[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EDUCATION BENEFITS FOR NATIONAL GUARD
AND RESERVE MEMBERS OF THE
U.S. ARMED FORCES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-312 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South
JOHN J. HALL, New York Carolina
PHIL HARE, Illinois JEFF MILLER, Florida
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JERRY McNERNEY, California GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota, Chairwoman
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JERRY McNERNEY, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York JERRY MORAN, Kansas
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
__________
March 22, 2007
Page
Education Benefits for National Guard and Reserve Members of the
U.S. Armed Forces.............................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth..................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth........... 34
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 2
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 34
Hon. Jerry McNerney.............................................. 6
Hon. Jerry Moran................................................. 7
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Defense, Hon. Craig W. Duehring, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs...... 3
Prepared statement of Mr. Duehring........................... 35
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director,
Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration............ 5
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson............................. 37
______
Arkansas National Guard, Major General William D. Wofford,
Adjutant General............................................... 19
Prepared statement of Major General Wofford.................. 39
Military Officers Association of America, Colonel Robert F.
Norton, USA (Ret.), Deputy Director, Government Relations...... 22
Prepared statement of Colonel Norton......................... 41
National Guard Bureau, Major General Terry L. Scherling,
Director, Joint Staff.......................................... 18
Prepared statement of Major General Scherling................ 39
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Legion, Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr., Deputy Director, Economic
Commission, statement.......................................... 46
Bartlett, Hon. Roscoe G., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland, statement................................... 49
Carney, Hon. Christopher P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah, statement................................... 49
Matheson, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah, statement............................................. 50
Reserve Officers Association and Reserve Enlisted Association,
joint statement................................................ 50
South Dakota National Guard, Major General Michael A. Gorman,
State Adjutant General and Secretary, South Dakota Department
of Military and Veterans Affairs, statement.................... 51
EDUCATION BENEFITS FOR NATIONAL GUARD
AND RESERVE MEMBERS OF THE
U.S. ARMED FORCES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth, McNerney, Boozman, and
Moran.
Also Present: Representative Snyder.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH
Ms. Herseth. Good afternoon. The Veterans' Affairs Economic
Opportunity Subcommittee hearing on the Education Benefits for
National Guard and Reserve Members will come to order.
Before I begin, I would like to call attention to the fact
that several individuals interested in today's hearing have
asked to submit a written statement for the record. If there is
no objection, I ask for unanimous consent that those statements
which have been submitted by the following be allowed to be
inserted for the record:
Major General Michael A. Gorman, State Adjutant General,
South Dakota National Guard; Mr. Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr., The
American Legion; Reserve Officers Association and Reserve
Enlisted Association; Congressman Jim Matheson who represents
the 2nd District in Utah; Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, who
represents Maryland's 6th District; and Congressman Christopher
Carney representing Pennsylvania's 10th District.
With no objection, those statements will be entered.
As the lone representative from South Dakota, which this
year will have about 2,000 veterans using GI Bill payments for
their education, I have an especially strong interest in
exploring options to improve and modernize the Montgomery GI
Bill, particularly for National Guard and Reserve
servicemembers.
Ranking Member Boozman, I look forward to working with you
as we did in the last Congress, and all the Members of the
Subcommittee, as well as our colleagues on the Armed Services
Committee to update this important program.
Since the Montgomery GI Bill was enacted more than 20 years
ago, our Nation's utilization of the Selected Reserve Forces
has dramatically increased.
When the MGIB was signed into law in 1984, servicemembers
of the Guard and Reserve were rarely mobilized, and that is
simply not the reality today. Indeed, today's citizen soldiers
are serving with distinction and have sacrificed a great deal
in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, although they are being called to duty and
mobilized for extended periods of time, their educational
benefits do not reflect their increased service to the nation.
These patriots have earned and deserve high-quality education
and training benefits to be used in a fair and equitable
manner.
I would also like to welcome all of today's witnesses, and
I very much appreciate your testimony as your views and
insights are critically important as we go about examining this
issue.
I am particularly interested in understanding and exploring
the views and perspectives on the proposed Total Force GI Bill.
This proposal would, among other things, organize all GI Bill
programs under Title 38 and provide a ten-year portability of
Chapter 1607 benefits.
I believe these concepts would help reflect the reality of
the total force policy. However, I understand there may be
concerns about how this proposal may affect retention, so I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Much progress has been made in education benefits for
National Guard and Reserve members. However, I think everyone
would agree that we must remain vigilant to maintain against
any decline in benefits.
Veterans, servicemembers, and military families of this
Nation deserve our best efforts, and I plan on working with my
colleagues to examine and develop policies aimed to improve
readjustment services for our men and women in uniform.
Thank you again for being here today.
I now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for any
opening remarks he may have.
[The statement of Chairwoman Herseth appears on pg. 34.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Chairman Herseth, and thank you for
bringing this matter up in light of the recent scheduling of
the joint hearing with Chairman Snyder's Subcommittee and with
the events at Walter Reed that have since been discovered.
Today we will hear from several witnesses on modernizing
the GI Bill, especially as those benefits apply to members of
the National Guard and Reserves.
As you know, Chairman Snyder, I look forward to working
with you in providing fair treatment for those who defend us.
That will not be an easy task. Today's hearing is an important
part of that process.
I suppose my basic approach is not to retain someone that
you do not recruit for military service. Hopefully once someone
joins, aspects of military patriotism will convince members to
stay regardless of benefits.
Those who choose to leave, we should be wise enough to
thank them profusely for their service and make them aware that
they are always welcome back.
Of course, none of us on this Committee can ignore the
fiscal realities facing Congress. We have to be conscious of
how we spend taxpayers' money, but we must make sure we provide
what is needed to continue to attract good people in military
service. I believe levels of benefits is what is needed to
improve and retain members.
Madam Chairman, I am looking forward to hearing from
today's witnesses, including Major General Wofford, the
Adjutant General of the Arkansas National Guard, who we are
very proud of.
And, again, General, like I told you earlier, I really
appreciate your testimony, not just because you are from
Arkansas, but you do a very, very good job, but I really look
forward to your testimony.
Again, thank you for testifying, and I look forward to
continuing to work with the Chairman and the Subcommittee on
these very important issues.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
pg. 34.]
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Our distinguished panel is well-qualified to discuss these
issues today.
Joining us on our first panel is the Honorable Craig
Duehring, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Reserve Affairs of the U.S. Department of Defense and Mr. Keith
Wilson, Director of Education Service for the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs.
After the first panel is finished giving their testimony,
other Members of the Subcommittee will be recognized for 5
minutes to make opening remarks and to ask questions.
As you were informed prior to the start of the hearing, we
may have votes called at any time, so we will just go ahead and
start. I think we should be able to get through both the
testimony of Mr. Duehring and Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Duehring, let us begin with you.
STATEMENTS OF HON. CRAIG W. DUEHRING, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION
SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG W. DUEHRING
Mr. Duehring. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
educational assistance programs available to our Guard and
Reserve members and the potential effects of changes to those
programs.
This is an unprecedented time for the all-volunteer force.
We are at war. But unlike World War II, the Korean war, and
Vietnam when many of the people who served in the military were
drafted, today they make an informed decision to join the
military.
We are proud of the men and women who volunteer to serve
our great country. They do so knowing there is a rich suite of
benefits they will earn by virtue of their military service.
We also know that we face constant challenges to maintain
an all-volunteer force. We must be able to offer an incentive
package that competes favorably with the private sector.
The Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve helps us
attract high-quality recruits. The recently enacted Reserve
Education Assistance Program, REAP, which was created
specifically to provide a richer benefit to Reserve component
members who answered the call to duty, helps us retain our
Guard and Reserve members who have proven themselves in combat.
Our most recent survey shows us that most Reservists do not
begin a new career when they are released from active duty
unlike their active-duty counterparts. Eighty percent of
Reservists were employed full time when activated. Twenty-six
percent were enrolled in school.
Certainly reintegration and readjustment are important to
our citizen soldiers, particularly the 28 percent who reported
that they did not return to the same employer and the 8 percent
who were not in the workforce when mobilized.
Guard and Reserve members can use the REAP benefit to train
for a new career as they transition back to civilian life or
advance in their current career.
We do not believe that the continued service requirement is
onerous since the first couple of years following mobilization
are also the years when the demands to perform Reserve service
are at their lowest under the Services Force generation models.
At the hearing last fall on this same subject, the
Committee heard testimony urging Congress to combine the two
Reserve educational assistance programs into a single program
under the Department of Veterans Affairs.
There is obvious merit in making educational assistance
programs transparent to students and educational institutions
and simplifying the administration of the programs for VA.
But the Department is deeply concerned about changes to the
Reserve programs that would affect the retention outcomes we
hope to achieve with these programs.
To maintain the all-volunteer force, the Department needs a
variety of incentives to meet its force management objectives.
That is why we find the retention aspect of the Reserve
Educational Assistance Program such an important attribute.
Half of those who serve in the Selected Reserve today have
completed their initial military service obligation. Even among
those who are still within their initial 8-year military
service obligation, many have no obligation to serve in the
Selected Reserve. They can complete their military service in
the Individual Ready Reserve.
This is why we are so intent on incentives being tied to
service in the Selected Reserve. We need incentives that
encourage our Guardsmen and Reservists to stay with us, not to
leave.
Madam Chairwoman, we have given a great deal of thought to
educational programs and changes that would improve the
programs while continuing to assist the Department in meeting
its force management objectives.
In the short time since that hearing last fall, we were
able to include two modest legislative proposals in the
Department's 2008 legislative program.
The first would allow Selected Reserve members to retain
their REAP eligibility indefinitely while in the Individual
Ready Reserve rather than losing eligibility after 90 days.
The second would allow Selected Reserve members who are
separated due to the draw-down to retain MGIB Selected Reserve
eligibility until the delimiting date just as we did during the
force drawn-down in the 1990s.
We have also been working closely with VA to identify
changes to the educational assistance programs that improve
those programs while not undermining retention. That work is
still ongoing.
Madam Chairwoman, we also want to work with you and this
Committee to see if we can find a way to balance retention with
providing our combat-proven Guardsmen and Reservists a benefit
that meets their needs for reintegration and readjustment.
I would again like to thank the Committee for all it has
done for our men and women who serve our great country.
[The statement of Mr. Duehring appears on pg. 35.]
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Duehring.
Mr. Wilson.
STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member Boozman,
and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss the two educational
programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs for
National Guard as well as Reserve members, mainly the
Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve and the REAP, Reserve
Educational Assistance Program.
The education claims processing workload for the MGIBSR
increased steadily from 2001 until 2006. In 2006, VA received
more than 261,000 Selected Reserve benefit claims and 68,000
REAP benefit claims.
Through the end of February fiscal year 2007, we have
received 98,000 Selected Reserve benefit claims as well as
52,000 REAP benefit claims.
Comparing fiscal year 2006 through February to the same
period in fiscal year 2007, claims for Reservist benefits under
both programs have increased 27 percent.
The Department of Defense has informed us that between 1986
and 2006, more than 1.5 million Selected Reserve members gained
eligibility to MGIB Selected Reserve benefits. Forty-two
percent of them have applied for educational assistance.
In fiscal year 2006, over $122 million in benefits were
paid to over 66,000 Selected Reserve members participating in
the Selected Reserve Program. In fiscal year 2006, over $153
million in benefits was paid to almost 24,000 REAP
participants.
Through the end of February fiscal 2007, over $71 million
in benefits were paid to more than 43,000 Selected Reserve
members participating in the 1606 program and over $93 million
paid for 28,000 participants in the REAP program.
Timeliness has improved for supplemental claims processing.
Average days to complete Selected Reserve supplemental claims
dropped from 20 days in fiscal 2006 to 17 days through February
of fiscal 2007. Similarly, average days to complete REAP claims
has dropped from 19 days in 2006 to 17 days in 2007, again for
supplemental claims.
Timeliness likewise has improved for original claims
processing. Average days to complete Selected Reserve original
claims decreased from 35 days in 2006 to 29 days through
February of this fiscal year. Average days to complete REAP
original claims dropped from 60 days in 2006 to 42 days through
February of this fiscal year.
Expanded outreach has led to increased benefit usage. We
have distributed more than 300,000 copies of our new REAP
brochure to activated Guard and Reserve units nationwide. We
have also prepared 46,000 REAP DVDs which are going to be
distributed to Reserve units across the country. The goal is to
have informational disks distributed to all units by the end of
this month, March of 2007.
Additionally, we will soon begin direct mailings of REAP
informational material to activated Guard and Reserve members
just as we now do for Chapter 30 participants.
We continue our efforts to migrate all claims processing
from the Legacy claims processing system into our new VA
corporate environment. The Education Expert System known as
TEES has a multi-year initiative that when fully deployed will
electronically receive and process application and enrollment
information. TEES will enable us to improve processing for
timeliness as well as quality of decisionmaking.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The statement of Mr. Wilson appears on pg. 37.]
Ms. Herseth. Thank you both for you testimony. I have a
number of questions, but I am going to defer to Mr. Boozman if
he wants to start or we can recognize Mr. McNerney and Mr.
Moran for opening statements.
Okay. Mr. McNerney, would you like to begin either with an
opening statement or questions for the panel?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY McNERNEY
Mr. McNerney. Thank you Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Boozman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to listen
to the testimony.
We just went through sort of a trauma with the Department
of Veterans Affairs and the hospital at Walter Reed. And I know
what you are going to answer to this question, but I just want
to put it out there.
Are there any cockroaches under the table? I mean, if you
look at Walter Reed, we see from the top level, it looks good
and there were not any problems. But underneath it took someone
to go in there and scour that system to find the problems.
Is there anything underneath that we are missing here that
we are going to get a nasty surprise on later? And I do not
suspect that there is. I do not have any reason to suspect
that, but I am just a little on edge now because of that
experience.
And I recommend that you take the time to go down into the
details of the system and make sure there are not any nasty
surprises in your Administration.
Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. I can address that very briefly. We are
fortunate in a couple respects actually. In terms of the
education benefits, administering those benefits, we have got a
very effective relationship with the Department of Defense and
most of the information that we need concerning eligibility,
what we need to administer the program, is fed to us directly
from DOD as data.
So in terms of having, in your word, cockroaches under the
carpet, we are not aware of any, but certainly we are always
vigilant, and we will continue to look and make sure that we
are doing what we need to.
Mr. Duehring. Can I mention something as well? From our
perspective, both my boss, the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Reserve Affairs, Thomas Hall, and I travel the country
constantly, many times every month, usually trying to meet with
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, wherever
we can find them, and the venue that we use is a town hall type
format.
After visiting the unit, we say, okay, everybody here, let
us talk. What is going on, what are your concerns? And we get a
pretty accurate feeling for if there are problem areas.
A few years ago, TRICARE was a big issue for us. We have
been able to address that and we see the interest level going
down.
The education program is a popular program. It is very much
appreciated, but we have not seen anything right now that
indicates that we have a recurring problem. I feel very
comfortable that we have a good system in place.
Mr. McNerney. I yield.
Ms. Herseth. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Moran, you are recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN
Mr. Moran. Madam Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you
very much for holding this hearing.
Just from a personal perspective as a Member of Congress,
my highest priority this year is to see that we begin the
process of reevaluating our Guard and Reserve components and
the benefits that they receive, and clearly education is one of
those, but healthcare, retirement.
As we have seen the increasing demands placed upon those
who serve in our Reserve components and our National Guard
units, it has become very clear to me that the distinction that
we have often made between active military and Guard and
Reserve is a lot less clear.
And, again, the benefits that we provide those who serve
our country, we should reduce the areas in which we
discriminate against Guard and Reserve. So I am delighted to be
here and listen to the testimony.
And I have no questions of these witnesses, but I do think
that this hearing is important as we begin the process of
trying to what I consider right some wrongs as we take care of
those who serve just in a slightly different capacity than our
active military.
So I thank you and Mr. Boozman for your leadership in this
regard and know that you have legislation pending that I am a
sponsor of. And e look forward to working with you. I thank you
for that.
Ms. Herseth. We appreciate your partnership with us and the
legislation that we have reintroduced in this Congress and
other items that we are examining.
Mr. Boozman, I am sure you have some questions.
Mr. Boozman. The bill that Mr. Snyder has on the table that
Mr. Moran just alluded to that we are sponsors of, it really
has two components. One component is moving the GI Bill into
one unit as opposed to being split by DOD and Veterans.
Do you guys, either one, do you have any comments about
that? What are your feelings about joining it together as
opposed to having its jurisdictions in different places?
Mr. Wilson. The notion of bringing everything under Title
38, I think, is intriguing or attractive from one respect, but
we do have some concerns that we would be bringing items into
Title 38 that from a VA perspective, we do not feel we are best
suited to address.
For example, ``Kickers.'' ``Kickers'' are something that
really is a force management tool that DOD uses. The current
piece of legislation would bring a VA role into the
``Kickers,'' and that is something that I do not think is or we
are feeling is not necessarily appropriate for our role.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Duehring?
Mr. Duehring. Well, we would share that same concern. The
difference, of course, is that we treat the educational
benefits for the Reserve programs as an incentive. And in the
other case for the veterans, it is an entitlement. It changes
the way it is funded. It changes the decisionmaking process of
when to use it, should we increase it, should it be changed,
again trying to achieve a desired goal.
They look a lot alike, like I would say oranges and
tangerines, but they are, in fact, a different fruit. And I
think we have a very good system that we are working well with.
It needs some tweaking from time to time, and we are happy to
work with your staff to make those changes.
Mr. Boozman. Very good. You mention that you do use it as
an incentive. Has there been any cost benefit studies done to
determine the effects of the benefit as far as its intent in
what it is trying to do? I mean, do you have any evidence, any
studies that you have come up with as to what effect it is
having?
Mr. Duehring. Recently as I was preparing for this
testimony today, I asked about some of the surveys that we have
done. And when I scanned through them, and, of course, they
parsed them out into different age groups and levels of
experience, and I looked in there, you know, what is important
to you for recruiting, retention, so on and so forth.
And I found that by and large education fell right in the
middle of the pack. If you got to younger people, it started
moving up. As you got older people, of course, not surprisingly
it moved down. Single people, it moved up. Married people, it
moved down. But as I recall there were 17 possible choices and
it came out as number nine, right in the middle, or one or two
on either side in every single case.
As far as an analysis, a cost analysis, I am not aware of
that, although there may be. If you would like, I would be
happy to take that back and provide you with an answer later
on.
[The following was subsequently received from Mr.
Duehring:]
The Department has not conducted a study specifically looking
at the marginal effects of the Montgomery GI Bill--Selected
Reserve (MGIB-SR) educational benefits on recruiting and
retention. We do know that in response to recent surveys asking
Selected Reserve members about the factors that influenced
their decision to affiliate with the Selected Reserve and their
decision to remain in the Selected Reserve, education
assistance benefits rank quite high.
The primary concern of the Department is that moving
authority for the MGIB-SR to title 38, and responsibility for
the program to the Department of Veterans Affairs will change
the emphasis of the program from a recruiting and retention
incentive to a post-service (veterans') benefit and the
requirement for continued Selected Reserve membership will be
eliminated. We know, from the preliminary results of a recent
analysis by the RAND Corporation as part of an ongoing study
for the Department of Defense, that removal of the requirement
to remain in the Selected Reserve for continued benefits under
that program would have a negative effect on retention, and
would require significant increases in recruiting or other
retention incentives to make up for increased attrition. The
preliminary assessment of RAND estimates that permitting
transportability of benefits--permitting the use of MGIB-SR
benefits following separation from the Selected Reserve--
projects that it would increase attrition by 10 percent among
Selected Reserve members with no prior active duty service.
Aside from the training cost associated with replacing trained
personnel who separate, RAND estimated that it would take a 10-
percent increase in recruiting bonus expenditures to gain a 1
percent increase in accessions. This fact demonstrates that the
Department will need to spend a significant amount in other
incentive programs to counteract the negative effects of
allowing portability under the MGIB-SR program while continuing
to provide an education benefit to those who would have
otherwise remained in the Selected Reserve.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, in your recent testimony before the Armed
Services Subcommittee on Personnel, you described a certain
tension between domestic veterans' programs and force structure
issues that may result if the Centers of Education programs are
transferred to Title 38, and, you know, we have alluded to that
just now, from Title 10.
Can you expand even more so as to be specific?
Mr. Wilson. I will do my best. Friction perhaps is not the
best term, but what I am attempting to describe is the mission
essentially that VA has of caring for the veteran as they
readjust into society and the mission that the Department of
Defense has with keeping us all safe.
From a very broad perspective, those are the frictions that
I was talking about, and bringing items from Title 10 into
Title 38 that could create offsetting needs or offsetting goals
under one title would be very difficult. And we do not want to
create a situation where, for instance, DOD and VA in the
instance of Kickers that I gave would be at odds when we are
both desiring to administer both programs or all of our
programs the best we can.
But in terms of the Kicker instance, we would be required
to sit around the table and actually reach agreement on certain
things.
Our mission of taking care of the veterans in a situation
like that would be different than their mission, and those
would be the type of things that would have to be worked out.
And friction was the term that I used for that.
Mr. Boozman. I know I have used my time. Can I ask one more
thing?
I guess as I was sitting here, one of the things that we
have run into as we come on the base in so many different
instances, do you all feel comfortable that our Guard and
Reserve really understands the benefit that they have?
Mr. Duehring. Yes.
Mr. Boozman. We run into that all the time. Like I said, a
lot of times, people do not hear about these things after they
are recruited. And I do not mean that in a bad way. My dad was
a recruiter in the Air Force. But go ahead if you would.
Mr. Duehring. Very much so. Of course, the National Guard
and each of the Reserve organizations have different ways of
approaching their people. But this is not the only issue that
we have been asked questions like this on, whether it was a
benefit, again going back to medical benefits, family programs,
so on and so forth.
We have scrubbed and rescrubbed our programs to make sure
that individuals during the recruiting process, during the
demobilization process are afforded every chance to learn about
anything that might be of interest to them.
We have documents. We have Web sites, of course, if they
think about it later on. They want to ask questions, we have
the One Source, the military One Source, a myriad of ways that
we can get the information to the individuals. And I am very
confident that they do know about it because of the responses
that we get back, that they do consider it important.
And it might be a good question perhaps to ask some of our
experts on the second panel to find out what they have done as
an example in their own units. I think it would be very
enlightening because they have very good programs.
Mr. Boozman. And I will submit this or whatever. When can
we expect the legislative proposal from joint VA, DOD Council?
The GI Bill Working Group, do we have any idea as to when that
is going to happen?
Mr. Wilson. They are very close to completing their work.
The only issue that remains is developing an understanding of
the impact on recruitment and retention of the alternatives
that the working group originally proposed.
I know just from a broad perspective that that issue is
being worked largely within DOD, and I will have to provide
more detailed information back to you.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
It is true, Mr. Wilson, that in the testimony you gave to
the Armed Services Committee or I think even the written
statement you provided, the reason, as you just stated, that we
do not have the report from the working group is because of the
analysis on the impact on recruitment and retention.
So given that we were supposed to have those findings in
September of last year, we were then told it was going to be
completed in October of last year. I understand we are close.
How close are we?
I think it is important that we at least have a date given
to us today to shoot for and have an understanding as to what
it is. Maybe you can answer or, Mr. Duehring you can, to what
precisely DOD is analyzing to provide us this information.
Mr. Wilson. Unfortunately, neither of us are aware of the
specific details concerning where the working group is at with
that part of the analysis. I would be reluctant to provide a
specific date today.
What I can commit to is providing a date within the next 10
days, once I have the opportunity to go back with the working
group and find out a little bit more information and give you a
date from that point, if that is acceptable.
Ms. Herseth. If you could get it to us by next Friday. As
you know, there is a two-week district work period. It would be
helpful for us to know prior to going back to our districts
when we can expect that. Hopefully sometime when we return in
April.
Thank you.
[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Wilson:]
Education Service: Timetable for the DOD/VA working group
report on the Total Force GI Bill?
The Joint Executive Council was presented with findings from
the Total Force Working Group in January and did not believe it
was ready to be released. They desired that the impact on
recruitment and retention be addressed. We are unable to
provide a date by which the final report will be provided from
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to the Veterans Advisory
Committee on Education.
Ms. Herseth. We have been joined by Dr. Snyder, who is a
Member of the full Veterans' Affairs Committee as well as the
Armed Services Committee, and conducted the Subcommittee
hearing not too long ago in probing some of what we are probing
here today.
I think one of the issues that was the subject of some
questioning with the Armed Services Subcommittee that I would
like to probe a little bit because it goes to the issue that
you mentioned, Mr. Wilson--the expanded outreach that has been
done to inform servicemembers in the Guard and Reserve of their
benefits, and addresses something, Mr. Duehring, that you said
when you have townhalls and try to gauge where some concern is.
I have been picking up more concern in meetings that I have
had over the last four to 6 weeks both with folks at the State
government level that work with State Approving Agencies and
that work with other individuals who are just more comfortable
going to them to help find information and work with the folks
down in St. Louis as well as two National Guardsmen that I had
coffee with just last weekend about how their education
benefits were working for them.
There seems to be some confusion, a significant degree of
confusion in some of what I have been hearing that I am afraid
may lead to a reservoir of resentment if we do not address it
quickly here. The issue of how the amount of time that a
National Guardsman or Reservist accumulates during active-duty
deployment and how that may be transferred to affect their
Chapter 1606 benefits after they have left the National Guard
or Reserve.
There seems to be some confusion, and everyone, I think, in
the room is probably familiar with the Military.com article
from the end of January.
Mr. Duehring, you had mentioned at the beginning kind of
the benefit of having this transparency of education benefits,
and I would argue consistency of interpretation for eligibility
of those benefits.
If you both could address the following questions. May a
Reservist veteran who separates after successfully completing
his contract defer the start date for using the 1606 extension
benefit and, if so, for how long?
Mr. Wilson. The issue of the 1606 delimiting date has been
an issue that does cause confusion, and I will make a brief
comment in a general term. I agree with the statement that the
Guard, Reservist, and active-duty individuals do know about the
benefits from a broad perspective.
The details, I think, are more difficult to get across to
individuals, and I think one example of that is this portion.
The amount of time that an individual can use their 1606
benefits following separation from the Guard or Reserve, if
they are activated, their delimiting date for use of those
benefits is extended for a time equal to the time that they
were on active duty plus 4 months. And that extension goes from
the time that their normal delimiting date would occur.
So the extension of the delimiting date occurs at
separation, so there is no additional time beyond that
delimiting date for which the clock starts at separation. In
other words, for lack of a better term, there is not
portability as we normally think of it in active-duty Chapter
30 Program where you have a 10-year period.
It is not as if an individual has a 16-month window at any
time following release from the Guard and Reserve that they can
use their 1606 benefits. It is simply an extension of the
delimiting date.
And since their delimiting date would occur when they
separate from the Guard or Reserve, that would be the extension
that they would get is 16 months from that point forward.
Ms. Herseth. Just to clarify, I think I see what you are
saying and it may have added. The delimiting date is from the
time where they are eligible for the benefit, when they have
signed up for the benefit?
Mr. Wilson. No.
Ms. Herseth. Not signed up, but the delimiting date is--let
me use just a hypothetical of my neighbor's son. Okay? So he
was activated. He went into the Guard in 2000 or 2001. Let us
say 2001. They were then activated in December of 2003 and were
demobilized in March of 2005. He then chose to separate. He was
unaware that he could use any 1606 benefits that had been
accumulated after he separated.
Mr. Wilson. Following separation. And he would have had the
period equal to the amount of activation plus 4 months from the
point that he separated which is his delimiting date.
Ms. Herseth. Which would bring us to, let us say, when they
got back in March of 2005, he then separated in June of 2005,
so he would have 16 months--no--he would have 20 months.
Mr. Wilson. He would have the length of time equal to his
activation plus four months.
Ms. Herseth. Plus four, so that brings us to, if someone
can help me out, what date would that bring us to? June 2006.
Mr. Wilson. Approaching current date, I believe.
Ms. Herseth. Nineteen months. By the time we give him this
information, it is past the date. So now he has no 1606
benefits. Once we have clarified the confusion, it is too late
for him.
Do we have any idea how many individuals are caught in that
gap?
Mr. Wilson. We do not. What I do know is we have paid about
3,500 individuals under this clause. I do not know how many
people would have been eligible because it would be dependent
on the unique circumstances of the individual. In order to take
advantage of it, they would have to go to school, of course,
immediately following separation.
Ms. Herseth. If you separate in June, you would have to
take courses in the summer. You could not wait until the fall
semester?
Mr. Wilson. If you did, you would be burning your
delimiting date and not getting any benefit out of it because
the clock starts at the delimiting date.
Ms. Herseth. At the date of separation?
Mr. Wilson. The separation.
Ms. Herseth. Okay. Mr. Duehring, did you want to add
anything?
Mr. Duehring. Actually, we agree on this particular
provision.
Ms. Herseth. There is no disagreement anymore on how that
is interpreted by DOD and the VA in terms of extending the
delimiting date?
Mr. Wilson. That is correct. There is no disagreement.
Ms. Herseth. But you are not aware of how many people
either may have been eligible and were not aware because of
maybe some initial confusion on how we interpret that and now
their benefits have been foregone? No study or analysis has
been done?
Mr. Wilson. I am not aware of any analysis, no. I will go
back and look to see if we could have data that could
hypothetically determine something. I do not know if we can or
not.
What we are doing is preparing material that is going to go
through DOD's chain of command to the units to ensure that
clarity does exist at the unit level and DOD has agreed with
this approach. We will providing that information to DOD any
day. We do not have that rolled out yet, but we will shortly.
That does not address your concern, though, of the
individuals that have separated. And we will have to do some
analysis to see if we can come up with something.
[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Wilson:]
Education Service: Data on those potentially eligible for 1606
delimiting date extension since September 11, 2001.
Our best estimation, based on data from the Defense Data
Manpower Data center, is that there are approximately 100K that
meet the following criteria:
Activated or deployed from a reserve component after
September 11, 2001.
Were at one point coded eligible to receive chapter
1606 benefit from their reserve component.
Are not currently in the Selected Reserves (as of
January 31, 2007--the most recent data we have).
We are unable to determine the impact of intangibles. For
example, usage rate for the MGIB-SR is 42%, not 100%.
Additionally, the MGIB-SR was not intended, and is ill-suited
to serve as a readjustment program. The amount of the benefit
($309 for full-time attendance) prohibits most individuals from
pursuing full-time training following separation from the
Guard/Reserve. Additionally, the REAP program pays a
significantly higher benefit ($645 for full time training
following 1 year of continuous activation) than the MGIB-SR
program. As a result, the incentive to remain in the Guard/
Reserve created by the REAP program is greater than the
incentive to leave the Guard/Reserve created by the MGIB-SR
delimiting date extension.
Education Service: Please provide a clearer understanding of
cumulative and consecutive service when it comes to 1606
delimiting date extensions:
Each active service period gets counted and the additional 4
months are attached to each period. Active service does not
have to be consecutive. Example: A reservist is called to
active duty for 1 year. He returns home for a year. He is
called to active duty again for 1 year. He would be entitled to
an extension of 1 year plus 4 months for each period of
activation for a total extension of 32 months.
Ms. Herseth. Then in terms of the consistency of
interpretation between the VA and the DOD, is it based on
consecutive or cumulative time of deployment?
Mr. Duehring. The proposal is cumulative. The existing rule
now is consecutive time.
Ms. Herseth. When you say the proposal, whose proposal?
Mr. Duehring. I believe it is in H.R. 1102.
Ms. Herseth. Oh, you mean in one of our legislative
proposals?
Mr. Duehring. Yes. There is a legislative--correct me if I
am wrong on that--but it is now interpreted it is consecutive.
Ms. Herseth. Has there been any discussion within the DOD
given the Pentagon's recent change of policy as it relates to
the call-up time for National Guard and Reservists limited to
12 months to make it cumulative for those that may have been
deployed earlier?
Mr. Duehring. This area, certainly this is not the first
time we have heard of it. This along with the other issues
that--I am sorry--who mentioned it in their opening remarks
about, you know, the changing benefits for retirements and so
on and so forth are a part of a broad spectrum of changes that
we are looking at that have come in from different Committees
in Congress, come in from the field, come in from the Reserve
associations.
And I think that is the wise way to do it. Quite frankly,
it is an issue we need to address. We are well aware of it. But
we have to look at the impact that it might have and not only
on the individuals but on other programs that it would affect
and, of course, the cost and so on and so forth. But definitely
we are aware of that.
Ms. Herseth. Okay. I appreciate that. I appreciate that you
understand the Subcommittee's--I do not want to speak for the
other Members, but the issue here of individuals that may have
fallen through this gap. I think each State has done a good
job, but I think some States have done better than others of
making their Members aware and educated about the benefits on
the education side.
My concern is that of those National Guard and Reserve
units that were among the first to be called up and then the
first to come home and get demobilized that that process was
not perfected in any way. Those are the individuals that were
not aware that they had a residual education benefit that they
could actually use post separation.
My time, I have gone way over. Let me recognize Mr.
McNerney, if you have any further questions for this panel?
Mr. McNerney. I do not have anything at this time. Thank
you.
Ms. Herseth. Mr. Moran?
Mr. Moran. Madam Chairman, thank you.
Just let me ask you as representatives within the
administration from the Department of Defense and Veterans
Affairs, does the administration have any recommendations in
addressing the issue that I raised just in my brief comments
about the disparity between--do you recognize there is a
disparity between the benefits received, educational,
retirement, healthcare between active military and Reserve and
Guard? Do you agree that the issue needs to be addressed and,
if so, do you have specific proposals within the administration
to do so?
Mr. Wilson. In terms of recognizing the disparity, yes.
Many of the programs that we administer by design do have
disparity between what an active-duty member can draw and what
a Guard and Reservist can draw. That has been built into the
programs themselves.
Concerning initiatives, I am not aware of any initiatives
to address that within the Administration right now, no.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Duehring?
Mr. Duehring. Well, I was just going to say I will probably
use the word differences. There are differences between the
Reserve forces and the active duty. We all know that.
And it is constantly being reevaluated because when we
change from a strategic to an operational Reserve or as we
change, shall I say, we constantly reevaluate compensation and
a host of other programs.
And, again, as I alluded to before, they all overlap. It is
like pulling a string in a rug. You pull one string and the
whole rug shakes a little bit. And we have to be very, very
careful, proceed cautiously.
I think in the five and a half years that I have been with
the administration, I have seen some remarkable progress,
remarkable cooperation between the Administration, the
Congress, working with your professional staffers to iron out
the little bumps in the road, the technical glitches, that we
as a group have done a good job to recognize our people, to
compensate them, to take care of the wounded warrior when they
come back.
I personally believe that in my heart. And I see from day
to day and I listen to what people are talking about and they
are going in the right direction, maybe not as fast as some
people would like us to go, but we are moving toward the goal
of keeping that all-volunteer force sharp, ready, and the best
people. And, gosh, I guess the proof is in what you see out
there. There are wonderful, wonderful folks doing a magnificent
job.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Wilson, I was in artful in phrasing my
question because I assume you recognize that there is a
distinction or a difference. It is there.
My question was, is there a belief that those distinctions,
differences are justified or, as Mr. Duehring just indicated,
we are constantly evaluating that, I assume from a fairness, a
justice side, but from recruitment, retention?
It is just my theory or my thought is that our Guard and
Reserve are asked to perform services in a much more continuing
fashion, greater number of deployments, longer time of being
away from family and work. And I was interested in knowing
whether the difference in which we treat active military and
our Guard and Reserve components is one that is--the
differences that are still there are still justified.
Mr. Wilson. In terms of being justified or not justified,
what I would say is that, as has been mentioned, we are
constantly reevaluating these programs. The working group
having understanding that there is a lot of frustration, that
the working group has not provided their report. I think the
working group is a demonstration of the understanding both from
DOD and VA that these issues do have to be looked at.
And there is at least a situation where reasonable minds,
whether they agree or disagree that the programs are currently
the best that they can be, realize that there is an
understanding that we have to address them and make sure that
there is being done everything that we can do to improve the
programs.
The 1607 program, I think, is a good example. We are
pleased to be able to administer the 1607 program. That is an
outstanding program. We have been paying that benefit for about
a year now. And, fortunately, that benefit did go retroactive
to September 1st.
So it did allow anybody that has been called up from Guard
and Reserve during this period to take advantage of that
benefit. And those are the type approaches we want to continue
to take.
Mr. Moran. I thank you for your answers and for your
testimony.
And thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
And my concern related to what Mr. Moran's line of
questioning pursued is that from a 2004 report and then
reaffirmed in a hearing about a year ago, it seems that the
Department of Defense--I know you testified that you are
constantly reevaluating this. But it seems to me that so long
as DOD is meeting its recruitment and retention goals, it is
satisfied with the current benefit.
And while the current benefit has gone from 47 percent of
the active-duty rate now down to about 29 percent of the
active-duty rate, that even if it goes down to ten or fifteen
percent or lower of the active-duty rate, as long as we are
meeting recruitment and retention goals, people are going to be
fine with the current benefit. That raises the equity issues
that a number of the members here today have identified.
Mr. Duehring, during last fall's joint Committee hearing
with the Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Michael Domingus, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel
Readiness, said that the Reserve components, except for the
Navy Reserve, were close to meeting their recruitment goals.
Do you know if that is still the case?
Mr. Duehring. Yes, ma'am. That actually is. And as I
recall, the most recent data that I saw showed the Navy still
is just a little bit down what I have through February of 2007
for this year.
The Navy has reached 90 percent of its goal. The Army
Reserve was also below a hundred percent at 94 percent. The
others were in excess of a hundred percent. And that is the
most recent data I was able to get a hold of.
Ms. Herseth. Okay. One last question for you, Mr. Wilson,
based on my coffee conversation with the young men. Once that
system was automated for Chapter 1607 benefits and when we had
some of those questions over the last year to two years, they
say it is working well except sometimes the checks are delayed.
There is a delay in actually getting payment.
Do you know what the cause of that might be now that we
have automated that system?
Mr. Wilson. The delay would be the lingering impact of the
initial roll-out of the program. We have been paying the
program for about a year. We are receiving a significantly
higher number of claims than we had anticipated. We believe,
again going back to the nature of the way it was implemented,
we are paying benefits retroactive to September 11th of 2001.
So we are receiving a lot of claims in. And from an
administrator point of view, those claims are difficult to
administer. It does take a long time to work out the mechanics
of those.
We have stood up what we call an automated payment system
in our benefits delivery network system. But it does not
automate the entire process. It does require manual
intervention on most of these cases because of the amount of
retroactive time that we are paying benefits.
Ms. Herseth. Okay. Does it require manual intervention
because of the way we have set this up in terms of a percentage
of the active-duty rate based on less than a year activated,
but less than 2 years activated? Is that part of the issue too?
Mr. Wilson. My understanding is no. The issue more is most
of the claims that we are processing, certainly the original
claims right now for REAP are cases where an individual drew
1606 benefits previously and we are required to go back and
manually basically calculate the difference so we do not
overpay the individual.
Ms. Herseth. I appreciate the explanation. I hope that we
continue to make progress, however, in decreasing the amount of
manual intervention necessary so that once the claim is
processed that the benefit can be delivered on time every time
and not put these service men and women that are enrolled in
school in a tough spot, even if it is only two or 3 weeks.
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely.
Ms. Herseth. Okay. Dr. Snyder, did you have any questions
for the panel?
Mr. Snyder. No. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth. Dr. Boozman?
Mr. Boozman. No.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you both very much. We appreciate your
testimony and responses to our questions.
Just to emphasize, Mr. Wilson, if you can get us any kind
of timetable by next Friday, we would appreciate that.
Mr. Wilson. Will do.
Ms. Herseth. Thanks.
I would now like to call the panelists for next testimony.
We have Major General Scherling, Major General Wofford, and Mr.
Robert Norton, Colonel Norton, yes.
Our second panel of witnesses does include Major General
Terry Scherling of the National Guard Bureau; Major General
William Wofford, State Adjutant General of the Arkansas
National Guard; and Colonel Robert F. Norton, Retired Deputy
Director of government Relations of the Military Officers
Association of America respectively.
You will each be recognized for your oral testimony. Your
complete written statement will be made part of the record for
this official hearing.
Why don't we start with you, Major General Scherling.
STATEMENTS OF MAJOR GENERAL TERRY L. SCHERLING, DIRECTOR, JOINT
STAFF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU; MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM D. WOFFORD,
ADJUTANT GENERAL, ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD; AND COLONEL ROBERT
F. NORTON, USA (RET.), DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL TERRY L. SCHERLING
Major General Scherling. Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member
Boozman, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you today. I greatly appreciate
your commitment to our Nation's veterans and am pleased to
testify on educational benefits for the National Guard.
Since its enactment in 1985, the Montgomery GI Bill has
been a great recruiting and retention tool. In fiscal year
2006, nearly 90,000 Guardsmen and Reservists received
educational benefits and almost 24,000 of those receiving
benefits took advantage of the new REAP, Reserve Educational
Assistance Program, designed to assist our troops who have been
activated for at least 90 days since September 11th, 2001.
Together these two programs have assisted about 600,000
members of the Ready Reserve to further their education. These
educational benefits are of great value to the Guard's men and
women and to the American workforce.
The National Guard is transitioning to an operational
Reserve, increasing our role both globally and also at home,
and it is appropriate that the educational benefits reflect the
deployment realities of the National Guard units and its
members and taking into account both the Guard's contribution
and sacrifices.
Thank you.
[The statement of Major General Scherling appears on pg.
39.]
Ms. Herseth. Thank you very much.
Major General Wofford, welcome.
Now I understand that there are two Mike Rosses in
Arkansas, at least two. I have met them both. I know one very
well. I have met the other one given his leadership in the Gulf
Coast recovery efforts after the hurricanes. Please extend him
my best wishes, and thank you for being here today.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM D. WOFFORD
Major General Wofford. Thank you very much. And I will
certainly pass on your comments.
Chairwoman Herseth and distinguished Members of the
Committee, I am Major General Bill Wofford, the Adjutant
General of the Arkansas National Guard, and I sincerely
appreciate this opportunity to talk to you today about
educational benefits to the Guard and Reserve.
I would like to point out that as I speak to you today, not
as a member of Department of Defense, but as representatives of
the almost 10,000 men and women of the Arkansas Army and Air
National Guard, so that is what I based my comments on today.
I will tell you that civilian education benefits are an
integral part of our efforts to maintain a viable force to meet
mission requirements. Individuals normally join the military
for one of five reasons: training, education, adventure, money,
or service to their country.
Now, statistical data and my recruiting force tell me that
educational benefits is the primary reason an individual joins
the Arkansas National Guard. I will tell you that the Arkansas
National Guard has mobilized over 85 percent of our total force
since September 11th, 2001.
A Cold War strategic reserve for which our National Guard
and Reserve forces were organized and resourced for has evolved
to an operational force that supports our active military every
day. The increase in service and sacrifice that our members
make should be met with equitable benefits as their active
component counterparts.
I would like to focus my testimony primarily on GI Bill
benefits and I would like to share with you a few stories to
kind of bring this into focus.
My first story is about a young man that served 4 years on
active duty in the Army in the early 1970s. Even though this
was during the Vietnam War era, this young man was not called
into combat. After departing the Army, this individual
continued his civilian education using the GI Bill benefits
that he had accrued to further his civilian career.
The second story is about a young man that volunteered to
serve in the Marine Corps and ended up serving 1 year in
Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division. A few years later, this
individual returned to college, completed his last 2 years of
his undergraduate degree, and 3 years of medical school using
his GI Bill benefits.
Now, our third story has to deal with a young man who
followed in his father's footsteps by joining the National
Guard. Three years ago, a major mobilization of the National
Guard occurred within the State where this individual was
cross-leveled from the unit he joined into another unit that
was deploying.
He went to the mobilization station. He trained with his
new unit and he deployed to Iraq for 12 months and returned
home and was transferred back to his original unit in March of
2005.
Four months after returning home from Operation Iraqi
Freedom, his unit was mobilized and he was not required and he
was not expected to return to combat, especially so soon after
returning home. But he chose to go with his unit. As he said,
this is my unit, these are my friends that I initially joined
the Guard with, and I cannot let them go into combat without
me.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, those are the kind of young men
and women that we have got serving in the military today both
on active duty and in the Reserve Components. And I am
extremely proud to say that that young man is a member of the
Arkansas National Guard.
Now, I would like to point out that our Guard and Reserve
members are called upon more now than ever before to serve this
great nation. And they continue to serve their states as well.
Over 8,500 men and women from the Arkansas National Guard
have deployed in support of the Global War on Terror.
Approximately 2,000 members have volunteered to serve more than
one rotation and several hundred served for an extended period
of time in support of Hurricane Katrina.
In Arkansas, we currently have 250 personnel on the
southwest border serving in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Our
State was recently hit by a devastating tornado where 150 of
our Guard personnel were called upon to provide support to the
community of Dumas, Arkansas.
And I say that because I want you to understand that
service to our country has not just increased for the National
Guard.
Each quarter, we conduct the Camp Robinson Camp Pike
Community Council. Camp Robinson is the headquarters for the
Arkansas National Guard and Camp Pike is the location for a
regional readiness command for the Army Reserve and the Marine
Corps and Naval Reserve Center in Arkansas.
One of the purposes of the Community Council is to provide
awareness of the military to our civic and business leaders in
central Arkansas. During each meeting, the Guard and Reserve
provide updates on their deploying units and also their units
that are returning to home station.
Now, the civilians in the audience are not just civic and
business leaders. Many are employers of our Guard and Reserve
members. Some of our civic members are prior servicemembers and
some are not.
However, regardless of whether or not they have previous
prior military experience, they see the sacrifices that are
being made by our Reserve component members and their families.
These business men and women are also sacrificing while their
employees are deployed. Yet, they continue to stand ready to
support any way they can.
I do not want to imply that the Guard and Reserve are doing
more than the active components. However, I would like to make
note that at this time, equal service does not provide equal
benefits when it comes to the GI Bill.
In 1985, Reserve component members were eligible for GI
Bill benefits that equated to 47 cents to the dollar that an
active component counterpart was eligible for. Today that ratio
equates to only 29 cents to the dollar. So our benefits have
actually decreased over the years.
Our active component counterparts are eligible to continue
the GI Bill benefits after they are discharged from service.
Guard and Reserve members normally are only eligible to use
their GI Bill benefits while they are still an active serving
member of the Guard and Reserve.
Regardless of the number of years of service and regardless
of the number of times that a Guard or Reserve member has been
placed in harm's way in service to their country, they are not
eligible for the GI Bill benefits once they leave service.
Occasionally my office receives inquiries from parents
asking why their son or daughter who is a former member of the
Arkansas National Guard and who served in Operation Iraqi
Freedom is not eligible for their GI Bill educational benefits.
I honestly do not have a good answer for them. In the end, we
have lost the support of those parents and most likely will not
see their son or daughter get back in the Guard if they so
choose.
I understand the GI Bill for the Guard and Reserve is not
only a recruiting incentive, it is also a retention tool. If a
Guard member wants to use the GI Bill, they have got to stay in
the Guard. They have got to maintain their membership.
And I agree that we could possibly see a decrease in the GI
Bill being used as a retention tool if eligibility is extended
after a member is discharged. However, I would like for us to
think, as an example, about the shortage of junior officers
that we currently experience in the Guard and Reserve.
One of the requirements before an officer can be promoted
to the rank of Captain in the Guard is you have got to have a
4-year college degree. It is difficult for a young person to
juggle a career, college education, their family, and their
military membership in the Guard or Reserve all at the same
time. It is very difficult. In many cases, we are losing our
best and our brightest because they are unable to meet the
demands of their young life.
I believe if the GI Bill were received based on equal
benefit for equal service, then we would see some more of our
prior servicemembers that chose to get out of the Guard and
Reserve coming back to us later on; one, because they were
treated equitably, but they would be coming back with a college
degree and be in a better position to become commissioned
officers in our organization.
In closing, I would like to return to the three stories
that I shared with you earlier. The first two young men that I
discussed used their GI Bill to further their civilian
education after leaving military service. Even though he had
not served in combat during his active-duty tour, the first man
furthered his education and later joined the National Guard. He
served as a battalion commander during Operation Desert Storm
and he served in various leadership positions throughout his 36
years in the National Guard. That individual is me.
The second individual that continued his civilian education
using the GI Bill after he left the military, completed his 4-
year degree, a medical doctorate, and later on a law degree.
The individual has served our State and our Nation proudly
since 1996 as a Member of Congress. That individual is your
colleague and my Congressman, Honorable Vic Snyder.
However, for the rest of the story, the third individual I
mentioned is Staff Sergeant Jason Bowan, Battery B, 1st
Battalion, 142nd Field Artillery, Springdale, Arkansas.
As I mentioned earlier, he was transferred from his unit in
northwest Arkansas to fill a vacancy in the 39th Brigade Combat
Team that mobilized and deployed to Iraq, returning in March
2005. In August of 2005, just a few months later, he once again
left his family and placed his civilian career on hold to do
what he thought was right, what he thought was right for his
fellow soldiers and for his country.
And I am thrilled to share with you that Sergeant Bowan is
back home with his family and is again continuing his civilian
career after having spent 24 months in combat during the last 3
years.
Unfortunately, Sergeant Bowan has decided that he wants to
leave the National Guard so he can continue his civilian career
uninterrupted. I think it is extremely unfair that by getting
out of the Guard, he loses his education benefits under the GI
Bill unlike the active component counterparts that he served
with side by side during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The disparity in benefits is difficult to understand and it
cannot be explained satisfactorily to our Guardsmen, to their
parents, or to me. And I do not have all the answers on how to
make the GI Bill more equitable. I do not know what the cost
would be for the proposed changes in the bill.
I can only speak from my personal experience of the
opportunities that the GI Bill gave me in my life. And on a
larger scale, I think our communities would benefit as there
would be an increase in higher educated individuals in our
society. And in the long run, I think the military would
possibly see prior servicemembers returning to the military
with a higher level of education.
I thank the Committee for the hard work that you are doing,
your dedication to your country, and your continued support for
our military. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Major General Wofford appears on pg. 39.]
Ms. Herseth. Thank you very much, Major General.
Colonel Norton.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON
Colonel Norton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking
Member Boozman, for this opportunity to testify today before
you on behalf of the 362,000 members of the Military Officers
Association of America on this very important issue.
MOAA is an original founding member of the Partnership for
Veterans Education, which includes all of our colleagues in the
military coalition, 35 organizations, and also organizations
representing higher education.
A number of those organizations are here today, including
the American Council on Education, our great friends in the
American Legion who strongly support integrating the Montgomery
GI Bill, the VFW, and a number of others.
Madam Chairwoman, MOAA is extremely grateful to you and
Ranking Member Boozman for the strong bipartisan leadership you
have shown on this issue as original cosponsors of House
Resolution 1102.
We are also grateful for the bipartisan support shown by
Representative Vic Snyder, the Chairman of the Military
Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee,
for improving Reserve Montgomery GI Bill benefits.
I want to focus my remarks on debunking the myth that
improving the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill would hurt recruitment
and retention, especially retention, in our Guard and Reserve
forces. The reality is that improving benefits under the two
Reserve programs would actually drive better recruiting and
retention in the Guard and Reserve.
Retention and recruitment are under enormous strain as
General Wofford, has alluded to as the War in Terror goes on
into its fifth year. The services need every tool in the tool
kit to attract and retain men and women for active duty or
Reserve service. The MGIB, the Montgomery GI Bill, is one such
tool in the tool kit.
In failing to advance even modest upgrades in the Reserve
programs, the Pentagon, in our view, has missed opportunities
to strengthen Reserve retention and readiness. How so? Let me
offer three examples.
The basic Reserve Montgomery GI Bill under Chapter 1606
requires continued service in the Guard or Reserve to retain
benefit eligibility. If you get out, you lose it.
In our view, DOD could and should have sponsored removing
the 14-year ceiling on in-service usage of the benefit but has
never brought that forward. That alone would have been a strong
incentive to over-stressed, mid-career Guardsmen and Reservists
trying to decide with their families and with their employers
whether they could continue to participate in the new
operational Reserve. In other words, whether to stay in or get
out.
The second example, since 9/11, basic benefits have dropped
off sharply against the active-duty benefit as General Wofford
has indicated. Before 9/11, they paid roughly 50 cents to the
dollar for active-duty GI Bill benefits. Today they pay only 29
cents to the dollar.
So instead of getting $500 per month for in-service use of
their benefit, Reservists and Guard's persons are only getting
a little over $300 per month. That is clearly not enough money
for schooling today and it is hardly much incentive at all to
remain in the Guard and Reserve after the initial contract
obligation.
If the administration had recommended even modest stair-
step increases to the basic benefit since 9/11, the Guard and
Reserve would be in a much better position today to, I will
call it, sweeten the pot on continued service in the Guard and
Reserve in addition to service cash bonuses and other
incentives.
Unfortunately, as you know, the Pentagon has now testified
three times, with a modest exception that you heard about
earlier, three times in a row that essentially there is no need
to make any adjustments to the Reserve programs.
And I believe, frankly, that the modest adjustments that
were offered here today that are coming forward from the
administration reflect the persistence, the pressure, and the
interest from your Subcommittee and from the Armed Services
Committee that the Montgomery GI Bill for Reserve and Guard is
broken and it needs to be fixed.
Under operational Reserve policy, Reservists are now
required to be on 1-year tours of active duty every five or 6
years. Since 9/11, over 85,000 members of the Guard and Reserve
have already served two or more tours and nearly 600,000 have
served overall. They are so busy with their training and
deployments that they do not have time enough to use their
benefits in service.
I was talking with General Wofford before the hearing began
and he indicated that of one Arkansas' units--I believe it is
your Infantry Brigade--served in the early days of the Global
War on Terror in Iraq and they are in the pipeline, they are in
their recall pipeline. They have returned home. They are going
to be called up and deployed back on active duty within a 3-
year window.
Now, that is the same as the active services deployment
cycle. And, yet, every member of that brigade who served then,
if they go back on active duty in the coming deployment next
March or April of 2008, they will be ineligible to earn extra
Montgomery GI Bill benefits defending this Nation in the War on
Terror when they are deployed.
Now, that sends a very strong signal to them, to their
families, and to the prospects that they have. Why should they
stick around? What is the incentive?
If they have got to go back on active duty every five or 6
years, we, the Nation, owe them the opportunity to earn
additional Montgomery GI Bill benefits for their service for
the reasons that the General pointed out in terms of the
professional development of the Officer Corps, in terms of
retention, in terms of doing what is right, fair, and equitable
for these great young men and women.
That leads to my third point to debunk the myth, and really
I have already covered it, the myth that the total force GI
Bill would hurt retention. Under the bill that Chairman Snyder
has sponsored and you have cosponsored along with the Ranking
Member Boozman, mobilized Reserve and Guard members can earn
entitlement for the GI Bill every time that they are activated,
but that is not true today. They only get credit for one tour.
Under the proposal, there is a built-in incentive for our
Guard and Reserve volunteers to continue to serve because they
know that if they are called up again, if they do subject
themselves to continued service and sacrifice in the Guard and
Reserve, they will continue to earn Montgomery GI Bill
entitlement up to the 36th month maximum entitlement. That adds
incentive for continued service. It is not a disincentive
toward recruitment.
Let us also consider the fact that active-duty service men
and women have a readjustment benefit under the Montgomery GI
Bill. And the Pentagon has not objected to raising active-duty
rates for fear of hurting active force retention. Not in the
20-year history of the Montgomery GI Bill has the Pentagon said
they are worried that active-duty veterans are going to leave
because of the readjustment benefits under the Montgomery GI
Bill.
Reserve and Guard veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan earned
VA healthcare benefits, VA disability payment opportunity if
they are disabled or wounded in combat. They are eligible for
VA home loans and on and on. The only veterans' benefit denied
them for their service and sacrifice to the Nation in the War
on Terror is access to their mobilization GI Bill benefits when
they complete their service, whether that is 6 years or 35
years.
Madam Chairwoman, the root question, and I will call it as
Congressman McNerney said, the ``cockroach under the couch'',
the root question lurking beneath this issue is a fundamental
one. Are our National Guard and Reserve men and women who serve
on active duty defending the Nation in the War on Terror, are
they veterans or not?
If the answer is no, Congress does not see them as fully
deserving of all veterans' benefits. And if that is the case,
then there is no reason for House Resolution 1102 or this
hearing for that matter. Leave the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill
in Title 10 and just use it as a weak recruiting tool to
support recruiting.
We believe that the Subcommittee and Congress see it
differently. We believe and we are confident that the American
people, Reservists, and Guardsmen themselves do not see it that
way. Operational Reservists are serving repeatedly on active
duty. They are in the surge. They are in harm's way.
Congress should not give them any of these benefits. They
have earned them through their service and sacrifice, and it is
time to swiftly enact House Resolution 1102, the Total Force
Montgomery GI Bill.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Congressman Boozman, for
your leadership on this issue, and I would be happy to answer
any of your questions.
[The statement of Colonel Norton appears on pg. 41.]
Ms. Herseth. Well, thank you very much, Colonel Norton. We
appreciate your insights and perspectives and working closely
with us and Committee staff to address the inequities that many
acknowledge exist.
Major General Wofford, thank you very much for your
testimony, and Major General Scherling as well. I appreciated
in particular your willingness to share your story and Dr.
Snyder's, some of which we were familiar with.
Let me go to the third individual you described. You
mentioned that he is going to separate from service to pursue
his civilian career and described sort of the difficulty of
these men and women kind of juggling everything at the same
time with full-time employment, education, family, continued
Guard service.
Based on current policy, as Mr. Duehring explained, the
extension of the delimiting date is based on consecutive months
of active-duty service versus cumulative. Even if this young
person were in a position, in addition to his career, to also
access the benefits post separation, he would be at a
disadvantage because he served a number of months cumulatively,
but it would only count, the extension of the delimiting date
would only count, for the consecutive months of either his
first or second tour, is that correct?
Major General Wofford. That is correct. As I understand the
way it was explained, that is correct.
Ms. Herseth. And that extension, that is not going to be
sufficient for many, particularly if there are family
obligations, or civilian career obligations.
But if we, based on what Dr. Snyder, Mr. Boozman, and I,
the legislation that we have supported where you allow a 10-
year window and post-separation use, you may, just as you
described, have someone who returns and for career
opportunities or financial reasons who cannot take advantage of
the education benefits in that 16-month timeframe, but
certainly could four or 5 years down the road.
Major General Wofford. Madam Chairwoman, you are exactly
right. And it depends on the individual. Every little bit
helps. But based on the computation or the calculations we were
given, that might help for a semester or a couple of semesters.
And that is if the individual goes back to school right now.
If he is wanting to pursue his career and continue to take
care of his family, he may opt to wait to finish his education
a couple of years down the road, way too late to use any of the
benefits he has accrued. And I think that is the point.
Ms. Herseth. I think that is an important point. I am aware
of Reservists in South Dakota who after their deployments, they
come home. I will just use the example of a high school friend
of mine. He is a teacher and coach in high school up in the
northeastern part of the State. He comes back and his wife
tells me, well, you know, he sort of wants to do something
different.
Now, he reenlisted in the Reserve while he was deployed,
but if he had not done that, and for financial reasons, because
they have three little girls, he continues in the school
district, but because of just how each individual is changed
during a deployment and the family circumstances coming back,
he would have to go to school right away despite the fact that
he has got, you know, his family that he and his wife both work
to support. It really narrows his opportunity even though he
was deployed for 16 to 18 months. It is almost like forcing
them into an unreasonable time table.
I am sorry I am not posing a question, but it is the
readjustment issue, and it goes to what Colonel Norton just
said, are they veterans or not? I think the answer is yes. Even
if they reenlist in the Selected Reserve, they served. They are
a veteran. They qualify and they should be treated to the same
type of equity and adjustment that those that leave active duty
deserve to give them some degree of flexibility given their
circumstances.
Major General Wofford. Madam Chairwoman, if I could, you
have got an excellent understanding of the situation. Our
redeploying soldiers need some time to decompress once they
return from combat.
With the daily stress of combat, being away from their home
and from their job and their families for extended periods of
time, 12 months in combat, if you add on the three, four, 6
months prior to that in training, preparing to deploy, they
have been gone for quite a period of time.
Most individuals are not ready to jump right back into the
stress of daily life. There has got to be an adjustment period.
We are seeing this through the VA system with our soldiers that
are returning, as you know. And the problems that surface do
not surface the day they come home. It takes months, 3 months,
six months, 9 months, before you actually realize somebody may
need some help or they need more time to decompress.
So the education benefits, they are not there when they
need them.
Ms. Herseth. I am glad you mentioned that. My time is up,
but I want to ask one more question before turning it over to
the Ranking Member.
I am sure, just as in South Dakota with General Gorman,
that under your leadership with the Arkansas National Guard
that as you had those initial units mobilize and then come home
and demobilize that you were providing as much information and
comprehensive information as you could based on the
interpretations of the law for those new benefits at the time.
But just as in South Dakota where we had individuals fall
through the cracks who were not aware that they had this
extension of their delimiting date and sort of the whole issue
of decompressing. The two Guardsmen I just saw last weekend
said that we get all that information and it is helpful, but it
is a little overwhelming when we get it all at one time.
Are you aware of the possibility of some of your National
Guard's men and women who may have fallen through these early
cracks, too, where the time now has expired to access those
1606 benefits because of that extension?
Major General Wofford. Yes, ma'am. And it goes beyond just
the educational benefits. It goes in some cases to health
benefits as well. As individuals return and they are
demobilizing at a demobilization site and they are supposed to
go through the medical screening, the physical, and all of the
briefings to demobilize them, they have got one thing on their
mind and that is to get home. They do not care what is being
presented to them.
And I hate to say that. That sounds unfair to our soldiers.
But their focus is getting home to their families, getting back
to their jobs, and getting back to a normal life. So what they
may be told, what they may be briefed, and we do this over and
over again, but we see it; their focus is elsewhere.
And so we have got to go back 3 months later and rebrief
our soldiers on the benefits that they are eligible for, the VA
health benefits and anything else they are eligible for. At
that point, as you have already alluded to, the education
benefits may have already expired.
Ms. Herseth. I may come back with a follow-up. I want to
turn it over to Mr. Boozman for questioning.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Ms. Herseth.
General Scherling, the Secretary noted the need to balance
retention with benefits. Would you agree that how we treat
returning members, and Ms. Herseth really alluded to this and
we have been talking about this, but would you agree that how
we treat returning members of the Guard and Reserve following
deployment is a significant retention tool in itself?
And I guess you all are talking about a National Guard
proposed return reunion program, the R&D program. We were in
New Hampshire and we were very impressed with what they are
doing up there in that regard.
Can you give us a little bit of feedback on that and tell
us?
Major General Scherling. Yes, sir. We are very pleased that
the National Guard has leaned forward to put together a
proposed program which is over at DOD right now. The law
requires that we offer transition assistance to our returning
soldiers and airmen.
In this particular case, you just talked about how anxious
they are to get home and that is very true. We have not
probably done as good a job as we should do in the five or so
days that the soldiers get full of briefings, physicals, and
those types of discussions.
What we are proposing is that we establish a network of
transition assistance providers across all the States that
would be accessible to all Reserve components.
Also, another significant part of that program is that we
authorize enough days, and I am talking about 15 days or up to
15 days, for the soldiers to complete the required process.
What we want to do is to do this transition program at home
station so that the soldiers have an opportunity, as the
General mentioned, to go home, be with their families, get
through their physicals, conduct their briefings, go home and
talk over with their spouse whether or not they want to go back
to school, are they going to go back to their job. They have
their ESGR benefits discussions at that point. And we feel that
it would be very, very beneficial.
Mr. Boozman. General Wofford, do you believe that providing
a post-discharge benefit for those who do not serve on active
duty will hurt retention? And do your Guardsmen have other
reasons for remaining in the National Guard?
Major General Wofford. Our members do have a number of
reasons why they remain in the National Guard and for the same
reasons that they get in. Part of it is that they enjoy being
part of the military. They enjoy the discipline, appreciate the
discipline that they received in the military that they do not
get outside the Guard. But certainly educational benefits is
something that is high on their reason for staying in.
As far as those that do not serve on active duty, that
being a retention tool to keep them in, what we are seeing is
if an individual has made up their mind that they want to leave
the service, whether it is the Guard or Reserve, education
benefits is not the thing that is keeping them in to begin
with. Okay? It sounds good.
If the educational benefits were such a strong retention
tool, then why does the active component not use the same logic
and not give them educational benefits when they get out of the
Army? I mean, to me, if it applies to one, it ought to apply to
the other.
Mr. Boozman. My dad was in the service and grew up in a
military family. But the Guard then was a different deal than
the Guard now. We have an old Guard and we have a new Guard as
far as what is expected of them.
And their mission has changed so dramatically in the last
few years. And it looks like that that mission is going to go
ahead and continue. But it looks to me like your incentives
have to change with that.
And I think, as the Colonel alluded to, in fact, all of you
can disincentivize where if you are in the same situation and
in some instances, deployed more than the guy that is in the
regular military certainly is in harm's way as much or more or
certainly equal, that you can get the disincentive of the bad
feeling in your gut, you know, that you are not getting a fair
shake. And it actually goes the same way. So, again, it is just
something that we have got to get sorted out.
I guess you all are familiar somewhat with Dr. Snyder's
bill. Can you tell us?
I do not think I have to ask Colonel Norton at all. But
both of the Generals have been around for a while and served in
a variety of different capacities.
Are you on board with what we are trying to do and can you
just comment? Do you feel like if we get this done, is this
going to cause retention problems for you or will it go the
other way and actually solve some of these problems that have
been alluded to in making things much fairer and may actually
be a benefit?
Major General Wofford. Sir, I cannot speak for General
Scherling or for the National Guard Bureau, but an Arkansas
perspective. And I worry about recruiting and retention every
day. I mean, that is part of my job.
I am not concerned about this bill affecting my ability to
retain soldiers in the Guard. Is there some risk? Certainly,
because this is one more tool or one more incentive that we
cannot hold over their head or, I guess, a handle we hold over
their head.
The incentive that I see is that we are providing what we
consider equal treatment that we use to publicize, to get them
in. I think strong leadership and taking care of your soldiers
and your airmen is what keeps them in. It is not the fact that
you are going to take away an educational benefit if they get
out.
So I have got strong feelings about taking care of our
soldiers and airmen. And that is why I am here today is because
I want to see them treated fairly for the service they have
provided, especially if they are deployed in combat.
Am I willing to take a risk on the retention part of it? I
am, because I think this bill is worthwhile. So I support the
bill.
Major General Scherling. I would like to say thank you to
the sponsors of the bill. I think it is a legislation that is
going to enhance the benefits for our members.
I would tell you that at the present time, both Army and
Air Guard recruiting and retention rates are relatively high.
It is hard to determine whether or not the operational
commitments are going to keep them high. And this legislation
provides an opportunity for us to try and keep the rates as
high as possible.
Thank you.
Mr. Boozman. Colonel Norton, give us a very eloquent--you
say it so well for the record.
Colonel Norton. Well, I think you know my feeling about it.
And I think you pointed out, Mr. Boozman, that the conditions
of service today are extremely different than they were during
the Cold war.
And I think when you look at the compensation package, both
direct and indirect compensation today for our volunteers, we
are talking about an all-volunteer force both active duty as
well as Reserve and National Guard. They serve because they
want to serve. They want to be there. There are many different
reasons that attract them into the service. But at the end of
the day, it is a voluntary commitment to do that.
So it seems to us really illogical and counterproductive to
have one of those benefits that is conditional upon a
compelling requirement. In other words, you must stay in order
to keep this benefit. That is not how we structure the
compensation package. We structure it because we know they are
all volunteers. We know that they want to serve, and they have
earned these benefits.
I would also point out that, and this is frankly a sad
reality of how we think compensation has not evolved overall
for the active and the Reserve forces since 9/11 to keep pace
with the enormous stresses that these men and women are under.
For example, the Defense Department fought tooth and nail
about expanding access to the military healthcare system,
TRICARE. Said they did not need it. It was not necessary for
recruiting, and so forth, and so forth.
Congress saw the wisdom of expanding of TRICARE for the
Guard and Reserve. We have other things that I think
Congressman Jerry Moran was alluding to, Reserve retirement,
the GI Bill. This is a force today that is not a Cold war era
Guard and Reserve force.
You know, when I was serving in the Army Reserve, they used
to kid about smoking and joking in the drill hall. That is
clearly not the nature of service today in the Guard and
Reserve. They are fully integrated in every operation.
The compensation and benefits package needs to keep pace
with the reality of their service today. If they are integrated
operationally on the battlefield, then their benefits ought to
be commensurate and equitable in terms of the nature of that
service.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Dr. Snyder?
Mr. Snyder. Thank you all for being here.
General Wofford, it is good to see you. I just had a quick
comment.
You know, our friends at DOD, I think, do an excellent job
and have for some years now about talking about the changing
nature of warfare and the changing nature of our adversaries.
They have been ahead, I think, of the rest of us in pointing
out that we are not fighting the Cold war. We have a different
threat out there.
And so then it gets frustrating, I think, for some of us
when we see Cold war thinking come back around. I saw it in the
written statement, the reference to, well, it is not a big
problem, readjustment, because all the Reserve component folks
are going to come back to their job.
Well, I think there are two aspects of that. And I have
seen them all. Number one, the job may not be there, not
because of any disservice, you know, some employer not treating
a Reserve component person right, that it just may have
disappeared, that, you know, the economy turns over so much.
The second thing is that I think younger people have much
more of a sense of the changing nature of the economy and when
they come back, it is a natural point for them to say is this
the time when I want to upgrade my skills so that I can be a
bigger participant in this ever-changing economy.
I know one of my folks that you know, General Wofford, I
think it was the second day back on the job after having gotten
back from his Iraq tour, wanted to sit down with me and talk
about, you know, obviously the Federal government did not shut
down, he still had a job with me, but wanted to talk about what
his changing role might be in the office because he felt much
more confident about his skills and what he had done as a young
officer.
I suspect that is the nature of a lot of these folks. So it
is a bit discouraging to kind of hear the attitude of, well,
you know, we took them out of a manufacturing plant and they
went off for 14 or 16 months and come back and go right back to
the plant. That is not how the economy works.
And I think what we are about and what you are about
helping in this is to recognize that everything has changed
since the Cold war not just the threat but also the economy and
the world that our Reservists come from and go back to.
The final thing I want to say is we concentrate a lot today
about the Reserve component. But ultimately part of this has to
do with the fact that as time goes by, we recognize the
escalating costs of higher education for all veterans and all
people. And the benefit is not what it was after World War II
in terms of what it would buy in the educational market, and
that is a long-term but obviously more expensive goal also.
But thank you all.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth. Well, thank you, Dr. Snyder, and thanks for
joining us at the Subcommittee today and for the hearing that
you had a couple of weeks ago.
I have just a couple of quick follow-up items.
For the Generals, were you aware at the outset that Guard
and Reservists could use their remaining 1607 entitlement for
the number of months they were activated plus 4 months from the
get-go?
Was there a lag time between when that became policy and
when you or the folks that you work with who administer and
share information with Guard and Reservists, that there was an
extension of that delimiting date post separation?
Major General Wofford. Madam Chairwoman, if I could, I hate
to admit this, but I did not have a real good understanding of
the difference between Chapter 1606 and 1607 until just
recently. It has been out there. Our folks in the field were
aware of it. We have briefed our soldiers on it.
To be honest with you, as far as the delimiting date, I do
not think we had a real good understanding. I personally did
not. Like I said, I am embarrassed to admit that.
Ms. Herseth. I do not think you should be. Whenever you add
a new benefit and then how the policy changed to allow the
extension of the delimiting date for six when there is clearly
confusion from a number of folks I have talked to, whether it
is the Adjutant General or the folks that are more directly
responsible with sharing some of that information.
Major General Wofford. And I think 1607 was great. And that
was the thing I liked about it because it recognized those
individuals that were mobilized or served on active duty gained
an additional benefit. The delimiting date was not real clear
in my mind.
Major General Scherling. Madam Chairwoman, the staff
informs me that we were not aware and as a result, there was a
lag time.
Ms. Herseth. I appreciate that.
And, Colonel Norton, thank you again for your responses to
Mr. Boozman's questions.
I see that Mr. Wilson is still here and I should have
followed up with you. Would you mind coming for--I just have
one follow-up, because I asked Mr. Duehring--no. It is more the
reaction I saw on his face----
Mr. Wilson. The dreaded follow-up.
Ms. Herseth. --earlier and I should have followed up and
did not. It just goes to the issue again of what was reported
at the end of January in Military.com. I know that Mr. Duehring
responded and I do not think I gave you the opportunity to, as
it relates to while it may be the policy that it is the
consecutive months on active duty that are used then, plus the
four months to determine the extension of the delimiting date
is it the practice at the VA to do it cumulatively if there has
been more than one deployment?
Mr. Wilson. I will provide a definite answer very shortly.
My understanding is that it is cumulative. It is administered
cumulatively. And if I could be allowed to make just a couple
points.
Ms. Herseth. Certainly.
Mr. Wilson. The delimiting date extension applies to 1606
benefits, not 1607 benefits. And the term is used both ways, I
believe.
And concerning the policy issue, we have been administering
the benefit in this same manner since 1993. There has been no
change in policy. There has been changes in individuals at both
organizations. And that has led to what I believe was an
institutional loss of that knowledge that required discussions.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think you may
have provided that clarification at the Armed Services
Subcommittee as well or in some discussions with staff because
I believe I remember seeing that that was a change made in the
early 1990.
I appreciate your clarification. I am not convinced that
the confusion does not still exist.
Mr. Wilson. I understand.
Ms. Herseth. We will certainly work with you, with the
Guard Bureau, with the State Adjutant General. Mr. Boozman and
I and all the other Members of the Subcommittee and clearly Dr.
Snyder just want to be in a position to help the most effective
administration, whether it is 1606 or 1607, as we work to enact
legislation to address some of the equity issues that have been
discussed today.
Mr. Wilson. I will look forward to that.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, and thank you for staying for the
remainder of the hearing. I hope you will continue to do so in
future hearings. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, I was hoping that you could send over sort of a
clear written explanation of how it has been administered and
what your interpretation has been.
I think you mentioned that you would give a more definitive
answer. And if you could provide that perhaps by the end of
next week as well, that would be appreciated.
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely. Yes.
Ms. Herseth. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Duehring. He will not stay for the rest of the hearing
if you call him back.
Ms. Herseth. That is what I was afraid of. That is what I
was afraid of. If you do, I will assure you I will try to get
in all of my questions when you are up on the panel. But thank
you very much because oftentimes in our subsequent panels,
other issues are raised and it is always helpful to be able to
come back to some of that.
I thank all of you for your insights. I think in particular
some of what our Generals provided us today on the retention
issue as we await the report from DOD and VA Working Group will
help us and provide us some insights in evaluating just what
the impact will be and, of course, the risk associated and the
willingness of some to take the risk because of the strong
leadership that they have demonstrated in meeting retention
goals.
Thank you very much.
Well, I believe since we did have votes just called now,
too, even though we thought that would happen over an hour ago,
the hearing of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee now stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon. The Veterans' Affairs Economic Opportunity
Subcommittee hearing on the education benefits for National Guard &
Reserve members will come to order.
As the lone representative from South Dakota, which this year will
have about 2000 veterans use G.I. Bill payments for their education, I
have an especially strong interest in exploring options to improve and
modernize the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB), particularly for National
Guard and Reserve service members.
Ranking Member Boozman, I look forward to working with you, all the
Members on this Subcommittee, and our colleagues on the Armed Services
Committee to update this important program.
Since the MGIB was enacted more than 20 years ago, our nation's
utilization of the Select Reserve forces has dramatically increased.
When the Montgomery G.I. Bill was signed into law in 1984,
servicemembers of the Guard and Reserve were rarely mobilized, and that
simply is not the reality today. Indeed, today's citizen-soldiers are
serving with distinction and have sacrificed a great deal in our
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, although they are being
called to duty and mobilized for extended periods of time, their
educational benefits do not reflect their increased service to our
Nation. These patriots have earned and deserve high quality education
and training benefits to be used in a fair and equitable manner.
I would also like to welcome all of today's witnesses, and I very
much appreciate your testimony as your views and insights are
critically important to us as we go about examining this issue. I am
particularly interested in understanding and exploring the views and
perspectives on the proposed ``Total Force G.I. Bill.'' This proposal
would, among other things, organize all G.I. Bill programs under Title
38 and provide a 10-year portability of Chapter 1607 benefits. I
believe these concepts would help reflect the reality of the Total
Force Policy. However, I understand there may be concerns about how
this proposal may affect retention, so I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses.
Much progress has been made in education benefits for National
Guard & Reserve members. However, I think everyone would agree that we
must remain vigilant to maintain against any decline in benefits.
Veterans, servicemembers, and military families of this nation deserve
our best efforts and I plan on working with my colleagues to examine
and develop policies aimed to improve readjustments services for our
men and women in uniform.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Madame Chairwoman, Thank you for holding this hearing. I know that
we were originally scheduled to conduct a joint hearing with Chairman
Snyder's Subcommittee on Military Personnel but events at Walter Reed
necessitated he change his focus for the moment, and rightly so.
Today we will hear from several witnesses on modernizing the GI
Bill, especially as those benefits apply to members of the National
Guard and Reserves. As you know, you and I are both original co-
sponsors of Chairman Snyder's HR 1102, and I look forward to working
with you and my fellow Arkansan to craft changes that complement our
ability to recruit and retain the forces we need while treating those
who defend us fairly. That will not be an easy task, and today's
hearing is an important part of that process.
I suppose my basic approach is that you cannot retain someone you
don't recruit. So, a benefit must first attract someone to military
service. Hopefully, once someone joins, aspects of military life such
as comradeship, adventure, training, and just plain old patriotism will
convince members to stay regardless of whether there are post-discharge
benefits. For those who choose to leave, we should be wise enough to
thank them profusely for their service and make them aware that they
are always welcome back to the family.
Having said that, none of us on this dais can ignore the fiscal
realities facing Congress. The question then becomes, is it fair to the
taxpayers to pay more than needed to attract good people to military
service? I would say that again, we must balance the levels of benefits
with what is needed to recruit and retain members.
Madame Chairwoman, I am looking forward to hearing from today's
witnesses including Major General Wofford, the Adjutant General of the
Arkansas National Guard. I found his written testimony particularly
poignant and recommend it as a good read.
Statement of Honorable Craig W. Duehring, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense
INTRODUCTION
Chairwoman Herseth and Subcommittee Members, thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the educational assistance programs that
have been so effective in helping the Department achieve its force
management objectives while providing our servicemembers with a
valuable benefit that helps them achieve their educational goals.
Today, we are here to discuss changes to the two Reserve educational
assistance programs--the Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve
(MGIB-SR) and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP). These
two programs were designed as incentives to encourage members to remain
in the Selected Reserve. Today, we will discuss, among other issues,
whether the reserve educational assistance programs also should provide
a post-service education benefit. I would first like to briefly
describe the Selected Reserve force today, how the two reserve
educational programs--as they exist today--help us maintain that force,
and then describe various changes to these programs we would like to
make.
MONTGOMERY GI BILL FOR THE SELECTED RESERVE
Just under 50 percent of members serving in the Selected Reserve
today are within their eight-year military service obligation. Even
those with a remaining service obligation, unless they have committed
to service in the Selected Reserve in exchange for an incentive, can
transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve at any time. Thus, incentives
are an important tool in manning reserve units. To illustrate, the
typical Infantry Brigade Combat Team (BCT) is made up of 313 officers
of which 76 percent are company grade officers and 3,439 enlisted
personnel of which 82 percent are E-5s or below. Data show that the
majority of enlisted personnel (75%) who use MGIB-SR benefits are E-4s
or E-5s, and the vast majority of enlisted personnel are pursuing an
undergraduate degree (90%). Co. grade officers are the predominate
users of the MGIB-SR program (70%) with 95 percent of officers pursuing
an undergraduate or graduate degree. This is the target population we
need to man our force.
To sustain the All-Volunteer Force, particularly in the Guard and
Reserve where the majority of Selected Reserve members may quit at any
time, we need every tool available to get members to commit to service
in the Selected Reserve. The Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected
Reserve (MGIB-SR) helps us do that by requiring a member to commit to 6
years of service in the Selected Reserve to gain eligibility for MGIB-
SR benefits. Of the 326,000 Selected Reserve members who made that
commitment and are currently eligible for MGIB-SR benefits, 182,000
(56%) are within their 6-year service obligation.
RESERVE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The new Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) was developed
to reward Guard and Reserve members who are being asked to serve more
frequently and for longer periods. It was designed to provide a richer
educational benefit to Guard and Reserve members who serve in support
of a contingency operation. A member who serves as few as 90 days is
eligible for $430 a month in educational assistance for up to 36
months. The only requirement is that the member continues to serve in
the Selected Reserve, or Ready Reserve if the member was serving in the
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) when he or she was called to active
duty. The benefit level increases to as much as $860 per month if the
member serves for 2 years. This is actually a richer benefit than the
active duty MGIB benefit for 2 years of active duty service. This is
because the reserve member does not have a payroll deduction to become
eligible for the REAP benefit.
Our most recent survey data show that 81 percent of reservists were
full-time employees when they were activated. Twenty-eight percent
reported that they did not return to the same employer, while eight
percent were not in the workforce at the time they were activated. The
survey data also show that 26 percent of reservists were enrolled in a
civilian education program at the time of their most recent activation
with approximately two thirds enrolled as full-time students.
A TOTAL FORCE GI BILL
Last year, Congress heard testimony urging the Congress to
consolidate the three separate educational assistance programs into a
``Total Force GI Bill.'' In fact, legislation has already been
introduced that would place the two reserve programs in title 38 along
with making some modifications to each program. The Department strongly
supports changes to the reserve educational assistance programs that
help sustain the Reserve components and the All-Volunteer Force. But we
adversely affect retention by offering a post-service benefit that is
more attractive than the benefit available to those who remain in the
force. We need to find a way to balance force management objectives
while wisely using limited appropriations so we get the greatest return
on tax-payer dollars.
Certainly almost any program can be improved and we share your
interest in ensuring that the educational assistance programs provide a
robust benefit for the users, while giving the Department of Defense
the tools it needs to meet force management objectives. There are a
number of variations on a ``Total Force'' GI Bill. But, all of these
proposals appear to have two common characteristics. First, the reserve
education programs would be recodified in title 38 of the U.S. Code;
placing them under the purview of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Second, the REAP program would provide a post-service benefit for
Selected Reserve members.
The original concept of a ``Total Force GI Bill'' was to create a
single program drawing from the best attributes of all three
educational assistance programs. But if the programs are to continue to
serve the distinct purposes for which they were designed, it may be
difficult to truly have one program. Those who call for a single
program simply view military service as the pathway to an education
benefit, losing sight of the fact that educational assistance programs
help us retain members. All the proposals we have reviewed to date do
not integrate the three programs; they simply remain three separate and
distinct stand-alone programs that would be codified (and modified) in
title 38.
Some commonality among all of the programs makes sense. They should
all provide assistance for the same education programs so, other than
the amount paid, use of any program is transparent to the student and
educational institution. This can be achieved by linking the benefits
available in the title 10 programs to the benefits provided in the
title 38 programs, just as we did when we linked the benefit rates for
the title 10 REAP program to the title 38 MGIB rates.
The first proposal to establish a total force GI bill was submitted
to Secretary Nicholson by the Veterans Advisory Committee on Education
(VACOE). Secretary Nicholson and Dr. Chu established a DVA/DOD working
group to assess feasibility of that proposal. The working group has a
number of concerns with the VACOE proposal so they developed an
alternative proposal, which they presented to the Joint Executive
Council. We have learned from the efforts of the working group that
small changes in current education programs can translate to
significant costs to the government. Therefore, at the last meeting of
the Joint Executive Council, the working group was directed to more
closely examine the recruiting and retention effects of the various
attributes of a single program and to develop a cost-neutral
alternative. For that reason, the working group report has not been
officially released. But I would like to report that the working group
has developed some intriguing ideas.
PORTABILITY AND THE RESERVE PROGRAM BENEFIT RATES
We are in a different time and the force is different than it was
during World War II and Viet Nam. Today we have an All-Volunteer Force.
People have made a choice to serve in the Guard or Reserve. As
``citizen-soldiers,'' they serve part time. As previously noted, eighty
percent of reservists were employed full-time when activated and 26
percent were enrolled in school. Reintegration and readjustment are
important to citizen-soldiers, particularly to those reservists who
were not in the workforce when mobilized or change jobs. They have the
opportunity to use their education benefits while still enjoying the
benefits of continued service. We only require that they come to work
for us 38 days a year during the first couple of years following a 1-
year mobilization. But, as the data show, most reservists are not
beginning a new career when they are released from active duty, unlike
their active duty counterparts. Our concern with providing portability
is the loss of a tool that helps us retain our combat veterans. We need
an incentive that encourages them to stay, not to leave. Our focus is
on maintaining the All-Volunteer Force. That is why we find the
retention aspects of both the reserve educational assistance program
such an important attribute.
The MGIB-SR benefit rates have been adjusted annually according the
Consumer Price Index, as provided in statute. This is the index used
for both the MGIB program and the MGIB-SR program. But this annual
adjustment has not kept pace with the cost of education. The widening
gap between the rates paid under MGIB and MGIB-SR programs is the
result of adjustments made to one program but not the other. To restore
the historic relationship between the two programs, the Department
estimates it would cost just over $13 billion over the next 5 years.
While this is discretionary spending, the Reserve components are
required to place funds in the DOD Education Benefit Fund--money that
is also needed to increase readiness, fund modernization and purchase
vital equipment.
LEGISLATION SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT
The Department's 2008 Omnibus legislation that has been submitted
to Congress includes a proposal that would allow a Selected Reserve
member to continue to receive REAP payments for up to 90 days while
serving in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and retain eligibility
for REAP for members who remain in the IRR longer than 90 days. They
would once again be able to begin using benefits when they return to
the Selected Reserve.
CONCLUSION
Few areas, if any, are more important to the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretaries of the Military Departments than recruiting and
retention. We recognize our duty to fill the All-Volunteer Force with
high-quality, motivated, and well-trained men and women. Education
benefit programs have been a major contributor to recruiting and
retention achievements over the past 20 years. It is our desire that
any changes to these programs would only be undertaken if they improve
recruitment, retention, force shaping and ultimately help us sustain
the All-Volunteer Force.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss these important matters with
Congress and I look forward to working with your Committees to ensure
that these programs remain robust. I would again like to thank the
Committee for its continued support of the men and women of the Armed
Forces.
Statement of the Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member Boozman, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the two education benefit programs
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for National
Guard and Reserve members of the U.S. Armed Forces, namely, the
Montgomery GI Bill--Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR), chapter 1606 of title
10, United States Code, and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program
(REAP), chapter 1607 of title 10, United States Code.
Reserve/Guard Education Benefit Programs
The MGIB-SR provides members of the Selected Reserve with
educational assistance, generally in the form of monthly benefits, to
assist them in reaching their educational or vocational goals. The REAP
provides an enhanced benefit for reservists and those in the National
Guard who are activated for more than 90 days due to an emergency or
contingency as defined by the President or Congress. Reservist and
Guard education benefits support recruitment and retention efforts, and
enhance the Nation's competitiveness through the development of a more
highly educated and productive workforce.
Workload and Usage
The education claims processing workload for the MGIB-SR increased
steadily from 2001 through 2006. In 2006, VA received more than 261,000
MGIB-SR benefit claims and 68,000 REAP benefit claims. Through the end
of February, fiscal year 2007, we received nearly 98,000 MGIB-SR
benefit claims and 52,000 REAP benefit claims. Comparing fiscal year
2006 through February to the same period in fiscal year 2007, claims
for reservist benefits under both programs have increased by 27%.
Although the MGIB-SR original claims continued to increase by 5%,
supplemental enrollments dropped 20%. We believe this indicates that
former MGIB-SR recipients are converting in substantial numbers to
REAP. The total supplemental workload for the two benefits programs has
increased by 11%.
The Department of Defense has informed us that, between 1986 and
2006, more than 1.5 million Selected Reserve members gained eligibility
for the MGIB-SR benefits. Forty-two percent of them have applied for
educational assistance.
In fiscal year 2006, over $122 million in benefits was paid to over
66,000 Selected Reserve members participating in the MGIB-SR program.
In fiscal year 2006, over $153 million in benefits was paid to almost
24,000 REAP participants. Through the end of February, fiscal year
2007, over $71 million in benefits was paid to more than 43,000
Selected Reserve members participating in the MGIB-SR program, and over
$93 million in benefits to over 28,000 REAP participants.
Performance
This year we are making progress toward achievement of our
performance goals. Our targets for the end of fiscal year 2007 are to
process original claims in 35 days and to process supplemental claims
in 15 days.
Timeliness has improved for supplemental claims processing. Average
days to complete MGIB-SR supplemental claims dropped from 20 days in
fiscal year 2006 to 17 days through February of fiscal year 2007.
Similarly, average days to complete REAP supplemental claims dropped
from 19 days in fiscal year 2006 to 17 days through February of fiscal
year 2007.
Timeliness has likewise improved for original claims processing.
Average days to complete MGIB-SR original claims decreased from 35 days
in fiscal year 2006 to 29 days through February of fiscal year 2007.
Average days to complete REAP original claims dropped from 60 days in
fiscal year 2006 to 42 days through February of fiscal year 2007.
Outreach
Expanded outreach has led to increased benefit usage. We have
distributed more than 300,000 copies of our new REAP brochure to
activated Guard and Reserve units nationwide. More than 46,000 REAP
informational DVD discs are also being produced, along with almost
65,000 informational discs on both the MGIB-Active Duty and MGIB-SR
programs The goal is to have the informational discs distributed to all
military installations by the end of March 2007. Additionally, we will
soon begin direct mailing of REAP informational material to activated
Guard and Reserve members, as we now do for Chapter 30-eligible
servicemembers.
Education Service will continue to enhance current outreach efforts
to better serve the informational needs of members of the Guard and
Reserves currently using or potentially eligible for VA education
benefits.
Information Technology Highlights
We continue our efforts to migrate all claims processing work from
the legacy claims processing system into the new VA corporate
environment. The Education Expert System (TEES) is a multi-year
initiative that, when fully deployed, will electronically receive and
process application and enrollment information. TEES will enable us to
further improve both the timeliness and quality of education claims
processing.
The first phase of TEES implementation is the Web-Enabled Approval
Management System (WEAMS). WEAMS is the approval repository for
educational and job training programs; licensing and certification
tests; and national admittance exams such as ACT, SAT, GMAT, or
advanced placement exams maintained in the VA corporate environment.
WEAMS, a single repository, merged two existing approval systems--the
On-Line Approval File (OLAF), which contained approvals for educational
and job training programs, and the Licensing and Certification Approval
System (LACAS), which contained the approvals for licenses and
certifications. The consolidation of these legacy applications into a
single repository allows our education liaison representatives to
process and maintain approval information more efficiently. Similarly,
WEAMS frees claims examiners from searching for approvals in separate
locations, providing more time to process education benefit claims. The
public can now access WEAMS online to learn which programs are approved
for VA training.
The Web Automated Verification of Enrollment (WAVE), found at
https://www.gibill.va.gov/wave, has been fully operational since July
2001. This site allows individuals receiving MGIB-SR benefits to verify
enrollment, notify VA of changes in course load, change their address,
or establish direct deposit. Allowing beneficiaries to verify their
continued enrollment each month over the Internet, instead of mailing
the verification form to VA, enables them to receive their monthly
benefits more quickly. MGIB-SR beneficiaries may also verify enrollment
by calling our toll-free interactive voice response (IVR) telephone
line.
In addition, VA-ONCE, an application that allows school certifying
officials to transmit enrollment data electronically to VA, has been in
use since fiscal year 2003 and has been well received. In fiscal year
2005, approximately 88 percent of all enrollment data was received
electronically.
Conclusion
The VA will continue to strive to ensure that the administration of
education benefit programs is as smooth as possible on behalf of the
honorable men and women serving our Nation who are eligible for these
benefits, including MGIB-SR and REAP.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or any of the other Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Statement of the Major General Terry L. Scherling, Director, Joint
Staff, National Guard Bureau
Chairman Herseth and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I greatly appreciate
your commitment to our Nation's veterans and am grateful for the chance
to testify regarding the educational assistance programs available to
the National Guard.
As the National Guard transitions to an Operational Reserve,
increasing its role on the global stage while maintaining its vital
duties here at home, it is important that Guardsmen's benefits are
commensurate with their sacrifice and their contribution. The House
Veterans Affairs Committee is presently considering a bill which would
change the structure of education benefits and increase their
portability for National Guardsmen. While we greatly appreciate the
intentions of this legislation, the ``Total Force Education Assistance
Enhancement and Integration Act'' does contain some provisions with
which we have some reservations.
Since its enactment 1985, the Montgomery GI Bill has been a great
recruitment and retention tool for the National Guard. The education
benefits encourage Guardsmen to join, and continued service is rewarded
with ongoing benefits. Changes to this multi-functional system should
be made only after careful consideration.
Under the proposed Total Force Montgomery GI Bill, members of the
National Guard who earn eligibility while on an active duty status
would be allowed to use that eligibility for 10 years after separation
from the National Guard or Reserve. We believe that such a provision
may diminish or even eliminate the benefit's retention value.
The ``Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement and
Integration Act'' proposes combining the Montgomery G.I. Bill--
Selective Reserve with Montgomery G.I. Bill--Active Duty under Title 38
to make the benefit rate structure of these programs more parallel.
Under title 10, Reserve Components determine which servicemembers
are eligible for Reserve Component education benefits. It is important
that the Services retain this function since they are most able to
identify those members who are eligible and those who should be
suspended or terminated. Reserve Components have a vested interest in
ensuring their servicemembers are taken care of, as it affects morale
and ultimately retention.
Although we have not yet assessed the full cost of the various
proposals, such changes could result in significant costs that are not
included in the President's Budget. For this, and previously stated
reasons, the administration cannot support this legislation at this
time.
I thank the Committee for their continued work on this important
program and for their continued support of the National Guard. I look
forward to your questions.
Statement of the Major General William D. Wofford, Adjutant General,
Arkansas National Guard
Chairwoman Herseth, distinguished Members of the Committee, I am
Major General William D. Wofford, The Adjutant General, Arkansas
National Guard. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today on
education benefits for National Guard and Reserve members.
Civilian education benefits are an integral part of our efforts to
maintain a viable force to meet mission requirements. Individuals
normally join the military for one of five reasons: Training,
Education, Adventure, Money, or Service to Country. My recruiting force
indicates that education benefits are the primary reason why
individuals join the Arkansas National Guard.
The Arkansas National Guard has mobilized over 85 percent of our
total force since September 11, 2001. The Cold war strategic reserve,
for which the National Guard and Army Reserve have been organized and
resourced for, has evolved into an operational force that supports the
active military every day. The increase in service and sacrifice of our
members should be met with equitable benefits as their active
components counterparts.
I will focus my testimony primarily on GI Bill benefits and share a
few brief stories.
My first story is about a young man that served 4 years in the Army
in the early 1970s. Even though this was during the Vietnam era, this
young man was not called upon to serve in combat. After departing from
the Army, this individual continued his civilian education using his GI
Bill to further his career.
The second story is about a young man that volunteered to serve in
the Marine Corps and ended up serving 1 year in Vietnam with the First
Marine Division. A few years later, this individual returned to college
and completed his last two years of his undergraduate degree and 3
years of medical school by using his Montgomery GI Bill benefits.
I also want to tell you about a third young man who followed in his
father's footsteps by joining the National Guard. Three years ago, a
major mobilization of National Guard units occurred within the state
and he was ``crossleveled'' from his unit into a position vacancy in
the deploying unit. He went to the mobilization station, trained with
his new unit, and deployed to Iraq for twelve months. He returned home
and to his original unit in March 2005. Four months after returning
from Operation Iraqi Freedom, his own unit was mobilized. He was not
required or expected to return to combat--especially that soon after
coming home. But he chose to go with his unit, as he said: ``This is my
unit. These are my friends that I initially joined the Guard with. I
cannot let them go into combat without me.'' Ladies and gentlemen,
those are the kinds of great Americans that we have serving today both
on active duty and in the reserve components. I am extremely proud to
be able to say that young man is an Arkansas Guardsman.
Our Guard and Reserve members are called upon more than ever to
serve this great nation while continuing to serve the needs of their
states. Over 8,500 men and women of the Arkansas National Guard have
been deployed in support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT).
Approximately 2,000 of our members have volunteered to serve in GWOT
operations on more than one rotation. Several hundred served for an
extended period of time in support of Operation Hurricane Katrina.
Arkansas also currently has over 250 serving on the Southwest Border
mission in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Our state was recently hit
by a devastating tornado and over 150 members of the Guard were called
upon to provide support to the community of Dumas, AR.
Service to our country has not just increased for the National
Guard. Each quarter, a Community Council meeting is conducted at Camp
Robinson/Camp Pike in North Little Rock, AR. Camp Robinson is the
headquarters of the Arkansas National Guard, while Camp Pike is the
location for a Regional Readiness Command for the U.S. Army Reserve,
and also the Marine Corps and Naval Reserve Center in Arkansas. One of
the purposes of the Community Council is to provide awareness of the
military to our civic and business leaders in Central Arkansas. During
each meeting, the Guard and Reserve provide updates on their deploying
and/or returning units. The civilians in the audience are not just
local civic and business leaders; they are employers of our Guard and
Reserve members. Some of the employers are prior servicemembers, but
many are not. Regardless of whether or not they have previous military
experience, they see the sacrifices being made by our Reserve Component
members and their families. These business men and women are also
sacrificing while their employees are deployed, yet they continue to
stand ready to support any way they can.
I do not want to imply that the Guard and Reserve are doing more
than Active Component members. However, I would like to make note that
at this time, equal service does not provide equal benefits when it
comes to the GI Bill. In 1985, Reserve Component members were eligible
for GI benefits that equated to 47 cents to the dollar of what their
Active Component counterparts were entitled. Today, that ratio only
equates to 29 cents to the dollar.
Our Active Component counterparts are able to continue their GI
Bill benefits after they are discharged from active service. Guard and
Reserve members are only able to utilize GI Bill benefits while an
active member of the Guard or Reserve. Regardless of the number of
years of service and regardless of the number of times a Guard or
Reserve member has been placed in harm's way in service to their
country, they are not eligible for GI Bill benefits following their
discharge.
Occasionally, my office receives inquiries from parents asking why
their son or daughter, that is a former member of the Arkansas National
Guard and that served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, is not eligible for
GI Bill benefits. I honestly do not have a good answer for them. In the
end, we've lost the support of those parents and most likely we will
not see their son or daughter re-enlist with us in the future.
I understand that the GI Bill for the Guard and Reserve is not only
a recruiting incentive, but also a retention tool. If a Guard member
wants to use the GI Bill, they must maintain their membership. I agree
that we could possibly see a decrease in the GI Bill being a retention
tool if eligibility is extended after a member is discharged. However,
I would like for us to think (as an example) about the shortage of
junior officers that most Guard and Reserve forces are faced with at
present time. One of the requirements before an officer can be promoted
to the rank of Captain (in the Guard) is to have a four year, college
degree. It is difficult to juggle college, civilian career, family, and
also your Guard or Reserve membership. In many cases, we are losing
some of our best and brightest because they are unable to meet all the
demands of their young life.
I believe that if the GI Bill were received based on equal benefit
for equal service, then we would see some of our prior servicemembers
returning to us with college degrees and some returning to us as junior
officers.
In closing, I would like to return to the three stories I shared
with you earlier. The first two young men used their GI Bill to further
their civilian education after leaving active military service. Even
though he had not served in combat during his active duty tour, the
first man furthered his education and later joined the Arkansas
National Guard. He served as a battalion commander during Desert Storm
and in various leadership positions throughout his 36 years of service.
That individual is me.
The second individual that continued his civilian education by
using his GI Bill after he left the military, earned his 4 year degree,
a medical doctorate, and later a law degree. This individual has served
our state and nation proudly since 1996 as a Member of Congress. That
individual is your colleague and my Congressman, the Honorable Vic
Snyder.
The third individual that I mentioned is Staff Sergeant (SSG) Jason
Bowen of Battery B, 1st Battalion, 142nd Field Artillery, Arkansas Army
National Guard. As I mentioned earlier, he was transferred from his
unit in northwest Arkansas to fill a vacancy within the 39th Brigade
Combat Team that mobilized and deployed to Iraq, returning in March
2005. In August 2005, he again left his family and once again placed
his civilian career on hold to do what he thought was right for his
fellow Soldiers and for his country. I am thrilled to share with you
that SSG Bowen is back home with his family again after having spent a
total of 24 months in combat within the past three years. Now for the
rest of this story, SSG Bowen has decided that he would like to get out
of the National Guard so that he can pursue a civilian career without
further interruption. I think it is extremely unfair that by getting
out of the Guard he will lose his GI Bill education benefits, unlike
the active component soldiers that he served with, side-by-side, during
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The disparity in benefits is difficult to
understand and cannot be satisfactorily explained to our Guardsmen,
their families, or to me.
I do not have all the answers of how to make the GI Bill more
equitable. I do not know the cost of the proposed changes to the GI
Bill. I can speak from my own personal experience of the opportunities
the GI Bill gave in my life. On a larger scale, I think our communities
would benefit as there would be an increase in higher educated members
of our society. And in the long run, I think the military could
possibly see prior servicemembers returning to the military with a
higher level of civilian education.
I thank the Committee for your hard work and dedication to our
country and your continued support of our Armed Forces.
This concludes my testimony. I look forward to your questions.
Statement of the Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.), Deputy Director,
Government Relations, Military Officers Association of America
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, on
behalf of the 362,000 members of the Military Officers Association of
America (MOAA), I am honored to have this opportunity to present the
Association's views on education benefits for the men and women who
serve the nation in the National Guard and Reserve forces.
MOAA is also an original founding member of the Partnership for
Veterans' Education, a consortium of military, veterans, and higher
education groups which advocate for passage of a ``total force''
approach to the Montgomery GI Bill to meet the needs of our operating
forces--active duty, National Guard and Reserve--in the 21st century.
MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the Federal
government.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Total Force Montgomery GI Bill. Our nation's active duty, National
Guard and Reserve forces are operationally integrated under the Total
Force policy but reservists' educational benefits are not structured
commensurate with the length and types of duty performed.
MOAA strongly supports enactment of H.R. 1102 to consolidate active
duty and reserve MGIB programs in Title 38 and align benefit rates
according to the length and type of service performed_a Total Force
MGIB.
Basic Reserve MGIB Benefits (Chapter 1606, 10 USC)
MOAA urges Congress to address the growing benefit gap between the
Reserve MGIB (Chapter 1606) and the active duty program as soon as
possible. To support reserve component retention, MOAA also recommends
continuous in-service usage of `Chapter 1606' benefits until exhausted.
Reserve Educational Assistance Program (Mobilization) MGIB Benefits
(Chapter 1607)
MOAA recommends that Chapter 1607, 10 USC be transferred to Title
38 and that the rate formula for the program be adjusted to provide 1
month of active duty benefits under Chapter 30, 38 USC for every month
mobilized.
Portability of Benefits
MOAA urges Congress to authorize use of reserve MGIB benefits
earned during a mobilization under contingency operation orders for a
period of 10 years after leaving service_the same portability active
duty veterans enjoy.
Benchmarking MGIB Benefit Rates
MOAA urges Congress to benchmark MGIB benefit rates to keep pace
with the average cost of education at a 4-year public college or
university.
Background on the Evolution of the Montgomery GI Bill
Our nation's total Armed Forces--active duty, National Guard, and
Reserve--are operationally integrated to carry out national security
missions, but educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
do not reflect this ``total force'' policy, nor match benefits to the
length and type of service performed.
The enactment of MGIB programs early in the All-Volunteer Force era
sheds light on the current disconnect between the MGIB structure and
the policies used today to ensure reserves are embedded in all military
missions.
Congress re-established the GI Bill in 1984. The MGIB was designed
to stimulate All-Volunteer Force recruitment and retention and to help
veterans readjust to the civilian world on completion of their service.
Active duty MGIB educational benefits were codified in Title 38,
ensuring a readjustment purpose by authorizing use for up to 10 years
after leaving service. But the Selected Reserve MGIB program was
codified under Chapter 1606 of Title 10, and post-service benefits were
not authorized.
The father of the modern G.I. Bill named for him, the late
Representative G.V. `Sonny' Montgomery, long-time Chairman of the House
Veterans Affairs Committee, envisioned that Guard and Reserve service
men and women deserved to participate in the GI Bill program in
exchange for their voluntary service. But at the time, there was
`pushback' on the issue of ``veteran status'' for reservists. Moreover,
leaders then did not anticipate today's routine usage of Guard and
Reserve forces for active duty missions. Some groups felt that
reservists who had not served on active duty had not earned veterans
(readjustment) benefits. Chairman Montgomery forged a compromise that
resulted in placing the new reserve GI Bill programs into the Armed
Forces Code, Title 10.
From the inception of the MGIB until the late 1990s, Reserve MGIB
benefits maintained proportional parity with the basic active duty
program, paying nearly 50 percent of active duty benefit rates.
Subsequently, active duty rates were increased significantly, but the
Reserve benefits were not--largely because they were under a different
Committee's jurisdiction. Erosion of Reserve MGIB value relative to
that of the active duty program began to occur at the very time that
hundreds of thousands of Guard and Reserve servicemembers were being
called up following the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The administration attempted to rectify the growing benefit gap by
proposing legislation for a new Reserve MGIB for reservists activated
for more than 90 days for a contingency operation. But the complexity
of the new program (enacted as Chapter 1607, 10 USC), coupled with
inadequate funding, poor correlation with other MGIB programs and the
absence of a portability feature, has compromised statutory objectives
for the MGIB as envisioned by Sonny Montgomery.
A new architecture is needed to align the MGIB with the realities
of the Total Force policy in the 21st Century.
Toward a Total Force MGIB for the 21st Century.
The Total Force MGIB has two broad concepts. First, all active duty
and reserve MGIB programs would be consolidated under Title 38. DOD and
the Services would retain responsibility for cash bonuses, MGIB
``kickers'', and other enlistment/reenlistment incentives. Second, MGIB
benefit levels would be structured according to the level of military
service performed.
The Total Force MGIB would restructure MGIB benefit rates as
follows:
Tier one--Chapter 30, Title 38--no change. Individuals
who enter the active armed forces would earn MGIB entitlement unless
they decline enrollment.
Tier two--Chapter 1606, Title 10--MGIB benefits for
initial entry into the Guard or Reserve. Chapter 1606 would transfer to
Title 38. Congress should consider adjusting benefit rates in
proportion to the active duty program. Historically, Selected Reserve
benefits have been 47-48% of active duty benefits.
Tier three--Chapter 1607, Title 10, amended--MGIB
benefits for mobilized members of the Guard/Reserve on ``contingency
operation'' orders. Chapter 1607 would transfer to Title 38 and be
amended to provide mobilized servicemembers 1 month of ``tier one''
benefits (currently, $1075 per month) for each month of activation
after 90 days active duty, up to a maximum of 36 months for multiple
call-ups.
A servicemember would have up to 10 years to use remaining
entitlement under Tier One or Tier Three programs upon separation or
retirement. A Selected Reservist could use remaining Second Tier MGIB
benefits only while continuing to serve satisfactorily in the Selected
Reserve. Reservists who qualify for a reserve retirement or are
separated / retired for disability would have 10 years following
separation to use all earned MGIB benefits. In accordance with current
law, in cases of multiple benefit eligibility, only one benefit would
be used at one time, and total usage eligibility would extend to no
more than 48 months.
MOAA strongly supports enactment of H.R. 1102 to consolidate
military/veteran MGIB programs in Title 38 and align benefit rates
according to the length and type of service performed, a Total Force
MGIB.
GI Bill Benefits for Members of the Selected Reserve
The Total Force MGIB concept outlined above would drive particular
changes in the Selected Reserve MGIB programs.
Basic Reserve MGIB Program (Chapter 1606). For the first 15 years
of the Reserve MGIB program's existence, benefits earned by individuals
who initially join the Guard or Reserve for 6 years or who reenlist for
6 years, paid 47 cents to the dollar for active duty MGIB participants.
Since 9/11, however, the ratio has dropped to 29 cents to the dollar.
One consequence of the rate drop is that reservists feel their service
is devalued. The following chart illustrates the sharp decline in rate
parity since 9/11.
Montgomery GI Bill Program Benefit History_Full Time Study Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Year Active Duty Selected Reserve
Chapter 30 Chapter 1606
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul 1985 $300.00 $140.00 47%
1986 $300.00 $140.00 47%
1987 $300.00 $140.00 47%
1988 $300.00 $140.00 47%
1989 $300.00 $140.00 47%
1990 $300.00 $140.00 47%
Oct 1991 $350.00 $170.00 49%
1992 $350.00 $170.00 49%
Apr 1993 $400.00 $190.00 48%
Oct 1994 $404.88 $192.32 48%
Oct 1995 $416.62 $197.90 48%
Oct 1996 $427.87 $203.24 44%
Oct 1997 $439.85 $208.93 48%
Oct 1998 $528.00 $251.00 48%
Oct 1999 $536.00 $255.00 48%
Oct 2000 $552.00 $263.00 48%
Nov 2000 $650.00 $263.00 40%
Oct 2001 $672.00 $272.00 40%
Dec 2001 $800.00 $272.00 34%
Oct 2002 $900.00 $276.00 31%
Oct 2003 $985.00 $282.00 29%
Oct 2004 $1004.00 $288.00 28.6%
Oct 2005 $1034.00 $297.00 28.6%
Oct 2006 $1075.00 $309.00 28.7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOAA urges Congress to address the growing benefit gap between the
Reserve MGIB (Chapter 1606) and the active duty program as soon as
possible. The Partnership also recommends continuous in-service usage
of Chapter 1606 benefits until exhausted.
Reserve Educational Assistance Program (Mobilization) Benefits
(Chapter 1607). REAP educational benefits are earned by mobilized
reservists who serve the nation on active duty for at least ninety days
during a national emergency under `contingency operation' orders. The
REAP benefit package was cobbled together with little consultation /
coordination with the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, and
other stakeholders. For example, the benefit rate structure is based on
an administratively cumbersome percentage of active duty MGIB Chapter
30 benefits. Ironically, substantial benefits are awarded after 90 days
service, but no post-service access to those benefits is authorized.
The Total Force MGIB would address these concerns by establishing
in law month-for-month entitlement to active duty MGIB benefits
(Chapter 30). With enactment of a portability feature for earned REAP
benefits, the program ultimately would be fairer to all members of the
force and serve as an incentive for continued service in the Guard or
Reserves.
A restructured REAP would support DOD policy of calling up the
``operational reserve'' for no more than 12 months per tour every five
or 6 years. The proposal would enable a G-R member to potentially
acquire full MGIB entitlement after 36 months aggregate service on
contingency operation orders. Presently, Chapter 1607 benefits are only
awarded for a single tour of active duty. Additional service offers no
additional benefit, even though over the course of a 20 year Guard or
Reserve career, reservists will serve multiple tours of active duty.
Under the Total Force MGIB, the more one serves the more MGIB
entitlement is earned.
MOAA recommends that Chapter 1607, 10 USC be transferred to Title
38 and that the rate formula for the program be adjusted to provide 1
month of active duty benefits under Chapter 30, 38 USC for every month
mobilized.
Portability of Benefits. A key element of H.R. 1102 is that
reservists mobilized for at least 90 days under federal contingency
operation orders would be able to use remaining REAP benefits under
Chapter 1607 after separation. That is, they would be entitled to post-
service readjustment benefits under the MGIB. Some government officials
are concerned, however, that this proposal would hurt National Guard
and Reserve reenlistment and retention programs.
MOAA offers the following observations for the Subcommittee's
consideration. America's volunteer military--active duty and reserve
component--become veterans when they complete their active duty service
agreements. For mobilized reservists, when they return from an active
duty call-up (under contingency operation orders) they are veterans,
and no American would dispute that fact, no less their sacrifice. Why
then should they be treated as second-class citizens for purposes of
the MGIB? If an active duty member who serves 2 years on active duty
and one tour in Iraq may use MGIB benefits for up to 10 years after
leaving service, do we not owe equal treatment to a Guard or Reserve
member who serves two or more years in Iraq over a period of six or 8
years of Guard/Reserve service?
DOD's own survey of reserve component members (DOD Status of Forces
Survey, November 2004) indicates that ``education'' is not a key
component in extension or reenlistment decisions. Moreover, a
reenlistment or extension decision enables the service member to retain
original Reserve MGIB benefits (currently, Chapter 1606) as well as the
potential to earn more active duty MGIB entitlement through successive
call-ups. That's not possible under the REAP program today. Reservists
who choose to remain in the Selected Reserve and are subsequently
activated would earn 1 month of active duty MGIB benefits for every
month mobilized, up to 36 months of benefits, under the Total Force
MGIB proposal. Under H.R. 1102, they would still have up to 12 months
remaining usage under Chapter 1606, since current law allows dual-
benefit accrual up to 48 mos. maximum entitlement. In short, there is a
built-in incentive to continue serving in the Selected Reserve because
of the potential to earn more MGIB entitlement under H.R. 1102.
Over the 21-year history of the MGIB, no research has shown that
active duty veterans ``get out'' because of the MGIB. Many valid
personal and family reasons drive these volunteers' decisions to serve
or not to serve. To argue that mobilized reservists should be treated
differently is unfair and an insult to their spirit of voluntarism.
MOAA urges the Subcommittee to endorse the provision in H.R. 1102
that would allow post-service access to reserve MGIB benefits earned
during a mobilization under contingency operation orders for a period
of 10 years after leaving service_the same portability active duty
members enjoy.
$1,200 MGIB Enrollment ``Tax''. The MGIB is one of the only
government-sponsored educational programs in America that requires a
student to pay $1,200 (by payroll reduction during the first 12 months
of military service) in order to establish eligibility. The payroll
deduction is nothing more than a penalty that must be paid for before
the benefit is received. Sadly, this fee causes some enlisted
servicemembers to decline enrollment simply because they are given a
one-time, irrevocable decision when they are making the least pay and
are under the pressure of basic military training.
Those who decline enrollment--many due to financial necessity--do
not have a second chance to enroll later. This is a major heartburn
item from our lowest-ranking volunteers entering military service. New
recruits feel tricked when they enter service and learn they must
forego a substantial amount of their first year's pay to enroll in the
MGIB. The practice sends a very poor signal to those who enter service
expecting a world-class educational benefit.
MOAA has not adopted a formal position on this issue at this time,
but we recommend that Congress address the long-term impact of an MGIB
access ``tax'' in consolidating MGIB programs for the 21st century.
Benchmarking MGIB Rates to the Average Cost of Education.
Department of Education data for the 2005-2006 academic year show the
MGIB reimbursement rate for full-time study covers about 80%* of the
cost at the average public 4-year college or university (* percentage
reflects average costs only for tuition, room, board; does not include
actual expenses to veterans of commuting, living costs, or books and
supplies).
MOAA urges Congress to benchmark MGIB benefit rates to keep pace
with the average cost of education at a 4-year public college or
university.
Transferability of Benefits for National Guard and Reserve
Servicemembers. Under current law, the Services may offer service men
and women in designated skills the option of transferring up to half of
their remaining MGIB entitlement to eligible dependents in exchange for
a reenlistment agreement at the sixth year of service. The Army
recently opened `transferability' in certain skills. MOAA has long
endorsed transferability but we believe the authority would be more
useful for readiness as a career retention incentive at the 12 to 14
years' service point. Moreover, we note that transferability is not
available to National Guard and Reserve service men and women in the
Reserve MGIB programs (Chapters 1606 and 1607, 10 USC).
This is yet another example of the disconnect between the reserve
and active duty MGIB programs due in large measure to separate
jurisdictions within Congressional committees.
Statement of Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr., Deputy Director, Economic
Commission, American Legion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to share its views
on education benefits for members of the National Guard and Reserve
component.
EDUCATION AND THE TOTAL FORCE GI BILL
Historically, The American Legion has encouraged the development of
essential benefits to help attract and retain servicemembers into the
Armed Services, as well as to assist them in making the best possible
transition back to the civilian community. The Serviceman's
Readjustment Act of 1944, the ``GI Bill of Rights'' is a historic piece
of legislation, authored by The American Legion, that enabled millions
of veterans to purchase their first homes, attend college, obtain
vocational training, receive quality health care and start private
businesses. The emergence of the American middle class, the suburbs,
civil rights, and finally a worldwide economic boom can be attributed,
in part, to this important social legislation.
The majority of individuals who join the National Guard or Reserves
enter the Armed Forces straight out of high school, and many are full
or part time college students.
With the number of activations of the Reserve component since
September 11, 2001, these same Reservists, who are attending colleges
and universities around the country, are discovering that their actual
graduation date may be extended well past their initial anticipated
graduation date. It's also taking longer for students to graduate,
raising the overall cost of a college degree. The average public
university student now takes 6.2 years to finish.
Under current law, members of the Reserve component face many
challenges in using the MGIB-SR benefits. Since September 11, 2001, the
utilizations of the Reserve components to augment the Active Duty Force
(ADF) presents complications for those members of the Guard and
Reserves enrolled in college programs. The uncertainty associated with
unit activations, lengthy activations, individual deactivations, and
multiple unit activations makes utilization of educational benefits
extremely difficult. Such decisions as whether to enroll for a
semester; long-range planning for required courses, or whether to
finish a semester are among the challenges confronted. One local
Reservist, who completed a 14-month tour in Iraq, withdrew from college
after 9/11 because he was told his unit would soon be deploying. He
began to accrue student loan debt, falling behind peers in studies, and
limbo status due solely to the military's indecisions.
Due to the Global War on Terror and his military service, he had
missed 3 full years of collegiate studies and watched his academic
peers graduate. Finally, this Reservist graduated in August 2005 from
the University of Maryland, 8 years after beginning his post secondary
education. The other half of this travesty is that he accumulated
$50,000 in student loan debt.
When servicemembers return to civilian life, they often return in
the middle of a semester and are unable to start school for several
months. This is because for 9 months out of the year, universities are
in their lengthy Fall and Spring semester terms; these young men and
women can't restart their academic careers until the next term starts.
Additionally, some required courses are only offered at certain periods
of the year. Meanwhile, they cannot live in campus housing because they
are ineligible due to not being enrolled for that term.
It is important to note that tuition and fees represent only a
fraction of the total cost of attending college. The overall cost
(tuition, fees, room, board, books, including transportation) of a
typical public college is about $16,400 a year. (College Board)
When living costs and other education-related expenses are
considered, tuition and fees constitute 67 percent of the total budget
for full-time students enrolled in 4-year private colleges and
universities, 36 percent of the budget for in-state residential
students at public 4-year institutions, and only 18 percent of the
budget for 2-year public college students commuting from off-campus
housing.
Furthermore, there is a large disparity between veterans' education
benefits and actual costs of top universities. The top 124 schools as
listed in the U.S. News and World Report have an average tuition and
fees of $24,636, and room and board rates of $8,610, totaling $33,246
for 1 year. The total equates to approximately 86 percent of the entire
36-month full rate MGIB-Active Duty (MGIB-AD) benefit. The top 10
schools on this list have an average cost per year of $43,123 which
equates to 111 percent of the entire 36-month full rate MGIB-AD
benefit.
Reservists are not able to use benefits due to deployments and are
simultaneously becoming ineligible due to completing their Selected
Reserve commitment. The following chart reflects the percentage change
of those who use their education benefits compared to the years prior
from 2000 to 2006. The striking graphic shows that in the past year
(2006), usage has dropped tremendously. Two key factors are increased
deployments and termination of service in the Selected Reserve.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4312A.001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR TOTAL MGIB-AD MGIB-SR REAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Trained during
year (AD/SR/REAP) 2005 423,442 336,281 87,161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Trained Compared
to previous year
(AD/SR/REAP) 2005 3.11% 4.43% -1.71%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Trained during
year (AD/SR/REAP) 2006 422,036 332,184 66,105 23,747
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Trained Compared
to previous year
(AD/SR/REAP) 2006 -0.33% -1.23% -31.85% 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no current figures that illustrate how many reservists
and National Guard members remain eligible.
BACKGROUND OF THE RESERVE FORCE
In the 20 years since the MGIB went into effect on June 30, 1985,
the nation's security has changed radically from a fixed Cold war to a
dynamic Global War on Terror. In 1991, the active duty force (ADF) of
the military stood at 2.1 million; today it stands at 1.4 million.
Between 1915 and 1990 the Reserve Force (RF) was involuntarily
mobilized only nine times.
There is now a continuum of service for military personnel,
beginning with those who serve in the Reserve component only, extending
through those in the Reserve component who are called to active duty
for a considerable period of time, and ending with those who enlist in
the ADF and serve for a considerable period of time. Since 9/11 more
than 600,000 members of the 860,000-member Selected Reserve have been
activated.
Today, approximately 40 percent of troops in Iraq are Guard
personnel or Reservists. Despite this, both the MGIB-AD and the MGIB-SR
still reflect benefits awarded 20 years ago with increases well behind
the annual educational inflation rate. The Reserve component members
rarely served on active duty at that time. The idea that any projection
of U.S. power would require the activation of at least some Reservists
was never considered in creating these programs.
TOTAL FORCE GI BILL
Currently, The American Legion is advocating in support of the
Total Force GI Bill. One major selling point of this proposal is the
portability of education benefits. This proposed legislation will allow
Reservists to earn credits for education while mobilized, just as
active-duty troops do, and then use them after they leave the military
service.
Current law gives troops who serve on active duty three or more
years to collect up to $1,075 a month for 36 months as full-time
students totaling $38,700. That benefit is available up to 10 years
after discharge.
Reserve and Guard personnel can earn percentages of the full time
active duty rate depending on length of their mobilization. If they are
mobilized for 15 months--the average length of deployment--and then go
to school full time, they can only receive up to a maximum of $23,220
using their Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP) benefits.
However, they can collect only if they remain in a Guard or Reserve
unit. If they go into the inactive Reserve (Individual Ready Reserve)
or are discharged, they no longer are eligible for education benefits.
Some unofficial cost estimates of the Total Force MGIB run as high
as $4.5 billion for the first 10 years, although the Congressional
Budget Office has yet to provide detailed figures.
The Total Force MGIB plan would also call on Congress to combine
statutory authority for both MGIB-AD and MGIB-SR programs under the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (Chapter 30 of Title 38 of the U.S.
Code). This would mean moving MGIB-SR programs from the Department of
Defense (Chapter 1606 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code) and shifting
oversight responsibility to VA.
The plan also would call for simplifying MGIB benefit levels and
features into three tiers.
Tier one would be MGIB-AD. Benefits for full time students are
currently $1075 a month for 36 months of college or qualified
vocational training.
Tier two would be MGIB-SR for drilling members who enlist for 6
years. But MGIB-SR would be raised to equal 47 percent of MGIB-AD and
kept there. For years, Congress adjusted the MGIB-SR in lock step with
MGIB-AD, staying at 47 percent of active duty rates. Since 1999, the
Committees on Armed Services and Defense officials have failed to
adjust the rates. As a result, the current MGIB-SR benefit for full
time students is $309 a month, or just 29 percent of MGIB-AD.
Tier three would be MGIB benefits for activated Reservists, but
with changes to the Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP) that
Congress enacted in 2004. Technical problems had delayed the full
implementation of REAP. REAP provides extra MGIB benefits to Reservists
mobilized for 90 days or more since September 11, 2001. Payments are
40, 60 or 80 percent of MGIB-AD, depending on length of activation. As
with MGIB-SR, REAP provides 36 months of benefits, but they end if the
Reservist leaves military service.
Under Total Force MGIB, activated Reservists would get 1 month of
benefits, at the active duty rate, for each month of mobilization up to
36 months. Members would have up to 10 years to use active duty or
activated Reserve benefits (Tiers one and three) from the last date of
active service. A Reservist could also use any remaining MGIB-SR
benefits (Tier two), but only while in drill status or for up to 10
years after separation, if the separation is for disability or
qualification for retirement.
CONCLUSION
As the distinctions between the active and Reserve forces continue
to fade, the difference between the active and Reserve forces of the
MGIB should disappear accordingly. Benefits should remain commensurate
with sacrifice and service. The American Legion agrees with the concept
of the Total Force MGIB, which is designed to update the MGIB by
incorporating the new security realities of this current open-ended
Global War on Terror.
Therefore, The American Legion, which has a proud history of
advocating for increased educational benefits to members of the Armed
Forces, supports the ``Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement
and Integration Act of 2007.'' The bill would modernize the MGIB
benefits to more effectively support armed forces recruiting,
retention, and readjustment following service, and to better reflect a
``Total Force'' concept that ensures members of the Selected Reserve
receive educational benefits that match their increased service to the
nation.
Statement of the Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maryland
Madame Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit a
statement for the record at this hearing by the Economic Opportunity
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs concerning
education benefits for members of the National Guard and Reserves.
I would like to introduce you to the bill that I have introduced,
H.R. 81, the Bartlett Montgomery GI Bill Act. With military retention
and morale at risk, we need to support our troops and servicemembers
with additional incentives to stay in the military. This bill would
encourage Active Duty and Reserve servicemembers to re-enlist, support
military families and provide more realistic rates of educational costs
for higher learning by permitting servicemembers to transfer unused GI
education benefits to their spouses or children. This is a
reintroduction of H.R. 3625 from the 109th Congress.
In general, this bill would amend the Montgomery GI Bill
educational assistance program to allow an individual who has completed
6 years of service in the Armed Forces and enters into an agreement to
serve at least four more years to transfer their educational assistance
entitlement to their spouse, child, or a combination therein.
More specifically the bill would:
Direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a percentage
annual increase in the rates of such educational assistance based on
the average monthly costs of higher education.
Authorize reimbursement of reductions in basic pay for educational
assistance coverage in the case of extended active-duty service.
Provide similar eligibility for the transfer of educational
assistance for members of the Selected Reserve who have completed at
least 6 years of service and enter into an agreement to remain a member
of such Reserve for at least four more years.
Provide educational assistance eligibility credit for cumulative
active-duty service in the Selected Reserve.
Increase the rates of educational assistance under the Reserve
Montgomery GI Bill.
Apply an annual adjustment to the rates of survivors' and
dependents' educational assistance.
Thank you again Madame Chairwoman for the opportunity to bring H.R.
81 to the attention of my colleagues serving on the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity.
Statement of the Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Chairwoman Herseth and Ranking Member Boozman for
holding this important hearing regarding education benefits for
National Guardsmen and members of the Selected Reserve.
I have introduced bipartisan legislation that would extend the GI
Bill for National Guard or Reserve members to have up to 10 years after
completing military service to pursue a higher education. This bill
extends a much deserved and needed benefit to our troops. The GI Bill
has provided education to many of our nation's fine and honorable men
and women, this bill will give the National Guard and Reserve members
up to 10 years to take advantage of this benefit.
Because the National Guard and Reserve are playing an ever more
increasing role in combat operations, they are finding it harder to
achieve their degree while enlisted. H.R. 1330 will better allow troops
to serve their country honorably and reward themselves with a higher
education when finished. We owe this to our troops and our military
families back home.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to today's hearing. As
a veteran and Lt. Commander still serving in the Navy Reserves, I look
forward to working with this committee in support of better educational
benefits for Reservists and National Guardsmen.
Statement of the Honorable Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah
Thank you, Chairwoman Herseth and Ranking Member Boozman for
holding this important hearing regarding education benefits for
National Guardsmen and members of the Selected Reserve.
At a time when our Nation and our military is increasingly relying
upon Reservist contributions for extended periods of time, I don't
think that we can overstate the importance of evaluating and improving
key benefits such as educational assistance. There is no doubt in my
mind that Congress should take a comprehensive look at the Montgomery
GI Bill and look for ways to provide our soldiers with better benefits.
For my part, I have introduced legislation for the past three
Congresses--the Resume Education After Defense Service Act, known as HR
1211 in this session--in order to address one problem with the current
GI Bill.
Back in 2003, a group of Marine Corps Reservists from Utah came to
me and asked for help. After two separate activations, including a tour
in Iraq, these soldiers served 24 months on active duty in the Marine
Corps. When they finally returned home, it was to find out that they
fell under a loophole within the Montgomery GI Bill. They were
ineligible for full active duty educational benefits because while they
served the required 24 months on active duty, their months of service
were not consecutive.
To me, this seemed like an unacceptable technicality--if our
soldiers serve two full years on active duty, it shouldn't matter
whether service is consecutive or cumulative. As you all know, under
current operational cycles, many Reservists are activated for 1 year,
demobilized for a year, then recalled--all but eliminating the
opportunity to be on active duty for two consecutive years. We're even
at a point where some Guardsmen and Reservists are doing their third
and fourth tours in Iraq.
In order to address this problem, my legislation extends Title 38
Montgomery GI Bill benefits to Reservists and Guardsmen serving at
least 24 months of cumulative active duty service over a 5-year period.
It will apply to Reservists activated between 9/11 and the end of 2008,
in order to accommodate those who are serving honorably in Afghanistan
and Iraq. This bipartisan legislation had over 150 cosponsors in the
last Congress and I recently reintroduced it with the support of 55
original cosponsors a couple weeks ago.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to today's hearing. I
look forward to working with this Committee in support of better
educational benefits for Reservists and National Guardsmen.
Joint Statement of the Reserve Officers Association and the Reserve
Enlisted Association
The Reserve Officers Association and the Reserve Enlisted Association
Urge the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Economic Opportunity
Subcommittee to Support Selected Reserve Education Reforms for all
Reserve Component Personnel.
Those enhancements should include:
All GI Bill funding and administration belongs under the
jurisdiction of the Senate and House committees on Veteran Affairs.
Include deployed Reservists under MGIB-Active to allow
qualification by accumulating active duty time; earning up to 36 months
of benefit at 100 percent.
Permit continued access to MGIB-SR education throughout a
Reservists career.
Continues for 10 years following separation or transfer
from the Selected Reserve in paid drill status.
Return the MGIB-SR (Chapter 1606) to 47 percent of MGIB-
Active.
Include 4-year as well as 6-year reenlistment contracts
to qualify for a prorated MGIB-SR (Chapter 1606) benefit.
Continue MGIB-SR eligibility of Reservists who are
involuntarily transferred from pay to non-pay and continue to maintain
qualifying years.
Stipulate that RC personnel can use their education
benefits while mobilized.
Transfer unused benefits for career service-members to
family members.
Allow use of the MGIB benefit to pay off student loans.
Background
Congress re-established the GI Bill in 1984. The MGIB, codified in
USC Title 38, Chapter 30, was designed to stimulate All-Volunteer Force
recruitment and retention and to help veterans readjust to the civilian
world on completion of their service.
At the same time, the Selected Reserve MGIB program was first
codified under Chapter 1606 of USC Title 10 intended as a recruiting
and retention incentive. Because of this post-service benefits have not
been authorized, which can actually be a disincentive.
Guard and Reserve members may be entitled to receive up to 36
months of MGIB-SR education benefits. This benefit not only has a
positive effect on the individual, but the military benefited by having
an educated force.
At the beginning of MGIB until the late 1990s, Reserve MGIB
benefits maintained proportional parity with the basic active duty
program, paying nearly 50 percent of active duty benefit rates. Yet,
the MGIB-SR has not kept pace with national military strategy and force
deployment policies.
MGIB-SR began to erode as a benefit at parity just as the active
forces began to be deployed more, and thousands of Guard and Reserve
were recalled or mobilized to provide operational support. MGIB-SR pays
approximately 28.5 percent of MGIB-Active.
In 2004, Congress attempted to rectify the growing gap between
reserve and active duty benefit rates by establishing a new MGIB
Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) for reservists activated
for more than 90 days for a contingency operation with, Chapter 1607,
Title 10 USC.
To qualify for Chapter 1606 a Reserve Component member must enlist
or reenlist for 6 years. Members eligible for Chapter 1606, when
activated, can switch to Chapter 1607 GI Bill, which pays up to 80
percent of the Active MGIB (Chapter 30), based on duration of service.
Reserve servicemembers usually have 14 years to use their MGIB-SR
benefits starting the first day they become eligible. This eligibility
ends when Guard or Reserve members stop drilling with pay. If a
demobilized Reservist stops drilling, he or she may switch from chapter
1607 benefits back to chapter 1606 benefits for a period equaling the
length of deployment plus 4 months. Active Duty recipients have 10
years after separation to use their benefits.
The incremental manner in which Chapters 30, 1606, and 1607 have
evolved has led to inequities in educational benefits. Based on their
service in the Global War of Terrorism both at home and abroad, today's
military reservists deserve enhancements to their eligibility under the
MGIB for Selected Reserves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Monthly Rates
----------------------------------- Length of
Program USC \3/4\ \1/2\ Service
Full time time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGIB-Active Title 38 $1,075.00 $806.25 $537.50 24-36 mos.
Chapter 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGIB-SR Title 10 $860.00 $645.00 $430.00 2 years +
REAP Chapter 1607 consecutive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGIB-SR Title 10 $645.00 $483.75 $322.50 1 year +
REAP Chapter 1607 consecutive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGIB-SR Title 10 $430.00 $322.50 $215.00 90-364 days
REAP Chapter 1607 consecutive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGIB-SR Title 10 $309.00 $231.00 $153.00 6 year
Chapter 1606 commitment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Major General Michael A. Gorman, Adjutant General, South
Dakota National Guard, and Secretary, South Dakota Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs
Chairwoman Herseth and distinguished Members of the Committee, I
regret that I am unable to appear before you in person but I would like
to provide information I feel is of vital importance for the members of
the National Guard concerning educational benefits for the National
Guard and Reserve Components. I greatly appreciate your commitment to
our Nation's veterans and am grateful for the chance to provide this
testimony regarding the educational assistance programs available to
the National Guard
As you know, Congress re-established the GI Bill in 1984. The MGIB,
codified in Title 38, Chapter 30, was designed to stimulate All-
Volunteer Force recruitment and retention and to help veterans readjust
to the civilian world on completion of their service. The Selected
Reserve MGIB program was first codified under Chapter 106 of Title 10
as a recruiting and retention incentive, and because of this post-
service benefits were not authorized. Guard and Reserve members may be
entitled to receive up to 36 months of MGIB-SR education benefits. This
benefit not only had a positive effect on the individual, but the
military benefited by having an educated force. The bill also served as
a key recruiting and retention enhancement. At the beginning of MGIB
and until the late 1990s, MGIB-SR benefits maintained proportional
parity with the basic active duty program, paying nearly 50 percent of
active duty benefit rates. Yet, the MGIB-SR has not kept pace with
national military strategy and force deployment policies.
MGIB-SR began to erode as a benefit at parity just as the active
forces began to be deployed more, and thousands of Guard and Reserve
were recalled or mobilized to provide operational support. An attempt
to rectify the growing gap between reserve and active duty benefit
rates established a new educational program (REAP) for Reservists
activated for more than 90 days for a contingency operation under
Chapter 1607, Title 10 USC. Members if activated can elect to receive
REAP (Chapter 1607), which pays a set percentage of the Active MGIB
(Chapter 30), based on duration of service.
Servicemembers usually have 14 years to use their MGIB-SR benefits
from the time they become eligible, however eligibility ends when a
Guard or Reserve members stops drilling. If a Guard member or Reservist
stops drilling after being activated he or she may receive MGIB-SR
(Chapter 1606) for a period equaling the length of deployment plus four
months.
The incremental manner in which Chapters 30, 1606, and 1607 have
evolved has led to inequities in educational benefits. Based on their
service in the Global War on Terrorism both at home and abroad, today's
military Reservists deserve enhancements to their eligibility under the
MGIB for Selected Reserves.
Those enhancements would include:
All GI Bill funding and administration belongs under the
jurisdiction of the Senate and House Committees on Veteran Affairs
where veterans' education is the first priority.
Expansion of MGIB-Active criteria to allow deployed
Reservists to qualify for Chapter 30 by accumulating active duty
service periods instead of viewing each period separately.
Effective date of eligibility is when the servicemember
elects to begin using their educational benefits and not upon entrance
into the Selected Reserve.
Include 4-year as well as 6-year reenlistment contracts
to qualify for MGIB-SR.Allow use of the MGIB benefit to pay off student
loans after completion of initial enlistment contract.
In addition I support the concept of a Total Force GI Bill as
outlined below:
Replace Chapters 30, 1606 and 1607 and provide GI Bill
reimbursement rate levels based on an individual's service in the Armed
Forces, including the National Guard and Reserve. Create three tiers;
FIRST TIER
This level would be similar to the current Montgomery GI Bill,
Active Duty (MGIB-AD) 3-year rate--would be provided to all who enlist
for active duty. Service entrants would receive 36-months of benefits
at the Active Duty Rate.
SECOND TIER
This level would be for all who enlist or re-enlist in the Selected
Reserve (SelRes) this would entitle them to 36 months of benefits at a
pro-rata amount of the active duty rate (Initial ratio in 1985 was 47%)
THIRD TIER
This level would be for members of the SelRes and Inactive Ready
Reserve (IRR) who are activated for at least 90 days. They would
receive 1 month of benefit for each month on activation in addition to
the basic tier one or tier two benefit. Payment of up to a total of 48
months with no more than 36 months of any tier paid would match current
VA policies for multiple entitlements. The maximum of benefit for a
qualified SelRes member would be 36 months of tier three and 12 months
of tier two.
An individual would have up to 10 years to use the active duty or
activated-service benefit from their last date of active/activated duty
or reserve service, whichever is later. A Selected Reservist could use
remaining second tier MGIB benefits as long as he/she were
satisfactorily participating in the SelRes, and for up to 10 years
following separation from the reserves in the case of separation for
disability or qualification for a reserve retirement at age 60. Members
need the ability to reestablish prior benefits that were lost due to
separation when the member returns to military service.
All provisions (e.g. additional contributions), and programs (e.g.
accelerated payments, approved test fee reimbursement, and so forth.)
eligible for payment under the current MGIB-AD program would be
available under all three levels. Under this plan DOD would continue to
be able to provide Recruitment and Retention incentives such as loan
repayment, kickers for ``college'', and enlistment bonuses.
RATIONALE: A major reason for this recommendation is equity for
members of the Selected Reserve or Ready Reserve who are called to
active duty service--equal programs and opportunities for equal service
to country.
The proposal also provides an additional recruitment incentive to
the Selected Reserve Forces since the new program would include a
transition and readjustment provision for members who are activated for
more than 90 days.
Placing the Total Force GI Bill within Title 38 USC will greatly
simplify the administration of the (GI Bill) educational assistance
program for all members of the armed services, both Active Duty and
Reserve Forces, as well as ensure that all future benefits are upgraded
equitably.
The GI Bill has traditionally been viewed as a grateful Nation's
way of showing its appreciation for the sacrifices of service,
separation, and combat. The new Total Force GI Bill reflects the new
realities which have transformed this Nation's security environment
since 9/11/2001.
Another area of concern that I would like to bring to the attention
of this Committee is the delivery of services regarding timely payment
of the educational benefits. Over the past decade the Veterans
Administration moved toward a regional approach to serving those
eligible for benefits and their service partners. In theory, it would
seem this approach makes better use of limited resources but this
system has not delivered as intended and those eligible individuals are
suffering.
Generally an initial claim requires a minimum of 8 to 12 weeks to
process. This creates challenges and financial hardships for these
young men and women who are entitled to these programs. The Veterans
Administration has looked toward technology to solve all issues and in
reality their service plan should include additional staff with a
greater emphasis on training.
I feel that an independent, comprehensive review of the claims
processing system is necessary to identify problem areas. After
problems are identified, the VA should provide the necessary resources
and solutions to resolve the problem areas. If the regional approach
does not address system accountability and reduce claims processing
times, then the processing of claims should be decentralized.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this distinguished
Committee with this vital information regarding the recommended
enhancements to Montgomery GI Bill and the educational claims
processing by the VA.