Legislation News & Report (TM) 

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Managing America: Veterans Affairs

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Week Ending May 27, 2011

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

The bill addresses payments to veterans for educational programs at nonpublic institutions of higher education.

The veteran would be enrolled in the VA educational assistance program between August 1, 2011 and July 31, 2014. An individual is entitled to educational assistance under chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code if, on or before April 1, 2011, was enrolled in a non-public institution of higher learning in a State in which--

(1) the maximum amount of tuition per credit in the 2010-2011 academic year, as determined using the table of the Department of Veterans Affairs entitled `Post-9/11 GI Bill 2010-2011 Tuition and Fee In-State Maximums', published October 27, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66193), exceeded $700; and (2) the combined amount of tuition and fees for full-time attendance in the program of education in such academic year exceeded $17,500.

Veterans who served an accumulated 36 months of active duty since September 11, 2001woudl receive 100% of maximum in-state tuition and fees. Veterans with less than 36 months active service would be eligible for a tiered payment structure showing a 10% reduction in payments for each 6 month of active duty less than the 36 months required for full coverage.

The bill, then, raises the $17,500 cap to $27,000.

The bill also would create a 24 month period beginning August 1, 2011 during which there would be a limitation on the maximum monthly stipend payable to those veterans. Currently monthly stipends are restricted to those actually attending classes but not to those studying online. The bill provides that even if studying online, if at least one course is taken in a classroom, the monthly stipend is authorized.

Sponsor:  Rep. Jeff Miller (FL-1^st)

Vote: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 389 - 0 (Roll no. 331).

Cost to the taxpayers: CBO estimates that, on net, the bill would decrease direct spending by $5 million over the 2012-2016 and 2012-2021 periods.

Pay-as-you-go requirements: Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation would affect direct spending. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.

Cut-as-you-go requirements:   

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

Earmark Certification:   H.R. 1383, as amended, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.  

Constitutional Authority:  By Mr. MILLER of Florida:

H.R. 1383.

Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Clauses 12, 13, 14, and 18 of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution

## All Rights Reserved. © 2011 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

MORE INFORMATION

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

Section 1. Short title

This section would provide the short title of H.R. 1383, as amended, as the `Restoring GI Bill Fairness Act of 2011.'

Section 2. Preservation of higher rates for tuition and fees for programs of education at non-public institutions of higher learning pursued by individuals enrolled in such programs prior to changes in the maximum amount

Section 2 would change the maximum tuition and fees paid on behalf of certain veterans attending certain high cost non-public institutions of higher learning from $17,500 to a $27,000 annually. The change would be effective for three years beginning with enrollments starting in August 2011 through July 31, 2014.

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

Section 3 provides a PAYGO offset by freezing the amounts of monthly stipend paid under 38 USC 3313(c)(1)(B) of title 38, United States Code, to Post 9/11 participants at the rate in effect on August 1, 2011, for a period of 24 months beginning October 1, 2011. Following the 24 month period, the amount of monthly stipend would be paid at the level currently in effect.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS FOR H.R. 1383 OF THE HONORABLE BOB FILNER

While I applaud Chairman Miller's efforts to seek to make improvements to the Post 9/11 GI Bill and stand ready to assist any efforts in the future I regretfully am unable to support this measure in its current form.

I voted against this measure in Committee because I oppose the manner in which the $50 million cost of this bill is paid for. This bill seeks to freeze the G.I. Bill housing stipend, a stipend relied upon by veterans to assist them in getting a college education under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Taking money away from veterans will be detrimental for those on shoestring budgets who use the housing stipend for rent, transportation and other college costs, especially in the face of ever-increasing energy and food costs.

I support the concept of assisting all of our veterans to receive a college education, but taking from many for the benefit of the few is simply the wrong way to pay for this. We should help veterans attending the private schools, and private schools should also do their part to help veterans. This was the premise underlying the creation of the Yellow Ribbon program, and I believe that all private schools should sign up for this program where the VA will match every dollar that the schools contribute.

The Post 9/11 GI Bill Improvements Act that we passed in December last, which was signed into law in January, was passed with the full support of Veteran Service Organizations. The majority of the VSO's submitted letters of support and strongly advocated for the bill which included the $17,500 private school tuition cap. Everyone was well aware of the effect of the tuition cap and we should not be acting surprised today or pretending that it was some unintended consequence. Last year's GI Bill updates were agreed upon because they were for the greater good of all veterans not just a select few.

This is why I want to be clear on what this bill does--it removes the private school tuition cap and freezes the housing stipend for all veterans participating in the Post 9/11 GI Bill program across the country.

If we now oppose the private school tuition cap which was agreed to mere months ago, freezing the housing stipend for all participants should not be the first place we look for money--it should be the last place. Veterans have earned this benefit so we should let them keep it.

That this freeze would affect all participants is also why I take issue with the Majority's contention that this freeze will `have the least burdensome financial effect on veteran students while meeting PAYGO requirements.' I recognize that we often are forced to make tough decisions regarding our national priorities, but I believe strongly that meeting our obligations to veterans is one of our very highest priorities. Again, I ask my colleagues to look elsewhere than the already-strained student budgets of our veterans. We all should agree that a highly educated and well-trained workforce is essential for American economic success in the future, and we should be doing all we can to encourage our veterans to seek higher education. The original GI Bill was the impetus behind the creation of a strong and stable middle class, and freezing this important benefit does nothing to assist these veterans.

Finally, I am concerned that enacting this measure may result in delayed payments to Post 9/11 GI Bill participants, as the Department of Veterans Affairs testified during the Subcommittee hearing on this measure. This Committee has worked tirelessly in a bipartisan fashion since enactment of the Post 9/11 GI Bill, holding numerous hearings regarding the VA's ability to implement this program, in order to make sure that veterans receive these vital benefits.

Now is not the time to risk payment delays, and now is not the time in this current economic environment to freeze the benefits accorded to the many in order to benefit the few.

BOB FILNER.

All Rights Reserved. © 2011 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)