U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

86–876PDF 2003

H.R. 4015, JOBS FOR VETERANS ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 18, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 107–26

(
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

BOB STUMP, Arizona

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana

JACK QUINN, New York

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

HOWARD P. (BUCK) MCKEON, California

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

JEFF MILLER, Florida

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

LANE EVANS, Illinois

BOB FILNER, California

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

RONNIE SHOWS, Mississippi

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

PATRICK E. RYAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman

JACK QUINN, New York

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

JEFF MILLER, Florida

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

LANE EVANS, Illinois

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

April 18, 2002

Page

H.R. 4015, Jobs for Veterans Act ........................................................................... 1

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Simpson .................................................................................................. 1

Hon. Silvestre Reyes ................................................................................................ 2

Hon. Ander Crenshaw ............................................................................................. 10

Hon. Lane Evans, prepared statement of .............................................................. 90

WITNESSES

Beagle, Dennis, New York State Public Employees Federation .......................... 29

Prepared statement of Mr. Beagle .................................................................. 124

Blake, Carl, Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America ..... 43

Prepared statement of Mr. Blake .................................................................... 165

Hall, Rex, Chairman, Veterans’ Advisory Committee, National Association

of State Workforce Agencies ................................................................................ 14

Prepared statement of Mr. Hall ...................................................................... 95

Jones, Richard, National Legislative Director, AMVETS .................................... 35

Prepared statement of Mr. Jones .................................................................... 141

Juarbe, Jr., Frederico, Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and

Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor; accompanied by Charles S.

Ciccolella, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans’ Employment and Training

Service; Stanley Seidel, Director of the Office of Operations and Programs,

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service; Ronald Bachman, Director

of Strategic Planning, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service; Ronald

Drach, Special Assistant for Strategic Planning and Legislative Matters,

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. ................................................... 11

Prepared statement of Mr. Juarbe .................................................................. 91

Madsen, Roger, Director, Idaho Department of Labor ......................................... 17

Prepared statement of Mr. Madsen ................................................................ 103

Magill, James N., Director, National Employment Policy, Veterans of Foreign

Wars ...................................................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement of Mr. Magill ................................................................... 139

Mayfield, Ken, President-elect, National Association of Counties ....................... 20

Prepared statement of Mr. Mayfield ............................................................... 113

O’Mahoney, T.P., Commissioner Representing Labor, Texas Workforce Commission .................................................................................................................. 19

Prepared statement of Mr. O’Mahoney ........................................................... 109

Poriotis, Wesley, Chief Executive Officer, Wesley, Brown & Barle Company,

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement of Mr. Poriotis ................................................................ 126

Robertson, Steve, Legislative Director, The American Legion ............................. 37

Prepared statement of Mr. Robertson ............................................................. 146

Weidman, Rick, Director of Government Relations, Vietnam Veterans of

America ................................................................................................................. 40

Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman ............................................................. 154

Wyngaard, Bruce, Operations Director, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11 ....................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement of Mr. Wyngaard ............................................................ 121
Page

IV

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Article:

A copy of NASWA policy statement entitled, ‘‘Statement of Principles

& Consensus Positions’’, submitted by Rex Hall, Chairman, Veterans’

Advisory Committee, National Association of State Workforce Agencies 100

Bill:

H.R. 4015, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise and

improve employment, training, and placement services furnished to

veterans, and for other purposes ................................................................. 45

Chart:

Table 1: Employment status of persons by veteran status, age, race,

Hispanic-origin, and sex, prepared by Bureau of Labor Statistics,

March 2002, submitted by Congressman Reyes ......................................... 4

Statements:

Disabled American Veterans ........................................................................... 174

Janice Pointer, Director, Workforce New Jersey ........................................... 172

Capt. Thomas M. Hale, USN (ret.), Senior Vice President, Resource Consultants, Inc. (RCI) ....................................................................................... 176
(1)

H.R. 4015, JOBS FOR VETERANS ACT

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:06 a.m., in room

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Michael K. Simpson

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Simpson, Reyes, Crenshaw, Evans, Miller, and Davis.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The committee will come to order. Good morning.

I apologize for being a few minutes late. It’s a long way from the

Senate, and a hot day out there, already.

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing on H.R. 4015, the

Jobs for Veterans Act.

The photos from Sunday’s April 7 Washington Times that are

here, positioned on the easel beside me, depict very well why the

subcommittee has drafted today’s bipartisan legislation.

The first photo shows our U.S. Army infantry and Afghan forces

last month, attacking caves suspected of holding al Qaeda and

Taliban fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan.

The second photo shows our Army airborne assault troops

performing an emergency evacuation exercise at Edwin Andrews

Air Base in the Philippines, as part of a joint counter-terrorism

initiative.

This bill is for them, and for all Americans, sons and daughters

like them, who will need jobs when they return home from their

military service. It’s that simple.

Before turning to my friend, Mr. Reyes, I want to thank the

many organizations and individuals who, over the past 30 months,

have helped the subcommittee to get to the point of a hearing on

today’s bill including, but certainly not limited to: former subcommittee chairman Jack Quinn and ranking member Bob Filner,

who worked very hard on an earlier version of this bill; the bipartisan Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans

Transition Assistance, chaired by Anthony Principi and the commission’s employment panel, chaired by Ronald Drach, then of the

Disabled American Veterans; the National Association of State

Workforce Agencies; the Vietnam Veterans of America; Miss America 2000, Heather French; and Chairman Christopher Smith and
2

ranking member Lane Evans, with whom Mr. Reyes and I worked

in drafting this bill.

I would also like to note attending today’s hearing is the very

first Assistant Secretary of Veterans’ Employment and Training,

Mr. William Plowden of South Carolina, who served with distinction in that position under President Ronald Reagan.

Secretary Plowden, welcome. It’s an honor to have you with us,

sir. And I turn to Mr. Reyes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES

Mr. REYES. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

I want to thank all the witnesses who will be testifying here

today, and those who have submitted testimony for the record,

because your suggestions and comments will be given careful consideration and thought as the bill moves through the legislative

process.

The subject of our hearing is H.R. 4015, the Jobs for Veterans

Act. I am an original co-sponsor of this important legislation. And

when enacted, this measure will result in increased and improved

job placements for veterans who use the public labor exchange and

receive assistance from Disabled Veterans Programs Outreach, and

the Local Veterans Employment Representatives.

Mr. Juarbe, I want to especially welcome you to your first hearing before the Subcommittee on Benefits as the Assistant Secretary

of Labor for Veterans Employment and Training. Welcome, sir.

Most of your prepared statement addresses an administration

budget proposal to transfer certain responsibilities from the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service—or, as we call it, VETS—

to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

As you know, the administration has not yet submitted this proposed legislation to Congress. As the subject of today’s hearing on

H.R. 4015, I invite your oral testimony, and that of other witnesses, to address the bill before the subcommittee today.

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly disturbed that current data

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates a very high rate of

unemployment for young male veterans, especially minority

veterans.

I request that a copy of this data be made a part of the official

hearing record.

Mr. SIMPSON. Without objection.

Mr. REYES. In March 2002, male veterans ages 20 to 24 had an

unemployment rate of 26 percent, compared to 12 percent for all

males. For African-Americans, the rate was 54 percent, and for

Hispanic veterans, 30 percent. I hope that by providing more flexibility to the states, intensive services will be directed to these particular veteran groups.

(The information follows:)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Mr. REYES. I am puzzled by the allegation of unconstitutionality

in the bill’s criteria for Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Veterans’ Employment.

It is my understanding that the committee intends to assure that

this important position is filled by a career government employee,

and I certainly hope so. I fail to see how the congressional establishment of criteria for a position created by congressional action

would violate our constitution.

I am concerned that there is not yet accurate data to obtain

meaningful information concerning the effectiveness of the VETS

program. The high unemployment rates for young male veterans

suggests to me that we can, and should, do more do improve this

critical situation. I hope that the new state performance measures

mentioned in Mr. Juarbe’s testimony will enable us to obtain more

accurate and meaningful information concerning the effectiveness

of VETS.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership, and I

look forward to hearing today’s testimony.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. Mr. Crenshaw.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANDER CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you

for the legislation that’s before the subcommittee today, thank you

for holding the hearing. I also want to thank the assistant secretary for being here, and for all the members of each of these panels before the subcommittee today.

Mr. Chairman, the men and women of our armed services are

some of the most disciplined, well-trained individuals in the world.

They know what it is to work as a team, to stay on task, set a goal,

and work until the goal is accomplished. That’s everything that an

employer is looking for in an employee.

And these attributes are not lost once they’re a veteran of the

armed services, either. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see legislation with the intent to revise and improve access to high-quality career training, services, and counseling for veterans.

We need these extraordinary men and women in the labor force,

and we, in this committee and in the Congress, need to do whatever is possible to facilitate that. So, I look forward to hearing the

testimony and concerns of our guests here this morning.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to work with them and the

members of the committee, as this bill moves through the process.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Crenshaw. Our first panel is, obviously, already seated at the table. We have the Honorable

Frederico Juarbe, Assistant Secretary of Veterans’ Employment

and Training Services, accompanied by the Honorable Charles

Ciccolella, Mr. Stanley Seidel, Mr. Ronald Bachman, Mr. Ronald

Drach.

Welcome to today’s hearing. We look forward to your testimony.

And whenever you’re ready, Mr. Juarbe.
11

STATEMENT OF FREDERICO JUARBE, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ACCOMPANIED BY

CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE; STANLEY SEIDEL, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF OPERATIONS

AND PROGRAMS, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

SERVICE; RONALD BACHMAN, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC

PLANNING, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE; RONALD DRACH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR STRATEGIC

PLANNING AND LEGISLATIVE MATTERS, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE.

Mr. JUARBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members

of the subcommittee, and good morning. I am pleased that my first

appearance before this subcommittee is to testify about improving

employment and training programs for America’s veterans.

We appreciate the keen interest of the subcommittee in helping

to move veterans’ employment and training services into the 21st

century by removing many of the statutory road blocks which have

stalled improvement efforts in the past. I commend the committee

for its perseverance, and by staying on course and moving us

forward.

You have asked for my comments on H.R. 4015, the bipartisan

proposal put forward by the committee. I will give them gladly.

And, as the subcommittee is aware, the administration also has

a proposal for improving employment services to veterans that will

be introduced in the near future. That proposal reflects the core

principles of competitive performance-based funding, as the best

way to improve services to veterans.

I believe that when we have the benefit of discussing each of the

proposals, when all options are considered, that you will agree that

veterans will, in the end, benefit. This is because both proposals

are focused on the same goal: to remove the legislative road blocks

that have tied veterans’ employment and training programs and

services to the past.

Your efforts are a continuation of the process begun by Congress

to improve veterans services when it created the commission on

servicemembers transition. There is little doubt that change is necessary. Otherwise, we would not be here today.

There is also little doubt that the employment system for veterans needs to be results-based, and provide an integrated, seamless

continuum of services to veterans. Both proposals have involved extensive consultation with all important stakeholders and service

providers.

Both proposals include increased flexibility in bringing the responsibility for delivering services closer to the local level, where

our veterans live and work.

The need for increased responsibility, both in meeting local conditions and administering funds in a manner that is—that best

meets the needs of veterans is a message that I consistently hear

from all our partners.

Both proposals incorporate incentive awards into the grants process. I believe this is another step in the right direction. And both
12

proposals recognize the important role employers play in the employment and training areas.

The President’s National Hire Veterans Committee could increase employer awareness and help narrow the skills gap between

military and civilian occupational requirements, which will be helpful in addressing the issue of underemployment among veterans.

These are just some of the reasons why I am confident the process that we have embarked upon will yield positive results that will

benefit veterans for years to come. And that is why, Mr. Chairman,

we also feel it is important that the administration’s proposal

should be considered, along with H.R. 4015, before any final decisions are made.

I look forward to working with this committee, and all other

stakeholders who are as determined as I am to help veterans succeed in the American economy.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will

try to answer any questions that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Juarbe appears on p. 91.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Juarbe. First, let me ask, with respect to the administration’s proposal, do you have any time frame

of when that would be before Congress? As you know, we’re moving

along at a relatively rapid clip in this session, and if anything is

going to get through, it needs to be considered relatively quickly.

Mr. JUARBE. I understand, Mr. Chairman, and the administration is very much aware of that, and they are moving very quickly;

it’s going through the clearance process at present, and we expect

that it should be introduced to Congress within the very near

future.

Mr. SIMPSON. We look forward to seeing that proposal. I want to

thank you, also, for noting in your testimony that you submitted

to us that the performance incentives awards that the subcommittee creates in this bill certainly are not just for the states that perform the best in placing veterans in jobs; it’s for the states that

have not been performing well, too, but show demonstrable

improvements.

And that’s an important aspect, I think, of any type of incentive

that we put in place. We may agree or disagree on whether having

negative incentives is an incentive also—and I don’t know what

your bill would have—but ours is for those states that are performing well, and for those that show demonstrable improvement, also.

With respect to the staffing for the President’s National Hire

Veterans Committee, our bipartisan bill limits staffing to former

ASVETS staff, former DVETS and ASVETS, and former DVOPs

and LVERs.

Inasmuch as some of the current DVETS, ASVETS, DVOPs and

LVERs would like to culminate their career, so to speak, by working on the staff of the President’s National Hire Veterans Committee, would it be helpful to make them eligible to serve on the small

national staff of the President’s committee, also?

Mr. JUARBE. Yes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I don’t have any other questions. Mr.

Reyes?

Mr. REYES. I’ve got one important question. Mr. Juarbe, in your

testimony, you raise questions about the constitutionality of cri-
13

teria of this bill for appointment as deputy assistant secretary of

labor for VETS.

Has the Department of Labor solicited or issued any opinion as

to the constitutionality of such criteria?

Mr. JUARBE. I believe the constitutionality of the statute governing appointment of the United States trade representatives is the

precedent that addresses that. This is the 1996—I have it referenced here, that I can provide for the record, Mr. Reyes. It’s the

office of the legislative council that has provided this information.

Mr. REYES. Well, there are a couple of decisions. One is Myers

v. the United States, where the court found that there is to be no

conflict with a legislative power to prescribe qualifications for office, or reasonable classification for promotion.

This has provided that the qualifications legislated do not so

limit selection, and so intrench upon executive choice as to be, in

effect, legislative designation. That’s Myers v. the United States. In 22 U.S.C. section 3928, the appointment of the director general of the Foreign Service contains a qualification that the appointee be a former career member of the Foreign Service. Are you

aware of these citations and provisions?

Mr. JUARBE. I personally am not, Mr. Reyes. And if I may, I

would like to consult with our solicitor and provide a response to

that for the record.

Mr. REYES. Okay. That would be acceptable. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. Mr. Crenshaw?

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just one question. Do you know—you know,

under the provisions of this bill and the administration’s bill, do

you know how many states will qualify for the incentives for the

high levels of performance, and then how many states would be penalized? Do you know that ahead of time, at this point?

Mr. JUARBE. I don’t have that information at this point.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Does that kind of come after you kind of look at

all the information and see how—— Mr. JUARBE. Yes, Mr. Crenshaw.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. SIMPSON. If there are no other questions—Mr. Evans, did

you?

Mr. EVANS. No, no questions.

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you have any questions or an opening statement that you would like to include?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, I would like to include my opening remarks in

the record.

Mr. SIMPSON. Without objection.

[The statement of Hon. Lane Evans appears on p. 90.]

Mr. SIMPSON. If there are no other questions, we thank you for

your testimony today, and for your written testimony. We look forward to working with you and the administration when they submit their proposal, and working out the differences in the two if we

can, or having a discussion on which one would be most beneficial.

Mr. JUARBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to that.

Mr. SIMPSON. Would the second panel come forward? Mr. Rex

Hall, the chairman of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee, the National Association of State Workforce Agencies; Mr. Roger Madsen,
14

director of the Idaho Department of Labor; Mr. T.P. O’Mahoney,

Commissioner Representing Labor, Texas Workforce Commission;

and Mr. Ken Mayfield, president-elect of the National Association

of Counties.

I welcome all of you to the committee this morning, and I look

forward to your testimony and your input on this legislation. We

will start with Mr. Rex Hall, the chairman of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee, National Association of State Workforce Agencies.

STATEMENTS OF REX HALL, CHAIRMAN, VETERANS’ ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE

WORKFORCE AGENCIES; ROGER MADSEN, DIRECTOR, IDAHO

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; T.P. O’MAHONEY, COMMISSIONER

REPRESENTING LABOR, TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION;

AND KEN MAYFIELD, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES

STATEMENT OF REX HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am

Rex Hall, assistant director of program operations for the Missouri

division of workforce development. And as chair of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, Veterans’ Affairs Committee,

it is a pleasure to be here today to testify before this body.

NASWA is the national organization of state officials responsible

for the administration of workforce development programs through

the Nations’ employment service, veteran employment and training

programs, unemployment insurance system, labor market information programs, and, in almost all states, job training programs.

Our members are the lead officials in implementing the Workforce Investment Act, which Congress passed in August of 1998.

NASWA is grateful for the opportunities it has been provided

over the years to work closely with this subcommittee, whether

through the delivery of testimony, participation in numerous legislative working sessions, or through the willingness of subcommittee

staff to meet with the members of our Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

It is readily apparent that our collaboration on this issue has not

gone unheeded, as there exists within the Jobs for Veterans Act

many of the guiding themes we use when renewing and formulating positions on proposed legislation.

I would like to briefly express our four guiding principles and use

them to highlight our comments on H.R. 4015. I would also like to

submit these copies of our principles for the record, if I might.

Mr. SIMPSON. Without objection.

(The information appears on p. 100.)

Mr. HALL. First, successful veterans employment and training

programs require an adequate level of funding.

Second, veterans employment programs must be fully integrated

into the one-stop delivery system formalized by enactment of the

Workforce Investment Act. Integration also includes creation of

uniform performance measures, and rewarding good performance.

Third, states must be given flexibility to design and administer

systems which meet the needs of their veterans labor force.
15

Finally, integration of veterans workforce needs within the workforce delivery system created by WIA requires continuity of federal

requirements.

With respect to language in section 4215 that expands priority

to any qualified job training program, we believe that this will create undue confusion within the workforce investment system.

While we agree, in principle, that veterans deserve special recognition for their service to the country, practically speaking, it

may be difficult to impose a new service priority on existing locallydetermined programs such as WIA, which has empowered state

and local boards to determine who is most in need of service, and

how to deliver services to those most in need.

Rather than mandating veterans priority in these programs, we

encourage you, instead, to support adequate funding for section 168

of WIA, which provides for training programs targeted to veterans.

We welcome the establishment of an incentive program that rewards states for good performance. The legislation directs the Secretary of Labor to establish a comprehensive performance accountability system that is better aligned with the newly aligned Workforce Investment Act measures, and that is appropriately weighted

to provide special consideration for placement of veterans with

multiple barriers.

We would like to see language strengthened to ensure that the

states are full partners in the development of this new performance

accountability system.

We have questions and concerns about the new grant formula

that is contained in the proposed legislation. We are also concerned

that the formula can seriously impact the states’ ability to maintain continuity of services. Unemployment rate periods, as they increase, could have an impact on how the formula plays in the

states. So, we feel that a hold-harmless provision, especially for

small states, is needed.

At the same time, we recognize that the current statutory allocation is not being requested by the administration, or funded by

Congress. We would like to work with the subcommittee in developing a formula that addresses these concerns, and takes into account the various factors of the economy and of this program.

The legislation requires a state to employ such full or part-time

DVOPs and LVERs as the state determines appropriate and efficient to carry out the services outlined in the statute. We recognize

that these provisions are intended to make sure that states

continue to have staff in place to provide staff-assisted services to

veterans.

However, we feel that it is important to point out that the states’

ability to have appropriate number of staff to carry out these services is limited by the amount of funds that Congress appropriates.

Adequate funding is necessary for states to provide appropriate and

effective services nationwide.

We support the provisions in the bill that allow states to hire

full-time and part-time DVOPs, as well as LVER staff. While not

addressed in this legislation, we think it’s important, again, to

stress the need for making the DVOP and LVER grant process consistent with that of other employment and training programs.
16

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman

and the ranking member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee

for writing to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee

and the director of OMB, asking that the DVOP and LVER programs be switched to the program year funding cycle.

This change was proposed in the President’s Fiscal Year 2003

budget request. However, we believe it should also be reflected in

Title 38.

NASWA’s members believe that federal legislation and regulation should outline the types of services to be provided under the

law. However, specific job duties should be left to the discretion of

the state.

While the bill does eliminate the long list of job duties for the

DVOPs and LVERs that are currently in title 38, it gives the Secretary of Labor the power to determine these duties. We would prefer that the bill leave the actual job duties up to the states to determine, and instead, include only the types of services to be provided

under law, similar to the other one-stop staff under WIA and Wagner Peyser.

We are also concerned that the proposed legislation appears to

give USDOL/VETS additional oversight and monitoring of DVOP

and LVER staff. In particular, the legislation states in two separate sections that a director for veterans employment and training

for a state may play a role in the annual performance rating of

DVOPs and LVERs.

We strongly object to this level of oversight, because it is unnecessary, and creates an ultimate office culture where the state employed DVOPs and LVERs are accountable to their state employer,

yet are also overseen by a federal employee. We believe that any

oversight or monitoring by federal staff should be in line with other

WIA programs.

We note that the legislation continues the use of the comparison

of performance between veterans and non-veterans. In the recent

report on performance measures by GAO, they commended VETS

for the steps that it had taken to change the performance measures

for the program.

GAO stated that it supported moving away from the veteran versus non-veteran comparison. We also agree that this comparison

should be eliminated.

The world of the publicly funded workforce development system

is an ever-evolving environment, with changes occurring at a rapid

pace. Title 38, chapters 41 and 42, which establish the veterans

employment and training system were written over a quarter of a

century ago, when one-on-one service was the norm, and programs

were funded at a level that allowed this type of personal service for

all job seekers.

Legislative and prescriptive service delivery systems which are

outdated and outmoded must change, if we truly want to provide

our customers with the types of service that they truly deserve: efficient and convenient locations, and services that have value.

Again, on behalf of the states, we commend the subcommittee for

conducting an open process in gathering input on this legislation.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee,

and look forward to continuing our working relationship with the
17

committee and its staff as we bring the veterans employment programs into the 21st century. I will be happy to answer questions.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Hall.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall appears on p. 95.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Madsen, welcome. I understand it’s snowing in

Idaho.

Mr. MADSEN. Yes. A lot of snow in Blackfoot, ID—about 5 or 6

inches, I believe. Very cold there.

Mr. SIMPSON. As I ran over from the Senate today, I wished I

was in Idaho. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF ROGER MADSEN

Mr. MADSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the

subcommittee. My name is Roger Madsen, I am Director of the

Idaho Department of Labor, and former chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee of the National Association of State Workforce

Agencies.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members, for the opportunity to

comment on the Jobs for Veterans Act. I appreciate the committee’s

commitment to enhancing employment and training opportunities

for our veterans, and helping us bring these skilled workers together with our business and other employers.

It is gratifying to see that some of the ideas discussed during the

testimony last October are present in this bill. I want to thank you

for allowing half-time DVOPs your support NVTI, and the national

study to demonstrate the benefits of our programs.

I hope we can continue to work together to build an employment

and training service for veterans that responds to their needs, the

needs of our business customers and our local communities.

I know, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, that you

share these goals for this program, and I applaud the work you

have done toward that end.

That said, we are concerned with what appears to be an underlying philosophy in the bill to invest an increased level of control and

oversight at the federal level, lessening state options regarding the

needs and appropriate services for our veterans. We find that to be

inconsistent with true and effective integration of the veterans programs into the one-stop system in our state.

We encourage you to enact legislation which empowers the Secretary to delineate desired program outcomes, and empowers the

states to determine program design to achieve those outcomes.

Hold us accountable to achieve the desired results, but allow us

reasonable discretion to determine how to do that most effectively

within our state’s one-stop system.

I wish to address several specific topics which appear in the bill.

Section 2 of the bill proposes priority service for veterans in all Department of Labor-funded employment and training programs.

While we agree that veterans deserve special recognition for

their service to the country, practically speaking, it may be difficult

to impose a new service priority on existing locally-determined programs such as WIA, which has empowered state and local boards

to determine who is most in need in service, and how to deliver

services to those most in need.
18

We support the original intent of Congress, that these programs

be locally designed to address local needs. Having said that, I realize that this is the Veteran’s Affairs Committee.

Section 3 of the bill proposes performance incentive awards for

quality service. While we support the concepts of accountability,

performance measurement, and incentives, we have strong reservations about the award criteria proposed in the bill. We are concerned that the performance measures are patterned after those in

the Workforce Investment Act, which have proven to be ineffective

for program management, as they are confusing, untimely, and

based upon incomplete data.

We recommend, instead, that the Secretary be directed to work

with the states as full partners in developing outcome-based measures which are meaningful for the system, and practical to

implement.

We appreciate that in section 4, this bill strikes the outdated job

description for local veterans employment representatives, and disabled veterans outreach program staff.

However, we do not believe it is necessary or advisable for the

Secretary to determine the appropriate duties for a state to assign

to their DVOP or LVER staff. We respectfully request that this

concept be removed from the bill.

We are concerned that performance measures for veterans employment training staff includes state employees and that DVETS

are given direct input into individual annual performance ratings.

We believe that this proposal gives USDOL/VETS additional and

unnecessary oversight of DVOP and LVER staff. We believe that

the federal oversight role is most appropriate when it functions at

the grant level.

We recommend legislation that encourages negotiated outcome

goals for each state’s grant in which the grantee, the state, bears

the responsibility for developing and implementing an action plan

to achieve those outcomes. Performance of individual state employees, or LVER and DVOP staff are, rightfully, the state’s responsibility, not that of the federal staff. We strongly oppose this aspect

of the legislation, and respectfully respect it be reconsidered.

We applaud and support many of the key aspects of this bill, and

believe they will help to enhance the employment and training

services provided to veterans in Idaho. However, in its present

form, in many respects, this bill has the potential to be more prescriptive and intrusive into state and local-level program design

and implementation than even the current legislation.

We are concerned this may inhibit much-needed flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to local labor market demands, and

to maximize services to our veteran population.

We ask the committee to work with the states in refining some

aspects of the legislation, and in defining a true federal/state partnership for effective administration and implementation of these

very important and much-needed veterans employment and training services.

Again, on a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend

you and the committee. I think there is a tremendous relationship

that has developed between you and the members of the subcommittee, and the members of your staffs in working out this very
19

important piece of legislation, which will be helpful to our veterans

throughout the country. Thank you.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Roger.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Madsen appears on p. 103.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. O’Mahoney.

STATEMENT OF T.P. O’MAHONEY

Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

my name is Terry O’Mahoney, I’m the commissioner representing

labor for the Texas Workforce Commission, the agency responsible

for workforce employment and training in the State of Texas.

I am pleased and honored to be with you again to support several

of the enhancements for employment and training services to veterans contained in the Jobs for Veterans Act. I have submitted my

full written testimony to the committee for the record.

As a former U.S. Marine Corps major and naval aviator, I admire and respect the sacrifices that members of our armed forces

everywhere have made in serving our country. Keeping veterans

issues in the forefront is important, and I commend this committee

for its efforts on behalf of veterans nationwide.

As you know, since the enactment of the Workforce Investment

Act, the employment and training systems have dramatically

changed to better meet the needs of both employers and job seekers. The cornerstone of this new system is local control, accompanied by flexibility and integration of programs to deliver highquality services to a universal population.

I would like to address a few of the major components of the Jobs

for Veterans Act. The move from prescriptive detailed functions for

the federal staff and state DVOP and LVER staff is a much-needed

and welcome change. However, some duties are still present for

LVER staff. And from my view, it would be best to specify these

in a grant process, rather than in law.

I am concerned that the bill contains language granting federal

control over state staff, specifically calling all individuals delivering

service to veterans under this title, including state employees, veterans, and employment training staff, and allowing the state director of DOL/VETS to submit comments on individual DVOP and

LVER performance.

If we are the operators, give us the mission, and let us do our

job. We willingly accept the responsibility, and welcome accountability. I think it is important to point out that none of the other

Department of Labor programs retain the state level presence of

federal staff, as it is mandated for the VETS program.

I applaud the committee’s stance on rewarding success. Performance incentives do work, and I am pleased that an incentive package is included in the legislation.

The proposed legislation expands veterans priority to any qualified employment and training program under the Department of

Labor. I support the intent to prioritize veterans in the current systems. However, with a variety of training programs available

today, I am concerned that this will lead to confusion in service

delivery.

Additionally, within WIA, section 168 provides a veteran-only

training program, and I would suggest that additional funding to
20

section 168 programs could provide the proper emphasis on training to veterans.

While not addressed by this legislation, I believe it is important

to again stress the need for making DVOP and LVER grant funding cycle consistent with that of other employment and training

programs. I know you are already working on this, and I want to

thank you for writing the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Office of Management and Budgets on this issue.

This concludes my specific comments on the proposed legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to

the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, and its veterans affairs committee, for its outstanding efforts in working with

the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, DOL-VETS, and veterans

organizations in other states.

I welcome the opportunity to work with you, and all our partners, to develop a structure that enhances and improves services

to veterans. I will happy to answer any questions from the committee. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Mahoney appears on p. 109.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you very much. Could you pronounce your

name again?

Mr. O’MAHONEY. O’Mahoney.

Mr. SIMPSON. O’Mahoney. Very well done. Okay. O’Mahoney. I

understand how pronouncing last names can sometimes get confusing. During the O.J. Simpson trial, they pronounced that all sorts

of ways. In fact, they called him things I didn’t even recognize.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Mayfield?

STATEMENT OF KEN MAYFIELD

Mr. MAYFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And by the way, I

hear O’Mayfield all the time, but that’s not my name.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for

inviting me to testify on this important issue. My name is Kenneth

Mayfield, and I am an elected county commissioner from Dallas

County, Texas, and I currently serve as president-elect of the National Association of Counties.

As you know, every county in America is involved in the delivery

of workforce development services to our citizens. We provide these

services under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, and under

the guidance of the U.S. Department of Labor, and the states.

Every county in America must be a part of the single county or

multi-county workforce investment area through which individuals

may obtain job training and employment assistance.

NACO believes that veterans, like all others, should have access

to the kinds of training and employment assistance that will ensure that they are gainfully employed citizens.

We further believe that the system developed under the Workforce Investment Act is the most productive and logical way by

which to provide employment and training services. For these reasons, the focus of my comments will be on your efforts to strengthen the relationship between the Workforce Investment Act and employment and training services for veterans.
21

The National Association of Counties believes that the proposal

that you have set forth in H.R. 4015 will enable veterans, like all

other Americans, to receive the workforce development services

they deserve. We believe that, overall, this is an excellent proposal,

and should move forward.

Before responding directly to your legislative proposal, I would

like to share with you the reasons that we believe the Workforce

Investment Act is the vehicle by which to deliver workforce development services to all Americans, including veterans.

As you may know, the workforce development services that are

provided at the county level are provided through a partnership between county elected officials and local workforce investment

boards, or WIBs. The local workforce investment boards are controlled by business representatives, and chaired by a member of

the business community.

The purpose of this partnership is to ensure that local elected officials who are accountable for federal, state, and local funds, and

representatives of the business community, who understand the

labor and employment markets within their areas, are involved in

the direct delivery of workforce development services to all individuals in need of assistance.

Local business leaders best know what types of jobs are emerging

within their local area, and what types of training would ensure

that individuals are properly qualified for employment.

In my own county, we have an outstanding workforce development system. Working with the business community, our workforce

development system is designed to provide a wide range of services

to all of our residents, regardless of their employment status, workforce experience, or educational levels.

These services include, but are not limited to, employment services, food stamps, employment and training, employment services

for unemployment insurance recipients, training and support services for individuals affected by layoffs or imports from Canada or

Mexico, access to child care, and employment and training for

veterans.

In addition, our workforce development system provides individuals with access to a wide range of other services, including housing, transportation, and emergency assistance.

Known as WorkSource for Dallas County, the program operates

out of 10 one-stop centers located throughout the county. Veterans,

like all citizens, need to have access to the widest range of training,

employment, and support services to ensure that they obtain career-oriented and productive employment, and the other type of assistance that ensures success on the job.

These include follow-up counseling and monitoring, career counseling, assistance accessing other county, state, and federal human

services and human resources programs, and of course, job

training.

This bill would make consistent the provisions of title 38, United

States Code, with the provisions of the Workforce Investment Act

that broadens eligibility to add veterans with significant barriers

to employment, and veterans who served on active duty during a

war or campaign.
22

However, throughout the United States, veterans are not always

receiving the kinds of training and employment services you want

them to receive. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee,

we believe that veterans should have access to the same high-level

services as all other Americans through the Workforce Investment

Act, and its one-stop system.

H.R. 4015 would achieve this outcome. It would ensure that both

core and intensive job training services are available to veterans.

The core services, job search assistance, and counseling would be

supplemented with job training assistance provided through the

Workforce Investment Act.

H.R. 4015 would also require that services be offered through a

service delivery system where a broad range of services may be offered, such as the Workforce Investment Act one-stops. To ensure

that this does happen, we would urge you to amend page 36, line

20, by adding, between the words ‘‘employment’’ and ‘‘services’’ the

words ‘‘and training.’’ Thus, section 5(c)1 should read, in general, section 4101(7) is

amended to read as follows: ‘‘(7) The term ’employment service delivery system’ means a service delivery system through which labor

exchange services, including employment and training services, are

offered in a manner consistent with the provision of such labor exchange services, in accordance with the Wagner Peyser Act.’’ This bill, if adopted, would establish performance standards and

outcome measures—critical tools for ensuring that veterans are receiving the services and programmatic outcomes that are required.

And these standards of measure would be consistent with others

established under the Workforce Investment Act.

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any

question.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mayfield appears on p. 113.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate your statement and your

observation that the words ‘‘and training’’ need to be placed in that.

Those changes will be made. There are some technical changes and

things like that throughout the bill that will be addressed as we

refine and read it, and so forth. So, I appreciate your comments on

that.

I appreciate all of your testimony. I agree with each of you that

the DVETS who are federal employees should not be playing a role

in annual performance ratings of individual DVOPs and LVERs

who are state employees.

And for that reason, as Mr. Hall stated in his testimony, I will

work with Mr. Reyes, hopefully, in addressing that issue so that we

use DVETS in better ways, with respect to the federal/state partnership, and I appreciate all of you pointing that problem out.

One of the things that I think all of you mentioned—or, at least

I think Mr. Hall started, and the rest of you did—was the veterans

performance, you’re concerned about the veterans priority, that it

may cause confusion. Why is that? Why do you believe that that

would cause confusion, having a veterans preference?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I feel that part of the problem we have

here is the fact that, in many cases, some of the laws that have

been passed—and WIA is a prime example—there is an inconsistent definition of what is a veteran.
23

I think part of this has led to the belief on the part of some of

the title 1 providers that this is a different animal than those animals that we’re talking about here today. I think that we need to

do some more education.

I also think that WIA empowered the governor to decide how the

money under title 1 would be spent, and to determine a line of

those in need. Many governors elected to utilize that money

preferenced to go to TANIF recipients. As you know, and as the

members of the subcommittee know, very few TANIF recipients

are, in fact, veterans.

Mr. SIMPSON. Anybody else care to comment on that?

Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that the—as you get

down to working with the—well, first of all, Texas processes 11

percent of the total veterans that seek services in the United

States.

In 2001, we processed 127,000 veterans through our one-stops.

This year, through the 9 months of the program year, we have

done over 130,000 veterans. So, Texas is in the forefront of processing veterans, and I believe that, as my good friend from Dallas has

mentioned, we have some just excellent one-stops.

The problem that we have, as I think was already brought out

by the gentleman from Missouri, is there gets confusion when we

process through the one-stops, TANIF versus veterans. And sometimes, there is a confusion there.

I think what we have under portion 168 of the Act that is directly dedicated to veterans. I think if we have two dedicated programs, there will be confusion. I think if we have in place a veterans-only/veterans-priority under the Workforce Investment Act, we

should go ahead and embrace it, and stay with it, rather than create two different funding streams, or two different processing

streams.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Roger, at the bottom of page 3 of your

testimony, you suggest that it would be more productive to use incentive funds for building a system capacity and infrastructure.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Mr. MADSEN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we have

been underfunded in veterans programs for many years, I believe.

It’s been my personal experience that we could use capacity-building—primarily technology, but also training—increased salaries,

ability to offer enhanced service, such as assessment, job search

skills, information referral programs.

So, there are lots of ways we could use system capacity building.

Quite a bit of it would be technology-driven.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. That’s all the questions I have. Mr.

Reyes.

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just following up on your

line of questions, does anybody have an opinion as to why veteran

unemployment rates are so high, then, if—what we’re trying to do

here is trying to provide a system that addresses veterans, because

as one of you said, this is a veterans’ committee.

And you know, a number of us—Mr. Miller and I, from this committee—were in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago, and everybody

here talks about the heroic job that our men and women in uniform

are doing in Afghanistan today, and it always troubles me that we
24

talk about today’s heroes, and don’t do enough about yesterday’s

heroes. And that’s what this is about.

And when, as I mentioned in my statement, the high incidence

of unemployment among veterans in general, and minority veterans in specific, we have a problem. And we’re trying to address

that problem through, among other things, this legislation.

And it is a little bit unsettling to me, as a veteran, that people

are saying that there is confusion, that this can’t be done. If what

we’re doing is not the answer, then what is the answer? Because

what is going on today, from my perspective, is unacceptable.

And those guys that are fighting in Afghanistan and other parts

of the world are going to be coming back as veterans, and are going

to be wanting help and employment, and we’ve got a bad track

record, as far as veterans.

So, I would like some comments on those, because for me personally, that’s very frustrating.

Mr. O’MAHONEY. Representative Reyes, I think it’s just a product

of the time. Unemployment rates in Texas have gone up a full percentage point, over a percentage point, in the last year. It’s up to

5.7 now, and holding. We’ve had dislocations all over the

metroplex, and of course, across the state.

I think that the upswing from 130,000, which we’re serving and

getting jobs for, I think we’re doing a good job in processing them.

The problem is just the economic times out there is the catalyst for

the increase in dislocations.

Mr. REYES. Well then, Mr. Hall?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reyes, we don’t have statistics,

that I’m aware of, that indicate that’s the problem in Idaho. In fact,

I asked for statistics prior to coming, and it says, in our state, veterans are 13.6 percent of registered job seekers, but 20.4 percent

of job seekers entering employment.

And I don’t have a national perspective on this issue, but I do

believe we’re having good luck with this program, to the extent possible, in Idaho.

Mr. REYES. Then the feedback we’re getting from veterans and

veterans groups is quite the contrary. Those are the kinds of issues

that, again, really frustrate members of this committee.

Let me just give you one statistic here. For male veterans, the

unemployment rate is 26 percent, total. Total veterans—between

20 and 24 years old. You know, you compare that to the statistics

you just mentioned—so, do we have a problem, or not? I say we

have a problem when we’ve got that kind of unemployment rate

among veterans.

Again, our heroes—we’re all talking about the great job that

they’re doing—they’re being processed out of the military, and can’t

seem to find help in getting a job. And to me, that’s a travesty.

You know, I can remember getting out of the Army in August of

1968, taking all the federal exams for employment, and it wasn’t

until the following year, in June, that I was able to get hired on

by the U.S. Border Patrol.

In the interim, there was nothing that—I mean, I went to the

Texas Employment Commission, all of those other things, and got

jobs, but I was one of the fortunate ones, because a lot of the veterans in my era were having the same kind of problem.
25

And so, as a member of this committee, I want to make a difference in it. And when we try to craft legislation specifically targeting the veterans, we’re told, ‘‘Well, veterans and non-veterans,

it creates confusion,’’ ‘‘We shouldn’t specifically be asked to hire

veterans, to help veterans, because that’s unfair.’’ I get very confused and very frustrated about that, and we’ve got to find a

solution.

When the unemployment rate is 4 or 5 percent, and the unemployment rate for veterans is 26 percent, you know, I defy anybody

to tell me we don’t have a problem there.

And it’s not that they are not skilled. In Afghanistan, they’re

using computers, they’re doing all the kinds of things that, to me,

would stand to reason they could be transitioned, if there was a

program focused on veterans, to employment. And we just don’t

have that.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Reyes, Mr. Chairman, I have no data to support

what I’m about to say, but I have a gut feeling that I would like

to present to the committee.

In Missouri, we fully recognize that those veterans who are in

that age bracket of 20 to 24 are coming out of a new military, a

technologically-supported military, where their skill sets for the civilian marketplace are much higher than they were 10 years

before.

Unfortunately, in Missouri, many of them are coming back to

hometown Missouri, which may not have the businesses that are

employing those kinds of skill sets. We are finding that many of

them have deep roots to go home, and aren’t going to where the

jobs would be available if they were interested in pursuing what

their skill sets allow them to pursue.

In addition, we also find in Missouri—and we are not unique in

this problem—a tremendous number of closings of major plants.

Last week in Missouri—still unannounced officially—I got two

phone calls, one transferring and eliminating 300 jobs, and in an

hour, another 120 went away.

These are the higher-paying jobs. The jobs that are backfilling

those tend to be minimum wage, or slightly above. Many of the returning veterans feel that their value is higher than minimum

wage.

So, I think part of the phenomenon that you’re describing is the

fact that we have higher unemployment, we have significant closure of industry that would have potential openings for the veterans who are coming back with the skill sets, and the hometown

effect.

We need to work closely together to try to resolve this. This is

a major problem facing this country today and in the future, if we

don’t find a fix.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence, but this

is very important. This is why we serve on this committee.

But again, there is no explanation for the difference in the unemployment rate, number one, and then, to me, it makes—it doesn’t

make sense that there would be opposition to specifically target

veterans by giving them preference in job training and in job placement, and in the kinds of things that your collective testimony

spoke to.
26

For me, it doesn’t compute. Am I missing something?

Mr. MAYFIELD. Well, Chairman, and Representative Reyes, I

know I just read that recently, college graduates, across the board,

coming out of college, only about 60 percent, or 60-some-odd percent of those are going to have jobs coming out, where that number

was much, much higher.

And so, when you look at 20 to 24-year-old veterans, I think you

have to also apply that against 20 to 24-year-olds in the workforce,

as well. I don’t think we can take a 5.7 percent unemployment rate

that takes into account all age groups and match that with the 20

to 24-year-olds.

I certainly think that this bill will help. Will it be, you know, the

panacea to do it? I doubt that, because I think we are entering a

sort of systemic unemployment problem with the shut-down of a lot

of high-tech firms. We’re starting to come out of it, but it’s going

to take a while to catch back up.

So, I think if you look at the unemployment rate of 20 to 24-yearolds across the entire spectrum, you’re going to see that it probably

doesn’t match that with what you’re talking—— Mr. REYES. Well, let me just give you that rate. It’s 12 percent.

So that’s a heck of a difference, between 12 percent and 26 percent.

And veterans have served their country. In most cases in today’s

military, they’ve been deployed to Kosovo, to Bosnia, to Afghanistan, to all these other places.

And again, if this—we’re not expecting this legislation to be a

panacea for those issues, but we do expect, collectively, support.

And give us some feedback into how we can make it better.

Don’t tell us, ‘‘Don’t prioritize veterans,’’ don’t tell us that there

is confusion, don’t tell us—I mean, help us, instead of trying to

shoot holes in the legislation.

Mr. MAYFIELD. I can tell you in Dallas County, last program year

from July of 2000 to 2001, we registered 11,178 veterans for work

in the Dallas Veterans—through the one-stops. And 99.8 percent of

those, or 11,159 received employment training and benefits.

And we were only able to place 5,221, a little less than 50 percent into jobs after they received those types of training. So, obviously, you know, there is a problem. Where that lies, you know, it’s

going to take a lot of work to look at.

Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. Reyes, if I could, please, I don’t want to

leave an impression that we don’t prioritize veterans. We do, in

Texas. They’re first in line for every service which we have in

workforce placement.

I think that it’s interesting, too, the placement of engineers out

of the University of Texas. And of the chemical engineers, over 125

graduated mid-term, and only 20 percent of those chemical engineers had job offers. It’s just a sign of the times.

But please don’t think that we’re not prioritizing veterans in

Texas, because we do.

Mr. REYES. And you know, I have no doubt that your intentions

are good, but I hope you can see that we’re very frustrated about

the fact that we’re doing everything that we can, legislatively, to

help prioritize veterans, and when we get the kind of testimony— it frustrates me. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate

your indulgence.
27

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. And I guess what—just to add a little bit,

before I go to Mr. Crenshaw—I guess what we’re trying to say is

that the reason we have veterans preference is because veterans

have earned it.

And it’s not necessarily based on veterans being at a higher unemployment rate in job seeking than others, but again, we give

them preference because they’ve earned it, through their service to

their country. Mr. Crenshaw?

[No response.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Evans, do you have any questions you would

like to ask?

Mr. EVANS. No, no questions. I will be glad to yield to my colleague from Texas, if he wanted to——

Mr. REYES. No, no, the chairman has been very indulgent.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the panel for your testimony. I look forward to working with you, and I appreciate your comments and

your input on this legislation, because I think we all want the same

thing, and that is to have as many veterans as possible find jobs.

Thank you.

Would the third panel please come forward? We have Mr. Bruce

Wyngaard, of the Ohio Civil Service Employee’s Association, Mr.

Dennis Beagle, of the New York State Public Employees Federation, and Mr. Wesley Poriotis, the chief executive officer of Wesley,

Brown & Bartle Company, Inc.

Mr. Wyngaard, whenever you’re ready.

STATEMENTS OF BRUCE WYNGAARD, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR,

OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME

LOCAL 11; DENNIS BEAGLE, NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION; AND WESLEY PORIOTIS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WESLEY, BROWN & BARLE COMPANY,

INC.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE WYNGAARD

Mr. WYNGAARD. Mr. Chairman, my name is Bruce Wyngaard,

and I am an operations director with the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association. OCSEA represents the state’s local veterans

employment representatives, and disabled veterans outreach program specialists, as well as other State of Ohio employment security personnel.

OCSEA is affiliated with the American Federation of State,

County and Municipal Employees, and I appear here today on behalf of 1.3 million members of AFSCME. AFSCME supports your

efforts to strengthen the existing federal/state partnership for veterans services within the Department of Labor.

I serve on Ohio’s employment workforce investment board. Whatever the growing pains of the Workforce Investment Act system, it

is clear that the one-stop model of service delivery is evolving.

Services to veterans should remain an important part of that system, and it makes sense for the program oversight to remain at

DOL, the same agency which oversees WIA programs.

We also support a close integration of the DVOP and LVER staff

with the workforce system. This has worked in Ohio. For instance,

with highly successful transition programs for individuals leaving
28

military service, these programs are run by DVOPs and LVERs as

part of the one-stop systems.

I also want to express our appreciation for your willingness to

focus on improving the existing system, instead of creating public/

private competition for federal veterans employment service dollars. As you are aware, AFSCME strongly opposed prior proposals

along these lines.

We believe that such competition would often distract from the

real task of improving services, and we favor labor management cooperation with the public sector as the way to fix problems.

In Ohio, Quality Services through Partnership, QStP, has pro- duced $180 million in savings to Ohio’s taxpayers since 1993, as

labor management teams have worked to change the systems.

We strongly support the provision that legislation that would require contractors to list their job openings with the state employment service. AFSCME believes this is essential to building an effective national labor exchange for veterans, and all other jobless

workers.

AFSCME also believes that it is appropriate to give veterans priority consideration for services. We are concerned, however, about

the general trend to underfund all federal employment training

programs. In that context, we are concerned that the mandate to

serve veterans, first under all WIA programs, would intensify the

competition for scarce dollars, and exasperate tensions among job

seekers and staff in local offices.

For this reason, we suggest that you consider guaranteeing increased funding for section 168 of WIA, for veterans services, and

supporting more funding for other WIA programs, as well.

AFSCME is concerned that the requirement for states to employ

such full-time and part-time DVOPs and LVERs as they deem appropriate and efficient will be a hollow one without a guarantee of

adequate federal funding. We would strongly oppose redirecting resources from other programs, which, themselves, are chronically

underfunded.

Instead, we support guaranteed federal funding through workload-based formula to alleviate shortfalls in veterans staff grants.

AFSCME supports the provisions in this bill to give incentive

awards to states for positive performance. We also agree with the

provisions that would establish a performance accountability system that is more closely aligned with the new measures created

under WIA. However, we would urge you to provide for greater

input from a broader group of stakeholders, and for more direction

to deal well on both these actions.

In Ohio, we are just beginning to get a handle on how we collect

data, what data is important, what types of performance criteria

will effectively direct the system. If the dollars that—do not match

local stakeholders, and they don’t see that as important, or if the

measures do not acknowledge the barriers faced locally and the extent of case management efforts needed to mount these barriers,

then the measurements or incentives will have little impact, we

have learned.

We support simplifying the descriptions of the duties of veterans,

specialists, and representatives, but we believe that the legislation

should not give such unilateral authority to the Department of
29

Labor. The legislation should describe the services that must be

provided, but we are concerned that under H.R. 4015, DOL officials

could impose very specific job duties.

As others have mentioned today—and we welcome your comments to revisit this issues—the legislation also gives federal officials authority to submit recommendations in connection with the

annual performance rating of each veterans outreach specialist employment representative.

As the collective bargaining representative of these employees in

many states, we see these provisions as problematic. We question

whether they would negate state personnel rules. We also—putting

one level of government in the position of evaluating the specific

job performance of employees in a different level of government can

create considerable confusion, and perhaps undermine AFSCME’s

ability to represent our members.

For example, it is not clear how we would grieve discipline imposed by a state based partly on federal evaluation.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate AFSCME’s support

for the general framework of H.R. 4015, particularly its recognition

of the importance of supporting, measuring, and rewarding the

work of LVERs and DVOPs, and placing the work in the context

of the Workforce Investment Act, and other DOL programs.

We look forward to working with you on this legislation moving

forward, and we will be happy to answer any questions at this

time. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wyngaard appears on p. 121.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Wyngaard, for your testimony. I

appreciate it. Mr. Beagle.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS BEAGLE

Mr. BEAGLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

Veterans’ Benefits Subcommittee. And I certainly want to thank

you for your very kind invitation to let me testify in H.R. 4015, the

Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002.

I am the statewide chair of the labor-management committee in

the New York State Department of Labor, representing the New

York State Public Employees Federation, which is also affiliated

with the Service Employees International Union, and the American

Federation of Teachers. I am also on the Executive Board of the

Public Employees Federation.

We are very pleased with the contents of this legislation, and

wish to commend the chair and the committee for drafting this document. We feel that it will ensure that our veterans are afforded

better job-finding services.

The concerns we had with previous legislative initiatives on this

topic in recent years are, for the most part, favorably changed.

We do applaud priority of service to veterans, as provided in section 4215. This corrects omissions in the Workforce Investment Act.

Especially comforting is the retention of the veterans employment and training services in the public employment service, and

the one-stop centers, where assets are concentrated to provide this

labor exchange.

We strongly support the listing of jobs with the local employment

service, the one-stop centers, and America’s Job Bank in federally
30

funded contracts to accomplish affirmative action on behalf of our

Nations’ veterans.

The redefinition of ‘‘covered veteran’’ to be more inclusive of the

modern veteran population was certainly needed. We need to provide priority of service to those who have more recently participated in military operations and campaigns.

Regarding the institution of performance incentive awards, we

generally support the concept, if there are objective criteria.

The performance accountability system established in the bill

will alleviate some of the concerns voiced in previous reports, and

we, as a union, expect our members who deliver services to be accountable. Our only concern is that the criteria be objective, local

economic conditions be taken into account, and as some of the previous speakers have said, that it conforms with local collective bargaining agreements, and doesn’t infringe on the rights of our

employees.

We oppose the appointment of part-time LVERs and DVOPs to

these positions. We have found, from past experience, that their activities can be more easily diverted to other activities when they

are working on veterans service on a part-time basis.

We also strongly prefer the appointment of veterans to these positions, as veterans understand the unique problems and requirements of other veterans. In summary, veterans are better suited for

helping other veterans, and must be full-time, in order to concentrate their efforts in this direction.

We support the modernization of services to veterans, by using

the Internet and other instant means of communications with our

overseas military personnel about to transition to civilian

employment.

In general, we and the New York State Public Employees Federation, and our international unions, SEIU and AFT, applaud the

work of the committee and support this very important legislative

initiative.

The legislation generally meets the objective of furnishing quality

services to our veterans, and eligible population, while ensuring accountability by the service providers we represent in our unions.

Our only remaining concerns, once again, are the issues of parttime positions, objective criteria for performance incentives, and

the performance accountability program, and the veteran status of

the appointees.

And I would just like to deviate for a couple of minutes from my

written testimony and make comments relative to the assistant

secretary’s earlier comments and his written testimony.

We oppose the administration’s proposals to move the LVER and

DVOP positions to the VA. The state employment services have

presence in the one-stop. We have field staff out developing jobs,

and we have a long-term commitment to jobs for veterans. The

whole employment service, the state employment service, started

as the Veterans Employment Service, and that’s where it should

stay.

And in conclusion, we certainly want to thank you for affording

myself and my union the opportunity to appear before your committee, and we all appreciate the efforts of your giving our veterans
31

population the best possible service through this legislative initiative. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beagle appears on p. 124.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Beagle. Congressman Quinn sends

his regards, and regrets that he couldn’t be here this morning.

Mr. BEAGLE. Well, a special thank you to Mr. Quinn, and certainly the people from western New York and the Buffalo area, for

giving us this opportunity to come down and talk today.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Poriotis.

STATEMENT OF WESLEY PORIOTIS

Mr. PORIOTIS. Yes. As you can see from my written testimony,

my full Greek name is Phillipus Sotorius Poriotis. And I must tell

you that I recently gave a keynote speech to a group of doctors and

a group of hospital administrators, and a very nearsighted doctor

introduced me as Mr. Psoriasis. (Laughter.)

Mr. PORIOTIS. So, I thank you for saying ‘‘Poriotis.’’ That’s a note

of levity to introduce what I think is a very serious topic, and that

is, in a bold stroke, having worked 30 years in the corporate arena,

having achieved the highest level of corporate executive placement

for women, persons of color, and most recently, for military positions, I think you should change your H.R. 4015.

Instead of Jobs for Veterans, I would change it to Quality Jobs

for Veterans. Maybe that’s euphemistic, but I also put quotes

around ‘‘sustaining America’s competitiveness,’’ and quotes under

that, because many thousands of veterans have jobs. But as Mr.

Reyes has pointed out so eloquently, there is not only a deep unemployment, but there is a deeper underemployment.

We don’t measure underemployment. We don’t have a classic criteria for underemployment, but there certainly is a deep underemployment. And going to Mr. Reyes’ comment as to why, I think

there is an entrenched deselective bias, an almost institutionalized

deselective bias, on the part of corporate business and organizations in their hiring managers, their gatekeepers, their human resources practitioners.

Only 1 in 6 Americans under the age of 65 has served in this

country, and perhaps only one out of 20 American corporate and

business executives have served. So military remain below the

radar screen when it comes to being embracive and inclusive of

them.

And I would say that if we were to really look to the heart of

how H.R. 4015 can be successful, is we must imbue in section 6 a

corporate advocacy and a corporate marketing campaign. I will repeat that. You need a corporate and business advocacy and marketing campaign to insinuate the veterans as a valued asset, because

of the devaluation of the veteran in the hiring mix. Infusing that

into the hiring mix and getting them on the playing field.

The whole scope of my comments this morning are aimed at leveling the playing field, not to guarantee jobs for veterans, but allow

them to compete on a level playing field. At this time, at this place,

the American transitioning military, and the prior service military,

are not on a level playing field to compete.

Therefore, I would beef up and add teeth to your employer

awareness and information-sharing campaign, because it’s too
32

weak. I would suggest and rewrite it, and I have suggested I would

work to do that, in terms of making that a very forceful marketing

advocacy campaign.

And I would beef up the national hire vets committee, because

you have vets organizations talking to vets organizations. You have

the converted talking to the converted. We need some business

round table conference board, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and we

need representatives from the corporate sector, the non-defense corporate sector, reflective of the hidden job market which is inaccessible and not available to the veteran.

I am talking about the retail industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the financial services industry, the manufacturing industry.

We continue to assume, from the technical and skilled area of people going into the defense industry, but the thousands and thousands of positions that lie in the hidden job market are inaccessible, not publicized, not advertised.

And in part, they’re controlled by what I call a stealth industry,

a stealth industry that has no regulation, no laws controlling those.

The executive search recruitment employment agency, those

human resources career counselors, and entities involved in positioning people, we do not position veterans. We do not champion

veterans.

There isn’t a balanced slate of veterans that goes forth from this

stealth industry. I believe this stealth industry, as I call it, I’m convinced it controls 70 to 80 percent of the hidden job market which

veterans don’t have access to.

I know that my oral testimony is supposed to be 5 minutes, and

it took a minute to pronounce my name, but I do have a 12-step

program that I think can make H.R. 4015 fly.

And one, you need to put in, number one, an aggressive marketing program, and you need a champion. You need a corporate

champion, like Lou Gerstner, retiring from IBM, or a corporate

champion like the former chairman of Lockheed Martin, Norm

Augustine.

And I believe you need a national spokesperson, either Mr.

Juarbe, or Principi, that can engage the enemy, engage corporate

America, engage them on their own turf, induce them to understand and embrace this thing called the military, because there it’s

a devalued asset.

Number two, I would infuse the issues of veterans employment

on the major corporate organizational agendas of the business

round table, the corporate conference board, chambers of commerce,

and international organizational meetings.

The international celebrity corporate entertainment group that

appeared in Switzerland last year, and appeared in New York this

year after 9/11, did not have anything with regard to the veterans

issues on its plate. Veterans issues are not on the plates of the corporate agendas.

Number three, I do believe you need to train your LVERs and

your DVOPs and how to place, and you need to impose a performance criteria on them so that they will place individuals. And they

need to be connected with the local businesses in their community

on an aggressive process.
33

I do believe you also have to status prior service military. Mr.

Reyes talked about the Afghanistan situation now, but I’m talking

about the 3.2 million prior service military from the end of the Gulf

War. I believe that we don’t know where they are, what their positions are, what quality of jobs they hold.

Ninety percent of them are non-retirees, young military who

have evolved into the private sector. We don’t know what the

underemployment is, we don’t know what their status is, we don’t

know what the quality of their jobs are.

I believe, number five, we have to incent America’s recruitment

community to embrace military candidates for job fulfillment. Right

now, in diversity, corporate America is paid dollars for performance

criteria to basically embrace diversity and see that diversity slates

of candidate go forth internally and externally. There is nothing for

military. Military should be infused on those balance slates.

And I also think, number six, we need a national job placement

service that can engage America’s recruitment community to place

veterans free in these corporate situations. We need our veterans

in key roles so as to act as magnets for others.

Number seven, I think this committee, in H.R. 4015, needs a national watershed event. If you remember in 1986, this country engaged the homeless issue by having Hands Across America. I think

you need something like Vets Across America, or Veterans Across

America, where Americans can link hands from one coast to the

other.

Five million Americans linked hands on the homeless issue in

1986. I believe a watershed event, and the media coverage on

issues affecting veterans employment and veterans business opportunities could be a hallmark event to make veterans issues and

veterans employment a very significant aspect of American

thinking.

Number eight, you need a veterans consumer educational task

force composed of consumer marketing people. The problem right

now in America’s consumer establishment—the Colgate-Palmolives,

the Bristol-Meyers—is that you do not have the perception that the

veteran is a target consumer marketing group to market to.

The 3.5 million or 4 million prior service military and their families represent 15 million people who go below the radar screen. I

believe we need to educate the consumer marketing companies that

the veteran is a consumer. If you recall, until diverse populations

and female populations were perceived as consumers, hiring of

these groups took a very, very inadequate process.

Number nine, I believe that America suffers from a veterans illiteracy. I believe that, from what I’ve seen in the last 10 years of

championing military to the private sector, there is an almost abject veterans illiteracy, an American illiteracy that has to be faced

from elementary, secondary, high school, and especially in the corporate and business arenas. This has to be addressed.

Ten, I think we have to redefine the employment status to define

what underemployment means.

And number 11, it’s one thing for this group to look at getting

jobs for veterans, it’s another thing, Mr. Chairman, to look at retaining them in the positions. We need something in H.R. 4015

that speaks to a retention program, retention practices, because it’s
34

not the first job for the veteran, it’s the second and the third. It’s

the upward mobility and the career mobility for that veteran that’s

probably more important over the next decade.

And the twelfth, I believe as Mr. Reyes, again, pointed out, there

is a special need to look at leveling the playing field, and creating

different networks for women and persons of color in the military,

who I have tracked, in terms of their compensation as they evolve

out in the private sector. There is probably 45 to 50 percent differentiation in compensation between the majority and the non-majority military person in the private sector. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poriotis appears on p. 126.]

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate your testimony. As you said in your

earlier statement, you had additional recommendations that you

would like to send in, if you would e-mail those to both Darryl and

Ms. McCarthy, we would appreciate that.

I appreciate all of the testimony that you—that the panel has

given. It has been very informative, and I read through it last

night, and have marked up some of it with yellow highlighter, and

will work with Darryl to see what we can do about incorporating

some of the recommendations—and Mr. Reyes—about seeing what

we can do to incorporate some of your recommendations, and so

forth.

But this type of testimony benefits us greatly in coming up with

what I hope will be a very good bill in the end. Thank you all. Mr.

Reyes.

Mr. REYES. We’ll get some questions in for response for the

record, if you don’t mind.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.

Mr. REYES. Thank you very much. That was excellent testimony.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the panel, and look forward to working

with you, and I truly appreciate your recommendations.

Would the fourth panel come forward? We have with us Mr.

James Magill, the director of National Employment Policy of the

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Mr. Steve Robertson, Legislative Director of The American Legion, Mr. Carl Blake,

Associate Legislative Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Mr. Rick Weidman, Director of Governmental Relations, the

Vietnam Veterans of America, and Mr. Richard Jones, the National

Legislative Director of AMVETS.

Mr. Magill, we’ll begin with you.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES N. MAGILL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

EMPLOYMENT POLICY, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF

THE UNITED STATES; STEVE ROBERTSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN LEGION; CARL BLAKE, ASSOCIATE

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; RICK WEIDMAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND RICHARD

JONES, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. MAGILL

Mr. MAGILL. Thank you. First, I would like to say, as is indicated

in my statement, we do support the enactment of H.R. 4015. I

would also like to commend you and your staff. It’s been a long
35

road to get where we are today. As I think you indicated, approximately 21⁄2 years have gone by. And again, we would like to commend you, Darryl Kehrer, and the rest of the staff.

I would like to just take my time for a couple of comments. The

first one is primarily with respect to the provisions dealing with

contractors.

One of the key components—you can have as many laws on the

books as you want to, but one has to comply with the law. And we

have been seeing, for many years, that a lot of the contractors and

subcontractors are not in compliance. And that, we think, is a key

component.

Also, I would like to mention we do support the awarding of additional funding to the states that do comply to a set of standards.

We do support that. However, I think there has got to be some

kind of a mechanism in the bill that can address those states who

are not in compliance.

I don’t have an answer for you on this. One thing that I would

not recommend is to withhold funds. That would do nothing but

hurt the veteran.

In a related provision, we are very happy that you did include

to fund NVTI. We were shocked—I guess that’s the only word I can

use—that the funding for that had been eliminated in the administration’s proposal—possibly those states that are having a difficult

time meeting standards, that NVTI would be a good example of

where they could go for help.

We do believe that the vast amount of DVOPs and LVERs are

doing a good job. It’s just a handful out there that we think need

to have a little bit more help.

With the panel that was just on previous to us, it was mentioned

being in touch with the corporations. I had the honor of chairing

a group of VSOs last October, or November, who went to Chicago,

and met with corporate heads of, I believe, it was five or six

corporations.

They all acknowledged that they wanted to bring more veterans

into their workforce. However, what surprised me is they did not

know where to find the veterans. So, I applaud the provisions in

the bill that address this.

And I think we need to do a better job, I think DOL needs to

do a better job in contacting the corporations to let them know that

there are very highly qualified veterans out there.

And that concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any

questions you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Magill appears on p. 139.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Magill. Mr. Jones.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reyes, members of

the subcommittee. I am pleased to present the viewpoint of

AMVETS on H.R. 4015, the Jobs for Veterans Act.

We are concerned that the programs managed by the Department of Labor, the Veterans Employment and Training Service, remain underfunded and not fully staffed. And we commend the subcommittee for looking to update and enhance these programs.
36

Clearly, your efforts are critical, if we are to meet the employment

and training needs of veterans.

We agree with many of the provisions of H.R. 4015. In too many

instances, the program is, unfortunately, not working as effectively

as you have intended. And in the process, veterans are being left

behind.

Veterans continue to need the special job training services that

Veterans Employment and Training Service and the state-based

DVOPs and LVERs provide. Regarding DVOPs and LVERs,

AMVETS believes it is important that states continue to be required to hire veterans for these positions.

For decades, LVERs and DVOPs have been the cornerstone of

employment services for veterans throughout the United States’ employment service system. Part of the reason is that these individuals are veterans, and they are advocating for veterans.

We object to the provision in H.R. 4015 that would change this

principle, and allow states to hire veterans for these positions, only

to the extent practicable. DVOPs and LVERs are the individuals

who help form the bridge, and effect a smooth transition from military servicemembers to the civilian workforce. In our view, these

people should be veterans.

Another concern with the legislation is criteria that would qualify an individual to serve as deputy assistant secretary of labor for

veterans employment. H.R. 4015 would only allow an individual to

serve as deputy assistant secretary who had previously served 5

consecutive years of service in the federal executive branch immediately preceding the appointment.

Now, if the effort is to establish someone as deputy assistant secretary with institutional process knowledge, such limitation might

be appropriate. If what we’re looking for, however, is a more responsive organization, the need may be for someone with expertise

outside of government, perhaps in marketing, organizational management, informational technology, or in actually serving veterans.

Flexibility should reside with the administration to choose, as is

the current option, an individual from a broader community of

skills than might be found in the 5-year class of the federal

bureaucracy.

We don’t intend our criticism to be pejorative toward dedicated

federal employees. Nor however, do we wish to limit an administration’s choice for this important position.

AMVETS strongly supports the incentive programs outlined in

H.R. 4015. Starting an incentive initiative for state employment

services is a good idea. It would do much to enhance the current

system. Meaningful performance standards can promote successful

outcomes, and enliven the program’s activity.

AMVETS also supports the provisions of H.R. 4015 that strive to

make the employment services delivery system more flexible. There

is no need to have a one-size-fits-all approach for activities in each

of the 50 States. Clear standards that measure the program’s implementation in terms of outcome, instead of process, can allow for

flexibility. And flexibility is important.

States are different, and they may have different approaches toward local employers, as well as different types of veterans who

may need employment help.
37

On one related point, AMVETS is extremely disappointed with

the proposal in the President’s budget to transfer Veterans Employment and Training Services from DOL to VA. We believe this

transfer is ill-advised. DOL knows the labor market; that’s its business. And it knows better than anyone else, where the jobs are.

Moreover, VA already faces serious challenges in providing timely health care, and reducing the backlog of nearly 600,000 claims.

Moving VETS programs to VA may change some titles, but it does

nothing to better serve veterans.

Another disappointment is the administration’s failure to request

funding for the National Veterans Training Institute. Failure to

fund this mission sets up a situation where people are led to believe they’re going to get some real employment help, but the reality is otherwise.

We believe the issues surrounding Veterans Employment and

Training are clearly solvable. We do not believe Congress and the

administration should segregate veterans to a single agency. The

job and job training programs should continue be managed and run

by the Department of Labor.

We have confidence that the current DOL VETS management

team is fully competent to implement needed reforms. Indeed, we

are encouraged by recent words to AMVETS from the deputy secretary of labor, reiterating Labor’s commitment to priority services

for veterans, and confirming Labor’s obligation to consider veterans

a primary constituency of the Department.

AMVETS looks forward to working with you and others in Congress to ensure we help meet the needs of America’s veterans and

their families, and we thank you again for the opportunity to

present our views and comments on this important legislation.

Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears on p. 141.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Robertson.

STATEMENT OF STEVE ROBERTSON

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

subcommittee. The American Legion remains steadfastly supportive of VETS within the Department of Labor. The American Legion

believes the core problems hampering VETS and its programs can

be narrowed down to three key points: leadership, leadership,

leadership.

Failure to provide veterans’ employment professionals in local offices the flexibility to perform their federally-mandated duties and

responsibilities, failure to fully fund and staff veterans employment

professionals to their federally-mandated levels, and failure to implement the performance accountability system that properly

records the successful accomplishment, of the veterans employment

professionals.

Clearly, these leadership shortfalls are at the local, state, and

national levels. Although the American Legion supports the move

to provide veterans preference in federal job training programs, the

American Legion deeply regrets that successful veterans job training programs such as VJTA and SMOCTA fail to receive adequate

and continued federal funding.
38

Both programs were highly successful and consistent with the

stated goals of VETS. But more importantly, both programs were

limited to the scope only to veterans.

Honorable military service was the prerequisite for eligibility for

participation in these unique programs. Truly, VJTA and SMOCTA

were generous gestures from a grateful nation to assist veterans in

overcoming specific employment barriers.

The American Legion would strongly encourage Congress to reconsider the value of these programs, and fully fund either one.

The American Legion questions the decision to expand VETS

programs to all veterans seeking employment. Originally, VETS

was designed to meet the employment and training needs of a

much smaller portion of the veterans population—the special disabled veterans, other disabled veterans, and other eligible

veterans.

Opening eligibility to all veterans would overwhelm the program

without significant additional staffing and full funding. Expanding

this definition to include certain spouses is acceptable.

However, the American Legion recommends that a spouse of any

veteran who is totally disabled, resulting from service-connected

disability, should be eligible, regardless of whether it’s permanent

in nature, or not. It is an unfortunate situation the spouse should

be eligible for a needed vocational assistance.

The American Legion opposes granting monetary incentive

awards to the states to meet or exceed their benchmarking goals.

Rather than upgrading the performance level nationally, this

program rewards the best performing states. This rich-gets-richer

and poor-gets-poorer approach seems counterproductive to addressing the global veterans employment issue.

The American Legion opposes the provision that the deputy secretary for labor for veterans employment and training be required

to have at least 5 years of continuous service in federal civil service

in the executive branch immediately preceding appointment as the

deputy assistant secretary.

The American Legion believes a more appropriate requirement

would be to have at least 5 years of continuous service in VETS

immediately preceding the appointment of deputy assistant secretary. In-depth knowledge of VETS is more beneficial than an indepth knowledge of federal bureaucracy. The ASVET needs technical support more than political support.

The American Legion also believes that there should be a residency requirement for directors and assistant directors for Veterans Employment and Training. The American Legion strongly supports the requirement that only veterans be appointed to VETS positions, especially with the emphasis on using service-connected

disabled veterans in DVOPs positions. This makes good sense.

This bill does not address the need for placing DVOPs and

LVERs throughout the state, not just in large urban areas. Outreach is probably the most important aspect of VETS, and the least

emphasized.

For many employers and job seekers, the state veterans employment office is still viewed as the unemployment office, not as a

head-hunting firm. Outreach plays a major role in helping change

that image. Outreach takes the message from the computer and
39

automated phone systems to the face-to-face meetings with employers and job seekers in their environment. Salesmanship is critical

in recruiting job orders from employers. Salesmanship is critical in

recruiting veterans with barriers to employment. Salesmanship is

critical in shaping the corporate image throughout the community.

The very best vehicle for achieving this goal is through interpersonal interaction with civic, business, and fraternal organizations. The image of VETS is based on the last experience in dealing

with them.

How does VETS check its image in the local community without

an effective outreach program? Local state employment office managers that tether DVOPs and LVERs to their local office to handle

only walk-in veterans fail to understand why VETS was created.

Outreach is a federally-mandated role of both the DVOP and the

LVER that is routinely ignored by local office managers across the

country.

The proposed state funding formula is very disturbing to the

American Legion. The American Legion believes basing VETS program funding on an unstable economic factor would adversely impact the quality of the critical veterans programs.

Recruitment and retention of qualified, well-trained veterans employment professionals would be a major problem, due to the questionable employment stability.

The American Legion believes the issues are even more significant in the states with smaller veterans populations. VETS is a national veterans employment program, not only for the states with

greater veterans populations.

The American Legion fully supports the establishment and implementation of measurable, meaningful, equitable performance accountability system. The performance measures must be appropriate for the task at hand.

The American Legion would strongly recommend that the

ASVET allow the performance accountability system to be created

by a selected group of veterans employment professionals, in consultation with the National Veterans Training Institute.

Such a system created by the stakeholders would be more accurate in counting the performance of their peers and colleagues in

the entire community.

The American Legion strongly recommends that the fundamental

job requirements of the veterans employment personnel be codified

to provide national continuity. Such intensive services as outreach,

case management, employee development, job placement should be

clarified for the DVOP and the LVER.

Additionally, we recommend that the number of LVERs and

DVOPs be based on a specific manning formula. The American Legion encourages Congress to keep that formula, and we would be

more than happy to work with you in developing it.

Employability is a personal issue that requires a hands-on approach by trained veterans employment professionals. Technology

offers excellent advantages, but should never be considered as the

final solution for employment. Not every job seeker is comfortable

with using state-of-the-art equipment. Clearly, a barrier for employment in the 21st century.
40

Computers can’t read body language, computers can’t sense frustration, computers can’t understand the feeling of rejection. They

are the very reasons why veterans employment professionals are so

critical in meeting the overall objectives of VETS, putting veterans

back to work.

The American Legion believes that the best solution to the correction—to the current problems within VETS is sound leadership

and management practices. With leadership comes responsibility.

Many of the problems addressed in this legislation could be aggressively addressed and resolved with dynamic leadership and individual accountability.

Congress confirmed the ASVET to lead and manage VETS. The

ASVET is provided with ample staff at the state and national level

to assist in that charge. It is time for focused leadership, not reinvention legislation.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the American

Legion applauds the hard work in drafting this legislation. But

without strong leadership, even if this bill were passed without any

changes, it will be totally ineffective without strong leadership.

The American Legion would strongly recommend quarterly VETS

oversight hearings to determine if the core problem is leadership,

management, or legislative in nature.

I apologize for running your red light. And to all those college

kids that are looking for a job, go down to your armed services recruiting station, there are plenty available. (Laughter.)

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson appears on p. 146.]

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Robertson.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Weidman.

STATEMENT OF RICK WEIDMAN

Mr. WEIDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reyes, and I

would ask your leave to make a personal notation for many of us

here.

We have with us in the hearing room the very first assistant secretary of veterans employment and training, the Honorable William C. Plowden, Jr., from South Carolina, and I just wanted to

make sure that a lot of us would be here, and a lot of good that

happened because of things that this gentleman and his good

friend, the Honorable Strom Thurmond have done over the years.

In fact, one would believe that—the VA, we believe—that we

wouldn’t be discussing a veterans employment and training service

because there wouldn’t be a veterans employment and training

service if it had not been for Senator Thurmond. Thank you for

that diversion, Mr. Chairman.

The first thing I want to say is, on behalf of VVA, we feel very,

very strongly that this an historic occasion. And as we move to

pass H.R. 4015, which we very strongly support, it would be the

first linkage between performance and cash American that we’ve

seen in a long, long time, and certainly in Veterans’ Affairs.

We believe that that is a step in the right direction. It doesn’t

go as far as VVA would advocate, nor as far as the bill that was

introduced in 2000, but we understand the political realities, and
41

why it is what it is. But it is a landmark step that needs to be

taken.

We would agree with our good colleagues from the Legion that,

yes, in fact, you still need strong leadership, you still need imaginative leadership, you still need to make sure—enforce the provisions

and the intent all the way down. But cash American holds their

attention.

Obviously, ‘‘you wills,’’ ‘‘you will do this, you will do that,’’ have

not worked over the course of umpteen many years. For 70 years,

we’ve been trying to get veterans priority of service to work in all

of the job services in every single jurisdiction, and it hasn’t worked.

The LVER program was created because early returnees from

World War II were not getting that priority of service, and that’s

why it was part of the GI Bill of 1944.

The DVOP program was created because a workforce development agency said they weren’t placing any Vietnam or disabled

vets, and particular disabled vets, because they could not find

them—which seemed to us be an absurd note, because we knew

were they were—and so they created the DVOP program for a variety of reasons, but the point is it was in response to a very real

problem, that it wasn’t happening.

Since the DVOP program came in, all of that job description was

prescriptive language that, mea culpa, Mr. Chairman—the VVA

and all of us pushed, just as did our colleagues—to put that prescriptive language in to try and go the way of ‘‘you will do this, you

will do that, you will do the other thing.’’

In fact, it has not worked. We are in worse shape today than we

were 15, 20 years ago in this regard. Therefore, linking cash American and rewards—and we believe sanctions ought to be in there

too—but at least linking money to high performing states is a tremendous first step.

And that’s a very difficult thing, changing prescriptive to a results-oriented system, and we believe very strongly in government

performance and results at VVA, and particularly for this system.

But because it doesn’t go as far as it does, we believe some of

the prescriptive needs to be in there. Number one, having to do

with that LVERs must continue to be vets, and that DVOPs continue to be service-connected disabled vets.

I would just bring up one story that Mr. Reyes may be well interested in. The State of Texas, in the late 1980s, when I had the opportunity to sit on what was then the veterans committee, wanted

the rest of the committee to get a waiver in the city of El Paso for

a non-veteran to serve as a DVOP because they could not find a

qualified disabled veteran to serve as DVOP in the whole El Paso

area.

My response was, ‘‘You guys are in the wrong business. Give up

the damn grant, and give it to GI Forum, because, by God, they

will find qualified disabled vets in El Paso.’’ And ultimately, actually, they did that, at least to some measure.

In regard to the measures that would be used for the reward system, if you will, go back to placements. The core indicators all

kinds of fun and games. The intensive services came about because

the state employment security agencies had eliminated, in most
42

cases, all of the vocational counseling services, all of those counselors are gone.

So, they invented a new term, because none of these people are

licensed, called ‘‘intensive services,’’ which means you actually talk

to a human being at some point.

Placement, you can’t play with. It has to be really hard. In that

same line, we must stop pursuing the course that we can get lots

of cheap hits on this legislation. It takes a lot of effort to place veterans who have profound difficulties to obtain and sustain meaningful employment.

Can it be done? Yes, it can. But it’s not going to be by the tens

of thousands, if you will, and the hundreds of thousands, because

otherwise, you’re just inflating the body count in order to say you’re

doing something.

If I didn’t learn anything else during my service as a medic in

ICOR, it was that the body count, even when it’s honest—which it

never was—don’t mean you’re winning the war. The war we need

to do here is to focus on those who need our assistance most, who

have been lessened by virtue of military service.

And that is what the DVOP and LVER program were designed

to do, the disabled veteran outreach program was intended to do

just that, to reach out to disabled veterans, and particularly profoundly disabled veterans.

And I would encourage you to leave that job description in there,

because the state workforce development agencies are still moving

towards another layoff, we can all see it coming, and it’s going to

be the LVERs who are going to be the junior people—and in some

cases, the DVOPs—and they’re going to get bounced, and you’re not

going to have any vets left in that system.

Why? Because they didn’t hire vets in any positions other than

DVOPs and LVERs for too many years.

The system, as rightly pointed out, has, in fact, been underfunded since 1986. It is our view that the way in which the statute

has been drawn, it was illegal for the Secretary of Labor not to ask

for full funding in 1986, and our mistake was we didn’t sue the

Secretary of Labor back then. But we need to move towards full

funding.

The whole veteran concept is something that VVA agrees with

very much, and that means you look at the whole veteran and you

find out what does he or she do, what was their military history,

and how does that fit in, and what are all the things that get in

the way of that person being able to hit that flashpoint in the readjustment process, which is to obtain and sustain meaningful

employment.

And the system that’s currently designed may be inadequate to

that, and perhaps we need to take this very important step of passing 4015, but not stop there. Take the next step and see what do

we really need to do to create a system that works very closely

with voc rehab.

Maybe it’s revamping the whole voc rehab system and expanding

it, but we do need something that meets that whole continuum of

care, from the battlefield wounds all the way through helping that

person obtain and sustain meaningful employment, which may

take several forms.
43

It may, in fact, be self-employment, it may be microbusiness, as

we call it. We would encourage and strongly urge you to add a section 9 that deals with public law 106-50 with that whole question

of self-employment, which may not be only the best option for profoundly disabled veterans, but may well be the only option. And we

will be pleased to work with you in that regard.

And one last note, if I may just say that one of the things that

we have been struggling against is not just getting priority service,

and it’s not just getting veterans preference. It is struggling

against an attitude of ‘‘vetism.’’

What happened earlier was, by the gentleman from the National

Association of Counties, they’re the ones who were most active in

JTPA, and now again on WIA.

I can tell you years upon years of my life, devoted to trying to

get training opportunities open for veterans and disabled veterans

through JTPA, and now through WIA. And in New York, they even

passed a State law, the Veterans Bill of Rights for Employment

and Training, that mandated all of what now are known to provide

priority to disabled veterans and veterans, and they laughed, because there were no sanctions, because it wasn’t tied to money.

There were no incentives, and there were no sanctions, and they

said, ‘‘Phooey.’’ That’s not exactly what they said, but they said

words to that effect, Mr. Chairman, because after all, it is New

York.

But my point about it is that then to say, ‘‘Well, we have college

graduates who are unemployed, so of course the veterans are unemployed.’’ Excuse me? Before I entered the military, I graduated

in the top quarter of my class at Colgate University. I wasn’t in

the U.S. military and serving in Vietnam because I was too stupid

to know where Canada was.

We are so sick of that patronizing attitude on the part of so

many governmental officials at every level, that frankly, the question of vetism must be addressed for what it is, just like sexism

and racism in this country. And until people admit that they have

a problem, they are not going to be able to change those attitudes.

And I leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. We could go on like this

forever, but I do also apologize for going over my time, and I thank

you very much on behalf of our national president, Tom Cory, for

allowing us to present our views today. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman appears on p. 154.]

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate your comments, and we have 2 minutes left in a vote on the floor. Go ahead, Mr. Blake.

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE

Mr. BLAKE. That really cuts me short, here. I would just like to

thank you for allowing PVA to testify on behalf of 4015, Jobs for

Veterans Act, today.

Assisting veterans with job training and placement into employment following military service is an important benefit that all

servicemembers are entitled to and deserve. It is the responsibility

of this congress, federal agencies, and the veterans service organizations, to ensure that all veterans are prepared to enter the civilian workforce. And never is that concept more important than now,
44

when we have soldiers on the ground in combat who will return

home soon.

I won’t address all of the sections that I had intended to, I will

just keep it short. PVA is an organization of veterans who were

catastrophically disabled by a spinal cord injury or disease.

Our members and other individuals who suffer from similar injuries or diseases do not receive proper consideration for employment

when applying for a job. This is often due to barriers in the workplace, false perceptions of the potential cost to employers for hiring

persons with disabilities, and the perceptions many people still

have about veterans.

Veterans have earned and deserve consideration within the

workforce, and it is hoped that this bill will begin to break down

these barriers, and promise much-deserved opportunities within

the workplace.

Since you’ve only got a couple of minutes, I will go to my

conclusion.

Mr. SIMPSON. I can assure you that we have read the full testimony, so I appreciate that.

Mr. BLAKE. Thank you, sir. I would just like to say that PVA

fully supports the creation of the President’s National Hire Veterans Committee, the committee to raise employer awareness of the

skills of veterans, and the benefits of hiring them.

This committee can help bridge the gap in communication that

exists between employers and veterans seeking employment. Too

many employers claim to not be aware of the benefits of hiring veterans, or how to actually access these veterans for employment.

And perhaps this committee can help develop solutions to this

problem.

H.R. 4015 is an evolutionary step in the veterans employment

system. We do not see this as an end, but rather as one more step

in helping our veterans gain the opportunity for full employment.

It is most important to PVA that the VETS programs are effective and efficient, wherever they may be. A quality service for veterans is the first priority. I would like to thank the subcommittee

for its efforts to involve veterans and the veterans service organizations in developing this legislation, and I would be happy to answer

any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake appears on p. 165.]

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank you for all of your testimony, and your

input in developing this legislation. It’s been very critical, and we

thank you and look forward to continuing our work on this, taking

into consideration many of the recommendations that have been

made by the panels today.

Neither Mr. Reyes or I have any questions, since we do have a

vote in about 30 seconds, and we will run quickly. So I appreciate

all of your testimony today, and thank you for being here. And this

hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
(45)

A P P E N D I X
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

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN EVANS

HEARING ON H.R. 4015, JOBS FOR VETERANS ACT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling today’s hearing. I want to begin by

thanking those of you who are here with us today from the Department of Labor.

Over the years, I know the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) has

made efforts to evaluate and improve upon the number of veteran job seekers who

they can place into permanent, high-quality employment opportunities. I know efforts have also been underway to try to transform a troubled strategic planning

process. I want you to know that these efforts are recognized.

If we are to have hope for the Department of Labor’s ability to provide quality

employment service to veterans, I think everyone across the board agrees that some

changes in law are needed. I am looking forward to receiving our witnesses’ testimony today on what I view to be a problematic area that is in need of legislative

attention. H.R. 4015 is an earnest attempt to give our veterans that legislative attention. I think we have a good bill here.

Title 38 of the U.S. Code proclaims we have a national responsibility to assist veterans in their efforts to find and maintain stable, permanent employment. I know

first-hand that there are a lot of hard-working, caring people out there whose livelihoods are made by providing employment services to veterans. Every day, these

dedicated people strive to fulfill our national commitment. I can say this with confidence because I have had the pleasure of meeting some of these great people and

seeing what they do.

They are the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program Specialists; they are the Local

Veterans’ Employment Representatives; they are community-based and veterans’

service organizations. Many, in fact, are veterans themselves. I am looking forward

to hearing testimony from folks like these and all our other witnesses here today.

I applaud the cooperative effort that has transpired among my colleagues, the veterans’ community and with the Secretary of Labor to evaluate the roles and functions of veterans’ employment specialists. Changes in the number and responsibilities of these important positions must always be made very carefully and with consensus among the veterans and employment service communities. In this regard, I

am pleased with the new funding formula contemplated in H.R. 4015 that focuses

on the number of job-seeking veterans under age 65 in each state and each state’s

unemployment rate. This seems to be a good way to facto in the unique economic

and labor conditions that might otherwise be overlooked.

The issues we are considering today are significant, and your advice and guidance

on H.R. 4015 will be very important to us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180

Æ