[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3212-H3220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
21ST CENTURY MONTGOMERY GI BILL ENHANCEMENT ACT
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 1291) to amend title 38, United States Code, to
increase the amount of educational benefits for veterans under the
Montgomery GI Bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1291
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``21st Century Montgomery GI
Bill Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 3015(a)(1) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) for an approved program of education pursued on a
full-time basis, at the monthly rate of--
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2002, $800,
``(B) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $950,
``(C) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $1,100,
and
``(D) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year,
the amount for months occurring during the previous fiscal
year increased under subsection (h); or''.
(2) Section 3015(b)(1) of such title is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) for an approved program of education pursued on a
full-time basis, at the monthly rate of--
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2002, $650,
``(B) for months occurring during fiscal year 2003, $772,
``(C) for months occurring during fiscal year 2004, $894,
and
``(D) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year,
the amount for months occurring during the previous fiscal
year increased under subsection (h); or''.
(b) CPI Adjustment.--No adjustment in rates of educational
assistance shall be made under section 3015(h) of title 38,
United States Code, for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives has an historic
opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to veterans, promote higher
education, boost military recruitment and retention and strengthen the
ladder of opportunity by passing H.R. 1291, the 21st Century Montgomery
GI Bill Enhancement Act.
This legislation, which I introduced on March 29 with 57 cosponsors,
including my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Evans), now has over 100 cosponsors and is supported by almost two
dozen veterans service, military and higher education organizations as
well as Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi. The bill
responds to the rising costs of college education by providing a 70
percent increase in total benefits to eligible veterans in less than 3
years.
Not since the enactment of the Montgomery GI Bill in 1985 have we had
the opportunity to vote for such a dramatic increase in veterans
educational
[[Page H3213]]
benefits. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this
legislation.
Madam Speaker, since the enactment of the Servicemen's Readjustment
Act of 1944, commonly called the GI Bill, we have continuously provided
educational support for our Nation's veterans. The original GI Bill is
universally recognized as one of the most successful pieces of
legislation ever approved by the Congress.
In the decade following World War II, more than 2 million eligible
men and women went to college using these educational benefits. The
result was an American workforce enriched by 450,000 engineers, 238,000
teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 22,000 dentists, and
another million college-educated men and women. It is estimated that
another 5 million men and women received other schooling or job
training using the GI Bill. All told, approximately 7.8 million men and
women were educated or trained by the GI Bill, helping to create what
we know as the modern middle class.
The original GI Bill exceeded all expectations and had enormous
benefits beyond the immediate benefits given to our deserving war
veterans. College enrollment grew dramatically. In 1947, GI Bill
enrollees accounted for almost half of all the total college
population, resulting in the need for more and larger colleges and
universities. In my home State of New Jersey, for example, Rutgers
University saw its admissions grow from a pre-war high of 7,000 to
almost 16,000.
A Veterans' Administration study in 1965, Madam Speaker, showed that
due to the increased earning power of GI Bill college graduates,
Federal Government income tax revenues rose by more than $1 billion
annually. And in less than 20 years, the $14 billion cost of the
original program had been recouped.
Madam Speaker, there is widespread agreement on the effect and
effectiveness of veterans' educational programs. Building upon the
success of the GI Bill, Congress approved a second bill, the Veterans
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, during the Korean War; then a
third bill, the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966, during the
Vietnam War; and a fourth bill, the Veterans Educational Assistance
Act, for the post-Vietnam War era.
Finally, in 1985, Congress approved today's Montgomery GI Bill, or
MGIB, which was designed not only to help veterans make a transition
into the workforce through additional education and training, but also
to support the concept of an all-volunteer Armed Forces. The use of
educational benefits as a recruitment tool has been one of the most
spectacularly successful of all the tools given to our Nation's
military recruiters.
However, Madam Speaker, as we all know, the skyrocketing costs of a
college education have seriously eroded the buying power of the MGIB
benefits. The Congressional Research Service stated in its testimony to
the committee, and I want to thank our distinguished chair of the
Subcommittee on Benefits, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth),
for the two outstanding hearings that he chaired, that between academic
years 1980-1981 and 2000-2001, average tuition and fees at 4-year
public and 2-year public colleges rose 336 percent. For private
colleges it rose by 352 percent.
Under current law, a full-time veteran student receives $650 monthly
under the Montgomery GI Bill from which the veteran student pays
tuition, books, supplies, fees and subsistence allowance, including
housing, food and transportation. However, according to data furnished
by the College Board, the current $650 per month would have to be
raised to $1,025 for a veteran student to attend a 4-year public
college as a commuter student at an average cost of $9,229 per year.
That is just what our legislation does, I say to my colleagues. H.R.
1291 increases the $650 monthly amount to $800 per month effective this
October 1, then to $950 per month effective October 1, 2002, and then
finally to $1,100 per month effective October 1, 2003. This represents,
a 70 percent increase in the monthly educational benefit in 3 years. As
we point out in this chart, it goes from $23,400 to $39,600 after being
fully phased in.
Madam Speaker, in this era of investing our scarce resources in areas
that produce positive results, let me briefly share with my colleagues
what the effect of this bill will be. At the moment, there are 266,000
veterans who are enrolled in school under the Montgomery GI Bill. This
is anticipated to increase to about 330,000 over the next 10 years.
However, with the approval of our legislation, the number of veteran
students in school under the MGIB will increase to about 375,000 in
2011, an increase of 45,000 over the current estimate. And each of
these students will be positioned, we believe, to obtain a better job
and make more money, thus repaying many times over our Nation's
investment in them under the MGI Bill.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that there will also be an
ancillary impact on utilization. We know that something on the order of
50 percent of the people who are eligible are using this benefit. It
just has not been enough to make the difference. This, we believe, will
boost that participation.
Let me also say, Madam Speaker, that this bill is indeed a starting
point. It is not an ending point. Our committee report on the Budget
for fiscal year 2002 says that the ultimate goal is a Montgomery GI
Bill that pays tuition, fees and a monthly subsistence allowance, thus
allowing veterans to pursue enrollment in any educational institution
in America limited only by their own aspirations, abilities and
initiative.
However, after looking at the history of the program, our committee
report on the fiscal year 2002 budget also states that we need to take
major steps now, no delay, to increase the benefit for today's veterans
who are currently eligible for the program. On a bipartisan basis,
Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs agreed that a graduated
increase in the current monthly benefit was the most important step we
could take over the next 3 years to encourage veterans to use the
benefit they had earned by faithful service to our Nation. For the
first time in anyone's memory, the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget accepted our committee recommendation and included the necessary
funds in the budget resolution. He also fought to keep those funds in
the conference report. As a result, we are able to bring to this floor
a bill that is in compliance with the Budget Act.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1291 is good news for veterans. It is good for
education. It is good for our military and our national defense. And it
is good for our economy. H.R. 1291 is good public policy. I sincerely
hope that all of our Members will support it.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I must, regrettably, comment on the process
that brought us here today. Since I first entered the House in 1981, I
have had the honor to serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, first
as a Member, later as Vice Chairman and now as Chairman. During these
twenty-one years, I had the privilege of serving for 14 years with
Chairman Sonny Montgomery, the Montgomery GI Bill's namesake, as well
as for 6 years with Chairman Bob Stump, now the Armed Services
Committee Chairman. During all these years, the Veterans' Affairs
Committee operated on a bipartisan basis with one simple goal: to help
improve the lives of our nation's veterans.
During the five and half months I have served as Chairman, we have
sought to continue this tradition and operate on a bipartisan basis. I
was gratified when the Committee approved in a unanimous vote--let me
emphasize that--a unanimous vote, the Views and Estimates Report for
the Budget Committee. It was in large part due to our bipartisan
approach--doing what was right for our veterans, not for our parties or
our political careers--that we were successful in seeing a 12 percent
increase for veterans spending in this year's budget.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1291, the legislation we are considering today,
resulted from a lot of hard work by the Members and staff of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee--Republicans and Democrats--over many, many
months. This legislation offers a realistic yet substantial increase--a
70 percent increase--in the amount of money available to veterans for
educational benefits.
Madam Speaker, it was with some sadness last week that I learned that
the Democrats on the Committee, having already agreed to our bipartisan
strategy for moving H.R. 1291, reversed course and decided instead to
take a political course. Their ploy to offer an amendment raising the
cost of the program from $9 billion over ten years to more than $23
billion over ten years may appear alluring to some, but is not paid for
in the budget resolution and ultimately it is unsustainable and would
stand no chance of becoming law.
[[Page H3214]]
Madam Speaker, I understand that some members would like to see an
even larger increase in educational benefits for veterans than the 70
percent increase that my legislation offers--frankly I would like to
get to the point where we can offer a full tuition and expenses GI
bill--but we are not yet there.
That's why the Committee, on a bipartisan basis, had made the
decision to move quickly to pass H.R. 1291 with its 70 percent
increase, get it signed into law, and then see what could be done next.
That's why on March 27, when we held our bipartisan press conference
introducing H.R. 1291, Mr. Evans himself said:
``I view the Smith-Evans legislation that will soon be introduced as
the next interim step toward the Committee's final goal of providing
our veterans with the full costs of getting educated.''
That's why on May 24, Mr. Reyes, the Ranking Democrat on the
Subcommittee on Benefits said:
``H.R. 1291 . . . represents a step in the right direction toward
ensuring that these opportunities for our veterans remain real and
truly meaningful opportunities for all.
``While I think everyone wishes it could do more, H.R. 1291 would
indeed go far toward fulfilling our collective goals. And I am proud to
be a cosponsor of this very important and vital legislation.''
Madam Speaker, I said at the outset that today can be an historic day
for our nation's veterans. We have an opportunity to continue our
longstanding tradition of supporting our veterans in a bipartisan
manner.
Let's do what is right for our veterans. Let's make real progress,
not just speeches. Let's agree to work together, on a bipartisan basis,
without rancor or ill-will, to join together to ensure that we do right
for those who have done right for us.
Let's pass this historic legislation which will result in a dramatic
increase in GI educational benefits--a 70 percent increase. In 1944,
during consideration of the original GI Bill, the Senate voted 50 to
nothing for approval and the House followed suit, voting 387 to 0 in
favor of this historic legislation. I hope we can do the same today.
Madam Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to join me today in
voting unanimously to approve H.R. 1291, and renew our commitment to
the men and women who are on the front lines promoting freedom and
peace all over the world.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hayworth and Mr. Reyes, Chairman
and Ranking Member of the Benefits Subcommittee, for their hard work on
this bill.
I also want to thank Ranking Member Evans for his continuous efforts
on behalf of our servicemembers and veterans.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 21st Century
Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. EVANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for this
measure. This legislation provides an increase which is moderate but it
is important in veterans' educational benefits.
I want to salute the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the
chairman. He has worked together with me in the past. I look forward to
a good relationship in the future. He got that budgetary increase. We
are quite proud of his hard work in that regard. We have some
differences on this issue today, but they are honest differences.
I regret that no member of the Subcommittee on Benefits or the full
Committee on Veterans' Affairs has been given the opportunity to vote
on this measure or alternative legislation. Ironically, while this
measure will improve educational benefits for men and women in uniform
who serve to protect and defend our freedoms and liberties, members
have been stripped of their right to vote in committee.
{time} 1430
Not only have Members been disenfranchised, so too have the men and
women who elected them to represent them in office here in the
Congress.
After days of hearings of testimony from more than two dozen
witnesses, there was no debate and there was no vote on this measure or
any other proposal. This, I believe, is a sad commentary.
It will be said that this measure provides a major increase in the
educational benefits for veterans; but while that is true, we could do
much more.
It has been said that this legislation is a partial step. That is an
acknowledgment that the benefits provided by the legislation are
insufficient. Years from now, a future Congress may enact legislation
providing veterans a truly meaningful educational benefit. There is no
time at this point to wait, however. That meaningful veterans education
benefit could be provided now. I am forced to conclude the leadership
of this Congress is too timid and not willing to undertake that
important step.
It may be said that it costs too much to provide our servicemen and
women an educational benefit worthy of their service. I understand the
budgetary surplus of the next 10 years is expected to be $500 billion.
It is not a question about the budget. It is a question about our
priorities.
The importance of a meaningful veterans educational benefit is well
understood. The educational opportunities veterans had during World War
II fundamentally changed our Nation for the better, as the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has pointed out.
Military service today is no less worthy. I regret that this measure
provides inadequate benefits. I regret committee members are not given
the opportunity to do their job. I regret that the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes), the ranking Democrat member of the Subcommittee on
Benefits, will be unable to participate in this debate because of the
circumstances by which this measure was brought to the floor.
Nonetheless, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I salute
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and his staff for their hard
work; but our veterans, I believe, deserve the help that they get from
the Federal Government, and we must do more to make this a meaningful
piece of legislation.
VA BENEFITS AS PERCENT OF ANNUAL HIGHER EDUCATION COSTS \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of cost covered in fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1291...................................................... 33 32 32 31 31 30 30
Evans amendment................................................ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Current law.................................................... 20 20 19 19 19 19 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Combined cost of tuition, fees, books, and supplies based on data provided by The College Board, plus annual
stipend of $7,200 for living expenses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average tuition + fees........................................ $9,921 $10,418 $10,939 $11,486 $12,060 $12,663 $13,296 $13,961 $14,659 $15,392
Average books + supplies...................................... 717 753 791 831 873 916 962 1,010 1,061 1,114
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal \1\............................................ 10,638 11,171 11,730 12,317 12,933 13,579 14,258 14,971 15,720 16,506
Living stipend \2\............................................ 7,200 7,380 7,565 7,754 7,948 8,146 8,350 8,558 8,772 8,992
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual cost..................................... 17,838 18,551 19,295 20,071 20,881 21,725 22,608 23,529 24,492 25,498
Average annual benefit under current law \3\.................. 3,680 3,785 3,889 3,998 4,087 4,192 4,297 4,407 4,517 4,633
Percentage covered............................................ 21% 20% 20% 20% 20% 19% 19% 19% 18% 18%
Average annual benefit under HR 1291 \4\...................... $4,485 $5,372 $6,364 $6,525 $6,687 $6,855 $7,029 $7,202 $7,382 $7,567
Percentage covered............................................ 25% 29% 33% 33% 32% 32% 31% 31% 30% 30%
Average annual benefit under HR 320........................... $3,680 $3,785 $3,889 $20,071 $20,881 $21,725 $22,608 $23,529 $24,492 $25,498
Percentage covered............................................ 21% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes inflation of 2.5% over CPIU, or 5% (CBO).
\2\ Assumes 2.5% COLA (CBO).
\3\ Assumes 2.5% COLA (CBO).
\4\ Assumes 2.5% COLA after FY 2004.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits.
[[Page H3215]]
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to come to
the well of this House to speak in strong support of this legislation.
At this point, Madam Speaker, it is also important that I respond to
some of the observations of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), my
friend and the ranking member.
I think it is important to point out to this House that when the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs met earlier this year to consider what
our veterans budget should be, it decided unanimously to request funds
to increase the Montgomery GI bill to $1,100 over 3 years. It also
talked about the desirability of ultimately changing the program so
that veterans would be entitled to a monthly stipend, as well as
government reimbursement of tuition and fees, at any postsecondary
institution in the United States.
However, the committee did not ask that funds for this program change
be included in the budget resolution. Indeed, the committee explicitly
stated that it would not seek funding for such a change until after a
bill like this one we are bringing to the floor today had been enacted
into law. Not only did the Democratic substitute offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) contain funds to go beyond
what was requested by the Committee on Veteran's Affairs, it also
should be noted that although the Blue Dog Democrat budget substitute
contained increased amounts specifically to fund H.R. 320, my good
friend, the ranking member from Illinois, voted against that proposal.
Madam Speaker, the bottom line on the legislation today is this:
rather than being prisoners of process, we have a chance to enact sound
policy, a 70, 7-0, a 70 percent increase in benefits under the
Montgomery GI bill over the next 3 years. That is something that is
meaningful for today's veterans. That is why I rise in strong support
of this legislation.
We should note this bill was introduced by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith). It is cosponsored by 105 Members of this body,
including as original cosponsors the majority leader, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Armey); the dean of all House Members, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the chairman of the Joint Economic
Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton); and the chairman
of the House Committee on Armed Services and the dean of our Arizona
delegation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
As my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said, this measure increases the
bill, again, we cannot state it enough, by 70 percent over the next 3
fiscal years, the most substantial increase to date.
There is no disputing the fact that the current Montgomery GI bill
needs improvement as a transition tool from military to civilian life.
At present, it pays $650 per month, from which the veteran must pay for
tuition, books, fees, housing, transportation, and myriad other
personal expenses that students incur while attending college.
Sixty-eight percent of veterans are married at the time of separation
from the military and many of those vets have children. These vets are
presented with even further expenses while trying to obtain higher
education.
I would note that from 1987 through 1997, VA reported that only 37
percent of eligible veterans used the Montgomery GI bill. In
comparison, almost 64 percent of Vietnam-era GIs used their education
benefits during the first 10 years of the program.
Providing for the common defense was the primary reason for
establishing our constitutional Republic. Therefore, military service
is our Nation's most fundamental form of national service. Today's
servicemember is no less valued than those who were conscripted.
Service personnel and veterans represent an untapped opportunity for
the Nation, as Mr. G. Kim Wincup, vice chairman of the Transition
Commission, stated in his testimony before our Subcommittee on
Benefits.
We as a Nation benefit from highly educated veterans. The gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee,
testified before our subcommittee that, quoting now, ``providing our
veterans with educational assistance creates a more highly educated,
productive workforce, that spurs the economy while rewarding the
dedication and great sacrifices made by members of our military.''
Madam Speaker, I would suggest this bill is not just about greater
purchasing power under the Montgomery GI bill. It is about the value we
place on our military volunteers, persons who are in fact not drafted
into the military but who as a Nation have asked to serve voluntarily,
military veterans who are indeed a unique national resource.
These are individuals who after they conclude their military service
will ultimately use this GI bill not only to catch up with their
nonveteran peers but also to serve among America's leaders.
I would applaud the chairman for his leadership on this bill. I urge
all of my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
What part of a 70 percent increase do my colleagues fail to understand?
Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans), for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1291, the 21st Century
Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act. As a co-sponsor of the bill, I urge
its passage. This legislation continues our efforts to improve the
education program for our men and women in uniform. The bill provides
an increase in benefits, including raising the monthly educational
stipend to $800 a month for fiscal year 2002, to $1,100 by fiscal year
2004.
I remember well the beginnings of what was later known to be the
Montgomery GI bill. It was shared between the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs and the House Committee on Armed Services, and I remember
playing a part in making sure that it reached the floor at that time.
The gentleman from Mississippi, the Honorable Sonny Montgomery, was
the author, is the author; and we should remember his efforts as we
improve on that bill today.
This legislation is the right step toward enhancing this bill for our
veterans. We must continue to take advantage of opportunities to
provide our veterans a truly meaningful and substantial educational
program.
Full funding for tuition and fees and a monthly stipend for living
expenses in exchange for a service commitment would dramatically
improve the GI program and would bring parity with other scholarship
and tuition assistance programs currently available to young Americans.
Efforts by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) to build upon
improvements under the Montgomery GI bill will greatly improve this
education program for our men and women in uniform, and I hope that his
efforts on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will continue and that
they will be able to pass additional educational benefits, as the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) so desires.
Now while it is important that the House consider this legislation,
the process by which it is brought to the floor concerns me. It is
deeply disturbing that no member of the Subcommittee on Benefits or of
the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs has been given the opportunity
to engage in a full and open debate on this measure or vote on the bill
before today.
I hope procedural abuses like this do not occur again, because it is
not fair, either to the Members of this body or to the veterans for
whom it is intended to benefit.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, as one of the veterans who took advantage
of the GI bill after I got out of the Marine Corps, in fact to the tune
of 45 months, or 2 years of undergraduate and 3 years of medical
school, like all Members of this House I care about the GI bill, and
that is why I find this process in which those of us who serve on
[[Page H3216]]
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was an unfortunate one in which this
bill did not come before the committee to be considered and voted on.
What are my concerns? Well, in 1999, Anthony Principi, who is now
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and this was before he was Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, chaired a commission known as the Principi
Commission. The formal title was ``Report of the Congressional
Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance.''
Basically, what this report called for was a return to an education
benefit for our veterans, much more like the original GI bill right
after World War II.
Now what is the problem? What is the difference between what the
Principi Commission called for and the legislation we are considering
today? The average budget last year for 4 years for tuition and fees
only was about $3,500. If we add in the costs, living expenses for a
student, that gets to about $12,000.
The average private college tuition for a 4-year college was about
$16,300 last year. That does not include any living expenses. That is
just tuition and fees.
It does not take a whole lot of math to figure out that 3 years from
now, when the bill we are considering today is in full effect, the
maximum benefit annually will be $13,200; $3,000 short of just the
tuition and fees with nothing provided for living expenses.
So in my view what we have done, Madam Speaker, is missed an
opportunity to increase opportunity for our veterans; to help our
military recruiters; to help our colleges; and perhaps, most important
of all, to help the students at all of our colleges, even our very
expensive 4-year private colleges, who would benefit by sitting next to
a 4-year veteran of the military.
We will all vote for this bill, Madam Speaker; but it could have been
so much better.
Let me make some response to the comments earlier that somehow we
were engaging in petty politics. It is not petty politics to want to
improve this bill or any bill. It is not petty politics to want bills
to go through committee. It is certainly not petty politics to be in
agreement with the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony
Principi, who put out this very important report; and the amendment of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) that he wanted to bring up in
committee merely reflects the desires of the Principi Commission.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291.
This bipartisan bill greatly increases the Montgomery GI bill as a
recruitment tool for our military services. Based on recent testimony
provided to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs by the college board,
the monthly benefit needed to meet current average costs for a 4-year
college is $1,025. Yet the current GI bill benefit is only $650.
Madam Speaker, $650 per month is just not enough. As a consequence,
America's youth and their families no longer see military service as a
path to education. They see it as a detour away from their college
plans.
{time} 1445
As a Vietnam veteran and somebody who spent 30 years in the Reserves,
I know that quality personnel are the backbone and the brains of our
military, and one way to attract quality personnel is to provide an
enhanced education benefit.
If my colleagues believe as I do that an improved education benefit
is going to serve as an enlistment tool and is also going to provide
for an educated citizenry, then support this bill. Let us help our
young citizens, let us help our military, let us help America. Vote for
this bill.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1291, the 21st Century
Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act, and I commend Chairman Smith and
subcommittee Chairman Hayworth for their leadership in introducing the
bill we are considering this afternoon.
This bipartisan bill greatly improves the Montgomery GI Bill as a
recruitment tool for our military services.
Based on recent testimony provided to the Veterans' Affairs Committee
by the College Board, the monthly benefit needed to meet the current
average cost for a four-year college is $1,025. Yet the current GI Bill
benefit is only $650 per month.
Madam Speaker, $650 per month is just not enough. As a consequence,
America's youth and their families no longer see military service as
the path to education; they see it as a detour away from their college
plans. This, in turn, makes it more difficult to recruit young high
school graduates into the services.
As a Vietnam veteran, and as someone who has spent 30 years in the
U.S. Army Reserve, I know that quality personnel are the backbone and
the brains of our military. One way to attract quality personnel into
the military is to provide an enhanced education benefit through the GI
Bill; and H.R. 1291 does just this.
Under the provisions of this legislation, the monthly educational
benefit for someone who commits to a standard three-year enlistment
will go from $800 in October of this year; to $950 in October 2002; to
$1,100 on October 1, 2003.
A two-year enlistment with a four-year commitment to the Reserves
also carries an improved benefit.
Testimony before the Veterans' Affairs Committee shows that the
majority of recruits, across all branches of service, list money for
education as their primary reason for enlistment. It is clear that an
increase in that money would provide a greater incentive for high
school graduates to join the military.
On May 24th of this year, the personnel chiefs from all of our
military services testified that H.R. 1291's enhancements to the
Montgomery GI Bill would be ``very effective'' as a recruitment and
retention tool.
If my colleagues believe, as I do, that an improved education benefit
will not only serve as an enlistment tool, but will also provide a more
educated citizenry, then I urge them to join me in supporting this
bill.
Let's help our young citizens. Let's help the military. Let's help
America! Let's pass this bill.
Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I am proud to be here today and be a
cosponsor of H.R. 1291, the 21st Century GI Bill Enhancement Act. At a
time when drastic tax cuts have overshadowed our Nation's priorities,
it is refreshing that the House should take up the legislation that
takes a major step towards restoring purchasing power for the GI Bill.
Educational benefits are the military's best recruiting tool. The
Montgomery GI Bill must be modernized to meet today's demands. H.R.
1291 moves toward this goal of expanding access to higher education by
increasing the current monthly benefits from $650 to $800 by the year
2002, and ultimately to $1,100 by 2004.
Clearly, today's legislation provides a stronger education package to
the men and women who choose to serve our country.
However, while I support this measure, I regret that I did not have
the opportunity to vote for the bill in full committee because of the
manner in which H.R. 1291 was brought to the House floor.
More importantly, I am disappointed that the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Evans), the ranking member, was not permitted to offer his
amendment during the subcommittee markup on H.R. 1291, which was
abruptly canceled.
H.R. 320, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Evans), the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act, would have provided
additional resources for tuition, would have provided additional
resources for fees, would have provided additional resources for books
and supplies, as well as provided assistance and allowances for these
people that would have enlisted for 4 additional years in service. As
drafted and presented today on the House floor, H.R. 1291 only provides
modest assistance in covering this cost.
Yes, we are happy that this is here. We would have had a great
opportunity to make some things happen, and it is unfortunate we did
not have the opportunity to make that happen.
My understanding is, based on the rules that we operate under, Rule
4(c)(1), the committee rule states that each subcommittee is authorized
to meet and report to the full committee on all matters under its
jurisdiction.
These committees were not allowed to practice the way we should, and
it is something that we also need to recognize, that this is not a way
of handling our issues that come before the House.
As we look in terms of the resources that we have now and the costs
of higher education, recent reports show that
[[Page H3217]]
fees alone are higher than tuition in most universities around the
country, so there is a real need for us to look at this seriously.
We can stand here today and be proud of this piece of legislation,
but we can also not feel proud of the way it was handled. Why, why, did
this particular piece of legislation not have an opportunity to have a
vote?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this
legislation, I am proud to stand here and urge its passage, because I
think it improves one of the most popular and important benefits that
the military offers today, the GI Bill.
When it started after World War II, as you know, it really changed
the way we look at higher education in America, because it took the
college education opportunity and experience and changed it from kind
of an elite opportunity for a privileged few to something that
everybody could enjoy. All Americans could enjoy that. It became the
fulfillment of the American dream, and became something that we could
look forward to. It became a way that a grateful Nation could say thank
you and pay back those patriots that marched into harm's way to change
this world.
But it got expensive to provide education, and it was hard to keep
up. Yet this legislation does just that. We have heard it increases
those benefits by 70 percent, and that is important, but it also should
be emphasized that every dollar we spend is a good investment, because
every time we spend a dollar helping some young man or woman get an
education, it returns back into our economy. It is estimated in a two-
year degree, that a dollar spend comes back seventeen-fold. In a four-
year degree, it comes back fourteen-fold.
I encourage everyone to support the passage of this. I want to thank
the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) for introducing this
legislation and for his leadership. I pledge my commitment to make it
even better. I urge everyone to pass this legislation.
Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this truly landmark
legislation, I rise in strong support of the 21st Century Montgomery GI
Bill Enhancement Act. This legislation will vastly improve one of the
most popular and important benefits our military provides--the All
Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program, or the Montgomery GI
Bill.
This important program serves two main purposes:
(1) It is a key recruitment and retention tool for our military, and
(2) It helps servicemembers transition into civilian life and apply
the skills they learned in uniform in the larger society.
The program has a broad and overwhelmingly positive impact on
society. Servicemembers with college degrees or additional skills and
training--as with any individuals who attain higher degrees--are more
likely to be able to support themselves and their families through
steady employment, and less likely to require government assistance.
Furthermore, according to a study done for the VA by the Klemm
Analysis Group last year, servicemembers who gain college education or
additional skills and training using the Montgomery GI Bill contribute
more to our economy than servicemembers who do not take advantage of
this program. They are able to get higher paying jobs, buy more goods
and services, and invest at higher levels. In fact, the Klemm study
indicates that for every dollar the government spends on the Montgomery
GI Bill for servicemembers who use these benefits to get a four-year
degree, as much as $14 is returned to the economy. For servicemembers
who use the benefits to get a two-year degree, as much as $17 is
returned to the economy.
Regrettably, too few servicemembers take advantage of this benefit
because it has failed to keep pace with the skyrocketing costs of
higher education. The current benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill
cover just 63% of the average cost of a baccalaureate degree for a
commuter student at a state college with no other expenses. And, it is
rare that the servicemember taking advantage of his GI Bill benefits
has no other expenses. In fact, more than two-thirds of all veterans
are married at separation from the military, and many have children.
The 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act provides the most
significant increase--an increase of nearly 70% from the current
benefit of $650 per month to the fully implemented benefit of $1,100
per month in 2004--in this program's 16-year history. According to the
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities during
testimony before the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits earlier
this month, this $1,100 benefit ``would cover the full tuition charges
at many four year public institutions, and even at a substantial number
of private colleges.''
There is little doubt that the original GI Bill benefits, which paid
the full costs for a higher education, were tremendously successful
both as a recruitment and retention tool, and as a bridge from military
to civilian life. That program helped veterans returning home from
World War II transition smoothly into civilian life, and our nation was
all the better for it. It is estimated that every dollar invested in
the GI Bill brought between $5 and $12.50 back into the economy in the
form of higher wage-paying jobs and increased purchases of goods and
services. These patriots bore the weight of the building of a new
America. They first saved the nation from tyranny and then helped the
nation to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership with the
help of the GI Bill.
H.R. 1291 does not restore the Montgomery GI Bill to the high
standards of its predecessor. It would be enormously difficult to keep
up the pace of increases in the costs of higher education. In the past
twenty years, the average tuition and fees at 4-year private colleges
rose by 352%. During that same period, the costs at 4- and 2-year
public colleges rose by 336%. But, while H.R. 1291 may not be all that
we want it to be, it does make significant progress. It will enable
many more servicemembers to take advantage of this great tool for
advancing their hopes and improving their prospects for the future.
There are other bills that would make bigger leaps in shorter time.
But the fact of the matter is that it is the bill before us that is
fully funded in the budget resolution passed by this house. It is not a
responsible course of government to make promises that cannot be kept.
Over time, given the commitment of our Veterans' Affairs Chairman Chris
Smith and others on the committee and in this body, we may very well
get a benefit comparable to the promise of the original GI Bill. But,
in the meantime, as Carl Sagan once said, ``It's better to light a
candle than to curse the darkness.''
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Chris Smith for introducing this
legislation, and pledge my commitment to continuing to work with him
for further improvements in these important education benefits. I
encourage my colleagues to make that pledge with me. With that, I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey, the
distinguished chairman of our committee, for bringing this measure to
the floor.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure, the GI
Enhancement Act, and urge my colleagues to join in lending their
support. This bill provides education benefits to veterans to a level
more in line with today's increasingly expensive higher education
opportunities by raising the current monthly Montgomery GI Bill rates.
Madam Speaker, this GI Bill is the most profound and far-reaching
piece of legislation enacted by the Congress in the 20th century. The
program, first implemented after World War II, single-handedly afforded
college education to the millions of middle and working class men and
women who served during the war, and it helped transform America in the
postwar years, leading to the ``baby-boom'' and the rise of middle
class suburbia.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this worthy, timely
legislation. With prices rising three times faster than the Consumer
Price Index, I can think of no better way to enhance the education
benefits that we provide for those who serve in our Armed Forces.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
Mr. PICKERING. Madam Speaker, I rise with great pride to support H.R.
1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill. It is a great honor for me
to follow G.V. Sonny Montgomery, who represented the Third District of
Mississippi, the legislation which bears his
[[Page H3218]]
name and which is an embodiment of his commitment and his legacy to our
Nation's Armed Services, the military, and to our veterans.
What does it mean for Mississippi? In the Third District we have
4,763 members of the Army-Air Force National Guard throughout the
district; 1,410 active duty Air Force at Columbus Air Force Base; 1,646
active duty Navy and Marine Corps personnel at Meridian, Mississippi.
It means that they will have the opportunity to get an education, to
better their lives, to have a higher standard of living and quality of
life for their children and for their families.
At Mississippi State University, if they choose to attend there,
today 55 percent of their tuition is covered. Under this legislation,
87 percent of their tuition and costs will be covered. One hundred
twenty student veterans are now enrolled at the University of Southern
Mississippi. Today, 51 percent of their costs of covered under this
legislation. Three years from today, 83 percent of their costs will be
covered. Four hundred sixty students are enrolled there today.
At the University of Mississippi, 55 percent of the costs are covered
today. Eighty-seven percent will be covered in the future, and over 100
students will benefit.
Madam Speaker, it is time for the next generation to step up to the
plate and follow the leaders of the World War II generation, to show
our commitment to the Armed Services. For the men and women of the 21st
century who are willing to commit to serve their country, we need to
make sure we can recruit and retain and give them the educational
opportunities and benefits of the Montgomery GI Bill. For that reason,
I have great pride in supporting this good and noble effort.
Mr. LARGENT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1291 and the opportunities it provides our veterans across the country.
College tuition has risen approximately 49 percent over the last ten
years, and more than 114 percent since 1980. This does not include
costs which are incurred beyond tuition and fees. The Montgomery GI
Bill benefits have not risen significantly during this time, causing
hardship for our veterans who continue their education after their
military service.
Many of our military personnel and veterans have families to
consider, and it is of utmost importance to assist our veterans and
their families who depend upon them. Veterans who continue their
education often face burdens greater than the average student because
they often live off campus and commute in an effort to provide the best
possible situation for their families.
Our veterans serve their country with a strong sense of duty, courage
and loyalty, and it is unfortunate that they have to worry about
putting food on the table and about their future after military
service. Our goal of recruiting high quality personnel into the Armed
Forces and strengthening the ranks with personnel who make a career of
serving our nation must be a top priority. Our veterans deserve the
best educational benefits we can offer. I believe H.R. 1291 raises
benefits to a level fitting of our nation's defenders. I thank our
nation's veterans for their hard work and dedication, and I thank my
colleague, Representative Chris Smith, for introducing this bill and
for his leadership on veteran's issues.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1291,
the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancements Act. This measure will
modernize one of the most important pieces of legislation of the
Twentieth Century, the Montgomery GI Bill, which was passed in 1944. I
am pleased that we finally have the chance to bring the GI Bill in line
with the current costs of higher education.
When the GI Bill was first enacted, it provided the stimulus for
thousands of Americans to go to college after serving their country in
World War II. This was a fitting reward to what has come to be termed
as ``The Greatest Generation,'' allowing them to move beyond the places
they came from and pursue the American Dream. The GI Bill has since
allowed millions of young men and women who could not otherwise afford
college to have their education paid for after serving their country.
Unfortunately, as time has passed, the costs of sending our men and
women to college has escalated considerably, and increased funding for
the GI Bill has not been enough to keep the benefit current with costs.
The maximum benefit right now is only $650 a month, which does not
cover the cost of the average four-year state institution. As a result
of letting inflation erode our commitment to our veterans, we have lost
a powerful recruiting tool for bringing new people into our armed
forces. It is past time for us to raise the amount of these benefits.
That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1291. It will link any
future increase in the education benefit to the consumer price index so
that inflation will no longer be an issue.
We owe this not only to our veterans, but to the millions of young
men and women who will be looking to our military in the future as
their best hope of obtaining a college degree. I ask that all my
colleagues join me in whole-heartedly supporting this measure today.
Mr. SHOWS. Madam Speaker, I am so proud to be here, as a member of
the House Veterans Affairs Committee, to share my continued support for
H.R. 1291 with my colleagues in Congress.
As a young man growing up in Mississippi, two great men--my father
and Sonny Montgomery, indisputably inspired my life in public service
and advocacy for veterans. The valiant service rendered by men like my
father and Congressman Montgomery was not done for any personal reward,
just for knowing they had done their part to keep America and democracy
strong. And yet, our nation did right by them by enacting the 1944 GI
Bill of Rights, one of the landmark pieces of legislation of the 20th
Century. It transformed America by providing for the education of
millions of World War II veterans, as well as thousands of veterans who
followed in their selfless path.
We all know why we must act swiftly on the passage of this
legislation for our veterans. Simply put, they have earned it and
deserve it. Our servicemen and women accept lower pay and modest living
conditions in the military--we must meet their commitment with a
promise to invest in their future.
As a country that depends on the volunteer membership of our
servicemen and women to defend our nation's ideals, we must provide
competitive benefits for our veterans. Recruiting is increasingly
difficult in a thriving economy. We can strengthen the retention of our
trained solders, if we deliver appropriate benefits and support.
At the same time, it is critical that the current cost of higher
education be reflected. The cost of higher education since the
inception of the Montgomery GI Bill in 1985 has increased more than
double the rate of increase in GI Bill benefits. During the 106th
Congress, and again during this Congress I introduced H.R. 1280, the
Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act. This legislation would
index education benefits annually to the Annual figure published by the
College Board, adjusting for the cost of attending a public four-year
university as a commuter student. This way of determining benefits has
received tremendous support from the Partnership for Veterans
Education, made up of 40 organizations of veterans, military members,
and higher education officials, as well as Admiral Tracey, the
Administration's representative from the Pentagon who testified before
the House Veterans Affairs Benefits Subcommittee on May 24th.
I am disappointed that we are debating this bill under the Suspension
of the rules, and that there is no opportunity to consider
alternatives. My bill, H.R. 1280, more accurately reflects the mission
of Representative Montgomery by providing the level of education
benefits that was promised to our soldiers when they entered the
service. I support H.R. 1291, Madam Speaker, but we can do better. We
are shortchanging our veterans by refusing to open the floor for honest
debate.
Our nation's veterans are our heroes. They have shaped and sustained
our nation with courage, sacrifice and faith. They have earned our
respect and deserve our gratitude. Let us join together and do
something meaningful by passing legislation to modernize and improve
the Montgomery GI bill. It is the right thing to do.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1291, the
``21st Century'' Montgomery G.I. Bill. This legislation is indeed
important to our nation's national security as well as the men and
women who serve our nation selflessly in uniform. It is also a
sensible, bipartisan bill that will better America. It is good policy.
As a veteran and a former GI Bill beneficiary, I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of H.R. 1291.
However, Madam Speaker, I am troubled by my Republican colleagues'
decision to subvert the process and bypass the committee system. Last
week, the Veterans Subcommittee on Benefits was scheduled to markup
H.R. 1291. However, this markup was cancelled after the Committee's
Democratic staff informed their Republican counterparts that Mr. Evans
and Reyes each intended to offer an amendment at the scheduled markup.
Mr. Evans' amendment would, like H.R. 320, have boosted to H.R.
1291's benefit package to cover the full cost of tuition for every
servicemember now and in the future. Mr. Reyes' amendment would have
indexed the MGIB benefit to educational inflation instead of using the
CPI, thus preventing a future deterioration in the real value of the
MGIB.
Why did the Republicans block debate on these amendments? Why did
Republican staff,
[[Page H3219]]
after being informed of Mr. Evans' and Reyes' intentions two days prior
to the markup--a clear demonstration of good faith--attempt to browbeat
veterans' groups into preventing a full debate on H.R. 1291 that would
have improved this legislation? Both amendments, after all, would only
benefit our veterans, servicemembers, and their families. They were not
``Democratic'' amendments meant to derail the MGIB, but honest attempts
to better the MGIB program.
I remain in support of H.R. 1291. When I testified in support of it
on June 7, I emphasized this bill was a good interim step in our
efforts to overhaul the MGIB to make it more in line with the World War
II-era GI Bill. I stressed that H.R. 1291 was good policy and a step in
the right direction, but was not as comprehensive as H.R. 320, which
would essentially pay the full cost of tuition and grant a living
allowance for every MGIB beneficiary. I urged passage of H.R. 1291 as a
positive step in the process of passing H.R. 320, not as the end of the
road. Short-circuiting the committee process by preventing Republican
or Democratic members from perfecting this legislation is not in the
interest of America's veterans. This bill should be about what best
helps veterans, not over who get credit for helping veterans.
Madam Speaker, Lane Evans and I have worked hard over the last three
years to pass H.R. 320, which aims to bolster military recruiting and
assist young men and women who choose to serve our nation in uniform.
H.R. 1291 is a solid interim measure that will improve military
recruiting and increase access to higher education for veterans. It is
good policy for our country, and represents an important step in what
must be a continuing process of improving the MGIB. I would urge all my
colleagues to support H.R. 1291 today, but also urge my Republican
colleagues to commit themselves to working with us the remainder of
this session to fully restoring the G.I. Bill's purchasing power by
passing H.R. 320.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the 21st Century
Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act, I am pleased to see the House of
Representatives taking this action today.
More than 21 million veterans have been able to get a college
education with the help of the government since the original GI Bill in
1944. By the time the last American World War II veteran graduated in
1956 with the help of this program, the United States was richer by
450,000 engineers; 238,000 teachers; 91,000 scientists; 67,000 doctors;
22,000 dentists; and more than a million other college-trained men and
women. It was a landmark idea that paid off for our nation, and helped
to catapult the United States into its position of post-war prominence.
Today, by updating the Montgomery GI Bill, we are taking a step that
will help many more men and women achieve the goal of a college degree
and a brighter future for themselves.
This bill will implement a historic funding increase in the
Montgomery GI Bill education benefit. The legislation goes a long way
toward closing the gap between current GI Bill benefit levels and the
rising cost of a college education.
This legislation will increase the monthly education benefit from its
current level of $650 per month for 36 months to $1,100--the largest
hike ever enacted. When fully phased in, the new education benefit will
bring the total GI Bill benefit to $39,600, an amount roughly equal to
the estimated cost for a student at a four-year public college. Today,
these benefit levels total only $23,400, an amount that is far below
what it takes to afford a degree in most institutions. The bill makes
these increases over a three year period in responsible steps,
increasing to $800 the first year, the second year to $950, and finally
to $1,100 per month in the third year.
As a Member of the House Budget Committee, I am pleased that the
Budget Resolution our Committee constructed included provisions
allowing for this much-needed benefit increase.
This is an important step to honor our veterans. Increasing benefit
levels will also help to recruit young, talented people to our nation's
armed forces. And, like the original GI Bill, it will help pay
dividends for our nation, in college-educated young people who will go
on to make contributions to their neighborhoods and our nation.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.
Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, the
21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act.
H.R. 1291 increases the amount of educational benefits available
under the Montgomery GI Bill for an approved program of education on a
full-time basis from the current monthly rate of $650 for a minimum
three-year enlistment to $1,100 over three years.
The benefits for a two-year active enlistment and four years in the
Reserves, currently $528, will rise to $894 over three years.
This legislation is truly important.
Over the last decade, benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill have not
kept pace with the rising cost of a college education.
In fact, the Department of Veterans Affairs has indicated that
roughly 50 percent of eligible veterans do not use the GI Bill
education benefits that they are entitled to.
Veterans repeatedly cite the lack of buying power of the Montgomery
GI Bill as one of the reasons for not using this benefit.
The bill will help hundreds of thousands of veterans, service
members, and their families who take advantage of the Montgomery GI
Bill.
Equally important, this bill will ultimately strengthen our national
defense by helping to improve the military's recruiting efforts.
The original GI Bill of 1944 is widely regarded as one of the most
important pieces of social legislation ever passed by Congress.
Like that original bill and its later versions, this bill makes
higher education and training more affordable to military personnel
returning to civilian life.
Again, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1291, the
21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act. I would like to thank
my good friend and colleague, the Ranking Member of the House Veterans'
Affairs Committee, Lane Evans as well as Chairman Christopher Smith and
Benefits Subcommittee Chairman J.D. Hayworth for their efforts to
improve education benefits for our nation's veterans. I commend each of
you for your leadership and your efforts toward improving the lives of
America's veterans. However, as the Ranking Member on the Benefits
Subcommittee, I am very disappointed that this matter was brought to
the House Floor without Members of the Benefits Subcommittee or the
Full Committee on Veterans' Affairs having an opportunity to debate and
consider the measure in a mark-up.
Consistently, history has referred to GI Bill benefits as the most
significant reason for the high educational attainment and post World
War II economic leadership success of the United States. Through
financial and tuition benefits, the GI Bill still provides millions of
today's returning military service members the opportunity to gain
important educational skills and knowledge they could not afford
otherwise. With the cost of college climbing over the last two decades,
and our nation's military plagued with recruitment problems, our
obligation to our nation's veterans is to keep pace with these costs
and provide stronger, more adequate GI Bill benefits. Increasing
sources of private scholarships and funding, along with the Montgomery
GI Bill's current inadequate level of benefits, has seriously hurt
military recruiting efforts.
Our veterans certainly deserve better. From a national security
standpoint, we cannot afford to allow our military to be without
necessary manpower and strength. We must continue to work to maintain
and improve the benefits for our veteran population. By doing this, we
honor their service and provide for their future. As the Ranking
Democratic Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee,
Subcommittee on Benefits, I, along with my colleagues on the
Subcommittee, held hearings on this legislation and heard testimony
surrounding the significant issue of GI Bill enhancement. The testimony
of individuals such as Representative John Dingell, himself an
architect of GI Bill enhancement legislation, my colleague on the
Committee Representative Ronnie Shows, and Secretary of Veterans'
Affairs Anthony J. Principi, reflected a need to ensure that a GI Bill
for the new century must provide a meaningful readjustment benefit to
discharged service members while also giving our military an effective
recruiting tool. We understand that there have been significant
economic, societal, and military changes since the implementation of
the GI Bill. These changes must be addressed, and Congress is now
addressing its responsibility to make improvements to the structure and
benefit level of this program.
It is unfortunate to mention, however, that this bill came to the
floor of the House of Representatives without a mark-up. While this
bill does much for American veterans and service members, many,
including myself, wish it could do more. I intended to introduce an
amendment to H.R. 1291 that would index the GI Bill to educational
inflation rather than the Consumer Price Index. Indexing the GI Bill to
the inflating cost of college tuition and expenses would allow veterans
and beneficiaries of the GI Bill to receive full educational benefits
without constant Congressional or governmental adjustment. The benefits
would correspond with the significant costs of an institution of higher
learning.
My colleague, Representative Lane Evans, was going to introduce his
bill, H.R. 320, as a substitute to H.R. 1291 during mark-up. H.R. 320,
of which I am a co-sponsor, was designed to restore the GI Bill program
to a benefit level comparable to that once provided to
[[Page H3220]]
veteran students after World War II. Essentially, H.R. 320 would pay
for the full cost of attending college and would remove the large
enrollment fee that is paid by service members. This legislation is
modeled after the recommendations made by Secretary of Veterans'
Affairs Anthony Principi when he was chairman for a Congressional
Commission charged with studying the needs of military service members
when they leave the military to return to civilian life. This
legislation enjoys broad Congressional support and the support of
several national veteran service organizations. Despite the absence of
a mark-up or a chance for full Committee deliberation on this matter,
the provisions within H.R. 320 and the amendment I intended to offer
continue to enjoy strong support among Members of Congress and veteran
service organizations. I, along with my colleagues, will continue to
address this issue until all our veterans are finally given a fully
functional, fully beneficial, fully enhanced GI Bill.
I am a supporter of H.R. 1291 because this measure does provide a
considerable increase in veterans' educational benefits under the
Montgomery GI Bill. Under H.R. 1291 the monthly benefit would increase
to $800 per month for fiscal year 2002, increasing to $1,100 by fiscal
year 2004. While I do believe that students and service members
entering college in 2002 would benefit more from a bill that includes
the amount of benefits that would be provided to veterans if the bill
was adjusted to educational inflation, I encourage my colleagues to
vote for the passage of this bill. It is the first step in a long road
toward veterans' benefits enhancement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1291.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________