REVIEW OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON THE

1999 CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION ON 

SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS

TRANSITION ASSISTANCE REPORT

Hearing

before the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on economic Opportunity

one hundred ninth congress

Second session

december 7, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-68

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

u.s. government printing office

washington : 2007

31-325.PDF
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Steve Buyer, Indiana, Chairman

Michael Bilirakis, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois, Ranking

Terry Everett, Alabama Bob Filner, California

Cliff Stearns, Florida Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois

dan burton, Indiana Corrine Brown, Florida

Jerry Moran, Kansas Vic Snyder, Arkansas

richard H. baker, Louisiana Michael H. Michaud, Maine

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina Stephanie Herseth, South 

Jeff Miller, Florida Dakota

John Boozman, Arkansas Ted Strickland, Ohio

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Silvestre Reyes, Texas

Michael R. Turner, Ohio ShellEy Berkley, Nevada

John Campbell, California Tom Udall, New Mexico

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California John T. Salazar, Colorado

JAMES M. LARIVIERE, Staff Director

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity

John Boozman, Arkansas, Chairman Stephanie herseth, South 

Richard H. Baker, Louisiana Dakota, Ranking

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida, Vice Chairwoman Darlene Hooley, Oregon

John Campbell, California Lane Evans, Illinois

Brian P. Bilbray, California 

 

Michael F. Brinck, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

December 7, 2006

 Page

1

 1

35

3

38

4

37

24

92

20

81

17

69

5

39

10

Review of Actions Taken on the 1999 Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance 

Report ......................................................................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Boozman .................................................................... 

Prepared statement of Chairman Boozman ..............................

Hon. Stephanie Herseth, Ranking Democratic Member, 

 Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity ..............................

Prepared statement of Ms. Herseth ...........................................

Hon. Darlene Hooley ...................................................................

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Simpson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Idaho ........................................................................

Witnesses

Arsht, Leslye, Deputy Under Secretary for Military Community and Family Policy, U.S. Department of Defense ...........

Prepared statement of Ms. Arsht ...............................................

Ciccolella, Hon. Charles S., Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ 

Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor ........

Prepared statement of Hon. Ciccolella .....................................

Mansfield, Hon. Gordon H., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs .........................................................

Prepared statement of Hon. Mansfield ......................................

Principi, Hon. Anthony J., former Chairman, Congressional 

Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition 

Assistance Established Pursuant to Public Law 104-275, and 

former Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs .......

Prepared statement of Hon. Principi .........................................

Wincup, Hon. G. Kim, former Vice Chairman, Congressional 

Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition 

Assistance Established Pursuant to Public Law 104-275 .....

(III)
(1)

REVIEW OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON THE 1999

CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION ON SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS TRANSITION

ASSISTANCE REPORT

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 334, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Boozman [chairman of the 

subcommittee] Presiding.

 Present: Representatives Boozman, Baker, Brown-Waite, Campbell, Bilbray, Herseth, Hooley and Evans. 

Mr. Boozman. I apologize for running a little bit late. There is just 

a lot of stuff going on up here right now in an effort to wind things 

down.

The final hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

will come to order.

 Today is the last House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing of 

the 109th Congress. It is also Pearl Harbor Day, and I hope each of 

us will take a moment to remember the souls that were lost that day. 

Fortunately, I do not believe this will be a day that goes in the history 

books as a day of infamy.

Before we begin today’s official business, I want to extend my sincere appreciation for the bipartisan spirit that has been the hallmark 

of our operation for the last 2 years. I especially want to thank our 

Ranking Member, Stephanie Herseth, for the work she has done and 

the manner in which she has done it. I could not have had a better 

Ranking Member.

 To our staffs, I also want to say thanks for their efforts over the 

past 2 years; and for those who will be leaving us, you go with our 

best wishes. I really do mean that. I appreciate you guys so much.

 Right now, we are in the situation where the country is unhappy 

with us in the sense that there is a lot of wrangling going on that is 
2

unnecessary. But, I think the Committee overall, the entire Committee, has operated in a bipartisan manner ever since I have been in 

Congress, if we could mimic that throughout Congress we would be 

a lot better off.

 Now there is a rumor that Ms. Herseth will be changing titles in a 

few weeks, and at that time I will hand her the gavel and truly will 

wish her my best wishes and do all that we can to be helpful.

 First, Congressman Simpson has asked for permission to enter a 

statement record. Without objection, so ordered.

[The statement of Michael K. Simpson appears on p. 37]

Mr. Boozman. During the 109th Congress, the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee spent considerable effort conducting oversight 

of the transition assistance programs and the GI Bill. We did that 

because we felt that the best thing we could do for those leaving military service and those remaining in uniform was to ensure that the 

process of returning to civilian life was reasonably smooth and offered the chance to obtain gainful employment.

Did we find the perfect system? No. Did we find the system that 

provides good basic information assistance? I believe that we did. 

But, like many government programs, the system can be made to 

work better, and that is why we are here today. Because, in the end, 

it is all about a good civilian job, whether it is right out of the service 

or following shorter extended training and education periods.

 In January, 1999, in response to Public Law 104-275, the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance issued 

its report. In general, the Commission was tasked to, number one, 

review the adequacy and effectiveness of veterans’ transition assistance and benefits programs and providing assistance to members of 

the Armed Forces in making the transition and adjustment to civilian life; reviewing the allocation under the law of responsibility for 

the administration of the veterans’ assistance and benefits programs 

among the various departments and agencies of the government and 

determine the feasibility and desirability of consolidating such administration; thirdly, to evaluate proposals for improving such programs, 

including the proposals for alternative means of providing services 

delivered by such programs; and, fourth, make recommendations to 

Congress regarding the need for improvements in such programs.

 The Commission met for several years, and the results from the report was wide ranging in its views addressing the many issues facing 

servicemembers who were transitioning to civilian life. Following the 

release of the report, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee formally 

received the views of the Commission.

 There has been a lot of water under the bridge since then, so, 

continuing with our focus on employment and transition issues, we 

thought it would be fitting to close out the 109th Congress with a 
3

review of how far we have come relative to the Commission’s recommendations and to set the stage for the 110th Congress.

 I now yield to Ms. Herseth for her opening comments.

[The statement of Mr. Boozman appears on p. 35]

Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Chairman Boozman; and good afternoon 

to you.

Before we begin, I also want to express my gratitude to you for your 

leadership on this subcommittee and for the bipartisan approach that 

you have taken to our work. The very good relationship that members of our staff have shared over the past couple of years and our 

working relationship and personal friendship are a mark of what our 

constituents would hope would be the manner in which we conduct 

our business here in Washington. I anticipate that our working relationship will continue on this subcommittee and the full Committee, 

and we look forward to that as we build upon the work that we have 

undertaken in the 109th Congress into the next one.

 There are so many matters that are before us as it relates to our 

servicemembers, veterans and military families and the future. I

want to thank all of today’s witnesses for your insights, for the written testimony that you have submitted and your time today. Your 

views and insights are critically important to this subcommittee as 

we examine policies and recommendations concerning servicemembers’ transitions to civilian life in their veteran status.

 Mr. Chairman, we ask a great deal of our servicemembers, as all 

of us in this room understand. We ask a lot of our veterans and military families, perhaps more than any other segment of our society. 

No doubt they have earned and deserve our best efforts to provide 

them with a quality and enlightened process as they prepare and 

ultimately separate from military service.

 In my opinion, military recruiting and overall morale could be improved by ensuring a quality transition process and providing new 

and improved opportunities for veterans to explore in the civilian 

workforce, entrepreneurial and higher education sectors. A veteran 

and, perhaps more importantly, a military family that experiences a 

successful transition to civilian life is arguably more important than 

a Madison Avenue ad as it relates to purposes of our all-volunteer 

force.

 Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the witnesses’ testimony, 

working with you, your staff, all of our colleagues on this Committee, 

Ms. Hooley and her great work on the subcommittee to examine and 

develop policies aimed to improve readjustment services for men and 

women in uniform. Thank you, and I yield back.

[The statement of Ms. Herseth appears on p. 38]

Mr. Boozman. Ms. Hooley.
4

Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon and for this 

Committee to review the progress made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Labor and Defense regarding the implementation of the 

recommendations of the 1999 Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance Report. 

 The issues surrounding the transition of our servicemembers and 

veterans are of great interest to me personally.

 I worked during the last several appropriations cycles to add funds 

to the Department of Labor for the purpose of educating employers 

on their responsibility under Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Act (USERRA), and I look forward to hearing from 

the Department representatives.

 One of the issues I have been particularly involved in has been 

the reintegration of the Oregon National Guard members who are returning from long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan—Guard and 

Reserve members. I sometimes think we forget how different their 

return is from the regular military, but they face unique challenges 

as they often transition directly from a war zone back into civilian life 

without the support network provided by the active duty base.

 They are coming home to go back to work in their businesses or to 

return to school. The life they face post-deployment is radically different from their lives as active duty soldiers. In many cases, they 

may not have the support of a job, or family life may be dramatically 

altered.

 Despite an increase in reliance on the Guard and Reserve members, in many cases they are still treated as second-class citizens by 

our government. One of the areas where this is most apparent is in 

the Montgomery GI Bill benefits. Although we have made improvements to the educational benefits for Guard and Reserve members 

in recent years, they still receive a significantly smaller benefit than 

the active duty counterparts that they serve side by side with. They 

face a confusing array of options for educational benefits with various 

limitations and restrictions and in many cases can only use their benefits while they remain in the Selective Reserve, making it virtually 

impossible for them to use their earned benefits.

 When we talk about the reintegration of returning servicemembers and the transition from military to civilian life, we must make 

certain we are looking out for all of our veterans, not simply those 

who served as part of the regular active duty military. It is long past 

time we stop treating our Guard and Reserve members as secondclass soldiers and give them the reintegration services that they need 

and deserve. 

 Thank you.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 I am pleased that the former VA Secretary and Chairman of the 
5

Commission, Anthony Principi, is here to testify with us. He has a 

unique perspective as a former VA Secretary and Chairman of the 

Commission.

 Secretary Principi is accompanied by the Vice Chairman of the 

Commission Mr. Kim Wincup.

 The Secretary, during the BRAC hearings, I had the opportunity 

to work with him on that. He has a son in the Air Force. Is he still at 

Little Rock Air Force Base?

Mr. Principi. I am sorry, sir?

Mr. Boozman. Your son, is he still at Little Rock Air Force Base?

Mr. Principi. He is.

Mr. Boozman. He has a son at Little Rock Air Force Base. And 

this young man, I think half of my staff fell in love with him when 

they met him, but we are very proud of him. Be sure and tell him, 

send him our best.

Mr. Principi. I sure will, Mr. Chairman.

 He just came back from Iraq, and he is back in Little Rock, and I

think he is very very happy to be back at Little Rock. But I appreciate that, and I know he enjoyed very much meeting you and your 

staff.

Mr. Boozman. Well, tell him that we are very proud of him.

Mr. Principi. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, FORMER CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION ON 

SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS TRANSITION ASSISTANCE, ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 

104-275, AND FORMER SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY THE HON. G. 

KIM WINCUP, D VETERANS TRANSITION ASSISTANCE, 

ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 104-275

Mr. Principi. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Herseth, Congresswoman Hooley.

 I am pleased to be joined by Vice Chairman Wincup and also Commissioner Jane, who served on the Commission, Commissioner Drach 

as well, and Bob Stein, who is our Executive Director; and I thank 

them for being here.

I also want to recognize Deputy Secretary Mansfield, who served 

as my deputy for much of my 4 years as Secretary and with such 

great, great dedication and loyalty; and I am very very pleased to see 

him here today as well.

 I commend you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Herseth, for convening today’s hearing. Under your bipartisan leadership, this subcommittee has indeed established an enviable record of achievement 

over the last 2 years. With site hearings and markups, you have con-
6

vened no less than 12 public events with respect to the Montgomery 

GI Bill, an extraordinarily important statute, and other VA educational assistance programs and nine events focusing on the transition 

assistance program. 

 Further, an end-of-session and end-of-Congress public hearing 

like today’s I think speaks volumes of your commitment to our men 

and women in uniform, our Nation’s veterans, to your leadership and, 

of course, to that of your outstanding staffs as well. Vice Chairman 

Wincup and I earnestly thank you.

 The ultimate measure of successful transition from military to civilian life is long-term, sustained employment. Fundamentally, employing veterans represents a good business decision because of their 

character, their commitment, their sense of teamwork, their resolve. 

Hiring veterans for patriotic reasons expresses appreciation and respect. Hiring veterans for business reasons indeed gets results.

Vice Chairman of General Motors, Bob Lutz, observed that veterans personify economic strength. Like you, Mr. Lutz sees veterans as 

a unique national resource and competitive business asset.

 But we, as a Nation, have an urgent challenge before us. We 

need more Bob Lutzes. We need to do a much better job conveying to employers the value-added human capital and resourcefulness 

that veterans bring to our domestic economy and especially convey it 

to the human resource professionals who actually do the hirings in 

corporate America. If we don’t do so, the unemployment rate for 20- 

to 24-year-old veterans may become even more unacceptable than it 

already is.

 But this situation goes beyond unacceptable numbers. It is our 

obligation as a Nation to be part of what we might call a public trust 

with those who have served. We need to be there for them when they 

come home, because they lag 4 years beyond their nonveteran peers. 

Let’s level the playing field in that regard simply by marketing veterans with employers, nothing more and nothing less.

 My written statement makes seven recommendations in this regard. Let’s mobilize the ample resources of Federal and State government, business and industry, the veterans’ groups, the military 

associations and the media to get the job done.

Just as veterans personify economic strength, the Congress and 

this Committee personified strength of vision in creating the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance. 

None of us knew in 1997 of the magnitude of worldwide hostilities 

that lay ahead and the challenges the 1.5 million American soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen would face in protecting the everyday freedoms of 300 million Americans.

 Your leadership in forming the Commission led to the most comprehensive review of veterans’ benefits and services since the 1956 

Omar Bradley Commission. The Commission learned quickly that 
7

the panoply of veterans’ benefits was rooted in the Great Depression, 

the Great War, and the Great Society. Thanks to the wisdom and 

foresight of America’s veterans and military organizations, we concluded, too, that we, as a Nation, had designed these programs for 

a different era, a different economy, a different society, a different 

technology, and indeed, a different veteran.

Just as Harry Colmery of the American Legion penned the first 

draft of the World War II GI Bill of Rights in longhand on Mayflower 

Hotel stationery at about this time in 1944, the veterans and military 

groups recommended to us a similarly bold, unfettered blueprint of 

ideas for the Commission’s report. If the Commission’s recommendations represented a solid foundation for congressional action, then 

this very Committee created strong pillars of opportunity for the 

175,000 servicemembers who annually join our domestic economy. 

Indeed, the record shows that many such transition opportunities 

emerge from the rostrum of this subcommittee.

 In Table I of my written statement, I highlight several of the Commission recommendations that, with your Senate counterparts, Congress has enacted into law, including the largest increase in the 21-

year history of the Montgomery GI Bill. Many of those increases 

originated right here in this Committee:

 A nationwide redesign of veterans’ jobs placement service based on 

themes of accountability, flexibility, incentive, and results; creation 

of the first economic set-asides in Federal contracting for disabled 

veteran-owned businesses that the Association of Service Disabled 

Veterans and the Vietnam Veterans of America tell us were first proposed as far back as the White House Conference on Small Business 

in 1979; and the first major updating of VA’s on-job training and apprenticeship program since World War II. Indeed, you have created 

economic initiatives that produced a new building of economic opportunity and reinforced all pillars that have stood the test of time.

 Today’s structure, however, needs design changes, occasioned by 

America’s implicit commitment to those who wear the military uniform during a period of war and mobilization against insidious terrorist acts. The structure of economic opportunity urgently needs not an 

annex but a new centerpiece, an atrium if you will, formed from the 

bedrock of America’s employers. They alone decide who gets hired, 

especially among the mid- and entry-level type positions veterans 

covet when they return home.

 I urgently encourage the subcommittee to design a forward-looking, cost-effective package of initiatives to market veterans to employers, a nationwide campaign that penetrates the private sector 

with the uniqueness of the veteran brand. We owe it to each of those 

who have served, to employers, to our economy and to ourselves. Veterans deserve a full opportunity to participate in our economic system sustained by their service and, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
8

Herseth, Congresswoman Hooley, keep the interchangeable team intact while doing so.

 Mr. Chairman, in my written statement I have paid tribute to the 

rich history of leadership personified by past chairmen on the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and also to Representative Lane Evans, 

who is retiring with an enviable record of legislative achievement.

 In closing, I pay tribute to Congressman Chairman Steve Buyer. 

Chairman Buyer, too, has built durable pillars of strength on which 

I believe the Committee will build in the new Congress. He is now 

in the distinguished company of past chairmen who also were wartime veterans, including Tiger Teague, the late Sonny Montgomery, 

the late Bob Stump. I thank Mr. Buyer for his commitment and his 

record of service.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Herseth and Congresswoman Hooley. Mr. Wincup and I will be pleased to respond to 

your questions.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

[The statement of Anthony Principi appears on p. 39]

Mr. Boozman. In your testimony, I don’t know whether to call you 

Mr. Secretary or Mr. Chairman or both, but you mention that the GI

Bill is basically the only situation we have where there is a buy-in as 

far as being a part of the program. And talking about maybe doing 

away with that, those are the kind of things that we are going to be 

struggling with in the next Congress.

 But when you do the numbers, if you did away with the buy-in, the 

$1,200, the figures I have heard, that that would translate to about 

$100 a month in benefit. So another way of looking at it would be to 

go ahead and continue the buy-in and increase the benefit and still 

spend the same amount of money.

Can you comment on that at all?

Mr. Principi. Yes. Sure. I was part of the—I was in the Senate at 

the time. Mr. Wincup was in the House. We were both on the Armed 

Services Committee; and, of course, the Montgomery GI Bill originated here in the House. There was some resistance in the Senate to the 

first peacetime GI Bill; and the compromise, if I recall, was to have 

the $1,200 buy-in as a way to get the House and the Senate to come 

to agreement at about 4:00 in the morning in the dome of this Capitol 

in room 407. I will remember that night for as long as I live.

 But I believe, too, that as the Honorable Chris Jane, who was commissioner, said at one point in time, University of Chicago educated 

economist, that the $1,200 was really nothing more than a tax. And 

given what we call upon our men and women to do today and around 

the world, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but on the front tiers of 

freedom, perhaps it is time we look at doing away with it or, as you 

indicate, I think in the alternative to increase the benefit somehow to 
9

make it more attractive.

 You know, the Pell grants are a wonderful program, but a lot of 

people can get educational benefits in this country without having 

to serve—educational benefits without having to serve their country. 

So whether we—we certainly in the Commission recommended doing 

away with the $1,200 buy-in; and the alternative, as you indicate, 

perhaps increasing the benefit proportionately, I think would work 

as well.

Mr. Boozman. With all the sources of assistance available now—, 

we have got the Internet, we have TAP, outstationing of VA and DOL

staff, unemployment benefits. You know, you have lived through this. 

You have a son that is serving now. Why do you think the transition 

now is so difficult or appears to be so difficult?

Mr. Principi. Why the transition? 

Mr. Boozman. Why the transition out of the service back into civilian life. It seems to be difficult right now, with overall unemployment 

low and, just a multitude of various options available to help in the 

transition.

Mr. Principi. Well, I know it is still very difficult. When you look 

at the unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds, you know clearly 

something is wrong; and we recommend that that be studied as to 

what is the true reason for that higher unemployment rate. I mean, 

I think it is about 10.8 percent for veterans between the age of 20-24, 

maybe 8 percent unemployment rate on average for nonveterans, so 

we simply need to do better.

 You know, I have always believed that if employment is the door 

to a successful transition, then education is the key to that door. And 

whether it be a college education or on-the-job training, apprenticeship training, I think we just simply need to do more to outreach to 

veterans, to tell them of the programs that are available that are either paid by the VA or paid by the Department of Labor. We need to 

do a better job, perhaps re-establishing the Committee to outreach to 

employers to make them aware of the benefits of hiring veterans. So 

I think there is a lot that still needs to be done, especially given this 

wartime situation we are in.

Mr. Boozman. Ms. Herseth. 

Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Secretary; and I do appreciate your 

point to the Committee about an opportunity to put together a package of initiatives and generate some ideas on how we can penetrate 

the private sector as effectively as possible for the benefit of our transitioning servicemembers.

 Before I get to some questions there, I do want to piggyback onto 

the questions that the chairman posed as it relates to the importance 

of education benefits that also allude to Ms. Hooley’s points in her 

opening statement about reservists and National Guardsmen and so 

the timing of the Commission that you chaired in your report and 
10

some of the hearings that we have had that you made reference to 

as it relates to the importance of the Montgomery GI Bill and how 

we make sure it is working effectively for all of our servicemembers, 

whether they be active duty or in their Reserve and Guard components.

Could you elaborate on what your thoughts are in bringing the 

educational benefits for National Guard and reservists more in line 

with their active duty counterparts and what are your thoughts—

this is something that we probed down in Arkansas when we had a 

field hearing there with one of the leaders of the Arkansas National 

Guard—on providing post-service educational benefits to activated 

reservists? 

Mr. Principi. Well, you know, I can’t say enough about the role of 

the Selective Reserve and the Guard in today’s all-volunteer force. It 

is just extraordinary to me what they do, how they do it, and their 

commitment. The benefit level really needs to be commensurate with 

that sacrifice, and I think there have been significant improvements 

in the benefit level for Guard and reservists.

 I think there is more that can be done in perhaps increasing the 

benefit level, the educational benefit level. I think there should be 

a differential between the active force and the Reserve and Guard 

because of the—you know, you are on active duty for 4 years in the 

Guard and Reserve. And although you are called up to active duty 

much more often it is clearly not the same. So I think in order to 

encourage young men and women to go in the active force, we should 

have a little higher benefit level, but, clearly, more needs to be done 

in that regard.

Kim, do you have anything you would like to add?

Mr. Wincup. Congresswoman, I think your—both points are 

unique. We are asking something of the Guard and Reserve we have 

never done in the past in terms of the degree to which they are deploying, and they are about to redeploy in the second round of deployments that are under consideration so I think we are going to 

find stresses on those folks that we haven’t really seen in any of our 

histories. 

 So I would agree with the Chairman strongly that some further 

consideration for benefits for them would be warranted, although you 

do need to keep some differentiation between them and the active 

force.

Ms. Herseth. I appreciate your thoughts. I don’t think that we 

have seen either members of the Committee or some of the organizations that we all work with that help us represent our constituents 

while addressing this issue talking about doing away with the differential, but we have seen over time a smaller and smaller percentage, particularly as it relates to the buying power of that educational 

benefit because of what has happened at the Department of Defense 
11

and the budget constraints in the last few years with OIF and OEF

as well as prior to that.

 I don’t think that there is so much a strong recommendation to do 

away with the differential but rather, as we have attempted to do for 

those that have been activated for a certain period of time, that we 

increase that benefit under Chapter 1607. 

I do think that we have a more difficult challenge here in making 

sure that those benefits should be allowed to be used by Guard and 

reservists in terms of post-service education. I think that the testimony that we have received thus far versus what we have heard from 

the Pentagon suggests that that isn’t going to affect recruitment and 

retention as significantly as the Pentagon claims.

 Do you think that it might be easier for us, assuming that we maintain a differential as you have both suggested, to deal with increasing 

the benefit for Guard and reservists if we were able to consolidate 

legislative jurisdiction over the Montgomery GI Bill into one Committee rather than two? As you know, we currently have jurisdiction 

over the active duty program and the Armed Services Committee has 

jurisdiction over the Selective Reserve program.

Mr. Principi. Well, I think there sometimes is a disconnect between the two Committees and the level of benefits, and perhaps that 

consolidation is something that should be looked at and studied.

 Again, I applaud this Committee for what they have done. I remember when I started as Secretary back in 2001, the benefit level 

under the GI Bill was 500 and maybe 50 or 80 dollars a month. And 

over a 4 to 5-year period during my tenure, I believe it is now over a 

thousand dollars a month, and I believe the Guard and Reserve benefit has gone up substantially as well.

So you have made extraordinary progress in a relatively short period of time, making it possible for men and women to go to school. I

mean, it is just as simple as that. 

 I have always been a believer in the World War II GI Bill. If there 

is one benefit that I have always thought should be carried over into 

the 21st century as the greatest legislative benefit ever legislated by 

the United States Congress, that is the World War II GI Bill. An individual limited only by aspirations and ability can go to any school 

in America. The greatness of America can be found in the men and 

women who went to school under the GI Bill after World War II, and 

I think that is an investment that is worth making for the men and 

women who are doing extraordinary things today. I think it is great 

for them, it is great for our Nation.

Mr. Wincup. May I just chime in?

 As former Staff Director of the House Armed Services Committee, 

I am—I guess I am not without history in this regard, but I remember 

the same dialogue that my chairman does. And, frankly, having two 

Committees to bring that along—it was not an easy piece of legisla-
12

tion to get enacted initially, and having two Committees and having a 

broader base for it at that point in time made a lot of difference.

Ms. Herseth. Along the lines of what you both have just said, I

think you would find broad agreement among the Committee and 

many of our colleagues about the investment in the benefits and what 

the Montgomery GI Bill has been and can be and can continue to be, 

but I think we can build on it further. While I appreciate the comments that we have done a lot to help the Guard and Reserve, I still 

have a concern.

 When you talk about a marketing strategy, of marketing our veterans to the private sector, we have to make sure that whatever we 

do and authorize to improve education benefits is marketed to the 

servicemembers. I don’t think the Chapter 1607 benefits have necessarily all the information that should have been given to Guard 

and reservists to take advantage of that, has been effectively given 

to them.

 I do think that if it had been administered differently—I just think 

we have to look at marketing in two respects here, not just to the 

employers but to the beneficiaries, whether it is the employment opportunity or the education benefits. Do you have thoughts on this?

Mr. Principi. If I could, absolutely, Congresswoman. It is far different coming back to a military base. You know, you demobilize, go 

through programs. When you come back as a reservist or Guard, you 

go back to your community, and sometimes you don’t get the information you need, know about the benefits available.

 So I agree with—I agree. Marketing education, making sure they 

have that information is important. I know the VA is doing—has 

worked hard at it. I am not saying they are there yet or we are there 

yet, but improvements have been made. I think we still have a way 

to go.

Ms. Herseth. And I would agree. I think there is an element of 

interagency cooperation that is necessary here as well, given the current construct of how we are authorizing and then implementing the 

new legislation.

 One last question, and certainly we don’t have the development 

and the—what is the word I am looking for—from one generation 

from another the last time there had been a Commission. I believe 

you mentioned 56 to the Commission that you chaired, talking about 

how it is a different era, different veteran, different technology, different economy. We don’t have that same level of disconnect today 

from the late 1990s to 2007.

 However, in light of the fact that we weren’t at war at that time 

and looking at the increased mission tempo for Guard and Reserve as 

well as other factors, do you think it is time for Congress to authorize 

a new Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance? Or do we have plenty to continue to work from based on 
13

your work?

Mr. Principi. Well, the last Commission was 1997. We are almost 

at the 10-year point. We are in war. Different needs have been identified, not only on the benefit side of the House but the healthcare 

side of the House. It might be time in the next Congress to look at 

convening another Commission to take a look at the benefit structure 

see if it is the right one for the times.

 You know, I am very proud that—you know, you never know with 

the work of the Commission what is going to happen, but we were 

very fortunate to see Congress embrace the Commission recommendations for the most part, and it is not a report that gathered dust 

on some shelf and just consumed money and nothing ever happened. 

What I think makes all of us commissioners so proud is that the Congress took up these issues, and they legislated, and veterans in our 

society are better off for it. So I think perhaps next Congress you 

might want to look at that.

Ms. Herseth. I appreciate that; and I will yield back. Chairman 

Boozman and I wondered if you would be interested in chairing another Commission.

Mr. Principi. As long as it is not BRAC.

Mr. Boozman. Ms. Hooley.

Ms. Hooley. Secretary Principi, first of all, I just want to thank 

you for chairing BRAC and for all of your time that you have put in 

and service to the country and for all of the work that you have done. 

You have just done a terrific job. So I appreciate your public service 

over a number of years in a number of different roles. So thank you 

for that. 

Mr. Principi. Thank you.

Ms. Hooley. And I am going to follow up on some of the things 

that Representative Herseth talked about. Times have changed so 

much and who knew that we were going to have Guard and Reserve 

deployed and redeployed and redeployed and some of them are on 

their fourth time over there, some are on their third time, some are 

on their second time. And as we look at benefits—

 And I agree with you. I think one of the greatest things this country ever did was the GI Bill. It really was the making of a new America and how many new universities sprung up because of the GI Bill 

and what wonderful opportunities they gave to people. As we look at 

making sure that our veterans are employed, it is sometimes difficult 

to employ some of the veterans if they don’t have the educational 

background. I mean they really work hand in hand.

 There are a couple of questions I have.

 One is, do we need to look at the cost of college and the cost of 

tuition. It has gone up much higher than the cost of living, and how 

often should we readjust that?

 Again, looking at Guard and Reserve in a different light, based on 
14

what is happening today, do we need to look at those benefits?

 One of my constituents called with a really interesting story about 

her son who had had some problems after he got out of the military, 

who had some addictions, sort of struggled with life in general. And 

when he finally got his act together and decided to go back to school 

and really knew what he wanted, his benefits had run out because it 

had been 10 years. So they were exhausted.

 First of all, do you know the percentage of people that decided to 

pay the $1,200 into the program so they get educational benefits? 

And should there be a time limit?

 I would like to know why there is a time limit and should we continue that time limit?

 This is sort of a question to anybody in the room that wants to answer this. When you have two different jurisdictions over the same 

issue when talking about veterans—even if we don’t change those 

jurisdictions, does it make sense to have sort of a joint Committee 

that works just on this issue—could we take some members from this 

Committee and some members from the Armed Services to work specifically on this issue.

 And I don’t care where you want to start.

Mr. Principi. Well, thank you, Congressman Hooley, for your kind 

words.

 I want to say 97 percent of—I mean, a very, very high percentage 

of men and women who join our military are automatically opted into 

the GI Bill program. I believe—Kim, am I right—you have to opt out 

of it. When you join, you are automatically enrolled, but you have the 

option to say I don’t want to go to school. I want the $1,200 a month. 

So it is very, very high, which is very, very good news.

 Unfortunately—at least I know the VA folks are here, and they 

know better the percentage—but at one point in time during my tenure I was surprised to learn that less than 50 percent were availing 

themselves of the GI Bill, which—you know, 97 percent opt in, less 

than 50 percent use their benefit. I am sure there are lots of reasons 

for that, and perhaps that 10-year delimiting date might have something to do with it.

 Historically, there has always been a 10-year time period on using 

your GI Bill. I believe the Committee should look at that. Maybe it 

is time to say it should be 15 years or 20 years or there should be no 

time period. It is a readjustment benefit, so I guess one might say 

after 10 years it is really no longer a readjustment benefit, but the GI 

Bill has always been considered that.

 I also think the Committee should look carefully at, you know, college education is not for everyone; and there are a lot of other wonderful programs that they should avail themselves of: on-the-job training, apprenticeship training, you know, different—technology. You 

know, these young men and women are so computer savvy. There are 
15

a lot of schools they can attend, whether it be a Microsoft school or, 

you know, whatever it might be. I think you should look at some of 

the different ways that we can embrace different types of education.

So I think all of those—and as far as the survey as to the inflation 

rate in academia, I think every Congress there should be some survey done as to is the GI Bill benefit keeping pace with the inflation in 

education? And for the longest time it was not until you have done 

so in the past 4 years.

Ms. Hooley. Right. Thank you.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you.

 In kind of looking at how things are going right now, the DVOPS/

LVER system, do you feel that it has run its course? Is it outmoded 

at the present time? Do we need to look at maybe some changes in 

that area?

Mr. Principi. Well, I haven’t kept pace with it recently. I know 

Secretary Ciccolella is here. He can certainly speak to the issue.

 I recall that when our Commission was in session we were very, 

very concerned with the program to assist—the Department of Labor 

to assist veterans in getting good jobs. Unfortunately, there was really no accountability. There was no incentive for success, and there 

was no penalty for failure, and I believe that the DVOPs and LEVRs 

were caught in a bad system.

 I think some of the legislation that has been passed in recent years 

has helped to correct that, and that is demonstrated in the higher 

percentage of veterans who are registered at the Department of Labor job placement centers have obtained employment. So I believe 

that progress is being made, but, again, it was really alarming to us 

back in 1997, 1998, 1999, the poor record of performance in terms of 

veterans’ employment.

Mr. Wincup. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything to add to that. 

Thank you.

Mr. Boozman. Do you all have any other questions? Good.

Ms. Hooley. I have.

Mr. Boozman. Go ahead, Ms. Hooley.

Ms. Hooley. This is, hopefully, a shorter question.

 As we look—this is what I have heard and I would like to know—it 

is like a lot of things you hear. You don’t know how true it is or how 

much basis of fact there is. We do know that a lot of our men and 

women are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan with some mental health issues, and I think most people would acknowledge that 

is true. What I had heard is that there are some employers, even 

though they may be breaking the law, that are worried about hiring 

some of our soldiers returning for that reason.

First of all, is that true? And, secondly, how do we enforce the law? 

And, third, how do we make sure that people are assured that we 

are working with the soldiers and we are taking care of these issues 
16

and this isn’t something that employers should be terribly concerned 

about? This is a touchy subject to bring up, but I think it is important 

that we talk about it.

Mr. Principi. I think it is a very important issue, considering the 

nature of this war, insurgency warfare in a way much like Vietnam, 

different setting but, nonetheless, a lot of post-traumatic stress. So 

I think the basis of your question is correct, that some employers 

are probably discriminating against these young men and women because of perhaps perceived mental illness.

 As far as enforcing the law, it clearly needs to fall upon—I think 

the Congress can play a role and State governments can play a role, 

but certainly I believe that during my tenure—and I just know certainly under Secretary Nicholson and, of course, Deputy Secretary 

Mansfield who fought bravely in Vietnam that the VA is doing as 

much as it possibly can to help those with PTSD and other mentally 

related problems with all the help they can get.

 I am just very proud of the VA, of what they have done. I am not 

saying they are perfect, but I think they have done an extraordinary 

job and also trying to break down the barriers between DOD and 

VA and bring the two agencies closer together so that there is a continuum of care when they are transitioning out. It is far better than 

it was certainly when I left active duty.

And your thoughts, Kim?

Mr. Wincup. Congresswoman, I am in the private sector and have 

been for the last 12 years since I left the Federal Government and I

have not heard that, to be honest with you. I have heard—from all I

can tell, people are anxious to find veterans for much the same reason 

we have talked about.

Ms. Hooley. I have heard both. Certainly, we have a lot of employers, and in one of my counties, we have a great program. Actually, one of the counties is doing it for the whole State, where we are 

advertising, talking about USERRA, talking about our soldiers, what 

wonderful employees they are and I have tried to set an example by 

hiring them in my office. I think a lot of employers want to hire veterans and do so, but I also have heard this other little piece sort of buzzing around, and I just wanted to know if there was any—I am sure for 

maybe a few, that is true, but I guess what I would like to know, is 

that prevalent? Or is that just an occasional employer outlook?

Mr. Wincup. I must say that there is something happening. Because you look at these statistics, and they are disturbing. The unemployment rate is higher than it should be. It is higher than the 

average, and it isn’t better than it was. When over the last 4, 5 years 

since we looked at it, it hasn’t improved much. So there is something 

happening that I can’t account for, but it seems counterintuitive.

Ms. Herseth. I would just add one final point to that then, that 

perhaps if indeed the Committee chose to pursue authorization of a 
17

new Commission that this would be an area that we would specifically request evaluation as it relates to the enforcement of USERRA

and how best to do that, and if there is something that we can get at 

that addresses that anomaly.

Mr. Boozman. I agree with both of you. I think this is something, 

hopefully, we will be able to look at in the next Congress. And I am 

lobbying a little bit. I think having the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee has been helpful.

 Because in the past when you are lumped with all of the other benefit for veterans, so much of the time is spent putting out fires, that 

we really have had the opportunity to look at some things that maybe 

are being brushed over in the past because they are more long-range 

things like employment and training. Again, that is something that 

is going to have to be decided, the framework of the Committee in the 

future, but, hopefully, we will keep the subcommittee.

 Thank you all so much for coming. Thank you, Mr. Wincup, for all 

that you have done.

 You mentioned, Mr. Secretary, some really some great people, 

Sonny Montgomery, Bob Stump, those individuals, and certainly you 

are in that class, and we appreciate all you have done for veterans, all 

you continue to do for veterans, and thank you very very much.

Mr. Principi. Thank you very much.

Mr. Boozman. Let’s have the next panel, please.

 Today, we are really pleased to have Deputy Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs, The Honorable Gordon Mansfield. He will be presenting 

testimony for VA. Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans Employment and Training Charles Ciccolella will review the Department of 

Labor’s progress; and, finally, the Deputy Under Secretary for Military Community and Family Policy, Ms. Leslye Arsht, will speak on 

behalf of the Department of Defense.

We appreciate you all being here.

Mr. Boozman. You want to start, Gordon?

STATEMENTS OF THE HON. GORDON H. MANSFIELD, 

DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; HON. CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; AND LESLYE 

A. ARSHT, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR MILITARY 

COMMUNITY AND FAMILY POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GORDON H. MANSFIELD

Mr. Mansfield. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Chairman, Ms. Herseth and Ms. Hooley, I want to thank you 
18

for this opportunity to come talk to you about this issue of importance 

to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would ask that my written 

statement be entered into the full record.

 This hearing is about the recommendations made in 1999 by the 

Transition Commission, headed, as we have just heard by former VA

Secretary Principi; and how the VA has responded to these recommendations. VA has implemented many of the Commission’s recommendations, as discussed fully in my statement for the record.

 I would make the point here, too, that many of those recommendations were followed up with action by this Subcommittee, this Committee, and the action by the Congress to put new statutes in place. 

The VA has made every attempt to fulfill the requirements, and I 

would just add my thanks to the bipartisan effort that has gone forward in this important area.

 This hearing, though, is about the way forward. How do we, as a 

Federal Government, respond to the employment needs of our veterans, a talented and motivated workforce?

 Secretary Nicholson seized on this issue when he became the leader of the organization nearly 2 years ago. He has participated or 

directed VA leaders in discussions with the National Guard Bureau, 

the National Governors Association, and with major employers to 

find ways to get veterans work. He has also made inroads with his 

Cabinet colleagues, encouraging them to consider employing veterans in their agencies.

 It may be said that his efforts and those of others such as Secretary 

Principi have paid off. In fiscal year ‘05, veterans held 25 percent of 

all Federal jobs, increasing to 456,254 out of a 1.8 million workforce 

and of which approximately 92,000 were disabled veterans employed 

in Federal positions.

 Let me stress that Federal agencies share in the responsibility of 

serving veterans. No one agency, as we know, has exclusive jurisdiction over these issues. Veterans, their families and our country will 

benefit from our ability to work collaboratively. Whereby, as noted 

in the Commission documents, the lines delimiting organizational jurisdiction and authority should be invisible to the service member or 

veteran crossing them. That is a valuable insight from the Principi 

Commission.

 The Commission voiced concern 8 years ago in the disparity for unemployment rates for young, recently separated veterans compared 

to their peers and veterans in general. This continues today and is 

a major issue of concern to VA. The high rate of unemployment for 

young, recently separated veterans is unacceptable, particularly now 

when it is they who have defended our country in the war on terror. I

can assure you that we are focused on this cohort of veterans, be they 

active duty or be they Guard or Reserve members, returning from 

their deployments.
19

 Since the Commission’s report, profound changes have occurred in 

the Nation. Naturally, much of the focus on today’s military needs 

are on exiting servicemembers who are both young and who have 

seen multiple tours of duty in an active combat zone. We know enhanced Web-based technology give veterans access to a vast array of 

information. It also allows for seamless connections between government agencies which should enable us to more easily provide services 

at a distance. 

The changing economy, with significant career growth in high-tech 

and service sectors and a more mobile workforce, creates added opportunities for transitioning veterans but also makes traditional service delivery more difficult.

 In the report in 1999, the Commission wisely used as a guiding 

principle the goal that each individual servicemember and veteran 

should have as much control as possible over decisions affecting his 

or her life. VA continues to seek ways to help veterans to make informed decisions with this principle in place. There are ways the VA

can address the issues of separation, of career transition and reintegration into civilian society. The Federal role includes proper health 

screening to identify issues that may inhibit full employment.

 Recent research documents indicate that unemployment and underemployment can be negative external stresses that impede recovery from PTSD, issues talked about here earlier, and may even trigger delayed onset. For those with severe combat injuries, VA and 

DOD have a very successful model—VA’s Office of Seamless Transition and DOD’s Severely Injured Center—for ensuring that severely 

injured servicemembers, veterans and their families are fully and 

effectively supported on their path to successful reintegration into 

society.

We must ensure the earned and needed benefits are provided as 

timely as possible to achieve maximum utilization by veterans. The 

several months prior to separation and the first year after separation, 

we believe, are critical to successful reintegration.

 We must also understand employment barriers. The VA, Department of Labor and DOD are working collaboratively with your staffs 

on designing and conducting a study in an attempt to find out why 

young, recently separated veterans are suffering disproportionate 

unemployment; and then we must meet younger veterans’ needs with 

tailored support during that critical transition period for successful 

reintegrations.

 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I know that we 

can help veterans complete a timely reintegration using the advantages of new technologies and new approaches that have evolved in 

the 8 years since the Commission’s work. I want to make the point, 

also, that we are looking for not just a job for this individual coming 

out, we are looking for a career, a career of work that will permit 
20

that veteran and their current or future family to be able to live the 

American dream. So we want to make sure that it isn’t just a job, but 

it has potential built into it.

 I will continue to work with the others at this tabl,e as well as the 

hundreds of private companies like Home Depot and Wal-Mart who 

have stepped forward anxious to put skilled veterans on their payrolls. I look forward to your questions.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

[The statement of Gordon H. Mansfield appears on p. 69]

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

 Mr. Ciccolella.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA

Mr. Ciccolella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Herseth, and Ms. Hooley. I want to thank you for holding this hearing. I think it is a very, very important hearing. And I think the 

timing could not be better. So I thank you for that.

It is an honor to appear on the panel with Secretary Mansfield and 

Deputy Undersecretary Arsht. So I thank you for the opportunity to 

present our views and where we think we are on the Commission’s 

recommendations.

 The Commission performed a very valuable service in identifying 

the problems with transition for servicemembers and how they come 

into employment opportunities. The Commission made some very 

good proposals for improving the outcomes. Specifically, the Commission was concerned, and I think duly so, with the unacceptable 

employment rates for newly separated veterans; performance standards of the Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS); and 

poor accountability of veteran employment programs in general.

 The Commission recommended replacing these programs with 

restructured services establishing priorities, marketing of veterans, 

and introducing competition to ensure that the outcomes were acceptable.

 As requested by the Committee, my written statement responds to 

each of the 21, I think, recommendations of the Commission with specifics. So what I would like to do is focus my oral testimony on where 

we are today with regard to our employment programs and what we 

are doing to improve employment opportunities for veterans.

Probably the most significant outcome of the Transition Commission was the Jobs For Veterans Act, Public Law 107-288, because that 

law transformed the way veteran employment services are delivered 

by establishing a priority of service to veterans for all Department 

of Labor funded programs at job centers around the country. The 

law also changed the funding formula so that money goes to where 
21

the veterans are, it delineated the roles of the veteran employment 

representatives, and this was extremely important; and it focused 

employment services on veterans who need those services the most; 

and of course, there was the incentive awards, which has worked very 

well in some States, I think many States, and in others, we are still 

struggling a little bit. 

 The Commission noted that, in 1997, only 12 percent of veterans 

who registered with the employment service obtained permanent 

employment. At the time of that report, entered employment rate 

and entered employment placement rates, which was how we were 

measuring them, averaged 20 to 30 percent across the States. Some 

States reported even lower numbers. Today, the entered employment rates for all veterans is 61 percent nationally. That is through 

America’s publicly funded work force system, with many States reporting higher rates. More significantly, we have talked about the 

unemployment rate of young veterans 20 to 24 years old who are also, 

in most cases, probably all recently separated. And those seem to be 

coming down now from the peak last year of almost 16 percent, and 

we expect that 2007 rate to be somewhere between 10 and 12 percent. 

That rate is still unacceptable.

But what we tried to do is find out more about why that rate is 

high, and we found out some things, and some things we still don’t 

know. But that is why the Department of Labor, as Secretary Mansfield has indicated, are collaborating on research that will help us 

better understand all of the reasons why these young veterans have 

higher unemployment rates. For example, the VA, in collaboration 

with us at the Labor Department and with the Defense Department, 

are surveying a large sample of veterans, about 2,000 of them, to 

determine why it takes so long to get their jobs. There will be a comparison there with the Reserve components and the active duty folks. 

And at the Department of Labor, we are working with the University of Chicago right now to look at some longitudinal data. That is 

data that obviously we get by questioning a specific cohort until 1997 

about their employment opportunities and outcomes over the length 

of their employment lives.

What that research is telling us is that when young veterans first 

get out of the military, their unemployment rates are high up in the 

30 percent range; 3 months later, they are down in the 20s; 6 months 

later, they are down in the teens; and 9 months later, they are generally 4 to 6 percent, which is about the Nation’s—about the national 

average.

 So it is telling us a number of things, that while unemployment 

rates were high when they first get out, that veterans may be taking 

their time in getting their first jobs. But that is not the whole story, 

because we still have veterans out there who are looking for jobs, and 

we have veterans who are out of the labor force, and if we are only 
22

placing six out of ten veterans through the work force system, then 

we need to be looking at what happens to the other four, and we also 

need to be looking at what happens to those veterans who are out of 

the labor force. Now, if they are in school or if they are in training, 

that is fine. If they are struggling to find a job, then we need to try 

to find them.

 Our performance standards for vets are established at national 

level. And individual standards are negotiated at each State. We 

have established a performance accountability system. We receive 

quarterly reports of performance, and certainly we have provided 

those to the Committee in the past. We have also reported the—or 

incorporated the common measures which are the measures across 

government which—for all employment programs, for our employment programs.

 Public Law 107-288, which is the Jobs For Veterans Act, established a first-in-line priority for veterans in America’s work force 

system, first-in-line for employment assistance, counseling, training 

and job placement. The Department of Labor has embraced that; we 

have implemented the priority. We believe that veteran participation rates in all of the programs that the Department of Labor funds 

or partially funds are representative of the numbers of veterans in 

the labor force.

 I would like to say a couple words about interagency cooperation 

with the Department of Veteran Affairs, Department of Defense. Because I don’t think in the history of—certainly not since I have been 

here and probably a long time before that—I don’t think interagency 

cooperation has ever been better. We have signed memorandums of 

understanding on TAP with the Department of Defense, Homeland 

Security and VA. We have signed MOUs, memorandums of understanding, with the Department of Veteran Affairs, their vocational 

rehabilitation and employment service. We have agreements with 

Department of Defense with their employers supporting the Guard 

and Reserves because they are our partners in enforcing USERRA. 

We have agreements with Department of Justice and Office of Special 

Counsel to actively enforce and take these issues to court if we have 

to. And we have a memorandum of agreement with Walter Reed 

Army Medical Center. We are starting agreements with the other 

medical centers on our REAL Life Lines Programs. Now the REAL

Life Lines Program, of course, is the Department’s new program that 

is dedicated to providing individualized job training, counseling and 

re-employment services to our wounded servicemembers. I might 

add that, just 2 months ago, we held the first national wounded and 

injured veterans summit in Alabama. We chair an interagency Committee on TAP. We also participate in work groups with the Department of Defense on credentialing and military spouse employment. 

We work with vocational rehabilitation and employment services 
23

in three work groups to improve accountability and improve performance and outcomes with the chapter 31 participants. Finally, we 

participate on the VA advisory Committees on homeless veterans, 

minority veterans and, of course, women veterans.

 The Commission recommended marketing veterans to employers, 

and the President’s National Hire Veterans Committee, initially established under the Jobs for Veterans, has done just that by establishing a national campaign for educating employers on the high value 

that veterans bring to the work force. Thousands of senior executives 

and companies corporate offices, employers and employer support organizations have been provided valuable input or they provided valuable input. Also, they received valuable training in how to establish 

strategies for reaching out and hiring veterans. The Committee has 

sunset, and that is one of the subjects of this Committee with regard 

to whether or not we reestablish the President’s National Hire Veterans Committee, I will just tell you that, so far, we have 47 Governors 

who have signed proclamations for Hire Vets’ first months, designating those months, and we are now in to cosponsoring and cobranding job fairs. And the Department of Defense is doing this as well 

for disabled veterans. These job fairs are extraordinarily important 

because they bring such visibility to the value that veterans bring to 

the work force. And smart employers today, as Secretary Principi 

said, are turning to the military for their new hires. We are committed to reintegrating veterans into the work force—and we do that in 

3 ways. Mr. Chairman, first we do that through the American work 

force system by providing the priority of service in all the 3,400/3,500 

job centers around the country where we also have the specialized 

services of the veteran employment representatives.

 Secondly, we continually stand up for veterans when they don’t get 

their jobs back after coming back from their active duty. We work 

closely with the Department of Defense, the ESGR, or Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, to make sure servicemembers are 

briefed before and after they leave service. We produce rules for 

USERRA law, which makes that law understandable almost instantly. And that law is working much better today.

 The third and probably most important way we reintegrate veterans is by providing quality transition assistance for separating servicemembers of the military. We believe that TAP employment workshop is essential for military members, both active duty and Guard 

and Reserve, in order to smoothly transition them to their civilian 

occupations. And we are improving that workshop. When you look 

at the issues that veterans have when they come out of the service, 

and this is fairly consistent; it was the same for me as it is for veterans leaving today. It is the same for 4-star generals as it is for young 

corporals. It has to do with their ability to translate their skills, their 

experience and their training on to a resume, because you just don’t 
24

write resumes in the military. And when they do get out, it is generally the first time they have done a resume. Military members don’t 

always interview well because they don’t do that in the military either. Their jobs are generally assigned. We are working to improve 

the TAP workshop so servicemembers leave the TAP workshop with 

a resume and with mock interviews so they have had that experience, 

and when they go for a job, it is not the first time that they have done 

a resume or an interview.

And finally, we will begin linking servicemembers in the transition 

workshop with their one-stop career centers so that they know where 

those centers are; they have been up on a State job board, and they 

know that there is a publicly funded work force system that will help 

us.

 Mr. Chairman, today’s military are all volunteers. They are highly 

motivated. They are highly educated. This is probably the best military this country has ever seen. We take our responsibilities very, 

very seriously to serving them. There is no more deserving or valuable group than our Nation’s servicemembers and our veterans. I

want to thank you very much for holding this hearing, and I will be 

pleased to answer your questions.

[The statement of Mr. Ciccolella appears on p. 81]

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much.

 Ms. Arsht.

STATEMENT OF MS. LESLYE ARSHT

Ms. Arsht. Chairman Boozman, Congressman Herseth, Ms. Hooley, 

thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Department of Defense transition assistance program that we call TAP.

 Mr. Chairman, you mentioned President Roosevelt’s famous proclamation for this date, but an equally renowned legacy is that the 

servicemembers of that generation stood up to the challenges of that 

time, and their descendents are doing the same today as they safeguard our Nation’s freedom.

 As a nation, we require a great deal from our Armed Forces, and 

I want to reaffirm the Department’s commitment to our separating 

servicemembers.

 I am impressed, as you already heard from my colleagues, by the 

dedication and willingness of our Federal partners to help provide an 

assortment of highly desirable transition services. The cooperation 

and support we receive from the Department of Veteran Affairs and 

the Department of Labor is superb. You can be truly proud of the 

manner in which they, the military services as well as private veteran service organizations, continue to enthusiastically support our 

veterans. Thank you, too, for the continued interest and support of 
25

this subcommittee.

 I want to provide an update to the Department’s implementation 

of the recommendations that were submitted in response to the 1999 

report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance. Also, since the Commission’s recommendations were made some years ago, and the world has changed 

considerably in the interim, I will also address some other new exciting TAP initiatives.

 Since the report, much has been accomplished. The Montgomery GI Bill maximum monthly allotment for active duty servicemembers was $528 a month in October of 1998. Today that allotment 

is $1,075. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2000 authorizes service secretaries to offer the GIB transferability 

to dependents of servicemembers who reenlist or extend enlistment 

in critical skill areas. The Army has implemented a pilot program 

that allows transferability for the GI Bill for spouses of regular Army 

enlisted personnel.

 Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005, TRICARE eligibility was permanently extended to 180 days. 

The Department supported and has implemented the Commission’s 

recommendation to make the verification of military experience and 

training, the VMET document, which is DD form 2586, available to 

eligible members through a VMET internet site which is available 

24/7. The VMET is used by servicemembers to develop resumes and 

acquire college credits based on their military training and experience. Since January 2003, over a million documents has been provided to current and for former servicemembers. In response to the 

Commission’s concerns about credentialing, it relates to military occupational specialties and ratings, DOD and the Department of Labor has established a credentialing working group that is working to 

remove the credentialing barriers that some veterans and transitioning members face today. The Army in 2002 created a Credentialing 

Opportunity On-Line or Army COOL. A robust Web site that helps 

soldiers work towards civilian credentialing related to their military occupational specialty. This year, the Navy followed with Navy 

COOL.

 I now want to address some of the other TAP initiatives. We are 

making dramatic improvements to the Transitional Assistance Program to better meet the needs of our Reserve components. DOD, with 

the assistance of the Department of Labor and the Veterans Affairs 

Department, is designing a dynamic automated Web based system 

for delivery of transition assistance and related information. This 

portal, which we have nicknamed Turbo TAP, will be the backbone 

of an updated DOD TAP process that will enable servicemembers to 

access crucial information any time, anywhere. Phase I of Turbo TAP

will be the release of a new transition guide for the Guard and Re-
26

serve and an updated preseparation guide for active duty members. 

In Phase II, we will stand up the critical employment hub for Turbo 

TAP, which will connect them to the resources they need to find their 

job and their career. In subsequent phases, new elements of Turbo 

TAP delivered by the Department of Defense, Department of Labor, 

and DVA will be brought on line.

 I want to mention a few other collaborative efforts with our partners at Labor and VA that address some of the issues that are of 

interest to this Committee. The Department of Defense and VA established three important interagency councils. The Joint Executive Council, Health Executive Council, and the Benefits Executive 

Council, to establish a form of collaborative activities and initiatives 

relating to policy, coordinated health care and the sharing of benefits 

information.

 We also have the TAP Steering Committee with representatives 

from DOD, the military services, VA, Department of Labor, and the 

Department of Homeland Security, which includes the U.S. Coast 

Guard. DOD also serves as an ex-officio non-voting member of the 

Department of Labor Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment 

Training and Employer Outreach.

 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the men and women in 

the military today and their families, thank you and the members of 

this subcommittee for your steadfast support during these demanding times. Thank you.

[The statement of Ms. Arsht appears on p. 92]

Mr. Boozman. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony 

from everyone.

 We have really spent a lot of time on the TAP program in the last 2 

years and have actually visited sites on various occasions, had breakout visits with people going through the program, have sat through 

the program for several hours. And I will tell you, I was very, very 

impressed. I think the program is a great program. One of the concerns that I have is where are we with funding of TAP? Where is it 

available? Where is it not? What are the problems of accessing the 

funds? When we were in Europe, there was concern that there was 

not adequate coverage throughout the European theater. Can you all 

comment and tell us, reassure us or tell us what your needs are? 

 But comment about, if you have adequate resources for TAP. I do 

want to compliment you. Personally, I feel like that we are on track. 

I think it is a great program. I think we really are moving in the right 

direction and after sitting through the breakout sessions, listening 

to the people who have gone through TAP the only criticism I would 

have is, I think that servicemembers and their families throughout 

their career need to be exposed to the TAP program every few years 

to understand what is going on and how they need to be training 
27

themselves. I think it is a great recruiting tool for staying in the 

service once they understand their benefits that they are getting, and 

then allowing them to train themselves in different areas that look 

like they are going to be booming 5 years from when they get out or 

10 years or whatever their time frame may be.

Who wants to tackle that for me?

Mr. Ciccolella. I agree with you wholeheartedly on everything 

you said. Let me see if I can get to all of your points. It wouldn’t be a 

bad idea for servicemembers to have the opportunity to come back to 

TAP, and the transition portal that we will provide I think is a means 

of doing that. And we do that because there is eligibility for people 

who are retired so they can come back. But first thing we got to do is 

we have got to get every servicemember to TAP before they leave the 

service. If they desire to get it—it is a voluntary program—but if they 

desire to go, we have have to get them to TAP and in that regard, the 

Defense Department is working very, very closely with us to make 

sure that if those servicemembers check that they need transition 

assistance on their preseparation counseling, that their commanders 

know that they are supposed to go to TAP. 

You are absolutely right on the point of the value of TAP and expanding TAP overseas. I thought this was a very visionary move by 

this Committee who dictated that we do this, and it was a very smart 

move.

Now what are the problems? You have been over there. We are 

giving it now in 49 locations in 8 countries. We haven’t got Spain. 

And as a matter of fact, I think DOD may still be doing TAP over in 

Spain not DOL. So we have got to get into Spain. We have a little 

problem there and a problem in Italy because the Italians have a 

very stringent status of forces agreement, which makes it difficult 

for Americans to work. So we do TAP in Italy with a Federal staff 

member on a temporary basis. So I have a Federal staff person who 

is over there on 3-month or 6-month tours, the GS-13 who gives the 

TAP. In the rest of Europe and the Far East, we are generally doing 

it with a very good contractor, and that contractor is hiring military 

retirees, smart military retirees who have experience in the military 

and civilian life and military spouses who are absolutely superb at 

presenting that TAP, as I am sure you observed.

 So I think we are doing a good job. We are not getting everybody. 

We still have some expansion to do. And we have to do that consistent with the Department of Defense, and we work on that absolutely 

every day and we get pretty good cooperation from Defense.

Mr. Mansfield. I would just affirm that and make the point that, 

as Secretary Ciccolella mentioned in his testimony, I think we are 

working more collaboratively then we ever have in the past. I think 

we have also learned with my experience in Cochairing the JEC, the 

Joint Executive Committee, that we do have an opportunity to dis-
28

cuss a lot more and understand a lot more. And one of the things I

understand now is that, on the DOD side—stick with me here—on 

the DOD side, when you are talking about transition, that to them it 

means transition out, and they are in the business of trying to keep 

people. So when we get into some of these issues, we have to be able 

to balance those differing requirements and make sure that we understand what the nuances are. But I think, even given that we are 

doing a lot better job than we have in the past, and I think we are 

increasing exposure and continuing to move forward. So it is better 

than it was, not at a hundred percent, but moving towards, with general agreement, on how we need to do that.

Ms. Arsht. Thank you, gentlemen. I do think we are working really hard on this. As you all know, the pre-separation counseling is 

mandatory, and everyone does take that. One of the things that we 

are always looking at are total force issues. There are differences 

among servicemembers about the services that they need. And some 

know exactly where they will go; they are going back to the jobs they 

had before. This is particularly true of Guard and Reserve. Some 

already have new jobs that they are going to. Others want to go to 

school. And what we are talking about now and working in collaboration with Department of Labor and VA and internally, is that when 

a servicemember expresses a desire to participate in the Department 

of Labor or VA benefits part of TAP, that the commander knows that 

he or she should release them to do that.

 And so we share a commitment to this, and we do think that the 

transition into civilian life is very challenging for some people, and 

we want to make it as easy for them as it can be.

 We do think that the new portal is going to address many issues, 

especially for Guard and Reserve. I mean, as I travel around installations, Guard and Reserve members tell us they want to go home 

when they are demobilized. And we think that this online 24/7 access 

is going to allow them to go home and get settled; then when they 

start to think about the future they can get online with TAP, when 

they are ready to receive it. By then, they are resettled and back in 

the embrace of their communities and continue to give support that 

they want once they have returned home.

Mr. Boozman. Very good. You know, Secretary Principi was talking about the unemployment rate. We are all very concerned about 

the unemployment rate. So if you have got a strong program this way 

that everybody can participate in, then that is one of the first tools 

that we have got to work with. And not only is the unemployment 

rate so important in that sense, if we can provide individuals with 

the ability to support their families, take care of themselves, then the 

VA has so much less a problem down the line. We will save money. I

know the President is concerned about veterans’ employment, I know 

the current Secretary is very concerned. In his visit with us the Sec-
29

retary stated personally that this is something that he wants to deal 

with. I think this is the basic building block that we start with. And 

the good news is, from what I have seen, an excellent job is being 

done. We just need to make sure that everybody is able to participate 

and do it.

 Ms. Herseth.

Ms. Herseth. Thank you for all of your testimony.

 Mr. Ciccolella, you just mentioned in response to the Chairman’s 

question, the points he was making, we really need to try to get every 

servicemember through TAP. What is the rate of participation in 

TAP currently? Do we have a good way of evaluating it currently? Do 

you have the current rate of participation in TAP?

Mr. Ciccolella. Under Secretary Arsht has the numbers of the 

people who leave the service in her testimony. From our point of 

view, it is—I can’t speak for Defense but it is about 210, 220, 230 

thousand who leave active duty every year, and then you have the 

Guard and Reserve who demobilize.

 I think we get about 65 percent of them. Like Under Secretary 

Arsht said, some of these, especially the young ones, and let us talk 

about them because they are the big subject of the hearing—some 

are headed to college. Some are going to go home and work on the 

farm. And some are going to take a break after the stress of combat, 

while others are going to delay finding a job. And some are going to 

use their unemployment compensation while searching for a job, and 

that is an important benefit. And what our research is showing is 

that, if the unemployment rates of these young veterans go down at 

the 9-month mark. Well, that means that many of them, it suggests 

that many of them are using that unemployment compensation to 

find a good job. And that only makes sense. Because, you know, you 

don’t go out and buy the first car that—when you need a car, you shop 

around and you look for a car with value and the best value for your 

money. These veterans are very smart, and I think a lot of them are 

doing exactly that. It is a long-winded answer, but let me sum it up 

by saying, the most important thing that we can do for our servicemembers in terms of helping them get out of the military, make that 

“jump” to civilian employment as smooth as possible, is to get them 

into the TAP employment workshop.

Ms. Herseth. I agree, for many of the reasons you stated and the 

Chairman stated and am pleased to know, based on some of the information we acquired when we did a field hearing in South Dakota, 

that we are always looking for ways to improve these workshops to 

address the needs that are common to veterans of different ages, 

but who share information throughout these workshops. I am also 

pleased that we continue to look for ways to show the importance of 

the resume, how to translate their skills and abilities attained during 

military service to what prospective employers are looking for and 
30

how you characterize and apply those skills.

Mr. Ciccolella. You all do that great as well as anybody in South 

Dakota.

Ms. Herseth. Thank you. I appreciate that. I do have to say one 

of the other things we heard in South Dakota was perhaps different 

from the other branches. It has been a trend here over the last couple 

of years in the Air Force where there is an increased participation 

in TAP in part because there is a reduction in force going on. When 

that happens, it presents a unique opportunity to harness them and 

encourage them to participate in ways that maybe we wouldn’t see at 

other bases and other branches.

Mr. Ciccolella. The other thing you all are doing up there in 

South Dakota, in March, I went there and talked to your folks is they 

are going to start bringing employers into the TAP workshops. That 

is something that we have been pushing. It is a little touchy sometimes with the Defense Department. And of course every military 

installation, you know, has their own security issues that they are 

paying attention to. But employers are a real important addition to 

TAP, I think. Because employers will tell individuals what they are 

looking for. And what they are looking for is exactly what is in that 

TAP class.

Ms. Herseth. Very good.

Mr. Mansfield, in your testimony, I believe right at the beginning 

you explained that the VA and the National Guard Bureau signed an 

agreement to train 54 National Guard State benefits advertisers to 

act as points of contact for Guard members and their families regarding VA benefits and services. So a few questions along those lines: 

First, are they being utilized? Have you been receiving any information as to how veterans are responding to these advertisers? Do we 

need more than one in each State and territory? And then Ms. Arsht, 

perhaps you can talk about these advertisers, and do they interface 

in any way with this Turbo TAP, the new portal, and how is that being managed?

Mr. Mansfield. The initial idea came out of our early work dealing 

with National Guard units coming home with the first deployments 

and understanding right away that we had a different situation to 

deal with the active-duty forces versus the Guard or Reserve forces.

 So part of the way we thought we could approach it was to make 

sure we had a contact with the National Guard Bureau then with 

each State bureau, with the TAGs, so that we would know in VA, in 

that location, we would be notified when they knew that somebody 

was coming home. I have not been at—the last one was a vet center, two hospitals, two regional offices—anywhere in the VA traveling 

around this country where I haven’t talked to VA personnel that had 

been out to a National Guard unit on a Saturday or a weeknight or a 

drill day talking to returning units because we have learned that that 
31

is the way to get in touch with them once they get back and once they 

get into the drill period. The sergeant major or the officers, when 

approached, will allow us, our people, to come and approach them 

and be in contact; and we found out that that is the best way to do it. 

The National Guard Bureau has been very cooperative in helping us 

get that done and establish the contacts in making sure we get the 

information.

So I think it has been very beneficial in allowing us to talk faceto-face directly after they return and after they have been home, and 

then when they are back in uniform in drill to say, “here is what is 

available,” “here is what you can do.” And that is both on the benefit 

side and also, in many cases, on the health care side, what we call the 

New Hampshire model, is they actually schedule an extra day at drill 

to have these folks face-to-face with VA health care people on site. So 

we are trying to do new things that deal with a new situation.

Ms. Arsht. The whole intent of this collaboration is that all of the 

employers with a stake in this transition actually have a role, an active role in it, so the Guard Bureau has been involved with the DoD

on Turbo TAP, along with these two departments (DOL/VA). And 

the other thing is the content—is their content. In other words, this 

is just a delivery system, but really it is the content that is so valuable. And what we see at the end state is a servicemember being able 

to put in, you know, very minimal information to establish who they 

are, and then based on their military service, those things they are 

eligible for become very easy to access.

 It doesn’t replace the face-to-face support that the Secretary is 

speaking about. They really work in tandem. And so I think you 

will see ultimately that all of these pieces have been built to work 

together.

Ms. Herseth. Turbo TAP and the one-stop career centers have all 

gotten information on how to help a transitioning servicemember to 

access Turbo TAP.

Mr. Ciccolella. On the DOD transitional portal, we have links 

that make it very easy for servicemembers to find their career onestop center. And they are also briefed on that center during TAP, and 

as I said, we are going to try to actually collect some information from 

them starting next year early in the year, so that we actually send 

that information to the career one-stop centers.

Ms. Arsht. So we are trying to build interactivity between the 

three departments so all of the information dovetails for the servicemember. From their point of view, it is quite unimportant whether it 

is DOD information, VA information, or Department of Labor information. Only that it is there. And they can access it.

Ms. Herseth. Okay.

Just a final question and request. The question, and I am sure 

you may have anticipated this, both for Mr. Mansfield and Ms. Arsht, 
32

based on some of the questions that we’re all posing to the first panel 

and our interest in the Montgomery GI Bill and the modernization 

efforts, and I think you know of Dr. Snyder, who serves on this Committee, as well as Armed Services and his interest in this based on 

the hearing, the joint hearing that we had just a few months ago, 

but could you provide us today with a progress update regarding the 

DOD VA task force on the total force GI Bill initiative? It was originally due last summer, and then it would come into the fall and then 

we heard at the joint hearing that it would be some time this coming 

spring. Do you have any kind of update that you can provide us with 

today?

Ms. Arsht. Only to say that the work continues, that it would be 

premature today for us to be able to report anything more than that.

Ms. Herseth. But you are still on track to try to get it to us in the 

spring?

Mr. Mansfield. The JEC Committee meets quarterly. The last 

two meetings this has been briefed to the leadership of the JEC and 

then the workgroup has been sent back for a few minor corrections. 

But I think we are getting pretty close to a final product from the 

workgroup. But it is under the radar scope of myself and Dr. Chu. 

And, again, it is one of those where we are trying to balance some 

interests.

Ms. Herseth. I understand. My final request would be, as we 

move into the 110th Congress—and clearly, we have made a lot of 

progress with your help. Secretary Principi identified implementing a lot of the recommendations from the Commission report. I am 

hopeful that each of your agencies will be willing to work with the 

subcommittee and identifying the remaining recommendations and 

the best strategy of going about implementing those, particularly if, 

as we have more conversations, it is deemed important and perhaps 

necessary to authorize another commission, that we finish the work 

of the prior one, so hopefully, we will be able to undertake that in the 

upcoming weeks.

Mr. Mansfield. One point is, my folks here mentioned that the 

number that sign up for the Montgomery GI Bill is around 93 percent, and the number that uses it is now increased up into the 70s. 

So that is a serious increase over a period of 8 to 10 years. It used to 

be in the 47, 50, 51 percent area. So that is a good sign.

Ms. Arsht. I actually did have the numbers; 2.9 million have 

signed up since October, which is up slightly from my written statement, and the numbers eligible are 3.8 million.

Ms. Herseth. TAP?

Ms. Arsht. I thought we were talking GI Bill.

Ms. Herseth. We are.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you. Just a couple of things real quick. 

 I mentioned to the former Secretary about the DVOPS/LVER pro-
33

gram. Is there a need to tweakit somewhat? Can you give us any 

suggestions in that regard?

Mr. Ciccolella. Absolutely. I don’t think it is out of date. The 

Jobs For Veterans Act, I thought, did a very good job in terms of clarifying the rules of the DVOP and the LVER. I think that is very, very 

smart the way it is laid out. LVERs do TAP, and they do outreach to 

business, and so we have got to make sure that that is what they do. 

And DVOP should be focused on intensive services for disabled veterans and veterans who have barriers to employment, and they should 

be focused on job development and job accommodation. So consistent 

with the Committee’s intent, when you all wrote H.R. 3082, that is 

how we are gearing the training at NVTI for those individuals.

 Now what is obsolete or may be obsolete are the titles of the DVOP

and LEVR because some States don’t even use those titles. They call 

them Veteran employment representatives or something like that.

 The program always needs tweaking, and it always needs monitoring and supervision.

Mr. Boozman. Chairman Principi also recommended in his testimony about reinstating the national—President’s National Hire Veterans Committee. Do you all have a comment about that? And if so, 

would you do it in a different way than it was done before or—

Mr. Ciccolella. I thought the Committee was a great idea. It 

served out a very important purpose. It sunsets after 3 years. Based 

on this Committee’s legislative intent, which is the functions of the 

Hire Vets First Committee, the President’s Hire Vets Committee have 

actually been incorporated into the advisory Committee for veterans’ 

employment and training. And it is now the veterans’ employment 

and training, education and outreach Committee.

 The only thing that I would say is, as a practical matter, is if we reinstate the President’s Hire Vets First Committee, it would be better 

if that Committee also provided the advice to the Secretary and the 

education and the outreach. This way, we would not need two Committees. Because then we must support two Committees. And these 

Committees are very expensive. They do good work, don’t get me 

wrong. They do great work. But administratively supporting them 

and the travel and all of that sort of stuff, it is expensive and there is 

a little duplication there, too. So no objection whatsoever.

Mr. Boozman. Again, I want to thank you all so much for coming 

over and testifying. It was very helpful, as always. I want to commend you, commend your staffs. It has really been an honor working 

with you all. And that is one of the neat things about being in positions, where you really do go beyond the superficial and understand 

these things and deal with our staffs, deal with your staffs, us dealing 

with you all is a good thing, and like I say, we appreciate your efforts 

for veterans.

 The other thing is that it is Pearl Harbor Day, and that is a very 
34

special thing. My dad was 17 years old, and certainly that disrupted 

his life immensely. He had just joined the National Guard and got 

activated, and that generation did a tremendous job with what they 

were supposed to do, being called to duty and serving their countries 

along with their families, and then as those of us get out in the course 

of being on Veterans’ Affairs and other Committees and seeing the 

tremendous jobs that our service men and women are doing right 

now, I know that generation is very proud of them. Thank you all.

 The Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(35)

APPENDIX
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102