MODERNIZING THE GI BILL

Hearing

before the

Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

one hundred ninth congress

second session

March 15, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-39

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

u.s. government printing office

washington : 2007

26-677.PDF
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Steve Buyer, Indiana, Chairman

Michael Bilirakis, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois, Ranking

Terry Everett, Alabama Bob Filner, California

Cliff Stearns, Florida Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois

dan burton, Indiana Corrine Brown, Florida

Jerry Moran, Kansas Vic Snyder, Arkansas

richard H. baker, Louisiana Michael H. Michaud, Maine

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina Stephanie Herseth, South 

Jeff Miller, Florida Dakota

John Boozman, Arkansas Ted Strickland, Ohio

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Silvestre Reyes, Texas

Michael R. Turner, Ohio Shelley Berkley, Nevada

John Campbell, California Tom Udall, New Mexico

 John T. Salazar, Colorado

JAMES M. LARIVIERE, Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

March 15, 2006

 Page

1

 1

40

3

 49

4

44

46

48

47

100

6

50

8

63

7

58

9

68

10

79

Modernizing the GI Bill ............................................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

Hon. Steve Buyer, Chairman ....................................................

Prepared statement of Chairman Buyer ..................................

Hon. John T. Salazar .................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Salazar ..........................................

Hon. John Boozman ...................................................................

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Lane Evans, Ranking Member ........................................

Hon. Jeff Miller ..........................................................................

Hon. Corrine Brown ..................................................................

Hon. Silvestre Reyes .................................................................

Sharpe, Joseph C., Jr., Deputy Director, National Economic

Commission, The American Legion ......................................

Witnesses

Hall, Thomas F., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 

 Affairs ......................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Hall ...............................................

Helmly, James R., General, Chief, Army Reserve and Commanding General, United States Army Reserve Command .

Prepared statement of General Helmly ...................................

Carr, William J., Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

 Military Personnel Policy ......................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Carr ...............................................

Bradley, John A., Lt. Gen., Chief of Air Force Reserve ...........

Prepared statement of Lt. Gen. Bradley ..................................

Bergman, John W., Lt. Gen., Commander, Marine Forces

 Reserve ...................................................................................

Prepared statement for Lt. Gen. Bergman ..............................

(III)
Young, Ronald G., Major Gen., Acting Director, Manpower &

 Personnel, National Guard Bureau ......................................

Prepared statement of Major General Young ..........................

McDonald, Craig, Rear Admiral, Commander, Navy Reserve

 Forces Command ....................................................................

Prepared statement of Rear Admiral McDonald .....................

Brice-O’Hara, Sally, Rear Admiral, Director of Reserve and 

 Training, United States Coast Guard ..................................

Prepared statement of Rear Admiral Brice-O’Hara ................

POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Responses from Secretary Hall .................................................

Responses from General Bradley ..............................................

Responses from MG Young .......................................................

Responses from LTG Helmly .....................................................

Responses from LtGen Bergman ..............................................

Responses from RADM McDonald ............................................

Responses from RADM Brice-O’Hara .......................................

 

10

84

12

89

13

96

110

113

116

119

125

133

137

(IV)
(1)

MODERNIZING THE GI BILL

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in Room 334, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Steve Buyer [Chairman of the 

Committee] presiding.

 Present: Representatives Buyer, Bilirakis, Michaud, Boozman, 

Snyder, and Salazar.

 The Chairman. The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee will come 

to order, date March 15, 2006.

 Today we will receive testimony regarding how well the current 

Montgomery GI Bill is meeting both the servicemembers’ needs as 

well as the needs of our nation.

 Our witnesses are the leaders of the National Guard and Reserve 

components whose members benefit from this very important program.

 The Committee’s goal for this hearing is to learn what is working 

and what may need to be changed.

 At the hearing during which Secretary Nicholson presented the 

President’s fiscal year 2007 budget, I announced my support for the 

modernization of the GI Bill and noted that the Partnership for Veterans Education and the Independent Budget have put forth several 

concepts for our consideration.

 Since then, my staff and Lane Evans’ staff have met with key stakeholders to begin the process of designing and moving a bipartisan bill 

that will meet what I see as two primary goals: first, to make the GI 

Bill more flexible in the types of education and training available to 

all eligible veterans; and second, to adjust the program to make it 

more useable for members of the National Guard and Reserves while 

maintaining its value as a recruiting and retention tool.

 A modernized GI Bill must both help the veteran and the nation. 

According to the VA, about 30 percent of our active-duty servicemembers never use the GI Bill. VA’s usage data on members of the Guard 
2

and Reserves is less detailed, but they were paying Section 1606 benefits to about 59,000 as of January 2005, with 81,000 expected to participate this year.

 The VA says they have about 13,000 applicants for Section 1607 

benefits on hand and expect over 50,000 by the end of 2007.

 Many members do not use their GI Bill although they have paid 

their $1,200 because even with the current level of benefits, they cannot afford to go to college for four years while raising their family. 

This is at a time when the Department of Labor has identified career 

fields that are critically short of qualified employees.

 One reason for this disconnect is that the current GI Bill focuses 

largely on degree-granting programs at the expense of short-term 

training opportunities that could meet some of these critical shortfalls.

 My vision of a modernized GI Bill is one that would address both 

national competitiveness and personal success issues by significantly 

increasing the number of veterans who use their benefits and that 

includes members of the National Guard and the Reserve.

 One way I would like to do this is by making it easier for the veteran with a family to get short-term training to qualify for a job in 

good-paying fields that do not require degrees, such as transportation, construction, medical care, public safety, et cetera.

I also want to help members of the Guard and Reserves finish their 

education after they leave the service if they have not been able to do 

so while meeting their military commitment. They should not lose 

their education benefits following such honorable service.

 Now, this will not be an easy task. You may have heard that an 

informal estimate of the cost for the concepts being proposed by the 

Partnerships for Veterans Education was $4.5 billion over ten years. 

Some of the cost is due strictly to accounting rules and some is due to 

providing improved education benefits for a member of the Guard or 

Reserves following discharge.

I need not remind the officers here along with the senior executives 

on this panel that your men and women are no longer the weekend 

warriors.

 General Abrams’ vision of the total force is now reality, with the 

Guard and Reserve forces as full partners in the War on Terror. I

think it is now time to make them full partners in a modernized GI

Bill in a way that meets the needs of the military and the nation.

 Today I have asked each of you as leaders representing the military 

forces to help with the heavy lifting. We need to hear whether you 

think a modernized GI Bill is needed to help you accomplish your 

mission.

 This hearing on the GI Bill is the beginning of that process and the 

opportunity to give us your candid views will be very much appreciated.
3

[The statement of Steve Buyer appears on p. 40]

The Chairman. We ask the Committee for unanimous consent for 

an opening statement on behalf of Lane Evans be submitted for the 

record along with Stephanie Herseth.

 Hearing no objection, so ordered.

[The statement of Lane Evans appears on p. 44]

The Chairman. All members are advised if you have an opening 

statement, it may be submitted for the record. If you would like to 

do an opening statement at this point, I will be more than pleased to 

yield prior to hearing from the panel.

[The statement of Corrine Brown appears on p. 48]

[The statement of Silvestre Reyes appears on p. 47]

The Chairman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important 

hearing today. I know that in my heart that every member of this 

Committee is eager to start work on modernizing the GI Bill of Rights 

and the GI Bill for our military men and women.

 For years, the GI Bill has served our men and women in uniform 

very well. As a matter of fact, I went to college on the GI Bill. It has 

helped countless veterans gain access to the higher education system 

in the country. In fact, like I said, I utilized the GI Bill when I returned home from the Army in the 1970s.

 The face of our military is changing as the Chairman clearly stated. 

The Reserve and the Guard are no longer weekend warriors. And 

this Congress has had the foresight to make important steps towards 

recognizing the contributions that the Reserve component makes to 

the force structure of the United States military.

 The addition to the Chapters 1606 and 1607 of Title 10 improve 

access to the GI Bill benefits for our Guard and Reservists. But in 

my opinion, they do not go far enough. My son just ETS’d from the 

National Guard and had quite a bit of trouble getting the GI benefits 

that I think he deserved.

 I support opening up the GI Bill to truly update, modernize, and 

provide greater flexibility to the educational benefits extended to our 

military service personnel. I am eager to work with my colleagues 

in this Committee, our friends in the Armed Forces Services Committee, the Executive Branch, and the military and veterans service 

organizations to accomplish this important goal.

Our men and women have earned the benefits granted to them 

in the GI Bill. Now it is time to ensure that the benefit reflects the 

structure of the force that is distributed equitably across the diverse 

groups that make up our active duty, Guard, and Reserve compo-
4

nents of the United States military.

 I look forward to hearing your testimony today of the various military branches as well as representatives of the Secretary of Defense.

 Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this important hearing. I think it is critical that we address the needs of our Guards and 

Reservists as we have in the past for regular Army or those who are 

active.

 Thank you very much.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.

[The statement of John Salazar appears on p. 49]

The Chairman. Chairman Boozman.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and Mr. 

Evans’ leadership on this very important issue.

 I want to remind the members that Ms. Herseth and I will be continuing the fact-finding process by holding a field hearing in Arkansas next week. We will have several members of the Arkansas National Guard testify as well as State and Federal officials responsible 

for administering education benefits. We will also visit the Muskogee 

Regional Process Office in Oaklahoma to review how they are handling the claims for education benefits.

 I am looking forward to bringing to the Committee a GI bill, under the Chairman’s and Ranking Member’s guidance, that once again 

will be the premier education benefit in America.

 Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

 All right. We will turn to our only panel witnesses today. From 

left to right, we will hear from Secretary Tom Hall. He is the fourth 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and has served in 

this position since he was sworn in October 9th of 2002.

Next we will then hear from Mr. Bill Carr. He is the Acting Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy. He oversees the recruiting, retention, compensation, and related human resource management for all active-duty members of the United States 

Armed Services.

 We will then hear from Lieutenant General James R. Helmly, the 

Chief of the Army Reserve, Commanding General, U.S. Reserve Command.

 We will then hear from Lieutenant General John A. Bradley, the 

Chief of the Air Force Reserve Headquarters, United States Air 

Force, Washington, D.C., and Commander of the Air Force Reserve 

Command, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.

Next we will then hear from Lieutenant General John W. Bergman, who is the Commander of the Marine Forces Reserve, Marine 

Forces North.

 We will then hear from Rear Admiral Craig O. McDonald, who is 
5

the Commander of the Naval Reserve Forces Command.

 We will then hear from Major General Ronald G. Young, the Director of Manpower and Personnel. He is the J1 of the National Guard 

Bureau. In addition, he is currently serving as the Acting Director of 

the Joint Staff for the National Guard Bureau as of May 1st, 2005.

 And then last, we will hear from Rear Admiral Sally Brice-O’Hara, 

who is the Director of the Reserve and Training for the United States 

Coast Guard.

 Secretary Hall.

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

 We do not have a cast of thousands, but we have a cast of seven. So 

I would ask a couple of requests, that all of our written statements be 

entered into the record.

The Chairman. They will be entered in the record. So ordered.

Mr. Hall. And second, we have discussed and propose that I give 

an opening oral statement on behalf of all of us. And then if any 

of the members wish to say anything of the panel, they can. But I

would make a statement and then get right to the questions, if that 

is satisfactory.

The Chairman. Having just taken your recommendation under advisement, what I would recommend is that we will hear your opening 

statement.

 Dr. Snyder.

Dr. Snyder. I always just hang on your every word. My first reaction is they have brief written statements. I would expect their oral 

statements would also be brief, and I think there could be value in 

hearing from them. I think -- 

Mr. Salazar. I am thinking that same way, yes.

The Chairman. Well, I took it under advisement for at least nine 

seconds.

Mr. Hall. I was just attempting to save time. We are happy to do 

whatever you want.

The Chairman. Well, I understand that. Let’s go ahead and hear 

your opening statement and then we are going to go right down the 

line. Each of these officers, I am sure, have something to say.

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. So we would like to hear from each of them.

 Secretary Hall, you are recognized.

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS F. HALL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

 OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY

 WILLIAM J. CARR, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY

 OF DEFENSE, MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY; JAMES R. 

 HELMLY, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE AND COMMANDING

 GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE COMMAND;

JOHN A. BRADLEY, CHIEF OF AIR FORCE RESERVE; JOHN
6

 W. BERGMAN, COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE;

 RONALD G. YOUNG, ACTING DIRECTOR, MANPOWER AND

 PERSONNEL, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU; CRAIG MC-

 DONALD, COMMANDER, NAVY RESERVE FORCES COM-

 MAND; SALLY BRICE-O’HARA, DIRECTOR OF RESERVE AND

 TRAINING, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD RESERVES

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. HALL

Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank 

you for giving us the opportunity to come before you this morning to 

discuss Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve and the Reserve 

Education Assistance Program.

 The Montgomery GI Bill was established to encourage membership 

in Selected Reserve units. It has proven to be an extremely valuable 

recruiting tool, a highly effective retention tool for the Reserve components.

 The Montgomery GI Bill is very well known amongst the Reserve 

component members and has helped the components achieve and 

maintain their strength requirements.

 The fact that a member must continue to serve in a Reserve component to maintain eligibility is important and has greatly assisted 

the Reserve components in maintaining consistently high retention 

rates over the years. 

 It has also obviously increased the educational level of our Reserve 

forces.

 Between 1984 and 2005, almost 1.5 million Selected Reserve members gained eligibility for the Montgomery GI Bill entitlement and 

nearly 40 percent have applied for educational assistance. In fiscal 

year 2005 alone, almost 200 million in benefits was paid to Selected 

Reservists.

It continues to fulfill its intended purposes as four of the six Department of Defense Reserve components are meeting or exceeding 

their recruiting goals thus far for 2006. Retention in all of the Reserve components is very strong and overall attrition is very consistent with historic levels.

 The Reserve Education Assistance Program has been implemented 

and is working well. As of February of this year, almost 14,000 benefit claims have been received and over $1.5 million in claims paid.

 Ongoing changes to electronic data system will greatly improve the 

application process and accelerate the benefit delivery procedures.

 A joint Department of Defense and Department of Veteran Affairs 

working group is currently examining the possibility of a total force 

education benefit that would draw from the best attributes of the two 

Montgomery GI Bill programs and the REAP.

 We are actively participating in that forum and we encourage any 
7

discussions that examine overall program performance and identify 

opportunities for improvements that meets the needs of veterans, Reserve component members, and the department.

 As we work towards program improvement, we need to stress that 

the veteran and Reserve programs were designed for and serve different purposes. Both Reserve benefits, the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve and the REAP Program, were designed as retention 

tools to keep members serving in the Guard and Reserve.

The veteran benefit, although it can be used by someone still serving, was designed to assist members in transitioning to civilian life 

following service.

As we examine the potential for a total force GI Bill, we want to 

be certain that such a program would encourage continued Reserve 

membership as effectively as the current programs. We should be 

very careful in changing the basic premise of the Montgomery GI Bill 

Selected Reserve and the REAP.

 We look forward to working with this Committee and the Armed 

Services Committees of the House and Senate to ensure that these 

programs remain robust.

 And I would again like to thank this Committee for all you have 

done for all of our servicemembers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement of Thomas F. Hall appears on p. 50]

STATEMENT OF BILL CARR

Mr. Carr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 As Chairman Buyer mentioned, I am Bill Carr. I represent the 

active component and the military HR life cycle of recruiting, compensation, and retention of course, an important part of that is the 

Montgomery GI Bill.

 If we asked young people today the reason that they would serve 

in the military or elect to join, it ranges from service and patriotism 

to an ability to advance into future. And if you then broke those out, 

you would find that considerably more are interested in carefully advantaging their future.

The Montgomery GI Bill figures squarely in their decisions. The 

enrollment rate is 97 percent, so it is that important to them. The 

utilization rate for those who complete their obligation and are eligible is 70 percent. In fact, among those who have separated in the 

past couple of months, 58 percent are already enrolled in some fashion and using their benefits.

So the Montgomery GI Bill figures squarely in our recruiting, our 

retention, and our transition, and has been invaluable to us in manning and sustaining the active force.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement of William J. Carr appears on p. 58]
8

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY

General Helmly. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Ron Helmly. 

I am an American solider and I am proud to serve in that capacity.

Clearly this hearing comes at an opportune time as we face the first 

extended duration conflict using an all-volunteer force, both active 

and Reserve component. For the first time since the Korean War, 

we are mobilizing numbers of Reserve component members in an unprecedented way. We are looking at repeat as we look at the “long 

war.”

 And we have to prepare in a strategic sense for a continuation of 

that and we must be always mindful, as Mr. Carr reminded us, that 

we should not just pile on extra benefits to the extent that we would 

equal those that entice enlistment and service in the regular components of our various services. So we believe that educational benefits 

are a major draw for both recruitment and retention.

Clearly Chapter 1606 was a welcome addition, but I am mindful of 

the fact that it was added to an existing measure. And that is why 

I welcome this hearing today and your efforts in this Committee to 

look at this afresh in terms of a total force Montgomery GI Bill that 

provides important educational benefits for active and Reserve component members without just being added to.

 Lastly, I would like to point out that one of the frustrations that I

have experienced as we have enjoyed such immense support from not 

only this Committee but elsewhere throughout the Congress to support our members is the fact that our policies, practices, procedures, 

and systems which underpin the authorities this Committee and others provide us and the measures you provide us have not kept pace.

 Thus, as we mobilize soldiers, they go to theater, they are wounded, 

evacuated for nonwounds, but illnesses or injuries, et cetera, knowing 

their amount of service and under what capacity they served is terribly important to ensure that we do not have people who fall through 

the crack and are actually entitled to benefits that the bureaucracy 

says they are not.

 So I would urge your support for those measures so that we can 

ensure that what you provide us we are able to provide in a timely, 

accurate way.

 Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

 The Chairman. Thank you.

[The statement of James R. Helmly appears on p. 63]

The Chairman. Lieutenant General Bradley.
9

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN A. BRADLEY

General Bradley. Sir, I am John Bradley, Chief of Air Force Reserve. Thank you for holding this hearing on this very important 

issue. Thank you for your leadership and the other members who are 

interested in helping the members of our Armed Forces.

 This GI Bill is a very important tool for us in the Reserve components, I believe, for recruiting and retention. It does help us in 

recruiting and it certainly helps us in retention. It has over time, I

think, degraded somewhat based on the amount that a Reservist or 

Guardsman may receive relative to what an active servicemember 

receives because of some things. So the dialogue here on that issue 

would be important. And so it is not quite the benefit that it used to 

be.

 There also have been proposals that might make it last a longer 

period of time than what we have had in the past. I think what 

would be helpful, and Secretary Hall has recommended this, to use it 

as a real retention tool is let this last longer than 14 years. Take it 

to 20- or 25-year point so that I can continue to encourage people to 

stay with us.

 Now, I am fortunate today in that the Air Force Reserve retention 

is at an almost all-time high. I attribute that to our airmen’s feeling 

that they are part of something very important and doing some important work for our country. So they feel good about their service.

But that may not last forever and we need these benefits to be 

reviewed periodically to make adjustments so that we continue to 

encourage people to stay with us because we want them to stay to 20 

and 25 and 30 years, as long as they are productive members of our 

service.

 So I look forward to this dialogue. I think also, as I indicated at the 

beginning, that the amount of benefit we have relative to the tuition 

costs today, perhaps it has not stayed in pace with tuition increases. 

So a review of that, I think, would be helpful as well.

 But thank you for the leadership on this important issue and I look 

forward to your questions.

 The Chairman. Thank you.

[The statement of John A. Bradley appears on p. 68]

The Chairman. Lieutenant General Bergman, you are now recognized.
10

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN W. BERGMAN

General Bergman. Good morning, sir. I am Jack Bergman, Marine 

Corps Reserve. Thanks for the opportunity to be here today.

 Education is so important at all levels, whether it be in military or 

civilian, that we have to take every opportunity to give the best we 

can.

 We see in the QDR that we are in the long war. Therefore, the 

word long as in long, longer careers, longer production, longer education, I think, is appropriate.

 By and large, young men and women who join the Marine Corps 

do not initially join for educational benefits. They join to be Marines. 

However, long-term retention of good Marines comes from providing 

worthwhile broad-based educational benefits, benefits that are equitable from that individual’s perception.

Ann example would be when a Marine separates from active duty 

after a 20-year career, they have ten years to utilize their GI Bill. If 

the Reservist, the clock starts the time they finish and goes for 14 

years. So you could get a math equation there that does not allow 

them to really do their career, have their civilian job, and get their 

education in a timely manner before the education benefits run out.

 We look forward to being a partner with all of you in a process that 

creates education opportunities and benefits that are basically equitable and easy to utilize.

 So thank you very much for allowing me to be part of this solution.

 The Chairman. Thank you.

[The statement of John W. Bergman appears on p. 79]

The Chairman. Major General Young, you are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL RONALD YOUNG

General Young. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank 

you for giving me the opportunity to come here today to discuss the 

Montgomery GI Bill. I would like to just briefly summarize some of 

the key points that have already been testified to.

 The Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve and the Reserve Education Assistance Program are a cornerstone for the National Guard 

recruitment and retention efforts. We sincerely appreciate Congress’ 

continued support of these vital programs.

 I would also like to thank the members of the Veterans’ Advisory 

Committee on Education and the Partnership for Veterans Education 

for their continued hard work on these important programs. Their 

efforts have highlighted two areas where we feel the Montgomery GI

Bill Program could be enhanced, making it an even stronger tool for 
11

building and maintaining the Guard and Reserve forces.

The first area and the one that we feel, the Guard feels, is number 

one priority is the return of the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve 

rate back to the 48 percent range of entitlement as compared to the 

active-duty rate. As you know, back in 2001, the rate for active duty 

was about $650 per month for a full-time student and the Selected 

Reserve rate was 263.

 Over the years, the Selected Reserve rate has not kept pace with 

the increases in the active-duty rate and is now about 28 or 29 percent of the rate earned by an active-duty member, about $1,034 compared to 297. The difference needs to be addressed and, as a result, 

will be an even greater enhancement to our ability to recruit and 

retain the force.

 The second priority for the Guard is the retention aspects of the 

current program. We feel it is very important that a Selected Reserve 

member be required to continue their membership and their service 

in the Guard or the other Reserve components in order to use the 

Montgomery GI Bill benefits.

 Under the current programs, if the servicemember separates from 

the Guard or Reserve, they lose their entitlement to the Montgomery 

GI Bill Selected Reserve. We are in favor of retaining this type of a 

continued service requirement in order to use the benefits.

Keeping the unique aspects of the Montgomery GI Bill as they relate to the Reserve components is also important. For instance, the 

services should maintain the function of determining eligibility for 

benefits and we should continue to have the ability to combine those 

benefits to such programs as tuition assistance and others.

 The Reserve components have a vested interest in ensuring their 

servicemembers are taken care of and should retain their authorities 

under the current programs.

 In summary, from the National Guard’s perspective, the bottom 

line is that we need to increase Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve 

rate, continue the requirement that as servicemembers stay in the 

Guard, to use their benefits, and allow the Reserve components to 

continue in managing the unique aspects of the program.

 I thank the Committee for your continued work on this important 

program and for your continued support of the National Guard.

The Chairman. Than you very much.

[The statement of Ronald G. Young appears on p. 84]

The Chairman. Admiral McDonald, you are now recognized.
12

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL CRAIG MCDONALD

Admiral McDonald. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the 

Committee, good morning and thank you for inviting me here today 

to talk to you about the Montgomery GI Bill.

 As the Chairman introduced me, I am Rear Admiral Craig McDonald. I am the Commander of the Navy Reserve Forces Command 

headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana.

 And today I am here representing 70,000 warrior sailors and Vice 

Admiral Cotton, Chief of Navy Reserve. He sends his respects and 

regrets he could not be here today.

 As you know, we are in a long war. Fighting in this war are our 

best and brightest that the United States has to offer. Our sailors are 

serving around the world on land, on sea, in the air, in a Navy that 

is more capable and more technically complex than at any other time 

in our history.

 We need a total compensation package that will help us attract 

and retain these outstanding sailors, and the Montgomery GI Bill is 

a very vital part of that package.

 The Montgomery GI Bill provides an important incentive for citizens considering joining the military and those already in our force. 

I mean, having help going to college or paying for a technical school 

can be a very powerful motivator for new sailors and Navy veterans.

The Montgomery GI Bill gives an excellent way to improve their 

earning potential by joining the military. It is a benefit which also 

gives our present Reserve sailors an outstanding reason to continue 

their affiliation with the Reserve component. Maintaining and improving this program is a worthwhile endeavor for all of us as it not 

only helps a sailor personally, it helps him or her professionally.

 I have reviewed the Partnership for Veterans Education proposed 

changes and offer these comments. As part of the Montgomery GI

Bill, the portion offered to our Selected Reservists has not been keeping up with the growing cost of education. A readjustment mechanism built into the program requires revamping.

 And with educational costs rising as steadily as they have over the 

past two decades, the benefits have been devalued. Although the active component was increased in 2000, 2001, the Reserve component 

was not increased at the same time.

 As the Partnership for Veterans Education suggests, the Reserve 

component could be tied to the active benefit to ensure both benefits 

are increased proportionately when adjustments are made either 

programmatically, through indexing, or legislatively.

 The Partnership on Veterans’ Affairs proposed other major changes in both benefits and administration of the GI Bill. These benefits 

are an important part of the total compensation package and any 

proposed changes should be studied to ensure maximum value for 
13

servicemembers and the country.

 The Navy Reserve shares the Committee’s concerns and is very 

interested in maintaining the viability of the Montgomery GI Bill. 

Therefore, the Navy Reserve is participating in and fully supports 

the joint DoD and VA working group on the Montgomery GI Bill. We 

are working together to ensure servicemembers have a viable program that helps them grow and provides an incentive for them to 

serve in the nation’s military services.

 In summary, I would reiterate that this program is a crucial part of 

the total compensation package offered to our servicemembers. The 

Navy Reserves looks forward to fully participating in any discussions 

on how to improve the Montgomery GI Bill.

Thank you, and I am prepared to answer any questions.

The Chairman. Thank you.

[The statement of Craig McDonald appears on p. 89]

The Chairman. Admiral.

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL SALLY BRICE-O’HARA

Admiral Brice-O’Hara. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee. It is a real pleasure for me to be 

here this morning to discuss educational benefits for the members of 

the Selected Reserve.

 The Coast Guard Reserve pioneered the full integration of our 

Reservists into our active component units in the mid 1990s and so 

we are always eager for ways that we can assure greater parity and 

seamless transitions between our active and Reserve components. 

A total force GI Bill may be the possible avenue to help accomplish 

this.

Educational benefits such as the Montgomery GI Bill and the Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve are important components in 

recruiting and retaining members of the Coast Guard’s total force. 

We also believe that our Tuition Assistance Program is an invaluable 

tool for attracting and retaining 21st century talent.

 In January, we began aggressively marketing the new Reserve 

Education Assistance Program and have had great interest in that 

as well.

Our recruiters confirm that educational benefits are among the top 

reasons that individuals join the Coast Guard and decide to affiliate 

with the Coast Guard Reserve. The fact that Selected Reserve members are not required to pay into the MGIB-SR is cited as a plus. And 

the nontaxable status of the payments and the ability to combine the 

MGIB-SR with tuition assistance are also frequently noted positive 

features.

 On the downside, the MGIB-SR cannot be used to repay student 
14

loans and this is a limitation that may discourage promising applicants who already have completed some college. Added flexibility in 

this area is desirable.

 Our funded Selected Reserve strength is 8,100. Strong educational 

benefits help explain why our retention remains at pre 9/11 high levels. Currently it’s about 87.4 percent. And that is despite very heavy 

utilization of our Reservists in our homeland security missions.

The Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Reserve Force 

frequently visits our units and he is convinced that educational assistance is the key factor in the decision of our first-term members to 

stay on with the Coast Guard Reserve.

 We look forward to the results of the joint DoD and Department 

of Veteran Affairs working group. There is a merit to a total force 

education benefit that combines the best aspects of the existing programs as well as new aspects that will better serve our military men 

and women.

Our paramount concern is that there be no reduction in the quality 

of service that our members receive, particularly related to the ease 

of access and timely receipt of benefits. And we would want to ensure 

that the data systems are in place at the VA to accommodate any new 

program.

 To conclude, the Coast Guard Reserve values its long-standing 

partnership with the Department of Defense components, support 

through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and we are eager to 

maintain parity of benefits for our men and women who serve so 

well.

I am happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony

[The statement of Sally Brice-O’Hara appears on p. 96]

The Chairman. I have been placed on notice that we may have some 

votes that may occur from 11:15 to 11:30. It will be a 15 minute vote 

followed by two fives. So I apologize to the panel. Life on the Hill 

continues.

 By way of an opening comment, Secretary Hall, I would like for you 

to know that when we had 19 of the veterans service organizations 

and military service organizations come testify on their views and 

estimates on the budget and some of their resolutions, I took an opportunity to share with them a concern.

 And the concern is that you have individuals who have been ordered to active duty out of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and 

have not shown up for duty. And as I understand, the DoD does not 

want to charge these individuals with AWOL and that you are seeking to administratively process them.

 You are in the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, so we take care of the 

benefits of the men and women who serve the military once they be-
15

come veteran status. And there is a concern here.

 The concern is that, if you permit these individuals just to be administratively processed and they receive a general discharge, they 

may be eligible for their veterans’ benefits just as if they had gone to 

war. And that concerns some of us on this Committee.

 So if these individuals who were ordered to appear and did not appear and you elect not to charge them with AWOL, and face Court 

Marshal, then if you are going to administratively discharge these 

individuals, they need to be processed under other than honorable 

conditions.

 If you process these individuals and they receive a general discharge 

under other than honorable conditions, then they will not be entitled 

to their veterans’ benefits and that is an important distinction.

 So, Mr. Secretary, if you want to change, we just want you to make 

sure that these individuals are processed in a manner whereby they 

can be properly adjudicated.

And I will be very cautious about command influences and things 

like that. And that is why I shared the Committee’s concern with 

the 19 veterans service organizations and military service organizations.

You just need to make sure that the commanders in the field have 

knowledge of the tools on how to respond to each of their cases. Would 

you not agree, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. And the services who have those members are 

proceeding with handling them. And I will ensure your words and 

concerns are relayed to those services that are presently considering 

those members.

And I might say that the people in the field that I visit with, our 

members who have reported are also concerned that they reported 

and the others did not. And so I will make sure that those concerns 

are expressed to the individuals, to the people handling the cases 

now.

Mr. Bilirakis. Would the Chairman yield for a minute?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Bilirakis. Directly on that point, the Chairman focused on the 

words general discharge. Now, we know that general discharge is 

not always, at least the way it used to be, is not always a less than 

honorable kind of thing.

I suppose someone whose expiration of term of service has not been 

reached and for the convenience of the government, for some reason 

or another, they are discharged before time or there are other reasons, I suppose, why people are discharged on a general discharge.

And I guess my question is, these people apparently fall under the 

general discharge, which is unfortunate, I think, for they should not 

be.

 Am I right to be concerned about whether we should be referring 
16

to general discharge here as against specifically the type of military 

person that the Chairman is concerned about?

Mr. Hall. Well, I would not characterize right now the nature of 

their discharge because it is an ongoing process. The services are 

looking at them. And so it would be inappropriate to say that they 

are going to receive this type discharge, whatever. They are considering that right now. And I will relay your concerns.

 So no decision has been made on the nature, the type of discharge 

-- 

Mr. Bilirakis. Am I correct, though, the general discharge is not 

necessarily under other than dishonorable conditions?

Mr. Hall. You are. And -- 

 Mr. Bilirakis. I am. So taking these people and putting them 

into that particular package would be, I think, a real terrible thing.

The Chairman. It requires an administrative process to do that, a 

hearing. They have their rights. If they had completed their military service and they finish their time in the IRR, you know, they are 

honorably handled.

 But if they have been ordered to active duty -- and as a matter of 

fact, there is great latitude in the regulations there might be some 

circumstance whereby you are going to permit their absence.

 But if this is an individual who has just said, “no, I am not showing 

up,” then they need to make sure they have the proper tools -- 

Mr. Bilirakis. I mean, if you look askance at that individual and 

want to get rid of them, I would be concerned that that individual 

would have a general discharge is what I am saying.

The Chairman. Right.

Mr. Bilirakis. That should be under other than honorable discharge or something like that.

The Chairman. So this is an individual who did not show up to 

stand side by side his comrades. He should not be entitled to the 

same benefits of those people who went.

 You would agree with that, right?

Mr. Bilirakis. I would agree with that, sir.

The Chairman. All right. Now, the other point I wanted to make, 

you know, as the Reserve commission is out there and they are also 

taking into consideration this issue on the IRR and how we are going 

to properly manage these IRR members. And we want to make sure 

that we also watch the benefits.

 So, you know, General Helmly, you used to manage the IRR and 

they have taken that responsibility from you, is that correct, or am 

I -- 

General Helmly. Mr. Chairman, as we integrated our personnel 

commands or centers in the U.S. Army Reserve and the regular Army 

into the Army Human Resources Command, the decision was made 

that daily management would fall to the Commander of Human Re-
17

sources Command. I do not consider that I then lost responsibility. 

I believe if you look at the definition of Reserve of the Army and 

law, it is inclusive of the IRR and, therefore, I am not worried too 

much about who manages the records on a daily basis as much as an 

acceptance of my obligation to advise the Chief of Staff Army and the 

Army leadership about use, et cetera, of the IRR.

The Chairman. Well, here is my point. I want to be able to match 

the benefit with continued service. And maybe part of our other concern is when they finish a four-year commitment, maybe they should 

not get their honorable discharge at that moment in time. Maybe 

you could give it a different name, a title. They do not receive their 

“discharge” until they have fulfilled the commitment of their contract 

which includes that inactive duty time. And then you manage them 

properly. You know where they are. You know what their physical 

shape and condition is. And they are also drawing their benefits.

So if we look at the GI Bill benefits and if they are continuing to 

draw those benefits, but, when they have been ordered back to active 

duty or for whatever reason we do not know where they are, I mean, 

that is telling me that we have some problems with this inactive status within the IRR.

General Helmly. Mr. Chairman, I concur with you. Historically 

we have not done a credible job of disciplining the records keeping. 

Large numbers of the IRR, frankly, is they were moved from some 

other status, be it Selected Reserve or the regular Amy. Their records should never have been coded that they were in the IRR.

 We have people in there who never completed basic training, but 

their records were shipped from the training center coded IRR. We 

have people who never shipped to basic training. Their records were 

coded IRR. It has been very undisciplined. And under the leadership 

of our Manpower and Reserve Affairs Director, we have undertaken 

efforts to clean up the record keeping, the coding et cetera. But it will 

take time to clean that record keeping mess up.

I concur with your observations regarding benefits that we accord 

members. We have the situation where we stopped lost members of 

the Selected Reserve. Others have moved to the IRR with no action 

and without a request and without a valid reason to go there. And 

I concur with you that if they are then ordered to active duty under 

competent mobilization authority, we should ensure that the laws 

and the regulations are applied in an even manner.

The Chairman. Dr. Snyder.

Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to 

thank you for holding this hearing.

There has been quite a bit of interest in this topic through the years 

on the Armed Services Committee, perhaps just because you left the 

Armed Services Committee. But I have been unsuccessful in getting 

this kind of a hearing on that side. And as you know, we have got this 
18

issue about the benefit is covered by both Committees. But I know 

this is just the first step in this process.

 I am going to try to make Congressman Boozman’s hearing in 

northwest Arkansas next week which I think -- we have so many veterans and a lot of them, as you all know, have been called up in the 

Guard and Reserves and Air Force Reserve, Army Reserve, Marine 

Corps Reserve.

 So I think we will get a good sampling of people. But I think it is 

important that we are looking at this topic. And I know that you intend this to be just the opening inning of this game. And I appreciate 

you doing it.

I wanted to go through here, if I could, and just very quickly, if 

I could, Mr. Carr, in your written statement, you said, “The MGIB

benefit should be sufficient to offset the commitment and sacrifices 

associated with military service. The current program continues to 

serve the active components of the military well. It is our belief that 

there are no significant shortcomings to the program from our perspective.”

 And then, Mr. Hall, in your written statement, you say -- uh-oh, I

am seeing a pattern here; that is my quote, not yours -- “We have not 

identified any significant shortcomings in the structure and utility of 

the MGIB-SR.” And then you go on down below on page three to say, 

“We have not identified any further changes we need to make to this 

program at this time.”

 But that is in my view, both your statements, that there are no 

significant shortcomings is in contrast with what we have heard from 

this panel.

And if I might quickly, Mr. Chairman, run through these. General 

Helmly in his written statement states, “The cost of college education 

has risen dramatically over the past ten years and there now is a 

significant disparity in the dollar amount for the active components, 

Montgomery GI Bill, Chapter 30, and the MGIB for the Selected Reserve, Chapter 1606 and 1607.” A significant disparity.

 On page three, General Helmly’s statement says, referring to the 

Selected Reserve MGIB, “It has not kept up with increasing tuition 

costs and is not commensurate with the expanded role of the Army 

Reserve.” He goes on to say, “An increase in the monetary benefit is 

needed in the MGIB-SR.”

 In General Bergman’s written statement, he says, “The value of the 

Reserve component has decreased since its initial implementation.”

 In General Bradley’s written statement, he states that, “The Montgomery GI Bill originally establishes Reserve education benefits at 

48 percent of the regular component benefit. Regular component 

benefits have increased over time with the result that the Reserve 

benefit has fallen to approximately 27 percent. So it decreased from 

48 percent to 27 percent.”
19

 To me, by the way, Mr. Chairman, that is a key part that got a lot 

of members’ attention, is the drop in this benefit compared to the active has occurred.

 And then also in General Bradley’s written statement, he says, 

“The time has come to look at how the Montgomery GI Bill can be 

used as a total force incentive.”

 General Young, in your statement, your oral statement this afternoon, you mentioned, or this morning, the differences, that we need 

to deal with those differences.

 And then, Admiral McDonald, you in your oral statement today 

specifically, I believe your words, that educational costs have been 

devalued because of the inflation rate.

 Well, in fairness to you gentlemen up here, you know, this is a brief 

hearing and this is just scratching the surface. But members of this 

Committee are concerned about this issue as a lot of members are 

who are not a member of this Committee. This is what we have heard 

from people back home. And some of us are veterans. And I know the 

value, the educational value has been diminished dramatically since 

post World War II.

So I think there are “significant” shortcomings in the current benefit. And I believe the Chairman’s calling of this hearing today is 

just the initial part of this, is an acknowledgement of that and an 

acknowledgement that we want to work on this.

 We also recognize that we have issues of money, that we have issues of complexity. We have issues of fairness. We have our own 

internal issues between our Title 10 or the way the legislation is set 

up. But I am interested in working on this with the Chairman and 

Mr. Boozman and Ms. Herseth and others.

 And I look forward to working with all of you because I do believe 

there are significant shortcomings to the current benefit. Appreciate 

you all being here.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. I would welcome any comment on Dr. Snyder’s 

opening. Any of you have any comments on his comments?

 Yes, Mr. Carr.

Mr. Carr. I think with regard to the arguments had to do with 

equity, which is important in many of the military compensation programs we undertake. Equity for the sake of equity can be a compelling and prevailing, pervasive argument.

 In the case of the Montgomery GI Bill and the case of the active 

that it serves well given that 97 percent enroll, that 70 percent use, 

that it covers 77 percent of the tuition cost, better than at the outset 

of the program. Those are the reasons for which I said that in the 

case of the Montgomery GI Bill Program for the active, it was okay.

 But I think that, sir, you do point to the area that is the rub here 

and that is we have the Reserves increasingly serving on active duty. 
20

And what we had to do is to create the balance between the benefit 

and the sacrifice so that it squares in our judgment.

 And the fact that they have grown apart because different decisions were made in the public sector is notable, but the degree to 

which they should converge is the difficult part. And I think therein, 

two principles guide us.

 One, that service in the Selected Reserve is more valuable, that 

ready and service on active duty is especially valuable. And you can 

begin to converge toward the active benefit when those types of conditions are met. So those guide us in terms of how to close the gaps that 

you so correctly pointed out.

 General Bradley. Since you asked, Dr. Snyder, for comment, I

would say your question is a good one. I would say that I am not 

looking for parity or equity with the active force. But, frankly, since 

this began, my Reservists are working almost twice as much as they 

worked before the benefit began and their benefit is essentially half 

of what it was when it began.

 My airmen and many of the other Reservists and Guardsmen who 

are represented here by their component chiefs, I think, would tell 

you as well that our folks are doing a lot. I have been to a lot of 

sessions where we have had events for wounded soldiers, sailors, 

airmen, Marine, and Coast Guardsmen. And a huge percentage, a 

large percentage of the folks who are injured in our current efforts 

are members of the Reserve components.

So I think their sacrifices are significant and they deserve at least 

something, rather than a shrinking benefit, at least maintaining 

where they were because we are an operational Reserve today. We 

are being used in ways in which some people never envisioned doing 

it. I personally think it is a good thing to be used as an operational 

Reserve, but I think my airmen deserve a benefit that matches the 

level of effort that they are putting into our war.

 Thank you.

Mr. Hall. I wanted to have one comment on that. I do not think 

there is probably any disagreement that we need to address a couple 

of issues. One is the atrophying of the benefit down to 28 percent 

and also the length of time in which Selected Reservists could use 

the bill.

 I think we need to move towards incentivizing people to stay longer 

rather than leave earlier. So perhaps the length of time at 14 years 

is not right.

 I think the issue at hand is the manner in which we do that. We 

have the Joint Committee which is meeting now, should report out by 

June. They might well agree the joint DoD and VA Committee raising the rates. They might well agree of lengthening the time.

 My statement indicated that it was not in the 2007 Bill from the 

department, any of those proposals which, of course, is part of clear-
21

ing the OMB process, et cetera.

 Should they come to the conclusion in the Joint Committee that 

those rates and others need to be addressed, I am sure the department would send those forward.

General Helmly. Mr. Chairman, if I may -- 

The Chairman. Mr. Helmly.

General Helmly. -- I concur with Dr. Carr’s comment that we have 

had proposals that would make rates of entitlement and benefits for 

Reserve component members roughly proximate to those of regular 

force members. And then we have to ask ourselves about the negative effect on our regular forces.

The issue is first of all to acknowledge that the rate has not been 

modernized since approximately 2001. We face that in a different 

thing called the first-term reenlistment rate where it was not so 

much trying to raise that to the active component rate as the fact 

that when we raised the active component rate, we neglected to address the Reserve component rate. And it put the Guard and Reserve 

forces roughly two years behind playing catch-up on retention. We do 

not need to do that on a very important tool for recruiting and retention, our educational benefits, which comprise more than simply the 

Montgomery GI Bill.

 The last remark I would make is that I agree completely with Secretary Hall. Our focus needs to be on retention, not solely the rate 

at which we are mobilizing. We will not be mobilizing at this rate 

forever, but we will be dependent on a stronger, more robust Guard 

and Reserve force roughly forever in my own judgment.

 The world has changed in major ways and we must adjust how we 

plan to man our all-volunteer recruited forces differently for this century than we did last century. That is why I appreciate the strategic 

view of this hearing.

 Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you.

 Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Chairman, we are running out of time and I

cannot run as fast as I used to to get over there in time to cast that 

vote.

The Chairman. How much time do we have?

The Clerk. Nine minutes.

Mr. Bilirakis. Nine minutes. All right.

The Chairman. Five minutes.

Mr. Bilirakis. I will just make a statement because, otherwise, you 

are not going to be able to ask your questions.

Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP). I am just concerned about the issue of this hearing as expressed by Dr. Snyder and 

by the Chairman. But I sort of go even past that. And I am really 

concerned about VEAP. I am concerned about the unfairness to that 
22

member of the military who had to make that decision, you know, at 

one particular time and did not do so for whatever reason.

 And, you know, I am very grateful to the GI Bill. A hundred and 

ten dollars a month is what it was in the Korean War, the GI Bill. It 

was not much, but I will tell you it was just enough there to get me 

started and I had to work my way through the rest of the time too.

 But I made that decision after I got out of the service. I mean, I had 

intended to go to college. I told all the recruiters who tried to keep 

me in that I was going to go on to school. But I made the decision 

afterwards. And, you know, for me to have made that decision during 

basic training, which was maybe some of the worst eight weeks of my 

life, would have been pretty damn unfair.

 So I wanted to get your comments on that, but really we do not 

have the time. And I am not going to ask for it now, but I am here to 

just put you all on notice, as the Chairman did regarding his subject, 

put you all on notice that I feel very strongly about maybe reopening 

that as expensive as it is. And hopefully you all will cooperate in that 

regard.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you.

 The Committee is going to stand in recess. We need to come back. 

I apologize to all of you, but we have a lot we have to get on the record. 

And we need to have a good dialogue here.

So the Committee will stand in recess for approximately 30 minutes.

[Recess.]

The Chairman. The Committee will come back to order. 

 I will now recognize Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was not sure that we 

would be coming back. And I apologize for coming in late. I had, as 

we sometimes do here, had a hearing in health care on transparency 

of health costs in one of the other Committees.

 I am just going to stay on VEAP, Mr. Chairman, because the GI

Bill, we over the decades, over the couple centuries, I suppose, have 

passed legislation up here. Sometimes we do not understand the unintended consequences of our actions. Some of it turned out to be not 

as good as we hoped it would be.

 But I think we would all agree the GI Bill has just been a wonderful 

thing and a great thing for America, for our republic. It has served 

us well.

 And so to preclude a fair opportunity to all of the men and women 

who have served in the service, I think, is wrong on our part. And 

that is why I am so concerned about VEAP.

 And I would just merely, in whatever time I might have left, ask to 

see if you have any comments there. I realize we are talking about 
23

transferring VEAP over to the Montgomery Bill under circumstances 

other than those under which they were done previously, but with 

more flexibility, is going to be a costly thing.

 And I know these things come out of the appropriate budgets and 

that sort of thing. But it seems like if we all have flexibility in our 

minds, maybe possibly those people will get back enrolled, if you will. 

Maybe their contribution is increased or something of that nature.

But, anyhow, any comments, gentlemen, just very briefly on that? 

You know, if we are concerned with MGIB and we are concerned 

about the GI Bill, et cetera, in general, we have got to be concerned, 

too, about some people who did not have really a fair opportunity, at 

least in my mind.

General Helmly. Congressman, I concur with reopening the window on VEAP. It seems to me that a young 18 to 22-year-old, which 

is the age category we really aim for in recruitment, coming into basic 

training is exposed to a brave new world. The future for that age 

category is tomorrow, not five, ten years from now.

 Most are predisposed on disposable income that I can buy a motorcycle with as opposed to go to school. So I concur with that. I think 

that later on when the member has settled into the military and realizes that it is not the big, bad thing that they thought, that we are not 

going to just throw them out to the wolves and has gotten over the 

emotionalism associated with this great new adventure in life, they 

will think more clearly.

Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, sir.

General Helmly. And that is why I concur with you.

Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, sir.

Admiral McDonald. Yes, sir. I happen to agree with you. My 

aide sitting back here was caught up in that. He was a young ensign 

coming in the program and decided not to take it and now he is kind 

of kicking himself. If we could reopen that, he would take that real 

fast. And that has a tool that we can use as our entire package for our 

people across the service.

Mr. Bilirakis. Sure. Now, he is still in the service on active duty. 

But should we reopen it also to those who have gotten out of the service? Maybe there should be a certain period of time within which 

after discharge.

Admiral McDonald. Yes, sir. But my thought process on that 

would be that if we do that, then they need -- we are looking -- this is 

a tool to retain them in our organization -- 

Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. I appreciate that.

Admiral McDonald. -- so they come back to our drilling population, if that be the case, and then serve that time. That would be 

ideal if that is what they could do. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bilirakis. Well, of course, we have already talked about -- at 

least I mentioned it -- I am sure you all have, too, others have -- the 
24

greatness of the GI Bill.

 And the GI Bill was certainly not something that was used basically for retention purposes, but it is used. It is great for America 

in general. So if we would preclude those who have been discharged 

from having an opportunity, I think that would be a mistake too.

 Yes, sir, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. Carr. Yes, sir. Thank you.

 The VEAP is a program compared to the MGIB that was of considerably lesser value.

Mr. Bilirakis. Yeah.

Mr. Carr. And the way it operated was that the member could 

invest in an account and get some extra education benefit in lieu of 

that, recognizing that the Committee has two open seasons -- 

Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.

Mr. Carr. -- for those VEAPsters. One was for those who had 

money in their account at the time and then again another open season for those who ever had money in their account. And so the only 

ones excluded from open seasons to this point have been those who 

manifest no behavior toward and interest in the education.

Mr. Bilirakis. At the outset of their basic training.

Mr. Carr. Yes. And so I mention that is the population we are 

discussing here. There has been considerable work by the Committee 

already toward VEAP.

 With regard to the sentiment toward VEAP in the Defense Department, there is great sensitivity toward it because they are serving in 

today’s military. But the bill is one that falls to the Veterans’ Administration.

And so in that case, the question might be answered differently if 

it were an item that were to be funded from the Defense budget than 

if it were to be funded by Veterans’ Affairs. And I just report that 

observation and perhaps the obvious.

Mr. Bilirakis. Well, I get the feeling, though, that you are all thinking sort of positive in that regard and I realize that we have our barriers or money and the language and that sort of thing.

 Any other -- I do not mean to cut anyone off, but I guess -- okay. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

The Chairman. Before I yield to Mr. Michaud, this is going to be one 

of our challenges, Dr. Snyder, between your jurisdiction on Armed 

Services and ours. And we need to drill this down a little bit further 

in a moment about this as a retention or a recruiting tool and how it 

is rated among other tools that you may have.

 If the VA takes total jurisdiction over this, DoD transfers all of 

this to the VA, we then are removing really some discretionary authorities over civilian leadership and what tools that these uniformed 

leaders get to use.

 You know what I am trying to say? I mean, that is going to be our 
25

challenge. It is easy to say, okay, let us just transfer all this over to 

us and we will administer this for you. But all your testimony has 

been pretty clear that this is a retention tool for you.

And when I hear certain benefits are used as tools from you, you 

need to have some discretion and latitude. That is my sensing on it.

 But let me yield now to Mr. Michaud.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for having this hearing. And, actually, my question relates to the 

retention issue.

 Assistant Secretary Hall, in your written testimony, you stated 

that, and I quote, “The fact that a member must continue to serve in 

the Reserves to maintain eligibility has greatly assisted the Reserve 

component as a whole in maintaining consistently high retention rate 

over the years.”

 I am curious as to what you base your conclusion on. As I understand it with respect to the retention issue, education benefits are 

quite low in the priority list for members when determining whether 

to continue or separate from the Reserves. And maybe that is because the benefits are not there.

 When I looked at Mr. Bradley’s testimony, he said that they have 

gathered information to help us better gauge the importance our 

members place on their education benefits. And according to a 2004 

status, only 14 percent of the respondents stated education benefits 

affect their continuation decision.

 So I am just wondering, Assistant Secretary, what do you base that 

quote on.

 Mr. Carr. Well, as you probably know, I spent 34 years on active duty and during those 34 years of active duty, I learned how 

important it was to not sit behind a desk and presume what people 

thought.

 So during my three and a half years, I have talked to 200,000 people, 200,000 from all services in the field. And here is what they tell 

me.

 They consistently list the Montgomery GI Bill as one of their top 

five programs that they value. And not all of them say they use it and 

that is very important. Even if you do not use it, you feel that the 

government is giving you something which you can use and it is positive. And they know that as long as they remain a Selected Reservist 

drilling, they can use it.

 They also consistently say, however, the rates have atrophied and 

we need to do something about it. And they also indicate that perhaps ending the eligibility at 14 years, maybe we ought to extend that 

up through 20, 25, or some other period of time.

 So they talk about having it a longer period of time they can use 

and addressing the rates. But they all tell me that it is a very important benefit. Even if they do not use it, they know that it is there if 
26

they want to.

 Now, my colleagues who command all those might have a different 

perspective, but that is how I gained that, from going and talking 

to them, holding a town hall and saying what are your four or five 

benefits which are important to you. The Montgomery GI Bill always 

stands up high as something they think we are giving them the opportunity to use whether they use it or not.

Mr. Michaud. And I guess the next question would be to Mr. Bradley because actually you heard the top five. And in looking at your 

written testimony, you said approximately half rated education benefits number nine out of seventeen as a factor.

General Bradley. Yes, sir. Our utilization rate is lower than perhaps we would like. I think that is a reflection of a couple of things. 

And it also, I think, may affect where they place it in their survey 

of what is important to them as far as that list of benefits that they 

think are rank ordered in importance.

 I think the amount of work we are doing, the operations tempo that 

our folks are under over the last several years is so high, many people 

are not able to continue education because they are working hard for 

us, many times deployed.

 So it is just not possible to do as much because we are making them 

do more Reserve work. We are asking them to do more and they are 

volunteering to do it. And so I think that is why the utilization is not 

as high as you would expect.

I think the fact that the amount of the benefit has, so to speak, 

degraded over the years may also be a reflection. You know, it is 

about enough to buy books for a couple of courses is what they tell me, 

which everything helps, but maybe it could be better.

 So I think that is really the answer to that, and also the fact that 

the benefit terminates after the 14th year. Many times folks have 

come to us from the active service, six, eight years of service, and then 

they come to us, so there are not that many years for them to use it 

because at 14 years after they sign up, they are done.

 I think like Secretary Hall’s proposal to make this a 20 or 25 year, 

I would go for a 25. I think it could be a retention tool. It is not going 

to be what keeps everybody in, but it will keep some in, I think. So 

I think it would be a positive thing for our retention if we increased 

the number of years which an individual would be eligible for this 

benefit.

Mr. Michaud. I would like the other branches also to comment. 

Do you do a similar survey and, if so, how does education fall in that 

survey and do you think if the rate is low, is it because the benefits 

are not in your opinion where they should be?

Admiral Brice-O’Hara. I would be happy to talk about the Coast 

Guard for you, sir. We have a career intention survey which is administered not just as an exit survey, but when you change status. So 
27

if someone would go from enlisted to officer through a commissioning 

program or if they would go into a new enlistment contract, we ask 

them to complete that survey.

 There are a few things that are cited in a higher priority than education. They include pay, job security, health care, medical, dental 

specifically. But then after those, you also consistently find education, educational opportunity as well as education assistance listed 

as reasons that people want to be within the military.

So we find that it is very much a factor that influences retention 

decisions as well as enlistment decisions, sir.

General Bergman. I do not have the numbers right at my fingertips, sir. But when our Marines go through their transition TAM

class when they transition from active duty, they do fill out surveys. 

The incidence, the level of education, taking advantage of that right 

after completion of their active duty is, I would suggest, in the Marine 

Corps probably lower than our sister services for varying reasons.

 Some of our young Marines just choose to chill out for a while after 

the intensity of the activity. But those Marines who join the Marine 

Corps Reserve and continue to serve, when they have developed, if 

you will, a parallel civilian career, they become more aware that to 

be a success in a civilian occupation, they need to continue to educate 

themselves in that chosen field.

 And then it seems like it falls over that all of a sudden, the light 

goes on and that education, whether it be on the military side or how 

they use these benefits to grow themselves, if you will, in either one 

or both realms, clicks in.

Mr. Hall. Congressman, I think that all of us would tell you that 

we do our own surveys in addition to using those administered by the 

Department of Defense. 

Educational benefits, I believe, are perceived by the soldier as a 

normal benefit during abnormal times. That while in the historical 

sense, it is not abnormal at all to mobilize Reserve component members during a time of conflict.

The suddenness of this conflict and the fact that it is extending 

creates the abnormality. And so if you look at Army Reserves’ specific surveys, most soldiers say that items such as predictability and 

length of mobilization as well as period between mobilizations are 

their most pressing concerns.

If you look back prior to 9/11 at what prompted more people to stay 

in or to enlist, educational benefits inclusive of others besides Montgomery GI Bill, notably tuition assistance, were consistently ranked 

number one or two with regard to what motivated them to enlist and/

or to stay.

Mr. Carr. I think when we take a percentage, one key question 

would be if we decomposed that and say who is the most predisposed 

toward this benefit, the answer is enlisted and specifically junior en-
28

listed.

 Given that the topic is retention, it is a fact from Defense surveys 

that cut across the components that 25 percent of the E1 to 4 in the 

Reserves believe that education benefits figure prominently in their 

decision way ahead of health care, way ahead of retirement. In fact, 

almost just a little bit below pay and benefits.

 So when we decompose who is it that we get a bang from the buck 

from, it is the crowd we want to influence favorably to retain. We 

have other incentives. If you go to the senior crowd, they are going to 

be more disposed toward the retirement system and its value. But if 

you are trying to work the junior enlisted and that is the base of the 

pyramid, then MGIB is a strong pusher.

The Chairman. Mr. Michaud, would you yield on that point for a 

second?

Mr. Michaud. Sure.

The Chairman. Who are you citing? Who would you cite as an authority for your testimony?

Mr. Carr. For the figures I just gave?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Carr. Defense Manpower Data Center in surveys that it gives 

annually to the Reserves and to the active. And I have got a summary of it I could provide to staff.

The Chairman. I would appreciate that.

Mr. Carr. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. I would appreciate if you could get us that survey. 

I think it would be helpful to us.

Mr. Carr. Absolutely.

The Chairman. Because we were able to discern that from this very 

same survey, 14 percent stated that education benefits affected their 

continuation decision. And half of those surveys ranked education 

ninth out of the seventeen benefits. So that does not link very well.

 General Bradley, that was from your testimony.

General Bradley. Sir, I think that was a survey that the Air Force 

Reserve did, not a DoD-wide survey.

The Chairman. Well, then please reconcile the difference between 

-- Mr. Carr, your testimony that you just gave to Mr. Michaud based 

on data from your manpower and Lieutenant General Bradley’s testimony relying upon -- we have two surveys here that are in conflict.

Mr. Carr. Remember, I cited a subset of the population, that being 

the junior enlisted and that their behavior was particularly rich. The 

opposite is true if you go to the more senior ranks, depressing how 

robust that conclusion is. So that would influence it.

 But the Defense Manpower Data Center surveys are consistent 

over time. We have a longitudinal history of them. And, again, we 

will be delighted to provide them if that would be constructive.

 The Chairman. We welcome your comments, General Bradley, 
29

please. Do you concur with this?

General Bradley. Sir, I am certain that is right. I would imagine -- I mean, I would think that junior folks, young folks who join 

would cite education benefits as being much more important to them 

when they make a decision to join or stay than someone who is much 

older.

 So my survey would cover the entire force. I did not break it down 

into that young junior enlisted category about which he spoke.

The Chairman. All right. I will go back, Mr. Michaud.

 Let me take this one step further. I am trying to reconcile this survey with your testimony also about the needs you have. You know, 

let us take advantage of the inequities. Let us address the rate problems. And then you come with a survey, your 2004 status of forces 

survey of Reserve component members. Only 14 percent of respondents stated education benefits affected their continuation decision.

 Will you please comment on this?

General Bradley. Yes, sir. What I think may play into that survey 

is the fact that the educational benefits are not worth what they were 

several years ago. I think it reflects also the operations tempo of our 

forces. They are so much busier and are deployed in their busyness 

now in what they do.

 They are deployed and so it is not easy or convenient to do night 

schools or whatever they do to complete these additional educational 

programs. That makes it a lot more difficult. I think that is a reason 

why it does not rank as high. I think in other times when we are not 

as busy, it probably would seem like it is a better benefit to them. 

That is my conjecture.

 So I think it is only one tool that we could use for retention. I think 

the fact that people like what they do and they think it is important is 

a reason why they stay with us. But education helps a certain population. And I just think that any help we get to retain people would 

be a good thing, but it is not the be all and end all for retention, I do 

not think.

Mr. Carr. Mr. Chairman, I might be able to help in clarifying this. 

It is from the status of forces survey. Fourteen percent which you cite 

and 25 percent which I cite for junior enlisted are both part of that 

survey. So the correct answer for the respondents in total is about 

14 percent.

 I cited E1 to 4. But if we looked at E5 through 9, it is only nine percent. It becomes less important. Again, talking about the education 

benefit. And officers are all five percent or below.

 So as a group, they would respond 14 percent as it being important, 

but disproportionately, the junior enlisted E1 to 4 felt that it was 

important to them. Not remarkable because they see that and they 

do not count much on health care because they consider themselves 

invincible and they do not look at retirement because that is well out 
30

in the future. Therefore, you get a skewed reaction to the education 

appeal if you are talking to the very youngest members.

The Chairman. When we say GI Bill, a lot of people immediately 

will think, all right, World War II. All right. Soldiers coming home. 

But we had a draft. So the draft went across the population and 

brought many people in to serve their country and then we provided 

that education for them and we as a society benefited tremendously 

from that.

 Then we transitioned to the all-volunteer force and under the leadership of Senator Montgomery worked seven years to produce the 

Montgomery GI Bill as a “tool” to the services on recruiting and retention of their all-volunteer force.

We find ourselves, though, very challenged. You recruit individuals then to come join the all-volunteer force to obtain your education. 

And, yet, then we also have the Reserves and the National Guard, 

with individuals who are already established -- not all of them -- but 

you are also using this as a recruiting tool to join the Guard, and the 

Reserves. You can obtain your education benefit on a part-time basis 

and serve your country.

But we also have equally a large portion that are already in their 

job. They are comfortable with their career path. And then they find 

themselves at war and then we want to immediately judge them and 

say, well, but you are eligible for a benefit, but you are not utilizing 

the benefit and you cannot force that horse to drink.

 You know what I am trying to say? I mean, General Bradley, I

think you are the one that said, you know, inequity for inequitie’s 

sake.

General Bradley. But, sir, you know one thing I would add is the 

benefit has timed out for many of the people who are answering this 

survey. If they are beyond 14 years of service, the benefit does not 

matter to them probably because they are not eligible for it any longer.

 The day you sign up, a 14-year clock starts and it runs out at 14 

years. And so if you are serving at 15, 16, 20, 25 years, you are not 

eligible for this benefit anymore. So to those respondents to a survey, 

the benefit is irrelevant. So I think it might be more relevant, be used 

more, and be a little retention tool, I think, if we could make it a 20- 

or 25-year benefit instead of 14.

The Chairman. I am going to go to the rate issue for a second. I

noted the original nine-to-one ratio of the GI Bill benefit to the contribution level, and I looked at the numbers.

 Under the original Montgomery GI Bill, we have the $1,200 contribution. The pay of an E1 at the time was $573.60. So back in 1985 

when Senator Montgomery got everyone to go along with this, that 

was 17 percent. That contribution was 17 percent of $573. That was 

a $103 pretax contribution.
31

 Think about that. That is a lot out of the $573. The payout at the 

time was $10,800. Okay? The payout today is around 37,200. Yet, 

the contribution has also maintained itself at 1,200. So the contribution is not even a nine-to-one ratio anymore.

 So based on today’s E1 salary of $1,273, if you want to maintain 

the nine-to-one ratio on the payout, the contribution from the soldier 

should increase to $216 a month pretax. So the contribution based off 

of today’s payout should be $4,136.

 So this whole issue about having skin in the game, you know, about 

what is your personal investment to your own education given the 

payout, the contribution has not even maintained relative to the payout as designed by Congressman Montgomery and the Committee at 

the time.

 I just want to make sure all of you knew and understood that.

 Now, as we then go to the Reserve components, with this whole issue about equity for equities sake, the Reservists, are not making a 

contribution.

 So if we want to bring this back into balance, we are talking about 

increasing the contribution with regard to soldiers and whether or 

not Reserve components should also be making a contribution into 

the GI Bill benefit.

 I am just throwing this out to you. You cannot just say, well, we 

are going to do it for equity, but, gee, I want some, but then I do not 

have skin in the game either.

 So I want to have a conversation with all of you about this. So if we 

are going to say, okay, now we make this original amendment to say, 

okay, we are going to go to the 1606 benefit. So for the Reserve components, it was about $297 a month. And at that time, it was about 

48 to 49 percent of the active-duty rate.

 And according to your testimony, Secretary Hall, you are saying 

that that has now shrunk to about 28 percent. Now, that is DoD’s 

responsibility, Secretary Hall. I view that as your responsibility at 

DoD.

 If your senior leaders are saying this is an important tool to us and 

it is not being kept or maintained, you have got to tell us this because 

obviously this thing, I believe it needs to be increased. We are going 

to have to bring, the 1606 benefit up, and it is not linked to anything 

right now.

When we did the 1607 benefit, it was linked and it was able to 

maintain itself to the active benefit. But if we are going to continue 

to do these increases, should there be a level of contribution from the 

Reserve components?

So let me turn that over to you. This is a policy question and I need 

your best counsel. There are not going to be volunteers. I am going 

to go right down the line. All right? Let me start with the Coast 

Guard.
32

Admiral Brice-O’Hara. Sir, I would say that you have to look at the 

totality of tools that you have to use to influence our servicemembers. 

And so the fact that there is no pay-in by the Reservist is an inducement.

And if we were to require a pay-in, that may have then diminished 

attractiveness to that Reservist which would then cause us to have 

to use another tool potentially to attract them, recruit them, retain 

them in the services.

Admiral McDonald. Sir, I recommend you just stay the way it is. 

I have no data to show that if we make them have a pay-in whether 

it is going to make a difference or not. But from what I see from my 

Navy Reservists, the program as is benefits them across the board if 

they do not have to pay in. I would like to see it stay that way.

The Chairman. General Young.

General Young. Sir, I have to agree. I am not in favor of a contribution on behalf of the servicemember to continue to receive their 

Selected Reserve benefit.

The Chairman. So I want equity with the active components, but I 

do not want to pay for it? Is that what I am hearing? I mean, come 

on. I am serious. I am going to pick on all three of you for a second. 

I know you really want to jump in this fight. That is really not what 

you are telling me, is it?

Admiral McDonald. Well, equity would be then given the entire 

100 percent return without a pay-in. Obviously the Navy Reserve is 

not exactly the active Navy, so there are differences. So I think this 

is an equitable tool by no pay-in, but you are not receiving the 100 

percent benefit.

The Chairman. All right. General Bergman.

General Bergman. Sir, I would suggest to you that equity in this 

instance refers to a perception in the mind of the individual for what 

they are receiving, for what they are giving, if you will, and their 

time.

And to that Reserve Marine, they know, for example, when it comes 

to a perception of equity, some of their active component counterparts 

wonder why they get two drills for one day’s pay.

The point is, in the dollar value benefit, I do not see a need to 

change to put the Reserve component equal with the active duty as 

far as what they receive in that actual dollar output.

The Chairman. The Committee is going to stand at recess for about 

two minutes.

[Recess.]

 The Chairman. Mr. Bilirakis, any further questions?

 The hearing will come back to order.

Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions. I just 

want to raise a point here that I have been talking to staff. I guess I
33

was not aware that the Reservist can pick up this benefit immediately on day one, whereas someone serving on active duty does not get 

the right to the benefit unless they have served what is either three 

years or two years depending on what the contract is for.

 You know, active duty -- I am not belittling the role of Reservists. 

God knows in this day and age, thank God for them. But I am not 

sure that they should be able to pick up the benefit on -- am I correct? 

Does someone have to serve in the Reserves for a certain period of 

time first before they have the right to this education benefit?

Mr. Hall. I think it is enlist or reenlist for six years, make that 

obligation, whereas on active duty -- someone can correct me -- you 

can start it after two years. But within the Reserve, if you make an 

obligation of six years or reenlist for six, you are eligible for it. So 

just make the commitment you are going to serve for six years in the 

Reserve, unless somebody wants to correct that -- I think -- 

Mr. Bilirakis. But they have served that six years?

Mr. Hall. Yes -- no, not served six years. Agree to serve six years 

and you can start picking up the benefit.

Mr. Bilirakis. Yeah. Okay. So it goes right back to what I -- 

Mr. Hall. When you join and say I am going to do this for six years, 

you can start.

Mr. Bilirakis. Yeah. You can start on day one then?

Mr. Hall. No. I think it is after an amount of training.

Mr. Bilirakis. Well, all right. All right. So it is after two months 

or whatever it might be?

Mr. Hall. There is a small period that you have to complete, some 

active duty for training period, a small time, and then you can start 

it. So there is a little bit of training piece you have to do successfully. 

That is not very long. I think it is a matter of weeks or months.

Mr. Bilirakis. Well, I realize you are all representing the Reserve 

Corps and they are very, very important to us. But I do not know. I

find something wrong with all that.

Mr. Hall. Could I make a comment -- 

Mr. Bilirakis. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Hall. -- that relates to the Chairman’s question? You know, 

the words equal and fair, I think we have to think about. Because 

something is not equal, is it perceived to be fair? And we heard the 

word perception.

 And I think to get the idea that in order to be fair, we must have 

the Reserve benefit exactly equal to the active duty is wrong because 

if we have those, why not -- if the pay is the same, if all the benefits 

are the same, you have to characterize the nature of the service. And 

I think in the minds of a Guardsman or a Reservist, fair rather than 

equal is what they look at.

 And I think originally when Senator Montgomery put this together 

and the benefits were at 48 percent of the active duty, based upon a 
34

characterization of your service, you were not full time, they thought 

that was a fair thing. Now that it has atrophied, perhaps in their 

view, it is not the equal. Is it still as fair as it was at that point.

 So I think they focus more on perhaps having it for a longer length 

of time, perhaps having it back at what it started at, the 48 percent. 

And that would be fair. I do not think they would say it has to be exactly equal to active duty and the same things before the situation.

So I think we just need to think about the fair and equal between 

the two and characterize the nature of the service and they will end 

up being different benefits. But if they are perceived to be fair, then 

I think our young men and women will reenlist and will continue to 

serve. That is my view on the equality versus fairness.

Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Chairman, I realize the focus is on retention 

and that is awfully significant. And if we look at it from a retention 

standpoint, then I stand corrected. But I think we have -- again, I

keep repeating this -- the value that the GI Bill has been to our way of 

life. And if we think of that, then I think we ought to also be thinking 

beyond just retention as significant as retention is. And, you know, 

it should be a little bit of a reward, I should think, for the person who 

served a certain period of time.

The Chairman. All right. To focus this then so we do not get too far 

out of the box on redesign, the issue is going toward rate and length 

of time for the opportunity to utilize the benefit.

General Helmly. I would commend to you, and I have heard several of my peers also state this, also the use of the benefit, that is to 

allow, as you noted in your comment, for certain types of training, not 

just the traditional college degree.

Mr. Hall. I would also mention, Mr. Chairman, last year, some of 

the changes you made to use were some of the certification and training courses which were received exceptionally well by our members. 

And I think a further expansion of that into things for long-range 

truck drivers and other kinds of courses would be welcome as a positive step. So expanding some of the training certification and other 

kinds of skills would be the third item in addition to the rate and 

length.

The Chairman. All right. General Helmly, then an issue, or, General Bradley, actually, this is for the entire panel: credentialing.

 Right now if you have got one of your mechanics working on a particular aircraft and he has been trained to work on that aircraft and 

now he wants to leave, but now he cannot go down and work on that 

aircraft because he has not been properly certified according to blahblah-blah.

General Bradley. Yes, sir. I would be in favor of that. I would 

agree with what General Helmly just said and Secretary Hall. I think 

those changes would make it a much more viable, helpful program.

The Chairman. Okay. So focus more predominantly on these three 
35

issues, the rate, the opportunity of use, IE, length of time, and then 

the credentialing. And what word did you use? You did not use credentialing. You called it?

Mr. Hall. Certification

The Chairman. Certification.

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. That is what I would agree with.

The Chairman. All right. I need to do this for the record. I would 

like to go down the line from Lieutenant General Helmly on down. 

I want you to give me a good 35-, 40-second snapshot of one of your 

Reservists, Coast Guardsmen, National Guardsmen, who has been 

brought to active duty. Tell me what happens to them, for example, 

tank platoon commander, round out. I just need to get on the record 

when they serve next to an active-duty counterpart, that counterpart 

gets X, but my person does not get what, but gets utilized in comparison.

Can you do that for me, General Helmly.

General Helmly. Congressman, I think the biggest complaint -- in 

fact, I know the biggest complaint we have from Army Reserve soldiers is not so much the measurement of benefits and entitlements as 

it is the treatment.

The Chairman. Will you hold just a second?

General Helmly. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Mr. Bilirakis is going to take the Chair to finish this 

series of questions and then I am going to need to leave.

Mr. Bilirakis. You said this question.

The Chairman. And any other follow-on you would love to have.

We are going to have questions that we will submit for the record. 

I want to thank you for coming. This is very important and I appreciate that. You help focus us in three very important areas that can be 

very helpful to you.

Mr. Bilirakis. [Presiding] Who had the floor here? Go ahead, sir.

General Helmly. Congressman Buyer had asked for each of us to 

address an issue as regards how our Reserve component members 

may feel relative to an active component member.

 I had just responded that I personally do not often hear a complaint 

about equity of benefits. And I agree with Secretary Hall. It is really 

about benefits and entitlements commensurate with one’s service, 

commensurate with inactive service as opposed to daily active-duty 

service.

 Having said that, the biggest complaint we have about relative to 

the active component is regards to treatment. And I do not mean 

an intentional Army bad treatment of Reserve component members. 

As much as we mobilize them, we consider them to be unready rather than treating them as a professional soldier, challenging them, 

providing them kinds of training that challenge them, that energize 

them looking forward.
36

 They will often point to I do not understand why I had to spend 75, 

90 days at a mobe station trying on new kinds of boots, why I could 

not just be issued the boots ahead of time, why if I passed the PT test 

ahead of time you did not take it like my active component counterpart, those kind of things.

 They see it as somewhat dehumanizing. The Army has made 

strides at issues of our Reserve component members, the same kinds 

of equipment, et cetera, but they complain often about the length of 

time and before I get to theater and start getting on with my business.

Mr. Bilirakis. And I think we get those comments. I know I went 

with a group with the Air Force Caucus to Iraq a few weeks ago and 

we received some of those comments.

Who is next?

General Bradley. General Bradley. I think he intended for us to 

go down the line with that question.

 Actually, sir, I think for our Air Force Reserve airmen, I do not 

hear complaints about treatment or benefits or pay for folks that are 

mobilized. They are pretty much qualified for the same pay and benefits that active regular Air Force, regular component folks acquire 

in those cases.

There are things that some people consider not quite right or fair 

when they are not mobilized, some of the things. But the question 

was about when you are on active duty, what things are different. 

And there is actually very little that is different in regard to the pay 

and benefits.

Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Thank you.

 General.

General Bergman. Sir, from the Marine Corps perspective, I would 

echo the comments of my colleagues. When you are in active duty, everything is basically the same. They are all going to the same fight.

 When you are in a nonmobilized, nonactivated status as a Reserve, 

you are really running a parallel, the kind of dissimilar life that you 

have chosen. And to be honest, when our Marines come whether for 

two weeks or two days in that nonmobilized environment, they are 

there because they want to put on the uniform and they want to just 

be Marines.

 So you do not hear -- the complaint, of course, we always want more 

chow. We always want more bullets, always want more training. 

And I say that in a very serious way because at the rate of utilization of our resources, our equipment, when these young folks come to 

train, they want to have the capability to do that. And they are really 

not talking about the kinds of things that we have been discussing 

here.

Mr. Bilirakis. General Young.

General Young. Sir, I think overall, the department has done a 
37

great job at equalizing the benefits and making our Guardsmen that 

are mobilized feel that they are receiving equal treatment and the 

same degree of equipment, training, and everything else.

 Early on, those returning from theater that had medical problems, 

there was some perception there that their degree of treatment, the 

level of treatment was not the same. But the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, everybody has worked hard that where we found those 

types of disparities or differences, we have worked hard to change 

those and change those programs to make sure that is not the case.

So I would think today -- I was an Assistant General for six years 

and mobilized a lot of soldiers out of Ohio and early on, there were 

some of those perceptions -- but today, the returning soldiers from 

the Ohio Army National Guard feel like they are treated just like an 

active-duty counterpart.

Mr. Bilirakis. That is good.

General Young. Thank you.

Mr. Bilirakis. Admiral.

Admiral McDonald. Sir, I will have to agree with the chiefs. Once 

on active duty, there is very little differences. It is getting to and off 

active duty, the continuum of service, the ability to easily move from 

the Reserve component to an active status and back with all the difficulties in there. We are working on that within DoD, but we have 

got some hurdles there. That is about the major issue I hear from my 

mobilized Reservists.

Mr. Bilirakis. Coast Guard.

Admiral Brice-O’Hara. Sir, I would echo what was just said concerning the transparency and seamlessness with which we manage 

our Reserve component. As much as we can do to make processes the 

same between the two components, the better we will be.

Relative to specific complaints, the most frequently heard in the 

past has been the discrepancy in housing allowances, but recent legislation has vastly improved that. And with the new change to the 

basic allowance for housing entitlement, we do not hear that complaint. But by far, that was the largest that I had heard in my travels 

through the Coast Guard.

 But with our integration, the Coast Guard Reservists feel very 

much a part of team Coast Guard and they do not feel second citizens. They are right there on the front line and delivering services 

with great professionalism and dedication just as their active counterparts are.

Mr. Bilirakis. Well, thank you.

 Before I forget, I do want to go into this other area that I brought 

up previously. But you are among the busiest people in our society 

and for you to sit here all these hours, I mean, we really commend 

you. I apologize for it, but many of you have experienced this before, 

so you know what the heck it is like up here. So I just wanted to get 
38

that.

 But let me get back again to the Reservists. And your job is to get 

people to come into the Reserves and to retain them and that sort of 

thing. And I appreciate that.

But a guy signs up for six years and is still a civilian and immediately starts his education and maybe picks up the degree in four 

years, three years depending on what and then does not complete the 

six-year contract. And this goes back, I guess, to what the Chairman 

had brought up.

 In the meantime, that person has already had the education that 

has cost the taxpayers an awful lot of money. You have had the use 

of that person for that three or four years and probably served in 

Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever. In today’s world, the Reservists, 

I know, are just serving so much differently than they used to many 

years ago.

 The only penalty for that individual would be a nonhonorable discharge? It could be general or it could be something else; is that 

right? In the meantime, the person has gotten the education?

Mr. Hall. No, sir. No, sir. On the education, we recently submitted our biannual report to Congress on the Montgomery GI Bill. And 

this is the way it works.

 If you do not complete your obligation and you have used your benefits, we recoup the money from you. And in that report, we have the 

amount of money and we are recouping it now.

 So you cannot just take the Montgomery GI Bill and say, oops, at 

the end of four years, I want to leave. If you do not serve that time, 

we recoup that money from you and we are actively doing that and 

have recouped an amount from the people that did not meet their 

obligation.

 So you do not get off freely. You must -- 

Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. You are actively recouping it, but do you have 

to go to court on it?

Mr. Hall. No. We go to them and say you owe us that amount of 

money and obviously we take that out of their paycheck or they pay 

it, but we do recoup it.

Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Well, that is good to hear.

 Well, gentlemen and lady -- is there anything more? Apparently 

the Chairman had a long list of questions here. He asked me to continue receiving the answers to the one item and then proceeded to 

talk about a variety of items.

 So he has a number of others and I know he is going to submit them 

to you in writing. But they are very important to him. He spent an 

awful lot of time on this subject and we discussed it at length when 

we discussed the budget a couple of times during the last two or three 

weeks.

Well, I am going to ask this question, but I think I am going to ask 
39

you to respond to it in writing. To the Reserve chiefs, I guess, many 

states provide significant education benefits for members of the National Guard. However, members of the Reserves did not qualify for 

these benefits even though they may reside and drill in a State. Darn 

good point.

So do you see an inequity there and how would you remedy that 

inequity?

 Now, again, in the interest of time and whatnot, that is a very significant question and hopefully -- and it is a very good point -- hopefully you can think about that and maybe respond to the Committee 

in writing if you would within what period of time? Okay. They will 

send it to you.

 All right. Thanks so much. I think we will just go ahead and adjourn the hearing at this point in time. You have been very helpful.

 And, again, I do feel very strongly about VEAP. I may be wrong. 

If I am, I would appreciate your letting us know. But any comments 

you may have on that, you might submit to the Committee along 

maybe with a copy to me or whatever the case may be because I do 

not want to do the wrong thing. But at the same time, I just think 

that there is an area there that -- talking about inequity, there is an 

area of inequity there.

 Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.

[The statement of Joseph F. Sharp, Jr. appears on p. 100]

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

 
(40)

APPENDIX
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139