Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007

Floor Speech

PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - May 14, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday the people in my home State of Texas will join to celebrate Armed Forces Day and, of course, shortly thereafter Memorial Day. These are the days we set aside to honor the men and women who have worn the uniform of the U.S. military, to honor them for their service and particularly remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedom.

As I prepare to go home this weekend to join my fellow Texans in celebrating this important event, I am reminded of the immense debt we all owe those who have worn the uniform. Of course, this is a debt we know we can never repay.

From a personal perspective, my father served as a B-17 pilot in World War II, and served honorably for 31 years in the U.S. Air Force. He was shot down and spent 4 months in a German prisoner-of-war camp before General Patton and his army came along and liberated him and his fellow POWs. Of course he, like so many of that generation, came back to his home and took advantage of the GI bill in order to get an education so he could then become the foundation upon which America would continue to build itself in those postwar years and beyond.

The GI bill has done an incalculable benefit not only to the individual veterans who received those educational benefits but to our country as well. It is important now, many years later, in 2008, that we focus our efforts on modernizing that GI bill to make sure the benefits I know we all want to see directed toward our men and women in uniform are available to allow them, when they return home from the fight, to take their uniform off, to get an education, and to achieve their dreams.

Because I believe we need to modernize the GI bill of rights, when it comes to educational benefits for our veterans, I have chosen to cosponsor a bill called S. 2938, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act. Sadly, and for some inexplicable reason, we saw that bill tabled by the Senate. I do not know why, at a time when we ought to be talking about and acting on our appreciation for our men and women in uniform, the Senate decided to table this important piece of legislation. But I wish to talk about it for a minute, to explain to my colleagues what is contained in this important piece of legislation.

This bill would help our military personnel with an extended range of options under the GI bill to ensure that they get the benefits they deserve. It immediately increases education benefits for active-duty personnel to $1,500 a month and, to encourage retention and continuation of service in the military, it gradually increases the education benefits to $2,000 a month after 12 or more years of service.

It expands the authority for servicemembers to transfer--and this is one of the most important elements of this legislation--it allows them to transfer their educational benefits to members of their family, a spouse or a child. After 6 years of service, half of that benefit can be transferred, and after 12 years of service, 100 percent of the benefit can be transferred to a child, to a spouse, or some other loved one.

It increases from $880 to $1,200 per month the education benefits for Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since September 11, 2001. It allows service members to use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. bill education benefits to repay student loans, and it provides access to Montgomery GI bill benefits to service academy graduates and senior reserve officers' training corps officers who continue to serve beyond their initial commitment.

This legislation is offered as an alternative to S. 22, a bill produced by my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, and actually cosponsored by our other distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner. I believe both of these bills are born out of the noblest of aspirations and intentions, but I do believe the alternatives offered in the bill that has been laid on the table here a moment ago would actually provide a better range of services to more of our troops as well as their families. Simply put, I do believe it is a better fit for our Nation and a better fit for the people of my State of Texas.

I mentioned the issue of transferability. This is something not found in the Webb bill that is found in the alternative. To begin with, Senator Webb's bill fails to recognize the enormous sacrifices our military families make in support of their loved ones who wear the uniform of the U.S. military. Talk to any sailor, soldier, airman, or marine and they will tell you that being able to transfer their GI educational benefits to their spouses or their children is enormously important to them. At a time when we depend on an all-volunteer military, isn't it important that we provide the maximum range of benefits not only to our veterans but also to the military families, the people who stay behind while their loved ones are deployed and whose support they need and depend on, and frankly whose support our Nation depends on--our military families?

According to all the service chiefs and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, transferability of this benefit is their No. 1 priority and something wholly missing from the Webb bill.

As I mentioned, my father served as a bomber pilot in World War II. I have experienced, as have other military family members, the joint commitment military families make in support of their loved one in the military.

In addition to the other benefits, I think this particular provision of transferability recognizes a fundamental fairness issue and impacts directly on our ability to retain our servicemembers. Obviously, we would not want to do anything intentionally which would encourage people to leave the military after 3 years of service. It is in the best interests of the United States of America, our strength and security--it is in the best interests of our all-volunteer military force to actually encourage and facilitate service of our active-duty military beyond just an initial tour of 3 years of service.

While we applaud and honor those who serve any period of time in our military, we do need to make sure we do not create an incentive for people to leave early in order to get a benefit under this bill. That is why, under the legislation I am cosponsoring--Senator Graham's bill, also cosponsored by Senator Burr, Senator McCain, and others--our career military will receive additional GI bill benefits to reward them for their continued service.

This bill clearly recognizes you do not have to get out of the military to be able to continue your education. Like the Webb bill, troops will be eligible for up to $1,500 monthly benefits after 3 years of service. However, in order to recognize our career troops as well, benefits would increase to $2,000 a month after 12 years of service--clearly providing both a benefit and incentive for people to continue in military service and not to feel as if they have to leave after 3 years in order to take advantage of this benefit. Unlike the Webb bill, which caters to those who choose to remain in the service for only 3 years--whose service we earnestly appreciate--the Graham bill I believe provides short-term rewards and also rewards our career troops as well.

According to the RAND Corporation study conducted in January, 2008, Senator Webb's bill would:

..... reduce first-term Army reenlistment by about 12 percentage points from the current rate of 40 percent to about 28 percent.

This is an important point. The unintended effect of Senator Webb's bill would actually be to reduce retention from 40 percent to 28 percent.

Madam President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes by unanimous consent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, why in the world would we want to do anything that discriminates between those military members who serve for 3 years and then decide to leave and those who decide to make the military their career? Why would we want to discriminate against their families, who might benefit from the transferability option contained in this alternative legislation which I am supporting? Why would we want to do anything that would actually damage our ability to encourage people to stay in the military should they choose that for themselves and for their families?

I believe this legislation is important not only to our Nation, it provides an important benefit to our military and their families. It encourages retention and continuation of service, facilitates those who do want to stay longer, and creates an enhanced benefit for them.

In a State such as Texas where 1 out of every 10 people in uniform calls our State home, this is very important to my State and my constituents. But I will tell you, this is even more important to our Nation in encouraging that our strong, all-volunteer military force remain strong and that we meet our commitment to make sure they receive the benefits they need and they deserve and are not limited only to the servicemember but can also be extended to family members as well.

I yield the floor.

Source