Two bills heard on veterans’ dependent tuition waivers; sponsors and higher‑ed groups differ on ‘first dollar’ approach

The House Higher Education Committee on March 25 held a public hearing on two related bills that would expand or update tuition waivers for dependents of disabled or deceased service members and Purple Heart recipients.

House Bill 3534: Representative Boomer Wright said HB 3534 would amend ORS 350.285 to expand education benefits for children of service members who are disabled or killed in the line of duty. The measure, as summarized to the committee, would reduce the disability requirement from 100% to 80% disabled, expand the waiver to community colleges and registered apprenticeship programs, and require institutions to waive fees and the cost of textbooks in addition to tuition. The summary also said the waiver amount would not be reduced by certain student aid awards. Representative Wright discussed proposed amendments to allow waivers for master’s degrees and indicated drafts were under consideration that would raise the age limit for qualifying dependents; testimony referenced an L.C. amendment to raise the age to 31.

Representative Wright and others framed HB 3534 as providing expanded support for military-connected families and noted the bill would require funding to cover the expanded benefits. University and community college witnesses urged clarity on the funding approach and the “first dollar” vs “last dollar” implementation choice: HB 3534’s sponsor described a first-dollar approach in committee testimony (state dollars applied to tuition before other aid), while other testimony and a parallel bill (HB 3920) emphasized a last-dollar approach (current practice where other aid is applied first and waivers cover remaining tuition).

House Bill 3920: Representative Thuy Tran testified in support of HB 3920, describing it as a technical update aligned to federal changes to the Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance (Chapter 35) program. HB 3920 raises the age at which a dependent child can apply for the waiver from 23 to 31 and provides an exemption to the age limit for persons qualifying for federal Chapter 35 benefits. Tran said HB 3920 preserves the current last-dollar approach and that the fiscal impact should be minimal; she supported separate tracks for HB 3534 (first-dollar concept) and HB 3920 (technical, last-dollar update).

Institutional testimony: Kevin Neely of the Oregon Council of Presidents said public universities already support roughly 500 family members who use the existing waiver and that the bill would expand benefits if sufficiently funded; Neely noted the bill as summarized would expand benefits beyond the federal Chapter 35 program and recommended a funding model similar to prior state investments (e.g., tribal grants). John Wyckoff of the Oregon Community College Association said community colleges support veterans and their families but cautioned about first-dollar implementation; he explained that certain high-cost workforce programs (aviation and helicopter training, nursing) currently receive federal veterans benefits that cover large program costs and warned that applying state waivers as first-dollar could shift those costs to institutions without sufficient state funding.

Personal testimony: Colin Ledford, a legislative aide and son of a combat veteran, described how delays in his father’s VA disability rating would have made him ineligible for the waiver under current age limits; he urged the committee to align state policy with federal Chapter 35 changes so students in similar circumstances are not excluded by arbitrary age cutoffs.

Points of disagreement and next steps: The committee heard two different policy paths: HB 3534’s sponsor sought broader and earlier access and discussed first-dollar implementation and expanded benefits (textbooks, fees, apprenticeships, reduced disability threshold); HB 3920’s sponsor offered a narrower technical alignment to federal changes that keeps last-dollar treatment and raises the age limit. Witnesses requested clear funding commitments if the state adopts first-dollar coverage. There was no committee vote recorded; committee members and witnesses noted funding questions would need resolution before implementation.