The U.S. Senate will soon be the stage for dueling legislations, which both propose changes to the GI Bill.
The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the GI Bill, was intended to ease the cost of education for returning veterans from World War II, as well as provide other benefits. Changes made to the bill over the years include adjusting financial assistance for the rising cost of education, but they have not matched the benefits of the original bill, said Edwin Dorn, a professor in the LBJ School of Public Affairs.
"Both the tuition support and the living stipends have fallen behind in the past decade or so," Dorn said. "This is an important effort to catch up."
U.S. Senate Bill 22 was introduced Jan. 4, 2007, by Virginia Democrat Sen. Jim Webb. The bill would pay up to the full price of a four-year education for veterans, with the current bill only covering about 60 percent to 70 percent of all college costs. Dorn said the original GI Bill helped jump-start the economy after the depression of the 1930s, but that its purpose has changed over the years with more high school graduates going to universities.
"The bill is less important now in terms of the effect on the overall economy, but it remains very important as a way of rewarding service members for the sacrifices they've made on behalf of the country," Dorn said.
Amanda Millican, a communication studies senior who receives benefits from the GI Bill, said it is a good recruiting tool for the military to use, as long as recruiters are honest about what is actually awarded.
"I don't think it should be used as the only incentive, but I think it's a good perk for joining," Millican said.
Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn expressed his support for a bill proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and created to counter Senate Bill 22. The counter-bill also calls for an increase in the benefits that veterans receive for educational advancement.
"Our troops have answered the call of duty, and they deserve no less," said Cornyn's spokesman John Drogin.
The bill introduced by Graham grants full benefits for veterans that have spent 12 or more years in the service, which has caused some veterans to speak out against the bill.
"Even if you're only in it for four years, you're making a big commitment," Millican said. "I kind of don't think it's fair that you have to wait so long."
Dorn said a bill requiring 12 years of service for full benefits could hurt its effectiveness as a recruiting tool.
"The GI Bill is an incentive, partly because it enables a recruit the potential to imagine what they'll be doing after their time in the military," Dorn said. "It becomes less of an incentive if you talk to an 18-year-old about what's going to happen 12 years from now."
Seventeen co-sponsors have backed Graham's bill since it was introduced April 29, and 56 cosponsors have shown their support for SB 22 after it spent more than a year in Congress. Both bills are pending approval before the Senate Committee on Veteran's Affairs.
