[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7132-H7133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL, THE ARMED FORCES' BEST RECRUITMENT TOOL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, recently the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff stated that, ``we remain committed to maintaining quality
personnel, and recruiters from all Services have stated the Montgomery
GI bill is the best recruitment tool they have.''
I have had the great pleasure of serving on the Veterans' Affairs
Committee with the Honorable G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery, the principal
author and sponsor of the newest GI bill. It is no surprise that the
Department of Defense's latest evaluation of the Montgomery GI bill
strongly supports this program's continuation. Sonny designed the new
GI bill with great care and after extensive hearings which included
more than 200 witnesses. Because of his careful attention to program
structure, the Montgomery GI bill has been uniquely successful and has
fulfilled all of its intended purposes. As noted in a recent report,
the percentage of new recruits choosing to enroll in the GI bill has
risen from 50 percent at the program's inception in 1985 to a
remarkable 95 percent in fiscal year 1995. Since the implementation of
the Montgomery GI bill, more than 2 million active-duty recruits have
elected to participate in the program--vividly demonstrating the
attractiveness of this GI bill to the young people entering the Armed
Forces.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defense notes that the
percentage of GI bill participants who are using their benefits
following military service continues to rise, from 40 percent in 1991
to 46 percent at the end of 1993. This is a promising and important
trend, but we must continue to watch these numbers closely. We all want
these men and women, who earn their education benefits through
honorable military service, to make full use of their GI bill education
assistance.
Regarding the adequacy of the Montgomery GI bill benefit as a
recruitment incentive, the Department of Defense noted that during
fiscal year 1995 all services met their recruiting objectives. Some 96
percent of new recruits were high school diploma graduates, 71 percent
had above-average scores on the aptitude tests administered to new
recruits, and fewer than 1 percent were in the lowest acceptable
aptitude category. In spite of these impressive statistics, the
Department of Defense cautions, ``With recent recruiting successes,
current basic benefits appear to be adequate as an enlistment
incentive. However, if college costs, especially tuition and fees,
continue to rise significantly above inflation, the offset provided by
the Montgomery GI bill benefits will require close monitoring to keep
the program competitive.'' I urge my colleagues to pay close attention
to this serious concern raised by the Department of Defense. Sonny
Montgomery has struggled to keep the GI bill basic benefit competitive,
and I hope to ensure that the program that carries his name is
maintained and strengthened in the 105th Congress.
I know Sonny would want me to emphasize that the first and primary
purpose of the Montgomery GI bill is to
[[Page H7133]]
assist in the readjustment of members of the Armed Forces to civilian
life. The Department of Defense reports that total cost--tuition, fees,
room and board--for a 4-year education rose 31 percent between 1985 and
1993. During the same time period, average tuition and fees at 4-year
institutions increased 43 percent. Because of these increases in the
cost of education, the GI bill benefit covered only 39 percent of the
total costs and 70 percent of tuition and fees in 1993-94. The men and
women who volunteer and honorably serve our Nation through military
service more than earn their educational assistance benefits--and they
deserve a benefit level that will significantly assist them in their
efforts to pursue further education.
In the early years of the program, enrollment rates differed somewhat
based on demographic groups such as gender, race/ethnicity, or
education level. In fiscal year 1995, however, there were virtually no
differences in enrollment rates among demographic groups, clearly
demonstrating the broad appeal of the Montgomery GI bill.
Preliminary numbers show that, although there is little difference in
the GI bill enrollment rates based on aptitude levels, the usage rates
differ dramatically. The young people with the highest scores on
aptitude tests are far more likely to use their GI bill benefits than
those whose scores were in the average to below-average range. this
early information is a useful warning that special efforts may be
necessary to ensure that all GI bill participants take advantage of
their earned benefits.
There is little difference in usage rates among the race/ethnicity
groups. Usage rates by gender differ more than do enrollment rates with
male usage below female usage, and married veterans use their benefits
at a lower rate than their single counterparts. The next Department of
Defense report to Congress on the Montgomery GI bill, due in 1998, will
include more veterans who have passed their time limit for benefit
usage. Consequently, we will then have a more accurate idea of usage
trends.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that the Montgomery
GI bill was enacted in 1984 in spite of powerful opposition. Because
Sonny Montgomery and his supporters were tenacious and committed they
prevailed and won a long, hard battle. America's best and brightest
young women and men have the opportunity to earn education assistance
benefits through honorable military service. I want to thank Sonny
Montgomery and all those who participated in and supported this
remarkable effort and hope we continue to support it in the future.
____________________