|
Statement of Honorable Leo S. Mackay,
Jr., Ph.D.
Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Benefits
April 30, 2003
Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify
before you this morning on three measures affecting Department of
Veterans Affairs education and vocational rehabilitation programs and
small-business opportunities for veterans. The three bills on today’s
hearing agenda include: H.R. 1460, the “Veterans Entrepreneurship Act
of 2003”; H.R. 1716, the “Veterans Earn and Learn Act”; and H.R. 1712,
the “Veterans Federal Procurement Opportunity Act of 2003.”
Before I discuss the bills the
Subcommittee is considering today, I would like to note that, although
the Budget Enforcements Act’s pay-as-you-go requirements and
discretionary spending caps expired on September 30, 2002, the
Administration supports the extension of these budget enforcement
mechanisms in a manner that ensures fiscal discipline and is consistent
with the President’s budget. As you know, these measures would affect
direct spending and receipts and, therefore, the support VA expresses
for most of the provisions of
the bills is contingent on
accommodating the provisions within the overall budget submitted by the
President.
I note also that, as the number of
laudable acquisition preference programs increase, the Government must
ensure that it uses insofar as possible open competition among qualified
firms, to ensure that the Government acquires through our free market
system with taxpayer dollars the best possible goods and services at the
lowest possible price.
H.R. 1460 – “Veterans Entrepreneurship
Act of 2003”
Mr. Chairman, section 2 of H.R. 1460 would amend provisions
of title 38, United States Code, to permit veterans to use VA
educational assistance benefits to enroll in non-degree, non-credit
business “entrepreneurship” courses offered by small business
development centers or offered by the National Veterans Small Business
Development Corporation. Specifically, section 2 of the bill would
provide that State approving agencies may approve non-credit courses of
business education that enable or assist persons to start or enhance
small business enterprises. “Qualified providers” of such
entrepreneurship courses would include small business development
centers, as defined by section 21 of the Small Business Act, and the
National Veterans Business Development Corporation. A person would not
be considered by VA as already qualified for the objective of a program
of education offered by a qualified provider of an entrepreneurship
course solely because he or she is the owner or operator of a business.
These amendments apply to courses approved by State approval agencies
after the date of enactment of the Act.
Veterans would receive several benefits from such courses.
Some veterans are not willing or able to complete a degree program.
This program offers a viable alternative to a complete degree program
for those wishing to start a small business. Moreover, veterans who
take advantage of these courses are more likely to succeed as
small-business entrepreneurs. The potential for positive effects on the
economy, with enhanced competition and creativity within the
marketplace, is significant. The bill’s provision for oversight of
these courses by State Approving Agencies should ensure program
quality. While we support the goals of this provision, it is not
included in the President’s Budget and an offset would have to be found.
We will be pleased to work with the Subcommittee to find an offset for
this important provision.
Enactment of this section would result in an estimated cost
of $1.5 million in fiscal year 2004 and a ten-year total cost of $32
million.
Section 3 of H.R. 1460 would amend 38 U.S.C. § 3104 to
provide that, for purposes of pursuing a program of vocational
rehabilitation under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, a
disabled veteran may establish “self-employment” in a small business
enterprise as a vocational goal without regard to any requirement of
unemployability.
Current law permits us to serve veterans with serious
service-connected disabilities who require self employment and/or
homebound training in order to achieve an acceptable level of
vocational rehabilitation. We are also able to provide limited
assistance to other veterans with employment handicaps.
Mr. Chairman, last month the Department established a new
advisory committee, the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E)
Task Force, and charged it with conducting an independent review of the
VR&E program. Among other responsibilities, it will evaluate
eligibility criteria for vocational rehabilitation services under VA’s
program, and report its recommendations to the Secretary. We are asking
the Task Force to evaluate the change in law proposed by section 3 of
H.R. 1460, and will be furnishing you our official views once we have
the benefit of that advice.
Enactment of this section would result in
a cost of $750,000 in fiscal year 2004 and a ten-year total cost of $101
million.
Section 4 of H.R. 1460 would authorize a
contracting officer to make sole source awards to small business
concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans (SDVBs) if
such business is determined to be capable of performing the contract,
award can be made at a fair price, there is no reasonable expectation
that two or more SDVBs would submit offers, and certain dollar
thresholds are not exceeded. It would also authorize contracting
officers to restrict competition to SDVBs if there is a reasonable
expectation that at least two SDVBs will submit offers and award can be
made at a fair market price. The Administrator of the Small Business
Administration would have the authority to appeal contracting officers’
decisions not to award a contract opportunity to SDVBs to the Secretary
of the department or agency head. This law would not supercede any
other preference under law for prison-made (Federal Prison Industries)
products or products made by the blind or disabled (JWOD).
The provision of a set-aside is an
unusually strong measure that inhibits open market functioning. It is
only appropriate in this instance due to the singular worthiness of
service-disabled veterans for preferential treatment. Its use here
would not be meant to establish a general precedent.
VA supports section 4 of H.R. 1460. Providing these
veterans business opportunities is altogether consistent with VA’s
mission to serve our Nation’s veterans and will help VA and the Nation
honor its commitment to them.
We estimate the total cost associated with enactment of H.R.
1460 to be $2.25 million for fiscal year 2004 and $133 million over ten
years.
H.R. 1716 – “Veterans Earn and Learn Act”
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1716 would amend title 38, United States
Code, to improve VA educational assistance programs for apprenticeship
and other on-job training.
Section 2 of the bill would modify the computation of on-job
training and apprenticeship benefit entitlements under chapters 34 and
35 of title 38, United States Code, to be the same as the entitlement
charged under chapters 30 and 32, of that title, as well as under the
chapter 1606, title 10 U.S.C. program. This would provide needed
uniformity in calculating use of entitlement for such training
regardless of the benefit chapter under which a student is eligible,
resulting in greater equity for veterans.
Section 3 of the bill would establish an incentive payment
for program participants who finish their apprenticeship training early
by requiring VA to pay the trainee a lump-sum payment for the months of
VA entitlement remaining that would have ordinarily been needed to
complete the apprenticeship.
Section 4 of the bill would increase the monthly VA benefit for trainees
who simultaneously pursue apprenticeships or on-job training and related
classroom instruction (whether or not the trainee was pursuing the
academic instruction as a requirement of the apprenticeship or
voluntarily under the trainee’s own initiative). Currently, education
benefits for apprenticeship and on-the-job training start at 75 percent
of the benefit rate payable for full-time institutional training and
these job training benefits decrease in stages as the individual
progresses through the training program. This section would pay the
full-time institutional rate for periods when the individual is in
required classroom courses while also in the job training program. It
will also allow individuals who voluntarily enroll in related courses to
receive an increase based on the combined training, but not to exceed
the full-time institutional rate.
Section 5 of the bill would codify VA’s authority to pay
benefits for competency-based apprenticeships. It would require VA to
take into consideration the approximate term of the program recommended
in registered apprenticeship program standards recognized by the
Secretary of Labor. Apprenticeships offered in industries that choose
not to register with the Secretary of Labor, and that are approved for
veterans’ training by a state approving agency, would continue to be
available. It would also authorize VA to use up to $3 million to
develop the computer systems and procedures needed to carry out the
above provisions of the bill. Current law permits approval of only
time-based, fixed length apprenticeships. The 1990’s saw a steady move
away from time-based apprenticeships toward competency-based
apprenticeships. This change would bring approval of apprenticeships
into the 21st century.
Section 6 of the bill would require VA to establish a pilot
program to furnish on-the-job benefits to claims adjudicators training
in its disability compensation, dependency and indemnity (DIC), and
pension programs. The pilot program would permit on-the-job training
programs of up to 3 years to be approved for claims adjudicators who
handle VA's Compensation and Pension programs. VA supports this program
for claims adjudicators. Based on our past experience, the duration of
this type of training would be approximately two years.
Section 7 of the bill would require coordination of information among
the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense, and Labor with respect to
on-job training. The Secretary of Defense would be required to furnish
to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs information concerning each
registered apprenticeship pursued by the servicemember during his or her
active duty service. It would also require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, in conjunction with the Secretary of Labor, to encourage and
assist states and private organizations to accord credit to
servicemembers for skills in any related apprenticeship the
servicemember may pursue in civilian life. We believe such level of
coordination would be beneficial so that veterans can receive full
credit for their military training and not have to unnecessarily repeat
training they received while on active duty.
We estimate the cost associated with enactment of H.R. 1716
to be $47.7 million for fiscal year 2004 and $548.4 million over ten
years. Unless an offset is found, VA cannot support this legislation.
H.R.
1712 – “Veterans Federal Procurement Opportunity Act of 2003”
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1712 would require the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to establish a
development program for small business concerns owned and controlled by
service disabled veterans similar to the Section 8(a) program for small
business in general, where SBA executes a contract with an agency and
subcontracts the work to the small business. The bill reauthorizes the
National Veterans Business Development Corporation, first created in
1999, and adds reporting and planning requirements such as 5 year
strategic and financial plans. The Corporation was created to expand
the provision of and improve access to technical assistance regarding
entrepreneurship for the Nation's veterans.
The bill sets a Government-wide goal of 28
percent for prime contracts awarded to small business concerns. It
further breaks that goal down to 3 percent for veteran-owned, 3 percent
for service-disabled-veteran-owned, 3 percent for HUBZone, 5 percent
for socially and economically disadvantaged, and 5 percent for
women-owned. Double counting of small businesses that meet more than
one criterion is prohibited. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2004, for any
agency that failed to meet the goals, funding would be restricted in the
following fiscal year for awards solely to the specific subcategories of
small businesses (whether prime contracts or approved subcontracting
plans). This would be phased in for the various categories of small
businesses between FY’s 2004 and 2008.
The bill would allow an agency to restrict
competition to specific categories of small businesses to meet the
procurement goals. The bill would require in negotiated procurements
that agencies include evaluation factors regarding small business
subcontracting plans.
VA supports the
provisions of section 4 of H.R. 1712 that would establish a goal of 3
percent for award of contracts to veteran-owned small businesses. As
you may be aware, VA has established its own higher internal goal for
award to veterans. However, I am concerned with other provisions of
section 4 and section 5 that would raise the small business goal,
prohibit double counting of acquisitions, restrict the use of
appropriations, and mandate the use of certain evaluation factors in
negotiated acquisitions. The Government is already struggling to meet
its current goals, and raising those goals would not be beneficial.
Prohibiting double counting would have the effect of raising the
thresholds further and making it that much more difficult for agencies
to meet their goals. Furthermore, the provisions of section 4 that
place restrictions on the use of funds in the case of agency failure to
meet goals could create a de facto quota system for award of contracts
to socioeconomic groups. In implementing the various provisions of the
legislation that make classifications based on race and gender, the
Government would afford equal protection of the laws as required by the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The
appropriation restrictions, and the evaluation factor mandate, remove
the flexibility agencies need to be able to successfully carry out their
missions.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony.
|