U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–364 2008

PENDING MONTGOMERY GI BILL LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 17, 2008 

Serial No. 110–64 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

MALCOM A. SHORTER, Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

January 17, 2007 

Page 

Pending Montgomery GI Bill Legislation .............................................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin .............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin .................................. 33 

Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member ............................................. 3 

Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman ............................................. 33 

Hon. Susan A. Davis, prepared statement of ........................................................ 34 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Defense: 

Thomas L. Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 

Affairs ................................................................................................................ 22 

Prepared statement of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gilroy ................................... 54 

Curtis L. Gilroy, Ph.D., Director for Accession Policy, Military Personnel 

Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness .................................................................................................................... 23 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education 

Service, Veterans Benefit Administration ...................................................... 25 

Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson .................................................................. 57 

American Legion, Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, Economic Commission ........................................................................................................................ 10 

Prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin .............................................................. 49 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Patrick Campbell, Legislative 

Director ................................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of Mr. Campbell ............................................................. 42 

Military Officers Association of America, Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA 

(Ret.), Deputy Director, Government Relations ................................................. 5 

Prepared statement of Colonel Norton ........................................................... 35 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy 

Director, National Legislative Service ................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman .............................................................. 46 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Larsen, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, statement ................................................................................................. 66 

Matheson, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 67 

Paralyzed Veterans of America, statement ........................................................... 67 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Vietnam Veterans of America, Washington State Council, Jim Pace, President, letter ............................................................................................................ 70 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Reports: 

Campus Kit for Colleges and Universities, Student Veterans of America, 

Compiled by John T. Powers, July 1, 2008 .................................................... 71 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

(1) 

PENDING MONTGOMERY GI BILL 

LEGISLATION 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in Room 

340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth 

Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Donnelly, Hall, 

Boozman. 

Also Present: Representative Davis of California. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 

The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Economic Opportunities Subcommittee hearing on pending Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) legislation will come to order. 

Before I begin with my opening statement, I know that we may 

be joined by some of our colleagues who do not serve on the Subcommittee or the full Committee. In the event that they join us 

later, I ask unanimous consent that those individuals, which include Congressman Vic Snyder of Arkansas, Congresswoman Susan 

Davis of California, and Congressman John McHugh of New York 

be invited to sit at the dais for the Subcommittee hearing today. 

Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

Welcome, all of you, to the Subcommittee. Happy New Year to 

you. 

As many of you know, Congressman Snyder, who again may be 

joining us, sits on our full Committee. Until recently, he chaired 

the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 

and now chairs another Subcommittee on the Committee on Armed 

Services. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel now falls to the 

leadership of Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh 

who has served in leadership capacities on that Subcommittee for 

a number of years. I look forward to continuing our work with the 

Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 

in particular, as we seek to improve existing educational entitlements for our Nation’s veterans. 

Also, I want to call attention to the fact that the Honorable Jim 

Matheson of Utah, the Honorable Bobby Scott of Virginia, and the 

Honorable Rick Larsen of Washington have asked to submit written statements for the hearing record. If there is no objection, I ask 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

2 

for unanimous consent that their statements be entered into the 

record. Hearing no objection, so entered. 

[The statements of Hon. Rick Larsen, Hon. Jim Matheson and 

Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott appear on p. 66–69.] 

Like many of my colleagues here today, I recently had the opportunity to meet with veterans in my district, State and local governing officials, county veterans officers, and Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) to discuss: the work of the 110th Congress, the 

accomplishments of the first session, and the advancements we 

hope to continue to make in the second session. 

I had the opportunity to speak to South Dakota’s Governor, the 

Honorable Mike Rounds, the State’s Department of Military and 

Veterans Affairs, and the Deputy to South Dakota National 

Guard’s Adjutant General, Major General Steven Doohen, among 

others, about the changes that were made to the Montgomery GI 

Bill in the fiscal year 2008 ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA).’’ 

We also discussed this Subcommittee’s efforts, along with the 

Armed Services Committee, to further update the Montgomery GI 

Bill, particularly for our National Guard and Reserve forces. This 

support from the local level for our efforts tells me that we are on 

the right track. However, we know there is some heavy lifting yet 

to be done. 

The NDAA for fiscal year 2008, which has been delayed momentarily, but hopefully will be signed into law soon, failed to include 

language to recodify Chapters 1606 and 1607 from the authority of 

the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to the U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA). This is an area that will require some ongoing attention and discussion. 

While this is a disappointment to some advocating for this 

change, I am glad that we succeeded in making progress for our 

Nation’s Reserve forces. 

Included in the final version of the NDAA, among other important changes to education benefits, is language that would allow 

certain members of the Reserve forces to use their Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) education benefits during the 

10-year period beginning on the date in which they separate from 

service. I support these provisions and look forward to the President signing the bill into law. 

Today’s hearing will focus on several bills that have been identified as containing components advocated by the veterans’ community. I appreciate the positive responses of the VSOs in helping us 

identify areas of interest by submitting their top five legislative 

priorities for us to review as we consider updating the existing 

Montgomery GI Bill entitlements. 

Ranking Member Boozman, I look forward to working with you, 

as we have done over the past 31⁄2 years. I also look forward to 

working with all of the Members of the Subcommittee, our colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, and others in the 

Congress to streamline, update, and expand existing MGIB benefits. 

I would now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. 

Boozman, for any opening remarks he may have. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

3 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin appears on p. 33.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your 

bringing us together to discuss the future direction of the GI Bill. 

As in the other programs under our jurisdiction, GI Bill education and training benefits provide veterans and surviving dependents with the opportunity to achieve financial independence 

outside of any other VA benefits they may receive. 

According to the College Board, those with a Bachelor’s Degree 

will make at least 1 million dollars more over a lifetime than someone with a high school diploma. Clearly it pays to invest in education and training for veterans. 

You and I, Madam Chair, have held several hearings on the subject over the last 3 years and we have heard from literally dozens 

of witnesses about the need to make changes to reflect today’s operational environment. 

Today members of the National Guard and Reserves are carrying 

a huge portion of the Global War on Terror and if nothing else, I 

hope we can find a way to improve their benefits in a way that reflects their expanded role in our Nation’s defense. 

I am also very concerned that 30 percent of those who sign up 

for the GI Bill never use a penny of the benefit. There are many 

reasons they do not use their GI benefits, some of which would be 

difficult to overcome. But I think we can reduce that 30 percent to 

a significantly lower number by adding flexibility to the program. 

And I hope that we can all work together to get that done. 

Several of today’s bills would pay veterans what is described as 

the full cost of education. If that is to be our goal, I think we need 

a real understanding of the true cost of education to a veteran considering the many sources of financial assistance available today. 

Today there is a mix of Federal, State, and institutional financial 

aid packages available that did not exist for earlier generations of 

veterans. Let us just consider one option and that is the Pell grant. 

The max grant now is about $4,300 per school year. If the grant 

program did not consider military pay, most freshly discharged veterans would qualify for the full amount. 

The Pell Grant Program also includes several income waivers for 

veterans that would allow a vet to work part time without impacting the Pell grant amount. 

So between the GI Bill and Pell grant, a vet could receive over 

$14,000 for a standard 9-month school year that would not include 

any kickers or back amounts or other Title 4 education benefits. 

It is also important to recognize that many States offer significant education benefits to veterans or those on active duty or serving in the Guard. 

There is some really good news. The VA has made significant 

progress in lowering the processing time for original and supplemental claims for education benefits. In fiscal year 2007, VA averaged about 32 days for an original claim. Today it averages about 

23 days. Supplemental claims are down to under 10 days from 13 

last year. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

4 

I wish that the folks at Compensation and Pension (C&P) could 

do as well. I note the education services achieved a high level of 

automation to accomplish that decrease. And, again, hopefully C&P 

will follow suit. 

Finally, Madam Chair, you and I would make many improvements if we had the PAYGO offsets. However, PAYGO is a fact of 

life that we must live by until we decide to do something differently. 

There are lots of education bills out there, some of which are estimated to cost up to over $75 billion over 10 years. That type of 

legislation, you know, appears to be very difficult under the 

PAYGO challenges that we have. 

Again, though, I would say, and I think you mentioned this in 

the past, you know, we have to be responsible and it is a matter 

of priorities. And certainly the priorities of this Committee are to 

expand our veterans’ benefits as much as we can. 

So thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on 

p. 33.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Boozman. 

As I mentioned previously, we have now been joined by Chairwoman Susan Davis of California, former Member of this Committee. I certainly look forward to working with her in making continued improvements to Montgomery GI Bill benefits, given her 

work on the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed 

Services Committee. 

Let me invite our first panel to join us here. We have Colonel 

Robert Norton, Deputy Director of Government Relations for the 

Military Officers Association of America (MOAA); Mr. Patrick 

Campbell, Legislative Director for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA); Mr. Eric Hilleman, Deputy Director for 

the National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) 

of the United States; and Mr. Ronald Chamrin, Assistant Director 

on Economic Commission for the American Legion. 

Gentlemen, welcome back to the Subcommittee and happy New 

Year. We look forward to working with you in 2008. We want to 

remind you that your entire written statement will be submitted 

and made part of the hearing record. If you could limit your opening remarks to 5 minutes to give us ample time for questions and 

follow-up, we would appreciate that very much. 

Colonel Norton, we will begin with you. You are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

5 

STATEMENTS OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.), 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY 

OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; PATRICK CAMPBELL, 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA; ERIC A. HILLEMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND RONALD F. 

CHAMRIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC COMMISSION, 

AMERICAN LEGION 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. NORTON 

Colonel NORTON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and happy New 

Year to you as well and to Ranking Member Boozman. 

I am honored to have this opportunity to appear before you today 

on behalf of the Military Officers Association of America. We are 

indeed grateful for this Subcommittee’s continuing interest and 

leadership in improving the Montgomery GI Bill. 

We also want to thank Congress for pending final passage of the 

Partnership for Veterans Education’s top priority last year, establishment of a 10-year readjustment benefit for Reservists who serve 

the Nation on active duty. 

I want to add a special thanks to Representative Vic Snyder for 

his pivotal role and leadership in the Armed Services Committee 

and this Committee for making that happen. 

Turning to the bills before the Subcommittee today, MOAA supports elements of all seven bills as indicated in our statement, but 

we do have some concerns either of a technical or equity nature on 

some of them. I would be happy to address any of these bills in the 

Q and A period. 

But stepping back for just a moment, Madam Chair, I want to 

help frame the consideration of these bills by letting the Subcommittee know that MOAA’s top two priorities for the MGIB this 

year are, one, raising reimbursement rates and, two, establishing 

month-for-month entitlement for Reservists who serve cumulative 

tours of active duty of at least 90 days per tour. 

On raising GI Bill rates, I will focus on H.R. 2702 because this 

bill is similar to a bill that is getting a lot of attention in the Senate sponsored by Senator Jim Webb, S. 22. 

We strongly endorse the most important feature of H.R. 2702, 

namely raising GI Bill rates to cover more of the cost of education. 

That is our top priority this year. 

We also like extending the readjustment period to 15 years and 

opening up the GI Bill to all men and women who enter the service. That will help both recruiting and readjustment for today’s 

warriors. 

Translating that to the Montgomery GI Bill, opening the GI Bill 

to all new recruits would mean repealing the $1,200 payroll reduction at some point. 

But we do have some concerns over establishing a new GI Bill 

program that directly competes, if you will, with the Montgomery 

GI Bill in Chapter 30. Unless the Subcommittee were to repeal the 

MGIB or somehow put it on hold, we do not see how the proposed 

post 9/11 GI Bill in H.R. 2702 and the Montgomery GI Bill can coexist side by side. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

6 

Moreover, since there is no sunset clause in the bill, it would operate alongside the Montgomery GI Bill for the indefinite future. 

In raising the rates, our top priority, MOAA would recommend 

instead of the metric used in H.R. 2702 that the Subcommittee endorsed using the average cost at a 4-year public college or university as the benchmark. 

Right now, according to Department of Education data for this 

academic year, the MGIB pays about 75 percent of the average cost 

for full-time study at a public college. 

Turning to Reserve benefits, with adoption of the readjustment 

benefit for Reservists’ service on active duty, it now makes more 

sense than ever to integrate the Reserve program in Title 38. That 

leads to our second major priority. 

In moving Chapter 1607, the REAP Program, to Title 38, MOAA 

recommends changing the rates for Reservists who serve activeduty tours to month-for-month entitlement. 

When you look at, for example, Madam Chair, the Minnesota 

Guard and Reserve, the New York, Arkansas, South Dakota, and 

California Reserve forces, eventually all of these great young men 

and women will serve three or more tours of active duty. Because 

of that service, many will have completed 3 cumulative years of active duty. They should be entitled to the full Montgomery GI Bill 

rate, presently $1,101 per month. But the pending Defense authorization would only allow them 80 percent, the ‘‘80 percent solution’’ 

of the full Montgomery GI Bill even though they will have served 

3 cumulative years of active-duty service. 

The principle should be in our view same service, same battlefield, same benefits. 

We are encouraged that Chairman Filner has said that the 

Montgomery GI Bill will be a top three priority this year and we 

look forward to working with you to create a better GI Bill that 

matches the extraordinary demands of service today and gives better support to Armed Forces’ recruitment programs. 

Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Boozman. I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Norton appears on p. 35.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Colonel Norton. 

Mr. Campbell, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK CAMPBELL 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Happy New Year. A lot has happened for me in 

the last New Year. I had my 30th birthday and I graduated law 

school, so I appreciate it. This is my first foray back into veterans’ 

issues. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify and also thank you for 

bringing this issue up. You know, I am glad that we are starting 

the dialog about how we are going to renew our social contract with 

this generation of veterans. 

I want to use this time to discuss IAVA’s, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s top three priorities. Just like Bob said, 

you know, our number one priority is raising the GI Bill rates so 

they cover the full cost of education. 

Number two is that we deal with the issue of Reservists who 

have been deployed multiple times. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

7 

And third, and very important to me, is how do we provide 

meaningful protections for deploying servicemembers. 

And since I know my esteemed colleagues are going to be spending a lot of time on the first two issues, I want to start with the 

last, how do we provide meaningful protections for deploying 

servicemembers. 

In 2003, Congress passed the ‘‘HEROS Act’’ which granted the 

Secretary of Education the power to waive certain student loans for 

deploying servicemembers. The ‘‘HEROS Act’’ was actually a direct 

copy of the ‘‘Persian Gulf Conflict Higher Education Assistance 

Act,’’ just with a cooler name. 

The bill said that it is the sense of Congress that all institutions 

offering postsecondary education should provide full refunds to students who are activated and that these schools should make every 

effort to minimize deferral of enrollment or reapplication requirements. 

I testify before you today that servicemembers deserve more than 

a sense of Congress. Deploying servicemembers across this country 

are not receiving refunds and are facing numerous bureaucratic 

hurdles to reenroll in school. Over 400,000 Reservists have deployed and last year, 40,000 of them were enrolled in school. 

I can say from personal experience that these bureaucratic hurdles are both infuriating and can be a complete roadblock for returning students. When these servicemembers get home, their only 

thoughts are about, you know, taking classes, remembering what 

they learned before they left, or trying to figure out, you know, how 

to figure out life in an air conditioned classroom when the last year 

they spent was in a Humvee. 

I spent my year on a trash pile in Iraq and I come back, you 

know, with a comfy chair and air conditioning. I did not know 

which way was up. 

What few returning students are prepared for is how schools 

refuse to make any reasonable accommodations to the fact that we 

spent the last year of our lives in a war zone. 

I personally know of servicemembers who were denied enrollment because of a paperwork snafu or because they were gone too 

long. I also know of servicemembers who were denied refunds. And 

I am sad to find out that my own alma mater does not provide refunds for deploying servicemembers. 

To be fair, most schools do the right thing. But for those returning servicemembers who are not so lucky, they suffer through a bureaucratic nightmare. That is why returning students need Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

(USERRA) type protections. I guarantee that they will get their refund and when they get home, they will be reinstated to the same 

status they were before they left. 

We thank Congresswoman Susan Davis for introducing the ‘‘Veterans Education Tuition Support Act,’’ H.R. 2910, and we encourage this Committee to take up that bill as soon as possible because 

the issue is growing. 

The second I want to discuss is the issue of Reservists who are 

doing multiple tours. Right now, as most of you know, education 

benefits are based on the longest single tour and not the longest 

cumulative amount of tour. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

8 

A pointed example of this is I, an Army National Guard, had 

served 16 months active duty while my co-worker, Todd Bowers, a 

Marine Reservist, has served the same amount of time, but he did 

his in two tours. That means I am entitled to $220 more a month 

in education benefits because I did mine in one tour and he did his 

in two. That just does not make any sense. 

I learned yesterday, from the Army Times, that 25 percent of Reservists have been deployed more than once. So we are talking 

100,000 Reservists have served multiple tours. And if you look at 

the Air Force and Air National Guard, most of them are working 

on their third or fourth tour. 

There are two practical ways to deal with this issue. First is to 

modify the REAP Program, which is the Chapter 1607, which says 

the more service you do, the higher the benefit you get, or you look 

to a month for month as Colonel Norton just said. 

I posit to you that the modification of the REAP Program would 

produce a better education benefit for Reservists. 

If you indulge me and turn to page five of my testimony, you will 

see some charts. You will see that although the month-for-month 

process seems simpler, it actually produces a worse benefit in the 

end for two reasons. 

One is once you run out of the month for month, for every month 

of active-duty service, you earn a month of active-duty benefits, 

once you run out of that benefit, you will have $1,100 a month, 1 

month. The very next month, you are going to get $330 a month. 

If you happen to get out of the Reserves and separate, there is 

no portability for Chapter 1607 benefits. So if you are out the Reserves, once you use your month-for-month entitlement, you are 

done. You are not entitled to any more education benefits. 

So Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America strongly encourages looking at modifying the current Chapter 1607 program by 

making it cumulative as it is suggested in H.R. 4148 and adding 

intermediary steps so that it goes at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year, 1 

year and a half so that you are always going up. You are never 

going to experience a drop in education benefits. 

My time is up, but I just want to say thank you for having this 

hearing. The social contract, you know, we fulfilled their social contract after World War II and Korea and we sent veterans to school 

for free. This country was rewarded with the greatest generation. 

How will we fulfill our end of the social contract with this generation? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell appears on p. 42.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Hilleman, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC A. HILLEMAN 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Boozman. 

On behalf of the 2.3 million members of Veterans of Foreign 

Wars and our auxiliaries, I would like to thank this Committee for 

its diligence, its dedication, and its bipartisanship exhibited in updating the Montgomery GI Bill. 

We applaud this Committee and Congress for including the postservice usage for the Guard and Reserve members in the ‘‘National 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

9 

Defense Authorization Act of 2008.’’ We laud this accomplishment 

and we ask that this Committee and the Congress continue to update the GI Bill. 

The VFW’s top two priorities for the GI Bill this year are like 

that of my colleagues, increase the Montgomery GI Bill rate. We 

would like to see it cover the full cost of tuition, education, room, 

board, and provide a cost-of-living stipend. 

And secondly, allow National Guard and Reserve members to 

count every month of service toward accruing a GI Bill benefit. Remove the qualifying impediment that a longest, continuous service 

period creates. 

Since the inception of the GI Bill, every generation of warriors 

has had a benefit to ease their transition back into civilian life, 

providing an opportunity for education and serving as an investment in the future of our Nation. 

Today’s GI Bill is not meeting the needs of our veterans. Skyrocketing education costs are forcing veterans to shoulder the bulk 

of their college expense. Our military in the wake of current conflict is suffering from recruiting shortages. Moreover, young veterans are more likely to become unemployed and homeless than 

their peers. A new approach to veterans’ transition, stabilization, 

and education is needed. 

The increasing cost of education are diminishing today’s GI Bill. 

According to the Department of Education, the national average 

cost of an undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board charged to 

full-time students in degree-granting institutions for the 2005, 

2006 period was $17,447. A veteran receiving the full-time, activeduty GI Bill for the same period only received $9,306. That is approximately 53 percent of the total cost of education. 

This disparity makes it difficult for a single veteran to attend college and prohibitive for a veteran with a family. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set the 

2005 poverty line for individuals earning at or below $9,570. A twoperson household was $12,830. A three-person household, $16,090. 

A student veteran earning no additional income is living below 

the poverty line, accumulating large student loans, and struggling 

to afford an education. 

For a veteran with a family, they are dramatically below the poverty line. And if they are relying solely on the GI Bill to sustain 

them and their dependents through college, they face an uphill battle. 

The GI Bill has evolved from its origins as a transition and stabilization benefit, to serve as a recruitment tool. 

With each successive year of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we 

face the increased challenge of meeting projected recruitment and 

retention numbers for the military. A robust education benefit 

would provide a positive recruitment tool to broaden the socioeconomic makeup of the military, improving overall quality of individual recruits and, thus, the overall quality of the force. 

Veterans are increasingly at a disadvantage to their peers in the 

job market. Of the 200,000 men and women that annually leave 

service to enter the workforce, a veteran is twice as likely to become unemployed. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

10 

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, unemployment 

among veterans between the ages of 20 and 24 is 15.6 percent in 

2005. Nonveterans of the same age group face an unemployment 

rate of 8.7 percent. 

Through education benefits, a veteran’s marketability, their longterm career growth, and positive readjustment can be enhanced 

through creating such a powerful benefit. 

Near the end of World War II, our Nation’s economy was recovering from depression and showing promise of expansion. With the 

creation of the World War II GI Bill, millions of servicemembers 

took seats in classrooms across the Nation. Seven point eight million veterans took advantage of the bill ushering in an era of prosperity. For every tax dollar spent, the government received approximately seven in return. 

The original bill vastly expanded the middle class, improving 

American lives, veteran lives, and profoundly affected American 

families. 

The VFW urges Congress to pass a comprehensive GI Bill for the 

21st Century as an investment in our troops, our veterans, and our 

Nation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman appears on p. 46.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chamrin, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RONALD F. CHAMRIN 

Mr. CHAMRIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and happy New Year. 

And it is an honor to be back before the Committee once again. 

The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present our 

recommendations and observations of the current state of veterans 

education and related programs, proposed legislation, and laws. 

Recent legislative activities in relation to the fiscal year 2008 

‘‘National Defense Authorization Act’’ that contains significant 

changes to the GI Bill, place this hearing at an opportune time. 

With the final disposition of the NDAA unclear as it is now in 

the Senate and hopefully will be presented to the President, the 

American Legion will comment on proposed legislation in reference 

to the current established statutes. 

The American Legion asks the Committee to refer to our written 

statement for a full explanation of the top priorities of modification 

and enhancement of veterans education benefits. Portability of benefits, raising the rates, equity of benefits for time served on active 

duty, termination of the $1,200 contribution, transferability of benefits, accelerated payments, and recodification are viewed as extremely important to our organization. 

In regards to recodification, the American Legion recommends 

that Congress move the REAP Program and the GI Bill Selected 

Reserve from Title 10 to Title 38. The American Legion recommends that once all the Reserve benefits are moved to Title 38, 

all the GI Bill funding will become annual and mandatory appropriations. 

Traditionally seen as a recruitment tool, the GI Bill is a readjustment tool that more closely falls in line with the purview of the VA. 

The VA Education Service has a proven track record of improving 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

11 

delivery and facilitation of services, as well as a dedication to veterans. 

Furthermore, the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs are better 

equipped in that they have established oversight protocol of veterans and VA programs. It is our hope that transferring oversight 

from the Committees on Armed Services to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs will expedite legislation seeking to improve educational benefits for veterans. 

I would like to share a story of Staff Sergeant Jimmy Marrello, 

a Reservist from Illinois. He has made the Dean’s List while he 

was in school and was a finalist for the Noncommissioned Officer 

of the Year competition. Unfortunately, none of his Federal activations were 2 consecutive years and, thus, he is ineligible to enroll 

in the GI Bill active duty. 

Staff Sergeant Marrello will only receive a maximum of $23,000 

of REAP benefits. If he had served 2 consecutive years, he would 

be able to enroll in GI Bill active-duty benefit and receive $31,000 

and have the ability to use those benefits after leaving service. 

Amazingly, when he completes his upcoming tour in the Horn of 

Africa, he will have completed 48 months of active-duty service 

starting in 2003, but never in a 2-year sequential period. 

I want to talk about two pieces of legislation containing entitlement of benefits for aggregate time served, H.R. 1211 and H.R. 

2702. While these two bills are steps in the right direction by providing benefits for time served, the American Legion is concerned 

that it fails to recognize those veterans that complete their tours 

honorably, but do not serve an aggregate of 2 years and do not 

meet the other requirements for eligibility. These veterans have 

served their country honorably, yet are excluded from earned benefits. 

The eligibility requirement as proposed by bills H.R. 1211 and 

H.R. 2702 requires a servicemember to serve an aggregate of at 

least 2 years of honorable active-duty service in the Armed Forces 

after September 11th, 2001. 

However, the American Legion supports a GI Bill participant reimbursement rate adjusted for time spent on activation and supports Reservists utilizing their educational benefits even after release from the Selected Reserve. Therefore, equity of benefits will 

remedy the situation. 

The American Legion recommends benefits for time spent on 

Federal activation at the full-time rate proposed in the legislation 

for those veterans that have served less than 2 years, but also 

allow them to use their benefits after completion of a service contract. 

If a servicemember does serve an aggregate of 2 years due to 

multiple deployments, extensions, or enlistment in the active-duty 

force, then they would be in receipt of the full duration of benefits 

as proposed in H.R. 1211 and H.R. 2702. 

Focusing now on H.R. 2702, it grasps the essence of the original 

GI Bill in 1944 and seeks to provide this Nation’s veterans with an 

educational benefit package similar to that earned by veterans in 

the late forties, fifties, and sixties. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

12 

Following World War II, wartime veterans saturated colleges and 

then used their advanced degrees to gain employment in all sectors 

of our country. 

H.R. 2702 will pay up to the maximum amount of tuition regularly charged for in-state students for full-time pursuit of programs 

of education. Furthermore, it will pay for an amount equal to the 

room and board of the individual plus a monthly stipend in the 

amount of $1,000. 

Therefore, the American Legion fully supports the intent of H.R. 

2702 to provide additional educational benefits for full-time, activeduty servicemembers and those individuals who are ordered to active duty as members of the Reserve components of the Armed 

Forces. 

However, we do reiterate our recommendation to amend this proposed legislation to allow for use of benefits after service and entitlement of benefits based on time spent on Federal activation. 

The final bill that I will address is H.R. 2910, the ‘‘Veterans Education Tuition Support Act of 2007.’’ This proposed legislation identifies the current plight that returning college-bound servicemembers have been unjustly enduring from some institutions of 

higher learning and, accordingly, the American Legion supports 

this bill. 

2910 recognizes the complete transformation of the Reserve components into an operational force. Activations and intermittent 

duty such as training or duty in support of operations are now an 

obligation of service. 

A refund of tuition and fees prepaid by a servicemember to a university for classes not taken due to performance of military obligations is long overdue. 

The American Legion is concerned that activations during the 

middle of a course is extremely disruptive and while legislation 

aims to correct injustices financially, in most cases, the veteran 

must restart the course and has lost valuable time due to deployment. 

Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, the American 

Legion appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony and 

to continue our proud history of advocating for increased educational benefits to members of the Armed Forces. 

That concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chamrin appears on p. 49.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. 

I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member for questions. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you all very much for being here. 

I agree with you, Colonel Norton. I think Congressman Snyder 

in his role being on VA and being over on the Armed Services Committee really has done a great job of bringing some things together 

that are very difficult to do sometimes. So, as a fellow Arkansan, 

we are very proud of him. 

One of the things that has kind of come up a little bit as we talk 

about paying for adopting some sort of the full-cost mechanism. 

Would that have any effect on somebody that attended a 2-year 

community college or trade school? Would they not have as much 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

13 

benefit then as somebody that attended a 4-year university type 

program? I mean, how do you go around things like that? 

Colonel NORTON. I believe, Mr. Boozman, the way it works now 

is for full-time study whether at a private university, public college 

or university, or community college, you get, if you have a full 

Montgomery GI Bill, $1,101 a month. So many veterans who actually start out at community college level could pay for all their 

community courses and have some additional funding for living expenses and so forth. 

So that is a good thing. In other words, it is a standard benefit 

and if you want to go to a private school or more expensive public 

school, then you would have to come up with the difference. 

That is why we think it is feasible for the Subcommittee to think 

about a national average cost benchmark. And that has been the 

Partnership for Veterans Education position for more than 6 years. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. If you do not mind me addressing that issue real 

quick. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. You can address it. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. One of the problems with the current GI Bill that 

I see is it encourages people to go the cheapest school they can go 

to. That is why when you get a list from the VA of the top 25 

schools, you know, GI Bill users, it is almost all correspondence 

courses. 

And one of the problems we have now is we have been 

incentivizing going cheap and we have not been incentivizing going 

to the best school that they can get into. 

So in the bills that we have been discussing, you know, IAVA 

proposes having a tuition benefit that flexes, you know, even to 

whatever the highest national average. But you get a certain stipend. That is not going to change. 

But depending on what school you go to, you can get up to, you 

know, a certain amount of tuition no matter private, public, and 

that will incentivize going to a better school because, I mean, we 

should be encouraging people to going to 4-year universities and 

not doing all their courses online. Now, that is a good option for 

some people. But, you know, right now people are making money 

by going to correspondence courses versus barely trying to live by 

going to a 4-year university. 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Mr. Ranking Member, if I may, your question related to a lesser benefit for veterans who seek an abbreviated program or an accelerated payment program, correct? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes. The question is with you being concerned because of the—and I understand what you are saying, Mr. Campbell 

that you would like to have the ability to get the money that you 

need and that might take more money than somebody that is in a 

lesser course and, yet there might be a real need for that tech program that you want to do. 

I guess are you going to come back at some point there and say 

this veteran was discriminated against because he did not get as 

good a benefit as the other veteran with the flex that you are talking about? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. In viewing the law, it is structured on a monthby-month basis, on the time table of 36 months. And certainly acwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

14 

celerated payments abbreviate the total number of months of 

usage; for example, technical school is a lump-sum payment. 

If we stick to the model of using 36 months of eligibility, you 

should still receive a percentage of cost for whatever program they 

are in based on that accreditation. The veteran should not lose benefits; they are getting a number of months of education for a specific cost. Overall, there is a formula that can be worked out. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very good. My time is about to run out, I see. One 

other question that if you would briefly comment because we are 

going to hear this is the idea that if we allow servicemembers to 

use their benefits after leaving the service, what is your thoughts 

about that negatively impacting retention rates? 

Colonel NORTON. Well, I think Congress has already basically 

made that decision, Mr. Boozman, in that the ‘‘Defense Authorization Act,’’ which the House passed last night, the new version, if 

you will, of the NDAA, and the Senate is expected to pass it early 

next week. It establishes a 10-year readjustment benefit for Reservists who serve on active duty. 

So Congress has rejected the bogus argument about retention. 

People who serve in the Armed Forces, both active duty and Reserve, are volunteers. They are motivated by lots of different reasons to stay or to leave the service. 

Research done by DoD itself has indicated that education ranks 

way down on the list either for reasons to stay in or to get out. But 

I think the bottom line is Congress has made the decision. Reservists who serve the Nation on active duty have earned a readjustment benefit and it will probably be signed into law within the 

next couple of weeks. We are very pleased to see that. Thank you. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. And I certainly agree with what you 

just said. Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Before I recognize Mr. Hall, I would like 

to make a clarification to Colonel Norton. In the version of the 

NDAA that we passed last night, and that we expect the Senate 

to act on, the 10-year portability is solely for Chapter 1607 benefits. It also includes a move to 3 cumulative years for Chapter 

1607. Are both of those provisions retroactive to October of 2004? 

Colonel NORTON. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. That is correct. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Ranking Member 

Boozman. I associate myself with both of your remarks and I compliment you on the way you work together on this Subcommittee. 

And for our witnesses, I thank you for your eloquent, concise, 

and amazingly unified testimonies. It is very helpful when we have 

people coming in telling us basically the same thing. 

What I am hearing, I think, from all of you is that cumulative 

service, especially with regard to Reserve, is what should count, not 

the longest individual tour or single deployment. 

That, Colonel Norton, I summed up your testimony in one sentence. Same service, same battlefield, same benefits. Sounds like a 

good TV slogan. But that is very helpful to me. 

Mr. Hilleman, in your written testimony, you did not mention 

this, but you said in your written testimony, we are not a Nation 

at war, we are a Nation of military at war. And that is one of the 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

15 

problems, I think, in terms of getting attention to these problems. 

And that is another, you know, whole topic that we could spend a 

session on alone. 

West Point is in my district. I am on the Board of Visitors of 

West Point. My brother-in-law is a 1969 graduate and a Lieutenant 

Colonel who works for the Association of Graduates. And, you 

know, I have heard from him and from recent discussions on the 

Board that even there at the Academy, they are looking at increased education benefits as a way of retaining mid-level career 

officers to keep them. 

Once they have been trained and have the experience and our 

country has invested in their education and their training and that 

now we are talking about increased postgraduate benefits to keep 

them reenlisting as one of the ways to do that. 

So I wanted to ask maybe Mr. Campbell and Colonel Norton, do 

you think bonuses or education benefits are the most effective recruiting or retention tool or as a combination of the two? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have seen a study that said for in terms of recruiting, education benefits is the number one reason for a civilian 

to join the military. And, you know, I echo what Colonel Norton 

said that in terms of retention, education benefits does not rank up 

there. 

I know that I will be reenlisting because of the student loan repayment because having just graduated law school, I owe a lot of 

money. But, you know, it is not one of the reasons why people stay. 

It is one of the reasons why, you know, you join. There is this social contract people believe. You join the military, we will pay for 

school. It just seems like common sense. 

And when you actually get real close to the poster, you can actually see the picture in my testimony of the sign that is outside of 

my drill hall. You know, there is a big asterisk that says this 

amount of money, you know, up to this amount of money. 

And, you know, I do not think DoD is being dishonest. I just 

think that, you know, we have scaled back the benefits and we are 

not meeting that social contract. 

Colonel NORTON. I would just add, Mr. Hall, that with respect to 

West Point graduates, as you know, since you follow this very 

closely, we are losing a tremendous number of company-grade officers, captains and majors in the ground forces. 

More than half the class of 2002 has already left the service. 

They have completed their 5 years and they have said thank you 

very much. I may love the Army, but you are putting too much 

pressure on me and my family with repeated deployments. 

With respect to the GI Bill, as you know, Service Academy graduates are ineligible for the Montgomery GI Bill. We would like to 

see and we are recommending that they should be given an opportunity for the Montgomery GI Bill if they agree to extend their 

service commitment. 

In other words, at the end of the 5-year point, if the service says, 

well, if you will agree to serve an additional period of time, 3 years 

or more, you can now enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill. The same 

would be true, I think, for scholarship recipients, ROTC scholarship recipients who are also denied an opportunity to enroll in the 

GI Bill. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

16 

In combination with tuition assistance and other cash incentives, 

this is what helps to encourage people to stay on board at a time 

when operational tempo and the pressures on them and their families are enormous. 

Mr. HALL. That’s a very good idea. Thank you for sharing that. 

I just wanted to ask about the language. Mr. Campbell, you 

talked about current law saying that colleges should reimburse Reservists or Guard who are called up, who are activated and have 

their education interrupted. And I assume that you think we 

should change that language to shall or must. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Most definitely. And I got an e-mail from someone who got deployed, you know, early, and it says, you know, he 

got back after being gone for three semesters and that school had 

a policy if you were gone for two consecutive semesters that you 

would be automatically kicked out. So he had to not only reapply, 

he had to take the SAT again. 

And the only way they got around it was they had talked to their 

Adjunct General who then talked to the Governor who then talked 

to the University President and they let them in. But because they 

let them in after the deadline for readmitting, he then had to go 

and beg the Associate Dean of that school who just happened to be 

a Vietnam Marine and that is why he got back into school. And 

this was over six people that had this problem. It took them over 

2 months before they found out they could get back into school. 

And veterans do not like to beg. I mean, that is why the Veterans Services Organizations do it for them. I mean, that is why 

we are here, I mean, because, you know, we just do not—you know, 

our job is to be that voice because, you know, veterans are a humble people. They do not like to have to beg people to do the right 

thing, you know. And this will do the right thing by mandating 

that schools give refunds and mandate that they get reenrolled 

when they get home. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

And thank you, Madam Chair. 

My time is up. But if you have more of those concrete suggestions for how schools can accommodate returning veterans or soldiers who are leaving a very different world in combat that you described and coming back into the air conditioned, cushy academic 

world, the more specifics we get from you, from all of you, the better we can adjust the law. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. Donnelly, do you have questions for the panel? 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

In regards to these colleges who do not give a refund, in your 

judgment, is it just a complete lack of understanding or has there 

ever been explained to you a reason for this kind of conduct? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Actually, in researching this, I called all the University of California schools. And I called every one of them and 

asked them what is your refund policy for servicemembers. I called 

each of them. Only one new the answer right off. I called again, 

called again. And after 2 weeks, four of them knew the answer. 

Most people have never been faced with this issue, so they do not 

have policies. So when you have some administrator at some school 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

17 

who does not have a policy, they are going to stick with what they 

know and that is there are no refunds after a certain period of time 

or if it is at some point, they get it pro rata. 

And I actually found a General Counsel memo right as the Iraqi 

War started from the University of California General Counsel Office saying that the schools had the authority to provide refunds, 

but, I mean, no one even knew where the memo was. I am probably 

one of the few people in the University of California system that 

even knows it exists. 

So, you know, most do the right thing, but, you know, there are 

people out there who just—I mean, it is the same reason why we 

have USERRA protections for people coming home about their jobs. 

Most jobs will just let people, you know, go back to work. But there 

are a few employers out there, there are a few schools out there 

who just do not honor service in the same way. They view it as a 

burden to them to let these people back into their school, that they 

are messing with their bureaucratic system, you know. 

I will be honest with you. I am always in the office talking about 

something because I am always that individual who, you know, 

messed up the paperwork somehow and I am always trying to navigate the system because I do not seem to fit any one of the paradigms that most people do. 

And, you know, we just need to be sure that we make space for 

these people because, you know, we did not ask. We volunteered to, 

you know, join the military service, but most of us did not ask to 

go overseas. And all we want to do when we get home is just start 

classes. 

Mr. DONNELLY. In putting these ideas together, you also mentioned that, you know, some people are gone three semesters and 

they look up and they have been booted out because if you have 

two consecutive, you are gone. 

Do you have, or can you put together for us, a list of the challenges that are faced at the college level by our vets as they leave 

or as they come back because I think that would be extraordinarily 

helpful in putting together real solid legislation in regards to this? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Definitely. And there is actually a survey being 

done of all the schools right now on what is their veteran population and what concerns the veterans are having in those schools. 

That is actually being done as we speak. So, you know, as soon as 

I get that information to you. And I have a lot of ideas in my head 

that I will be getting to you very soon. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you. 

[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Campbell:] 

Aside from the provisions contained in H.R. 2910, this issue brief was published 

by the Student Veterans of America and contains a list of issues facing student veterans, which appears on p. 71. 

Mr. CHAMRIN. If I may just to follow-up with this. A lot of these 

problems are with Reserves and National Guard members. And it 

falls in line with the deployment cycles and all these deployment 

cycles are in limbo. 

So, you have a Reserve member who is hearing whispers or 

might know that their unit is going to get deployed, so they voluntarily withdraw from school instead of being in school for 2 or 3 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

18 

months and then getting withdrawn, let us say, in November which 

is the full-time middle of your semester. 

So, passing this legislation will provide legislative protection of 

these people rather than having them to volunteer to withdraw 

from school. 

I can personally attest that I withdrew from school after 9/11. I 

was told I was going to Afghanistan. I did not go to Afghanistan. 

I was out of school for 3 full years and finally went to Iraq in 2003. 

I did have a lot of military duty in between those times. But if I 

went to Afghanistan right away, it would have made more sense 

rather than withdrawing from school for 3 full years. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Well, and, you know, thank God for the success 

we are having. But in my home State of Indiana over the Christmas break, we sent off 3,400 more members of the Guard. We actually had a send-off at the RCA Dome where the Colts play football. 

Twenty-five thousand family members, 3,400 Guard members 

heading to Iraq. 

And so I am sure they have been for the last X number of 

months because it has been talked about for a year, the last X 

number of months in a position where they are doing those kind 

of things of wrapping everything up. 

So the more assistance you can give us in putting together solid 

legislation, we would really appreciate it. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. And I will also give you a copy of our deployment 

guide. We have designed a deployment guide for deploying servicemembers because, you know, it is not just school. It is, you know, 

cell phone contracts. It is rents. There are a lot of different issues 

that people face that we can address. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you to all of my colleagues on the 

Subcommittee and to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Chamrin in particular 

for your perspectives on this issue. It would be very helpful to the 

Subcommittee and to staff to see your recommendations on how we 

can clear some hurdles. 

In the fall of 2003, I was on the faculty of South Dakota State 

University and one of our National Guard units was deployed at 

the end of November. One of my students came up to me due to 

anxiety, just to ask whether or not the faculty, in their discretion, 

would give a grade and credit for what he had done for most of the 

semester. That decision was left to the discretion of the faculty 

members. 

They were getting different responses from the faculty, as to 

whether or not the faculty would even give them a grade or give 

them an incomplete for the semester, based on the fact that they 

were mobilized. There was anxiety on that front as well as all of 

the other issues prior to mobilization and deployment. 

These hurdles, that they are facing when they get back, are just 

a small taste of what one of these young men goes through on the 

front end as well as what he goes through on the back end, because 

he subsequently interned in my office when he returned and helped 

us understand what was happening to people similarly situated. I 

think this information will be very helpful to us. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

19 

Certainly, as was noted at the beginning, we want to continue to 

make progress on updating and modernizing the benefits. We also 

know that we can be helpful in hopefully clearing out these hurdles 

that some folks are facing through different avenues, whether it is 

ultimately an amendment to an existing statute or through other 

avenues. 

Thank you both. 

Let me ask a couple of questions on the month-to-month entitlement proposal. First, Colonel Norton, could you address what Mr. 

Campbell was saying, and some of the changes we have made in 

the NDAA? Also, could you address some of his concerns about how 

a month-to-month process would stack up against structuring this 

differently, either on the administrative side or the overall benefit 

side? Finally, could you talk a little bit more about your thoughts 

and the importance of structuring this month-to-month? 

Colonel NORTON. I think the principle there is to earn Montgomery GI Bill entitlement as you serve, earn as you serve. Right 

now under REAP, under Chapter 1607, a Reservist who serves 90 

days consecutive active duty earns a very generous 40 percent of 

the active-duty GI Bill. To us, that is disproportionate to a total 

force approach to the Montgomery GI Bill. 

And besides, over time, Reservists are, under operational reserve 

policy, going to serve multiple tours of 12 months each. That is the 

policy. Secretary Gates announced it last January. Many Reservists, now 142,000 since 9/11, have already served multiple tours. 

So if you use a month-for-month benefit, a month-for-month cumulative entitlement, you basically are matching operational reserve policy with Montgomery GI Bill entitlement because it gets 

very squirrely and very confusing to do percentages when you are 

aggregating cumulative tours of active duty over many years of Reserve service. 

And so that, I think, is the issue and the reason why month-tomonth would be a more consistent, fairer benefit, fairer to active 

duty and fairer ultimately to Reservists who acquire what we call 

36 ‘‘Wheaties box tops.’’ Thirty-six months of cumulative active 

duty should equal the full active-duty GI Bill. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. In your opinion, would there be more administrative ease associated with that? 

Colonel NORTON. Much less administrative hassle in doing that. 

Percentages are a nightmare to calculate out and they ultimately, 

I think, really are unfair to operational Reservists. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Campbell. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Right now servicemembers who are deployed understand the REAP Program. I mean, this is what they have been 

getting their education benefits based off of. And, you know, I have 

been in the Guard for 5 years. In about 3 days, it will be 5 years. 

And I have only been deployed once. And I will have finished law 

school during that period of time. 

So the chances are most people, I have looked at the percentages, 

unless you are Air Force, you are only going to serve two tours 

within, let us say, the last 6 years. Air Force are serving shorter, 

but more often. Per capita, an Air Force, Air National Guard or Reservist is serving 2.4 tours versus an Army National Guard is serving 11⁄4 tours at this point, so in the last 5 years. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

20 

All I am saying with this is that if you look at the chart, at some 

point, you are going to see a precipitous dropoff. You are going to 

be getting a benefit that is really high 1 day and a benefit that is 

going to drop off about $880 a month the next day. 

Also, under the current law the way we have it set, you drop 

down to 1606 benefits. And as we talked about earlier, 1606 benefits are not portable. So if you get out, if you separate, you are no 

longer entitled to Chapter 1606 benefits. So whatever active duty 

months you serve, that is all you are going to get. 

Now, we talk a lot about fairness is that this is what people have 

been expecting and, you know, if you change the system, certain 

people who have served a 12-month tour are going to get less benefits overall. Like, if you do the math, if you look at the chart, over 

36 months, if you have done a 12-month on a month-to-month, you 

are going to get $3,000 less over the lifetime. 

So if you had done three tours, this is great. The month for 

month is perfect. But if you do just one 12-month tour or an 18- 

month tour, you are going to get less benefits overall than you 

would in changing to cumulative service. 

That is why I put them all here. It is very kind of complicated 

like looking at the numbers. But I have done the analysis. And for 

a 12-month tour and an 18-month tour or two 9-month tours, you 

are going to get more benefit overall, over your 36-month period 

than you would on a month-to-month basis. 

And it is much easier to change it. It literally is changing a couple words. You say continuous. You cross it out. You write cumulative. And people understand the REAP program and no one is 

going to be looking at it going, man, I am going to get less money 

now. Everyone in this situation is going to get more money than 

they are right now versus a month-for-month program, some people 

are going to lose and some people are going to win. And I do not 

think that is fair. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Hilleman, Mr. Chamrin, do you have 

any responses or thoughts on this particular question? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Our view is that a simple fix to the current existing law would be to remove cumulative service and put in an aggregate service. Based on the difference between a month for 

month versus a simpler fix like that, they are both equitable solutions under the law, but the concern of a precipitous drop-off is legitimate. 

There are ways to structure a month-for-month program where 

there will not be a precipitous dropoff, but that would have to be 

funded at a specific level or tied to some percentage or tied to a 

specific rate throughout the duration of their 36 months of eligibility. 

Mr. CHAMRIN. Madam Chair, I more or less agree with Colonel 

Norton that the month-for-month benefit is going to be a greater 

benefit. It is a delicate balance because we feel that the country is 

better served with the members actually doing the full-time active 

duty rather if you are going to be deployed multiple times. When 

you are overseas, you are in a better, how do I say it, more active 

capacity serving our country and earning benefits. 

So with the military having multiple deployments and having 

these people going over maybe 12 months here, 15 months there, 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

21 

or a cumulative of 30 months, overall, I think we are better serving 

our military by having these people go through this deployment instead of having a cumulative time of a percentage. You always 

want to make sure that it is the time served on active duty. 

It is rather complicated. And we do not have a solid answer on 

that. We want to best equip the Committee to make their decision. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Does anyone have any further questions 

for the panel? 

[No response.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. One final question. Does any member of 

the panel oppose making Chapter 1606 benefits portable for a 10- 

year window? 

Colonel NORTON. I would say, Madam Chair, that we have not 

officially opposed it, but I would say that under the principle of 

benefits commensurate with your service, Chapter 1606 is for a 6- 

year enlistment in the Reserve or the National Guard and for drill 

duty, drill training, and for 2 weeks of annual training. It is not 

an active-duty benefit. 

And since Reservists in 1606 status are 90 percent of the time 

in civilian life, they do not need a readjustment benefit. What we 

would, however, suggest is removing the 14-year in-service limitation for 1606 so that if you have remaining 1606 entitlement and 

you continue to serve in the Reserve and the Guard, as long as you 

serve, you could continue to use up that benefit. But once you 

leave, that benefit should cease. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Thank you to all of you, for your testimony, insights and answers 

to our questions. We look forward to continuing to work with you 

on all of the issues you addressed in your testimony, and the particular areas of interest directed to you by Members of the Subcommittee. 

Congratulations on finishing law school, Mr. Campbell. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Many of us up here know how grateful 

we were when we finally finished law school or other graduate programs. 

Again, thank you all for your continued service to our Nation’s 

veterans. 

I would now like to invite the second panel of witnesses to the 

table. We have Mr. Thomas Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense; 

Dr. Curtis Gilroy, Director for Accession Policy, Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense; and Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of Education Service for the Veterans Benefit Administration for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Welcome and thank you for being with us today. We appreciate 

having you back to the Subcommittee. Again, your written statement will be made part of the hearing record. So if you could limit 

your opening remarks to 5 minutes, we would appreciate that. 

Mr. Bush, you are recognized first for your opening statement. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

22 

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS L. BUSH, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CURTIS L. GILROY, PH.D., DIRECTOR FOR ACCESSION POLICY, MILITARY PERSONNEL 

POLICY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE; KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. BUSH 

Mr. BUSH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Congressman 

Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to share the views of the Department on proposed 

changes to the educational assistance programs for members of the 

National Guard and Reserve. 

First, I think it is important to understand why we are so interested in the retention aspects of the incentive programs. The basic 

commitment for a Guard and Reserve member is to serve in the 

Ready Reserve. The member incurs a commitment to serve in the 

Selected Reserve if he or she receives an incentive. 

The incentives we use to accomplish this are bonuses, loan repayments, which you heard in the previous panel, and the Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve. The Reserve Education 

Assistance Program or REAP also serves as a retention incentive 

as currently structured. 

As we review various proposals to change the incentive programs, we must determine if those changes help us or hinder us 

in managing the force. 

While our written statement provides detailed comments on each 

of the bills being considered by the Committee, I will quickly summarize key points of four bills that directly affect the Guard and 

Reserve. 

H.R. 2910 would amend the ‘‘Servicemembers Civil Relief Act’’ to 

prescribe in law practices instituted by DoD over 15 years ago. 

Until I heard the previous panel, I was going to say that we had 

worked successfully with the education community through the 

State Governors and the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges 

(SOC) to assist student Reservists in obtaining a refund that they 

paid for a semester they were unable to complete because of military service, receive partial credit, and allow Reservists the right 

to return to their institution following completion of service. 

We have never pursued a USERRA type legislation for education 

because in all our dealings with SOC and other institutions, our efforts appeared to be successful. We have always asked when people 

proposed legislation to identify the problem, give us examples. Mr. 

Campbell provided examples. 

H.R. 1211 would allow Reserve component members who accrue 

an aggregate of 2 years of active duty in a 5-year period to qualify 

for the Chapter 30 MGIB benefit. The concept of allowing a member to accumulate periods of service rather than serve continuously 

to qualify for benefits is a principle that is compatible and consistent with the Department’s continuum of service construct. The 

continuum of service is designed to allow members greater flexiwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

23 

bility in managing their military careers and to receive benefits 

commensurate with their level of service, whether their service is 

continuous or periodic. 

However, we defer to VA since this program is administered by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

H.R. 2247 would repeal the 14-year limit and 10-year delimiting 

period under the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB–SR) 

benefit and the 10-year delimiting period for disabled veterans 

under the REAP benefit. 

The Department supports eliminating the 14-year delimiting period provided the requirement for continued service in the Selected 

Reserve is retained. We also support repealing the 10-year delimiting period under both Reserve Education Assistance Programs for 

members separated because of disability. 

I must note that section 3 of the bill, which would repeal the 10- 

year limit for disabled members under the MGIB–SR Program, also 

eliminates our authority to even pay disabled veterans. 

The Department does not support H.R. 1102 which would recodify Chapters 1606 and 1607 of Title 10 as a new Chapter of Title 

38. It is neither helpful, nor do we believe it is appropriate, to 

make the Department of Veterans Affairs responsible for DoD recruiting and retention programs. 

As I stated in my oral remarks the last time I appeared before 

this Subcommittee, my boss, Secretary Tom Hall, has strongly advocated for improving the MGIB–SR benefits by restoring the benefit level to its previous relationship to the active-duty program 

and by eliminating the 14-year delimiting period for members who 

continue to serve in the Selected Reserve. 

We believe these changes would strengthen the program and 

serve our Reserve component members well while helping the Department achieve its force management objectives. 

On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the Guard and Reserve 

and all those who have served in the Guard and Reserve, I would 

like to thank each of you for all you have done to support them. 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Gilroy, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. GILROY 

Mr. GILROY. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Boozman, Members 

of the Committee, and the hardworking staff who sit behind, happy 

New Year to you as well. We are delighted to appear before you 

once again to discuss educational assistance programs in general 

and some specific legislative proposals in particular. 

As you know, my office has oversight for all active-duty enlisted 

recruiting across the country as well as officer commissioning programs. So my remarks will be limited to the active-duty force. I 

have three points to make. 

Point number one, the Montgomery GI Bill Program and the supplemental kickers, which combine with the basic benefit to form 

the service college funds, continue to be a cornerstone of our military recruiting efforts, attracting our prime—high-aptitude youth 

with a high school diploma. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

24 

As you know, money for college continues to be one of the most 

important reasons why young men and women enlist in the military today. Ninety-seven percent of new enlistees in the active-duty 

force have chosen to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill Program, and that is testimony to how important this program is. 

Point number two, today’s Montgomery GI Bill has its lineage, 

as you very well know, in the post World War II GI Bill of Rights 

during which time, of course, we had a conscripted force. It was a 

different military force than we have today. Its purpose was to ease 

the transition of so many servicemembers to civilian life. 

Today, we have a volunteer military and we use the Montgomery 

GI Bill benefit for its original intended purpose to be sure. But we 

also use it for a different purpose. It assists us in recruiting and 

retaining the force—for force management purposes. That is an important point to make. 

Point number three, you asked us to specifically comment on 

some current legislation revising the MGIB, and how increases in 

benefit levels might affect the active-duty force. 

In and of itself, that would be a good thing for all members and 

we support that in principle, but the value of the educational benefit is important not only to the servicemembers themselves, but 

also in terms of its effect on recruiting and retention. 

The benefit, as I have testified before, has to be large enough to 

be an effective recruiting incentive but not too large as to seriously 

and adversely affect retention. 

There is a fragile balance that must be maintained between the 

benefit in terms of its effects on recruiting and retention. If the 

benefit is too large, for example, many members will leave after 

their first term. This lowers first-term retention and reduces the 

number of petty officers and NCOs that we have in the force. It 

also puts more pressure on recruiting to back-fill for those losses. 

In addition, it also changes the force inventory or the force profile of the services, and that can adversely affect readiness. 

If the basic benefit is increased significantly beyond what I have 

called in past testimony the tipping point as these two bills would 

do, then retention will suffer and the services will then need additional incentives, retention incentives, if you will, to rebalance that 

relationship. 

We need to understand that there are not only significant budget 

implications to increasing the value of the benefit itself, but additional budgetary implications to bolster retention incentives. 

But we can pursue this tipping point issue in the Q and A period 

if you so desire. 

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today, and I thank the Committee for both promulgating and protecting the educational benefits for servicemembers and for veterans. And we all stand by to answer questions when we are 

through with our prepared remarks. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bush and Mr. Gilroy appears on 

p. 54.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wilson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

25 

STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. And good afternoon. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss a number of bills that would affect educational assistance programs administered by VA. We have several to comment on, so I 

will dive right into it. 

H.R. 1102 would recodify the provisions of Chapter 1606 and 

Chapter 1607 relating to educational assistance for members of the 

Reserve components of the Armed Forces in Subchapters 1 and 2 

respectively of a new Chapter 38 entitled Chapter 33 in Title 38 

of the U.S. Code. The bill would also make substantial revisions to 

such provisions as so recodified. 

VA opposes H.R. 1102 as currently drafted. H.R. 1102 would create a VA role in the determination of those servicemembers that 

could qualify for kickers. This is a force management objective in 

which VA has no expertise and is correctly now within the jurisdiction of DoD. 

Recodification would result in some members becoming eligible 

for less benefits than those to which they are currently entitled. 

If enacted as currently drafted, H.R. 1102 would result in members of the Reserve forces receiving the same benefit for 90 days 

of active service as those active-duty members earn for 3 years of 

active service. 

VA estimates that if enacted, H.R. 1102 would result in an increase in VA’s readjustment benefits appropriation request of 

$844.3 million for the first year and $8.4 billion over 9 years. This 

increase reflects the change in appropriation structure requiring 

VA to increase its appropriation to cover the obligations associated 

with these payments. 

VA estimates the net impact of H.R. 1102 to the Federal Govern- ment would be an increase of approximately $416 million in the 

first year and approximately $4.9 billion over 9 years. 

VA’s general operating expenses costs are estimated to be $7.3 

million over 10 years. In addition to the policy objective stated 

above, we oppose this legislation because the direct costs involved 

are not included in the budget and the legislation does not identify 

corresponding offsets. 

Moreover, in order to ensure effective implementation of the proposed bill, VA would have to significantly enhance and replace existing accounting systems. We estimate approximately 18 months 

would be needed to complete this process and we have no current 

estimation of the costs involved. 

H.R. 1211 would amend section 3012 of Title 38 to provide entitlement to educational assistance under Montgomery GI Bill active 

duty for members of the Selected Reserve who aggregate more than 

2 years of active-duty service in any 5-year period commencing 

with the first active-duty orders received during the period September 11th, 2001, to December 31st, 2008. 

VA has concerns regarding section 2(d) as it is currently written. Under that section, the $1,200 initial contribution is collected during the first 12 months of active-duty service instead of at the end 

of the active-duty period. 

It follows, therefore, that the member would have to make a benefit election at the beginning of the deployment when unaware of 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

26 

whether he or she will ever see the aggregate active-duty period required to establish eligibility. 

Additionally, because of the potentially large direct costs without 

identified offsets, VA opposes this bill. 

H.R. 1214 would expand and enhance educational assistance 

under VA’s Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance programs under Chapter 35. VA does not support H.R. 1214 for several reasons. 

First, we do not believe it would be equitable to allow Chapter 

35 recipients to receive far more benefit dollars up front than veterans, servicemembers, and Reservists who are not eligible to receive benefits under Chapter 35. 

There also would be a significant direct cost associated with 

Chapter 35 entitlement exempting the 48-month maximum entitlement rule. 

H.R. 2247 would eliminate time limitations for eligible individuals to use their educational assistance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill. VA cannot support the bill’s proposal to eliminate 

the current delimiting date provisions because no cost offsets have 

been identified to cover the potential costs due to a significant increase in usage. 

H.R. 2385 would establish in a new Chapter 33 of Title 38 U.S. 

Code a new program of educational assistance for veterans who 

serve in the Armed Forces after September 11th, 2001, and would 

require enhancements in housing and entrepreneur assistance as 

well. 

VA opposes H.R. 2385. We believe this bill’s provisions relating 

to deployment are vague and overly broad. Basing eligibility on active-duty location would create significant administrative burdens 

that could negatively impact our ability to timely and accurately 

deliver benefits. 

H.R. 2702 would add again a new Chapter 33 to Title 38 that 

would in general require an individual to serve at least 2 years of 

active duty with at least some period of active duty served beginning on or after September 11th, 2001. 

VA has serious concerns about several provisions of H.R. 2702 

and, therefore, must oppose it. The complexity of the eligibility requirements, the anticipated high costs with no apparent offsets, 

and the anticipated excessive administrative burdens associated 

with this bill are all problematic. 

Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 57.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member for questions he may have 

for the panel. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Wilson, do you have any data on when veterans begin using 

the GI benefits following their discharge? 

Mr. WILSON. I am not aware that we collect any information on 

that. I would be happy to see if we can do some data mining and 

come up with something though. At this point, I am not aware of 

any. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

27 

[The following was subsequently received from VA:] 

We do not have data to fully answer this question. 

We are, however, able to identify general trends in usage. Our historical data 

shows that usage rates peak in the 2nd to 4th year after separation. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. We were just curious as to when it kicked in. And, 

again there has been some discussion about the number of vets 

leaving school because of military orders and the problems that occurred. 

Do you have any numbers on that? 

Mr. WILSON. On the number of veterans that interrupt their 

training—— 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes, sir, or withdraw. 

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. Because of activations? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON. We do not. We will work with the Department of 

Defense, though, to see if we can—— 

[The following was subsequently received from VA:] 

VA does not track the overall population who withdraw from school because of active duty orders. We understand the DoD is unable to provide this information. 

However, the Defense Manpower and Data Center (DMDC) have data which demonstrate that 79,730 members of the Selected Reserve had used some of their 

MGIB–SR benefits before they were activated for the Global War on Terror. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. It does not sound like that there is a large number, but we have heard testimony that in some cases, it appears 

to be a real burden so I guess we would like to follow-up on that. 

Mr. Bush, is there a technical issue with the REAP 10-year provision in the NDAA? Can you kind of elaborate on that as to what 

is going on? 

Mr. BUSH. Yes, sir. As we have looked at the 10-year post-service 

benefit provision in the NDAA, and I assume that is going to be 

in the bill that was passed by the House and is being considered 

by the Senate now. The way that provision is written, it essentially 

requires the member, it allows the member to use the benefits for 

10 years after they separate from the Selected Reserve. I am sorry. 

It allows a Selected Reserve member. 

So the first technical issue is, we have Individual Ready Reserve 

members that also serve that are not covered by the provision. 

The second issue is the 10-year time clock starts when the member separates from the Selected Reserve. The provision also says 

that they cannot receive the benefit until they have completed all 

their service obligation. 

As I state in my testimony, the service obligation is to serve in 

the Ready Reserve. So we may have people that leave the Selected 

Reserve, still have a service obligation, and cannot use the benefit 

until they separate. 

And generally when they leave the Selected Reserve, they still 

have a service obligation, and are put in the individual Ready Reserve. The provision does not cover individual Ready Reserve members. Therefore, there is no benefit for them. 

Now, the only way to get around that is for us to take a member 

that had the benefit, left the Selected Reserve, decides to separate, 

move them into the Selected Reserve for 1 day, and then separate 

them. That would create the benefit. Their clock would already 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

28 

have used up some of that 10-year period. It also then drives up 

our attrition rate artificially. 

The other concern with the provision in general is while I talked 

about the 1607 being a retention tool, with that transition provision in there, it looks exactly like the Chapter 30 benefit. It no 

longer serves a DoD recruiting and retention purpose, yet DoD is 

still responsible for paying for what is now a veteran’s benefit. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. We probably 

would have a couple more questions that we would like to submit 

in writing, if that is okay. Thank you very much. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

[No questions were submitted.] 

Mr. BUSH. Yes, sir. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

We are facing some time constraints, since that series of votes 

took much longer than we anticipated, and some of the other questions I have I may submit in writing as well. 

I would like to thank the Ranking Member for his questions and 

his good work on the issue. I am glad you posed that question. I 

will follow-up on your point. 

Mr. Bush, I know the Department of Defense has long opposed 

that particular provision that made its way into the NDAA in 

terms of the 10-year portability. I appreciate that you identified 

some of the technical issues that hopefully we can work through. 

If we assume for the moment that the authorization is signed 

into law, and that provision remains in the final NDAA version, 

then your testimony suggests that Chapter 1607 no longer serves 

recruitment and retention goals. It appears to be a readjustment 

benefit. 

Mr. BUSH. Yes, ma’am. That is exactly right. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I understand the concern about the Department of Defense in terms of your budget and what is allocated 

to something that really is no longer serving a direct objective of 

DoD. 

Would you then continue to oppose recodification of Chapter 1607 

benefits to the VA and, therefore, we would deal with it in future 

budgets perhaps as it relates to the VA’s budget? 

Mr. BUSH. It certainly appears from the DoD perspective that it 

no longer belongs in Title 10. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Mr. BUSH. If it no longer serves a recruiting and retention and 

force management purpose, we have no business being in the Veterans’ Affairs area. And that is exactly where we are now. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. At the beginning of your testimony, you had mentioned one of the reasons you have not pursued, 

in the past, a USERRA type approach as it relates to the refunds 

and the protections for students as they are returning from deployment. 

In light of Mr. Campbell’s testimony and other examples, we 

would look forward to working with you as well to find the best approach to deal with that subset of universities and colleges where 

we are seeing a problem and sharing information, and whether it 

is going to require a legislative fix. There are a lot of other questions we will be asking, and seeking answers to. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

29 

I get the sense that you, and I think Mr. Campbell even acknowledged, that the vast majority of our colleges and universities are 

doing the right thing. 

Again, I would hope that we would have an opportunity to work 

with you, as well in terms of what has been most useful to you 

given the progress we have made and the good outcomes that we 

have, as it relates to communicating with, and perhaps looking at, 

legislation that may be necessary to ensure that all colleges and 

universities are doing the right thing by our servicemembers. 

Mr. BUSH. Can I just comment on that? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Please do. 

Mr. BUSH. We have periodically over the course of the years 

looked at should we have some USERRA type protection for students. As I said, nobody was able to come up with concrete cases. 

We checked with SOC who is the primary agent that we have 

been working with to help student Reservists as late as yesterday. 

Actually, the number of people that have contacted them has gone 

down dramatically. They have very, very few cases at all, if any. 

There may be two problems. We may not be getting the word out. 

But if we have cases where people are not getting the protections, 

you know, the ability to reenroll in a school and we cannot do that 

through our voluntary efforts, then clearly we need some horsepower to do that and that horsepower is in the form of legislation. 

And we would be happy to work to create the appropriate legislation. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I appreciate that very much because we 

have to reconcile the amount of reporting versus anecdotal evidence, and whether or not some of the folks that are returning 

from these particular deployments are expressing those views. 

Hence, what are the avenues they are using to communicate their 

problems? Obviously we have some examples out there. 

I appreciate your willingness to work with us recognizing that 

there may be a need for the horsepower of legislation. I see that 

you have already evaluated the possibility of having to use that in 

the past. So, thank you very much. 

You did defer to Mr. Wilson as it related to the administrative 

issues associated with aggregate versus periodic. 

Mr. Wilson, if you might address this issue, as it relates to some 

of the proposals that we have seen, whether it is month-to-month 

and the administrative ease versus the burden from your perspective. Also, please comment on the month-to-month versus what we 

currently have in REAP, the issue of cumulative aggregate versus 

the consecutive and the periodic calculation of these benefits. 

Mr. WILSON. The issue of month-to-month is something that is 

going to have to be looked at very, very carefully. The first panel 

did a very good job, I think, of articulating some of the administrative challenges that individuals are dealing with right now. And I 

would concur with everything that they indicated. 

And, specifically, it is correct that some individuals, depending 

on their training situations, would end up receiving less benefits 

under a month-to-month benefit rather than a 36-month flat rate. 

We also have concerns about how a month-to-month benefit 

would impact an individual’s ability to actually meet a readjustment goal. An individual will go into school now or follow some 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

30 

type of training program knowing that he or she has have 36 

months. When they go into the program, they know 36 months. 

This is what I have to accomplish in 36 months. 

If they are achieving a month-to-month benefit, taking into account there is a lot of times no clear time at which a person’s service necessarily stops, he or she could go back in and earn yet more 

months. There would be a concern, I believe, concerning how that 

would actually impact the ability to fulfill a training program that 

is established by the individual. 

The administrative burden of month-to-month would be something that we have no experience in as well. Generally speaking, 

all of the benefit programs have been an established length of time. 

Going back to the World War II program, the World War II program was somewhat different in that under the World War II program, an individual earned 12 months of benefits, plus time on active duty. So there was at least a baseline that an individual had 

to work from in addition to the months of benefit that they would 

earn due to their active duty. 

So a month-to-month would be very different for us. Currently 

we have no mechanism to track to the month of service. That is 

not reported from DoD to us through the electronic systems we 

have. We would have to create some type of mechanism to not just 

capture that information, but on an ongoing basis continue to capture that information for the life of the military commitment of the 

individual. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, let me explore that for a moment. 

Based on what you just stated, under the current administration 

of Chapter 1607, there is transmission of information from DoD 

based on the percentages that are used to calculate the benefit, the 

time served on active duty, and the deployments. 

There is a system of sharing information in place that would be 

similar, as it relates to a month-to-month. Am I correct on how 

that is being communicated to the VA? 

Mr. WILSON. They report the length of time that an individual 

is on active duty. That is correct. My understanding, though, is 

that the goal going back to MOAA, and perhaps I misunderstand 

the question, is to apply the month-to-month to all the benefit programs. And perhaps I misunderstood that point. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. That is a good question. We will clarify 

that, although, I think it is 1607. 

Mr. WILSON. Okay. If it was limited to the Reservist programs, 

it would make it somewhat easier, but we would still continue to 

have the issue of continued and follow on activations. So an individual would still face the problem of I do not how many months 

of benefit I am going to have when I decide to go into training program X. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. 

Mr. BUSH. Madam Chairwoman, could I comment on that? 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Yes, please. 

Mr. BUSH. Could I use just a couple examples? And I think from 

a DoD perspective, from a servicemember perspective, that is a disservice to our members. I will give you two scenarios. 

If I take the Air Force Air Expeditionary Force rotation cycle, 4 

months on and there are four 4-month periods off and then 4 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

31 

months on, month-to-month, they are going to get 4 months. They 

will use that for 4 months and then they will have three 4-month 

periods in here where they are not eligible for any benefits. They 

will earn their next benefit at their next 4-month rotation. So they 

will be in school with the benefit, out of school or in school with 

no benefit. 

Do the same math for our one-in-five rotation, which we are trying to get to for the Army, they earn 12 months worth of benefit 

if we activate them for 12 months. Come back. They use 12 

months. There is going to be 4 years here when there is going to 

be no benefit before they would earn another benefit. 

So I think what Mr. Wilson’s point is, if I am trying to go to 

school and get a 4-year degree, I can pay for 12 months worth of 

that and that is it. That is the way I am understanding the monthfor-month entitlement. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I see what you are saying. Again, we will 

explore this more in follow-up questions. If we are talking about 

just Selected Reserve, however, for those who do not separate, 

there is the 1606 benefit that they can be utilizing continuously. 

Mr. BUSH. That is correct. And that gets into the earlier testimony of the rate changing, having a higher benefit, coming back 

to smaller benefit if somebody signed up for the 1606 benefit. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Right. 

Mr. BUSH. So it is contingent on that. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. One last question. This is very helpful 

testimony because I think we are trying to build on what we have 

accomplished and more of the issues of equity for Selected Reserve 

that have been brought to our attention, without neglecting the 

issue of reimbursement, higher reimbursement overall, which we 

have not focused on as much in this hearing, but we will continue 

to work with you in follow-up questions. 

I did have one question on that topic, Dr. Gilroy. In the testimony that was submitted by both you and Mr. Bush, you stated 

that: ‘‘This past year, the maximum benefit of the service college 

funds covered 140 percent of the average total expenses at a public 

4-year university.’’ 

Can you tell me how many servicemembers qualify for that 140 

percent level, and how many go on to use it? 

Mr. GILROY. Roughly, if I have my statistics right, I think the estimate is around 12,000 individuals. Those are individuals who not 

only take advantage of the MGIB basic benefit, but they also are 

offered a so-called kicker, a supplementary educational benefit. 

And I am very glad you brought this up, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Let me clarify this point. 

Mr. GILROY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. The 12,000 individuals are those who 

qualify and go on to use it? 

Mr. GILROY. They receive the benefit. Whether they use it or not, 

I do not know. That would be a Veterans Administration question, 

the usage of that benefit. But they do receive the benefit. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Wilson, do you know? 

Mr. WILSON. I do not know, but we can work with DoD to—— 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Get us that information. 

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. Mine the data. Yes. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

32 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. 

Mr. WILSON. We will provide you with those data. 

[The following was subsequently received from VA:] 

According to the DMDC, between Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 and FY 2007, 3,082 

individuals have been offered the $950 kicker and have a service obligation 

that will qualify them for the 3-year Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty 

(MGIB–AD) rate. Of those individuals, 39 have begun to utilize their education benefits. Please note that because this kicker was not offered until 

FY 2005, most will not claim their benefit until they have completed their 

enlistment. The $950 kicker generally requires a 5- or 6-year service obligation. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Great. Please continue. 

Mr. GILROY. Yes. I am glad you brought up the kicker portion of 

the educational benefit that because one of the reasons why my office has problems with H.R. 2702 and H.R. 2385 is because in addition to raising the benefit for everyone to a relatively large level 

over and above what it is now, beyond the tipping point, they have 

also eliminated the so-called kickers. 

And why that is important is because the Army and the Navy, 

especially the Army, use these kickers to channel new recruits into 

critical military occupational specialties that are very hard to fill. 

Without those benefits, some of these jobs would go unfilled and 

they are very important for force readiness. 

We need more flexibility in our benefits package or our compensation package, not less flexibility. And this provision would decrease the flexibility that the services have, particularly the Army, 

in an especially challenging recruiting environment. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you. 

Thank you all for your testimony and your answers to the questions, and for your ongoing service to our Nation’s servicemen and 

women, and our veterans across the country. We appreciate your 

insights, and look forward to working with you further on these 

topics. 

The hearing stands adjourned and we look forward to seeing you 

again soon. 

[Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Like many of my colleagues here today, I recently had the opportunity to meet 

with local government officials and veterans back in my home state of South Dakota. During one of my meetings, I had the opportunity to speak with the leadership 

staff of South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds and the South Dakota Adjutant General (Major General Steven Doohen) about ways to improve existing veterans programs. 

In particular, we discussed this Subcommittee’s efforts to update the Montgomery 

GI Bill and the provision we have worked on with the House Armed Services Committee Members to expand education benefits to our Reserve Forces. 

While the future of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 

is unclear, we in this Subcommittee remain committed to improving the educational 

assistance programs for our nation’s servicemembers, veterans and their dependents. 

Currently, NDAA fails to include language to recodify Chapters 1606 and 1607 

from the authority of the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. While this is a disappointment to all those advocating for this change, I am 

glad that we did succeed in making progress for our Nation’s Reserve Forces. Included in the final version of the NDAA, we were able to gain bipartisan support 

for language that would allow certain members of the Reserve Forces to use their 

REAP education benefits during the 10-year period beginning on the date which 

they separated. 

Today’s hearing will focus on several bills that have been identified as containing 

components advocated by the veteran community. I appreciate the positive response 

of the VSOs in helping us identify the areas of interest by submitting their top five 

legislative priorities for us to review as we consider updating existing Montgomery 

GI Bill entitlements. 

I look forward to working with the Members of this Subcommittee, and our colleagues in Congress to streamline, update and expand existing MGIB entitlements. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Good afternoon everyone. Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate your bringing us together to discuss the future direction of the GI Bill. As in the other programs under 

our jurisdiction, GI Bill education and training benefits provide veterans and surviving dependents with the opportunity to achieve financial independence outside of 

any other VA benefits they may receive. According to the College Board, those with 

a bachelor’s degree will make at least $1 million more over a lifetime than someone 

with a high school diploma. Clearly, it pays to invest in education and training for 

veterans. 

You and I have held several hearings on this subject over the last three years and 

we have heard from literally dozens of witnesses about the need to make changes 

to reflect today’s operational environment. Today, members of the National Guard 

and Reserves are carrying a huge portion of the War on Terrorism and if nothing 

else, I hope we can find a way to improve their benefits in a way that reflects their 

expanded role in our Nation’s defense. 

I am very concerned that 30% of those who sign up for the GI Bill never use a 

penny of the benefit. There are many reasons they don’t use their GI Bill benefits, 

some of which would be difficult to overcome, but I think we can reduce that 30% 

to a significantly lower number by adding flexibility to the program and I want to 

work with you on that. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

34 

Several of today’s bills would pay veterans what is described as the full cost of 

education. If that is to be our goal, I think we need a real understanding of the true 

cost of education to a veteran considering the many sources of financial assistance 

available today. 

For example, according to the College Board, the average tuition and fees at a public 4-year institution is about $5,800 and about $2,300 at 2-year schools. Board 

data also shows that 65% of all students attend 4-year schools with tuition and fees 

below $9,000 per year, 56% attend public 4-year schools with tuition and fees ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per year. Finally, the College Board data indicates 41% 

of all students attend a 2-year school with a net cost, considering all forms of aid 

at less than $100. I am quoting those figures to show that the full cost of tuition 

and fees varies significantly and there are opportunities to attend a wide variety 

of schools at reduced cost. Obviously, room and board costs will add to those costs 

bringing the 4-year public IHL average to about $14,000 per academic year. 

Today, there is a mix of Federal, state and institutional financial aid packages 

available today that did not exist for earlier generations of veterans. Let’s consider 

just one option and that is the Pell Grant program. The max grant is now about 

$4,300 per school year. If the grant program did not consider military pay, most 

freshly discharged veterans would qualify for the full amount. The Pell Grant program also includes several income waivers for veterans that would allow a vet to 

work part time without impacting the Pell Grant amount. So, between the GI Bill 

and Pell Grant, a vet could receive over $14,000 for a standard 9-month school year 

and that would not include any ‘‘kickers’’ or buy-up amounts or other Title 4 education benefits. It is also important to recognize that many states offer significant 

education benefits to veterans or those on active duty or serving in the Guard. 

There is some good news. VA has significant progress in lowering the processing 

time for original and supplemental claims for education benefits. In FY 07, VA averaged about 32 days for an original claim. Today it averages about 23 days. Supplemental claims are down to under 10 days from 13 last year. I wish the folks at C&P 

could do as well. I note the Education Service has achieved a high level of automation to accomplish that decrease and again, C&P should follow suit. 

Finally, Madam Chairwoman, you and I would make many improvements if we 

had the paygo offsets. However, paygo is a fact of life we must live by until Congress changes the budget rules. There are lots of education bills out there, some of 

which are estimated to cost up to $75 billion over 10 years. That type of legislation 

does not appear within the realm of possibility under paygo. 

I yield back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California 

The Veterans Education Tuition Support Act or H.R. 2910 addresses some of the 

difficulties our military personnel face when they are activated while attending college. 

Thousands of military reservists have been activated to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan directly from their college campuses. In fact, students at 82 percent of colleges 

and universities in the United States have been called to serve since military operations began in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Yet only 26 states have laws on the books to protect the interests of these students while they serve their country, according to the Congressional Research Service. 

Unfortunately, as a result, students who serve in the military sometimes face 

unique hardships when called upon to defend the United States. 

The majority of colleges and universities refund tuition and fees to students when 

the activation occurs during the academic calendar. However, instances have occurred when a servicemember has not been reimbursed for lost tuition and fees. 

Servicemembers have also been known to face difficulties reregistering for classes 

after returning home after the deployment. In addition, activated military personnel 

have received collection notices for student loans while serving in combat zones. 

Our brave men and women in uniform should not face this additional stress while 

serving in a combat situation. 

The goal of the VETS Act is to provide servicemembers with certain rights when 

they delay their educational pursuits for the important cause of defending our country. 

The legislation adds to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to protect the student 

servicemember. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

35 

Specifically, H.R. 2910 treats student loan debt the same way it treats other forms 

of debt by capping interest at 6 percent during deployments. 

The legislation also requires colleges and universities to refund tuition and fees 

for unearned credit, and in addition, guarantee our servicemembers a place when 

they return to school. 

Finally, the legislation would give servicemembers 13 months to begin paying 

their student loans after an activation should they decide not to return to school 

immediately. 

The deferment will give them time to readjust back to civilian life should they 

decide they need extra time to go back to school. I am pleased to report that the 

13-month loan deferment was included in the College Cost Reduction Act signed 

into law last year. 

I am hopeful we can act soon to pass the other provisions of the VETS Act so 

servicemembers will know that they can return to school after serving their country. 

The VETS Act is centered on the recommendations made by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) based on the experiences of the group’s members. 

I am pleased to have worked with Patrick Campbell who is testifying today to make 

sure the bill would give our men and women in uniform the protections they need 

and deserve. 

I would like to thank Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin and Ranking Member 

Boozman for bringing H.R. 2910 forward today and look forward to working with 

the Subcommittee on the legislation in the future. 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2910 

OFFERED BY MRS. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA 

Applicability 

Page 7, line 15, insert before the period the following: ‘‘that participates in a loan 

program under Title IV of such Act (20 D.S.C. 1070 et seq.)’’. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.), Deputy Director, 

Government Relations, Military Officers Association of America 

Madam Chairwoman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf 

of the nearly 368,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America 

(MOAA), I am honored to have this opportunity to present the Association’s views 

on Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) legislation before the Subcommittee. 

MOAA is an original founding member of the Partnership for Veterans’ Education, a consortium of military, veterans, and higher education groups who advocate for passage of a ‘‘total force’’ approach to the Montgomery GI Bill to meet the 

needs of our operating forces—active duty, National Guard and Reserve—and veterans in the 21st Century. 

MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the Federal Government. 

Executive Summary 

MOAA appreciates the commitment of this Subcommittee to improving educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) for our Nation’s returning 

warriors. The pending National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2008 

(H.R. 1585) includes significant MGIB upgrades for National Guard and Reserve 

service women and men called to serve the Nation on active duty in contingency 

operations. MOAA hopes that these positive steps will presage more comprehensive 

upgrades to the MGIB this year. 

An addendum to this Statement presents MOAA’s ‘‘top 5’’ MGIB priorities for 

2008. 

MOAA’s position on the seven bills under consideration at this hearing follows: 

H.R. 1102 (Rep. Vic Snyder, D–AR). MOAA strongly endorses a ‘‘total force’’ approach to the MGIB. Active duty and reserve MGIB programs should be combined 

in Title 38 U.S.C. so that one Committee of jurisdiction can set benefit rates in proportion to the length and type of duty performed by all members of our armed 

forces. MOAA endorses Chairman Filner’s H.R. 4889 as an important step toward 

putting the MGIB under one Committee of jurisdiction. H.R. 4889 would recodify 

the reserve active duty MGIB program in Chapter 1607, 10 U.S.C. into Title 38. 

H.R. 1211 (Rep. Jim Matheson, D–UT). MOAA strongly endorses the principle 

of aggregation of MGIB entitlement for multiple active duty tours by operational reservists. The pending FY 2008 NDAA (H.R. 1585) establishes the principle of cumuwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

36 

lative MGIB entitlement for reservists for multiple call-ups. However, the NDAA 

would only authorize 80% of the active duty MGIB for 36 months aggregate active 

duty service. Thirty-six months of such service should yield full MGIB benefits at 

the three-year rate, currently $1,101 per month for full-time study. MOAA strongly 

recommends changing the rate formula for Chapter 1607 benefits from a percentage 

formula to ‘‘month-for-month entitlement’’ for each 90 days or more of active duty 

service. 

H.R. 1214 (Rep. Jim Ramstad, R–MN). MOAA supports the generous increases 

in survivor and dependents educational assistance program benefits (Chapter 35) 

but we are concerned that veterans themselves would receive disproportionately less 

benefits under current law. 

H.R. 2247 (Rep. Rick Larsen, D–WA). MOAA supports extending the 10-year 

readjustment period for post-service use of MGIB benefits or eliminating any time 

limit on such use. MOAA supports repealing the 14-year limit on use of basic reserve MGIB benefits, but only for in-service usage, consistent with the principle of 

scaling benefits according to the length and type of duty being performed. 

H.R. 2385 (Rep. Patrick Murphy, D–PA). MOAA endorses a number of the upgrades in this bill but we recommend the Subcommittee endorse the position long 

espoused by the 49-member Partnership for Veterans’ Education, namely that MGIB 

rates should be set at the national average cost of a four-year public college or university education. MOAA is opposed to the bill provision that would limit eligibility 

to all volunteer force members who happen to have ‘deployed overseas.’ 

H.R. 2702 (Rep. Bobby Scott, D–VA). MOAA endorses a number of the upgrades in this bill but we recommend that MGIB rates be set at the national average cost of a four-year public college or university education. 

H.R. 2910 (Rep. Susan Davis, D–CA). MOAA strongly endorses establishment 

of statutory protections for returning student-reservists under the Servicemembers 

Civil Relief Act. 

H.R. 1102. Total Force Educational Assistance and Integration Act of 2007 

H.R. 1102 would establish an integrated approach to structuring MGIB benefits 

for active duty, National Guard and Reserve service men and women. 

Essentially, H.R. 1102 would: 

• Recodify Chapters 1606 and 1607 of Title 10 U.S.C. (armed forces laws) in Title 

38. 

• Establish a 10-year readjustment period for MGIB benefits earned by Guard 

and Reserve veterans who serve on active duty under contingency operation orders (pending in the NDAA for FY 2008—H.R. 1585). 

• Change the formula for calculation of benefit amounts under Chapter 1607 from 

a percentage to month-for-month entitlement based on the active duty MGIB 

rate (Chapter 30, 38 U.S.C.) for each 90 days consecutive active duty period 

served. 

• Make other improvements, administrative corrections and conforming amendments. 

MOAA strongly supports the underlying principle in H.R. 1102 that MGIB programs should be re-aligned with the realities of military service in the 21st century. 

H.R. 1102 would restructure the MGIB under a ‘‘total force’’ approach to the 

MGIB. MOAA and the Partnership for Veterans Education have long endorsed a 

streamlined architecture for the MGIB that would simplify and clarify benefit rates 

and enable better support for military recruitment and readjustment outcomes, as 

intended by Congress. The total force MGIB would create three benefit levels or 

tiers based on the type and length of duty performed. 

• Tier one, the Active Duty MGIB (Chapter 30, Title 38). Individuals who enter 

the active armed forces under two-year or longer enlistment contracts earn 

MGIB entitlement, unless they decline enrollment. 

• Tier two, the Selected Reserve MGIB (presently, Chapter 1606, Title 10)— 

MGIB benefits for a 6-year enlistment or reenlistment in the Guard or Reserve. 

Chapter 1606 would be recodified under Title 38. The Subcommittee of Economic Opportunity, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, would adjust benefit 

rates from time to time in proportion to active duty rates. Historically, Selected 

Reserve benefits have been 47–48% of active duty benefits (vs. today’s 29%). 

• Tier three, Reserve Educational Assistance Program (presently, Chapter 1607, 

Title 10),—MGIB benefits for members of the Guard/Reserve who serve on acwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

37 

tive duty under ‘‘contingency operation’’ orders. Chapter 1607 would be recodified in Title 38. The rate structure would be adjusted to ‘‘tier one’’ benefits (currently, $1,101 per month) for each month of activation after 90 days active duty, 

up to a maximum of 36 months for multiple call-ups. 

A servicemember would have up to 10 years to use remaining entitlement under 

Tier One or Tier Three programs upon separation or retirement. A Selected Reservist could use Chapter 1606 entitlement only while continuing to serve satisfactorily 

in the Selected Reserve. However, Reservists who subsequently qualified for a reserve retirement or were separated/retired for disability would have 10 years following separation to use such benefits. 

In accordance with current law, in cases of multiple benefit eligibility, only one 

benefit could be used at one time, and total usage eligibility would extend to no 

more than 48 months. 

Technical Issues. H.R. 1102 contains a number of technical errors. For example, 

H.R. 1102 would inappropriately transfer reserve MGIB ‘‘kicker’’ funding authority 

to the Veterans Affairs Committees—kickers are enhancements to MGIB benefits 

for enlistment in designated skills. This and other technical ‘glitches’ are resolved 

in section 525 of the House-passed version of H.R. 1585. Importantly, section 525 

would authorize the recodification of Chapters 1606 and 1607 into Title 38 on a costneutral basis. 

MOAA strongly supports recodification of reserve MGIB programs in Title 

38. As a first step toward this outcome, MOAA endorses H.R. 4889, a bill that 

would recodify Chapter 1607 in Title 38. MOAA also strongly endorses 

changing the Chapter 1607 rate mechanism to month-for-month entitlement 

of Chapter 30 benefits for multiple tours of active duty of 90 days or more 

up to a maximum of 36 months entitlement. 

H.R. 1211, Resuming Education After Defense Service Act of 2007 

H.R. 1211 would authorize reservists who serve on active duty in contingency operations to accrue multiple tours of active duty up to 24 months toward basic MGIB 

entitlement at the two-year rate under Chapter 30. 

H.R. 1211 would entitle such individuals to one month of educational assistance 

for each month served on active duty. The bill would make the amount of such assistance equivalent to that provided for active-duty personnel who have served a 

minimum of two years of active duty. Entitlement would require the basic pay of 

qualifying members to be reduced by $100 for each of the first 12 months of such 

active duty service. 

In keeping with today’s ‘‘operational reserve’’ policies, MOAA would recommend 

the following adjustments to the provisions of H.R. 1211. First, strike the December 

31, 2008 sunset clause. 

Second, allow MGIB benefit aggregation up to three years (36 months active duty 

service) vice two years. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced a modification 

of ‘‘operational reserve’’ policy on January 19, 2007. The new policy requires reservists to be activated on the basis of ‘‘one year mobilized to five years demobilized 

ratio.’’ The Secretary added that ‘‘today’s global demands will require a number of 

units to be remobilized sooner than this standard.’’ 

In light of this policy change, MOAA recommends that MGIB aggregation 

should be permitted up to the point when a reservist has served 36 months 

of active duty service over multiple call-ups. Doing so would qualify the reserve 

veteran with the MGIB at the full three-year rate. Since 9/11, over 600,000 reservists have served on active duty including more than 142,000 who have multiple 

tours. In many cases, operational reservists will serve three or more years on active 

duty over a 20-year career. Their active duty service should aggregate toward full 

MGIB entitlement when they have 36 months of cumulative service. 

H.R. 1214, Veterans’ Survivors Education Enhancement Act 

H.R. 1214 would increase survivors’ and dependents’ educational benefits (DEA) 

under Chapter 35, 38 U.S. Code to $80,000 and permit dependent children to draw 

from this amount for during any time between the ages of 17 and 30. 

The bill also would permit lump-sum payments ‘‘in any amount’’ up to the new 

limit for institutional coursework or training, on-the-job training, correspondence 

courses, special educational assistance and farm cooperative programs. The bill, 

then, appears to eliminate DEA monthly rates for allocating educational benefits 

under Chapter 35. Presently, DEA participants can receive 45 months of benefits 

at up to $881 per month, a total of $39,645 for full-time study or training. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

38 

MOAA supports the intent of H.R. 1214. We are also grateful for earlier Congressional action (2004) that raised DEA rates and authorized survivors to access remaining DEA benefits for up to 20 years after the death of the sponsor. 

MOAA is concerned, however, over the concept of creating benefits under 

DEA that are substantially more generous than those authorized for veterans themselves. H.R. 1214 would authorize up to $80,000 in lump-sum payments 

for coursework or training compared to $39,636 in Chapter 30. Veterans have only 

10 years after service to use their benefits. Survivors have 20 years to access their 

DEA benefits. Under the bill, dependent children would have 13 years to use their 

benefits between the ages of 17 and 30 under the bill. 

MOAA supports the intent of H.R. 1214 and recommends that basic MGIB 

benefits be upgraded proportionally, including authorization of lump sum 

payments and extension of the readjustment period. 

H.R. 2385, the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act of 2007 

H.R. 2385 would entitle certain servicemembers, including National Guard and 

Reserves, to basic educational assistance under the MGIB who (after September 11, 

2001) are deployed overseas; or serve for an aggregate of at least two years or, before such period, are discharged due to a service-connected disability, hardship, or 

certain medical conditions. The bill would entitle such individuals to 36 months of 

educational assistance; authorize a ten-year readjustment period to use the benefits 

after discharge; and for other purposes. 

H.R. 2385 has features that are similar in some respects to H.R. 2702 (see following section). However, H.R. 2385 would set educational payment rates at the 

‘‘national average amount of tuition regularly charged for full-time pursuit of programs of education at public and private institutions [emphasis added] of higher 

education’’ (Section 3313(h)(2)). 

H.R. 2385 would create a parallel or alternative educational assistance program 

to the MGIB—rather than upgrade or improve benefits under the latter. 

In addition to the issue of the ‘‘deployed’’ criterion, the bill would essentially replace the MGIB for post-9/11 service until the current national emergency/war on 

terror is ‘‘won’’ or concluded in some way. The duration of earlier conflicts such as 

the Korean War, Vietnam War and Gulf War I indicate that the program proposed 

under H.R. 2385 might coexist alongside the MGIB for years and cause confusion 

for recruiting purposes and the effective administration of the MGIB. 

MOAA does not support the provision in H.R. 2385 that restricts benefit entitlement to All Volunteer Force service men and women who happen to have 

‘‘deployed overseas’’ (Subchapter II, section 3311) since 9/11. Since World 

War II, deployment status has never been a criterion for GI Bill entitlement. 

MOAA believes that H.R. 2385 illustrates the need to develop a coherent 

‘‘total force’’ approach to structuring the MGIB for all members of the volunteer force who serve the nation in peace and war. 

H.R. 2702, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 

H.R. 2702 would establish ‘‘wartime’’ service GI Bill benefits that would permit 

service men and women who serve or have served since 9/11 and who meet the requisite active duty service requirements to be reimbursed for a substantial amount 

of their schooling or education. 

Reimbursement rates would be calculated on ‘‘the maximum amount of tuition 

regularly charged in-state students for full-time pursuit of programs of education by 

the public institution of higher education in the State in which the individual is pursuing such program of education that has the highest rate of regularly charged tuition for programs of education among all public institutions of higher education in 

such State’’ (Section 3313(j)(2)). Under the bill, rates would vary considerably for 

veterans based on a state-by-state calculation of the highest in-state tuition costs. 

Veterans would likely re-locate to states where the reimbursement rates were more 

generous. 

Veterans would receive a $1,000 per month stipend for 36 months. Veterans 

would have up to 15 years after their service to exhaust entitlement. 

National Guard and Reserve ‘‘wartime’’ veterans with qualifying active duty service would be entitled to the benefits described in the bill if they completed 24 

months of consecutive active duty service. 

In MOAA’s view, H.R. 2702 has some very attractive features including raising 

GI Bill benefit rates, eliminating the $1,200 payroll reduction, extending the postservice usage period (to 15 years), and establishing a readjustment benefit for mobilized reservists. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

39 

MOAA has a few concerns over certain provisions in H.R. 2702 that are similar 

to our concerns over H.R. 2385 (above). MOAA does not support restricting the 

benefits proposed in the bill for ‘‘wartime’’ service as indicated. Only in the 

case of service-connected disabilities should educational benefits be differentiated for 

our volunteer force men and women, not the period of their service or their deployment status. 

The bill also creates the dilemma of a new GI Bill operating alongside the current 

MGIB—see similar comment regarding H.R. 2385 above. In addition, the payment 

metric proposed is likely to cause lots of confusion since reimbursements could vary 

widely from state to state. The Veterans Benefits Administration would have to constantly re-calculate reimbursement rates for veterans. 

Another shortcoming in H.R. 2702 is the absence of MGIB ‘‘kicker’’ authority for 

the military services—section 3015(d), 38 U.S.C. DoD has long used financial incentives—‘‘kickers’’—as tools to distribute military manpower into high demand skills 

needed for readiness. Kickers have proven very effective in combination with the 

MGIB to support armed forces recruiting goals. 

Early in this decade, former Committee Chairman Chris Smith (R–NJ) oversaw 

efforts to upgrade the MGIB over a three-year period. If a similar approach were 

adopted by the Subcommittee for H.R. 2702, MOAA would recommend in priority 

order: 

1. Base MGIB rate increases on the national average cost of a four-year public 

college/university education. Dept. of Education data indicate the MGIB currently covers about 75% of the cost of attendance including in-state tuition, required fees, and resident student room and board. 

2. Authorize cumulative month-for-month entitlement up to 36 months under the 

MGIB (Chapter 30, 38 U.S.C.) for reservists who serve on multiple active duty 

tours in contingency operations. (See discussion, above, on H.R. 1211). 

3. Extend the post-service readjustment period to 15 years or more, or eliminate 

the time limit. (See H.R. 2247, below). 

4. Eliminate the $1,200 payroll reduction for active duty service entrants. 

5. Establish a monthly living expense stipend over and above educational reimbursement rates. 

H.R. 2247, Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007 

H.R. 2247 would repeal the 10-year delimiting date on post-service use of MGIB 

benefits (Chapter 30 entitlement). The bill also would repeal the 14-year limitation 

on basic reserve benefits (Chapter 1606) for inactive duty (drill) service. H.R. 2247 

creates lifetime entitlement to remaining Chapter 1607 benefits for reservists who 

have such entitlement and become disabled. 

MOAA supports extending the 10-year limitation on post-service use of remaining MGIB entitlement, or eliminating any such time limit. We note that 

survivors have 20 years to use Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance 

benefits (Chapter 35). (H.R. 2702, above, would extend the delimiting date to 15 

years). 

MOAA strongly supports lifetime entitlement for all disabled service men 

and women (not only reservists disabled after being activated); accordingly, 

we recommend coordination of this change with the provisions of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program under Chapter 31, 38 U.S.C. 

MOAA supports repeal of the 14-year in-service-only limitation on basic reserve benefits (Chapter 1606) for inactive duty service only. We do not support establishment of a lifetime, post-service benefit for inactive duty service 

benefits, consistent with the total force MGIB principle of scaling benefits to 

the length and type of duty performed. 

H.R. 2910, Veterans Education Tuition Support Act of 2007 

H.R. 2910 would establish in law specific requirements that would protect reservists returning to an academic setting following a call-up to active duty. The bill 

would amend the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (SCRA) in essentially four ways 

by: 

• Authorizing refunds for students activated during a semester or quarter of 

study 

• Guaranteeing re-enrollment upon return 

• Extending the time a student has to re-enroll or to begin student loan repayments 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

40 

• Capping student loans at 6% during an activation (like other debt protections 

under the SCRA) 

MOAA has long endorsed statutory protections to ensure the academic re-integration of returning student-reservists. In our view, policies alone do not afford sufficient protections for reservists returning to school following active duty service. Student ‘‘reemployment’’ rights—hassle free return to academic pursuits—are long 

overdue. 

The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROS) 

fails to provide servicemembers meaningful security. Colleges and universities are 

not required to refund tuition and fees to students who don’t complete their classes 

due to a deployment. Schools are also not required to minimize the procedural hoops 

a servicemember must jump through to re-enroll. A reservist who takes a leave of 

absence for a year to serve the nation on active duty often must re-apply to the very 

school from which she took leave. 

With respect to the refund provisions of H.R. 2910, the Subcommittee should consider as an option requiring an academic institution to apply any refund amount 

in the case of a withdrawal during a semester (or other defined academic course period) to other coursework upon a reservist’s re-enrollment. 

If the nation expects to sustain an ‘‘operational reserve’’ policy, Congress must 

enact stronger protections for our young student-reservists when they return to the 

academic setting following a call-up. 

MOAA recommends the Subcommittee favorably report out H.R. 2910 to establish academic re-instatement and financial protections under the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. 

Conclusion 

MOAA appreciates the growing interest in Montgomery GI Bill reform and we 

look forward to working with the Members of the Subcommittee to ensure that our 

21st century warriors, including operational reservists from the National Guard and 

Reserve, receive the benefits that match their service and sacrifice on behalf of our 

nation. 

Addendum: ‘‘Top Five’’ Priorities for the MGIB in 2008 (below) 

MOAA’s ‘‘Top Five’’ Legislative Priorities for the Montgomery GI Bill in 2008 

1. Raise MGIB rates. Prior to September 11, 2001, the House Veterans Affairs 

Committee endorsed a three-step increase to basic MGIB rates and the establishment of an annual COLA to adjust such rates. Subsequent enactment of 

this change in 2001 has enabled the MGIB today to cover about 75% of the 

average cost of a four-year public college/university education based on Dept. 

of Education data. Various legislative proposals have been introduced to raise 

MGIB reimbursement to cover more, or even all of the cost of veterans’ education or training programs. The present full-time study rate for veterans with 

three years of service is $1,101 (Chapter 30, 38 U.S. Code). Raising the rate 

will encourage more veterans to use their benefits and, in turn, give them the 

education/skills to be more productive citizens, thereby returning to the economy more than the cost of their earned benefits. MOAA strongly supports 

raising MGIB reimbursement rates to at least the average cost of a fouryear public college or university education. 

2. Authorize cumulative month-for-month MGIB entitlement under Chap. 

30 for reservists who serve multiple active duty periods of service (up 

to 36 months active duty). The FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act 

establishes in law a principle of ‘‘cumulative’’ entitlement to Chapter 1607 

MGIB benefits for multiple periods of active duty performed by members of the 

National Guard and Reserve forces. Under the change, reservists who serve an 

aggregate of up to 36 months active duty in a contingency operation will earn 

80% of the active duty MGIB. It’s our understanding that reservists who serve 

24 months consecutively also will continue to receive 80% of the active duty 

MGIB (the same rate available to active duty soldiers with a two-year enlistment). MOAA appreciates the creation of a cumulative principle, but we disagree strongly with the percentage formula as adopted by the NDAA. Reservists who accrue up to 36 months active duty over multiple call-ups should be 

entitled to the full MGIB under Chapter 30. A reserve warrior with eight years’ 

service can expect to serve multiple activations under ‘‘operational reserve’’ 

rules and likely be deployed for all of them. Under such circumstances, reservists who accrue 36 months of cumulative service should be entitled to the same 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

41 

MGIB as an active duty soldier with a three-year enlistment contract who is 

deployed once (or never deployed). MOAA strongly recommends adoption of 

a cumulative month-for-month formula for entitlement to the active 

duty MGIB for operational reservists who serve at least 90 days on any 

one tour, up to a maximum of 36 months. 

3. Restore proportional parity between basic reserve MGIB (Chapter 

1606, 10 U.S. Code) rates and the active duty program. The basic reserve 

MGIB rate was set at 47% of the active duty program in 1984 and retained 

that ratio for 15 years from 1985–1999. Subsequent increases in active duty 

program benefit levels, combined with static reserve benefit levels, have reduced reserve MGIB rates to less than 29% of the active duty program’s, at 

a time when Guard and Reserve recruiting is under enormous strain. If proportional parity were restored in one year, basic reserve rates for full-time study 

would increase from $317 to $517 per month for full-time study. Stair-step increases would lower the cost over a three to five year period. MOAA strongly 

endorses restoring proportional parity between the basic reserve MGIB 

and the active duty program. 

4. Integrate reserve and active duty MGIB programs in Title 38. Given 

past DoD opposition to most reserve MGIB program improvements, it is unlikely that items 2 and 3, above—month-for-month entitlement and rate hikes 

for Chapter 1606 benefits—will be possible without recodification. In passing 

the NDAA, the defense conferees modeled most of the reserve program improvements—as noted in the accompanying cover letter—on the existing Chapter 30 framework. MOAA greatly appreciates House passage of recodification 

of the reserve programs in Title 38, but we were disappointed that the NDAA 

conferees failed to adopt the House language. Now that Congress has endorsed 

a readjustment benefit for operational reservists, there is no longer a compelling reason in our view to leave the Chapter 1607 program in Title 10. Under 

Chapter 30, DoD and VA responsibilities are clear: DoD sets eligibility rules 

for enlistment, funds ‘‘kickers’’ for enlistment in critical skills, conducts actuarial valuations of the normal cost of the MGIB (Section 2006, 10 U.S.C.), and 

reports the number of eligibles to the VA. For the reserve programs, DoD does 

essentially the same thing: determines eligibility, funds ‘‘kickers’’, determines 

the ‘‘normal cost’’, and reports participants. The VA administers all MGIB programs and payments now, and that would not change under recodification. 

Under the House-passed language, DoD and VA responsibilities would remain 

as described above. The difference would be that one Committee would be responsible for overseeing the administration of the active duty and reserve programs—a total force approach to the MGIB. Because of the proportional benefit 

gap and the dramatic surge in duty requirements of our Guard/Reserve members, the total GI Bill program is no longer structured to match the nation’s 

military policy for the operational integration of our active and reserve forces. 

MOAA continues to strongly endorse recodification of the reserve MGIB 

programs into Title 38. 

5. Open enrollment in the MGIB for all currently serving members who 

declined enrollment, and for all new service entrants in the future. The 

MGIB should be an entitlement that accompanies an enlistment, service agreement or appointment for all members of the volunteer force. With the operational integration of the total force, the $1,200 payroll reduction has become 

a nuisance and a morale ‘‘downer’’ for new recruits, and is inconsistent with 

the dramatically increased sacrifices borne by our service men and women. 

Moreover, as reserve and active duty programs are gradually aligned according 

to the length and types of duty performed, the $1,200 enrollment tax serves 

as a barrier to true implementation of a total force approach to the MGIB. 

Twenty-first century warriors should be guaranteed enrollment in the MGIB 

upon entry into the service with no payroll reduction. Officers commissioned 

from a Service Academy or ROTC Scholarship program should be offered the 

MGIB in exchange for a service extension commitment. Government student 

loans require no service to the nation and no up front payment, which makes 

the $1,200 MGIB fee seem mean-spirited at best. MOAA strongly endorses 

guaranteed enrollment in the MGIB for all members of the volunteer 

force and the elimination of the $1,200 enrollment ‘‘tax’’. 

f 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

42 

Prepared Statement of Patrick Campbell, Legislative Director, 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans 

of America (IAVA), thank you for the opportunity to testify at this legislative hearing on educational assistance bills. We are also grateful that H.R. 2910, the Veterans Education Tuition Support Act (VETS) and the by product of my graduate 

thesis, will be discussed today. 

I. World War II Education Benefits for a Post 9/11 Generation 

After World War II, nearly eight million servicemembers (more than half of the 

entire American fighting force) took advantage of the education benefits afforded 

them by the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act 1944. A veteran of WWII was entitled to free tuition, books and a living stipend that completely covered the cost of 

education. Since 1945 over 21,400,000 servicemembers have utilized at least some 

of their educational benefits. Over the past 10 years, at least 66% of active duty 

servicemembers and 42% of Reservists and National Guard have gone to school on 

the ‘‘GI Bill.’’ 

Today we are still reaping the benefits of one of the greatest social investment 

programs ever implemented. A 1988 Congressional study proved that every dollar 

spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the 

national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue. 

Today we have the opportunity to renew our social contract with our servicemen 

and women. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) supports reinstating 

a World War II style GI Bill that will cover the true cost of education. We endorse 

H.R. 2702. 

The current Chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill, created in 1984, contains several obstacles that hinder veterans’ use of their well-earned benefits. First, active duty educational benefits require a hefty $1,200 initial buy-in. Although nearly 95% of active 

duty servicemembers buy into the program, only 8% of servicemembers use all of 

their educational benefits and more than 30% never touch their GI benefits. These 

veterans return over $230 million to the U.S. Treasury through their nonrefundable 

contributions. 

Second, servicemembers are required to pay tuition, room & board and textbook 

costs up front and are then reimbursed over the course of the semester. Before 

servicemembers can attend a single class they must pay tuition and fees amounting, 

on average, to $5,836 for a public school and $22,218 for private schools. Servicemembers are faced with the daunting task of paying for school by taking on multiple 

jobs to raise the money, attending a less expensive or prestigious institution, taking 

out student loans and/or ‘‘living on mama’s couch’’ to cut expenses. H.R. 2702 would 

overcome this obstacle by paying tuition costs in a lump sum at the beginning of 

the academic term. 

Lastly, education benefits have failed to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of 

higher education. Education benefits are increased yearly based on inflation rates. 

As evident from the chart below, the cost of education has outpaced inflation by over 

100% since 1984. The bifurcated benefits in H.R. 2702 that would make up front 

tuition payments to schools and provide a living stipend to veterans would prevent 

future generations from suffering from diminished benefits. Although the living stipend will continue to be increased based on inflation rates, the tuition benefits 

would be pegged directly to the education rates in each state and therefore would 

keep pace with the relative cost of education. 

(Chart from the College Board’s ‘‘2006 Trends in College Pricing.’’) 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING


41364A.001
43 

In 2006, Chapter 30 benefits only covered 75% of the cost of a public school education and 32% of a private school education. 

IAVA believes that a World War II style GI Bill is more than just a social investment; it’s an important readiness tool. The military needs to recruit an additional 

70,000 active duty servicemembers over the next two years. Improving education 

benefits for veterans is an important strategy for accomplishing this goal. The alternative is to continue to lower recruitment standards and increase enlistment and 

retention bonuses. We have already seen the military double the number of GED 

waivers and increase the number of felonies allowable by a new recruit. Enlistment 

and retention bonuses have already climbed to $20,000 and could grow even higher. 

The GI Bill is the military’s single most effective recruitment tool; the number one 

reason civilians join the military is to get money for college. As our military recovers 

and resets in the coming years, an expanded GI Bill will play a crucial role in ensuring that our military remains the strongest and most advanced in the world. 

(Poster outside the DC Armory on July 12, 2007) 

The original WWII GI bill was called the ‘‘Servicemen’s Readjustment Act’’ for 

good reason. Returning WWII and Korean veterans were given the chance to readjust to civilian life by making college a full time job. Giving veterans the opportunity 

to truly take advantage of their education benefits will help build this country’s next 

‘‘greatest generation.’’ 

For all of these reasons, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) believes that both H.R. 2702, the ‘‘Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act 

of 2007’’ (Scott) is the best option to provide our servicemembers every opportunity 

to succeed in higher education. 

II. Calculation of REAP benefits based on Cumulative not Continuous service 

Benefits for Reserve/National Guard servicemembers should be based on the cumulative length of their active duty deployments and not on their single longest deployment. This fix would eliminate a glaring inequity faced by reservists serving 

multiple deployments. Currently, Marine Reservists serving more frequent but 

shorter tours rarely qualify for the higher level of REAP benefits. The average Marine reservist has been deployed multiple times on 9 month tours of duty. Despite 

having served at least 18 months of active duty, they will receive $220/month less 

in education benefits then an Army National Guardsman who served the same 

amount of active duty in a single tour. 

IAVA endorses the provisions of H.R. 1102, the Total Force GI Bill, which would 

provide benefits for reservists serving multiple tours and allow reservists who have 

served overseas to use their earned education benefits after they separate from the 

military. We applaud the work of this Committee to include the portability provision 

of H.R. 1102 in the National Defense Authorization Act. 

In consideration of any GI bill legislation, we urge the Committee to consider an 

alternative method for addressing the issue of multiple deployments. There are two 

practical fixes to the benefit accrual issue facing Guard and Reservists: 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING


41364A.002
44 

1) Month for Month Accrual: As proposed in H.R. 1102, a Reservist who has 

been called to active duty would receive a month of active duty education benefits for every month of active duty served ($1,100/month). Once a reservist exhausted their active duty education benefits they would then only be entitled 

to the lowest level of education benefits, Chapter 1606 ($330/month) or, if they 

separated from the military, they would not be entitled to any education benefits. 

2) Step Accrual: By simply modifying the current Chapter 1607 REAP program 

to be based on ‘‘cumulative’’ service, a Reservist would receive higher monthly 

benefits for additional active duty service. Benefits levels would either remain 

constant or increase as the reservist does more active duty service. This idea 

is currently proposed in H.R. 4148, National Guard and Reserve Active Duty 

Higher Education Act. 

Although the month for month proposal seems simpler, it suffers from two fundamental flaws. First, once reservists use up their accrued active duty level education 

benefits, they experience a precipitous drop in benefits. This drastic decline in benefits means a veteran receiving Chapter 30 level benefits ($1,100/month) one month 

will then start to receive Chapter 1606 level benefits ($330/month) the next month. 

Second, under current law and under the new provisions proposed by the National 

Defense Authorization Act, Chapter 1606 benefits are not portable, Therefore, a reservist who separates from the military and has used up the active duty level education benefits will have no more education benefits to draw from. 

IAVA strongly endorses modifying the current Chapter 1607 structure of benefits 

to be based on cumulative service and by adding intermediary qualification steps 

that increase the level education benefits for every six months of active duty service. 

Current REAP Program (Step) 

REAP—Chap 1607 Benefit 

2 years continuous AD or 3 years Cumulative AD = 80% AD 

($880/month) $7,920/yr. 

1 year continuous AD = 60% AD 

($660/month) $5,940/yr. 

90 days continuous AD = 40% AD 

($440/month) $3,960/yr. 

Proposed Changes (Step*) 

Revised Chap 1607 Benefit 

3 yrs. cumulative AD ($1,100/month) 100% AD 

$9,900/yr. 

2.5 yrs. cumulative AD 

($990/month) 

90% AD 

$8,910/yr. 

2 yrs. cumulative AD 

($880/month) 

80% AD 

$7,920/yr. 

1.5 yrs. cumulative AD 

($770/month) 

70% AD 

$6,930/yr. 

1 yrs. cumulative AD ($660/month) 60% AD 

$5,940/yr 

6 months cumulative AD 

($550/month) 

50% AD 

$4,950/yr. 

90 days cumulative AD 

($440/month) 

40% AD 

$3,960/yr. 

I have put together some charts to help illustrate this issue. The first chart shows 

the benefits a National Guard soldier would receive from a one year deployment. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

45 

The second shows the benefits for a Marine serving two deployments or a reservist 

serving an 18 month deployment. 

Army Reserve/National Guard Deployment 

Based on this chart a reservist in month to month scenario would receive a total 

of $21,120 over 36 months (12 months at $1,100/month and 24 months at $330/ 

month). In a step scenario they would receive $23,760 ($660/month for 36 months). 

Two Marine Deployments or an Early Army Reserve/National Guard 

Based on this chart a reservist in month to month scenario would receive a total 

of $24,970 over 36 months (18 months at $1,100/month and 18 months at $330/ 

month). In a our proposed step scenario they would receive $27,720 ($770/month 

for 36 months) 

III. USERRA Type Protections for Deploying Students 

Finally, H.R. 2910, the Veterans Education Tuition Support (VETS) Act, 

(Davis, S.) will provide meaningful protections for deploying students. In 2007, nearly 100,000 Reservists and National Guard soldiers were enrolled in college (an inwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING


41364A.003 41364A.004
46 

crease of 36% since 2005). Forty percent of these soldiers have been deployed at 

least once. Unfortunately, these student-soldiers face unique hardships when they 

are called to active duty service. 

Total Reservists Chap. 1607 * Chap. 1606 * 

2005 81,209 — 81,209 *1607: Deployed at least once. 

2006 88,892 23,747 65,145 *1606: Never deployed. 

2007 96,685 39,642 57,043 

Without Federal protections these servicemembers face a patchwork of refund and 

reenrollment procedures which are both confusing and inconsistent. Trying to navigate the bureaucratic potholes while attempting to re-enroll in school after a deployment can be an infuriating process. When I first returned home from Iraq I received 

harassing calls from my student loan lender, my roommate from Iraq was denied 

reenrollment at his college and my coworker, who was deployed weeks before his 

finals, was given essentially no accommodations by his school. Those who fight for 

our rights abroad should not be forced to fight for their rights when they return 

home. 

The VETS bill will: 

• Require colleges to refund tuition for servicemembers who deploy (or provide future credits). 

• Restore veterans to their academic status when they return. 

• Cap student loan interest payments at 6% while the student is deployed. 

I am proud to report that § 707(b) of H.R. 2910, which extended the period of time 

a student-soldier has to re-enroll after returning from abroad has already been enacted into law (§ 204 of Public Law 110–84, the College Cost Reduction and Access 

Act). 

If passed, H.R. 2910 will become the student-soldier’s equivalent to USERRA (the 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act). IAVA strongly encourages this Committee to consider and pass H.R. 2910 for all the Reservists and 

National Guard soldiers in each of your home districts. 

Improving the GI Bill will benefit veterans and the country as a whole. By allowing veterans to take advantage of the best educational opportunities available, we 

can fulfill our promise to our servicemembers and create an opportunity for them 

to become tomorrow’s leaders. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy Director, 

National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of this Committee: 

On behalf of the 2.4 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 

United States and our Auxiliaries, I would like to commend this Committee for its 

diligence, dedication, and bipartisanship exhibited in updating the Montgomery GI 

Bill (MGIB). We applaud this Committee for its efforts and Congress for including 

post-service usage of the MGIB for servicemembers eligible under Chapter 1607 

benefits into the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. With this accomplishment, we strongly urge this Committee to continue updating the MGIB. 

The following are the VFW’s top five recommendations for achieving a GI Bill that 

meets the needs of the 21st Century: 

• Increase the MGIB rates to cover the full cost of education: tuition, room, board, 

fees, and a cost-of-living stipend. 

• Eliminate the current qualifying impediment for Guard and Reserve members, 

which reward the longest continuous tour of active duty. Our troops deserve a 

benefit that aggregates on a monthly basis and pays a percentage of the active 

duty benefit with an equitable benefit. 

• Repeal the $1,200 MGIB buy-in charged to active duty troops during the first 

year of their enlistment. 

• Allow all servicemembers to utilize earned benefits throughout the duration of 

their lives, removing the 10-year delimiting date. 

• Remove all laws and rules limiting veterans from accessing college financal aid 

due to military service income and/or GI Bill benefits. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

47 

These recommendations reflect the needs of veterans and the original spirit of the 

GI Bill. In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, known as the GI Bill of Rights. This bill helped millions of Americans realize the American dream. Nearly 12 percent of Americans served in uniform 

between 1945 and 1956 and more than 8 million returning veterans received debtfree college educations, low-interest home mortgages and small-business loan assistance. In 1947, half of the nation’s college students were veterans. For many, they 

were the first in their families to further their education beyond high school. Today 

the WWII GI Bill is credited with creating the middle class. 

Subsequent wartime GI Bills were not nearly as robust as the WWII bill. The 

Vietnam-era GI Bill was a scaled down version from the WWII style bill. Nearly 6.8 

million veterans out of 10.3 million eligible veterans used their benefit. Education 

benefits during the Vietnam era aided veterans in their transition from active duty 

to civilian life, but the benefit fell short of the original. 

So too, the current MGIB is not meeting the need of our veterans. The inflationary rate of higher education is much greater than the national inflationary rate. 

Over time, this disparity in inflation is causing the current GI Bill rate, which is 

pegged to the national inflationary rate, is causing the GI Bill to erode. 

It is time for a new GI Bill! It is time to revitalize the American dream; invest 

in the overall health of our slowly depleting military force; expand the socioeconomic 

makeup of the military; and provide the ONE PERCENT of our population that 

dons the uniform a life-changing benefit. 

The VFW has long advocated for the creation of a GI Bill for the 21st Century 

in the fashion of the original WWII bill. We envision a transition benefit that will 

be a lasting contract with our veterans. We want: 

• A GI Bill that increases military recruitment efforts, broadening the socioeconomic makeup of the military, and strengthens our National security by attracting an increased number of young talented recruits—many of whom may 

not have considered military service. 

• A powerful transition assistance program, allowing veterans to readjust to civilian life, improving their ability to care for themselves and their families, and 

becoming the leaders of tomorrow. 

• A GI Bill that recognizes the unique sacrifices of the hundreds of thousands of 

Guard and Reserve members who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn 

of Africa, during Katrina and other national/international emergencies; and is 

proportional to their Active Duty counterparts. 

We are not a Nation at war; we are a Nation with a military at war. Many troops 

have been to Iraq and/or Afghanistan multiple times. Some Guard and Reserve 

units are serving their second or third tours in country. Now is the time to honor 

their service with a GI Bill for the 21st Century, providing them with opportunities 

to become future leaders of our Nation. 

Pause for one moment and consider the quality of life that WWII GI Bill recipients passed on to their children and grandchildren. We as a Nation need to recognize the indirect benefits our families received thanks to the education, housing and 

small business investment benefits a grateful Nation gave to the Greatest Generation. 

Many in Congress have recognized the importance of these issues and have introduced bills to improve this key program. We urge you to examine these bills with 

an eye toward enacting a robust GI Bill that realizes the promises of previous generations. 

H.R. 1102, Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement and 

Integration Act of 2007 

We support this legislation, which eases the administration of education benefits, 

simplifying U.S. Code, and giving the Department of Veterans Affairs the responsibility of administering the benefit as they currently do with the Active Duty GI Bill. 

The VFW believes the GI Bill is primarily a transition tool allowing veterans and 

troops to seek an education and skills training. Placing the Guard and Reserve education programs, Chapter 1606 and 1607 of Title 10, into Title 38 (the section of 

the Code regulating the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]) allows the Congress 

to better oversee this program and eliminates contradictions in the oversight process. Currently, the VA tracks veteran enrollment at institutions of higher learning, 

triggers the veteran’s GI Bill discernment, and performs a great deal of the outreach 

to education veterans on the varying of education benefits. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

48 

H.R. 1211, the Resuming Education After Defense Service Act of 2007 

We support this legislation allowing Guard and Reserve members to apply their 

total aggregate months of deployment towards accruing GI Bill benefits. Currently, 

Guard and Reserve troops may only apply their longest continuous period of active 

duty service toward drawing the GI Bill benefit, most tours fall far short of the Active Duty GI Bill. This results in some troops serving two or three years in a combat 

zone while only receiving 40 or 60 percent their active duty counterparts. We 

strongly believe GI Bill benefits should reflect equitable benefits for service to our 

nation. 

H.R. 1214, the Veterans’ Survivors Education Enhancement Act of 2007 

This Act would increase the maximum amount of GI Bill benefits available for eligible veterans’ survivors and dependents from the current $788 a month, paid over 

45 months equaling $35,460, to approximately $1,778 a month totaling $80,000. It 

allows the benefit to be used for special restorative training, apprenticeships, onthe-job training, and tutoring assistance. And it allows survivors and dependents to 

draw the benefit until their 30th birthday, extending the usage age from 26th birthday. 

We deeply respect the loss, challenge and pain survivors and dependents suffer. 

Benefits paid to widows/widowers and orphans grant a degree of security when 

faced with the sudden loss of a loved one. The VFW fully supports enhancement of 

educational assistance for survivors and dependents of veterans, but we also feel the 

benefit should move in tandem with the education benefit available to the Chapter 

32, Title 38 active duty GI Bill. 

The current Chapter 32, Title 38 active duty GI Bill benefit total is approximately $37,000 and the survivors education benefit is approximately $35,500; thus giving 

some relative parity in the two benefits. H.R. 1214 would award survivors twice the 

earned benefit available to active duty troops. We favor increasing this survivor’s 

benefit, but only in tandem with the active duty benefit. The VFW believes this bill 

would create an unfortunate inequity. 

H.R. 2247, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007 

The Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) has opened the door to higher education for millions of Americans. This bill seeks to eliminate time limits that often prevent service 

members from using a life-enhancing benefit when they need it the most. H.R. 2247 

would eliminate the post-service 10-year time limit for the active duty MGIB and 

the in-service 14-year time limit for Guard and Reservists. Time limits prevent service members from seeking training and education later in life or at mid-career milestones. The VFW supports the life-long career approach to the benefit. If a service 

member has earned the benefit, why prevent them from using it? 

Many service members seek education and retraining later or at mid-career. This 

helps them adapt to the ever-changing economy, transitioning from fields that may 

offer more job security. Also, many younger veterans and service members have 

family obligations that prevent them from seeking an education early in life. The 

VFW supports H.R. 2247 and the repeal of time limits on the GI Bill. 

H.R. 2385, the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act of 2007 

We support H.R. 2385, which would extend eligibility to Active Duty troops and 

National Guard and Reserve members who serve an aggregate of two years on active duty. This bill would pay tuition, books, fees, room and board over the course 

of four years of full-time education. It lifts the $1,200 buy-in fee. This educational 

benefit would pay students a rate equivalent to the cost to attend school or training 

inclusive of tuition, housing, and other expenses. 

H.R. 2702, the Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2007 

This legislation would enhance military strength while providing an educational 

benefit that equips a generation of veterans to face the challenges of tomorrow. The 

VFW has long advocated a GI Bill in the spirit of the original WW II bill, which 

would cover tuition at the highest State institution including housing, fees, books, 

and provide a cost-of-living stipend. This legislation would accomplish these goals 

and more. It recognizes the tens of thousands of guard and reserve members who 

have actively served an aggregate of 24 months defending our Nation. It lengthens 

the post-service usage period from 10 to 15 years from the date of discharge and 

establishes a post-service benefit for the Guard and Reserve. The VFW enthusiastically supports this bill. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

49 

H.R. 2910, the Veterans Education Tuition Support Act of 2007 

The VFW strongly supports this legislation honoring the service of thousands of 

Reservists and National Guard troops who withdraw from college, placing their lives 

on hold, to protect and serve our nation. 

In 2006, nearly 90,000 Reservists and National Guard soldiers were enrolled in 

college; one fourth of which have been deployed at least once. These students face 

unique hardships when they are called to defend our nation. H.R. 2910 addresses 

some of those hardships by allowing veterans to resume their academic status upon 

their return, requiring colleges to refund tuition for service members who deploy, 

capping student loan interest payments at 6% while the student is deployed, and 

extending the period of time a student-soldier has to re-enroll after returning from 

active duty service. 

Our National Guard and Reserve troops do not deserve to sacrifice doubly by serving our nation while enduring educational and financial penalties; they deserve 

every opportunity toward their future and their education. 

Ms. Chairwoman, I again thank you for the opportunity to present the VFW’s testimony. We very much appreciate what this subcommittee has done, and continues 

to do, to improve the GI Bill. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

or the members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Ronald F. Chamrin, Assistant Director, 

Economic Commission, American Legion 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to present our recommendations 

and observations of the current state of veterans’ education-related programs, proposed legislation, and laws. Recent legislative activities in relation to the Fiscal 

Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that contain significant 

changes to the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) place this hearing at an opportune time. 

With the final disposition of the NDAA unclear, The American Legion will comment 

on proposed legislation in reference to the current established statutes. 

The American Legion has provided this Committee during the First Session of the 

110th Congress numerous recommendations and observations of veterans’ education 

benefits. As we move forward, The American Legion looks forward to the continuation of the progress made over the last year and we continue to stand by our previous statements and advocacy efforts. 

TOP PRIORITIES OF MODIFICATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

VETERANS’ EDUCATION BENEFITS 

Portability of Benefits 

The American Legion supports eliminating the ten-year delimiting period for veterans to use MGIB educational benefits and to allow all Reserve Component members to use their MGIB benefits for up to ten years after separation or completion 

of a service contract. 

Raise the Rates 

The American Legion recommends that the dollar amount of the entitlement 

should be indexed to the average cost of a college education including tuition, fees, 

textbooks and other supplies for commuter students at an accredited university, college or trade school for which they qualify. Additionally, the educational cost index 

should be reviewed and adjusted annually. 

Equity of Benefits for Time Served on Active Duty 

The American Legion supports a MGIB–SR participant reimbursement rate adjusted for time spent on Federal activation, State activation, and normal service for 

a period not to exceed 36 months. 

Termination of $1,200 Contribution 

The American Legion supports the termination of the current military payroll contribution ($1,200) required for enrollment in MGIB. Additionally, The American Legion supports that enrollment in the MGIB shall be automatic upon enlistment. 

However, benefits will not be awarded unless eligibility criteria have been met. 

Transferability of Benefits 

The American Legion supports the transfer of MGIB benefits from veterans to 

their immediate family members should a veteran elect to do so. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

50 

Accelerated Payments 

The American Legion supports granting veterans an option to request an accelerated payment of all monthly educational benefits upon meeting the criteria for eligibility for MGIB financial payments. 

ADMINISTRATION OF VETERANS’ EDUCATION BENEFITS 

Recodification 

The American Legion recommends that Congress move the Montgomery GI BillReserve Education Assistance Program (REAP, Chapter 1607) and the Montgomery 

GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB–SR, Chapter 1606) from Title 10, United States 

Code (USC), to Title 38, USC. Additionally, we recommend providing the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with administrative authority for the MGIB, REAP 

and MGIB–SR benefits. Finally, The American Legion recommends that the MGIB, 

REAP and MGIB–SR funding become annual mandatory appropriations. Recodification of MGIB benefits from Title 10 to Title 38 would place the administration of 

programs under VA and oversight under the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs. 

Traditionally seen as a recruitment tool, the MGIB is a readjustment tool that 

more closely falls in line with the purview of VA. The VA Education Service has 

a proven track record of improving delivery and facilitation of services, as well as 

a dedication to veterans. Furthermore, the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs are better equipped in that they have established oversight protocol of veterans and VA 

programs. It is our hope that transferring oversight from the Committees on Armed 

Services to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs will expedite legislation seeking to 

improve educational benefits for veterans. Since 1999, the Committees on Armed 

Services and the Department of Defense officials have failed to adjust the rates of 

Reserve Components’ education benefits. As a result, the current MGIB–SR benefit 

for full time students is $317 a month, or just 29 percent of MGIB–AD. 

SELECTED LEGISLATION CONTAINING ENTITLEMENT OF BENEFITS 

FOR AGGREGATE TIME SERVED 

H.R. 1211, ‘‘The Resuming Education After Defense Service Act of 2007’’ and 

H.R. 2702, ‘‘The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007’’ 

Eligibility Concerns 

While these two bills are steps in the right direction by providing benefits for time 

served, The American Legion is concerned that it fails to recognize those veterans 

that complete their tours honorably, but do not serve an aggregate of two years, and 

do not meet the other requirements of eligibility. These veterans have served their 

country honorably yet are excluded from earned benefits. 

The eligibility requirement as proposed by bills H.R. 1211 and H.R. 2702 requires 

a servicemember to serve an aggregate of at least two years of honorable active-duty 

service in the armed forces after September 11, 2001. However, The American Legion supports a MGIB–SR participant reimbursement rate adjusted for time spent 

on Federal activation, State activation, and normal service for a period not to exceed 

36 months. 

The operational force of our nation’s military has transformed dramatically since 

1985, the year that the MGIB was established. Now, the Reserve Components are 

a large part of the operational force and are called to active-duty for a significant 

portion of their Reserve career as compared to prior years when the Reserve Components were rarely used. As of today, over 450,000 members of the Reserve Components have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). A majority of these Reservists served honorably on 

active-duty for at least 90 days, thereby earning them REAP benefits (Chapter 1607, 

Title 10, USC) in addition to their MGIB–Selected Reserve Benefits (Chapter 1606, 

Title 10, USC). Therefore, deducing that out of the 850,750 members of the Reserve 

Components who have departed the military since 2002, we conservatively estimate 

that at least over 400,000 veterans have lost earned education benefits. Or, at least 

50 percent of the force has lost earned education benefits that could have been used 

to increase their earning potential. Noting that our figures are of National Guard 

and Reserve members that were deployed in support of OIF/OEF, there are additional Reservists that were called to active-duty to CONUS (Continental United 

States) or deployed to other regions of the world. Hence, our conservative estimate 

of 400,000 veterans losing earned benefits is, more likely than not, much greater. 

If these two pieces of legislation are passed in their current form, approximately 

100,000 newly eligible veterans would qualify, but 400,000 veterans of the same era 

would not. As the Global War on Terrorism continues, an ever-increasing number 

of veterans will fall into these two categories. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

51 

Staff Sergeant Jimmy Marrello is a Reservist from Illinois. He has made the 

Dean’s list while he was in school and was a finalist for the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) of the Year Competition. Unfortunately, none of his Federal activations 

were 2 consecutive years and thus, he is ineligible to enroll in the MGIB–AD. SSG 

Marrello will only receive a maximum of $23,781 of REAP benefits, but he will not 

be able to use them after completion of his service contract. If he served 2 consecutive years, he would be able to enroll in the MGIB–AD benefit and receive $31,701 

and have the ability to use those benefits after leaving service. Amazingly, when 

he completes his upcoming tour in the Horn of Africa he will have completed 48 

months of active-duty service starting in 2003, but never in a 2-year sequential period. 

SSG Marrello states: 

‘‘I have only been able to complete about a fourth of the required classes for 

my nursing degree due to constant call-ups. I have been to Iraq for 14 months, 

the Defense Language Institute for 18 months, Primary Leadership Development 

Course, Basic Non-Commissioned Officers Courses, Non-Commission Officer of 

the Year Competition, Unit Prevention Leader Course, Range Safety Course, Foreign Language Refresher Course and other supportive assignments in support of 

operations. 

At this very moment I am in Fort Bragg, North Carolina preparing to deploy 

to the Horn of Africa for 16 months. By the time I return I will be 32 years old, 

my son will be 9 years old, and I hope to resume my nursing degree in the Fall 

of 2009. 

Every time that I have to leave it sets me back financially in that I have to 

find new housing, fix my vehicle, regain my possessions from storage and other 

matters. I end up spending a lot of money that I wish I could invest or spend 

for school. When I came back from Iraq in 2004, my possessions were in one 

state, my immediate family in another, and my child and his mother in yet another state. With no place really to go, I lived in a hotel room for 3 months trying 

to figure things out.’’ 

We note that the current DoD Reserve Component Force Management Policy released by the Office of the Secretary of Defense on January 11, 2007 states: ‘‘DoD 

will construct the maximum mobilization timeframe to one-year and the policy objective for involuntary mobilization of Guard/Reserve units is a one-year mobilized 

to five-year demobilized ratio.’’ If these policies hold true, many members of the Reserve Components would not be eligible to receive benefits under H.R. 1211 and 

H.R. 2702, yet they have honorably served their country on active-duty in the 

Armed Forces. 

The American Legion supports Reservists utilizing their educational benefits even 

after release from the Selected Reserve. 

Therefore, equity of benefits would remedy this situation. The American Legion 

recommends benefits for time spent on Federal activation at the full time rate proposed in the legislation for those veterans that have served less than two years, but 

also allow them to use their benefits after completion of a service contract. If a 

servicemember does serve an aggregate of two years, due to multiple deployments, 

extensions, or enlistment in the Active-Duty Force, then they would be in receipt 

of the full duration of benefits as proposed in H.R. 1211 and H.R. 2702. 

H.R. 1211 

The American Legion supports the aggregate requirement and the removal of any 

ending date of qualification. H.R. 1211 would permit a member of the Selected Reserve who (among other qualifications), served an aggregate of two years on activeduty during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on December 

31, 2008 to one month of educational assistance for each month served on activeduty. Furthermore, H.R. 1211 does require the basic pay of qualifying members to 

be reduced by $100 for each of first the 12 months of such active-duty service. The 

American Legion supports the termination of the current military payroll contribution ($1,200) required for enrollment in MGIB. The American Legion supports extending eligibility for H.R. 1211 past 2008. 

H.R. 2702 

Grasping the essence of the original GI Bill in 1944, H.R. 2702 seeks to provide 

this nation’s veterans with an educational benefit package similar to that earned 

by veterans in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Following World War II, wartime 

veterans saturated colleges and then used their advanced degrees to gain employment in all sectors of our country. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

52 

H.R. 2702 will pay up to the maximum amount of tuition regularly charged for 

in-state students for full-time pursuit of programs of education. Succinctly, it is tied 

to the ‘public institution of higher education in the State in which the individual 

is pursuing such program of education that has the highest rate of regularlycharged tuition for programs of education among all public institutions of higher 

education in such State.’ Simply put, a veteran can afford to go to the highest priced 

public institution at the in-state rate. Furthermore, it will pay for an amount equal 

to the room and board of the individual plus a monthly stipend in the amount of 

$1,000. 

Therefore, The American Legion fully supports the intent of H.R. 2702 to provide 

additional educational benefits for full time active-duty servicemembers and those 

individuals who are ordered to active-duty as members of Reserve Components of 

the armed forces. We do reiterate our recommendation to amend this proposed legislation to allow for use of benefits after service and entitlement of benefits based on 

time spent on Federal activation, State activation, and normal service. 

Additional Proposed Legislation 

H.R. 2910, ‘‘The Veterans Education Tuition Support Act of 2007’’ 

This proposed legislation identifies the current plight that returning college bound 

servicemembers have been unjustly enduring from some institutions of higher learning and accordingly, The American Legion supports this bill. H.R. 2910 recognizes 

the complete transformation of the Reserve Components into an operational force. 

Activations and intermittent duty such as training or duty in support of operations 

are now an obligation of service. 

The American Legion supports the proposed amendment to the Servicemembers 

Civil Relief Act that will prohibit unfair penalties on members who are called to active-duty service while enrolled in institutions of higher education. A refund of tuition and fees pre-paid by a servicemember to a university for classes not taken due 

to performance of military obligations is long overdue. The American Legion is concerned that activations during the middle of a course is extremely disruptive and 

while this legislation aims to correct injustices financially, in most cases the veteran 

must restart the course and has lost valuable time due to deployment. 

This legislation also aims to allow a servicemember the opportunity to reenroll 

with the same educational and academic status that they had when activated. In 

a sense, it will be as if the servicemember never left college and therefore will not 

be penalized. Finally, the bill assists veterans in repayment of student loans. Again, 

The American Legion supports H.R. 2910. 

H.R. 2247, ‘‘Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007’’ 

In enacted, the ‘‘Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007’’ would repeal all time 

limits to use the MGIB. H.R. 2247 is a step in the right direction and The American 

Legion supports the repeal of the 14-year limit for MGIB–SR and applauds efforts 

to assist disabled members and allow them to use their education benefits. In addition to the positive measures that the bill encompasses, The American Legion notes 

that the bill neglects to repeal the delimiting date for REAP beneficiaries, those Reservists who were called to active-duty for a minimum of 90 days. 

H.R. 2385, ‘‘The 21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act of 2007’’ 

Section 2 

This legislation also makes strides toward improvement, but falls short of what 

is truly needed to modify and enhance veterans’ education benefits. The American 

Legion agrees with the proposed payments of the veterans’ subsistence, tuition, fees 

and other educational costs and delivery of benefits in a lump sum manner. However, we object to the limitation that this program would be unavailable to those 

veterans seeking a graduate level degree. 

The American Legion objects to the ‘‘deployed overseas’’ requirement for eligibility 

of this program. The American Legion supports making the proposed changes available to all eligible veterans regardless of overseas service. 

H.R. 1102, ‘‘Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement and Integration Act of 2007’’ (The Total Force GI Bill) 

The American Legion supports the Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement and Integration Act of 2007. This bill solves many problems, most significantly 

the inequities of benefits of the members of the Reserve Components as compared 

to their full time, active-duty counterparts. Servicemembers called to active service 

perform duties at an equal rate to their full time counterparts and should be treated 

as such. The American Legion is pleased to see the portability provision in this legwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

53 

islation. This will allow Reservists to earn credits for education while mobilized, just 

as active-duty troops do, and use them after they leave military service. 

The Total Force MGIB plan calls on Congress to combine statutory authority for 

both MGIB–AD and MGIB–SR programs under the VA (Chapter 30 of Title 38, 

USC). This would mean moving MGIB–SR and REAP programs from the DoD 

(Chapters 1606 & 1607 of Title 10, USC) and shifting oversight responsibility to VA. 

The plan also calls for simplifying MGIB benefit levels and features into three 

tiers. Tier One would be MGIB–AD. Benefits for full time students are currently 

$1,101 a month for 36 months of college or qualified vocational training. Tier Two 

would be MGIB–SR for drilling members who enlist for six years. Tier Three would 

be MGIB benefits for activated Reservists, but with changes to the Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP) that Congress enacted in 2004. 

Under Total Force MGIB, activated Reservists would be in receipt of REAP benefits at a rate (40, 60 and 80 percent of the active duty payment rate) corresponding 

to their length of mobilization up to 36 months. Members would have up to 10 years 

to use active duty or activated Reserve benefits (Tiers One and Three) from the last 

date of separation from the Ready Reserve. A Reservist could also use any remaining MGIB–SR benefits (Tier Two), but only while in drill status or for up to 10 years 

after separation if the separation is for disability or qualification for retirement. The 

American Legion supports that REAP benefits remain available for up to 10 years 

following separation from the Selected Reserve. 

H.R. 1214, ‘‘The Veterans’ Survivors Education Enhancement Act’’ 

The American Legion supports the transfer of Montgomery GI Bill benefits from 

a veteran to their immediate family members, should a veteran elect to do so. In 

the case of survivors and dependents of a deceased veteran, it would be beneficial 

to immediate family members, if remaining earned veterans’ educational entitlements can be transferred. 

H.R. 4889, ‘‘The Guard and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008’’ 

The American Legion agrees with the proposed legislation, H.R. 4889, the ‘‘Guard 

and Reserves Are Fighting Too Act of 2008’’, and fully supports the intent of the 

bill that would move the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) from 

Chapter 1607, Title 10, USC to a new chapter under Title 38, USC Recodification 

of REAP benefits would place the administration under the VA and the oversight 

authority under the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs. 

However, The American Legion has concerns regarding the technical language in 

connection to the anticipated passage of the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). If H.R. 4889 were enacted in its current form after the passage 

of the FY 2008 NDAA, the positive veterans’ education provisions contained in the 

FY 08 NDAA would be removed by this legislation. 

The American Legion recommends making technical corrections to H.R. 4889 to 

contain the new veterans’ education provisions enacted under Title 10, U.S.C. by the 

NDAA. The language would then fully match the legislative intent to transfer all 

REAP benefits to Title 38, USC. 

The most notable positive provision in the NDAA in regards to veterans’ education 

is the portability of benefits of REAP beneficiaries. The NDAA would enact legislation in Title 10, USC to allow Reservists to use their Chapter 1607 educational benefits for 10 years after separation from the Reserves and permit Reservists to reclaim previously earned Chapter 1607, Title 10, USC benefits and use them for 10 

years following any subsequent separation if they rejoin the Reserve Components. 

Additionally, it also authorizes an accelerated payment program, allows Reservists 

with three cumulative years of active-duty service to qualify for education benefits 

at 80 percent of the active-duty rate, and creates a buy-up program for servicemembers eligible for Chapter 1607, Title 10, USC benefits. 

CONCLUSION 

Historically, The American Legion has encouraged the development of essential 

benefits to help attract and retain servicemembers into the Armed Services, as well 

as to assist them in making the smoothest possible transition back to the civilian 

community. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, the ‘‘GI Bill of Rights’’ is 

a historic piece of legislation, authored by Harry W. Colmery, Past National Commander of The American Legion, that enabled millions of veterans to purchase their 

first homes, attend college, obtain vocational training, and start private businesses. 

The legislation discussed today aims to better serve veterans and ultimately assist 

them in attaining financial stability. The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for addressing these important issues. We appreciate the opportunity to 

present this statement for the record and to continue our proud history of advocating for increased educational benefits to members of the armed forces. 

f 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

54 

Prepared Statement of Thomas L. Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense 

and 

Curtis L. Gilroy, Ph.D., Director for Accession Policy, 

Military Personnel Policy, Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense 

Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. We are 

pleased to appear before you, on behalf of the Department of Defense (DoD), to testify about proposed changes to the educational assistance programs available to active duty members, National Guard and Reserve members, and veterans. The current programs are the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), which provides educational assistance benefits to active duty members, veterans and National Guard and Reserve 

members who complete the required active duty service, the MGIB for the Selected 

Reserve (MGIB–SR), which provide educational assistance benefits to members of 

the Selected Reserve and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP), 

which provides educational assistance to Ready Reserve members, and under certain circumstances to veterans, who served on active duty or full-time National 

Guard duty for designated purposes. 

For today’s hearing, you asked for DoD’s views on seven specific items of pending 

legislation. Specifically, the invitation asked for the Department’s views on H.R. 

2910, H.R. 1211, H.R. 2247, H.R. 2385, H.R. 1102, H.R. 1214, and H.R. 2702. 

MGIB 

In assessing the current MGIB program, it is important to note that education 

benefits are vital to our recruiting efforts. ‘‘Money for college’’ consistently ranks 

among the major reasons young men and women give for enlisting. Enrollment in 

the active-duty MGIB program has risen from only 50 percent in its first year, 1985, 

to nearly 97 percent today. A total of 2.8 million men and women, from an eligible 

pool of 3.8 million, have chosen to participate in the MGIB since its implementation 

on July 1, 1985. Such enrollment rates demonstrate the attractiveness of the MGIB. 

The current MGIB program continues to serve the Active components of the military well. It is our belief that there are no significant shortcomings to the program. 

Value of the MGIB Stipend 

In the initial year of the program—School Year 1985–86—the MGIB offset 70 percent of the average total expenses at a public four-year university. Total expenses 

include tuition, fees, room and board. This offset steadily declined until the early 

1990s, when the MGIB monthly benefit increased from $300 per month to $400 per 

month. Since 1993, the benefit has been adjusted annually for inflation. The current 

rate of $1,101 for this school year covers approximately 75 percent of the average 

total expenses at a public four-year university. 

In addition to the basic MGIB benefit, three of the four Services offer an increased 

benefit, called a ‘‘kicker,’’ targeting enlistments in certain critical or hard-to-fill 

skills and for extended periods of initial service. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps 

use this incentive to steer about 12,000 high-quality youth into the skills necessary 

for efficient force management. The statutory limit for the kicker is $950 per month. 

The basic MGIB benefit plus the kicker make up the Service College Funds. This 

past year, the maximum benefit of the Service College Funds covered 140 percent 

of the average total expenses at a public four-year university. 

There is no doubt that the MGIB serves as a key recruiting incentive. As we indicated earlier, young men and women consistently rank ‘‘money for college’’ as a 

major reason they enlist. Today, the Services are facing stiff challenges to recruiting. The number of graduates who are pursuing postsecondary education right out 

of high school is at an all-time high, and young people are finding that financial 

assistance to attend college is available from many sources. While few of those 

sources match the benefits of the MGIB, neither do these sources require young men 

and women to delay their education for a term of military service and the possibility 

of entering into ‘‘harm’s way.’’ The MGIB benefit should be sufficient to offset the 

commitment and sacrifices associated with military service. 

While many may look at the benefit level of the MGIB as it relates to readjustment and transition to civilian life, we must be mindful of its effect on military force 

management. The potential benefits of a higher benefit level to recruiting must be 

carefully evaluated in light of the difficulties some of the Services are currently experiencing in the recruiting market. Attracting qualified recruits using large, acrossthe board basic benefits incurs the risk that many who enter for the benefits will 

leave as soon as they can to use them. If so, lower first term retention could both 

reduce the number of experienced NCOs and Petty Officers available to staff the 

force, and put added pressure on the recruiting market as additional accessions are 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

55 

required to replace the members who leave. The Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics states the total monthly cost of education (tuition, 

fees, room, and board) for School Year 2006–2007 was $1,450 (adjusted for inflation). We posit that the negative retention impact starts to outweigh the positive 

impacts on recruiting when the monthly benefit is higher than the total cost of education. 

MGIB–SR and REAP 

The MGIB–SR also serves its intended purpose well. Since the inception of the 

program in 1986 through Fiscal Year 2006, 1.6 million members of the Selected Reserve have entered into service agreements to gain eligibility for MGIB–SR benefits. 

Of those who committed to service in the Selected Reserve for MGIB–SR benefits, 

663,000, or 41 percent, have applied for educational assistance. This indicates that 

educational assistance plays an important role in the decision to join the National 

Guard or Reserve for a large number of the eligible servicemembers. At the end of 

Fiscal Year 2006, the number of Selected Reserve members eligible for MGIB–SR 

benefits totaled 366,000, of whom 106,600, or 29 percent, had applied to receive benefit payments. 

REAP was enacted in Fiscal Year 2005 to provide an educational assistance program specifically for National Guard and Reserve members who serve in support of 

a contingency operation and National Guard members who support certain Federal 

missions in a federally funded state duty status. A member who serves for as few 

as 90 days of continuous service is eligible for a benefit that is 40 percent of the 

three-year MGIB rate. The rate increases with longer periods of service. A member 

receives 60 percent of the MGIB rate for one continuous year of service and 80 percent of the MGIB rate for two continuous years of service. 

Proposed Legislation 

H.R. 2910, the Veterans Education Tuition Support Act of 2007, would provide for reimbursement of tuition to members of the Armed Forces for programs of 

education delayed by military service, provide for deferment of student loans and 

reduced interest rates for such members during periods of military service. This proposal addresses programs that are under the purview of the Department of Education (Education). Education advises this proposal is duplicative of recently enacted 

laws. The HEROES Act (recently made permanent in Public Law 110–93) provides 

the Secretary of Education waiver authority over return of student aid similar to 

the waiver mandated in H.R. 2910; in addition, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act signed into law in September provides 13 months of loan deferment for borrowers called to active duty. Moreover, the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges 

(SOC), which is a consortium of colleges and universities dedicated to helping 

servicemembers, has been very effective in helping student reservists who encounter 

a problem. We are not aware of any problems that SOC has not been able to resolve. 

H.R. 1211, the Resuming Education after Defense Service Act of 2007, 

would provide that service may be aggregated to qualify for MGIB benefits. Specifically, a Reserve component member who aggregates two years of active duty service 

in any five-year period would qualify for the MGIB two-year benefit. The bill would 

also establish a formula for the duration of assistance based on the number of 

months the member served on active duty. The concept of allowing a member to aggregate periods of service to qualify for a benefit is in keeping with our continuum 

of service concept and the Secretary’s force utilization policy. However, we defer to 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), as this proposal would affect a program 

under its purview. 

H.R. 2247, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007, would repeal the 10- 

year limit on use of MGIB benefits and the 14-year limit for use of the MGIB–SR 

benefit, and would repeal the delimiting period for disabled member under the 

REAP benefit. We defer to VA for comment on section 2 (eliminating the MGIB delimiting period), and we see no negative impact resulting from section 4 (eliminating 

the REAP delimiting period for disabled members). We estimate that eliminating 

the 10-year delimiting period for disabled members under REAP would cost less 

than $1M per year. The Department supports the concept of eliminating the MGIB– 

SR 14-year delimiting period for Selected Reserve members provided members continue to serve in the Selected Reserve. The Department also supports repealing the 

MGIB–SR 10-year delimiting period for members separated because of a disability. 

However, this section of the bill is substantively flawed in that it no longer provides 

the authority to continue to pay benefits to disabled members. Therefore, the Department does not support section 3, as drafted. 

H.R. 2385, the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act of 2007, would offer a 

‘‘World War II-like’’ GI Bill that would cover the full cost of college tuition, fees, 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

56 

room, and board. This bill does limit the benefit amount at the national average of 

public and private four-year institutions. We estimate that this benefit level would 

have limited the monthly payment to about $2,050 for this past school year. This 

legislation is correct in stating that the MGIB was primarily designed for a ‘‘peacetime force.’’ However, the current MGIB program for active duty is basically sound 

and serves its purpose in support of the all-volunteer force. The Department finds 

no need for the kind of sweeping (and expensive) changes offered. 

In line with our earlier statement about benefit levels, we are concerned that a 

benefit of this level would have long-term negative impact on force management. 

Additionally, we are concerned that this bill offers no provision for ‘‘kickers,’’ which 

the Services routinely use to channel high quality youth into hard to fill and critical 

skills. The level of the proposed benefit for all new accessions would exceed the maximum level of the current MGIB as augmented by a maximum ‘‘kicker’’ of $950, 

making it more difficult to target the most critical skills. In addition, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) advises that it would object to the proposed 

$100,000 veterans ‘‘microloan’’ provision. The subsidy cost of the loans at the specified interest rate will be at least 10 percent (our rough estimate). In addition, microlending intermediaries have little experience in making loans of this size. The maximum loan most microloan intermediaries make is about $35,000. The SBA’s Patriot 

Express loan program, which operates through the 7(a) loan program, is the more 

appropriate vehicle for loans from $35,000 to $100,000. For these reasons, we oppose 

H.R. 2385. This bill also would have significant impact on the VA budget; therefore, 

again we would defer to the VA regarding the bill’s costs. 

H.R. 1102, the Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement and Integration Act for 2007, would recodify chapter 1606 (MGIB–SR) and chapter 1607 

(REAP) of Title 10, as a new chapter in Title 38. The Department opposes this bill. 

If enacted, it would place primary responsibility for managing critical DoD recruiting and retention incentive programs with the VA Secretary. DoD’s responsibility 

is to manage and sustain the All-Volunteer Force, while VA’s responsibility is to 

provide benefits and other services to veterans and their dependents and beneficiaries. Placing a military force management program under VA is inconsistent 

with its purpose and VA’s responsibilities. 

H.R. 1214, the Veterans’ Survivors Education Enhancement Act, would 

make changes to the benefits accrued under the provisions of Chapter 35 of Title 

38, United States Code. We see no impact of this provision on military force management. Therefore, we defer to the VA for comment on this legislation, as it will 

affect the VA budget. 

H.R. 2702, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007, 

would offer a ‘‘World War II-like’’ GI Bill, paying the full cost of a college education 

up to the maximum charges of the highest cost public institution in the State and 

a $1,000 monthly stipend. As stated previously, the average monthly cost of a public 

four-year institution this past school year was about $1,450. However, under H.R. 

2702, we could expect the average recipient to receive a monthly benefit of about 

$2,400. The Department opposes this bill for similar concerns as cited previously regarding H.R. 2385. 

Conclusion 

The Department is committed to providing educational assistance that recognizes 

the service and sacrifices of our Service members and helps them achieve their educational goals. If the primary purpose of the program is to help the Services achieve 

force management objectives, the program should appropriately remain with DoD. 

However, if the purpose of the program is to support veterans in their transition 

from military to civilian life, then the program is more appropriately placed with 

the VA. Like veterans of World War II, today’s soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines 

and Coast Guard members stand ready, willing, and able to defend our great Nation. However, unlike World War II, today we have an all-volunteer force and the 

Services need programs that will help them achieve their manning objectives. Educational assistance has played an important role in that and we would appreciate 

the continued support of this Committee in helping the Department sustain the allvolunteer force while continuing to provide members with programs that help them 

achieve their educational goals. 

f 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

57 

Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson Director, Education Service, 

Veterans Benefit Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and 

other members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today to discuss a number of bills that would, in the main, affect educational 

assistance programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

H.R. 1102 

H.R. 1102, the ‘‘Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement and Integration 

Act of 2007,’’ would recodify the provisions of chapters 1606 (the Montgomery GI 

Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB–SR) program) and 1607 (the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP)) of Title 10, United States Code, relating to educational 

assistance for members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces, in subchapters I and II, respectively, of a new chapter 33 of Title 38, United States Code. 

The bill also would make substantial revisions to such provisions as so recodified. 

VA opposes H.R. 1102 as drafted for the reasons discussed below. 

New section 3302, as proposed by this bill, embodies the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 

§ 16132. This provision would set a program-commencement date of October 1, 2008, 

and would maintain eligibility based on a six-year commitment in the Selected Reserve. New section 3302A, as proposed, has no corresponding section in Title 10, but 

would provide that each individual eligible for the MGIB–SR on October 1, 2008, 

would be eligible for the new chapter 33 program and could carryover to the new 

program the amount of his or her MGIB–SR entitlement remaining as of September 

30, 2008. The current 14-year delimiting date for such individuals to use their educational assistance benefits would no longer apply. 

New section 3303, as proposed, would correspond to current section 16131(b) of 

Title 10. This section sets monthly rates for the subchapter I program at the MGIB– 

SR rates in effect for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 ($309). This change would result in a 

rate decrease, however, since the MGIB–SR rates otherwise would be subject to a 

cost-of-living (CPI) adjustment for FY 2008. We could not support this change since 

we do not believe recodification should result in a lesser benefit. This section would 

maintain the CPI adjustment for subsequent fiscal years and future rate increases 

would be tied to increases in chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) rates by applying the same percentage increases in the rates. 

The bill also would provide that VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) jointly 

establish the amounts of increased benefit or ‘‘kicker’’ payable to certain individuals 

to encourage enlistment in military skill or specialty areas in which there is a critical shortage of personnel or for which it is difficult to recruit. We believe such determinations relating to military force needs should remain exclusively with DoD. 

Subchapter II of Chapter 33, as established by H.R. 1102, would recodify provisions covering the REAP. New section 3323 would provide for the program under 

subchapter II to begin on October 1, 2008, with the same threshold 90-day active 

duty requirement for a participant’s eligibility as for the REAP. VA, rather than 

DoD, would be required to notify individuals of their eligibility under the program. 

Section 3323A, as proposed, would provide that each individual eligible for the 

REAP on October 1, 2008, would be eligible for the new subchapter II program. 

These individuals would carryover the number of months of their entitlement remaining on September 20, 2008. Under certain circumstances, if an individual completes a service contract, the individual’s delimiting date for using his or her remaining benefits would be 10 years from the date the individual separates from the 

Ready Reserve. We defer to DoD on this provision since it could negatively impact 

Reserve retention policy. 

Section 3324 would make the monthly rate payable under subchapter II equal to 

the three-year MGIB–Active Duty (MGIB–AD) rate. Individuals who qualify for subchapter II through serving the minimum period of active duty that qualified them 

for the REAP (i.e., 90 days) may receive up to 36 months of a benefit amount equal 

to that earned by a three-year commitment to the active duty forces. The amount 

would be adjusted annually by the increase in the CPI. This change would be a significant departure from current law and one that we oppose. Currently, a servicemember gets 40 percent of the MGIB–AD rate if called to active duty for at least 

90 days but less than a year; 60 percent of the MGIB–AD rate if called to active 

duty for at least a year but less than two years; and 80 percent of the MGIB–AD 

rate if called to active duty for at least two years. 

Another change to the REAP involving pursuit of flight training would provide for 

a substantial increase in such benefit. Individuals pursuing flight training full time 

under the subchapter II program would be given 60 percent of the established 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

58 

charges for tuition and fees. Individuals pursuing flight training currently under the 

REAP receive 24, 36, or 48 percent of those fees depending upon length of activeduty service. 

Under subchapter II, on-job training (OJT), apprenticeship, and correspondence 

program pursuit would be treated in a similar manner to such pursuit under the 

MGIB–AD. Currently, REAP participants pursuing such training receive a smaller 

percentage of the full-time rate than do their MGIB–AD counterparts. Therefore, 

this change also would be a rate increase for subchapter II program participants. 

For instance, a subchapter II participant who qualified for the REAP based on serving 90 days of active duty would receive benefits for on-job training at the initial 

rate of 75 percent of the full-time MGIB–AD monthly rate for individuals who 

served a 3-year active duty commitment, rather than the 30-percent rate that otherwise would be payable under the REAP. 

Under section 3325, a Reserve member who becomes eligible for subchapter II 

benefits after Sept. 30, 2008, generally could not use those benefits after leaving the 

Reserves if the member leaves before completing his/her contract. Otherwise, if the 

service contract is fulfilled, the member would be able to use benefits for 10 years 

after separation from the Ready Reserve. The 10-year limit also would apply if the 

member is separated early for disability, as is the case under current law. This 

change would allow everyone who fulfills the service contract to use the benefit after 

leaving the Reserves. This would be a substantial change from current law and 

could negatively impact Reserve retention policy. Consequently, we defer to DoD on 

this provision. 

Section 3326 proposes that the educational assistance would end if the individual 

receives benefits under 10 U.S.C. 2107 or leaves the Reserves without fulfilling the 

service contract. An exception would be allowed for individuals who left but subsequently reentered the Reserves, provided that the break did not exceed more than 

90 days. Again, we would defer to DoD on this provision since it could negatively 

affect retention policy. 

Section 3342 provides that funding for those establishing eligibility after September 30, 2008, would come from VA’s readjustment benefits account. Funding effective October 1, 2008, for those who transfer into the program from the REAP or 

MGIB–SR would come from DoD. Currently, all funding comes from DoD. The Administration has worked with Congressional Budget and Appropriation Committees 

to ensure that the true cost of manpower is reflected in the budget of all agencies 

so that both cost and policy are not separated. Reserve education benefits are mainly recruiting and retention tools and for this reason they were funded on an actuarial basis in the DoD budget at the inception of the MGIB. The Administration 

does not support dismantling this funding mechanism as it would be contrary to 

transparent and responsible budgeting. 

VA estimates that, if enacted, H.R. 1102 would result in an increase to VA’s Readjustment Benefit appropriation request of $844.3 million in the first year, and $8.4 

billion over nine years. This increase reflects the change in appropriation structure 

requiring VA to increase its appropriation to cover the obligations associated with 

these payments. VA estimates the net impact of H.R. 1102 to the Federal Government would be an increase of $416.1 million in the first year and nearly $4.9 billion 

over nine years. VA’s General Operating Expenses (GOE) costs are estimated to be 

$7.3 million over 10 years. In addition to the policy objections stated above, we oppose this legislation because the direct costs involved are not included in the Budget 

and the legislation does not identify a corresponding offset. 

Moreover, in order to ensure effective implementation of the proposed bill, VA 

would have to significantly enhance or replace existing accounting systems. We estimate approximately 18 months would be needed to complete this process and we 

have no current estimation on the costs involved. 

H.R. 1211 

H.R. 1211, the ‘‘Resuming Education After Defense Service Act of 2007,’’ would 

amend section 3012 of Title 38 to provide entitlement to educational assistance 

under the MGIB–AD for members of the Selected Reserve who aggregate more than 

two years of active duty service in any five-year period commencing with the first 

active duty orders received during the period September 11, 2001 to December 31, 

2008. H.R. 1211 would require that the pay of a member be reduced $100 a month 

for the first 12 months of active duty service, unless the member declines MGIB 

participation. H.R. 1211 would provide for retroactive credit for active duty service 

and the payments would be made effective date of enactment. 

Under current section 3012, members of the Selected Reserve are eligible for 

MGIB–AD educational assistance if they serve at least two continuous years of acwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

59 

tive duty in the Armed Forces after June 30, 1985, followed by four years of service 

in the Selected Reserves. This bill contains no post-active duty Selected Reserve 

service requirement for its new category of section 3012 eligibility. 

Also, VA has concerns regarding section 2(d) as it is currently written. Under that section, the $1,200 initial contribution is collected during the first 12 months of active duty service instead of at the end of the active duty period. It follows, therefore, 

that the member would have to make a benefit election at the beginning of deployment when unaware of whether he/she will ever serve the aggregate active duty period required to establish MGIB–AD eligibility. This bill would result in a benefits cost increase to VA of $1.2 million in the first 

year, $10.2 million for five years, and $16.8 million over 10 years. The additional 

$1,200-basic-pay reductions would generate approximately $6.8 million in the first 

year (FY 2008) and $8.2 million over three years to be deposited in the proprietary 

receipt account at Treasury. (These funds are not transferred to VA; however, they 

do offset VA outlays for scoring purposes.) Because of the potentially large direct 

costs without identified offsets, VA opposes this bill. 

H.R. 1214 

H.R. 1214, the ‘‘Veterans’ Survivors Education Enhancement Act,’’ would expand 

and enhance educational assistance under VA’s Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance program codified in chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code. 

Section 2(a). Termination of durational limitation on use of educational assistance 

and restatement of continuing requirements. 

Under current law, section 3511(a)(1), Title 38, United States Code, an eligible 

person may not receive chapter 35 educational assistance for more than 45 months 

or the equivalent thereof in part-time training. Also, under section 3695(a) of that 

title, a person may not aggregate more than 48 months of entitlement under chapter 

35 and one or more provisions of law listed in that section. 

H.R. 1214 would eliminate the 45-month limitation on entitlement under chapter 

35 and allow for dependents, spouses, and surviving spouses to receive educational 

assistance up to a maximum dollar amount. It would also exempt any entitlement 

received under chapter 35 from the 48-month aggregate maximum entitlement allowed under more than one education benefits program. Thus, for example, an eligible person could receive full entitlement under chapter 35, then go on to receive full 

entitlement under another program or vice versa. 

VA does not support this section for two reasons. First, we do not believe it would 

be equitable to allow chapter 35 recipients to receive far more benefit dollars up 

front and overall than veterans, servicemembers, or reservists who are not eligible 

to receive benefits under chapter 35. There also would be a significant direct cost 

associated with making chapter 35 entitlement exempt from the 48-month maximum entitlement rule, and no offsets for this cost have been identified. 

Section 2(b). Extension of delimiting age of eligibility for dependents. 

Under this section, H.R. 1214 would allow an eligible dependent child to receive 

chapter 35 educational assistance until the child’s thirtieth birthday. Presently, an 

eligible child may receive educational assistance until age twenty-six (with certain 

exceptions). This change, of course, would allow more individuals to be eligible for 

chapter 35 benefits for a longer period of time, generating direct costs for which no 

offsets have been identified. 

One of the purposes of this chapter is to aid eligible children in reaching the educational status they might have obtained but for the disability or death of the veteran parent. VA does not have any evidence to show that this purpose is not being 

fulfilled with the current age limitation or that it would be better met if the age 

for the ending date of a child’s period of eligibility were 30. 

Section 2(c). Amount of educational assistance. 

Under current law, the monthly educational assistance allowance for chapter 35 

is computed based on the type of training being pursued and the training time. This 

section of H.R. 1214 would eliminate any fixed monthly educational assistance allowance. H.R. 1214 does not define in what increments payment should be disbursed. Instead, it would provide for an aggregate educational assistance amount 

of $80,000 and allow this amount to be paid in any amount for institutional courses, 

vocational training, apprenticeship or other on-job training, farm cooperative programs, and special educational assistance for the educationally disadvantaged and/ 

or special restorative training. Correspondence training for spouses would also be 

subject to this limit. Educational assistance, including special training allowance, 

would be provided to eligible persons at an institution located in the Republic of the 

Philippines at the rate of $.50 for each dollar. It also specifies that the aggregate 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

60 

educational assistance amount would be increased annually based on the Consumer 

Price Index. 

VA objects to section 2(c) for several reasons. The $80,000 educational assistance 

amount bears little or no connection to the cost of the education an eligible person 

might be pursuing. This amount is more than the cost of tuition, fees, room and 

board charged at a four-year public school according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). It is far, far more than the cost of any correspondence 

course an eligible person might pursue. Furthermore, payment based on $80,000 

would mean that an apprentice or job trainee under chapter 35 would actually receive a sharp decline in income upon completion of training when the journeymanlevel wage is attained. 

Contrary to the stated purpose of chapter 35, if this provision were enacted, an 

individual eligible for chapter 35 benefits could receive $80,000 in educational assistance without receiving an education. For example, an eligible individual could 

ask for and receive $80,000 at the start of the first semester of a college program 

then drop out after a short time. Under this bill and the provisions of existing statute concerning mitigating circumstances, the claimant could keep the $80,000 even 

if the claimant never again pursued any education program. This bill would remove 

the incentive for a student to complete a program of educational training and, in 

effect, separate the benefit from the whole program. 

Finally, this provision as written would allow any currently eligible person to request a lump-sum payment of $80,000 as soon as the person enrolled in an approved 

training program. Thus, persons currently receiving chapter 35 benefits could also 

request a lump-sum payment of $80,000 as soon as this bill is enacted, regardless 

of how much they already have received in chapter 35 benefits. This would result 

in significant up front direct costs for which no offsets have been identified. 

Section 2(d). Other conforming amendments. 

This section makes conforming amendments. 

Section 2(e). Clerical amendments. 

The technical amendments in this section make minor editorial changes. We have 

no objections to the clerical amendments listed in this section. 

Section 2(f). Effective dates. 

The amendments made by H.R. 1214 would be effective the date of enactment of 

the Act. Since the bill eliminates the months of entitlement charged for chapter 35 

benefits, those persons still within their delimiting date on the day the bill is enacted could request a lump-sum payment of $80,000 even if they previously had exhausted their entitlement under the current law. The bill does not address such 

transitional issues for current chapter 35 beneficiaries and those eligible persons 

still within their delimiting date. 

For the foregoing reasons, VA opposes H.R. 1214. 

H.R. 2247 

H.R. 2247, the ‘‘Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007,’’ would eliminate time 

limitations for eligible individuals to use their educational assistance benefits under 

the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) program. Currently such time limitations, in general, are 10 years from an individual’s last discharge or release from active duty 

for the MGIB–AD program and the earlier of 14 years from the date an individual 

becomes entitled to educational assistance or the date the individual is separated 

from the Selected Reserve for the MGIB–SR. The bill would eliminate the time limitation for using education benefits under the REAP for certain eligible individuals 

who have separated from the Ready Reserve because of disability. Under current 

law, such individuals have 10 years from the date on which they become entitled 

to such assistance to use it. Finally, H.R. 2247 would remove the time limitation 

on the use of entitlement transferred to certain dependents under the MGIB–AD. 

Under this provision, eligible spouses could use the benefits transferred to them 

with no time limitation, although eligible children would remain limited in using 

their transferred entitlement only until they reach the age of 26. 

VA cannot support the bill’s proposal to eliminate the current delimiting-date provisions for using MGIB–AD benefits because no cost offsets have been identified to 

cover the potentially significant cost of the resulting benefit expansion. Furthermore, enabling the use of this benefit such a long time after discharge does not align 

with the codified purpose of these benefits as a readjustment benefit to help separating servicemembers readjust to civilian life. We defer to DoD in regard to sections 3 and 4 of the bill, which, respectively, would affect the provision of benefits 

under the MGIB–SR and REAP. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

61 

VA is unable to estimate the increased cost resulting from enactment of the provisions of H.R. 2247 pertaining to the MGI Bill-AD because we neither can predict 

the portion of the population that would elect to use the benefit beyond 10 years 

following discharge nor forecast when, or the extent to which, such use might occur. 

H.R. 2385 

H.R. 2385, the ‘‘21st Century GI Bill of Rights,’’ would establish in a new chapter 

33 of Title 38, United States Code, a new program of educational assistance for veterans who serve in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001, and also would provide enhancements in housing and entrepreneur assistance for veterans. 

Section 2 of H.R. 2385 would establish an entitlement under the proposed new 

educational benefit program for individuals who: (1) were deployed overseas on active duty in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001, (2) served on active duty 

in the Armed Forces for an aggregate of at least 2 years after September 11, 1001, 

or (3) were discharged before aggregating 2 years of active duty service for a serviceconnected disability, a pre-existing medical condition, hardship or a physical or mental condition not resulting from their own willful misconduct but did interfere with 

their performance of duty. Individuals who received a commission as an officer upon 

graduation from a service academy would not be eligible for this benefit based on 

their initial service obligation. 

VA opposes H.R. 2385. We believe that the bill’s provisions relating to deployment 

are vague and overly broad. The bill fails to refer to a specific contingency operation 

but instead relies on a term (‘‘deployed overseas’’) that is both vague and open to 

multiple interpretations. Allowing all individuals who have been deployed overseas 

since September 11, 2001, to qualify for the benefit would open up eligibility and 

a full 36 months of entitlement to anyone who has ever been deployed overseas regardless of location and length of service. This change would make a very substantial number of individuals eligible to receive this benefit. Although we cannot estimate costs at this time, we predict that this bill would lead to significant direct 

spending for which no offsets are identified. Also, by only allowing individuals deployed overseas to qualify, the bill would disqualify many deployed in support of the 

Global War on Terror within the United States who aggregate less than two years 

of active duty. Additionally, basing eligibility on active duty location would create 

significant administrative burdens that could negatively impact our ability to timely 

and accurately deliver benefits. 

We cannot support this provision in the absence of more specific language regarding contingency operations and/or location of deployment. 

As proposed in H.R. 2385, individuals eligible under this program would be able 

to receive up to 36 months of educational assistance. Eligible individuals would be 

able to enroll in an approved program of education under current chapter 30 provisions, with the exception of programs to obtain a graduate degree. Chapter 33 recipients could receive educational assistance consisting of the established charges 

for the program (including tuition, fees, required supplies, books and equipment) 

and an amount equal to room and board. The payments for established charges 

could not exceed the national average amount of tuition regularly charged for fulltime pursuit of a 4-year program of education at a public or private college or university. The amount of the room and board payment could not exceed the standard 

dormitory fee, as established by VA through regulations. 

VA opposes this provision because it would require VA to maintain established 

charges for programs and room-and-board costs. 

The bill provides no guidance on how to determine a ‘‘standard’’ dormitory fee. For 

example, it is unclear whether the standard should be a national standard or a 

standard specific to each state. The development of regulations and procedures for 

making an annual determination of standard fees would be an overwhelming administrative burden to VA. In general, VA opposes the establishment of a benefit that 

is based on the cost of programs and room and board. 

In addition, we note that many individuals enter military service today with at 

least some amount of postsecondary education. By disallowing graduate training, 

H.R. 2385 would unfairly limit the eligible person’s choices and the ability to use 

the maximum entitlement earned, as well as create an inequity among those eligible 

to receive the benefit. There is no compelling reason to favor one type of degree over 

another. 

The bill would provide for VA to determine the timing and frequency of payments 

to chapter 33 recipients. Educational assistance payments could be made in the 

form of a lump-sum amount for the entire term at its commencement, but payments 

may not be made before the individual’s date of enrollment. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

62 

The provision to pay for terms of enrollment in a lump sum after the commencement of the enrollment period would have significant consequences. Currently, payments generally are made only after attendance begins. Payment of benefits following ‘‘enrollment’’ would result in significant amounts being provided prior to actual attendance. These payments could be based solely on how long prior to actual 

attendance an institution allows students to enroll. The use of the terms ‘‘enrollment’’ and ‘‘attendance’’ must be carefully applied. 

Additionally, a heavy potential overpayment burden could be placed on veterans 

who terminate their enrollment prior to completing the term for which they have 

been paid. Presently, claimants must verify their attendance and are then paid on 

a monthly basis. This basically limits their liability for repayment of benefits due 

to course withdrawals to a single month. Payment of an entire term up front would 

cause a repayment liability on the part of the claimant for potentially many thousands of dollars. 

New section 3313(e), as proposed, would establish the manner in which payments 

would be made to individuals who are pursuing a program of education while serving on active duty. Individuals on active duty would receive the lesser of the established charges or the amount of the institution’s charges. VA would be required to 

issue the chapter 33 benefit amount to such individuals in a lump-sum payment before the start of the term. Entitlement would be charged at a rate of one month for 

each month covered by the payment. 

Individuals pursuing training on a less than half-time basis would receive payments in a lump-sum no later than the last day of the month following the month 

in which their enrollment certification was received. Their entitlement would be 

charged at a percentage of a month equal to the number of hours undertaken divided by the number of hours for full-time study (actual hours/full-time hours). 

Individuals eligible for the new chapter 33 benefits could also receive tutorial assistance up to $100 per month for 12 months as outlined in 38 U.S.C. § 3492 without 

accruing any charge to their entitlement. 

Under the proposed chapter 33 program, individuals could also receive payments 

for licensing and certification tests, as defined in 38 U.S.C. § 3452(b), without incurring any charge to their entitlement. 

New section 3313(g), as proposed would offer specialized training and certification 

programs for veterans with service-connected disabilities. It is unclear if this portion 

of the bill would authorize an additional benefit under the new chapter 33 or an 

additional benefit under VA’s chapter 31 Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment 

program for veterans with service-connected disabilities. H.R. 2385 would also provide for the payment of licensing and certification tests without incurrence of any 

entitlement charges. This change would make the 10-year delimiting date the only 

factor in determining at what point a claimant could no longer receive such payment. 

New section 3321, as proposed, would establish a 10-year delimiting period in 

which an individual may use his or her benefits. This period would begin on the 

date of the individual’s last discharge or release from active duty. If an individual’s 

entitlement were to expire during the course of a term or a program of study, it 

would be extended until the end of the term/course or for 12 weeks, whichever is 

shorter. 

New section 3322, as proposed, would specify that individuals receiving educational assistance benefits under chapter 33 may not receive assistance under 

chapter 30, 31, 32, or 35 of Title 38 U.S.C. or chapter 107, 1606 or 1607 of Title 

10 U.S.C. simultaneously. In addition, section 3322(b) would provide that periods of 

service counted under an educational loan repayment may not be counted as a period of service to establish eligibility for the chapter 33 program. 

Individuals could elect to receive educational assistance benefits under chapter 33, 

if, at the date of this bill’s enactment, they have remaining unused entitlement 

under chapter 30 of Title 38 or under chapters 1606, 1607, or 107 of Title 10 and 

otherwise meet the requirements or are making progress toward meeting the requirements for entitlement under the proposed chapter 33. Individuals could also receive chapter 33 benefits if they opted out of the chapter 30 program through an 

election under section 3011(c)(1) or §3012(d)(1) of Title 38, but are otherwise eligible 

under chapter 33 eligibility requirements. 

New section 3324(c)(3)(B), as proposed, would permit individuals enrolled in chapter 30 to elect chapter 33 for the number of months of entitlement they have remaining. However, there is no provision regarding the manner in which individuals 

enrolled in the chapter 1606 or chapter 1607 program would elect benefits under 

chapter 33 or how their remaining entitlement should be applied to chapter 33 

usage. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

63 

The bill would provide that, if an individual who is eligible under chapter 33 has 

previously elected to transfer his or her educational benefits to a dependent(s) under 

the provisions outlined in 38 U.S.C. §3020, he or she may elect to revoke some or 

all of the remaining entitlement so transferred. If an individual were to revoke his 

or her transfer of entitlement, the educational assistance would no longer be available to the dependent. In such case, the entitlement would instead be available to 

the servicemember or veteran for chapter 33 purposes. Any previously transferred 

entitlement that is not revoked would remain available to the eligible dependent in 

accordance with current transfer of entitlement provisions under 38 U.S.C. §3020. 

Further, the bill would provide that, if an individual elects to participate in the 

chapter 33 program, he or she may receive the number of unused months of entitlement he or she had under chapter 30. An election to receive benefits under chapter 

33 would be irrevocable. In the case of an individual who has made an election, the 

bill would provide that, effective as of the first month following the election, the obligation of the individual to make contributions under the MGIB–AD or the MGIB– 

SR program shall cease. 

We believe enactment of this bill would impose a tremendous administrative burden on VA, largely because it would make over 2 million veterans and servicemembers immediately eligible to receive the chapter 33 benefits upon the date of 

its enactment. Further, the entire combined population of current chapter 30, chapter 1606, and chapter 1607 participants would be eligible for the new (more advantageous) chapter 33 benefits and could request an immediate re-adjudication of their 

present claims. For reasons previously mentioned, which involve requirements for 

development of regulations or procedures, as well as extensive system changes that 

could include total development of new computer payment systems, VA would not 

be capable of effective administration of this benefit for an unacceptably long period 

of time following enactment. The combined effect would be to severely impact claims 

processing and cause a huge spike of indefinite duration in current waiting times 

for receiving education benefits. 

Section 3 of H.R. 2385 in subsection (a) would increase the maximum guaranty 

amount for certain residences of a particular size located in any area for which the 

median price for such size residence exceeds the dollar amount, to 25 percent of the 

median price for such a residence in such area. 

VA cannot support subsection (a), as drafted, because its intended application is 

unclear. By its terms, it applies specifically to ‘‘certain residences of a particular size 

located in any area . . .’’ It provides no further explication of or guidance on how 

to determine the pertinent size residence or the area of its location. Moreover, as 

written, the provision could produce conflicting and, presumably, unintended consequences: a maximum guaranty that would, on the one hand, be substantially 

lower under certain circumstances than under existing law, and on the other, authorize guaranty amounts so large as to be wholly unrelated to the conforming loan 

limit. 

For instance, under existing law, the maximum guaranty for a VA loan is 25% 

of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit (currently $417,000). For 2007, that maximum guaranty dollar amount is $104,250. Thus, if a veteran were to purchase a 

four-bedroom home for $400,000, VA would issue to a lender a guaranty certificate 

for $100,000. Under the proposed legislation, however, VA would first have to determine the median price of similarly sized homes in a particular area. If the median 

price for a four-bedroom home was $300,000 (exceeding the ‘‘dollar amount’’ of 

$104,250), VA only could issue a guaranty for $75,000, essentially reducing the veteran’s purchasing power by $100,000. In contrast, if a veteran were to purchase a 

seven-bedroom home for $4 million, where the median price for a similarly sized 

home was $4.24 million, VA would be required to issue a guaranty certificate for 

$1.06 million. VA finds both of these outcomes objectionable and, therefore, cannot 

support this subsection. 

VA is unable to estimate the costs of this provision without additional guidance 

as to its meaning and intended objective. 

Subsection (b) of section 3 would repeal the housing loan fee currently prescribed 

by 38 U.S.C. § 3729. 

VA strongly opposes this proposed elimination of the loan fee. Loan fees are largely responsible for the financial viability of VA’s housing loan benefits. VA believes 

that repealing the loan fee will have far-reaching consequences, both in short-term 

costs and in preparing to accept long-term risk. We also note that, by striking existing section 3703(e), the bill would remove protection for veterans against personal 

liability for any loss resulting from defaults on their VA-guaranteed loans. 

VA estimates the cost of this provision to be $583 million in the first year and 

$4.8 billion over 10 years. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

64 

Section 4 of H.R. 2385 would amend the Small Business Act relating to the 

Microloan Program, under section 7(m) of that Act, to authorize small business 

loans to veterans in amounts up to $100,000 at an interest rate of no more than 

2.5 percent. Further, VA, acting through its Veterans Health Administration’s Vet 

Centers would provide technical assistance, outreach and counseling to veterans regarding the Microloan Program. Finally, Congress would authorize to be appropriated to VA and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration the sums 

necessary to carry out this section. 

VA has an extensive history of promoting business ownership for veterans. We 

began establishing goals for our procurement program in 1984. Veterans may use 

their GI Bill to complete small business courses. We include information about business ownership in the GI pocket guide, referring personnel to both the Small Business Administration and to our own Center for Veterans Enterprise. Additionally, 

VA is unique in government in that we have special buying authority to contract 

with veterans and with service-connected disabled veterans in business. 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) advises that it strongly opposes the 

proposed Veterans Microloan program. Currently, Microloans are available up to 

$35,000, and the average loan size is $13,000. Therefore, micro-lending intermediaries have little experience making these larger loans. Also, with an interest 

rate cap of 2.5%, and no collateral required from borrowers, this would be an expensive program. 

We recommend deleting the provision that SBA establish a database of intermediaries. This database already exists. It was established to comply with requirements of Public Law 106–50. VA’s Center for Veterans Enterprise manages this 

database, known as the Assistance Program Pages, on its web portal, 

www.VetBiz.gov. 

We are concerned about the appropriation provision as the Department has not 

had an opportunity to consider the costs associated with all aspects of this bill. Also, 

this summer, SBA established the Patriot Express Loan program. Patriot Express 

provides loans up to $500,000 to veterans and reservists, with streamlined documentation and expedited processing, and a 75 to 85 percent Federal guarantee. The 

response to the new program from SBA lenders has been very good, and this program has proven to be beneficial to military personnel and to veterans. SBA believes 

Patriot Express is a significant step toward improving access to SBA’s business loan 

programs to veterans and reservists, and, therefore, SBA believes the proposed veterans Microloan program is duplicative and unnecessary. 

We estimate enactment of H.R. 2385 would result in total benefit costs to VA of 

$4.5 billion during the first year and $68.8 billion over 10 years, for which no offsets 

have been identified. We currently are unable to estimate the resulting additional 

administrative costs associated with this bill. 

H.R. 2702 

H.R. 2702, the ‘‘Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007,’’ would 

add a new chapter 33 to Title 38, United States Code, that would, in general, require an individual to serve at least 2 years of active duty, with a least some period 

of active duty time served beginning on or after September 11, 2001, to be eligible 

for educational assistance under the new program. It would, for most individuals, 

link the number of months of educational assistance to the individual’s months of 

service that occurred after September 11, 2001, but, in general, not provide for more 

than 36 months of benefits, with the educational assistance to cover the established 

charges of the program of education (subject to certain limitations), room and board 

(subject to certain limitations), and a monthly stipend of $1,000. 

Under H.R. 2702, chapter 33 would provide for educational assistance for lessthan-half time education, apprenticeships, on-job training, correspondence courses, 

and flight training. Chapter 33 also would provide payment for tutorial assistance, 

not to exceed $100 per month for a maximum of 12 months, and one licensing or 

certification test, not to exceed the lesser of $2,000 or the test fee. Generally, individuals would have 15 years to use their educational entitlement beginning on the 

date of their last discharge or release from active duty. VA would administer this 

program with payments of assistance made from funds made available to VA for the 

payment of readjustment benefits. In general, individuals eligible for benefits under 

chapter 30 of Title 38, United States Code, or chapters 107, 1606, or 1607 of Title 

10, United States Code, could irrevocably elect, instead, to receive educational assistance under chapter 33. 

We have serious concerns about certain provisions of H.R. 2702 and, therefore, 

must oppose it. The complexity of the proposed eligibility requirements, the anticipated high benefit cost (with no apparent offsets), and the anticipated excessive adwwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

65 

ministrative burden associated with this bill are all problematic. As currently written, eligibility criteria for the proposed chapter 33 are far more complex than the 

current Montgomery GI Bill. Entitlement determinations factoring in length of service and previous benefit usage would also be highly complex and difficult for individuals to understand. 

The increased amount of benefits payable at varying levels for different institutions would make administration of this program cumbersome. The requirement 

that the benefit be paid at the beginning of the term would further complicate administration and would tax existing VA resources. 

New section 3313(j)(2) of Title 38, United States Code, as proposed under H.R. 

2702, would require VA to annually determine which public schools in each state 

have the highest in-state tuition rate and set the maximum established charges for 

each state accordingly. This labor-intensive process would need to be completed annually in sufficient time to prepare for issuance of payments in advance of the term. 

Further, as written, this bill would be effective on the date of enactment. It would 

be necessary to prescribe regulations, make systems changes, and make other key 

adjustments to support the components of this bill. It is also likely that other sections within Title 38, United States Code, may need to be amended to address potential overpayments of the monthly stipend. For the above reasons, it would not 

be feasible for VA to begin making payments under the proposed chapter 33 benefit 

immediately. 

It also appears that, if enacted, the bill might have some unintended consequences. For example, the stipend of $1,000 per month would be payable to individuals attending degree and non-degree programs and also to those who are completing internships and on-the-job training programs. This seems inequitable, as it 

would treat an individual in an apprenticeship program who is earning wages the 

same as a college student who is incurring expenses. It is also unclear what effect 

this benefit would have on recruiting and retention. While we defer to the Department of Defense on this point, we acknowledge that this may lead to lower reenlistments. 

VA estimates that, if enacted, H.R. 2702 would result in benefit costs of $5.4 billion during Fiscal Year 2008, $32.2 billion for fiscal years 2008 through 2012, and 

$74.7 billion over the 10-year period from Fiscal Year 2008 through 2017. 

Significant administrative costs would also be incurred. As previously noted, proposed new section 3313(j)(2) would require VA, through a labor-intensive process, 

to annually determine which public schools in each state have the highest in-state 

tuition rate and set the established charges for each state accordingly. Further, 

since VA’s obligation is to ensure that veterans and servicemembers receive the 

most advantageous benefit, VA would be obligated to reevaluate all pending claims 

and award the greater chapter 33 benefits, as appropriate. We are concerned that 

these new and very complex administrative burdens would significantly impact the 

current level of service and responsiveness we give to current education program 

beneficiaries. Based on these factors, we would anticipate substantial administrative 

costs, but cannot fully estimate them without further research. 

H.R. 2910 

H.R. 2910, the ‘‘Veterans Education Tuition Support Act of 2007’’ or ‘‘VETS Act 

of 2007,’’ would add a new section to Title VII of the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act to require an institution of higher education, whenever a servicemember is 

called, activated, or ordered to military service and therefore withdraws or takes a 

leave of absence from such institution, to: (1) refund to the servicemember tuition 

and other fees paid for the portion of the program of education for which the servicemember did not receive academic credit after such withdrawal or leave; and (2) provide the servicemember an opportunity to reenroll at the institution with the same 

educational and academic status that the servicemember had when ordered to military service. 

Further, H.R. 2910 would require a provider of a student loan with respect to 

such a servicemember: (1) if the servicemember reenrolls in the program of education (or a comparable program) within 13 months following the period of military 

service, to disregard the entire period that the education was discontinued in determining the date on which student loan repayment is to begin; or (2) if the servicemember does not reenroll, to not require loan repayment to begin before the later 

of the last day of such 13-month period or the date the repayment was otherwise 

required to begin. 

Finally, H.R. 2910 would amend section 207 of the Servicemember’s Civil Relief 

Act by prohibiting a court from granting a creditor relief from the 6% limit on interest charged against the indebtedness of a servicemember during a period of military 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

66 

service in the case of an obligation or liability incurred by a servicemember who is 

a student at an institution of higher education at the time of the call to service. 

VA appreciates the congressional interest shown in this area. The Department of 

Education advises this proposal is duplicative of recently enacted laws. The HEROES Act (recently made permanent in P.L. 110–93) provides the Secretary of Education waiver authority over return of student aid similar to the waiver mandated 

in H.R. 2910; in addition, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act signed into 

law in September provides 13 months of loan deferment for borrowers called to active duty. However, since the proposed new relief would not affect the provision of 

VA benefits, VA defers to the DoD and the Department of Education concerning this 

bill. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond 

to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington 

Good Afternoon. I want to thank Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin and Ranking 

Member Boozman for holding this important hearing. A number of valuable pieces 

of legislation will be discussed today concerning improvements and modifications to 

the GI Bill. I am especially pleased that we will be discussing the Montgomery GI 

Bill for Life Act (H.R. 2247), legislation I have sponsored and I am thankful to have 

a number of bipartisan cosponsors. I also want to thank Senator Maria Cantwell 

for her leadership on this issue and her sponsorship of companion legislation in the 

Senate. 

The GI Bill was established in 1944 as a way of giving back to our Nation’s veterans who gave so much to our country during World War II. Since it became law, 

this program has helped millions of veterans afford a two or four-year degree. This 

historic legislation has improved the lives of many veterans, opening doors and creating opportunities for those who served in the military to serve our country in new 

ways as civilians. Through the GI Bill, countless veterans have become teachers, scientists and engineers—to name just a few examples—and made countless contributions to communities across the country. 

For all the benefits of the GI Bill, there are clearly areas which need reform. 

Under current law, the vast majority of servicemembers contribute to the GI Bill 

program, but only slightly more than half take advantage of their education benefits 

before they expire. Current law requires that those who served in active duty must 

use all of their education benefits within 10 years of being discharged. Those serving 

in the Selected Reserve have 14 years of eligibility to use their GI Bill benefits. 

We live in a 21st Century world that requires a 21st Century workforce. Advances 

in technology mean that increasing numbers of Americans need more than a high 

school degree to succeed. Furthermore, estimates show the average annual earnings 

of someone with a bachelor’s degree are anywhere from 74 to 87 percent higher than 

the earnings of someone with a high school diploma. 

Many veterans are not able to go back to school immediately or within the first 

several years after they leave the service. Many servicemembers must postpone 

school to support their families, and many face lengthy rehabilitations from servicerelated injuries. Others choose to gain experience in the workforce first and need 

further education down the road in order to advance their careers. Some veterans 

may be able to start using their benefits within the timeframe allowed, but are not 

able to complete their degree within 10 years. When the benefits run out, many 

can’t afford to return to school and are unable to complete their degree. 

We must do more to honor our commitment to veterans and help them access the 

education benefits they have earned. Veterans should not be limited to an arbitrary 

timeline that prevents them from getting the education and job training they need 

when they need it. The GI Bill for Life Act would remove these time limitations and 

allow our Nation’s veterans to use their benefits whenever they see fit. They paid 

into the program and they should be able to use the program at the right time in 

their lives and their careers. 

As more and more veterans come back from Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas 

of the world, we need to give them the tools they need to succeed in the next stage 

of their lives. We need to give them every opportunity to transition to civilian life 

and take advantage of future career opportunities. 

I want to thank you again for holding this important hearing and for considering 

the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act. I look forward to continuing to work with you 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

67 

and the other Members of the Committee to advance this legislation and help give 

our Nation’s veterans the flexibility they need to be successful. 

f 

Statement of Hon. Jim Matheson, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah 

Madame Chairwoman. Thank you for allowing me to submit a statement for the 

record regarding my bill, the Resuming Education after Defense Service Act of 2007 

(H.R. 1211). I appreciate the Subcommittee’s willingness to hold hearings on pending Montgomery GI Bill legislation. 

I have long been an ardent supporter for allowing more flexibility when it comes 

to providing educational assistance to our Nation’s troops. I introduced this bill in 

response to concerns from soldiers returning from Iraq who learned that despite 

their lengthy deployment, they were ineligible for the financial assistance. 

Our military men and women have made tremendous sacrifices during the war 

against terror. They’ve earned our gratitude and our support—particularly when 

they’re trying to resume a normal life following deployment. That’s what this legislation helps provide. 

My bill extends Title 38 Montgomery GI Bill benefits to Reservists and Guardsmen serving 24+ cumulative months on active duty and is supported by the Enlisted 

Association of the National Guard (EANGUS) and the Military Officers Association 

of America (MOAA). 

Many National Guardsmen and Reservists have already served 24 months on Active Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan over multiple deployments and a technicality in 

the law requires service to be continuous, which is simply not possible under current 

operational cycles. This legislation allows soldiers serving two years on Active Duty 

over a 5-year period to qualify for the benefit and is retroactive to September 11, 

2001. 

We continue to rely more and more on the extended service of Reservists. We 

should keep our promises to them and we should compensate them for that contribution. Madame Chairwoman, thank you for your time. 

f 

Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), would like to thank you for 

the opportunity to submit a statement for the record concerning pending legislation 

that addresses education benefits for today’s veterans including changes to the 

Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). With so many men and women serving in the Global 

War on Terror, these benefits will be critical to their readjustment when they leave 

the service. 

H.R. 1102, the ‘‘Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement and 

Integration Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 1102, the ‘‘Total Force Educational Assistance Enhancement 

and Integration Act of 2007.’’ This bill recodifies the educational assistance provisions for members of the reserve components from the current Title 10, to Title 38, 

United States Code. This bill also allows the use of such educational assistance for 

apprenticeships and on-job training, flight training, licensing and certification tests, 

and individualized tutorial assistance. This will allow a veteran who does not want 

to attend a four year college to use the educational assistance for other types of career training. Placing the Guard and Reserve education programs into Title 38 will 

place the oversight responsibility in the Department of Veterans Affairs allowing 

Congress to better monitor these programs to ensure that they are serving the veterans. 

H.R. 1211, the ‘‘Resuming Education After Defense Service Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 1211, the ‘‘Resuming Education After Defense Service Act of 

2007.’’ This legislation would provide educational assistance under the Montgomery 

GI Bill for Selected Reserve members who serve on active duty in the Armed Services for a total of two years during a five-year period. This applies to service from 

the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending December 31, 2008. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

68 

PVA does not support the requirement in section 2(d)(2) that requires the active 

duty servicemember to contribute $100 per month for the first 12 months of service. 

There should be no cost to the active duty servicemember. The MGIB should be an 

automatic entitlement for servicemembers. 

H.R. 1214, the ‘‘Veterans Survivors Education Enhancement Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 1214, the ‘‘Veterans Survivors Education Enhancement Act.’’ 

This bill amends Title 38, United States Code, to expand and enhance the educational assistance for survivors and dependents. The bill expands the age of eligibility for dependents from 26 years of age to 30 years of age. This legislation specifies that payments of educational assistance shall not be charged against the entitlement of an individual because that person is ordered to serve on active duty. Section 3532 of the bill increases the total amount of educational assistance to $80,000, 

and calls for regular increases from time to time. 

The bill also increases the range of programs that the educational assistance can 

be used for. This reflects the fact that various programs to prepare for future employment do not require the standard four years of college. 

H.R. 2247, the ‘‘Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act’’ 

Although PVA has no specific objection to this legislation, we have some concern 

that it could change the underlying meaning of the MGIB. Education benefits, particularly the MGIB, are meant to be a readjustment benefit for servicemembers immediately upon leaving the service or in the interim 10-year period. By eliminating 

this 10-year period, the benefit would then be opened up to a generation of veterans 

who may have long since passed the need for readjustment. 

The one benefit that we do see to this legislation is it could allow a veteran to 

make a career change if he or she finds that their current career choice was not 

the right one. The availability of the MGIB benefit later in life would open many 

new doors. However, we do not want this change to open up the opportunity for veterans who may have retired from a career already to use the benefit simply to give 

them something to do. This could certainly occur. 

H.R. 2385, the ‘‘21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 2385, the ‘‘21st Century GI Bill of Rights Act of 2007.’’ This 

bill will begin the process of providing for today’s and tomorrow’s veterans by increasing education, housing, and entrepreneurial opportunities. America has an obligation to uphold the spirit of the original GI Bill and Congress has a responsibility 

to enact legislation that will return similar comprehensive benefits to our veterans. 

This bill will extend eligibility to all servicemembers (active duty, National Guard, 

and Reserves) who have served since September 11, 2001 and deployed overseas in 

support of a combat operation. This would include active duty personnel who have 

served a minimum of two years on active duty since September 11, 2001 and National Guard and Reserve personnel who have served a minimum aggregate of two 

years on active duty since September 11, 2001. 

The legislation will pay eight undergraduate college semesters (or 36 months) of 

tuition, fees, books, room and board, and other educational costs commensurate with 

costs paid by non-veterans. This would allow a veteran to attend college without accruing a large amount of debt. 

This bill also eliminates payments into the program as part of an enlistment contract as currently required in the Montgomery GI Bill. During previous wars, those 

serving in the military were exempted from fees for benefits. New recruits in the 

military begin their service receiving a relatively low rate of pay. They should not 

be penalized $100 each month simply because they may be considering attending 

college in the future. 

H.R. 2385 would also exempt veterans from paying loan fees when they receive 

a loan under the Veterans Affairs Home Loan Guaranty Program. Other types of 

home loans do not require a loan fee. A loan fee should not be required of a veteran. 

H.R. 2702, the ‘‘Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 2702, a bill that would enhance the current educational benefits for the men and women who have served on active duty since September 11, 

2001. The dollar amount of educational assistance would be equal to the established 

amount of tuition of an approved institution. This would give the veteran a greater 

selection of institutions to pursue their education since they would not be restricted 

to less expensive institutions. An additional amount of funding would be paid for 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

69 

the cost of room and board, and a monthly stipend of $1,000 would be paid to the 

student for other expenses. Tutorial assistance would also be available, and would 

be paid for a period up to 12 months to help the student with difficult courses. This 

amount would not be taken from the student’s entitlement. The bill allows the veteran up to 15 years to take advantage of these benefits. This is an important addition since many returning veterans may not be emotionally ready right away to 

start school. This educational package offers the veteran many incentives to encourage them to enroll in school or continue with their educational program. 

H.R. 2910, the ‘‘Veterans Education Tuition Support Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 2910, the ‘‘Veterans Education Tuition Support Act of 2007.’’ 

This bill would benefit members of the Armed Forces who use various forms of financial aid to fund their college education and are called to active duty. Currently, 

upon returning from active duty the servicemember must start paying back the educational loan after one month. However, transition from military service and service 

in the combat theater is a difficult challenge. This bill would allow a 13 month transition period for these servicemembers to reenroll before beginning payment on their 

student loan. It also calls for a six percent interest rate cap on student loans of 

members of the Armed Forces that are deployed on active duty. 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes our statement. PVA would like to thank you again for 

the opportunity to submit a statement for the record and we would be happy to answer any questions. 

f 

Statement of Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia 

Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, I appreciate you holding this important hearing on pending legislation that would affect the Montgomery GI Bill. 

There are only a few events in our history that have galvanized all Americans 

to stand in unison to defend this great Nation. Sixty-six years ago, the attack on 

Pearl Harbor in 1941 was such a moment for what has been termed the ‘‘Greatest 

Generation.’’ The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 constituted such a moment 

for this generation of Americans. 

Since World War II, as a part of our recognition and appreciation of the great sacrifices of those who put their lives on the line in defense of our Nation, our government has offered educational assistance to our veterans when they returned home. 

The first GI Bill in 1944 helped veterans readjust to civilian life and afforded them 

the opportunity to do something that many had missed out on—getting a college 

education. The post-World War II GI Bill paid for veterans’ tuition, books, fees and 

other training costs, and provided them a monthly stipend. Of the 15 million veterans who returned home from World War II, more than half used the GI Bill’s benefits to better themselves through education. 

Since then, Congress passed several other GI Bills to grant educational benefits 

to veterans returning from the Korean war and the Vietnam War. After the Vietnam War, Congress passed two GI Bills that established peacetime educational benefits for members of the Armed Services—most recently the Montgomery GI Bill 

1985. Although the Montgomery GI Bill provides educational benefits, it was not designed to meet the needs of our current situation in which several hundred thousand men and women in uniform are fighting full time in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our 

military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have strained our all-volunteer military, forcing many of our men and women in uniform into extended tours of duty. 

Last year, I introduced H.R. 2702, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance 

Act. H.R. 2702 is the companion bill to S. 22, introduced by Senator Jim Webb of 

Virginia. The House version of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act 

currently has 88 bipartisan cosponsors, including Veterans’ Affairs Committee 

Chairman Bob Filner. 

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act is designed to expand the educational benefits that our Nation offers to our brave men and women who have 

served us so honorably since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The House 

bill will provide for the entire cost of tuition for a 4-year public university and also 

provide a $1,000 monthly stipend. The bill will also extend these benefits to members of the Reserve and National Guard who have been pulled out of college or away 

from their jobs to serve multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

70 

The current Montgomery GI Bill is an adequate education benefit for peacetime 

service; however, it is not an adequate education benefit for the hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. To 

receive benefits under the current Montgomery GI Bill, servicemembers are required to pay $100 a month for the first year of his or her enlistment. This required 

$1,200 investment results in only a flat $800 monthly payment toward college tuition, which barely covers the cost of a college education today. We desperately need 

to reform the GI Bill to provide a stronger education benefit to our men and women 

in uniform that accurately reflects the cost of an education. 

Everyone on this Subcommittee understands the value of a college education. The 

men and women who have taken it upon themselves to enlist in our Armed Forces 

deserve to have access to a quality education with little to no cost. It is the least 

that we can to do for those who have sacrificed so much for this great Nation. I 

thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and I hope that you will take a 

close look at the provisions in H.R. 2702. We must pass comprehensive reform to 

the GI Bill program to truly honor and support those who have served and defended 

this Nation after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 

f 

Washington State Council of Vietnam Veterans of America 

Blaine, WA. 

January 14, 2008 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin 

Hon. John Boozman 

United State House of Representatives 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Madame Chairman and Mr. Representative: 

I wish to respectfully submit the following for the record: 

The Washington State Council of the Vietnam Veterans of America fully endorses 

and supports passage of H.R. 2247 Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act. 

Since the end of WWII the GI Bill has played an important part in educating our 

Nation’s veterans. Studies have shown that those receiving a college degree have 

gone on in life and made more money and paid more taxes then those without degrees. As returning Vietnam Veterans many of us took advantage of the GI Bill. A 

number of us found it difficult to live on just over $300 a month and we still had 

to pay tuition out of that amount. Over the years veterans had to make a decision 

either to put food on their table to feed their families or attend college. Those veterans with families had no choice but to go to work and leave behind their education 

opportunities hoping some day they will be able to return to school. 

Vietnam Veterans throughout this great Nation ask that you remove the 10-year 

Time limitation restriction to allow all veterans seeking to fulfill their dreams to 

do so. 

Sincerely, 

Jim Pace 

f 

President 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

71 

CAMPUS KIT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 

Student Veterans of America 

Compiled by John T. Powers 

July 1, 2008 

www.studentveterans.org 

STUDENT VETERAN CONCERNS 

GI Bill 

Chapter 30 

ISSUE: The active duty GI Bill (Chapter 30) provides only $9,675 per year to 

cover tuition, & fees, books, and living expenses. This covers only 60% the average 

cost of college. 

CONCERN: Student veterans may be forced to work multiple jobs on top of the 

GI Bill to pay for school. This is in addition to possible issues readjusting from deployment such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. 

MORE INFORMATION: https://www.gibill.va.gov 

Chapter 31 (Vocational Rehabilitation) 

ISSUE: Incoming freshman students are often delayed in enrolling into classes 

until right before the semester begins. By this time many classes have been filled 

for weeks. 

CONCERN: To be eligible for this program the student veteran must be at least 

20% disabled with an employment handicap or at least 10% disabled with a serious 

employment handicap. Delays in registering for classes adds stress and scheduling 

dilemmas for individuals with a employment handicap. 

MORE INFORMATION: https://www.vba.va.gov/bln/vre/index.htm 

Delayed Schedule for Payment of Benefits 

ISSUE: Processing for Department of Veterans Affairs educational benefits can 

take up to eight weeks. Then these benefits are setup on an after the fact or monthly basis. 

Colleges & Universities require payment for tuition, fees, books, etc. up front or 

early in the semester before benefits have been received by the student veteran. 

CONCERN: Many veterans are unable to pay the costs of education up front. 

Student veterans often incur late fees while they wait to receive benefits to pay tuition. 

SUGGESTION: Offer deferred tuition payment or no late fees for students waiting on veteran’s benefits. 

Students Called to Duty 

ISSUE: Student veterans may be called to active duty during a semester. 

CONCERN: Preparing for deployment is difficult enough without having to deal 

with not completing their current classes either by withdrawing or taking an incomplete. Many student veterans report a wide disparity in options between professors, 

programs, and schools. 

SUGGESTION: Find your institutions policy for students called to duty. If you 

do not have one, establish one. Ensure this policy minimizes negative consequences 

for the student. 

Full-Time Veteran Support Staff 

ISSUE: Student veterans often have to navigate multiple departments to utilize 

the range of benefits and resources available to them. They often are handed from 

one department or staff member to another until they find what they need or simply 

give up. 

CONCERN: Colleges & Universities often do not provide full time staff members 

to act as the point of contact for veteran’s benefits and programs. This leads to frustration on the part of student veterans. The institution also losses out by missing 

resources available to it in order to better service student veterans and not understanding how well it serves students who are veterans. 

SUGGESTION: Establish positions in your institution to be a single point of contact for veteran’s benefits and programs at your institution. Use this office for staff 

member to process paperwork and stay on top of the needs and issues of student 

veterans. 

Availability of Information 

ISSUE: Information specific to veterans is often not easy to find or is organized 

with bits of information spread through many sources of information. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

72 

CONCERN: It can be frustrating to not be able to easily find information specific 

to your needs as a student veteran. Delays in finding this information, or outdated 

information can have a negative impact for student veterans. 

SUGGESTION: Create online resources specifically for veterans and prominently 

promote it. Use this website to consolidate veterans information from throughout 

the institution. 

PLAN OF ACTION FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 

Step One: Develop a Veterans Support Committee 

• Include members from each department of your institution. 

• Find out the number of student veterans and what types of benefits or resources they are using. 

• Draft a letter to these students that shows support from the administration and 

ask for feedback on their needs. 

Step Two: Support a Student Veterans Organization 

• Contact all student veterans about establishing a student veteran’s organization. 

• Host a ‘‘call out’’ meeting to assist students in standing up the organization. 

• Ensure they have access to all resources available to other student organizations. 

• Realize that this student organization will have specific needs that other organizations may not have. 

Step Three: Veterans Affairs Work Study Position(s) 

• Determine if your institution is eligible for a Department of Veterans Affairs 

work-study position for a student veteran. 

• File for the work-study position. 

• Employ the work-study student veteran assisting other student veterans and 

prospective student veterans. Train the student veteran to carry out these duties. This will increase the credibility of the institution regarding student veterans. 

• Provide office space and information technology resources as needed. 

• LINK: http://www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/22-8691.pdf 

Step Four: Develop Online & Print Resources 

• Build a website to consolidate information for student veterans from throughout 

the institution. 

• Create and distribute print brochures with the same information. 

• Ensure they have access to all resources available to other student organizations. 

• EXAMPLE: http://registrar.wisc.edu/students/vets/ 

Step Five: Educate Administration, Facility & Staff 

• Incorporate educational material on student veterans into routine training programs. 

• Utilize the presentation ‘‘Understanding the Student Veteran. 

• Ensure the on campus counseling resources are training to handle student veteran issues and are able to handle them. 

VA WORK STUDY 

Step One: Request to be an Approved Worksite 

• A letter from the person who will be the work-study supervisor needs to fax a 

letter, on official letterhead from the institution, requesting to become a worksite. This letter needs to contain the following information: 

• Who the supervisor is, along with contact information 

• What the supervisor does (brief job description) 

• Number of enrolled veterans at the institution (this will determine how many 

work study hours that will be allotted to the site). 

• The mission of the veteran office or center. Include qualitative information 

such as number of veterans served. 

• The anticipated job duties of the student worker. 

• Do not use catch phrases such as ‘‘and additional duties as assigned’’. 

• Include ‘‘veteran’’ in bullet points. • This letter must be very clear and concise. Keep it to one page. It must be 

clear the student worker will work directly and only with veterans issues. 

• Submit this letter to the VA Work Study Office. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

73 

• You will NOT be notified whether or not you are approved. You must contact 

the VA Work Study Office. 

• After submitting the initial letter, call to verify they received it. Remember 

the phone hours for the VA Work Study Office is 10am to 2pm. 

• They should be able to give you an anticipated approval date. 

Step Two: Hiring a Student 

• Once you have selected the student(s) you wish to hire for VA work study, call 

the VA Work Study Office to have them verify the student(s) qualify. Ensure 

you know the students Social Security number and which chapter they are 

using. The student must be actively receiving VA educational benefits. If the 

student has applied for benefits but not received their first check they will be 

denied. 

• Have the student complete VA Form 22–8691—Application for Work Study Allowance. 

• In Part III, Block #9 have then check ‘‘no’’. This will enable them to start 

much sooner. If they check ‘‘no’’, you can write in this block the date when 

you would like them to start (Contract Start XX–XX-XXXX). Contract will be 

backdated when approved. 

• In Part III, Block #12 and #14 they can be very brief. 

• In Part III, Block #13, if you are already an approved worksite, which you 

should be when filling out this application, put the exact location. The rest 

of the information (supervisor, contact info, worksite info) should be on the 

position description you send with it. 

• Do NOT include a resume or any academic information. 

• Position Description: 

• The student and supervisor names must be clear and on top of the position 

description. There will be more than one supervisor. Only list one. 

• The position description should be brief—condense part A and B of the description. 

• Once again, they will not notify you if you were approved or not. 

• After you fax this information, call to verify they received it. Ask when they 

expect it to be approved. 

Step Three: Timesheets 

• Students cannot work more than 25 times the number of weeks in the semester 

so, if they are working a full term they can only get 25 hours per week. 

• Timecards need to be submitted after a student works 50 hours. Depending on 

how many hours per week they work, they may not be paid every two weeks. 

• Do not send a cover sheet—any communications should go in the ‘‘remarks’’ 

block of the time sheet. 

SUGGESTIONS 

For Administrators 

• Survey your student veterans for their needs and concerns. 

• Work with student veterans during registration periods to ensure they are able 

to quickly enroll in classes. 

• Develop easy to use procedure to notify the institution (all parts of it to include 

professors, departments, programs, support offices) in the event they are called 

to duty. Ensure point of contact is promoted and easy to find. 

• Add ‘‘veterans sensitivity’’ training in faculty and staff development programs. 

• Maintain veterans Committee to host dialog between student veterans and others. 

• Host events on campus to make sure veterans feel welcome on campus. 

• Consider establishing a foundation account to assist student veterans with tuition, book, and other fees. 

• Keep in mind that Department of Veterans Affairs benefits and programs do 

not cover all the needs of student veterans. Consider developing your own scholarships, programs and other student veteran’s specific resources. 

• Evaluate the admissions process to ensure veterans are not disadvantaged. Students transitioning out of active service face a host of admissions difficulties. 

• Veterans have dramatically different life experiences, especially younger veterans. Do not treat them the same as you do student straight out of high school 

or other first time students. 

• Develop veteran specific orientation. Partner with local veterans organizations 

and military units for presentations and assistance. 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

74 

For Faculty 

• Include veterans information on the syllabus 

• Student veterans may not feel comfortable publicizing their veteran status. This 

is especially true for some topics. If your course covers war topics establish an 

atmosphere where they feel comfortable. Be understanding of veterans’ different 

viewpoint on topics. 

• Be flexible with attendance for student veterans who have appointments with 

Veterans Affairs. Rescheduling these appointments is often not possible or results in a long delay. 

• Be aware of military spouses and family members with individuals deployed. 

This is a very difficult period for them as well. 

Sample Letter to Student Veterans 

Dear Student, 

We are contacting you in an effort to reach out to students that have been identified as military veterans. 

On behalf of the INSTITUTION community, thank you for your service to our 

country. You have undoubtedly made sacrifices and faced hardships unknown to 

most other students. You have experiences few of use will ever understand. 

INSTITUTION would like to assist you in your transition to academic life. We 

have many departments and individuals who are available to help veterans adjust 

to civilian and campus life. In particular are the programs below. 

• Counseling Service provides XYZ services. It is located at lll and can be 

contacted at 555–555–5555. 

• Disability Services provides XYZ services. It is located at lll and can be contacted at 555–555–5555. 

• Veterans Support office provides XYZ services. It is located at lll and can 

be contacted at 555–555–5555. 

In addition to on campus resources, please be aware of the many resources available to you. MilitaryOneSource (www.militaryonesource.com) is a very comprehensive source of information. Student Veterans of America (www.studentveterans.org) 

is an umbrella group of student organizations and can provide assistance as well. 

We would appreciate if you would complete the questions enclosed and return it 

to lll. Doing so will allow us to better understand your needs and assist you 

in succeeding in your academic life. 

Sincerely, 

Name 

INSTITUTION 

Service Branch: lllllllll 

Interested in meeting other veterans: [yes] [no] 

How can we assist you in your transition to academic life? 

Would you like to schedule a meeting with supportive faculty & staff? [yes] [no] 

Do you have family members or close friends that would like information or support? [yes] [no] 

Would you prefer to NOT be contacted regarding your veteran status? [yes] [no] 

Name: lllllllll Phone: lllllllll Email: lllllllll 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

75 

QUICK LINKS & RESOURCES 

VA & DoD Hotlines 

VA Education Office 1–888–442–4551 

VA Healthcare Office 1–877–222–8387 

VA Benefits 1–800–827–1000 

WAVE (Verify Your Attendance) 1–877–823–2378 

VA Gulf War Help Line 1–800–273–8387 

DoD Direct Veterans Hotline 1–800–497–6261 

Suicide Hotline 1–800–273–8255 

VA Websites 

GI Bill http://www.gibill.va.gov 

Apply for GI Bill Benefits http://vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/VBA-22_1990.pdf 

GI Bill WAVE https://www.gibill.va.gov/wave/ 

Veterans Online Application (VONAPP) http://vabenefits.vba.va.gov/vonapp/ 

main.asp 

VA Hiring—Student Programs http://www.va.gov/JOBS/hiring_programs.asp#5 

VA Medical Centers http://www1.va.gov/directory/guide/home.asp 

VA Compensation & Pension http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/ 

Other Useful Government Websites 

Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES) http:// 

www.dantes.doded.mil/Dantes_web/DANTESHOME.asp 

Army/American Council on Education Registry Transcript System (AARTS) https:// 

aartstranscript.army.mil 

Community College of the Air Force Request Forms http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/ 

ccaf/transcripts.asp 

Coast Guard Military Transcripts http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cgi/offical_transcript.asp 

Sailor/Marine American Council on Education Registry Transcript (SMART) http:// 

www.navycollege.navy.mil/transcript.html 

National Center for PTSD http://ncptsd.va.gov 

Veteran Service Organizations 

Student Veterans of America http://www.studentveterans.org 

The American Legion http://legion.org 1–800–433–3318 

Veterans of Foreign Wars http://www.vfw.org 1–800–VFW-1899 

Disabled American Veterans http://www.dav.org 1–877–426–2838 

Paralyzed Veterans of America http://www.pav.org 1–800–424–8200 

AMVETS http://www.amvets.org 1–877–726–8387 

Vietnam Veterans of America http://www.vva.org 1–800–882–1316 

Servicemember Opportunity Colleges (SOC) 

SOC Consortium member institutions provide flexibility to servicemembers, their 

families, and veterans seeking college degrees. In turn SOC colleges and universities 

benefit from the enrollment of mature, highly motivated adult students who make 

use of tuition assistance or the GI Bill. http://www.soc.aascu.org 

Æ 

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING