Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

House panel OKs two new reservist benefits

A House subcommittee approved two bills Thursday aimed at helping National Guard and reserve members who are mobilized for overseas deployment.

The House Veterans’ Affairs economic opportunity subcommitet passed HR 3882, which modifies rules for earning active-duty GI Bill benefits. It is aimed directly at the Minnesota National Guard’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division that was mobilized for 22 months, including 16 months in combat. Of the 2,447 soldiers who deployed, 1,162 members discovered when they returned that they did not qualify for active-duty GI Bill benefits because of how their orders were issued.

Minnesota Guard officials believe their state was hit the hardest, but they say thousands of other Guard members also were hurt if they received initial mobilization orders that did not clearly state they were being called up for 730 or more days.

Reps. Tim Walz, D-Minn., and John Kline, R-Minn., are the chief sponsors of the bill that would retroactively apply to mobilizations since Sept. 11, 2001

The second bill passed by the subcommittee is HR 513, the National Heroes Credit Protection Act, which would allow reserve component members who have served 180 days or longer on contingency operations outside the U.S. to include an explanation in their credit record that their military duties may be a factor in any financial problems they experience. That statement would be provided to each person or entity that requested a credit score or consumer report.

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., is the chief sponsor of the legislation, which he said is aimed at helping people who have trouble keeping up on personal bills because they were called to active-duty.

The legislation passed by the subcommittee, however, represents a bipartisan compromise to rewrite Brady’s original language. Part of the compromise includes a warning to service members that including a note about military duties in their credit records may not be wise.

Before a credit reporting agency accepts a letter of explanation, the bill requires it to issue a notification stating “that inclusion of any explanation or notation in the file of the service member could potentially negatively affect the credit rating of the service member and may not mitigate a low credit score.”

Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., who helped write the compromise, said a statement of explanation “would not absolve a member of his or her debts.”

Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark., who supported the bill, said there “are concerns about the possible negative consequences” of telling creditors that military duties may have caused late payment or non-payment of bills and other financial problems.

Congressional aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they hope only people who run into credit problems would offer an explanation. Someone who does not have serious credit problems could be hurt more than helped by calling attention to their military status because a creditor could worry that they could be mobilized again in the future and have more problems paying bills.

Both pieces of legislation passed by voice vote, and could be taken up by the full veterans’ affairs committee as early as next week.