[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 144 (Thursday, October 21, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MONTGOMERY GI BILL NEEDS A BOOST

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BOB FILNER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 21, 1999

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to submit an article by my colleague, 
the distinguished Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
Mr. Lane Evans. This article, about needed changes in the Montgomery GI 
Bill, appeared in the November 1999 issue of the Association of the 
United States Army's AUSA News.

                    Montgomery GI Bill Needs a Boost

       We are enjoying a balanced budget for the first time in a 
     generation. Now is the prudent time to make badly-needed 
     changes in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
       Army and other service recruiters and the commanders of the 
     Armed Services' Recruiting Commands see the MGIB as the most 
     important recruiting incentive for the Armed Services. Yet 
     congressional leaders have refused to fund an upgrade, 
     despite a recruiting crisis today that will be tomorrow's 
     manpower crisis.
       The House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits held 
     hearings this year on the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act 
     of 1999, H.R. 1071, which I introduced, and the 
     Servicemembers Educational Opportunity Act of 1999, H.R. 
     1182, introduced by Chairman Bob Stump. Both bills would 
     appreciably increase benefits provided by the Montgomery GI 
     Bill. The testimony we received during those hearings was 
     far-reaching, and it confirmed two things:
       1. GI Bill enhancements are sorely needed, and
       2. My H.R. 1071 is a significantly stronger bill.
       Commanders and recruiters from all of the Armed Services 
     told the Benefits Subcommittee that they face brutal 
     recruiting challenges this year which will continue into the 
     future.
       Vice. Adm. Patricia A. Tracey, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
     of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, said that it is a 
     buyer's market out there. What most young Americans are not 
     buying is military service.
       As a result, the military has become increasingly unable to 
     compete with colleges for the caliber of high school 
     graduates it needs to operate today's complex weapon systems 
     and equipment.
       The Army missed its recruitment goal of 48,700 during the 
     first half of 1999 by more than 7,300. Its ``write-rate'' is 
     the worst in the history of the all-volunteer force, and the 
     annual goal will be missed by ten times last year's figure.
       Admiral Tracey told us that ``money for college'' is 
     consistently the primary reason young men and women give for 
     enlisting. All the recruiters backed her up.
       To my mind the recruiting problems we see now reflect the 
     diminished buying power of the Montgomery GI Bill. College 
     costs have quadrupled in the last 20 years. The basic GI Bill 
     benefit, however, has increased only 76 percent since the 
     program was enacted.
       No wonder America's young people aren't buying military 
     service. The 21st century job market will demand a college 
     degree--but they have a great many opportunities to pay for a 
     college education without facing the rigors, the risks and 
     the sacrifices of serving their country in the Armed Forces. 
     Most of us who are veterans today grew up looking for ways to 
     serve our country--and wearing the uniform was a good career 
     move, too--whether for a few years before going on to a 
     civilian job, or as a life's work. That ethic is dying, and 
     Congress is doing nothing to reinforce it.
       The GI Bill today simply does not provide enough education 
     assistance to attract the numbers of high quality high school 
     graduates the Army and the other services need. Today, 
     potential recruits see the Montgomery GI Bill as an 
     inadequate educational benefits package compared to the 
     commitment required by the Armed Services.
       As a result, the military has become increasingly unable to 
     compete with colleges. The Armed Forces are accepting lower-
     ability recruits in an effort to meet recruiting goals.
       Recently Patrick T. Henry, Army Assistant Secretary for 
     Manpower and Reserve Affairs said America has to understand 
     that the Army is not an employer of last resort. I agree, but 
     if we experience continuing recruiting shortfalls, our 
     military may soon become just that.
       The Armed Forces must have high quality recruits, defined 
     as those who have a high school diploma and who have at least 
     average scores on tests measuring math and verbal skills.
       The Department of Defense says about 80 percent of high 
     quality recruits will complete their first 3 years of active 
     duty, while only 50 percent of recruits with only a GED will 
     finish basic training successfully and complete their 
     enlistment. The General Accounting Office notes that it costs 
     at least $35,000 to replace every recruit who leaves the 
     service prematurely.
       We must restore MGIB's effectiveness in recruiting the 
     number of high quality young men and women the Armed Forces 
     need and providing a competitive readjustment educational 
     benefit for veterans.
       The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 10-year 
     cost of enhancing the Montgomery GI Bill (H.R. 1071) to be $5 
     billion over 10 years. This $5 billion 10-year cost to 
     recruit the high quality young men and women required to 
     maintain our national defense and provide these veterans the 
     opportunity to obtain the best education for which they can 
     qualify after their military service is one-half of 1 percent 
     (.005) of the 10-year nearly $800 billion tax cut 
     congressional leaders are trying to enact.
       A single tax break--such as the five-year extension of a 
     temporary tax deferral on income life insurance companies, 
     banks and securities firms earn abroad--will cost the 
     government that much in lost revenues, according to 
     congressional calculations.
       Shame on Congress and its Republican leaders if, in their 
     lock-step march to give tax relief to those who need it 
     least, they pass national security by.
       Shame on Congress and its leaders, too, if they fail to 
     find the relatively smaller amount we need to attract the new 
     soldiers--and sailors, airmen and marines--this country needs 
     to remain strong and free.