Comment on AN10-Proposed Rule-Steven Thomas Schultz

Jan. 16, 2009 Director Regulations Management (02REG) Department of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Ave., NW Room 1068 Washington, DC 20420 Re: RIN 2900-AN10--Post-9/11 GI Bill Dear Director of Regulations Management: On behalf of Marquette University in Milwaukee, I provide the following comments in response to notice published on Dec. 23, 2008, in the Federal Register seeking public comment on the Department of Veterans Affairs proposal to establish regulations regarding a new educational assistance program for individuals who serve on active military duty after Sept. 10, 2001. Marquette University – the largest independent postsecondary institution in the state of Wisconsin – is committed to providing Catholic, Jesuit educational opportunities to all individuals and we especially look to expand our ability to educate those who have served the United States. We particularly note under this proposed rule the Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the department with comments on this program as detailed under Sec. 21.9700. We have concerns about three sections of the proposed rule: First, Sec. 21.9700 (c)(1) indicates that contributions will have to be provided for an entire academic year. We would like to inquire whether qualified individuals need to apply every year to receive benefits, or whether students will receive benefits indefinitely as long as they maintain their enrollments. Similarly, we wonder whether institutions have to submit an intent to participate in the program each year. Second, Sec. 21.9700(2) indicates that an institution’s contribution should be made in the form of a “waiver” as opposed to, for example, a “tuition discount.” Marquette does not waive tuition as a matter of policy, and we seek clarification as to whether a tuition discount is the equivalent of waiving unmet charges levied against a student. It is our sense that a “waiver” and a “discount” serve the same ultimate purpose for the individual who benefits. Finally, Sec. 21.9700(4) indicates that the “same percentage of unmet established charges for all eligible individuals in any given academic year” must be waived. We seek explicit clarification as to whether this is the same percentage across all programs or whether an institution may establish a different percentage based upon different programs. The percentage may be 15 percent for degree-seeking undergraduates, for example, but 25 percent for Law School students. The ability to evaluate a program in context as opposed to across all disciplines will benefit those within specific programs that have varying costs. We are supportive of the intent of the proposed rule implementing the Yellow Ribbon program, but seek clarification or modification of the two items above to address concerns that could delay or preclude implementation by institutions. We are pleased to provide additional information to address any questions you may have from this commentary. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steve Schultz Manager, Governmental and Community Affairs Marquette University Milwaukee