⚡NIMITZ NEWS FLASH⚡

“Strengthening the Workforce of Veterans in America”

House Veterans Affairs Committee, Economic Opportunity Subcommittee Hearing

December 2, 2025 (recording here)

HEARING INFORMATION

Witnesses & Written Testimony (linked) (Panel One):

• Mr. Kenneth Smith: Executive Director at Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs

• Ms. Chantile Stovall: Acting Executive Director at Veteran Readiness and Employment Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs

Witnesses & Written Testimony (linked) (Panel Two):

• Mr. David Bostic: Service Development Manager, Aftermarket & Customer Support for Region 4, Deere & Company

• Mr. Jerome A. Grant: Chief Executive Officer, Universal Technical Institute Inc.

• Mr. Greg Hamm: Vice President of Field and Government Recruiting, Werner Enterprises, on behalf of the American Trucking Associations

• Mr. Gary LaBarbera Jr.: Teamsters Local 282 Business Agent, Helmets to Hardhats Teamsters Trade Advisor

• Mr. Ying Vang: Human Resources Manager, ORC Industries

Keywords mentioned:

• Veteran workforce, GI Bill, apprenticeship programs, employment opportunities, vocational training, transition assistance, non-traditional education, skilled trades, workforce development, public-private partnerships

IN THEIR WORDS

OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE

• Chairman Derrick Van Orden stated that the hearing was intended to examine how the VA could use non-traditional education, such as apprenticeships, on-the-job training, and the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), to strengthen America’s workforce with veterans. He criticized the Department of Labor’s absence, blamed Senate delays for leaving key positions unconfirmed, and argued that past DOL VETS performance had failed veterans. He highlighted that fewer than 1% of Post-9/11 GI Bill users pursued apprenticeships or On-the-Job Training (OJT) despite the VA spending roughly $241 million annually on administration, calling that outcome unacceptable. He then promoted several bipartisan bills, including his Warriors Workforce Act and legislation from various colleagues, as a nonpartisan effort to put veterans in critical roles in the American economy.

• Ranking Member Chris Pappas also expressed disappointment that DOL VETS did not appear and then focused on severe delays in Chapter 35 benefits, noting that about 75,000 survivors and dependents had waited months without clear communication from the VA. He then turned to employment programs, arguing that overlapping VA, DOD, and DOL initiatives were confusing for employers and underlining that employer-driven, on-the-job training models with public-private cost-sharing produced strong employment outcomes for veterans. He insisted that the GI Bill’s 36 months of eligibility must remain sacrosanct and that any employment program drawing down GI Bill benefits must reliably lead to meaningful, gainful employment, guard against bad actors, and honor the original integration intent of the 1944 GI Bill.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL ONE)

• Mr. Kenneth Smith testified that the VA aimed to support veterans’ transition through vocational rehabilitation, non-college training, and employment-focused programs, beginning early with TAP and the VA Solid Start initiative, which had proactively contacted most new veterans. He described Veterans Readiness and Employment (VR&E) as the cornerstone of the VA’s employment support, citing individualized counseling, employment planning, hands-on training for disabled veterans, and tens of thousands of briefings, along with support for apprenticeships, on-the-job training, and non-paid work experiences in trades such as trucking, plumbing, and contracting. He emphasized that non-college degree training had become a growing priority, referencing recent executive orders to focus federal workforce development on high-paying skilled trades. He previewed the forthcoming VET-TEC program under the Elizabeth Dole Act and reaffirmed the VA’s commitment to giving every transitioning service member and veteran the tools, training, and support needed to succeed in the civilian workforce through college, vocational, or direct employment pathways.

• Ranking Member Pappas asked Mr. Smith for an update on recent Chapter 35 payment delays, pressing for how many beneficiaries were affected and when they would receive overdue payments. He also questioned who decided to furlough employees during the shutdown despite mandatory programs being funded. Mr. Smith replied that the VA had been working through the backlog during the 42-day shutdown and the days since, but he could not provide a current figure for affected beneficiaries and promised detailed statistics at an upcoming hearing and staff briefing. He apologized for delayed responses to congressional letters, explained that correspondence was still moving through VA concurrence, and stated that decisions on furlough status were made “far above” his level under the VA’s contingency plan.

• The Ranking Member then asked Ms. Stovall about counselor staffing, the counselor-to-veteran ratio, and how these issues were affecting veteran wait times in VR&E. Ms. Stovall said the current ratio was 1 counselor to 200 veterans, with 1,310 counselor positions allocated but only about 1,010 filled. She described a national case assignment strategy, overtime, and “help teams” to ease workloads and complete orientations. She reported that average wait times had recently jumped to 81 days, up from 54–50 days prior to the shutdown, and she said that the help teams were being used to get entitlement decisions and plans in place so veterans could start school in January.

• Rep. Tom Barrett asked why, despite a broader economic shift toward trades, veterans still overwhelmingly chose traditional four-year degree programs over trade or apprenticeship options, and whether benefit levels were driving that choice. Mr. Smith replied that the VA did not have survey data on why veterans chose specific paths but acknowledged that the “total package” value of four-year degrees often exceeded that of non-college or apprenticeship programs.

• Rep. Barrett raised concerns about an institutional cap on the share of students who could use the GI Bill and other veteran benefits at certain trade programs. Mr. Smith explained the statutory 85/15 rule and noted that the VA could grant waivers to allow institutions to exceed that cap.

• Rep. Tim Kennedy asked how a new Department of Education (DOE) rule limiting federal loans for certain advanced graduate health-care degrees would interact with GI Bill benefits, highlighting that many veterans in nursing and allied health rely on a mix of GI Bill and federal loans. Mr. Smith claimed that he was unaware of the details of the rule but stressed that the VA would continue to pay GI Bill benefits up to statutory maximums and that the Yellow Ribbon Program could help exceed private-school caps, while deferring loan-policy specifics to the DOE.

• Rep. Kennedy responded that this did not answer whether veterans’ ability to pursue these degrees would be constrained when loan availability is cut in half, warning that such limits could impede veterans from entering high-need health professions. He urged the VA to assess the downstream impact on veterans who still needed federal loans on top of the GI Bill and to consider how to prevent veterans from being pushed out of critical healthcare fields.

• Rep. Kimberlyn King-Hinds asked how the VA could close gaps that left veterans in programs that did not lead to real careers, particularly in trades and manufacturing, where employers were desperate for skilled labor. Mr. Smith said that he was willing to work with Congress, employers, and other stakeholders on policy issues to better align GI Bill incentives so trade and technical programs had comparable value to four-year degrees. Ms. Stovall added that 96% of VR&E participants were in the long-term services track while only about 2.5% were in the rapid access track, and she said she was examining ways to shift more veterans into tracks that better leverage their existing skills and speed them into employment.

• When Rep. King-Hinds floated the idea of an accrediting system so military skills could be directly recognized rather than retrained, Ms. Stovall said that VR&E needed to help veterans translate those skills and “sell themselves” to employers more effectively.

• Rep. Delia Ramirez asked Mr. Smith whether the recent government shutdown had negatively affected veterans, and after he agreed, she detailed its impact, including 1.2 million veterans at risk of losing SNAP, delayed tuition and housing payments, the closure of 56 regional offices, and missed TAP briefings for over 16,000 separating service members. She pressed him on whether veterans working at the VA had been furloughed, and he said he was “sure” they had been, as 37,000 VA employees were furloughed and an estimated 220,000 veterans working at the VA were affected.

• Rep. Ramirez also highlighted that the education call center had been closed, that more than 900,000 veterans could not reach the GI Bill hotline, and that over 100,000 VR&E participants missed counseling or case management. She criticized the VA’s use of appropriated funds for what she deemed politically charged shutdown messages instead of focusing on service. She then pivoted to VET-TEC, noting VA’s data showing only a 49% employment rate within 180 days, and argued that restoring GI Bill entitlement was essential when training failed to yield jobs. Mr. Smith explained that under the Elizabeth Dole Act, veterans with no remaining entitlement could attend VET-TEC at no cost, and those with entitlement were charged months only if they had benefits left.

• Rep. Morgan McGarvey asked Ms. Stovall to explain how VR&E counselors help veterans identify vocational goals and training pathways, then questioned whether the 20% share of GI Bill users pursuing non-degree options should be higher. Ms. Stovall described how counselors used comprehensive assessments to match veterans to degree, diploma, or certification programs leading to suitable employment.

• Rep. McGarvey noted that VR&E reported a 74% employment outcome rate for program completers, but that counselor shortages and long wait times were still a problem. He asked how the VA would ensure veterans did not wait months just to start. Ms. Stovall pointed to the new case assignment system, plans to onboard 91 additional FTEs, and continued use of help teams to tackle backlogs. Rep. McGarvey stressed that graduation rates alone were insufficient because only about half of graduates were landing meaningful employment within 180 days, leaving too many veterans without a paycheck for six months.

• Chairman Van Orden argued that cultural and policy decisions dating back to the 1970s had overemphasized four-year degrees and stigmatized trades, and he said that the Committee’s goal should be employment, not just “a piece of paper on a wall.” He claimed that apprenticeships and union training programs built the physical backbone of America and said the metrics for VA programs needed to reflect job outcomes rather than degrees alone. The Chairman called on the VA to raise employment rates in apprenticeship and non-degree pathways and framed the hearing as part of an effort to correct an “education industrial complex” that was not serving veterans well.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS (PANEL TWO)

• Mr. David Bostic explained that John Deere used its size and infrastructure to help its independent dealers navigate programs such as SkillBridge and argued that many small and mid-sized employers would benefit from similar support. He urged Congress to expand incentives for smaller employers to hire veterans and participate in transition programs and to create a centralized employer portal to simplify navigation of VA and DoD benefits, track outcomes, and share best practices. He called for a future in which government, veterans, and employers had a clear, streamlined path to create economic opportunity and observed that one of the best recruiting tools for the military was a veteran who had successfully transitioned into civilian life.

• Mr. Jerome Grant reported that four out of five UTI graduates were employed in their field of study within a year and that the schools provided lifetime placement assistance and continuing education. He described their on-base SkillBridge programs at Fort Bliss, Fort Bragg, and Camp Pendleton, where service members and families completed 12–16 weeks of free training that led directly to civilian jobs paying above $50,000, and he argued that such models should be expanded because employers across sectors consistently reported needing more technically skilled veteran talent.

• Mr. Greg Hamm referenced a veteran success story to illustrate what is possible when policymakers and employers work together and urged Congress to increase funding for the CMV Operator Safety Training (CMVOST) grant, pass the Warriors to Workforce Act, the Veterans Transition to Trucking Act, and the TRANSPORT JOBS Act to reduce red tape and expand access to quality CDL training and apprenticeships. He underlined that hiring veterans was not charity, but smart business, and expressed confidence that the Subcommittee would continue expanding meaningful career pathways for veterans and their families.

• Mr. Gary LaBarbera said that the Teamsters represented 1.3 million members, including tens of thousands of veterans, reservists, and military spouses, and that Teamster locals ran free or low-cost CDL programs that frequently worked with transitioning veterans. He urged Congress to substantially expand the CMVOST grant program and consider Teamsters as a key partner when designing veteran employment initiatives, highlighting Helmets to Hardhats’ record of connecting roughly 55,000 veterans to registered apprenticeships since 2003.

• Mr. Ying Vang testified on behalf of ORC Industries, a nonprofit manufacturer dedicated to creating meaningful employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities and for veterans. He discussed the importance of cut-and-sew manufacturing, a highly specialized trade that did not require a four-year degree but did require training, discipline, precision, and reliable attendance. Mr. Vang argued that many transitioning service members sought hands-on, team-oriented work driven by mission rather than just a paycheck and that manufacturing floors were a natural fit for veterans’ skills and motivations.

• Ranking Member Pappas asked Mr. Hamm how the recently enacted Veteran Improvement Commercial Driver’s License Act had affected veterans’ ability to use GI Bill benefits at multi-state training providers and what further steps Congress should consider. Mr. Hamm said the law had already reduced burdens by allowing veterans to access funding when corporate training providers operated in multiple states, and he reported early progress in expanding access to quality CDL programs funded by the GI Bill.

• Ranking Member Pappas then asked Mr. LaBarbera to elaborate on “bad actors” in CDL training. Mr. LaBarbera described programs that quickly pushed veterans through to a license and then abandoned them, contrasting that with Teamsters-run programs that provided training linked to stable careers with good wages and benefits.

• Rep. McGarvey asked Mr. LaBarbera what safeguards Congress should put in place to ensure GI Bill funds flowed only to high-quality CDL training providers and not predatory programs. Mr. LaBarbera said he did not have a specific statutory proposal but urged the Committee to focus on programs that clearly led to real careers, not stand-alone CDL courses that left veterans on their own after licensing.

• Rep. McGarvey then turned to Mr. Bostic and asked how the VA could formalize employer advisory councils and make it easier for small businesses to participate in SkillBridge. Mr. Bostic replied that while he did not work directly with VA benefits, his experience with employer convenings showed that bringing employers together to discuss skill gaps and best practices, particularly with legislators present, could drive substantial change. He supported structures that replicated those conversations.

• Near the end of the hearing, Chairman Van Orden asked Mr. LaBarbera how Helmets to Hardhats engaged with TAP. Mr. LaBarbera explained that regional managers visited bases, reached roughly 25,000 veterans regularly, and connected interested service members to skilled-trades careers.

• The Chairman asked Mr. Hamm about his company’s presence in TAP, and Mr. Hamm said his organization had staff traveling to bases weekly, attending TAP briefings, and actively recruiting for trucking careers. Chairman Van Orden urged the employer partners to stay tightly connected with VSOs like the American Legion, VFW, and DAV, and he warned that the Committee would push the armed services to stop “Heisman-ing” SkillBridge since Congress had paid for it and needed those billets filled to get veterans into high-quality transition programs.

SPECIAL TOPICS

JOIN THE NIMITZ NETWORK!

Enjoying our updates? Don’t keep it to yourself — forward this email to friends or colleagues who’d love to stay informed. They can subscribe here to become part of our growing community.