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

43–102 CC 1997

H.R. 240, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1997

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT

REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 240

TO AMEND TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE THAT CONSIDERATION MAY NOT BE DENIED TO PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES APPLYING FOR CERTAIN POSITIONS IN THE COMPETITIVE SERVICE, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

FEBRUARY 26, 1997

Serial No. 105–34

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

PETE SESSIONS, Texas

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas

BOB BARR, Georgia

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

PETE SESSIONS, Texas

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

GEORGE NESTERCZUK, Staff Director

SUSAN MOSYCHUK, Professional Staff Member

NED LYNCH, Professional Staff Member

CAROLINE FIEL, Clerk

CEDRIC HENDRICKS, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 26, 1997 ....................................................................... 1

Text of H.R. 240 ................................................................................................ 9

Statement of:

King, James B., Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, accompanied by Mary Lou Lindholm, Associate Director for Employment,

Office of Personnel Management ................................................................. 49

Naschinski, Emil, assistant director, national economics commission, the

American Legion; Charles L. Calkins, national executive secretary,

Fleet Reserve Association; Sidney Daniels, director, national veterans’

employment assistance service, Veterans of Foreign Wars; and Larry

Rhea, deputy director, legislative affairs, Non-Commissioned Officers

Association ..................................................................................................... 76

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Calkins, Charles L., national executive secretary, Fleet Reserve Association, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 85

Daniels, Sidney, director, national veterans’ employment assistance service, Veterans of Foreign Wars, prepared statement of .............................. 93

Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .................................................................. 38

King, James B., Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management:

Information concerning employment of veterans by executive departments ...................................................................................................... 57

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52

Promotion rates for veterans .................................................................... 72

Lindholm, Mary Lou, Associate Director for Employment, Office of Personnel Management, information concerning who is entitled to veterans’ preference in appointment ................................................................ 63

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida:

Letter dated Februry 6, 1997 ................................................................... 59

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Naschinski, Emil, assistant director, national economics commission, the

American Legion, prepared statement of .................................................... 78

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Representative in Congress from the

District of Columbia, prepared statement of .............................................. 42

Pappas, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Jersey, prepared statement of ............................................................. 40

Rhea, Larry, deputy director, legislative affairs, Non-Commissioned Officers Association:

Pamphlet entitled, ‘‘Veterans Preference—An Earned Right’’ .............. 114

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 103

Sessions, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 45

(1)

H.R. 240, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1997

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.

Present: Representatives Mica, Pappas, Morella, Sessions,

Holden, and Norton.

Staff present: George Nesterczuk, staff director; Garry Ewing,

counsel; Susan Mosychuk and Ned Lynch, professional staff members; Caroline Fiel, clerk; and Cedric Hendricks, minority professional staff member.

Mr. MICA. Good afternoon. I would like to call this meeting of the

House Civil Service Subcommittee to order, and welcome you to the

hearing.

Today we are going to focus on the question of veterans’ employment and veterans’ preference in the Federal workplace, and in

particular on the Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act of 1997.

I am going to begin with an opening statement, and I will yield to

our members. And then we will begin the hearing with our two

panels.

I would also like to welcome Ms. Norton. I think that she has

been tied up, and has not been on the panel before. But we are

glad that you are here today. Mr. Pappas was introduced last time,

and Mrs. Morella, and, of course, our ranking member, Mr. Holden.

Again, welcome.

I called this hearing to examine the provisions of the Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act of 1997, H.R. 240. I introduced this

bill in order to strengthen veterans’ preference in the Federal Government and to increase job opportunities for our veterans.

It is obvious that this bill has had long term bipartisan support,

but it is important that we move legislation forward.

I am extremely pleased that our new ranking member, Mr.

Holden, a distinguished member of our panel, is also a co-sponsor

of this legislation, and others on this panel. I thank them for their

support, and also for their efforts in working closely to make this

bill a reality.

As many of you know, I introduced similar legislation in the last

Congress. That bill, H.R. 3586, passed the House by voice vote. We

2

passed that twice, in fact, and we passed it also as a revision or

an amendment to another piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on either bill. And we are

still in the situation of our veterans being denied the critical protections that we placed under H.R. 240.

The improvements we have made—and we have made some in

the legislation that was introduced last time—hopefully, will make

our veterans’ preference laws more applicable and more effective.

Last April, I held a hearing to examine the state of veterans’ preference in the Federal Government workplace. That examination showed us that veterans’ preference had many problems in

various Federal agencies, and also its compliance and effectiveness.

We find that veterans’ preference is often ignored or circumvented. Evidence also revealed a strong anti-veteran culture in

the Federal workplace. For example, the General Accounting Office

found Federal agencies much more likely to avoid hiring from a list

of eligible candidates when a veteran entitled to preference headed

the list.

In short, sometimes bureaucrats overlook the requirements that

we have in place, and often a veteran who was eligible for a position was not really allowed to adequately contend for that open job.

We have also learned that new threats to veterans’ preference

have arisen. In particular, I am very concerned about the increased

use of designer RIFs when agencies reorganize or conduct a reduction in force.

These so-called designer RIFs place employees in single position

competitive levels. This device ends up eliminating competition for

positions at a particular grade level, and often undercuts veterans.

In fact, designer RIFs turn the basic idea of a reduction in force

upside down.

Under the statute governing RIFs, employees are supposed to

compete for retention according to rules that include preference for

veterans. But these designer RIFs allow agencies to eliminate that

competition and abuse the process by targeting specific individuals.

One of our hearing witnesses described how a designer RIF

placed him in a single person competition. Of 50 employees covered

by the RIF, this Vietnam veteran, who had been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star, and multiple awards of

the Air Medal, was the only one downgraded.

Compounding these problems is the fact of the lack of an effective redress system. In fact, the major veterans’ service organizations say that this is one of our key issues and key areas that need

revision. Both the American Legion and the Disabled American

Veterans testified to the importance of improving the redress mechanism at last year’s hearing.

The Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act of 1997 hopefully

will cure that problem. It establishes what we consider to be an effective user-friendly redress system. Veterans could appeal alleged

violations through an existing administrative remedy or before the

courts.

Our legislation also authorizes the special counsel to bring those

who knowingly violate veterans’ preference laws before the Merit

Systems Protection Board for punishment that may include firing,

suspension, or possibly a $1,000 fine. Such stiff penalties will enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 080155 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\43102 pfrm09 PsN: 43102
3

sure that the folks who do not want to pay attention to what we

are saying, and I use the term ‘‘bureaucrats’’ in this case, will make

them really take seriously veterans’ preference and veterans’

rights.

H.R. 240 also targets designer RIFs. It prevents Federal agencies

from using such schemes to unfairly strip veterans of their right

to compete for their jobs during a RIF. Veterans who are RIFed

will also receive enhanced rights to other jobs.

Also, I have targeted another practice that hurts many former

service men and women. Most who serve in today’s military are not

entitled to veterans’ preference, unless they receive a campaign

badge. They have no advantage when applying for a Federal job.

Worse, too often they cannot even apply. Instead, agencies restrict

competition to their own workforce or to current Federal employees. My bill tears down some of these artificial barriers that have

been built up and treats anyone who is entitled to veterans’ preference or who served honorably in the armed forces for 3 years in

what I consider fair terms.

These individuals have performed a valuable service for our Nation. We should honor that service by allowing them to compete

fairly and squarely for jobs.

There are other provisions in this bill that are critically important to many veterans, and I will summarize them briefly.

First, it will extend veterans’ preference to certain jobs in the

legislative branch, and in the judicial branch, and at the White

House.

Agencies will also be required to establish priority placement

programs for employees affected by a RIF. And Federal agencies

must give veterans’ preference when rehiring employees.

Another provision is the FAA will be required to apply veterans’

preference in a RIF.

And a further provision is that service men and women who

serve in Bosnia, Croatia, and Macedonia will qualify also for veterans’ preference.

Veterans’ preference, and I have said it before, is an earned

right, not a gift. Veterans, who are such a hard-working and disciplined group, deserve this small boost.

My family and I have long been concerned with their welfare.

Many of you know that my brother served on the Veterans’ Committee for many years, and this was one of his concerns. We just

feel very strongly that we have an obligation to extend any little

boost we can to our veterans’ community and population.

I am committed to expanding and protecting these job opportunities for the men and women who fought our Nation’s battles, and

preserved the peace, and protected our vital interests throughout

the world. And a small thing that we can do is make this H.R. 240

the law of the land.

In a minute, I will get into introducing our witnesses. But now

I would like to yield with those comments to our ranking member,

and recognize Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica, and the text of

H.R. 240 follow:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a great pleasure to be here today. And I commend you for

holding this hearing and markup on H.R. 240.

As a Nation, we owe a great debt of gratitude to our veterans for

their fine service to our country. Many times, we have called on our

military personnel to answer the call to duty and to help in times

of need.

The veterans’ preference recognizes our obligation to those who

have served this Nation proudly. The Congress has a responsibility

to make sure that the original goals of veterans’ preference are

being met, and that veterans’ rights are being protected. And I look

forward to hearing the testimony today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tim Holden follows:]

38

39

Mr. MICA. I think that Mr. Holden is going to make an incredible

ranking member with short opening statements like that.

Mr. HOLDEN. Well, I was told to be careful about that.

Mr. MICA. I will tell my staff to make mine a little bit shorter.

So I apologize, but I got in words for everyone.

I will turn now to our vice chairman, Mr. Pappas.

Did you have any opening remarks?

Mr. PAPPAS. No. I have a written statement that I would like to

be included in the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, it will be made part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael Pappas follows:]

40

41

Mr. MICA. Ms. Norton, did you have any opening comments or

remarks? You were not with us for our first meeting, but you are

most welcome, and we look forward to your participation on our

panel.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have a

brief opening statement.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing

and markup today on the Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act

of 1997.

This is essentially the same legislation that you introduced and

that the subcommittee and the full committee approved in the

104th Congress, with modifications designed to address certain

matters. The bill, of course, aims to bolster veterans’ preference

and increase Federal employment opportunities for our women and

men who have served in the armed forces.

May I essentially thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including elements of a bill that I had introduced in the last session of the Congress to require Federal agencies to establish priority placement

programs for employees affected by a RIF. And you have included

a section in addition that would require the Federal agencies to

give veterans’ preference when rehiring employees. This is a very

important addition to the bill, when one considers that the Federal

Government continues to downsize.

The country has long recognized that whether in a voluntary or

conscripted army, that serving one’s country inevitably entails sacrifices. Among these are the loss of months or years when there

could have been career advancement in the private sector. The

least that the Government can do is to recognize this sacrifice in

its own job pool.

Veterans’ preference allows the Government to reap the benefit

of its own investment in military training, encouraging skilled military personnel who leave the armed services to enter the Federal

workforce today. Indeed, at this time, there is a greater percentage

of veterans in the Federal workforce than in the private sector.

Veterans’ preference also benefits women. And as more and more

women enter the military, women are increasingly represented in

the armed forces. Comprising approximately 200,000 of the 1.5 million in active military service today, veterans’ preference could potentially have a great impact on these women as they leave the

military and seek employment in the Federal Government.

Once again, I commend Chairman Mica for the bipartisan,

participatory process that this subcommittee has engaged in to address concerns that were raised regarding this bill. I look forward

to our markup this afternoon and our work on this subcommittee

during the 105th Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton follows:]

42

43

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

And I would now recognize the gentlelady and long-suffering

member of this committee, Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. I loved every minute of it, Mr. Chairman, or almost.

I want to thank you for reintroducing this bill with its changes,

and for holding this hearing today, and the markup following. Because this is an important piece of legislation, the Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act of 1997.

As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, this bill has broad support. It

passed this subcommittee in the last Congress, and it passed the

House. And we did have two votes on it in the House. But unfortunately, the Senate failed to act on the legislation. Improvements

since then have been made to the bill to ensure that postal workers

are treated fairly.

And I remember the testimony that we had in the last Congress.

We had many veterans’ organizations and individuals who testified. And, of course, one that stands out in my mind is John Fales,

who founded the Blinded American Veterans Foundation, who is

represented here today by Heea Fales, his spouse. But he and the

others provided personal experience testimony, which is very valuable to this committee.

So this bill would simply strengthen the requirement that veterans receive preferential treatment in obtaining and keeping Federal jobs. It would also establish a much-needed redress mechanism for veterans who are denied their employment rights. The

contents of this bill are certainly deserved by all of our veterans,

men and women alike.

And I thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady.

And I will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have a few brief

remarks, if I may.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be in front of these groups

today, who are representing veterans across our country. And I

would like to say that it is never inappropriate to stand up for the

rights of these veterans.

Sometimes, especially in a peacetime period that we are enjoying

today in our history, it is easy to take for granted many of these

many freedoms and sacrifices that each of these veterans have

fought for.

But we can never forget the contributions that the men and

women of our military have given to our country, and that is what

we are talking about today, their place in society and the jobs that

they will have.

The Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act of 1997 gives to

those who have served our country needed appeals and the avenues

for those cases which they have been denied the opportunity to

work in the position for which they were most qualified. When veterans are not given the chance to prove their ability, justice must

prevail.

When I first read this legislation, I was concerned about the impact it may have on the Postal Service. Because of my unique position serving not only on this subcommittee and the Subcommittee

44

of the Postal Service, many of my constituents voiced their opinions

on this legislation.

And Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that they were concerned

about this legislation that would put veterans without postal experience in high postal positions. In other words, something that they

may not have had a background for.

And I was very heartened to receive from you, Mr. Chairman,

that among other things stated that many jobs within the Postal

Service, such as the Postmaster positions, require knowledge and

skills that must and most often can be obtained only within the

Postal Service.

And I would like to say that there is nothing in this bill that will

require anyone to hire an unqualified veteran with no postal experience for any job, meaning that you must be qualified if you want

to try to qualify for these jobs.

I would like to thank you for providing this letter to me. Because

as I know and you know, the Postal Service has an outstanding

record in hiring veterans. The Postal Service employs 258,510 veterans. In 1995 alone, the Postal Service hired 7,927. Of that 7,927,

6,033 had service-connected disability.

This is an agency that I believe we can applaud and be proud

of for not only their service to America, but also working with the

veterans’ community with distinction. And it is certainly one that

I think needs to continue to improve its service to the American

people. And we need to work with them.

And I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your special

consideration when we talk about the impact of this legislation to

women. According to your letter to me, Mr. Chairman, the equal

access provision in this bill will make it easier for women veterans

to obtain Federal employment. So certainly, what we are talking

about is not only people who have given up their time to our country, but also those people who might be minorities, and in this case

specifically women.

I applaud your bill, Mr. Chairman. I think that it addresses legitimate concerns that we have. And I want to thank you for sending this letter to me. And I would ask unanimous consent for that

letter that you sent to me that was dated February 24th be submitted into the record.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for my time.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Sessions.

And without objection, that document will be made part of the

record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Pete Sessions and the information referred to follow:]

45

46

47

48

49

Mr. MICA. I will also send a letter to Mr. Runyon. You should

be entitled to at least two more postal facilities and quick delivery

of your mail. That is in their mission statement, so I trust that it

is going to happen.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. And thank you for your concern to make sure that

those provisions are in the legislation.

Today we have two panels. We are very pleased to welcome our

first panel, and to welcome back the Honorable James B. King, Director and Director-to-be of the Office of Personnel Management, as

I understand that he is being renominated by the President. We

have enjoyed our working relationship. We probably agree 90 percent of the time, and then are very amicable on the other 10 percent. We achieved some milestones in Federal personnel management under your leadership and with the cooperation of our panel.

So we congratulate you, and welcome you back. You have with

you Mary Lou Lindholm, with the Office of Diversity in the Office

of Personnel Management.

Is she going to testify too, Jim?

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, Mary Lou Lindholm is also our Associate Director for Employment. Her responsibilities include chairing

our meetings with the veterans’ service organizations. So she covers two areas that I thought might be helpful to the committee.

Mr. MICA. And she is also going to testify with you.

And as customary, this is an investigation and oversight panel.

So if you would both please stand and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in

the affirmative.

As is customary, we ask that full comments be submitted for the

record, but that you summarize now and try to go under the 5-

minute rule.

So with that, you are recognized and welcomed, Mr. King.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES B. KING, DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY MARY LOU

LINDHOLM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR EMPLOYMENT, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be totally disingenuous if I did not thank you for your help on the very difficult work

that lay before us at OPM when you first arrived as chairman. I

really would be totally disingenuous if I did not acknowledge that.

And the former Chair, who was so helpful in the past, Ms. Norton, I also have to thank you during that first term. I really do not

know how we would have done anything without your support.

And you suggested, Mr. Chairman, it has been bipartisan. And

above all, Mr. Chairman, I think sometimes you may even understate yourself. Fairness, I think, has been one of the things that

has been the hallmark really of your term here.

Mr. MICA. If you would be willing to repeat that to my wife.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I really thank you for the opportunity

to state the Office of Personnel Management’s views on the Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act of 1997, H.R. 240, and to restate the Clinton administration’s firm support for the principle of

50

veterans’ preference, which Franklin Roosevelt embodied in the

Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944.

The administration strongly supports veterans’ preference, and

the enhanced employment opportunities it has provided for our Nation’s veterans. We at OPM take pride in the record that this administration has achieved in administering our veterans’ preference.

OPM’s most recent workforce figures demonstrate that even in a

time when the Government is growing smaller, our Nation is keeping its promise to those who have worn its uniform.

Our figures show that in 1990, 1991, and in 1992, the percentage

of veterans among Federal civilian full-time permanent new hires

averaged 18.5 percent.

In 1993, 1994, and 1995, the percentage of veterans among Federal civilian full-time new hires was 31.1 percent, an increase of

more than 50 percent over the previous 3 years.

These numbers represent real men and women, about 14,000 of

them in 1995, who joined our civil service, largely because of their

own skills and talents, but also because the veterans’ preference

law is doing the job that it was designed to do.

For example, in 1995, 47.7 percent of the 24,846 men aged 20 or

older, who were hired for full-time permanent jobs, were veterans.

That is more than double the 22.4 percent of men over the age of

20 who are already in the national workforce, who are veterans.

Under existing law, veterans have also had protection during reductions in force or RIFs. And we believe that these have worked

well to protect veterans during the ongoing downsizing of Government.

The issue before us today is new legislation intended to further

strengthen veterans’ preference. Strengthening employment opportunities for veterans is a worthy goal. And I would like to thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

During recent discussions with the veterans’ service organizations, we questioned whether our goal of retaining the maximum

number of veterans during a RIF could be achieved by this legislation without complicating an already complex and cumbersome RIF

process.

OPM put forth for their consideration the idea of simply removing the grade limitation on bumping and retreating for veterans

only. I had hoped that the proposal would be seen as a way to retain the most veterans during a RIF without the additional complexity that may result from the proposed legislation.

And I do support strengthening the veterans’ preference. However, I would also note that any change to RIF procedures should

allow agencies adequate time for implementation. Since RIFs may

be underway should the bill be enacted in its present form, agencies will need this phase-in period.

Otherwise, they would have to stop ongoing RIFs and start over

again, causing enormous disruption and increased expense. But in

many cases, it would mean an even greater job loss, and therefore

more RIFs.

We will work with the Congress to address this and any other

concerns that you may have.

51

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer any questions you may

have about this legislation, and OPM’s role in administering it. I

thank you very much for permitting me to be here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

52

53

54

55

56

Mr. MICA. I thank you.

And you are not going to make an opening statement?

Ms. LINDHOLM. No, I am not.

Mr. MICA. You are just available for questions?

Ms. LINDHOLM. Right.

Mr. MICA. Well, I have a couple of questions. First, we have gotten from your agency’s Office of Diversity, I guess the latest list of

the employment of veterans in the executive department.

Are you aware, either Mr. King or Ms. Lindholm, of what the civilian labor force percentage of veterans being hired are in the private sector?

Mr. KING. The last report that I had was I think it was 22 percent as opposed to now 27.5 percent in the latest figures I have.

Mr. MICA. Well, one of the things that concerns me is that even

with some existing veterans’ preference, if you look at our Federal

agencies, and I have a copy of a table that was produced by your

office, is that several of the agencies fall below that percentage: the

Department of Education, the Department of HHS, the Department

of Treasury, and other executive agencies. But many of these agencies are far below even the civilian workforce in percentages of veterans’ hiring.

[The information referred to follows:]

57

58

Mr. MICA. Is there any reason for this that you have seen?

Mr. KING. We have done the analysis, and we have seen both figures. I could not respond regarding the record of specific agencies.

Ms. LINDHOLM. There is nothing that we have come across in the

reports that would allow you to identify specifically what the barriers were in any particular agency.

Mr. MICA. Well, the other thing I am wondering, Jim, is if we

might be able to get cooperation of your agency right from the getgo here, and ask them to voluntarily look at how they can increase

veterans’ employment, because these are some pretty dismal figures for some of our key Federal agencies. So that might be one

thing we could do before we get legislation in effect, but it would

be done on a voluntary basis.

Would you be willing to work with us on that?

Mr. KING. Surely.

Mr. MICA. Maybe we can do something jointly that we are concerned with in a positive vein.

Another thing that concerns me, and was just brought to my attention, and it is sort of like discrimination. You know, everybody

knows that it goes on, and we detest it, and we have laws against

it. But it does exist.

I got a letter from a Vietnam veteran dated February 6th. It

takes a little while to get to me, but I did eventually get it. This

veteran was working in the biological research division of the

USDA, which has been undergoing a number of changes.

But what he brought to my attention was very disturbing. He

said that he was and some other folks were called in as field station staff members to a meeting in Davis, CA. ‘‘We all met with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel staff.’’ And the individuals

from the personnel branch of the Fish and Wildlife Service gave

them an informal briefing on how to avoid giving veterans any

preference.

Let me quote what he says here. ‘‘This is what these representatives said. ‘We will tell you how not to hire a veteran, how to get

rid of veterans, and how to avoid facing a 5 to 10 point veteran in

hiring.’ ’’

And then they asked them not to let the word out on this at this

particular meeting, and then went on and explained how to run job

announcements to avoid, partially, veterans. ‘‘You can run a job announcement for the last 2 weeks before the job announcement closing date, and use the excuse of checking the DD–214 or losing any

other pertinent piece of paperwork that did not arrive before job

placement.’’

They went on to talk about reduction in force, and how they get

around reduction in force rules, and these are the personnel folks

from Fish and Wildlife. ‘‘Reduction in force rules in general terms

can be manipulated.’’ I will not read the rest of it—about how you

manipulate the rules to the disadvantage of veterans.

This is very disturbing to me to get this, but it seems pretty reliable. We need to be looking at this carefully.

[The information referred to follows:]

59

60

61

62

Mr. KING. I would like to have a copy of that. You know, we have

had 31 of these kinds of situations come before us in the past 2

years, and every one of them we have been able to solve and remedy, and make corrections, and take action.

If it would not jeopardize any confidentiality, we would very

much like to have that, so we can go right to the organization.

Mr. MICA. We can have all of the laws on the books and pass

new laws, and we will have folks subverting the law and the intent. We are the employers, and we need to make sure that the employees are cooperating in this effort.

So I call this to your attention, and ask for your cooperation.

Mr. KING. We will look into this, and we will report back to the

subcommittee.

Mr. MICA. I have no further questions or comments.

Mr. Holden, you are recognized.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. King, for your testimony.

Can you outline the types of preferences that veterans get in the

civil service, and explain which veterans qualify for them?

Mr. KING. We have the list.

Ms. LINDHOLM. There is a list that actually identifies the eligibility criteria, and we would certainly be glad to submit it to you.

It is pretty lengthy.

Mr. KING. We can go through it, if you wish.

Mr. HOLDEN. If you could submit it for the record, so we could

review it, I would appreciate that.

Ms. LINDHOLM. Sure.

[The information referred to follows:]

63

64

65

66

67

Mr. HOLDEN. And could you describe for us the manner in which

you routinely have been conducting outreach to various veterans’ organizations?

Mr. KING. We meet with the major national veterans’ service organizations on a quarterly basis. We sometimes meet informally in

between, and we talk with each other on the phone. And Ms.

Lindholm is the one who chairs the meeting, but the agenda is set

jointly during those meetings.

I make it a point to attend virtually all of them. I abbreviated

my attendance at the last meeting, because, quite frankly, I was

not feeling very well, and I did not want to infect the group. They

are friends. So I left a bit early. But we did go over the agenda

item, including discussion of the legislation before us.

Mr. HOLDEN. Just one final question, Mr. King. I believe the veterans groups will testify that Federal managers do not understand

the responsibilities with respect to veterans’ preference.

What if any information or training are managers provided with

on this subject?

Mr. KING. That is on an agency-by-agency basis. And what we

can do is every manager should be trained. I think that one of the

things that is worth saying is that right now, because this has been

brought to our attention, we are in the process—we are in the final

process—of publishing a handbook called Vet Guide, which will be

a handbook for all of the veterans’ appointing authorities. And it

will be a quick reference guide, quite frankly, to assist Federal

agencies in accurately determining applying veterans’ preference.

Because we view it in our agency as core to merit principles. So

when I talk merit principles, veterans’ preference, it is a part of

that. It is not a separate section. It is right in there.

So I feel very strongly about supporting veterans’ preferences as

part of our merit system. I view it as an earned right. It is not simply an entitlement. I hope that I am expressing the agency and the

Government as a whole. So that anyone who is inconsistent with

that particular position, I believe is inconsistent with both the intent and the spirit of the laws and where we should be at.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. King.

No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mrs. Morella, you are recognized for questions.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you.

Again congratulations, Dr. King, on your reappointment.

Mr. KING. Thank you.

Mrs. MORELLA. I just wanted to pick up on a line from your testimony, where you said that, ‘‘OPM put forth for their consideration

the idea of simply removing the grade limitation on bumping and

retreating for veterans only. I had hoped the proposal would be

seen as a way to retain the most veterans during a RIF without

the additional complexities that may result from the proposed legislation.’’ What are the complexities of the proposed legislation?

Mr. KING. On that one, I actually have a list, if you will go

through it with me as I look at it first, so I can answer the question in reverse. What I referred to quite frankly was that with

these we had a clean mind when we lifted any of the bump and

68

retreat, which would optimize. And there was some question, I

think, by a number of groups, all legitimate.

What we did so, I would like to say, is we started with the same

objective and the same goals. How do we optimize the opportunity

for veterans at a time of downsizing to retain their jobs. That was

the bottom line. So I put that one forward quite frankly in good

faith, merely to say I am not starting from any previous predetermined position any bump or retreat from 15 to a 1. That would be

up for discussion, as far as I was concerned. And that would simplify the whole process.

And the service organizations speak for themselves. But I also

indicated at the same meeting that I would support anything that

came forward in any manner that they felt would work toward the

goal and the objective. And it is quite apparent that nowhere are

we at loggerheads in relation to that. So I feel totally comfortable.

Part of it is that bumps outside of our competitive areas would

cause RIFs quite frankly in agencies that are not facing shortages

of funds or work. So the determination in one area could move into

another agency or another area of responsibility that would ordinarily not be affected, because this opens up much broader.

There could be a productivity loss. Veterans could be placed in

jobs obviously where they need more training to be effective. And

that is stated and that is understood in the bill, but it goes to 150

days. And the increased training and the cost to the agencies.

But we are willing to accept these costs as part of our commitment as a public agency. And we understand that. But we want

you to understand what the implications are.

This is also an area where people are making additional subjective decisions. Do you believe this individual can be better trained,

et cetera. There is a lot of area of subjectivity. And we have generally found that where people are making judgments, in that

sense you can get into a great deal of difficulty.

Again, we were looking at the simplest type, rather than going

through the entire organizations. And I think really that the potential cost, which nobody knows right now, and the delay. Because

as you know, every time you set a RIF, if anything changes, and

you have to reissue and rework it.

I really had Ms. Lindholm with me today, because she is one of

few people who is a personnelist, who is also in her own agency

had to work from top to bottom. And what you hear many times,

for examples, that managers make determinations.

First of all, I think I should establish the fact that our veterans

make up about 38 percent of all managers in our Government. So

it is not that as a veteran that once you become a manager that

somehow you turn your back. I would like to think that that is not

true. But there is a substantial managerial class for our veterans.

But even in this, what is the determination that is going to be

made at each step. The personnel office does that. What you do as

a manager is identify jobs that no longer need to be done, and the

bump and retreat goes from there. And right now, virtually every

agency I know uses a computer program.

Ms. LINDHOLM. Most of them do.

Mr. KING. Which any agency of any size does that. So they can

reprogram and reset. It is much more complex sort of management

69

item. And the front line managers and even the more senior managers have no idea what it looks like. It is all done by the personnel office.

Ms. LINDHOLM. Right. And I think that it is important to note

that throughout a RIF notice period that those determinations

change. So if an individual retires or if there is any movement in

that competitive area, you have to continually rerun the RIF. And

that is the personnelist who would be rerunning it. So it is very

difficult to know what the outcome is going to be of a RIF, when

you reach the effective date.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. King, you mentioned that there could be a

larger and longer phasing period.

Mr. KING. Our concern was that you give us enough time. I am

operating on the assumption that the legislation will move forward.

Then we are saying how do we make it work. My interest is bottom

line, how do I get this to actually work and affect the people we

are concerned about. And what I want to do is be certain we have

enough time that we can do the rulemaking, which is a minimum

of 90 days. And then in other areas where other agencies have to

give up for this is we will take some time.

I do not know, and I am not about to predict, what time an agency would take for this. I would like to think that they may be asked

and they could share that with you as to what they feel they need

for lead time.

I know that the Department of Defense is already giving you an

idea what they believe they would need, and maybe there are other

agencies that are affected that would share that with you.

I am using 90 days. Please do not hold me to it, but we will work

hard to come in within that 90 day window to make sure we are

ready to go with rulemaking and everything that is required, so it

can get started.

Mrs. MORELLA. So you can make this bill when it becomes law

work?

Mr. KING. We will try. The question is can the agencies respond

to the final rulemaking we put out. And I am just saying give them

enough time. As I am saying, when we are bringing in 47 percent

almost of our eligible people who are applying for jobs who are veterans, there is a real effort.

I know we are running into situations and they are real situations with real people where they have not been treated fairly. We

have identified some of those, and they are real. So I am not in any

way minimizing this. But I think that you have to give us a certain

bit of leeway, because I think that there has been a bridge of trust

established with the hiring that has been done. I am talking about

new hires.

It is quite apparent when you say it is 47 percent. And by the

way, 96 percent of your veterans are male right now. Now the mix

is changing. It is about 86 right now, I think. But as far as the

available pool of talent coming in, we are drawing down, and it

seems that a good job is being done.

Now we are concerned about two other things. First on the hires,

but second on RIFs. How do we retain people and maintain the

same commitment to fairness and to job stability that we did to

entry, and to maintain all of those standards together.

70

What we are saying is, give us an opportunity to get the training

in, and to make sure that gets done, and that it is done properly.

But I am not saying give us some excessive amount of time. I believe that it can be done in a reasonable period.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Dr. King.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. King, I am intrigued by your list indicating the percent of

veterans by department. One sees in the departments that are related to the military far larger numbers than other departments.

Would you say this occurs largely because of the preference of

veterans themselves, because of greater receptivity of the agencies,

or some other reason, particularly in light of the fact that you have

this high percentage of situations, 71 percent according to the figures I have, where there is circumvention of the law, where the

veteran is at the top of the civil service register?

Mr. KING. Well, first of all, I think that the veterans, as anyone

else, do not stray far from home. In some cases, people are known.

They are known quantities. And they are leaving the service, and

they are recruited back in as civilians.

Ms. NORTON. The departments themselves reach out to recruit

people?

Mr. KING. Yes. And by the way, I am delighted that they do it.

And some of it is retraining. But also a colonel so-and-so knows

that they are looking in the particular area that these people are

going on, that they are looking for somebody, and they are aware

of the job notice. And say we have an ideal person coming out of

the service now, and you really ought to look at them.

There is a network that is established. And also, I think in many

cases, and I would include ours, that it is a question of where the

specialty lies, too. But I do not know. That is why I say it is interesting to see the spread. That is why I brought it in. It is interesting to see the spread. I do not have any definitive answers.

Mary Lou, what has been your experience over the years with

this?

Ms. LINDHOLM. Well, I think your point about the high number

of military retirees. I believe the number is running almost 50 percent these days of the hires, the new hires, into DOD are military

retirees. And we can certainly check and verify those numbers, and

submit them for the record. But I think that Jim’s point is correct,

that it is the recruitment sources that they have identified.

Mr. KING. And it is fascinating, as you noted. For example, the

Department of Transportation has a very high level of veterans.

Ms. NORTON. They look like they are matching themselves. This

may not reflect poorly on the other departments. It reflects the network, and it reflects the particular skills that people are trained for

in the service, and are reused in civilian life, all of which means,

of course, that the Federal Government is getting a bigger bang out

of its initial buck, because it has invested very heavily in training

for these veterans. And that training probably reflects itself better

where we see these numbers than it would, for example, in Education, or in Labor, or in HHS, where we see the numbers lower.

71

I am struck, however, in your testimony by the difference between employment of veterans in the Federal Government and in

the private sector.

Would that be for the same reason? You had twice as many, or

approximately twice as many by percentage, going into the Federal

sector as going into the private sector.

Mr. KING. What I have in the private sector is where we are

looking at a stable thing. We do not know what the private sector

hires as a percentage.

Ms. NORTON. The national workforce without knowing.

Mr. KING. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. So it might not be all private.

Mr. KING. I am using the dynamic side where people are seeking

work. It is interesting to know that people who have jobs, about 22

percent out there in the public sector, which is a pretty good barometer of what is there, that the hires—and by the way, it is interesting to note that the cadre of the age 20 to 34 is about 4.7 percent of the population in the private sector.

And when you see a very substantial number of veterans that we

bring into the military when you look at the cadre of the age group,

it is that a very substantial cadre of veterans from the 50 to 65

that if you were looking at a chart, that is the big swell. It is very,

very substantial. Almost half of the veterans, better than half, are

in that category.

What we are seeing now is a shift within Government of higher

and higher percentages of Vietnam veterans being the veteran who

is presently employed in the Government. There is a wide range,

but there is a definite shift away from World War II and Korea,

because of the age and retirement. Plus the Government retires at

an earlier age as a rule on average than the private sector. People

leave the Government earlier than they do in the private sector in

gross numbers.

Ms. NORTON. The figures in your testimony is you refer to hires

and not promotion, do they not?

Mr. KING. Pardon?

Ms. NORTON. The figures in your testimony reflect hires and not

promotions?

Mr. KING. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Would you talk about promotion, where veterans’ preference also comes into play?

Mr. KING. Let me see what I have in the numbers. Let me just

check. I was just looking at them.

Ms. NORTON. Do the ratios continue in the way that we find

them in the hires?

Mr. KING. We find, for example, 10 percent of a gross figure of

27.5 percent veterans. It is about 38 or 37.9 percent on managers

or in the supervisory category. We have various categories that we

are running through right now. It is almost over-charted, please

forgive me.

Ms. NORTON. I am not actually sure that it breaks out promotions.

Mr. KING. I do not have promotions per se. We can get you the

positions that they presently hold, which would indicate promotions.

72

[The information referred to follows:]

PROMOTION RATES FOR VETERANS

There were 278,680 promotions in the Federal Service in FY 1995. Veterans accounted for 58,182 of these promotions, or 20.9 percent. The percentage of promotions going to veterans ranged from a high of 35.2 percent in Air Force to 7 percent in HHS and generaly paralleled the extent to which agencies hired veterans.

Ms. NORTON. Well, promotions are interesting. Because it is in

promotions that you have competing. You really do have a more

difficult situation. People coming in and being hired for the first

time is an easier situation than when two people have done good

work, and one may have done considerably better work than another. And then veterans’ preference comes into play.

Mr. KING. At the end of the day, if you end up with 38 percent

of your positions, your leadership positions, being held by veterans

that we can document, they obviously are being promoted. And

they are being promoted in disproportionate numbers to the number in the workforce.

But I would like to say, if I could, whatever we are doing, the

real issue is can we do more. And we believe we can, and we believe that this legislation will help us to do more. And that I think

is what your bottom line is, and the committee’s bottom line is, and

we share that.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Ms. Norton.

Mr. Sessions.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you.

Dr. King, have you had an opportunity to see this letter from

John W. Cox yet, were you just given that?

Mr. KING. It was just given to me, sir.

Mr. SESSIONS. Have you reviewed it before today, sir?

Mr. KING. No, sir.

Mr. SESSIONS. OK. I would like, if I could, to just take a minute,

Mr. Chairman, and look into at least just part of this letter. I

would like to direct you to where it says a Vietnam veteran in the

Government, the last paragraph.

It says, ‘‘The other situation has to do with veterans already in

government. The reduction in force rules they stated are general in

terms and can be manipulated. In other words, the way that I understood their explanation is the personnel office could give a RIF

action that either segregates the workers in selective job positions

or a blanket RIF that would cover the way that the regulations

were written for in the first place.’’

Specifically, my question is can you please discuss what this

means, and is there something that is a unique or single person

competitive level?

Mr. KING. There is a single person competitive level. In many

cases, we see that is of advantage to the individual in it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Advantage to what?

Mr. KING. For the individual who is in that single category. In

many cases, it is in their interest.

Mr. SESSIONS. What is this, and does it mean single person, or

does it mean job title, what does this relate to, and how many sinVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 080155 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\43102 pfrm09 PsN: 43102
73

gle—because evidently, there is a competitive advantage in a RIF

situation.

Mr. KING. Sometimes it can be, sir, and sometimes there is not.

Mr. SESSIONS. Let me allow you a few minutes. I think you see

the area that I am going in.

Ms. LINDHOLM. Yes. Actually, I do not see how any individual

could say that even before you are ever even running a RIF and

you have ever established your retention registers you would be

making some of those statements.

But the point is that when you are starting to run a reduction

in force, you look at how your positions are classified, and your occupational series. In most cases, your competitive levels are determined by the series.

But there are some classification series that are so broad, such

as the ones in the 300 series, that you would look and say, how

do you group these positions in such a way that the duties are

interchangeable, that anyone in that competitive level could do any

person’s job in that competitive level. And that is how you make

those determinations.

Mr. SESSIONS. As to whether it would be considered unique?

Ms. LINDHOLM. That is right. And it is very, very specialized.

Someone who has scientific, that is usually you see a lot of it, that

they have to have a lot of scientific expertise that only one individual perhaps has that kind of specialized position at that point.

That would create the situation for a single competitive level.

But as Jim indicated, that is only for the first round of a reduction in force. And even if you identify that single competitive level

position as one to be abolished, you then have to go into your second round of reduction in force, which means that you start applying your bumping and retreating rights. So you do not know how

it is going to fall out after that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Have you received any comments similar to this

within your own evaluations and within your own business and

feedback from managers or from other groups that this is a problem?

Ms. LINDHOLM. You mean believing that some agencies are actually trying to manipulate, according to this statement?

Mr. SESSIONS. Believing, as it says here, in selective job positions, in other words allowing that?

Mr. KING. I heard that in my own agency when we were RIFing.

We downsized our agency about 46 percent. And a lot of it was attrition, and a substantial amount by RIFs. And we were told time

and time again that this was being done selectively and so forth.

And I was very curious, and that is when Mary Lou and I worked

together very closely. As I said, she has the hands-on side.

Once it started, it was like a ball on a roulette wheel. If you can

really predict what slot that is going into, you can become a millionaire. You could do the same thing in our business. If you could

really predict how a RIF runs. I do not think you can predict it.

I have never had a prediction on a real RIF.

Mr. SESSIONS. Not even a manager.

Do the RIFs originate only from Washington, DC?

Mr. KING. No. They can originate——

Ms. LINDHOLM. In a community.

74

Mr. SESSIONS. Local management.

Mr. KING. No. Local management determines the jobs. The personnel people work the RIF. They are separate.

Mr. SESSIONS. So the local management determine the RIF.

Mr. KING. They determine the jobs that are to be closed, that

would no longer be necessary. And the individual holding that job

then with the floor being taken from under them. But they have

the right at that time to either bump or to retreat. And they move

up or down, or horizontally or vertically, horizontally or in a downward pattern. And they can take another job.

The person getting the RIF notice may not be the person going

out the door. I may be legally RIFed, but I have standing with a

number of incremental things. It is a mathematical equation, basically, that makes the determination of who leaves us.

Ms. LINDHOLM. And I think what you will find is that management identifies the positions that are excess. And if, for example,

they have five accountants, and they say that they can do the work

with one less accountant now, then they just identify an accountant, for example, Grade 7 is the position now they are going to determine is excess. From then on they have no idea which of the five

are even going to be identified as the low person on that retention

register, who would start the reduction-in-force process.

Mr. KING. And that person who, let’s say, is removed, and they

lose their job, they may have rights to permit them to run into another department where they bump someone else. And they stay

there, and that other person starts to bump or retreat. That is

what we are saying. It is a series of bumps and retreats as to who

actually leaves us. You may have anywhere from 6 to 10 people

who are affected on one job.

Mr. SESSIONS. Have veterans expressed a specific problem with

this, and have those been addressed?

Mr. KING. I know that in a number of cases, and I believe that

testimony was given here, where veterans had some questions, because veterans have gone out the door. They have lost their jobs.

And there is no guarantee under any legislation I have seen, but

they are four times better off than non-veterans.

In some places, and I know the Chair is very sensitive and aware

of this, the U.S. Geological Survey, where there were RIFs, and

there were a number of comments made. But veterans were disproportionately impacted as far as retention goes than non-veterans. Some veterans still went out the door, and that is part of

the question.

What I think this legislation attempts to do, sir, is to try and

still reduce that further. But there is nothing that I have seen that

would stop it outright, unless you gave absolute preference, under

no circumstances is anyone removed from a job.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Dr. King.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank our panelists today.

Did you have something else?

Mr. KING. Just one thing, Mr. Chairman. I know during these

hearings that you have always looked for perfecting language. But

I was just a little concerned about the standards that you have in

there for reporting. You mentioned, as you did in your opening

75

statement, sir, about both the Congress, and the judiciary, and the

executive, the White House, having a methodology and reporting.

What I noticed in the legislation is that there seems to be a

lower standard for judges, and Members of Congress, and the

White House. And I was wondering if we were going to equalize

that in the legislation, sir. And if that was an oversight, the committee might want to consider it.

Mr. MICA. Well, we have met with our good friends in the judiciary, and they have some particular concerns and a particular manner in which they are required under the Constitution to conduct

themselves. And the same thing for the legislative branch, which

I learned a little bit about. So there is some uniqueness to each of

the branches and some constitutional requirements, believe it or

not.

What we have tried to do is take the intent. And the intent is

that all things being equal, we want to give our servicemen and

women, who have served the country honorably, some advantage in

the Federal workplace, whether it be the legislative, the judicial,

or the executive branch.

And they may have to go about it in slightly different terms, because of some of their constitutional requirements, or requirements

of their job. But our intent is what we want to see carried out.

The other point that I wanted to make to you, Mr. King, and others is that we have legislation that we hope to mark up here today.

We have tried to work from the end of the last session to today to

improve the legislative language to meet any concerns. If there is

something that needs to be flexible due to a particular requirement, we are willing to do that. But it is to get to that intent.

So we welcome your additional comments. The markup today

should occur just a little later on. This is not by any means the end

of the process. And we will welcome that step until we can conclude

with an agreement with the Senate.

Mr. KING. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. And thank you. We thank you both for coming.

I would like to call our next panel. Our second panel is Emil

Naschinski, who is the director of the National Economics Commission of the American Legion. Mr. Charles L. Calkins, who is the

national executive secretary of the Fleet Reserve Association. Sidney Daniels is the director of the National Veterans’ Employment

Assistance Service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. And Mr. Larry

Rhea, deputy director of legislative affairs for the Non-Commissioned Officers Association.

I believe for the record that all of the witnesses and organizations have complied with Rule XI of the House certification of nonreceipt of Federal funds. We will make that part of the record.

Again, I would like to welcome you here today. And as is customary, it is necessary to swear you in as this is an investigations

and oversight panel.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. Welcome. We try to encourage that you submit

lengthy statements which will be made part of the record, but ask

that you summarize now, and we will impose a 5-minute time

limit. We have a large panel here today.

76

I will recognize Mr. Emil Naschinski, director of the National Economics Commission of the American Legion.

STATEMENTS OF EMIL NASCHINSKI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL ECONOMICS COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; CHARLES L. CALKINS, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION; SIDNEY DANIELS,

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS; AND LARRY

RHEA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. NASCHINSKI. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of

the subcommittee. The American Legion appreciates having this

opportunity to share its views on H.R. 240, the Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act of 1997.

Before commenting on the status of veterans’ preference and the

provisions of H.R. 240, the American Legion would like to take just

a moment, Chairman Mica, to publicly thank you for your efforts

to eliminate the flaws that currently exist in our veterans’ preference statutes. We believe that H.R. 240 will correct those deficiencies, and we look forward to working with the subcommittee to

ensure enactment of this important legislation.

Congress enacted veterans’ preference in 1944 to address the readjustment needs of men and women who had served their country

during a time of war. It was also designed to assist war veterans

in regaining the lost ground that their civilian careers had suffered

as a result of military service.

In the beginning, the Federal Government gladly complied with

the provisions of the new veterans’ preference law. Unfortunately,

however, as the years passed, the memory of war faded, and some

of America’s concern for fulfilling her obligation citizen soldiers.

Today, the provisions of our veterans’ preference laws are for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

One of the reasons for this is that unlike women and/or minorities, the Federal Government never developed any ‘‘goals’’ or ‘‘time

tables’’ for the recruitment of veterans. As a result, there was, and

is, very little incentive for agencies to hire veterans.

Another reason is that under affirmative action, women and/or

minorities are protected from discrimination by the rules and regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If a

person covered by EEOC feels that he or she has been discriminated against in hiring, promotion, or retention, they may file a

formal complaint. Unfortunately, the same protection is not afforded to veterans because veterans’ preference is an earned right

and not an affirmative action program.

Because of that lack of accountability, many Federal managers

have routinely discriminated against veterans. Section 8 of H.R.

240 will remedy that problem by making it a prohibited personnel

practice to knowingly discriminate against veterans. It will permit

the special counsel to bring disciplinary action before the Merit

Systems Protection Board against any Federal employee who knowingly violates veterans’ preference laws. The American Legion believes that this amendment to the law is long overdue.

77

While the American Legion does not oppose increasing employment opportunities for women and minorities, we do object to the

fact that all too often that goal has been accomplished by denying

veterans their rights under the veterans’ preference laws. The

American Legion supports H.R. 240, because it will provide an effective, efficient, and user friendly redress mechanism for veterans’ whose rights have been violated.

While the American Legion fully supports the provisions of H.R.

240, Mr. Chairman, the American Legion would like to recommend

that the subcommittee consider legislation or an amendment that

would require Federal agencies to track and report the number of

preference eligibles that are hired in the Federal system, as opposed to all veterans. With all due respect to Mr. King and our colleagues at OPM, the American Legion believes that if Federal

agencies and the administration were to track and report the number of preference eligibles hired as opposed to all veterans, then the

number would demonstrate an unsatisfactory record with regard to

veterans’ preference.

The American Legion also supports H.R. 240, because it will prevent unfair personnel practices such as the creation of single-person competitive levels for RIF purposes and will enhance a veterans’ chance of finding another job should he or she be forced from

the Federal workforce.

In closing, the American Legion would like to respond to a couple

of criticisms that we often hear about veterans’ preference. First,

veterans’ preference does not discriminate against women and minorities. It is completely neutral with respect to veterans’ gender

and ethnicity.

Second, a large percentage of preference eligibles are women and

minorities. In fact, the percentage of minorities serving in the military today is double that of their percentage in the civilian population. Also, approximately 20 percent of the veterans who became

preference eligibles because of their service in Desert Storm were

women.

Another false assumption that many Federal officials have is

that veterans’ preference prevents them from hiring the most qualified person for any given job. In truth, veterans’ preference only

comes into play when the veteran is completely qualified for the position for which he or she is applying.

Chairman Mica, that concludes the American Legion’s statement.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 240.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Naschinski follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. We will hold questions

until we have finished all of the panels.

And now, Charles Calkins for the Fleet Reserve Association. You

are recognized, sir.

Mr. CALKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished

members of your subcommittee.

I am Charles Calkins, the national executive secretary of the

Fleet Reserve Association. And I wish to thank you for holding this

hearing, and pushing forward with your strong commitment for our

veterans.

This bill will enable qualified veterans to compete in the mainstream of Federal employment. It is especially important that all

Federal Government agencies support and actively adhere to the

veterans’ preference standards. Currently, this is not the case.

Some agencies support in principle the existing statute, but in

practice impose their own will as a substitute and answer to no

one. An unsuccessful Federal applicant, who suspects discrimination based on sex, race or religion can appeal to the EEO Commission. A bypassed veteran, however, has no such recourse.

This bill will enforce the Nation’s commitments to its veterans.

For over 200 years, the Nation has recruited men and women into

military service. And in return for their dedication and years of

service, veterans with the necessary skills and qualifications deserve special consideration for Federal employment.

The Fleet Reserve Association urges quick action in passing this

important legislation.

And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if I might add. As president

of the Military Coalition, I would like to remind you and your subcommittee members that you should have received a letter from the

Coalition in support of H.R. 240. The Coalition represents 24 military and veterans’ organizations with more than 5 million veterans

members.

Thank you again this afternoon, and let us hope that this passes

through quickly.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calkins follows:]

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony, and also your support.

Sidney Daniels, with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, you are recognized.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee,

we thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to

appear this afternoon.

We thank you in particular, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership

efforts in strengthening the veterans’ preference. It is an issue of

vital importance to the men and women who first served honorably

in our armed forces, and who are now or will be part of the dedicated civilian Federal workforce of our Nation.

Veterans’ preference is an issue of enduring importance to those

who served in the military, and an issue which we citizens and legislators have to have a responsibility to ensure. That the intent of

the law matches the purpose and reality of veterans’ preference as

it is applied across the entire spectrum of civil service employment.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars believes that the Equal Access for

Veterans provision of the bill will greatly assist many highly qualified veterans, who are potential candidates for Federal employment, as well as those who already in the Federal workforce, to

apply for and to compete for Federal jobs and positions.

Contrary to the assertions of some, allowing veterans who are

otherwise qualified to compete for jobs that are currently only open

to insiders will only result in more women and minority veterans

security Federal jobs, but increase the size of the pool of highly

qualified candidates to choose from. This, in turn, enhances the

overall quality of the Federal workforce.

The VFW fully supports the proposed language found in Section

2, Subsection (b) of H.R. 240, which would require the Office of

Personnel Management to maintain and publicize to State employment services all Federal job vacancies for which a veteran may

apply. We recommend, however, that the provision include additional language making it clear that not only should the list of vacancies be maintained, but that each vacancy position be listed

with the State Employment Security Agency in the region where

the job is located.

This listing of vacant positions will allow the federally funded

veterans staff of that SESA to run an automated computer file

search for veterans who are qualified for any given position. Additionally, such a listing of positions vacancies would address the

issue many veterans do not apply for jobs they are qualified for

simply because they did not know that such a vacancy existed.

With respect to the provision requiring an Office of Personnel

Management Report, the VFW recommends that the report to the

President and the Congress be made an annual requirement for the

first 2 years, and biannually thereafter. This recommendation is in

recognition of the fact that major hurdles in implementing this law

will likely occur in the first few years, and must be carefully monitored by all concerned.

The VFW has been pleased to be a party to discussions with the

American Postal Workers Union and their leadership. The APWU

is to be commended for their commitment to veterans’ preference

as well as for their good faith discussions with veterans’ organizaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 080155 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\43102 pfrm09 PsN: 43102
92

tions and the Congress in regard to the provisions of H.R. 240 affecting the U.S. Postal Service.

We hope that the Postmaster General and the National Association of Postmasters of the United States will follow the APWU’s

leadership example and work in good faith to resolve any remaining concerns regarding this carefully crafted section of the proposed

legislation. The VFW fully supports the provisions, however, as

now written.

We are firmly committed to ensuring that special protections are

extended to veterans when a reduction in force action becomes necessary in an agency. The principle of special protections is consistent with the bumping and retreating provisions of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, as amended.

In recent years, Mr. Chairman, it has become clear that protections afforded veterans in a RIF situation through the original Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944 are no longer adequate for discouraging those forces who would willfully and knowingly design and

implement a RIF that makes mockery of congressional intent. We

believe that H.R. 240 would remedy that situation.

We believe that these provisions effectively discourage so-called

designer RIFs, which have generated much concern of late. There

is concern that some agencies have taken questionable personnel

actions to skew the results of any legitimate reduction in force action months prior to the actual legal procedure.

Mr. Chairman, we fully support the provision of the bill that establishes a redress mechanism for preference eligibles. As we understand the measure, the redress mechanism in its initial stage

would allow a veteran who feels his or her preference rights have

been violated to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within

60 days of the alleged violation.

If the Labor Department is unable to resolve the complaint within 60 days, the complainant is then able to pursue an appeal with

the Merit Systems Protection Board and ultimately the U.S. District Court.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy

to take questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daniels follows:]

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

I would now recognize Mr. Larry Rhea, with the Non-Commissioned Officers Association. You are recognized, Mr. Rhea.

Mr. RHEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to you and

all of the distinguished members of the subcommittee.

The Non-Commissioned Officers Association, like my contemporaries here, appreciates very much your invitation to comment

on the important legislation under consideration today. And I believe that it is appropriate for me to begin what will be brief oral

comments by expressing to the distinguished chairman the deep

admiration and appreciation that we have for the marvelous work

that you have done on the issue that we are discussing.

The Non-Commissioned Officers Association salutes you, sir. And

we, too, are hopeful that 1997 will be the year that sees this come

to a successful conclusion.

I will not be repetitive of what has already been said. We certainly associate ourselves with the very well stated comments of

the other panelists. But I would be remiss if I did not state that

the Non-Commissioned Officers Association strongly supports H.R.

240, the Veterans’ Employment Opportunities Act in its entirety.

It is a solid bill that addresses head on a very real and persistent

problem, and passage of the legislation is a very high priority for

our association.

So I will spend my time by informing the subcommittee of something that I think is important to state here. The support for H.R.

240 goes well beyond NCOA, the VFW, the Fleet Reserve Association, and the American Legion, the four organizations that are represented on this panel.

I am unaware, Mr. Chairman, of any national prominent military

or veterans’ service organization that is opposed to the legislation.

But let me be clear. I cannot speak for all military and veterans’

organizations, and I do not want to leave that impression with anyone.

I can, however, Mr. Chairman, say something on behalf of 19 organizations. I invite your attention to the charts in the room. And

I have a pamphlet in my hand that I would like to give to the

chairman, and ask that it be made part of the hearing record.

Because in addition to the four organizations on this panel, this

chart and the pamphlet identifies 15 other military and veterans’

organizations that are solidly seeking the enactment of H.R. 240.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, in addition to this panel,

those organizations are the Air Force Sergeants Association; the

American Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam; the

Blinded American Veterans Foundation; the Blinded Veterans Association; the Disabled American Veterans, the Jewish War Veterans of the USA; the Korean War Veterans Association; the Military Order of the Purple Heart; the National Association for Uniformed Services; the National Military and Veterans Alliance; the

Naval Reserve Association; the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the

Retired Enlisted Association; the Veterans Economic Action; and

the Vietnam Veterans of America.

Those 15 organizations and the four on this panel, Mr. Chairman, collectively represent approximately 12 million veterans that

102

want to see H.R. 240 become law. We believe that it is needed and

deserves to be enacted in law.

I vowed not to repeat what previously had been said. So I would

like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, with just a philosophical thought.

I mean no disrespect to anyone when I say this, but there has been

a lot of talk about bridge building lately.

I respectfully submit to the chairman and to the distinguished

members of this subcommittee that H.R. 240 is not building something new. I submit to you that H.R. 240 is simply some much

needed repair work that is overdue on a structure that was erected

some 50 years ago.

Veterans’ preference at one time in our Nation’s history was recognized as an earned right, but it has slowly been chipped away

at. Veterans’ preference at one time bridged sacrifices of military

service with the veterans’ dreams for the future.

That is not the case today. And that fact makes H.R. 240 all the

more important. In NCOA’s view, H.R. 240 is nothing more than

reinforcement of the 50-year-old bridge that has been allowed to

get a little bit shaky. It is about fairness and fulfilling an earned

right.

The Association salutes you, Mr. Chairman, for your effort to reestablish veterans’ preference to its rightful and proper place in the

Federal Government. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rhea follows:]

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

Mr. MICA. I thank you for your testimony.

And without objection, your material will be made part of the

record.

[The information referred to follows:]

114

115

116

Mr. MICA. I want to thank each of the panelists for their testimony, and their suggestions for improvements in the legislation,

and for working with us to get the legislation to this point. Those

who testified here representing various organizations, and other

veterans’ services organizations and interested groups that have

worked with us, deserve our thanks to get this legislation moving

forward.

I do not have any questions of the panelists at this time, but welcome your input as we move forward with this.

I yield now to the ranking member, Mr. Holden.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel

for their testimony.

I just have one question. I believe that one of the panelists testified that the number of preference-eligible veterans being hired is

lower than the administration represents.

I am just wondering what is the basis for this view?

Mr. NASCHINSKI. Because, sir, the figures that are collected by

OPM represent all veterans, not those who are preference-eligibles.

They do not break that down. And there is a big difference there.

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you. No further questions.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

And I will recognize Mr. Pappas.

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here and participating.

It has been suggested during the course of today and coming up

until this day, and moving to the day when hopefully we will move

this bill forward, that over the past 40 or 50 years that the preference, if you will, for hiring veterans has slacked off. I am assuming you would agree with that, but please feel free to comment if

you disagree with that.

But could you also comment if you have seen over the period of

time that you have been involved in veterans’ causes and organizations, whether you have seen a funneling of veterans into certain

categories of employment versus what you believe to be the case

with non-veterans? I am curious if any of you would care to respond to that.

Mr. DANIELS. Certainly, there has been a fall-off in employment,

but that is probably reflective of the aging population in general.

Many of the veterans in the population who held Federal positions

up until most recently were World War II veterans, who now happen to be at retirement age.

The problem is with the influx of new people coming into the

Government. We believe that the principles of veterans’ preference

have been diluted, because there are so many other different other

types of hiring authorities where veterans’ preference does not

come into play.

The outstanding scholar program is one that comes to mind,

where I believe that an applicant for a Federal position only needs

to have a 3.5 grade point average at the undergraduate level, and

then is able to come into the Government non-competitively.

We happen to believe that any of these hiring authorities should

respect veterans’ preference.

As to the other part of your question. Many of your agencies

show—DOD, for instance, is proud of their 46.3 percent veterans

117

in their workforce. But when you ask them how many of those veterans are below the age of 30, which would take into account

Desert Storm troops from 1991 up to the present, it is probably less

than 1 percent.

Most of the veterans coming into the Government today do so

through a non-competitive route—the Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Program—which is an OJT type program. In this program

you come into the Government, and you work and train for 2 years,

after which you are eligible to convert to civil service status.

In fact, many of the complaints we receive these days are from

VRA people who are past the 2-year training period, and have not

yet been converted to civil service status.

That is my response. Thank you.

Mr. RHEA. I would like to give that a shot here, too, Mr. Pappas.

I certainly would just be guessing if I said anything along the lines

of what levels they are at or anything, so I will not go into that.

But your question, as I took it anyway, also alluded to a little

bit of the lessening and the deemphasizing of the things that are

going on. Certainly, the chairman pointed out one example to us

there in his opening comments that should alarm us all. But if I

could refer to some notes that I have here, I would like to take just

a couple of quotes out of the U.S. Information Agency document

that stated this. ‘‘Veterans’ preference will not be given for retired military. We

are pleased to announce that for non-broadcasting USIA employees

that we will not use RIFs to achieve reductions.’’ In other words, USIA is not only breaking the law, but they are

more than happy to do so. Because if that military retired veteran

qualifies for the 5 or the 10 point preference, they do not have a

choice. They have to give it to them.

Another example is the Department of Agriculture. You talked

about the statistical profiles that you have there. The Department

of Agriculture is not exactly a shining example. Yet a recently released DOA memorandum entitled Policy on Selection of Employees for Under-Represented Groups directed all selecting officials to

justify in writing non-selection of candidates from the best qualified

list who were from under-represented protected groups.

The 71 percent figure that the GAO report cited of certificates

that were returned to OPM unused. And about what I just said relative to USIA and the Department of Agriculture. I have never,

and I would be more than happy to be proven wrong on this, but

I have never seen or heard of any agency asking for similar written

justification for non-selection of a best qualified veteran at the top

of the list.

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a question, but I do

have something that I want to say to the panel. Several have

raised the notion of affirmative action and juxtaposed it sometimes

invidiously to the veterans’ preference.

I would just like to say on the record that I, myself, would like

to discourage the pitting of one group against another. That is

what I have stood for all of my life. When we began to come forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 080155 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\43102 pfrm09 PsN: 43102
118

ward for affirmative action of minorities, they said, ‘‘Oh, here come

the women.’’

The answer is yes, they should come, and we should find a way

to make sure that there is some Government remediation or preference—yes, it is due—without picking fights with one another.

I am very concerned about the 71 percent figure. And I believe

that this committee has responded, that the subcommittee has responded in this very legislation to that figure. The circumvention

of the law for any group is wrong. Minorities and women qualify

for affirmative action for the very reason that veteran or not, our

very Government discriminated against them throughout human

time until very recently. And we are trying to make up for that.

At the same time, anybody who served their country is entitled

to a veterans’ preference. And any attempt to violate the law with

respect to that preference deserves to be remedied.

I do not agree, as one of your testimony says, that there is very

little incentive for Federal agencies to hire veterans. I think that

a 5 point or a 10 point preference does give a unique incentive to

hire. And if in fact that is not being done, we do not have to say

that affirmative action should not happen in order to remedy that.

I just want to make it clear that I believe that veterans, particularly today, are entitled to everything they have earned. And like

the chairman and members of this committee, I will do all that I

can to make sure that they not get one ounce less than they have

earned. And I do not believe that that has anything to do with minorities and women, and the attempt on the part of our Government to make up for decades of discrimination against them.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your comments.

And I recognize Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. I just want to give you an opportunity if you

would like to make any comments on the question that I asked Dr.

King with regard to his testimony that the safeguards with regard

to RIFs that are in the bill will add complexities to its enforcement.

If you would like to comment or not.

Mr. RHEA. I guess we will start on the right up here. Certainly,

I appreciate those concerns that he has stated. But I guess that I

can only give to you an old non-commissioned officer’s reaction, and

that is this. In our view, it probably would not be too difficult if

we were doing the things that we were supposed to be doing today.

And our stand on it quite bluntly is this. Whether it was intended or not, it might be an admission that we are not following

the law the way that we are supposed to be following it today. Because I think that if we were, OPM, I think that if we were, DOD,

and any other Federal agency could pick this legislation up and implement it with little difficulty at very little or maybe at no cost.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you.

Does anyone else have any other comments?

Mr. DANIELS. Yes, Mrs. Morella. I have a lot of faith in Jim King

and the staff over at OPM. I believe that 90 days is an appropriate

period of time to implement the law. It might be a little on the excessive side. OPM has operated the displaced employees program,

which in effect is a RIF program, for a number of years. I am not

really sure.

119

In the case of DOD, they have operated their priority placement

programs for over 30 years. They have a very admirable record.

They have placed over 100,000 people since they started up their

program. And I believe that both agencies are in a position to give

whatever technical assistance is required of all of the other agencies that would now come under this particular bill once it is enacted.

Mr. CALKINS. Mrs. Morella, if I might respond, having recently

left the Postal Service, as a former postal employee, and having

worked in the personnel office, or having the fortune of working in

the personnel office in the Postal Service.

The figures that Dr. King gave are probably quite true throughout the agency as far as how many people were hired. the question

that I would ask him, and of course Postmaster Runyon, is how

many people were hired in the 5 years previous to that, because

of the downsizing, or the rightsizing, or the RIFs, as it may be.

And, of course, during that period of time, we were able to gain,

for lack of a better term, a glut of veterans who recently got out

of Desert Storm and a few other conflicts to buildup this veterans’ pool again.

I am not disputing what he has given us. I think the information

was very good and very helpful. But I think that the hiring practice

is in place and is there. Although in my own experiences in that

personnel office that I came from, I heard from a person who was

a non-veteran in charge of that office say something about a veteran, ‘‘Well, we do not owe him anything.’’ And, of course, that got the hair on the back of my neck quite

high. And when you have a person in that position, in that particular office, with that attitude, I wonder what the rest of that organization is thinking, or where they came from. But can it be put

in place? Yes, tomorrow.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Naschinski, do you have any comments?

Mr. NASCHINSKI. Just to say that the American Legion believes

that 90 days is sufficient time to get that mechanism in place.

Mrs. MORELLA. I just want to thank you gentlemen for being

here and testifying on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mrs. Morella.

And I recognize Mr. Sessions.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just one comment. Your comments get to me about, ‘‘We do not

owe veterans anything.’’ All we owe them is the peace that they

have given us, and the freedom that we enjoy. Because without veterans and the men and women who have given their lives, we

would have neither. My personal preference is I prefer freedom.

Thank you for being here with us today. And I just want to

thank each one of you and your member organizations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Sessions.

Again, we appreciate you being with us, and your recommendations for this legislation. We look forward to your input and your

constructive comments as we continue through the legislative process. Thank you also for the support that has been expressed here

today.

120

So with that, we will excuse this panel, and get on to the important work of marking up the legislation. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129