[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UPDATING THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 18, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-465 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 SANDLIN, South RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
Dakota HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona Carolina
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEFF MILLER, Florida
PHIL HARE, Illinois JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
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
__________
October 18, 2007
Page
Updating the Montgomery GI Bill.................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin............................. 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin............. 54
Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member..................... 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman.................... 55
Hon. Timothy J. Walz............................................. 32
Hon. John Kline.................................................. 13
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Education, Allison Jones, Member, Advisory
Committee on Student Financial Assistance, and Assistant Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs, California State University
System......................................................... 27
Prepared statement of Mr. Jones.............................. 86
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs:
James Bombard, Chairman, Veterans Advisory Committee on
Education, and Chief, New York State Division of Veterans
Affairs, Bureau of Veterans Education........................ 30
Prepared statement of Mr. Bombard.......................... 89
Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration............................................... 43
Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson........................... 112
U.S. Department of Defense:
Thomas L. Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Reserve Affairs (Manpower and Personnel)................. 40
Curtis L. Gilroy, Ph.D., Director, Accession Policy, Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
(Military Personnel Policy).................................. 42
Prepared statement of Mr. Bush and Dr. Gilroy.............. 106
______
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Steve
Francis Kime, Ph.D., Former Vice President (2003-2005), and on
behalf of the Partnership for Veterans' Education.............. 19
Prepared statement of Dr. Kime............................... 76
American Legion, Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic
Commission..................................................... 6
Prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin............................ 62
Military Officers Association of America, Colonel Robert F.
Norton, USA (Ret.), Deputy Director, Government Relations...... 4
Prepared statement of Colonel Norton......................... 56
Minnesota National Guard, Major General Larry W. Shellito, Ed.D.,
Adjutant General............................................... 33
Prepared statement of General Shellito....................... 94
National Association of State Approving Agencies, Charles Rowe,
President, and Chief, State Approving Agency, New Jersey
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.................... 23
Prepared statement of Mr. Rowe............................... 79
National Association of Veterans Program Administrators, David A.
Guzman, Legislative Director................................... 21
Prepared statement of Mr. Guzman............................. 78
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Eric A. Hilleman,
Deputy Director, National Legislative Service.................. 8
Prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman........................... 72
Vietnam Veterans of America, Richard F. Weidman, Executive
Director for Policy and Government Affairs..................... 9
Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman............................ 74
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
National Organization for Competency Assurance, James Kendzel,
MPH, SPHR, Executive Director, statement....................... 114
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Colonel Robert Norton, Deputy Director, Government Relations,
Military Officers Association of America, letter dated October
23, 2007, and response letter dated October 31, 2007........... 120
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic Commission,
American Legion, letter dated October 23, 2007 and response
letter dated October 30, 2007.................................. 123
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Eric
A. Hilleman, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, letter dated
October 23, 2007, and DAV response............................. 124
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Rick
Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs,
Vietnam Veterans of America, letter dated October 23, 2007, and
response letter dated November 2, 2007......................... 125
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Steve Kime, Ph.D., American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, letter dated October 23, 2007, and response
letter dated October 24, 2007.................................. 127
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
David Guzman, Legislative Director, National Association of
Veterans Program Administrators, letter dated October 23, 2007,
and response letter dated November 1, 2007..................... 130
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Charles Rowe, President, New Jersey State Department of
Military, Veterans' Affairs State Approving Agency, letter
dated October 23, 2007, and response dated November 2, 2007.... 132
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Tom
Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs (Manpower and Personnel), U.S. Department of Defense,
letter dated October 23, 2007, and DoD responses............... 134
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to Curt
Gilroy, Ph.D., Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (Military
Personnel Policy), U.S. Department of Defense, and DoD
responses...................................................... 137
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunities, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to
Keith Wilson, Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. letter
dated October 23, 2007, and VA responses....................... 140
UPDATING THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, McNerney, and
Boozman.
Also present: Representatives Walz and Kline.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
The Veterans' Affairs Economic Opportunity Subcommittee hearing
on updating the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) will come to order. I
ask unanimous consent that Congressman Timothy Walz from
Minnesota's first district and Congressman John Kline from
Minnesota's second district be invited to sit at the dais for
the Subcommittee hearing today. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
Welcome, Mr. Kline, we appreciate you joining the Ranking
Member and me. I believe your colleague from Minnesota will be
joining us soon, Mr. Walz, for this very important hearing.
Before I begin my opening statement, I would like to call
attention to the fact that Mr. James Kendzel, Executive
Director for the National Organization for Competency
Assurance, has asked to submit a written statement for the
record. If there is no objection, I ask for unanimous consent
that his statement be entered. Hearing no objection, so
entered.
[The statement of Mr. Kendzel appears on p. 114.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. As the lone representative from South
Dakota, I continue to hear concerns from returning
servicemembers and veterans throughout my State about the
confusion over existing Montgomery GI Bill entitlements and the
inequity of benefits that exist between Active Duty and our
Reserve forces. Unfortunately, this is an all too common
concern of Guard and Reserve members across our Nation who have
oftentimes served side by side with Active Duty forces in
support of military operations at home and abroad.
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 Montgomery GI Bill was
signed into law in 1984, servicemembers of the Guard and
Reserve were rarely mobilized, but that simply is not the
reality today. Indeed, today's citizen soldiers are serving
with distinction and have sacrificed a great deal in
contributing to our Nation's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, we will hear today from our witnesses that Guard
and Reserve members are being called to duty for extended
periods of time, while their educational benefits do not
reflect their increased service to our Nation. I know that I am
not alone in this Congress when I say that our veterans deserve
a Montgomery GI Bill that will meet their needs in the 21st
century.
Much progress has been made in education benefits and
National Guard, Reserve and Active Duty servicemembers.
However, I think everyone would agree that we must remain
vigilant to protect against any decline in benefits. Veterans,
servicemembers and military families of this Nation deserve our
best efforts.
Some of the panelists may recall a hearing we held on March
22nd on the subject of educational benefits for National Guard
and Reserve members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Even before that,
under the leadership of Mr. Boozman we had a field hearing in
the great State of Arkansas and other hearings that probed this
same issue in the prior Congress.
After those hearings, and during the hearing on March 22nd
of this year, many of our members and panelists expressed
concerns over: the confusion of Chapters 1606 and 1607
entitlements; the need to consolidate policy and funding for
the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve and the Reserve
Educational Assistance Program under the authority of the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); and the U.S. Department of
Defense's (DoD's) concern over the issue of retaining authority
over kickers.
Since the March 22nd hearing, we have worked with our
colleagues in the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to
include language in the National Defense Authorization Act of
2008 to recodify Chapters 1606 and 1607 of title 10, United
States Code, in title 38. I believe that this small, but very
important, step will simplify and improve the educational
assistance programs created to provide our Nation's
servicemembers, veterans and their dependents with the benefits
they rightfully deserve.
Furthermore, we have worked with the House Armed Services
Committee to ensure that kicker authority is not affected by
legislation that might be considered by Congress in the near
future. We understand DoD's use of this important recruitment
and retention tool and look forward to working with them to
ensure future legislation improves their recruitment and
retention goals.
Today's hearing will follow-up on the recommendations that
were provided in the 109th Congress and by our Subcommittee
hearing earlier this year.
Ranking Member Boozman, I look forward to working with you,
all Members on this Subcommittee, and our colleagues in
Congress to streamline, update and expand existing Montgomery
GI Bill entitlements.
I now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for any
opening remarks he may have.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
appears on p. 54.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
bringing us together to discuss the future direction of the GI
Bill. As in the other programs under our jurisdiction, GI Bill
education and training benefits enable veterans and surviving
dependents with the opportunity to improve their ability to
achieve financial independence outside of any other VA benefits
that they may receive. According to the College Board, those
with at least a bachelor's degree will make at least a million
dollars more over a lifetime than someone with a high school
diploma.
Clearly, it pays to invest in education and training for
our veterans. You and I have held several hearings on this
subject over the last 3 years and we have heard from literally
dozens of witnesses about the need to make changes to reflect
today's operational environment. Today, members of the National
Guard and Reserves are carrying a huge portion of the War on
Terrorism, and if nothing else, I hope we can find a way to
improve their benefits.
I am also concerned that 30 percent of those who sign up
for the GI Bill never use a penny of the benefit. There are
many reasons they don't avail themselves of the program, some
of which will be difficult to overcome. But I do think that we
could reduce that 30 percent to a significantly lower number,
and I know that we will be working together to do that, Madam
Chair.
Several of today's witnesses will advocate paying veterans
the full cost of education. If that is our goal, I think we
need more data. For example, according to the College Board,
the average tuition fees at a public 4-year institution is
about $5,800 and about $2,300 at 2-year schools. Board data
also shows that 65 percent of all students attend 4-year
schools with tuition fees below $9,000 per year. Fifty-six
percent attend public 4-year schools with tuition and fees
ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per year.
Finally, the College Board data indicates 41 percent of all
students attend a 2-year school with a net cost considering all
forms of aid at less than $100. I am quoting those figures to
show that the full cost of tuition and fees vary significantly
and that there are opportunities to attend a wide variety of
schools at reasonably low cost. Obviously, room and board costs
will add to those costs.
Additionally, there are financial packages available today
that will--that did not exist in earlier generations of
veterans. Madam Chair, I think it might be helpful, in fact, I
think it would be helpful if we ask the College Board to assist
us in determining what is the real level of benefits we need to
make as our guide.
I want to acknowledge that VA has made significant progress
in lowering the processing time for original and supplemental
claims for educational benefits. Last year, VA averaged about
43 days for an original claim. Today, it averages about 23
days. Supplemental claims are down to 11 days from 17 last
year. I wish the folks at Compensation and Pension could do as
well. I know the education service has achieved a high level of
automation to accomplish that decrease and again, they should
be complimented for that.
Finally, Madam Chair, you and I would make many
improvements if we didn't have the PAYGO offsets. However,
PAYGO is a fact of life and some of these things are proving
difficult to do as far as figuring out where we can get
offsets, and yet something that we can do that is very
achievable is making the process simpler for veterans in
schools, and I am eager to work on the VA's report on
streamlining, getting the report that was due in July so that
we can make an even further effort in that regard.
If we can't get veterans more money, we should at least cut
some of the red tape involved in getting checks to our
veterans. Thank you very much. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on
p. 55.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Kline, I am aware of your broader interest in this
entire topic, but also the specific circumstances that bring
you to our hearing today. We would certainly welcome you to
insert written opening statement for the record. We will go
straight to the first panel so we can have time to get to the
others.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Thank you.
I would now like to invite our first panel to join us. All
of our witnesses today are distinguished individuals who are
well qualified to discuss the issue of updating the Montgomery
GI Bill. Joining us on the first panel is Colonel Robert
Norton, Deputy Director of Government Relations for the
Military Officers Association of America (MOAA); Mr. Ronald
Chamrin, Assistant Director of Economic Commission for the
American Legion; Mr. Eric Hilleman, Deputy Director for
National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of
the United States; and Mr. Richard Weidman, Executive Director
for Policy and Government Affairs for the Vietnam Veterans of
America (VVA).
Gentlemen, welcome back to the Subcommittee. I do want to
remind each of you that your complete written statements have
already been made part of the record for today, please limit
your remarks to 5 minutes. There is a lot to say on this topic
and we will have a lot of questions. Because we have four
panels today, if you could limit the remarks to 5 minutes so
that we do have sufficient time for follow-up questions.
Colonel Norton, please, we will begin with you. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA; RONALD F. CHAMRIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC
COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; ERIC A. HILLEMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE
UNITED STATES; AND RICHARD F. WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON
Colonel Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to see you
again. And thank you, Ranking Member Boozman, for this
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the
Military Officers Association. We are very grateful for the
Subcommittee's continued interest in approving educational
benefits for the members of our Armed Forces and veterans.
The GI Bill exists to support the readiness of our Armed
Forces and to assist those who have honorably served this
Nation. Recruiting, retention and readjustment are the pillars
of the program. All three are critical to the success of the
all-volunteer force.
If we were grading the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) on
outcomes, we would conclude that the program is not an honor
graduate. The MGIB is not structured to best accomplish what
Congress intended, and benefits do not match the service and
sacrifice of our warriors. In considering legislation to
modernize and improve the GI Bill, we recommend that three
tests be applied. First, do legislative proposals match
benefits to the service and sacrifice of our Armed Forces men
and women? Second, are the components of the GI Bill organized
to give optimal support to recruiting, retention and
readjustment outcomes? And three, are benefits keeping pace
with the cost of education in training programs?
In the case of the Minnesota National Guard and tens of
thousands of other Reservists, the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill
does not meet the test, the first test of matching benefits to
service and sacrifice. We can debate the administrative aspects
of their case, but in our view, two points are
incontrovertible.
First, under current law, Reservists can't use their
benefits earned on Active Duty after they complete their
service commitments. Second, when these troops are reacted, and
they will be called up again and again under operational
Reserve policy, they can't earn any additional Montgomery GI
Bill entitlement.
On the second test, is the GI Bill optimized to accomplish
its basic purposes, the answer in our view is no. Active duty
recruits still must give up $1,200 of their first year's pay at
a time when they are under great stress and often in economic
straits. Basic Reserve benefits have dropped from 48 percent to
29 percent of the Active Duty program at a time when Guard and
Reserve recruiting is under enormous strain.
In terms of readjustment, the GI Bill only pays 75 percent
of the average cost of a 4-year public college education for
full-time study, according to Department of Education data. So
recruiters don't have as strong a product to offer and service
men and women and veterans don't have a readjustment benefit
that matches the cost of education.
These young men and women are our Nation's finest. If they
want to go to school in the service or later after they
separate, the GI Bill should cover at least the average cost of
a public college. MOAA recommends 10 priorities for updating
the Montgomery GI Bill as indicated in the Executive Summary of
our statement. I will restate our top three, Madam Chair.
First, put all the eggs in one basket. Move the Reserve
programs into title 38, Total Force team, Total Force
Montgomery GI Bill. The full House, as you indicated, Madam
Chair, has already adopted this recommendation and we strongly
recommend that final passage of this provision in the Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. In other words, we are
hoping that the House will insist in negotiation with the
Senate that this outcome happen.
Second, establish a 10-year readjustment benefit as
authorized for activity duty members for National Guard and
Reserve veterans called to Active Duty. We either treat
operational Reservists as veterans or we don't. It is as simple
as that. The House has endorsed a sense of Congress provision
that this should happen. This makes sense to us, but now the
House needs to adopt a provision in the Senate's defense bill
to establish a readjustment benefit for activated Reservists.
And third, raise GI Bill monthly rates to cover the average
cost of a 4-year public college or university education.
In closing, Senator Webb expressed the core idea at a
Senate hearing on the GI Bill in July. Same soldier, same
battlefield, same benefits. The all-volunteer force has been
tested as never before and we must not let it fail. Action on
the Montgomery GI Bill is long overdue and we respectfully
recommend the Subcommittee and the full Committee make this
issue a priority.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Norton appears on p.
56.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Colonel.
Mr. Chamrin, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF RONALD F. CHAMRIN
Mr. Chamrin. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman,
Members of the Subcommittee and guests, thank you for the
opportunity to present the American Legion's views on veterans'
education benefits. We commend this Subcommittee for holding a
hearing to discuss these very important and timely issues. We
thank the Committee for accepting our record in its entirety
and for brevity, as we are limited to a brief statement, we
will try to highlight our most key point.
The American Legion supports passage of major enhancements
to the current All-Volunteer Force Education Assistance
Program, better known as the Montgomery GI Bill. The current
make-up of the operational military force requires that
adjustments be made to support all Armed Forces members. We
would like to see all of our recommendations enacted into law,
but the most pressing need is to ensure that all veterans who
have earned education benefits are able to use them.
Accordingly, the American Legion strongly supports measures
that create portability of benefits. These portability measures
must also be retroactive to protect those veterans who have
already lost Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP) and
Selected Reserve benefits. It must occur immediately.
A closer look at the Selected Reserve enlisted attrition
figures that were released by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Public Affairs Office, reveals that the total number
of enlisted servicemembers who have departed the Reserve
components since 2002 is 850,000, or an average of 142,000
annually. 443,000 of the Reserve components have deployed in
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom
(OIF/OEF) as of August 31st, 2007. We can safely assume that a
significant majority of these Reservists served honorably on
Active Duty for at least 90 days, thereby earning them REAP
benefits in addition to any GI Bill Selected Reserve benefits
that they have.
Therefore, we conservatively estimate that at least 400,000
veterans of the Reserves, or 50 percent of the force that have
already left, have lost earned education benefits that could
have been used to increase their earning potential. Only 41,000
have used REAP benefits, a sharp contrast to the 400,000 who we
believe have lost earned benefits. Noting that our figures are
of National Guard and Reserve servicemembers that were deployed
in support of OIF/OEF, there are additional Reservists that
were called to Active Duty to the Continental United States or
deployed to other regions of the world.
Hence, our conservative estimate of 400,000 veterans losing
earned benefits is more likely than not much greater. The DoD
Office of Public Affairs recently reported that their attrition
rates are actually equal and/or lower in the Reserve components
since the Global War on Terrorism began. They even announced
recently that it met or exceeded their Active Duty recruiting
or retention goals for fiscal year 2007. So prior retorts from
the DoD in opposition of extending the delimiting date for fear
of harming retention are hard to explain, given the recent
recruitment and retention rates.
The most visible example of the unjust denial of benefits
is the demobilization of 2,600 members of the Minnesota
National Guard who have just performed the longest continuous
combat tour in Iraq of any military unit to date. If they leave
the Selected Reserve, they will lose all earned education
benefits. This travesty is not unique to these Guardsmen and
the passing of portability benefits would assist these
veterans.
Corporal David Tedford Holt, a Tennessee enlisted Reservist
currently on Active Duty states: ``With the high operational
tempo of my unit, and with that many of our soldiers are
deployed for more than 18 months during their initial six-year
contract with the Army Reserves, it has become virtually
impossible to support a family, develop as a soldier and member
of the Army Reserve and obtain a 4-year degree using the GI
Bill benefits that are lost the moment a soldier leaves the
Army Reserve. While many soldiers enter the Army Reserve
without families or financial obligations and are thus able to
attend school full-time when not in military training, the
Global War on Terrorism has stirred the patriotism of more and
more men and women who are choosing to take a leave of absence
from their jobs and families in order to serve. These important
soldiers and leaders are far less able to take advantage of the
GI Bill benefits that are offered to them during their term of
enlistment.''
An officer that works closely with Corporal Holt stated
that ``he had no idea that enlisted soldiers lose their GI Bill
benefits when they leave the Reserves.'' He continued to state,
``I wonder how many officers actually know the reality of the
situation. I bet that they don't and in turn are harming their
subordinate enlisted soldiers.''
I will now briefly talk about one selected piece of
legislation, H.R. 1102. The American Legion supports the Total
Force GI Bill. This bill solves many problems, most
significantly the inequities of benefits of the members of the
Reserve components as compared to their full-time Active Duty
counterparts. One major selling point of this proposal is the
portability of education benefits. The American Legion asserts
that servicemembers called to active service perform duties at
an equal rate to their full-time counterparts and should be
treated as such.
In conclusion, portability legislation must be enacted into
law immediately. This legislation discussed today aims to
better serve veterans and ultimately assist them in financial
stability and helps our country. We also strongly feel that our
full list of recommendations in our written statement should be
enacted to ensure that veterans and military members are better
equipped with a secondary education. In turn, highly skilled
veterans with advanced degrees can be emplaced in the workforce
to ensure the country's competitive edge in the global market
in the not so distant future.
The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present
this statement for the record and to continue our proud history
of advocating for increased educational benefits to members of
the Armed Forces. I will be happy to answer any questions that
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin appears on p. 62.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Hilleman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC A. HILLEMAN
Mr. Hilleman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ranking Member
Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 2.3
million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our
Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for holding this
important hearing on the GI Bill. The original GI Bill was an
investment in America. The GI Bill benefited half of the 16
million service men and women of World War II. These men and
women earned higher degrees and higher salaries because of the
education benefit. Higher taxes were earned on their wages and
the investment paid for itself seven times over. These veterans
are largely responsible for the tremendous prosperity that we
enjoyed in the last century.
Over the years, the purchasing power of the benefit has
dissolved while the purpose of the GI Bill has also evolved.
The Department of Defense now uses the GI Bill to recruit and
retain high quality personnel, attracting young education-
oriented troops. The GI Bill has shifted from being a robust
transition assistance benefit to now only covering a fraction
of the cost of education.
The current benefit requires veterans to seek large student
loans, compete for scholarships, work part or full-time jobs,
and rely on family funding to get through school. This is far
from the original intent of the legislation. In cases where a
young veteran has a family, they must choose between feeding
their family and working to support them, or seeking an
education. Making the decision to feed your family today or
forego an education tomorrow is not a decision we should ask
our young men and women to make.
We urge this Committee, and the Members of Congress, to
fully invest in a seamless transition for today's troops. We
believe that the benefit of a comprehensive GI Bill for the
21st century would provide full tuition support, a small
stipend and other education-related costs. It would serve to
strengthen DoD's recruitment efforts and retention, provide a
national cadre of seasoned patriotic leaders, and most
importantly, improve the lives of veterans and their families.
The VFW strongly supports the enactment of H.R. 2702, the
``Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007.'' We
recognize that this bill does not address the inequities that
exist between Active Duty service served by Guard and Reserve
members in Afghanistan and Iraq under 24 months. Yet we believe
that with this bill as a vehicle, Congress can move forward and
build in provisions to reward the noble service of the Guard
and Reserve members. We believe the GI Bill would boost
recruitment, maintain retention standards and ease the
transition from Active Duty to civilian life, while covering
the complete cost of education.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify and present our
views. I look forward to answering any questions this Committee
may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman appears on p. 72.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We appreciate the testimony. Thank
you.
Mr. Weidman, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. WEIDMAN
Mr. Weidman. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for inviting
Vietnam Veterans of America to present our views today. Mr.
Boozman, distinguished Members of the Committee, we would like
to associate ourselves with the specific programmatic remarks
for the short run in terms of fix of the Montgomery GI Bill as
outlined by the Military Officers Association.
As you know, there was a broad education coalition that led
to significant increases about 7 years ago in the Montgomery GI
Bill to make it more affordable, and Colonel Bob Norton led
that effort and held us all together. It is not an easy task to
hold the entire veterans and military organization community
together for a long period of time, but Bob has those kinds of
skills, learned as an officer in the 196th Light Infantry
Brigade.
I do want to take a broader view here though if I may,
please, Madam Chairwoman. Other statements talked about us
being at war or the military at war, and there is no shared
sacrifice in this war. The cost of war does not stop when you
pull the people off the battlefield. Healthcare goes on for the
rest of their lives. Benefits for those who have been torn up,
either physically or neuropsychiatrically, goes on for most of
their life, and as well as the need for ongoing healthcare that
doesn't diminish with age. It only becomes greater, but also
all benefits.
It is part of the cost of war, and under the schemata that
we have set up and the rules of the game, if you will, to put
it as part of PAYGO in discretionary domestic spending, the
cost of taking care of the men and women who have put life and
limb on the line in defense of the Constitution of the United
States, is simply unacceptable.
It should be on the defense side, quite bluntly, not
subject to caps, not pitting the needs of veterans against
those of the nutrition needs of small children and other very
important domestic programs, because it is part of the cost of
war just as new replacement F-16's and Raptor fighters are. And
it is our contention that that is where we need to go with this
entire thing, because otherwise, we are going to be fighting
over scraps for the time on and on and on.
In terms of whether legislation that is needed, not that is
``what is practical,'' is we need an amalgamation of the bills
introduced on the Senate side by Senator James Webb, himself a
combat veteran of Vietnam and father of an OIF veteran, and
Senator Blanche Lincoln, that combines the best and makes it a
Total Force real GI Bill for two reasons really, beyond the
intrinsic rightness of it.
Number one is that we need to show the young people who are
contemplating enlisting, either in the Guard, Reserve, or
Active Duty, that we value their service, that the country
really values their service when we go to war and they put
their life and limb on the line in defense of the Constitution
so that they--it is not just when they get torn up that we will
take care of them with medical care, but that we value
investing in them in winning the peace after they have won the
war on the battlefield.
And the second reason is, it is not just in the veteran's
interest. It is very much in the country's interest to train a
whole new generation, a whole new generation to take their
rightful place of some of our finest young people. They should
not be limited by finances. They should be limited only by
their intelligence, their drive, and their ambition to succeed.
There are countless folks, including Senator Frank
Lautenberg, who spoke very movingly a few months ago about
without the real GI Bill, and I say the real GI Bill that paid
tuition, books, and fees, he could not have even conceived
going to college, much less going to Columbia University. And
he came from a very poor family and then went on to become very
wealthy and a leader in both the private sector and the public
sector.
And that is true of many individuals coming out of that
World War II. It is an investment in America's future that we
cannot afford not to make, if I may suggest to the Committee.
And so we look forward to working with you on either of the
short-term fixes. But in the 110th, right now is the time to
change the rules of the game and to move in the second session
to have a real GI Bill modeled on that, which was afforded to
my father's generation, your grandfather's generation, Madam
Chairwoman.
So I thank you very much for allowing us to present our
views here today, and be glad to answer any questions that you
may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman appears on p. 74.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Weidman.
Thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Boozman, did you want to start out with a question this
afternoon?
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. And I will very quickly,
because we have Colonel Kline and Sergeant Major Walz, and I am
really interested in what they have to say, especially with
their backgrounds.
But I guess a couple things, Colonel Norton, I agree with
the three things that you mentioned about putting all the eggs
in the basket and all of you mentioned that--lumping this thing
together.
And I mentioned earlier, one thing that we have to do is
when you look at--you quoted 75 percent, I think, based on the
figures you had. We can pull all these different figures and
they are just all over the place. So one thing I do think, and
you all will be very helpful in doing this, is we have to
figure out what is the cost now, compared to the benefit that
was back after World War II or what we intended with the
current law, and then, go from there. That, to me, only makes
sense.
The other thing you mentioned, that this is just a part of
the cost of war, and I agree with that totally. There are no
ifs, ands, or buts. And I think that this Committee is on the
forefront of pushing all of these things forward. And I guess
when I alluded to PAYGO in my opening statement, right now the
reality is that we are stuck with that situation.
And so I think we are trying to get those things changed.
All of us are tremendous advocates of Total Force GI Bill. We
are all co-sponsors or original cosponsors in many cases of the
bill that you have, you know, that we have alluded to. But like
I said, that is a battle that we have got to fight.
And then we have to fight another battle in the sense of
what can we do right now with these ancillary things. And that
is really what I was referring to. So I think we really do have
a very, very bipartisan Committee. We are like a family. We
have our spats at times, but the heart of everybody on this
Committee is in that direction.
But I see those as two different battles, the big battle
that we have in the sense of how do we fund these things. I
agree totally, it is a cost of the war.
On the other hand, what can we do right now to make our
servicemembers' lives easier with the current rules that we
have. I yield back.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Walz, did you have any questions for this panel?
Mr. Walz. Well, just a couple here, Madam Chair. And I want
to thank you and Ranking Member Boozman for your leadership on
this very important Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
of joining you as a Member of the full Committee. I know the
work you do, the bipartisan work, and I would associate myself
with the Ranking Member's comment that we are committed to
getting this right. We are committed to working together.
I would also like to mention my colleague from the second
district of Minnesota is here. Congressman Kline, Colonel
Kline, Marine Corps Colonel, has been a tireless advocate for
our veterans and for our servicemembers. We have traveled
together to welcome our servicemembers back home from their
tour of duty in Iraq, and we share the same commitment on this.
So you are joined by a group of people here who share this,
and there are just a few, just a couple questions I would ask
on this. It does come back to this issue of resources and we
know right now that one of the things you are going to hear
later from the Minnesota National Guard, and it may be an issue
to ask of them, this issue of using incentives for recruitment
and retention and as they play into that. And right now we have
seen a shift to signing bonuses and the re-up bonuses and
things like that.
Is it your opinion from your organizations here, are we
putting the resources in the right spot at a time of conflict
or a time of war, or are we not looking long-range on this,
because I share your concern on this. I am absolutely committed
that we need a Total Force GI Bill. I am absolutely committed.
We need to upgrade this for long-range goals of educating our
next generation of leaders that are coming back, making sure
that we are getting our best and brightest, not only to see
that we will take care of them, but to make that investment.
So I would just ask you your knowledgeable opinion on this.
I know it is somewhat subjective. But do you think we are
putting our resources in the right place on this? If you just
want to go down the line, whoever wants it.
Colonel Norton. Congressman, I think it is a question of
balance. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report
concluded that the Defense Department has increased cash
bonuses for enlistment and re-enlistment by about a thousand
percent since 9/11. The reality is that DoD manages the force,
distributes needed manpower into the needed skills by using
cash bonuses.
At the same time, over the last 6 years, the Defense
Department has not put forward any, and I mean any, substantive
recommendations on the GI Bill, especially for the Reserve
Forces, to improve it as part of the recruiting incentive
package. So we would conclude by that, frankly, that the
Department really sort of takes the GI Bill for granted.
And if that is the case, and I think that adds substance to
the argument that we should move the Reserve programs over
where the Active Duty GI Bill has been since World War II, use
the GI Bill primarily as a readjustment tool and let the
Department of Defense use cash bonuses, as they increasingly
want to do, to attract people into the Armed Forces and to get
them to reenlist.
Mr. Chamrin. Mr. Congressman, we don't have an official
policy for recruitment or retention incentives. We feel that
the DoD should be able to use what they feel is right to get
troops enlisted or join the military. However, in regards to
education, the American Legion is a community organization. We
try to take care of the veteran and take care of their family.
So with education benefits, you are looking at long-term
investments. I believe 78 million baby boomers will retire by
2010 according to the ILO Institute and 13 million to 15
million skilled workers will also retire by 2020. So, we have
to invest in the future, not just for the veteran, but for the
family of the veteran.
Mr. Hilleman. If I may, Congressman, thank you for this
question. The VFW is very supportive of a comprehensive
improvement to the GI Bill, one that would boost recruitment.
We have seen in recent years eroding of the standards for
individuals entering the force. They have raised the enlistment
age to 42, I believe, in the Army. They are taking more waivers
for drug offenses and Graduate Equivalent Degrees than ever
before. We believe with a comprehensive and powerful education
incentive, we would up the quality of our recruits.
Most recruits coming in the military list the GI Bill as
one of the top five reasons for joining. When DoD polls those
same troops that stay, the ones that stay on Active Duty, the
retained enlisted, do not list the GI Bill as a reason they
stayed in. The GI Bill is a powerful recruitment tool and we
believe that if employed properly, the quality and the quantity
of the troops would increase. Thank you.
Mr. Weidman. In regard to the bonuses, you give a man a
fish and he eats for a day. You teach a man how to fish and he
eats for a lifetime. Twenty-five thousand dollars sounds like a
whole lot of money to an E-4, but it is going to cost that
individual, that young man or woman more than that to buy a new
pick-up. You increase GI Bill benefits available to that
individual and their lifetime earnings will more than double.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Walz.
Mr. Kline.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KLINE
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to join
you today. I am a Member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the
House Armed Services Committee and I have had the opportunity
to sit in on some joint hearings before. But it is interesting
to me that we are scrambled up in red tape. There is red tape
in the bureaucracies in the Executive Branch, in the VA, in the
Army, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and here in
Congress, as we have Committees with cross-jurisdiction and a
lot of confusion.
I know, for example, that our good friend, Vic Snyder, who
was the Ranking Member and then the Chairman of the Personnel
Subcommittee, has been pushing this rope for a long time to get
these GI Bill benefits merged. And it has been tough sledding.
That is no excuse. It is just the way it has been. And I am
very glad that we are addressing this issue now in a very
serious way.
I regret that the Minnesota National Guardsmen and those in
surrounding States are kind of paying a price for some of this
bureaucratic snarl that we have going right now, and I am
looking forward to that panel. So let me just say that I think
there is a broad commitment in Congress on both sides of the
aisle to address this problem and fix the problem so that the
GI Bill benefits are modernized and simplified and there is a
simplified execution of it.
And I will not ask any questions, just in the interest of
time. And certainly, I want to talk to our Minnesota AG. But
thank you, gentlemen, very much for your testimony.
And thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. We have also been joined by
Mr. McNerney, a distinguished Member of our Subcommittee. Mr.
McNerney, do you have any questions for the panel or opening
comments you would like to make?
Mr. McNerney. I have one question, actually. The GI Bill,
as I just heard since I have walked in, is an important tool to
motivate people to join the service, to motivate our young
Americans to join the service. And I think it should be. A lot
of people that join the service are in lesser economic
situations and see that as an opportunity. And I think it is a
fine way for the American government to motivate and to help
people along and to get service in return.
One of the things about the GI Bill is that if you are
going to be going to a program that is not a 4-year program,
but a 3-year or a 2-year program like law school or some
graduate study, you still only get the same rate of GI Bill as
if you would be going to an undergraduate program, and yet the
expenses are so much higher. The tuition is higher and so on.
Do you think that would be a good idea to change that so that
if you are in a 2-year program or a three-year program, you get
the same total payout in a smaller timeframe as someone that is
going to an undergraduate program? Colonel Norton.
Colonel Norton. Congressman, in the ideal, I think that is
probably a good idea. In the real world, I think it would be a
living nightmare for the VA to be able to figure out for each
of the tens of thousands of veterans getting out of service
every year exactly how much they would get, depending on
whether they went to a 2-year school, a training program,
undergraduate, graduate. It would be extremely difficult to do
that.
That is why we like the idea, and the Partnership for
Veterans Education likes the idea, of benchmarking GI Bill
rates on the average cost of a 4-year public college or
university. And the Department of Education tracks that data.
Our friends in the Partnership from the American Association of
State Colleges and Universities watch that data very closely
for the Partnership. And right now the average cost that is
picked up by the GI Bill is about 75 percent.
So if a young man does decide to go to--young man or woman
does decide to go to a 2-year school, they would actually be
out ahead of the game, because they would be--for full-time
study, they would probably be able to cover a little bit of
their living costs at the cheaper rates of a community college
and enable them to bootstrap up, if you will, to a 4-year
school. And in fact, a lot of veterans do start out at 2-year
schools.
So we like the idea of an average benchmark as the way to
do it. But we also think that if they can't use it when they
get out of the service, then whatever rate is set by the
Congress is no good. In your State, Congressman, there are
4,300 Guardsmen and Reservists on Active Duty defending the
Nation right now, as of October 17th. When they separate from
the Guard or Reserve honorably, complete their commitment, they
can't take a penny of their earned Active Duty benefits with
them into civilian life. So whatever the rate is for them and
for the Minnesota Guardsmen is meaningless.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you for that answer. Actually, the real
problem is that I think that Congress isn't putting enough
resources into the GI Bill to give that--at a high enough level
to really be able to help students through college. The level
it is at right now, it is good, but it is not really sufficient
and we need to do our best as Members of Congress to convince
the public that that is a worthwhile investment. So those are
my comments.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Weidman. Madam Chairwoman, may I comment back on that?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Briefly, yes, because I have some
questions, too, and we have to get on to our next panel.
Briefly, if you want to comment on it briefly, please do.
Mr. Weidman. The problem you touch on, Mr. McNerney, is the
problem. The public hears that there is a GI Bill and thinks it
is my father's GI Bill. But this ain't my father's GI Bill by a
long shot. He was able to go to Southern Methodist University
in Texas, which was very expensive at the time, as somebody who
came from nothing on the real GI Bill as we call it at VVA.
And that is not true today by a whole long shot. The
solution is to be paid tuition, books and fees and a living
stipend no matter where you can get in. If you can get into the
high cost institution you are talking about, then you can go
there and not be limited by your family background.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I think that is an
important point to make, about the comparison between and among
generations.
I have a couple of comments and then a couple of questions.
Picking up on the dialog between you, Mr. Weidman, from your
opening statement, and some comments that the Ranking Member
made on PAYGO. I want to be clear as not only Chairwoman of the
Subcommittee, but as a Blue Dog Democrat who advocated for
PAYGO, that educational benefits come under mandatory spending.
Any changes that we make to increase the benefits, which I
favor, should be as comprehensive as we can get to improve
these benefits.
Not to abide by PAYGO is not good for today's veterans and
their children, because it adds to the deficit. At some point
someone is going to have to pay, and it is future generations
that are going to have to pay. PAYGO is simply about
priorities. We have established other priorities thus far in
this Congress. There are 360 bills, most PAYGO compliant. This
is about priorities and I think every Member on this side and
many of my colleagues in Congress on both sides of the aisle,
if we have to find the offsets, we will find the offsets
because we support enhancing these benefits. It is a priority
for us. It is a priority for many.
But I also don't want us to fail to pick up a dime in
search of the dollar and that we make the kind of progress that
is feasible if we can't find agreement. Especially when you
have seen, obviously, some barriers in both the House and
Senate in the last and current Congress in being able to pass
legislation, even when there seems to be widespread agreement
and then get them signed into law.
I think that we can do this and we can make progress like
we have made progress even incrementally so far in terms of
what we have done to move the jurisdiction over. That has been
a condition precedent that we have needed to make sure that we
are able to then have our ducks in a row to make all of this
happen.
Again, I just wanted to state that, because I think that we
shouldn't shy away from the issue of PAYGO because it makes for
some tough choices. Many of us are willing to make the tough
choices necessary to enhance these benefits. Again, I don't
want today's veterans and their children to be paying for this
in another way, because we simply added on to the deficit and I
think that we can do this in the short-term. I am hopeful we
can do this in this Congress and we can certainly keep making
progress, whether it is Senator Webb's proposal on something
very comprehensive or whether it is something that addresses
certain issues that we have confronted, that we have addressed
and tried to formulate proposals both in the last Congress and
this one.
This is about streamlining benefits, whether it is taking
what does cost money and finding the offsets. We want to be
responsible and I think that is what today's veterans would
want us to do, is to be responsible with how we do this, and to
ultimately get it done. You have the assurance from me, and I
think what you have already heard from my colleagues on the
dais, their commitment as well to continue to push this with
leadership on both sides of the aisle.
I do want to ask a few very specific questions. Colonel
Norton, let me start with you. My understanding is that
servicemembers who go directly to school have their previous
military wages count against them as income, even though they
are not going to continue to get those wages. So that prohibits
them, unlike their fellow students who went to college right
from high school who don't have maybe, clearly, the same level
of wages if they were working part-time or even full-time for
the summer in terms of what could be counted against them.
I don't know how the parent's contribution comes into play
for someone leaving the service versus someone who is going to
college right from high school. If the idea is to make sure
that we are doing things so that our servicemembers who go
directly to college, to school from separating service, can
qualify for other types of financial aid, should we give
servicemembers a one-time exemption and not count their annual
wages if they enter school directly following their separation
from service?
Colonel Norton. I would agree with that. I would also point
out, Madam Chairwoman, that in the calculation of annual income
for tax purposes, the GI Bill benefits, the value of the GI
Bill used counts in the calculation of entitlement to Federal
student loans. So that is another problem that is related to
your question. And I would agree with your approach on that.
Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. Building on that,
understanding from your testimony that the current MGIB for
Active Duty pays only about 75 percent of tuition. We work to
address that, at the same time we could also make a difference
if we, again, not only took the MGIB benefit and did not use
that in calculating eligibility for Federal student loans, but
also the 1-year exemption.
Do you agree that we should be taking into account the
Federal Pell grants or other resources, whether they be grants,
scholarships, loans, that might be available to veterans? Is it
your position and the position of the others on the panel that
the Montgomery GI Bill benefit should, regardless of other
resources, at least cover the costs of tuition and books for
the average rate at a 4-year or 2-year public institution?
Colonel Norton. Yes. We would recommend that the baseline,
the benchmark, would be the average cost at a 4-year public
college or university. That would be the start point. If in the
future, if Congress wanted to go beyond that, fine. The problem
we have, and our friends in the Partnership for Veterans
Education, is that there are now about two dozen bills out
there in the House and Senate on the GI Bill. And sadly and
unfortunately, with all due respect, there has really been no
action in either the House or the Senate on the GI Bill.
So even modest steps at this point, I think are overdue. I
mean if we can spend billions of dollars a week on the war, we
can spend a modest amount, at least, on the warrior. Thank you,
Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Chamrin.
Mr. Chamrin. We just recently passed a resolution that
supports the exemption of the prior year's wages for a military
member when they enter service. So if you take an E-4 who earns
about $35,000 a year, if they are deployed to OIF/OEF, they
count that as income, as wages. Even though it is outside the
continental U.S., they count that as wages.
But what about the E-4 who is stationed in Fort Bragg,
North Carolina? The same person, equal veteran, equal rates. I
myself, when I left Iraq, I had to get a student loan. I got a
$15,000 student loan. REAP wasn't enacted yet and--well, it was
enacted, but not just in law yet. Sorry, not rolled out yet. So
I am $30,000 in debt when I leave college and I am not alone.
So there are all kinds of others veterans who have this similar
story because of that prior year tax income stipulation.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for sharing your personal
experience. It helps shed light on the broader experience or
problems that we are talking about that some of our
servicemembers are experiencing.
Mr. Chamrin. I had come back in 2004 and REAP was enacted,
I believe, in 2005, so during that first year of school, I
wasn't eligible to get any REAP benefits. That is why I took
out that loan. I am not alone. Imagine the people from 2001 to
2004.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Unlike what some of us are proposing
and some of you stated, REAP wasn't retroactive.
Mr. Chamrin. Right. It was retroactive for the time when it
was actually in law and the time I was actually in school, but
not before that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right. Okay.
Mr. Hilleman. Thank you for this question. The VFW would
support what the coalition is advocating for, which is the
average cost of tuition education, reimbursement with fees and
books. But in terms of working on the margins, yes, there is a
great deal of work to be done there.
Well, Madam Chairwoman, when I left service in 1999 and
ended up in school in 2002, I was at a very affordable
institution. My previous year's income counted against me for
financial aid. The money that I had scrimped and saved while in
service, while deployed for 3 years plus overseas, also counted
against me for financial aid reporting purposes. And then on
top of it I had to report on the financial aid form, that yes,
I was in receipt of GI Bill benefits.
So for the first 2 years of my educational experience, I
received minimal, minimal subsidized student loans. I didn't
receive any financial grants. I was ineligible for Pell grants.
My last 2 years, I was eligible, because I wasn't working
enough to count part-time employment. I was taking a
scholarship which didn't count against me. A $14,000
scholarship didn't count on my financial aid, but the GI Bill
did. That didn't make sense to me at the time. But nonetheless,
there is work to be done in both places.
Colonel Norton. Madam Chairwoman, could I just add a point
on Eric's remark? I think it is important for everybody to
understand that in applying for a Federal student loan, there
is no requirement of service to the Nation. They are not
obligated to serve. And they don't have to pay up money out of
their own pockets to get those benefits. Our volunteer
servicemembers contribute $1,200 out of their pay and they
serve their Nation in uniform for years on end to get the GI
Bill.
So there is a huge gulf between Federal student loan
benefits and what you get from the GI Bill and it is amplified
in the negative by the examples that Eric and Ron indicated.
Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you very much for making that
point. I absolutely agree, not only as we look at the equity
involved for the Selected Reserve. I think it is very helpful
to compare, not only in terms of the benefit, but then,
eligibility for other Federal loan programs that are available
to all students; the comparison of those who have served and
those who chose not to, and the equity that needs to exist
there and not having these artificial barriers to eligibility
for other financial assistance tools for investment in
education.
I do have other questions that I am going to submit for the
record, in the essence of time. I want to see if any of my
other colleagues have questions as well. I would ask each of
you if you could submit to the Subcommittee in writing your
recommendations for--your top five recommendations--and again,
we have a lot of recommendations. I would like from each of
your organization the top five recommendations in order of
priority, because again, as you pointed out, we have a number
of bills, not necessarily competing bills, but variations of
bills.
I think that for purposes of going forward, and you are
absolutely right in terms of the need to act further, both with
the Subcommittee, with leadership and other avenues. We just
want to make sure that we are advancing something that is
consistent with the recommendations that we are getting from
all of those in the coalition. I know you have been one of the
point people, Colonel. I appreciate that. I think it would be
helpful to the Subcommittee if you could submit that.
Mr. Boozman, did you have any follow-up questions for the
panel?
Mr. Boozman. No.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Any other Members have any
follow-up questions? Thank you.
Well, I thank you all again for your testimony and the
answers to our questions.
I would now like to invite Panel Two to the witness table.
Joining us on our second panel of witnesses is Mr. Steve Kime,
Former Vice President of the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities (AASCU); Mr. David Guzman,
Legislative Director for the National Association of Veterans
Program Administrators (NAVPA); and Mr. Charlie Rowe, President
of the National Association of State Approving Agencies
(NASAA).
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. We had a chance to see
a few of you in Arkansas and since that time. We appreciate
your time before this Subcommittee today. Again, the same as
with the first panel, your entire written statement has been
made part of the record. If you could limit your oral testimony
to 5 minutes, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Kime, why don't you begin.
STATEMENTS OF STEVE FRANCIS KIME, PH.D., FORMER VICE PRESIDENT
(2003-2005), AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES, AND ON BEHALF OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR VETERANS'
EDUCATION; DAVID A. GUZMAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS; AND CHARLES
ROWE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE APPROVING
AGENCIES, AND, CHIEF, STATE APPROVING AGENCY, NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF STEVE FRANCIS KIME
Dr. Kime. Yes. Chairwoman Sandlin, Dr. Boozman and the rest
of the Committee. I am here today as an educator and as a
veteran of three decades of service in uniform. I speak on
behalf of the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities and the five other presidentially based national
higher education associations. These people all support and are
all members of the Partnership for Veterans Education and all
of those national presidential associations support the Total
Force GI Bill. They would like to see this thing happen.
I have submitted very detailed testimony, and what I would
like to do is address five interrelated topics here. I am not
sure I have them quite in priority order yet, Madam Chairwoman,
but I will do that.
First, the GI Bill should actually pay for college and it
doesn't. AASCU and the Partnership for Veterans Education
support this 4-year public college benchmark. And what I would
like to emphasize to you here, because I listened very
carefully to what you said, Dr. Boozman, and I understand that
you can't get to a hundred percent tomorrow or maybe next year
on whatever your idea of the cost of education is.
But you need a vision. And Congress really needs to
recognize a benchmark. Where are we going here? Well, a 4-year
public college education is a very modest benchmark. In my
opinion, it is the most modest possible benchmark that fulfills
the national requirement to reward these people for what they
have done. That is why it is the benchmark. We had long
discussions about that.
Right now, that benchmark, by the way, is $13,145.00 a
year, this school year. And the benefit for Chapter 30 now--
this is not for your Reservists. This is the best case--is
$9,900. So that is where you get 75 percent. And remember, that
75 percent is based on the best case. So the first point is,
the GI Bill ought to actually pay for college. Otherwise, it is
a promise we are not fulfilling.
The second thing that I would like to address is the fact
that the GI Bill has not kept pace with national military
strategy and national force deployment policies. Now, from a
philosophical and conceptual point of view, this is a scandal.
In the last 25 years, we have radically changed our military
strategy and our force deployment policies.
We are doing war entirely differently, how you serve, who
serves. Our old notions about those pot-bellied Reservists who
only go on the weekends, that is all nonsense. All of those old
images we had about the Reserves have to go away. These are the
people who serve right alongside that so-called Active Duty
servicemember. But we have a GI Bill that is trapped in these
old notions about what is a Reservist, who goes, when they go
and what they do when they get there.
So how can you have a GI Bill that is totally out of sync
with your National strategy and your National deployment
policy? We need to look at this from a big picture point of
view. And the public needs to understand it from the strategy
and policy point of view.
The third thing is that in spite of the fact that we have
radically changed our strategy and our deployment policies, we
have made precious little progress on the Reserves. When I
first started messing with this, they got 47 percent of what an
Active Duty person would get. We are nowhere even close to that
now. So when I say 75 percent of the cost of college is
covered, that is just a dream to Reservists. We have not gotten
anywhere on this.
And the benefits are not pegged in any meaningful way to
the actual service that these young people perform. How in the
world can that be? So not only do we have it out of sync with
our national strategy and national deployment policies, but we
have it totally out of sync with what each individual does.
That is wrong.
The fourth thing is that--and by the way, Madam Chairwomen,
when I put these in priority order, this might be first. And
that is that the legal, political and budgetary architecture,
the very architecture, the structure of the GI Bill is
outdated. It is 30 years old. It doesn't fit what we do.
The GI Bill legislation that we have is totally out of step
with our own cabinet departments. This is ridiculous. Thirty
years ago we didn't have a Department of Veterans Affairs. That
doesn't make any sense. GI Bill funding belongs where the
advocates for veterans are.
Remember when we did the first GI Bill in 1945, the
Department of Defense, which, by the way, didn't exist, opposed
it. These people are not interested primarily in veterans. Now,
that sounds nasty to say, but the fact of the matter is, Mr.
Gates' job is war fighting. Whoever the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs will be, might be or whatever here, his duty is to be a
veterans advocate.
So war fighting is war fighting. Veterans are veterans. War
fighters are war fighters. They do something different. Anybody
who thinks that those kids sitting over there in Walter Reed
with one leg gone or one leg and one arm gone, those are not
war fighters anymore. I am sorry. But it is just true. Those
are veterans. The public was outraged at the way those people
were treated, because they legitimately felt that these were
veterans and should be handled by the Veterans Administration.
They darn well should be. We need to separate, just like we
have separated in the cabinet, the responsibilities and the
advocacy and the funding, the budgeting.
So our architecture for the GI bill is just totally fouled
up. It is nowhere near correct.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Dr. Kime, if you could summarize.
Dr. Kime. I am sorry?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. If you could summarize.
Dr. Kime. I will.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Dr. Kime. It is time for the Veterans Department to be a
Veterans Department and not be a Veterans Administration
anymore. I would like to add one last thing. And that is that
the management of the GI Bill needs serious help and we will
never solve the management of the GI Bill until we get the
architecture correct. All of these other problems that we have,
about how do we give funds, when do we give funds, whether you
can get it for a 3-year school, we will never get those solved
if we don't get them in one department. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kime appears on p. 76.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, thank you Dr. Kime. I am glad to
hear that you would have put that priority first, because that
is essentially what this Subcommittee did, and we have made
progress in moving the Selected Reserve benefits over to the
VA. We hope that is ultimately signed into law so that we can
keep making progress on the other priorities. Thank you very
much for your testimony.
Mr. Guzman, thank you for being here. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. GUZMAN
Mr. Guzman. Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member Boozman,
Members of the Subcommittee----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Could you make sure your microphone is
on? Okay. There we go.
Mr. Guzman. Okay. You honor us today on behalf of
American's most important resource, the American servicemember,
past and present, who preserve the freedoms we so much enjoy
through their selfless contributions to this great Nation.
We, NAVPA, have long touted the concept that the school
certifying official is at the business end of the VA education
programs. And each year, we develop our legislative agenda and
my comments will come from that agenda and I have made
distribution of that earlier in the year.
Our government has a history of finding dollars for the
bullets and bombs, but when it comes time for bandages and
band-aids, we seem to limit our liability. Veterans deserve
better. NAVPA has proposed that appropriations for war contain
a set-aside for medicine and benefits for when the
servicemember returns and becomes one of our veterans of war.
We fully support the Total Force GI Bill proposal. We would
like to see an equitable education program for all veterans for
all periods of service, especially for those who put their life
on the line in combat. The National Guard and Reservists are
pulling their share of active deployments, yet their
educational benefits lag well behind the Active Duty Montgomery
GI Bill Chapter 30 benefit. They fight alongside their fellow
Active Duty companion, yet receive much, much less in
compensation.
We advocate administrative-like changes to the Montgomery
GI Bill that would expand the student work-study program, clean
up the financial aid dilemma discussed earlier that excludes
veterans in need from receiving financial assistance. We
advocate the elimination of the 10-year delimiting date in
favor of the life-long learning concept, and urge the VA to
embrace electronic processing for all claims, all programs of
education, for all veterans and their dependents at one
efficient processing center versus the four we have now.
We also advocate for the combat veteran who receives
general discharge under honorable conditions who currently are
denied benefits, though they have paid into the Montgomery GI
Bill. Perhaps if this small group of veterans were able to
receive education or training under the Montgomery GI Bill,
they too would become better citizens, gain meaningful
employment and contribute to society in a positive manner.
These veterans do receive other VA benefits now.
NAVPA would also like to see an increase in compensation
for schools and businesses that administer Veterans
Administration education and training programs. When the
Vietnam era GI Bill was in existence, the schools responsible
for the administration of education worked with two programs.
Today, they are responsible for 11 programs, with no change in
the $7.00 per student compensation in over 25 years. The result
is that some schools are slowly eliminating the standalone
office of Veterans Affairs and placing the certification
responsibilities as additional duties, moving enrollment
certification responsibilities to other offices and lessening
the training opportunities for program administrators and
placing the burden on the program administrator to maintain
compliance with Federal and State laws, this resulting in
lessening of service to our veterans.
The program should include full funding, not only for the
veteran, but also for the administration of the many programs
at all levels, from the Department of Veterans Affairs to the
school or agency administering the programs.
Finally, veterans' education benefits, be they Active Duty
benefits, benefits for Guard, Reservists, vocational
rehabilitation, on-the-job training (OJT) and apprenticeship or
survivors benefits, actually cost little to nothing to the
American citizen, because, as history has proven, the return on
the investment will pay back up to sevenfold. Legislation for
veterans education and training must continue to adjust to fit
the changes in America's society.
An educated society is less likely to be involved in crime,
will pay taxes, buy a home and contribute to the community. To
me, it is a no-brainer to upgrade the education and training
opportunities for our servicemembers and veterans and give them
a meaningful benefit that will, in turn, be right for America
and the right thing to do for our veterans.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity. I have dropped two
copies of our legislative agenda here today for the Committee.
And I now stand ready for any questions you may have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guzman appears on p. 78.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you Mr. Guzman. We appreciate
the copies of the report as well.
Mr. Rowe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES ROWE
Mr. Rowe. Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member Boozman,
Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you
today on behalf of the National Association of State Approving
Agencies to provide NASAA's view on the current state of the
Montgomery GI Bill and to make some recommendations to upgrade
the Montgomery GI Bill.
We feel the fundamentals of the Active Duty GI Bill remain
essentially sound. The recent changes allowing flexibility for
utilization for accelerated payments and the payments for
licensing and certification tests have been viewed positively
by benefit recipients. And the annual cost of living
adjustments are important in the effort to keep pace with the
rising cost of education.
Of course, it is widely known, as Mr. Boozman pointed out,
that the cost of an education in this country has outpaced the
inflation rate by a wide margin for a number of years. As a
result, the education benefits provided to recipients under the
various chapters continues to fall short of actually paying for
a college education or a non-college degree school program.
In a different light though, we find it unfortunate that
the increased benefit rates for apprenticeship and other on-
the-job training benefits are scheduled to sunset back to their
previous rates on January 1, 2008. And we fought very hard to
get those benefits increased.
The speed of the benefit payments for recipients enrolled
in schools, in our experiences in the field, is that after the
first semester they seem to have improved because of the
implementation of the electronic certification of students. At
the same time, the delays encountered for the payments of
benefits to those receiving apprenticeship or on-the-job
training programs remains exceedingly slow.
Current state. As other people have stated here before, I
have my rates here, that today the prorated benefit rate for
the Selected Reservist is about 29 percent of the Montgomery GI
Bill Active Duty rate. Initially, it was around 47 percent.
As other people have also stated, the experience of some of
our members in NASAA has been the Selected Reservists
themselves generally have a poor understanding of the
Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve benefits that they actually
have. A number of them who I have talked to personally have
said they didn't know they were not eligible anymore.
So the recommendations, as other people have stated, NASAA
is firmly 100 percent behind the concept of the Total Force GI
Bill for the purposes of portability, as we have stated
earlier. Fairness, we believe that there should be equal
benefit for equal service. And also the administration of the
program, the various programs are complex and they lead to a
lot of confusion on the part of the Reservist.
We strongly feel that the hard won increase of benefits
that was provided to those using apprenticeship and on-the-job
training benefits should be restored. We strongly support any
legislation that would seek to prevent this reduction in the
benefit rate.
NASAA wholeheartedly supports the Total Force GI Bill. We
believe the events have overtaken the original intent. Our
experiences today are leading us strongly to the conclusion
that a major overhaul of the Montgomery GI Bill is now overdue.
I would like to thank you for inviting me here today and I
will take any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowe appears on p. 79.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Rowe.
Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
panel. Your testimony was very informative. I really don't have
any questions though.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Walz? Mr. Kline? Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Dr. Kime, you strongly advocate a VA structure that is
organized to serve the modern service philosophy. That sounds
good. Do you have specific recommendations? And if so, could
you submit those to the Committee in writing so that we can
ponder those and perhaps find some legislative outlets----
Dr. Kime. I would be glad to. Thank you.
[The information was provided in the Post-Hearing Questions
and Responses for the Record, which appears on p. 126.]
Mr. McNerney. You mentioned the Reservists used to get 47
percent of Active Duty members. That is as 1985. Where are we
now and how did it fall down to the level that it is?
Dr. Kime. Well, I think you are right about 19 percent, but
I am not sure exactly. But it is in that realm, 19 percent as
opposed to 47 percent for the Reservist, roughly. I think that
is correct.
How did it fall down is easy to answer. When we tried to
fix the GI Bill, we fixed Chapter 30, because we have this
thing in our mind about Active Duty are Active Duty and
Reservists are Reservists. And we always assume that we will
get around to patching up the Reserve side of it sooner or
later and that it will just follow on. The problem is, it
didn't just follow on. We changed all of our deployment
policies and our activities. But we didn't actually fix the
amount of money. That is how it fell behind.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Rowe, you have some specific recommendations in your
written testimony. I will be glad to spend some time, as other
Committee Members will, I am sure, to look at these and if we
have any questions, we would like to address those to you.
Mr. Rowe. I am very happy to do that, sir.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I will not take too much time either.
However, I do want to ask a couple of questions.
Dr. Kime, you write in your written testimony that there
are ``major backlogs in veterans getting their benefits.''
Mr. Rowe, your testimony is such that it seems that after
the first semester, once it is recurring, it is better
especially with the electronic processing, but on-the-job
training and apprenticeship is slower.
Could each of you address these numbers? Mr. Wilson from
the VA, who is going to be testifying here a little bit later
on, has supplied the Committee in his testimony with a table
for the processing days and it indicates that it takes on
average--and I think this is all claims on average 32 days for
original claims to be processed and 13 days for supplemental
claims.
What is your experience? Is that about right as an average?
Is there a major backlog still now that we have the electronic
processing more fully underway as we have done some oversight
there in the last couple of years? Mr. Rowe, could you comment
on it as well?
Dr. Kime. My experience, what I have actually seen, has not
been as good as that and that is because they have improved it
a lot. I think Mr. Wilson and his bunch of people in education
services have worked very, very hard on this, as has Dan
Cooper, Admiral Cooper. These people have focused on this and I
think they have made progress.
The thing that the Committee should keep in mind is what
are we asking, how much information are we asking for and is
the system itself sensible? Is it coherent and is it rational?
I dare say that if you turn this whole thing over to MasterCard
you would get this done in 2 days.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that.
Mr. Rowe.
Mr. Rowe. Madame Chairwoman, I can only speak anecdotally.
But particularly for the apprenticeship on-the-job training
payment of benefits, they are paid in an out of system system
that only Mr. Wilson could probably better describe than I. So
for that reason, there is an incredible amount of delay in the
amount of--because it is taken out of the regional process
office and sent to a different one. And I know in speaking with
individuals who have received those programs, it could take
anywhere from 4 to 6 months to receive their first benefit
check from the time of initially processing.
The institutionals are a little bit better, as I said
earlier. I agree.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Thank you. One final question,
we heard from the first panel the issue of the MGIB benefit
counting against the veteran as it relates to Federal student
aid programs. What is your experience? Is there a difference in
terms of unsubsidized loans, subsidized loans, Pell grants?
Could you take a minute or two to elaborate from your
experience what you have seen in working with veteran students?
Dr. Kime. I have seen a great deal of confusion. I have
talked to college people, and regardless of what the rules are
at any given time, I have seen practices get out of whack with
them.
Now, you are going to have someone testify who knows a lot
more about this than I do. So I won't get over in that realm,
except to say this: The GI Bill is reward for service to your
country of a very special kind. I personally, and I am not
speaking for higher education here. I am speaking as a veteran.
But I personally find it incomprehensible that the GI Bill
should count in any way against any means that you have that
the government provides. The GI Bill should be over and above
every other thing the government does to help the kids go to
college who don't serve in the military.
This is a special thing and this should be over and above.
If it were up to me and I could pass a law just by writing it,
it would be a simple one-sentence affair, and it would say you
can never count the GI Bill as a means in any test for any
Federal money. But I realize the world is a lot more
complicated than that and that the colleges would have their
own scholarship moneys that they would apply it to differently
anyway. But I think the GI Bill should be treated specially.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. Mr. Guzman or Mr. Rowe.
Mr. Guzman. Yes. My experience has been the same at the
colleges and universities. And in our paper, we write that
according to the U.S. Department of Education, when determining
eligibility for title IV funds, a financial aid administrator
must take into account all forms of assistance received by the
student to help pay the education costs. The Montgomery GI Bill
is considered a resource and thereby deducted from any
assistance. Only veterans with large families are--not only,
but for the most part, veterans with large families are the
ones that are receiving any kind of Pell assistance at all.
And I agree that shouldn't be part of the consideration
when receiving financial aid, especially those that are really
in need. There is no consideration to award credit for the
months of military service, personal sacrifices, family
separation, irregular duty hours, conditions, or for the
protections and freedoms that they give us. And the $1,200
contribution isn't even considered in that formula. So they are
getting whacked twice on that.
Dr. Kime. Madam Chairwoman, may I make a comment on
something I think is often missed here?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Please, if you can be brief because I
want Mr. Rowe----
Dr. Kime. I will.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Dr. Kime. The veteran is an adult student. All of these
rules that we have are for your standard kid going to college.
Remember, your veteran comes out after having been shot at for
4 or 5 years, they will have a wife. They will have a baby.
They will have a car to maintain. They will have a lot of other
things. And that is why that GI Bill should be treated--there
should be a hands off policy on the GI Bill.
Mr. Rowe. I am not a title IV expert. However, I did ask
this very question with somebody who I consider to be an expert
on one of my college campuses and she informed me in a very,
very long e-mail that I can't capture here, that the GI Bill is
not considered as income, but it is considered another
resource. And so if someone who is not familiar in financial
aid says, well, do you have any other income? And the veteran
may say well, I get GI Bill benefits, and they put it down in
the wrong calculation, then they will get penalized. And that
is an error. I don't know how often that happens, but, you
know, it is a possibility.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I appreciate that
information.
Any final questions from my colleagues? Okay.
Well, thank you, gentlemen, very much. Again, we may have
questions we would like to submit to you in writing and take
for the record. We appreciate the information and your
dedication to our Nation's veterans and students.
Joining us on our third panel of witnesses is Mr. Allison
Jones, member of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance for the U.S. Department of Education; Mr. James
Bombard, Chairman of the Veterans Advisory Committee on
Education (VACOE) for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;
and Mr. Walz of Minnesota will be introducing our third
panelist, Major General Larry Shellito, Adjutant General for
the Minnesota National Guard.
I am going to recognize you in that order. But before we go
to Major General Shellito's testimony, I will have Mr. Walz
formally introduce you.
Mr. Jones, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ALLISON JONES, MEMBER, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND
ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM; JAMES BOMBARD, CHAIRMAN, VETERANS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, AND CHIEF, NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF VETERANS EDUCATION; AND MAJOR GENERAL LARRY
W. SHELLITO, ED.D., ADJUTANT GENERAL, MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD,
ACCOMPANIED BY SERGEANT BENJAMIN LEE HATTON, LONG PRAIRIE, MN
STATEMENT OF ALLISON JONES
Mr. Jones. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin
and Members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. On
behalf of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
this afternoon on the Montgomery GI Bill education benefits and
title IV Federal financial aid.
As we have heard already today, there are a lot of
questions and a lot of misinformation and we are going to try
to address some of this today. My name is Allison Jones and I
am testifying as a member of the Advisory Committee. As
Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for the
California State University System, I am also involved in
Governor Schwarzenegger's initiative which is called California
Troops to College and an ardent supporter of efforts to
increase veterans' access to postsecondary education.
The Advisory Committee was authorized by Congress in the
1986 amendments to the Higher Education Act. For more than 20
years, we have provided independent and objective advice and
counsel on Federal student aid policy to Congress and the
Secretary of Education. Our most important legislative charge
is to make recommendations that maintain and improve college
access and persistence for low- and moderate-income students.
Although we have traditionally worked most closely with the
House Committee on Education and Labor and the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, we appreciate this
opportunity to share our knowledge of financial aid programs
with you and your Subcommittee in order to assist our Nation's
veterans.
This afternoon I will explain the interaction between the
Montgomery GI Bill and title IV Federal student financial aid
programs. The question I will be addressing is whether
Montgomery GI Bill benefits restrict in any way eligibility for
need-based title IV aid. Therefore, my testimony will focus on
the relationship between the GI Bill benefits and need-based
title IV aid, including Pell grants, loans and campus-based
aid. I would note that my statements are not directed at
whether Montgomery GI Bill education benefits are an adequate
reward for the service of our brave men and women.
A student's eligibility for need-based Federal aid depends
on his or her ability to contribute to college expenses. The
expected family contribution is the way we assess the family's
ability to pay. It is used to determine two key dollar amounts,
a student's Pell grant award, which is an entitlement award,
and a student's total need for student aid which is equal to
the cost of attendance minus the family contribution. And
Congress mandates how we build that cost of attendance.
In addition, title IV prohibits over-award, that is, the
sum of the family contribution and aid from all sources cannot
exceed the cost of attendance. For veterans, the monthly
education benefits that he or she receives are not used in the
calculation of the family contribution. That is, the amount of
the GI education benefit does not affect in any way how much
the student is expected to contribute toward college expenses.
Consequently, since the expected family contribution, or
EFC, is used to determine a student's Pell Grant award, the
amount of these benefits that a veteran receives does not
actually affect that award in any way. Also, since the benefits
do not affect the family contribution, they do not affect the
student's total need. While the effect of the GI education
benefits on Pell grant and the family contribution is
straightforward, the effect of these benefits on the
eligibility for student loans is a bit more complicated.
Briefly, for Active Duty personnel, GI Bill benefits do not
affect the amount of a subsidized Stafford loan. The subsidized
loans are those in which the government pays the interest while
the student is enrolled. For Selected Reservists, however, the
GI education benefits do limit and can eliminate the student's
eligibility for subsidized Stafford loans. And for both Active
Duty and Selected Reserve, these benefits do affect eligibility
for unsubsidized Stafford loans. And unsubsidized loans are
those in which the interest accrues while the student is in
school, but payment can be deferred and the interest is
actually capitalized or the student can pay it.
Let me turn to the effect of the GI Bill benefits on other
financial aid programs. There are three campus-based programs
that allocate funds to each college to distribute to eligible
students. These are known as the campus-based programs, the
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, the Perkins
Loan and the Federal Work-Study. While GI Bill benefits do not
affect the student's Pell grant, family contribution, or total
need, they can, in fact, affect the awards under the campus-
based programs because of the prohibition against over-awards.
For example, if a student's family contribution, Pell grant
and GI Bill benefits equal or exceed the cost of attendance,
awards under these other programs can be eliminated. However,
as previously mentioned, an exception is allowed for subsidized
Stafford loans which can offset Montgomery Bill benefits. This
exception plays a role in the determination of campus-based
aid. Only in cases where the veteran's full need is fully met
by Pell grant, State grants, Montgomery GI Bill benefits and
other resources in subsidized loans can the prohibition against
over-awards limit campus-based awards.
Even in this case, aid administrators can, in fact,
exercise their discretion to disburse campus-based aid up to
the amount of the subsidized Stafford loan that the student was
awarded to offset or replace the GI Bill benefits. Also, the
student can borrow an amount equal to the family contribution
in unsubsidized loans, as well as some other loan programs.
More research is needed to assess the interaction of
Montgomery GI Bill education benefits on other sources of aid,
including Federal tax incentives, the Academic Competitiveness
Grant, the National Science and Math Access to Retain Talent
Grant, which goes by the acronym SMART, and State grant aid.
Based on the analysis above, three potential changes in
title IV might be considered. First, Selected Reserve benefits
could be treated like Active Duty benefits in the consideration
of subsidized Stafford loans. That is, don't count the GI
Education Bill benefits against eligibility for subsidized
loans from either Active Duty or Selected Reservists. This
benefit would improve parity between the two GI Bill programs,
Active Duty and Selected Reserve, and increase access to the
subsidized loan program for Reservists.
Second, the exception that allows for campus-based aid to
be distributed up to the amount of the subsidized Stafford
loans might be required, rather than discretionary. This
benefit would increase veterans' access to the campus-based aid
programs. And we have heard comments about that already today.
Third, an exclusion for unsubsidized loans similar to the
one for subsidized loans could be implemented. This would allow
veterans to borrow additional funds to cover educational
expenses.
Whether such changes are necessary or desirable, including
an assessment of unintended consequences, requires a thorough
review by your Committee, relevant education committees in the
House of Representatives and Senate, the Department of Veteran
Affairs, the Department of Education and the higher education
and the financial aid community.
On behalf of the Advisory Committee members, thank you
again for this opportunity to testify before you today. We look
forward to continuing to provide technical assistance on the
matters discussed today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears on p. 86.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Jones, for laying out
the complexity of what we are grappling with here today.
Mr. Jones. And I am so sorry.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. No, no, I was going to--initially
though I wanted to thank him for clarifying, although I am not
entirely sure it is clarified right now in my mind. It will be,
because you have gone through the complexity and once we get it
all down--but I can certainly understand why students would be
confused and possibly financial aid officers as well.
Mr. Bombard, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES BOMBARD
Mr. Bombard. Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member
Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Could you turn on your microphone,
sir?
Mr. Bombard. How about now? Okay.
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman and
Members of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am
pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Department
of Veterans Affairs Secretary's Veterans Advisory Committee on
Education to provide the Committee's views on the current state
of the MGIB Active Duty and the Montgomery GI Bill Selected
Reserve and provide recommendations to update the Montgomery GI
Bill and possible legislative action that should be considered
by the Subcommittee.
It is the Advisory Committee's view that the program
flexibility and efficient claims processing are the keys to a
veteran's seamless transition of providing earned education
benefits to eligible participants. The reason seamless
transition is difficult to accomplish is that the Montgomery GI
Bill was created in 1984. It was both similar and different
from previous GI Bills. It was similar in that it provided
benefits for veterans who chose to enroll in an educational
program or an approved educational training institution. It was
different because education programs' special rules provided
higher benefit levels for persons having eligibility for prior
programs with lower benefits authorized for persons enlisting
for less than 3 years. Another unique feature of the Montgomery
GI Bill is that it authorized benefits for those in the
Selected Reserves, Chapter 1606 program, although the maximum
benefit was much lower than the Active Duty rate. Additionally,
the MGIB authorized kickers or additional monthly benefits for
certain veterans in certain military occupations and buy-ups
for certain seeking higher monthly benefits.
Congress, although well meaning, tends to create new
initiatives designed to shore up existing deficiencies in the
current MGIB, without dealing with the administrative problems
inherent in trying to integrate new program components in the
established Montgomery GI Bill. As a result of the
proliferation of eligibility categories and benefit levels,
fewer educational claims are straightforward. The complexities
of a number of new GI Bill opportunities have resulted in a
cumbersome data management system that does not timely respond
to the needs of veterans and other GI Bill recipients.
It is the Committee's belief that the VA Education Service,
in conjunction with Congress, can create an effective,
efficient claims processing system by adopting the following:
Restructure the GI Bill, adopt the Total Force. This will
streamline claims processing. Create a synergistic relationship
with Congress in order to ensure feasibility and support for
any additional programs associated with the GI Bill, improve
information exchange between DoD and VA. The need for constant
communication between DoD and VA would be minimal with a
restructure of the GI Bill. Invest in state-of-the-art
information technology (IT) systems, and hire additional staff
to do claims processing, or, at a minimum, maintain the budget
direct full-time equivalents.
Recommendations, Total Force. The Advisory Committee, after
nearly 2 years of studying the Montgomery GI Bill, recommended
the fundamental change to the structure of the Montgomery GI
Bill and also put forth the framework for a new GI Bill that
reflects the realities of the Total Force policy.
It is the Committee's belief that this restructuring is
necessary to incorporate program flexibility, ease of
administration and equity of service rendered.
For these reasons, we recommend replacing the separate GI
Bill programs for veterans and Reservists with one program that
consolidates the GI Bill programs under one umbrella, title 38,
U.S. Code. This would include enrolling all current eligible
personnel in Chapters 30, 1606 and 1607 in the new Total Force
GI Bill. This approach would add value to the Montgomery GI
Bill as a recruitment and retention tool for the Armed Forces,
including the National Guard and Reserve, establish an equity
of benefits for returning Guard and Reserve members, support
Congress' intent for the Montgomery GI Bill, and potentially
save taxpayers money through improved administration.
Because most of the Reservists have both careers and
families which are embedded in towns and cities across the
country, these activated citizen-soldiers, Mayors, police
chiefs, firefighters, small businessowners, face additional
burdens as financial and career obligations mount, while their
families, employers and communities frequently face sacrifices
and hardships as well.
This has led to an inequitable situation. First, Selected
Reserve members and members of the Individual Ready Reserve may
be called to Active Duty for considerable periods, but less
than 2 years. When they return to civilian life, what is
available to them to readjust? They have nothing at all if they
don't stay on Active Duty.
In the essence of time, the VACOE has focused on
consolidating veterans' education benefit programs into a
single Total Force structure, placing them in the department
where veterans advocacy is the first priority and ensuring that
a fair framework for providing benefits commensurate with the
nature of military service is established and maintained.
The architecture of any future GI Bill is very important.
Shifting the funding out of title 10 and placing responsibility
for GI Bill administration in the proper cabinet department,
VA, is the key of any future efforts to improve the
administration and fundamental fairness of the GI Bill.
If implemented, we envision wins for the individual
Selected Reserve, a win for the Armed Services, and a win for
our national security.
Summary of Differences: Separate GI Bill programs contain
different titles vs. Total Force proposal with one title;
confusing separate GI Bill programs vs. straightforward Total
Force; separate GI Bill programs have multiple committees vs.
Total Force with half the committees; separate GI Bill programs
costly redundancies vs. Total Force savings through
efficiencies; separate GI Bill programs have different benefits
for same risks vs. Total Force with same benefits for same
risks; separate GI Bill programs contain delimiting date
inequities vs. Total Force fair delimiting dates; separate GI
Bill programs result in modest retention incentive vs. Total
Force increased retention incentive; separate GI Bill programs
have no Selected Reserve readjustment benefits vs. Total Force
Selected Reserve readjustment benefit; separate GI Bill
programs have different rules for different recruiters vs.
Total Force with same rules for recruiters; separate GI bill
programs with inequitable upgrades vs. Total Force equitable
upgrades; separate GI Bill programs result in recipients
confused vs. Total Force is simplified for recipients; separate
GI Bill programs with staff training complexities vs. Total
Force simplified staff training.
The Total Force proposal provides a unique opportunity to
create a comprehensive GI Bill that is both fair and simple.
Its eloquence is its equity and simplicity.
The question always raised by Congress when considering the
GI Bill is can we afford it. Well, I don't think we can afford
not to.
I will be happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bombard appears on p. 89.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you for your testimony.
I would now like to recognize Congressman Walz of Minnesota
to make the introduction of our final witness on this panel.
Mr. Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It truly is an honor
for me to introduce our next witness. Major General Larry
Shellito is the Adjutant General of the Minnesota National
Guard. It is kind of an unusual situation here. As a former
member of the Minnesota National Guard, I served under General
Shellito's command, including a deployment in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom. I have had the privilege of working
with him on many issues affecting the Guard.
And as General Shellito became the Adjutant General of the
Minnesota National Guard, he has led them through operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, other areas of the world, plus
major State emergencies from flooding to fires and created what
is considered to be the best reintegration program in the
Minnesota National Guard's Beyond the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program.
The Minnesota National Guard is the gold standard for
reintegration, readiness, training and recruitment throughout
the country and those successes have a lot to do with General
Shellito's leadership. General Shellito is well-positioned to
testify today on this issue, as a former educator who served as
the President of Alexandria Technical College. He served in the
Vietnam War earning the distinguished service medal, legion of
merit, bronze star, combat infantry badge and numerous other
awards. He holds a doctorate in education from the University
of Minnesota, extensive military education, U.S. Command and
General Staff College, U.S. Army War College.
General Shellito is going to speak about a specific
incident today that maybe some of you have heard about, the
1,162 members of the 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) of the 34th
Division who, by a glitch in, as my colleague from the second
district of Minnesota put out, this red tape that is causing
these people to be denied benefits. And I am very pleased--I
think General Shellito is in a unique position with his
experience and his insight, well qualified to not only address
the specific issue he is going to talk about, but help us draft
further legislation.
And then he is going to do something that I think is very
important for all of us here today. He is going to put a human
face, what a bureaucratic snafu can do when he introduces you
to one of our warriors recently returned from Iraq, in Sergeant
Ben Hatton. And he will tell his story.
So with that, it is a real pleasure to introduce the
Adjutant General of Minnesota, Larry Shellito.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL LARRY W. SHELLITO, ED.D.
General Shellito. Thank you. Madam Chair, Representative
Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I will begin by
identifying that I am testifying on behalf of the State of
Minnesota and its Commander in Chief, Governor Tim Pawlenty.
Although I am a federally recognized Army General Officer,
I appear before you today as a State official at State expense.
My testimony is an independent expression of the State's
interest. The Department of Defense has not previewed, edited
or otherwise approved my testimony.
Now, with that having been said, this afternoon I will
discuss with you the problems surrounding the Montgomery GI
Bill that more than 1,000 members of the Minnesota National
Guard's 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division,
known as the Red Bulls, have faced upon their return from
Active Duty.
I want to acknowledge that the stakeholder agencies
involved in the process, the Army, the National Guard Bureau,
the Congressional Delegations, all have been very supportive of
our citizen-soldiers of the Minnesota National Guard and the
BCT. In particular, the Department of Veterans Affairs is
attuned of the issue and is willing to assist once the
challenges are overcome.
I thank Congressman Kline and Walz and the Minnesota
Delegation for recently authoring a resolution commending the
Red Bulls for completing the longest deployment of any military
unit during Operation Iraqi Freedom. While on title 10 status,
more than 5,000 Red Bulls from 38 States were slated to return
home in the spring of this year. However, the President's
announced surge strategy extended the tours of combat brigades
in Iraq.
When the Army orders units to perform its mission or
execute a change in existing mission, they generate an order to
reflect that action. Twenty-five hundred Minnesota soldiers
were extended to support this surge, but there are some
significant discrepancies that brings me here today. Eleven
hundred thirty-eight orders reflected a 730-day duty duration
and 1,162 orders reflected a duration of 729 days or less. Six
hundred forty-eight soldiers were ordered exactly 729 days or
55.7 percent of those that were under the 730.
Being ordered to Active Duty for 730 days, or 2 years, as
you are all very well aware, is an important factor in
qualifying for educational benefits. A soldier ordered to
Active Duty for 730 days is entitled to benefits under Chapter
30 of the Montgomery GI Bill, while a soldier ordered to Active
Duty 729 days or less is entitled to benefits under Chapters
1607 or 1606.
The center of gravity for those who are affected by orders
less than 730 days is not only that they receive $220 less per
month than their counterpart, but also lose the portability of
educational benefits. We first discovered this discrepancy of
the length of tour orders during the demobilization process at
Fort McCoy in July of this year. Some soldiers learned that
they would get this portable benefit that they could use over
the next 10 years while literally the soldier standing next to
them in formation, with whom they had served from the
deployment from start to finish, did not receive the benefit.
One such 729er is Sergeant Benjamin Lee Hatton, of Long
Prairie, Minnesota. He joined the National Guard after his
junior year in high school and he exemplifies the patriotism so
prevalent throughout the American military today. Sergeant
Hatton knew that his membership in the Guard would enable him
to achieve his goal of graduating from college. He was called
by this Nation to serve in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen of the
Subcommittee, he did so with honor and distinction. And in
fact, this young soldier sitting before you today was twice
awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received in combat.
[Applause]
General Shellito. Upon his return to Minnesota to pursue
his dreams of college, he learned that even though he had
served the entire length of the deployment, his extension
orders reflected 1 day less than required for Chapter 30
Montgomery GI Bill benefits. This is the bottom line. Sergeant
Hatton and his comrades were extended in keeping with the Total
Force concept, but are not being provided the commensurate
Total Force benefits.
As I conclude, I hope that you will each take the necessary
actions to provide these patriotic young Americans the
educational benefits they have earned in our Armed Forces. The
National Guard is no longer a strategic reserve. It is an
operational force and educational entitlements for our
servicemembers must be overhauled to reflect this new reality.
Madam Chair, Representative Boozman, Members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for your time this afternoon and I,
too, want to thank you for your service to your Nation.
[The prepared statement of General Shellito appears on p.
94.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, General Shellito.
I would ask unanimous consent that we allow Sergeant Hatton
to share a few words with us. No objection is heard.
Sergeant Hatton, if you would like to speak, you are not
expected to speak. I had to ask unanimous consent because you
were not listed officially on our agenda today. I think it is
wonderful that you also made arrangements along with General
Shellito to be with us today. If there was something that you
would specifically like to share with us, we would be more than
happy to hear from you.
Sergeant Hatton. Well, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Boozman,
Members of the Subcommittee, I was in Iraq for 16 months and
before that, we had 6 months training in Camp Shelby. There was
a certain individual, Private Wingus, he was with me from day
one until day end, when we left, with me every single day. He
was in my platoon. For most of the time he was my gunner and
when we came back to Fort McCoy for the demob, it turned out
his orders said 739 days, mine are at 700--or his were 730 and
mine were 729. So that is a perfect example of someone who was
with me every single day doing the exact same job who ends up
making about $600 more a month on the GI Bill than I do just
because his orders say one more day.
And I really, I mean it is really nobody's fault. It is
just a mistake in the government and I just think it needs to
be fixed, so the rest of the guys who were in my case, 1,162 of
us, can get the money that we are entitled to.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, I agree with you and I think
other Members on the panel will express their sentiments as
well. I think you should go into diplomacy. I think you were
very kind.
Thank you for the unanimous consent to hear from Sergeant
Hatton.
Again, General Shellito, thank you for making the
arrangements to be here.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And very quickly I want to thank all of the panel for being
here, but especially you, Sergeant. We appreciate your service
to your country and we are very, very proud of you. I think you
summed up what we needed to do very, very quickly and I am
going to yield my time to Colonel Kline. And again, with Mr.
Walz and Mr. Kline's leadership, hopefully we are going to get
this thing settled very quickly. Thank you.
Mr. Kline. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hope that
we are going to get this fixed quickly.
I thank all the panelists for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Jones, for your complex enlightenment. Like
the Chairwoman, I don't know how much was clarified, except
that it is even more complicated than I thought.
I thank all you for being here, and of course, General
Shellito, thank you for being here to testify and thank you for
your tremendous leadership. As my friend and colleague, Mr.
Walz, said, the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Program is emerging as
the model for the country to help these soldiers move from
wartime to peacetime and reintegrate into their civilian
communities and lives.
Let me take just a second and say how much I admire
Sergeant Hatton. He not only received two Purple Hearts, but
the results of one of those is reflected in the smile and he
has been trying, with some effort, to perhaps not display that.
You should be proud of it. We are certainly proud of you.
Let me just take just a second to express some of the
frustration that I think all of us on this panel, and certainly
Mr. Walz and I have experienced as we have tried to resolve
what is clearly an inequity that you, Sergeant Hatton, have
suffered. It is clearly not fair for two soldiers to head out
together, serve every day together, including the 16-month
longest combat tour of any combat unit in America when you
served in Iraq, and come back together and get off the plane--
you may have been there perhaps when Mr. Walz and I were
standing on the tarmac and you walked off the plane and then
you look at the piece of paper and one of you gets full
Montgomery GI Bill benefits and the other does not.
Everyone that I have talked to in the Department of
Defense, the Department of the Army, in the National Guard, in
the Department of Veteran Affairs, in the White House and here
in Congress, agrees that this is not fair. And it is something
that we ought to fix. What has been frustrating to all of us is
that when we talk to the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Garrin, who
has been trying mightily to fix this thing, he is told by his
lawyers that he can't fix it with a stroke of a pen. And he has
come up with a system which we hope is going to--it is a bit
complex, but we hope it is going to fix it so that you can go
to school in January with full Montgomery GI Bill benefits.
And the Acting Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs in the VA, he can't fix it with a stroke of a pen
according to the lawyers on his staff. And I found out today
that according to the lawyers in the White House, the President
can't fix it with a stroke of a pen or with an Executive Order.
And so everyone knows it is not fair. Everyone knows it
needs to be fixed. And yet, day after day is going by and the
spring semester--you already need to get underway to start
going to school in January and we have to get these things
fixed. I am very happy to be a cosponsor of Mr. Walz's bill. I
would be, and I am on another bill and I would be on five
others if we could fix this immediate problem.
I think that--I know that I have the support of Mr. Boozman
and I am sure the Chairwoman and other Members, because every
single Member that I have talked to understands it is not fair
and it has to be fixed and we want to do that.
Now, having said that, I also agree with much of the
testimony today. We have had panel after panel who said, in
effect, we need to overhaul the GI Bill. We need to consolidate
it. We need to go to a Total Force concept. We need to rewrite
it. We need to fix it, because clearly, we have other
inequities in the system beyond the issue that is facing the
1,162 of you who have 729 or fewer days, and that is from
Minnesota. And there are other soldiers that are involved and
have the same thing from neighboring States.
So that is an immediate problem that I hope we can move
quickly, even if someone out of regular order in Congress to
get some legislation which will fix that in the longer term. As
I mentioned earlier, I know that our friend and colleague, Vic
Snyder, has been working this issue. And I remember him
complaining specifically about the 730 issue, the 24-month
issue that affects the Reserves 3 or 4 years ago, and we have
been unable to fix it in a comprehensive fashion. I hope that
we are going to be able to do that in a comprehension fashion.
But in the near term, I hope that Mr. Walz's bill is able to
move forward at the speed of heat so that these soldiers can go
to school in January with their full benefits.
I won't ask any questions because I am afraid Mr. Jones
would answer and then I would have to start again with that
whole complexity thing. But again, I want to thank you, sir,
for your testimony and actually really the clarity that you
brought to what is an enormously complex problem and it speaks
to the issue of trying to fix this thing in a comprehensive way
so that students, as well as financial aid officers and others,
can understand what they are supposed to be doing.
Thank you very much for your indulgence, Madam Chair.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Of course, Mr. Kline, and again, thank
you for being with us today and for your work on this specific
issue. We look forward to working with you to make this fix
happen sooner, rather than later, much sooner, we hope.
Mr. Walz, you are recognized.
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I would
like to thank my colleague from the 2nd District and let
Sergeant Hatton know you have one very motivated and irritated
Marine Colonel who is on this. You have added an irritated
Sergeant Major to it now. So I can tell you that every waking
moment we are working to deal with this. Please know that your
sacrifice and the people of the first and the second districts
of Minnesota will not rest until we make sure that is honored.
And you have heard the other people testify. You have
generations of people behind you.
You have the Vietnam Veterans of America testifying that we
need to get this thing right for you and an understanding. We
heard many people talk about, and I appreciate Dr. Kime's
comments that the old stereotype of the National Guard is dead
and gone, as you so well know with 16 months of combat duty in
Iraq. Those are the old days and the GI Bill is outdated. So I
appreciate those comments.
I just wanted to just make one point. This is just to help
me on this. You got back, Sergeant Hatton, in July and you
enrolled at the University of Minnesota Duluth; is that
correct, for fall term?
Sergeant Hatton. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Walz. Have you received your GI Bill benefits at all
for the fall term then, your Reserve? Have you got a check from
them?
Sergeant Hatton. Negative. When we originally went in to
sign up, I signed up pretty much as soon as I got back,
probably about August 5th, and she said that the system was
going to be so backlogged we shouldn't expect anything until
December or later.
Mr. Walz. Now, you just heard the VA people say it takes 15
days. That is not your experience?
Sergeant Hatton. Well, based upon my experience,
Congressman, I would have to totally disagree with that, but--
and also, they said that since I had gone to college prior to
going to Iraq at the University of North Dakota and I had
collected GI Bill there, they said that since I was already in
the system it would go faster than people who were just first
signing up for it.
Mr. Walz. Now, this issue has nothing to do with the 730-
day issue. You are just trying to get your benefits under the
Reserve side of benefits. So this is totally separate, correct?
Sergeant Hatton. That would just be the Chapter 1607
benefits right now.
Mr. Walz. So your experience after 16 months of combat in
defense of this Nation has been on the GI Bill that you have
received nothing and we are sitting here on October 18th.
Sergeant Hatton. Roger that, Congressman.
Mr. Walz. Okay. Thank you.
And I yield back, Madam Chairwoman, just to set the----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Boozman, did you--that is right.
You had yielded.
Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
My observation is that there is a tremendous amount of
information here. You all have done a terrific job putting this
together in a way that we can use it to do what we need to do
to make sure that we take care of these problems. We have heard
a story of heroism and inequity and now it is our job, again,
on this panel, in this Committee, in this Congress, to make
sure that we fix these problems so that you can proceed to get
the benefits that you are entitled to. We will do our job.
Thank you very much for your service.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Sergeant Hatton, thank you for being
so good-natured about this issue. We appreciate your service.
The reason we are concerned is not only the broader issue that
you described in your initial statements about the disparity of
the 1 day and how that affects the benefit. Then to understand
even in more specific terms what you are eligible for, despite
the mistake that we are going to try to fix very quickly, that
there is now this delay in the benefits actually being applied
to your tuition. That is something that, we are grateful for
your testimony in response to Mr. Walz's question, we can
explore with our next panel as well.
I do have a question for Mr. Jones, because it is so
enlightening and we are going to probably follow up with you
with some written questions for the record. Could you address
the issue that the prior panel, Mr. Rowe, had stated in terms
of other income versus other resources and the possibility of
errors being made because MGIB benefits might be considered as
another resource, but they are not to be considered other
income. Could you elaborate a bit on that?
Mr. Jones. Right. I mean the law is pretty straightforward.
The Montgomery GI Education Bill benefits is considered a
resource. It is not to be used as income in the calculation of
a family contribution. Can I state unequivocally that every
financial aid director understands that? I can't. I wish I
could.
But clearly, it has been my experience that everyone is
pretty familiar that this is not considered income in any way
at all, although there is the misunderstanding, I understand,
in the general public. And we have encountered this even in
California and our Troops to College initiative, I must tell
you, a misunderstanding in the general public on how it is
used.
If you would think of the GI Education Bill benefits, it is
used against any need. The difference between the cost of
attendance and whatever the family income is, is the need and
that is where the Montgomery Bill benefits apply, against that
need.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Just to clarify, cost of attendance is
tuition or fees and/or fees and books?
Mr. Jones. No, it is actually more than that. Congress has
dictated that the cost of attendance in the Higher Education
Act includes tuition, fees, room, board, books, supplies,
transportation and other educational-related expenses.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I am going to submit a
question to you regarding the Perkins Loan Program.
General Shellito, from your understanding in working with
the Department of Defense to try to solve the particular
problem we are facing with the Minnesota National Guard.
According to your understanding, is it policy, regulation or
law that prevents the Army from changing the orders?
General Shellito. Madam Chair, everyone that we have talked
to says they are going to do everything in their power to
correct the situation. But every time it hits a snag, it is
after legal opinion. So I would have to say, answering your
question, it would be in the law.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Is there a situation here where the
change would be easier if your members were still on Active
Duty?
General Shellito. Madam Chair, no. The only solution that
is--and we are working this one, which is logistically
intensive--is that we are contacting each and every soldier
that we have identified as affected, sitting them down. They
are filling out the 11 pages of paperwork. We are putting
that--sending that in and sending it here through the National
Guard Bureau or to the Army Board for Correction of Military
Records (ABCMR). They will review each and every one of those
records on an individual basis, as we are being told.
To give you an example, we just delivered yesterday a 16-
pound box with about 200 and some forms. We wanted to do a
class action. Their legal counsel said that is unacceptable,
according to their interpretation of the regulations.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Their interpretation of the
regulations. That is what they----
General Shellito. I have had our Judge Advocate General
(JAG) look at it and he thought there was more latitude----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Subject to differing interpretation,
perhaps.
General Shellito. Yeah.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Right? I am sorry. I didn't mean to
interrupt. You had your JAG look at it and----
General Shellito. They think they did have some latitude,
they could have. But we have had too many people say help us
help you and just get the paperwork done. So we bit the bullet
and that is what we are doing.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Boozman. Hopefully we can----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Mr. Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Well, the only comment I would say, Madam
Chair, is that hopefully we can work with Mr. Filner and Mr.
Buyer and perhaps get this on the suspension calendar and get
Mr. Walz and Mr. Kline's legislation pushed through so that
they can finally get some relief and not have to fill out those
long forms.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I think that is a very good
suggestion, one that we have already had some informal
discussions about. We will certainly do all we can within the
jurisdiction of our Subcommittee to put the pressure on the
powers that be here in this institution to get this done.
Perhaps you don't have to be delivering another 16-pound box
full of those forms. It is ridiculous. That is the general
consensus here. Thank you, again, for your responses, for the
time of all of our witnesses on this panel. Thank you for your
service to the Nation and the service to our Nation's veterans.
I would now like to ask our final panel to the table.
Joining us on our final panel of witnesses is Mr. Thomas Bush,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense; Dr. Curtis Gilroy,
Director for Accession Policy, Officer of the Undersecretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of
Defense; and Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of Education Service
for the Veterans Benefits Administration for the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Gentlemen, thank you all for being with us. Thank you for
your patience. We knew this was going to be a rather lengthy
hearing today because of the importance of the topics to
discuss and the number of individuals with helpful testimony on
a number of these different matters related to the overarching
issue of modernizing the Montgomery GI Bill.
Again, the written statements have been made a part of the
record and we will start with you, Mr. Bush. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. BUSH, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS (MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL), U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CURTIS L. GILROY, PH.D., DIRECTOR,
ACCESSION POLICY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
PERSONNEL AND READINESS (MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY), U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. BUSH
Mr. Bush. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Congressman Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to be with you today to discuss the
educational assistance programs available to National Guard and
Reserve members. As we all know, we are at war and the
dedicated men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserve have
answered the call to duty, as you have seen here in the room.
Most importantly, they are joining our ranks and staying
with us. This year combined, the Reserve components achieved 98
percent of their recruiting objectives. Through August,
combined attrition for officer enlisted personnel is at its
lowest level since 1991. All indications are that we finish
2007 at 98 percent of our authorized strength for the Selected
Reserve.
Many factors play into those incredible statistics.
Providing our members with pay and benefits that recognize and
rewards their service and sacrifices clearly helps. But
ultimately, these young men and women are superb patriots who
are volunteering to serve our country.
Over the past 5 years, my boss, Secretary Tom Hall, has
traveled extensively to talk to Guardsmen and Reservists. He
has traveled to over 200 sites. He has spoken with over 230,000
servicemembers and their families. During these visits, he has
heard many positive comments in the manner in which the
Department and Congress are supporting them and their families.
He has heard that educational benefits are important to our
Guard and Reserve members.
Having said that, we believe there are areas within the
educational benefits arena that are of concern to our troops
and need addressing. First, the most frequent comment that
Secretary Hall receives regarding Reserve education benefits is
the benefit level for the Selected Reserve MGIB program is
atrophied over the year and you have heard testimony to that
effect, and it has not kept pace with the cost of education or
the amount available under the Active Duty Montgomery GI Bill
program.
We are committed to addressing that issue. In fact,
although, as some of you testified today, there hasn't been a
single bill that has come out of the Department, we, in fact,
have been working on that for the last 2 years. We also believe
we need to examine ways in which we might incentivize our
people to serve longer. One way to accomplish this might be to
extend the timeline in which the Montgomery GI Bill for the
Selected Reserve is available for use by Guard and Reserve
personnel. As you know, eligibility essentially ends now at the
14-year point.
We also believe we need to review the ceiling on the MGIB
kicker, since this is an important incentive that helps us
shape the force. This is particularly important as we evolve
the force to meet the challenges of the 21st century. There are
other areas that need to be addressed as well.
We have members who may not be able to remain in the
Selected Reserve because of Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC). We propose extending the draw-down provision of the
1990's that allowed a member affected by force shaping and
reductions to retain his or her Selected Reserve MGIB
eligibility for up to 10 years after being separated from the
Selected Reserve. This change is included in the Senate-passed
version of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. And I
would ask for your support in encouraging your colleagues on
the Armed Services Committee to support this provision.
The Department also proposed modifying the REAP program to
allow a member who incurs a short break in Selected Reserve
service, up to 90 days, to continue to receive benefit payments
during that break and to retain the REAP eligibility, even if
the break exceeds 90 days. Currently, a Selected Reserve member
cannot receive benefit payments during the break and loses
eligibility if the break exceeds 90 days. Unfortunately, this
has not been acted upon by Congress and we would ask for your
support for this proposal as well.
One area where we would urge caution, and I know this is
controversial amongst the Members of this Subcommittee, and
that has to do with making changes that would affect the
retention aspects of the Reserve programs. Since service in the
Selected Reserve is voluntary and most Selected Reserve members
are able to transfer from the Selected Reserve at any time, and
unless they have obligated for service in Selected Reserve
because they receive an incentive, a bonus, loan repayment or
the MGIB for the Selected Reserve.
This is why we are so interested in the retention aspects
of these programs. We need incentives that encourage people to
stay, not incentives that encourage them to leave.
I would like to thank the Members of the Committee for all
you do and all you have done for the men and women who serve
this great country. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gilroy
appears on p. 106.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Bush.
Dr. Gilroy, we look forward to your testimony. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. GILROY, PH.D.
Dr. Gilroy. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Boozman, Members of
the Subcommittee, and members of the distinguished staff behind
them who work so hard, you need to be recognized, too. I, too,
am delighted to appear before the Subcommittee on Principal
Deputy Under Secretary Dominguez's behalf. And I thank the
Committee, too, for many years of service and concern for
promulgating and protecting educational benefits, in
particular, to our service men and women.
These programs are particularly important to the Defense
Department for a whole host of reasons. They help us manage the
force, for one thing. But they are so critical and valuable to
military members and veterans simply because they help them
achieve their educational goals about which we were talking in
previous panels.
We know that education is a private benefit to individual
servicemembers and veterans, but we also know that it is a
social benefit as well. It is a significant asset to the Nation
as we invest in our human capital, particularly our young men
and women who have served.
I am going to limit my remarks, and they will be brief, to
policies relating to the Active Duty program for which I have
responsibility. I will make three points. Point number one is
this: the Montgomery GI Bill program and the supplemental
kickers, which when combined with the basic benefit, make up
the service college funds, are simply the cornerstone of our
service recruiting efforts. It is as simple as that. We attract
high aptitude recruits with high school diplomas and that is
our prime market. Money for college, our educational benefits,
continue to be and consistently rank as one of the most
important reasons for young men and women to enlist in the
military today, and we recognize that.
Enrollment in the Active Duty MGIB program has risen from
only 50 percent when it first began in 1985 to over 96 percent
today. Two point eight million men and women have chosen to
participate in the Montgomery GI Bill program since its
inception. So such participation certainly speaks clearly and
loudly to its attractiveness both as an incentive and as a
benefit.
Point number two. Today's Montgomery GI Bill has its
lineage in the post-World War II Bill of Rights during which
time we had a conscripted or draft force. Its purpose was to
ease the transition of those servicemembers to civilian life.
We all know the history and some have benefited from that in
this room.
Today, we have a volunteer military and, as codified in
title 38, we use the Montgomery GI Bill benefit for that
original purpose, this transition to civilian life. But we also
use it, and this is very important, in recruiting and also for
managing the force. In a way, we have a different GI Bill for a
different time. We no longer have a draft or a conscripted
force. We have a voluntary military, managed very differently.
Point number three, and this is my last point and it is the
most important one. If you forget everything I said today, I
ask you to remember this point. And it has to do with the value
of the educational benefit, which is particularly important,
not only in terms of the monetary benefit itself to
servicemembers and veterans, but it is also important because
of the effect it has on recruiting and retention, something
that my colleague to the right has just mentioned in his
closing remarks, force management.
The benefit has to be large enough to be an effective
recruiting incentive. It has to be large enough, of course, to
provide a significant amount for educational purposes, too. We
won't forget that. But it cannot be too large so as to
seriously and adversely affect retention. Don't forget that the
Montgomery GI Bill and education benefits, in general, are a
double-edge sword. You have to leave to use them. It is clearly
a recruiting incentive. But it is just as strong a retention
disincentive.
So there is a fragile balance that must be maintained
between the two. We have studied this balance, and researchers
in academia and elsewhere have also looked at this
relationship. And that is something that we can talk about in
the Q&A in terms of actual numbers. If the benefit is too
large, many members will simply leave after their first term.
This lowers first-term retention and reduces the number of
experienced non-commissioned officers and petty officers in the
force.
It also puts more pressure on recruiting to backfill for
those losses. It also changes the force profile or inventory
that the services try to maintain for force readiness. So the
implications are profound. That is why my point number three is
so important.
To conclude, the current MGIB program continues to serve
the active components of the military quite well, and from an
Active Duty perspective we see no significant problems with the
program or in its administration.
I thank the Committee again for its patience as I am over
my time. I stand ready to address any questions.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth
Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman and other Members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
current state of the MGIB and potential ways to improve upon
its success and the success of the other educational assistance
programs administered by VA. My testimony will address areas in
which the MGIB can be updated, streamlined and simplified. In
addition, I will comment on selected bills which have been
introduced in the 110th Congress and certain concepts and
provisions within those bills in which we find merit, as well
as areas in which we could find potential problems.
We are pleased to report that in fiscal year 2007, we paid
an estimated $2.8 billion in benefits to approximately 500,000
trainees. In fiscal year 2007, on average, we processed
original claims in 32 days and supplemental claims in 13 days.
The reduction in our processing time last year also met or
exceeded the performance goals set forth for 2007.
Recent congressional actions have addressed areas that we
see as essential to the continued vitality of our educational
benefit programs. For example, VA supports in principle the
proposals in S. 293 for the expansion of accelerated payment,
although we do have concerns arising from the potential
inequities in the bill. Another proposed bill, H.R. 797, would
extend certain provisions of the Work Study program through
June 30th of 2012. VA believes these provisions of the Work
Study program serve a valuable purpose and we agree that they
should be extended.
The programs we administer are a complex group with
complicated benefit criteria. VA appreciates Congress' strong
interest in streamlining the education benefits available to
veterans and servicemembers. However, many of the proposals
currently under consideration by Congress not only create
additional eligibility categories but, in the process, also
include retroactive eligibility criteria with amendments
otherwise effective on the date of enactment.
A multitude of programs and eligibility criteria create
confusion for veterans, our partners in the Department of
Defense, and for our Department as well. This also works
against our efforts to further improve program participation
and understanding. We share your desire to improve education
benefits available to all veterans and believe it can be done
within the goal of streamlining existing programs versus adding
new programs and additional layers of complexity associated
with administering them.
Two proposals which have garnered a great deal of attention
would create a new Chapter 33 benefit, a new benefit for post-
9/11 servicemembers and veterans. Under the current benefit
structure, many individuals find themselves potentially
eligible under one or more of the three VA-administered
programs that I have already mentioned. Those individuals are
tasked with comparing payment rates, impacts of kickers, and
other areas to determine which program would be most
advantageous in their individual circumstances.
Incorporating a new Chapter 33 program, the extent of
entitlement to which would require factoring in length of
service and previous eligibility benefit usage, would make the
process even more complex and difficult for individuals to
understand.
Finally, I note additional concerns with certain other
pending legislation. Senate bills 723, 1719 and 698, as well as
House bills 112 and 1102 raise issues of equity in providing
benefits to servicemembers and veterans. For example, these
bills contain provisions that would give preference to one
period of service or benefit program over another. S. 723
proposes to reimburse the payment reduction required for MGIB
enrollments to members of the Armed Services who served after
November 16th, 2001, through the date of termination of
Executive Order 13235.
Many individuals bravely served our country during periods
that do not coincide with these dates. These individuals would
be disadvantaged merely because of their dates of service. Both
S. 1409 and H.R. 2385 include provisions that would exclude
graduate programs from eligibility. About 8 percent of our
individuals now use the benefits for graduate level training.
Disallowing graduate training would limit the eligibility, or
the person's choice of the type of training they want to
pursue.
Additionally, Senate bills 22, 1409, 1719, 644 and House
bill 1102 pose significant logistical obstacles by requiring
substantial changes in entitlement determinations and payment
methods. These payment methods would require extensive
enhancement to existing payment systems with significant
attendant costs, implementation delays, and impact on current
claims processing. Our continued concern is limiting the impact
on beneficiaries and ensuring timely receipt of payments.
In closing, I reiterate that VA is dedicated to providing
the most beneficial education programs to veterans and their
dependents. We believe that changes made to enhance these
programs must not create an extra burden on the beneficiaries
by making programs more complex.
Madam Chairwoman, that concludes my statement. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 112.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Thanks to all of you.
Mr. McNerney, did you have questions for the panel?
Mr. McNerney. Of course. This afternoon I ran into the
Chairwoman and asked her if there was going to be a hearing
today because our session ended early this afternoon and she
said yes, and that it is going to be a good one. And I came out
here, and yes, it has been very good. It has been very
informative, a lot of different opinions, a lot of opinions
that actually coincided. So thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for
that recommendation of making sure that I made it this
afternoon.
Mr. Bush, do I understand you correctly, or did I
understand you correctly that base relocations and closures are
impacting soldiers' and National Guard's ability to get
benefits, through no fault of their own?
Mr. Bush. As we are closing some bases, we are shifting
where units are located. There may not be a slot for somebody
that is currently serving in the Selected Reserve in a new unit
or they may have to travel extensive distances to get to a new
unit and not be willing to do that. Therefore, they may no
longer be in the Selected Reserve.
If that is the case, then yes, they would be adversely
affected because if they leave the Selected Reserve, they lose
their MGIB-SR benefit. The provision we propose would allow
them, if they are affected by BRAC, to keep the benefit.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
I have to say, Dr. Gilroy's testimony was one of the most
interesting. The notion that the GI Bill is a good incentive
for recruiting, but it is somewhat of a disincentive for
retention. The way I see what is being asked for is that GI
Bill should pay for college education and that is sort of a
yes/no. It is either you pay for college education or you
don't. So if we pay for college education, what other parts of
the GI Bill, or is that basically what you are talking about,
would be a disincentive for retention?
Dr. Gilroy. No. I was speaking specifically to the basic GI
Bill benefit as a disincentive at some level. Currently it is
not. Recruiting ``wins'' over retention at the current benefit
level of about $1,100 a month, on average, which we have heard
in other testimony accounts for about 75 percent of the cost of
an average public 4-year institution.
So having said that, what then would be the optimal level,
would be the next logical question I would expect you to ask,
Congressman.
Mr. McNerney. Go ahead and ask it yourself.
Dr. Gilroy. Yes. We have asked that question, because there
are pending bills which call for increases in the benefit of
varying amounts. So we have done some statistical analysis,
econometric work, which tries to get at what the benefit level
ought to be before the retention disincentive effects outweigh
the recruiting incentive effects.
We find, and it is corroborated by several other
researchers, that the level would roughly be about $1,400 a
month. Coincidentally and serendipitously, that happens to be
roughly the average cost of a public 4-year education today. So
while we don't necessarily recommend, or we don't for the
Active Duty side feel that it is necessary to increase the
monthly benefit, if it were raised to around $1,400 as been
recommended by others in previous panels, at least as a
minimum, that would not have any deleterious effects on
retention. And that, I think, is an important point.
Mr. McNerney. Well, not only that, but it is very specific,
which I appreciate.
Dr. Gilroy. It is. It is fairly specific. That is correct.
Now, if we include next year or the year after, it might be
somewhat different. We don't know. But that is what the numbers
look like right now with the statistical analysis that has been
conducted.
Now, there is another point here, too. And that is that we
talk about the basic benefit being 75 percent of the average
cost. If you add the service kickers into this, on average that
benefit rises for those who receive it, to nearly 140 percent
of the average cost of a public 4-year institution. That is
just a point of interest for you. But in terms of the basic
benefit, there is room, not a lot, but there is room for an
increase.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Wilson.
You indicated there is a significant reduction in the
processing time for GI Bill and yet, Sergeant Hatton has a very
different experience. Could you explain that? Is there a local
effect here or what do we think about the discrepancy?
Mr. Wilson. Some of it I can explain. The numbers that we
report and the numbers that we track in my testimony today,
those were fiscal year 2007 average numbers. So that means and
these are the real numbers that last October, a year ago, it
was taking us 46 days on average to process an original claim
for benefits. This month it is taking us 23 days. But on
average, if you look at everything that was processed over the
year, it took us an average of 33 days to process an original
claim for benefits.
It wouldn't surprise me that an individual's experience
would not be consistent with the 33 days, since it would be an
average. Another issue is the seasonal nature of our work. Come
August, there are about 6,800 institutions around the country
that are siphoning enrollment information to us. That is a very
heavy workload period for us. It would not surprise me that an
individual did not experience a 10- or 15- or 20-day turnaround
on his or her claim during that period of time, again, because
we are looking at average numbers as I reported.
Having said that, I am familiar with the claim and the
information I have is somewhat inconsistent. So I can assure
you that, before I leave this room, I will be getting down to
finding out exactly what the issue is.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I am glad to hear that. Thank you.
And I yield.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. Wilson, if I could just follow up then. Refresh my
memory. When we had our hearing back in March, you will recall
I asked you about some of the problems associated with the 1-
800 number and you had contracted out and you were terrific in
being so forthcoming about the problems that weren't
anticipated. I think you did that in part to address the
seasonal issues that you confront.
I want you to know that is helpful information to have,
because if the averages vary, I think that we need to provide
more help to you to address the seasonal issue. I appreciate
your willingness to work to get to the bottom of Mr. Hatton's
experience, Sergeant Hatton's experience, and hope that we can
work with you and you can work with the folks from the
Minnesota Delegation and perhaps General Shellito as well. If
there are any other individuals in this particular Guard. We
don't want to have any delays, but the circumstances there are
quite unique. We appreciate your willingness to assist them
with this particular issue.
Could you also address, Mr. Wilson, the point made by Mr.
Rowe in the earlier panel about the apprenticeship and on-the-
job training programs in terms of the processing of those
claims? He made reference to those claims being taken out of
the regional system, perhaps going through a different process
and leading to, on average, a longer period of time to process
those claims.
Mr. Wilson. The process involved with OJT cases does
require a more manual processing. There are also more entities
involved with a lot of the OJT cases because we are often
dealing with employers. We are often dealing with State
approving agencies if these are new OJT programs that they are
going into, as well as the folks in our processing offices that
are actually working the cases.
So it is frustrating at times because there are more
players involved with these processes, unfortunately, because
of the limitations in our current claims processing system, a
lot of the work involved with the OJT cases cannot be done what
we call ``in system.'' They are done out of system.
The initiative that we have underway that is now fully
funded and we are moving forward on, our The Education Expert
System (TEES) initiative, will address exactly that issue, as
well as several other issues. TEES, several people have heard,
did have a delay for several years. It is fully funded. We are
aggressively moving forward on that. And that is ultimately the
solution to unique situations like this: replatforming our
system and leveraging IT better so we can move forward more
effectively.
The reduction in pending claims is something that we have
worked very hard on all year as well. Right now we have about
half of the number of pending claims that we had at this time
last year. That will allow us to process OJT claims quicker, as
well as the other claims.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Just a final comment here. Mr.
Boozman had mentioned at the outset in terms of the report that
I believe was due in July on recommendations for streamlining.
Do you anticipate when we might receive that?
Mr. Wilson. I can't give you an exact date. I do know that
it is in OMB going through the internal vetting and concurrence
process.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bush and Dr. Gilroy, thank you again for being here. I
do want to start with a few questions about the particular
circumstances surrounding the Minnesota National Guard. I do
know that in hearings, either here in this Committee or with
the Armed Services Committee, that my colleague, Mr. McHugh
from New York, he along with a number of us on both sides of
the aisle don't really see eye to eye with the Department of
Defense's assessment here on recruitment and retention as it
relates to the basic benefit and the Selected Reserve.
He believes that much of what you refer to, Mr. Gilroy, has
been discredited and I am wondering, rather than challenging
you directly on that, I am wondering, when you refer to the
numbers and the researchers and the studies, are the numbers
backed up by anything that is perhaps objective or is it more
subjective, including the experience and information provided
by Adjutants General in the various States as to what their
opinion is, based on their familiarity and knowledge of their
members, of their units, for what are the primary reasons for
retention in the Guard?
Dr. Gilroy. Madam Chair, I should have alluded to the fact
more strenuously that my analysis referred to the Active Duty
program only and not to the Guard or the Reserve. So I am sorry
if I didn't make that more clear.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I thought at some point you had
addressed the Selected Reserve in your testimony.
Dr. Gilroy. No, no. All of my numbers in my analyses
reflect----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Are all Active Duty.
Dr. Gilroy. Active Duty numbers, yes, ma'am. So I would
yield to my colleague to the right.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes. Mr. Bush, if you could respond to
the question about the information or experience provided by
State Adjutants General of the National Guard.
Mr. Bush. We have not asked the Adjutants General to
provide their information. And this is anecdotal, just as
information from the Adjutants General would be anecdotal. But
when Secretary Hall has traveled extensively, as I said, his
comment, the comment he gets is about the amount of the
benefit. In our discussions yesterday with him, he said that he
hasn't received any comments about the post--using the benefit
after service as a concern.
Now, maybe he is not talking to the right folks in the
230,000 people that he has talked to. But that is his
experience. But the only other thing we have that has any
information on the value of the benefit or how people view the
benefit is in our status of forces surveys and in the status of
forces surveys, 74 percent of the people find the benefit
either very effective, or they like the benefit, they either
significantly like it or like the benefit, they find it useful.
It is only about 12 percent, I think, that don't think the
benefit is fitting their needs.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Of the status of forces surveys you
are referring to, do those surveys go out to all Active Duty
and Selected Reserve or just Selected Reserve?
Mr. Bush. I am talking about the survey for members of the
Selected Reserve.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Are they required to respond? Do you
just send those surveys out and----
Mr. Bush. It is a random sample that we send out. We do two
surveys a year and in each one of the surveys we ask a
different group of questions. We are trying to get a
longitudinal look across the force at a variety of issues. And
education benefits, that is one of the questions or one of the
areas that we focus on in the periodic surveys.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Have you ever phrased a question on a
survey that is more specific, rather than just the over 70
percent that you state find it useful, to ask more specifically
regarding the benefit? The reason I ask this question is
because we heard from earlier panels that it is very
disheartening and disturbing information, that many soldiers
and many officers, it seems, sometimes aren't aware that the
benefit is lost post-separation. Do you ever ask in the surveys
more specific questions as it relates to the importance of that
benefit in staying in the National Guard or Reserve Force?
Mr. Bush. No. We haven't asked that specific question,
although every time somebody signs up for the Montgomery GI
Bill for the Selected Reserve, they get a notice of eligibility
which outlines the criteria and the conditions in which they
get the benefit.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Certainly, and I didn't suggest that
the information at some point in time isn't offered in
materials that are provided. As we all know, even--I mean there
is a reason that we just introduced a bill to allow the VA to
do national advertising on television, to let veterans know of
their benefits.
Mr. Bush. No, and I understand that.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I will submit these two questions to
you in writing for the record, because I want to--it has been a
long hearing and I want to take the rest of the time that we
have available to talk about the Minnesota National Guard.
It is my understanding that the Army Office of the Judge
Advocate General and the Office of the General Counsel have
opined that orders may be amended retroactively only to correct
an administrative error, or for legitimate mission-related
reasons and that modifying a soldier's orders retroactively for
the sole purpose of conveying a benefit to a soldier to which
the soldier would not otherwise be entitled could be found to
be objectionable.
My question is, would correcting the orders to reflect
accurate dates not be a legitimate administrative reason or
mission-related reason?
Mr. Bush. Well, if we corrected the orders to reflect an
accurate date, they would actually have fewer days in those
orders, because the prospective period of service would not be
for 730 days. The period of service would end on the date they
were separated. So we would actually, in that scenario that you
painted, have more people that would not be eligible because we
would have to modify the orders back to an earlier date, the
date they left Active Duty.
Now, I think your question may be, should we modify the
orders and say that is what they--they had that prospective
period because that is what is authorized in law under the
partial mobilization authority, is 24 months maximum.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I am afraid, Mr. Bush, that your
initial response maybe answers a question that I wasn't going
to ask, because in some ways I didn't think it was fair. Yet
that initial response leads me to think that you are giving the
impression, in my opinion, that the Department of Defense and
the Army aren't going to take care of these soldiers.
Now, based on that initial response, I think you understood
that we are trying to figure out a way, given everything we
have been hearing from our colleagues from Minnesota, given
everything that was testified to earlier in terms of even
General Shellito believing that the Department of Defense wants
to be helpful, but there is a legal issue here that we have to
deal with. Yet at every opportunity, it appears that whenever
there is discretion, whether it is an interpretation of a
regulation or discretion as it relates to Minnesota's request
to deal with the entire unit rather than the individuals who
have to individually submit these forms, that you are making it
more difficult.
If the soldiers met the time required, then they should be
eligible for the benefit. I think we can all agree on that.
Mr. Bush. Absolutely. If I could comment, okay. The Army,
the Department of Defense, the President, we are committed to
fixing the problem with the Minnesota National Guard. In fact,
as General Shellito mentioned, he has 201 applications they
sent yesterday. As we speak, the ABCMR is adjudicating those
cases. So that process that has been developed--that we are
using, it is not one that we developed, it is one that is
required by statute, that we have expedited that process and we
should have decisions. In fact, we may already have decisions
on the first batch of cases by the time this hearing ends.
We have gone to the lawyers and asked the lawyers exactly
what we could do. We have probed every aspect of what we might
be able to do. When the testimony said that it was a regulation
that said you couldn't do a batch request, it is not a
regulation. If it was a policy, we could waive the policy. We
can make an exception to policy.
We are bound by the statute. The statute said the
individual must submit the request and that is what we are
dealing with. We are trying to expedite that as much as we can
to make it as simple as we can to batch them. We are working
with Minnesota. We are working with the National Guard Bureau.
We are working with the Army. They work as a team. We are
working with VA to process these claims just as quickly as we
can.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. What do you think the average time is
going to be to process these claims?
Mr. Bush. The average time they have laid out is a maximum
of 4 weeks. Based on our experience, if we got claims yesterday
and they are adjudicating them today, that is a 2-day process
where they have already built in the Army timeline a seven to
9-day window. So we are pressing this just as fast as we can.
The Army is taking this very, very seriously.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Oh, I understand. Let me go back to my
initial question. Can you talk with me about the impact of
terminal leave?
Mr. Bush. Terminal leave, I asked that specific question
when we were looking at the orders. If the orders didn't
include terminal leave or didn't contemplate all that, can we
amend the orders? Yes. If there isn't sufficient time on the
orders to cover that period, it--but if there is already
sufficient time to cover terminal leave, then there is no
reason to modify the orders.
I think it may be helpful for the Committee to understand
how we got into this situation, what the policies and what the
process was which allowed somebody to have 730 days in their
orders, somebody to have 729 days. If you would like me to
explain that, I would happy to. I think it would be useful.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I think it would be useful as well,
and then that might help us understand why the Department of
Defense would write orders that would state not to exceed 730
days or not to exceed 729 days, etc. So please, take the time
to explain.
Mr. Bush. Yes. The process that we used, the process the
Army used is to look at the first person that was mobilized
under the partial mobilization authority. And the partial
mobilization authority says that we can keep some, we can call
somebody to Active Duty involuntarily for a maximum of 24
consecutive months. And so they looked at that time period,
they said they are going to be extended. What is the extension?
What is the amount of time that they were going to take for
out-processing, for terminal leave, all the things they have to
do and looked at when that 2-year period ended for the first
person that was called up. And that end date was September
29th, 2007.
So what they did is, this year it is all going to, we are
going to have all these people off Active Duty by September
29th, 2007. So now you look back and say when were they
mobilized? And that determined the date on the orders for the
extension. This wasn't done maliciously. This wasn't done to
deny somebody a benefit. This was actually consistent with the
DoD policy that we said we want to build the proper
expectations. How long can you expect to be mobilized and to be
realistic about it, rather than have an expectation out there
that you were going to be on duty for 2 years.
Now, it is unfortunate that we have people that are in a
situation where it is 1 day short. If we had realized that, we
would have done business differently. We are going to do
business differently in the future. I have talked to our
leadership. We are committed to not having this happen again.
There are bills pending that would make sure that we didn't do
that. But we can do it by policy and that is what we are going
to do.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I don't mean to suggest
that you are doing it maliciously. It is just that with all of
the red tape that Mr. Kline stated at the beginning, that Mr.
Boozman made reference to, that Mr. Walz is worried about, the
impression that we are giving these young men and women is that
we are not willing to get through this red tape and that is
why, obviously, we are going to have to get involved to give
you the authority you need.
The President was told he couldn't even do it by Executive
Order. I am glad to know that we are going to be doing this
differently. I do think that it seems to me that we have maybe
not done all that we could. We are going to keep looking for
other avenues.
I would take, by your explanation of that, Mr. Bush, that
the correction of the Minnesota Guard issue, it is far more
than a clerical error? It is how you counted back from finding
the date of September 29th and then looking back to the----
Mr. Bush. Right. I mean it wasn't a typo. It was a
conscious decision to say if we are going to have everybody off
by this date, then how many days do we expect them to serve?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. So there is no calculation error. This
is no typo, but there is an error. There is sort of a
misjudgment somewhere in there that we are now going to correct
through policy, as you just stated.
Mr. Bush. Right. As we were looking at the way that we were
doing business, building the proper expectations, part of that
quite frankly we didn't see, and I don't think anybody saw,
because we had the Army that wrote the orders for each unit. We
sent that out. The Adjutant General wrote the actual individual
order. So there are opportunities there along this chain for
people to say wait a minute, somebody is going to be adversely
effected because of a benefit. Had we realized that, I think we
could have acted sooner.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay.
Mr. Bush. But we are in the, you know, we are sort of at
the point we are where our Board of Correction for Military
Records is the avenue that we have to take now. It is
cumbersome. Nobody likes it. But at least it provides an avenue
and we are committed to expediting that process.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. We are committed to expediting our
process here so that as General Shellito has reached out to as
many members of this unit as he thinks may be affected, it
doesn't sound like maybe all of what has already been delivered
is still what could be out there in terms of forms to fill out
and to be delivered. Hopefully, even if, within 4 weeks' time,
although it would be nice to get this resolved before another
month passes by, that you say maybe the average by expediting
this, that we can get this resolved. We can at least prevent
this rather cumbersome process for others that may be affected.
I have one final question. Sergeant Hatton, you heard him
testify. Now, he stated that he and a friend, who most times
was operating as his gunner during their deployment, they
departed and returned at the same time. So he doesn't qualify
for the Chapter 30 benefit. I am wondering as you explained how
you calculated the dates, including the assessment and
consideration of terminal leave, how could that happen exactly,
that two individuals who left and came back at the same time,
there could be that discrepancy?
Mr. Bush. I would have to look at the two sets of orders
and see the actual date that they were mobilized, because that
would trigger then the calculation. You look at the end date
and you count backward. So if there was 1 day difference, and
that is what this appears to tell me, there was 1 day
difference between when they actually reported for duty. There
would be the 1 day----
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. How common is that when you are
sending out the notice to a particular National Guard unit that
individuals within that same unit would have different dates?
Mr. Bush. We did it, the Army did it by derivative unit
identification code (UIC). The composition of the first 34th
was 181 individual UICs, individual units. That included the 36
or 39, I think I heard, units from different States. It
included 300-plus members from the Army Reserve and 188 members
from the Individual Ready Reserve.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Okay. I know you can't predict this,
but this is such an unusual circumstance. What is your sense on
the Army Board of Corrections for Military Records processing?
What happens now that we have filed these and we go through
hopefully the next 4 weeks? What if they say no, then what is
the recourse?
Mr. Bush. The recourse would be asking Congress for relief.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Yes. We might have to trump that
process. I mean there is always the event they are going to say
no and then we are right back to square one. Well, I
appreciate, again, the testimony, your responses to our
questions, and the difficulty posed by this situation, as well
as the broader issue of equity and keeping pace with a whole
host of things, whether it is college tuition, whether it is
retention and recruitment needs and the overall force needs for
our National security.
Mr. Wilson, it is always good to have you at the Committee.
We look forward to following up with you on a number of issues
as well. Thank you for your service to the Nation, to our men
and women in uniform, and to our veterans. We value the insight
and interest in the topic and the information you have provided
today that allows us to do our work more effectively.
I, too, as Dr. Gilroy noted, want to thank the members of
our staff here on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and our
personal offices for their hard work in preparing for and
following up on these hearings.
Thank you again, and the hearing now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:59 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
As the lone representative from South Dakota, I continue to hear
concerns from returning servicemembers and veterans throughout my State
about the confusion over existing MGIB entitlements and the inequity of
benefits that exists between Active Duty and our Reserve Forces.
Unfortunately, this is an all too common concern of Guard and Reserve
members across our Nation who have often times served side by side with
Active Duty Forces in support of military operations at home and
abroad.
Since the Montgomery GI Bill was enacted more than 20 years ago,
our Nation's utilization of the Select Reserve forces has dramatically
increased. When the Montgomery GI Bill was signed into law in 1984,
servicemembers of the Guard and Reserve were rarely mobilized, but that
simply is not the reality today. Indeed, today's citizen-soldiers are
serving with distinction and have sacrificed a great deal in
contributing to our Nation's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, we will hear today from our witnesses that Guard and
Reserve members are being called to duty for extended periods of time
while their educational benefits do not reflect their increased service
to our Nation. I know that I am not alone in this Congress when I say
that our veterans deserve a Montgomery GI Bill that will meet their
needs in the 21st century.
Much progress has been made in education benefits for National
Guard, Reserve and Active Duty servicemembers. However, I think
everyone would agree that we must remain vigilant to protect against
any decline in benefits. Veterans, servicemembers, and military
families of this Nation deserve our best efforts.
Some of the panelists may recall a hearing we held on March 22nd on
the subject of Education Benefits for National Guard and Reserve
Members of the U.S. Armed Forces. During that hearing, many of our
members and panelists expressed concerns over the: confusion of
Chapters 1606 and 1607 entitlements; need to consolidate policy and
funding for the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve and the Reserve
Educational Assistance Program under the authority of the VA; and DoD's
concern over the issue of retaining authority over ``kickers.''
Since the March 22nd hearing, we have worked with our colleagues in
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to include language in
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 to recodify Chapters
1606 and 1607 of title 10, United States Code, to title 38. I believe
that this small, but important, step will simplify and improve the
educational assistance programs created to provide our Nation's
servicemembers, veterans and their dependents with the benefits they
rightfully deserve.
Furthermore, we have worked with the House Armed Services Committee
to ensure that kicker authority is not effected by legislation that
might be considered by Congress in the near future. We understand DoD's
use of this important recruitment and retention tool, and look forward
to working with them to ensure future legislation improves their
recruitment and retention goals.
Today's hearing will follow-up on the recommendations that were
provided in the 109th Congress and by our Subcommittee hearing earlier
this year. Ranking Member Boozman, I look forward to working with you,
all the Members on this Subcommittee, and our colleagues in Congress to
streamline, update and expand existing MGIB entitlements.
I now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for any opening
remarks that he may have.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman,
Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Good afternoon everyone. Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate your
bringing us together to discuss the future direction of the GI Bill. As
in the other programs under our jurisdiction, GI Bill education and
training benefits enable veterans and surviving dependents with the
opportunity to improve their ability to achieve financial independence
outside of any other VA benefits they may receive. According to the
College Board, those with at least a bachelor's degree will make at
least $1 million more over a lifetime than someone with a high school
diploma. Clearly, it pays to invest in education and training for
veterans.
You and I have held several hearings on this subject over the last
3 years and we have heard from literally dozens of witnesses about the
need to make changes to reflect today's operational environment. Today,
members of the National Guard and Reserves are carrying a huge portion
of the War on Terrorism and if nothing else, I hope we can find a way
to improve their benefits.
I am also concerned that 30 percent of those who sign up for the GI
Bill never use a penny of the benefit. There are many reasons they
don't avail themselves of the program, some of which would be difficult
to overcome, but I think we could reduce that 30 percent to a
significantly lower number and I want to work with you on that.
Several of today's witnesses will advocate paying veterans the full
cost of education. If that is to be our goal, I think we need more
data. For example, according to the College Board, the average tuition
and fees at a public 4-year institution is about $5,800 and about
$2,300 at 2-year school. Board data also shows that 65 percent of all
students attend 4-year schools with tuition and fees below $9,000 per
year, 56 percent attend public 4-year schools with tuition and fees
ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per year. Finally, the College Board data
indicates 41 percent of all students attend a 2-year school with a net
cost, considering all forms of aid at less than $100. I am quoting
those figures to show that the full cost of tuition and fees varies
significantly and there are opportunities to attend a wide variety of
schools at reasonably low cost. Obviously, room and board costs will
add to those costs.
Additionally, there are financial aid packages available today that
did not exist for earlier generations of veterans. So, madam
Chairwoman, maybe it would be helpful if we asked the College Board to
assist us in determining what is the real level of benefits we need to
make as our guide.
I want to acknowledge that VA has significant progress in lowering
the processing time for original and supplemental claims for education
benefits. Last year VA averaged about 43 days for an original claim.
Today it averages about 23 days. Supplemental claims are down to 11
days from 17 last year. I wish the folks at C&P could do as well. I
note the Education Service has achieved a high level of automation to
accomplish that decrease and again, C&P should follow suit.
I have one disappointment with our witnesses. Mr. Rowe, the State
Approving Agencies are our main sources of information on how to ensure
veterans receive quality education and training in exchange for their
benefit payments. Unfortunately, virtually none of your testimony and
only 1 or 2 of the association's 13 legislative recommendations have
any relationship to the duties of the SAAs outlined in chapter 36 of
title 38. I believe your testimony does not reflect the SAAs'
responsibilities under title 38 and suggest your association refocus
future testimony on your statutory duties rather than sounding like an
adjunct to the Veterans Advisory Committee on Education.
Finally, madam Chairwoman, you and I would make many improvements
if we had the PAYGO offsets. However, PAYGO is a fact of life and we
must live by it until Congress changes the budget rules. There are lots
of education bills out there, some of which are estimated to cost up to
$75 Billion over 10 years. That type of legislation does not appear
within the realm of possibility under PAYGO.
But we can do something about making the process even simpler for
the veteran and schools and I am eager to see the VA's report on
streamlining that was due to us back in July. If we can't get veterans
more money, we should at least cut some of the red tape involved in
getting checks to our veterans.
I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.),
Deputy Director, Government Relations, Military Officers Association of
America
MADAM CHAIRMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, on
behalf of the 366,000 members of the Military Officers Association of
America (MOAA), I am honored to have this opportunity to present the
Association's views on updating the Montgomery GI Bill to meet the
needs of our Armed Forces and to strengthen its value as a readjustment
tool for our veterans.
MOAA is an original founding member of the Partnership for
Veterans' Education, a consortium of 45 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--and veterans in the
21st century.
MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the federal
government.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MONTGOMERY GI BILL PRIORITIES
As a general principle, GI Bill benefits for the 21st century
should be structured according to the length and type of duty performed
by all members of the armed forces, provide better support to
recruitment and retention programs, and improve readjustment outcomes
for our veterans. This approach to the MGIB is endorsed by Veterans
Advisory Committee on Education, a congressionally established panel
that advises the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs on educational benefits
programs.
MOAA would, of course, prefer to see enactment of a ``WWII-style''
GI Bill. However, past proposals along these lines by retired Ranking
Member Lane Evans of this Committee have not been taken up. We believe
that the existing MGIB can be restructured to better achieve desired
outcomes, namely: support armed forces recruitment/retention and the
readjustment needs of our veterans, including National Guard and
Reserve veterans who have been called into active federal service:
1. Recodify reserve MGIB programs from title 10 to title 38.
(Section 525, H.R. 1585) so that the MGIB can match 21st century
military policy and better accomplish statutory purposes.
2. Establish a 10-year readjustment benefit--as authorized for
active force members--for National Guard and Reserve veterans called to
active federal service (Chap. 1607, 10 U.S.C.)
3. Raise MGIB monthly rates to cover the average cost of a 4-year
public college/university education. Dept. of Education data indicate
the MGIB covers about 75 percent of such costs.
4. Authorize cumulative month-for-month entitlement under the
MGIB (Chapter 30, 38 U.S.C.) for reservists who serve on multiple
active duty tours in contingency operations.
5. Restore proportional parity between basic reserve MGIB
(Chapter 1606, 10 U.S.C.) rates and the active duty program (Chapter
30).
6. Repeal the 14-year in-service limitation for basic reserve
benefits (Chapter 1606).
7. Expand the scope of programs that can offer accelerated
payments under the MGIB for designated training, education, and
licensure/certification programs.
8. Authorize ``buy up'' provisions for the reserve MGIB programs.
9. Extend the post-service usage period for the MGIB.
10. Repeal the $1200 payroll reduction for active duty service
entrants.
Total Force Montgomery GI Bill for the 21st Century
MOAA believes that the first priority in creating a more effective
MGIB is to evaluate proposals against the principle of aligning
benefits with the length and type of duty performed by members of our
Nation's armed forces team--active duty, National Guard and Reserve. In
short, a ``total force'' approach to the MGIB is needed.
In achieving this objective--an objective we believe is essential
to better accomplish recruitment, reenlistment, and readjustment
purposes--MOAA strongly recommends that the Committee endorse the
following approach to updating the MGIB.
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 the MGIB as follows:
Tier one, the Active Duty MGIB (chapter 30, title 38)--
initially, no statutory change. Individuals who enter the active armed
forces would earn MGIB entitlement unless they decline enrollment.
Tier two, the Selected Reserve MGIB (chapter 1606, 10
U.S.C.)--MGIB benefits for a 6-year enlistment or reenlistment in the
Guard or Reserve. Chapter 1606 would transfer to title 38. Congress
should consider adjusting benefit rates to restore the originally
intended relationship to the active duty program. Historically,
Selected Reserve benefits have been 47-48 percent of active duty
benefits (vs. today's 29 percent).
Tier three, Reserve Educational Assistance Program
(chapter 1607, 10 U.S.C.)--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, $1101 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 their benefits. In accordance with current law, in
cases of multiple benefit eligibility, only one benefit could be used
at one time, and total usage eligibility would extend to no more than
48 months.
Guard and Reserve Warriors Denied Earned Veterans' Benefits Under REAP
Third-tier benefits are earned by mobilized reservists who serve
the Nation on active duty for at least 90 days during a national
emergency under ``contingency operation'' orders. The REAP (Chapter
1607, 10 Code) 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.
Clearly, the principle of scaling benefits proportional to service
performed was not used in fashioning REAP.
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 same 10 years established since WWII for non-Reserve
active duty veterans), 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 1-year tours every 5 or 6 years. The
proposal would enable a G-R member potentially to acquire full MGIB
entitlement after 36 months aggregate service on contingency operation
orders. DoD reports that more than 142,000 members of the Guard and
Reserve already have served two or more tours of active duty.
Presently, however, Chapter 1607 benefits are awarded only for a
single tour of active duty. Additional benefits cannot be earned for
additional active duty service performed. This becomes a built-in
disincentive for continued service and can only hurt the morale of
operational reservists.
A key feature of the total force MGIB proposal is that reservists
mobilized for at least 90 days under federal contingency operation
orders would have access to their remaining REAP benefits for up to 10
years after separation. That is, they would be entitled to post-service
readjustment benefits under the MGIB.
America's volunteer military--active duty and reserve component--
become veterans when they complete their active duty service
agreements. When mobilized reservists return from an active duty call-
up (under contingency operation orders) they become veterans of the
Armed Forces, and no American would dispute that fact. 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 no Iraq
service 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 2
or more years in Iraq over a period of 6 or 8 years of Guard/Reserve
service?
Some argue that allowing post-service use of MGIB benefits earned
on active duty would discourage continued service. If that were
actually true, the government would never have approved post-service
use of MGIB benefits for active duty service men and women, whether
their commitment is 2 years or more. Moreover, the DoD 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 a servicemember 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.
Reservists who elect to continue their service in the Guard/
Reserve, and are subsequently activated, would earn 1 month of active
duty MGIB benefits for every month mobilized, up to 36 months of
benefits. 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 the proposal.
MOAA strongly recommends that the Committee and House leadership
ensure that in negotiations with the Senate over the National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 1585), the House insist upon final passage of
Section 525 to recodify the MGIB in title 38; and, section 676 of the
Senate bill, to establish a 10-year post-service readjustment benefit
for MGIB benefits earned on active duty by reservists.
Below is a summary of MOAA's top ten priorities for updating the
MGIB, along with other MGIB initiatives that we respectfully ask the
Subcommittee to consider. The summary is tied to legislation that has
been introduced in both chambers in this session.
Transfer reserve MGIB programs from title 10 to title 38.
(Section 525, H.R. 1585). (See Total Force MGIB discussion, above).
MGIB jurisdiction is split between the Veterans Affairs Committees
(title 38), who handle traditional GI Bill benefits for active force
members and the Armed Services Committees (title 10) who handle Guard/
Reserve GI Bill programs. title 38 benefits have been increased
significantly in recent years, but Guard/Reserve benefits have not.
Because of the growing proportional benefit gap and the dramatic surge
in duty requirements of our Guard/Reserve members, the total GI Bill
program is no longer structured to match the nation's military policy
for the operational integration of our active and reserve forces.
Benefits should be structured to match the length and type of duty
performed by active duty and reserve component service men and women.
The House took an essential first step by favorably voting Section 525
as a provision in the FY 2008 Natl. Defense Authorization Act, H.R.
1585. Section 525 is cost-neutral. (Section 525, H.R. 1585, S. 644)
Establish a readjustment benefit (post-service use)
eligibility period under the MGIB (Chap. 1607, 10 Code) for Guard and
Reserve veterans of the War on Terror. (See Total Force MGIB
discussion, above). Regular active-force members have 10 years after
leaving service to use their GI Bill--regardless of any deployment
experience. But Guard/Reserve members who have been mobilized for
multiple tours in can't use their mobilization-related GI Bill benefits
once they complete their service obligation and separate. Post-service
access to benefits earned on active duty in defense of the Nation is
the only veterans' benefit denied returning Guard and Reserve veterans.
It is MOAA's understanding that CBO informally has scored the cost of
10-year portability of such benefits at $50 million in 2008, $165
million over 5 years and $235 million over 10 years. The cost could be
reduced by changing the effective date until 1 October 2008 (FY 2009)
(retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001 and adjusting the post-service usage
period to 5 years for each 12 months served on active duty (the DoD
call-up policy)). (H.R. 1102, S. 644)
Raise MGIB monthly rates to cover the cost of education
at the average 4-year public college/university. (See Total Force MGIB
discussion, above.) The present monthly rate for full-time study for
active duty veterans is $1101 (Chapter 30, 38 U.S. Code), which covers
about 75 percent of the current cost of education for books, fees, and
expenses at the average 4-year public college or university according
to Dept. of Education data. The Partnership for Veterans Education has
long sought benchmarking MGIB rates to track with the average cost at a
4-year public college or university. S. 22, S. 1409 would accomplish
this objective but would use differing metrics to achieve it.
Authorize cumulative month-for-month credit under the
MGIB (Chapter 30, 38 Code) for reservists who serve on active duty in a
contingency operation. (See Total Force MGIB discussion, above).
Operational reserve policy requires Guard and Reserve members to expect
activation for 12 months at a time every 5 or 6 years. Since 9/11,
132,000+ Guard and Reserve members have been activated two or more
times. Under the ``total force MGIB'' concept sponsored by the
Partnership for Veterans Education, reservists should be able to
aggregate multiple periods of active duty for MGIB entitlement up to
the maximum allowable in law, 36 months. Currently, a Guard/Reserve
member's benefit is based on the longest single period of mobilization.
A member who has had two separate 1-year mobilizations gains no added
education benefit for the second mobilization. (H.R. 1102, S. 644, H.R.
81, S. 22)
Restore proportional parity between basic reserve MGIB
(Chapter 1606, 10 Code) rates and the active duty program. (See Total
Force MGIB discussion, above). The basic reserve MGIB rate was set at
47 percent of the active duty program in 1984 and retained that ratio
for 15 years from 1985-1999. Subsequent increases in active duty
program benefit levels, combined with static reserve benefit levels,
mean reserve MGIB rates have now dropped to less than 29 percent of the
active duty program's, at a time when Guard and Reserve recruiting is
under enormous strain. If proportional parity were restored in 1 year,
basic reserve rates for full-time study would increase from $309 to
$505 per month. Stairstep increases would lower the cost over a 3 to 5
year period. (H.R. 81)
Repeal the 14-year in-service limitation for basic
reserve benefits (Chapter 1606). As an incentive to continued service
in the National Guard and Reserve, the 14-year limit on in-service use
of basic reserve MGIB benefits should be repealed. Reservists who
remain in the Selected Reserve could use such benefits until they are
exhausted. S. 1261 and H.R. 1330 would repeal the 14-year limitation
for in-service usage. H.R. 1330 also would permit 10-years post-service
access to Chapter 1606 benefits, a provision which DoD and the
Partnership for Veterans Education oppose. To clarify, the Partnership
supports post-service use of mobilization-related GI Bill benefits, but
not for the basic reserve MGIB benefits.
Expand the scope of programs that can offer accelerated
payments under the MGIB for designated training, education, and
licensure/certification programs. The law permits accelerated payments
under the MGIB for programs leading to employment in the ``high
technology'' industry. To support veterans' readjustment and employment
opportunities, expansion of the accelerated payment authority is
needed. (S. 1293, H.R. 1824, S. 526, S. 1278)
Authorize ``buy up'' provisions for the reserve MGIB
programs. Under ``buy up,'' active duty servicemembers may invest $600
of their own money in their MGIB accounts in $20 increments to yield an
additional $150 per month in MGIB benefits above their basic
entitlement. Reservists have no such option. (S. 1293)
Extend the post-service usage period for the MGIB.
Congress wisely enacted a change in law in recent years to permit
survivors of those killed in the War on Terror to have 20 years to use
their Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance Benefits (Chapter
35, 38 U.S. Code). Veterans themselves face daunting challenges in
readjusting to civilian life. Overcoming PTSD and employment challenges
often takes years, leaving insufficient time to use the MGIB. (S. 22,
S. 1261)
Repeal the $1200 payroll reduction for active duty
service entrants. The MGIB should be an automatic entitlement for
service entrants. Federal student loan applicants obtain generous loans
with no obligation of national service and no up front costs; yet,
armed forces recruits must forego $100 per month of their first year's
pay for the privilege of serving their country. S. 723 would require
reimbursement of the payroll reduction to War on Terror servicemembers
and allow those who previously declined MGIB participation to enroll.
H.R. 81 would reimburse the pay reduction for MGIB participants who
extend their service beyond the initial MGIB qualifying contract.
Permit active duty servicemembers who entered on/after
Sept. 11, 2001 and made ``an election not to receive'' educational
benefits under the MGIB_i.e., chose to disenroll_a one-time opportunity
to enroll. Service men and women are bearing the brunt for the Nation
in the war on terror. They should not be penalized for youthful
decisions to withdraw from MGIB eligibility especially since such
decisions often were made in the face of financial debt and family
obligations during the early, stressful days of military service. S.
723
Exempt the value of MGIB benefits in the calculation of
annual gross income for the purposes of applying for federal student
loans. Veterans are disadvantaged in applying for such loans because
the value of their MGIB benefits is used against them (counted as
income) in determining the amount of federal loans they may qualify
for. H.R. 100
Allow active duty servicemembers who were eligible for
but declined enrollment in the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational
Assistance Program (VEAP) (Chap. 32, 38 Code) to enroll in the MGIB
prior to discharge/retirement. The VEAP was a low-value program that
allowed enrolled members to defer making their qualifying deposits
until they were ready to use the benefit, and many education counselors
recommended against enrollment. Congress subsequently enacted changes
in law that permitted VEAP participants to enroll in the MGIB for a
$2700 late-enrollment penalty. But those who declined participation in
the VEAP program upon entrance (often based on being told it wasn't a
good program) were never made eligible for MGIB. Currently serving men
and women who declined VEAP at service entry should be afforded the
same one-time MGIB enrollment opportunity as those who enrolled but
made no deposit.
Amend the MGIB transfer authority to permit all service
participants to transfer up to half of their entitlement to dependents
at the 12th-14th year of service in return for a reenlistment
agreement. Current law gives each Service Secretary the authority to
use ``MGIB transferability to dependents'' as a reenlistment incentive
in critical skills at the 6th year of service. Members may transfer up
to half of their unused MGIB benefit, and benefits may be accessed by
eligible dependents at the 10th year of service. MOAA has long
maintained that transferability should be used in conjunction with
career reenlistment programs, but present rules hardly favor military
families. A limited USAF test of transferability under current rules
yielded disappointing results. The Army is currently offering
transferability to family members in conjunction with a reenlistment
contract, but requires the servicemember to forfeit a substantial
portion of a cash reenlistment bonus. Not surprisingly, the number of
``takers'' has been very low to date. The law should be modified to
provide greater access to the transfer option for military families
(but only as a full-career service incentive) for members who are
motivated to provide for their spouse's or children's education. (H.R.
81)
Cover the full cost of tuition, fees, and expenses for
education and training programs at any public or private institution_a
World War II-style GI Bill. In one form or another, ``World War II-
style'' GI Bill legislation has been around for years. What's new is
that unlike the citizenry of that era, only a minute fraction of the
population--1 percent--is defending the other 99 percent in the war on
terror, a conflict which has no known conclusion. To address the
enormous strain on military recruitment and to support the readjustment
to civilian life of the few who defend the many, Congress should
consider a comprehensive GI Bill of educational benefits, recognizing
that history shows the return value to America of the WWII program (in
terms of increased productivity, increased career earnings, and
increased tax revenue realized) far exceeded the original program's
cost to the government. (S. 22, S. 1409)
Establish a stipend for living expenses associated with
full-time education/training programs. Many veterans are married with
one or more dependent children or are single parents when they separate
from military service. Economic, employment and family responsibilities
work together to discourage use of MGIB benefits. A cost of living
stipend would enable more veterans to use their earned benefits,
leading to more productive lives, higher incomes, and greater tax
revenues for the nation. (S. 22)
Permit active duty and reserve component officers who
graduated from a Service Academy or a SROTC scholarship program an
enrollment opportunity in exchange for a service extension agreement.
Officers from these commissioning programs are ineligible for the MGIB,
based on the argument that the government already funded their
bachelor's degrees. This is a short-sighted rationale, given that the
services typically require their officers to obtain advanced degrees
for promotion. Further, the Army and its reserve components are
severely understaffed in the grade of captain (03). Fill rates range
from about 50-60 percent. In addition, the Army is offering Service-
funded ``tuition assistance'' to officers in designated career fields.
Paired with the MGIB, this program would have greater potential to
reduce company grade officer shortages.
Refund the $1200 payroll reduction for active duty
servicemembers who entered service on/after Sept. 11, 2001. In
recognition of the service and sacrifice of those who continue to serve
the Nation in the war on terror, the MGIB enrollment ``tax'' on their
first year pay should be refunded. S. 723
MYTHS AND REALITIES re: the TOTAL FORCE MGIB PROPOSAL
Myth. Current MGIB benefits for activated reservists are more
generous than the ``total force'' proposal.
Reality. The Total Force Montgomery GI Bill proposal ultimately
would result in fairer and more generous benefits in two significant
ways. First, benefits earned on active duty could be used for up to 10-
years following honorable separation. That is not the case today.
Second, benefits would accrue for multiple activations. That is also
not the case today. Under current statutory interpretation, Chapter
1607, 10 U.S.C. entitlement is restricted to a single tour of active
duty. Yet, national policy calls for ``operational reservists'' to
expect to be activated for 12 months every 5 or 6 years. Reservists
also can't access their mobilization benefits after honorable service
is completed. Thus, even though it would appear that very short 90 day
activations would result in greater benefits, they come with huge
disincentives that hurt morale and don't match continued service and
sacrifice. The Total Force approach is more consistent with service
call-up policies, fairer to the active duty and reserve forces, and
ultimately more generous. The following table compares Total Force
proposal benefits to current-law benefit calculations:
6-Yr SELRES Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REAP--Chap 1607 Total Force
Chap 1606 (no change) (current) (proposed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enlistment ($11,124) NA ($11,124)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 mos. AD Call-up NA 60 percent Chap 3$1101 x 15 mos. =
$23,781** $16,515***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2d Call-up, 12 mos AD NA $0 $13,212***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chap 1606 Remainder 12 mos. 1606: $3708* $3,708*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $27,489 $33,435
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Assumes continued service in the SELRES: if all Chap. 1607 exhausted, revert to 12 mos. of any remaining Chap.
1606 entitlement. At separation, may access remaining Chap. 1606 immediately for ``length of one activation,
plus 4 months''
**All REAP entitlement forfeited at separation
***10-year post-service use of accrued REAP (only) using month-for-entitlement formula = $29,727 for full-time
study.
In short, the total force proposal tracks with operational reserve
policy and affords greater benefits consistent with the length and type
of duty performed; and, unlike REAP, allows activated reservists to
access earned benefits upon honorable completion of their service.
Myth: Allowing post-service use of the MGIB for service on active
duty by reservists would harm retention.
Reality: If the government really believed that, DoD and Congress
never would have authorized 10 years of post-service benefit use for
people who complete regular active duty service. No one argues that GI
Bill benefits entice regular servicemembers to leave service, so it
makes no sense to argue that it would have any such enticement for
Guard and Reserve members.
The Total Force MGIB proposal recognizes and rewards continued
service in the reserve forces by allowing reservists to accrue
additional MGIB entitlement under Chapter 1607 during successive call-
ups, matching benefits to service performed. Basic reserve MGIB
benefits (Chapter 1606) are available for enlistment and reenlistment.
If the retention value of the MGIB were of concern, benefit rates would
have kept pace with the 48 percent historic ratio of reserve-to-active
duty benefits. But those rates have dropped to 29 percent of active
duty rates since September 11, 2001, devaluing them for recruitment and
retention purposes. Manpower planners rely on targeted cash bonuses to
reach retention goals and these have proven to be successful for that.
Finally, the DoD's own Status of Forces Survey (2004) of Guard and
Reserve personnel indicates that ``education'' ranks far down the list
of reasons why Guard/Reserve men and women remain in service or
separate.
Myth: The MGIB overall is functioning well and ``there are no
significant shortcomings'' according to DoD.
Reality. MGIB reimbursement rates account for only 75 percent of
the cost of education at the average 4-year public college/university.
Moreover, basic reserve benefits have dropped far below their historic
ratio of 48 percent of active duty rates to 29 percent today. Finally,
``operational reservists'' have no post-service access to benefits
earned on active duty, nor may they accrue entitlement for more than
one tour of active duty. In comparison to its historic antecedents--the
WWII, Korean war, and Vietnam War era GI Bill programs--the MGIB has
not kept pace with the cost of education. Those programs generally paid
all or nearly all of the costs of education/training as a readjustment
benefit. MOAA recognizes that benefits for an All Volunteer Force
should be structured to help meet DoD manpower and quality needs as
well as effective readjustment outcomes. Thus, a MGIB that meets more
or all of the cost of education with no ($1200) payroll reduction
``tax'' would be a more effective tool for recruiters. Armed Forces
demographics in the 21st century also point to the need for a better
MGIB. That's because service men and women serve much longer tours on
average than conscript-era servicemembers did, and more than 60 percent
of separating men and women are married or have dependent children. A
MGIB that doesn't cover basic education costs increases the prospect
that veterans with economic, skill or education deficits won't take
advantage of the MGIB.
Myth. The Total Force MGIB proposal would transfer responsibility
for MGIB ``kickers'' from DoD to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Reality. Section 525 of the House-passed National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 1585) transfers the reserve MGIB programs to
title 38 and retains within the Armed Services Committees' jurisdiction
the authority to fund and oversee MGIB kickers for the active duty and
reserve forces. Under Section 525, DoD and the Services would continue
to determine eligibility for reserve MGIB programs and the VA would
continue responsibility for administration and payment of all MGIB
benefits to eligible participants. Funding responsibility would
transfer from the National Guard and Reserve Personnel Accounts to the
VA. (The VA has been responsible for active duty MGIB funding since
1984 based on Service enlistment/enrollment information.)
Conclusion
The Military Officers Association of America commends the
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity for holding this hearing on the
Montgomery GI Bill. In passing its version of the defense authorization
bill for FY2008, the House adopted a provision to recodify the reserve
MGIB programs into title 38. Importantly, the House also adopted a
``sense of the Congress'' provision that activated reservists should
have a readjustment period to use earned benefits at the completion of
their service agreement or retirement. MOAA respectfully but strongly
recommends that House leaders insist on these upgrades as essential
first steps in restructuring the MGIB for our 21st century troops and
veterans.
Prepared Statement of Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director,
Economic Commission, American Legion
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
views on Veterans' Education Benefits.
The American Legion is proud of its history in helping to pass the
Servicemen's Readjustment Act 1944, also known as the GI Bill of
Rights. The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for holding a
hearing to discuss these very important and timely issues.
The need for major enhancements of the All-Volunteer Force Education
Assistance Program, better known as the Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB)
The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military
Community and Family Policy) reported in its 2005 Demographics Report
of the military that: ``Few (4.1 percent) enlisted members (active
duty) have a Bachelor's or higher degree, while most (94.1 percent)
have a high school diploma and/or some college experience. In the past
15 years, the percent of Active Duty members who have a Bachelor's and/
or an advanced degree has decreased for officers (from 89.6 percent in
1990, to 86.2 percent in 2005) but has increased for enlisted (from 2.5
percent in 1990, to 4.1 percent in 2005).'' They continue to report
that only 7.9 percent of enlisted members of the Selected Reserve have
an advanced education above a high school diploma or GED equivalent.
Some 78 million baby boomers will begin to retire starting in 2010;
within just 10 years, 47.3 million people will be over 65. (ILO
Institute). The National Association of Manufacturers forecasts a
shortage of approximately 13 million to 15 million skilled workers by
2020. In addition, those entering the workforce have outdated or
inadequate skills for many of the high-demand jobs. In fact, around 60
percent of all new jobs in the 21st Century will require skills
possessed by only 20 percent of the existing workforce. Competent,
educated, and capable individuals must replace these people in order to
assure the United States retains its competitive edge in the world.
Veterans are these people and have a remarkable chronicle of work and
have proven their worth. It is a good financial investment to better
equip veterans and military members with a secondary education. In
turn, highly skilled veterans with advanced degrees can be emplaced in
the workforce to ensure the county's competitive edge in the global
market in the not so distant future.
Accordingly, The American Legion supports passage of major
enhancements to the current All-Volunteer Force Education Assistance
Program, better known as the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). The current
make up of the operational military force requires that adjustments be
made to support all armed forces members. The American Legion supports
legislation that will allow members of the Reserve components to earn
credits for education while mobilized, just as active-duty troops do,
and then use them after they leave military service. One of the top
priorities of any veterans' education legislation is equity and
portability of benefits. However, it is clear that the current dollar
value of benefits must be increased to meet the demands of today's
higher education fees.
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 Terrorism. 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.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has reported that in the support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF):
2.4 million deployment events;
1.6 million servicemembers have been deployed;
540,000 servicemembers have more than one deployment;
443,000 National Guard and Reservists have been deployed
to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001, for an average of 18 months per
mobilization;
Out of 540,000 servicemembers with more than one
deployment, 103,909 are members of the Reserve components;
Stop-loss (a policy that prevents troops whose enlistment
end date has arrived from leaving) has been imposed on over 50,000
troops.
The DoD considers two or more deployment events with overlapping
participation dates a single deployment. Breaks between deployments or
``dwell times'' of less than 21 days are considered to be a single
deployment.
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 components 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.
As of August 31, 2007, 275,981 troops are deployed in support of
OIF/OEF. The October 10, 2007 report indicates that 90,822 members of
the Reserve components are currently called to active duty. The DoD
states that ``At any given time, services may mobilize some units and
individuals while demobilizing others, making it possible for these
figures to either increase or decrease.''
Despite this, both the MGIB-AD and the MGIB-SR fail to meet the
actual cost of education in this country. Reserve component members
rarely served on active duty when the original educational benefits
were created. It is important that the increase in reliance on Reserve
troops is met with an equitable increase in educational benefits.
According to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 MGIB pay rates, troops who
serve on active-duty three or more years can collect up to $1,101 a
month for 36 months as full-time students totaling $39,636. Active duty
servicemembers currently have up to 10 years after their separation of
service to utilize their MGIB benefits, while members of the Selected
Reserve must forfeit ALL of the educational benefits they have earned
once they do so. It is an injustice that members of the Selected
Reserve are unable to utilize these benefits after separation.
Members of today's Selected Reserve are so busy training and
deploying that they have little time to actually use their MGIB
benefits. Their ability to use the benefits while serving is curtailed
because of repeated deployments and denied entirely once they finish
their service. This is unfair treatment for servicemembers who have
seen more combat than most MGIB-eligible veterans prior to OIF/OEF.
A January 2007 study by the National Organization of Research,
Chicago, shows just how unpredictable Reserve service can be:
``An illustrative example of this complexity is the experience
of the respondent whose public identifier is 8224. He reported
exiting the military in week 45 of 1998. He was then employed
every week from week 46 in 1998 to week 13 of 2000. He returned
to the military from week 14 of 2000 to week 29, and returned
to employment from week 30 of 2000 to week 50. He returned to
the military in week 51 of 2000, and stayed until week 12 of
2001. He was employed from weeks 13 to 44 for 2001, and then
was out of the labor force from week 45 to week 48 of 2001.
This was followed by a spell of unemployment from week 49 of
2001 to week 40 of 2002. The respondent was then out of the
labor force for 10 weeks, and then was employed from week 52 of
2002 to week 49 of 2004.''
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 18 months, the current average length of deployment since
2001, and then go to school full-time they can only receive up to a
maximum of $23,760 (FY 2008 rates) 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 complete their service contract,
they are no longer eligible for education benefits.
Under current law, members of the Reserve component face many
challenges in using the MGIB-SR benefits. Since September 11, 2001, the
utilization of the Reserve components to augment the Active Duty Force
(ADF) present 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. Decisions such as whether to enroll for a
semester, long-range planning for required courses, or whether to
finish a semester are among the challenges confronted by these
servicemembers. Problems affecting these servicemembers include accrued
student loan debt, falling behind peers in studies, and limbo status
due solely to military indecision regarding military schools, annual
training, and mobilizations.
Cpl. David Tedford Holt, a Tennessee enlisted Reservist currently
on active duty states:
``With the high operational tempo of my unit, and with that
many of our Soldiers are deployed for more than 18 months
during their initial 6-year contract with the United States
Army Reserve, it has become virtually impossible to support a
family, develop as a Soldier and member of the Army Reserve,
and obtain a 4-year degree using the GI Bill benefits that are
lost the moment the Soldier leaves the Army Reserve. While many
Soldiers enter the Army Reserve without families or financial
obligations and are thus able to attend school full-time when
not in military training, the Global War on Terrorism has
stirred the patriotism of more and more men and women who are
choosing to take a leave of absence from their jobs and
families in order to serve. These important Soldiers and
leaders are far less able to take advantage of the GI Bill
benefits that are offered to them during the term of their
enlistment, and many do not even consider using them, because
they would be forced to pay for the latter portion of their
education on their own, while returning to their jobs and
familial obligations.''
An officer that works closely with Cpl. Holt, but asked to remain
anonymous stated that, ``he had no idea that enlisted soldiers lose
their GI Bill benefits when they leave the Reserves.'' He continued to
state, ``I wonder how many officers actually know the reality of the
situation? I bet that they don't and in turn are harming their
subordinate enlisted soldiers.''
With the increased 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. The College Board, an association composed
of more than 5,200 schools, colleges, universities, and other
educational organizations, states that the average public university
student now takes 6.2 years to finish. They also report that tuition
and fees represent only a fraction of the total cost of attending
college. The overall cost (tuition, fees, room, board, books, and other
expenses) of a typical public college is about $16,400 a year. (College
Board) Due to the increase in the overall costs to attend college, The
American Legion recommends that the dollar amount of the entitlement
should be indexed to the average cost of college education including
tuition, fees, textbooks and other supplies for commuter students at an
accredited university, college or trade school for which they qualify
and that the educational cost index should be reviewed and adjusted
annually.
Department of Defense Reserve Attrition Rates
The DoD numbers of the Selected Reserve Enlisted Attrition report
released by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD
Public Affairs) contains the number of losses of the Selected Reserves
per year since 1991. The FY 2006 losses were 151,878 (18.4 percent
attrition). The American Legion has estimated previously these numbers
to be 100,000 per year, of those, 50 percent are veterans who have
obtained REAP benefits.
A closer look at the figures reveals that the total number of
enlisted servicemembers who have departed the Reserve components since
2002 is 850,750, or an average of 141,792 per year. 443,276 members of
the Reserve components have deployed in support of OIF/OEF as of August
31, 2007. We can safely assume that the significant majority (95
percent) of these Reservists served honorably on active duty for at
least 90 days, thereby earning them REAP benefits (Chapter 1607) in
addition to their MGIB--Selected Reserve (SR Chapter/1606 benefits).
Therefore, deducing that out of the 850,750 members of the Reserve
components who have departed the military since 2002, we conservatively
estimate that at least 407,474 veterans have lost earned education
benefits. Or, at least 50 percent of the force has lost earned
education benefits that could have been used to increase their earning
potential. Noting that our figures are of National Guard and Reserve
servicemembers that were deployed in support of OIF/OEF, there are
additional Reservists that were called to active duty to CONUS
(Continental United States) or deployed to other regions of the world.
Hence, our conservative estimate of 400,000 veterans losing earned
benefits is more likely than not, much greater.
The DoD reported that their attrition rates are actually equal and/
or lower in their Reserve components since the Global War on Terrorism
began. Retorts from the DoD in opposition of extending the delimiting
date for fear of harming retention are hard to explain given their
recent recruitment and retention rates.
The Department of Defense announced that it met or exceeded their
Active Duty recruiting and retention goals for FY 2007.
Active Duty Recruiting Fiscal Year 2007. All Services met or
exceeded their recruiting goals for FY 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual--End of Fiscal Year 2007 Accessions Goal Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army 80,407 80,000 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy 37,361 37,000 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Corps 35,603 35,576 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force 27,801 27,801 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Active Duty Retention. Retention remains extremely strong in the
active force with all Services having met or exceeded their aggregate
year-to-date targets. The Marine Corps surpassed its overall aggregate
reenlistment mission (110 percent) allowing them to exceed their FY07
targeted end strength by a comfortable margin. Air Force final
information is pending.''
``Reserve Forces Accessions Fiscal Year 2007. Four of the six
Reserve components met or exceeded their accession goals for FY 2007.
They are still at very high rates of recruitment.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity--YTD
Annual--End of Fiscal Year 2007 --------------------------------------------------
Accessions Goal Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard 66,652 70,000 95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve 35,734 35,505 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Reserve 10,627 10,602 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Corps Reserve 7,959 7,256 110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air National Guard 9,975 10,690 93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Reserve 7,110 6,834 104
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Reserve Retention. Losses in all Reserve components are within
acceptable limits. We expect September 2007 to continue at the current
trend. (Note: This indicator lags by 1 month)''
Respectfully, and with support of the aforementioned data, The
American Legion opposes the DoD position that extending the delimiting
date and allowing members of the Reserve components to use their
benefits after service would harm retention. Honorably serving veterans
have been placed in a financial disadvantage when trying to look for
alternative ways to pay for college. The American Legion strongly
supports measures that create portability of benefits. These measures
must also be retroactive to protect those veterans who have already
lost REAP and MGIB-SR benefits, and must occur immediately.
Recommendations For The Enhancement Of Veteran Education Benefits
1. The American Legion recommends that activated Reservists get 1
month of benefits, at the active-duty rate, for each month of
mobilization up to 36 months and there should be no delimiting date for
use of the benefits from the last date of Active or Reserve service.
2. The American Legion recommends that Congress move Montgomery
GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) from title 10, U.S.C., to title 38,
U.S.C., and that VA have administrative authority for both the MGIB and
the MGIB-SR. We recommend that the annual appropriations for the MGIB
and the MGIB-SR become one annual appropriation within the VA.
3. The American Legion supports the termination of the current
military payroll contribution ($1,200) required for enrollment in MGIB.
4. The American Legion supports eliminating the 10-year
delimiting period for veterans to use Montgomery GI Bill educational
benefits and supports legislation that would allow all Reservists and
National Guard members to use their MGIB-SR benefits for up to 10 years
after separation.
5. The American Legion supports an MGIB-SR participant
reimbursement rate adjusted for time spent on Federalization
activation, State activation, and normal service for a period not to
exceed 36 months.
6. The American Legion recommends that the dollar amount of the
entitlement should be indexed to the average cost of college education
including tuition, fees, textbooks and other supplies for commuter
students at an accredited university, college or trade school for which
they qualify and that the educational cost index should be reviewed and
adjusted annually.
7. The American Legion supports a monthly tax-free subsistence
allowance indexed for inflation as part of the educational assistance
package.
8. The American Legion believes that if a veteran enrolled in the
MGIB program acquired educational loans prior to enlisting in the Armed
Forces, MGIB benefits may be used to repay existing educational loans.
9. The American Legion supports that enrollment in the MGIB shall
be automatic upon enlistment. However, benefits will not be awarded
unless eligibility criteria have been met. If a veteran enrolled in the
MGIB becomes eligible for training and rehabilitation under Chapter 31
of title 38, U.S.C., the veteran shall not receive less educational
benefits than otherwise eligible to receive under MGIB.
10. The American Legion supports that any veteran with 6 years of
service will be qualified to transfer education entitlements upon re-
enlistment for 4 years and to amend title 38, U.S.C., to restore the
reimbursement rate for correspondence and distance learning training to
90 percent of tuition.
11. The American Legion supports the transfer of Montgomery GI
Bill benefits from veterans to their immediate family members if the
veteran elects to do so.
Accelerated Payments for MGIB
The American Legion supports granting veterans the option to
request an accelerated payment of all monthly educational benefits upon
meeting the criteria for eligibility for MGIB financial payments. The
selection of courses veterans undergo remain exclusively the decision
of the individual veteran, and all earned veterans' education benefits
should be made available to veterans in support of their endeavors.
Accelerated education payments allow veterans to achieve education
goals in the manner that they decide.
The American Legion supports the expansion of Public Law 107-103 to
include but not limited to be:
1. Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA, or
Chapter 35)
2. Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program
(VEAP, or Chapter 32)
3. Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP, or Chapter 1607)
options for some veterans.
Department of Veterans Affairs Administration of Benefits
The American Legion commends the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) Education Service and Director Keith Wilson for constantly
increasing the capacity, lowering the processing time, increasing
accuracy, introducing a web-based service, and helping veterans receive
their education benefits. As The American Legion advocates for
increased veteran education benefits, this division must always be
supported to ensure the best assistance possible.
State Approving Agencies are instrumental in the education process.
The American Legion fully supports all efforts to maintain and enhance
veterans' education benefits and recommends that State Approving
Agencies remain funded at $19 million in FY 2008.
SELECTED LEGISLATION
H.R. 1102, ``Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement Act and
Integration Act of 2007'' (The Total Force GI Bill)
The American Legion supports the Total Force GI Bill. This bill
solves many problems, most significantly the inequities of benefits of
the members of the Reserve components as compared to their full time
active duty counterparts. Servicemembers called to active service
perform duties at an equal rate to their full time counterparts and
should be treated as such. One major selling point of this proposal is
the portability of education benefits; this legislation will allow
Reservists to earn credits for education while mobilized, just as
active-duty troops do, and then use them after they leave military
service.
The Total Force MGIB plan calls on Congress to combine statutory
authority for both MGIB-AD and MGIB-SR programs under the VA (chapter
30 of title 38, U.S.C.). This would mean moving MGIB-SR and REAP
programs from the DoD (chapters 1606 and 1607 of title 10, U.S.C.) and
shifting oversight responsibility to VA.
Funding the program through appropriations to the VA for a veteran-
specific benefit would also be beneficial.
The plan also calls for simplifying MGIB benefit levels and
features into three tiers.
Tier One would be MGIB-AD. Benefits for full time students are
currently $1101 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. 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 $317 a month, or just 29 percent of MGIB-AD. Those who
enlist or re-enlist in the Selected Reserve for 6 years are eligible
for 36 months of benefits at a pro-rated amount of the active duty rate
(currently 29 percent). Increases in these benefits would be codified
so that any time Congress raises the active duty rate, Chapter 1606
benefits would go up by the same percentage increase. Eligibility for
benefits would be forfeited once they separate from service.
Tier Three would be MGIB benefits for activated Reservists, but
with changes to the Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP) that
Congress enacted in 2004. REAP can provide extra earned 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 be in receipt of
REAP benefits at a rate (40, 60 and 80 percent of the active duty
payment rate) corresponding to their length 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
separation from the Ready Reserve. 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.
A memorandum from the DoD, Office of Special Counsel (OSC) (May 22,
2007) to the Chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Veterans Affairs
Committees attempts to dissuade Congress from passing the Total Force
GI Bill. We strongly disagree. The American Legion disagrees with the
OSC finding that changing the REAP benefit calculation would be
detrimental to Reservists.
The American Legion agrees with the Veterans Advisory Committee on
Education/DoD/VA Working Group on the Total Force GI Bill proposal
recommendation and assertion that the Total Force GI Bill would benefit
veterans and aid the Armed Forces in retention and recruitment needs.
The American Legion supports the Total Force GI Bill. Enactment of
this legislation will greatly benefit veterans.
H.R. 2702, ``The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of
2007''
The American Legion has concerns regarding the eligibility
requirement of this proposed legislation. We fully support the intent
of this bill to provide additional educational benefits for full time
active duty servicemembers and those individuals who are ordered to
active duty as members of Reserve components of the Armed Forces. The
bill will also aid in the recruitment and retention of members of the
Armed Forces, and provide enhanced educational benefits more in line
with today's needs. Efforts to ensure veterans are afforded education
benefits that would include payment of tuition, books and fees as well
as a $1000 a month stipend are supported by The American Legion.
The American Legion is concerned for those veterans that complete
their tours honorably, do not serve an aggregate of 2 years, and do not
meet the other requirements of eligibility. These veterans have served
their country honorably yet are excluded from earned benefits. The
eligibility requirement as proposed by H.R. 2702 requires a
servicemember to serve an aggregate of at least 2 years of honorable
active duty service in the Armed Forces after September 10, 2001. The
bill also contains clauses for eligibility for other measures, service-
connected disabilities, pre-existing medical conditions, hardship, and
a physical or mental condition that was not characterized as a
disability and did not result from the individual's own willful
misconduct.
The American Legion fully recognizes that there are almost one
hundred thousand members of the Reserve components that have served
multiple tours and exceed the 2-year minimum requirement, but we
express that we cannot exempt benefits for those veterans that served
side by side with full time active duty members at any time. The first
rotations for OIF had servicemembers deployed for an average of 15-20
months.
The current DoD policy states: ``DoD will construct the maximum
mobilization timeframe to 1 year and the policy objective for
involuntary mobilization of Guard/Reserve units is a 1-year mobilized
to 5-year demobilized ratio.'' If these policies hold true many members
of the Reserve components would not be eligible to receive benefits
under H.R. 2702 yet they have honorably served their country in the
Armed Forces.
Equity would remedy this situation. The American Legion recommends
a month for month benefit at the full time rate proposed in the
legislation for those veterans that have served less than 2 years but
also allow them to use their benefits after completion of a service
contract. If a servicemember does serve an aggregate of 2 years, due to
multiple deployments, extensions, or enlistment in the Active Duty
Force, then they would be in receipt of the full 36 months of benefits
as proposed in H.R. 2702.
The American Legion supports the idea that all veterans be treated
equally regardless of their Reserve/National Guard status in such that
an individual who was called to duty and served honorably should not
have to remain in the Selected Reserve to use their earned benefits. As
the distinction between the active and Reserve forces continues 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 Post-9/11
Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007, which is designed to
provide educational benefits for eligible servicemembers while
incorporating the new security realities of this current open-ended
Global War on Terrorism but reiterate, the Total Force military
operation structure requires equitable benefits for time served.
H.R. 1330, ``Extend Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Time
Limit''
This bill would extend the conditional time limit for the use of
basic educational assistance by members of the Selected Reserve and
members of the Reserve components supporting contingency operations and
certain other operations to 14 years after the date on which the person
first becomes entitled to such assistance (current law) or 10 years
after the date on which the person is separated from the Selected
Reserve or Reserve component.
The American Legion supports this bill.
H.R. 2385, ``The 21st Century Bill of Rights Act of 2007''
Section 2
The American Legion objects to the ``deployed overseas''
requirement for eligibility of this program. We also object to the
limitation that this program would be unavailable to those veterans
seeking a graduate level degree.
The American Legion supports the provisions that would allow for a
transfer of the number of remaining months of education benefits (title
38, U.S.C., chapter 30, and title 10, U.S.C., chapters 1606 and 1607 to
this new proposed chapter 33 in title 38, U.S.C.)
H.R. 1211, ``The Resuming Education After Defense Service Act of 2007''
This bill makes eligible for basic educational assistance under the
MGIB a member of the Selected Reserve who (among other qualifications),
during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on
December 31, 2008, serves on active duty in the Armed Forces for one or
more periods aggregating not less than 2 years. It also entitles such
individuals to 1 month of educational assistance for each month served
on active duty and makes the amount of such assistance equivalent to
that provided for active-duty personnel who have served a minimum of 2
years of active duty. However, it does require the basic pay of
qualifying members to be reduced by $100 for each of the first 12
months of such active duty service.
The American Legion supports the aggregatory requirement; however,
any ending date of qualification should be removed. Furthermore, The
American Legion opposes any reduction in pay to enroll in a veteran
education benefit.
H.R. 112, ``GI Advanced Education in Science and Technology Act''
This bill seeks to amend title 38, U.S.C., to provide for the
payment of stipends to veterans who pursue doctoral degrees in science
and technology. This bill would allow for members of the armed services
and veterans to receive enhanced educational benefits more in line with
today's needs.
The American Legion supports this provision, however, we feel that
a monthly tax-free subsistence allowance indexed for inflation must be
part of all educational assistance packages.
Conclusion
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 Servicemen's
Readjustment Act of 1944, the ``GI Bill of Rights'' is a historic piece
of legislation, authored by Harry W. Colmery, Past National Commander
of The American Legion, that enabled millions of veterans to purchase
their first homes, attend college, obtain vocational training, and
start private businesses.
The legislation discussed today aims to better serve veterans and
ultimately assists them in financial stability. The American Legion
commends the Subcommittee for addressing these important issues. We
appreciate the opportunity to present this statement for the record and
to continue our proud history of advocating for increased educational
benefits to members of the Armed Forces.
FORCE MANPOWER IN SUPPORT OF OPERATIONS IRAQI AND ENDURING FREEDOM AS
OF AUGUST 31, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Number of
Total Members with Members with Total Number of Members
Deployment Only One More Than One Members Ever Currently
Events Deployment \1\ Deployment \2\ Deployed Deployed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Active Duty 715,122 304,329 174,805 479,134 131,643
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard 226,318 161,078 29,619 190,697 24,203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve 134,923 87,558 20,961 108,519 13,230
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Total \3\ 1,076,363 552,965 225,385 778,350 169,076
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Active Duty 406,812 177,142 94,898 272,040 37,606
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Reserve 37,158 20,521 5,821 26,342 3,699
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Total \4\ 443,970 197,663 100,719 298,382 41,305
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Active Duty 389,275 132,534 95,979 228,513 25,384
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air National Guard 113,543 28,795 28,203 56,998 2,981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Reserve 81,171 16,272 16,046 32,318 1,856
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Total \5\ 583,989 177,601 140,228 317,829 30,221
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Corps Active Duty 261,597 103,123 70,295 173,418 32,564
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Corps Reserve 31,903 25,143 3,259 28,402 2,557
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Corps Total \6\ 293,500 128,266 73,554 201,820 35,121
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoD Active Duty Total 1,772,806 717,128 435,977 1,153,105 227,197
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoD National Guard Total 339,861 189,873 57,822 247,695 27,184
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoD Reserve Total 285,155 149,494 46,087 195,581 21,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoD Total 2,397,822 1,056,495 539,886 1,596,381 275,723
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard Active Duty 3,412 2,425 411 2,836 257
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard Reserve 230 206 9 215 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard Total \7\ 3,642 2,631 420 3,051 258
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Duty Total 1,776,218 719,553 436,388 1,155,941 227,454
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Guard Total 339,861 189,873 57,822 247,695 27,184
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Total 285,385 149,700 46,096 195,796 21,343
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,401,464 1,059,126 540,306 1,599,432 275,981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Two or more deployment events with overlapping participation dates are considered a single deployment.
\2\ For purposes of counting ``deployments'' by member, location is not considered. Breaks between deployments
or ``dwell times'' of less than 21 days are considered to be a single deployment in CTS. This is done in order
to account for legitimate breaks in a deployment such as R&R or emergency leave.
\3\ Army Source: Joint Personnel Theater Database (JPTR), Deployed Theater Accountability System (DTAS) &
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) submissions for members earning Combat Zone Tax Exclusion (CZTE)
or Imminent Danger Pay (IDP).
\4\ Navy Source: Individual Tempo (ITEMPO) & DFAS submissions for members earning CZTE or IDP.
\5\ Air Force Source: Deliberate Crisis Action Planning & Execution Segment (DCAPES) & DFAS submissions for
members earning CZTE or IDP.
\6\ Marine Corps Source: Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS) Crisis File & DTAS
\7\ Coast Guard Source: DFAS submissions for members earning CZTE or IDP
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy Director,
National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE:
On behalf of the 2.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the U.S. (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you
for your invitation to testify at today's important hearing on the GI
Bill and education benefits legislation.
In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the
Serviceman's Readjustment Act known as the GI Bill of Rights. This bill
helped millions of Americans realize the American dream. Nearly 12
percent of Americans served in uniform between 1945 and 1956 and more
than 8 million returning veterans received debt-free college
educations, low-interest home mortgages and small-business loan
assistance. In 1947, half of the nation's college students were
veterans. For many, they were the first in their families to further
their education beyond high school. Today the WWII GI Bill is credited
with creating the middle class.
Subsequent wartime GI Bills were not nearly as robust as the WWII
bill. The Vietnam-era GI Bill was a scaled down version from the WWII
style bill. Despite this, nearly 6.8 million veterans out of 10.3
million eligible veterans used their benefit. Education benefits during
the Vietnam era, despite popular beliefs, dramatically aided veterans
in their transition from active duty to civilian life.
It is time for a new GI Bill. It is time to revitalize the American
dream; invest in the overall health of our slowly depleting military
force; expand the socioeconomic makeup of the military; and provide the
ONE PERCENT of our population that dons the uniform a life-changing
benefit.
The VFW has long advocated for the creation of a GI Bill for the
21st Century in the fashion of the original WWII bill. We envision:
A GI Bill that increases military recruitment efforts,
broadening the socioeconomic makeup of the military, and strengthening
our National security.
A powerful transition assistance program allowing
veterans to readjust to civilian life, improve their ability to care
for themselves and their families, and to become the leaders of
tomorrow.
A GI Bill that recognizes the sacrifices of the hundreds
of thousands of Guard and Reserve members who have served in Iraq,
Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and during Katrina.
We are not a Nation at war; we are a Nation with a military at war.
The majority of Americans have not been asked to sacrifice anywhere
near that of the seven-tenths of one percent now serving in uniform or
their families. Many troops have been to Iraq and/or Afghanistan
multiple times. Some Guard and Reserve units are serving their second
or third tours in country. Now is the time to honor their service with
a GI Bill for the 21st Century, providing them with opportunities to
become future leaders of our Nation.
Pause for one moment and consider the quality of life that WWII GI
Bill recipients passed on to their children and grandchildren. We as a
Nation need to recognize the indirect benefits our families received
thanks to the education, housing and small business investment benefits
given to the Greatest Generation.
Many in Congress have recognized the importance of these issues and
have introduced bills to improve this key program. We urge you to
examine these bills with an eye toward their enactment:
H.R. 2702, the Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2007
This legislation would enhance military strength while providing an
educational benefit that equips a generation of veterans to face the
challenges of tomorrow. The VFW has long advocated a GI Bill in the
spirit of the original WW II bill, which would cover tuition at the
highest State institution, housing, fees, books, and provide a cost-of-
living stipend. This legislation would accomplish these goals and more.
It recognizes the tens of thousands of Guard and Reserve members who
have actively served an aggregate of 24 months defending our Nation. It
lengthens the post-service usage period from 10 to 15 years from the
date of discharge and establishes a post-service benefit for the Guard
and Reserve. The VFW enthusiastically supports this bill.
H.R. 1102, Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement and
Integration Act of 2007
We support this vital legislation, which addresses the inequity
between active duty GI Bill and reserve GI Bill education benefits.
H.R. 1102 would reward Guard and Reserve members with an equitable
education benefit. For every month they serve on Active Duty, they
would receive 1 month's Active Duty GI Bill benefit, usable within 10
years from their date of discharge. This bill also eases the
administration of education benefits, simplifying U.S. Code, and giving
the Department of Veterans Affairs the responsibility of administering
the benefit as they currently do with the Active Duty GI Bill.
H.R. 2247, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007
The Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) has opened the door to higher
education for millions of Americans. This bill seeks to eliminate time
limits that often prevent servicemembers from using a life-altering
benefit when they need it the most. H.R. 2247 would eliminate the post-
service 10-year time limit for the active duty MGIB and the in-service
14-year time limit for Guard and Reservists. Time limits prevent
servicemembers from seeking training and education later in life or at
mid-career milestones. The VFW supports the lifelong career approach to
the benefit. If a servicemember has earned the benefit, why prevent
them from using it?
Many servicemembers seek education and retraining later or at mid-
career. This helps them adapt to the ever-changing economy,
transitioning from fields that may offer more job security. Also, many
younger veterans and servicemembers have family obligations that
prevent them from seeking an education early in life. The VFW supports
H.R. 2247 and the repeal of time limits on the GI Bill.
H.R. 2385, the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act of 2007
We support H.R. 2385 extending eligibility to Active Duty troops
and National Guard and Reserve members who serve an aggregate of 2
years on active duty. This bill would pay tuition, books, fees, room
and board over the course of 4 years of full-time education. It lifts
the $1,200 buy-in fee. It further exempts veterans from paying loan
fees, enhances access to low-interest loans through the Veterans
Affairs Home Loan Guaranty Loan program, and increases the cap on the
veterans' home loan program from $417,000 to $625,000. This legislation
also establishes a veteran's micro-loan program, providing no-money-
down micro loans for entrepreneurial ventures up to $100,000 and
capping interest at 2\1/2\ percent.
Ms. Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, this concludes the
VFW's testimony, I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Richard F. Weidman,
Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs,
Vietnam Veterans of America
Good afternoon, Madame Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving Vietnam
Veterans of America (VVA) the opportunity to offer our comments
regarding the GI Bill for education activities that could, if put in
place, materially enhance the lives of the men and women returning to
civilian lives from today's wars. The founding principle of Vietnam
Veterans of America is that ``Never again shall one generation of
American veterans abandon another generation.'' It is our duty as
Vietnam veterans, the last major cohort of wartime veterans prior to
today's returning veterans, to do all that we can to try and ensure
that what happened to us does not happen to them. They have earned far
better treatment than we got 35 to 40 years ago when we returned. You
now have a historic opportunity at this watershed in the history of
veterans' affairs to make a real and lasting difference for the current
generation of returnees by taking steps to meet the very real and
pressing need to update and upgrade the Montgomery GI Bill for a new
generation of veterans.
When my generation returned from Southeast Asia, the educational
benefits for which we were eligible under the GI Bill paled in
comparison to the very generous benefits our fathers and mothers
received when they came home after achieving victory in World War II.
That GI Bill, passed in 1944 with the guidance and support of World War
I veterans, helped fuel the expansion of a real middle class in
America, which led directly to an unprecedented era of economic growth
and prosperity.
A WWII veteran who desired to attend a school of higher learning
had all of his expenses paid--tuition (up to a certain ceiling), books,
fees, room and board. And GIs flocked to the schools in droves.
Fast-forward 20 years. When the GI Bill for veterans returning from
Vietnam was authorized, it was at the rate of $100 per month in toto
for all expenses, the exact rate that the benefits for Korean veterans
had stopped, a decade earlier. Clearly it was inadequate to assist many
veterans to afford any school, much less a private college.
When I returned from military service, I began a career as an
educator, serving on the teaching faculty of the Humanities Division
and as an administrator at Johnson State College in Vermont. Many
veterans found out that I was also a veteran, and came to me for
assistance with the registrar, business office, the VA Regional Office
(VARO) in White River Junction, Vermont, housing, and multiple other
problems (including just trying to ``fit in'' with a student body that
was younger and in comparison to them and what they had experienced,
naive fellow students).
A group of students, with encouragement from me, asked the
President of the college for space and Federal Work Study program funds
to start a veterans' office on campus. After one semester, we
approached the Governor with a proposal for Comprehensive Employment &
Training Act (CETA) funds. We asked for less than $40,000, but they
gave us more than $300,000, so we opened a veterans' office on every
campus in Vermont, under the title Project to Advance Veterans;
Employment (PAVE). I served as one of the founders, and chairman of the
board of this 501(c) 3 Vietnam veterans' community based organization.
The original Vermont project on campuses became one of several
prototypes for the offices created by the Veterans' Cost of Instruction
Program (VCIP), which funded such offices on campuses across America.
A man by the name of Stewart Feldman, who was then Special Advisor
to John Gardner, head of the Conference of Mayors, put together a
report on disparities in the utilization of the GI Bill for education
by Vietnam veterans. What he found was that there was a direct inverse
correlation between the cost of public higher education and utilization
of the GI Bill by Vietnam veterans. There was also a direct correlation
between the cost of public higher education and the drop out rate. In
other words, places with free tuition for public higher education at
the time, such as the California State colleges and the City University
of New York (CUNY), had very high utilization rates, and relatively low
drop-out rates. Vermont had the highest State university in-state
tuition in the Nation and the highest state college in-state tuition in
the nation, Vermont also ranked 50 out of 50 in percentage of
utilization of the GI Bill, and highest in drop-out rates as a result
of the relatively high cost.
While this report, and lobbying by the National Association of
Collegiate Veterans (NACV) (which several years later changed their
name to National Association of Concerned Veterans when their leaders
started to graduate), the amount paid by the VA for these benefits went
up substantially, but it was never enough to take the cost of public
education off of the table as a major determinant of the utilization
and completion rates. The utilization rate, and the completion rates
for Vietnam veterans never came close to that of World War II veterans,
as a result.
In the first 50 years following initial enactment in 1944, more
than twenty million veterans received further training or education as
a result of the GI Bill. Of those, 49 percent received vocational
training or on-the-job training. It enabled some 46 percent of these
men and women to attend college.
Thanks to the late G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, former Chairman of
this Committee, and the hard work of his colleagues and loyal staff
(particularly Ms. Jill Cochran), the Montgomery GI Bill was created for
a new generation of veterans. As a result of a broad coalition of
organizations there were significant increases to the amount paid by
the Montgomery GI Bill in the past decade.
While VVA testified in favor of those increases at the time, we
made it abundantly clear then and we reiterate now that VVA favors a
``back to the future'' model of educational benefits that accords this
newest generation of American veterans the same GI Bill that my
father's generation received when they came back from World War II.
Today, a veteran who returns from Southwest Asia or anywhere the
United States has a military presence in the Global War on Terror
(GWOT) receives a much-reduced stipend in comparison to that accorded
WW II veterans. That monthly amount has to pay for books, fees, and
living expenses as well as tuition. Not surprisingly, many veterans do
not avail themselves of the opportunity to further their education.
Now, Congress is considering increasing educational benefits for
the latest generation of American soldiers. All we can say is: It's
about time.
There are several bills in the Senate--S. 723, S. 1261, and S. 1719
to mention but a few--and a number in the House--H.R. 1969, H.R. 2247,
H.R. 2417, and H.R. 3082, also to name a few--that aim to enhance or
expand or otherwise improve the delivery of educational benefits to
qualified veterans. Most recognize that the educational provisions that
comprise the Montgomery GI Bill are far from adequate. Active-duty
troops must pay into the program if they think they are going to attend
an institution of higher learning when their stint in the military is
over. The benefits, however, hardly cover the basics and, we believe,
most newly minted veterans do not take advantage of this relatively
meager assistance.
VVA is on record as having endorsed the bill introduced by freshman
Senator Jim Webb on his first day in office this past January. VVA
holds that enactment of S. 22, with the addition of the provisions from
Senator Blanche Lincoln's bill to include individuals serving in the
National Guard and Reserves, (beyond being the right thing to do for
men and women who have put their lives on the line for us) is in the
nation's vested self interest on at least two counts: first, it would
train a new generation of leaders who would be freed to go as far as
their drive, discipline, intelligence and ambition takes them without
being limited by family finances; and, second, those young people
considering enlisting today need to know that America values them
enough to not only take care of their health and recovery where they
have been lessened by military service, but that the Nation has enough
confidence in them to invest in a new middle class by affording them
every opportunity to ``Be All They Can Be'' in civilian life. We
invested many tens or hundreds of thousands preparing them to be
warriors. Surely we can invest a similar amount to prepare them to be
civilians, and to help us ``Win the Peace.''
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007, S. 22,
would, if enacted into law, direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
pay ``to each individual entitled to educational assistance . . . who
is pursuing an approved program of education [funds] to meet the
expenses of such individual's subsistence, tuition, fees, and other
educational costs for pursuit of such program of education.''
Assistance would include a monthly stipend of $1,000. Now, this is a
real GI Bill.
The United States military is still the largest and arguably the
most effective training institution in America. Skills are taught
ranging from computer programming to meteorology to flying to allied
healthcare professions to language proficiency to public relations to
virtually anything that one can think of as a type of work or skill
that would be required in any facet of our society. They do what they
do very well indeed. Servicemembers are able to acquire extraordinary
proficiencies and skills even in a short military career.
Furthermore, a new GI Bill must take into account the OJT, and
other so-called not traditional classroom forms of training that is
non-credit training, whether it be for a particular skilled trade, or
entrepreneurial training offered through a Small Business Development
Center (SBDC), or other vehicle that take into account the way adults
learn in the 21st century. So flexibility must be built into the law
while protecting veterans (and the public treasury) against
unscrupulous operators who would try to secure tuition without
delivering value to the veteran.
Madame Chairwoman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee
that concludes VVA's formal statement. I welcome your comments, and
will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Again, on behalf
of VVA National President John Rowan, the VVA National Board of
Directors, and our membership, we thank you for allowing VVA to appear
here today to share our views.
Prepared Statement of Steve Francis Kime, Ph.D.,
Former Vice President (2003-2005),
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and on behalf
of the Partnership for Veterans Education
In addition to the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, five of the national presidential higher education
associations are members of the Partnership for Veterans Education, and
support the Total Force GI Bill proposal.
There has been little progress in GI Bill benefits for the Guard
and Reserve. The GI Bill has not kept pace with national military
strategy and force deployment policies. The Nation is in need of a
Total Force Montgomery GI Bill that equalizes benefits.
The evolution of Chapters 30, 1606, and 1607 has led to inequities
in educational benefits. There is confusion among veterans and
administrators.
Contemporary Adult and Continuing Education and the concept of
lifelong learning apply to the entire Total Force structure. Provisions
for accelerated payments, high-tech programs, delimiting dates, etc.
need a comprehensive new look.
The administration of the current patchwork of laws is inflexible,
needlessly cumbersome and inefficient:
Support of veteran administrators at academic
institutions is weak.
All GI Bill funding and administration belong in the
Department of Veteran Affairs where veterans are the first priority.
An outdated administrative culture dominates GI Bill
management. Veterans are micromanaged--the consequences of this
management style are high administrative costs and low morale for
Veterans.
Requirements of an inordinate amount of information,
coupled with lack of state-of-the-art computer expertise and equipment,
result in backlogs in veteran's receiving benefits.
The current management of the GI Bill needs comprehensive, ongoing
reform. The proposed Total Force GI Bill is a rare management
opportunity to reform and integrate the GI Bill to render better,
fairer educational benefits for those who have served their country.
It is time for one unified and GI Bill, administered and funded by
one Cabinet Department, to replace the patchwork that now exists. There
is a historic opportunity at hand to produce a new ``Total Force'' GI
Bill that can be seen by all to be clear, fair, well administered, and
in synchronization with national strategy and force deployment
policies.
Thank you Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and
Members of the Committee. I am here today as an educator and a veteran.
I speak on behalf of the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities in cooperation with other national higher education
associations that participate in the Partnership for Veterans'
Education.
AASCU and five national presidential higher education associations
have supported Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges in its advocacy of
education for servicemembers and veterans for a third of a century. As
members of the Partnership for Veterans' Education, they have strongly
supported improvements to the GI Bill and support the Total Force GI
Bill proposal. My testimony today is similar to the testimony I
provided to the Full Committee on March 22, 2006.
The higher education associations in the Partnership for Veterans'
Education include the American Association of Community Colleges
(AACC), the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers (AACRAO), the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the American Council on Education
(ACE), the National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities (NAICU), the National Association of State Approving
Agencies (NASAA), the National Association of State Universities and
Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), and Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges
(SOC).
Thank you for considering improvements to MGIB. They are much
needed and long overdue--especially for our National Guard and Reserve
servicemembers.
Thousands of Guard and Reserve servicemembers, many of them college
students or aspiring students, are serving on active duty without fair
access to GI Bill benefits commensurate with their service. The fact is
that the GI Bill has not kept pace with national military strategy and
force deployment policies.
Our nation's active duty National Guard and Reserve forces are
operationally integrated under the Total Force policy but their
educational benefits are not structured equitably. Our Nation needs a
Total Force MGIB.
AASCU and the Partnership support a Total Force MGIB that will:
Benchmark MGIB to the cost of attendance at public 4-year
institutions. While Congress has attempted to keep pace with college
costs in regards to benefits, for this school year, Chapter 30 benefits
will cover approximately 75 percent of the cost of attendance at the
average 4-year public institution.
For this school year the projected average cost of attendance
at a 4-year institution is $13,145, while the benefit is
$9,909.
Consolidate active duty and reserve MGIB programs in
title 38 and align benefit rates with type of length of service.
Close the growing benefit gap between chapter 1606--the
Reserve MGIB--and the active duty program.
Transfer chapter 1607 to title 38 and adjust the rate
formula to provide 1 month of active duty benefits under Chapter 30 for
every month mobilized.
Authorize the use of reserve MGIB benefits earned during
a mobilization for a period of 10 years after leaving service--equal to
current portability for active duty members.
In addition, we need to address other inequities and administrative
issues that affect our veteran-students:
1. Other inequities in educational benefits:
The MGIB and MGIB-SR do not pay for the same training. They
should.
Attempts have been made, with mixed results, to adjust the
various versions of the active duty GI Bill to contemporary Adult and
Continuing Education and the concept of lifelong learning. These modern
trends in higher education apply to all servicemembers in the Total
Force structure. Provisions for accelerated payment, high-tech
programs, delimiting dates, etc. need a fresh, comprehensive new look
in a single GI Bill that has appropriate access for all types of
servicemembers.
2. There is confusion among veterans and administrators.
Understandable confusion exists concerning the relationship
between the kind of service rendered and educational benefit provided
by current legislation.
The three ``tiers'' in the Total Force GI Bill concept
clearly and fairly provide educational benefits commensurate with kind
of military service rendered.
3. The administration of the current patchwork of laws is
inflexible, needlessly cumbersome and inefficient:
Support of veteran administrators at academic institutions is
weak. Veterans benefit from the strongest possible counseling and
administrative structure at the academic institution level. The Veteran
Educational Opportunity Program, funded by the Department of Education,
helped support veteran administrators at colleges but was allowed to
lapse a decade ago. The fee that is paid for veteran certifications
($7) has not been updated since the seventies. Veteran administrators
on campuses are partners and, with stronger support, can improve the
veteran's educational experience as well as the administration of the
GI Bill.
Government structure has changed since the original GI Bill:
there are now two Cabinet-level Departments. Strategy, war fighting and
maintenance of a combat-ready force rightly occupy the Department of
Defense. GI Bill funding and administration belong, under title 38, in
the Department of Veteran Affairs where veterans are the first
priority.
An outdated administrative culture dominates GI Bill
management. Veterans are micromanaged with consequences that result in
low morale among veterans and high administrative costs that probably
exceed the dollar costs of their benefit.
Requirements of an inordinate amount of information, coupled
with a lack of state-of-the-art computer expertise and equipment,
causes major backlogs in veterans receiving their earned benefits.
The current management of the GI Bill needs comprehensive, ongoing
reform. Consolidation and clarification of current laws could serve as
a basis for management reform and simplification. The proposed Total
Force GI Bill is a rare management opportunity to reform and integrate
the GI Bill to render better, fairer educational benefits for those who
have served their country.
It is time for one unified GI Bill, administered and funded by one
Cabinet Department, to replace the patchwork that now exists. There is
an historic opportunity at hand to produce a new ``Total Force'' GI
Bill that can be seen by all to be clear, fair, well administered, and
in synchronization with national strategy and force deployment
policies.
Prepared Statement of David A. Guzman, Legislative Director,
National Association of Veterans Program Administrators
Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the
Subcommittee, you honor us by inviting NAVPA to testify here today on
behalf of America's most important resource, the American
Servicemember, past and present, who preserve the freedoms we so much
enjoy though their selfless contributions to this great nation.
For the past several years NAVPA has developed a legislative agenda
outlining the many program enhancements to veterans' educational
benefits that we see as necessary in order for veterans to keep pace
with the ever increasing need for an educated workforce. We have long
touted the concept that the school certifying official is at the
business end of VA educational programs
The delivery of veterans promised benefits have fallen short or at
best have been diluted by the concept that we must ``PAY-GO'', that is,
find off-sets to pay for these education benefits.
Our government has a history of finding dollars for the bullets and
bombs, but when it comes time for bandages and band-aids we seem to
limit our liability. Veterans deserve better. NAVPA has proposed that
appropriations for war contain a set-aside for medicine and benefits
for when the servicemember returns and becomes one of our veterans of
war.
NAVPA fully supports the Total Force GI Bill proposal. We would
like to see an equitable education program for all veterans for all
periods of active service, especially for those who put their life on
the line in combat. The National Guard and Reservists are pulling their
share of active deployments yet their educational benefits lag well
behind the active duty Montgomery GI Bill (Ch 30) benefits. They fight
alongside their fellow active duty companion yet receive much less in
compensation.
NAVPA advocates administrative-like changes to the MGIB that would
expand the student work-study program, clean up the financial aid
dilemma that includes MGIB benefits in the financial aid formula and
excludes many veterans in need from receiving federal financial
assistance when needed. We advocate the elimination of the 10-year
delimiting date in favor of the lifelong learning concept, and urge the
VA to embrace electronic processing for all claims, all programs of
education, for all veterans and their dependents.
We also advocate for the combat veterans who receive general
discharges under honorable conditions who currently are denied benefits
although they have paid into the MGIB. Perhaps if this small group of
veterans were able to receive education or training under the MGIB they
too would become better citizens, gain meaningful employment and
contribute to society in a positive manner. These veterans do receive
other VA benefits, services and medical benefits.
NAVPA also would like to see an increase in compensation for
schools and businesses that administer veterans education and training
programs. When the Vietnam Era GI Bill was in existence the schools
were responsible for the administration of two VA educational programs;
today they are responsible for the accurate administration of 7 major
education programs and 4 others which are either pilot, test, hostage
relief or restored entitlement, bringing the total to 11 programs, with
no change in the $7.00 per student compensation in over 25 years. The
result is that Schools are slowly eliminating the stand-alone office of
veterans' affairs and placing enrollment certification responsibilities
in other offices with additional duties lessening training
opportunities and placing a burden on the program administrator to
maintain compliance with federal and state laws resulting in lessening
of the service to our veterans. The program should include full funding
not only for the veteran but also for the administration of the many
veterans' educational programs at all levels from the Department of
Veterans Affairs to the school or agency administering the programs.
Veterans' educational benefits, be they active duty benefits,
benefits for guard and reservists, vocational rehabilitation, OJT and
apprenticeship or survivors' benefits, actually cost little to nothing
to the American citizen because, as history has proven, the return on
investment will pay back up to sevenfold. Legislation for veterans'
education and training must continue to adjust to fit changes in
America's society.
An educated society is less likely to be involved in crime, will
pay taxes, buy a home and contribute to the community. To me it is a no
brainer to upgrade the education and training opportunities of our
servicemembers and veterans and give them a meaningful benefit that
will, in turn, be right for America and the right thing to do for our
veterans.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify. Although I have
distributed the NAVPA Legislative Agenda for 2007, which I mentioned
earlier, to Members of Congress during my February 2007 visit, I will
leave two copies for this Committee.
I now stand ready for any questions you may have. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Charles Rowe, President,
National Association of State Approving Agencies, and Chief, State
Approving Agencies, New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs
Introduction
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of
the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am pleased to appear before
you today on behalf of the National Association of State Approving
Agencies (NASAA) to provide NASAA's view on the current state of the
MGIB-AD and MGIB-SR, to make recommendations to update the MGIB, and to
recommend possible legislation to be considered by the Subcommittee.
Remarks:
1. Current State of the MGIB-AD
The fundamentals of the active duty GI Bill remain essentially
sound. The recent changes allowing flexibility in MGIB utilization for
accelerated payments and payments for Licensing and Certification have
been viewed positively by benefit recipients, and annual COLA
readjustments are important in the effort to keep pace with the rising
cost of an education.
Of course, it is widely known that the cost of an education in this
country has out stripped the inflation rate by a wide margin for a
number of years, and as a result the educational benefits provided to
our MGIB recipients under its various Chapters continue to fall far
short of actually paying for all of a college education, and in fact
are paying for an increasing smaller and smaller percentage of that
education.
We find it very unfortunate that the increased benefits rates for
Apprenticeships and Other On-the-Job Training (OJT) are being allowed
to lapse back to their previous rates on the first of the year in 2008.
The increased rates of 85 percent for the first six (6) months, 65
percent for the next six (6) months, and 45 percent for the remainder
of the training was viewed as a good step toward equity with those
veterans who are receiving benefits because they are able to choose
either educational or vocational objectives at Institutes of Higher
Learning or Non-College Degree programs.
The return to a lower reimbursement rate for those in the OJT and
Apprenticeship programs will mark the first time most of us have had
the experience of watching an MGIB benefit decrease, and we know, by
way of feedback from the field, that this benefit reduction is not
being greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm.
Additionally, from NASAA's perspective, we remain convinced that
the members of active military who choose to use the MGIB while still
in the active service should not be penalized by the having the
entitlement reduction calculations made differently from those eligible
veterans who have already left the service.
The speed of benefit payment for benefit recipients enrolled in
schools, particularly after the initial waiting period for the first
semester, seems to have improved because of the implementation of
VAONCE.
At the same time the delays encountered for the payments of
benefits to those benefit recipients receiving either Apprenticeship or
OJT remain exceeding slow. The initial wait for OJT benefits, for
instance, is routinely in the six (6) to eight (8) month timeframe.
As an example many Police Officers will receive their first benefit
check while still attending an eight (8) week academy, while the same
veteran easily waits six (6) months before receiving his or her first
request for hours worked under OJT or Apprenticeship.
2. Current State of the MGIB-SR
As you know, the MGIB-SR (Chapter 1606) had traditionally been pro-
rated to the MGIB-AD (Chapter 30). The SR rate was historically about
47 percent of the benefit amount paid to the AD component. Ironically,
about the same time the rates for AD and SR became decoupled, and the
SR payment rates decreased to its historical low of about 29 percent,
roughly where it remains today, the operational tempo for the Selected
Reserve component increased to its historical high, roughly where it
also remains today.
This decoupling of the historical benefit ratios between AD and SR
benefits took place because the two sides of the MGIB, AD and SR, are
respectively located in two different titles of the U.S. Code, title 38
for the AD component, and title 10 for the SR component.
The effort to redress this decreased benefit and increased usage of
the SR component resulted in REAP, the Reserve Educational Assistance
Program, or Chapter 1607 by which it is also known. REAP has been well
received, but continues to have its own issues. The first of these is
that in some parts of the country REAP is either not widely known and/
or not widely understood by the Selected Reservists themselves.
Additionally, as currently constructed, the REAP benefit ceases as
soon as the member leaves the service, even after honorably completing
his or her six (6) years of obligated service. Moreover, even members
of the Guard or Reservists who have successfully completed an entire
career in their respective service, and who may have recently been
deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan find it shocking when they are
informed that they do not have educational benefits due them when they
retire. More frequently they are denied educational benefits they were
lead to believe they had, when they first apply to the VA for those
education benefits.
The experience of our members in NASAA has been that the Selected
Reserve members themselves generally have a poor understanding of the
MGIB-SR benefits that they actually have, and most of the time they
thought the educational benefits were significantly more than they
turned out to be, and a large portion of them were completely unaware
of the reality that their educational benefits were entirely lost when
they finished their obligation, particularly surprised are those who
retire after a career of service.
Another unpleasant surprise for members of the Guard and Reservists
returning from a second overseas deployment is that REAP, as currently
configured, provides the educational benefit for the longest of the two
(2) deployments, and is not based on the cumulative sum of months
deployed, which effectively guarantees that for educational benefit
purposes, one of the deployments, ``doesn't count.''
Finally, the requirement for the DoD and VA to interact on
eligibility issues, and the fact that the St. Louis RPO is responsible
for handling the Chapter 1606 and Chapter 1607 benefit payments for
Flight Training, Correspondence programs, Apprenticeship and Other On-
the-Job Training (OJT) adds another level of complexity and delay to a
system already stressed.
3. Recommendations to Update the MGIB
NASAA stands 100 percent behind the concept of a ``Total Force GI
Bill'' and that issue is, and has been for some time, the #1 item on
NASAA's Legislative Agenda (attached). As stated in our Legislative
Agenda, ``Replace Chapters 30, 1606 and 1607 with A TOTAL FORCE GI
BILL. This would provide MGIB reimbursement rate levels based on an
individual's service in the Armed Forces, including the National Guard
and Reserve.
There are number of excellent reasons to adopt the concept of a
Total Force GI Bill:
1. Portability--The dramatically increased, and ever-increasing,
utilization of the Selected Reserve component of our Armed Services led
to the creation of the REAP benefit. That in turn has had two (2)
unintended, but nonetheless, adverse consequences for SR component
members entitled to both Chapter 1606 and Chapter 1607 benefits.
The first is that a member of the Guard who knows his or her
unit is due for deployment will refrain from using his Chapter 1606
benefits while he or she is drilling, and might otherwise have been in
a position to use his or her benefits, because he or she knows that if
(s)he gets deployed (s)he will not be able to finish his or her
studies, and may even be forced to withdraw during the semester
resulting in an overpayment issue.
The second is that he or she may decide instead to wait to
attend school, based on the notion that his/her educational benefits
will increase as a result of his/her deployment. Unfortunately, when
(s)he returns and finally has the opportunity to use those Chapter 1607
benefits, in many cases, (s)he finds out that those increased
educational benefits aren't available because, either through
completion of obligation or retirement, he or she is no longer
drilling.
The Total Force GI Bill resolves these issues because of its
feature that replaces Chapter 1607 with its month of educational
benefit for month of active service and portability provisions.
2. Fairness--The common notions of fairness require equal benefit
for equal service. The concept of having educational benefits
commensurate with sacrifice is at the heart of our preferred update to
the MGIB, the Total Force GI Bill.
At a time when the Selected Reservists are asked to sacrifice
like never before, to risk life and limb in the same arduous and
hostile environments as the active forces, there is no realistic way to
defend the current MGIB's benefit discrepancies to the those warriors
who have served together on those dangerous deployments.
As discussed above, many of the SR members actually assume
that equity is built into the MGIB, and are gravely disappointed when
they discover that the current complex system is really three (3)
separate Chapters which reward service at varying, seemingly arbitrary
levels.
In many cases the educational benefits are simply
incomprehensible to them.
a. For instance, should a member of the Guard receive the same
benefit for 91 days or 364 days of service?
b. If he or she is lucky enough to have been deployed for 366
days, should his or her educational benefits be increased by 50 percent
(40 percent to 60 percent) for those 2 extra days?
c. Should one Selected Reservist miss out on educational
benefits because that member has only 6 months of obligated service
left? While at the same time another member of the same unit who was
deployed with him or her and who has four (4) years of obligated
service remaining will receive those educational benefits.
d. Should a Master Sergeant with decades of service, and
multiple deployments find out either just before he or she retires, or
soon thereafter that (s)he has absolutely no educational benefit
whatsoever, after all of that dedicated and dangerous service to our
country?
The Total Force GI Bill resolves these issues because of its
feature that replaces Chapter 1607 with its month of educational
benefit for month of active service and portability provisions.
3. Administration--The complexities in the administration of the
various Chapters of the MGIB are legendary. The current configuration
of the MGIB which forces endless interactions between DoD and the VA,
with separate, and often incompatible, IT support systems unnecessarily
places burdens on all parties reliant on the in-place administrative
architecture of the MGIB.
The Total Force GI Bill by shifting most responsibilities
into title 38, by recommending state of the art and integrated IT
systems, by recommending simplified educational benefit and payment
schemes, by streamlining claims processing, and by reducing
administrative redundancies the actual understanding of and payment of
benefits will be simplified.
4. Legislative Action
NASAA feels strongly that the hard won increase of benefits
which were provided to those utilizing the Apprenticeship and OJT
benefits, which increased to monthly benefit rate by 10 percent across
the board, should not be allowed to lapse. We strongly support any
legislation which would seek to prevent that drop in the benefit rate.
We believe that a host of irregularities which arise under in
the current MGIB educational benefit structure will only be solved by
adopting the new structure provided by the Total Force GI Bill. The
three (3) separate MGIB Chapters 30, 1606, 1607 at various times
control and/or conflict when determining payment to an eligible benefit
recipient.
For instance, a veteran who has not used any of his or her
educational benefits, and who is now also an active reservist, and has
just returned from deployment, faces a series of decisions regarding
how and when to use which of his or her available educational benefits.
The complexities and lack of understanding regarding these various
options is staggering, and as a result the entire system is not being
served well.
It is NASAA's position that key to resolving a constellation
of troublesome issues, is to place the MGIB-AD and MGIB-SR into title
38, U.S.C. This one move will then force the real integration of the
MGIB to reflect the actual integration which has already taken place
within the Armed Services. We fully support any legislation which seeks
to accomplish that goal.
Summary
NASAA wholeheartedly supports the Total Force GI Bill. We believe
the events have overtaken the original 1985 edition of the MGIB. Our
experiences today are leading us strongly to the conclusion that a
major overhaul of the MGIB is now overdue.
Once the Selected Reservists were seen as part of the total force
structure, and certainly once they started being utilized as an
integral part of a total force which has been our collective experience
for over six (6) years now, then surely it is time for a GI Bill which
reflects the concept of the total force, a Total Force GI Bill.
Closing
In closing, Mrs. Chairwoman, I would like to thank you for
providing me with the opportunity to present NASAA's views on these
vital issues. Thank you also for efforts that you and your Committee
have been putting forth to improve to the educational and training
benefits for those who wear the uniform of this nation's military. I
would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
__________
Legislative Agenda
Adopted By the Association July 19, 2006
Major Recommendations
1. Recommendation--Replace Chapters 30, 1606 and 1607 with a Total
Force GI Bill. This Bill would provide MGIB reimbursement rate
levels based on an individual's service in the Armed Forces,
including the National Guard and Reserve.
A. The first tier--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 AD Rate.
B. The second tier or level would be for all who enlist or re-
enlist in the Selected Reserve (SelRes) for 6 years, and 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 percent.)
C. The third tier 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 of activation, up
to a total of 36 months, at the active duty rate. These months of full
benefits would replace, month-for-month, any SelRes entitlements at the
second tier. The maximum benefit a member of the SelRes could receive
under this provision would be the equivalent of 36 months at the active
duty rate. (Note: Maximum benefit is without consideration to multiple
entitlements.)
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.
All provisions (e.g. additional contributions), and
programs (e.g. accelerated payments, approved test fee reimbursement,
etc.) 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 and 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 U.S.C. 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 the second week of September '01.
2. Recommendation--Continue to expand the readjustment purpose of the
Veterans' educational assistance programs to permit continuous
training, retraining, re-licensing and enrollment in skill
improvement courses. For example, revise Section 3452(c) of
Title 38, U.S. Code to provide for the use of VA educational
assistance benefits for enrollment in any unit course or
subject, or combination of courses or subjects (title 38
terminology) necessary to obtain, maintain, or advance in a
profession or vocation.
Rationale: In today's society the concept of lifelong learning
has risen to a new level of importance. Very few occupations or
professions remain static; there is the constant requirement for
workers to upgrade their knowledge and skills in order to remain
competitive. The current educational earned benefit programs for
veterans and other eligible persons generally require the VA
beneficiary to be enrolled in a full-scale program of education; i.e.,
one that leads to a traditional degree, diploma or certificate.
Although recent legislation provides more flexibility, there is still
the need to permit even greater use of benefits for enrollment in
short-term learning experiences that will help a veteran to maintain a
level of expertise commensurate with the ongoing demands of their
chosen occupation or profession. A key phrase that expresses the intent
of this recommendation already is embedded in law--education and
training that qualifies the eligible person ``to enter into, maintain
or advance in employment in a predetermined and identified vocation or
profession''.
As stated, the law already provides for limited use of
benefits for course(s) ``to fulfill requirements for the attainment of
a license or certificate . . . in a high technology occupation''. The
specific example expands the provision to all professions and
vocations/occupations; recognizes that a single unit course or subject
may be all that a veteran needs to obtain, maintain, or advance in a
profession or vocation; and, provides for the use of benefits while
enrolled in a subject or a combination of subjects without requiring a
connection to a license or certificate.
3. Recommendation--Continue the rate of educational assistance
benefits currently in place for veterans enrolled in
Apprenticeship and other On-the-Job Training programs.
Rationale: The law was changed, effective October 1, 2005, to
increase the rate of benefits received by veterans and other eligible
persons who are enrolled in apprenticeship and OJT programs. The rate
is now 85 percent of the full time institutional rate for the first 6
months, 65 percent for the second 6 months of training and then 45
percent for the third and any succeeding period of time. This increase
is for a limited period of time--it expires on September 30 of 2007. It
is too early to know for sure, but early indications are that the
increases have had a positive effect on the ability of veterans to use
this way of gaining knowledge and skills for the occupations or
professions of their choice. In combination with extensive outreach
activities, there has been a 39.9 percent increase in the number of
approved and active training establishments from 1997 to 2003, and a
53.8 percent increase in the number of program approval actions at job
training establishments from 1997 to 2005. We anticipate continual
growth in the use of job training programs.
Legislative Agenda, Part 2--Other Recommendations
Adopted By the Association July 19, 2006 (unless otherwise noted)
4. Recommendation--Rescind $1200 pay reduction for MGIB, Chapter 30,
eligibility.
Rationale: This requirement for MGIB eligibility is not
consistent with the true intent of a grateful Nation to provide a GI
Bill to those who serve in its defense. It also is not consistent with
most past GI Bills that we have enacted. It is time to rescind this
requirement.
5. Recommendation--Provide an ``open window'' to Chapter 32 period
servicemembers to enroll in the MGIB and for other active duty
servicemembers to withdraw their election to not enroll in the
MGIB.
Rationale: There are still many servicemembers on active duty
who did not participate in or who withdrew their contributions to the
Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). Equally important is
the fact that some other active duty servicemembers are not eligible
for the MGIB. Many of these have served and will continue to serve ``on
the frontlines'' in the defense of our Nation. All current
servicemembers should have access to the same education and training
opportunities as their counterparts who are eligible for benefits under
Chapter 30.
6. Recommendation--Revise the method by which entitlement is charged
to servicemembers who use their GI Bill while serving on active
duty so that the charge is the same as that applied to all
other VA benefit eligible persons.
Rationale: Servicemembers who use their GI Bill while serving
on active duty should not be penalized for doing so. Current law
reduces the servicemember's entitlement 1 month for each month of
enrollment regardless of the rate of pursuit and benefits received. We
believe that this practice is totally unfair and unjustifiable.
7. Recommendation--Revise Section 3014A to allow accelerated payment
of basic educational assistance for education leading to
employment in industries other than ``high technology'' and
place limitations on the length of such programs for use of the
provision. Additionally, revise the section to allow the VA to
use only the MGIB ``base rate'' as the basis for the
accelerated payment 200 percent calculation, not the base rate
plus ``kickers'', optional contributions, etc., as currently
factored into the ``otherwise payable benefit''.
Rationale: Even with the recent increases in the monthly
benefit amount, some veterans find it cost prohibitive to enroll in an
institutional program that will provide the knowledge and skills
necessary for them to reach their occupational or professional
objective. Removing the current restriction that requires enrollment in
a program that leads to employment in a high technology industry would
allow greater opportunities for more veterans to use their GI Bill
benefits. Additionally, revise the law to limit the length of a program
that qualifies for accelerated payment to 2 years. The discussions that
led up to the enactment of the original legislation centered on short
term high technology courses. The language that was enacted does not
impose any limitations on length, therefore all high technology
programs, including many 4 year degree programs, qualify.
The recommendation regarding the use of the ``base rate'' is
offered because veterans who take advantage of the $600.00 buy-in, are
34/30 conversions, have kickers, or any combination of these programs
can be penalized by having their additional monthly payment amount
disqualify them for accelerated payment under the current calculation
method.
8. Recommendation--Revise the period of operation (two year) rule to
exempt certain non-degree programs. The programs would be ones
that are offered by (1) an accredited, degree granting,
proprietary for profit or not for profit educational
institution or (2) a degree offering branch of such
institutions when the institution has at least one degree
program already approved for GI Bill purposes.
Rationale: The intent of Congress when it revised the period
of operation rule in 1996 can be found in several documents issued
during 1995 and 1996. The following excerpt taken from the Explanatory
Statement on S. 1711, As Amended, summarizes that intent. ``Section 201
of H.R. 3673 would: (a) remove the two year rule restriction on all
degree granting institutions, including branch campuses (but not on
non-degree granting institutions) . . .'' Changing the rule in
accordance with the Recommendation would affect branch locations since
in most, if not all, cases the parent campus will have been in
operation for two years before attaining accreditation. The change also
would be consistent with the determinations that already have been made
about the quality and integrity of the degree programs offered by the
institution and the capacity of the institution to fulfill its
commitment to students.
9. Recommendation--Revise certain sections of Title 38, U.S. Code
that pertain to Correspondence courses; specifically Section
3672(e) by reducing the six month requirement to complete the
program or course to three months, Section 3686(a)(1) by
increasing the educational assistance allowance payable from 55
percent to 60 percent of reimbursable costs, and Section
3686(b) by reducing the ten day enrollment affirmation period
to five days.
Rationale: The law governing the administration of
correspondence courses was written in a time before there was
widespread use of computers and the internet. Technology is such today
that it provides instantaneous interaction between the student and
instructor. The need to ensure that ample time for ``mail to arrive''
is no longer a factor. A five day affirmation period and a three month
learning experience are both supported by communication standards of
the day and in line with the changing learning environments of the 21st
Century. Condensed, short term programs of education are offered by
various institutions and can fulfill the needs of many veterans as they
pursue their occupational or professional goals.
10. Recommendation--Revise Section 3680A(a)(4) by adding a new
subpart, ``or (C) remedial or deficiency courses required by an
accredited institution of higher learning for entrance into one
of their approved postsecondary programs of education''.
Rationale: The law currently provides for the payment of VA
educational assistance benefits for enrollment in remedial and
deficiency courses required for successful entrance and completion of a
degree, diploma or certificate program of education if required by the
postsecondary educational institution in which the veteran is seeking
to enroll. These types of courses are currently offered by
postsecondary institutions as a traditional classroom experience or
through technology as online education. This change would provide
veterans with opportunities to use their benefits when enrolled in
either delivery mode; online course enrollments are currently
prohibited.
11. Recommendation--Revise Section 16162(c)(3) of Chapter 1607 of
title 10, U.S. Code to eliminate the further reduction of
benefits for veterans enrolled in flight training and
correspondence programs by including the word ``not'' in the
last phrase of the sentence which constitutes the section. [``.
. . that rate shall not be further adjusted by the applicable
percent specified in paragraph (4).''] (This recommendation
accepted September 14, 2006)
Rationale: Under the current wording of the law, a member of
the Selected Reserve who is activated and qualifies for the Chapter
1607 program would receive less in GI Bill benefits for flight and
correspondence programs than a Chapter 1606 eligible member who is not
activated. This is due to the multiple calculations required by Section
16162(c)(3) of Chapter 1607 of title 10. At a minimum, the law should
be revised to the extent that it provides at least the same level of
benefits to a chapter 1607 eligible person as it does for those who
qualify for chapter 1606.
12. Recommendation--Remove veterans' educational assistance benefits
from all calculations for determining eligibility for title IV,
Student Financial Aid.
Rationale: GI Bill benefits are intended to be an entitlement
to which all who serve in the Armed Forces of our Nation are eligible.
Moreover, it has always been the intent of Congress that the GI Bill be
the premier program in our Nation to help our citizens to further their
education and training. Inclusion of GI Bill benefits in any formula
for determining the amount of student financial aid available under
other federal programs is not consistent with these goals nor the
sacrifices made by those who protect the freedoms that we all so
thoroughly enjoy.
13. Recommendation--Reinstate the Veterans Education Outreach Program.
Rationale: For many years the Veterans Education Outreach
Program (VEOP) and its predecessor, the Veterans Cost of Instruction
Program, were very successful in reaching out and providing assistance
to veterans. A campus-based program, VEOP helped to inspire and build
confidence in those who were hesitant to use their GI Bill educational
assistance benefits. External services ranged from general outreach
activities such as public service announcements and the production of
information documents to participation in local and statewide career
fairs. Internal services included career and personal counseling and
assistance with the completion of documents associated with the
enrollment in a program of education as well as those for the GI Bill
benefits for which the veteran was entitled. The Montgomery GI Bill has
been in existence since 1985 and although veterans have $1,200 of their
own money invested, usage of the program remains relatively low. It is
time for this once proven effective program to be reinstated with
appropriate provisions to ensure its success within the context of its
intended purpose so as to maximize the opportunities for cooperation
between and contributions by educational institutions, the Department
of Veterans Affairs and State Approving Agencies.
Prepared Statement of Allison Jones, Member,
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance
U.S. Department of Education, and Assistant Vice Chancellor for
Accademic Affairs, California State University System
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Members of the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity:
On behalf of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance
(Advisory Committee) Chairperson, Judith Flink, and other Committee
Members, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the
Montgomery GI Bill education benefits (MGIB) and title IV federal
financial aid. My name is Allison Jones, and I am testifying as a
member of the Advisory Committee. As Assistant Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, Student Academic Support for the California State
University System, I am also involved in the California Troops to
College initiative and an ardent supporter of efforts to increase
veterans' access to postsecondary education.
The Advisory Committee was authorized by Congress in the 1986
amendments to the Higher Education Act. For more than 20 years, we have
provided independent and objective advice and counsel to Congress and
the Secretary of Education on federal student aid policy. Our most
important legislative charge is to make recommendations that maintain
and improve college access and persistence for low- and moderate-income
students. In fulfilling that charge, we have played an active role in
keeping federal, state, and institutional student aid policy focused on
access and persistence, thereby protecting the best interests of our
Nation's low- and moderate-income students. Although we have
traditionally worked most closely with the House Committee on Education
and Labor and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, we appreciate this opportunity to share our knowledge of
financial aid programs with you and your Subcommittee in order to
assist our Nation's veterans.
Your letter requests that testimony be offered in the following
three areas:
the current state of the MGIB for Active Duty and
Selected Reserve,
recommendations to update the MGIB,
legislative action that might be considered by your
Subcommittee in relation to title IV.
Given the Advisory Committee's previous work and expertise in
federal student aid, my testimony will be limited to your third
request: legislative action that might be considered in relation to
title IV. More specifically, I will explain the interaction between the
MGIB and title IV federal student financial aid programs. The question
I will be addressing is whether MGIB restricts in any way eligibility
for need-based title IV student aid. I would note that my statements
are not directed at whether MGIB education benefits are an adequate
reward for the service of our brave men and women.
Background
Students receive financial aid from various sources, including the
federal government (i.e., Pell grant, campus-based aid, federal student
loans), State governments, institutions, and private sources. In 2005-
06, nearly $135 billion dollars of financial aid from all sources was
distributed to students.\1\ The federal government represents the
largest share of student aid from all sources, approximately 70
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ College Board. 2006. Trends in Student Aid 2005-06. Washington,
DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there are various sources and types of aid, my testimony
will focus on the relationship between the MGIB and need-based title IV
aid, including Pell grants, loans, and campus-based aid. My testimony
is based on four sources: the knowledge and experience of our members;
a review of guidelines and regulations published by the Office of
Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education; discussions with
financial aid administrators across the country; and an analysis of the
2002 Government Accountability Office report on Veterans' education
benefits.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Government Accountability Office. 2002. Veterans Education
Benefits: Comparison of Federal Assistance Awarded to Veteran and
Nonveteran Students. Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of MGIB on Title IV Student Aid
A student's eligibility for need-based federal aid depends on his
or her ability to contribute to college expenses--the expected family
contribution (EFC). To determine EFC, the Department of Education (ED)
requires financial aid applicants to submit the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid, commonly referred to as the FAFSA. This form
requests information on the previous year's income, taxes, and assets
(excluding the value of the student's home), and uses the federal need
analysis formula to make an assessment of what a student can contribute
financially to college expenses.\3\ The formula also takes into account
whether the student is married or has dependents. The EFC is used to
determine two key amounts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Students must reapply for student aid by submitting the FAFSA
form annually. All veterans are treated as independent students for the
purposes of the FAFSA.
a student's Pell grant award,
a student's total need for student aid (cost of
attendance minus EFC).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Cost of attendance (COA) includes all tuition, fees, and living
expenses. A student's total need is determined by subtracting COA from
EFC.
In addition, title IV prohibits an over award: the sum of EFC and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
aid from all sources cannot exceed the cost of attendance (COA).
Effect of MGIB on EFC and Pell. For Veterans, the monthly MGIB he
or she receives is reported on the FAFSA, but that amount is not used
in the calculation of the EFC. That is, the amount of MGIB does not
affect how much the student is expected to contribute to college
expenses. Consequently, since the EFC is used to determine the
student's Pell grant award, the amount of MGIB a Veteran receives does
not affect the Pell grant award to which he or she is entitled.\5\
Also, since MGIB benefits do not affect the EFC, they do not affect a
student's total need (COA minus EFC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The amount of Pell grant a student is eligible for is equal to
the maximum Pell grant amount, currently $4,310, minus the EFC.
Effect of MGIB on Student Loans. While the effect of MGIB on Pell
grant and EFC is straightforward, the effect of MGIB on eligibility for
loans is complicated and depends on the category of benefit, the type
of loan, the year of enrollment, and the student's EFC.
The Federal Stafford Loan program provides subsidized loans
(government pays interest while you are in school) and unsubsidized
loans (the student pays all the interest, but payments can be deferred
until after college graduation) to students. To receive a subsidized
loan, the student must demonstrate financial need. Briefly:
for Active Duty personnel, MGIB does not affect the
amount of subsidized Stafford loan the student is eligible to receive.
for Selected Reservists, MGIB does limit, and can
eliminate, the student's eligibility for subsidized Stafford loans.
for both Active Duty and Selected Reserve, MGIB benefits
do affect unsubsidized Stafford loans.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Eligibility for unsubsidized Stafford loans is determined by
subtracting the EFC and all sources of financial aid from the total
cost of attendance of the institution of higher education in which the
student enrolls.
Effect of MGIB on Other Student Aid. There are three campus-based
programs that allocate funds to each college to distribute to eligible
students: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Campus-based aid programs are administered by the university.
The federal government provides the university with a fixed annual
allocation, which is awarded to needy students by financial aid
administrators. Because the pool of available funds is fixed, not all
eligible students receive aid.
the Federal Supplementary Educational Opportunity Grant
(FSEOG),
the Perkins Loan, and
Federal Work-Study.
While MGIB benefits do not affect a student's Pell grant, EFC, or
total need, they can affect awards under campus-based aid programs
because of the prohibition against overawards. For example, if a
student's EFC, Pell grant, and MGIB equal or exceed COA, awards under
these other programs can be eliminated. However, an exception is
allowed for subsidized Stafford loans, which can offset MGIB. Only in
cases where the veteran's full need (COA minus EFC) is fully met by
Pell grant, State grants, MGIB, other resources, and subsidized loans
can the prohibition against over awards limit campus-based awards. Even
in this case, aid administrators can exercise their discretion to
disburse campus-based aid up to the amount of subsidized Stafford loans
that offset MGIB. Also, the student can borrow an amount equal to EFC
in unsubsidized loans, Graduate PLUS loans (if a graduate student), and
state-sponsored or private loans.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Unsubsidized and Graduate PLUS loans are provided by the
federal government. State-sponsored loans vary according to state;
private loans vary according to the lending entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More research is needed to assess the interaction of MGIB on other
sources of aid, including federal tax incentives, the Academic
Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National SMART Grant, and State grant
aid.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ There are different types of tax incentive programs, including
the HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits. These credits are non-
refundable and the amount of the credits can vary depending on family
circumstances and cost of tuition, among other factors. These credits
are not legislated by title IV, but are actually a part of the U.S. Tax
Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Legislative Actions
Three potential changes in title IV might be considered:
First, Selected Reserve benefits could be treated like
Active Duty benefits in the consideration of subsidized Stafford loans.
This benefit would improve parity between the two GI Bill programs--for
Active Duty and Selected Reserve--and increase access to the subsidized
loan program for Reservists.
Second, the exception that allows for campus-based aid to
be distributed up to the amount of subsidized Stafford loans, might be
required, rather than discretionary. This benefit would increase
Veterans' access to the campus-based aid programs.
Third, an exclusion for unsubsidized loans similar to the
one for subsidized loans, could be implemented. This benefit would
allow Veterans to borrow additional funds to cover educational
expenses.
Whether such changes are necessary or desirable--including an
assessment of unintended consequences--requires a thorough review by
your Committee, relevant education Committees in the House of
Representatives and Senate, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
Department of Education, and the financial aid community.
On behalf of Advisory Committee members, thank you again for this
opportunity to testify before you today. We look forward to continuing
to provide you with technical assistance on the matters discussed
today.
Prepared Statement of James Bombard, Chairman
Veterans Advisory Committee on Education, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs, and Chief, New York State Division of Veterans Affairs,
Bureau of Veterans Education
Introduction
Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman and Members of
the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, I am pleased to appear before
you today on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
Secretary's Veterans Advisory Committee on Education (VACOE) to provide
the Committee's views on the current state of the MGIB-AD and MGIB-SR;
recommendations to update the MGIB; and possible legislative action
that should be considered by the Subcommittee
State of MGIB-AD-SR
Seamless Transition Program Flexibility and Claims Processing
It is the Advisory Committee's (VACOE) view that program
flexibility and efficient claims processing are the keys to a veteran's
seamless transition of providing earned education benefits to eligible
participants. It should also be noted that in the past the Committee
made a number of recommendations designed to increase program
flexibility, i.e. accelerated payment without restriction, expansion of
test reimbursement, removing or extending the delimiting date,
equalizing the benefit for OJT/Apprentice programs in relation to IHL
and NCD education/training programs, and removing restrictions on wage
progression for municipal employees.
The reason seamless transition is difficult to accomplish is that
when the Montgomery GI Bill was created by legislation in 1984, it was
both similar and different from previous GI Bills. It was similar in
that it provided a benefit for veterans who chose to enroll in an
educational program at an approved education or training institution.
Like the previous programs the maximum benefit was payable to veterans
training full-time, with prorated amounts available for veterans
training three-quarters time, half time, or less than half time. The
level of benefits also depended on whether a veteran was attending a
traditional degree-granting institution or was enrolled in on-the-job
training, apprenticeship, or cooperative training programs. It was
different because previous Education Programs (EP), special rules
provided higher benefit levels for persons having eligibility for the
prior Vietnam-era EP, with lower benefits authorized for persons
enlisting for a period of less than 3 years. Another unique feature of
the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) was that it authorized benefits for those
in the Selected Reserve (Chapter 1606 program), although the maximum
monthly benefit was much lower than the Active Duty rate. Additionally,
the MGIB authorized ``kickers'', or additional monthly benefits for
certain veterans in certain military occupations and ``buy-ups'' for
veterans seeking higher monthly benefits.
In addition to the aforementioned features which add substantial
complexity to eligibility and payment amount determinations, other
provisions made the MGIB more complicated than previous EPs. The
inadequacies of EPs which preceded the MGIB led to legislation
authorizing persons eligible for earlier EPs to choose to become
eligible for the MGIB. Special ``top-off'' tuition assistance benefits
and ``accelerated'' or licensing and certification benefits were also
authorized. Most recently, a new ``Chapter 1607'' EP was created for
``Reserve Component Members Supporting Contingency Operations and
Certain Other Operations''. The eligibility rules and benefit rates for
these servicemembers are different than those for persons who enlist
for 2 or 3 years in the Active-Duty program or who enlist in the
regular Selected Reserve.
To further compound the issue, the adoption of the Total Force
structure, made the reserve/guard an integral part of the active duty
force. Hence, some veterans became eligible for multiple programs i.e.
Chapter 1606, 1607 and 30.
Congress, although well meaning, tends to create new initiatives
designed to shore up existing deficiencies in the current MGIB; without
dealing with the administrative problems inherent in trying to
integrate new program components in the established MGIB. As a result
of the proliferation of eligibility categories and benefit levels fewer
educational claims are straightforward. The complexities of a number of
new GI Bill opportunities have resulted in a cumbersome data management
system that does not timely respond to the needs of veterans and other
GI Bill eligible recipients.
The existing array of supplemental GI Bill programs, coupled with
multiple program eligibility, suggest a strong need for a comprehensive
GI Bill program as outlined in the VACOE letter to the Secretary on
July 8, 2005 entitled Total Force GI Bill.
It is the Committee's belief that the DVA Education Service, in
conjunction with Congress, can create an effective, efficient claims
processing system by adopting the following:
1. Restructure the GI Bill; i.e., Total Force, thus streamline
claims processing.
2. Create a synergistic relationship with Congress in order to
ensure feasibility and support for any additional programs associated
with the GI Bill
3. Improve information exchange between DoD and DVA. The need for
constant communication between DoD and DVA would be minimal with
restructure of GI Bill.
4. Invest in state-of-the-art IT systems
5. Hire additional staff to do claims processing or at a minimum
maintain budget direct FTEs
Recommendations
Total Force
The Advisory Committee, after nearly 2 years of studying the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), recommended a fundamental change to the
structure of the MGIB; and also put forth the framework for a new GI
Bill that reflects the realities of the Total Force policy.
It is the Committee's belief that this restructuring is necessary
to incorporate program flexibility, ease of administration and equity
of service rendered.
Both the Active Duty and Selected Reserve (SelRes) programs share
the same name and are part of the same legislation, but they have
different purposes. The Active Duty (AD) program revolves around
recruitment and transition/readjustment to civilian status while the
SelRes program is designed to promote recruitment and retention, with
no regard for readjustment or transition.
The current GI Bill programs did not consider DoD's use of the
SelRes for all operational missions. Under this policy the SelRes and
some members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) are considered
integral members of the Total Force. Reserve members who are faced with
extended activations require similar transition and readjustment
benefits as those available to separating AD service men and women.
Although the new reserve GI Bill educational benefits program
authorized under Chapter 1607 of title 10, U.S. Code attempts to
address this issue, it remains primarily a retention tool, requiring
continued reserve service.
For these reasons we recommend replacing the separate GI Bill
programs for veterans and reservists with one program that consolidates
all GI Bill programs under one umbrella (title 38, Code). This would
include enrolling all currently eligible personnel in Chapters 30, 1606
and 1607 in the new Total Force GI Bill. This approach will add value
to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) as a recruitment and retention tool
for the Armed Forces, including National Guard and Reserve; establish
equity of benefits for returning Guard and Reserve members; support
Congress' intent for the MGIB (see Attachment C); and potentially save
taxpayer money through improved administration.
Background
In the 20 years since the Montgomery GI Bill went into effect on
June 30, 1985 the nation's security environment has changed radically
from a fixed Cold war to a dynamic ``Global War on Terror.'' In 1991
the Active Duty Force (AF) of the Military stood at 2.1 million; today
it stands at 1.4 million.
Since 9/11 more than 480,000 members of the 860,000 Selected
Reserve (SelRes) have been activated. Today approximately 40 percent of
troops in are Guardsmen or Reservists.
Despite this, the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and the Montgomery GI
Bill--Selected Reserve (MGIB--SR) still reflect the situation that
existed in 1984. Then the members of the Selected Reserve rarely served
on active duty. The idea that any projection of power would require the
activation of at least some reservists was never considered in creating
these programs.
Because most reservists have both careers and families which are
embedded in towns and cities across the country, these activated
citizen-soldiers--mayors, police chiefs, firefighters, and small
businessowners--face additional burdens as financial and career
obligations mount, while their families, employers, and communities
frequently face significant sacrifices and hardships as well.
This has led to inequitable situations. First, Selected Reserve
members and members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) may be called
to active duty for considerable periods, but less than 2 years. When
they return to civilian life, what is available to help them readjust?
They have nothing at all if their active duty is at the end of their 6-
year commitment to the Selected Reserves.
Legislation
Proposed Total Force GI Bill
In the face of these dramatic changes in the nature of Reserve
Force (RF) usage, and recognizing that the Active and Reserve Forces
have become inextricably integrated as a Total Force, the Committee is
proposing an updated GI Bill which accepts the new security realities
of the open-ended Global War on Terror, the recruiting and retention
issues which arise from it, and the expanded role that the RF plays in
this modern era. The current members of the RF are being asked to
perform in a manner literally unprecedented since WWII.
As the distinctions between the active and reserve force continue
to diminish the difference in treatment between the active and reserve
forces in the GI Bill should decline accordingly. Benefits need to
remain commensurate with sacrifice/service.
From 1985 through 1990, a period of relative quiescence for the RF,
Reservists, under Chapter 1606 of Title 10 U.S.C., were receiving 47
percent of the educational benefit of active force Montgomery GI Bill
participants. That 47 percent rate remained in effect until roughly the
turn of this century when the MGIB was significantly enhanced for the
Active Force.
Since 1990 the percentage of educational benefit for reservists has
declined from 47 percent to 29 percent of the active force educational
benefit, and this decline took place during a period when the
involuntary mobilization of reservists had begun to accelerate
significantly.
VACOE has focused on consolidating veterans' education benefit
programs into a single Total Force structure placing them in the
department where veterans advocacy is the first priority and ensuring
that a fair framework for providing benefits commensurate with the
nature of military service is established and maintained.
The architecture of any future GI Bill is very important. Shifting
funding out of title 10 and placing responsibility for all GI Bill
administration in the proper cabinet department (DVA) is the key of any
future efforts to improve the administration and the fundamental
fairness of the GI Bill.
This concept would provide MGIB reimbursement rate levels based on
an individual's service in the Armed Forces, including the National
Guard and Reserve: a MGIB active duty 3-year rate, a pro rata SelRes
rate, and a SelRes activated rate which is equivalent to the active
duty rate on a month-to-month basis after 90 days service.
See Attachment A for additional detail concerning the proposed
Bill.
Chapters 35 and 31 remain as before.
Benefits of New GI Bill
We anticipate a number of positive effects from this new GI Bill:
The additional educational benefit for active duty
service provides a necessary one-to-one equity for arduous time served
by individuals in uniform whether AF or RF.
Under the current Chapter 1606, reservists have 14 years
from the beginning date of eligibility to use their benefits in
service. As a result many reservists reach the delimiting date while
they are still serving in the Selected Reserve. A provision in the
proposal would extend the time frame during which reservists could
utilize the education benefit.
A provision allowing reservists ten (10) years from the
last active/activated duty to utilize their educational benefit adds a
transition and readjustment element to the traditional recruiting and
retention elements of the Reserve component of the GI Bill. This is
precisely what is now needed since the extended arduous duty of the
reservist requires transition and readjustment very similar to active
forces.
Placing the Total Force GI Bill within title 38 U.S.C.
will simplify the administration of GI educational benefit for all
members of the Armed Services both AF and RF, and ensure all future
benefits are upgraded equitably. (See Attachment B)
The GI Bill also has traditionally been viewed as a
grateful nation's way of showing its appreciation for the sacrifices of
service, separation, and combat. The new GI Bill reflects the new
realities which have transformed this nation's security environment
since the second week of September '01.
Conclusion
No amount of skill compensates for a lack of manpower. In order to
continue to deter actual and potential adversaries now and in the
future, we must continue to attract the finest among the willing and
capable. It is imperative that the forces continue to attract and
retain high quality men and women to assure the nation's collective
security.
The famed risk-reward ratio follows the same natural calculus as
the supply and demand curve. No one in this country can honestly say
that the risks for our reservists have not increased of late. This
proposed Total Force GI Bill seeks to address at least part of the
reward scheme for those reservists who are being asked to risk the
most.
During a period when a significant portion of those who sign up for
duty, whether in the active force or in the reserve force, say that
they do so, specifically, for the educational benefits, it is important
to boost recruitment as much as possible by means of this proven
approach.
By allowing Reserve Force (RF) retirees to utilize the benefit for
ten (10) years following retirement, we are both boosting retention as
well as rewarding the rigors of activation and mobilization.
Because the reserve component has come to more closely resemble the
active component, it is time that the educational benefits for the
reserve component come to more closely resemble those of the active
component. That, in short, is what our proposal, the Total Force GI
Bill, seeks to do.
If implemented, we envision wins for the individual Selected
Reservist, a win for the Armed Services, and a win for our national
security.
Summary of Differences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current MGIB Total Force GI Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Different Title One title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confusing Straightforward
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Committees Half the Committees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costly redundancies Savings through Efficiencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Different Benefits for same Risks Same benefit for same Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delimiting date inequities Fair delimiting dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modest retention incentive Increased retention incentive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No SelRes readjustment benefit SelRes Readjustment benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Differing Rules for Recruiters Same Rules for all Recruiters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inequitable Upgrades Equitable Upgrades
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipients confused Simplified for Recipients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Training Complexities Staff Training Simplified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Total Force proposal provides a unique opportunity to create a
comprehensive GI Bill that is both fair and simple. Its eloquence is
its equity and simplicity.
The question always raised by Congress when considering the GI Bill
is can we afford it. Well, I don't think we can afford not to.
Attachment A
A Total Force GI Bill
This Bill would provide MGIB reimbursement rate levels based on an
individual's service in the Armed Forces, including the National Guard
and Reserve.
1. The first tier--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 AD Rate.
2. The second tier or level would be for all who enlist or re-
enlist in the SelRes for 6 years, and this would entitle them to 36
months of benefits at a pro-rata amount of the active duty rate (the
suggested rate is 35 percent of the MGIB-AD rate).
3. The third tier would be for members of the SelRes/IRR who are
activated for at least 90 days. They would receive 1 month of benefit
for each month of activation, up to a total of 36 months, at the active
duty rate. The intent is to provide the same level of benefit as the
active duty rate for the same level of service.
3a. These months of full benefits would replace, month-for-month,
any SelRes entitlements at the second tier.
3b. The maximum benefit a member of the SelRes could receive under
this program would be the equivalent of 36 months at the active duty
rate.
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.
Additional Provisions:
All provisions (e.g. additional contributions) and programs (e.g.
accelerated payment, approved test reimbursement, etc.) eligible for
payment under the current MGIB-AD would be available under all three
levels.
DoD Incentives:
Under this plan DoD would continue to be able to provide
Recruitment and Retention incentives such as loan repayment, kickers-
college fund, and enlistment bonuses.
Attachment B
Total Force GI Bill Program
The following improvements would accrue to GI Bill program
administration by adopting the new Total Force GI Bill:
The MGIB and the MGIB-SR do not pay for the same training
although there is no logical reason why they shouldn't. This is the
result of having funding of MGIB-SR the responsibility of DoD, while
the funding of basic MGIB is VA's responsibility. Thus, bills affecting
MGIB-SR are referred to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees
(SASC and HASC) while bills affecting MGIB are referred to the House
and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees (HVAC and SVAC).
These problems could be addressed by replacing the
separate GI Bill programs (Chapters 30, 1606 and 1607) with one
consolidated program under title 38, U.S. Code. This new bill would
have a continuum of benefits that matched the continuum of possible
service.
It would provide monthly benefits for activated
Selected Reservists and reservists from the Individual Ready Reserve
with no prior service qualifying for MGIB that is proportionate to
their actual active duty.
It would put funding for the benefits for those in the
Selected Reserve with VA.
It would make the types of training uniform for all in
the Armed Forces who would be eligible for this GI Bill.
One set of rules covering one GI Bill would allow for
better understanding of the program by recruiters, beneficiaries,
stakeholders and program managers.
Training new claims examiners and processing claims would
be easier and more efficient as there would be one set of rules.
Systems costs would be lower for the new program as the
other systems would no longer be required.
Since there would be one program and one set of rules,
there would not be inconsistent and inequitable structuring of benefit
levels.
VA would be responsible for all basic benefit payments,
and would be reimbursed by the agency concerned for any additional
payments made through ``kickers''. Currently, the selected reserve
basic payment is reimbursed to VA and managed either by DoD or DHS. The
benefit is that no ``basic'' award would have to be managed outside of
and reimbursed to VA, but the agency concerned would maintain the
flexibility to channel critical specialties provided under the current
programs.
Attachment C
United States Code
Title 38--Veterans' Benefits
Part III--Readjustment and Related Benefits
Chapter 30--All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program
Subchapter I--Purposes; Definitions
Sec. 3001. Purposes
The purposes of this Chapter are--
(1) to provide a new educational assistance program to assist in
the readjustment of members of the Armed Forces to civilian life after
their separation from military service;
(2) to extend the benefits of a higher education to qualifying men
and women who might not otherwise be able to afford such an education;
(3) to provide for vocational readjustment and to restore lost
educational opportunities to those service men and women who served on
active duty after June 30, 1985;
(4) to promote and assist the All-Volunteer Force program and the
Total Force Concept of the Armed Forces by establishing a new program
of educational assistance based upon service on active duty or a
combination of service on active duty and in the Selected Reserve
(including the National Guard) to aid in the recruitment and retention
of highly qualified personnel for both the active and reserve
components of the Armed Forces;
(5) to give special emphasis to providing educational assistance
benefits to aid in the retention of personnel in the Armed Forces; and
(6) to enhance our Nation's competitiveness through the
development of a more highly educated and productive workforce.
Prepared Statement of Major General Larry W. Shellito,
Adjutant General, Minnesota National Guard
As I begin my testimony today I need you to know that I am not here
simply as the Adjutant General from Minnesota, nor as a combat veteran,
or even as the chief administrator of a State bureaucracy, but rather
as a veteran educator with 31 years of experience in postsecondary
teaching and administration. As a Nation we continually call for access
to quality education and state that our Nation's success is tied to how
successful we are in educating our citizens. As a military, we take
that call seriously and for decades have provided various educational
funds as a core benefit to our servicemembers. I myself used these
benefits following my return from combat in Vietnam; having access to
those benefits helped shape who I have become. So today I am here to
fight for the education support that our warrior citizens have earned
through their loyal and dedicated service; a fight that will allow them
the same life changing experience afforded me upon my return from
combat.
In order to convey the scope of this challenge but yet maintain
focus on what we see as its resolution, I have divided this document
into three sections:
1. Statement of the Situation
2. The Human Factor--A Soldier's Story
3. Shaping the Future
1. Statement of the Situation:
Summary: Minnesota contends that all members of the 1/34th Brigade
Combat Team (BCT) have achieved the intent of the Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) Chapter 30 benefits, irrespective of the duration stipulated on
individual orders. We ask that all soldiers of the 1/34th BCT receive
the VA education benefits they earned through a 22 month mobilization
of which 16 continuous months were served in combat. The decision to
grant these men and women their earned benefits needs to occur quickly
in order for them to make important life decisions. As a key tool in
building and maintaining a total Army force, we as military leaders
also need this to occur as it is fundamental to sustaining a ready and
capable Reserve component force.
Request: It is essential that these soldiers receive their benefits
quickly so that they are able to make timely educational decisions
prior to the start of the 2008 spring term. Therefore, we ask the
Subcommittee to take any and all actions that are reasonable to help
correct this situation in an expedient manner.
To explain the breadth of this situation I offer the following
facts:
1162 Minnesota National Guard soldiers were deemed
ineligible for the MGIB Chapter 30 benefit due to the variability in
duration of their tour of duty as listed on their extension orders.
Of the 2447 Minnesotans who deployed as part of the BCT,
approximately 53 percent had orders that listed a duration which
qualified them for Chapter 30 benefits (730 days), while other
soldiers' orders were listed with a lower number of days (e.g. 729,
725, 718).
We estimate that approximately 700 additional soldiers
from other states, territories, and the Army Reserves may be affected
by this orders issue.
When Minnesota soldiers and our estimate of those
affected are combined, the monetary impact to the approximately 1800
soldiers is $15 million in lost benefits.
Moreover, while all soldiers are eligible for education
benefits, the MGIB Chapter 30 benefit offers a 10 year portability
option. Those who receive the Chapter 30 benefit and leave the military
can still use the funds; however their ``battle buddy'' who served with
them through a 22 month deployment can use their lower level of benefit
only if they remain in the Reserve components.
Actions: Attached to this testimony is a document which chronicles
the key events and actions related to our identification of the
disparity and subsequent efforts to redress and quickly resolve the
issue. The document is labeled ``CH 30 MGIB Timeline''.
Discussion of Impact: The BCT is headquartered in MN; soldiers from
37 States and Territories, the USAR and the IRR participated in the
deployment (see list below). This deployment stood out from a GI Bill
perspective because of its length.
The initial mobilization orders for units comprising this
BCT were approximately 608 days; they were then amended to include an
additional 125 days to support the ``Troop Surge''.
In about 53 percent of the cases orders were amended to a
full 730 days, or 2 years. In most other cases, orders were amended for
either 729, 725 or 718 days.
When Soldiers' obligated period of service is 2 years, and serve a
minimum of 20 continuous months on active duty, they are given the
opportunity to make an irrevocable election between the Reserve
Educational Assistance Program, Chapter 1607 and the Montgomery GI Bill
Chapter 30 program, so long as their release from active duty was
honorable and due to ``convenience of the government'' which was the
case in this situation.
Soldiers with amended orders that read ``NTE 730 days'' (NTE means
`not to exceed') who were counseled at Ft. McCoy were given until
November 30th, 2007 to make an irrevocable election between Chapter
1607 and Chapter 30.
Soldiers choosing Chapter 30 are eligible for the ``less
than 3 year'' full-time rate of $873 per month. The standard $1,200
contribution and optional $600 Plus Up contributions apply.
Those choosing the Chapter 1607 benefit received the 60
percent rate at $645 per month.
Chapter 30 not only provides a higher benefit rate but it
also has 10-year portability; soldiers must remain in an active
drilling status to receive Chapter 1607.
States represented in the 1/34th BCT (as per Major Troy M. Gipps,
National Guard Bureau GI Bill Programs Manager):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/Territory Number Assigned Estimated 47\1/2\ percent impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AL----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4--- 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ 1 0.475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA 7 3.325
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO 4 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL 3 1.425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA 6 2.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA 606 287.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID 17 8.075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL 1 0.475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN 1 0.475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS 102 48.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY 73 34.675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA 3 1.425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA 2 0.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME 1 0.475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI 1 0.475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN 2447 1162.325
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT 3 1.425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC 7 3.325
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND 1 0.475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE 257 122.075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ 157 74.575
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY 8 3.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH 2 0.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK 3 1.425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR 1 0.475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA 6 2.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR 1 0.475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RI 3 1.425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD 2 0.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN 7 3.325
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT 7 3.325
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA 1 0.475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VT 6 2.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA 15 7.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI 21 9.975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WY 3 1.425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAR 22 10.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRR 141 66.975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 3953 1877.675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota's Present Actions: Secretary of the Army Geren indicated
that the Army Board of Corrections for Military Records (ABCMR) will
review the situation and with his guidance execute the appeal process.
We interpreted his comments as a statement of desire to expedite this
appeal. Accordingly, we understood that his office would seek any
necessary appeals to accomplish this task.
The ABCMR declined to review the packet submitted by Minnesota. Our
appeal treated all 1,162 affected soldiers as a ``class action''; the
ABCMR states they do not have the legal authority to address a
collective action, but that each soldier must initiate this appeal.
Minnesota's challenge now is in reaching our soldiers and getting them
to complete individual applications. This task is both time-consuming
and cumbersome:
At the October 12-14 ``Beyond the Yellow Ribbon''
Reintegration Training Weekend in Minnesota, we began to implement
supplemental guidance from National Guard Bureau (NGB); we need to
complete an appeal packet for each individual soldier.
27 percent of the individual applications require
additional follow up prior to submission to the ABCMR.
Each soldier's submission requires 11 pages of
documentation.
Thousands of man-hours and resources would be saved if we could
address this issue as a collective whole. Minnesota originally
submitted a 43 page document to the ABCMR so as to treat our soldiers
in a fair and timely manner; however we now need to send an estimated
three Army footlockers full of eleven page documents for all 1,162
soldiers. Add in the other 700 soldiers who may be impacted and you can
include another two footlockers full of documentation that the ABCMR
will review and process. We are working to comply with the requirements
for individual submissions, but the possibility to have soldiers slip
through the cracks is great and the administrative burden on our
soldiers and their leaders is excessive.
Recommendation:
a. We request that the ABCMR accepts Minnesota's original
submission and that it acts favorably on our request to redress this
issue.
b. We encourage all civil and military leaders to encourage our
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines to not delay enrollment in
education programs.
c. We ask that, as the National Guard is an Operational Force and
no longer a Strategic Reserve, eligibility for benefits be updated to
reflect the dynamic nature of today's conflicts and the role our
Reserve components are playing in the cause of freedom, Homeland
Defense, and service as Warrior Citizens.
2. The Human Factor--A Soldier's Story:
It is my pleasure to introduce Sergeant Benjamin Lee Hatton of
Company C, 1st Battalion, 194th Armor. Sergeant Hatton is not in
uniform today because as you will hear in the following story he
rapidly went from completing his advanced individual training, to war.
His Class A uniform fits a 160 pound private and is not suitable for a
physically fit, 205 pound combat-tested and proven Sergeant.
Sergeant Hatton joined the Minnesota National Guard in 2003 as a
seventeen year old junior in Long Prairie/Grey Eagle High School. He
attended basic training between his junior and senior year of high
school and completed his advanced individual training after his senior
year. He was qualified as an armor soldier and as a tank crew member,
graduating fifth in his class of 200 soldiers. He was looking forward
to going to college as he would be the first member of his family to
achieve this goal.
Sergeant Hatton was advanced to Private First Class after AIT and
was promoted to Specialist a year after that. Shortly after his
promotion he was mobilized as part of the 1/34th Brigade Combat Team
and traveled with his unit to Camp Shelby, Mississippi to train for a
deployment in Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. After 6 months of
training, he deployed with his unit, Company C, 1-194 Armor to Tallil,
Iraq. Sergeant Hatton served as a driver for the first months of his
deployment. His leadership and warrior proficiency earned him the
respect of his peers and leadership. He assumed increasing
responsibility within his platoon and was pinned as a Sergeant in
December 2006. With the rank of Sergeant came increased responsibility;
he often served as the Truck Commander or as the Gunner for the Platoon
Sergeant's vehicle.
During December he received his first wound and his first Purple
Heart when he was shot in the arm. He returned to duty with his unit
but in February, 2007 he was injured again and earned his second Purple
Heart when an IED exploded on his vehicle which resulted in facial
wounds. At this point he was given the option to take a desk assignment
or stay on the road with his troops. As a combat troop leader, he opted
to stay with his soldiers and his team.
During the late stages of his 16 month deployment in Iraq he served
as the Truck Commander of the lead Armored Scout Vehicle on numerous
occasions for convoy escort missions. Finally he was the second in
command of a Radio Relay Point and responsible for a segment of a route
during his last month in Iraq. Sergeant Hatton was recognized for his
service with the following Awards:
2 Purple Hearts,
2 Army Commendation Medals (ARCOM)
1 Army Achievement Medal (AAM)
The Army Good Conduct Medal
The National Defense Service Medal
The Global War on Terror Service Medal
The Campaign Medal
The Iraq Combat Action Badge
The Combat driver badge with wheeled vehicle clasp.
Sergeant Hatton served 6 months at Camp Shelby, MS on title 10
active duty prior to deploying and then served 16 months in Iraq with
the 1/34th Brigade Combat team--the longest serving unit of any
military organization in Operation Iraqi Freedom. These 22 months of
title 10 active duty, with 16 months in continuous combat, more than
meet the requirements to qualify for the Chapter 30 GI Bill.
Sergeant Hatton served with his Brigade from its mobilization
through its release from Active Duty and was wounded twice during the
course of his deployment; however, inexplicitly he and 1,161 of his
brethren failed to receive their just benefits. Unlike the 1,360 other
Minnesota 1/34th Red Bull soldiers, he will not receive the Chapter 30
GI Bill.
3. Shaping the Future:
The challenge we face is larger than fixing the current issue with
the Chapter 30 GI bill; the real issue is changing how the National
Guard and Reserves are used by the Services and this country. Prior to
this century and certainly during the Cold War the Reserve components
were largely used as a Strategic Reserve. It was an asset funded at a
moderate level with promised funding increases in the event of a world-
spanning conflict. This was a prudent measure based on the expected
threat model and the size and composition of the Active Component.
Following the end of the Cold War, the size of the Active Component was
reduced by approximately one-third but yet the level and tempo of
deployments has dramatically increased. This shift intensified our
Nation's reliance on the Reserve components in a new and fundamentally
different way.
Since September 11th 2001, the tempo and use of National Guard and
Reserve units has continued to expand. The ARFORGEN (Army Force
Generation) and the AEF (Air Expeditionary Force) models both fully
integrate and presume planned readiness and deployment of major
National Guard and Reserve troop formations on a repeated basis thus
fully entrenching the National Guard as an Operational Force on par
with Active Component units.
These planned and repetitive readiness/deployment cycles require a
different funding and benefits package than was used in the `Cold War'
model when the Reserve component was a strategic reserve for this
country. Many of the changes in full-time manning, facility investment,
training readiness, and equipping levels fall outside of this Committee
but are critically important to ensuring our National Guard and reserve
are ready to answer the ongoing call to this nation.
House Veterans' Affairs is heavily vested in some of the benefit
changes that are required to sustain a vital and valid Reserve
component for the United States of America. I highlight several below:
The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (See Attachment
#1): This program is currently included in the House and Senate
versions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. The Yellow
Ribbon Reintegration Program builds the structure to sustain the force
after military deployments and mitigates the impact of deployment on
the servicemembers, their families, and their communities.
This program provides staff authorizations, personnel
funding, and a proven model of program execution to provide for the
reintegration of reserve component servicemembers to their homes and
back into their communities after a military deployment.
The practical reality is that most reserve component
military members and their families live hundred of miles form the
nearest active duty base; the programs available to active component
servicemembers is greatly diminished by simple geography. For example
Minnesota has no active component military bases.
This program engages state and local government,
private, and non/not-for-profit groups to supplement the programs
available through the federal government and the military service
components.
Presently, there are numerous legislative initiatives to
address the issues created by the 1/34th BCT orders situation.
Moreover, these initiatives look to amend The Total Force GI Bill
Program. We encourage this Committee to explore these legislative
proposals in order to provide the best service options to our warrior-
citizens.
In conclusion, our Nation's reliance on the Reserve components is
fundamentally different than it was prior to September 11th, 2001. We
strongly believe:
The Reserve components are an integral part of the
current war fight; this requires enhanced funding and resources to
ensure we remain both an effective fighting force and still meet our
historic role in support of our citizens here at home.
Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and Sailors continue to step
forward in remarkable numbers to serve their country. Servicemembers
continue to stay in boots to serve multiple deployments while balancing
the needs of their family, career, and community.
This dedication and committed service to the country
needs greater incentives, reward, and legal protection than provided
under a Cold war benefits package.
Attachments:
1. Timeline--MGIB CH 30
2. Questions and Answers
3. Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program--Legislation
CH 30 MGIB Timeline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE EVENT(S)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Jan 07 The President announced the surge of forces for OIF; 1/34th BCT was
included in this surge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Jan 07 Minnesota began to receive specific extension information by Unit
Identification Code (UIC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun-Jul 07 1/34th BCT arrives at Ft. McCoy, WI and undergoes demobilization
training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Jul 07 MN Army National Guard Education Services Officer (MNARNG ESO)
receives information from the National Guard Professional Education
Center (PEC) GI Bill team at Ft. McCoy that the issue exists. GI Bill
Managers from Washington State, Iowa and Minnesota augmented the
team. During this 15-day operation, the team provided one-on-one GI
Bill counseling to 2,703 Soldiers, in addition to providing a daily
30-minute GI Bill briefing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 July 07 Minnesota Congressional Delegation informed of emerging issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Jul 07 The Adjutant General (TAG-MN) signs a position paper in response to
WCCO media inquiries: MN will seek to redress what appears to be an
``administrative error'' which denied benefit eligibility to
soldiers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Jul 07 TAG-MN sends a letter to all affected MNARNG Soldiers informing them
of the issue and the actions MN is taking to correct the situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Aug 07 MNARNG notifies all MN National Guard full-time unit leaders of this
developing issue (Officers in Charge at each unit location in MN).
Congressional Delegation updated on the issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Aug 07 MNARNG ESO contacts the National Guard Bureau Army Manpower Division
(NGB-ARM) to ask for a nation-wide ESO announcement of this
developing issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Aug 07 Minnesota Delegation Congressional letter to Secretary of Army.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Aug 07 NGB--Judge Advocate contacts The Department of the Army Office of the
Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) and suggested a timely and reasonable
solution by way of amending orders using ``administrative error'' as
justification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Aug 07 NGB-ARM approves and nationally disseminates an Education and
Incentives Operations Message (07-44) to all State and territory
Education Services Officers and TA Managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Sep 07 NGB-ARM asks MNARNG to verify the Unit Identification Codes (UICs) of
all units affected by this apparent discrepancy in anticipation of
producing amended orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Sep 07 The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) confirms in writing that if
CH 30 eligibility is determined, soldiers can easily migrate from
1607 to Ch 30 benefits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Sep 07 Congressional Delegation informed of DVA position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 Sep 07 OTJAG concludes ``administrative error'' cannot be justified to amend
orders; staff level options for timely resolution end and the issue
is elevated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 Sep 07 Secretary of the Army Geren publicly announces the issue; he refers
it to the Army Board of Correction for Military Records (ABCMR) for
expedient ``group'' resolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Oct 07 On behalf of the affected soldiers, the TAG-MN submits a ``class
action'' ABCMR request, copies furnished to the Director of the Army
National Guard (DARNG), Chief National Guard Bureau (CNGB), and the
Secretary of the Army.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Oct 07 ABCMR chair passes the action to NGB-ARH (Human Resources). The basis
of this referral is ABCMR's claim that the law does not provide for a
``class action'' type of submission; each soldier must submit an
individual appeal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Oct 07 ABCMR chair responds to TAG-MN indicating that action cannot be
handled as a group.
H.R. 3741 introduced for the relief of certain members of the 1st
Brigade Combat Team of the 34th ID
The National Guard and Reserve Educational Benefits Fairness Act of
2007 introduced in the Senate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Oct 07 MNARNG receives guidance from ARH regarding the submission of
individual Ch 30 appeals to the ABCMR; ARH will surge resources to
support an expedited delivery of appeals to the ABCMR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Oct 07 MNARNG requested Additional Duty for Special Work funds (ADSW) to
hire additional military support staff to build 1100+ packets, NGB
sent three Majors to assist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13-14 Oct 07 MNARNG begins to implement ARH guidance during reintegration training
to access soldiers and begin individual packet preparation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q & A--VA Committee Testimony
1. How many Minnesotans does this affect?
1,162 Soldiers of the MNARNG.
2. How many in the 1BCT are affected?
Not able to identify, but by extrapolation . . . more
than 700 soldiers from 38 other States, Territories, the Army Reserve
and the IRR.
It is also important to consider and acknowledge the
countless other RC servicemembers from all branches (Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marines, Coast Guard) of the Armed Forces across the Nation
affected by the inequity in MGIB benefits, who do not have a Joint Task
Force Headquarters to champion their cause.
3. When did the Guard discover that 1,162 Minnesotans were
getting a reduced MGIB benefit?
On approximately 18 Jul 07 the MN Army National Guard
Education Services Officer received information from the National Guard
Professional Education Center GI Bill team at Ft. McCoy that the issue
exists.
4. What steps did MN take to solve this educational benefit
issue?
Notified soldiers,
Notified NGB Manpower Division
Notified MN Governor
Notified MN Congressional Delegation
Work with NGB ARM to define the problem and identify
possible solutions
Work with the Federal VA to identify courses of
action and a timely resolution
Delivered appeal to ABCMR
5. Who did MN contact to resolve the issue with the REFRAD
orders?
NGB Manpower Division who further contacted NGB Judge
Advocate and the Army Office of the Judge Advocate General
6. What was the response of NGB?
NGB provided counsel, verbal support, and is trying
to help devise a means to expedite individual requests.
7. What was the response of DA?
On 28 Sep 07 Secretary of the Army Geren publicly
announced the issue; he referred it to the Army Board of Correction for
Military Records (ABCMR) for expedient ``group'' resolution.
1 Oct 07 On behalf of the affected soldiers, the TAG-
MN submits a ``class action'' ABCMR request, copies furnished to the
Director of the Army National Guard (DARNG), Chief National Guard
Bureau (CNGB), and the Secretary of the Army.
3 Oct 07 ABCMR chair passes the action to NGB-ARH
(Human Resources). The basis of this referral is ABCMR's claim that the
law does not provide for a ``class action'' type of submission; each
soldier must submit an individual appeal.
4 Oct 07 ABCMR chair responds to TAG-MN indicating
that action cannot be handled as a group.
8. How much time has gone by since these soldiers left active
duty ISO OIF?
Close to 3000 soldiers demobilized in July 07, 3
months ago.
9. If the 1,162 Minnesotans with 729 or fewer deployed days on
their orders do not become eligible how much in total benefits will be
lost?
$9,537,696.
$15,414,624 is the total approximate loss of benefits
for the estimated 1878 total soldiers (all states) possibly affected by
this orders situation.
Lost portability of their educational benefit.
10. Does Minnesota have a program to bridge the monetary
difference?
No, there is no state offset to a federal benefit.
11. Just how many states are affected by the orders disparity?
Thirty-seven states provided National Guard soldiers
to the BCT with an additional 141 IRR soldiers from various states. As
MN experienced approx. 47\1/2\ percent impact rate we would expect this
same impact to other states as well.
12. Why is this an issue now, it has never come up in the 6 years
since deployments began post 9-11?
The 1/34th BCT mobilized and deployed to Iraq for an
unprecedented 22 months of consecutive service, with 16 of those months
served in combat. No other reserve component unit served as long as the
BCT so therefore this issue never arose.
13. Is this isolated to the units that were extended?
Within MN, yes, but we do not know how it affects
reserve component members across the nation.
14. How many MN Army National Guard soldiers utilize MGIB?
This data is maintained by the VA and not the
Minnesota National Guard.
15. Should we amend law/regulation so that our reserve component
forces become eligible for the same benefits as AC?
RC members are already eligible for this benefit as
long as the eligibility criteria are met.
However, as the NG is now an Operational Force rather
than a Strategic Reserve, we need to align benefits and eligibility
criteria to meet the changing nature of our reserve components.
As the RC has many soldiers on their second or third
tour, the cumulative nature of their combat service should elevate
their status to a higher level of benefit. For example, an RC member
with two combat tours and 10 years of service has fewer educational
benefits than an AC soldier who didn't deploy and left active duty
after his/her first enlistment.
16. Did the Army intentionally deny this benefit?
We do not believe our soldiers are being
intentionally denied this benefit. We believe they are victims of a
very complex process of mobilizing and deploying soldiers, and the
extension simply complicated it even more.
The system has a process by which we can properly
correct what we believe to be an error; however it has not operated in
a manner that is timely when considering the negative impact to
soldiers and their personal life decisions.
We are not able to address all other RC members, but
the situation is such that we expect other soldiers throughout the
Nation are negatively impacted by this situation.
17. Didn't the President/Secretary of Defense extend your unit?
The basis of the extension was as part of the
Presidential directed Troop Surge.
Minnesotans served proudly and with distinction and
would have done so regardless of who ordered the troop surge.
We believe the Troop Surge is simply the trigger to
an unprecedented situation and we are not looking to identify the cause
or whose fault it is, but we are focused on finding solutions as we
collectively take care of our soldiers.
18. Why is the law written the way it is for RC personnel?
We believe the RC is operating in a way that is not
how it was envisioned when many laws were written. A servicemember
chooses to serve in the RC over the AC and knows the difference in
benefit levels; we as Reserve component soldiers know and accept this.
However, we believe that when called to serve in an
AC capacity, the benefits available should equal that of other soldiers
who perform the same duty for the same duration.
19. Why can't the ABCMR action MN's submission as a collective
whole?
We submitted a group application in accordance with
our understanding of the Secretary of the Army's guidance and our
interpretation of the regulatory provisions; but when done it was
passed to NGB for review based on the Board's claim that they do not
have legal authority to review a ``class action'' type submission.
We believe the ABCMR can review a group submission,
by our interpretation of applicable law and regulation. I realize that
DA's legal opinion prepared by OGC differs from mine and that of my
staff.
20. The law calls for 2 years (730 days) ordered to Active Duty to
be eligible for MGIB CH 30. None of your soldiers served that long. So
what's the problem?
The salient issue is not the number of days on
orders, but the 20 consecutive months which this BCT exceeded. Dates on
orders are largely immaterial to actual service performed.
21. Why the AC benefit if not in AC status? The eligibility is
defined different than enlistment.
The law states that they must serve for 20 months,
under an Active Duty order of 2 years' duration minimum, and that if
they are released earlier than 2 years (not less than 20 months
continuous service) for convenience of the government, they're still
eligible.
My soldiers did the hard part--the 20 months'
service. The piece of paper is obviously the easy part and needs to be
looked at from a practical standpoint. I have countless soldiers who
got on and off the bus together, and served shoulder-to-shoulder for 20
months or longer, and now one gets the benefit and the other does not.
22. Why are you objecting to the ABCMR requirement for individual
submissions?
Because I don't believe that is what the law requires
in its spirit.
The law gives Secretary Geren the authority and
responsibility to establish the ABCMR's procedures; he has the
authority to change or update these procedures as he deems appropriate.
We interpreted his comments as a statement of desire to expedite this
appeal. We understood that his office would seek any necessary appeals
to expedite this process.
If I can pay, promote, and deploy a soldier without
his signature, I should not need it for this either.
Bottom line: I am appealing to you to cut the red
tape and pave the way for your Nation's heroes to get the benefits they
have earned. The VA is enthusiastic in their support of this national
change and has demonstrated the commitment and support to veterans that
every government agency should.
23. Why should we make change?
National media and the American people have been led
to believe that the government is ``working on it.'' High-level
military leaders have been on national television and proclaimed and
promised quick resolution. It has already been 3 months.
RC soldiers had their education plans interrupted,
not just delayed. The purposes of the MGIB Ch 30 program are clear in
title 38 United States Code. My veterans fit the criteria.
24. If you've been assured quick resolution by the Army and by
NGB, then why are you insisting on the group submission?
Speed and preservation of our credibility. When
issues languish in administrative quagmire, the situation gets worse
over time. NGB has already established a 7-month window (now through
March 2008) for submission of applications for these soldiers who
returned in July 2007 and many of whom started school in September
2007. This window does not include board processing time or output
mechanisms, so I cannot even estimate for any soldier when it will be
resolved, or which semester to plan on for enrollment in Ch 30.
One application takes one board to convene; the
decision is based on the merit of the entire affected class.
From our experience, ABCMR actions take 3-6 months to
complete. We cannot afford to tell our soldiers--or the media and the
public--that we're expecting resolution by October 2008, and that they
will thus be without the Ch 30 benefits they earned for at least two
more semesters of college after the one they're in now.
25. What specifically do you want us to accomplish?
2 things:
1. We ask the Subcommittee to take any and all actions that
are reasonable to help correct this situation in an expedient manner
with particular emphasis on my desire to have it completed before
Christmas 2007.
2. Review the current law and legislation for efficacy as we
look for continued use of the reserve components as an operational
force.
26. It is worth noting that Reserve component members who served
on active duty in support of a contingency operation for one continuous
year qualify for an educational benefit of approximately $660 per month
(for a full-time student) under the Reserve Educational Assistance
Program (REAP), isn't this enough?
This is not in question and is an appropriate benefit
given a certain set of conditions. Eventually a benefit plan that
recognizes the Reserve component change from Strategic Reserve to an
Operational Force will need to be implemented.
27. The gross difference between the REAP benefit and the MGIB
benefit is approximately $228, which isn't all that great.
This is a lot of money for a college student.
The true gross difference is based on a number of
factors, however for the sake of discussion, if we use $228 per month
the cumulative difference over the length of the benefit is $8,208, or
enough money to allow soldiers discretion in which college or program
to attend.
In addition, the REAP benefit is only available to
the SM while in the RC whereas the Ch 30 benefit is available for up to
10 years after leaving the service.
28. Are you asking for Reserve component members who serve as few
as 20 months on active duty to receive the same benefit as active duty
members have to serve 36 months on active duty?
These are two very distinct issues: reaching
eligibility for the veteran's education benefit is not the same as a
term of enlistment.
A term of enlistment may extend to 36 months, however
a soldier becomes eligible for the Ch 30 benefit after 20 months of
continuous active/mobilized service; this is all that MN is asking for,
to receive the same benefit after achieving this eligibility benchmark
while serving on active duty.
29. MN's claims that 1/34th BCT achieved the benchmark of at least
20 month continuous service, one of the requirement of the Ch 30
eligibility, is this a combination or orders which address state and
federal duty?
Orders for these soldiers were title 10 (12302,
Partial Mobilization) throughout the duration of the BCT's deployment.
There was no aggregation of title 32 and title 10
service.
__________
SEC. 516. National Guard Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, shall establish a National
Combat Veteran Reintegration Program to provide National Guard members
and their families with sufficient information, services, referral, and
proactive outreach opportunities throughout the entire deployment
cycle. This program shall be known as the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
Program. The Secretary may also use funds made available to carry out
this section to support reintegration programs for members of the Army
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Navy Reserve, and Air Force Reserve and
their families.
(b) PURPOSE.--The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program shall consist
of informational events and activities for reserve component members,
their families, and community members through the four phases of the
deployment cycle:
(1) Pre-deployment.
(2) Deployment.
(3) Demobilization.
(4) Post-deployment-reconstitution.
(c) CONSULTATION.--The National Guard Bureau Chief shall consult
with the following parties during establishment of the program:
(1) The Adjutant General of the Minnesota National Guard and
officials associated with the State's ``Beyond the Yellow Ribbon''
Reintegration Program, the Adjutant General of New Hampshire, the
Adjutant General of Oregon, and the Adjutant General of Washington.
(2) Adjutants General of the remaining States and territories.
(d) ORGANIZATION.--
(1) EXECUTIVE AGENT.--The Secretary shall designate the
National Guard Bureau as the Department of Defense executive agent for
the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.
(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE FOR REINTEGRATION PROGRAMS.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The National Guard Bureau shall establish
the Office for Reintegration Programs within the National Guard Bureau
Joint Staff. This office shall administer all reintegration programs in
coordination with State National Guard organizations. The office shall
be responsible for coordination with existing National Guard family and
support programs. The Directors of the Army National Guard and Air
National Guard may appoint liaison officers to work with the permanent
office staff. The office shall closely coordinate with the Army
National Guard and Air National Guard Directorates for Manpower and
Personnel with respect to existing family support structure,
mobilization schedules, training schedules, training plans and
programs, and any other personnel issues.
(B) ESTABLISHMENT OF A CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN
REINTEGRATION.--The Office for Reintegration Programs shall establish a
Center for Excellence in Reintegration within the office. The Center
shall collect and analyze ``lessons learned'' and suggestions from
State National Guard organizations with existing or developing
reintegration programs. The Center shall also assist in developing
training aids and briefing materials and training representatives from
State National Guard organizations. Representatives from State National
Guard organizations with successful reintegration programs may augment
the Office staff.
(3) ADVISORY BOARD.--
(A) APPOINTMENT.--The Chief of the National Guard Bureau
shall appoint an advisory board to analyze and report areas of success
and areas for necessary improvements. The advisory board shall include,
but is not limited to, the Director of the Army National Guard, the
Director of the Air National Guard, the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Reserve Affairs, an Adjutant General on a rotational basis as
determined by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the Director of
the National Guard Bureau Manpower and Personnel Directorate (J-1), and
any other Department of Defense, Federal Government agency, or outside
organization as determined by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
The members of the advisory board may designate representatives in
their stead.
(B) SCHEDULE.--The advisory board shall meet on a schedule
as determined by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
(C) INITIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT.--The advisory board shall
issue internal reports as necessary and shall submit an initial report
to the Committees on Armed Services not later than 180 days after the
end of a 1-year period from establishment of the Office for
Reintegration Programs. This report shall contain--
(i) an evaluation of the reintegration program's
implementation by State National Guard organizations;
(ii) an assessment of any unmet resource requirements;
(iii) an assessment of the reintegration program's further
inclusion of other reserve component members and the necessity for
further expansion to incorporate all the reserve components; and
(iv) recommendations regarding closer coordination between
the Office of Reintegration Programs and State National Guard
organizations.
(D) ANNUAL REPORTS.--The advisory board shall submit annual
reports to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives following the initial report by the first week in March
of subsequent years following the initial report.
(4) STATE DEPLOYMENT CYCLE SUPPORT TEAMS.--The Office for
Reintegration Programs shall employ personnel to administer the Yellow
Ribbon Reintegration Program at the State level. The Chief of the
National Guard Bureau shall assign State Deployment Cycle Support team
members based on State need, geographical dispersion, and military
population. The Office for Reintegration Programs is encouraged to
employ wounded service members and returning combat veterans whenever
possible. The nary function of team members shall be--
(A) developing and managing the reintegration curriculum;
(B) contracting and recruiting for necessary service
providers; and
(C) ensuring that providers' skills adapt to the unique
military nature of the reintegration program.
(e) PROGRAM.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--The Office for Reintegration Programs shall
analyze the demographics, placement of State Family Assistance Centers
(FAC), and FAC resources before a mobilization alert is issued to
affected State National Guard organizations. The Office of
Reintegration Programs shall consult with affected State National Guard
organizations following the issuance of a mobilization alert and
Implement the reintegration events in accordance with the Reintegration
Program phase model.
(2) PRE-DEPLOYMENT PHASE.--The pre-deployment phase shall
constitute the time from first notification of mobilization until
deployment of the mobilized National Guard unit. Events and activities
shall focus on providing education and ensuring the readiness of
service members, families, and communities for the rigors of a combat
deployment.
(3) DEPLOYMENT PHASE.--The deployment phase shall constitute
the period from deployment of the mobilized National Guard unit until
the unit arrives at a demobilization station inside the continental
United States. Events and services provided shall focus on the
challenges and stress associated with separation and having a member in
a combat zone. Information sessions shall utilize State National Guard
resources in coordination with the Employer Support of Guard and
Reserve Office, transition Assistance Advisors, and the State Family
Programs Director.
(4) DEMOBILIZATION PHASE.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The demobilization phase shall constitute
the period from arrival of the National Guard unit at the
demobilization station until its departure for home station. In the
interest of returning members as soon as possible to their home
stations, reintegration briefings during the demobilization phase shall
be minimized. State Deployment Cycle Support Teams are encouraged,
however, to assist demobilizing members in enrolling in the Department
of Veterans Affairs system using form l040EZ during the Demobilization
Phase. State Deployment Cycle Support Teams may provide other events
from the initial reintegration activity as determined by the State
National Guard organizations. Remaining events shall be conducted
during the post-deployment-reconstitution phase.
(B) INITIAL REINTEGRATION ACTIVITY.--The purpose of this
reintegration program is to educate service members about the resources
that are available to them and to connect members to service providers
who can assist them in overcoming the challenges of reintegration.
(5) POST-DEPLOYMENT-RECONSTITUTION PHASE.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The post-deployment reconstitution phase
shall constitute the period from arrival at home station until 180 days
following demobilization. Activities and services provided shall focus
on reconnecting service members with their families and communities and
providing resources and information necessary for successful
reintegration. Reintegration events shall begin with elements of the
Initial Reintegration Activity program that were not completed during
the demobilization phase.
(B) 30-DAY, 60-DAY, AND 90-DAY REINTEGRATION ACTIVITIES.--
The State National Guard organizations shall hold reintegration
activities at the 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day interval following
demobilization. These activities shall focus on reconnecting service
members and family members with the service providers from initial
reintegration activity to ensure service members and their families
understand what benefits they are entitled to and what resources are
available to help them overcome the challenges of reintegration. The
reintegration activities shall also provide a forum for service members
and families to address negative behaviors related to combat stress and
transition.
(C) SERVICE MEMBER PAY.--Service members shall receive
appropriate pay for days spent attending the Reintegration Activities
at the 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day interval.
(D) MONTHLY INDIVIDUAL REINTEGRATION PROGRAM.--The Office
for Reintegration Programs, in coordination with State National Guard
organizations, shall offer a monthly reintegration program for
individual service members released from active duty or formerly in a
medical hold status. The program shall focus on the special needs of
this service member subset and the Office for Reintegration Programs
shall develop an appropriate program of services and information.
Prepared Statement of Thomas L. Bush,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs
(Manpower and Personnel), U.S. Department of Defense
Prepared Statement of Curtis L. Gilroy, Ph.D., Director,
Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel
and Readiness (Military Personnel Policy), U.S. Department of Defense
Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. We
are pleased to appear before you today, on behalf of the Department of
Defense (DoD), to testify about the educational assistance programs
available to active duty members, National Guard and Reserve members,
and veterans. For today's hearing, you asked the Department to comment
on four areas:
1. What specific issues should the Subcommittee address to meet
the needs of today's servicemembers and veterans?
2. Has the Department identified any problems in the current MGIB
or MGIB-SR?
3. Does the Department have any recommendations to streamline or
simplify the MGIB or MGIB-SR?
4. Should the Subcommittee be concerned about specific MGIB or
MGIB-SR related legislation that is pending before Congress?
Before turning to these specific questions, we would like to give a
brief overview of the current educational assistance programs--the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), which provides educational assistance
benefits to active duty members and veterans, and the Montgomery GI
Bill for the Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) and the Reserve Educational
Assistance Program (REAP), which provide educational assistance
benefits to National Guard and Reserve members.
THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL
The MGIB program is a cornerstone of our active duty military
recruiting efforts. There is little doubt that the MGIB has met or even
exceeded the expectations of its sponsors when it was enacted and has
been a major contributor to the success of the All-Volunteer Force. The
original ``GI Bill of Rights,'' created at the end of World War II,
gave returning servicemembers a comprehensive package of benefits to
compensate for opportunities lost while in the military, and to ease
their transition back into civilian life. The noted economist Peter
Drucker described that GI Bill by saying, ``Future historians may
consider it the most important event of the 20th century.'' Perhaps the
most far-reaching provision of the GI Bill was the financial assistance
it made available for veterans to attend college. The GI Bill offered
returning Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen payment of tuition,
fees, books, and supplies, along with a living stipend, at the
educational institution of the veteran's choice.
Today's MGIB traces its lineage directly to this milestone program,
with one important change. While all earlier GI Bill programs were
designed to ease the transition to civilian life from a conscripted
military force, since 1973 we have defended this Nation with a
volunteer force. Thus, as codified in title 38, United States Code, the
MGIB has as one of its purposes, ``to promote and assist the All-
Volunteer Force program and the Total Force Concept of the Armed Forces
by establishing a new program of educational assistance based upon
service on active duty or a combination of service on active duty and
in the Selected Reserve to aid in the recruitment and retention of
highly qualified personnel for both the active and reserve components
of the Armed Forces.''
In assessing the current MGIB program it is important to note that
education benefits are vital to our recruiting efforts. ``Money for
college'' consistently ranks among the major reasons young men and
women give for enlisting. Enrollment in the active-duty MGIB program
has risen from only 50 percent in its first year, 1985, to nearly 97
percent today. A total of 2.8 million men and women, from an eligible
pool of 3.8 million, have chosen to participate in the MGIB since its
implementation on July 1, 1985. Such enrollment rates demonstrate the
attractiveness of the MGIB.
The current MGIB program continues to serve the Active Components
of the military well. It is our belief that there are no significant
shortcomings to the program.
Value of the MGIB Stipend
In the initial year of the program--School Year 1985-86--the MGIB
offset 70 percent of the average cost of total expenses at a public 4-
year university. Total expenses include tuition, fees, room, and board.
This offset steadily declined until the early nineties when the MGIB
monthly benefit was increased from $300 per month to $400 per month.
Since 1993, the benefit has been adjusted annually for inflation. The
current rate of $1,101 this school year covers approximately 73 percent
of the average total expenses at a public 4-year university.
In addition to the basic MGIB benefit, three of the four Services
offer an increased benefit, called a ``kicker,'' targeting enlistments
in certain critical or hard-to-fill skills and for extended periods of
initial service. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps use this incentive to
annually steer about 12,000 high-quality youth into the skills
necessary for efficient force management. The statutory limit for the
kicker is $950 per month. The basic MGIB benefit plus the kicker make
up the Service College Funds. This year, the maximum benefit of the
Service College Funds covers about 136 percent of the estimated average
total expenses at a public 4-year university.
There is no doubt that the MGIB serves as a key recruiting
incentive. As I indicated earlier, young men and women consistently
rank ``money for college'' as the major reason they enlist. Today, the
Services are facing stiff challenges to recruiting. The number of
graduates who are pursuing postsecondary education right out of high
school is at an all-time high, and young people are finding that
financial assistance to attend college is available from many sources.
While few of those sources match the benefits of the MGIB, neither do
these sources require young men and women to delay their education for
a term of military service and the possibility of entering into
``harm's way.'' The MGIB benefit should be sufficient to offset the
commitment and sacrifices associated with military service.
While many may look at the benefit level of the MGIB as it relates
to readjustment and transition to civilian life, we must be mindful of
its effect on military force management. The potential benefits of a
higher benefit level to recruiting must be carefully evaluated in light
of the difficulties some of the Services are currently experiencing in
the recruiting market. Attracting qualified recruits using large,
across-the board basic benefits incurs the risk that many who enter for
the benefits will leave as soon as they can to use them. If so, lower
first term retention could both reduce the number of experienced NCOs
and Petty Officers available to staff the force, and put added pressure
on the recruiting market as additional accessions are required to
replace the members who leave. The Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics states the average monthly cost of
education (tuition, fees, room, and board) for School Year 2006-2007
was $1,450 (adjusted for inflation). We posit that the negative
retention impact starts to outweigh the positive impacts on recruiting
when the monthly benefit is higher than the total cost of education.
MONTGOMERY GI BILL FOR THE SELECTED RESERVE
Since the inception of the program in 1986 through fiscal year
2006, 1,500,000 members of the Selected Reserve have entered into
service agreements to gain eligibility for benefits under the
Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve. Of those who committed to
service in the Selected Reserve for MGIB-SR benefits, 639,516, or 42
percent, have applied for educational assistance. This indicates that
educational assistance plays an important role in the decision to join
the National Guard or Reserve. As of August 2007, slightly under 40
percent of members currently serving in the Selected Reserve are
eligible for MGIB-SR benefits. We also have another 10 percent of
currently serving Selected Reserve members who are now beyond the 14-
year MGIB-SR delimiting period.
To illustrate the importance of the MGIB-SR program to our
recruiting and retention efforts, just under 50 percent of members
serving in the Selected Reserve today are within their 8-year military
service obligation. Among those who have a remaining service
obligation, they have the option of transferring to the Individual
Ready Reserve at any time unless they have a contractual Selected
Reserve service obligation based on receiving an incentive (such as the
MGIB-SR). Thus, incentives are an important tool in staffing our
reserve units.
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 recruit and retain members in the
Selected Reserve. The MGIB-SR program 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 and remain in the Selected Reserve to
retain eligibility.
RESERVE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The new Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) was developed
to reward National Guard and Reserve members who served in support of a
contingency operation, and National Guard members who performed
federally funded state duty at the request of the President or
Secretary of Defense to respond to a national emergency by offering an
incentive to continue to serve following a mobilization when pressure
to separate may be strong. A member who serves as few as 90 consecutive
days is eligible for $440 a month in educational assistance for up to
36 months. The benefit increases for members who serve longer, with a
member who serves for at least one continuous year eligible for a
benefit of $660 a month and a member who serves for at least 2
continuous years eligible for a benefit of $880 per month. 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 when he or she was ordered to active duty. As of
September 2007, 41,388 Reserve component members have used the REAP
program.
NEEDS OF TODAY'S SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS
The most recent survey data on Reserve Educational Assistance
Program show that 17 percent of respondents were pursuing an education
of which 42 percent were using the MGIB-SR benefit, 14 percent were
using the MGIB-AD benefit and 15 percent were using the REAP benefit.
We also asked how satisfied members were with their educational
benefits. Seventy-four percent responded that they were satisfied or
very satisfied. Another 14 percent responded that they were neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied, with 8 percent dissatisfied and 4 percent
very dissatisfied. This feedback indicates that the programs are
working well. Although as noted below, there are areas where we believe
program improvements are warranted.
Moreover, for the programs that are under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Defense--the Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve
and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program--we must look at these
recruiting and retention incentives through the lens of force
management. We know that there are different factors or incentives that
motivate an individual to join the military and to remain in the
military. So we must determine if the incentives we offer are achieving
our force management objectives. We also must balance priorities that
are competing for limited resources.
As previously noted, the current percent of the force that has
gained eligibility for the Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve
is only slightly below the historic level--2 percent. This is an
indication that members still value the program. One area we have
specifically looked at is the benefit rate. While the law provides for
an annual rate adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index, there has
been concern that benefit level has not kept up with the rising cost of
education or increases to the MGIB programs. Therefore, we asked the
DoD Actuary to develop a cost projection to increase the MGIB-SR
benefit rate to 50 percent of the 3-year MGIB benefit level, which
would bring the rate for a full-time student to $550 compared to the
current rate of $317. The Actuary projected that this $233 or 75-
percent increase in the benefit would cost just over $1B over the next
5 years.
Another possible change the Department is considering is an
increase in the MGIB-SR kicker, which currently has a maximum limit of
$350 a month. Adjusting the kicker rate would help the Services achieve
force-shaping objectives by providing a richer kicker benefit to
members who agree to serve in a skill designated as critically short.
Unlike a general rate adjustment, this would help the Department
relieve some of the stress on the force by providing an additional
retention incentive for members who are currently in or will retrain
into a critically short skill or specialty.
PROBLEMS IN THE CURRENT PROGRAMS
As stated earlier, the current MGIB program continues to serve the
Active Components of the military well and we see no significant
problems with the program.
We do have a concern with both the Montgomery GI Bill for the
Selected Reserve and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program.
Initiatives to reset the force and the drawdown of forces in the Air
Reserve components could lead to some members losing eligibility to
either or both programs.
Therefore, this year the Department submitted legislation that
would renew the MGIB-SR drawdown provision of the 1990's. This would
allow a member to retain MGIB-SR eligibility for up to 10 years
following separation from the Selected Reserve provided the reason for
separating from the Selected Reserve was a result of force-shaping
initiatives associated with Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) action.
We are pleased that the Senate-passed version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (2008 NDAA) (section 675 of H.R.
1585) included this provision.
The Department also proposed an amendment to REAP which would allow
a member of the Selected Reserve who incurs a break in Selected Reserve
service, but remains in the Individual Ready Reserve or Inactive
National Guard during that break, to continue to receive educational
assistance payments for up to 90 days provided the member retains in
the Individual Ready Reserve. If the break extends beyond 90 days,
benefit payments would be suspended, but the member would not lose
eligibility for the REAP benefit. Currently, the Selected Reserve
member retains eligibility for REAP up to 90 days with no benefit
payments, but loses all eligibility after 90 days. The change proposed
by the Department would allow for a short period of uninterrupted
benefits for members who transition between units or components and
allow a member who has earned a benefit to retain the benefit
indefinitely provided the member remains in the Ready Reserve.
Regrettably, this proposal was included in neither the House nor Senate
passed versions of the 2008 NDAA.
STREAMLINING OR SIMPLIFY THE PROGRAMS
This past year, there has been considerable interest in changing
the two Reserve educational assistance programs--primarily to allow a
member to use the benefit after voluntarily separating from the
Service. The reason typically cited for this change is that Reserve
component members are now being called up to perform operational
missions rather than to just train; therefore, it is only fair that
they are allowed to use their educational assistance benefits after
they leave the service--just like active duty members.
There have been two approaches proposed to accomplish this. The
first is to consolidate the three separate educational assistance
programs into a ``Total Force GI Bill'' in title 38 of the U.S. Code.
The second approach is simply recodify the two reserve educational
assistance programs into title 38. In fact legislation is pending that
would move both the MGIB-SR and REAP programs to title 38. While the
Department strongly supports changes to the reserve educational
assistance programs that help sustain the Reserve components and the
All-Volunteer Force, we do not support consolidating the three
educational assistance programs or transferring responsibility for the
reserve educational assistance programs to the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
The 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
purposes for which they were designed, it may be difficult to truly
have one program. The calls for a single program simply views military
service as the pathway to an education benefit, not a program to retain
members. All the ``Total Force'' proposals we have reviewed do not
integrate the three programs; they simply remain three separate and
distinct stand-alone programs that would be codified with some slight
modifications in title 38.
Moving the two reserve educational assistance programs to title 38
would place military force management programs under the jurisdiction
of this committee and have them administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs. This neither streamlines nor simplifies the programs.
Nor does it fit with the purpose for which these programs were
created--recruiting and retention. These are force management functions
that belong to the Department of Defense, not the Department of
Veterans Affairs. The Department of Veterans Affairs provides benefits
and services to veterans and their families. The mission of DoD is to
provide a fit, ready force to defend this nation. To do that, we need a
range of incentives to help us manage, sustain and shape the force.
Moving the two reserve programs to the Department of Veterans Affairs
does not help us do that.
Moreover, Reserve component members can and do earn MGIB-AD
benefits. In fact, nearly 50 percent of all currently serving members
of the Selected Reserve are already eligible for MGIB-AD benefits by
virtue of prior active duty service. And a member who serves for 2
continuous years in support of a contingency operation qualifies for
both MGIB-AD and REAP, which have nearly identical benefit payment
amounts. The member has the choice of which benefit he or she would
like to use.
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 rate. In doing this,
when a program is added under the MGIB program, it would automatically
be added to the MGIB-SR and REAP programs.
PENDING LEGISLATION
Finally, the Subcommittee asked if there is any legislation that
the Subcommittee should be concerned about that is currently pending in
the Congress.
There are a number of proposals to enhance the current Montgomery
GI Bill. Most of these affect the Department of Veterans Affairs, which
has the responsibility for administering and funding the Active Duty
Montgomery GI Bill program. However, there is one bill (S. 22) that has
received much attention that would have an effect on active duty force
management.
S. 22 (as revised), the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2007, offers a ``World War II-like'' GI Bill educational
assistance benefit. If enacted, a veteran would be paid the full cost
of a college education up to the maximum charges of the highest cost
public institution in the State, as well as a $1,000 monthly stipend.
This legislation is correct in stating that the Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) was primarily designed for a ``peacetime force.'' However; as
previously stated, the current MGIB program for active duty is
basically sound and serves its purpose in support of the All-Volunteer
Force. While it may warrant some changes at the margin, there is no
need for the kind of sweeping (and expensive) changes offered in S. 22.
The average cost of a public 4-year institution this past school-
year was about $1,450/month. Adding a $1,000 monthly stipend would
bring a monthly benefit to about $2,450. The Department is concerned
that a benefit of this amount would have long-term negative impacts on
force management. It would be an enlistment incentive, to be sure; but
it would be a larger reenlistment disincentive. Additionally, we are
concerned that this Bill offers no provision for ``kickers,'' which, as
stated earlier, are used by the Services to channel high quality youth
into hard-to-fill and critical skills.
There are also a number of bills that would make changes to the
MGIB-SR and REAP programs. The Department's concern with many of the
changes being proposed is that they affect the Reserve service
obligation. Unlike individuals who have an obligation to serve on
active duty, many Reserve component members are under no obligation to
serve in the Selected Reserve. Unless an individual commits to Selected
Reserve service because he or she receives a bonus, receives student
loan repayments, or commits to Selected Reserve service for the MGIB-SR
benefits, a Guard or Reserve member makes a choice to continue to
participate each time he or she reports for a drill weekend.
This is why we are so interested in retaining the retention aspect
of the two reserve educational assistance programs. If we still had a
conscripted force, then retention would not be as much of a concern.
But we have an All-Volunteer Force and we need incentives that
encourage Guard and Reserve members to continue to serve, rather than
providing incentives that encourage them to leave the force.
As previously noted, the legislation proposed by the Department is
designed to improve REAP for the member and help the Department meet
its force management objectives. This is in stark contrast to many of
the sweeping changes in bills currently pending before Congress.
H.R. 1585 (Section 525), the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (as passed by the House) and S. 644, the Total Force
Educational Assistance Enhancement and Integration Act of 2007, would
both recodify chapter 1606 (MGIB-SR) and chapter 1607 (REAP) of title
10, as a new chapter in title 38. As previously described, these
provisions would place primary responsibility for managing two critical
DoD recruiting and retention incentive programs with the Secretary of
Veterans' Affairs. While the amendments proposed in both bills would
for the most part leave these two programs as currently structured in
title 10--recruiting and retention incentives--it has been widely
publicized that the intent of placing the Reserve educational
assistance programs in title 38 is to provide a post-service benefit.
This will have a detrimental effect on retention.
A preliminary assessment by a federally funded research and
development center (FFRDC) projects that modifying the REAP program to
provide a post-service benefit could increase attrition by 10 percent
among members who are not already eligible for MGIB benefits. If this
change is enacted, it will impose an additional cost to DoD while
transferring the cost of the current program to the Department of
Veterans Affairs as direct spending--thus increasing the total cost to
government. There is little doubt that such a change will increase
attrition. Therefore, in order for DoD to sustain the same force level,
the Department will incur a new replacement costs created when members
who would otherwise remain in the Guard or Reserve in order to use
these benefits separate. On a per capita basis, it will cost the
Department $17,400 to recruit a replacement and train that replacement
to an entry skill level. Furthermore, in the current recruiting
environment, the Reserve components are offering accession incentives
ranging from $10,000 to $20,000. This will bring the total cost to
replace each individual to between $27,400 and $37,400, depending on
the accession incentive involved. Using the average incentive cost of
$15,000, an increase in attrition as little as one percent would cost
DoD an additional $518M over the next 5 years to maintain the current
force level.
Finally, the Administration has worked with Congressional Budget
and Appropriation Committees to ensure that the true cost of manpower
is reflected in the budget of all agencies. Reserve education benefits
are recruiting and retention incentives and, for this reason, they were
funded on an actuarial basis in the DoD budget at the inception of the
MGIB. Transferring responsibility for these two programs to DVA
dismantles this funding mechanism with the programs then being budgeted
as direct spending, which is contrary to transparent and responsible
budgeting.
H.R. 1585 (Section 676), the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (as passed by the Senate) would allow a member who
completes the required period of contingency service and any other
contractual service obligation to retain REAP eligibility for 10 years
after separating from the Selected Reserve. As noted previously, most
Selected Reserve members are not obligated to serve in the Selected
Reserve. If enacted, this provision would take away one of our
retention incentives. This would provide a post-service benefit for a
member who serves as few as 90 days on active duty, compared to the
eligibility criteria to qualify for the MGIB-AD benefit, which requires
the member to serve at least 2 continuous years on active duty.
Further, this would impose the same cost to the Department as just
described for transferring the two reserve educational assistance
programs to DVA.
H.R. 1585 (Section 674), the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (as passed by the Senate) and S. 1293, the Veterans'
Education and Vocational Benefits Improvement Act of 2007, would
provide authority, beginning October 1, 2008, for accelerated payment
of educational assistance for certain high-cost programs of education
under the MGIB-SR and REAP programs. Section 674 and S. 1293 would also
amend REAP to allow Reserve component members who served an aggregate
of 3 years or more of qualifying duty to receive an educational
assistance allowance at the highest benefit level authorized under this
program (80 percent of the 3-year MGIB-AD rate). Currently, the service
requirement is for continuous years of qualifying service. Finally,
section 674 and S. 1293 would authorize a program, similar to the MGIB-
AD program, that allows a member to ``buy up'' his or her REAP benefit
by making after-tax contributions of up to $600 to augment the monthly
amount of basic educational assistance the member receives during the
36 months of entitlement to educational assistance payments.
The maximum 5-year cost for providing accelerated payments would be
$35M ($4M per year for MGIB-SR and $3M per year for REAP). The
preliminary 5-year cost estimate to allow reserve component members to
``buy-up'' their REAP benefit is $15M. The preliminary 5-year cost
estimate of allowing members who serve an aggregate of 3 years to
receive benefit payments at the 80 percent level is $11M. The estimated
total 5-year cost to DoD is $61M. This modest investment would provide
Reserve component members with additional options for using their
educational assistance benefits while supporting DoD's retention
efforts.
Allowing a member to accumulate periods of service in order to
qualify for the highest level of benefit payments under REAP would
support the Secretary's force utilization policy, which is to limit
mobilizations to no more than 1 year and the Department's continuum of
service construct, which is to facilitate varying levels of service as
the member's situation allows.
Therefore, the Department supports Section 674 and those provisions
of S. 1293, which would provide for accelerated payments under the
MGIB-SR and REAP programs, allow Reserve component members who serve
for 3 cumulative years to qualify for the highest benefit level under
the REAP program and permit members to ``buy up'' their benefit level--
like the option available under the MGIB-AD program--by contributing up
to $600.
CONCLUSION
Today, the volunteer military stands ready, willing, and able to
defend our great nation, as well as its values and principles. Credit
for our success in attracting high-quality people to serve in uniform
belongs in large measure to the Congress for providing military members
with the benefits embodied in the educational assistance programs. Few
areas, if any, are more important to DoD than recruiting and retention.
We recognize our duty to man the All-Volunteer Force with high-quality,
motivated, and well-trained men and women. The MGIB and REAP
educational assistance programs have been a major contributor to
recruiting and retention achievements for more than 20 years. As we
move through the 21st Century, we must continue to build upon the
remarkable legacy of the visionaries who crafted preceding versions and
improvements in the GI Bill. I thank the Subcommittee for its dedicated
support to the men and women who currently serve, and those who have
served, our great nation.
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service,
Veterans Benefit Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman
and members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to
discuss the current state of the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and
potential ways to improve upon its success and the success of the other
educational assistance programs administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). My testimony will address areas in which the
MGIB could be updated, streamlined, and simplified. In addition, I will
comment on selected bills which have been introduced in the 110th
Congress and certain concepts and provisions within those bills in
which we find merit, as well as areas which could potentially be
problematic. VA defers to the Department of Defense on how the various
legislative proposals would affect title 10 education benefit programs
whose primary objectives are force recruitment and retention. However,
I will comment on how the selected bills will affect program
implementation and costs.
We are pleased to report that in fiscal year 2007, we paid an
estimated $2.8 billion in benefits to approximately 500,000 trainees.
These benefits covered chapters 30, 32, and 35 of title 38, and
chapters 1606 and 1607 of title 10. Payments are made for studies in
educational, vocational, on-the-job training and apprenticeship
programs, completion of licensing and certification exams, and flight
training. In fiscal year 2007, we processed original claims in 32.4
days and supplemental claims in 13.2 days. This represents an
improvement of approximately 7 days from our FY06 processing times of
40.1 and 19.8 days. The reduction in our processing times also met or
exceeded the performance goals set forth for FY07.
VA's education benefit programs have been very successful in
helping servicemembers in their successful readjustment to civilian
life. Education benefits are frequently identified as a primary reason
that individuals enlist in the armed forces.
Recent congressional actions have addressed areas that we see as
essential to the continued vitality of our educational benefit
programs. For example, VA supports in principle the proposal in S.
1293, for the expansion of accelerated payment, although we do have
concerns arising from the potential inequities created by the annual
payment limits mentioned in this bill. Another proposed bill, H.R. 797,
would extend certain provisions of the Work Study program through June
30, 2012. VA believes these provisions of the Work Study program serve
a valuable purpose, and we agree they should be extended.
The programs we administer, including MGIB-Active Duty, MGIB-
Selected Reserve, and the Readjustment Educational Assistance Program
(REAP), in their current forms are a complex group of programs with
complicated benefit eligibility criteria. VA appreciates Congress's
strong interest in streamlining the education benefits available to
veterans and servicemembers; however many of the proposals currently
under consideration by Congress not only create additional eligibility
categories but, in the process, also include retroactive eligibility
criteria with amendments otherwise effective on the date of enactment.
A multitude of programs and eligibility criteria create confusion for
veterans, our partners in the Department of Defense (DoD), and for our
Department, as well. This also works against our efforts to further
improve program participation and understanding. We share your desire
to improve education benefits available to veterans; however, we
believe it should be done with the goal of streamlining existing
programs versus adding new programs and additional layers of complexity
associated with administering them. Further, many of the current
proposals would expand benefit amount and/or eligibility; we cannot
support any costly expansion of benefit without identified offsets.
Two proposals which have garnered a great deal of attention would
create a chapter 33 benefit, a new program for post September 11, 2001
servicemembers and veterans (S. 22 and S. 1409/H.R. 2385). These
proposals are prohibitively costly. Further, under the current benefits
structure, many individuals find themselves potentially eligible under
one or more of the three VA-administered programs that I previously
mentioned. Those individuals are tasked with comparing payment rates
and impact on kickers to determine which program would be most
advantageous in their individual circumstances. Incorporating a new
chapter 33 program, the extent of entitlement to which would require
factoring in length of service and previous benefits usage, would make
the process even more complex and difficult for individuals to
understand.
Finally, I note additional concerns with certain other pending
legislation. Senate bills 723, 1719, and 698 and House bills 112 and
1102 raise issues of equity in providing benefits to veterans and
servicemembers. For example, these bills contain provisions that would
give preference to one period of service or benefit program over
another. S. 723 proposes to reimburse the payroll reduction required
for MGIB enrollment to members of the Armed Forces who served after
November 16, 2001, through the date of termination of Executive Order
13235. Many individuals bravely served our country during periods that
do not coincide with these dates; these individuals would be
disadvantaged merely because of their dates of service. Both S. 1409
and H.R. 2385 include provisions that would exclude graduate programs
from eligibility. Today, many individuals enter the service with at
least some amount of post-secondary education. Disallowing graduate
training would limit the eligible person's choices and the ability to
use the maximum entitlement earned, as well as create an inequity among
those eligible to receive the benefit.
Additionally, Senate bills 22, 1409, 1719, and 644 and House bill
1102 pose significant logistical obstacles by requiring substantial
changes to entitlement determinations and payment methods. These new
payment methods would require extensive enhancements to existing
payment systems with significant attendant costs, implementation delay,
and impact on current claims processing. Our continued concern is
limiting the impact on beneficiaries and ensuring timely receipt of
payments.
In closing, I reiterate that VA is dedicated to providing the most
beneficial education programs to veterans and their dependents. We
believe that changes made to enhance these benefits must not create an
extra burden on the beneficiaries by making the programs more complex.
This concludes my statement. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee and would be pleased to address any
questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Statement of James Kendzel, MPH, SPHR, Executive Director,
National Organization for Competency Assurance
The National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA)
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony to the House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity regarding its
hearing on updating the Montgomery GI Bill, the nation's primary
educational benefit for military personnel and veterans.
Maximize Use of Montgomery GI Benefits
NOCA was an active participant in working with Members of Congress
and the veterans' community to expand the use of Montgomery GI benefits
toward paying for the cost of obtaining an occupational certification
or license. Upon enactment of this new benefit,\1\ NOCA actively
encouraged NOCA member certification boards to apply for approval from
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) \2\ to speed the reimbursement
process for veterans applying for reimbursement after taking their
particular certification test. A large number of certifications meet
the VA standards and are now reimbursable.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. 106-419, Sec. 122, 114. Stat. 1833 (Nov. 1, 2000).
\2\ Available at http://www.noca.org/portals/0/vatest.doc.
\3\ The Department of Veterans Affairs WEAMS database allows a
search of approved certifications. Available at: http://
inquiry.vba.va.gov/weamspub/buildSearchLCCriteria.do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOCA continues to believe that the program is an essential element
of the benefits returned to our veterans for their service to country
and that this specific benefit enhances veterans' marketability in a
competitive workforce by demonstrating competency in a particular
occupation. NOCA has noted, however, that there has been a significant
decrease in the use of the benefit since its inception. For example,
from FY2004 to FY2006, the number of payments for certification and
licensure tests dropped from 5,123 (FY2004) to 2,899 (FY2006). The
amount paid out in certification and licensure reimbursements dropped
from $1,433,768 (FY2004) to $1,062,852 (FY2006). However, the average
payment increased from $280 to $367 during the same time period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Data reported by a VA staff member at the July 21, 2006 minutes
of the Professional Certification and Advisory Committee (PCLAC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee
(PCLAC) has reviewed the decreasing numbers and suggested that the VA
step up its outreach efforts to ensure awareness of the certification
and licensure reimbursement benefit. NOCA supports this role for the
VA. In years previous, staff from VA regularly attended and exhibited
at the NOCA Annual Conference, the nation's largest gathering of
certification bodies, in order to increase knowledge of the
certification and licensure reimbursement benefit. The PCLAC sent a
letter in 2006 to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs expressing their
concerns about the VA's lackluster outreach efforts for the last few
years in this area.
NOCA continues to encourage its member certification boards to
become approved by the VA. In addition, military websites such as Army
Credentialing Opportunities On-Line (COOL) \5\ and Navy Credentialing
Opportunities On-Line (COOL) \6\ provide information about using
Montgomery GI benefits to pay for the cost of taking a certification or
licensure examination. Likewise, Defense Activity for Non-Traditional
Education Support (DANTES),\7\ a NOCA organizational member, provides
similar information for veterans. However, more can be done to promote
this important benefit. NOCA will continue to encourage its individual
member certification boards to promote their VA approval to potential
certificants. These efforts, long envisioned and encouraged by NOCA,
are now essential building blocks for a regime of commitment to our
veterans. We also encourage the VA to redouble its outreach efforts to
both veterans and the certification community to raise awareness of
Montgomery GI benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Available at https://www.cool.army.mil/.
\6\ Available at https://www.cool.navy.mil/.
\7\ http://www.dantes.doded.mil/Dantes_web/DANTESHOME.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOCA also recommends that the certification and licensure benefit
be expanded to help pay for the costs of test preparation courses. Many
such specialized courses can cost hundreds, if not thousands of
dollars, for classroom instruction as well as practice tests, books,
and other preparatory materials. They are essential in many instances
to the successful preparation of otherwise qualified applicants, and we
urge Congress to give this proposal a serious look.
The current Montgomery GI benefit for paying for certification and
licensure exams has a 10 year window in which the veteran may access
these benefits. There has been discussion about eliminating the 10 year
time period as well as allowing veterans to transfer their benefits to
their dependents. NOCA strongly supports these measures as they would
build more flexibility into the education and training system for
veterans, making the benefit even more attractive. This format would
acknowledge an asset-based benefit that veterans will have every
incentive to earn and utilize for themselves or their dependents.
Service to our country must and should have very specific and
lasting rewards. For the men and women who enter the armed services,
theirs is an expectation of support, and the ability to transfer skill
sets learned in service to private sector enterprises. What more
logical investment in the future of our veterans and the fields that
they choose to enter after service than tangible pathways to engaging
professions and trades afterward.
About the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA)
NOCA, the oldest and largest organization representing
certification agencies, testing companies, and consulting firms and
individuals involved in professional certification, was created in 1977
as the National Commission for Health Certifying Agencies (NCHCA) with
federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services. Its
mission was to develop standards for quality certification in the
allied health fields and to accredit organizations that met those
standards. With the growing use of certification in other fields,
NCHCA's leaders recognized that what is essential for credible
certification of individuals in the healthcare sector is equally
essential for other sectors. With this vision, NCHCA evolved into the
National Organization for Competency Assurance. NOCA is a non-profit,
501(c)(3) organization, committed to serving the public interest by
ensuring adherence to standards that ensure the highest competence of
certification programs.
NOCA's membership is composed of more than 380 organizations
responsible for certifying specific skill sets and knowledge bases of
professions and occupations at the national and international level.
Through certification, NOCA members represent more than 15 million
individuals around the world and include certification programs of some
150 professions and occupations, including 60 healthcare professions.
NOCA members certify individual skills in fields as diverse as
construction, healthcare, automotive, and finance. A current roster of
NOCA members is included in the appendix.
NOCA also brings the expertise of its internationally recognized
accrediting arm, the National Commission for Certifying Agencies
(NCCA). NCCA uses a peer review process to evaluate adherence to its
standards by certification programs and grants accreditation to those
programs that have met those standards. These standards exceed the
requirements set forth by the American Psychological Association and
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and thus help to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NCCA is the
national accreditation body that provides this service for private
certification organizations in all disciplines.
NOCA's mission is to promote excellence in competency assurance for
individuals in all occupations and professions. No other organization
has the presence in or commits the resources to the field of
certification. NOCA is proud of its position as the international
leader in competency assurance for certification programs, as well as
its role in promoting excellence in competency assurance for
practitioners in all occupations and professions.
Respectfully Submitted,
James Kendzel, MPH, SPHR
Executive Director
__________
APPENDIX I
NOCA Organizational Members
NOCA's Organizational Members consist of the following
associations, certifying organizations, customer groups, and government
agencies:
AACE International
Academy of Ambulatory Foot and Ankle Surgery
Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education
Professionals
Academy of Lactation Policy and Practice
Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools
Accreditation Council for Accountancy and Taxation
Advocis
Aerobics and Fitness Association of America
Alliance of Information and Referral Systems
American Academy of Healthcare Providers in the Addictive Disorders
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
American Academy of Micropigmentation
American Academy of Pain Management
American Academy of Wound Management
American Association for Medical Transcription
American Association for Respiratory Care
American Association of Clinical Coders and Auditors
American Association of Colleges of Nursing
American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Certification Corporation
American Association of Medical Assistants
American Association of Medical Audit Specialists
American Association of Physician Specialists
American Association of Poison Control Centers
American Board for Certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics, Inc.
American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, Inc.
American Board for Occupational Health Nurses
American Board of Cardiovascular Perfusion
American Board of General Dentistry
American Board of Genetic Counseling
American Board of Industrial Hygiene
American Board of Lower Extremity Surgery
American Board of Multiple Specialties in Podiatry
American Board of Nursing Specialties
American Board of Opticianry
American Board of Pain Medicine
American Board of Registration of Electroencephalographic and Evoked
Potential Technologists, Inc.
American Board of Surgical Assistants
American Board of Transplant Coordinators
American Board of Veterinary Practitioners
American Certification Agency for Healthcare Professionals
American Chiropractic Board of Radiology
American Chiropractic Board of Sports Physicians
American Chiropractic Neurology Board
American Chiropractic Registry of Radiologic Technologists
American Clinical Board of Nutrition
American College of Sports Medicine
American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists
American Construction Inspectors Association
American Council on Exercise
American Fitness Professionals and Associates
American Health Information Management Association
American Hospital Association Certification Center
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
American Indoor Air Quality Council
American Manual Medicine Association
American Medical Massage Association
American Medical Technologists
American Midwifery Certification Board
American Nurses Credentialing Center Commission on Certification
American Occupational Therapy Association
American Optometric Association Commission on Paraoptometric
Certification
American Organization for Bodywork Therapies of Asia
American Physical Therapy Association
American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonographers
American Registry of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists
The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
American Society for Association Executives
American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery
American Society for Clinical Pathology
American Society of Anesthesia Technologists and Technicians
American Society of Military Comptrollers
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
American Staffing Association
American Veterinary Chiropractic Association, Inc.
American Veterinary Medical Association
APICS--The Association for Operations Management
Aquatic Exercise Association, Inc.
Architectural Woodwork Institute
Art Therapy Credentials Board
ASIS International
Association for Death Education and Counseling
Association for Investment Management and Research
Association of Christian Alcohol and Drug Counselors
Association of Government Accountants
Association of Regulatory Boards of Optometry
Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards
Association of Surgical Technologists, Inc.
Association of Water Technologies, Inc.
Axiom Resource Management, Inc.
Banfield, The Pet Hospital
Behavior Analyst Certification Board
Biofeedback Certification Institute of America
Board for Certification in Clinical Anaplastology
Board for Certification of Addiction Specialists
Board for Certification in Pedorthics
Board for Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification
Board of Canadian Registered Safety Professionals
Board of Certification for Emergency Nursing
Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics
Board of Certification of Medical Illustrators
Board of Certified Safety Professionals
Board of Environmental, Health & Safety Auditor Certifications
Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties
Board of Registered Polysomnographic Technologists
Breining Institute
California Association for Alcohol and Drug Educators
California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors (CAADAC)
and the California Certification Board of Alcohol and Drug Counselors
(CCBADC)
California Association of Drinking Driver Treatment Programs
California Certifying Board for Medical Assistants
California-Nevada Section, American Water Works Association
California Water Environment Association
Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators
Canadian Board for Respiratory Care, Inc.
Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers
Canadian Nurses Association
Center for Credentialing and Education
Certification Board for Music Therapists
Certification Board for Radiology Practitioner Assistants
Certification Board for Sterile Processing and Distribution
Certification Board for Infection Control and Epidemiology
Certification of Disability Management Specialists Commission
Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc.
Certified Fund Raising Executive International
Certified General Accountants Association of Canada
Certified Mine Safety Professional Certification Board
Certifying Board for Dietary Managers
Chartered Realty Investor Society
College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario
College of Medical Radiation Technologists of Ontario
College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario
College of Pharmacists of British Columbia
College of Physiotherapists of Ontario
College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario
Commission for Case Manager Certification
Commission for Certification in Geriatric Pharmacy
Commission on Dietetic Registration of the American Dietetic
Association
Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools
Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification
Competency and Credentialing Institute
Convergys
The Cooper Institute
Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards
Council on Certification of Health, Environmental, and Safety
Technologists
Council on Certification of Nurse Anesthetists
Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation
Council on Professional Standards for Kinesiotherapy
Crane Operator Certification Authority
CFA Institute
CSI Global Education
Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support
Dental Assisting National Board
Department of Environment and Labor Province of Nova Scotia
Entertainment Technician Certification Program (ETCP-ESTA)
Esthetic Skin Institute
Examination Board of Professional Home Inspectors
Financial Planning Standards Board
Financial Planners Standards Council
Financial Planning Association of Australia
Florida Certification Board
Florida Nursery, Growers & Landscape Association
Fundacao Luis Eduardo Magalhaes
Hand Therapy Certification Commission, Inc.
The Healing Oasis Wellness Center
Healthcare Compliance Certification Board
Healthcare Financial Management Association
Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society
Healthcare Quality Certification Board
Human Resource Certification Institute
Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation
Infocomm International
International Medical University of Natural Education (IMUNE)
Indian Alcoholism Commission of California
Infusion Nurses Certification Corporation
Institute for Safety and Health Management
Institute for the Certification of Pharmacy Technicians
Institute of Certified Construction Financial Professionals
Institute of Certified Management Accountants
Institute of Hazardous Materials Management
Institute for Supply Management
International Accounts Payable Professionals, Inc.
International Air Filtration Certifiers Association
International Alliance for Fitness Professionals
International Association for Colon Hydrotherapy
International Association of Eating Disorders Professionals Association
International Association of Forensic Nurses
International Association of Healthcare Central Service Materiel
Management
International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners
International Code Council
International Executive Housekeepers Association, Inc.
International Fitness Association
International Foundation for Retirement Education
International Lactation Consultant Association
International Pilates Certification
International Society for Clinical Densitometry
International Society of Arboriculture
International Society for Performance Improvement
Irrigation Association
ISA, The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society
Joint Commission on Allied Health Personnel in Ophthalmology
Kassian Dyck & Associates
Knowledge Assessment Calculator (formerly American Payroll Association)
Lamaze International
Marketing Research Association
Medical Massage National Certification Board
Michigan Institute for Health Enhancement
NAA Education Institute
NAADAC--The Association for Addiction Professionals
National Academy of Sports Medicine
National Alliance Wound Care
National Assistant at Surgery Council
National Association of Medical Staff Services
National Association for Health Professionals
National Association of Boards of Pharmacy
National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts
National Association of College Stores
National Association of Federal Credit Unions
National Association of Forensic Counselors
National Association of Legal Assistants
National Association of Mortgage Brokers
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of State Contractors Licensing Agencies
National Asthma Educator Certification Board, Inc.
National Athletic Trainer's Association Board of Certification
National Board for Certification in Hearing Instrument Sciences
National Board for Certification of Hospice and Palliative Nurses
National Board for Certification of Orthopaedic Technologists
National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy
National Board for Certification of Orthopedic Physician Assistants
National Board for Certified Counselors
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
National Board for Respiratory Care
National Board of Certification for Community Association Managers,
Inc.
National Board of Chiropractic Examiners
National Board of Examiners in Optometry
National Board of Nutrition Support
National Board of Orthodontics, U.S.
National Board of Surgical Specialists
National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting
National Business Aviation Association
National Center for Competency Testing
National Certification Board for Diabetes Educators
National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Body Work
National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
National Certification Corporation for the Obstetric, Gynecologic, and
Neonatal Nursing Specialties
The National Commission for Health Education Credentialing
National Commission for Certification of Continuing Medical Education
Professionals
National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators
National Concrete Masonry Association
National Contact Lens Examiners
National Council for Interior Design Qualification
National Council for Therapeutic Recreation Certification, Inc.
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc.
National Council on Strength and Fitness
National Credentialing Agency for Laboratory Personnel
National Dental Hygiene Certification Board
National Enrichment Teachers Association
National Examining Board of Ocularists
National Exercise Trainers Association (NETA)
National Exercise and Sports Trainers Association (NESTA)
National Federation of Professional Trainers
National Fitness Professionals Association
National Ground Water Association
National Healthcareer Association
National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence
National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies
National Institute for Metalworking Skills
National Kitchen and Bath Association
National League for Nursing
National Occupational Competency Testing Institute
National Paramedical for Technician and Assistants
Natonal Recreation and Parks Association
National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians
National Registry of Food Safety Professionals
National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) Certification
Commission
Natural Therapies Certification Board
Nephrology Nursing Certification Commission
North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners
North American Registry of Midwives
North Carolina Substance Abuse Practice Board
The Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board
Oncology Nursing Certification Corporation
Ontario College of Pharmacists
Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers
Ophthalmic Photographers' Society, Inc. Board of Certification
Pediatric Nursing Certification Board
Petrofac Training International
Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada
Pharmacy Technician Certification Board
Pilates Method Alliance, Inc.
Private Trainers Association
Professional Golfers' Association of America
Professional Healthcare Institute of America
Professional Landcare Network
Professional Photographers of America
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Certification Program
Radiology Coding Certification Board
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.
Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North
America
Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute
School Nutrition Association
Society of Actuaries
Society of American Foresters
Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers
Society of Certified Senior Advisors
The Society of the Plastics Industry
Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers
Software Engineering Institute
Southern California Crane and Hoisting Certification Program
Transportation Professional Certification Board, Inc.
Turnaround Management Association
UCSD--Center for Criminality Addiction Research, Training, and
Application (CCARTA)
Universal Public Purchasing Certification Council
U.S. Green Building Council
Veterinary Hospital Managers Association
The Wedding Planning Institute
Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Certification Board
POST-HEARING QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
Robert Norton
Deputy Director, Government Relations
Military Officers Association of America
201 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Dear Col. Norton:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Military Officers Association
Alexandria, VA.
October 31, 2007
Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, HVAC
Room 334 Cannon House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Chairwoman:
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before your
Subcommittee on October 18 in behalf of the Military Officers
Association of America on the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
The current MGIB framework is a product of the Cold war. MGIB
components are not optimized according to the realities of military
policy and the needs of our Nation's veterans in the 21st century. In
our view, the MGIB should be restructured under the principle that
benefits should match the length and type of duty performed by all
members of our armed forces. By doing this, the MGIB can be a better
tool for military recruitment and retention programs, and improve
readjustment outcomes for our veterans, as Congress intended.
MOAA would prefer a comprehensive overhaul for the MGIB, but we
recognize the challenges of competing priorities and the realities of
PAYGO. From this perspective, MOAA's ``top five'' priorities for
updating and improving the MGIB are:
1. Recodify reserve MGIB programs with the active duty MGIB in
Title 38. (Section 525, H.R. 1585, House National Defense Authorization
Act for FY 2008).
2. Establish a 10-year readjustment benefit--as authorized for
active force members--for National Guard and Reserve veterans called to
active federal service (Chap. 1607, 10 U.S.C.)
3. Raise MGIB monthly rates to cover the average cost of a 4-year
public college/university education. Government data indicate the MGIB
covers about 75 percent of such costs.
4. Authorize cumulative month-for-month entitlement under the MGIB
(Chapter 30, 38 U.S.C.) for reservists who serve on multiple active
duty tours in contingency operations.
5. Restore proportional parity between basic reserve MGIB rates
(Chapter 1606, 10 U.S.C.) and the active duty program (Chapter 30).
The enclosure goes into greater detail on these priorities and is taken
from my Statement for the Record for the 18 October hearing.
Sincerely,
Colonel Robert F. Norton
Deputy Director, Government Relations
Enclosure
__________
Questions from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on Updating the Montgomery GI Bill
October 18, 2007
What are the top 5 things your organization [Military Officers
Association of America] would like to see in a new GI Bill?
Please list items by order of priority.
Answer:
1. Transfer reserve MGIB programs from title 10 to title 38.
(Section 525, H.R. 1585). MGIB jurisdiction is split between the
Veterans Affairs Committees (title 38), who handle traditional GI Bill
benefits for active force members and the Armed Services Committees
(title 10) who handle Guard/Reserve GI Bill programs. Over time, title
38 benefits increased significantly, but Guard/Reserve benefits have
not. Because of the growing proportional benefit gap and the dramatic
surge in duty requirements of our Guard/Reserve members, the total GI
Bill program is no longer structured to match the nation's military
policy for the operational integration of our active and reserve
forces. Benefits should be structured to match the length and type of
duty performed by active duty and reserve component service men and
women. The House took an essential first step by favorably voting
Section 525 as a provision in the FY 2008 Natl. Defense Authorization
Act. The provision is cost-neutral and retains jurisdiction for reserve
(and active duty) MGIB ``kickers'' within DoD. (Section 525, H.R. 1585,
H.R. 1641, S. 644)
2. Establish a readjustment benefit (post-service) eligibility
period under the MGIB (Chap. 1607, 10 U.S. Code) for Guard and Reserve
veterans serving on active duty in contingency operations. Regular
active-force members have 10 years after leaving service to use their
GI Bill--regardless of any deployment experience. But Guard/Reserve
members who have been mobilized for multiple tours in Iraq can't use
their mobilization-related GI Bill benefits once they complete their
service obligation and separate. Post-service access to benefits earned
on active duty in defense of the Nation is the only veterans' benefit
denied returning Guard and Reserve veterans. The recent experience of
the Minnesota Guard illustrates the problem. A 2-year ``REAP'' benefit
(Chap. 1607) is the same as to a 2-year MGIB enlistment contract in the
active armed forces ($880 per month for full-time study). What's
missing is that returning Guard and Reserve troops have no readjustment
(post-service) access to their benefits earned under REAP. CBO has
informally scored the cost of 10-year portability of such benefits at
$50 million in 2008, $165 million over 5 years and $235 million over 10
years. The cost could be reduced by changing the effective date until 1
October 2008 (FY 2009) (retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001 and adjusting the
post-service usage period to 5 years for each 12 months served on
active duty (the DoD call-up policy). (Section 626, H.R. 1585--Senate,
and Section 530 ``Sense of Congress'' provision in H.R. 1585, House; S.
644)
3. Raise MGIB monthly rates to cover the cost of education at the
average 4-year public college/university. The present monthly rate for
full-time study for active duty veterans is $1101 (Chapter 30, 38 U.S.
Code), which covers about 75 percent of the current cost of education
for books, fees, and expenses at the average 4-year public college or
university according to Dept. of Education data. The Partnership for
Veterans Education has long sought benchmarking MGIB rates to track
with the average cost at a 4-year public college or university. (H.R.
2385, S. 1409, H.R. 2702, S. 22)
4. Authorize cumulative month-for-month credit under the MGIB
(Chapter 30, 38 U.S. Code) for reservists who serve on active duty in a
contingency operation. Operational reserve policy requires Guard and
Reserve members to expect activation for 12 months at a time every 5 or
6 years. Since 9/11, 142,000+ Guard and Reserve members have been
activated two or more times. Under the ``total force MGIB'' concept
reservists should be able to aggregate multiple periods of active duty
for MGIB entitlement up to the maximum allowable in law, 36 months.
Currently, a Guard/Reserve member's benefit is based on the longest
single period of mobilization. A member who has had two or more
activations gains no added education benefit for subsequent call-ups.
The inequity is illustrated in the Army's (19 October 2007)
announcement to activate seven National Guard Brigade Combat Teams. Two
of the BCTs are second activations since Sept. 11, 2001, but under
current law they will not be authorized to accrue additional MGIB
entitlement. (H.R. 81, S. 644)
5. Restore proportional parity between basic reserve MGIB (Chapter
1606, 10 U.S. Code) rates and the active duty program. The basic
reserve MGIB rate was set at 47 percent of the active duty program in
1984 and retained that ratio for 15 years from 1985-1999. Subsequent
increases in active duty program benefit levels, combined with static
reserve benefit levels, mean reserve MGIB rates have now dropped to
less than 29 percent of the active duty program's, at a time when Guard
and Reserve recruiting is under enormous strain. If proportional parity
were restored in one year, basic reserve rates for full-time study
would increase from $317 to $517 per month for full-time study.
Stairstep increases would lower the cost over a three to five year
period. (H.R. 81)
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
Ronald F. Chamrin
Assistant Director
Economic Commission
The American Legion
1608 K Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Chamrin:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
The American Legion
Washington, DC.
October 30, 2007
Honorable Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Herseth Sandlin:
Thank you for allowing The American Legion to participate in the
Subcommittee hearing on Updating the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) on
October 19, 2007. I am pleased to respond to your specific question
concerning that hearing:
What are the top five things your organization would like to see in
a new GI Bill? Please list items by order of priority.
The American Legion is proud to list its recommendations for
improving veterans' education benefits. We strongly feel that all of
our recommendations should be enacted into law; however, the top five
recommendations should be enacted immediately:
1. The American Legion recommends that Congress move the
Montgomery GI Bill-Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP, Chapter
1607) and the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR, Chapter
1606) and from Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), to Title 38,
U.S.C., and that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have
administrative authority for both the MGIB and the MGIB-SR benefits. We
recommend that the annual appropriations for the MGIB and the MGIB-SR
become annual mandatory appropriations within VA.
2. The American Legion recommends that Federally activated Reserve
component members get one month of benefits, at the active-duty rate,
for each month of mobilization up to 36 months.
3. The American Legion recommends that the dollar amount of the
entitlement should be indexed to the average cost of college education
including tuition, fees, textbooks and other supplies for commuter
students at an accredited university, college or trade school for which
they qualify and that the educational cost index should be reviewed and
adjusted annually.
4. The American Legion supports eliminating the ten-year
delimiting period for veterans to use MGIB educational benefits and
allow all Reserve component members to use their MGIB benefits for up
to ten years after separation or completion of a service contract.
5. The American Legion supports the termination of the current
military payroll contribution ($1200) required for enrollment in MGIB.
Thank you once again for all of the courtesies provided by you and
your capable staff. The American Legion welcomes the opportunity to
work with you and your colleagues on many issues facing veterans and
their families throughout this Congress.
Sincerely,
Ron Chamrin, Assistant Director
National Economic Commission
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
Eric A. Hilleman
Deputy Director
National Legislative Service
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
200 Maryland Ave, SE.
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Mr. Hilleman:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Questions from the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Hearing on Updating the Montgomery GI Bill
September 6, 2007
Question: What are the top 5 things your organization would like to
see in a new GI Bill? Please list items by order of priority.
Response: The VFW strongly believes in the GI Bill for the 21st
Century.
As we have stated in our testimony the GI Bill for the 21st Century
would be in the style of the original GI Bill, covering the full cost
of education and providing a stipend to allow the student veteran to
focus solely on school.
Our GI Bill priorities are as follows:
Primarily, the GI Bill would cover the full cost of education:
tuition, room, board, fees, and provide a cost-of-living stipend.
Second, the bill would fairly compensate all of the National Guard and
Reservists activated to supplement our active duty military--providing
1 month of full time active duty benefit for each month activated.
Third, it would allow all servicemembers to utilize earned benefits
throughout the duration of their lives, removing the 10 delimiting
date. Fourth, strengthen DoD's retention by allowing members of the
military that reenlist to apportion their GI Bill benefit to
dependents. Finally, all laws and rules prohibiting veterans from
accessing college financial aid due to military service income and/or
GI Bill benefits would be removed.
Thank you, I welcome any questions and look forward to working with
the Committee to achieve substantive improvements to the GI Bill.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
Rick Weidman
Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs
Vietnam Veterans of America
8605 Cameron St., Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Weidman:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Vietnam Veterans of America
Silver Spring, MD.
November 2, 2007
Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Chairwoman,
On behalf of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), I thank you for the
strong leadership you continue to exhibit on the vital economic issues
so essential to America's veterans. VVA salutes you and Ranking Member
Boozman for the bipartisan manner in which you approach all issues
before the Subcommittee, only asking what is the very best that we can
do together in this time and this place for veterans, particularly for
today's returning veterans, and most especially for disabled veterans,
given the resources at immediate hand.
I am compelled to reiterate for the record that VVA is strongly
committed to two propositions: First, that caring for veterans,
including paying for readjustment benefits such as educational
benefits, is part of the cost of war and of the defense of our Nation,
as should be treated as such in the Federal budget process, and not
pitted against needed domestic programs; and, second, that the newest
generation of veterans should be accorded the same ``real GI Bill for
education'' as that accorded to the World War II generation.
Having stated the above, which stems directly from the founding
principle of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) that ``Never again shall
one generation of American veterans abandon another'' and our
determination that we not allow what happened to Vietnam veterans to
happen to these fine young Americans returning from the military today,
I know that you and Mr. Boozman want to know what can be done right now
to improve the basic Montgomery GI Bill that we have today.
VVA is a member of the Partnership for Veterans Education that has
formally endorsed these priorities:
1. Integrate Montgomery GI Bill elements into Title 38 (this is
only administrative but helps to set the architecture in place for a
balanced approach to the MGIB going fwd).
2. Establish a readjustment benefit for Guard and Reserve members
who are activated for service in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OIF & OEF) veterans that is commensurate with active
duty benefits, as both are subject to the same hardships and face the
same enemy fire.
3. Upgrade the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) rates to at least pay for
the average cost of a four-year public college/university education.
4. Change REAP (chap 1607, 10 U.S.C.) rate formula to a month-for-
month Chap 30 entitlement, under Title 38, U.S.C., and allow for
accrual of benefits over multiple call-ups.
As to the fifth item noted below, which has not been formally
endorsed by the aforementioned ``Partnership'' as such, VVA urges:
5. That Congress move to restore proportional parity between basic
reserve MGIB benefits (Chap 1606) and the active duty MGIB (Chap 30).
It's all a matter of equity and a matter of investing in the future
of America by properly investing in the education of our newest
veterans, whether they served in a so-called active duty unit or in a
National Guard or Reserve unit.
I hope this quick answer proves to be helpful to you and your
distinguished colleagues in your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Rick Weidman
Executive Director for Policy & Government Affairs
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
Steve Kime, Ph.D.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
1307 New York Ave, NW 5th floor
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Dr. Kime:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
Washington, DC.
October 24, 2007
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin:
This letter is in response to your question during the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
hearing, ``Updating the Montgomery GI Bill'', on October 18th 2007. The
American Association of State Colleges and Universities recommends four
priorities for a new GI Bill.
Question: What are the top five things your organization would like
to see in a new GI Bill? Please list items by order of priority.
1. Update the legal, political and budgetary architecture of the
GI Bill.
Current GI Bill legislation is far out of step with
the division of responsibility in the modern U.S. Cabinet. This is our
first priority because there is little hope of effective, lasting
modernization of the GI Bill if this basic conceptual issue is not
confronted.
War fighting is the business of Department of Defense.
Veterans are the responsibility of Department of Veterans Affairs.
Confusing these areas of responsibility and advocacy causes unfairness,
conflicting policies, and failure to meet the nation's
responsibilities.
Recommendations:
Place all GI Bill funding and administration in the
Department of Veterans Affairs where veterans are first priority and
advocacy for veterans does not compete with war fighting
considerations.
Structure GI Bill legislation to enable the Department
of Veterans Affairs to function as the exclusive Cabinet-level advocate
for veterans.
Address DoD/DVA turf issues in Congress related to the
GI Bill. The two Cabinet Departments cannot resolve the mixed-mission
problems in education benefits (or disability) if the Senate and House
do not make changes.
2. Update the GI Bill to reflect national military strategy and
force deployment policies.
A Total Force Strategy has evolved. Force structure
and deployment policies have changed to fit the revolution in the
strategy that has occurred. Selection of which American servicemembers
go in harm's way, and how often they are deployed, have changed
radically along with national strategy.
Policy is trapped in grossly outdated images of
Reserve and Active Duty Forces. Policies that are at the root of the
inequities that are now coming to light are based on outdated images of
``weekend warriors'' and how they should be controlled and managed.
Efforts to address this problem (separate Reserve GI Bills) have only
added confusion and perpetuated the false images.
Recommendations:
Pass the Total Force GI Bill to make educational
benefits commensurate with the service that military men and women
perform.
Place Total Force GI Bill funding and administration
in the Department of Veterans Affairs where veterans are first
priority.
3. Ensure that the GI Bill can pay for college.
Pay-Go will make it difficult to identify radically
increased educational benefits. What the Congress needs is a reasonable
and fair GI Bill entitlement that is appropriate to the nation's
promise to servicemembers.
The Partnership for Veterans' Education established a
reasonable and fair benchmark: the average cost of a 4-year education
at a public institution. Based on data from the U.S. Department of
Education, the benchmark projected for the FY 2007--08 academic year is
$13,145 for a full-time resident student. Current Chapter 30 benefits
are at $9,909 for a full-time student.
Recommendations:
Recognize a clear and fair goal: Benchmark the MGIB to
the average cost of attendance at public 4-year institutions. A mandate
is not required, but there should be annual reports to document
progress toward meeting the goal.
Proceed toward the benchmark with incremental raises
to the GI Bill over a period of 3 years, as was done with GI Bill
increases a few years ago.
4. Streamline and modernize the administration and management of
the GI Bill for optimal service to veterans.
Contemporary Adult and Continuing Education theory and
the concept of lifelong learning should be applied to the entire Total
Force structure. A comprehensive and cohesive Total Force GI Bill needs
to include provisions for accelerated payments, high-tech programs,
delimiting dates, and similar ideas.
Support of veteran administrators at academic
institutions is weak.
An outdated administrative culture dominates GI Bill
management. Incorporating modern communication techniques and
information technology advancements will increase efficiency, optimize
resources, and enhance service to veterans.
Recommendations:
In a new Total Force GI Bill, ensure that provisions
that recognize the needs of the adult student, such as accelerated
payments for high cost or short programs and longer delimiting dates,
are applied to all veteran-students equally.
Improve services to veterans at colleges and
universities by increasing assistance to veterans on campuses.
Promote modernization of management of the GI Bill:
Reduce the amount of reporting and information
required of veterans.
Consider ``management by exception'' in managing
fraud.
Update and streamline computerized recordkeeping.
Consider modern methods of managing credit and debt
using new credit/debit card technologies for managing the educational
entitlement.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and to provide a follow up
response. Please also find enclosed with this letter documentation
comparing the average cost of attendance at a public 4-year college and
the Montgomery GI Bill benefits.
Sincerely,
Steve Francis Kime, Ph.D.
Former Vice President (2003-2005)
Average Cost of Attendance (COA) for Resident Students at Public Four-Year Colleges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGIB Monthly Percent of Cost
Baseline COA MGIB Ann. Benefit Benefit Covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-07* $12,762 $ 9,675 $ 1,075 75.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COAMGIB Ann. Benefit MGIB Monthly Percent of Cost
percent/yr) Benefit Covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-08* $13,145 $ 9,909 $ 1,101 75.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008-09* $13,539 $10,236 $ 1,137 75.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-10* $13,945 $10,571 $ 1,175 75.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COAMGIB Ann. Benefit MGIB Monthly Percent of Cost
percent/yr) Benefit Covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-08* $13,527 $ 9,909 $ 1,101 73.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008-09* $14,339 $10,236 $ 1,137 71.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-10* $15,199 $10,571 $ 1,175 69.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES: Cost of attendance includes in-state tuition, required fees, and resident student room and board.
Tuition and fees were weighted by the number of full-time-equivalent undergraduates.
Room and board are based on full-time students. Enrollment projections by NCES were used for all 2006-07
calculations.
2006-07 and 2007-08 MGIB are actual amounts; * refers to all other projected data.
MGIB calculated at 3.3 percent/year increase from 2007-08 onward using Social Security 2007 COLA.
Average Cost of Attendance (COA) for Off-Campus Students at Public Four-Year Colleges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGIB Monthly Percent of Cost
Baseline COA MGIB Ann. Benefit Benefit Covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-06 $12,265 $ 9,306 $ 1,034 75.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COAMGIB Ann. Benefit MGIB Monthly Percent of Cost
percent/yr) Benefit Covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-07** $13,000 $ 9,675 $ 1,075 74.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-08* $13,390 $ 9,909 $ 1,101 74.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008-09* $13,792 $10,236 $ 1,137 74.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-10* $14,206 $10,571 $ 1,175 74.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COAMGIB Ann. Benefit MGIB Monthly Percent of Cost
percent/yr) Benefit Covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-07** $13,000 $ 9,675 $ 1,075 74.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007-08* $13,780 $ 9,909 $ 1,101 71.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008-09* $14,607 $10,236 $ 1,137 70.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-10* $15,483 $10,571 $ 1,175 68.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES: Cost of Attendance (COA) defined by IPEDS as ``total price for in-state students living off campus (not
with family).''
**Projected 6 percent increase over 2005-06 used for 2006-07 off-campus COA since final IPEDS data not
available; 6 percent from College Board Trends 2006.
NCES data used for all 2005-06 baseline COA calculations.
Tuition and fees were weighted by the number of full-time-equivalent undergraduates.
2006-07 MGIB and 2007-08 MGIB are actual amounts; * refers to all other projected data.
MGIB calculated at 3.3 percent/year increase from 2007-08 onward using Social Security COLA.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
David Guzman
Legislative Director
National Association of Veterans
Program Administrators
2020 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Suite 1975
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Guzman:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
National Association of Veterans
Program Administrators
Washington, DC.
November 1, 2007
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairwoman Herseth,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit the top five issues NAVPA
would like to see in legislation addressing a new GI Bill. NAVPA is the
only organization representing colleges and university Veteran Program
Administrators. Our members are truly at the ``business end'' of the GI
Bill in that we interact, face-to-face, with the beneficiaries of these
programs, at their place of study, and certify them for their benefit.
1. Equity for Activated Guard/Reserve in MGIB payments for pursuit
of education/OJT and apprenticeship: Guard and Reserve members who
fight along side active duty members do not receive the same level of
MGIB benefit as their Chapter 30 counter-parts. We would support
incorporating MGIB benefits under title 10, Ch 1607, into the VA Total
Force proposal submitted by the Partnership for Veterans Education.
This would be a first step toward achieving equity for (equal) service
in support of deployments. Further, equity in all aspects of the
delivery of the MGIB should be a goal of legislation; an example of
another inequity: Active duty members are currently paid at the ``less-
than-half-time'' rate, which means that they only receive the amount of
tuition and fees rather than the monthly rate paid for the same
training time for a Chapter 30 MGIB veteran. What's more, their monthly
rate is recalculated based on the amount of tuition and fees which in
most cases reduces their months of entitlement at a much faster rate.
Example: a servicemember is enrolled in a 4-month course which costs
$200.00, their monthly rate would be recalculated to $50.00 per month
and they would receive $200.00 and be charged 4 months of entitlement;
a veteran enrolled in less than half time, would receive the half time
rate of $550.00 per month for a total payment of $2,202.00 and would be
charged 2 months of entitlement. Funding seems to be the barrier to a
truly beneficial GI Bill program; NAVPA's position is that history of
the GI Bill has proven that the return on investment by America is
sevenfold (7:1) and that while a Pay-Go requirement exists it should
not be applied to the Montgomery GI Bill because we will realize a
better educated, working, tax paying, productive member of society who
will return $7 dollars for every dollar invested in the MGIB. And, with
the exception of a severely injured veteran, an educated and/or trained
veteran is less likely to be dependent on other benefits and services,
freeing up dollars intended for those who have no alternative.
2. Compensation to schools and agencies (OJT-Apprenticeship) who
certify veterans to the DVA for certification of enrollment in higher
education or appropriate training and apprenticeship programs:
Currently the DVA pays an annual reporting fee of $7.00 per student for
certification of enrollment, the same compensation paid 30 years ago
when schools were responsible for certifying two programs. Today
schools and agencies are responsible for the accurate certification and
proper administration of 13 programs, 11 in higher education and 2 for
agencies (OJT and Apprenticeship) yet are paid the same $7.00 per
student.
The lack of adequate funding for schools has been cause for
many offices of Veterans Affairs on campus to be realigned to other
programs such as financial aid, counseling, admissions and the business
office as an additional duty. Veterans have lost the direct support on
campus needed in order to maintain their academic standing--that is,
they have lost a caring and concerned program administrator who
advocated on their behalf. In addition, the program administrators are
expected to adhere to the many State and federal laws governing these
programs. The DVA funds the State Approving Agency (Association) to
ensure that educational institutions adhere to federal laws and state
rules governing these programs, but falls short of funding even one
program administrator's training. Funding for veterans education
benefits must include funding for the administration of these programs
at all levels.
3. Modernize the GI Bill to address 21st century workforce
requirements and societal changes by expanding opportunities for
veterans and servicemembers to maximize their earned benefit through
elimination the MGIB delimiting date: Many veterans delay entering
school or training because of family and or financial obligations. When
veterans are finally in a position to pursue an education or advanced
training they find that they either are up against their delimiting
date with insufficient months remaining to complete their program or
their delimiting date has expired. Some veterans who do complete a
degree after service do not always use the entire 36 month benefit
because of completing some college or training while in service. Later,
when it comes time to upgrade or update their skills for career
enhancement their unused remaining benefit has expired because of the
delimiting date. NAVPA believes that the delimiting date is a barrier
to the concept of life long learning, a concept that is prevalent in
our society.
4. Expand the student work-study program: Under current rules,
veteran students enrolled at a minimum \3/4\ training time are only
allowed to work in the office of veterans affairs on campus thereby
limiting their exposure in the word-of-work. NAVPA has long argued for
an expanded student work-study program that would allow veterans in
school to work in departments across campus and gain valuable work
experience. Veterans who work in academic department would be able to
work in laboratories within their discipline and earn valuable insight
into their program as well build a creditable work experience resume.
For many veterans the work-study program supplements their income and
for others it is their only income. The veterans' work ethic would be
invaluable to any campus office or department. Limiting employment to
only one department on campus severely limits the veterans' opportunity
for employment as well as the experience that is necessary to compete
in the civilian work place.
5. Eliminate the requirement to count VA Educational Benefits in
the ``needs assessment formula'' when computing Federal Financial Aid:
The Montgomery GI Bill benefit is considered in the Federal Financial
Aid formula as a resource and thus deducted from the total financial
aid award or cost of attendance dollar for dollar. Not taken into
consideration in this formula is the initial $1,200.00 pay reduction
servicemembers had withheld from their basic pay to enroll in the MGIB,
nor is there any consideration for the months of military service,
personal sacrifices, family separations, irregular duty hours and
conditions or the protections and freedoms afforded this Nation which
we all enjoy. No servicemember or veteran should be penalized or denied
benefits they would otherwise be eligible to receive for using a paid
into and earned benefit.
Finally, NAVPA feels very strong about a need for Congress and the
DVA to place greater emphasis on the OJT/Apprenticeship portion of the
MGIB programs: OJT and Apprenticeship is the most under utilized of the
MGIB program. Much of this is caused by the lack of adequate
information conveyed to veterans and users or agencies. Many agencies
who might be trainers of the OJT/Apprenticeship eligible veteran are
not aware that such a program exists. NAVPA recommends greater emphasis
on the OJT/Apprenticeship program be developed to specifically seek out
and counsel veterans, who do not intend on seeking a college degree,
about these programs.
Sincerely,
D. A. GUZMAN
Legislative Director
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
Charles Rowe
President
New Jersey State
Department of Military, Veterans' Affairs
State Approving Agency
P.O. Box 340
Trenton, NJ 08625
Dear Mr. Rowe:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Legislative Priorities for a New GI Bill
Submitted by Charles Rowe, President
National Association of State Approving Agencies
November 2, 2007
1. Consolidate Chapters 30, 1606 and 1607 under title 38, U.S.
Code as a Total Force GI Bill. This Bill would provide MGIB
reimbursement rate levels based on an individual's service in the Armed
Forces, including the National Guard and Reserve.
A. The first tier--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 AD Rate.
B. The second tier or level would be for all who enlist or re-
enlist in the Selected Reserve (SelRes) for 6 years, and this would
entitle them to 36 months of benefits at a pro-rata amount of the
active duty rate as currently is the case with Chapter 1606 (Initial
ratio in 1985 was 47 percent).
C. The third tier 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 of activation, up
to a total of 36 months, at the active duty rate. These months of full
benefits would replace, month-for-month, any SelRes entitlements at the
second tier. The maximum benefit a member of the SelRes could receive
under this provision would be the equivalent of 36 months at the active
duty rate. (Note: Maximum benefit is without consideration to multiple
entitlements.)
D. All provisions (e.g. additional contributions), and programs
(e.g., accelerated payments, approved test fee reimbursement, etc.)
eligible for payment under the current MGIB-AD program would be
available under all three levels. [Note: 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.]
2. Incorporate a Readjustment or Portability Component--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.
3. Expand the readjustment purpose of the Total Force GI Bill to
permit continuous training, retraining, re-licensing and enrollment in
skill improvement courses. For example, revise Section 3452(c) of Title
38, U.S. Code to provide for the use of VA educational assistance
benefits for enrollment in any unit course or subject, or combination
of courses or subjects (Title 38 terminology) necessary to obtain,
maintain, or advance in a profession or vocation.
In today's society the concept of lifelong learning has risen
to a new level of importance. Very few occupations or professions
remain static; there is the constant requirement for workers to upgrade
their knowledge and skills in order to remain competitive. The current
educational earned benefit programs for veterans and other eligible
persons generally require the VA beneficiary to be enrolled in a full-
scale program of education; i.e., one that leads to a traditional
degree, diploma or certificate. Although recent legislation provides
more flexibility, there is still the need to permit even greater use of
benefits for enrollment in short-term learning experiences that will
help a veteran to maintain a level of expertise commensurate with the
on going demands of their chosen occupation or profession. A key phrase
that expresses the intent of this recommendation already is embedded in
law--education and training that qualifies the eligible person ``to
enter into, maintain or advance in employment in a predetermined and
identified vocation or profession''.
As stated, the law already provides for limited use of
benefits for course(s) ``to fulfill requirements for the attainment of
a license or certificate . . . in a high technology occupation''. The
specific example expands the provision to all professions and
vocations/occupations; recognizes that a single unit course or subject
may be all that a veteran needs to obtain, maintain, or advance in a
profession or vocation; and, provides for the use of benefits while
enrolled in a subject or a combination of subjects without requiring a
connection to a license or certificate.
4. Recommendation--Continue the rate of educational assistance
benefits currently in place for veterans enrolled in Apprenticeship and
other On-the-Job Training programs.
The law was changed, effective October 1, 2005, to increase
the rate of benefits received by veterans and other eligible persons
who are enrolled in apprenticeship and OJT programs. The rate is now 85
percent of the full time institutional rate for the first 6 months, 65
percent for the second 6 months of training and then 45 percent for the
third and any succeeding period of time. This increase is for a limited
period of time--it expires on September 30 of 2007. It is a too early
to know for sure, but early indications are that the increases have had
a positive effect on the ability of veterans to use this way of gaining
knowledge and skills for the occupations or professions of their
choice. In combination with extensive outreach activities, there has
been a 39.9 percent increase in the number of approved and active
training establishments from 1997 to 2003, and a 53.8 percent increase
in the number of program approval actions at job training
establishments from 1997 to 2005. We anticipate continual growth in the
use of job training programs.
5. Recommendation--Revise the method by which entitlement is
charged to servicemembers who use their GI Bill while serving on active
duty so that the charge is the same as that applied to all other VA
benefit eligible persons.
Servicemembers who use their GI Bill while serving on active
duty should not be penalized for doing so. Current law reduces the
servicemember's entitlement 1 month for each month of enrollment in
relation to rate of pursuit (full time, \3/4\ time, etc.) regardless of
the amount of benefits received. We believe that this practice is
totally unfair and unjustifiable.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
Tom Bush
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Reserve Affairs
(Manpower and Personnel)
U.S. Department of Defense
1300 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Dear Mr. Bush:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
cc: Dr. Curt Gilroy, Director, Accession Policy, U.S. Department of
Defense
__________
Hearing Date: October 18, 2007
Committee: HVA
Member: Ms. Herseth Sandlin
Witness: Mr. Bush
DA amendment order #1231-07
Question #1: When the Secretary of the Army Pete Green announced on
Friday September 28, 2007 that he lacked legal basis for amending the
original DA amendment order #1231-07, what legal basis was he referring
to?
Answer: Secretary Green was referring to the advice provided by the
Department of Defense General Counsel (DoD-GC), the Army Office of
General Counsel (AOGC) and the Office of the Judge Advocate General
(OTJAG).
DoD-GC previously determined that the orders may be amended for
those individuals ordered to active duty for less than 2 years who are
still on active duty, but only to correct an administrative error, to
carry out the Army's original intent, or for other legitimate, mission-
related reasons. The AOGC and OTJAG agreed. The Army further opines the
soldiers in the 1/34th Brigade Combat Team (BCT) may be extended to
allow them to take their administrative absence; however, existing
mobilization orders may not be extended if they are already sufficient
to allow the soldiers to take their administrative absence. In
addition, existing mobilization orders should not be extended beyond
the designated limits applicable to the statutory authority under which
the soldier was mobilized (i.e., 24 consecutive months for soldiers
mobilized under title 10, United States Code, section 12302). Finally,
according to the Army, soldiers must voluntarily agree to have their
orders extended for this purpose. Otherwise, the only way to remedy
this situation is through an Army Board for Correction of Military
Records action.
While they did not find any statute that prevents the Secretary (or
the President) from amending orders to give the members of the 1/34th
BCT eligibility to receive Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits.
They considered Comptroller General opinions that state orders cannot
be amended retroactively to increase or decrease entitlements under the
orders, except to correct an error. The Department of Justice Office of
Legal Counsel (DOJ-OLC), in an October 16, 2007, Memorandum for William
J. Haynes II, DoD-GC advised that the Executive Branch is not bound by
the legal opinions of the Comptroller General although DOJ-OLC
considers them useful sources in resolving appropriation issues.
Army Board of Corrections for Military Records (ABCMR)
Question #2: What is the average time it takes a soldier to get
records corrected through the Army Board of Corrections for Military
Records (ABCMR)?
Answer: The Army implemented an expedited process for adjudication
of claims filed with the ABCMR from servicemembers who served in the 1/
34th Brigade Combat Team. The average ABCMR time to process for those
claims is 3-5 days.
Amending Guardsmen Orders
Question #3: How many Guardsmen needed to have their orders amended
and how many have applied to have their orders amended?
Answer: The Army has identified 3,538 members of the 1/34th Brigade
Combat Team whose orders specified an obligated period of service less
than 24 months. As of November 1, 2007, 585 members had submitted
applications to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.
Portable Education Benefit
Question #4: Should Reserve members be given a portable education
benefit after they served like their active duty counterparts?
Answer: Reserve component members who have served the requisite
period of active duty may, like their active duty counterparts, qualify
for the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) active duty benefit, which provides a
portable education benefit. In addition, unlike an active duty member,
a Guard or Reserve member who serves as few as 90 days on active duty
or full-time National Guard duty in support of certain operations
qualifies for an educational benefit. And, Selected Reserve members who
enter into a six-year service agreement qualify for MGIBl-SR benefits,
which they can begin using immediately after completing initial active
duty for training. In contrast, active duty members must serve for at
least 2 years and often for 3 years before they can begin using their
educational benefit. Also, Reserve component members are not required
to contribute in order to receive benefits under the Reserve programs.
To fundamentally change the Reserve programs to provide a post-Service
education benefit would undermine the purposes of the programs.
One of the stated purposes for the active duty MGIB benefit is to
assist members in the readjustment to civilian life after separating
from military service. But, unlike active duty members, most Reservists
are not beginning a new career. In fact, most Reservists return to
their pre-activation civilian job, which is protected by law (chapter
43 of title 38, United States Code). This is illustrated in the most
recent Department of Defense survey of Reserve component members in
which 79 percent of Reservists who were working when they were
activated reported that they returned to the same employer. For those
who did not return to the same employer, the top two reasons reported
for not returning to their pre-activation employer were: (1) found a
better job and (2) disliked my pre-activation job. While some
Reservists are changing careers and want to use their education
benefits to enhance their employment opportunities, serving part-time
in the Guard or Reserve allows for that.
The Department believes that attending school and membership in the
Reserve component have proven over the years to be a compatible and
desirable combination. The educational assistance programs for Reserve
members continue to serve their stated purposes well. In light of the
stresses on the force caused by the Global War on Terror, the
Department strongly believes it would not be prudent to remove the
critical retention attributes of those programs.
Total Force Proposals
Question #5: You state that the Total Force proposals do not
integrate the three programs. What do you recommend?
Answer: The Department supports retaining the three separate
programs. Each program was designed for a different purpose. Attempting
to consolidate the three programs into a single program undermines the
various purposes.
While the purposes of each of the programs remain valid and do not
necessitate a change, if consolidation is required, the design and
purpose of the Montgomery GI Bill--Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) and
Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) are similar enough that
it is conceivable that those two programs could be combined.
There are areas in which closer alignment of the programs would be
beneficial. The first would be to link covered programs for the two
Reserve educational assistance programs to the active duty MGIB
program. For example, if a new education program is authorized under
the active duty program, the same program then would be automatically
authorized under the two Reserve programs. Further, as described in
testimony during the hearing, how the benefit is treated for
determining eligibility for federal loans is inconsistent. There should
be one set of rules that applies uniformly to all three programs.
Conceptually, a student who qualifies and remains eligible under more
than one program should only have to consider the benefit amount and
select the assistance program that is most advantageous to him or her.
This would also make it much easier for school financial assistance
counselors to advise students and presumably simplify administration of
the programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Finally, there
is one area in which the MGIB-SR and REAP programs could be closer in
alignment--the delimiting period. While the REAP benefit has no
specified delimiting date, the MGIB-SR program currently has a 14-year
delimiting period. Aligning the MGIB-SR eligibility period with REAP
would be consistent with the Department's continuum of service, which
encourages longer periods of service, and a continuum of lifelong
learning. This would add educational assistance to the menu of
incentive programs available to more senior Reserve component members.
These changes would achieve many of the objectives intended in a
Total Force educational assistance program concept without undermining
the purpose of, and eligibility criteria for each program.
Transferring GI Bill to VA
Question #6: You state that transferring the program to VA as
direct spending would increate the cost to the government. Can you
explain this statement?
Answer: The two Reserve educational assistance programs--the
Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) and the Reserve
Educational Assistance Program (REAP)--are designed as incentives for
continued service in the National Guard or Reserve. If the programs are
modified to provide for a post-Service benefit, it is only logical that
attrition will increase. The only reason for transferring the two
Reserve educational assistance programs into title 38 is to alter the
purpose of the programs to allow for use of the benefit following
separation from the National Guard or Reserve, thus fundamentally
changing the purpose of the programs. If the programs are not modified
to provide a post-Service benefit, then it makes no sense to place
programs intended for military recruitment and retention under the
administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
With respect to cost, the VA will pay the educational assistance
benefit to the former member who uses the benefit, thus sustaining the
current cost. However, allowing the benefit to be used by individuals
who separate will require the Reserve component to recruit and train
replacements. This will impose a new, additional cost to the Department
of Defense that it would not have otherwise incurred if the member
remains to use the benefit. It costs on average $17,400 to recruit and
train to entry-level standards a new enlisted member. If an enlistment
or accession bonus is involved, there is an additional cost ($10,000-
20,000 per new accession). Thus, to sustain the same strength level
achieved with the Reserve educational assistance programs as retention
incentives, the Department will pay both the original incentive plus
the cost incurred to recruit and train replacements, as well as the
additional cost if another incentive is involved in the recruitment
process.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
Curt Gilroy, Ph.D.
Director, Accession Policy
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness (Military Personnel Policy)
U.S. Department of Defense
1300 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Dear Dr. Gilroy:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
cc: Tom Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower
and Personnel, U.S. Department of Defense.
__________
Hearing Date: October 18, 2007
Committee: HVA
Member: Ms. Herseth Sandlin
Witness: Dr. Gilroy
GI Bill Benefits Raise
Question #1: Dr. Gilroy, if we assume $1,400 in benefits are
distributed to servicemembers, according to your statement more people
would consider leaving the service. Would you agree that since the GI
Bill pays only $1,100 per month now, that it could be raised quite a
lot before becoming, theoretically, a problem for retention? For
example, if we raised the rate to $1,300 per month, that would give
recruiters a bigger marketing tool and wouldn't threaten retention.
Don't you think something like that would help recruiting and
retention?
Answer: Yes, we believe that an increase of the monthly Montgomery
GI Bill benefit for full-time study to $1,300 would have a more
positive effect on recruitment of high quality youth, rather than a
negative effect on first-term retention.
MGIB Benefits
Question #2: Dr. Gilroy, you stated that servicemembers can only
use their MGIB benefits after separation. Actually, they may use them
on active duty and many have taken advantage of that. From that
perspective, considering that we have an All Volunteer Force, raising
MGIB rates would support professional development through educational
support and be beneficial to readiness. What are your thoughts on this?
Answer: While it is true that servicemembers can use their
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits after completing 2 years of active
duty, Section 3032, title 38, United States Code, places limits on the
amount that serving members can collect. Active duty servicemembers
using their MGIB benefits are limited to a monthly amount equal to the
cost of tuition and fees up to the current maximum rate (currently
$1,101 per month), but are charged 1 month of entitlement for each
month they receive these benefits. However, if the tuition and fees are
lower than the monthly rate, the servicemember is still charged a full
month of entitlement while receiving less than the full monetary
benefit. For example, an active duty servicemember who attends college
on a full-time basis, and whose tuition and fees equal $450 a month,
would receive that $450 per month and be charged a full month of
entitlement. Therefore, raising the MGIB monthly rate will not have the
same impact on active duty usage as it will have on usage by veterans.
DA amendment order #1231-07
Question #3: When the Secretary of the Army Pete Green announced on
Friday September 28, 2007 that he lacked legal basis for amending the
original DA amendment order #1231-07, what legal basis was he referring
to?
Answer: Secretary Geren was referring to the advice provided by the
Department of Defense General Counsel (DoD-GC), the Army Office of
General Counsel (AOGC) and the Office of the Judge Advocate General
(OTJAG).
DoD-GC previously determined that the orders may be amended for
those individuals who are still on active duty that were originally
ordered to active duty for less than 2 years, but only to correct an
administrative error, to carry out the Army's original intent, or for
other legitimate, mission-related reasons. The AOGC and OTJAG agreed.
The Army further states that the soldiers in the 1/34th Brigade Combat
Team (BCT) may be extended to allow them to take their administrative
absence; however, existing mobilization orders may not be extended if
the original orders already include sufficient time to allow the
soldiers to take their administrative absence. In addition, existing
mobilization orders should not be extended beyond the designated limits
applicable to the statutory authority under which the soldier was
mobilized (i.e., 24 consecutive months for soldiers mobilized under
title 10, United States Code, Section 12302). Finally, according to the
Army, soldiers must voluntarily agree to have their orders extended for
this purpose. Otherwise, the only way to remedy this situation is
through an Army Board for Correction of Military Records action.
While the AOGC and the OTJAG did not find any statute that prevents
the Secretary (or the President) from amending orders to give the
members of the 1/34th BCT eligibility to receive Montgomery GI Bill
educational benefits, they considered Comptroller General opinions that
state orders cannot be amended retroactively to increase or decrease
except to correct an error. The Department of Justice Office of Legal
Counsel (DOJ-OLC), in an October 16, 2007, Memorandum to William J.
Haynes II, advised that ``the Executive Branch is not bound by the
legal opinions of the Comptroller General'' although DOJ-OLC considers
them useful sources in resolving appropriation issues.
Board of Corrections for Military Records (ABCMR)
Question #4: What is the average time it takes a soldier to get
records corrected through the Army Board of Corrections for Military
Records (ABCMR)?
Answer: The Army implemented an expedited process for adjudication
of claims filed with the ABCMR by servicemembers who served in the 1/
34th Brigade Combat Team. The average ABCMR time to process those
claims is 3-5 days.
Amending Guardsmen Orders
Question #5: How many Guardsmen needed to have their orders amended
and how many have applied to have their orders amended?
Answer: The Army has identified 3,538 members of the 1/34th Brigade
Combat Team whose orders specified an obligated period of service less
than 24 months. As of November 1, 2007, 585 members had submitted
applications to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.
Portable Education Benefit
Question #6: Should Reserve members be given portable education
benefit after they served like their active duty counterparts?
Answer: Reserve component members who have served the requisite
period of active duty may, like their active duty counterparts, qualify
for the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) active duty benefit, which provides a
portable education benefit. Unlike an active duty member, a Guard or
Reserve member who serves as few as 90 days on active duty or full-time
National Guard duty in support of certain operations qualifies for an
educational benefit. And, Selected Reserve members who enter into a 6-
year service agreement qualify for MGIB-SR benefits, which they can
begin using immediately after completing initial active duty for
training. In contrast, active duty members must serve for at least 2
years and often for 3 years before they can begin using their
educational benefit. Also, Reserve component members are not required
to contribute in order to receive benefits under the Reserve programs.
To fundamentally change the Reserve programs to provide a post-Service
education benefit would undermine the purposes of the programs.
One of the stated purposes for the active duty MGIB benefit is to
assist members in the readjustment to civilian life after separating
from military service. However, unlike active duty members, most
Reservists are not beginning a new career. In fact, most Reservists
return to their pre-activation civilian job, which is protected by law
(Chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code). This is illustrated in
the most recent Department of Defense survey of Reserve component
members in which 79 percent of Reservists who were working when they
were activated reported that they returned to the same employer. For
those who did not return to the same employer, the top two reasons
reported for not returning to their pre-activation employer were: (1)
found a better job and (2) disliked my pre-activation job. Some
Reservists are changing careers and want to use their education
benefits to enhance their employment opportunities, and serving part-
time in the Guard or Reserve allows for that.
The Department believes that attending school and membership in the
Reserve component have proven to be a compatible and desirable
combination. The educational assistance programs for Reserve members
continue to serve their stated purposes well. In light of the stresses
on the force caused by the Global War on Terror, the Department
strongly believes it would not be prudent to remove the critical
retention attributes of those programs.
Total Force Proposals
Question #7: You state that the Total Force proposals do not
integrate the three programs. What do you recommend?
Answer: The Department supports retaining the three separate
programs. Each program was designed for a different purpose. Attempting
to consolidate the three programs into a single program undermines the
various purposes.
While the purposes of each of the programs remain valid and do not
necessitate a change, if consolidation is required, the design and
purpose of the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) and
Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) are similar enough that
it is conceivable that those two programs could be combined.
There are areas in which closer alignment of the programs would be
beneficial. The first would be to link covered programs for the two
Reserve educational assistance programs to the active duty MGIB
program. For example, if a new education program is authorized under
the active duty program, the same program then would be automatically
authorized under the two Reserve programs. Further, as described in
testimony during the hearing, how the benefit is treated for
determining eligibility for federal loans is inconsistent. There should
be one set of rules that applies uniformly to all three programs.
Conceptually, a student who qualifies and remains eligible under more
than one program should only have to consider the benefit amount and
select the assistance program that is most advantageous to him or her.
This would also make it much easier for school financial assistance
counselors to advise students and presumably simplify administration of
the programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs. Finally, there
is one area in which the MGIB-SR and REAP programs could be closer in
alignment--the delimiting period. While the REAP benefit has no
specified delimiting date, the MGIB-SR program currently has a 14-year
delimiting period. Aligning the MGIB-SR eligibility period with REAP
would be consistent with the Department's continuum of service, which
encourages longer periods of service, and a continuum of life-long
learning. This would add educational assistance to the menu of
incentive programs available to more senior Reserve component members.
These changes would achieve many of the objectives intended in a
Total Force educational assistance program concept without undermining
purpose of, and eligibility criteria for, each program.
Transferring GI Bill to VA
Question #8: You state that transferring the program to VA as
direct spending would increase the cost to the government. Can you
explain this statement?
Answer: The two Reserve educational assistance programs--the
Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) and the Reserve
Educational Assistance Program (REAP)--are designed as incentives for
continued service in the National Guard or Reserve. If the programs are
modified to provide for a post-Service benefit, it is only logical that
attrition will increase. The only reason for transferring the two
Reserve educational assistance programs into title 38 is to allow for
use of the benefit following separation from the National Guard or
Reserve, thus fundamentally changing the purpose of the programs. If
the programs are not modified to provide a post-Service benefit, then
it makes no sense to place programs intended for military recruitment
and retention under the administration of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA).
With respect to cost, the VA will pay the educational assistance
benefit to the former member who uses the benefit, thus sustaining the
current cost. However, allowing the benefit to be used by individuals
who separate will require the Reserve component to recruit and train
replacements. This will impose a new, additional cost to the Department
of Defense that it would not have otherwise incurred if the member
remains to use the benefit. It costs on average $17,400 to recruit and
train a new enlisted member to entry-level standards. If an enlistment
or accession bonus is involved, there is an additional cost ($10,000-
20,000 per new accession). Thus, to sustain the same strength level
achieved with the Reserve educational assistance programs as retention
incentives, the Department will pay both the original incentive plus
the cost incurred to recruit and train replacements, as well as the
additional cost if another incentive is involved in the recruitment
process.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
Washington, DC.
October 23, 2007
Keith Wilson
Director, Education Service
Veterans Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Mr. Wilson:
In reference to our House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing on ``Updating the
Montgomery GI Bill'' on October 18, 2007, I would appreciate it if you
could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on
November 23, 2007.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for material for all Full
Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter size paper,
single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety
before the answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Ms. Orfa Torres by fax at (202) 225-2034. If you have any questions,
please call (202) 225-3608.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Chairwoman
__________
Questions for the Record
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity
October 18, 2007
Updating the Montgomery GI Bill
Question 1: You state that the programs need to be simplified. Is
the application process complex? What would be the best way to simplify
the process?
Response: The application process itself is not complex. However,
to determine which program(s) the applicant is eligible for requires a
substantial amount of information, and the application form has
therefore grown to six pages in length. Because there are overlapping
eligibility criteria that make some servicemembers and veterans
eligible for more than one program, selection of the program that would
result in the most advantageous use of an individual's benefits can be
complex. We continue to expand our outreach efforts, providing
educational benefits information to servicemembers on induction and at
various points while they are on active duty. We also cover the
eligibility criteria and program differences in the transition
assistance program briefings we conduct for separating servicemembers
and reservists.
A shorter, simplified application process would be a natural result
of a simplified GI Bill program.
Question 2: Does VA have an ``ideal'' GI Bill program or
suggestions on how to best update current criteria, eligibility, and
payment methods?
Response: VA does not have an ``ideal'' GI Bill program. A joint
Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
working group was tasked with analyzing the various education programs
in view of the recommendations of the Secretary's advisory Committee on
education for a ``Total Force GI Bill.'' The working group concluded
that a total force approach should incorporate the following
principles:
A single proposal should fulfill the critical purposes of
the current programs--recruitment, retention, and readjustment.
The benefit amounts should be commensurate with levels of
military service.
Converting to a total force program should disadvantage
no one, if at all possible.
The working group presented the results of their study to the VA/
DoD Joint Executive Council. The changes studied by the working group
had a very high cost and could potentially have serious implications
for DoD in the recruitment and retention of servicemembers and
reservists.
There is a very difficult balance between meeting the recruitment
and retention needs of the Armed Forces and providing a simplified
program of readjustment benefits that meets the needs of our service
men and women today and in the future. VA looks forward to continuing
to work with Congress and DoD to address this issue.
Question 3: What are the VA's top five recommendations for updating
the GI Bill?
Response: Because of the complexity of the interrelationships
between the education program purposes of recruitment, retention, and
readjustment, we are unable to provide specific recommendations for
updating the GI Bill at this time.