Pentagon, veterans face off over education benefit

By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON, May 29 (Reuters) - A move in the U.S. Congress to expand education benefits for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has hit a snag that veterans groups say they find surprising -- opposition from the Pentagon.

Few in Washington disagree that the university funding offered under the "GI Bill" must be increased to catch up with the rapid rise in college tuition costs in the United States.

But sharp disagreement over how to expand education funding and which service members should benefit has pitted veterans against the Bush administration and military leadership -- two sides that typically see eye to eye on support for the troops.

"If you're willing to send them to war, you better be willing to pay for them when they come home," said Eric Hilleman, legislative director for Veterans of Foreign Wars, which represents 2.3 million veterans.

The issue has also spilled onto the campaign trail, where Barack Obama, the Democratic front-runner for the presidential nomination, has criticized Republican candidate John McCain for siding with the White House.

At the heart of the dispute is a measure introduced by Virginia Democratic Sen. James Webb, a Vietnam War veteran, former Navy secretary and vocal critic of the Bush administration's management of the war in Iraq.

His proposal aims to cover the full expense of a college education for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, just as the original GI Bill did for veterans of World War Two.

Under the current program, a veteran can receive as much as $9,600 per year for four years of study -- short of the average $17,000 a year for a U.S. college education.

Webb's $52 billion proposal, rolled into a $165 billion war funding bill approved by the Senate last week, offers enough money to cover all university charges, up to the cost of the most expensive public university in a veteran's home state.

He would also offer money for housing and start a program to help pay the cost of more expensive private universities.

PENTAGON OPPOSITION

But the Pentagon opposes the bill, according to a letter Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent to McCain.

The White House has threatened to veto the Senate's version of the war funding bill if approved by the full Congress, in part because it includes extra appropriations such as Webb's expansion of education benefits.

Webb's proposal poses a series of problems for the Pentagon, especially to its efforts to retain experienced service members during two ongoing wars.

First, the scale of education benefits under Webb's program for anyone who has served at least three years since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States in 2001 could encourage members to leave the military, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

Second, Webb's bill provides only for a pilot program that would allow troops to transfer benefits to spouses and children. Permanent "transferability" is the change most often sought by troops, according to Whitman.

Defense officials say they prefer competing legislation introduced by McCain and other Republicans -- South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina.

Under their bill, education funds could be easily transferred to spouses and children, and troops' benefits would increase the longer they serve.

"Since we are asking these brave young Americans to go back and back and back to Iraq and Afghanistan, we want to retain and keep these experienced and talented people," McCain said at a campaign stop in Reno, Nevada, on Wednesday.

"So our proposal basically is to have a scale of increasing benefits the longer you remain in the military."

Still, opposition from the Bush administration and McCain, a Vietnam War hero who is the only presidential candidate to have served in the military, is a tough pill to swallow for veterans groups who have largely supported the White House on other troop issues.

They say opponents think the Webb proposal is "too generous" -- a charge the Pentagon flatly rejects.

"We're all for enhancing the benefits," Whitman said.

"But we want to make sure that the way in which we provide the benefits doesn't do harm to the all-volunteer force and actually make it more attractive to leave the service as opposed to staying in the service." (Additional reporting by Richard Cowan in Washington and Tim Gaynor in Reno; Editing by Frances Kerry and John O'Callaghan)