[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11027-11035]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 11028]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 11029]]

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.
  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.
  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.

[[Page 11030]]

  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 the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs was an unfortunate one in which this

[[Page 11031]]

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

[[Page 11032]]

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 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 spent 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 spent 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. 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

[[Page 11033]]

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 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 are 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 soldiers, 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

[[Page 11034]]

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, 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

[[Page 11035]]

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 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.

                          ____________________