[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12394-S12396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 1291

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 194, S. 
1088; further, that the Rockefeller-Specter substitute amendment at the 
desk be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment be 
agreed to, as amended, the bill be read a third time, that the Veterans 
Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
1291, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that all after 
the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 1088, as amended, be

[[Page S12395]]

inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read a third time and passed, the 
title amendment be agreed to, S. 1088 be returned to the calendar, and 
any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I must say that I am mystified as to 
why there would be an objection to proceeding to consideration of this 
bill. I realize that the objecting Senator is not the one holding up 
passage of this important piece of veterans legislation. But as the 
hold is anonymous, I would ask whichever one of the Senators across the 
aisle is holding the bill to please come and speak to me to let me know 
the nature of the objection. As far as I know, the Committee's Ranking 
Member also has no idea who has objected to the bill. This bill was 
voted unanimously out of Committee and is completely lacking in 
controversy.
  More specifically this bill makes significant enhancements to 
educational benefits for veterans and their families. The original GI 
Bill allowed a generation of soldiers returning from World War II to 
create the booming post-war economy, and, in fact, the prosperity that 
we enjoy today. Today's Montgomery GI Bill, MGIB, modeled after the 
original GI Bill, provides a valuable recruitment and retention tool 
for the Armed Services and begins to repay veterans for the service 
they have given to our Nation. As a transition benefit, it allows 
veterans to gain the skills they need to adjust productively to 
civilian life.
  I am very pleased that the legislation would increase the MGIB basic 
monthly benefit by $50 per month this year, $100 in 2002, and $150 in 
2003. I am even more proud that this bill also takes the next 
evolutionary step to keep pace with the careers and education that 
today's veterans require. As our colleagues know, many servicemembers 
leave the military with skills that place them in demand for careers in 
the technology sector. But even these veterans may require coursework 
to convert their military skills to civilian careers. The bill would 
allow veterans to use their Montgomery GI Bill educational benefits to 
pay for short-term, high technology courses that would allow veterans 
to earn the credentials they need to gain entry to today's civilian-
sector careers.
  Currently, the MGIB provides a basic monthly benefit of $672 for 36 
months of education. This payment structure is designed to assist 
veterans pursuing traditional four-year degrees at universities. 
However, in today's fast paced, high-tech economy, traditional degrees 
may not always be the best option. Many veterans are pursuing forms of 
nontraditional training, such as short-term courses that lead to 
certification in a technical field. In certain fields, these 
certifications are a prerequisite to employment.
  These courses often last just a few weeks or months, and can cost 
many thousands of dollars. The way MGIB is paid out in monthly 
disbursements is not suited to this course structure. For example, MGIB 
would pay only $1,344 for a two-month course that could cost as much as 
$10,000.
  The percentage of veterans who actually use the MGIB benefits they 
have earned and paid for is startlingly low--45% of eligible veterans, 
according to VA's Program Evaluation of the Montgomery GI Bill 
published in April 2000--despite almost full enrollment in the program 
by servicemembers. By increasing the flexibility of the MGIB program, 
we will permit more veterans to take advantage of these benefits. We 
should give veterans the right to choose whatever kind of educational 
program will be best for them.
  This legislation would modify the payment method to accommodate the 
compressed schedule of the courses. Specifically, it would allow 
veterans to receive an accelerated payment equal to 60 percent of the 
cost of the program. This is comparable to VA's MGIB benefit for flight 
training, for which VA reimburses 60 percent of the costs. The dollar 
value of the accelerated payment would then be deducted from the 
veteran's remaining entitlement. This provision would also allow 
courses offered by these providers to be covered by MGIB.
  A provision that is extremely important right now would preserve 
educational benefits for those that must leave their studies to serve 
on active duty in support of the National Emergency declared in 
response to the events of September 11th. This provision would restore 
educational entitlements for recipients of the Montgomery GI Bill, 
Veterans Educational Assistance Program, VEAP, and Dependent's 
Educational Allowance, DEA, for regular servicemembers and reservists 
who are called up for active duty and who are forced to relocate or 
take on extra work because of their participation in support of the 
National Emergency. Their ability to complete their education should 
not be compromised because they were called up in our fight against 
terrorism.
  The bill would also increase the Dependent's Educational Allowance 
for dependents and eligible spouses of veterans to $690 from $588. This 
program primarily provides for the children whose education would be 
impeded because of the disability or death of a parent due to a 
service-related condition. In addition, unremarried surviving spouses 
of veterans are generally eligible for the educational allowance in 
order to assist them in preparing to support themselves and their 
families at the standard-of-living level that the veteran could have 
been expected to provide for his or her family but for the service-
connected disability or death. As we send troops into harm's way, it is 
entirely appropriate that we ensure that their families' futures are 
secure.
  The bill also enhances home loan programs. VA provides a guaranty to 
mortgage lenders rather than a direct home loan to servicemembers and 
veterans. A VA guaranty allows a veteran to buy a home valued at up to 
four times the guaranty amount. The price of homes in major 
metropolitan areas has increased significantly in the last several 
years, yet the VA guaranty amount has not been increased since 1994.
  This bill would increase the home loan guaranty amount to support a 
loan of up to $252,700, keeping pace with FHA loan guaranties. It would 
also extend for 4 years the authority for housing loan guaranties for 
members of the Selected Reserve, currently set to expire in 2007. 
Reservists must serve 6 years in order to become eligible for a VA-
guaranteed loan. In order for the home loan to be used as a recruiting 
incentive now, the benefit must be authorized beyond 6 years.
  Another provision of the bill would correct an unintended exclusion 
of certain Gulf War veterans from eligibility for service-connected 
benefits. Our efforts to explain symptoms reported by many troops 
returning from the 1991 Gulf War have been frustrated by inconclusive 
scientific data and by poor military record keeping during the 
conflict. In 1994, Congress passed the Persian Gulf War Veterans' 
Benefits Act to provide compensation to certain Gulf War veterans 
disabled by ``undiagnosed illnesses'' for which no other causes could 
be identified.
  Since then, changes in medical terminology have led many Gulf War 
veterans to receive diagnoses for chronic conditions without known 
cause--such as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia--which VA has 
interpreted as precluding them from eligibility for benefits. Section 
202 of the Committee bill would correct this unintended exclusion by 
expanding service connection to ``poorly defined chronic multisymptom 
illnesses of unknown etiology, regardless of diagnosis,'' characterized 
by the symptoms already listed in VA regulations.
  Because scientific research has still determined neither the cause of 
veterans' symptoms nor the long-term health consequences of Gulf War-
era exposures, and because the Department of Defense recently expanded 
its estimates of who might have been exposed to nerve agents, this 
section also extends the presumptive period for benefits for Gulf War 
veterans for 10 more years.
  This bill would also remove the arbitrary 30-year limit for 
manifestation of Agent Orange-related respiratory cancers in Vietnam 
veterans. Current law only provides a presumption in Vietnam veterans 
for respiratory cancer if the disease manifested within 30 years of 
their service in Vietnam. The most

[[Page S12396]]

recent National Academy of Sciences report confirmed that there is no 
scientific basis for assuming that cancers linked to dioxin exposure 
would occur with a specific window of time. This provision would 
eliminate the 30-year limit and allow future claims for Vietnam 
veterans' respiratory cancers, irrespective of the date of 
manifestation of the disease.
  As you can tell, these are important provisions. But they are also 
not opposed by anyone, as far as I can see. So why would someone block 
their passage? What further adds to my confusion is that a very similar 
scenario played out just a few weeks ago, with the very delayed passage 
of legislation to improve programs to homeless veterans. As America 
honored its veterans on Veterans Day, a member of the Senate was 
blocking legislation to help those who have put their lives on the line 
defending this country but who have fallen on hard times.
  How is it, at a time when our Nation is at war and the resounding 
call of patriotism rings in our ears a Senator or Senators is playing 
penny ante partisan politics with legislation to help veterans, 
servicemembers and their dependents? Everyone is now flying the 
American flag. It is time that we act to honor those who carried it 
into battle.
  Again, I request that whomever has placed a hold on this bill please 
come to speak to me I look forward to working with this colleague to 
resolve whatever impediments there are to Senate passage of this bill.

                          ____________________