In 1940, during the Battle of Britain, Prime Minister Winston Churchill celebrated the daring crews of the Royal Air Force with stirring words: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." Today, something similar could be said about the men and women wearing the uniform of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never have so few U.S. soldiers been asked to sacrifice so much while so little was asked of the rest of us.

A good way to begin to set things right is for Congress to approve an update of the G.I. Bill of Rights. The original G.I. Bill was a way of saying "thank you" to the generation that fought and won World War II. Enacted in 1944, it extended help for education, unemployment and the purchase of a house to returning veterans. Historians hailed it as a landmark piece of legislation. Over time, 8 million WWII vets signed up for the benefits and helped to make postwar America a better place to live. We need its modern equivalent today.

Rarely have U.S. soldiers been asked to do as much as is being asked of them in today's wars. The combat tours are longer, the equipment — at least initially — was inadequate, the size of the force was too small for the mission requirements and the political leadership of the Pentagon was not always spot-on. But even so, the troops have soldiered on without complaint.

They deserve something better than the current version of the G.I. Bill, which was crafted in 1985 and sharply limits benefits. The $1,100 cap on monthly checks for education was little enough 23 years ago, and it's even more insufficient today. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., and others have proposed to do more, but their Post-9/11 Veterans Act has been stalled in Congress by threats of a filibuster, despite widespread support in both chambers.

Now Democrats have tacked it onto President Bush's emergency spending measure for Iraq and Afghanistan. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the proposal would cost $51.8 billion over 10 years. That's expensive, but meeting the needs of veterans should be seen as a cost of the war.

It seems the least we can do for those who went to fight, but the administration and some in Congress have balked because of the cost. Good thing they weren't around in 1944. The original G.I. Bill was expensive, too, but it was worth it.

The White House fears better benefits will make soldiers choose a college education instead of extending their enlistment. Not so, say supporters. If anything, better benefits might attract new recruits and offset any loss in enlistments. A better G.I. Bill is a reward for sacrifice, not a handout. It's time for Congress to act.