[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 173 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2246-E2247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   POST-9/11 VETERANS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 15, 2010

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 
3447, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 
2010.
  The original GI Bill proved to be a landmark initiative for our 
troops and an outstanding investment in the future of our Nation. The 
Post-9/11 GI Bill, signed into law in 2008, built on the success of the 
original program by providing helpful and hard-earned educational and 
economic benefits for our newest generation of veterans. Although 
today's legislation seeks to make it easier for veterans to utilize 
their educational benefits, some of the changes will have detrimental 
consequences.
  Just as the veterans of WWII were the engine of economic recovery and 
expansion in the post-war period, the most recent generation of 
veterans will continue their service to America by reaching their full 
educational and economic potential through the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
  While I support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote for it, 
there are some provisions in the legislation that I believe deserve 
additional consideration. Although I support setting a national average 
tuition rate for benefits, I am concerned that students in states like 
New York will be negatively impacted by the $17,500 baseline.
  This legislation will reduce benefits for students in New York 
already enrolled in programs where the cost is above the baseline. 
Students based decisions about which institution of higher education to 
attend partly on a benefit level guaranteed in the 2008 law. A ``hold 
harmless'' provision would have allowed these students to continue to 
receive the same level benefits for which they are entitled.
  Under current law, state approving agencies, SAAs, are charged with 
approving programs and schools that are deemed appropriate for vets 
using the GI Bill. S. 3447 permits the Veterans Administration, VA, to 
make this determination and I am concerned that this responsibility 
should remain within SAA's jurisdiction, as they have been the experts 
in protecting veterans from fraudulent programs. The bill goes further 
by permitting veterans to use their GI benefits at schools without any 
approval by SAAs or the VA. In my view this is unwise.
  This legislation permits the VA to expand GI benefits to trade 
schools, unaccredited colleges, and programs that lead to no degree or 
certificate. While I understand that many veterans choose not to take a 
more traditional path and attend an institution of higher education, I 
am deeply concerned that taxpayer dollars will go to programs that will 
not lead to gainful employment.
  I am also concerned that this bill includes a so-called ``last-
payer'' provision. The last payer provision withholds the student's GI 
Bill benefit until a calculation is made of any state and private 
tuition aid, for which a veteran may be eligible. In some cases, this 
would cause a delay in GI benefits and lead to needless confusion.
  As a former college administrator, I am very pleased to see so many 
veterans returning home and choosing to seek further education. 
However, I am deeply concerned with a growing number of reports that 
some institutions may be abusing GI tuition payments by aggressively 
targeting veterans for academic programs that may not provide an actual 
benefit to a student, such as preparation for future employment.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that in the 112th Congress we can achieve 
bipartisan solutions to these issues to protect both taxpayers and 
distinguished veterans. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a small token of our 
appreciation for their valor and service to our Nation. I would like to 
submit for the Record a letter signed by various higher education 
groups that outlines the community's concerns with this legislation.


                                American Council on Education,

                                Washington, DC, December 14, 2010.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Council on 
     Education and the organizations listed below, we write to 
     express our hope that before adjournment, the 111th Congress 
     will approve a final version of the

[[Page E2247]]

     Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvement Act of 
     2010 that addresses the concerns outlined below.
       Both the House version (H.R. 6430) and the Senate version 
     (S. 3447) make welcome improvements to current law, such as 
     expanding the benefits to troops serving in the Active Guard 
     Reserve and to National Guard members who have honorably 
     served their country on active duty, including at the sites 
     of natural disasters. The bills also replace the complex 
     state-by-state tuition and fee cap look-up chart with 
     language that specifies that GI Bill benefits cover tuition 
     and fees for veterans attending public institutions while 
     establishing a single national tuition baseline for those who 
     enroll in private institutions.
       However, we believe that the House version is preferable in 
     two very critical respects. First, S. 3447 contains a 
     provision that would add a new source of confusion for 
     veterans and prevent them from having a clear idea of the 
     level of support to which they are entitled. This so-called 
     ``last-payer'' provision, which withholds the GI Bill benefit 
     until a calculation is made of any state and private tuition 
     aid for which a veteran may be eligible, would not only 
     confound veterans and delay the delivery of aid, but in some 
     cases would conflict with state statutes. In contrast, H.R. 
     6430 does not include such a provision and will help end the 
     frustration and confusion that far too many veterans have 
     experienced in attempting to access their benefits.
       Second, H.R. 6430 includes an important ``hold harmless'' 
     provision, designed to protect veterans who might otherwise 
     be negatively impacted by the establishment of a national 
     baseline. In several states, veterans attending private 
     institutions currently receive a base benefit that is greater 
     than the new national baseline amount provided in either 
     version of the legislation. By failing to include this ``hold 
     harmless'' language, the Senate bill would reduce benefits 
     for a number of veterans upon enrollment for a subsequent 
     term. In contrast, the House bill would help ensure that 
     veterans continue to receive their current benefits without 
     interruption.
       As this legislation nears passage, we strongly urge you to 
     modify S. 3447 so that it reflects the approach taken by the 
     House bill on these two important issues. Our campuses have 
     worked very hard to smooth out the difficulties that veterans 
     have faced under current law, and these improvements will 
     enable them to serve veterans even more effectively.
       Thank you for all of your work on behalf of the nation's 
     veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                              Molly Corbett Broad,
     President.

                          ____________________