86-537 EPW
Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress
Washington, D.C.
20540
VETERANS' EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Barbara McClure
Analyst in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division
January 31, 1986
fLf
CRS-v
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................
iii
I.
INTRODUCTION.......................................................
1
II.
THE THREE GI BILLS.................................................
5
A.
World War II...................................................
5
B.
C.
Korean Conflict................................................
Post-Korea and Vietnam Era.....................................
10
13
III. POST-VIETNAM ERA VETERANS' EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM (VEAP).....................................................
27
IV.
35
ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.................
ABSTRACT
Education assistance for veterans was first provided for World War II veterans with enactment of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, more popularly known as the GI Bill.
The Veterans Administration (VA) currently administers
three separate veterans' education assistance programs:
(1) the Post-Korea/Viet-
nam Era GI Bill, (2) the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP), and (3) the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program.
This report describes the development and operation of the various veterans'
education programs since enactment of the original GI Bill.
VETERANS' EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
I.
INTRODUCTION
Prior to World War II there were no education assistance benefits for
veterans.
From the time of the Revolutionary War through World War I, vet-
erans' benefits consisted mainly of compensation for the service-connected
disabled and pension benefits for needy war veterans.
Following World War I,
medical care, low-cost life insurance, and vocational rehabilitation for the
service-disabled were added.
Education assistance was one element of a whole
new system of benefits known as "readjustment benefits" created for World
War II veterans by a series of laws enacted between 1940 and 1944.
The purpose
of the new readjustment benefits was to help veterans, even those who were not
disabled or poor, to make a successful transition back to civilian life, and
to make up for educational, business or other opportunities lost while in
service. \J
The first major readjustment benefit, a provision of the Selective Service
Act of 1940 (P.L. 76-783), entitled veterans to reinstatement in their former
jobs after discharge from the military.
P.L. 78-225, enacted February 3, 1944,
*
provided lump sum mustering-out pay upon discharge for World War II veterans.
The Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-359) gave veterans hiring preference for Federal civil service employment.
The most comprehensive of the
\J Congress and the Nation 1945-1964.
terly Service, 1965. p. 1335.
Washington, Congressional Quar-
CRS-2
readjustment benefits laws was the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944
(P.L. 78-346), popularly known as the "GI Bill of Rights."
tained four major benefits for World War II veterans:
The GI Bill con-
(1) education and job
training at Government expense; (2) guaranteed loans for the purchase of homes,
farms or businesses; (3) readjustment allowances for the unemployed; and
(4) special job-placement services from the U.S Employment Service.
The World
War II readjustment benefits were so popular, and were considered so successful, that they were extended also to Korean Conflict and Vietnam Era veterans,
and in some instances, to peacetime veterans.
Education and training assistance has constituted the largest single readjustment benefit for veterans both in terras of amount of money spent and in
number of veterans participating. 2J
Since 1944, more than $55 billion has
been spent on GI Bill education and training benefits for more than 18 million
World War II, Korean Conflict, Post-Korea and Vietnam Era veterans.
Following the official termination of the Vietnam Era, Congress terminated
eligibility for GI Bill education and training benefits for persons entering
military service after December 31, 1976. 3/
Persons who entered the military
before that date have 10 years after discharge or until December 31, 1989, whichever is earlier, to use their benefits.
To replace the GI Bill program, which was financed entirely by the Government, Congress established a program called the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans'
Educational Assistance Program (VEAP), which requires servicemembers who choose
to participate to make contributions to an education assistance fund.
When a
participant elects to use VEAP benefits, the Government matches the contribution
2J Levitan, Sar and Karen A. Cleary. Old Wars Remain Unfinished.
more, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973. p. 124.
3/
Act of Oct. 15, 1976; P.L. 94-502; 90 Stat. 2383.
Balti-
CRS-3
at the rate of $2 for every $1 contributed by the participant.
When VEAP was
enacted, it was generally thought that a contributory program was more appropriate for an all-volunteer force than one totally funded by the Government.
Dissatisfaction with VEAP, however, soon led to calls for enactment of a new
peacetime GI Bill.
Enrollment in VEAP was lower than had been anticipated and
the disenrollment rate was high.
VEAP also was criticized as ineffective as a
recruiting device because the services were having difficulty meeting recruiting goals in the late 1970s.
Opponents of a new GI Bill argued that the more
generous GI Bill benefits were not neccessary for an all-volunteer force where
there is no forced interruption of career or education; that the cost of a new
GI Bill program would be too great; and that recruitment had greatly improved
by the 1980s.
In 1984 Congress enacted a new education assistance program, effective
for those entering the military after July 1, 1985, which achieved a compromise
between proponents and opponents of a new GI Bill.
The All-Volunteer Force
Educational Assistance Program, enacted as Title VII of the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1985 (P.L. 98-525), is a 3-year test program that,
like VEAP, requires contributions from participating servicemembers, but pays
a higher return than VEAP ($8 for every $1 contributed for those who serve 3
years; $6.50 for every $1 contributed for those who serve 2 years).
No new
enlistee enrollments will be accepted in VEAP for the duration of the new
program.
This paper describes in greater detail the development and operation of
the various veterans' education assistance programs. 4/
4/ Not included is a discussion of the vocational rehabilitation and
counseling program, which provides special education and training benefits to
service-connected disabled veterans.
CRS-5
II.
THE THREE GI BILLS
A.
World War II
5/
From the early days of World War II it was generally recognized that considerable planning would be required for the postwar return to civilian life of
some 16 million U.S. servicemembers.
By January of 1942, only a month follow-
ing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the National Resources Planning Board
had been designated to coordinate planning for an orderly demobilization.
Be-
cause of experiences following World War I, when veterans had returned to a
postwar depression with no special employment or education assistance available
to them, there also was a consensus that some major program of readjustment
assistance for returning servicemembers would be needed.
When President Roosevelt signed the Selective Service Act of 1942 (P.L.
77-772), which lowered the draft age from 20 to 18 years, he also announced
the formation of a committee to study the education and training needs of returning servicemen.
The Armed Forces Committee on Postwar Educational Oppor-
tunities for Service Personnel, chaired by Major General Frederick H. Osborn
and generally referred to as the Osborn Committee, issued its report in July
1943.
The Committee recommended that 1 year of education and training benefits
(i.e., tuition, fees and subsistence allowances) should be made available to
5/ Much of the information on the background of the World War II and
Korean Conflict GI Bills was taken from: U.S. President's Commission on
Veterans' Pensions. Veterans' Benefits in the United States. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1956. Three vols.
CRS-6
all World War II veterans in order to "meet a national need growing out of the
aggregate educational shortages which are being created by the war." 6/
Legislation based on the Osborn Committee's recommendations was introduced in November 1943.
By the time the legislation was enacted in June 1944,
however, a much b'roader program of education assistance than that proposed by
the Osborn Committee had evolved.
In addition, other readjustment benefits,
i.e., those providing employment assistance, unemployment allowances, and housing and business loans, had been included to form an omnibus package of benefits
called the Servicemens 1 Readjustment Act or, as it was popularly known, the "GI
Bill of Rights" (P.L. 78-346).
The purposes behind enactment of the education provisions of the GI Bill
were threefold:
(1) to avoid high levels of veteran unemployment such as fol-
lowed World War I; (2) to help eliminate educational shortages that might develop as a result of the war's interruption of the education of millions of
young servicemembers; and (3) to assist individual veterans in their readjustment to civilian life.
As enacted, the original GI Bill made education benefits in the form of
tuition, fees and subsistence allowances available to all World War II veterans (a) who had served a minimum of 90 days active duty between the period
September 16, 1940, and the end of the war, (b) who were discharged other than
dishonorably, and (c) whose education was "impeded, delayed, interrupted or
interfered with" by military service, or who desired a refresher or retraining course.
Persons who entered the service before the age of 25 were presumed
to have had their educations interrupted or impeded.
Eligible veterans were
6/ Quoted in U.S. President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions. Veterans' Benefits in the United States. Vol. Ill (Staff Report No. IX-B, Readjustment Benefits: Education and Training, and Employment and Unemployment, p. 2).
CRS-7
entitled to benefits for a period of 1 year plus, for veterans' whose education had been impeded or interfered with, an additional period equal to the
veteran's length of service, not to exceed a total of 4 years of assistance.
A veteran had to commence training no later than 2 years after discharge
from the service or after the end of the war, whichever was later.
was to expire 7 years after termination of the war.
The program
Tuition and fees were
»
paid by the VA directly to the education or training institution where a veteran was enrolled, up to a maximum of $500 per academic year.
In addition, a
monthly subsistence allowance of $50 for full-time training was provided for
single veterans and $75 for those with dependents.
Lesser amounts were paid
for part time students.
In the years following enactment of the original 61 Bill, actual experience with the new education program led to enactment of a number of amendments.
In general, these amendments were directed at clarifying the law, simplifying
administration of the program, liberalizing benefits to attract more veterans
and more effectively meet their needs, and curbing abuses of the program.
The first amendments, enacted in 1945 (P.L. 79-268), liberalized several
features of the program.
Among the major provisions of P.L. 79-268 were the
following:
1.
Removed the restriction limiting benefits beyond the first
year to those whose education had been impaired, delayed,
interrupted, or interfered with, thus opening the full program to all veterans;
2.
Increased subsistence allowances to $65 per month for a
veteran without dependents and $90 per month for a veteran
with dependents;
3.
Extended the period for initiating use of benefits from 2
to 4 years following discharge, and extended the termination
date of the program from 7 to 9 years following the war;
CRS-8
4.
Permitted payment of tuition and fees in excess of the $500
annual limit, with a corresponding reduction in the veteran's
period of entitlement;
5.
Specifically authorized payment of benefits for correspondence
courses but without payment of the subsistence allowance.
Amendments enacted in 1946 (P.L. 79-679) were intended to curb abuses by
on-job training programs.
For example, it was discovered that a great many of
these programs had developed hastily in order to take advantage of GI Bill
money and that quality varied greatly among them.
P.L. 797679, therefore,
established specific standards for on-job training programs and made them subject to State education approving agencies.
(P.L. 80-377, enacted in 1947,
set forth specific standards for on-farm training programs.)
To prevent execu-
tives and other high-salaried employees from "training" under the program,
P.L. 79-679 limited a veteran's combined monthly income from the GI Bill subsistence allowance and earnings from oil-job training to $175 per month for
those without dependents and $200 per month for those with dependents.
These
amounts were raised in 1948 (P.L. 80-512) to $210 per month for veterans without dependents, $270 per month for veterans with one dependent, and $290 per
month for veterans with two or more dependents.
P.L. 80-411, enacted in 1948, raised subsistence allowances to $75 per
month for a single veteran, $105 per month for a veteran with one dependent,
and $120 per month for a veteran with two or more dependents.
v
Another abuse of GI Bill assistance that came to light use of benefits
by veterans to take avocational or recreational courses led to legislation
prohibiting use of benefits for such purposes.
The ban was originally con-
tained in the supplemental independent agencies appropriations legislation for
1949 (P.L. 80-862) and was repeated in appropriations legislation for 1950
(P.L. 81-266).
It was enacted permanently by P.L. 81-610 (July 13, 1950).
CRS-9
P.L. 81-610 also contained provisions aimed at checking certain abuses by
"a profusion of shoddy vocational schools set up specifically to rake in VA
money." 7/
Specifically, the law (1) authorized the VA to disapprove payment
of benefits for training in for-profit vocational schools that had been in existence for less than 1 year; (2) prescribed stricter criteria for approval
of for-profit schools with fewer than 25 students or one-fourth of the students
enrolled (whichever was larger) paying their own tuition; (3) provided that no
new courses could be approved in for-profit schools where the State approving
agency determined that the occupation for which the course was intended to provide training was crowded in the State and that existing training facilities
were adequate; and (A) set minimum attendance requirements for veterans pursuing trade or technical courses below college level.
During the early 1950s, several studies of the World War II GI Bill program were conducted.
These included a February 1950 joint report by the VA
and the Bureau of the Budget, two reports issued in January 1951 and February
1952 by a House Select Committee to Investigate the Educational and Training
Program Under the GI Bill (called the Teague Committee after its chairman, Representative Olin Teague), and a survey by the General Accounting Office (GAO) of
the education and training operations of the VA in seven States, the results of
which were issued in July 1951.
These reports, in general, praised the success
of the GI Bill program, but offered specific criticisms of and suggestions for
improving it.
In particular, all were critical of abuses by profit-making
vocational schools, many of which were described as "fly-by-night" ventures
founded only to take advantage of Government funds. 8/
TJ
p. 236.
8/
Starr, Paul.
The Discarded Army.
Ibid., p. 236-7.
The criticisms and
New York, Charterhouse, 1973,
CRS-10
suggestions offered by these reports greatly influenced the education and
training benefits provided for Korean Conflict veterans.
The World War II GI Bill program terminated on July 25, 1956.
During
its existence, some 7.8 million World War II veterans (about 50 percent of
those eligible) took advantage of the education and training opportunities it
provided.
Of these, more than 2.2 million attended colleges and universities
and nearly 3.5 million attended schools below college level; 1.4 million were
on-job trainees, and 690,000 were on-farm trainees (see table 3, p. CRS-24).
Total cost of the program was $14.5 billion.
B.
Korean Conflict
The U.S. Armed Forces were called into action in Korea on June 27, 1950,
and Congress immediately began to consider extension of GI Bill benefits to
•
Korean Conflict veterans.
The content of the "Korean GI Bill" (P.L. 82-550,
enacted July 16, 1952), and its similarities to and differences from the World
War II program, were to a great extent determined by the Nation's economic condition, by the various studies of the World War II program that had been conducted, and by the "weight of precedent."
According to the Bradley Commission
(the President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions which studied veterans' benefits and reported in 1956):
The total "package" of benefits for the new group of veterans
was inevitably compared with what had been done for the men
who served in World War II, and the content of [the Korean GI
Bill] was partly determined by a desire to give the new group
of veterans the same benefits that had been given to an earlier
group. 9/
9/ U.S. President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions. Veterans' Benefits
in the United States. Vol. Ill (Staff Report No. IX-A, Readjustment Benefits:
General Survey and Appraisal, p. 149).
CRS-11
The economic situation during the Korean Conflict was quite different from
that during World War II.
Employment was high, there were fewer servicemembers
and demobilization was gradual.
or high unemployment.
There was little fear of postwar depression
As a result, the Korean GI Bill was developed with pri-
mary emphasis on the readjustment intent of the program rather than its economic
consequences. 10/
The various studies which were conducted of the World War II program also
were important in the development of the Korean Conflict program.
Particular
attention was given to the recommendations of the Teague Committee (the Select
Committee to Investigate the Educational Program Under the GI Bill which had
been established by a resolution of the House of Representatives in August
1950).
Abuses of the World War II program, especially among for-profit voca-
tional schools, which had been pointed out by several studies, led to the retention of many of the restrictions adopted as amendments to the original
World War II program and to the inclusion of even stricter safeguards under the
Korean Conflict program.
For example, the ban on use of benefits for avoca-
tional or recreational courses was continued.
Detailed standards were written
into the law for the approval or disapproval of courses, especially for those
below college level and for on-job and on-farra training programs.
No non-
accredited course below college level in a for-profit school could be approved
if more than 85 percent of the students were veterans.
Veterans had to identify
a particular educational, professional, or vocational goal and enroll in courses
consistent with that goal.
Only one change in a veteran's goal was permitted.
Perhaps the greatest change under the Korean Conflict program was that
direct tuition payments to educational institutions were eliminated, and
10/
Ibid.
CRS-12
instead the VA made lump sum monthly payments to veterans to cover the costs of
tuition and other educational expenses and living expenses.
This change was rec-
ommended by the Teague Committee because it viewed direct tuition payments as one
of the primary incentives for abuses by education and training institutions, ll/
Considerations of cost also influenced the development of the Korean GI
Bill.
According to the Bradley Commission, there was a general belief in Con-
gress that the Government could not afford to continue spending as much on
veterans' education benefits as it had following World War II.
The benefits
provided under P.L. 82-550, therefore, were intended to cover only a portion
of a veteran's education expenses.
In addition to considerations of cost, it
was believed also that if veterans were responsible for paying a portion of the
cost of their own education that this, in combination with the payment of benefits directly to veterans, would give veterans more incentive to be sure that
the money was spent for worthwhile programs.
P.L. 82-550 provided education and training benefits to veterans with
military service on or after June 27, 1950, and before January 31, 1955. 12/
Eligible veterans were entitled to benefits for a period equal to one and
one-half times the duration of their active duty service, up to a maximum of
36 months.
A veteran had to commence education or training within 2 years
following discharge from the service (later extended to 3 years by P.L. 83610), and to complete training by 7 years following discharge (extended to
8 years by P.L. 83-610).
A veteran with no dependents enrolled fulltime
in an education or training institution was entitled to a direct payment
from the VA of $110 per month to be used for tuition, books, fees and living
ll/
Starr, Paul.
The Discarded Army, p. 237.
12/ The January 31, 1955, termination date for eligibility was established by Executive order in January 1955.
CRS-13
expenses.
The monthly allowance was $135 for those with one dependent and $160
for those with more than one dependent.
P.L. 84-7, enacted February 15, 1955 set a cut-off date of January 31,
1965 for all training under the Korean GI Bill.
During the program's existence
nearly 2.4 million veterans (about 43 percent of those eligible) received education and training benefits about 1.2 million of these attended colleges and
universities; 860,000 attended vocational/technical schools; and 223,000 were
on-job and 95,000 were on-farm trainees (see table 3, p. CRS-24).
Total cost
of the program was $4.5 billion.
C.
Post-Korea and Vietnam Era
Beginning in the late 1950s, numerous pieces of legislation were intro-
duced to extend GI Bill benefits to post-Korea, or "Cold War," veterans.
In
1959, and again in 1965, the Senate passed measures that would have established
a Cold War GI Bill.
Both the Eisenhower and the Johnson Administrations opposed
enactment of such legislation, arguing that GI Bill benefits should be reserved
for war veterans and that they would be too costly and were unnecessary in
light of existing education and training programs available to the general public.
The Department of Defense opposed the legislation on the ground that it
would encourage experienced military personnel to leave the military in order
to take advantage of education benefits.
Proponents argued that a Cold War GI
Bill should be enacted because, unlike previous peacetime periods, compulsory
military service remained in effect, and because of the U.S. worldwide military
commitments, servicemerabers were subject to being called in to handle various
crisis situations such as those that had occurred in Cuba, the Dominican
Republic, Lebanon, Berlin and Southeast Asia.
CRS-14
In 1966, as fighting escalated in Vietnam and support for veterans' programs increased, the Johnson Administration reversed its position, and a new
GI Bill was enacted for post-Korea and Vietnam Era veterans (P.L. 89-358).
The
new law provided education and training benefits for servicetnembers with more
than 180 days of active duty service, any part of which occurred after January 31, 1955, the date of expiration for eligibility for the Korean Conflict
program.
The new program was generally patterned after the Korean Conflict program,
although in some regards benefits under the new program were less generous, reflecting a congressional intent to provide "considerably less liberal treatment"
to non-war veterans. 13/
For example, the 90-day active duty service require-
ment under the World War II and Korean Conflict programs was increased to "more
than 180 days" under the post-Korea program.
The system adopted under the
Korean Conflict program of paying subsistence allowances directly to veterans
with no separate tuition payment was continued. 14/
Benefit amounts, however,
were slightly lower than those paid to Korean Conflict veterans $100 per month
for a single veteran as compared to $110 (benefit amounts for the post-Korea
program were subsequently increased in 1967 and several times thereafter).
Under the law as originally enacted, eligible veterans were entitled to one
month of education and training for each month of service, up to a maximum of
13/ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Cold
War Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act; report to accompany S. 9. Senate
Report No. 89-269, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1965. p. 15.
14/ Attempts were made on several occasions to restore separate tuition
payments or to provide tuition subsidies because it was argued that veterans
who lived in States with fewer public schools and higher tuition costs were being penalized. These attempts were unsuccessful, however, largely because of
concerns about fraud that had been associated with a separate tuition system,
and because of a general feeling that all veterans should be paid equal benefits.
CRS-15
36 months.
In 1968, the period of entitlement was increased to one and one-
half months of benefits for every month of service, with those serving 18
months or more being entitled to the full 36 months of benefits (the same formula that had applied to the Korean Conflict program). 15/
entitlement was extended to 45 months. 16/
In 1976 the maximum
Under the original law, veterans
had 8 years following discharge to use their GI Bill benefits; in 1974 this
was extended to 10 years. 17/
The initial legislation did not provide bene-
fits for on-job training, cooperative farm training, or flight training; these
were added by P.L. 90-77 in 1967.
Following the U.S. withdrawal from South-
east Asia and the official termination of the Vietnam Era, eligibility for the
Post-Korea/Vietnam Era GI Bill was terminated for those entering military service after December 31, 1976, by P.L. 94-502.
The same legislation provided
that no benefits under the program will be paid after December 31, 1989.
As is evident from the above discussion, the original Post-Korea and Vietnam Era GI Bill has been amended a number of times.
ments were for one or more of the following purposes:
In general these amend(1) raising benefit
levels; (2) expanding the scope of benefits or liberalizing eligibility requirements; or (3) attempting to curb abuses or reduce costs.
The following
is a brief discussion of these various developments.
1.
Benefit Levels
As already mentioned, benefit levels under the Post-Korea GI Bill as
originally enacted were lower than those under the Korean Conflict GI Bill
157
P.L. 90-631.
16/
P.L. 94-502.
17/
P.L. 93-337.
CRS-16
despite 14 years of inflation.
Some objection to this was raised at the time
the legislation was enacted, and the following year legislation was passed
providing a 30 percent increase in benefits
from $100 a month for a single
veteran to $130 per month.
In the early years following enactment of the Post-Korea GI Bill, participation rates were low compared with the two previous GI Bills.
These low par-
ticipation rates were in part attributed to low benefit levels. 18/
As a re-
sult, several additional benefit rate increases have been enacted, the first
ones because of concerns over the adequacy of benefits, and later to keep benefit levels in line with rising education and living costs.
The following shows
the GI Bill benefit increases that have been enacted.
TABLE 1.
Chronology of Post-Korea/Vietnam Era GI Bill Benefit Rates
Public law
Monthly benefit*
Percent increase
Effective date
89-358
90-77
91-219
92-540
93-508
94-502
95-202
96-466
98-543
$100
130
175
220
270
292
311
342
376
_,
30.0
34.6
25.7
22.7
8.1
6.5
10.0
9.9
6/1/66
10/1/67
2/1/70
10/1/72
9/1/74
10/1/75
10/1/77
1/1/81
10/1/84
*For a single veteran taking full-time institutional training
For a complete list of current GI Bill rates see table 2 (p. CRS-23).
18/ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.
Veterans Education and Training Assistance Amendments Act of 1969; report to
accompany H.R. 11959. Senate Report No. 91-487 91st Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1969. p. 16.
CRS-17
2.
Expansion or Liberalization of Benefits
The original Post-Korea/Vietnam Era GI Bill was criticized as being less
generous than the programs for World War II and Korean Conflict veterans not
only because of lower benefit rates, but also because of a more limited scope
of benefits and more restrictive eligibility requirements.
Over the years,
Congress has on several occasions expanded benefits and liberalized eligibility
criteria for the Post-Korea/Vietnam Era program.
The purpose of these liberali-
zations has been not only to equalize benefits with the previous programs, but
in some instances, to provide even greater benefits in order to make up for
deficiencies of the original program and to improve the .effectiveness of the
program.
One way in particular in which Congress has expanded the scope of
benefits under the Post-Korea/Vietnam Era program has been to provide special
benefits targeted to the educationally disadvantaged.
Some of the major amendments expanding benefits under the Post-Korea/Vietnam Era GI Bill are the following:
(1) P.L. 90-77 added benefits for appren-
ticeship, on-job and cooperative farm training, and for flight training with a
vocational objective, and- provided that veterans could take high school level
training and receive the full subsistence allowance with no reduction in their
entitlement; (2) P.L. 90-631 expanded the formula for determining an individual's maximum period of entitlement from one month for each month of active
duty service to one and one-half months for each month of active duty service;
(3) P.L. 91-219 authorized payment of $50 per month for up to 9 months of
individual tutorial assistance, established a Predischarge Education Program
(PREP) under which servicemembers could receive remedial education and training
during their last year of military service in order to prepare for regular
CRS-18
training under the GI Bill, 19/ and established an outreach program within the
VA aimed especially at providing assistance to the educationally disadvantaged;
(4) P.L. 92-540 authorized the VA to pay up to two months' education benefits
in advance to veterans enrolled in authorized programs and established a workstudy program under which GI Bill trainees performing various services for the
VA could receive advance work-study allowances; (5) P.L. 93-337 extended the
date by which a veteran must use GI Bill benefits (i.e., the "delimiting date")
from 8 to 10 years following discharge; (6) P.L. 93-508 established an education loan fund under which a veteran could borrow up to $600 per year for
education expenses, extended the maximum number of months of eligibility for
benefits from 36 to 45 for those attending undergraduate school, and expanded
the tutorial assistance program; (7) P.L. 94-502 extended the maximum period of
eligibility for benefits from 36 to 45 months for veterans in all types of
training, not just those attending undergraduate school, and increased the maximum education loan from $600 to $1500; (8) P.L. 95-202 increased the amount of
the maximum education loan to $2500 and provided that veterans who were fulltime students when their 10-year delimiting period expired could receive loans
for another 2 years, authorized waiving the 10-year delimiting period in cases
where a veteran was prevented from beginning or completing an education program
because of physical or mental disability, and authorized the accelerated payment
of benefits to veterans attending higher cost institutions under some circumstances; (9) P.L. 97-72 authorized the VA to provide educational assistance
through December 31, 1983, to Vietnam Era veterans whose 10-year delimiting
date had expired but who had remaining GI Bill entitlement, if the extended
eligibility were used for a program of apprenticeship or other on-job training,
19/ P.L. 94-502 terminated the PREP program under the GI Bill effective
October 30, 1976, and P.L. 96-466 terminated the program for VEAP participants.
CRS-19
a program with a vocational objective, or a program of secondary education, and
if the VA determined that the veteran was in need of such a program to achieve
a suitable occupational or vocational objective (i.e., a "targeted delimiting
date" extension); and (10) P.L. 97-306 extended for one year until December 31,
1984, the time during which a veteran could use the targeted delimiting date
extension.
3.
Curbing Abuses and Reducing Costs
As under the World War II and Korean Conflict programs, Congress continued
to be concerned about abuses under the Post-Korea/Vietnam Era GI Bill.
Various
actions were taken to eliminate or minimize the incidence of such abuses.
For
example, increasing veteran enrollments but low completipn rates for correspondence courses led to enactment of provisions in P.L. 92-540 prescribing
disclosure and refund requirements for correspondence schools in order for
their courses to be approved for GI Bill benefits.
P.L. 93-508 prohibited the
payment of benefits for courses which use "significant avocational or recreational themes" in their advertising, and required that for courses with a vocational objective to be approved it had to be demonstrated that at least 50 percent of the persons completing the course over the preceding two years had been
employed in the occupational category for which the course was intended to provide training. 20/
P.L. 97-306 authorized the VA to suspend payment of GI Bill
benefits for any course where there is a "substantial pattern" of ineligible
trainees receiving assistance because course approval requirements have not
been met or the institution offering the course has violated recordkeeping
requirements.
20/ This provision was repealed by P.L. 97-306 because it was determined
to no longer be necessary in order to prevent abuses.
CRS-20
In recent sessions of Congress, concerns over the increasing size of the
Federal budget deficit have led to enactment of legislation aimed at reducing
Federal spending.
Bill program.
Certain cost saving changes have been enacted for the GI
P.L. 96-466 reduced the share of tuition costs paid by the VA
for flight training from 90 percent to 60 percent and for correspondence
courses from 90 percent to 70 percent.
The Administration had proposed to
eliminate these benefits because in its view these courses had not provided
substantial employment for those trained and were primarily used for recreational or avocational purposes.
P.L. 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1981, did terminate GI Bill benefits for flight training for new enrollees effective October 1, 1981, and further reduced the rate of payment for
correspondence courses from 70 to 55 percent.
education loan program with two exceptions:
P.L. 97-35 also terminated the
Vietnam Era veterans (1) who are
continuing full-time training in the first 2 years following expiration of
their GI Bill entitlement or (2) who were already pursuing flight training
courses when flight training benefits were eliminated.
On June 30, 1973, the authority of the President of the United States to
draft men into the Armed Forces expired (with certain exceptions).
On May 7,
1975, President Ford issued a proclamation terminating the Vietnam Era for
purposes of eligibility for wartime veterans' benefits.
At the same time he
called upon Congress to terminate eligibility for Post-Korea/Vietnara Era GI
Bill benefits in order to "make an equitable distinction between those who
serve in time of war and those who serve in time of peace." 21/
P.L. 94-502,
2JY U.S. President, 1974-1977 (Ford). Eligibility Period for Wartime
Veterans Benefits: Statement by the President Concerning the Termination Date
of the Period, May 7, 1975. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents,
v. 11, May 12, 1975. p. 498.
CRS-21
signed into law on October 15, 1976, set December 31, 1976, as the termination
date for accrual of eligibility for GI Bill benefits, and set December 31, 1989,
as the date after which no benefits will be paid under the program.
GI Bill
benefits were terminated because they were seen as unneccessary and inappropriate for an all-volunteer peacetime Armed Forces by the Administration, many
members of Congress and many veterans' organizations.
Recent debate has centered on the issue of whether time limitations for
use of GI Bill benefits should be extended or eliminated.
Vario.us legislation
has been introduced which would (1) extend or eliminate the 10 year delimiting
date period or (2) extend or eliminate the December 31, 1989, termination date
for the program.
Advocates of extending the eligibility periods for GI Bill benefits argue,
in general, that:
(1) many Vietnam Era veterans who suffered initial readjust-
ment problems, or who felt unwelcome on campuses following the war, now may be
ready to take advantage of the GI Bill; (2) because of relatively high unemployment, especially among younger Vietnam Era veterans, there is a special
need now for education and training assistance; (3) those who remained in the
military after the Vietnam Era will be penalized because they will not have a
full 10 years following discharge to use their benefits; and (4) the military
will suffer the loss of experienced personnel who will have to leave the military in order to take advantage of GI Bill benefits before the program is
terminated.
Opponents of extending GI Bill eligibility periods argue, in general,
that:
(1) extending the delimiting period beyond 10 years is not consistent
with the readjustment intent of the program; (2) the 10-year delimiting period
for Vietnam Era veterans already is longer than that for veterans of World
War II (9 years) and the Korean Conflict (8 years); (3) the cost would be
CRS-22
too great; and (4) approximately 66 percent of eligible veterans have received training under the Post-Korea/Vietnam Era GI Bill, which is greater
than under the previous programs (50 percent for the World War II program and
43 percent for the Korean Conflict program).
In fiscal year 1984 approximately 528,000 persons received GI Bill education benefits.
$1.1 billion.
Total VA expenditures for the program that year were about
The number of trainees and expenditures for the Post-Korea/Viet-
nam Era GI Bill have been steadily declining since the peak year of 1976 as
more and more veterans complete their training, exhaust their eligibility for
benefits, or pass their delimiting date (see table 4, p. CRS-25).
As of the end of fiscal year 1984, approximately eight million veterans
and service personnel (about 66 percent of those eligible) had received education or training under the Post-Korea/Vietnam Era GI Bill.
Of these, about
4.9 million attended colleges and universities; about 2.5 million attended
vocational/technical schools; and about 593,000 were on-job and 56,000 were
on-farm trainees (see table 3, p. CRS-24).
Total cost of the program as
of the end of FY 1984 was approximately $38.1 billion.
CRS-23
TABLE 2.
Type of program
Post-Korea/Vietnam Era GI Bill Benefit Rates
(Effective October 1, 1984)
No
dependents
One
dependent
...
Institutional:
full-time
three-quarter time
half-time
Two
dependents
.......
Each additional
dependent
.
$376
283
188
$448
336
224
$510
383
255
$32
24
17
Cooperative a/
304
355
404
23
Apprenticeship/
on- j ob t raining :
1st 6 mos.
2nd 6 mos .
3rd 6 mos.
4th 6 mos . and
thereafter
274
205
136
307
239
171
336
267
198
14
14
14
68
101
131
14
304
228
152
355
266
178
404
303
202
23
18
12
Farm cooperative:
full-time
three-quarter time
half-time
'
a/ A program combining formalized education with training in a business
or industrial establishment with emphasis on the institutional portion.
Source: Veterans Administration. Federal Benefits for Veterans and
Dependents. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. p. 10-11.
CRS-24
TABLE 3. GI Bill Participation Rates
(as of September 30, 1984)
Post-Korea
World War II
Veteran
population
Korean conflict
Peacetime
post-Korea a/
Vietnam
era b/
15,440,000
5,509,000
3,037,000
9,189,000
Total trained
Percent
7,800,000
50.5
2,391,000
43.4
1,395,909
46.0
6,644,495 c/
72.3
School trainees
Percent
5,710,000
37.0
2,073,000
3.7.6
1,311,499
43.2
6,079,604
66.2
College
Percent
2,230,000
14.4
1,213,000
22.0
734,772
24.2
4,171,079
45.4
Other schools
Percent
3,480,000
22.5
860,000
15.6
576,727
19.0
1,908,528
20.8
1,400,000
9.1
223,000
4.0
64,511
2.1
528,378
5.8
690,000
4.5
95,000
1.7
19,899
0.7
36,513
0.4
On-job trainees
Percent
Farm trainees
Percent
a/
Service after January 31, 1955, but no service after August 4, 1964.
b/
Service between August 5, 1964, and December 31, 1976.
c/
Includes 654,461 who last used training while in service.
Source: Veterans Administration. Veterans Benefits Under Current
tional Programs, Fiscal Year 1984. Washington, 1984. p. 28.
Educa-
CRS-25
TABLE 4.
Fiscal year
GI Bill: Persons in Training and Expenditures
Fiscal Years 1967-1984
Persons in training
Expenditures
(in millions of $)
1967
467,883
1968
686,919
428.7
1969
925,013
622.4
1970
1,210,731
938.8
1971
1,584,866
1,521.7
1972
1,864,158
1,812.4
1973
2,125,595
2,513.2
1974
2,358,608
3,005.7
1975
2,691,566
4,164.8
1976
2,821,514
5,028.8
Transition quarter
1,320,947
667.9
1977
1,937,874
3,567.2
1978
1,521,840
3,026.9
1979
1,278,538
2,449.9
1980
1,106,889
2,066.6
1981
948,526
1,968.3
1982
777,686
1,474.3
1983
644,390
1,394.1
1984
528,468
1,147.8
$
251.7
Source: Veterans Administration. Veterans Benefits Under Current Educational Programs, Fiscal Year 1984. Washington, 1984. p. 14-15, 27.
CRS-27
III.
POST-VIETNAM ERA VETERANS' EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM (VEAP) 22?
Despite the fact that Congress terminated the GI Bill, Congress still saw
value in a veterans' education assistance program both as a recruitment incentive for the Armed Forces and as a positive contribution to the nation's education in general.
P.L. 94-502, therefore, not only terminated the GI Bill but
also established a new Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (referred to as VEAP) for those entering the military on or after January 1 ,
1977.
VEAP is less generous than the GI Bill in that it requires service-members
to make contributions to an education fund in order to be eligible for education
assistance.
When an individual uses the benefits, the contributions are matched
by the Government at the rate of $2 for every $1 contributed.
A contributory
program was generally considered to be more appropriate for ah all-volunteer
force than one totally funded by the Government.
To qualify for VEAP benefits a veteran or servicemember must have (1) entered active military service on or after January 1, 1977, and before July 1,
1985 23/; (2) served for a continuous period of 181 days or more or have been
discharged because of a service-connected disability;
(3) been discharged or
22/ Much of the information on the VEAP program was taken from U.S.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Post-Vietnam Era
Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). Report No. 81-111 EPW, by
Economics Division, Education and Public Welfare Division, and Foreign Affairs
and National Defense Division. Washington, 1981. p. 1-23.
23/ The program is suspended for new enrollees during the period July 1,
1985, through June 30, 1988, during the test period for the new education program enacted by P.L. 98-525 (see following section).
CRS-28
released from service under conditions other than dishonorable (or if continuing
on active duty, must have completed his or her first obligated period of service
or 6 years of active duty, whichever is less); (4) served in the U.S. Armed
Forces, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Public Health Service or the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration; and (5) contributed to the program while on
active duty.
Servicemembers who have elected to participate in VEAP may have from $25
to $100 deducted monthly from their pay, or may make a lump sum contribution,
to the education assistance fund.
is $2,700.
The maximum amount that may be contributed
For each dollar contributed .by the participant, the Government
contributes $2, up to a maximum of $5,400.
Individuals who contribute .the
full $2,700, therefore, have a total of $8,100 available for their education
and training.
In addition, the Secretary of Defense may also make -special con-
tributions (known as "kickers") on behalf of some participants for recruitment
or retention purposes.
The Army, which is the only branch of service to have
made significant use of kickers, offered a maximum kicker of $12,000.
Participants receive monthly benefits for the same number of months they
contributed to the VEAP fund, or for 36 months, whichever is less (a $100 contribution may be made for 27 months with the participant eligible for 36 months
of benefits).
The amount of the monthly benefit payment is determined by divid-
ing the number of months benefits will be paid into the participant's total
education fund.
Full-time students who have contributed the maximum $2,700,
for example, receive 36 months of benefits at $225 per month.
Payments for
less than full-time schooling are proportionately less and are extended over
longer periods of time.
The following table shows VEAP benefit amounts for
various contribution levels.
CRS-29
TABLE 5.
VEAP Benefits for Full-Tirae Students
For Selected Contribution Amounts
Contributions
by servicemember aj
Regular VEAP benefit
With $12,000 "kicker"
Monthly
Total
Monthly
Monthly
900
1,800
2,700
2,700
$ 75
150
225
225
$ 25
50
75
100
$
Total
$2,700
5,400
8,100
8,100
$408
483
558
558
Total
$14,000
17,400
20,100
20,100
a/ Contributions for 36 months except for the $100 contribution which is
for 27 months.
Participants have up to 10 years following discharge from military service
in which to use their VEAP benefits.
Benefits may be paid for VA approved
courses in elementary or secondary schools, vocational or technical schools,
correspondence schools, 24/ junior colleges, business schools, professional
schools, and colleges and universities.
Benefits are not provided for appren-
ticeship or on-job training courses.
If a participant chooses to disenroll from VEAP, the amount of the individual's contribution is refunded without interest or matching funds.
Refunds
of individual contributions, without interest or matching funds, also are made
to participants who do not use the full amount of their benefits.
As of September 30, 1984, a total of 754,064 servicemembers had made VEAP
contributions since the program's inception (see table 6).
Of these, 364,323
(about 48 percent) had disenrolled.
24/ Benefits for correspondence courses are paid at the rate of 55 percent of tuition charges.
CRS-30
TABLE 6.
Contributors Since Inception of VEAP By Branch of Service
(as of September 30, 1984)
Branch of .service
Number of contributors
Army
Navy
Air Force
Marines
Coast Guard
Public Health Service
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
424,062
154,731
47,013
118,571
8,131
1,485
TOTAL
754,064
71
Source: Veterans Administration. Veterans Benefits Under Current Educational Programs, Fiscal Year 1984. Washington, 1984. p. 34.
A total of 38,310 persons were receiving VEAP benefits for education and
training during fiscal year 1984.
TABLE 7.
Persons in Training Under VEAP, Fiscal Year 1984
Type of training
College level
Graduate
Undergraduate
Junior College
Persons in training
34,600
2,299
18,457
13,844
Vocational/Technical
3,696
Elementary/Secondary
14
TOTAL
38,310
Source: Veterans Administration. Veterans Benefits Under Current Educational Programs, Fiscal Year 1984. Washington, 1984. p. 33.
CRS-31
In fiscal year 1984, obligations for VEAP totaled $151,610,000.
Of this
amount $52,494,000 was for benefits and $99,116,000 was for disenrollments.
The program was funded by the VA through 1981 and has been funded by the Department of Defense since 1982 (although the VA still administers the program).
Since its inception, VEAP has been criticized on a number of grounds.
En-
rollment in the program was lower than anticipated (only about 28 percent of
those eligible as of 1982) and disenrollments were greater than expected
(nearly 50 percent of contributors).
During the late 1970s and early 1980s,
the military services were having difficulties meeting recruiting goals and
VEAP was criticized as ineffective as a recruiting device.
It was also seen
as unsuccessful in attracting better qualified personnel.
These dissatisfac-
tions with VEAP led to proposals for a new peacetime GI Bill.
Opponents of a new GI Bill argued that previous GI Bills were enacted in
times when there was a military draft and that this form of recompense for
service is not appropriate for an all-volunteer peacetime military where there
is no forced interruption of career or education.
They also pointed out that
recruitment during the 1980s had greatly improved so that the services were no
longer having difficulties in meeting their recruiting goals.
In light of
this fact, they contended that a new GI Bill program would be too expensive
and unjustified considering the size of the Federal budget deficit.
It was
also suggested that more generous education benefits in the long run might
prove harmful to the military in that they might encourage trained personnel
to leave the military in order to take advantage of the benefits.
Advocates of a new GI Bill countered that although recruiting had improved,
this improvement was only temporary in that it resulted from high rates of
civilian unemployment.
They predicted that when the economy improved the mili-
tary would again experience recruiting difficulties.
They also contended that
CRS-32
recruiting difficulties will be exacerbated by the fact that the recruiting
pool is dwindling because the number of young men reaching military age is
declining.
During the 97th Congress, a bill (H.R. 1400) which would have replaced
VEAP with a new GI Bill program was favorably reported by both the House
Veterans' Affairs Committee and the House Armed Services Committee.
lation, however, did not reach the House floor.
The legis-
In the Senate, hearings were
held on similar proposals, but no further action was taken.
In the 98th Congress, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee again reported
a bill (H.R. 1400) that was virtually identical to the bill it had reported in
the 97th Congress.
In 1984, the .House Armed Services Committee incorporated
a similar measure into the defense authorization legislation for 1985 (H.R.
5167), which passed the House on June T, 1984.
The House-passed version
would have provided GI Bill education assistance benefits for eligible servicemembers (with no contribution by the servicemember required) of $300 per month
for each month of active duty service, up to a maximum of 36 months.
The
Secretary of Defense would have been authorized to provide additional benefits
to certain personnel for recruitment and retention purposes.
Also included
was an education assistance program for the National Guard and Selected Reserve
When the Senate considered its version of the 1985 defense authorization
legislation (S. 2723), an amendment offered by Senator Glenn was passed which
would have established a new contributory education program.
Called the
"Citizen-Soldier Educational Assistance Program," the Glenn amendment would
have created a 4-year test program, limited to 12,500 participants per year,
under which enlistees who agreed to contribute $250 per month of their salary,
up to a total of $6,000, would be eligible for $18,000 of education assistance
CRS-33
after 2 years of service.
This new program would have been separate from and
would have not replaced VEAP.
The compromise that was reached between the House and Senate versions
was signed into law on October 19, 1984 (P.L. 98-525).
Basically, a new con-
tributory education assistance program with a more generous return than VEAP
was created.
The new program is a 3-year test program (July 1, 1985 through
June 30, 1988) and all new enrollments in VEAP are suspended during that time.
For a more detailed description of the new program, see the following section.
CRS-35
IV.
ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Title VII of P.L. 98-525 (Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1985)
established a new education assistance program for the All-Volunteer Force. 25/
This new 3-year test program is for persons entering the military after June 30,
1985, and before July 1, 1988.
To be eligible a person also (1) must serve at
least 3 years of continuous active duty (or 2 years if the initial obligated
period of active duty is less than 3 years), or must be discharged because of
a service-connected disability or for the convenience of the service; (2) must
have received a high school diploma (or its equivalent) before completion of
the qualifying service; and (3) must be honorably discharged or continue on
active duty.
Individuals entering active duty during the period July 1, 1985,
to June 30, 1988, will have their pay reduced by $100 per month for the first
12 months of service unless they specifically elect not to participate in the
program.
Also eligible for the program are servicemembers who (1) as of December 31, 1989, have remaining eligibility for Post-Korea/Vietnam Era GI Bill
j
benefits, (2) have served on active duty without a break in service since
December 31, 1976, and (3) serve at least 3 years of continuous active duty
service after June 30, 1985.
These servicemembers are eligible for full bene-
fits under the new program with no deductions from their pay plus half of
their remaining GI Bill benefits.
25/
For background, see preceding section, p. CRS-32 to CRS-33.
CRS-36
Basic benefits under the program are:
(1) $300 a month for 36 months for
full-time students (based on 3 years of active duty or 2 years of active duty
plus 4 years in the Selected Reserve or National Guard), or (2) $250 a month
for 36 months for full-time students (based on 2 years of active duty service).
Lesser amounts are provided for education pursued on less than a full-time
basis.
In addition to basic monthly benefits, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to add a "kicker" amount of up to $400 more per month for individuals with
critical or difficult-to-recruit skills.
The Secretary also is authorized to
add a supplemental benefit of up to $300 per month for those who serve an addi>
tiohal 5 years of active duty or an additional 2 years of active duty plus 4
years of reserve duty.
This supplemental benefit can be increased by up to
\
/
another $300 per month for individuals with critical skills.
*
The basic $250/$300 monthly benefits are funded by the VA. Kickers and
supplemental benefits are funded by the Department of Defense.
All benefits
are administered by the VA.
Participants may use benefits for up to 10 years following discharge from
service, or from the date the individual became entitled to benefits, whichever
is later.
Benefits may be paid for VA approved courses in vocational or techni-
cal schools, junior colleges, business schools, professional schools, and colleges and universities.
Benefits are not provided for elementary and secondary
education, apprenticeship or on-job training, or correspondence courses.
P.L. 98-525 also created a new education assistance program for the
Selected Reserve.
To be eligible an individual must (1) during the period
July 1, 1985, through June 30, 1988, enlist, reenlist or extend an enlistment
for 6 years, and (2) have a high school diploma (or equivalent) before completion of active duty for training.
Benefits are $140 per month for full-time
CRS-37
students (lesser amounts for less than full-time) for up to 36 months.
Bene-
fits for the Reserve are funded by the Department of Defense and administered
by the VA.
Eligible persons may begin using their benefits after completion
of their intitial period of active duty training and 180 days in the Reserve.
Education assistance under the program can be provided only for courses at
"institutions of higher learning" (i.e., only standard degree courses), and
cannot be provided after an individual has earned a baccalaureate degree or
equivalent.
Participants may use benefits for up to 10 years following dis-
charge from the Reserves, or from the date the individual becomes entitled to
benefits, whichever is later.
At hearings on the new program held by the House Veterans' Affairs Subcom
mittee on Education, Training and Employment on November 19, 1985, representa'tives of the Armed Forces testified that to date participation rates under the
f
new program have been higher than under the VEAP program.
This was attributed
both to higher benefit levels and to the fact that new enlistees are enrolled
in the program automatically unless they specifically opt not to participate.