Veterans Readiness and Employment Program Integrity Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/3579
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

ID: C001133

Follow the money

The bill

Veterans Readiness and Employment Program Integrity Act

HR. 3579, 119th Congress — read as touching Private Equity & Hedge Funds.

The sponsor

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$152,234 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

69% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 679-681 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

September 15, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. The Veterans Readiness and Employment Program Integrity Act (HR 3579) - a title that screams "we're doing something good for veterans, trust us."

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to make "certain improvements" to the Veterans Readiness and Employment program, because, you know, it wasn't working well enough already. The real purpose? To create a veneer of accountability while maintaining the status quo.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Application requirement**: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs can no longer provide an initial evaluation without receiving a complete application from the veteran, including work records and educational transcripts. Wow, what a revolutionary concept - actually requiring relevant information before providing services. 2. **Maximum duration of employment assistance**: Veterans are now limited to 365 days of assistance, with an option for an additional 180 days if they're "actively seeking employment." Because, clearly, the problem was that veterans were just too darn comfortable on the government's dime. 3. **Reporting and data collection requirements**: The Secretary must submit reports on veteran employment outcomes and wait times for vocational rehabilitation programs. Oh boy, I can already see the thrilling spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Veterans (supposedly) * Department of Veterans Affairs * Congressional committees (who get to pretend they're doing something useful)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a token effort to address the systemic issues plaguing veteran services, while actually accomplishing little. The changes are minor and won't significantly improve outcomes for veterans.

In reality, this bill serves as a distraction from the real problems:

* Inefficient bureaucracy * Lack of resources * Insufficient support for veterans

The politicians behind this bill are more concerned with appearing to care about veterans than actually doing something meaningful. It's a classic case of "legislative placebo" - making people feel like they're getting help while maintaining the status quo.

In conclusion, HR 3579 is a masterclass in legislative misdirection, designed to make politicians look good without actually solving anything. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to create another bill that's more about appearances than actual substance.

Related Topics

Military & Veterans Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$152,234
27 donors
PACs
$1,000
Organizations
$19,234
Committees
$0
Individuals
$132,000
1
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
2 transactions
$5,134
2
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
3
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
2 transactions
$3,000
5
DELTA AIRLINES
1 transaction
$2,500
6
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
7
COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
REIZOVIC, ROY
2 transactions
$13,200
2
EMMET, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,600
3
EVANS, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$6,600
4
KENDRICK, KEN
1 transaction
$6,600
5
KENDRICK, RANDY
1 transaction
$6,600
6
MCCALLISTER, ROSS
1 transaction
$6,600
7
SILVERMAN, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$6,600
8
STERN, ELIZABETH MAY
1 transaction
$6,600
9
WEEKLEY, RICHARD
1 transaction
$6,600
10
ASSENMACHER, ROBERT
1 transaction
$6,600
11
ASSENMACHER, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$6,600
12
BIDWILL, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$6,600
13
BRAVERMAN, VERONICA
1 transaction
$6,600
14
CHAMBERLAIN, JAIME
1 transaction
$6,600
15
CHAMBERLAIN, MARTHA
1 transaction
$6,600
16
CHAPMAN, TED
1 transaction
$6,600
17
CHRIST, HAROLD
1 transaction
$6,600
18
COONS, BETH
1 transaction
$6,600
19
COTTER, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Van Orden, Derrick [R-WI-3]

ID: V000135

Top Contributors

10

1
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Dec 9, 2024
2
HO CHUNK NATION
OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI
$3,300
Nov 2, 2024
3
FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY
OrganizationCRANDON, WI
$3,300
Sep 17, 2024
4
AIPAC PAC CONDUIT ACCOUNT
OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Oct 23, 2024
5
ALLIANCE OF BANKERS FOR WISCONSIN
OrganizationMADISON, WI
$250
Apr 23, 2024
6
ANDERSON, JOHN R. MR.
ANDERSON ENTERPRISES LLCOWNER
IndividualROCKFORD, IL
$10,000
Dec 19, 2023
7
BROIN, JEFF
POET LLCCEO
IndividualSIOUX FALLS, SD
$6,600
Aug 24, 2023
8
UIHLEIN, RICHARD E. MR.
ULINE INC.CEO
IndividualLAKE BLUFF, IL
$6,600
Feb 28, 2023
9
LEVY, EDWARD C.
EDW. C. LEVY CO.CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Mar 28, 2024
10
LEVY, EDWARD C.
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
May 6, 2024

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20]

ID: C001127

Top Contributors

10

1
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Nov 4, 2024
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 20, 2024
3
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Sep 8, 2023
4
FIGGERS, FREDDIE
FIGGERSINVENTOR
IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL
$6,600
Jun 8, 2023
5
FIGGERS, FREDDIE
IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL
$6,600
Sep 25, 2023
6
MOISE, RUDOLPH
IndividualDAVIE, FL
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
7
GEORGE, DAVID J.
REFUEL DEPOT LLCSALES
IndividualLEADWOOD, KS
$3,300
Sep 27, 2024
8
GOLDEN, SYLVIA
NONERETIRED
IndividualWEST PALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Aug 18, 2024
9
GORI, PHILIP
SELFINVESTOR
IndividualBOCA RATON, FL
$3,300
Sep 16, 2024
10
MUELLER, KYLE
ZUTEKDIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES
IndividualOLATHE, KS
$3,300
Sep 27, 2024

Rep. Murphy, Gregory F. [R-NC-3]

ID: M001210

Top Contributors

10

1
DOISE, DARYL
OCEANS HEALTHCAREEXEC VP
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,700
Apr 1, 2024
2
DOISE, DARYL
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$6,700
Apr 10, 2024
3
KAPOOR, DEEPAK
SOLARIS HEALTHPHYSICIAN EXECUTIVE
IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL
$6,600
Sep 23, 2024
4
KAPOOR, DEEPAK
IndividualFORT LAUDERDALE, FL
$6,600
Sep 30, 2024
5
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONECEO AND CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024
6
ARUMUGHAM, PRADEEP
ECUDOCTOR
IndividualKINSTON, NC
$3,300
Dec 11, 2023
7
BOWEN, JOEY M
PRIVATEER TOBACCO CO. INC.TOBACCONIST
IndividualGREENVILLE, NC
$3,300
Nov 15, 2023
8
BOWEN, JOEY M
PRIVATEER TOBACCO CO. INC.TOBACCONIST
IndividualGREENVILLE, NC
$3,300
Nov 15, 2023
9
CLARK, MELISSA A
HOMEMAKERHOMEMAKER
IndividualGREENVILLE, NC
$3,300
Oct 6, 2023
10
CLARK, MELISSA A
HOMEMAKERHOMEMAKER
IndividualGREENVILLE, NC
$3,300
Oct 6, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 78 nodes and 39 connections (79 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $189,234

Top Donors - Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC7 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 2 harmed.

  • Section 4(c)(1) requires the Secretary to seek a contract with a non-Department entity for an independent review of rehabilitation programs, potentially increasing costs for private equity and hedge funds involved in such contracts

  • Section 4(c)(2) implies increased scrutiny on vocational rehabilitation programs, which may negatively impact for-profit education providers participating in these programs

  • +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.60

    Section 3 implies support for veterans' employment assistance, potentially benefiting labor unions representing workers in industries that hire veterans

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate69.3%
Pages: 679-681

— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo,

Introduction

Moderate69.3%
Pages: 679-681

— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo, — 647 — Department of Veterans Affairs reimagine the health care footprint in some locales, and spur a realignment of capacity through budgetary allocations. Specifically: 1. Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses. 2. Explore the potential to pilot facility-sharing partnerships between the VA and strained local health care systems to reduce costs by leveraging limited talent and resources. Personnel l Extend the term of the Under Secretary for Health (USH) to five years. Additionally, authority should be given to reappoint this individual for a second five-year term both to allow for continuity and to protect the USH from political transition. l Establish a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of VHA Care System Chief Information Officer (CIO), selected by and reporting to the chief of the VHA Care System with a dotted line to the VA CIO. l Identify a workflow process to bring wait times in compliance with VA MISSION Act–required time frames wherever possible. 1. Assess the daily clinical appointment load for physicians and clinical staff in medical facilities where wait times for care are well outside of the time frames required by the VA MISSION Act. 2. Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day. 3. Consider a pilot program to extend weekday appointment hours and offer Saturday appointment options to veterans if a facility continues to demonstrate that it has excess capacity and is experiencing delays in the delivery of care for veterans. 4. Identify clinical services that are consistently in high demand but require cost-prohibitive compensation to recruit and retain talent, and examine exceptions for higher competitive pay.

Introduction

Moderate62.6%
Pages: 676-678

— 644 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise In sum, the VA for the foreseeable future will experience significant fiscal, human capital, and infrastructure crosswinds and risks. Budgets are at historic highs, and with a workforce now above 400,000, the VA is contending with a lack of new veteran enrollees to offset the declining population of older veterans. Recruitment of medical and benefits personnel has become more challenging. Veterans are migrating from the northern states to the southern and western states for retirement and employment. Meanwhile, VA information technol- ogy (IT) is struggling to keep pace with the evolution of patient care and record keeping. Consequently, VA leaders in the next Administration must be wise and courageous political strategists, experienced managers to run day-to-day oper- ations more effectively, innovators to address the changing veteran landscape, and agile “fixers” to mitigate and repair systemic problems created or ignored by the present leadership team. VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (VHA) Needed Reforms l Rescind all departmental clinical policy directives that are contrary to principles of conservative governance starting with abortion services and gender reassignment surgery. Neither aligns with service-connected conditions that would warrant VA’s providing this type of clinical care, and both follow the Left’s pernicious trend of abusing the role of government to further its own agenda. l Focus on the effects of shifting veteran demographics. At least during the next decade, the VA will experience a significant generational shift in its overall patient population. Of the approximately 18 million veterans alive today, roughly 9.1 million are enrolled for VA health care, and 6.4 million of these enrollees use VA health care consistently. These 6.4 million veterans are split almost evenly between those who are over age 65 and those who are under age 65, but the share of VA’s health care dollars is spent predominantly in the over-65 cohort. That share increases significantly as veterans live longer and use the VHA system at a higher rate. VHA enrollments of new users are increasingly at risk of being exceeded by the deaths of current enrollees, primarily because significant numbers of the Vietnam generation are reaching their life expectancy. The generational transition from Vietnam-era veterans to post-9/11 veterans will take several years to complete. The ongoing demographic transition is a catalyst for needed assessments of how the VA can improve the delivery of care to a numerically declining and differently dispersed national population — 645 — Department of Veterans Affairs of veterans—a population that is more active, reaching middle age or retirement age, and migrating for lifestyle and career reasons. At the center of the VHA’s evolution during this generational transition is an ongoing tension, some of it politically contrived, between Direct Care for Veterans provided from inside the VHA system and Community Care for Veterans who are referred to private providers participating in the VHA’s two Community Care Networks (CCNs). In recent years, the budget for Community Care has grown as demand from veterans has risen sharply, sometimes outpacing the budgets for Community Care at individual VAMCs. The Trump Administration made Community Care part of its “Veteran- centric” approach to ensure that veterans would be able to participate more fully in their health care decisions and have options if or when the VHA was unable to meet their needs. The Biden Administration has watered down that effort, has sought various procedural ways to slow the rate of referrals to private doctors, and at some facilities is reportedly manipulating the Community Care access standards required by the VA MISSION Act of 2018. If the makeup of Congress is favorable in 2025, the next Administration should rapidly and explicitly codify VA MISSION Act access standards in legislation to prevent the VA from avoiding or watering down the requirements in the future. First and foremost, a veterans bill of rights is needed so that veterans and VA staff know exactly what benefits veterans are entitled to receive, with a clear process for the adjudication of disputes, and so that staff ensure that all veterans are informed of their eligibility for Community Care. Currently, veterans are not routinely and consistently told that they are eligible for Community Care unless they request information or are given a referral. l To strengthen Community Care, the next Administration should create new Secretarial directives to implement the VA MISSION Act properly. Sections for consideration and areas for reform include the following: 1. Sections 101 and 103 (Community Care eligibility for access standards and the best medical interest of the veteran). 2. Section 104 (Community Care access standards and standards for quality of care).

Showing 3 of 4 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills