[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1210-1212]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. LANE EVANS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 31, 2001

  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Democrat on the House 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am today introducing H.R. 320, the 
Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act of 2001, with my good friend 
Congressman John Dingell, the principal cosponsor of this important 
legislation. Our legislation will provide important and needed 
improvements in education benefits for veterans under the Montgomery GI 
Bill (MGIB) program, a key recruiting tool for the armed services and a 
key readjustment benefit for the men and women who honorably serve our 
Nation in uniform.
  Substantial MGIB enhancements are long overdue. The 106th Congress 
passed an important, but modest increase in MGIB benefits late last 
year. While I supported and was pleased by the MGIB amendments approved 
last year, those changes were clearly only an interim, first step 
toward revitalizing one of

[[Page 1211]]

America's most successful and effective programs. It is widely known 
and agreed that the true purchasing power of veterans' education 
benefits remains inadequate. MGIB benefits today still do not provide 
our servicemen and women the resources they need to pay for the ever-
increasing costs of higher education.
  The GI bill is rightly regarded by many as the greatest social 
program ever enacted by Congress. Its impact on post World War II 
America was profound. Millions of America's veterans who might not have 
been able to afford a college education received college degrees from 
some of our country's greatest institutions of higher learning. The GI 
bill helped spark our Nation's post war economic boom and contributed 
to the development of our cultural heritage. Although not considered an 
investment at that time, the World War II GI bill was a great 
investment in both individual veterans and in our Nation as a whole. 
Overlooked too often is the fact that the cost of this investment has 
been repaid many times over. It was an investment in our Nation that we 
can and should make again.
  The time is right to make the same commitment again to America's men 
and women in uniform. We now face a crisis in recruiting high ability 
young Americans to serve in our Armed Forces. With a booming economy 
and an overworked and sometime under-appreciated military force, young 
men and women are not choosing military service and too few of those 
who have joined are not re-enlisting. This trend cannot continue if we 
are to maintain a viable fighting force.
  President Bush has expressed his strong support for revitalizing our 
Nation's military forces. The surest way to achieve this goal is to 
recruit and enlist our most able young men and women. Operation Desert 
Storm is a stunning example of the importance of attracting the most 
able of our young men and women to serve in the military. Ten years 
ago, Iraq had the fourth largest standing army in the world and the 
highly touted and elite Republic Guard. Iraq's despotic leadership had 
used these overwhelming forces to invade neighboring Kuwait. America 
and her allies determined this bald aggression would not stand.
  Precipitated by Iraq's hostile actions, the war to free Kuwait was to 
be the mother of all wars. In truth, Iraq's massive Army and elite 
Republican Guard units were routed in 48 hours. Clearly, America and 
her allies had technological superiority, but technological superiority 
did not win the war. The war was won because American forces had high 
ability young men and women who could make effective use of the war-
fighting technology available to them. The troops won the war. 
Operation Desert Storm is a strong and clear demonstration of the 
fundamental importance of recruiting and enlisting the most capable 
young men and women to serve in the Armed Forces.
  Our military relies on education benefits to recruit quality 
soldiers, sailors--airmen and marines. To be an effective recruitment 
tool, the educational readjustment benefits provided to our veterans 
must provide the range and quality of education benefits that will 
attract and retain quality young people in a growing economy. That was 
also the conclusion of our newly confirmed Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, Anthony Principi, when he chaired the Commission on 
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance in 1999. Mr. 
Principi, in the Commission's final report, recommended an education 
benefit much like the original GI bill--with full payment for tuition 
and books for those enlisting for 4 years or more and a substantial 
increase in educational assistance for those who enlist for a shorter 
time period.
  The Principi Commission was right. Like its recommendation, this 
legislation would provide benefits for two tiers of service members; 
those who enlist or reenlist for a minimum of 4 years (Tier I) and 
those who enlist for less than 4 years (Tier II). In addition, this 
bill would increase the stipend level under Tier I and increase the 
basic benefit under Tier II to reflect increases in the costs of 
education since enactment of the MGIB program. For servicemembers who 
enlist or reenlist for a minimum of 4 years, the bill would:
  Pay the full costs of tuition, fees, books, and supplies.
  Provide a subsistence allowance of $800 per month (indexed for 
inflation) for 36 months.
  Eliminate the $1,200 basic pay reduction required under current law.
  Permit payment for approved specialized courses offered by entities 
other than educational institutions.
  For those who enlist for less than 4 years:
  The MGIB basic benefit would be increased from the currently 
authorized level of $650 per month to $900 per month. This benefit 
level would be close to the amount that would be paid if the basic 
benefit had kept up with increases in the cost of education.
  The $1,200 basic pay reduction would be eliminated.
  Trainees would be eligible for accelerated lump-sum benefits and 
would receive payment for approved specialized courses offered by 
entities other than educational institutions.
  Some may say the cost of this measure is too much. The first year 
cost, for example, is approximately $800 million in fiscal year 2002. 
The cosponsors of this bill understand that this is an investment--in a 
strong military and a stronger America. It will attract more high 
ability young people to the Armed Forces while providing the economy 
with highly skilled, college educated veterans. More importantly, the 
brave men and women who serve in America's Armed Forces deserve, and 
have indeed earned, far better than the inadequate educational 
assistance program now available to them. I strongly urge my fellow 
colleagues to support this bill and the policy it represents of 
demonstrating a continued national commitment to our veterans.
  For the first time in 40 years, America is enjoying a significant on-
budget surplus. This week the Senate Budget Committee estimated the 
surplus could reach $5.7 trillion over the next ten years. In 
comparison ten-year cost of H.R. 320 is likely to be $5.7 billion--or 
one-tenth of one percent of the current budget surplus projection. It 
is clear that we can indeed make this investment now. If our goals are 
to have a strong military and a strong economy, America cannot afford 
to fail to make this investment.
  The MGIB served veterans of the second half of the 20th century very 
well. However, the MGIB must now be re-examined in the context of a 
January 1999 report by the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and 
Education, the Small Business Administration, and the National 
Institute for Literacy. This report, entitled ``21st Century Skills for 
21st Century Jobs,'' has important implications for veterans entering 
the civilian workforce following their military service. Emphasizing 
the importance to the nation of investing in education and training, 
the report concluded changes in the economy and workplace are requiring 
greater levels of skill and education than ever before. It predicted 
eight of the ten fastest growing jobs in the next decade will require 
college education or moderate to long-term training, and jobs requiring 
a bachelor's degree will increase by 25 percent.
  The report also noted workers with more education enjoy grater 
benefits, experience less unemployment and, if dislocated, re-enter the 
labor force far more quickly than individuals with less education. It 
also reports that, on average, college graduates earn 77 percent more 
than individuals with only a high school diploma. If America's veterans 
are to successfully compete in the challenging 21st century workforce, 
they simply have to have the ability to obtain the education and 
training critical to their success. As noted by the Transition 
Commission, ``. . . education will be the key to employment in the 
information age.'' Although the current GI bill provides some degree of 
assistance, it is a key that opens very few doors, and it is my belief 
that all the doors of educational opportunity must be open to our 
veterans.
  According to the 1997 DOD report entitled ``Population Representation 
in the Military Services,'' 20 percent of the new enlisted recruits for 
that year were African-American, 10 percent were Hispanic, 6 percent 
were other minorities, including Native-Americans, Asians, and Pacific 
Islanders, and 18 percent were women. The report further notes that, 
although members of the military come from backgrounds somewhat lower 
in socioeconomic status than the U.S. average, these young men and 
women have higher levels of education, measured aptitudes, and reading 
skills than their civilian counterparts. These young people, most of 
whom do not enter military service with financial or socioeconomic 
advantages, have enormous potential, and it is in the best interests of 
the nation they be given every opportunity to achieve their highest 
potential. Access to education is the key to achieving that potential. 
It is also important to remember that, through the sacrifices required 
of them through their military service, this group of young Americans--
more than any other--earns the benefits provided for them by a grateful 
nation.
  Of equal concern to me as a member of the Armed Services Committee is 
the MGIB's failure to fulfill its purpose as a recruitment incentive 
for the Armed Forces. Findings of recent Youth Attitude Tracking (YATS) 
Studies confirm recruiters are faced with serious challenges, and these 
challenges are likely to continue. These surveys of young men and 
women, conducted annually by the Department of Defense, provide 
information on the propensity, attitudes and motivations, of young 
people toward military service. Recent YATS

[[Page 1212]]

show the propensity to enlist among young males has fallen from 34 
percent in 1991 to 26 percent in 1998 in spite of a generally favorable 
view of the military. In addition to a thriving civilian economy, which 
inevitably results in recruiting challenges, the percentage of American 
youth going to college is increasing and the young people most likely 
to go to college express little interest in joining our Armed Forces. 
Interestingly, these same youth note that if they were to serve in the 
military, their primary reason for enlisting would be to earn 
educational assistance benefits.
  The study concluded the propensity to enlist is substantially below 
pre-drawdown levels and, as a result, the services will probably not 
succeed in recruiting the number of young, high-ability men and women 
they require. High-ability young men and women are defined as those who 
have a high school diploma and who have at least average scores on 
tests measuring mathematical and verbal skills. The Department of 
Defense tells us about 80 percent of the recruits will complete their 
first three years of active duty while only 50 percent of recruits with 
a GED will complete their enlistment. GAO notes that it costs at least 
$35,000 to replace a recruit who leaves the service prematurely. The 
report states these findings underscore the need for education benefits 
that will attract college-bound youth who need money for school, a 
segment of American young people we conclude are now opting to take 
advantage of the many other sources of federal education assistance. 
The current structure and benefit level of the MGIB must be 
significantly enhanced if these high quality young men and women are to 
be attracted to service in our Armed Forces.
  Many factors have come together to create what could soon develop 
into a recruiting emergency. First, our thriving national economy is 
generating employment opportunities for our young people. Additionally, 
young Americans increasingly see a college education as the key to 
success and prosperity. In 1980, 74 percent of high school graduates 
went to college but, by 1992, that percentage had risen to 81 percent 
and has been steadily increasing. As a result, the military must 
compete head-to-head with colleges for high-quality youth. As I have 
mentioned already, the percentage of young Americans who are interested 
in serving in the Armed Forces is also shrinking. Make no mistake about 
it--the strength of our Armed Forces begins and ends with the men and 
women who serve our nation. Just as education is the key to a society's 
success or failure, it is also key to the quality and effectiveness of 
our military--and the MGIB increases provided by this legislation are a 
big step in the right direction toward providing that key. Some will 
say there is no recruitment problem and recruitment goals are being met 
by the various services. With notable exceptions, in most cases 
recruitment goals have been met in recent years. I urge my colleagues, 
however, to look behind the numbers. It is clear to me that standards 
have been reduced in order for recruitment goals to be met. Clearly 
this is not the course to take to revitalize the nation's military.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
support America's veterans and the military by supporting this vital 
legislation.

                          ____________________