To: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
From: National Taxpayers Union
Date: March 18, 2026
Subject: NTU’s Opposition to Guard/Reserve G.I. Bill Parity Act: - March 18 Markup
I. Introduction
On behalf of National Taxpayers Union, the nation’s oldest taxpayer advocacy organization, we write to express our opposition to the Guard/Reserve G.I. Bill Parity Act, which is slated for consideration before the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on March 18, 2026. NTU requests that the Committee more carefully consider the interests of taxpayers and offset the cost of proposals to expand veterans’ benefits.
II. Legislation: S. 649: the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025
This afternoon, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will be holding a Business Meeting to consider two dozen pieces of legislation. Some would improve oversight or restore the quality of benefits, while others aim to improve veteran health research. However, several of the legislative proposals being considered today involve expanding veterans’ benefits beyond the already-generous benefits provided today. More concerning to taxpayers, however, is the fact that much of these benefits expansions are not paid for. In an era where the federal government is spending well beyond its means, and when our deficit is nearing the highest as a percentage of GDP in our nation’s history, we need to balance our need to take appropriate care of America’s heroes who have protected our freedom and our need to start balancing our national checkbook.
In particular, we want to call attention to S. 649: the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2025. This bill would expand eligibility for generous Post-9/11 education assistance to members of the National Guard and to reserve members of the Armed Forces. Currently, these reserve members only build credit towards educational assistance eligibility when they are called for federal active duty. This bill would expand credit opportunities to training and domestic duties, including more typical national guard duties like responding to national disasters and conducting weekend drills.
While this bill has not yet been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, previous versions used a budget gimmick to “pay for” this spending expansion within the 10-year budget window, while increasing deficits by over $5 billion in each successive 10-year period beyond that. The text of the current bill does not include any language to cover costs, so using cost estimates from the 2022 estimate we anticipate the taxpayer cost of the bill being approximately $2 billion over the next 10 years. However, CBO noted the uncertainty related to estimating both the likelihood of benefit use by future beneficiaries, as well as the size of reserve and National Guard members achieving benefit allowances over time. As a result, it is quite likely – given current reserve force use – that this cost estimate could be well below likely true costs.
We understand that our nation owes a great debt to those who serve in uniform. Veterans deserve our thanks, and our support. But there remains a difference between those who serve in active duty and those who serve in the National Guard and the armed forces reserves. It seems prudent that the federal government consider studying this parity issue a little more before committing taxpayers to billions more of unpaid liabilities in the years to come.
III. Conclusion
Overall spending at the Department of Veterans Affairs has grown by over 500% in the last 20 years, from $60 billion in 2004 to $326 billion in 2024. This rate of growth is unsustainable in today’s federal budget context. All taxpayers, including those who have served our country in uniform, deserve that closer examination of proposed increased spending is made before taxpayers are asked to open their checkbooks further. In this context, we oppose this legislation in its current form, and urge the Committee to include a sustainable way to pay for this measure in future versions of the bill. Should you have any questions about the recommendations in this memo, please do not hesitate to reach out to David Timmons (dtimmons@ntu.org).