Representative Bob Edgar (D-PA), Chairman,
Subcommittee on Education, Training,
and Employment
Representative David Bonior (D-MI), Member,
Committee on Rules
Representative Del Latta (R-OH),
Member, Committee on Rules
SONNY’S SUMMARY
Under Title VII of H.R. 5167, the proposed Department of Defense Authorization Act for 1985, the House Committee on Armed Services, of which I was a member, approved on April 19, 1984, a new GI Bill educational assistance program for military personnel effective October 1, 1984. The full House approved this provision on May 31, which was derived from our bill H.R. 1400, the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1983. As proponents of the bill reiterated many times, we designed the new program to attract and retain high-quality young men and women in both the active and reserve forces of our military and then entitle them to four years of postsecondary education after their service. As a matter of legislative history, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee also had approved H.R. 1400 on May 16, 1983, and had approved an earlier version on May 19, 1981, which the House did not vote on.
Mr. Montgomery
Prior to discussing the House’s May 31, 1984, passage of a New GI Bill as part of the 1985 DoD Authorization Act, here are a couple of morsels to remember from the earlier stages of our journey and the initial May 19, 1981, House Veterans’ Affairs Committee approval of H.R. 1400:
• First, as we learned in the last chapter, the Military Personnel and Compensation Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) held 12 hearings at military installations across the country from June 24, 1981, to March 11, 1982, on “New Educational Assistance Program for the Military to Assist Recruiting.” Representatives Bill Nichols (D-AL) and Don Mitchell (R-NY) convened the hearings.1
• Second, the Subcommittee on Education, Training, and Employment of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee held six hearings in Washington, D.C., and across the country from March 17 to April 23, 1981, on the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1981 and two more such hearings on March 31, 1982, and April 12, 1983. Subcommittee Chairman Bob Edgar (D-PA) and ranking member Margaret Heckler (R-MA) convened those hearings.2
• Third, on May 11, 1982, the HASC marked-up H.R. 1400 with amendments.
• Fourth, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee marked-up H.R. 1400, the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act of 1983, on May 12, 1983.
• Fifth, the HASC marked-up a New GI Bill-type educational assistance program very similar to H.R. 1400 on April 19, 1984.
Students, Title VII: Educational Assistance Programs, of the 399-page report filed by the Armed Services Committee on H.R. 5167, the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1985, speaks to the specifics of the New GI Bill provision that the House would pass on May 31, 1984.
Let’s look at the wording in the Committee Report on H.R. 51673 filed by the Armed Services Committee.
The words we’ll quote verbatim are important because they convey information about the “why” and “how” of the bill—more specifically, why the House Armed Services Committee crafted a New GI Bill, and how it was structured.
The findings of the Armed Services Committee generally were similar to those of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee.4
• “The purpose of Title VII is to establish a new educational assistance program for military personnel effective October 1, 1984… designed to attract and retain high-quality young men and women in both the active and Reserve forces by offering them financial assistance for obtaining a college education.
• “… The Committee is concerned that the services’ recent recruiting and retention success may not continue if the national economy continues to improve or if one of a number of other factors currently favorable to recruiting and retention changes adversely….
• “As the number of 18- and 19-year-olds declines over the remainder of the decade, the competition from colleges and universities and from private industry for the shrinking pool of high-quality young people will intensify. At the same time, the services will require an increasing number of high-quality personnel to operate and maintain the sophisticated weapon systems coming on line in the late 1980s and 1990s….
• “Of particular concern as well is the recent downturn in recruiting experienced personnel by the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve during the first quarter of fiscal year 1984. Army National Guard accessions [enlistments] were down 34 percent from a year earlier; Army Reserve accessions were off by 11 percent from the same period in fiscal year 1983. With the growing reliance on the reserve components envisioned by the committee, a special enlistment and reenlistment incentive for the Reserve and Guard is vital.
• “… A number of witnesses, including recruiters and military personnel chiefs, have testified in public hearings that educational incentives are one of the best recruitment and retention tools. Regardless of the recruiting situation that may exist in the future, the military services will never be faced with too many applications for enlistment of high-quality personnel.”
The Armed Services Committee derived the educational benefits in H.R. 5167 from H.R. 1400, including the following:5
Basic Educational Assistance
• “Basic monthly educational assistance allowance of $300 per month, with a maximum of 36 months [four academic years] of entitlement for military personnel who served for three years on active duty or two years on active duty and four years in the Selected Reserve [a generic term for both the Guard and Reserve forces of each service branch]….
Kicker to the Basic Benefit
• “The Committee recommends authority for the Secretary of Defense, at his discretion, to increase the amount of the basic benefit by up to an additional $400 per month for individuals in critical or difficult-to-recruit-for skills….
Supplemental Benefit
• “In addition, the committee recommends a supplemental benefit of $300 per month to service members who complete the initial period of service required for the basic benefit and serve an additional five years on active duty or an additional two years on active duty and four years in the Selected Reserve. This provision is intended to provide the Secretary of Defense with additional discretionary authority to target additional benefits toward critical or difficult-to-retain skills….
Transferability to Spouse or Children
• “The Committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense, at his discretion, to permit a service member to transfer the earned educational entitlement to the service member’s dependents for their use….
Educational Assistance for the Selected Reserve
• “Title VII would also establish an educational assistance benefit specifically for members of the Selected Reserve. Selected Reservists would receive $140 per month entitlement for up to 36 months paid by the Department of Defense….
Termination of Other Educational Programs
• “The bill would terminate the existing Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) and [a very small DoD-funded test under Title 10 U.S.C.] Selected Reserve educational benefits program. Individuals currently participating in these programs would be covered under the new program…” I’d add that new enlistees would have to have a high school diploma or equivalency to qualify for these post-service education benefits.
U.S. House of Representatives Chamber as it appeared in 1995.
The House debated H.R. 5167—a $208-billion authorization bill—on seven different days between May 15 and May 31 and then sent it to the Senate.6 There were on the order of 50 proposed floor amendments.7 The debate was highly-contentious at times because of issues of military technology and weapons systems, including thermonuclear ones.
None of the debate or amendments involved opposition to a New GI Bill.8
Let me highlight my statements and those of Subcommittee Chairman Bob Edgar during the spirited debate on May 15 and May 16. As we saw it, it was hard to discuss cold-war, high-technology military weapons systems without discussing having skilled people to operate them. Noted Mr. Edgar:9
Mr. Edgar
Bob Edgar
“… I rise in support of Title VII of H.R. 5167, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1985.
“As we expand our military forces in hardware and technology, we must be prepared to act now to provide the incentives to meet these challenges in the coming years.
“[I quote] Maj. Gen. Kenneth Peek, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Personnel, U.S. Air Force:
‘A New GI Bill would help us attract and retain the kinds of people we need in the increasingly complex and high technology Air Force that we have today.’”
Mr. Montgomery
I added the following during the debate:10
“While procurement of weapon systems is necessary, Congress must also [ensure] recruitment and retention of sufficient numbers of quality personnel to operate and maintain these sophisticated weapons. The required weapons systems are expensive, but we must not let their cost have an adverse effect on personnel expenditures or readiness. We must give first priority to our military people. The educational assistance program contained in Title VII reflects that priority.”
Plus, there was discussion regarding how to pay for a New GI Bill that I think students would benefit from hearing.
In a nutshell, the Rules Committee waived section 303(a)(4) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (also known as “Budget Act” and “Congressional Budget Act”) with respect to our veterans’ education provisions.
Representative David Bonior explained this matter on the House floor on May 15, 1984, just prior to commencing debate.11
David Bonior
“The rule provides a waiver of section 303(a)(4) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against consideration of the committee substitute [meaning H.R. 5167, the committee bill]. This section of the Budget Act prohibits the consideration of measures containing new spending authority, which would become effective in a fiscal year.
“Several sections of the committee substitute provide new spending authority for fiscal year 1985 and as members well know, the first concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 1985 has not yet been adopted.12
“Section 601 of the committee substitute provides a 3.5-percent increase in basic pay for nearly all military personnel to take effect on January 1, 1985, and Title VII of the substitute authorizes new spending authority through an education assistance program [for military recruitment and veterans’ transition].
“However, the fiscal impact of the education assistance program in 1985 is negligible and the pay increase is assumed in the House-passed budget resolution.
“In order to provide for consideration of the committee amendment, the Committee on Rules waived that section of the Budget Act.”
Mr. Montgomery
Representative Del Latta of the Rules Committee spoke to this matter, as well:13
Mr. Latta
“Mr. Speaker, while the provisions of the rule have been described in detail, there is a waiver which should be [further] noted.
“There is a waiver of section 303(a)(4) of the Budget Act. This section was waived in order to allow consideration of new entitlement authority before final action in the first budget resolution.
Del Latta
“Mr. Speaker, one of the new entitlements in this bill would provide education benefits payable to certain veterans. The bulk of the entitlement under this program would be for individuals who serve in the Armed Forces after September 30, 1984, for at least three years from that date and meet other eligibility requirements.
“The cost of the program, while small in the near term, would balloon in the outyears, as is typical of entitlement programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision of the bill would cost $106 million in fiscal year 1985, $305 million in fiscal year 1986, and $369 million in fiscal year 1987. But the fiscal year 1995 cost would soar to $778 million.
“Mr. Speaker, the Defense Department authorization is one of the most important bills we consider during the course of each year. In this case, the Armed Services Committee has cut the authorization level far below the administration’s original request, which was for a 13-percent real growth rate after inflation. According to testimony presented in the Rules Committee, this bill provides [meaning it “assumes”] for approximately a 16-percent, real growth rate after inflation.
“The authorizations for appropriations for fiscal year 1985 recommended for procurement, research and development, operations and maintenance, working capital funds, and civil defense, total $208.1 billion. This amount is $16.4 billion below [emphasis added] the total of $224 billion requested by the President….
“Mr. Speaker, under this open rule,14 the House will be able to consider each item in this bill on its own merits.
“I support the rule so that the House may begin its consideration of this major legislation.”
Mr. Montgomery
Getting the waiver was very important. Absent getting it, any member and especially a member of the Budget Committee or Rules Committee could have called for a violation of the Budget Act, and the New GI Bill provision likely would have been struck from the bill.
Sonny’s Lessons Learned
Cooperation between committees is essential.
If you have cooperation, you can get things done. If you don’t, you can’t.
Many of us were members of both the Armed Services and Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Who had the job to strike a chord of harmony and cooperation between these two committees that had jurisdiction over the New GI Bill provision? Those of us who sat on both.
WHAT’S NEXT
Let’s move to the Senate floor for debate on its version of a new education incentive for our All-Volunteer military.