[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MODERNIZING THE GI BILL
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in Room 334, Cannon
House Office Building, Hon. Steve Buyer [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Buyer, Bilirakis, Michaud, Boozman, Snyder, and
Salazar.
THE CHAIRMAN. The House Veterans' Affairs Committee will come to order,
date March 15, 2006.
Today we will receive testimony regarding how well the current Montgomery
GI Bill is meeting both the servicemembers' needs as well as the needs of our
nation.
Our witnesses are the leaders of the National Guard and Reserve components
whose members benefit from this very important program.
The Committee's goal for this hearing is to learn what is working and what
may need to be changed.
At the hearing during which Secretary Nicholson presented the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget, I announced my support for the modernization of the GI
Bill and noted that the Partnership for Veterans Education and the Independent
Budget have put forth several concepts for our consideration.
Since then, my staff and Lane Evans' staff have met with key stakeholders
to begin the process of designing and moving a bipartisan bill that will meet
what I see as two primary goals: first, to make the GI Bill more flexible in
the types of education and training available to all eligible veterans; and
second, to adjust the program to make it more useable for members of the
National Guard and Reserves while maintaining its value as a recruiting and
retention tool.
A modernized GI Bill must both help the veteran and the nation. According
to the VA, about 30 percent of our active-duty servicemembers never use the GI
Bill. VA's usage data on members of the Guard and Reserves is less detailed,
but they were paying Section 1606 benefits to about 59,000 as of January 2005,
with 81,000 expected to participate this year.
The VA says they have about 13,000 applicants for Section 1607 benefits on
hand and expect over 50,000 by the end of 2007.
Many members do not use their GI Bill although they have paid their $1,200
because even with the current level of benefits, they cannot afford to go to
college for four years while raising their family. This is at a time when the
Department of Labor has identified career fields that are critically short of
qualified employees.
One reason for this disconnect is that the current GI Bill focuses largely
on degree-granting programs at the expense of short-term training opportunities
that could meet some of these critical shortfalls.
My vision of a modernized GI Bill is one that would address both national
competitiveness and personal success issues by significantly increasing the
number of veterans who use their benefits and that includes members of the
National Guard and the Reserve.
One way I would like to do this is by making it easier for the veteran
with a family to get short-term training to qualify for a job in good-paying
fields that do not require degrees, such as transportation, construction,
medical care, public safety, et cetera.
I also want to help members of the Guard and Reserves finish their
education after they leave the service if they have not been able to do so while
meeting their military commitment. They should not lose their education
benefits following such honorable service.
Now, this will not be an easy task. You may have heard that an informal
estimate of the cost for the concepts being proposed by the Partnerships for
Veterans Education was $4.5 billion over ten years. Some of the cost is due
strictly to accounting rules and some is due to providing improved education
benefits for a member of the Guard or Reserves following discharge.
I need not remind the officers here along with the senior executives on
this panel that your men and women are no longer the weekend warriors.
General Abrams' vision of the total force is now reality, with the Guard
and Reserve forces as full partners in the War on Terror. I think it is now
time to make them full partners in a modernized GI Bill in a way that meets the
needs of the military and the nation.
Today I have asked each of you as leaders representing the military forces
to help with the heavy lifting. We need to hear whether you think a modernized
GI Bill is needed to help you accomplish your mission.
This hearing on the GI Bill is the beginning of that process and the
opportunity to give us your candid views will be very much appreciated.
[The statement of Steve Buyer appears on p. 40]
THE CHAIRMAN. We ask the Committee for unanimous consent for an opening
statement on behalf of Lane Evans be submitted for the record along with
Stephanie Herseth.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The statement of Lane Evans appears on p. 44]
THE CHAIRMAN. All members are advised if you have an opening statement,
it may be submitted for the record. If you would like to do an opening
statement at this point, I will be more than pleased to yield prior to hearing
from the panel.
[The statement of Corrine Brown appears on p. 48]
[The statement of Silvestre Reyes appears on p. 47]
THE CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
MR. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing
today. I know that in my heart that every member of this Committee is eager to
start work on modernizing the GI Bill of Rights and the GI Bill for our military
men and women.
For years, the GI Bill has served our men and women in uniform very well.
As a matter of fact, I went to college on the GI Bill. It has helped countless
veterans gain access to the higher education system in the country. In fact,
like I said, I utilized the GI Bill when I returned home from the Army in the
1970s.
The face of our military is changing as the Chairman clearly stated. The
Reserve and the Guard are no longer weekend warriors. And this Congress has had
the foresight to make important steps towards recognizing the contributions that
the Reserve component makes to the force structure of the United States
military.
The addition to the Chapters 1606 and 1607 of Title 10 improve access to
the GI Bill benefits for our Guard and Reservists. But in my opinion, they do
not go far enough. My son just ETS'd from the National Guard and had quite a
bit of trouble getting the GI benefits that I think he deserved.
I support opening up the GI Bill to truly update, modernize, and provide
greater flexibility to the educational benefits extended to our military service
personnel. I am eager to work with my colleagues in this Committee, our friends
in the Armed Forces Services Committee, the Executive Branch, and the military
and veterans service organizations to accomplish this important goal.
Our men and women have earned the benefits granted to them in the GI Bill.
Now it is time to ensure that the benefit reflects the structure of the force
that is distributed equitably across the diverse groups that make up our active
duty, Guard, and Reserve components of the United States military.
I look forward to hearing your testimony today of the various military
branches as well as representatives of the Secretary of Defense.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this important hearing. I
think it is critical that we address the needs of our Guards and Reservists as
we have in the past for regular Army or those who are active.
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Salazar.
[The statement of John Salazar appears on p. 49]
THE CHAIRMAN. Chairman Boozman.
MR. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and Mr. Evans'
leadership on this very important issue.
I want to remind the members that Ms. Herseth and I will be continuing the
fact-finding process by holding a field hearing in Arkansas next week. We will
have several members of the Arkansas National Guard testify as well as State and
Federal officials responsible for administering education benefits. We will
also visit the Muskogee Regional Process Office in Oaklahoma to review how they
are handling the claims for education benefits.
I am looking forward to bringing to the Committee a GI bill, under the
Chairman's and Ranking Member's guidance, that once again will be the premier
education benefit in America.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
All right. We will turn to our only panel witnesses today. From left to
right, we will hear from Secretary Tom Hall. He is the fourth Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and has served in this position since
he was sworn in October 9th of 2002.
Next we will then hear from Mr. Bill Carr. He is the Acting Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy. He oversees the recruiting,
retention, compensation, and related human resource management for all active-
duty members of the United States Armed Services.
We will then hear from Lieutenant General James R. Helmly, the Chief of
the Army Reserve, Commanding General, U.S. Reserve Command.
We will then hear from Lieutenant General John A. Bradley, the Chief of
the Air Force Reserve Headquarters, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C.,
and Commander of the Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.
Next we will then hear from Lieutenant General John W. Bergman, who is the
Commander of the Marine Forces Reserve, Marine Forces North.
We will then hear from Rear Admiral Craig O. McDonald, who is the
Commander of the Naval Reserve Forces Command.
We will then hear from Major General Ronald G. Young, the Director of
Manpower and Personnel. He is the J1 of the National Guard Bureau. In
addition, he is currently serving as the Acting Director of the Joint Staff for
the National Guard Bureau as of May 1st, 2005.
And then last, we will hear from Rear Admiral Sally Brice-O'Hara, who is
the Director of the Reserve and Training for the United States Coast Guard.
Secretary Hall.
MR. HALL. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
We do not have a cast of thousands, but we have a cast of seven. So I
would ask a couple of requests, that all of our written statements be entered
into the record.
THE CHAIRMAN. They will be entered in the record. So ordered.
MR. HALL. And second, we have discussed and propose that I give an
opening oral statement on behalf of all of us. And then if any of the members
wish to say anything of the panel, they can. But I would make a statement and
then get right to the questions, if that is satisfactory.
THE CHAIRMAN. Having just taken your recommendation under advisement,
what I would recommend is that we will hear your opening statement.
Dr. Snyder.
DR. SNYDER. I always just hang on your every word. My first reaction is
they have brief written statements. I would expect their oral statements would
also be brief, and I think there could be value in hearing from them. I think -
-
MR. SALAZAR. I am thinking that same way, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN. Well, I took it under advisement for at least nine seconds.
MR. HALL. I was just attempting to save time. We are happy to do
whatever you want.
THE CHAIRMAN. Well, I understand that. Let's go ahead and hear your
opening statement and then we are going to go right down the line. Each of
these officers, I am sure, have something to say.
MR. HALL. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN. So we would like to hear from each of them.
Secretary Hall, you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF THOMAS F. HALL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE
AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM J. CARR, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE, MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY; JAMES R. HELMLY, CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
AND COMMANDING GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE COMMAND; JOHN A. BRADLEY,
CHIEF OF AIR FORCE RESERVE; JOHN W. BERGMAN, COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE;
RONALD G. YOUNG, ACTING DIRECTOR, MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, NATIONAL GUARD
BUREAU; CRAIG MCDONALD, COMMANDER, NAVY RESERVE FORCES COMMAND; SALLY
BRICE-O'HARA, DIRECTOR OF RESERVE AND TRAINING, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
RESERVES
STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. HALL
MR. HALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for giving
us the opportunity to come before you this morning to discuss Montgomery GI Bill
for the Selected Reserve and the Reserve Education Assistance Program.
The Montgomery GI Bill was established to encourage membership in Selected
Reserve units. It has proven to be an extremely valuable recruiting tool, a
highly effective retention tool for the Reserve components.
The Montgomery GI Bill is very well known amongst the Reserve component
members and has helped the components achieve and maintain their strength
requirements.
The fact that a member must continue to serve in a Reserve component to
maintain eligibility is important and has greatly assisted the Reserve
components in maintaining consistently high retention rates over the years.
It has also obviously increased the educational level of our Reserve
forces.
Between 1984 and 2005, almost 1.5 million Selected Reserve members gained
eligibility for the Montgomery GI Bill entitlement and nearly 40 percent have
applied for educational assistance. In fiscal year 2005 alone, almost 200
million in benefits was paid to Selected Reservists.
It continues to fulfill its intended purposes as four of the six
Department of Defense Reserve components are meeting or exceeding their
recruiting goals thus far for 2006. Retention in all of the Reserve components
is very strong and overall attrition is very consistent with historic levels.
The Reserve Education Assistance Program has been implemented and is
working well. As of February of this year, almost 14,000 benefit claims have
been received and over $1.5 million in claims paid.
Ongoing changes to electronic data system will greatly improve the
application process and accelerate the benefit delivery procedures.
A joint Department of Defense and Department of Veteran Affairs working
group is currently examining the possibility of a total force education benefit
that would draw from the best attributes of the two Montgomery GI Bill programs
and the REAP.
We are actively participating in that forum and we encourage any
discussions that examine overall program performance and identify opportunities
for improvements that meets the needs of veterans, Reserve component members,
and the department.
As we work towards program improvement, we need to stress that the veteran
and Reserve programs were designed for and serve different purposes. Both
Reserve benefits, the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve and the REAP Program,
were designed as retention tools to keep members serving in the Guard and
Reserve.
The veteran benefit, although it can be used by someone still serving, was
designed to assist members in transitioning to civilian life following service.
As we examine the potential for a total force GI Bill, we want to be
certain that such a program would encourage continued Reserve membership as
effectively as the current programs. We should be very careful in changing the
basic premise of the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve and the REAP.
We look forward to working with this Committee and the Armed Services
Committees of the House and Senate to ensure that these programs remain robust.
And I would again like to thank this Committee for all you have done for
all of our servicemembers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Thomas F. Hall appears on p. 50]
STATEMENT OF BILL CARR
MR. CARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As Chairman Buyer mentioned, I am Bill Carr. I represent the active
component and the military HR life cycle of recruiting, compensation, and
retention of course, an important part of that is the Montgomery GI Bill.
If we asked young people today the reason that they would serve in the
military or elect to join, it ranges from service and patriotism to an ability
to advance into future. And if you then broke those out, you would find that
considerably more are interested in carefully advantaging their future.
The Montgomery GI Bill figures squarely in their decisions. The
enrollment rate is 97 percent, so it is that important to them. The utilization
rate for those who complete their obligation and are eligible is 70 percent. In
fact, among those who have separated in the past couple of months, 58 percent
are already enrolled in some fashion and using their benefits.
So the Montgomery GI Bill figures squarely in our recruiting, our
retention, and our transition, and has been invaluable to us in manning and
sustaining the active force.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of William J. Carr appears on p. 58]
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY
GENERAL HELMLY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Ron Helmly. I am an
American solider and I am proud to serve in that capacity.
Clearly this hearing comes at an opportune time as we face the first
extended duration conflict using an all-volunteer force, both active and Reserve
component. For the first time since the Korean War, we are mobilizing numbers
of Reserve component members in an unprecedented way. We are looking at repeat
as we look at the "long war."
And we have to prepare in a strategic sense for a continuation of that and
we must be always mindful, as Mr. Carr reminded us, that we should not just pile
on extra benefits to the extent that we would equal those that entice enlistment
and service in the regular components of our various services. So we believe
that educational benefits are a major draw for both recruitment and retention.
Clearly Chapter 1606 was a welcome addition, but I am mindful of the fact
that it was added to an existing measure. And that is why I welcome this
hearing today and your efforts in this Committee to look at this afresh in terms
of a total force Montgomery GI Bill that provides important educational benefits
for active and Reserve component members without just being added to.
Lastly, I would like to point out that one of the frustrations that I have
experienced as we have enjoyed such immense support from not only this Committee
but elsewhere throughout the Congress to support our members is the fact that
our policies, practices, procedures, and systems which underpin the authorities
this Committee and others provide us and the measures you provide us have not
kept pace.
Thus, as we mobilize soldiers, they go to theater, they are wounded,
evacuated for nonwounds, but illnesses or injuries, et cetera, knowing their
amount of service and under what capacity they served is terribly important to
ensure that we do not have people who fall through the crack and are actually
entitled to benefits that the bureaucracy says they are not.
So I would urge your support for those measures so that we can ensure that
what you provide us we are able to provide in a timely, accurate way.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The statement of James R. Helmly appears on p. 63]
THE CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant General Bradley.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN A. BRADLEY
GENERAL BRADLEY. Sir, I am John Bradley, Chief of Air Force Reserve.
Thank you for holding this hearing on this very important issue. Thank you for
your leadership and the other members who are interested in helping the members
of our Armed Forces.
This GI Bill is a very important tool for us in the Reserve components, I
believe, for recruiting and retention. It does help us in recruiting and it
certainly helps us in retention. It has over time, I think, degraded somewhat
based on the amount that a Reservist or Guardsman may receive relative to what
an active servicemember receives because of some things. So the dialogue here
on that issue would be important. And so it is not quite the benefit that it
used to be.
There also have been proposals that might make it last a longer period of
time than what we have had in the past. I think what would be helpful, and
Secretary Hall has recommended this, to use it as a real retention tool is let
this last longer than 14 years. Take it to 20- or 25-year point so that I can
continue to encourage people to stay with us.
Now, I am fortunate today in that the Air Force Reserve retention is at an
almost all-time high. I attribute that to our airmen's feeling that they are
part of something very important and doing some important work for our country.
So they feel good about their service.
But that may not last forever and we need these benefits to be reviewed
periodically to make adjustments so that we continue to encourage people to stay
with us because we want them to stay to 20 and 25 and 30 years, as long as they
are productive members of our service.
So I look forward to this dialogue. I think also, as I indicated at the
beginning, that the amount of benefit we have relative to the tuition costs
today, perhaps it has not stayed in pace with tuition increases. So a review of
that, I think, would be helpful as well.
But thank you for the leadership on this important issue and I look
forward to your questions.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
[The statement of John A. Bradley appears on p. 68]
THE CHAIRMAN. Lieutenant General Bergman, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOHN W. BERGMAN
GENERAL BERGMAN. Good morning, sir. I am Jack Bergman, Marine Corps
Reserve. Thanks for the opportunity to be here today.
Education is so important at all levels, whether it be in military or
civilian, that we have to take every opportunity to give the best we can.
We see in the QDR that we are in the long war. Therefore, the word long
as in long, longer careers, longer production, longer education, I think, is
appropriate.
By and large, young men and women who join the Marine Corps do not
initially join for educational benefits. They join to be Marines. However,
long-term retention of good Marines comes from providing worthwhile broad-based
educational benefits, benefits that are equitable from that individual's
perception.
Ann example would be when a Marine separates from active duty after a 20-
year career, they have ten years to utilize their GI Bill. If the Reservist,
the clock starts the time they finish and goes for 14 years. So you could get a
math equation there that does not allow them to really do their career, have
their civilian job, and get their education in a timely manner before the
education benefits run out.
We look forward to being a partner with all of you in a process that
creates education opportunities and benefits that are basically equitable and
easy to utilize.
So thank you very much for allowing me to be part of this solution.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The statement of John W. Bergman appears on p. 79]
THE CHAIRMAN. Major General Young, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL RONALD YOUNG
GENERAL YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for
giving me the opportunity to come here today to discuss the Montgomery GI Bill.
I would like to just briefly summarize some of the key points that have already
been testified to.
The Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve and the Reserve Education
Assistance Program are a cornerstone for the National Guard recruitment and
retention efforts. We sincerely appreciate Congress' continued support of these
vital programs.
I would also like to thank the members of the Veterans' Advisory Committee
on Education and the Partnership for Veterans Education for their continued hard
work on these important programs. Their efforts have highlighted two areas
where we feel the Montgomery GI Bill Program could be enhanced, making it an
even stronger tool for building and maintaining the Guard and Reserve forces.
The first area and the one that we feel, the Guard feels, is number one
priority is the return of the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve rate back to
the 48 percent range of entitlement as compared to the active-duty rate. As you
know, back in 2001, the rate for active duty was about $650 per month for a
full-time student and the Selected Reserve rate was 263.
Over the years, the Selected Reserve rate has not kept pace with the
increases in the active-duty rate and is now about 28 or 29 percent of the rate
earned by an active-duty member, about $1,034 compared to 297. The difference
needs to be addressed and, as a result, will be an even greater enhancement to
our ability to recruit and retain the force.
The second priority for the Guard is the retention aspects of the current
program. We feel it is very important that a Selected Reserve member be
required to continue their membership and their service in the Guard or the
other Reserve components in order to use the Montgomery GI Bill benefits.
Under the current programs, if the servicemember separates from the Guard
or Reserve, they lose their entitlement to the Montgomery GI Bill Selected
Reserve. We are in favor of retaining this type of a continued service
requirement in order to use the benefits.
Keeping the unique aspects of the Montgomery GI Bill as they relate to the
Reserve components is also important. For instance, the services should
maintain the function of determining eligibility for benefits and we should
continue to have the ability to combine those benefits to such programs as
tuition assistance and others.
The Reserve components have a vested interest in ensuring their
servicemembers are taken care of and should retain their authorities under the
current programs.
In summary, from the National Guard's perspective, the bottom line is that
we need to increase Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve rate, continue the
requirement that as servicemembers stay in the Guard, to use their benefits, and
allow the Reserve components to continue in managing the unique aspects of the
program.
I thank the Committee for your continued work on this important program
and for your continued support of the National Guard.
THE CHAIRMAN. Than you very much.
[The statement of Ronald G. Young appears on p. 84]
THE CHAIRMAN. Admiral McDonald, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL CRAIG MCDONALD
ADMIRAL MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee,
good morning and thank you for inviting me here today to talk to you about the
Montgomery GI Bill.
As the Chairman introduced me, I am Rear Admiral Craig McDonald. I am the
Commander of the Navy Reserve Forces Command headquartered in New Orleans,
Louisiana.
And today I am here representing 70,000 warrior sailors and Vice Admiral
Cotton, Chief of Navy Reserve. He sends his respects and regrets he could not
be here today.
As you know, we are in a long war. Fighting in this war are our best and
brightest that the United States has to offer. Our sailors are serving around
the world on land, on sea, in the air, in a Navy that is more capable and more
technically complex than at any other time in our history.
We need a total compensation package that will help us attract and retain
these outstanding sailors, and the Montgomery GI Bill is a very vital part of
that package.
The Montgomery GI Bill provides an important incentive for citizens
considering joining the military and those already in our force. I mean, having
help going to college or paying for a technical school can be a very powerful
motivator for new sailors and Navy veterans.
The Montgomery GI Bill gives an excellent way to improve their earning
potential by joining the military. It is a benefit which also gives our present
Reserve sailors an outstanding reason to continue their affiliation with the
Reserve component. Maintaining and improving this program is a worthwhile
endeavor for all of us as it not only helps a sailor personally, it helps him or
her professionally.
I have reviewed the Partnership for Veterans Education proposed changes
and offer these comments. As part of the Montgomery GI Bill, the portion
offered to our Selected Reservists has not been keeping up with the growing cost
of education. A readjustment mechanism built into the program requires
revamping.
And with educational costs rising as steadily as they have over the past
two decades, the benefits have been devalued. Although the active component was
increased in 2000, 2001, the Reserve component was not increased at the same
time.
As the Partnership for Veterans Education suggests, the Reserve component
could be tied to the active benefit to ensure both benefits are increased
proportionately when adjustments are made either programmatically, through
indexing, or legislatively.
The Partnership on Veterans' Affairs proposed other major changes in both
benefits and administration of the GI Bill. These benefits are an important
part of the total compensation package and any proposed changes should be
studied to ensure maximum value for servicemembers and the country.
The Navy Reserve shares the Committee's concerns and is very interested in
maintaining the viability of the Montgomery GI Bill. Therefore, the Navy
Reserve is participating in and fully supports the joint DoD and VA working
group on the Montgomery GI Bill. We are working together to ensure
servicemembers have a viable program that helps them grow and provides an
incentive for them to serve in the nation's military services.
In summary, I would reiterate that this program is a crucial part of the
total compensation package offered to our servicemembers. The Navy Reserves
looks forward to fully participating in any discussions on how to improve the
Montgomery GI Bill.
Thank you, and I am prepared to answer any questions.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
[The statement of Craig McDonald appears on p. 89]
THE CHAIRMAN. Admiral.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL SALLY BRICE-O'HARA
ADMIRAL BRICE-O'HARA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the Committee. It is a real pleasure for me to be here this morning
to discuss educational benefits for the members of the Selected Reserve.
The Coast Guard Reserve pioneered the full integration of our Reservists
into our active component units in the mid 1990s and so we are always eager for
ways that we can assure greater parity and seamless transitions between our
active and Reserve components. A total force GI Bill may be the possible avenue
to help accomplish this.
Educational benefits such as the Montgomery GI Bill and the Montgomery GI
Bill for the Selected Reserve are important components in recruiting and
retaining members of the Coast Guard's total force. We also believe that our
Tuition Assistance Program is an invaluable tool for attracting and retaining
21st century talent.
In January, we began aggressively marketing the new Reserve Education
Assistance Program and have had great interest in that as well.
Our recruiters confirm that educational benefits are among the top reasons
that individuals join the Coast Guard and decide to affiliate with the Coast
Guard Reserve. The fact that Selected Reserve members are not required to pay
into the MGIB-SR is cited as a plus. And the nontaxable status of the payments
and the ability to combine the MGIB-SR with tuition assistance are also
frequently noted positive features.
On the downside, the MGIB-SR cannot be used to repay student loans and
this is a limitation that may discourage promising applicants who already have
completed some college. Added flexibility in this area is desirable.
Our funded Selected Reserve strength is 8,100. Strong educational
benefits help explain why our retention remains at pre 9/11 high levels.
Currently it's about 87.4 percent. And that is despite very heavy utilization
of our Reservists in our homeland security missions.
The Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Reserve Force frequently
visits our units and he is convinced that educational assistance is the key
factor in the decision of our first-term members to stay on with the Coast Guard
Reserve.
We look forward to the results of the joint DoD and Department of Veteran
Affairs working group. There is a merit to a total force education benefit that
combines the best aspects of the existing programs as well as new aspects that
will better serve our military men and women.
Our paramount concern is that there be no reduction in the quality of
service that our members receive, particularly related to the ease of access and
timely receipt of benefits. And we would want to ensure that the data systems
are in place at the VA to accommodate any new program.
To conclude, the Coast Guard Reserve values its long-standing partnership
with the Department of Defense components, support through the Department of
Veterans' Affairs, and we are eager to maintain parity of benefits for our men
and women who serve so well.
I am happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony
[The statement of Sally Brice-O'Hara appears on p. 96]
THE CHAIRMAN. I have been placed on notice that we may have some votes
that may occur from 11:15 to 11:30. It will be a 15 minute vote followed by two
fives. So I apologize to the panel. Life on the Hill continues.
By way of an opening comment, Secretary Hall, I would like for you to know
that when we had 19 of the veterans service organizations and military service
organizations come testify on their views and estimates on the budget and some
of their resolutions, I took an opportunity to share with them a concern.
And the concern is that you have individuals who have been ordered to
active duty out of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and have not shown up for
duty. And as I understand, the DoD does not want to charge these individuals
with AWOL and that you are seeking to administratively process them.
You are in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, so we take care of the
benefits of the men and women who serve the military once they become veteran
status. And there is a concern here.
The concern is that, if you permit these individuals just to be
administratively processed and they receive a general discharge, they may be
eligible for their veterans' benefits just as if they had gone to war. And that
concerns some of us on this Committee.
So if these individuals who were ordered to appear and did not appear and
you elect not to charge them with AWOL, and face Court Marshal, then if you are
going to administratively discharge these individuals, they need to be processed
under other than honorable conditions.
If you process these individuals and they receive a general discharge
under other than honorable conditions, then they will not be entitled to their
veterans' benefits and that is an important distinction.
So, Mr. Secretary, if you want to change, we just want you to make sure
that these individuals are processed in a manner whereby they can be properly
adjudicated.
And I will be very cautious about command influences and things like that.
And that is why I shared the Committee's concern with the 19 veterans service
organizations and military service organizations.
You just need to make sure that the commanders in the field have knowledge
of the tools on how to respond to each of their cases. Would you not agree, Mr.
Secretary?
MR. HALL. Yes, sir. And the services who have those members are
proceeding with handling them. And I will ensure your words and concerns are
relayed to those services that are presently considering those members.
And I might say that the people in the field that I visit with, our
members who have reported are also concerned that they reported and the others
did not. And so I will make sure that those concerns are expressed to the
individuals, to the people handling the cases now.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Would the Chairman yield for a minute?
THE CHAIRMAN. Yes.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Directly on that point, the Chairman focused on the words
general discharge. Now, we know that general discharge is not always, at least
the way it used to be, is not always a less than honorable kind of thing.
I suppose someone whose expiration of term of service has not been reached
and for the convenience of the government, for some reason or another, they are
discharged before time or there are other reasons, I suppose, why people are
discharged on a general discharge.
And I guess my question is, these people apparently fall under the general
discharge, which is unfortunate, I think, for they should not be.
Am I right to be concerned about whether we should be referring to general
discharge here as against specifically the type of military person that the
Chairman is concerned about?
MR. HALL. Well, I would not characterize right now the nature of their
discharge because it is an ongoing process. The services are looking at them.
And so it would be inappropriate to say that they are going to receive this type
discharge, whatever. They are considering that right now. And I will relay
your concerns.
So no decision has been made on the nature, the type of discharge --
MR. BILIRAKIS. Am I correct, though, the general discharge is not
necessarily under other than dishonorable conditions?
MR. HALL. You are. And --
MR. BILIRAKIS. I am. So taking these people and putting them into
that particular package would be, I think, a real terrible thing.
THE CHAIRMAN. It requires an administrative process to do that, a
hearing. They have their rights. If they had completed their military service
and they finish their time in the IRR, you know, they are honorably handled.
But if they have been ordered to active duty -- and as a matter of fact,
there is great latitude in the regulations there might be some circumstance
whereby you are going to permit their absence.
But if this is an individual who has just said, "no, I am not showing up,"
then they need to make sure they have the proper tools --
MR. BILIRAKIS. I mean, if you look askance at that individual and want to
get rid of them, I would be concerned that that individual would have a general
discharge is what I am saying.
THE CHAIRMAN. Right.
MR. BILIRAKIS. That should be under other than honorable discharge or
something like that.
THE CHAIRMAN. So this is an individual who did not show up to stand side
by side his comrades. He should not be entitled to the same benefits of those
people who went.
You would agree with that, right?
MR. BILIRAKIS. I would agree with that, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, the other point I wanted to make, you
know, as the Reserve commission is out there and they are also taking into
consideration this issue on the IRR and how we are going to properly manage
these IRR members. And we want to make sure that we also watch the benefits.
So, you know, General Helmly, you used to manage the IRR and they have
taken that responsibility from you, is that correct, or am I --
GENERAL HELMLY. Mr. Chairman, as we integrated our personnel commands or
centers in the U.S. Army Reserve and the regular Army into the Army Human
Resources Command, the decision was made that daily management would fall to the
Commander of Human Resources Command. I do not consider that I then lost
responsibility.
I believe if you look at the definition of Reserve of the Army and law, it
is inclusive of the IRR and, therefore, I am not worried too much about who
manages the records on a daily basis as much as an acceptance of my obligation
to advise the Chief of Staff Army and the Army leadership about use, et cetera,
of the IRR.
THE CHAIRMAN. Well, here is my point. I want to be able to match the
benefit with continued service. And maybe part of our other concern is when
they finish a four-year commitment, maybe they should not get their honorable
discharge at that moment in time. Maybe you could give it a different name, a
title. They do not receive their "discharge" until they have fulfilled the
commitment of their contract which includes that inactive duty time. And then
you manage them properly. You know where they are. You know what their
physical shape and condition is. And they are also drawing their benefits.
So if we look at the GI Bill benefits and if they are continuing to draw
those benefits, but, when they have been ordered back to active duty or for
whatever reason we do not know where they are, I mean, that is telling me that
we have some problems with this inactive status within the IRR.
GENERAL HELMLY. Mr. Chairman, I concur with you. Historically we have
not done a credible job of disciplining the records keeping. Large numbers of
the IRR, frankly, is they were moved from some other status, be it Selected
Reserve or the regular Amy. Their records should never have been coded that
they were in the IRR.
We have people in there who never completed basic training, but their
records were shipped from the training center coded IRR. We have people who
never shipped to basic training. Their records were coded IRR. It has been
very undisciplined. And under the leadership of our Manpower and Reserve
Affairs Director, we have undertaken efforts to clean up the record keeping, the
coding et cetera. But it will take time to clean that record keeping mess up.
I concur with your observations regarding benefits that we accord members.
We have the situation where we stopped lost members of the Selected Reserve.
Others have moved to the IRR with no action and without a request and without a
valid reason to go there. And I concur with you that if they are then ordered
to active duty under competent mobilization authority, we should ensure that the
laws and the regulations are applied in an even manner.
THE CHAIRMAN. Dr. Snyder.
DR. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you
for holding this hearing.
There has been quite a bit of interest in this topic through the years on
the Armed Services Committee, perhaps just because you left the Armed Services
Committee. But I have been unsuccessful in getting this kind of a hearing on
that side. And as you know, we have got this issue about the benefit is covered
by both Committees. But I know this is just the first step in this process.
I am going to try to make Congressman Boozman's hearing in northwest
Arkansas next week which I think -- we have so many veterans and a lot of them,
as you all know, have been called up in the Guard and Reserves and Air Force
Reserve, Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve.
So I think we will get a good sampling of people. But I think it is
important that we are looking at this topic. And I know that you intend this to
be just the opening inning of this game. And I appreciate you doing it.
I wanted to go through here, if I could, and just very quickly, if I
could, Mr. Carr, in your written statement, you said, "The MGIB benefit should
be sufficient to offset the commitment and sacrifices associated with military
service. The current program continues to serve the active components of the
military well. It is our belief that there are no significant shortcomings to
the program from our perspective."
And then, Mr. Hall, in your written statement, you say -- uh-oh, I am
seeing a pattern here; that is my quote, not yours -- "We have not identified
any significant shortcomings in the structure and utility of the MGIB-SR." And
then you go on down below on page three to say, "We have not identified any
further changes we need to make to this program at this time."
But that is in my view, both your statements, that there are no
significant shortcomings is in contrast with what we have heard from this panel.
And if I might quickly, Mr. Chairman, run through these. General Helmly
in his written statement states, "The cost of college education has risen
dramatically over the past ten years and there now is a significant disparity in
the dollar amount for the active components, Montgomery GI Bill, Chapter 30, and
the MGIB for the Selected Reserve, Chapter 1606 and 1607." A significant
disparity.
On page three, General Helmly's statement says, referring to the Selected
Reserve MGIB, "It has not kept up with increasing tuition costs and is not
commensurate with the expanded role of the Army Reserve." He goes on to say,
"An increase in the monetary benefit is needed in the MGIB-SR."
In General Bergman's written statement, he says, "The value of the Reserve
component has decreased since its initial implementation."
In General Bradley's written statement, he states that, "The Montgomery GI
Bill originally establishes Reserve education benefits at 48 percent of the
regular component benefit. Regular component benefits have increased over time
with the result that the Reserve benefit has fallen to approximately 27 percent.
So it decreased from 48 percent to 27 percent."
To me, by the way, Mr. Chairman, that is a key part that got a lot of
members' attention, is the drop in this benefit compared to the active has
occurred.
And then also in General Bradley's written statement, he says, "The time
has come to look at how the Montgomery GI Bill can be used as a total force
incentive."
General Young, in your statement, your oral statement this afternoon, you
mentioned, or this morning, the differences, that we need to deal with those
differences.
And then, Admiral McDonald, you in your oral statement today specifically,
I believe your words, that educational costs have been devalued because of the
inflation rate.
Well, in fairness to you gentlemen up here, you know, this is a brief
hearing and this is just scratching the surface. But members of this Committee
are concerned about this issue as a lot of members are who are not a member of
this Committee. This is what we have heard from people back home. And some of
us are veterans. And I know the value, the educational value has been
diminished dramatically since post World War II.
So I think there are "significant" shortcomings in the current benefit.
And I believe the Chairman's calling of this hearing today is just the initial
part of this, is an acknowledgement of that and an acknowledgement that we want
to work on this.
We also recognize that we have issues of money, that we have issues of
complexity. We have issues of fairness. We have our own internal issues
between our Title 10 or the way the legislation is set up. But I am interested
in working on this with the Chairman and Mr. Boozman and Ms. Herseth and others.
And I look forward to working with all of you because I do believe there
are significant shortcomings to the current benefit. Appreciate you all being
here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN. I would welcome any comment on Dr. Snyder's opening. Any
of you have any comments on his comments?
Yes, Mr. Carr.
MR. CARR. I think with regard to the arguments had to do with equity,
which is important in many of the military compensation programs we undertake.
Equity for the sake of equity can be a compelling and prevailing, pervasive
argument.
In the case of the Montgomery GI Bill and the case of the active that it
serves well given that 97 percent enroll, that 70 percent use, that it covers 77
percent of the tuition cost, better than at the outset of the program. Those
are the reasons for which I said that in the case of the Montgomery GI Bill
Program for the active, it was okay.
But I think that, sir, you do point to the area that is the rub here and
that is we have the Reserves increasingly serving on active duty. And what we
had to do is to create the balance between the benefit and the sacrifice so that
it squares in our judgment.
And the fact that they have grown apart because different decisions were
made in the public sector is notable, but the degree to which they should
converge is the difficult part. And I think therein, two principles guide us.
One, that service in the Selected Reserve is more valuable, that ready and
service on active duty is especially valuable. And you can begin to converge
toward the active benefit when those types of conditions are met. So those
guide us in terms of how to close the gaps that you so correctly pointed out.
GENERAL BRADLEY. Since you asked, Dr. Snyder, for comment, I would say
your question is a good one. I would say that I am not looking for parity or
equity with the active force. But, frankly, since this began, my Reservists are
working almost twice as much as they worked before the benefit began and their
benefit is essentially half of what it was when it began.
My airmen and many of the other Reservists and Guardsmen who are
represented here by their component chiefs, I think, would tell you as well that
our folks are doing a lot. I have been to a lot of sessions where we have had
events for wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marine, and Coast Guardsmen. And
a huge percentage, a large percentage of the folks who are injured in our
current efforts are members of the Reserve components.
So I think their sacrifices are significant and they deserve at least
something, rather than a shrinking benefit, at least maintaining where they were
because we are an operational Reserve today. We are being used in ways in which
some people never envisioned doing it. I personally think it is a good thing to
be used as an operational Reserve, but I think my airmen deserve a benefit that
matches the level of effort that they are putting into our war.
Thank you.
MR. HALL. I wanted to have one comment on that. I do not think there is
probably any disagreement that we need to address a couple of issues. One is
the atrophying of the benefit down to 28 percent and also the length of time in
which Selected Reservists could use the bill.
I think we need to move towards incentivizing people to stay longer rather
than leave earlier. So perhaps the length of time at 14 years is not right.
I think the issue at hand is the manner in which we do that. We have the
Joint Committee which is meeting now, should report out by June. They might
well agree the joint DoD and VA Committee raising the rates. They might well
agree of lengthening the time.
My statement indicated that it was not in the 2007 Bill from the
department, any of those proposals which, of course, is part of clearing the OMB
process, et cetera.
Should they come to the conclusion in the Joint Committee that those rates
and others need to be addressed, I am sure the department would send those
forward.
GENERAL HELMLY. Mr. Chairman, if I may --
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Helmly.
GENERAL HELMLY. -- I concur with Dr. Carr's comment that we have had
proposals that would make rates of entitlement and benefits for Reserve
component members roughly proximate to those of regular force members. And then
we have to ask ourselves about the negative effect on our regular forces.
The issue is first of all to acknowledge that the rate has not been
modernized since approximately 2001. We face that in a different thing called
the first-term reenlistment rate where it was not so much trying to raise that
to the active component rate as the fact that when we raised the active
component rate, we neglected to address the Reserve component rate. And it put
the Guard and Reserve forces roughly two years behind playing catch-up on
retention. We do not need to do that on a very important tool for recruiting
and retention, our educational benefits, which comprise more than simply the
Montgomery GI Bill.
The last remark I would make is that I agree completely with Secretary
Hall. Our focus needs to be on retention, not solely the rate at which we are
mobilizing. We will not be mobilizing at this rate forever, but we will be
dependent on a stronger, more robust Guard and Reserve force roughly forever in
my own judgment.
The world has changed in major ways and we must adjust how we plan to man
our all-volunteer recruited forces differently for this century than we did last
century. That is why I appreciate the strategic view of this hearing.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, we are running out of time and I cannot run
as fast as I used to to get over there in time to cast that vote.
THE CHAIRMAN. How much time do we have?
THE CLERK. Nine minutes.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Nine minutes. All right.
THE CHAIRMAN. Five minutes.
MR. BILIRAKIS. I will just make a statement because, otherwise, you are
not going to be able to ask your questions.
Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP). I am just concerned about
the issue of this hearing as expressed by Dr. Snyder and by the Chairman. But I
sort of go even past that. And I am really concerned about VEAP. I am
concerned about the unfairness to that member of the military who had to make
that decision, you know, at one particular time and did not do so for whatever
reason.
And, you know, I am very grateful to the GI Bill. A hundred and ten
dollars a month is what it was in the Korean War, the GI Bill. It was not much,
but I will tell you it was just enough there to get me started and I had to work
my way through the rest of the time too.
But I made that decision after I got out of the service. I mean, I had
intended to go to college. I told all the recruiters who tried to keep me in
that I was going to go on to school. But I made the decision afterwards. And,
you know, for me to have made that decision during basic training, which was
maybe some of the worst eight weeks of my life, would have been pretty damn
unfair.
So I wanted to get your comments on that, but really we do not have the
time. And I am not going to ask for it now, but I am here to just put you all
on notice, as the Chairman did regarding his subject, put you all on notice that
I feel very strongly about maybe reopening that as expensive as it is. And
hopefully you all will cooperate in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
The Committee is going to stand in recess. We need to come back. I
apologize to all of you, but we have a lot we have to get on the record. And we
need to have a good dialogue here.
So the Committee will stand in recess for approximately 30 minutes.
[Recess.]
THE CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come back to order.
I will now recognize Mr. Bilirakis.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was not sure that we would be
coming back. And I apologize for coming in late. I had, as we sometimes do
here, had a hearing in health care on transparency of health costs in one of the
other Committees.
I am just going to stay on VEAP, Mr. Chairman, because the GI Bill, we
over the decades, over the couple centuries, I suppose, have passed legislation
up here. Sometimes we do not understand the unintended consequences of our
actions. Some of it turned out to be not as good as we hoped it would be.
But I think we would all agree the GI Bill has just been a wonderful thing
and a great thing for America, for our republic. It has served us well.
And so to preclude a fair opportunity to all of the men and women who have
served in the service, I think, is wrong on our part. And that is why I am so
concerned about VEAP.
And I would just merely, in whatever time I might have left, ask to see if
you have any comments there. I realize we are talking about transferring VEAP
over to the Montgomery Bill under circumstances other than those under which
they were done previously, but with more flexibility, is going to be a costly
thing.
And I know these things come out of the appropriate budgets and that sort
of thing. But it seems like if we all have flexibility in our minds, maybe
possibly those people will get back enrolled, if you will. Maybe their
contribution is increased or something of that nature.
But, anyhow, any comments, gentlemen, just very briefly on that? You
know, if we are concerned with MGIB and we are concerned about the GI Bill, et
cetera, in general, we have got to be concerned, too, about some people who did
not have really a fair opportunity, at least in my mind.
GENERAL HELMLY. Congressman, I concur with reopening the window on VEAP.
It seems to me that a young 18 to 22-year-old, which is the age category we
really aim for in recruitment, coming into basic training is exposed to a brave
new world. The future for that age category is tomorrow, not five, ten years
from now.
Most are predisposed on disposable income that I can buy a motorcycle with
as opposed to go to school. So I concur with that. I think that later on when
the member has settled into the military and realizes that it is not the big,
bad thing that they thought, that we are not going to just throw them out to the
wolves and has gotten over the emotionalism associated with this great new
adventure in life, they will think more clearly.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Yes, sir.
GENERAL HELMLY. And that is why I concur with you.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Yes, sir.
ADMIRAL MCDONALD. Yes, sir. I happen to agree with you. My aide sitting
back here was caught up in that. He was a young ensign coming in the program
and decided not to take it and now he is kind of kicking himself. If we could
reopen that, he would take that real fast. And that has a tool that we can use
as our entire package for our people across the service.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Sure. Now, he is still in the service on active duty.
But should we reopen it also to those who have gotten out of the service? Maybe
there should be a certain period of time within which after discharge.
ADMIRAL MCDONALD. Yes, sir. But my thought process on that would be that
if we do that, then they need -- we are looking -- this is a tool to retain them
in our organization --
MR. BILIRAKIS. Yes. I appreciate that.
ADMIRAL MCDONALD. -- so they come back to our drilling population, if
that be the case, and then serve that time. That would be ideal if that is what
they could do. Yes, sir.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Well, of course, we have already talked about -- at least
I mentioned it -- I am sure you all have, too, others have -- the greatness of
the GI Bill.
And the GI Bill was certainly not something that was used basically for
retention purposes, but it is used. It is great for America in general. So if
we would preclude those who have been discharged from having an opportunity, I
think that would be a mistake too.
Yes, sir, Mr. Secretary.
MR. CARR. Yes, sir. Thank you.
The VEAP is a program compared to the MGIB that was of considerably lesser
value.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Yeah.
MR. CARR. And the way it operated was that the member could invest in an
account and get some extra education benefit in lieu of that, recognizing that
the Committee has two open seasons --
MR. BILIRAKIS. Yes.
MR. CARR. -- for those VEAPsters. One was for those who had money in
their account at the time and then again another open season for those who ever
had money in their account. And so the only ones excluded from open seasons to
this point have been those who manifest no behavior toward and interest in the
education.
MR. BILIRAKIS. At the outset of their basic training.
MR. CARR. Yes. And so I mention that is the population we are discussing
here. There has been considerable work by the Committee already toward VEAP.
With regard to the sentiment toward VEAP in the Defense Department, there
is great sensitivity toward it because they are serving in today's military.
But the bill is one that falls to the Veterans' Administration.
And so in that case, the question might be answered differently if it were
an item that were to be funded from the Defense budget than if it were to be
funded by Veterans' Affairs. And I just report that observation and perhaps the
obvious.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Well, I get the feeling, though, that you are all thinking
sort of positive in that regard and I realize that we have our barriers or money
and the language and that sort of thing.
Any other -- I do not mean to cut anyone off, but I guess -- okay. Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
THE CHAIRMAN. Before I yield to Mr. Michaud, this is going to be one of
our challenges, Dr. Snyder, between your jurisdiction on Armed Services and
ours. And we need to drill this down a little bit further in a moment about
this as a retention or a recruiting tool and how it is rated among other tools
that you may have.
If the VA takes total jurisdiction over this, DoD transfers all of this to
the VA, we then are removing really some discretionary authorities over civilian
leadership and what tools that these uniformed leaders get to use.
You know what I am trying to say? I mean, that is going to be our
challenge. It is easy to say, okay, let us just transfer all this over to us
and we will administer this for you. But all your testimony has been pretty
clear that this is a retention tool for you.
And when I hear certain benefits are used as tools from you, you need to
have some discretion and latitude. That is my sensing on it.
But let me yield now to Mr. Michaud.
MR. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing. And, actually, my question relates to the retention issue.
Assistant Secretary Hall, in your written testimony, you stated that, and
I quote, "The fact that a member must continue to serve in the Reserves to
maintain eligibility has greatly assisted the Reserve component as a whole in
maintaining consistently high retention rate over the years."
I am curious as to what you base your conclusion on. As I understand it
with respect to the retention issue, education benefits are quite low in the
priority list for members when determining whether to continue or separate from
the Reserves. And maybe that is because the benefits are not there.
When I looked at Mr. Bradley's testimony, he said that they have gathered
information to help us better gauge the importance our members place on their
education benefits. And according to a 2004 status, only 14 percent of the
respondents stated education benefits affect their continuation decision.
So I am just wondering, Assistant Secretary, what do you base that quote
on.
MR. CARR. Well, as you probably know, I spent 34 years on active duty and
during those 34 years of active duty, I learned how important it was to not sit
behind a desk and presume what people thought.
So during my three and a half years, I have talked to 200,000 people,
200,000 from all services in the field. And here is what they tell me.
They consistently list the Montgomery GI Bill as one of their top five
programs that they value. And not all of them say they use it and that is very
important. Even if you do not use it, you feel that the government is giving
you something which you can use and it is positive. And they know that as long
as they remain a Selected Reservist drilling, they can use it.
They also consistently say, however, the rates have atrophied and we need
to do something about it. And they also indicate that perhaps ending the
eligibility at 14 years, maybe we ought to extend that up through 20, 25, or
some other period of time.
So they talk about having it a longer period of time they can use and
addressing the rates. But they all tell me that it is a very important benefit.
Even if they do not use it, they know that it is there if they want to.
Now, my colleagues who command all those might have a different
perspective, but that is how I gained that, from going and talking to them,
holding a town hall and saying what are your four or five benefits which are
important to you. The Montgomery GI Bill always stands up high as something
they think we are giving them the opportunity to use whether they use it or not.
MR. MICHAUD. And I guess the next question would be to Mr. Bradley
because actually you heard the top five. And in looking at your written
testimony, you said approximately half rated education benefits number nine out
of seventeen as a factor.
GENERAL BRADLEY. Yes, sir. Our utilization rate is lower than perhaps we
would like. I think that is a reflection of a couple of things. And it also, I
think, may affect where they place it in their survey of what is important to
them as far as that list of benefits that they think are rank ordered in
importance.
I think the amount of work we are doing, the operations tempo that our
folks are under over the last several years is so high, many people are not able
to continue education because they are working hard for us, many times deployed.
So it is just not possible to do as much because we are making them do
more Reserve work. We are asking them to do more and they are volunteering to
do it. And so I think that is why the utilization is not as high as you would
expect.
I think the fact that the amount of the benefit has, so to speak, degraded
over the years may also be a reflection. You know, it is about enough to buy
books for a couple of courses is what they tell me, which everything helps, but
maybe it could be better.
So I think that is really the answer to that, and also the fact that the
benefit terminates after the 14th year. Many times folks have come to us from
the active service, six, eight years of service, and then they come to us, so
there are not that many years for them to use it because at 14 years after they
sign up, they are done.
I think like Secretary Hall's proposal to make this a 20 or 25 year, I
would go for a 25. I think it could be a retention tool. It is not going to be
what keeps everybody in, but it will keep some in, I think. So I think it would
be a positive thing for our retention if we increased the number of years which
an individual would be eligible for this benefit.
MR. MICHAUD. I would like the other branches also to comment. Do you do
a similar survey and, if so, how does education fall in that survey and do you
think if the rate is low, is it because the benefits are not in your opinion
where they should be?
ADMIRAL BRICE-O'HARA. I would be happy to talk about the Coast Guard for
you, sir. We have a career intention survey which is administered not just as
an exit survey, but when you change status. So if someone would go from
enlisted to officer through a commissioning program or if they would go into a
new enlistment contract, we ask them to complete that survey.
There are a few things that are cited in a higher priority than education.
They include pay, job security, health care, medical, dental specifically. But
then after those, you also consistently find education, educational opportunity
as well as education assistance listed as reasons that people want to be within
the military.
So we find that it is very much a factor that influences retention
decisions as well as enlistment decisions, sir.
GENERAL BERGMAN. I do not have the numbers right at my fingertips, sir.
But when our Marines go through their transition TAM class when they transition
from active duty, they do fill out surveys. The incidence, the level of
education, taking advantage of that right after completion of their active duty
is, I would suggest, in the Marine Corps probably lower than our sister services
for varying reasons.
Some of our young Marines just choose to chill out for a while after the
intensity of the activity. But those Marines who join the Marine Corps Reserve
and continue to serve, when they have developed, if you will, a parallel
civilian career, they become more aware that to be a success in a civilian
occupation, they need to continue to educate themselves in that chosen field.
And then it seems like it falls over that all of a sudden, the light goes
on and that education, whether it be on the military side or how they use these
benefits to grow themselves, if you will, in either one or both realms, clicks
in.
MR. HALL. Congressman, I think that all of us would tell you that we do
our own surveys in addition to using those administered by the Department of
Defense.
Educational benefits, I believe, are perceived by the soldier as a normal
benefit during abnormal times. That while in the historical sense, it is not
abnormal at all to mobilize Reserve component members during a time of conflict.
The suddenness of this conflict and the fact that it is extending creates
the abnormality. And so if you look at Army Reserves' specific surveys, most
soldiers say that items such as predictability and length of mobilization as
well as period between mobilizations are their most pressing concerns.
If you look back prior to 9/11 at what prompted more people to stay in or
to enlist, educational benefits inclusive of others besides Montgomery GI Bill,
notably tuition assistance, were consistently ranked number one or two with
regard to what motivated them to enlist and/or to stay.
MR. CARR. I think when we take a percentage, one key question would be if
we decomposed that and say who is the most predisposed toward this benefit, the
answer is enlisted and specifically junior enlisted.
Given that the topic is retention, it is a fact from Defense surveys that
cut across the components that 25 percent of the E1 to 4 in the Reserves believe
that education benefits figure prominently in their decision way ahead of health
care, way ahead of retirement. In fact, almost just a little bit below pay and
benefits.
So when we decompose who is it that we get a bang from the buck from, it
is the crowd we want to influence favorably to retain. We have other
incentives. If you go to the senior crowd, they are going to be more disposed
toward the retirement system and its value. But if you are trying to work the
junior enlisted and that is the base of the pyramid, then MGIB is a strong
pusher.
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Michaud, would you yield on that point for a second?
MR. MICHAUD. Sure.
THE CHAIRMAN. Who are you citing? Who would you cite as an authority for
your testimony?
MR. CARR. For the figures I just gave?
THE CHAIRMAN. Yes.
MR. CARR. Defense Manpower Data Center in surveys that it gives annually
to the Reserves and to the active. And I have got a summary of it I could
provide to staff.
THE CHAIRMAN. I would appreciate that.
MR. CARR. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN. I would appreciate if you could get us that survey. I
think it would be helpful to us.
MR. CARR. Absolutely.
THE CHAIRMAN. Because we were able to discern that from this very same
survey, 14 percent stated that education benefits affected their continuation
decision. And half of those surveys ranked education ninth out of the seventeen
benefits. So that does not link very well.
General Bradley, that was from your testimony.
GENERAL BRADLEY. Sir, I think that was a survey that the Air Force
Reserve did, not a DoD-wide survey.
THE CHAIRMAN. Well, then please reconcile the difference between -- Mr.
Carr, your testimony that you just gave to Mr. Michaud based on data from your
manpower and Lieutenant General Bradley's testimony relying upon -- we have two
surveys here that are in conflict.
MR. CARR. Remember, I cited a subset of the population, that being the
junior enlisted and that their behavior was particularly rich. The opposite is
true if you go to the more senior ranks, depressing how robust that conclusion
is. So that would influence it.
But the Defense Manpower Data Center surveys are consistent over time. We
have a longitudinal history of them. And, again, we will be delighted to
provide them if that would be constructive.
THE CHAIRMAN. We welcome your comments, General Bradley, please. Do you
concur with this?
GENERAL BRADLEY. Sir, I am certain that is right. I would imagine -- I
mean, I would think that junior folks, young folks who join would cite education
benefits as being much more important to them when they make a decision to join
or stay than someone who is much older.
So my survey would cover the entire force. I did not break it down into
that young junior enlisted category about which he spoke.
THE CHAIRMAN. All right. I will go back, Mr. Michaud.
Let me take this one step further. I am trying to reconcile this survey
with your testimony also about the needs you have. You know, let us take
advantage of the inequities. Let us address the rate problems. And then you
come with a survey, your 2004 status of forces survey of Reserve component
members. Only 14 percent of respondents stated education benefits affected
their continuation decision.
Will you please comment on this?
GENERAL BRADLEY. Yes, sir. What I think may play into that survey is the
fact that the educational benefits are not worth what they were several years
ago. I think it reflects also the operations tempo of our forces. They are so
much busier and are deployed in their busyness now in what they do.
They are deployed and so it is not easy or convenient to do night schools
or whatever they do to complete these additional educational programs. That
makes it a lot more difficult. I think that is a reason why it does not rank as
high. I think in other times when we are not as busy, it probably would seem
like it is a better benefit to them. That is my conjecture.
So I think it is only one tool that we could use for retention. I think
the fact that people like what they do and they think it is important is a
reason why they stay with us. But education helps a certain population. And I
just think that any help we get to retain people would be a good thing, but it
is not the be all and end all for retention, I do not think.
MR. CARR. Mr. Chairman, I might be able to help in clarifying this. It
is from the status of forces survey. Fourteen percent which you cite and 25
percent which I cite for junior enlisted are both part of that survey. So the
correct answer for the respondents in total is about 14 percent.
I cited E1 to 4. But if we looked at E5 through 9, it is only nine
percent. It becomes less important. Again, talking about the education
benefit. And officers are all five percent or below.
So as a group, they would respond 14 percent as it being important, but
disproportionately, the junior enlisted E1 to 4 felt that it was important to
them. Not remarkable because they see that and they do not count much on health
care because they consider themselves invincible and they do not look at
retirement because that is well out in the future. Therefore, you get a skewed
reaction to the education appeal if you are talking to the very youngest
members.
THE CHAIRMAN. When we say GI Bill, a lot of people immediately will
think, all right, World War II. All right. Soldiers coming home. But we had a
draft. So the draft went across the population and brought many people in to
serve their country and then we provided that education for them and we as a
society benefited tremendously from that.
Then we transitioned to the all-volunteer force and under the leadership
of Senator Montgomery worked seven years to produce the Montgomery GI Bill as a
"tool" to the services on recruiting and retention of their all-volunteer force.
We find ourselves, though, very challenged. You recruit individuals then
to come join the all-volunteer force to obtain your education. And, yet, then
we also have the Reserves and the National Guard, with individuals who are
already established -- not all of them -- but you are also using this as a
recruiting tool to join the Guard, and the Reserves. You can obtain your
education benefit on a part-time basis and serve your country.
But we also have equally a large portion that are already in their job.
They are comfortable with their career path. And then they find themselves at
war and then we want to immediately judge them and say, well, but you are
eligible for a benefit, but you are not utilizing the benefit and you cannot
force that horse to drink.
You know what I am trying to say? I mean, General Bradley, I think you
are the one that said, you know, inequity for inequitie's sake.
GENERAL BRADLEY. But, sir, you know one thing I would add is the benefit
has timed out for many of the people who are answering this survey. If they are
beyond 14 years of service, the benefit does not matter to them probably because
they are not eligible for it any longer.
The day you sign up, a 14-year clock starts and it runs out at 14 years.
And so if you are serving at 15, 16, 20, 25 years, you are not eligible for this
benefit anymore. So to those respondents to a survey, the benefit is
irrelevant. So I think it might be more relevant, be used more, and be a little
retention tool, I think, if we could make it a 20- or 25-year benefit instead of
14.
THE CHAIRMAN. I am going to go to the rate issue for a second. I noted
the original nine-to-one ratio of the GI Bill benefit to the contribution level,
and I looked at the numbers.
Under the original Montgomery GI Bill, we have the $1,200 contribution.
The pay of an E1 at the time was $573.60. So back in 1985 when Senator
Montgomery got everyone to go along with this, that was 17 percent. That
contribution was 17 percent of $573. That was a $103 pretax contribution.
Think about that. That is a lot out of the $573. The payout at the time
was $10,800. Okay? The payout today is around 37,200. Yet, the contribution
has also maintained itself at 1,200. So the contribution is not even a nine-to-
one ratio anymore.
So based on today's E1 salary of $1,273, if you want to maintain the nine-
to-one ratio on the payout, the contribution from the soldier should increase to
$216 a month pretax. So the contribution based off of today's payout should be
$4,136.
So this whole issue about having skin in the game, you know, about what is
your personal investment to your own education given the payout, the
contribution has not even maintained relative to the payout as designed by
Congressman Montgomery and the Committee at the time.
I just want to make sure all of you knew and understood that.
Now, as we then go to the Reserve components, with this whole issue about
equity for equities sake, the Reservists, are not making a contribution.
So if we want to bring this back into balance, we are talking about
increasing the contribution with regard to soldiers and whether or not Reserve
components should also be making a contribution into the GI Bill benefit.
I am just throwing this out to you. You cannot just say, well, we are
going to do it for equity, but, gee, I want some, but then I do not have skin in
the game either.
So I want to have a conversation with all of you about this. So if we are
going to say, okay, now we make this original amendment to say, okay, we are
going to go to the 1606 benefit. So for the Reserve components, it was about
$297 a month. And at that time, it was about 48 to 49 percent of the active-
duty rate.
And according to your testimony, Secretary Hall, you are saying that that
has now shrunk to about 28 percent. Now, that is DoD's responsibility,
Secretary Hall. I view that as your responsibility at DoD.
If your senior leaders are saying this is an important tool to us and it
is not being kept or maintained, you have got to tell us this because obviously
this thing, I believe it needs to be increased. We are going to have to bring,
the 1606 benefit up, and it is not linked to anything right now.
When we did the 1607 benefit, it was linked and it was able to maintain
itself to the active benefit. But if we are going to continue to do these
increases, should there be a level of contribution from the Reserve components?
So let me turn that over to you. This is a policy question and I need
your best counsel. There are not going to be volunteers. I am going to go
right down the line. All right? Let me start with the Coast Guard.
ADMIRAL BRICE-O'HARA. Sir, I would say that you have to look at the
totality of tools that you have to use to influence our servicemembers. And so
the fact that there is no pay-in by the Reservist is an inducement.
And if we were to require a pay-in, that may have then diminished
attractiveness to that Reservist which would then cause us to have to use
another tool potentially to attract them, recruit them, retain them in the
services.
ADMIRAL MCDONALD. Sir, I recommend you just stay the way it is. I have
no data to show that if we make them have a pay-in whether it is going to make a
difference or not. But from what I see from my Navy Reservists, the program as
is benefits them across the board if they do not have to pay in. I would like
to see it stay that way.
THE CHAIRMAN. General Young.
GENERAL YOUNG. Sir, I have to agree. I am not in favor of a contribution
on behalf of the servicemember to continue to receive their Selected Reserve
benefit.
THE CHAIRMAN. So I want equity with the active components, but I do not
want to pay for it? Is that what I am hearing? I mean, come on. I am serious.
I am going to pick on all three of you for a second. I know you really want to
jump in this fight. That is really not what you are telling me, is it?
ADMIRAL MCDONALD. Well, equity would be then given the entire 100 percent
return without a pay-in. Obviously the Navy Reserve is not exactly the active
Navy, so there are differences. So I think this is an equitable tool by no pay-
in, but you are not receiving the 100 percent benefit.
THE CHAIRMAN. All right. General Bergman.
GENERAL BERGMAN. Sir, I would suggest to you that equity in this instance
refers to a perception in the mind of the individual for what they are
receiving, for what they are giving, if you will, and their time.
And to that Reserve Marine, they know, for example, when it comes to a
perception of equity, some of their active component counterparts wonder why
they get two drills for one day's pay.
The point is, in the dollar value benefit, I do not see a need to change
to put the Reserve component equal with the active duty as far as what they
receive in that actual dollar output.
THE CHAIRMAN. The Committee is going to stand at recess for about two
minutes.
[Recess.]
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bilirakis, any further questions?
The hearing will come back to order.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions. I just want to
raise a point here that I have been talking to staff. I guess I was not aware
that the Reservist can pick up this benefit immediately on day one, whereas
someone serving on active duty does not get the right to the benefit unless they
have served what is either three years or two years depending on what the
contract is for.
You know, active duty -- I am not belittling the role of Reservists. God
knows in this day and age, thank God for them. But I am not sure that they
should be able to pick up the benefit on -- am I correct? Does someone have to
serve in the Reserves for a certain period of time first before they have the
right to this education benefit?
MR. HALL. I think it is enlist or reenlist for six years, make that
obligation, whereas on active duty -- someone can correct me -- you can start it
after two years. But within the Reserve, if you make an obligation of six years
or reenlist for six, you are eligible for it. So just make the commitment you
are going to serve for six years in the Reserve, unless somebody wants to
correct that -- I think --
MR. BILIRAKIS. But they have served that six years?
MR. HALL. Yes -- no, not served six years. Agree to serve six years and
you can start picking up the benefit.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Yeah. Okay. So it goes right back to what I --
MR. HALL. When you join and say I am going to do this for six years, you
can start.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Yeah. You can start on day one then?
MR. HALL. No. I think it is after an amount of training.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Well, all right. All right. So it is after two months or
whatever it might be?
MR. HALL. There is a small period that you have to complete, some active
duty for training period, a small time, and then you can start it. So there is
a little bit of training piece you have to do successfully. That is not very
long. I think it is a matter of weeks or months.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Well, I realize you are all representing the Reserve Corps
and they are very, very important to us. But I do not know. I find something
wrong with all that.
MR. HALL. Could I make a comment --
MR. BILIRAKIS. Go ahead, sir.
MR. HALL. -- that relates to the Chairman's question? You know, the
words equal and fair, I think we have to think about. Because something is not
equal, is it perceived to be fair? And we heard the word perception.
And I think to get the idea that in order to be fair, we must have the
Reserve benefit exactly equal to the active duty is wrong because if we have
those, why not -- if the pay is the same, if all the benefits are the same, you
have to characterize the nature of the service. And I think in the minds of a
Guardsman or a Reservist, fair rather than equal is what they look at.
And I think originally when Senator Montgomery put this together and the
benefits were at 48 percent of the active duty, based upon a characterization of
your service, you were not full time, they thought that was a fair thing. Now
that it has atrophied, perhaps in their view, it is not the equal. Is it still
as fair as it was at that point.
So I think they focus more on perhaps having it for a longer length of
time, perhaps having it back at what it started at, the 48 percent. And that
would be fair. I do not think they would say it has to be exactly equal to
active duty and the same things before the situation.
So I think we just need to think about the fair and equal between the two
and characterize the nature of the service and they will end up being different
benefits. But if they are perceived to be fair, then I think our young men and
women will reenlist and will continue to serve. That is my view on the equality
versus fairness.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I realize the focus is on retention and that
is awfully significant. And if we look at it from a retention standpoint, then
I stand corrected. But I think we have -- again, I keep repeating this -- the
value that the GI Bill has been to our way of life. And if we think of that,
then I think we ought to also be thinking beyond just retention as significant
as retention is. And, you know, it should be a little bit of a reward, I should
think, for the person who served a certain period of time.
THE CHAIRMAN. All right. To focus this then so we do not get too far out
of the box on redesign, the issue is going toward rate and length of time for
the opportunity to utilize the benefit.
GENERAL HELMLY. I would commend to you, and I have heard several of my
peers also state this, also the use of the benefit, that is to allow, as you
noted in your comment, for certain types of training, not just the traditional
college degree.
MR. HALL. I would also mention, Mr. Chairman, last year, some of the
changes you made to use were some of the certification and training courses
which were received exceptionally well by our members. And I think a further
expansion of that into things for long-range truck drivers and other kinds of
courses would be welcome as a positive step. So expanding some of the training
certification and other kinds of skills would be the third item in addition to
the rate and length.
THE CHAIRMAN. All right. General Helmly, then an issue, or, General
Bradley, actually, this is for the entire panel: credentialing.
Right now if you have got one of your mechanics working on a particular
aircraft and he has been trained to work on that aircraft and now he wants to
leave, but now he cannot go down and work on that aircraft because he has not
been properly certified according to blah-blah-blah.
GENERAL BRADLEY. Yes, sir. I would be in favor of that. I would agree
with what General Helmly just said and Secretary Hall. I think those changes
would make it a much more viable, helpful program.
THE CHAIRMAN. Okay. So focus more predominantly on these three issues,
the rate, the opportunity of use, IE, length of time, and then the
credentialing. And what word did you use? You did not use credentialing. You
called it?
MR. HALL. Certification
THE CHAIRMAN. Certification.
MR. HALL. Yes, sir. That is what I would agree with.
THE CHAIRMAN. All right. I need to do this for the record. I would like
to go down the line from Lieutenant General Helmly on down. I want you to give
me a good 35-, 40-second snapshot of one of your Reservists, Coast Guardsmen,
National Guardsmen, who has been brought to active duty. Tell me what happens
to them, for example, tank platoon commander, round out. I just need to get on
the record when they serve next to an active-duty counterpart, that counterpart
gets X, but my person does not get what, but gets utilized in comparison.
Can you do that for me, General Helmly.
GENERAL HELMLY. Congressman, I think the biggest complaint -- in fact, I
know the biggest complaint we have from Army Reserve soldiers is not so much the
measurement of benefits and entitlements as it is the treatment.
THE CHAIRMAN. Will you hold just a second?
GENERAL HELMLY. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bilirakis is going to take the Chair to finish this
series of questions and then I am going to need to leave.
MR. BILIRAKIS. You said this question.
THE CHAIRMAN. And any other follow-on you would love to have.
We are going to have questions that we will submit for the record. I want
to thank you for coming. This is very important and I appreciate that. You
help focus us in three very important areas that can be very helpful to you.
MR. BILIRAKIS. [Presiding] Who had the floor here? Go ahead, sir.
GENERAL HELMLY. Congressman Buyer had asked for each of us to address an
issue as regards how our Reserve component members may feel relative to an
active component member.
I had just responded that I personally do not often hear a complaint about
equity of benefits. And I agree with Secretary Hall. It is really about
benefits and entitlements commensurate with one's service, commensurate with
inactive service as opposed to daily active-duty service.
Having said that, the biggest complaint we have about relative to the
active component is regards to treatment. And I do not mean an intentional Army
bad treatment of Reserve component members. As much as we mobilize them, we
consider them to be unready rather than treating them as a professional soldier,
challenging them, providing them kinds of training that challenge them, that
energize them looking forward.
They will often point to I do not understand why I had to spend 75, 90
days at a mobe station trying on new kinds of boots, why I could not just be
issued the boots ahead of time, why if I passed the PT test ahead of time you
did not take it like my active component counterpart, those kind of things.
They see it as somewhat dehumanizing. The Army has made strides at issues
of our Reserve component members, the same kinds of equipment, et cetera, but
they complain often about the length of time and before I get to theater and
start getting on with my business.
MR. BILIRAKIS. And I think we get those comments. I know I went with a
group with the Air Force Caucus to Iraq a few weeks ago and we received some of
those comments.
Who is next?
GENERAL BRADLEY. General Bradley. I think he intended for us to go down
the line with that question.
Actually, sir, I think for our Air Force Reserve airmen, I do not hear
complaints about treatment or benefits or pay for folks that are mobilized.
They are pretty much qualified for the same pay and benefits that active regular
Air Force, regular component folks acquire in those cases.
There are things that some people consider not quite right or fair when
they are not mobilized, some of the things. But the question was about when you
are on active duty, what things are different. And there is actually very
little that is different in regard to the pay and benefits.
MR. BILIRAKIS. All right. Thank you.
General.
GENERAL BERGMAN. Sir, from the Marine Corps perspective, I would echo the
comments of my colleagues. When you are in active duty, everything is basically
the same. They are all going to the same fight.
When you are in a nonmobilized, nonactivated status as a Reserve, you are
really running a parallel, the kind of dissimilar life that you have chosen.
And to be honest, when our Marines come whether for two weeks or two days in
that nonmobilized environment, they are there because they want to put on the
uniform and they want to just be Marines.
So you do not hear -- the complaint, of course, we always want more chow.
We always want more bullets, always want more training. And I say that in a
very serious way because at the rate of utilization of our resources, our
equipment, when these young folks come to train, they want to have the
capability to do that. And they are really not talking about the kinds of
things that we have been discussing here.
MR. BILIRAKIS. General Young.
GENERAL YOUNG. Sir, I think overall, the department has done a great job
at equalizing the benefits and making our Guardsmen that are mobilized feel that
they are receiving equal treatment and the same degree of equipment, training,
and everything else.
Early on, those returning from theater that had medical problems, there
was some perception there that their degree of treatment, the level of treatment
was not the same. But the Department of Veterans' Affairs, everybody has worked
hard that where we found those types of disparities or differences, we have
worked hard to change those and change those programs to make sure that is not
the case.
So I would think today -- I was an Assistant General for six years and
mobilized a lot of soldiers out of Ohio and early on, there were some of those
perceptions -- but today, the returning soldiers from the Ohio Army National
Guard feel like they are treated just like an active-duty counterpart.
MR. BILIRAKIS. That is good.
GENERAL YOUNG. Thank you.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Admiral.
ADMIRAL MCDONALD. Sir, I will have to agree with the chiefs. Once on
active duty, there is very little differences. It is getting to and off active
duty, the continuum of service, the ability to easily move from the Reserve
component to an active status and back with all the difficulties in there. We
are working on that within DoD, but we have got some hurdles there. That is
about the major issue I hear from my mobilized Reservists.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Coast Guard.
ADMIRAL BRICE-O'HARA. Sir, I would echo what was just said concerning the
transparency and seamlessness with which we manage our Reserve component. As
much as we can do to make processes the same between the two components, the
better we will be.
Relative to specific complaints, the most frequently heard in the past has
been the discrepancy in housing allowances, but recent legislation has vastly
improved that. And with the new change to the basic allowance for housing
entitlement, we do not hear that complaint. But by far, that was the largest
that I had heard in my travels through the Coast Guard.
But with our integration, the Coast Guard Reservists feel very much a part
of team Coast Guard and they do not feel second citizens. They are right there
on the front line and delivering services with great professionalism and
dedication just as their active counterparts are.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Well, thank you.
Before I forget, I do want to go into this other area that I brought up
previously. But you are among the busiest people in our society and for you to
sit here all these hours, I mean, we really commend you. I apologize for it,
but many of you have experienced this before, so you know what the heck it is
like up here. So I just wanted to get that.
But let me get back again to the Reservists. And your job is to get
people to come into the Reserves and to retain them and that sort of thing. And
I appreciate that.
But a guy signs up for six years and is still a civilian and immediately
starts his education and maybe picks up the degree in four years, three years
depending on what and then does not complete the six-year contract. And this
goes back, I guess, to what the Chairman had brought up.
In the meantime, that person has already had the education that has cost
the taxpayers an awful lot of money. You have had the use of that person for
that three or four years and probably served in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever.
In today's world, the Reservists, I know, are just serving so much differently
than they used to many years ago.
The only penalty for that individual would be a nonhonorable discharge?
It could be general or it could be something else; is that right? In the
meantime, the person has gotten the education?
MR. HALL. No, sir. No, sir. On the education, we recently submitted our
biannual report to Congress on the Montgomery GI Bill. And this is the way it
works.
If you do not complete your obligation and you have used your benefits, we
recoup the money from you. And in that report, we have the amount of money and
we are recouping it now.
So you cannot just take the Montgomery GI Bill and say, oops, at the end
of four years, I want to leave. If you do not serve that time, we recoup that
money from you and we are actively doing that and have recouped an amount from
the people that did not meet their obligation.
So you do not get off freely. You must --
MR. BILIRAKIS. Okay. You are actively recouping it, but do you have to
go to court on it?
MR. HALL. No. We go to them and say you owe us that amount of money and
obviously we take that out of their paycheck or they pay it, but we do recoup
it.
MR. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Well, that is good to hear.
Well, gentlemen and lady -- is there anything more? Apparently the
Chairman had a long list of questions here. He asked me to continue receiving
the answers to the one item and then proceeded to talk about a variety of items.
So he has a number of others and I know he is going to submit them to you
in writing. But they are very important to him. He spent an awful lot of time
on this subject and we discussed it at length when we discussed the budget a
couple of times during the last two or three weeks.
Well, I am going to ask this question, but I think I am going to ask you
to respond to it in writing. To the Reserve chiefs, I guess, many states
provide significant education benefits for members of the National Guard.
However, members of the Reserves did not qualify for these benefits even though
they may reside and drill in a State. Darn good point.
So do you see an inequity there and how would you remedy that inequity?
Now, again, in the interest of time and whatnot, that is a very
significant question and hopefully -- and it is a very good point -- hopefully
you can think about that and maybe respond to the Committee in writing if you
would within what period of time? Okay. They will send it to you.
All right. Thanks so much. I think we will just go ahead and adjourn the
hearing at this point in time. You have been very helpful.
And, again, I do feel very strongly about VEAP. I may be wrong. If I am,
I would appreciate your letting us know. But any comments you may have on that,
you might submit to the Committee along maybe with a copy to me or whatever the
case may be because I do not want to do the wrong thing. But at the same time,
I just think that there is an area there that -- talking about inequity, there
is an area of inequity there.
Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[The statement of Joseph F. Sharp, Jr. appears on p. 100]
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]