Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an investment program in lifelong education for our service members and veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill is consistently cited as an important reason people join the military and continues to be one of the most important benefits provided for military service today. There is no reason why 100 percent of our active duty, selected reserve, and veteran servicemembers should not have the

opportunity to take advantage of their earned education benefits.

That is why I'm reintroducing the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007, which would allow Montgomery GI Bill participants an unlimited amount of time to use their earned benefits.

I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, is again joining me in sponsoring this legislation and that Senator Sherrod Brown has also signed on to further extend MGIB benefits.

The MGIB is a program that provides up to 36 months of education benefits for educational opportunities ranging from college to apprenticeship and job training, and even flight training. Upon enlistment, the GI Bill also requires service members to contribute $100 per month for their first 12 months of services.

Basically, the MGIB is divided into two programs. One program targets active duty and veteran members, paying over $1,000 per month to qualified students. That's more than $36,000 for school. The other is directed at the Selected Reserve. This program provides educational benefits of $288 per month, for a total of $10,368.

If recruits are overwhelmingly declaring that education opportunity under the GI Bill is the key incentive for them to join the military, then it makes sense that most--if not all--of our troops, who signed up for the program, would also be cashing in on their benefits. But reports show that the majority, 40 to 60 percent, do not actually use the benefits they have earned.

Currently, MGIB participants have up to 10 years from their release date from the military to use their earned education benefits. Members of the Selected Reserve are able to use their MGIB benefit for 14 years. However, that means your earned education benefits expire if you don't use the within the required timeframe, closing your window of opportunity to go to school or finish your college education. Plus, you lose the $1,200 dedicated for your GI Bill during your first year of enlistment.

Originally, the intent of 1944 GI Bill of Rights was to help veterans successfully transition back into civilian life as education is the key to employment opportunities. Looking back now, we know that the GI Bill opened the door to higher education, helping millions of service members and veterans who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance to pay for college. That is, servicemembers benefited from the GI Bill because they used the payments within the 10 and 14 year limitation.

But there are many others who did not use their earned education benefits within that timeframe. For example, after leaving the military, some servicemembers postponed going to school because they had to go straight to work in order to support their family. Others unfortunately, were either homeless or incarcerated for long periods of time due to disability associated with military service, but are now ready to move forward in their lives, and going back to school is their first step. In some cases, due to random life circumstances, some people just lost track of time. Additionally, because of misinformation and bureaucratic language, the GI Bill is known as a complicated program to navigate.

A constituent of mine, Ruben Ruelas--who is a Local Veterans Employment Representative, LVER, for the WorkSource in Wenatchee, Washington, wrote to me saying, ``It's been my experience that most people don't know what they want to do in life or are placed in situations where, due to changing economic times, they are displaced and need further education and training to compete for jobs. But most don't have access to training resources to do so.''

In terms of Vietnam Era veterans, Mr. Ruelas goes on to say, ``many 50 year olds are unemployed, untrained and uneducated and could use their educational benefits to improve their skills to compete for better jobs. Many have come to realize, too late, that they need college or retraining and don't have the resources to do so.''

While times have changed remarkably, one thing remains constant: education is critical to employment opportunity. In the 21st Century global labor market, enhancing skills through education and job training is now more important than ever. The need for retraining is even more underscored for our military service members and veterans.

My legislation, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life, would ensure that educational opportunities are lifelong, allowing service members and veterans the flexibility to seek education and job training opportunities when it is the right time for them to do so.

Higher education not only serves as an individual benefit, but positive externalities have transpired: the GI Bill was instrumental in building our country's middle class and continues to help close the college education gap.

Today, employers are requiring higher qualifications from the workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of postsecondary education. While a highly skilled workforce is one characteristic of the new economy, working for one employer throughout a lifetime is no longer routine, but rather an evanescent feature. According to findings by Brigham Young University, the average person changes jobs or careers eight times in his or her lifetime. To keep up with these trends, expanding access to education and training is a must do in the 21st Century global marketplace.

A 1999 report by the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance stated that the GI Bill of the future must include the following: Provide veterans with access to post- secondary education that they use; assist the Armed forces in recruiting the high quality high school graduates needed; enhance the Nation's competitiveness by further educating American veterans, a population that is already self-disciplined, goal oriented, and steadfast; and attract the kind of service members who will go on to occupy leadership positions in government and the private sector.

Eliminating the GI Bill 10 and 14 year limitation for service members, veterans, and Selected Reserve moves one step toward improving the MGIB. The Montgomery GI Bill for Life would allow MGIB members, including qualified Vietnam Era Veterans, the flexibility to access their earned education benefits at any time.

As the nation's economy continues to recover and grow stronger, the GI Bill will continue to be the primary vehicle keeping our active duty service members and veterans of military service on track, helping to ensure our country's prosperity.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an investment program in lifelong education for our service members and veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill is consistently cited as an important reason people join the military and continues to be one of the most important benefits provided for military service today. There is no reason why 100 percent of our active duty, selected reserve, and veteran servicemembers should not have the

opportunity to take advantage of their earned education benefits.

That is why I'm reintroducing the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007, which would allow Montgomery GI Bill participants an unlimited amount of time to use their earned benefits.

I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, is again joining me in sponsoring this legislation and that Senator Sherrod Brown has also signed on to further extend MGIB benefits.

The MGIB is a program that provides up to 36 months of education benefits for educational opportunities ranging from college to apprenticeship and job training, and even flight training. Upon enlistment, the GI Bill also requires service members to contribute $100 per month for their first 12 months of services.

Basically, the MGIB is divided into two programs. One program targets active duty and veteran members, paying over $1,000 per month to qualified students. That's more than $36,000 for school. The other is directed at the Selected Reserve. This program provides educational benefits of $288 per month, for a total of $10,368.

If recruits are overwhelmingly declaring that education opportunity under the GI Bill is the key incentive for them to join the military, then it makes sense that most--if not all--of our troops, who signed up for the program, would also be cashing in on their benefits. But reports show that the majority, 40 to 60 percent, do not actually use the benefits they have earned.

Currently, MGIB participants have up to 10 years from their release date from the military to use their earned education benefits. Members of the Selected Reserve are able to use their MGIB benefit for 14 years. However, that means your earned education benefits expire if you don't use the within the required timeframe, closing your window of opportunity to go to school or finish your college education. Plus, you lose the $1,200 dedicated for your GI Bill during your first year of enlistment.

Originally, the intent of 1944 GI Bill of Rights was to help veterans successfully transition back into civilian life as education is the key to employment opportunities. Looking back now, we know that the GI Bill opened the door to higher education, helping millions of service members and veterans who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance to pay for college. That is, servicemembers benefited from the GI Bill because they used the payments within the 10 and 14 year limitation.

But there are many others who did not use their earned education benefits within that timeframe. For example, after leaving the military, some servicemembers postponed going to school because they had to go straight to work in order to support their family. Others unfortunately, were either homeless or incarcerated for long periods of time due to disability associated with military service, but are now ready to move forward in their lives, and going back to school is their first step. In some cases, due to random life circumstances, some people just lost track of time. Additionally, because of misinformation and bureaucratic language, the GI Bill is known as a complicated program to navigate.

A constituent of mine, Ruben Ruelas--who is a Local Veterans Employment Representative, LVER, for the WorkSource in Wenatchee, Washington, wrote to me saying, ``It's been my experience that most people don't know what they want to do in life or are placed in situations where, due to changing economic times, they are displaced and need further education and training to compete for jobs. But most don't have access to training resources to do so.''

In terms of Vietnam Era veterans, Mr. Ruelas goes on to say, ``many 50 year olds are unemployed, untrained and uneducated and could use their educational benefits to improve their skills to compete for better jobs. Many have come to realize, too late, that they need college or retraining and don't have the resources to do so.''

While times have changed remarkably, one thing remains constant: education is critical to employment opportunity. In the 21st Century global labor market, enhancing skills through education and job training is now more important than ever. The need for retraining is even more underscored for our military service members and veterans.

My legislation, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life, would ensure that educational opportunities are lifelong, allowing service members and veterans the flexibility to seek education and job training opportunities when it is the right time for them to do so.

Higher education not only serves as an individual benefit, but positive externalities have transpired: the GI Bill was instrumental in building our country's middle class and continues to help close the college education gap.

Today, employers are requiring higher qualifications from the workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of postsecondary education. While a highly skilled workforce is one characteristic of the new economy, working for one employer throughout a lifetime is no longer routine, but rather an evanescent feature. According to findings by Brigham Young University, the average person changes jobs or careers eight times in his or her lifetime. To keep up with these trends, expanding access to education and training is a must do in the 21st Century global marketplace.

A 1999 report by the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance stated that the GI Bill of the future must include the following: Provide veterans with access to post- secondary education that they use; assist the Armed forces in recruiting the high quality high school graduates needed; enhance the Nation's competitiveness by further educating American veterans, a population that is already self-disciplined, goal oriented, and steadfast; and attract the kind of service members who will go on to occupy leadership positions in government and the private sector.

Eliminating the GI Bill 10 and 14 year limitation for service members, veterans, and Selected Reserve moves one step toward improving the MGIB. The Montgomery GI Bill for Life would allow MGIB members, including qualified Vietnam Era Veterans, the flexibility to access their earned education benefits at any time.

As the nation's economy continues to recover and grow stronger, the GI Bill will continue to be the primary vehicle keeping our active duty service members and veterans of military service on track, helping to ensure our country's prosperity.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce bipartisan legislation that I believe is the breakthrough we have been searching for to bring House voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia, who have historically been denied this fundamental birthright.

I am proud to join with, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Tom Davis, and the many others from both parties and both houses who have worked without rest to remedy the disenfranchisement of District residents since the capital was established in Washington in 1800. I especially want to thank my friend Senator Hatch for his influential support of this voting rights proposal, which would bring to an end a gross inconsistency with the founding principles of our Nation.

Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to finally bestow upon the citizens of the District of Columbia the civic entitlement every other tax-paying American citizen enjoys no matter where he or she resides, democracy's most essential right, voting representation in Congress.

The bill is simple. It would increase the number of voting representatives in the House from 435 to 437 by providing the District with a voting representative and by adding another congressional seat for Utah, the next State in line to increase its representation based on the 2000 Census.

Working cooperatively in the spirit of service to the people of Washington, DC, and Utah, Congresswoman Norton and Congressman Davis shepherded a similar proposal through the House Government Reform Committee on March 13 by a vote of 24-5. The full House approved the measure April 20 by a vote of 241-177, a historic day unlike any other since 1978 when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give District residents voting rights in the House and Senate. Of course, that amendment came to naught when too few States ratified it.

The people of this city have waited far too long for this right. They have been the direct target of terrorist attacks, and yet they have no representative to vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security. Citizens of Washington, DC, pay income taxes just like everyone else. In fact, they pay more: Per capita, District residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have no voice in how high those taxes will be or how they will be spent. The District is also the only jurisdiction in the country that must seek congressional approval, through the appropriations process, before spending locally-generated tax dollars. When Congress fails to pass appropriations bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, the District's budget is essentially frozen. And yet DC has no say in that appropriations process.

DC residents fight and die for our democracy but they cannot participate fully in it. I ask you, how can we effectively promote democracy abroad while denying it to hundreds of thousands of citizens in our Nation's Capital?

There is no good reason why DC residents have been denied congressional representation. In 1800, when the nation's capital was established as the District of Columbia, an oversight left the area's residents without congressional representation. Maryland and Virginia ceded land for the capitol in 1788 and 1789, respectively, but it took another 10 years for Congress to establish the District of Columbia. In the interim, residents continued to vote either in Maryland or Virginia, but Congress withdrew those voting rights once the District was founded. Unfortunately, apparently by omission, Congress neglected to establish new voting rights for the citizens of the new district.

The right to be counted, to have your voice heard by your government is central to a functioning democracy and fundamental to a free society. If we are willing to sacrifice our young men and women in the name of freedom, we must be willing to protect their freedoms as well. This legislation would do just that.

In 2002, 10 cosponsors and I introduced the No Taxation without Representation Act. I held a hearing on the bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I then chaired. It was the first hearing in Congress on DC voting rights since 1994. We reported the bill out of committee, but the Senate never took action on it.

Today, the tide has changed. Members from both parties have come together to find a solution to break the stalemates of the past that have denied DC residents equal representation in Congress. The State of Utah has united in favor of a fourth congressional seat, and Senator Hatch has lent his considerable support to this effort. Mr. President, this legislation represents an uncommon victory for fairness and a rare but hopefully increasingly more common example of what we can do if we work together to accomplish our mutual goals.

The essence of our work in the legislative branch is compromise, and the compromise reached by Senator Hatch

and I will bring partial voting representation to the District while ensuring Utah receives the additional representation it is due.

I know there are those who believe this bill is unconstitutional. But the District clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to legislate ``in all cases whatsoever'' pertaining to the District, provides ample authority for the legislative branch to give DC residents voting rights.

Mr. President, this is our moment to do right here at home, just as we have done throughout our history for our democratic allies abroad. By giving the citizens of the District of Columbia a vote in the House, we will ensure not only that their voices will finally be heard. We will be following the imperative of our history and moral values. The Framers of our Constitution in effect placed with Congress the solemn responsibility of assuring that the rights of DC citizens would be protected in the future, just as it is our responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens throughout this great country. Congress has failed to meet this obligation for more than 200 years, and I am not prepared to make DC citizens wait another 200 years.

Mr. President, the tax-paying citizens of the District of Columbia have been without congressional voting representation for too long. The House has acted. Now it is time for the Senate to act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hatch and me in support of this essential legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Senator Robert Bennett in introducing the District of Columbia Voting House Rights Act of 2007. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives recently passed similar legislation, H.R. 1905, that would provide a fourth congressional seat for my home state of Utah and the first voting member for the District of Columbia. No doubt, this is a historic time for the citizens of the District of Columbia and a unique opportunity for Utah to receive a long overdue fourth congressional seat.

The Founding Fathers made clear in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution that the District of Columbia would be the seat of the national government and granted Congress the power ``[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation, in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress become the Seat of the Government of the United States . . .'' This clause became effective in 1790 when Congress accepted land that Maryland and Virginia ceded to the United States to create the national capital. Ten years later, in December 1800, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia was vested in the Federal Government. Since then, District residents have not had the right to vote for Members of Congress. Additionally, article 1, section 2 and section 3 of the Constitution provides that citizens of States shall have voting representation in the House and Senate.

During my time in the Senate, I have heard from many District residents who believe strongly that their voice should be heard in Congress. They pay taxes, vote in presidential elections, and serve in the military. Yet these nearly 600,000 Americans do not have a voting representative in Congress. Many, including myself, have been reluctant to support previous proposals based upon the constitutional principle that States, not territories, are afforded congressional representation. I understand the argument that congressional representation is dependent on statehood and, therefore, the Constitution would need to be amended before the District is given a voting representative in Congress. While the Constitution does not affirmatively grant District residents the right to vote in congressional elections, it does affirmatively grant Congress plenary power to govern the District's affairs. Indeed, the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District, and I believe this authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for District residents.

I support this legislation not only because it rectifies the District's undemocratic political status, but it gives my home State of Utah a long overdue fourth voting Member in the House of Representatives.

During the 2000 Census count, Utah missed out on a fourth House seat by only 857 people. The Census Bureau counted members of the military serving abroad as residents of their home State, but did not count an estimated 14,000 Utah missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints living abroad. Utah took its fight for a fourth seat all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost. Instead, North Carolina gained another seat in the House by 856 residents. Since then, I have heard from many Utahns and share their frustrations about the outcome of the 2000 Census.

Why push for an additional seat now? Under normal circumstances, Utah would have to wait until the 2010 Census to see if its growing population justifies another congressional seat. However, the proposed legislation provides Utah a chance to receive another voting member of Congress 5 years early. That is equivalent to two and a half terms for a Member of Congress and places the new Member well on his or her way in establishing seniority and influence for the benefit of Utah's citizens. I don't think this is an offer we should dismiss.

I have some constitutional concerns with H.R. 1905's attempt to impose an at-large seat upon my State of Utah. In States with more than one seat in the House, Members are expected to represent insular constituencies. Under H.R. 1905, residents of one State would be represented by two House Members while citizens in other States would have one. In addition, in our constitutional system, States are responsible for elections and Utah has chosen the approach it wants to take by redistricting. I see no warrant for Congress to undermine this balance and impose upon Utah a scheme it has not chosen for itself. For this reason, in the proposed Senate legislation, I insisted that Utah be required to redistrict to provide for the new seat. I believe that Utah's legislators deserve the freedom to determine their representatives' districts without unjustified intrusion or mandate of the Federal Government.

Additionally, the House bill would require Utah to hold a special election in 2007 if the bill passes. The Senate version requires that both seats be elected in the November 2008 general election. Thereafter, both new Members would begin their service at the start of the 111th Congress in 2009.

In conclusion, let me say that I recognize there are many who strongly oppose this legislation. There are many who wish the District voting rights issue would simply go away. The Democratic-controlled Congress could have simply pushed forward with legislation giving the District of Columbia a seat without balancing a ``Democrat'' seat with a ``Republican'' seat. I am pleased that this was not the case. The House of Representatives has already voted in favor of moving this legislation forward. Now it is up to the Senate. Let me be clear, the proposed legislation does not provide Senate representation for the District of Columbia. I am not in favor of granting two Senators for the District and would not support such a proposal.

As one who represents Utah, I have an important responsibility to ensure

that my State is dealt with properly and fairly. And, in light of the House's recent legislative action, I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that Utah's fourth seat configuration is done right. I want my fellow Utahns to know that the window of opportunity is quickly closing. In fact, I dare say there won't be another opportunity like this again. For this reason, I intend to make the most of it and hope that my Senate colleagues will support me in this endeavor.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Senator Kerry in introducing, the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bill is especially timely considering the Nation recently celebrated National Small Business Week, and this body just passed the America COMPETES Act, a bill that invests in innovation and education to improve the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy.

The impact small businesses have on our country's economy and the technological innovations they create simply cannot be overstated. Small hi-tech firms represent the most innovative sector in America. According to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, these businesses hold over 40 percent of the Nation's patents, obtain 13 to 14 times more patents per

employee than large businesses, and secure patents which are twice as technologically significant as larger firms. With American jobs and our security at stake, it is essential that we support innovation programs to meet national challenges in defense, healthcare, energy, and information technology.

A critical partner for small businesses is the Small Business Administration, SBA, whose fundamental purpose is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The SBA's methods for carrying out this mandate vary widely, but the agency's primary tool is found in its small business lending programs. The SBA's 7(a), 504, and Microloan programs are tailored to encourage small business growth and expansion. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers, creating nearly 75 percent of all net new jobs, and employing 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, it is essential that Congress affirms long-term stability in the lending programs the SBA provides to the small business community.

As it has in the past, the SBA continues to meet the demands of small businesses, both in my home state of Maine and across the county. In fiscal Year 2006, the SBA backed a net 100,197 loans totaling over $19.1 billion under the 7(a) and 504 programs. In fact, both the number of loans and the dollar amount represent record amounts for the agency--dramatically highlighting the significance of the SBA and the critical role it plays in our nation's economy.

The foundation for the bill Senator Kerry and I are introducing today started during the 109th Congress under an extensive reauthorization process which I led. This process ultimately culminated in the unanimous Small Business Committee passage of a comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill. I firmly believe that the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 will help the SBA continue its legacy of achievement.

The SBA's loan and investment programs have produced success story after success story, which include assisting the founders of Intel, Staples, and Federal Express, as well as thousands of other successful businesses. Our bipartisan measure will build upon these past successes and make the SBA even more effective. As former Chair and now ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I believe we must do everything possible to sustain prosperity and job creation throughout the United States. To achieve that goal, I have long fought to solidify and expand the reach of the SBA's programs that have helped millions of aspiring entrepreneurs and existing small businesses.

Small businesses yearn to grow, flourish, and thrive, and the SBA has the experience and the resources to be their bridge to success. It is essential that we upgrade the SBA's core lending programs for the 21st century entrepreneur. The American economy needs a strong and vibrant Small Business Administration. The Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 will build on the previous success of the Agency, and help to ensure the success of tomorrow's entrepreneurs.