A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to modify certain authorities relating to educational assistance benefits for veterans, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I am introducing today the proposed GI Bill Miscellaneous Improvements Act of 2008. This measure would make three minor but important changes in existing law relating to veterans' educational assistance programs.

In 2001, Public Law 107-103 established a program of accelerated payments for individuals enrolled in high-cost programs of educational assistance leading to employment in high technology industry. It is generally agreed that the intent of that legislation was that payments were to be effective with respect to short, non-degree programs of education. For example, Senate Report 107-86 stated:

Microsoft, Cisco, and other technical training for

certification is offered through training centers, private

contractors to community colleges, or by the companies

themselves. These courses often last just a few weeks or

months, and can cost many thousands of dollars . . .

During the Committee's June 28th hearing, Dr. Leo Mackay,

Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs,

testified that ``providing educational benefits for pursuit

of these [technology] courses is fully

consonant with MGIB purposes.'' David Tucker, Senior

Associate Legislative Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of

America, also testified that, ``If the MGIB is to be used not

only for recruitment purposes, but also as a means of

enabling a veteran to make a smooth transition back to

civilian life, then S. 1088 [allowing veterans to use their

MGIB benefits in courses leading to certification in

technical fields] is a vital means to accomplish these

goals.''

As enacted, however, the payments are made to individuals pursuing any courses in the high technology sector including associate and degree programs.

The legislation I am introducing would correct this oversight prospectively, while holding harmless those individuals who might be receiving accelerated payments for degree programs at this time.

Public Law 107-103 also expanded the scope of work that could be assigned to individuals participating in VA work study programs. Specifically, it added to acceptable activities certain outreach services programs, activities relating to hospital and domiciliary care to veterans in State homes, and activities relating to the administration of national or state veterans' cemeteries.

As enacted, this expansion of scope was initially made available until December 31, 2006. Public Law 109-461 extended the scope expansion until June 30, 2007. Since legislation extending the scope expansion was stalled in Congress, there was a disruption in the provision of these important activities until Public Law 110-157, enacted on December 26, 2007, extended this expansion until June 30, 2010.

My proposal would make this activity expansion permanent so that the unfortunate disruption that occurred this year will not occur in the future. I note that this provision does not affect the number of VA work study positions that may be made available. It only addresses the type of activities that may be carried out under the program.

Finally, this bill would authorize appropriations for VA payments to State Approving Agencies. Under provisions of chapter 36 of title 38, U.S. Code, VA contracts for the services of State approving agencies-- SAAs--for the purpose of approving programs of education at institutions of higher learning, apprenticeship programs, on-job training programs, and other programs. SAAs are also tasked with assisting VA with various outreach activities to inform eligible VA program participants of the educational assistance benefits to which they are entitled.

Since 1988, VA payment for the services of SAAs has been made only out of funds available for readjustment benefits, a mandatory funding account, and has thus been subject to funding caps. Section 3674(a)(4) of title 38, U.S. Code, states as follows: ``The total amount made available under this section for any fiscal year may not exceed $13,000,000 or, for fiscal year 2007, $19,000,000.'' Thus, under existing law, the cap on the amount of funds that could be made available in fiscal years 2008 and beyond would revert to funding levels applied prior to fiscal year 2000--or a reduction of more than 32 percent.

A provision in S. 1315 that would restore the $19 million cap on funding is currently pending in the Senate, and a $19 million funding level was provided for through the appropriations process. However, the measure I am introducing would look beyond this fiscal year and address the needs of the program in the future.

By authorizing appropriations for the SAAs, I believe that the program will be able to justify increases in the current funding level beyond the $19 million level to which they would be restricted for all fiscal years going forward. Further, I believe that the current cap on funding, although to some appearing attractive because it seems to offer some stability by pulling from the mandatory funding readjustment benefits account, actually offers no such stability as VA could at any time determine that $2 million ``does not exceed'' $19 million.

I am committed to seeking an adequate level of funding for the important activities of the SAAs and believe that this approach would assist in achieving that goal.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing today the proposed GI Bill Miscellaneous Improvements Act of 2008. This measure would make three minor but important changes in existing law relating to veterans' educational assistance programs.

In 2001, Public Law 107-103 established a program of accelerated payments for individuals enrolled in high-cost programs of educational assistance leading to employment in high technology industry. It is generally agreed that the intent of that legislation was that payments were to be effective with respect to short, non-degree programs of education. For example, Senate Report 107-86 stated:

Microsoft, Cisco, and other technical training for

certification is offered through training centers, private

contractors to community colleges, or by the companies

themselves. These courses often last just a few weeks or

months, and can cost many thousands of dollars . . .

During the Committee's June 28th hearing, Dr. Leo Mackay,

Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs,

testified that ``providing educational benefits for pursuit

of these [technology] courses is fully

consonant with MGIB purposes.'' David Tucker, Senior

Associate Legislative Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of

America, also testified that, ``If the MGIB is to be used not

only for recruitment purposes, but also as a means of

enabling a veteran to make a smooth transition back to

civilian life, then S. 1088 [allowing veterans to use their

MGIB benefits in courses leading to certification in

technical fields] is a vital means to accomplish these

goals.''

As enacted, however, the payments are made to individuals pursuing any courses in the high technology sector including associate and degree programs.

The legislation I am introducing would correct this oversight prospectively, while holding harmless those individuals who might be receiving accelerated payments for degree programs at this time.

Public Law 107-103 also expanded the scope of work that could be assigned to individuals participating in VA work study programs. Specifically, it added to acceptable activities certain outreach services programs, activities relating to hospital and domiciliary care to veterans in State homes, and activities relating to the administration of national or state veterans' cemeteries.

As enacted, this expansion of scope was initially made available until December 31, 2006. Public Law 109-461 extended the scope expansion until June 30, 2007. Since legislation extending the scope expansion was stalled in Congress, there was a disruption in the provision of these important activities until Public Law 110-157, enacted on December 26, 2007, extended this expansion until June 30, 2010.

My proposal would make this activity expansion permanent so that the unfortunate disruption that occurred this year will not occur in the future. I note that this provision does not affect the number of VA work study positions that may be made available. It only addresses the type of activities that may be carried out under the program.

Finally, this bill would authorize appropriations for VA payments to State Approving Agencies. Under provisions of chapter 36 of title 38, U.S. Code, VA contracts for the services of State approving agencies-- SAAs--for the purpose of approving programs of education at institutions of higher learning, apprenticeship programs, on-job training programs, and other programs. SAAs are also tasked with assisting VA with various outreach activities to inform eligible VA program participants of the educational assistance benefits to which they are entitled.

Since 1988, VA payment for the services of SAAs has been made only out of funds available for readjustment benefits, a mandatory funding account, and has thus been subject to funding caps. Section 3674(a)(4) of title 38, U.S. Code, states as follows: ``The total amount made available under this section for any fiscal year may not exceed $13,000,000 or, for fiscal year 2007, $19,000,000.'' Thus, under existing law, the cap on the amount of funds that could be made available in fiscal years 2008 and beyond would revert to funding levels applied prior to fiscal year 2000--or a reduction of more than 32 percent.

A provision in S. 1315 that would restore the $19 million cap on funding is currently pending in the Senate, and a $19 million funding level was provided for through the appropriations process. However, the measure I am introducing would look beyond this fiscal year and address the needs of the program in the future.

By authorizing appropriations for the SAAs, I believe that the program will be able to justify increases in the current funding level beyond the $19 million level to which they would be restricted for all fiscal years going forward. Further, I believe that the current cap on funding, although to some appearing attractive because it seems to offer some stability by pulling from the mandatory funding readjustment benefits account, actually offers no such stability as VA could at any time determine that $2 million ``does not exceed'' $19 million.

I am committed to seeking an adequate level of funding for the important activities of the SAAs and believe that this approach would assist in achieving that goal.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce with my colleagues Senators Schumer, Reed, Menendez and Brown, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2008, a bill to improve our Nation's largest initiative to assist low-income families afford housing. Section 8 housing vouchers help 2 million American families--including many children, seniors and people with disabilities--afford safe, decent and stable housing.

The current crisis in the U.S. housing market is having ripple effects throughout our Nation. Families are losing their homes--both homeowners and renters whose properties are being foreclosed upon. Those who can hold onto their homes have seen significant losses in equity, and many owe more on their mortgage than the value of their home. This crisis in the housing sector is causing a significant slowdown in our economy, and housing assistance will need to be strengthened so families have access to safe, affordable housing.

Without housing assistance, many families would lack the stability to find and retain employment, and many children would be unable to adequately perform in school because of multiple moves or health problems resulting from inadequate housing.

Though millions of families are assisted through housing programs, the need for additional housing opportunities is acute. The Joint Center for Housing Studies found that last year the number of severely cost-burdened households, those that pay more than half of their income towards rent, jumped by 1.2 million to a total of 17 million. This is one in seven U.S. households that struggle to afford housing without foregoing other basic needs.

Housing vouchers are a successful way to provide stability for millions of Americans. Through this public-private partnership, vouchers allow low- income, working Americans to live closer to employment and educational opportunities, and nearer to social and familial networks and support.

While housing vouchers are a critical tool, the program needs to be updated

so that additional families can benefit, and so that taxpayer dollars are spent more efficiently.

The voucher reform bill that I am introducing today will help attract additional private landlords, reduce administrative burdens, and help more families achieve self-sufficiency.

This bill creates a stable and efficient formula for allocating voucher funds so that families do not lose their housing. Under this formula, housing agencies are encouraged to lower the costs per voucher, helping to create efficiencies in the program and allowing more people to access needed housing opportunities.

The bill encourages employment by allowing voucher holders to keep more of their earnings, while ensuring that they pay fair rents. Systematic funding is provided for Family Self-Sufficiency coordinators so that more families can access this successful program aimed at increasing earnings and saving for homeownership.

The bill authorizes 20,000 additional incremental housing vouchers to help meet the great and growing demand for assistance from low-income working families, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Under this bill, administrative burdens are eased, so that housing agencies spend less time and funding on paperwork, and more time and funding on assisting families in need. To more effectively use program resources, the bill requires unit inspections every 2 years instead of annually. While the bill retains the requirement that tenants pay 30 percent of their income towards rent, it streamlines and standardizes the calculation of income so that housing agencies can rely on standard, as opposed to individualized, income deductions.

This bill will greatly improve the voucher program, and I am pleased to be sponsoring this legislation. It has support from more than 80 local and national groups, including the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

This is a strong and needed bill, and I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to provide additional affordable housing opportunities to low-income families all across our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a list of supporters, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.