congressional_record: CREC-2010-12-22-pt1-PgE2246-4
Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-2010-12-22-pt1-PgE2246-4 | 2010-12-22 | 111 | 2 | POST-9/11 VETERANS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2010 | HOUSE | EXTENSIONS | ALLOTHER | E2246 | E2247 | [{"name": "Timothy H. Bishop", "role": "speaking"}] | [{"congress": "111", "type": "S", "number": "3447"}, {"congress": "111", "type": "HR", "number": "6430"}] | 156 Cong. Rec. E2246 | Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 173 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010) [Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 173 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Pages E2246-E2247] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] POST-9/11 VETERANS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2010 ______ speech of HON. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP of new york in the house of representatives Wednesday, December 15, 2010 Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3447, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010. The original GI Bill proved to be a landmark initiative for our troops and an outstanding investment in the future of our Nation. The Post-9/11 GI Bill, signed into law in 2008, built on the success of the original program by providing helpful and hard-earned educational and economic benefits for our newest generation of veterans. Although today's legislation seeks to make it easier for veterans to utilize their educational benefits, some of the changes will have detrimental consequences. Just as the veterans of WWII were the engine of economic recovery and expansion in the post-war period, the most recent generation of veterans will continue their service to America by reaching their full educational and economic potential through the Post-9/11 GI Bill. While I support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote for it, there are some provisions in the legislation that I believe deserve additional consideration. Although I support setting a national average tuition rate for benefits, I am concerned that students in states like New York will be negatively impacted by the $17,500 baseline. This legislation will reduce benefits for students in New York already enrolled in programs where the cost is above the baseline. Students based decisions about which institution of higher education to attend partly on a benefit level guaranteed in the 2008 law. A ``hold harmless'' provision would have allowed these students to continue to receive the same level benefits for which they are entitled. Under current law, state approving agencies, SAAs, are charged with approving programs and schools that are deemed appropriate for vets using the GI Bill. S. 3447 permits the Veterans Administration, VA, to make this determination and I am concerned that this responsibility should remain within SAA's jurisdiction, as they have been the experts in protecting veterans from fraudulent programs. The bill goes further by permitting veterans to use their GI benefits at schools without any approval by SAAs or the VA. In my view this is unwise. This legislation permits the VA to expand GI benefits to trade schools, unaccredited colleges, and programs that lead to no degree or certificate. While I understand that many veterans choose not to take a more traditional path and attend an institution of higher education, I am deeply concerned that taxpayer dollars will go to programs that will not lead to gainful employment. I am also concerned that this bill includes a so-called ``last- payer'' provision. The last payer provision withholds the student's GI Bill benefit until a calculation is made of any state and private tuition aid, for which a veteran may be eligible. In some cases, this would cause a delay in GI benefits and lead to needless confusion. As a former college administrator, I am very pleased to see so many veterans returning home and choosing to seek further education. However, I am deeply concerned with a growing number of reports that some institutions may be abusing GI tuition payments by aggressively targeting veterans for academic programs that may not provide an actual benefit to a student, such as preparation for future employment. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that in the 112th Congress we can achieve bipartisan solutions to these issues to protect both taxpayers and distinguished veterans. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a small token of our appreciation for their valor and service to our Nation. I would like to submit for the Record a letter signed by various higher education groups that outlines the community's concerns with this legislation. American Council on Education, Washington, DC, December 14, 2010. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Council on Education and the organizations listed below, we write to express our hope that before adjournment, the 111th Congress will approve a final version of the [[Page E2247]] Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvement Act of 2010 that addresses the concerns outlined below. Both the House version (H.R. 6430) and the Senate version (S. 3447) make welcome improvements to current law, such as expanding the benefits to troops serving in the Active Guard Reserve and to National Guard members who have honorably served their country on active duty, including at the sites of natural disasters. The bills also replace the complex state-by-state tuition and fee cap look-up chart with language that specifies that GI Bill benefits cover tuition and fees for veterans attending public institutions while establishing a single national tuition baseline for those who enroll in private institutions. However, we believe that the House version is preferable in two very critical respects. First, S. 3447 contains a provision that would add a new source of confusion for veterans and prevent them from having a clear idea of the level of support to which they are entitled. This so-called ``last-payer'' provision, which withholds the GI Bill benefit until a calculation is made of any state and private tuition aid for which a veteran may be eligible, would not only confound veterans and delay the delivery of aid, but in some cases would conflict with state statutes. In contrast, H.R. 6430 does not include such a provision and will help end the frustration and confusion that far too many veterans have experienced in attempting to access their benefits. Second, H.R. 6430 includes an important ``hold harmless'' provision, designed to protect veterans who might otherwise be negatively impacted by the establishment of a national baseline. In several states, veterans attending private institutions currently receive a base benefit that is greater than the new national baseline amount provided in either version of the legislation. By failing to include this ``hold harmless'' language, the Senate bill would reduce benefits for a number of veterans upon enrollment for a subsequent term. In contrast, the House bill would help ensure that veterans continue to receive their current benefits without interruption. As this legislation nears passage, we strongly urge you to modify S. 3447 so that it reflects the approach taken by the House bill on these two important issues. Our campuses have worked very hard to smooth out the difficulties that veterans have faced under current law, and these improvements will enable them to serve veterans even more effectively. Thank you for all of your work on behalf of the nation's veterans. Sincerely, Molly Corbett Broad, President. ____________________ |