99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–81 

RESTORING GI BILL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2011 

MAY 20, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. MILLER of Florida, from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1383] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1383) to temporarily preserve higher rates for tuition and 

fees for programs of education at non-public institutions of higher 

learning pursued by individuals enrolled in the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

before the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Amendment .............................................................................................................. 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Subcommittee Consideration .................................................................................. 5 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 6 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 6 

Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits .................................................................. 6 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 6 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 6 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 9 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 10 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 10 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 10 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 11 

AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 1383 

OFFERED BY MR. MILLER OF FLORIDA

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011’’. 

SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF HIGHER RATES FOR TUITION AND FEES FOR PROGRAMS OF EDUCATION AT NON-PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING PURSUED BY INDIVIDUALS ENROLLED IN SUCH PROGRAMS PRIOR TO CHANGE IN MAXIMUM 

AMOUNT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A)(ii) of section 3313(c) of title 

38, United States Code (as amended by the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–377)), the amount payable under 

that paragraph (or as appropriately adjusted under paragraphs (2) through (7) of 

that section) for tuition and fees for pursuit by an individual described in subsection 

(b) of an approved program of education at a non-public institution of higher learning during the period beginning on August 1, 2011, and ending on July 31, 2014, 

shall be the lesser of— 

(1) $27,000; or 

(2) the established charges payable for the program of education. 

(b) COVERED INDIVIDUALS.—An individual described in this subsection is an individual entitled to educational assistance under chapter 33 of title 38, United States 

Code, who, on or before April 1, 2011, was enrolled in a non-public institution of 

higher learning in a State in which— 

(1) the maximum amount of tuition per credit in the 2010–2011 academic 

year, as determined using the table of the Department of Veterans Affairs entitled ‘‘Post-9/11 GI Bill 2010–2011 Tuition and Fee In-State Maximums’’, published October 27, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66193), exceeded $700; and 

(2) the combined amount of tuition and fees for full-time attendance in the 

program of education in such academic year exceeded $17,500. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) The term ‘‘approved program of education’’ has the meaning given that 

term in section 3313(b) of title 38, United States Code. 

(2) The term ‘‘established charges’’, with respect to a program of education, 

means the actual charges (as determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the basis of a full academic year) for tuition 

and fees which similarly circumstanced nonveterans enrolled in the program of 

education would be required to pay. 

(3) The term ‘‘institution of higher learning’’ has the meaning given that term 

in section 3452(f) of title 38, United States Code. 

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON COST OF LIVING INCREASES FOR CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

During the 24-month period beginning on October 1, 2011, the maximum amount 

of the monthly stipend payable under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of section 3313 of title 38, United States Code, is the amount payable 

under clause (i) of such subparagraph on August 1, 2011. Upon the expiration on 

the 24-month period, the amount of such monthly stipend shall be the amount otherwise authorized under section 3313(c)(1)(B) of title 38, United States Code. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1383 was introduced on April 6, 2011, by Chairman Jeff 

Miller of Florida. H.R. 1383, as amended, would temporarily increase the Post-9/11 GI Bill program’s national cap on tuition and 

fees paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of vetVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:53 May 21, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR081.XXX HR081

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

erans pursuing programs of education at non-public institutions of 

higher learning from $17,500 to $27,000. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33 of title 38 United States Code) 

was signed into law by President Bush as section 5003(a)(1) of title 

V of Public Law 110–252 on June 30, 2008, and was effective August 1, 2009. Under the new program, VA would pay 100 percent 

of the maximum in-state undergraduate tuition and fees on behalf 

of a veteran with at least 36 cumulative months of active duty 

service since September 11, 2001. The maximum payment would 

apply to veterans attending both public and private degree-granting institutions of higher learning. Veterans with fewer than 36 

months of active duty would be eligible for a tiered structure of 

payments that reflected a 10 percent reduction in the maximum instate undergraduate tuition and fees for each six months of active 

duty served below the 36-month standard. 

Based on the state rate formula, VA made tuition and fee pay- ments in excess of $20,000 per school year for veterans attending 

some private institutions. Many of those students will fall under 

the $17,500 cap set by Public Law 111–377. 

In addition to tuition and fee payments, the new Post-9/11 GI 

Bill provides a monthly living stipend. Veterans enrolled greater 

than one half time in a course of study that includes at least one 

traditional classroom-based course during the academic period are 

eligible for a monthly living stipend. The stipend is the same 

amount paid to an E–5 (generally the pay grade of a sergeant or 

petty officer second class) at the ‘‘with-dependents’’ rate in the zip 

code of the school the veteran is attending. For example, a veteran 

attending the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland, 

receives $1,881 per month for the 2010–2011 school year. Veterans 

enrolled in education delivered solely online were not eligible for 

the monthly stipend. Finally, the program also provided a $1,000 

book stipend per school year. 

Despite these very generous benefits, some tuition and fees at 

some schools, both public and private, exceeded the state-based formula. To minimize or eliminate veterans’ out-of-pocket costs, the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill featured a Yellow Ribbon program which authorized VA to share those excess costs with schools on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. The Yellow Ribbon provision continues unchanged. 

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements 

Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–377), which was enacted on January 

4, 2011 made several changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Those 

changes included a reduction of tuition and fee payments for veterans attending non-public institutions to an annual maximum of 

$17,500 effective August 1, 2011. P.L. 111–377 also reduced tuition 

and fee payments for non-resident veterans attending public institutions at the out-of-state rate to the actual in-state rate charged 

by the institution. Although the cap of $17,500 a year will be a potential increase 

in payments for veterans in most states, some veterans attending 

non-public schools in New York, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas, will see their tuition and fees payments reduced. Reducing tuition and fee payments 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 

will force veterans in these states to rely on increased Yellow Ribbon contributions by schools or to find non-GI Bill resources such 

as loans, grants, or employment income. 

During his May 3, 2011 Subcommittee testimony on H.R. 1383, 

Tom Tarantino, representing the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 

America (IAVA) stated; ‘‘IAVA proudly supports H.R. 1383. This 

bill will ensure that a small minority of veterans who, due to poorly 

constructed and confusing tuition and fee regulations, would have 

had their benefits reduced as a result of the Post-9/11 GI Bill’s expansion . . . ’’ 

H.R. 1383, as amended, would temporarily increase the cap on 

tuition and fees from $17,500 to $27,000 for three years beginning 

on August 1, 2011, for veterans who were enrolled in certain nonpublic institutions of higher learning before April 1, 2011. To qualify, the institution’s per-credit hour charges must exceed $700 and 

its total tuition and fees must exceed $17,500 per academic year. 

The failure to ‘‘grandfather’’ affected veterans will create an inequity since many of the veterans enrolled in high cost schools 

based on the presumption that they would receive at least the 

highest in-state tuition and fee rate. This grandfathering provision 

would apply to veterans who began their enrollments prior to April 

1, 2011. Veterans who initially enroll after that date would be subject to the existing $17,500. 

To meet statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) offset requirements, 

the bill would freeze the monthly living stipend for all Post-9/11 

participants at the rates in effect for the 2010–2011 academic year 

for a period of 24 months beginning October 1, 2011. The Committee also notes that among the five major veteran service organizations, only the Paralyzed Veterans of America opposed the bill 

during the May 3, 2011 Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity’s 

hearing on the bill. In the past, Congress has used similar offsets 

when used to improve veterans’ benefits as is being done in H.R. 

1383, as amended. For example, Public Law 111–377 saved nearly 

$4 billion in veterans benefits by capping tuition and fee payments 

and eliminating monthly living stipend payments during semester 

intervals. 

HEARINGS

On May 3, 2011, the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

conducted a legislative hearing on various bills introduced during 

the 112th Congress, including H.R. 1383. The following witnesses 

testified: Ms. Christina M. Roof, National Acting Legislative Director for AMVETS; Mr. Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative Associate 

for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Mr. Shane Barker, 

Senior Legislative Associate of National Legislative Service for the 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; Mr. Robert Madden, Assistant Director of National Economic Commission for The 

American Legion; Mr. Andrew Connolly of Dubuque, IA; Mr. Keith 

M. Wilson, Director of the Education Service for the Veterans Benefit Administration of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

who was accompanied by Mr. Jan R. Frye, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisitions and Logistics for the U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs and Mr. F. John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 

Organizations submitting statements for the record included: 

Paralyzed Veterans of America, Gold Star Wives of America, National Association of Veteran Program Administrators, and the 

Military Officers Association of America. 

SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 5, 2011, the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

met in an open markup session and ordered favorably forwarded to 

the full Committee H.R. 1383, as amended, by voice vote. During 

consideration of the bill the following amendment in the nature of 

a substitute was considered: 

An amendment in the nature of a substitute by Chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, to specify the period during which the freeze on the monthly 

living stipend would take effect (October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2013), was agreed to by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 12, 2011, the full Committee met in an open markup 

session at which time Chairman Jeff Miller of Florida offered an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. The substitute deleted 

provisions in Section 2 that required the Department of Veterans 

Affairs to make payment for tuition and fees based on the maximum in-state undergraduate rate and substituted a provision to 

increase the cap on payment for tuition and fees to the actual 

amount of tuition and fees up to a maximum of $27,000 for veterans attending certain private institutions whose cost exceed $700 

per credit hour and whose total tuition and fees exceed $17,500 per 

school year. The substitute was approved by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the motion to report the legislation and amendments thereto. Ranking 

Member Filner of California requested a recorded vote on adoption 

of H.R. 1383, as amended; the recorded vote was 13 Members voting in favor of adoption, 6 Members voting in opposition. The following table reflects the vote: 

Name Yea/Aye Nay/No Notes 

Mr. Miller, FL, Chairman ......................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Bilirakis, FL, Vice Chairman ............................................................................................ .............. .............. Absent 

Mr. Stearns, FL ....................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Lamborn, CO ..................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Roe, TN ............................................................................................................................. X .............. ................

Mr. Stutzman, IN ..................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Flores, TX .......................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Johnson, OH ...................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Denham, CA ...................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Runyan, NJ ........................................................................................................................ X .............. ................

Mr. Benishek, MI ..................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Ms. Buerkle, NY ...................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Huelskamp, KS ................................................................................................................. .............. .............. Absent 

Mr. Filner, CA .......................................................................................................................... .............. X ................

Ms. Brown, FL ......................................................................................................................... .............. .............. Absent 

Mr. Reyes, TX .......................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Michaud, ME ..................................................................................................................... .............. X ................

Ms. Sa ́nchez, CA ..................................................................................................................... .............. X ................


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

Name Yea/Aye Nay/No Notes 

Mr. Braley, IA .......................................................................................................................... .............. .............. Absent 

Mr. McNerney, CA .................................................................................................................... .............. X ................

Mr. Donnelly, IN ...................................................................................................................... .............. X ................

Mr. Walz, MN ........................................................................................................................... X .............. ................

Mr. Barrow, GA ........................................................................................................................ .............. .............. Absent 

Mr. Carnahan, MO .................................................................................................................. .............. X ................

Total ............................................................................................................................... 13 6 

A motion by Marlin Stutzman of Indiana to order H.R. 1383, as 

amended, reported favorably to the House of Representatives was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

EARMARKS AND TAX AND TARIFF BENEFITS

H.R. 1383, as amended, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate on H.R. 1383, 

as amended, prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 

Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate for H.R. 1383, 

as amended, provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant 

to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, May 18, 2011. 

Hon. JEFF MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1383, the Restoring GI 

Bill Fairness Act of 2011. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is William Ma. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1383—Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011 

Summary: H.R. 1383 would modify the amount of education benefits payable to certain veterans and qualifying dependents for 

three years, beginning on August 1, 2011. If enacted, CBO estimates that, on net, the bill would decrease direct spending by $5 

million over the 2012–2016 and 2012–2021 periods. 

Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation 

would affect direct spending. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 1383 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1383 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 700 (veterans benefits 

and services). 

Basis of estimate: H.R. 1383 would temporarily modify the 

amount of education benefits payable to certain veterans and qualifying dependents using the Post-9/11 GI Bill from August 1, 2011, 

through July 31, 2014. This estimate is based on information from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the National Center for 

Education Statistics, and the College Board. CBO assumes the bill 

will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2012. 

ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 1383 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012– 

2016 

2012– 

2021 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Housing Stipend Adjustments: 

Estimated Budget 

Authority ............... ¥7 ¥49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¥56 ¥56 

Estimated Outlays .... ¥7 ¥49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¥56 ¥56 

Cap on Tuition and Fees: 

Estimated Budget 

Authority ............... 32 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 51 

Estimated Outlays .... 32 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 51 

Total Changes in Direct 

Spending: 

Estimated Budget 

Authority ............... 25 ¥36 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¥5 ¥5 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
8 

ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 1383—Continued 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012– 

2016 

2012– 

2021 

Estimated Outlays .... 25 ¥36 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¥5 ¥5 

Housing stipend adjustments 

Beginning August 1, 2011, Public Law 111–377 will delay the effective date of the annual increases in housing stipends provided 

to beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 GI Bill from January 1 to August 

1 to coincide with the start of each academic year. Those stipend 

rates will then remain effective throughout that entire academic 

year. Thus, for the 2011–2012 academic year, the stipend rates 

that went into effect on January 1, 2011, will remain unchanged 

through July 31, 2012. Section 3 of H.R. 1383 would continue those 

same stipend rates through September 30, 2013, eliminating the 

increase that will otherwise go into effect on August 1, 2012, and 

postponing the August 1, 2013, increase by two months. The stipend rates would then return to the levels that would have been 

payable if no freeze was enacted. Based on information from VA, 

CBO estimates that holding stipend rates flat for an additional 14 

months would reduce direct spending by $56 million over the 2012– 

2013 period. 

Cap on tuition and fees 

Beginning August 1, 2011, P.L. 111–377 will limit the amount of 

education assistance payable under the Post-9/11 GI Bill for programs at private institutions to the actual cost of tuition and fees 

(net of scholarships and other financial assistance) or $17,500, adjusted annually for inflation, whichever is less. Prior to the enactment of P.L. 111–377, the amount of assistance payable was the actual cost of tuition and fees up to the highest in-state tuition and 

fees charged by a public educational institution in the state where 

the school is located. 

Students attending private institutions where tuition and fees 

exceed the $17,500 cap may be eligible for assistance under the 

Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program. Institutions 

entering into Yellow Ribbon Program (YRP) agreements with VA 

agree to cover a portion of the student’s tuition shortfall. VA then 

matches the institution’s contribution to further reduce or eliminate the student’s out-of-pocket expenses. Even with the availability of YRP assistance, CBO expects that certain students attending private institutions with high tuition and fees will experience significant out-of-pocket expenses relative to what they would 

have experienced prior to enactment of P.L. 111–377. 

To protect current beneficiaries under the Post-9/11 GI Bill from 

a mid-stream reduction in education benefits, section 2 would increase the $17,500 cap to $27,000 through July 31, 2014. To qualify 

for the higher cap, those beneficiaries would have to be enrolled in 

a private institution on or before April 1, 2011: 

• Where tuition and fees for full-time attendance exceeded 

$17,500 during the 2010–2011 academic year, and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
9 

• That is in a state where a public institution charged instate students more than $700 per credit hour, as determined 

by the VA, during the 2010–2011 academic year. 

Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that about 4,500 

veterans and dependents attending private four-year and graduate 

institutions in Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas would satisfy all three 

conditions. 

Drawing on information from the National Center for Education 

Statistics and the College Board, CBO calculates that the average 

amount of tuition and fees for the 2010–2011 academic year for 

bachelor’s and master’s degrees at private institutions is about 

$27,300 and $24,400, respectively. After adjusting for average benefit levels, average attendance rates, and the higher YRP threshold, CBO estimates that each qualifying beneficiary would receive, 

on average, about $5,300 more in education benefits per academic 

year than they are eligible for under current law. Assuming that 

a percentage of the eligible population would either graduate or 

otherwise depart from their respective programs each year, CBO 

estimates that this provision would increase direct spending by $51 

million over the 2012–2021 period. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. CBO estimates 

that by temporarily modifying the amount of education benefits 

payable to certain veterans and qualifying dependents under the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill, H.R. 1383 would decrease direct spending for veterans’ education benefits. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following 

table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 1383 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS ON MAY 12, 2011 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011– 

2016 

2011– 

2021 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-YouGo Impact ............. 0 25 ¥36 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¥5 ¥5 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1383 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: William Ma; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Elizabeth Bass. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates regarding H.R. 1383, as amended, prepared by the Director 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
10 

of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act would be created by H.R. 1383, as 

amended. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

This section would provide the short title of H.R. 1383, as 

amended, as the ‘‘Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011.’’ 

Section 2. Preservation of higher rates for tuition and fees for programs of education at non-public institutions of higher learning 

pursued by individuals enrolled in such programs prior to 

changes in the maximum amount 

Section 2 would change the maximum tuition and fees paid on 

behalf of certain veterans attending certain high cost non-public institutions of higher learning from $17,500 to a $27,000 annually. 

The change would be effective for three years beginning with enrollments starting in August 2011 through July 31, 2014. 

Section 3. Limitation of cost-of-living increases for certain educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Section 3 provides a PAYGO offset by freezing the amounts of 

monthly stipend paid under 38 USC 3313(c)(1)(B) of title 38, 

United States Code, to Post 9/11 participants at the rate in effect 

on August 1, 2011, for a period of 24 months beginning October 1, 

2011. Following the 24 month period, the amount of monthly stipend would be paid at the level currently in effect. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(11) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS FOR H.R. 1383 OF THE 

HONORABLE BOB FILNER 

While I applaud Chairman Miller’s efforts to seek to make improvements to the Post 9/11 GI Bill and stand ready to assist any 

efforts in the future I regretfully am unable to support this measure in its current form. 

I voted against this measure in Committee because I oppose the 

manner in which the $50 million cost of this bill is paid for. This 

bill seeks to freeze the G.I. Bill housing stipend, a stipend relied 

upon by veterans to assist them in getting a college education 

under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Taking money away from veterans will 

be detrimental for those on shoestring budgets who use the housing 

stipend for rent, transportation and other college costs, especially 

in the face of ever-increasing energy and food costs. 

I support the concept of assisting all of our veterans to receive 

a college education, but taking from many for the benefit of the few 

is simply the wrong way to pay for this. We should help veterans 

attending the private schools, and private schools should also do 

their part to help veterans. This was the premise underlying the 

creation of the Yellow Ribbon program, and I believe that all private schools should sign up for this program where the VA will 

match every dollar that the schools contribute. 

The Post 9/11 GI Bill Improvements Act that we passed in December last, which was signed into law in January, was passed 

with the full support of Veteran Service Organizations. The majority of the VSO’s submitted letters of support and strongly advocated for the bill which included the $17,500 private school tuition 

cap. Everyone was well aware of the effect of the tuition cap and 

we should not be acting surprised today or pretending that it was 

some unintended consequence. Last year’s GI Bill updates were 

agreed upon because they were for the greater good of all veterans 

not just a select few. 

This is why I want to be clear on what this bill does—it removes 

the private school tuition cap and freezes the housing stipend for 

all veterans participating in the Post 9/11 GI Bill program across 

the country. 

If we now oppose the private school tuition cap which was agreed 

to mere months ago, freezing the housing stipend for all participants should not be the first place we look for money—it should be 

the last place. Veterans have earned this benefit so we should let 

them keep it. 

That this freeze would affect all participants is also why I take 

issue with the Majority’s contention that this freeze will ‘‘have the 

least burdensome financial effect on veteran students while meeting PAYGO requirements.’’ I recognize that we often are forced to 

make tough decisions regarding our national priorities, but I believe strongly that meeting our obligations to veterans is one of our 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
12 

very highest priorities. Again, I ask my colleagues to look elsewhere than the already-strained student budgets of our veterans. 

We all should agree that a highly educated and well-trained workforce is essential for American economic success in the future, and 

we should be doing all we can to encourage our veterans to seek 

higher education. The original GI Bill was the impetus behind the 

creation of a strong and stable middle class, and freezing this important benefit does nothing to assist these veterans. 

Finally, I am concerned that enacting this measure may result 

in delayed payments to Post 9/11 GI Bill participants, as the Department of Veterans Affairs testified during the Subcommittee 

hearing on this measure. This Committee has worked tirelessly in 

a bipartisan fashion since enactment of the Post 9/11 GI Bill, holding numerous hearings regarding the VA’s ability to implement 

this program, in order to make sure that veterans receive these 

vital benefits. 

Now is not the time to risk payment delays, and now is not the 

time in this current economic environment to freeze the benefits accorded to the many in order to benefit the few. 

BOB FILNER. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING