Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects expanding state tuition support to reserve-component members
Summary
Lawmakers voted 4-1 to recommend a 'do not pass' on legislation that would expand state tuition or scholarship benefits to members of the reserve component, citing legal complexity and overlap with existing federal programs.
A Senate committee voted 4-1 to recommend that Senate Bill 2170 receive a "do not pass" recommendation after extended discussion about differences among National Guard, reserve and active-duty status and which education benefits each category already qualifies for.
Supporters of the bill said the intent was to open additional educational opportunities to members of the reserve component. Opponents argued the bill would be difficult to administer because reserve members may live in the state but perform duties out of state, and many reserve members already qualify for federal tuition-assistance programs.
Lieutenant Colonel Jay Sheldon, strategy and policy officer for the North Dakota National Guard, explained distinctions among service statuses and benefits: "Members of the North Dakota National Guard and all National Guards are on what's called a Title 32 status... AGR [Active Guard Reserve] ... have that full time Title 32 AGR has some additional benefits." Sheldon described how different statuses (AGR, federal technicians, traditional drill status) affect eligibility for federal tuition assistance and other benefits.
Committee members repeatedly raised the point that the National Guard is under state control for domestic missions and that the Guard's recruitment and retention goals differ from federal reserve components. Several senators said reserve members already have access to federal tuition assistance and GI Bill benefits, while National Guard members sometimes rely on state tuition-assistance programs to fill gaps.
Senator Boushey moved a "do not pass" recommendation on the bill; the motion carried on a recorded committee vote, 4-1 (Wabamaw: yes; Axman: yes; Larson: no; Beauche: yes; Powers: yes). Following the vote, a committee member volunteered to carry the bill.
Committee members asked staff to include clearer eligibility language and to clarify the practical effect of extending state benefits to reserves before further consideration. The committee did not amend the bill; the recommendation was recorded as "do not pass."
