attend SMC. The same calculation by the credit hour,
assuming you take 32 credit hours per year, is only $321.75
times 32, which is only: $10,296.00. How does a student qualify
to be reimbursed at the MAXIMUM TUITION AND FEES PER TERM,
instead of by the credit hour--at SMC, the difference between
these two calculations is staggering.
H.R. 5933 will simplify the benefit and help servicemembers like
LTC Pummill get their mind back on the mission.
E. Other Improvements to the New GI Bill
New GI Bill 2.0 is an essential comprehensive upgrade, involving
changes large and small. These changes are vital to the academic
success of student veterans pursuing a higher education. H.R. 5933 will
also:
Grant active duty students a book stipend worth
$1,000/year
Increase Vocational Rehabilitation monthly benefits
by up to $780/month
Reimburse students who take multiple accreditation/
certification tests
Allow enlistment kickers to be transferred to
dependents
Increase school reporting fees
Simplify the types of discharges that qualify for
benefits
VII: Conclusion
The Post-9/11 GI Bill, or ``New GI Bill,'' will be remembered as
one of the greatest investments in our country's veterans for
generations to come if we act now and finish the work this committee
began two years ago. History has shown us the importance of investing
in our country's veterans, and IAVA applauds the phenomenal work this
committee continues to do on behalf of our nation's veterans and their
families.
IAVA is proud to speak on behalf of the thousands of veterans
coming home every day. We work tirelessly so veterans know we have
their back. Together, with this Congress and the Department of Veteran
Affairs, we can guarantee that every veteran is confident that America
has their back.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Captain Mark Krause, USN (Ret.),
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Program Manager, Space
and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic, Department of the Navy,
U.S. Department of Defense
Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman,
and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the current status of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
Chapter 33 Long Term Solution (CH 33 LTS). My testimony will address
the current status of the LTS, critical milestone completion, program
challenges, requirements for legislative fixes, future updates, and the
ability of the LTS to support future policy changes.
Current Status of Long Term Solution Development Program
The VA/SPAWAR CH 33 LTS Team delivered and deployed Releases 1.0
and 2.0 this year on the planned critical milestone dates. All CH 33
Veteran Claim Examiners (VCEs) have been transitioned from the Interim
Solution to the LTS to process CH 33 educational benefits claims. Since
January 2010, the Team has accomplished the following:
Enabled the VA to deliver CH33 benefits via a
centralized web-based system that implements a flexible rules-
based engine. This will allow the VA to implement future
changes and enhancements to CH33 policy and legislation in a
more timely and efficient manner.
The VA/SPAWAR Team successfully implemented Agile
methodology within the VA and have established an effective,
engaged, and collaborative governance process to prioritize
capability development, resolve issues and make timely
decisions.
Leveraged our Agile approach to implement additional
and unplanned scope changes: Fry Amendment, Letter Generation,
FY-9/10 retro-active housing rate adjustment, significant
Interim Solution data errors, data conversion, switching from
the planned interface with the Financial Accounting System
(FAS) to the older Benefits Delivery Network (BDN), developing
a user authentication solution due to the unavailability of the
Benefits Enterprise Platform (BEP), and assuming an expanded
role in interface development with VA legacy systems.
Over the last several months the VA/SPAWAR CH 33 LTS Team has
continued to ``peel back the onion'' to uncover and define more
detailed CH 33 LTS requirements and processes. This discovery revealed
a number of factors that increased the complexity and scope required by
the LTS. A summary of these discoveries include:
Automating business rules and streamlining the
process to adjudicate claims were more complex than originally
anticipated.
Converting and remediating data conversion errors
from the Interim Solution into Chapter 33 LTS was more
challenging than planned.
Enhancing existing VA systems required to provide
data to the Chapter 33 LTS has proven more difficult than
expected.
In upcoming months LTS development will focus on providing system
interfaces and capabilities to automate and streamline the claimant
institution enrollment validation process as well as initiating and
providing CH33 payment instructions to the Department of the Treasury.
Critical Milestones
To date, all critical milestones have been met. LTS functionality
planned for each critical milestone was based on a limited
understanding of the requirements 14 months ago. On a bi-weekly basis
at each Sprint Review, new requirements/user stories and changes in
scope were discussed and re-prioritized thru the governance process.
Since then, the CH 33 LTS Agile process has continued to better define
program requirements, revealing additional technical complexities/
challenges during Releases 1.0 and 2.0.
Due to the four extra weeks that were required to complete the data
conversion and housing rate adjustment and the complexity of the BDN
financial interface, we expect to deliver the VAONCE (VA online
certification of enrollment) interface on 30 Sept for user testing, and
do not anticipate delivering the complete functionality planned for
Release 3.0 (automating the financial transaction/authorization process
currently required to authorize payments for claims and a financial
interface with BDN) until the Nov/Dec 2010 time frame. The requirements
for Release 4.0, scheduled for December 2010, are still being defined.
Future LTS Updates
Future updates to the CH 33 LTS will be determined by VA
leadership. CH 33 LTS is a rules-based system that will support future
changes to the program such as the expansion of benefits, changes to
payment procedures, and changes to policy and law.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I am pleased to
answer any questions you or any of the other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director,
Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to provide an update on the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33 of
title 38, United States Code). My testimony will address the current
status of education claims processing for fall 2010 enrollments and
critical milestones for VA's Long Term Solution (LTS). Joining me today
is Mr. Mark Krause, VA Program Manager for the Department of the Navy's
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic (SPAWAR), who will
discuss the implementation of the LTS.
As the Subcommittee Members know, the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the most
extensive educational assistance program authorized since the original
GI Bill was signed into law in 1944. Secretary Shinseki and the entire
Department are committed to making sure all Servicemembers, Veterans,
and their family Members eligible for this important benefit receive it
in a timely manner so they can focus on what is most important: their
education. We greatly appreciate the guidance and support of this
Subcommittee, and Congress as a whole, as we continue our efforts to
implement this important legislation.
Current Workload and Processing
Our focus is on serving our Veterans. As we have made changes in
how we process claims and in how we implement the LTS, above all else,
the driving force in our decisionmaking is to ensure that we provide
the fastest and most accurate education benefits possible.
I am pleased to report that VA has made tremendous strides in
delivering Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits in a timely and accurate manner.
We have also made significant progress in the development and
deployment of our new processing and payment system. As of the end of
August last year, VA had processed payments for only 8,185 students for
the fall 2009 semester. For the current fall term, VA has already
processed payments for more than 135,000 students. The average time to
process an enrollment certification as, of August 31, was 10 days, down
from 28 days 1 year ago.
In June and August, we successfully deployed releases 2 and 2.1 of
the LTS. Through these deployments, we successfully converted over
600,000 chapter 33 claimant records from our interim processing system
to the LTS.
We also added greater functionality to that originally planned for
the LTS. Its functionality was expanded to enable payment of
retroactive housing allowance adjustments for individuals with Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) rates that had increased between 2009 and
2010. Additionally, the LTS was improved to automatically generate
letters to individuals that provide information about their benefits.
The LTS was also enhanced to facilitate claims processing for Fry
Scholarship recipients. VA is now processing all Post-9/11 GI Bill
claims in the new system, thereby replacing the interim solution and
its associated manual processing tools.
Our work is far from over, and, as the Members know, we continue to
experience challenges. We have been unable to deliver all functionality
in accordance with the timeline we developed 2 years ago. Although we
are processing all Post-9/11 GI Bill claims in the LTS, functionality
to automate key portions of the process has been delayed. The
interfaces with the VA Online Certification of Enrollment (VA ONCE) and
the Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) payment system, previously
scheduled for September 30, 2010, are now scheduled for October 30,
2010, and December 31, 2010, respectively. These delays are due to
increased functionality needed to improve immediate claims processing
capabilities, challenges with conversion of data from the interim
system to the LTS, and a more complete understanding of the
complexities of the interface with BDN.
Additionally, by working with our key stakeholders, we continue to
learn what is needed and make positive changes. We are working to
improve our debt-management processes--ensuring that refunded payments
are accurately credited to overpayments and ensuring that overpayments
are handled in an effective manner--thus minimizing negative impacts on
students' pursuit of their educational goals. Our guiding principle for
system development and deployment has been, and will continue to be, to
ensure that the deployment schedule and delivered functionality do not
have a negative impact on our ability to pay Veterans.
Fall 2010 Enrollment
Effective August 1, 2009, section 1002 of Public Law 111-32
expanded the Post-9/11 GI Bill to include the children of
Servicemembers who die in the line of duty. This new authority, known
as the ``Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship,'' is now
available for the children of Servicemembers who died in the line of
duty since September 10, 2001. Eligible individuals can receive 36
months of entitlement. VA began accepting applications for this program
on May 1, 2010. As of September 1, 2010, VA has processed approximately
280 Fry Scholarship claims.
On June 3, 2010, VA sent a notice to school certifying officials
informing them that they may submit enrollment certifications for
training pursued during the fall semester even if they do not know a
student's actual tuition and fee charges. Upon receipt of the student's
actual charges, the certifying official was asked to submit an amended
enrollment certification to VA with the corrected information. This
will ensure that students receive their Post-9/11 GI Bill housing
allowance and books and supplies stipend in a timely manner for the
fall semester.
As of August 30, 2010, VA has received fall enrollment
certifications for more than 200,000 individuals, of which
approximately 135,000 have been processed. We have exceeded our claims
processing productivity expectations for the fall 2010 enrollment
period. We set a goal of processing an average of 6 Post-9/11 GI Bill
claims per employee per day, or 20 non-Post-9/11 GI Bill claims per
employee per day. We are currently averaging 9.5 Post-9/11 GI Bill
claims and 25.4 non-Post-9/11 GI Bill claims processed per employee per
day. The overall volume of claims completed per day has dramatically
improved over last year. During the fall 2009 enrollment, VA was
processing an average of 2,000 claims for all benefit programs per day.
We are currently processing more than 10,000 claims per day for all
benefit programs
Payments Since Inception of Program
Since August 1, 2009, VA has paid more than $4.7 billion in Post-9/
11 GI Bill benefits for approximately 340,000 individuals. From August
1, 2009 to July 31, 2010, VA paid $697 million in tuition and fee
benefits to public schools, $618 million to private for-profit schools,
and $437 million to private non-profit schools. VA also paid a total of
$41.7 million under the Yellow Ribbon program. More than 66,000
students have applied to use benefits transferred to them by their
spouses or parents.
Long Term Solution
VA partnered with the SPAWAR to develop an end-to-end claims
processing solution that utilizes rules-based, industry-standard
technologies, for the delivery of education benefits. This is our long-
term strategy for implementing the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The Post-9/11 GI
Bill contains eligibility rules and benefit determinations that will
work well with rules-based technology that requires minimal human
intervention.
VA's automated system is being released in four phases to ensure
robustness and stability. Release 1 of this effort, which was deployed
on March 31, 2010, was limited to a ``pilot'' release and delivered the
capability to complete new original claims; automatically calculate
awards including tuition and fees, housing, books and supplies, Yellow
Ribbon, and Montgomery GI Bill--Active Duty and Reserve Educational
Assistance Program kickers; and automatically calculate awards for
overlapping terms and intervals.
VA deployed Release 2 of the Post-9/11 GI Bill LTS to the Regional
Processing Offices (RPO) on June 30, 2010. This release allowed VA to
process changes in enrollment information, claims for Fry Scholarship
students, and claims for transfers of entitlement. This functionality
also allowed for expanded letter generation from the new system.
Additionally, data conversion from the Interim Solution Front End Tool
database to the LTS occurred for 153,000 cases without payments.
Development of this release and the data conversion activities were
more complex than expected, and not all of the originally planned
functionality was delivered on June 30, 2010. In order to minimize the
need to manually reconcile data or BAH payments, a subsequent Release
2.1 was developed to complete the data conversion process for all
remaining cases, conduct BAH payment adjustments, and provide any
remaining Release 2 functionality.
Release 2.1 was deployed on August 23, 2010. This release replaced
the functionality of the interim solution and associated manual
processing tools. Release 2.1 converted the approximately 393,000
records from the Interim Solution and made BAH adjustments for
approximately 150,000 individuals. Beneficiaries received BAH
adjustments on or about September 7, 2010. Post-9/11 GI Bill
beneficiaries had received housing allowances based upon the 2009 BAH
rates until September 1, 2010, due to limitations of our manual
processing procedures. Release 2.1 allowed for the transition to 2010
BAH rates, and generated retroactive payments to compensate students
for any increase in housing rates due, since the Department of
Defense's implementation of the new rates in January 2010. Other major
functionality included in Release 2.1 included capability for
reconciliation of converted data, and batch interfaces of converted
data to the BDN and the LTS. Currently, Veterans Claims Examiners at
the four RPOs are processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims using the LTS.
The delay of Release 2.1 of the LTS affected future releases.
Release 3 was originally scheduled for deployment on September 30,
2010; however, this schedule date will be adjusted. The realignment of
priorities with respect to BAH 2010 adjusted payments, data conversion,
extensive testing required for Release 2.1, and the complexity of
interfacing with the legacy BDN will impact the range of functionality
that can be delivered in Releases 3 and 4. VA is examining the
deliverable schedule to determine the functional elements that are
achievable by December 2010. It is anticipated that the delay in
Release 3 will also impact Release 4, which was originally scheduled
for December 2010. SPAWAR will determine the impact to Release 4 after
completing an assessment of the Release 3 schedule.
The LTS is based on industry standard service-oriented
architecture. This provides a high degree of integration potential and
interoperability meaning the system will be able to adapt to future
needs. Additionally, the LTS is based on a rules engine that is
modifiable to account for future needs. While the system is inherently
flexible, it is not possible for VA to determine a specific timeframe
to adapt to required changes until the precise changes are defined from
a functional requirements perspective. Therefore, VA is unable to
commit to being able to implement potential changes within a specific
timeframe. VA believes a generally accepted timeline of 24-36 months to
incorporate significant system changes should be considered.
Outreach--Summer/Fall 2010
VA continues to conduct a nationwide outreach and media campaign
focused on two goals: to increase general awareness of its education
programs, emphasizing the Post 9/11 GI Bill; and to provide eligible
participants with clear and easily accessible information through the
GI Bill Web site (www.GIBILL.va.gov).
Some of the principal components of the campaign will facilitate
the following improvements:
Establish a basic strategy and plan, with a single
cohesive message and pathway to the GI Bill Web site;
Revamp and update the GI Bill Web site for ease of
use and navigation;
Reach advertising visibility targets of 20 percent
for national general awareness and 80 percent for our direct
customers; and
Enhance existing social-media platforms like our
Post-9/11 GI Bill Facebook page to include campaign material.
In the fall of 2009 and again this year, VA placed ads highlighting
the Post-9/11 GI Bill in print and Web outlets in an effort to reach
eligible participants and key stakeholders, like higher education
personnel. Ads were placed in magazines such as Marine Corps Times and
Chronicle of Higher Education. Web ads were placed on Web sites such as
GIJobs.com and Military.com.
In addition, VA also partnered with NASCAR to increase awareness of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Working with The Racer's Group (TRG)
Motorsports, we placed the Post-9/11 GI Bill logo and Web address on
the rear panel (TV Panel) of the #71 racecar of Bobby Labonte for the
Coca-Cola 600 during Memorial Day weekend, which was broadcast on
Sunday, May 30, 2010, on the Fox Network. Additionally, the Speed
Channel broadcast the practice sessions live on Saturday afternoon, May
29, 2010.
Our return on investment for participating in NASCAR was very
positive. An estimated 6.5 million people watched the race, 165,000
attended the race, and approximately 700,000 Servicemembers deployed
overseas watched and listened to the race broadcast over the Armed
Forces TV and Radio Network. Hits to the GI Bill Web site increased by
29 percent Saturday--the day before the race--and 34 percent during the
race. Additional coverage of the race, mentioning the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, was also in USA Today, the New York Post, NASCAR.com,
Motorsports.com, Twitter, and Facebook.
ESPN and NASCAR studies show that one-third of the average 6.5
million television viewers are Veterans or on active duty, and most
NASCAR fans have an influencer relationship with a Veteran. NASCAR's
strong influence in both rural and Active Duty/Deployed audiences are
in full alignment with the goals of our outreach plan.
Building upon the success of the Coca Cola 600 race, the Post-9/11
GI Bill was also featured at the September 10 and 11 NASCAR races in
Richmond, Virginia. The race weekend was officially called ``The Post-
9/11 GI Bill Weekend at Richmond International Raceway.'' The GI Bill
logo and Web address was prominently featured for the entire race
weekend and in pre- and post-event media coverage.
Conclusion
While recognizing we will not meet all of the key milestones in our
aggressive development and deployment schedule for the LTS, VA is
nevertheless proud of its achievements in overcoming significant
challenges and successfully transitioning from an inadequate temporary
system to a state-of-the-art processing system that promises to deliver
significantly improved automation and consistency. VA has shown
dramatic improvement over the last year in its ability to deliver
timely and accurate benefits derived from this important legislation.
Recognizing that much of the fall enrollment period is still before us,
we remain vigilant and focused on ensuring we are timely in meeting the
needs of our Veterans. We are indebted to the Subcommittee for its
consistent support.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or any of the other Members of the
Committee may have.
GI BILL UPDATE
September 16, 2010
AGENDA
Current Workload and Processing
Fall Enrollment Progress
Expenditures
Long Term Solution (LTS)
Outreach
Ch 33 Then and Now: Fall Progress
Fall 2010 Enrollment
Productivity exceeding goal
Chap 33 at 9.5/day/VCE (Goal is 6)
Non Chap 33 at 25.4/day/VCE (Goal is 20)
One year ago, 2,000 claims for all benefit programs
per day. Today, over 10,000 claims for all benefit programs per
day.
Average of 24 days to process chapter 33 originals,
and 14 days for chapter 33 enrollment certifications
Chapter 33 Benefits Since Inception
As of 9/1/2010, VA has paid over $4.7 billion to
340,000 individuals and their schools
Approximately $2.1B to schools and $2.6B to
students
Between August 1, 2009 and July 31, 2010, VA paid a
total of $1.75B to schools:
$618M to for-profit schools
$437M to private, non-profit schools
$697M to public schools
$41.7M of the above figures was paid
under the Yellow Ribbon Program
LTS: Expected vs. Actual Functionality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Functionality Actual Functionality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R1: Replace functionality of FET and Job R1: Replaced by Limited
Aid; Adjudicate original and supplemental Release 1--Pilot release to
claims. 3/30/2010 subset of users; New
original claims only. 3/30/
2010
R2: Expansion of R1 functionality and R2: Replace functionality of
automated data feeds for claim and FET and Job Aid; Adjudicate
Veteran information. 6/30/2010 original and supplemental
claims. Converted 150,000
non-pay records from FET to
LTS. 6/30/2010
R2.1: Converted 393,000
records with payments from
FET to LTS. Adjusted BAH
rates and authorized
retroactive payments for
153,000 students. 8/23/2010
R3: Automated data feeds to financial R3: School enrollment
processing system and school enrollment interface. Release delayed
interface. 9/30/2010 1 month, does not include
payment interface. 10/30/
2010
R4: Expansion of previous release R4: BDN payment interface
functionalities and Veteran Self-Service and other data feeds. 12/31/
capability.12/31/2010 2010; begin incorporating
Veteran self-service
components. Spring 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Causes of LTS delays
Delay in full interim system deployment
Job Aids to augment limited functionality
Added Functionality to meet urgent needs
BAH housing retroactive payments and
adjustments
Automated letter generation
Fry scholarship
Data conversion complexity
Improved understanding of payment interface
complexity
BDN interface needed to address FAS
unavailability
What Congress Can Do
Long Term Solution (LTS)
Legislative action has the potential to
negatively impact full deployment of the LTS
Post-9/11 GI Bill
VA believes a generally accepted timeline of
24-36 months to incorporate significant system changes
should be considered.
Outreach
VA is conducting a nationwide media campaign to:
Increase general awareness of our education
programs
Provide clear and easily accessible
information through the GI Bill Web site.
Key goals of the FY 2010 fall campaign:
Establish a single cohesive message and
pathway to the GI Bill Web site
Revamp the GI Bill website for ease of use
and navigation
Reach advertising visibility targets of 20
percent for national general awareness and 80 percent
for our direct customers
Enhance existing social media platforms (i.e.
Post-9/11 GI Bill Facebook page) to include campaign
material
Outreach Activities
NASCAR Sponsorship
Saturday, Sept 11, 2010
7:30 PM; ABC Sports & AFN
Richmond, VA
NASCAR
Demographics
One out of three military service Members are NASCAR
fans
Nineteen percent of NASCAR fans have served, or are
currently serving in the military.
Event
Car Sponsorship for AirGuard 400.
Richmond International Raceway weekend sponsorship.
Value
Viewership of 6.6 million on ABC
Additional viewership of 1 million on the Armed
Forces Network
An average of 4 million radio listeners
Kickoff for ``My Story'' clips
``My Story'' Videos
2 videos completed
2 additional underway
Rollout at AirGuard 400
PSA usage
Outreach Activities
Mike Rowe on Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits
http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2009/11/post-911-gi-bill/
Statement of John L. Wilson, Assistant
National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the 1.2 million members of the Disabled American
Veterans (DAV), I am honored to present this statement for the record
on the Post-9/11 GI Bill, in accordance with our congressional charter
and DAV's mission to advance the interests, and work for the
betterment, of all wounded, injured, and disabled American veterans.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill, which went into effect August 1, 2009,
provides educational benefits for servicemembers who have served on
active duty for 90 or more days on or after September 11, 2001. The
benefits depend on the number of days served on active duty. It also
creates a benefit package that gives current and previously activated
National Guard and Reserve members the same benefits as active duty
servicemembers.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefit includes: 100 percent of
in-state tuition and fees of public colleges and universities; a
monthly housing allowance (living stipend) based on an E-5 with
dependents for the zip code of the school's location; up to $1,000 a
year for books and supplies; a one-time relocation allowance; and the
option to transfer benefits to family members while still on active
duty.
Approved training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill includes graduate and
undergraduate degrees, and vocational/technical training of up to 36
months with benefits generally payable for up to15 years following
release from active duty. Additionally, tutorial assistance, and
licensing and certification test reimbursement are approved under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Speaking about the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Secretary Shinseki stated
that ``safely investing one's money requires study of the markets and a
reasonable understanding of its forces. Here is an investment option
that is guaranteed to pay high dividends for years to come.''
While the Post-9/11 GI Bill is a comprehensive package of
educational benefits, DAV submits that the ``high dividends'' are not
likely to be earned by a certain group--otherwise eligible service-
connected disabled veterans who will opt out of VA's Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program due to the low monthly
stipend.
To be eligible, VR&E participants must have a discharge that is
other than dishonorable, a service-connected disability rating of at
least 10 percent from the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), or a
memorandum rating of 20% or more that they received from VBA before
separating from active duty, and an employment handicap. An employment
handicap is an impairment that impacts a veteran's ability to obtain or
retain employment based on their demonstrated abilities, aptitudes and
interests.
If qualified, participants can receive a comprehensive
rehabilitation evaluation to determine their abilities, skills, and
interests for employment. In addition, they can receive vocational
counseling and rehabilitation planning for employment services, resume
development, on-the-job training, apprenticeships, post-secondary
training at a college, vocational, technical or business school and
other important benefits. These are critical services, which may make
the difference in a veteran not only obtaining but maintaining gainful
employment. The living stipend provided to VR&E participants may make
the difference in being able to provide shelter for his or her family.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill living stipend currently averages $1,200 a
month, but can run as high as $2,700 for full-time students, depending
on school zip code. By contrast, the subsistence allowance under VR&E
is approximately $548 for full-time students with no dependents and
approximately $800 for those with two dependents, regardless of zip
code.
Under the current construct, disabled veterans are potentially
placed in the difficult position of having to choose between VR&E or
the Post-9/11 GI Bill as a result of the substantial differences in the
monthly living stipend. As a result, we are deeply concerned that
disabled veterans, in order to provide for their families out of
economic necessity, will forgo receiving the comprehensive
rehabilitative assistance available to them through VR&E and, instead,
choose the more generous Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Recent unemployment statistics underscore the reality of our
concern and that of this Subcommittee. July 2010 employment statistics
of the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the overall
unemployment rate for veterans generally rose to 8.4 percent, up from
May's 7.8 percent. For veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan specifically,
the unemployment rate rose to 11.8 percent, an increase from the June
rate of 11.5 percent and May's 10.6 percent. While this is an
improvement from March of this year when the unemployment rate was 14.7
percent for this group, the stagnant economy continues to make both
small and large private businesses reluctant to hire, thus dimming
veterans' employment prospects. These unemployment statistics
underscore the reality that the transition from military service to
veterans' status for this highly trained and well motivated group,
which we have addressed in previous testimony as problematic and in
need of additional legislative action, makes the additional services
available to them through VR&E programs even more valuable.
Given this set of circumstances, what choice should a veteran make?
One can understand the logic of economic necessity driving veterans in
choosing a benefit with a much higher stipend versus one with a lower
stipend but more comprehensive services.
There is a solution already in Congress that, if enacted, would
resolve this dilemma. H.R. 5933, Post-9/11 Veterans Educational
Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, provides a legislative remedy.
While there are several other important provisions of this bill, our
focus rests on Section 8, which would amend Section 3108(b) title 38,
United States Code, making veterans entitled to Chapter 31 subsistence
allowance and entitled to Chapter 33 able to elect the E-5 monthly
housing allowance at the average national amount while participating in
VR&E programs.
S. 514, the Veterans Rehabilitation and Training Improvements Act
of 2009, introduced March 3, 2009, also addresses the subsistence
allowance. The relevant section of this bill for our purposes, Section
2(b), modifies the amount of the subsistence to the basic allowance for
housing for E-5s with or without dependents, as applicable, while
participating in VR&E programs.
Our position on this issue as reflected in this testimony is found
in the attached DAV Resolution No. 099, passed at our most recent
National Convention, held July 31-August 3, 2010, in Atlanta, Georgia.
DAV believes that the anticipated ``high dividends'' of which Secretary
Shinseki spoke will not be earned by otherwise eligible service-
connected disabled veterans who will opt out of VA's Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program due to the low monthly
stipend.
Subsistence allowances must be comparable, regardless of program,
to ensure maximum participation and maximum benefit, whether it is
assisting veterans in finding employment, participation in vocational
rehabilitation, or other such services. The Administration and Congress
must never force service-connected disabled veterans with employment
handicaps to utilize less financially supportive programs than those
available to their non-disabled counterparts, or even more tragically,
opt out of vocational rehabilitation for the more financially
beneficial Post-9/11 GI Bill. Truly, our service-connected disabled
veterans deserve better.
Madame Chair, to you and the Subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of DAV.
__________
RESOLUTION NO. 099
SUPPORT FOR LIMITED DUAL ENTITLEMENT TO VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND
EMPLOYMENT CHAPTER 31, AND THE POST-9/11 EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
UNDER CHAPTER 33 IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT DISABLED VETERANS ARE NOT
FORCED TO CHOOSE THE LESSER OF TWO BENEFITS
WHEREAS, our nation established veterans' programs to repay or
reward veterans for their extraordinary service and sacrifices on
behalf of their fellow citizens, especially those veterans disabled as
a result of military service; and
WHEREAS, these programs include the Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (VR&E) program for service-connected disabled veterans with
employment handicaps as well as the post-9/11 Post-9/11 GI Bill under
title 38, United States Code, chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill); and
WHEREAS, the Post-9/11 GI Bill currently provides a more
financially lucrative subsistence allowance than does the current VR&E
Chapter 31 program; and
WHEREAS, such a disparity will ultimately force service-connected
disabled veterans with employment handicaps to either utilize a program
less financially supportive to them and their families than their non-
disabled counterparts, or opt out of vocational rehabilitation for the
more financially beneficial post 9/11 Post-9/11 GI Bill ; and
WHEREAS, our Nation's first duty to veterans is the rehabilitation
and welfare of its service-connected disabled; NOW
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Disabled American Veterans in
National Convention assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, July 31-August 3,
2010, supports limited dual entitlement to assistance under the
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program under Chapter 31 and
the post-9/11 educational assistance program under chapter 33.
Statement of Judith Flink, Executive
Director, University Student Financial Services,
University of Illinois at Chicago, IL
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Judith Flink.
I serve as Executive Director of University Student Financial Services
for the three campuses of the University of Illinois. I have worked in
the University's business office and been actively involved in higher
education for over 30 years. On behalf of myself, colleagues in the AAU
Bursar organization, colleagues from other educational institutions
around the country, and most importantly, on behalf of the veterans
attending or seeking to attend our institutions, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify.
In 2008, Congress passed landmark legislation recognizing the
contributions and needs of millions of Americans who served their
country in our armed forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. This
legislation, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, makes possible educational dreams
that not only express a special thanks to our veterans, but also
contribute directly to the economic recovery and future of America.
America's postsecondary institutions are proud to have supported
the enactment of this bill and welcome the opportunity to serve
veterans in our classrooms. Today, universities across the country
enroll thousands of veterans who receive support through federal GI
benefits. Part of my hope in being here is to promote changes to the
program that will increase that number.
Unfortunately, as you are aware, implementation of the vitally
important education benefits authorized by the bill has not been
smooth. Delays in getting the program up and running, followed by
numerous subsequent flaws in the interface between the VA and
educational institutions, have created hardship for veterans and
institutions. My colleagues and I recognize the enormity of
implementing this program and creating the systems to manage it. We
sincerely applaud the VA for its excellent work in getting the program
up and running under difficult circumstances. Our desire is to
strengthen our partnership with the VA in an effort to help the program
run better.
With that in mind, I focus my testimony on flaws in the system that
if corrected will more effectively fulfill the promise of this program.
Included with my remarks is a list of concerns compiled by the
University of Illinois and 16 peer institutions. While the list is not
exhaustive, it identifies major concerns that render access to
educational benefits under this program difficult for veterans and
expensive for the federal government. Some of these concerns result
from legislative provisions, and many are the result of VA policy and
procedures.
The majority of our remaining concerns are administrative in
nature. VA policies and procedures often fail to accommodate the
education community's existing systems and procedures, thereby creating
needless delay and hardship for veterans. I will not belabor the
Committee with all the concerns on our attached list. Allow me to
highlight just three of them.
Perhaps our greatest concern as university business officers is the
VA's refund policy which requires institutions to refund tuition
overpayments to students who must then refund them back to the VA. This
policy mirrors that of the original GI Bill wherein all benefits
(including tuition) were paid directly to the students who were then
responsible for paying their tuition bills to the school and for
refunding any overpayments back to the VA. But under the Post-9/11 GI
Bill, tuition benefits are paid to the school not the student.
Therefore, the requirement to refund overpayments to students instead
of directly to the VA is not only inefficient, it also puts students at
risk of losing future benefit eligibility under the program if they
fail to understand or fulfill their responsibility to return those
funds to the VA. This risk is high. In all other financial aid
programs, overpayments are refunded directly to the aid source
bypassing the student. Thus, students have come to expect that when
they receive a refund from the school it is theirs to use for books and
living expenses. By the time they receive notification from the VA of
the amount they must repay, the money may have been spent. The VA will
then suspend future benefit eligibility until payment is received which
would delay or prevent the student from continuing their education.
A second major concern is the VA's remittance of payment for
students for whom the institution has certified a different amount, or
for whom the institution has not even completed a Certificate of
Eligibility. No explanation is provided with these payments. Therefore,
the institution must contact the VA for an explanation of the
discrepancy before releasing payment to the student. When the
institution calls, the VA's phone lines have long delays with hold
times up to 40 minutes. Sometimes calls are dropped altogether due to
the high volume and the institution must dial again. For months, the
VA's phone lines were closed on Thursdays and Fridays. These delays and
their resultant hardship to the Veteran could be eliminated if the VA
included an adequate explanation to the school with each payment.
Our third concern is a lack of universal published guidance. The VA
will provide guidance through Policy Advisories but often as a response
to a specific question posed by an institution. The Advisories may not
be disseminated to all participating schools creating a lack of
consistent, uniform policy among institutions. This lack of guidance
results in confusion and conflicting administration between
institutions and creates frustration on the part of veterans. The
creation of a single source of readily accessible Post-9/11 GI Bill
administrative manual would eliminate the majority of this frustration
and burden.
While I've only mentioned three of our concerns, the attached list
is more comprehensive. We are confident, however, that many of them can
be successfully resolved through open dialogue between schools and the
VA. Our recent attempts to initiate this dialogue met with
disappointing results. We received a written response from the VA, for
which we are grateful, but were not given the opportunity to discuss
the matter in more detail or open a meaningful dialogue.
My peers and I respectfully ask your assistance to open this
dialogue. We believe regularly scheduled meetings between the VA and a
working group from the education community will enable both parties to
collaborate on proposed program changes and regulations prior to
implementation. We would like to be considered as both a resource and
partner for the VA and Congress in our mutual endeavor to improve
delivery of Post-9/11 GI Bill tuition benefits to our veterans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you. I hope my
testimony can be a spring board for productive dialogue between all
parties who share your commitment to strengthening and improving
services to our veteran community. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions Members of the Committee might have.
ATTACHMENTS STUDENT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF REFUND PROCESS
AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES WITH THE POST-9/11 GI BILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Example
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Western Illinois University Veteran withdrew before
class after Post-9/11
benefits had been paid; WIU
refunded benefits to VA via
check in Dec 2009; VA
cashed the check in Feb
2010 but didn't process it
to the veteran's account
until Aug 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. University of Illinois Veteran received ROTC
scholarship after Post-9/11
benefits had been paid; UI
refunded benefits to VA via
ACH in early March 2010
according to VA's ACH
return policy; VA still has
not processed the refund
and was still requesting
payment from the veteran in
late Aug 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.University of Illinois Per veteran's request, UI
refunded Post-9/11 benefits
to VA via ACH in early
March 2010 according to
VA's ACH return policy; VA
did not process the refund
until late July 2010;
meanwhile VA reported
veteran as delinquent to
the credit bureaus, ruining
his credit and causing
Discover to cancel his
credit card.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. University of Illinois UI received $8,305.60 Post-9/
11 benefit payment from VA
on January 19, 2010 then
received another payment in
the amount of $9,343.80
from VA on May 13, 2010 for
the same veteran.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Illinois State University ISU received payment from VA
for a veteran's books and
supplies stipend (which
should have been remitted
directly to the veteran).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Illinois State University ISU certified a veteran's
Post-9/11 benefit
eligibility at 70% but
received payment from VA in
March 2010 at 60%; ISU
questioned VA's eligibility
calculation in March 2010
and was told by VA that 60%
was correct; at veteran's
request, ISU questioned VA
again in August 2010 and
was told student
eligibility is 70%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. George Washington University GWU received Yellow Ribbon
benefit payment from VA on
behalf of a veteran for
whom VA had calculated 100%
eligibility; VA later
discovered they had
incorrectly accounted for
the veteran's ROTC years,
and recalculated Yellow
Ribbon eligibility at 80%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. George Washington University GWU received Yellow Ribbon
benefit payment from VA on
behalf of a veteran for
whom VA had calculated 100%
eligibility; VA paid half
the benefit by check, half
by wire; VA later
discovered veteran was only
eligible for 90% Yellow
Ribbon benefits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. George Washington University GWU received a $7,000
overpayment of Post-9/11
benefits for a veteran on
March 9, 2010; GWU called
VA to ask what to do with
the funds and was
instructed to wait for VA
to call back later; after
hearing nothing from VA for
4 months, GWU credited the
overpayment to the
veteran's account at GWU on
July 13; a week later VA
called and requested GWU to
refund $7,954.92 to VA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. George Washington University A GWU veteran was active
duty at start of Fall 2009
but scheduled to go off
active duty mid semester;
veteran also wanted to
participate in Yellow
Ribbon; GWU contacted VA
for instructions and was
told to certify Yellow
Ribbon eligibility after
veteran went off active
duty; VA paid veteran's
full tuition plus YR plus
housing stipend; VA then
created a debt for the
housing stipend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF CONCERNS REGARDING ADMINISTRATION
OF THE POST-9/11 GI BILL
The Post-9/11 GI Bill was signed into law August 1, 2009.
Certification and processing of VA Chapter 33 program benefits began
immediately thereafter. The volume of applicants overwhelmed VA
resources and the program got off to a rough start. Improvements have
been made in VA's process, but the program continues to present
significant challenges to the education community.
Following is a list of VA Chapter 33 issues and suggestions
submitted by administrators from educational institutions (hereinafter
collectively referred to as Institution) around the country. The issues
needlessly delay delivery of benefit payments to veterans and unduly
burden Institutions. The suggestions offer potential solutions.
Issues:
VA refund policy is highly labor-intensive because:
VA under- and over-payments with no attached
explanation result in long processing delays as
Institution attempts to contact VA for details.
VA policy is inconsistent--some overpayments
must be refunded to VA, others to the student; some
refunds must be electronic, some by paper check.
VA policy of refunding to the student is
contrary to all other forms of student financial
assistance that require Institutions to refund to the
aid source.
The policy of refunding to the student
results in inaccurate IRS Form 1098-T reporting. For
example, if VA remits $10,000 Chapter 33 tuition
benefits to Institution then the student drops classes
resulting in a $4,000 tuition reduction and Institution
refunds that $4,000 to the student instead of VA, the
Institution will report $10,000 in Box 5 of the
student's Form 1098-T, not the $6,000.
Inadequate explanation of VA payments:
VA payments do not match the amount certified
by Institution on the Certificate of Eligibility.
VA remits payments for students for whom
Institution has not completed a Certificate of
Eligibility.
VA remits duplicate payments for some
students.
VA pays out-of-state tuition after
Institution has charged and certified in-state tuition.
VA payments lack adequate identifying
information--enrollment term, number of credit hours,
percentage of eligibility, etc. For example, if
Institution certifies $5,000 and VA remits only $3,200,
Institution is given no explanation why.
VA policy of remitting individual instead of
collective payments is highly labor-intensive.
Delayed VA payments result in additional labor-
intensive Institution activities:
Institution processes emergency loans for
delayed housing payments;
Institution places provisional credits on
student accounts in order to prevent late payment
charges or cancellation of enrollment for non-payment;
Institution must conduct a manual
reconciliation upon receipt of VA payments which are
almost invariably different than the anticipated
provisional credits;
Institution holds payments received for a
previous enrollment term until VA confirms the
student's eligibility for the current or subsequent
enrollment term in order to verify accuracy;
Institution must process multiple
Certificates of Eligibility for students whose active
duty and/or enrollment status changed prior to receipt
of VA payment;
Lump sum payments for multiple terms are
difficult to differentiate by term.
VA refund policy is highly labor-intensive because:
VA under- and over-payments with no attached
explanation result in long processing delays as
Institution attempts to contact VA for details.
VA policy is inconsistent--some overpayments
must be refunded to VA, others to the student; some
refunds must be electronic, some by paper check.
VA policy of refunding to the student is
contrary to all other forms of student financial
assistance that require Institution to refund to the
aid source;
The policy of refunding to the student
results in inaccurate IRS Form 1098-T reporting. For
example, if VA remits $10,000 Chapter 33 tuition
benefits to Institution then the student drops classes
resulting in a $4,000 tuition reduction and Institution
refunds that $4,000 to the student instead of VA, the
Institution will report $10,000 in Box 5 of the
student's Form 1098-T, not the $6,000.
VA return policy creates needless delays and
administrative burden because:
Institution must return full payment if any
variation in assessment has occurred subsequent to
certification, even if that variation is a minor
reduction in fees.
Institution must submit an amended
certification after returning payment which removes it
from VA's automated process by requiring VA Claims
Adjustor review.
VA Claims Adjustor must then submit a new
payment request to the U.S. Treasury Department who
waits to process the payment in batch.
VA has published no clear guidance regarding which
benefits will be delayed in the event of an unreimbursed
overpayment-tuition/fee payment to Institution, or living/book
payment to student?
VA has published no clear deadlines for retroactive
applications (benefits for prior enrollment terms).
VA has published no clear guidance for Chapter 33
benefit eligibility for students who receive other forms of
tuition assistance, e.g. Active Military tuition sponsorship,
federal or state tuition assistance, Institutional tuition
waivers, private tuition specific scholarships or sponsorships,
etc.
VA has published no clear guidance for Chapter 33
benefit eligibility for students who are discharged from active
duty during the enrollment period.
VA has not required or adequately accounted for DD214
(active duty discharge) data when determining Chapter 33
benefit eligibility.
VA has published no clear guidance on Chapter 33
benefit eligibility for waivable student health insurance.
Some VA payments appear on multiple cycle rosters
giving the false impression that duplicate payments have been
received.
Some VA deposits contain enrollment dates that do not
match Institution's.
Veterans and Institution have no mechanism for
determining the status of a veteran's application (22-1999) and
whether the veteran will qualify for Chapter 33 benefits, so
veterans who need the benefits in order to attend class cannot
register.
VA restrictions on distance education unfairly deny
housing stipends to these students.
VA does not notify Institution when student changes
benefit Chapter.
Yellow ribbon payments have been particularly
difficult; although they are included on the original
certification, the yellow ribbon eligibility is segregated and
payments for yellow ribbon claims have not been forthcoming.
VA customer service is inadequate:
Institution cannot contact VA's Buffalo
regional office directly even though they originate the
payments; Institution has to use either the online
inquiry system or call the national 888 number.
VA's national 888 number results in long
delays from hold times as long as 40 minutes or dropped
calls; now the 888 number is closed Thursdays and
Fridays to enable VA to ``catch up''.
VA representatives often give conflicting
information and when pressed either refer Institution
to VA's regional office in Buffalo (which Institution
cannot contact), or instruct Institution not to
question VA's payments (even though Institution has
found many errors and is supposed to be VA's
``partner'').
VA's online system sometimes reports
inquiries ``closed'' without providing an adequate
explanation of the resolution.
VA Education Liaison Representatives (ELRs)
are frequently unavailable due to ``special
assignment''.
Suggestions:
Open a dialogue between VA and Institutions that
enables both parties to understand prior to implementation the
system and process implications of VA-proposed new changes and
regulations.
Establish a partnership between VA and U.S.
Department of Education (ED) to share resources and expedite
delivery of VA benefits.
Revisit the education law passed by Congress last
year that removes VA benefits from consideration when
determining student eligibility for Title IV funds. Federal
need based financial assistance must by definition be
determined on need, and need is mitigated by federal assistance
from another federal agency.
Create an on-line portal similar to the WAVE portal
for Chapter 30 benefits that would enable veterans and
Institution to determine the veteran's Chapter 33 application
status and eligibility for benefits.
Veterans need an effective source of accurate
information about their individual benefit eligibility
before they apply for and accept admission to an
Institution in order to know whether they can afford to
attend.
Institutions who are asked to carry the
financial risk for veterans by holding them harmless
while awaiting payment from VA need an effective source
of accurate information about their application and
benefit status.
Simply streamline, standardize, and improve
communication regarding VA overpayment policy:
Allow Institution to refund/return only the
overpayment amount rather than the full payment
followed by an amended certification.
Allow Institution to batch overpayment
refunds/returns rather than remitting them
individually.
Standardize VA overpayment policy to mirror
ED and other financial aid policies that return
overpayments to the aid source not student.
Improve communication regarding status of
student refund/return.
Provide adequate and accurate explanations to
Institution for VA payments that differ from Institution
certified amounts; then remit batch/collective payments to
Institution instead of multiple individual payments.
Allow individuals other than the single certifying
official at Institution to initiate/maintain contact with VA;
for example, individuals who research billing issues should be
able to speak directly with VA payment coordinators to resolve
discrepancies.
VA responsiveness to researching mismatched payments
has improved, now originating issues need to be addressed.
Replace the per-credit hour cap with a single dollar
amount cap for each state. This would eliminate the need to
calculate benefits individually for each student based on
enrolled credit hours.
Revisit VA restrictions on distance education to
allow veterans Chapter 33 housing stipends while enrolled
solely through distance education courses.
Clarify VA policy on overseas study and expand
Chapter 33 benefit eligibility to include courses taken abroad
that count toward the student's degree.
Allow veterans to revert to a more advantageous
program if they discover Chapter 33 is not in their best
interest.
The irrevocable nature of Chapter 33 benefit
election coupled with the lack of clear situation-
specific information to effectively guide their
decision has created hardships for many veterans.
Remove the Chapter 30 to Chapter 33
conversion penalty which limits combined use of the two
programs to 36 months unless Chapter 30 is exhausted.
Simplify Chapter 33 eligibility rules and allow all
active service to count; eliminate the requirement to verify
the purpose and authorizing U.S. Code for each active duty
period.
Expand Chapter 33 timelines to allow Institution to
complete Certificates of Eligibility far enough in advance to
enable VA to process claims by the start of the term and
continue uninterrupted between terms.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act's Readmission
Requirements for Servicemembers states that returning
servicemembers may not be charged tuition and fees in excess of
the rate charged during the term in which they left school for
military service unless they have veteran or military education
benefits. Is it reasonable to base charges on benefit
eligibility?
Improve VA delivery of policy notifications to
Institution Certifying Officials (COs). Recent VA policy
updates submitted to COs via mass e-mail with a link to VA's
Web Automated Reference Material System (WARMS) were missed
because many COs could not access the link to WARMS. All time
sensitive information should be included in the actual email
text.
Forward to Institution a monthly report (or copy of
Certificate of Eligibility) listing each applicant and
percentage of Chapter 33 benefit eligibility for that
Institution.
Forward to Institution a monthly (or quarterly)
report listing students who owe an overpayment to VA, and when
the overpayment has been paid.
Remove the detailed examination of each course's
applicability to a degree program, attendance, retakes, and
need for remediation. Why does the VA track this level of
detail when U.S. Department of Education does not?