Apr112013
Hearing Transcript on Legislative Hearing on H.R. 114, H.R. 3685, H.R. 4319, H.R. 4635, H.R. 4664, H.R. 4765, H.R. 5360, and H.R. 5484.
|
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 114, H.R. 3685, H.R. 4319, H.R. 4635, H.R. 4664, H.R. 4765, H.R. 5360, AND H.R. 5484
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 10, 2010 SERIAL No. 111-84 Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
CORRINE BROWN, Florida |
STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking |
|
||
|
|
|||||
|
|
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
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
June 10, 2010
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 114, H.R. 3685, H.R. 4319, H.R. 4635, H.R. 4664, H.R. 4765, H.R. 5360, and H.R. 5484
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, prepared statement of
Hon. Harry Teague, prepared statement of
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Thomas J. Pamperin, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration
Prepared statement of Mr. Pamperin
American Legion, Catherine A. Trombley, Assistant Director, National Economic Commission
Prepared statement of Ms. Trombley
American Optometric Association, Michael R. Duenas, O.D., Associate Director, Health Sciences and Policy
Prepared statement of Dr. Duenas
Blinded Veterans Association, Thomas Zampieri, Ph.D., Director of Government Relations
Prepared statement of Dr. Zampieri
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon
Prepared statement of Congressman DeFazio
Fortenberry, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska
Prepared statement of Congressman Fortenberry
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director
Prepared statement of Mr. Daley
Stearns, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
Prepared statement of Congressman Stearns
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Eric A. Hilleman, Director, National Legislative Service
Prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Veterans (AMVETS), Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director, statement
Kratovil, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, statement
Moran, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas, statement
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 114, H.R. 3685, H.R. 4319, H.R. 4635, H.R. 4664, H.R. 4765, H.R. 5360, AND H.R. 54844
Thursday, June 10, 2010
U. S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Adler, Kirkpatrick, Teague, and Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, hearing on pending legislation will come to order. I would like to call attention to the fact that the Honorable Frank Kratovil and American Veterans (AMVETS) have asked to submit written testimony for the record. I ask unanimous consent that their statements be entered into the record.
Hearing no objection so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that written statements be made part of the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I am going to forego my opening statement and ask the Ranking Member to do as well.
We will go right to our first panel and recognize our colleagues in support of their bills being considered before our Subcommittee here today. So Mr. DeFazio, you are now recognized to speak on H.R. 4765.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman. Herseth Sandlin appears in the Appendix.]
STATEMENTS OF HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON; HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA; AND HON. JEFF FORTENBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Boozman, who I sat in another hearing with earlier today. I appreciate your consideration and the Subcommittee's consideration of H.R. 4765.
Very quickly, the history is for more than 30 years, Oregon Congressional offices have utilized U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) work-studies. I have had work studies for 23 years. A number of my VA work-studies have gone on to work at the Veterans Administration, at the Pentagon. A number of our county veteran service officers during their training and their work-study, they have helped thousands of veterans get benefits that they earned and deserve. Unfortunately, someone, somewhere in the bowels of the VA, decided that this was not an authorized program and has moved to terminate the eligibility of Congressional offices.
Senator Wyden and I and the entire Oregon delegation are respectfully requesting that we give explicit authorization, as part of your legislation on work-studies, to allow VA workspace to work in Congressional offices. It is incredibly valuable for the veterans themselves for getting the work-study experience. It often opens up career opportunities for them and it helps America's veterans get their benefits. So with that I would yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Congressman DeFazio appears appears in the Appendix.]
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. It is a very important bill that we will consider further. We appreciate your testimony. The Ranking Member and I were ourselves many years ago—well, a few years back, both of us were work-study students ourselves. So we appreciate you bringing this to our attention.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Some fewer than others.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But you and Senator Wyden and others have benefited from these students in your Congressional district offices, and so we look forward to working with you to move the bill forward.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you very much.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Stearns, welcome to our Subcommittee. Mr. Stearns is also a Member of our full Committee. I appreciate you being here, and you are recognized to speak to your legislation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF STEARNS
Mr. STEARNS. Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you Ranking Member Boozman. I ask unanimous consent that my opening statement or my statement be part of the record.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. STEARNS. The bill we are talking about, H.R. 3685, would simply require the Department of Veterans Affairs to have a drop-down menu titled "Veterans Employment" on its home page. If you go to the home page of the Veterans Affairs, there is, in the lower right hand side, there is a category for Federal jobs, but it is not linked to private-sector jobs. You have to go up to the top of the page, and then you hit a pull-down menu, and within that pull-down menu is something called VetSuccess. Now, within VetSuccess you have to go through all kinds of—in fact, if you are a veteran looking for a job it is a daunting task. Even when you look for Federal jobs, it is difficult. But to get the private jobs you have to click on a veteran service drop-down menu and navigate 28 possible links. When you go to Monster.com, you can quickly put in a zip code and get all the jobs in your area. You can't do that. And they have separated the Federal jobs from the private jobs.
I think you could have one drop-down menu that would include all the jobs for veterans in the private and Federal Government all in one site and make it easier.
So I think my suggestion with this bill is that to make it easier, tell the Veterans Affairs that the word "VetSuccess" does not even imply private sector jobs. So in the long-term, you know, the veteran who is coming back and looking for a job is having a hard time finding it in the Federal Government, in the private sector, why not have it reconfigured so that everything is together and that it is easy for the veteran to determine what jobs in his areas are available.
Now, I finally went through and did it. I put in my zip code and I came up with 14 jobs but they were an hour and a half to 2 hours away. So there has to be some discernment here so the veteran can't look for a job that is 2 hours away. He is looking for that area. If you wanted it 2 hours away, you would put in a different zip code. So if there is nobody in that zip code and there is no job, it should say "zero" and not refer you to other zip codes that are 2 hours away.
So I am just asking that we take some of the private-sector Monster.com approach, which is easy. I went in there and found 237 jobs in my local town. So I think my bill should be carefully looked at and work with the Veterans Affairs so we can get it expedited for our veterans. Thank you Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Stearns appears in the Appendix.]
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Fortenberry, you are now recognized to speak on your bill, H.R. 114.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FORTENBERRY
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you Madam Chair and Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee, for allowing me to testify today on the "Veterans Entrepreneurial Transition Business Benefit Act of 2009."
I do want to begin by commending the Subcommittee on its work to provide economic opportunities for our Nation's finest, particularly after their service. Encouraging entrepreneurship among our veterans should be, I believe, a high legislative priority. While the GI Bill, and especially the Post-9/11 GI Bill, provide outstanding educational opportunities to veterans, not all veterans undertake a path of higher education after their military service. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs those eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, 41 percent have not used any of their benefits. Those eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill, about 30 percent have not used any of those benefits. And even larger numbers of veterans, Madam Chair, have used some benefits but have not completed a degree.
Many of my own constituents have informed me that they would like to see greater entrepreneurial opportunities available to them as a way of augmenting traditional educational opportunities after their service.
In addition, as you know from recent hearings, unemployment figures for our Nation's newest veterans are very troubling, with 21.6 percent of 18- to 24-year-old male veterans from the Post-9/11 era unemployed in 2009. Nearly 22 percent of that age group unemployed.
Many of our veterans do possess the drive and skills to become successful entrepreneurs but simply lack adequate capital to get there. They have learned important marketable skills during their time in service and often want to use that acquired expertise as a springboard to small business ownership.
And so to address these issues, I introduced H.R. 114, the "Veterans Entrepreneurial Transition Business Benefit Act," to permit veterans eligible for assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill to elect to use those benefits to establish and operate a business that they own as a primary source of income. Allowing veterans to use their educational benefits as capital to start a business, combined with the exceptional counseling and training programs for veterans in small business that already exist within the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration would, I believe, propel many veterans to economic independence.
My bill is deliberately brief in order to allow the Secretary operational flexibility in implementing and managing this program. I believe it is another step toward increasing the diversity of opportunities for veterans to use their earned benefits while strengthening the small business economy, creating jobs, as well as encouraging innovation. And I would appreciate your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Fortenberry appears in the Appendix.]
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. We appreciate your testimony.
Our second and third panels are all going to be providing their perspectives on the various bills pending today. We look forward to working with you and appreciate the work that you have done, the bill that you have introduced, and we will work closely with you moving forward. Thank you.
We now have a pending series of votes, nine votes, so it will take us some time to return. I will consult with the Ranking Member to determine if there is a chance we may come back during the motion to recommit if we feel we can get through some additional testimony and matters before the Subcommittee today. Otherwise, it may take a bit of time for us to return. We apologize, but we will see you as soon as we can. The hearing is now recessed.
[Recess.]
Mr. TEAGUE [Presiding]. Can we now invite Panel 2 to the witness panel. Joining us on our second panel of witnesses is Mr. Richard Daley, Associate Legislation Director to the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA); Ms. Catherine A. Trombley, Assistant Director of the National Economic Commission for the American Legion; Mr. Eric Hilleman, Director of the National Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW); Dr. Thomas Zampieri, Director of Government Relations for the Blinded Veterans of America (BVA); and Dr. Michael Duenas, Associate Director for Health, Science and Policy at the American Optometric Association (AOA).
In the interest of time and courtesy to all the panelists here today, we ask that you limit your testimony to 5 minutes focusing on your comments and recommendations. Your entire written statement has been entered into the Committee record. Welcome to the Subcommittee.
Mr. Daley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF RICHARD DALEY, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATION DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; CATHERINE A. TROMBLEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; ERIC A. HILLEMAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; THOMAS ZAMPIERI, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION; AND MICHAEL R. DUENAS, O.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SCIENCES AND POLICY, AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION
Mr. DALEY. Thank you Chairman Teague, Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee. PVA is honored to participate in the hearing today to share our views on this proposed legislation. I have submitted our written testimony for the record and in the interest of time will review only a few of the bills. But let me say that as I did review the bills, that they are all good, positive things and they are designed to help the veterans, and I am sure they will be—those that did pass will be appreciated by the veterans of your State and the veterans throughout the country.
Legislation such as H.R. 114, the "Veterans Entrepreneurial Transition Business Benefits Act," will be very important to some veterans. This will allow the benefits earned under the new GI Bill to be used to help establish and operate a business that the veteran will operate as their primary source of income. Every veteran does not want to attend college for 4 years, and for those few that have the desire, ambition and other funding available, this will help them achieve their dream; that is, the dream of owning a business. PVA supports this legislation.
The bill, H.R. 3685, would combine various existing veterans employment Web sites that are currently available into one Web site. These employment sites would be placed under one location on the VA's main page. What a great idea. Why didn't we do this several years ago? It will certainly help make it easier for veterans as they search for employment.
H.R. 4319 is the "Specially Adapted Housing Assistance Enhancement Act of 2009," another great idea. It was the 109th Congress that passed the legislation to create the temporary resident assistance adaptation grant to better accommodate seriously injured veterans during the rehabilitation or transition back to the civilian world. After several years, very few veterans applied for the grant. The U.S. Government Accountability Office report told us why. That is because the money for the grant is subtracted from the original grant totals that the veterans would some day need for their permanent housing. That total amount for the specially adapted housing grant of $63,700 is inadequate to make any modifications or to build a totally accessible home today anyway, and to subtract from that total doesn't benefit the veteran at all for a house that he is only going to live in for maybe 6 months or a year.
So H.R. 4319 fixes that problem, but H.R. 4319 is a 1-year pilot. PVA has concerns that it only fixes the problem until September 30th of 2012. PVA believes this should be a permanent grant, not a pilot.
The "Blinded Veterans Adaptation Housing Improvement Act of 2010," PVA supports H.R. 5360 since it would be difficult to contradict the years of knowledge of my colleague, Mr. Tom Zampieri of the Blinded Veterans Association. I understand that he also has received advice from Dr. John Boozman, who is also an expert in this field.
As we approach the end of the session of 111th Congress, we hope that many of these issues discussed today, along with past issues, will become part of public law. We are thankful that this Subcommittee, along with its Members, have worked so hard to ensure that veterans of the current conflict, as well as veterans from conflicts of the past, will receive the support that they deserve.
Chairman Teague, that concludes my testimony. I will be available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you very much.
Ms. Trombley, you are recognized to speak for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE A. TROMBLEY
Ms. TROMBLEY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the American Legion's views on several pieces of legislation being considered today.
H.R. 3685 requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to put a link to VetSuccess.com on its Web site, as well as a drop-down menu of job sites that encourage hiring veterans. The bill also calls for funds for national advertising of VetSuccess. VetSuccess is a comprehensive Web site that is designed to allow veterans to find information they need to be successful after service. The site has links to VANE and other job sites to include the Department of Labor (DOL), America's Job Banks, USA Jobs, and Monster.com. The VA already has VetSuccess on its Web site, but once a veteran clicks on VetSuccess, there is a jobs menu to include the other job sites. Unfortunately, to get to those other job sites the veteran must first know what VetSuccess is. If the veteran is unaware what VetSuccess is, he or she will never get to the jobs menu from the main page.
However, to regulate how the VA designs its Web site could essentially bind the VA's Web designers to a drop-down menu even as technology and design elements evolve. For this reason the American Legion does not support this part of the legislation. However, we do fully support funding for outreach through national advertising of VetSuccess. The American Legion believes this Web site is a great resource for veterans, but veterans have to know what it is and where to find it in order to take full advantage of all it offers. Therefore, the American Legion does support the part of the legislation that designates funds for national advertising.
The American Legion supports measures that encourage employers to hire veterans. We know veterans make great employees because the discipline learned in military service transfers to the civilian workforce. Veterans typically show up to work on time. They not only understand what it is to be a good leader but how to be a good follower. They are mission-focused, used to being challenged, and have a strong work ethic and valuable training.
Despite all this, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 have a jobless rate of 21.1 percent in 2009. Numerous national publications have reported veterans have a difficult time finding jobs due to physical and mental disabilities, multiple deployments and problems translating military skills into the civilian workforce language.
The Veteran Friendly Business Act mandates VA to establish an awards program for companies that hire veterans and keep them gainfully employed. We fully support this proposed legislation as it will encourage companies to hire veterans and acknowledge those that already do so.
H.R. 4765 seeks to amend title 38 U.S.C. to authorize veterans enrolled in VA educational programs, and thus eligible for work-study, to receive work-study allowances for outreach services in Congressional district offices. These services include distributing information to members of the Armed Forces, veterans and their dependents, about the benefits and services administered by the VA. Work-study veterans will also prepare and process papers and other documents, including documents to assist in the presentation of claims for benefits.
The American Legion believes serving in a Congressional district office would be a beneficial experience for any veteran. However, we have concerns about the type of work proposed. It is true veterans are comfortable talking to other veterans as we all share a common bond. But in order to give any proper claims assistance or advice on benefits, a person should be accredited by the VA. We believe a work-study veteran who processes materials for claims could be mistaken as a subject matter expert by another veteran. This could put both veterans at risk. The work-study veteran who gave advice could be held liable for presenting himself as a subject matter expert, and the veteran seeking assistance could jeopardize his or her claim. Therefore, the American Legion's request of this legislation includes strict guidelines to ensure work-study veterans do not give benefits advice to veterans seeking help with their VA claims.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment on the bills being considered today by the Subcommittee, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Trombley appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you.
Mr. Hilleman, your testimony is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HILLEMAN. Thank you Congressman Teague, Ranking Member Boozman. On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our auxiliaries, the VFW would like to thank you today for the opportunity to present our views on today's pending legislation. Given the number of bills pending before this Subcommittee today, I will limit my remarks to three.
H.R. 114, the "Veterans Entrepreneurial Transition Business Benefit Act." This legislation seeks to allow veterans to utilize chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill benefits for business startup, expenses and/or operations as determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The VFW opposes this legislation. The intent of the GI Bill is to provide training and education. The GI Bill is a unique program where veterans may attend business school, or take a class to strengthen their business aspirations, yet the sole purpose of the GI Bill is to provide education, training and the skills to help veterans succeed, not provide startup money for a business.
The Small Business Administration has programs, which address the specific needs of business startups. The SBA provides opportunities for loan guarantees and business development to help veterans start and grow their own business. Any veteran wishing to venture into entrepreneurship should be referred to these organizations and opportunities, not the VA. The VFW strongly supports improving SBA services for veterans whenever possible. This proposed shift may result in duplicative efforts between VA and SBA. We oppose shifting the purpose of the GI Bill and charging VA with managing business programs, which it has not historically managed.
H.R. 4765, we support this legislation which would allow individuals who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education and training with VA to pursue work-study in Congressional offices. The VFW believes the experience gained through work-study exposes a veteran to potential career tracks and helps them get a jump start on their career. As the Subcommittee is well aware, other such work-study programs for veterans are fast approaching a sunset date of June 30th of 2010. Areas impacted will be outreach domiciliary care and cemeteries, to name a few. Currently this work-study extension is tied up in a benefits bill, H.R. 1037, that has yet to be completed from last year. The VFW would like to stress the importance of work-study programs and the offices that rely on these talented veterans for their ambition, their drive, and their hard work. We can attest to the education and professional development that these young people receive, as we have had interns in similar situations in our own office.
We look toward to continue to work with both the House and the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee to advance the benefits legislation and ensure that veterans continue to have the opportunities to develop professionally while pursuing an education.
Finally, H.R. 5484, the "Veterans-Friendly Business Act of 2010." The VFW strongly supports this legislation. This legislation, under the direction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, establishes an annual reward program for businesses that dramatically contribute to veterans employment. This bill will help raise awareness and stress the value of veterans in the workplace.
The VFW applauds businesses who lead in this field. They deserve their due recognition for setting an example to all employers. The VFW encourages Congress to consider adding accolades from the Secretary of Labor to this award. In adding DOL, the government has the opportunity to elevate veterans employment among the two agencies that are charged with addressing this issue. We feel employers would be further rewarded by the due recognition from both Secretaries.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This concludes my testimony. And I would be happy to answer any questions that you or this Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman appears in the Appendix.]
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Hilleman.
Dr. Zampieri, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZAMPIERI, PH.D.
Mr. ZAMPIERI. On behalf of the Blinded Veterans Association, we appreciate the invitation today to address the bills that are before the Subcommittee. In order to save time, I won't go through all the various bills. I wanted to restrict comments to thanking you and Ranking Member Boozman for introducing H.R. 5360, the "Blind Veterans Adaptive Housing Improvement Act." This came out of the hearing that we had last fall on different changes that could possibly be made in regards to the Adaptive Housing Grant Program.
We had had problems with the restrictive language that was currently in place of 5200 being used as the definition for being eligible for this grant. The standards for blindness is 2200, or 20 degrees or less of peripheral field loss, and we would ask that this be changed for several reasons. One is that a lot of individuals who are at the accepted standard of 2200 are legally blind and they need to be able to access the adaptive housing grant in order to make changes so that they can live independently in their own homes. And this would also be consistent with what Public Law 110-157, which was H.R. 797, which passed back in December 2007, which corrected another problem in VBA where they were using a 5200 standard in order to—for a paired organ. I would point out that it was sort of interesting that when that originally came up, there was a lot of concern that we were going to be opening up the system for—one estimate was like 45,000 veterans. And since that change the actual number of veterans that have applied under the paired organ thing, using the 2200 standard, is less than 500.
So it is difficult when you get into these things, I think sometimes, to determine exactly the numbers that may fall out; because when you are talking about clinical standards versus the service-connected numbers of veterans who are all service-connected for vision problems, you may be led down the path of thinking that this is a lot more veterans than what our experience has been. So we appreciate that you have introduced this.
As I have testified before, there are tremendous numbers of OIF and OEF servicemembers coming back with a variety of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), with vision problems and impairments, and they are falling into this problem of not meeting this criteria in order to be able to have the grants.
So I appreciate being able to testify today and will be happy to answer any questions and refer to my testimony about the other bills that are pending today. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zampieri appears in the Appendix.]
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Duenas, am I pronouncing that correctly?
Dr. DUENAS. Yes you did.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. DUENAS, O.D.
Dr. DUENAS. I am a licensed doctor of optometry in the States of Florida, Georgia, and Connecticut, and I have served patients in north Florida and southern Georgia for more than 23 years. I currently serve as Associate Director of Health Sciences and Policy for the American Optometric Association. I most recently served at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and have been a key player in the blind community and low-vision rehabilitation sector, serving as Director at Lighthouse International.
The AOA appreciates this opportunity to testify today. We commend you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Boozman, our esteemed optometric colleague, and Members of the Subcommittee for the leadership and vision that you have demonstrated through your continuing work to make certain that America fulfills her promise to all veterans, including ensuring full and complete access to vision and eye health care services they both need and deserve.
The AOA, with more than 36,000 members in over 6,500 communities nationwide, shares your commitment to serving America's veterans, including those blinded and vision disabled. In fact, many years ago the AOA proudly supported the creation of the Veterans Health Administration Optometry Service, and during the more than a quarter of a century since its inception, the Optometry Service has evolved into providing a majority of primary eye care and low-vision rehabilitation services to our Nation's veterans.
Today we proudly offer our support for H.R. 5360. This act is much needed in the Specially Adaptive Housing Program. We believe that it is an important program that provides a vital link for our disabled veterans and helps them gain a sense of normalcy as they adjust to civilian life and a new disability.
The AOA shares the Committee's concern that the currently used visual acuity standard is in need of refinement. And today I would like to make three points regarding those refinements.
First, as you know, the current law excludes coverage for many disabled veterans who are legally blind, because it sets the threshold four times higher than the legal definition of blindness. H.R. 5360 will fix this lasting problem and will ultimately help our wounded warriors. The AOA, as such, supports the proposed modified standard visual acuity eligibility to include visual acuity of 2200 as opposed to a four-times worse requirement of 5200.
Secondly, through the VA Optometry Service hundreds of highly trained doctors of optometry provide a critical array of high-quality care, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. So as not to deny benefits for blind and disabled veterans that use assisted medical technologies, the AOA believes that the qualifying statement of "best corrected" needs further refinement. Without an additional modification, the act could exclude legally blinded veterans using special medical-prescribed low-vision devices such as mounted telescopes, reverse telescopes and other special medical equipment. These devices are not considered standard glasses and are not standard correcting lenses.
Third, the AOA believes that the current definition of blindness contained in H.R. 5360 may not fully relate field loss to the equivalency of visual acuity loss in each eye. This determination of functional equivalency is important, and as such, the AOA recommends that the language defining legal blindness should be consistent with the commonly used and recognized definition of legal blindness, which is referenced in our written statement. Therefore, the AOA recommends that the final language of the Veterans Adapted Housing Improvement Act of 2010 read as proposed in our statement submitted for the record today.
And in conclusion, the AOA truly appreciates this opportunity to testify today. We are thankful for the hard work of your Subcommittee, and as doctors of optometry around the country we remain committed to serving America's wounded warriors. We look forward to translating the benefits of this Act into even more—to more deserving veterans.
We look forward to working with this Subcommittee to advance H.R. 5360, as well as on other veterans issues in the future. Together we can work to make certain that America fulfills her promise to all veterans, including ensuring full and complete access to vision and eye health care services they both need and deserve. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duenas appears in the Appendix.]
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you.
Dr. Zampieri, if we could start with you. Could you just explain in layman's terms the difference between the 5200 standard and the 2200 standard?
Mr. ZAMPIERI. Yes. The 5200 is what a blind individual at 5 feet would be able to see versus a normal vision person would be able to see the same thing at 200 feet. And the 2200 is the accepted standard for legal blindness. And so at 20 feet a blind individual, for example, would be able to see something on the eye chart that, again, as somebody with normal vision at 200 feet would be able to see. And so all 50 States define legal blindness as 2200 and Social Security and, ironically, VBA's 2200 for determination of 100 percent service-connected for blindness.
And so this would hopefully answer your question, but it would make it all standardized.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. So you are not aware of anywhere else—so you have just indicated that even with other VA programs they are using the 2200 standard for purposes of calculating disability, service-connected disability?
Mr. ZAMPIERI. Correct.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But as far as you are aware, the only place where the 5200 standard is still being used within government, within the industry, within the profession, is within the Specially Adaptive Housing program?
Mr. ZAMPIERI. Right. In fact, ironically, when H.R. 797 was being worked on, I stumbled into the Senate version of that bill 4 years ago, actually, and tried to correct this 5200 in the adaptive housing. I am not sure how it got left out, but anyway. I think somebody on that side had realized that there was this other area, and I wish it had been fixed all at once. But this is the only place I know of in VA's regulations where 5200 is being applied.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And then, Dr. Duenas, you had suggested different language. Can you just explain again the difference that you see in the language or the potential difference in interpretation between your suggested language versus language already in the bill?
Dr. DUENAS. Absolutely. The language in the bill sets the standard at 2200 best corrected, which we believe is correct. The only thing with that is we have to realize that in some cases, through vision rehab, patients use telebinoculars, they use assisted devices for enhancing their vision for certain tasks. And sometimes there is a barrier set up to low-vision care because a patient may come in and say, "I am afraid. Right now I am 2200 and if I use the device you may improve me to 2070, let's say, in order to do a specific task. Would that disqualify me from the benefits that I am entitled to?" And under the current definition that is used here which is "best corrected," it would disqualify them because you would say they are best corrected to better than 2200.
So for vision rehab what we need to do is say that it is with standard correction, best corrected with standard correction. And then that way it will not set up a barrier to care for vision rehabilitation.
The other point is simply that the definition, the way it is designed in other statutes, including U.S. Code title 42 for disability, mentions that the visual field of 20 degrees or less, it takes that and equates that to a quality of 2200 or less acuity. So it is making an assessment of the quality of vision loss. And that quality determination is important because it sets the stage for other things when we start to look at quality-of-life issues and other issues. So I think that that other language that is used elsewhere is a little bit better in terms of its association to the field loss and visual acuity loss.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I will have a question or two for other witnesses on the panel, but I want to recognize Dr. Boozman for his questions.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, thank all of you for being here, and as always contributing so much as you help us sort these bills out.
I am particularly interested in the sense that my vocation is an optometrist. And I really do feel like, in fact I thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin for bringing this to our attention and getting it sorted out in the sense that I guess this is truly one of the few remaining areas where we have language like this that is so different than the standard method of doing things.
And as Dr. Zampieri alluded to, I think that probably changing it is not going to affect that many patients, because when you get in that gray zone where it is less than 2200, nobody has the equipment, the charts, probably, to even know. So you give people the benefit of the doubt and go ahead and certify it in that way. So I think it is something that we need to do.
And then I think that you make some really good points as far as the language. So I am sure we will be looking at that, envisioning as to how we need to clean that up. Again, thank you all for being here. And like I said, we will go from there.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Dr. Boozman.
A question for Mr. Daley, Ms. Trombley or Mr. Hilleman on Mr. Fortenberry's bill, H.R. 114. Just give me your general thoughts. I mean, are your organizations in agreement with the objective? Do you believe small business benefits should be included under the umbrella of education benefits? Any concerns or not about the appropriateness of having under chapter 30 business development benefits? I would just like to hear more of your thoughts, your organizations' thoughts on Mr. Fortenberry's bill.
Mr. DALEY. Well, if you are starting a small business or you want to do that, I said in the testimony that is only one piece of the puzzle. I mean you have to have the knowledge, you have to have the desire, and you have to want to work 7 days a week.
But if you have all that stuff, money is the hardest thing to come by. And although there is a Small Business Administration and some other programs, it is still difficult to borrow money. This will give that person that may have spent 10 years in the service, he feels like he earned that same amount of benefit that is in the GI Bill, but he doesn't want to go to college. Or maybe he has already gone to college on the side while he is in the service, and now he wants to start that business and doesn't have money.
So, you know, I am just thinking that it is just we hear so much about the lack of opportunity out there for the veterans and how difficult it is for the new veterans, and maybe this is just one more door that we can open. I mean it is not going to encourage somebody to go out and get into a business that they don't belong, just because they are going to get a few thousand dollars from the VA under the GI Bill. So I just think it is a way to help a veteran basically.
Ms. TROMBLEY. We agree. Not every veteran is destined for college. And when you start a small business it can often take many months before you even turn a profit. So adding an extra income to veterans, who oftentimes have family and have to sustain the family, is a good thing.
[The following was subsequently received from the American Legion:]
After further review, the American Legion does not have a position on this bill at this time.
Mr. HILLEMAN. Thank you for the question, Madam Chairwoman. I agree with my colleagues to my right. The issue of not every veteran being destined for college is true. But under the GI Bill, there are other programs for training and education. The VFW opposing this legislation on the grounds that if a veteran seeks to start a small business, there are programs that exist under the Small Business Administration to help them do that, to help them formulate a business plan, to help them think intelligently about the risk they are about to assume. Asking VA to take on these efforts would be possibly duplicative.
The other concern and the primary concern that we have is that with the GI Bill, its intent is to educate and to train; it is not to be used for operating expenses for a business, for startup costs for a business or to pay business-related bills. We feel that if it is used in that manner, what is to stop it to be used for a whole host of other things that are not related to education or training.
We have no objection to an individual seeking business classes on the GI Bill or getting additional training in the community based on the GI Bill to help them grow their business. But to use it as direct access to capital, we feel that departs dramatically from the original intent of what the GI Bill was created for. Thank you.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, all of you, for your perspectives on that bill.
Let me ask just one final question to Ms. Trombley. Do you believe that forcing lenders to agree to mediation will have fewer lenders participate in the VA loan program?
Ms. TROMBLEY. I am sorry, could you repeat the question, Madam Chairwoman?
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Do you believe that forcing lenders to agree to mediation will have fewer lenders participate in the VA loan program?
Ms. TROMBLEY. I don't. I think that, if anything, it is going to be an alternative mean. It is one more protection for a veteran to participate in the VA loan program. The VA already has programs set up so that if a veteran falls into financial trouble there are steps. This would just add another step to the process.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Any other thoughts on that question by either Mr. Daley or Mr. Hilleman? No? Okay.
Mr. Boozman, do you have any other final questions?
Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess the only thing I would like to ask now, the language that you would like to be changed. So you would like to say instead of "best corrected," something to the effect of with a standard lens, correcting lens?
Dr. DUENAS. Right. We put the final in our written comment.
Mr. BOOZMAN. In the better eye with the use of a standard correcting lens.
Dr. DUENAS. Right.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Now, is that the language that is in most of these things? Does that really become a problem with low vision? I mean, I understand what you are saying.
Dr. DUENAS. It would set a new precedent by adding this additional qualifier, but it fixes a problem that is an ongoing problem. So, yes, again it would make it slightly different by one word. But again—
Mr. BOOZMAN. But it wouldn't really change it?
Dr. DUENAS. Not really.
Mr. BOOZMAN. You agree with that, Dr. Zampieri, don't you?
Mr. ZAMPIERI. Absolutely. You know, it is funny; as much as we have been involved with this, I think it is important, because I have had veterans who get some corrective devices and then suddenly they are told, well, you are all better. And I have some TBI patients from OIF who are functionally blind but in the exam room, you know, when you give them a corrective lens, all of a sudden they are not. And somebody is going to say, oh, okay, you know, you are not blind, you know, because your vision is corrected, you know, that way. Whereas that standard lens wouldn't be something that the individual would use out on the street for navigation and for mobility.
And so actually I appreciate that AOA made that recommendation, because I would predict that that creates, it is probably a small loophole, but it would certainly be one that somebody is going to get caught in. So I would recommend that one change.
Mr. BOOZMAN. I think where we saw it in reverse was that people would maybe use a small telescope and then try and qualify for their driver's license based on the ability to use the telescope versus the regular glasses, which isn't quite the same, you know, driving behind binoculars.
Dr. DUENAS. You are absolutely right.
Mr. BOOZMAN. And you made a change to the field language. How does that affect?
Dr. DUENAS. The field language just makes it a little bit more standard from other U.S. Code. I think the other U.S. Code that we quoted from there in the final language that we are proposing, I think it is better, again, because it sets a qualifier that the acuity of 20 degrees—I mean the visual field of 20 degrees or less is the same as a central acuity loss of 2200 or less. So it sets an equivalency standard for the two.
Rather than saying you are blind because of either A or B, what the other definition says is you are blind because of A, but B qualifies you as A. And it is a little bit different in its statement. And the difference comes when we start to look at things like, again, quality of life, a lot of different other ways in which we may eventually try to calculate cost and savings. So I think it is important to have it that way.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Dr. Zampieri, do you have a thought regarding the change in the field language?
Mr. ZAMPIERI. I agree. That is also a difficult area because you know it is hard for individuals to understand how peripheral field loss affects an individual. And there are even problems in the testing for that, because it is one of the things that is most commonly missed, especially with the traumatic brain injured patients.
I just talked to a young female OIF veteran 2 days ago, that that was the one thing that was missed out in California was the field loss. And it wasn't maybe as evident for that individual until she got home and was having difficulty at work and doing other things that she found this low-vision optometrist who picked up on the level of the degree of field loss. And so, anyway, thank you.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, thank all of you very very much.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you to all of our witnesses. We value your perspectives and insight into these bills that our colleagues and some of us on the Committee have introduced, and we look forward to continue to get your insight and input as we move forward. So thank you for your recommendations.
I would now invite the third panel to the witness table. Joining us on our third panel is Mr. Thomas Pamperin, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management at the Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. And Mr. Pamperin, Secretary Pamperin, is accompanied by Deputy Assistant General Counsel for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, John Brizzi, and Office of the General Counsel, Joseph Simpson.
We thank you all for being here. And I would now recognize Mr. Pamperin for his statement to the Subcommittee
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PAMPERIN, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN BRIZZI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND JOSEPH E. SIMPSON, ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. PAMPERIN. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Boozman and other Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs views on the pending legislation.
VA supports four of the bills on today's agenda. The first, Madam Chairman, is your bill H.R. 5360, the "Blinded Veterans Housing Improvement Act." The bill would expand special adapted housing for the visually impaired. Provided Congress identifies appropriate and acceptable offsetting PAYGO cost savings, VA supports this legislation. We estimate the enactment of H.R. 5360 will result in benefit costs of $19.1 million over 10 years.
VA also supports H.R. 4765, which would authorize individuals pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education and training under chapters 30, 31, 32, 33 of title 38 and chapters 1606 and 1607 of title 10 to receive work-study allowances for certain activities conducted at the offices of Members of Congress.
VA has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 4765 subject to the identification of the appropriate and acceptable PAYGO offsets for any resulting additional cost. However, we believe some probably unintended drafting language in the last paragraph of the legislation would subject veterans in the program to certification and testing requirements found at 38 U.S.C., chapter 59. We would be happy to work with you to avoid this unintended consequence. VA estimates H.R. 4765 would result in benefit costs of $7.3 million over 10 years.
H.R. 3685 would impose certain requirements on VA's main Internet Web site page to include a hyperlink with a drop-down menu and direct access to VetSuccess Internet, USA Jobs, Internet Web site Job Central and other employment Web sites that focus on jobs for veterans. It would also require the Secretary to provide the awareness of VetSuccess Internet Web site by advertising in national media and to inform OIF/OEF of that success.
Although VA is already substantially in compliance with the Web site requirement, we have heard the concerns about the fact that they are not integrated, and we will take that back and see what we can do.
Additionally, VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Service currently conducts outreach to OIF/OEF veterans through their Coming Home to Work Initiative and through other avenues such as disabled transition assistance program presentations. We estimate that a one-time cost associated with advertising to be approximately $900,000 during the 1st year. No additional costs are related to the conduct of outreach because this is currently being done by VR&E. No additional costs are associated with including the hyperlinks on the VA main Web page.
H.R. 5484, the "Veteran Family Business Act of 2010," would require the Secretary to establish an award program to recognize businesses for their contributions to veterans employment. VA supports this bill and we do not believe that enactment would result in any significant cost.
VA does not support three of the bills on today's agenda, as currently written. We would be pleased to work with the Subcommittee staff to resolve our concerns.
The first of these three bills is H.R. 4319, the "Specially Adapted Housing Assistance Act." This bill would adjust the aggregate amount of special adaptive housing available to individuals resid
Sign Up for Committee Updates
Stay connected with the Committee