[Senate Hearing 112-685]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-685
VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 5, 2012
__________
Available via http://www.fdsys.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-216 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Nicholas A. Rossi, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Joyce Ward, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Margaret Daum, Staff Director
Brian Callanan, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator McCaskill............................................ 1
Prepared statement:
Senator McCaskill............................................ 35
Senator Carper............................................... 39
WITNESSES
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Theodore L. (Ted) Daywalt, President and Chief Executive Officer,
VetJobs........................................................ 5
Spender Kympton, Chief Operating Officer, The Mission Continues.. 7
Ramsey Sulayman, Legislative Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America............................................ 8
Pamela Hardy, Senior Manager, Diversity and Inclusion Team, Booz
Allen Hamilton................................................. 11
Sally Sullivan, Executive Vice President, ManTech International
Corporation.................................................... 12
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Daywalt, Theodore L.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Hardy, Pamela:
Testimony.................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Kympton Spender:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Sulayman, Ramsey:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Sullivan, Sally:
Testimony.................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 63
APPENDIX
Questions and responses for the Record from:
Mr. Sulayman................................................. 68
Ms. Hardy.................................................... 70
Ms. Sullivan................................................. 72
Senator McCaskill's fact sheet................................... 74
Statements submitted for the Record:
Booz Allen Hamilton.......................................... 80
Patricia A. Shiu, Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs, Department of Labor.............................. 82
VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire
McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators McCaskill, Carper, and Begich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Contracting Oversight of the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs will come to order.
I am happy today to be discussing a subject that I think
every American should be concerned about, and that is the
employment of our veterans. At the hearing today, we are going
to talk about an alarming trend in the employment of the best
that America has.
Service in the active duty military or the National Guard
or Reserve has historically been an advantage in seeking
employment. Recruiters for the military promise that service
could lead to careers. Yet after more than a decade of war, we
are seeing something very different, that the men and women who
have served so honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan are facing
unprecedented challenges in finding employment.
Last week, the Department of Labor (DOL) released its
latest unemployment figures, which show that the unemployment
rate in the United States is currently 8.2 percent. Those same
figures show that veterans who have served on active duty since
September 2001 have an unemployment rate of 12.7 percent. The
unemployment rate for veterans who have served since September
2001 has also been increasing. In May 2011, the unemployment
rate for these veterans was 12.1. In May 2010, it was 10.6.
These numbers are a stark reminder that we are not doing enough
to help our veterans and that we must take new and urgent steps
to improve our national efforts to make sure veterans have the
tools and the opportunities they need to find careers after
they leave the military.
Part of the problem is that there are significant barriers
that veterans face in seeking employment. Veterans are finding
that all of their training and experience cannot simply be
translated into similar civilian jobs. They may be finding
employers who feel unsure about hiring veterans and members of
the National Guard and Reserve (NG&R) because they do not
understand what service requires. Breaking down these barriers
is critical and requires innovative and comprehensive
responses.
Part of the problem is the government is not doing what it
should. Simply telling the veteran to go down to his or her
local employment office or to search the job boards, as we have
heard happens, is just not enough. Many different Federal
agencies, including the Defense Department (DOD), the Veterans
Administration (VA), and the Department of Labor, have programs
to work with veterans on employment issues and some are more
successful than others. Government contractors are well
situated to be major employers of veterans, and many are.
Contractors are also required by law to take affirmative
action to hire veterans. Since 2002, President Bush signed into
law a provision that requires companies with government
contracts over $100,000 are required to post job listings at
nationwide employment offices, to report their veteran hiring
and employment numbers to the Department of Labor through the
VETS-100A form, and those with 50 or more employees are
required to develop a plan to hire veterans. The question is,
how well are the contractors doing at this? The answer is, we
have no idea.
Last year, I asked the Department of Labor for the
information collected from the government contractors for the
past 10 years. The Department was only able to provide data for
2009 and 2010 because it only just became electronically
available. The Subcommittee staff prepared a fact sheet\1\
summarizing this information, and I ask unanimous consent that
this fact sheet be included in the hearing record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fact sheet referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the
appendix on page 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What this fact sheet shows is that the information
currently being collected and maintained by the Department of
Labor is spotty and frequently inaccurate. We saw numbers that
are obviously wrong, like seeing a company whose number of
veteran hires is 400 percent larger than the total number of
people working for the company. We also saw a significant
amount of missing information. For example, the two companies
represented here today do not even appear in the data. Both
had, in fact, submitted the data, as required, and were able to
produce it upon request to the Subcommittee.
It seems that the reason for this discrepancy is with the
Department of Labor. There are two offices within the
Department of Labor that are responsible for collecting the
data and overseeing enforcing compliance. That is, the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training
(VETS), the Vets Office at the Department of Labor, and the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)--I will
try not to use acronyms, it is a hazard of this job--the Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Yet in conversations
with the Department of Labor, the Subcommittee learned that the
Vets Agency at Labor collects this information but never
reviews it for any purpose, and the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance has the authority to audit contractor compliance,
but, in fact, conducts very few and never attempts quality
assurance reviews.
This does not make any sense to me. It is almost like we
are going through the motions and do not care what the result
is. It is called ``make work'' but have no results.
I called this hearing today to bring together two groups
who are actually taking steps, active steps, to promote
contractor employment of veterans. We are here today to learn
from some of the Nation's leading Veterans Service
Organizations (VSOs) about the challenges facing veterans. We
will also hear from two large and well-known businesses about
the excellent work they are doing in recruiting and hiring
veterans. I look forward to a constructive discussion today.
I also want to make one point clear from the outset. The
status quo is just not acceptable. The notion that these highly
trained and, frankly, veterans who we know make great
employees, the fact that we cannot get them employed, the fact
that their unemployment level is higher than the Nation's
unemployment level is, in fact, a shame. It is something we
should be ashamed of.
We cannot continue to betray the trust of our Nation's
veterans by not doing everything in our power to make sure that
they have access to employment. We cannot continue to invest
scarce government resources and waste businesses' time,
demanding they file reports which nobody pays any attention to
and currently do not have any benefit to veterans' employment.
We need to avoid duplication in programs, but also ensure that
we are not taking a one-size-fits-all approach.
This is a tall order, but when it comes to our veterans, we
have an obligation to do everything we can. I hope this hearing
will be a first step. I also sincerely hope the Department of
Labor is listening, because I plan to followup with them about
the issues that we discuss here today.
I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to
their testimony.
I know Senator Carper is on his way and wanted to make
opening remarks when he gets here. I may indulge the witnesses
to interrupt you for purposes of his opening remarks, but in
the meantime, I will go ahead and introduce our witnesses and
we will begin your testimony today.
Ted Daywalt is the President and Chief Executive Office
(CEO) of VetJobs. VetJobs was founded in 1999 and has become
one of the leading Internet job boards for veterans and
employers. Mr. Daywalt served in the Navy and Navy Reserve for
over 28 years. He has worked in the private and public sector
and is also Chairman of the Atlanta Regional Military Affairs
Council and Director of the College Educators for Veterans
Higher Education. Mr. Daywalt also sits on the Board of
Governors for the International Association of Employment Web
sites, where he chairs the OFCCP Committee, which is the
acronym for the folks that are supposed to be doing compliance
at the Department of Labor.
Spencer Kympton is the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of The
Mission Continues, which is based in St. Louis, Missouri. I am
especially proud to welcome him here today. Founded in 2007,
The Mission Continues is a nonprofit organization that works to
empower post-9/11 veterans by pairing them with fellowships at
not-for-profit organizations in their communities. Mr. Kympton
is a former Army officer and a graduate of West Point. Prior to
joining The Mission Continues, Mr. Kympton worked at McKinsey
and Company and held the position of Vice President of
Recruiting for Teach For America.
Ramsey Sulayman is a Legislative Associate for Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America was founded in 2004 to bring together and
empower the newest generation of wartime veterans. IAVA has
helped countless returning veterans with programs focusing on
physical and mental health, education, and careers. Mr.
Sulayman is a former Marine officer who served in Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF) as an infantry platoon commander and
company executive officer.
Pamela Hardy is a Senior Manager in the Diversity and
Inclusion Team at Booz Allen Hamilton, where she is responsible
for all diversity hiring efforts. Ms. Hardy has a Master's in
human resources management and has worked in various recruiting
and consulting positions and specializes in diversity
recruiting strategies and techniques.
Sally Sullivan is an Executive Vice President of ManTech
International Corporation and leads ManTech's public affairs,
communications, and business development functions. Prior to
joining ManTech, Ms. Sullivan served as Vice President for
Defense, Space, and Secured Infrastructure at Bechtel National
and Sector Vice President for Business Development at Northrop
Grumman. You have hung out in the defense sector, have you not.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, Senator.
Senator McCaskill. It is the custom of this Subcommittee to
swear in all witnesses that appear before us, so if you do not
mind, I would like to ask you to stand.
Do you swear that the testimony that you will give before
this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Daywalt. I do.
Mr. Kympton. I do.
Mr. Sulayman. I do.
Ms. Hardy. I do.
Ms. Sullivan. I do.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, and let the record reflect
that the witnesses have all answered in the affirmative.
We will be using a timing system today. We will not be
strict, so be comfortable. Do not worry that we are going to
hit a buzzer or a gong. We would ask that your oral testimony
try to be around 5 minutes. Your written testimony will be
printed in the record in its entirety.
And if you would begin, Mr. Daywalt, we appreciate you
being here.
TESTIMONY OF TED L. DAYWALT,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, VETJOBS
Mr. Daywalt. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate you
having me here and I want to thank the staff here, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Daywalt appears in the appendix
on page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VetJobs has a unique vantage point in this discussion as by
the nature of our business over the last 13 years, VetJobs has
dealt with veterans and their family members on a daily basis
who are pursuing employment with government contractors. A big
part of our membership base are government contractors, and
VetJobs assists all veterans and their family members to find
work. From our perspective at VetJobs, we find that, for the
most part, government contractors are enthusiastic employers of
veterans.
When looking at veteran employment, it helps to understand
that from an employer's perspective, there are three groups
that comprise the post-military service veteran employment
picture. The first group would be those who are transitioning
off active duty with no further military obligation who are
most frequently referred to just as veterans. This group is the
most desirable of the veteran groups from which employers
prefer to hire since candidates have no further military
obligation and come with many skills and the attributes wanted
by employers.
The second group is comprised of the Federal Reservists of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps. While
these veterans have the same attributes as the transitioning
military, they are subject to being called up on a regular
basis.
The third group is the National Guard. While all three
groups are veterans, it helps to make the distinctions when
analyzing how the veterans are being employed or why employers
prefer one type of veteran over another. In going to the
numbers you cited at the opening, Madam Chairman, the biggest
part of the veteran unemployment problem is in the National
Guard. For the most part, those coming off active duty are
getting jobs, not that there are not problems, but they are
finding employment. The overall unemployment for all veterans
in May was only 7.7 percent current population survey (CPS).
Of the three groups, the National Guard has unique problems
and is the least preferred source of veterans. Unlike active
duty component members when National Guard component members
return from war they are demobilized and thus do not have a
ready source of income unless they can find or have a civilian
job. Given the bias against hiring National Guard members due
to the call-up policies and high operation tempo, National
Guard members have problems maintaining a continuum of service
with a civilian employer.
Additionally, since the National Guard component member
belongs to the State and reports to the Governor of a State or
a Territory, the National Guard personnel are used for local
emergencies, such as flooding and hurricanes, security, which
takes them away from their employer. For example, the National
Guard in Georgia, which is where we are headquartered, has had
six 1-year-plus call-ups in the last 10 years. Now, that makes
it really hard to keep a job, even if you are only on three of
them.
Many studies have found that due to the constant call-ups,
employers shy away from hiring active members of the National
Guard and Reserves. Business Law Review, Workforce Management
and the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) have done
studies that show that upwards of 70 percent of employers will
not now hire as a new employee an active member of the National
Guard. Fortunately, many of the government contractors are
supporters of the National Guard and Reserve and this is
important since the National Guard and Reserve now represents
over 50 percent of our total fighting force.
It is important to understand why employers make hires.
Some Department of Labor officials like to tout how many
unemployed people there are for each job opening in the country
and bemoan the fact that employers of horrible profit-making
companies are not hiring the unemployed. DOL and other
government officials who make these statements are displaying a
gross misunderstanding of how our economy works and why
employers hire candidates.
Employers do not hire someone just because they are
standing and breathing or they are unemployed. Employers hire
candidates to fill a need within the company. The bottom line
is employers look for qualified candidates to hire. If one were
to ask how many qualified candidates exist for each job opening
in the company, you would have huge, very large, negative
numbers in disciplines like health care, engineering,
maintenance, electricians, welders. Right now, they are paying
$45 an hour with all the overtime you can get for welders in
the upper Midwest and they cannot find enough welders. It is
going to probably go to $50 by the end of the summer.
Government contractors are major employers. Many have
discussed with me the problems of finding qualified candidates
to hire. And for that reason, government contractors like to
hire veterans because, generally, they have excellent skill
sets and they have the attributes that they want.
In my written testimony, I use an example of a stellar
government contractor, BNSF Railroad. You have a couple others
sitting right here at this table. They are to be commended for
their proactive hiring of veterans.
Also in my written testimony, I review the obstacles that
hinder government contractors from hiring veterans. Those
obstacles include the VETS-100 report, which in my personal
opinion is kind of a waste of time because it is not relevant,
it is not timely, and it is not actionable. The Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Program actually kind of
disincentivizes companies who want to hire veterans, and there
are huge problems in the Transition Assistance Program. All
need to be reviewed, and in the case of VETS-100, I would
recommend you get rid of it.
Thank you for your time. I trust the information presented
will be of assistance. I will be happy to answer any questions
you have, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much, Mr. Daywalt.
I welcome Senator Begich from Alaska here. Thank you,
Senator Begich, for joining us. Mr. Kympton.
TESTIMONY OF SPENCER KYMPTON,\1\ CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, THE
MISSION CONTINUES
Mr. Kympton. Madam Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in these
important hearings. Based on my experience as a veteran and my
service at The Mission Continues, I believe that this
Subcommittee is doing work that is critical to the success of
today's generation of veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kympton appears in the appendix
on page 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, I am testifying as a West Point graduate and former
Army helicopter pilot and as a veteran who sought meaningful
employment after military service. I now serve as the Chief
Operating Officer of The Mission Continues, a national
nonprofit organization where we have worked with over 350
veterans to pursue successful transitions to civilian life.
Based on these experiences with veteran recruitment and
retention, I believe that there are several key lessons that
Federal contractors and corporate leaders can apply to
successfully tap into the great skills of today's veteran.
Applying these lessons will strengthen their organizations
while also building successful transitions for veterans.
At The Mission Continues, we create successful transitions
by engaging veterans in 6-month community service fellowships.
Today, a cavalry scout mentors hundreds of children at the Boys
and Girls Club. A Marine Corps sergeant helps his community
prepare for disasters and emergencies through the American Red
Cross. An Army communications specialist teaches English as a
Second Language to immigrant children and their parents.
We introduce these fellows to a meaningful mission. We
welcome them onto a distinct team. And we ask them to don a new
uniform of service. As they serve, we provide them with living
stipends and mentors. At the end of their fellowship, we will
challenge them to mark their lifetime commitment to service by
executing a service project in their community. After their
fellowship, they move on to realize their post-fellowship goal
of full-time employment, continued education, or an ongoing
role of service in their community.
Our experiences with these fellows and with more than a
thousand veterans who applied for fellowships have shown us
this. When you connect veterans to a meaningful mission, ask
them to join a distinct team, and challenge them with a set of
goals that lead to definable impact, they excel. Just as they
excelled in their military service, they again excel in their
citizen service.
A primary factor in our selection and placement of fellows
is the passion they have for service. The cavalry scout serves
at the Boys and Girls Club because he is fulfilled by mentoring
youth. The Marine readies his community because he is
passionate about emergency response. Reconnecting to a
meaningful mission has been critical to their success.
Our fellows are further enriched by the renewed connection
to a team. As you know, all enlistees and officers take an oath
to support and defend the Constitution upon entering the
military. They then join their military units, each of which
possesses a distinct identity and strong traditions. Recently,
we gathered more than 100 veterans and awarded them Mission
Continues Fellowships. We asked these fellows to take a similar
oath and join this distinct new team. In front of thousands of
fans at a Major League Baseball game, wearing sharp royal blue
Mission Continues polo shirts, standing at attention alongside
their new comrades in arms, these fellows proudly recited an
oath of service. They walked off the field motivated and eager
to serve.
While they serve, we also require that our fellows set and
achieve goals. They each identify at least three goals for the
impact they will have in their community. They identify a post-
fellowship goal that will impact their own lives for years. We
hold them accountable to those goals and we partner in their
success.
Roxley Pratt grew up in war-torn Sierra Leone. As a child,
he marveled at the sentries guarding the U.S. Embassy there. He
decided then that he wanted to be a Marine. Years later, after
escaping the siege of his city and immigrating to America, he
enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. He honorably served
for 6 years and his service included deployments to Iraq. Upon
his return, people thanked him for his service, but when it
came to landing a job, he struggled to get interviews.
Unemployed and unable to translate his military skills at job
fairs in Southern California, Roxley found The Mission
Continues. Driven by his own experiences with homelessness and
his personal responsibility to assist those less fortunate, he
earned a fellowship with Habitat for Humanity. He is
reconnected to a mission that is important to him. He is
working on distinct teams, his team at The Mission Continues,
his team at Habitat for Humanity, and the teams of volunteers
he now organizes. He is translating military skills to civilian
skills and he is excelling.
Roxley's story can be the story of this generation of
veterans. It is a story of service in war and continued service
at home.
Madam Chairman, we are grateful for your support and the
support of this Subcommittee. I would welcome any questions
that you or other Members may have. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Mr. Sulayman.
TESTIMONY OF RAMSEY SULAYMAN,\1\ LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ
AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA
Mr. Sulayman. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of more than 200,000
members and supporters of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America, I thank you for the opportunity to share our views on
this important issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Sulayman appears in the appendix
on page 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have spent 14 years in the Marine Corps trying to execute
the Marine Corps' two missions, winning battles and making
Marines. As an IAVA staff member, I do not make soldiers,
sailors, airmen, or marines, but I do try and make their lives
better. The views expressed in this testimony reflect the views
and analysis of IAVA and not the United States Marine Corps.
Thank you for your attention to the pressing issues facing
our Nation's veterans. Unemployment is arguably the most
pressing issue facing veterans today. While recent statistics
may indicate that the employment outlook might be getting
better for veterans, the situation is still worse than it ought
to be. For example, the unemployment rate for veterans 18 to 24
years old is nearly double the rate for 18 to 24 year-old
civilians.
Helping veterans create their own jobs via small business
has been touted as part of the solution. Many people have
wondered whether Federal contracting laws and goals are being
met, and if not, what is the best manner in which to do so.
There are three main areas to consider: Data, outreach, and
implementable solutions. I will address outreach first. IAVA
believes that the logical place to begin is through the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP), and in the Marine Corps
(TAMP). Because TAP is now mandatory for all service members,
it is a convenient touch point that will allow for the
dissemination of information on Federal contracting processes
and opportunities and the most basic level of training to the
widest possible audience. The Small Business Administration
(SBA) is currently developing an entrepreneurship track for TAP
and we believe that this will be a key component in setting
veterans up for success.
We also believe that allowing veterans and their spouses to
retake TAP after separating, as proposed in S. 2246, the TAP
Modernization Act of 2012, is a necessary step. Allowing a
veteran or spouse who has completed one track of TAP--
education, for instance--to retake a different track based on
new circumstances, in this case an entrepreneurship track, is a
small investment on the front end which we believe will pay big
dividends on the back end.
On the question of data, we must ask, what do we know and
what do we wish to know? There is a lot of data to be had, but
much of it is dispersed among different agencies. VETS-100 and
100A has some meaningful data, but only as a snapshot. It is
also not easily accessible. The information is more akin to a
head count and misses some crucial information. Because VETS-
100 and 100A allows reporting of veterans employed at any point
during the filing year, there is no guarantee that the level of
veteran employment by a Federal contractor or subcontractor is
consistently reliable or accurate. A contractor may have 100
veterans at the beginning of the year and two at the end and
can report 100 veterans employed.
In addition, without the inclusion of other relevant
information, the value of the VETS-100 and 100A forms is
limited. Some good examples would be the North American
Industry Classification System Codes that allow tracking the
number of veteran contractors by industry type and the era from
which the veteran hails. These pieces of information would help
elucidate in which industries veteran contractors are most
heavily and lightly concentrated and whether that force is
declining due to age. Much of that information resides with
SBA.
The certification process for a service disabled veteran-
owned (SDVO) small business or veteran-owned small business
(VOSB) should also be easy and consistent. IAVA supports
efforts to curb fraud and abuse by ascertaining the voracity of
SDVO or veteran-owned status, but we recognize that the
certification process should not discourage small businesses
with limited resources. We are concerned that the statutorily
mandated certification process currently used by the Veterans
Administration is too cumbersome. Extending this system to all
Federal agencies, as has been proposed, would be unnecessarily
burdensome on both government and small businesses.
It is also worth noting that the VA's Center for Veterans
Enterprise site, www.vetbiz.gov, was down for approximately 2
weeks. It was up last Thursday and is now back down again for
maintenance and there is no information posted as to when new
veterans may expect to be able to register their businesses
online.
The Small Business Administration has relied on self-
certification and has experienced little fraud. IAVA believes
that maintaining this system with some enhanced documentation
requirements will help ease the burden on SDVO and veteran-
owned small businesses while helping to guarantee that the
consideration earned through service to country is not abused.
As far as solutions go, during research for this testimony,
we pursued many different leads on making the system more
efficient and increasing the number of veteran contractors.
Many of the recommendations we heard often already exist in
some form.
For example, the idea of searchable centralized database of
veteran contractors that could be used by Federal contracting
officers and Federal contractors already exists as the Central
Contractor Registration (CCR), and Dynamic Small Business
Search (DSBS), systems. The use of those resources to find
veteran contractors, even by Federal contracting officers,
appears to be less than optimal because, we were told, many
people choose, quote, ``the path of least resistance,'' end
quote.
Part of the assessment of the problem will require review
of the use of existing systems and processes, but without data
that is substantial, accessible, and easy to understand,
implementing solutions is a little bit akin to shooting first
and aiming later. Some of the reviews of this data are already
underway and ideally will result in clarifying best and worst
practices so good solutions can be found.
We also believe that VA and DOL should be funnels to the
Small Business Administration. SBA are the experts on small
business and should be the prime actor in this area.
IAVA strongly welcomes the efforts of Congress, the
Executive Branch, and private industry in increasing the number
of veteran contractors, whether those contractors are
fulfilling government or private contracts. As part of our
commitment, IAVA is willing to spread the word about available
opportunities or training to our membership and the greater
population through our extensive social media outreach. We are
also able and willing to partner with either government
agencies or private corporations in targeted efforts to help
increase veteran employment through our programs, such as Smart
Job Fairs held in partnership with the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
We believe that employment is the No. 1 issue facing the
veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and will only become more
important as the war in Afghanistan ends. IAVA appreciates the
efforts of this Subcommittee and the other witnesses and we
look forward to helping in any way we can. Thank you, and I am
prepared to answer any questions that you have.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Ms. Hardy.
TESTIMONY OF PAMELA HARDY,\1\ SENIOR MANAGER, DIVERSITY AND
INCLUSION TEAM, BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
Ms. Hardy. Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today.
I testify as a Senior Manager in the Diversity and Inclusion
Team at Booz Allen Hamilton, where I am responsible for all
aspect of our organizational efforts to build and maintain a
diverse and inclusive culture for all employees at the firm.
That includes making Booz Allen an employer of choice for
veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Hardy appears in the appendix on
page 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen is based in McLean, Virginia, and we have over
80 offices throughout the United States. For nearly a century,
our work has helped U.S. Government agencies, defense
components, and other business and institutional clients better
execute the most challenging government missions around the
world.
Forbes Magazine recently reported that Booz Allen ranked as
the top employer for veterans, citing the approximately one-
third of our employees who have self-identified as having
military backgrounds. We have also been recognized by the
National Guard and the Reserve as well as by the Disabled
American Veterans (DAV) organization for outstanding practices
that support veterans. And we are honored to have been named in
the top 10 of the G.I. Jobs List of top 100 military-friendly
employers for 6 years running.
Booz Allen leads in veterans' employment because our
commitment to veterans and wounded warriors is part of our
corporate culture, coordinated by our senior leadership and
extending throughout the firm. We approach this commitment by
involving multiple aspects and layers of our business, much
like we integrate our various capabilities for our clients. We
hire veterans because of this commitment and because veterans
bring a unique knowledge and experience base to their work. Few
can know the challenges that face our U.S. military and other
government clients better than those who have served our
country in uniform.
For these reasons, Booz Allen supports the government's
efforts to encourage the hiring of former military members and
we believe that the current regulatory construct strikes the
right balance in allowing contractors like Booz Allen to
explore and develop programs that work best for their
particular organizations. We approach military hiring, for
instance, through a variety of creative recruitment programs,
but we also leverage the wide range of expertise we provide to
military clients, such as knowledge of veterans' health
services. To help us attract and support new hires, we support
veteran-owned businesses through our contracting organization.
We use members of our own veteran workforce to mentor and
support other veteran employees through employee resource
groups, mentoring circles, education, and leadership programs
and other means. We focus on programs to support military
families and spouses. And, importantly, veterans and wounded
warriors are a major focus and beneficiary of the firm's
philanthropic efforts.
In our prepared statement, we detail several hiring and
retention programs that have made us so successful. In hiring,
we foster strategic recruitment partnerships with nonprofit
organizations in the military community. We also run a Junior
Military Officers Program to put recently separated junior
officers directly in contact with our military recruiting team.
And we participate in the U.S. Army Partnership for Youth
Success Program by pledging to provide future full-time
employment positions for qualified Army-trained veterans.
We retain veterans through initiatives at our firm and in
the surrounding community. We offer an employee resource group
known as the Armed Services Forum to give former members of the
military a forum to interact with each other and navigate their
transition into the civilian workplace. We have a proactive
disability accommodations program, generous military leave, and
return policies for Reservists, and we conduct targeted
training and development programs to help veterans convert
skills they learned in the military into skills they can use
and market at Booz Allen. We have also hosted several
collaborative community summits across the country to better
understand and improve service delivery to veterans across
local government, advocacy, health care, and other community
organizations.
While we believe our firm is already effective in employing
veterans, we recognize that there is more work we all need to
do. Collaboration among industry, veterans' organizations, and
the government is of paramount importance, and we particularly
support the Subcommittee's efforts to enhance this type of
collaboration.
Madam Chairman, thank you again for permitting me the
opportunity to discuss this important issue with you today. I
welcome any questions you may have.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much. Ms. Sullivan.
TESTIMONY OF SALLY SULLIVAN,\1\ EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
MANTECH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Ms. Sullivan. Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, I am honored on behalf of ManTech
International Corporation to appear before you this morning to
share our experiences in hiring and retaining our Nation's
veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan appears in the appendix
on page 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTech is a global employer to almost 10,000 people. That
roughly 40 percent of our employees today proudly identify
themselves as having served or are currently serving in the
U.S. military is evidence of the success we enjoy as a company
and a culture that successfully attracts those exiting the
military and assimilates them into the civilian workforce on a
sustained basis. ManTech provides those leaving the military
with the opportunity to join the civilian workforce, the
opportunity to gain additional job skills and training, health
care coverage, and the opportunity to continue to serve their
country and support an important mission as a contractor.
As the majority of our work today supports the U.S.
military and intelligence community, a large number of the
career opportunities available at ManTech are for positions
that directly support mission requirements and typically
require skills gained through military service and the
possession of active security clearances. Many of our
recruiting activities are focused on engaging those who are in
the process of exiting the military or those who have recently
exited.
ManTech is an active member of more than a dozen military
employment partnerships, such as the 100,000 Jobs Mission, the
Military Spouse Employment Partnership, Wounded Warrior
Project, Hiring Our Heroes, and VA for Vets. We also build and
maintain relationships directly with colleges and universities
that support the G.I. Bill and offer programs developed
especially for veterans. Over the past year, we have
participated in more than 125 hiring events spanning 72 cities
nationwide. As a result, we connected with more than 5,000
veterans and hired more than 2,000 of them.
As part of our outreach to recruits, we work closely with
the Transition Assistance Program sponsored by the U.S.
military. Through TAP, we offer onsite assistance to active
duty soldiers who will be leaving the military, including
practical advice on how to develop and write a resume, how to
interview for a job, and how the civilian job environment
works.
Of the many things we do to retain our employees, to
include veterans, ManTech offers educational skills and career
development training as well as mentorship opportunities. Our
educational programs are offered through ManTech University
(MTU), a first-class award-winning corporate university
established to support the emerging training and educational
needs of our employees. Additionally, MTU has alliances with 13
different accredited universities offering certificates,
Bachelor's and Master's degrees, and mini-MBAs, both online and
in traditional classroom settings. In 2011, a large percentage
of our veteran employees took advantage of training
opportunities through ManTech University. More than 40,000
courses were successfully completed by our veterans, roughly 10
courses per veteran employee.
Many of ManTech's contracts require foreign deployments, so
ManTech offers two specific programs to assist family members
of deployed individuals. One program, called LifeWorks,
provides employees and family members free confidential access
to resources and counseling 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
This program offers expert guidance on health-related issues,
addiction, grief and loss, financial ideas, how to parent a
difficult child or teenager, and how to cope with stress.
Constant Care, a second program offered by ManTech, is an
internally staffed program available to employees 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year, by human resource professionals who have
the knowledge and experience to assist deployed employees and
their families. Constant Care is similar to the Military
Ombudsman program and, therefore, is familiar and well received
by veterans and their families.
As a result of retention efforts such as these, many of our
new recruits come as referrals from existing employees, which
accounts in part for ManTech being named Number Six Top
Military Friendly Employers by G.I. Jobs Magazine, Most
Valuable Employer for the Military by CivilianJobs.com, one of
the country's most veteran-friendly employers by USAA Magazine,
and the Top Ten Best Employer for Veterans by Military Times
Edge Magazine.
Now, let me comment on ManTech's experience with assembling
and filing information regarding veterans and the Department of
Labor. Logistically, the assembling and reporting information
required by the Department of Labor for the VETS-100A is an
automated process by database systems that capture employee
information at the initial stage of the hiring process, when
information required for payroll, health benefits, taxes, et
cetera, is input into our systems when new hires join ManTech.
Each new employee is asked to self-identify if they are a
veteran, and this information is aggregated and reviewed by
human resource specialists as well as by our senior management
routinely throughout the year.
Last, you have asked for our suggestions for improving the
Federal Government's effort to facilitate the hiring of
veterans by contractors. To answer this question thoughtfully,
I engaged with several cognizant employees working in a variety
of levels and roles. Whether human resource specialist,
recruiter, or line manager, their answers were very consistent.
All felt strongly that the Federal Government already takes
many bold and aggressive actions to ensure maximum outreach to
this important segment of our population.
Further, we know that companies like ManTech have embraced
veterans' outreach. After all, if we have not served ourselves,
we each have family members and loved ones who have selflessly
served our Nation or are serving today.
Our recommendation is to stay the course with those efforts
we have in place today.
Madam Chairman, that concludes my oral statement and I am
pleased to answer any further questions.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you all very much.
It was interesting. I try to visit small businesses in my
State from time to time and I actually had a visit with a
plumbing supply house in St. Louis, and this is not a large
employer, less than 50 employees. The people that work there,
most of them have worked there many years. So they want to be
careful when they hire someone because they assume when they
hire someone, they are going to be with them for years.
I did not go there to talk about hiring veterans, but they
brought it up with me. And the man that owns the company said
it was incredibly difficult for them to find veterans, and he
mentioned a couple of things and I would love your take on
this, Mr. Daywalt.
First, he said that the Web sites that in their experience,
as they looked at the various listings on the Web sites, they
were taken aback at how many people had put information on the
Web site that were not veterans, that people had been able to
access various Web sites and put their employment--that they
were anxious to get employed, and then when they actually did
the due diligence, they found that people were signing up on
these Web sites that were not veterans at all. So they found
that overwhelming. Because this is a small operation, they did
not really have--they ended up working at this for a while. I
mean, they spent a lot of time and energy. They finally found
two applicants that they are in the final process of
interviewing.
The other thing he mentioned to me, and I would like your
take on both of these issues, is matching. He said, at the
veterans' jobs fairs and the places they were going to access,
there would be employers there like banks and Enterprise Rental
Car, Anheuser-Busch, and they needed people for their
warehouse. They were not able to hire someone who was disabled
because they needed someone who was going to help them load
plumbing supplies into the warehouse and out of the warehouse
and deliver these plumbing supplies. And he said it was clear
to him how inefficient this was because you had all these
employers that wanted a much different employee than he was
looking for. And he said that, once again, took hours and hours
of their time and effort to try to match up the right veteran
with the right job opportunity.
So if you could, if you would address those two issues that
this particular employer in St. Louis was struggling with.
Mr. Daywalt. Yes, Madam Chairman. Excuse me. I am suffering
from allergies.
Your comment about candidates in a job board database not
being vets does not surprise me. There are a number of sites
out there that do not validate who the person is that is
putting up the resume. You have over 300,000 Internet job
boards out there. You have about 30 left in the military space.
The leaders are VetJobs, MilitaryHire, and Corporate Gray, and
the three of us actually do validate each person that is
putting up their resume. With some of the others, they will let
anybody put up a resume. And in reality, most veterans do not
put their resumes up on the Internet. We are getting over
200,000 visitors a month, but we only have 140,000 active
resumes, as it has been hammered into us that our friends over
in the sandbox are using sites like VetSuccess or other free
sites to track down veterans to go attack them here in this
country. I wish the press would cover that more.
But I hear that from a lot of employers because until they
need to make a hire, they are not always aware of who the
players in a given space are. It is sort of like I do not know
any heart doctors, but if all of a sudden I needed to have a
heart operation, I might start doing a lot of research to find
out who is going to be a good one. So it is not a common thing
that everybody uses on a daily basis.
Regarding the matching, the more advanced sites--ours being
one of them, MilitaryHire is another good example--have
matching mechanisms and career assessment tests that we have
people--we use the CRI tests out of Forth Worth, where we can
identify a veteran that matches best with the employer. And the
way you do it at VetJobs, we have customer service reps. When a
customer puts up a job, and we have about 52,000 jobs up today,
when they are key jobs, we will go into the database, identify
people, and refer them in to our customers. We have had a
pretty good success rate.
But a lot of the complaints that he or she was voicing
really comes from just not understanding how the system works
and it is because it is not a system that is used day in and
day out.
Senator McCaskill. Well, what would you suggest, if
anything, maybe part of the problem in this area is all of us
want to help.
Mr. Daywalt. Right.
Senator McCaskill. And sometimes, all best intentions have
ugly endings in government. And, frankly, I am beginning to
believe that this reporting requirement to the Department of
Labor is a good example of that----
Mr. Daywalt. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. Where all best intentions,
where we were going to try to keep track of contractors hiring
veterans, but no one is doing the due diligence to make that
effort really meaningful in any way.
What could we do that would help an employer like Crescent
Plumbing Supply in St. Louis find veterans in a way that is
more efficient for them? Now, these are great folks and they
just kept working at it until they found two because they
wanted to do this because they love their country and they want
to hire veterans. But I am not sure very many businesses as
small as this business is would have spent the time and effort
they spent at it. What should we be doing to make this easier?
I am surprised that your Web site would not pop up as one of
the first if you went on to search ``hiring veterans''----
Mr. Daywalt. We generally pop up in the top three or four.
Senator McCaskill. And is it very clear on your Web site
that all of the veterans on there have been certified as
veterans?
Mr. Daywalt. Well, yes.
Senator McCaskill. OK.
Mr. Daywalt. I mean, we have some people who put their
resumes up that were not veterans. We take them out. But some
suggestions to help improve the system, one would be to have
your veterans' representatives at the workforce centers, what
they call Local Veteran Employment Reps (LVERs) and Disabled
Veteran Opportunity Programs (DVOPs)----
Senator McCaskill. I speak that foreign language now.
Mr. Daywalt. OK.
Senator McCaskill. I have been on the Armed Services
Committee for 6 years.
Mr. Daywalt. We make jokes----
Senator McCaskill. I can do the acronym dance with you.
Mr. Daywalt. We make jokes, you have to have a dictionary
to understand the military acronyms, but having more of them
familiar with what goes on--and I am a little outspoken, I am
not politically correct, but, madam, you have a lot of people
in the DOL who are the classic bureaucrats. They would have a
wonderful job if it were not for all these damn people coming
in wanting help. And they do not take the initiative. And I
will give you a real good example.
We had a veteran down there in Georgia who needed a job. He
is in his 50s. He had been sitting over at the DOL office for 3
days trying to get help to get a job, and each day he would go
in and say, ``Oh, we have you in the system now. Welcome back.
You are in our system now. You are in the system now.'' He did
not give a damn about being in the system. He wanted a job.
So someone had him give us a call and we found out where he
was living. He did not have a car. Did a Google search of his
apartment and found a Publix supermarket, a Target, and a Wal-
Mart all within walking distance of his apartment complex. We
called the managers of those three stores and all three of them
said, send him over. They interviewed him. Two of them made a
job offer and he took one of them. He went with Target because
they paid more than the others. But we did all that inside of
20 minutes.
Why can you not have this $50,000 bureaucrat sitting on
their butt in a nice air conditioned office do the same thing?
Because there is no penalty and no incentive to go out and do
it. I know that is not politically correct, but that is the
brute reality and we deal with that day in and day out down in
our office.
But having them better educated as to what the real
resources are for their local area, because all employment is
on a local level----
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Mr. Daywalt [continuing]. And being able to direct somebody
as to what are the good sites, what are the--we put out a
listing of what we consider to be all the legitimate job boards
on the Internet because there are so many rip-offsites,
especially targeting veterans and their spouses. But that would
be a big move forward if they would do that.
Senator McCaskill. Well, I think we have to figure out a
way to try to remove as much as this as possible from the
Federal Government and put it in the State and local offices
where frankly, they are going to be the ones that are going to
have the best ears to the ground.
Mr. Daywalt. Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. Let me ask about--both Booz Allen and
ManTech. You all have great records. Both of your companies
told us that the reporting requirements were not burdensome on
your companies. I am not sure that they are providing much
value, but you did say they were not burdensome.
Let me ask you this about the National Guard problem. Are
the majority of the people that you are hiring actually those
that are leaving active service as opposed to National Guard?
Ms. Sullivan. I cannot talk to those statistics. I know
that we capture those, and I could probably look through my
files here and see what those numbers are.
I was thinking about congressional mandate programs and one
of the congressionally mandated programs that we absolutely
love, and we know it has a high impact and it does make a
difference and it has to do with those who are in the process
of separating from the military and that is that TAP program. I
think----
Senator McCaskill. Right, the Transition----
Ms. Sullivan. Yes. In the Army----
Senator McCaskill. Transition Assistance Program?
I think they call it the Army Career Alumni Program (ACAP).
They might call it a little bit different. But this is where
you can really, work with them and help them think through how
to write a resume.
Right.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. I will look through our numbers,
and I may not be able to comment here, but I do not think that
the majority of them are National Guard or Reserves. They are
typically ones who are separating from the military.
Senator McCaskill. Right. If you would get those numbers
for us, that would be helpful, Ms. Sullivan.
Ms. Sullivan. Mm-hmm.
Senator McCaskill. And how about you, Ms. Hardy? I assume
the same thing is probably true for Booz-Allen, that the
majority are those that are separating from active service?
Ms. Hardy. Correct, and about 11 percent of our 30 percent
of our hires self-identify as having recently separated,
representing, one, the highest overall diversity constituency
group within the firm, but also indicating that these
individuals are coming directly from the military, from active
duty to Booz Allen as a first stop.
I do not have the numbers for the Reservists but we do
capture them and certainly can provide that to the
Subcommittee.
Senator McCaskill. I think it would be really important to
get those numbers, and let me ask you, Mr. Sulayman, I think
this National Guard situation is a crisis. I think it is
something that we are kind of sweeping under the rug and not
paying close attention to. When I was the elected prosecutor in
Kansas City, I remember looking at resumes and thinking the
National Guard was a really good thing. Now, that was before it
became an operational reserve.
And I think the testimony that was given here today
demonstrates the problem. These companies are not hiring people
just because they want to hire a veteran. They are hiring them
because they need them for their ongoing business operations
and you cannot blame them for not wanting to hire someone and
train them thinking they are going to be gone four or five
times over a 6-or 7-year period, or 4 or 5 times over a 7-or 8-
year period, or even 4 or 5 times over a 10-year period.
Now, I know we are drawing down in Afghanistan and
obviously we have drawn down in Iraq, but I think that we have
permanently injured the ability of the National Guard to get
employment in our country by the way we have made these
changes, and I do not think they were well thought out. I get
it. We did not have enough boots and we had to do it because
our ground force was not big enough, but what I do not think
they anticipated that there was going to be this problem and I
think it is one of the reasons that we have had some of the
problems with suicides and some of the other issues that we are
seeing in our military.
What would you recommend that we could do, short of
convincing our military leadership that they need to go back to
the old way in terms of utilizing the Guard and the Reserve?
What could we do that would help this problem?
Mr. Sulayman. Well, ma'am, I mean, you really hit on the
big crux of the matter, is that the National Guard and the
Reserves have been used in unprecedented fashion in the
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been used as an
operational reserve. I know that in briefings I have been to at
the Pentagon, the Army has talked about their Force Generation
Model that they refer to as ARFORGEN. It envisions Guard and
Reserve units activating at least once, or they say once every
5 years. So out of every 5-year period, you can expect to be
deployed out of the National Guard or Reserve, and more often
if you are switching units and you happen to catch the unit at
the right or the wrong time, depending on your opinion, in the
cycle. And that is going to be a continued issue, particularly
with smaller employers who can stand to absorb that loss less
well.
I know that what we have heard from our membership,
somewhat anecdotally, is that they are not getting hired
because they are in the Guard or Reserve and that employers
have--it is one of the questions that they are often asked. Are
you in the Guard or Reserve? Are you anticipating deploying any
time soon? And that there are some bills both in the House and
the Senate that are designed at strengthening the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
protections and make that law a little bit tougher. But,
really----
Senator McCaskill. And USERRA protections are the
protections that were put into the law that prohibit the
discrimination against members of the Guard and Reserve in
connection with their military service.
Mr. Sulayman. Yes, ma'am. So having those employment and
reemployment rights a little bit stronger, we believe is always
a good thing. But we think that incentivizing employers it is
better to dangle the carrot than break out the stick. We
believe that most employers want to hire veterans. It is just,
like you said, those concerns of missing out an employee who
you anticipate having, especially if you are a small or medium-
sized business.
That is really a tough question. We have been trying to
work with employers through our Smart Job Fairs to convince
them that here is the value of a Guard or Reservist and that
they may be gone for a year out of a 5-year period, but their
skills as managers and leaders are going to be sharper and--I
deployed with a Reserve unit to Iraq. I was a light armored
reconnaissance unit. We had, obviously, heavily mechanical and
we had a lot of mechanics in the civilian world who I would say
that after the 9-months that we were deployed, tearing engines
out and tearing them apart and rebuilding them in a foot and a
half of moondust sand in the Iraqi desert without any
electricity, without any water, without any lifts, basically
improvising all this, the Cummins diesel engines and
transmissions, Detroit diesel engines that run the trucks that
they repaired back in their civilian lives, that made them much
better and more efficient at their jobs once they returned
home.
And that is really a job of selling that to potential
employers, because the Army, as you said, and the Marine Corps,
which is, I understand, going to operate on a similar Force
Generation Model with respect to reserves, are not going to
change that because of the operational commitments that we have
and what they need to fulfill.
Senator McCaskill. Let me turn to Senator Begich for some
questions, and then I have some additional questions I will ask
when he is completed. Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
First, I appreciate you all being here and giving us some
insight on what we need to do about employment for veterans. My
State has about 11, 12 percent of the population are veterans,
the highest per capita in the Nation, so we have a lot of need
and, as you can imagine, a lot of issues that come up.
When I was mayor, just to followup on the Guard issue, the
Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), we always
signed up on it because we wanted to make sure people were
taken care of no matter where they were. Is there an--let me
just throw an idea and I have a couple of questions more
specific to it. Anyone who wants to answer, and I will start
with you, Ramsey, if it is OK. To create an incentive for the
businesses to--they know they are going to be gone for a period
of time. The question is how long can you keep those kind of
jobs open. Is there, through tax policy, is there an
opportunity to create incentives to incentivize them not only
to hire them, but to keep that space open and creating flex
schedules? I do not know who wants to answer----
Mr. Daywalt. Yes, I will answer that, sir. I have testified
about this several times in the past. Tax incentives, while
nice and a ``feel good'' from a political standpoint, is not a
driver to get people hired. And what I hear from employers, I
mean, they love getting the people off active duty, but----
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Daywalt [continuing]. They would be more than willing
to support members of the National Guard and Reserve if they
were compensated for when their employee is taken away.
Senator Begich. Got it.
Mr. Daywalt. So if Sulayman works for me and he gets called
up, I want a direct cash stipend so that I can hire a
contractor to do his job until he gets back. That is the cost
of doing business.
Senator Begich. Get you.
Mr. Daywalt. I cannot spend the tax credit. And one of the
big problems with a lot of tax credits is that once the
Department of Labor lays on all their tracking requirements, I
may be getting $9,600 back, but it may be costing me $11,000
for all of the reporting and tracking.
Senator Begich. Just to keep track of that.
Mr. Daywalt. And I am not going to make it up in volume.
Senator Begich. So the better approach, at least from your
view, is if there is an opportunity to do a differential, a
cash differential for the period of time deployed so you can at
least keep the work flow moving----
Mr. Daywalt. Yes, but see, you have a bigger problem. It is
a systemic problem. The USERRA was written for when people were
gone on the weekend or maybe a 2-week active duty----
Senator Begich. Right. Two weeks.
Mr. Daywalt. It was not designed for people being going
away for 12, 18, or 24 months. So it is out of--it is an
anachronism. What is happening now, and we documented this when
the Iowa brigade was called up, they had 750 people that were
unemployed, a little over 30 percent of the brigade. They did
not lose their jobs when they were over in Afghanistan. They
lost their jobs before they left----
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Daywalt [continuing]. Because it is announced about day
160 from mobilization day, and most of them lost their jobs
between day 150 down to day 90 because the employers realized
that if I lay you off under the guise of the recession, I am
not subject to USERRA because I am not subject to USERRA until
you have your orders in hand.
Senator Begich. Got you.
Mr. Daywalt. Now, if you say that we are going to make
USERRA effective the moment you announce a unit, nobody will
ever hire a member of the National Guard.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Daywalt. You have a systemic problem. It is the way the
Guard and Reserve are being used. And until you fix that
problem, everything else is just going to be a band-aid.
Senator Begich. Very good.
Mr. Sulayman. Sir, I agree in large part with what Mr.
Daywalt said, but, one of the things that also has to be
considered is that less than one percent of the population has
served in these conflicts.
Senator Begich. That is right.
Mr. Sulayman. So this is not a situation where World War II
where you had, I think 11 percent is the figure--and so
everybody had a brother, or cousin, or husband, or wife, or
sister, or there was a relative, or a neighbor, somebody who
was close to you. And so everybody had sacrifice. I mean, there
was rationing of sugar, gas, and stamps. I mean, my grandfather
went away and all his brothers, and it is interesting to hear
my grandmother talk about, silk stockings, not being able to
have stockings during World War II. And I think that is just
weird. I mean, it is just something that is not in--and I have
been in the Marine Corps for 14 years and that is something
that just does not enter my mind.
But I think employers have to understand that there is a
sacrifice associated with the wars that have been fought and
that while tax incentives or direct stipends, if those are the
carrots that we come to understand are the best solutions and
that we can afford to do, hey, that would be great. But it is
also a matter of the country's shared sacrifice.
Senator Begich. It is a moral obligation.
Mr. Sulayman. Yes, sir. I mean, it is a moral obligation.
The Reservists that I took over, a lot of them, as Mr. Daywalt
said, lost their jobs before we left. Oh, hard economic times,
your job is gone. And under USERRA, if the job disappears, you
do not have to find another position.
So employers understanding that this is part of the shared
sacrifice, and hopefully as Afghanistan winds down, this
becomes less and less of a problem. But as Senator McCaskill
pointed out, with the unprecedented use and the Army Force
Generation Model that I was talking about, it remains to be
seen exactly what effect that is going to have in the future,
continuing an operational reserve.
So we really feel at IAVA that it is a moral obligation. It
is a small percentage of the population that has been doing a
lot of the fighting and multiple deployments and----
Senator Begich. Let me hold you there, only because I want
to get--I have one quick question left here, and it is a big
question, but kind of--on January 11, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) reported how many different
employment training programs there are--I think it is 40, 50--
between the Department of Labor, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and all these other miscellaneous. I am coming more
and more to the feeling that maybe we consolidate these, put
them all in the Department of Veterans Affairs, focus in that
arena.
Just give me a couple of quick thoughts. My time is pretty
close to being out here. But I just think with so many
Department of Labor tries, bless their soul, but veterans
understand veterans and it seems like we should just shift it
all, streamline it, and focus on what we should be doing, and
that is employing and retraining and have the Veterans
Administration do it in concert with their veterans benefit
programs and all these other things they do. Any thoughts from
folks?
Mr. Sulayman. Yes, sir. There is----
Senator McCaskill. Take your time. You do not need to
hurry.
Mr. Sulayman. OK. There is legislation in the House that is
currently working its way through. I think it is H.R. 4072----
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Sulayman [continuing]. Which IAVA supports and is
designed to take Department of Labor and the veterans program
and transfer it wholesale to the VA. We subscribe to the same
thinking that you have, sir, that Veterans Affairs is what a
veteran thinks of when--where do I go for help? I am going to
the VA. And the fact that the legislation is written to just
basically make an address change is a good thing because it is
not diminishing any of the functions of----
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Sulayman [continuing]. The vets program----
Senator Begich. It seems like if you are a vet, you are
coming in. You are trying to figure out, do I need some more
education if I want to be in this job, and do I need any
medical assistance and some of the issues that I might have had
or might not have. But it seems like you want to do that just
kind of in one place----
Mr. Sulayman. Yes, sir, and DOL Vets has employment
outreach and VA has employment outreach. And so having DOL Vets
move and become VA Vets and do the employment for veterans at
VA to us makes sense because it removes some of that
duplicative effort that is over at VA and it just centralizes
it all.
And that is a little bit that I talk about in my testimony
here, as well. With the numbers and the outreach for veterans
small business, we feel that DOL--or VA should be a conduit,
that DOL should be a conduit. If veterans come to DOL or VA
looking for small business help and advice, they should go to
the veterans outreach over at SBA because those are the
experts, and that is the same thing we feel with DOL Vets
moving to VA.
Senator Begich. Madam Chairman, can I ask--Ted, were you
about to say something to that issue?
Mr. Daywalt. Oh, no.
Senator Begich. Oh, OK. I appreciate it. Let me just end
there. You actually answered my second question, which was on
the small business. You got right to it, because I think the
same thing, that we want to make sure it is as streamlined as
possible. I know there are some good efforts being done with
TAP and trying to move entrepreneurship. The TAP has a lot of
work to be done. I think the mind of a soldier going into and
having to take that program and figure out how--they are not
focused on that. I mean, they are focused on, thank God, I am
now doing XYZ. I have to go to where now for what?
And I think the more we can improve that, but also
entrepreneurs seem like a huge opportunity for veterans. I just
met some in Alaska on some small companies, all veterans,
incredible work they are doing, worldwide operations now, small
little manufacturing business but very precise. They took their
skill, turned it into a business that struggled getting their
business together, but because enough of them banded together,
they have some capital. It just seems like that is an
incredible track for veterans. As someone who comes from a
small business world, it seems like this is a huge opportunity
for the innovation. Ted.
Mr. Daywalt. I would like to add to what you just said,
Senator. I am on the Small Business Council at the U.S. Chamber
and I have had--I have submitted 11 different ideas of how to
help the National Guard and Reserve, one of which is for the
government to put up a pool of money so that--and this would
only help maybe 12, 14 percent of the people in the National
Guard--but a pool of money where they can draw on, no interest
or low interest notes so they can buy a franchise.
Senator Begich. Yes.
Mr. Daywalt. There are a lot of advantages to that, because
veterans tend to hire other veterans. Everybody in VetJobs is
either in the military, married to the military, or a child of
the military--do not tell the DOL that, they will say I am
discriminating--but we do. And if they are in the Guard, you
cannot file a USERRA complaint against yourself.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Daywalt. And while they are gone, their family can be
running it while they are deployed, and then when they come
back, there is no employment problem. There is no loss of
benefits. There is no loss of income. But it will only help 10
to 14 percent of them, and there are a lot of other things to
help the others, but entrepreneurship--veterans, study after
study--Booz has done a great study on that--shows that some of
your best entrepreneurs----
Senator Begich. Are veterans.
Mr. Daywalt [continuing]. Were prior military because they
have that all important quality called leadership and they can
understand risk----
Senator Begich. That is right.
Mr. Daywalt [continuing]. Because if I made a mistake out
there, it cost some of my troops their lives. So you can make a
decision very quickly. And so entrepreneurship would be a big
part. There is no silver bullet.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Daywalt. I am always fascinated when I come up here,
because everybody is looking for the one silver bullet that is
going to solve all their problems. Your problem is
multifaceted. There is no one silver bullet. So you are going
to have to do 11, 12, 13 things, and none of them are cheap.
Senator Begich. Right. I will just end with this comment.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the chance to ask a couple of
questions. Again, thank you all for doing what you are doing.
But you are right on the franchise piece. I have seen some
good reports and franchisers, which I have looked into many
times in my years, the veteran component, they look for because
of just what you said, because they know when they say, OK,
build five stores, it is like a mission and they are on it and
they figure out how to move through it. But their issue is
capital. It is always--because when you do a franchise, there
is no $5,000 issue. It is a $50,000 to $250,000----
Mr. Daywalt. Or more.
Senator Begich [continuing]. Or more, depending on the
franchise you get.
Mr. Daywalt. The International Franchise Association
sponsors a group called VetFran. We are a part of that.
Senator Begich. Yes.
Mr. Daywalt. And they have a big initiative going on this
summer, and the VFW and some of the other VSOs are getting
involved with it now. We think that is a good solution.
Senator Begich. Yes.
Mr. Daywalt. But there----
Senator Begich. It is a piece.
Mr. Daywalt. It is a piece to the puzzle.
Senator Begich. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator McCaskill. Maybe we could do away with some of the
bureaucracies around this issue and take that savings and put
it into a fund that could----
Senator Begich. If we do----
Senator McCaskill [continuing]. For low-interest loans
and----
Senator Begich. Combine the Department of Labor over with
Vets. Take that savings.
Senator McCaskill. And it is more than just the Department
of Labor.
Senator Begich. Oh, yes, it is. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. There is something touching veterans in
almost every agency of government, all for the right reason,
because people wanted to help veterans. But what we have done
is we have spawned, and what this hearing today has shown is
that one piece of that we have exposed is this report that
everybody is supposed to file. You guys are doing a great job.
They do not even have your data. One of the data they had
showed that somebody hired--you were not here, Senator, but the
Committee got data from the Department of Labor that showed
that one company hired 400 percent veterans more than they
employed, than their total employees.
So, clearly, we are----
Senator Begich. We want more of those companies.
[Laughter.]
Senator McCaskill. Well, yes. I mean, the data is like a
joke. It is like a bad joke.
Let me ask, the certification of this is something that was
scandalous that the SBA had to deal with, where it was
discovered that somebody was claiming to be a veteran, was
getting the advantages of being a veteran, and was not a
veteran. And even worse, I believe the example that brought
this to light was they were claiming a service disabled veteran
and they were not even a veteran.
So, first, how can we certify veterans for advantages that
we try to put into the law for them in a way that does not
hinder the entrepreneurship of them as they move into the
business world, and second, what about fronting? How many
veterans are being hired to front for companies to get the
benefits that are associated with a veteran-owned business? In
your experience, have you all seen that? And if so, do you
think the government even dents the surface of getting at
fronting?
Mr. Sulayman. Well, ma'am, I can tell you that I have heard
of fronting. We have not heard anything anecdotally and I have
talked to folks at SBA and VA and DOL on those issues a couple
times.
The process that the VA goes through right now to certify
veteran contractors, veteran businesses, is apparently
statutorily mandated, and I understand that the intent was to
eliminate some of those issues and abuses. But it has also made
it very difficult for veteran-owned companies, whether they are
small--whether they are service-disabled veteran-owned
businesses or just veteran-owned businesses, to get into the
system. And you were talking about some of the bureaucracy. If
you look at--there is vetbiz.gov, which is the VA's site, and
then there is fedbizops.gov, which is, I guess, the general
site. There are multiple touch points and I think that makes it
difficult for veterans to understand where they need to go and
what they need to do.
Anecdotally on that point, I have heard several veterans
who have gone through the VA's credentialing process and think,
OK, now I can do business with the Federal Government, only to
find out that they never had to go through that process to do
business with the other arms of the Federal Government.
And we certainly have heard, not necessarily from our
membership but through the media and news, about instances like
SBA and veterans either fronting or companies claiming to be
SDBOs or veteran-owned businesses that are not. And SBA, in
talking to the veterans outreach folks over there, they said
that, historically, the rate is very low.
So we think that the self-certification that is used by SBA
is probably the way to go, but maybe add some small barriers,
you have to produce a certificate of incorporation or you have
to produce incorporation documents that show a veteran and the
veteran's DD-214, something that is a little bit more than
self-certifying. What exactly that would be and how best that
would be done, I could not say off the top of my head, but I
think adding some small hurdles, while still allowing that
small business to have a low barrier to entry into business
with the Federal Government, is probably the way to go, and I
think you would weed out most of that.
Fronting, I think, really, at that point, I mean, just
taking somebody to the woodshed, judicially speaking, is
probably the way to end that.
Senator McCaskill. I just wonder if we were even doing the
oversight that is necessary to find the fronting. I mean, what
this hearing has taught me is that we are not really paying
attention. We are passing laws and then we are not paying
attention, and that is why we are going to try to stay on this
from a contracting standpoint and try to continue to pay
attention to see if we cannot--I am just, dollar, bet you a
dime, that it is going on out there, but it has not been
uncovered in any way.
Let me ask you, Mr. Kympton, I am fascinated by your
organization. It is a win-win-win-win-win-win-win. I assume
that all of this is being done with charitable donations. Are
there any government funds that are involved in your
organization whatsoever?
Mr. Kympton. Madam Chairman, there are no government funds
at this time, no.
Senator McCaskill. And what is the amount of stipend? I
mean, if someone is on a fellowship with your organization, how
many can you do a year, and how big is your organization's
budget, because we should--this is a great example of where the
private sector does--the not-for-profit sector does a much
better job than government in trying to assist not only the
veterans, but the community writ large as it relates to the
various organizations that you get fellowships in. How does
this work? Are the various organizations providing the money or
do you provide the money for the stipends during the
fellowship?
Mr. Kympton. Madam Chairman, our loose planning figure for
a fellowship is $10,000 per fellowship, and what that funds is
6 months of living stipends for the fellow so that he or she
can work in a volunteer capacity within whatever organization,
whether that is Habitat for Humanity or the Boys and Girls
Club. And all of that money comes currently from private
dollars, either corporate corporations or individuals who have
seen the value of placing veterans within these nonprofit and
community service organizations.
So the living stipend that we pay them so that they can
serve in a volunteer capacity represents roughly $7,000 of that
$10,000, and it is pegged to the AmeriCorps living stipend. So
we pegged it on something that is out there. It varies by
location. It varies by the cost of living in that location.
And, again, the intent is so that they can serve in a volunteer
capacity, reconnecting to a mission, while they are also
working toward a longer-term outcome for the contract, whether
that is full-time employment either with the organization in
which they are serving or one that they have targeted as a
place that they would like to serve, or as a segue into
continued education, or placing them in that ongoing role of
service in their community.
Senator McCaskill. Are you a United Way agency?
Mr. Kympton. No, we are not.
Senator McCaskill. So how many veterans are you serving on
an annual basis in this capacity?
Mr. Kympton. This year, we have targeted internally
somewhere between 400 and 500 fellows. Most recently, we have
organized these fellows into classes, cohorts, a very military
concept. So we brought 114 fellows together in San Diego and
started them as a class, and then after their 3-day orientation
in person, a very kind of military flavored orientation----
Senator McCaskill. And how do you find these veterans, or
how do they find you?
Mr. Kympton. The most prolific source of recruitment right
now for us are our former fellows or the volunteers who have
served with us in communities and have seen what these fellows
are capable of.
Senator McCaskill. Have you done National Guard folks?
Mr. Kympton. We have, yes.
Senator McCaskill. It seems like, to me, this might be a
good fit for the National Guard, because if you are talking
about a 6-month fellow, someone who has been deployed and has
come back and is serving in the National Guard, I mean, maybe
this model is something that we could try to promote, not
through government but in the private sector, to actually focus
on the National Guard population, because it seems to me that
the flexibility that a not-for-profit represents in terms of
not being as worried about future deployments upsetting the
entire business model of a not-for-profit makes a lot more
sense than maybe some of the other kinds of work that a Guard
or Reservist could look for.
Mr. Kympton. Madam Chairman, I can tell you both
anecdotally and with data that the organizations in which our
fellows serve deeply respect what they have brought to those
organizations in terms of the skill sets----
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Mr. Kympton [continuing]. And the unique experiences, and
plus they are getting a volunteer who are bringing all of those
skill sets and experiences to the table. So they keep coming
back to us. We have placed more than one fellow at Habitat for
Humanity and I believe that is due to the impact that these
veterans are having on those organizations.
Senator McCaskill. I bet they really give those
organizations a shot in the arm in terms of morale and passion
and focus. I think it is a terrific organization.
I want to give Senator Carper a chance. Am I calling on you
before you are ready? I have more questions if you need time.
Senator Carper. I am ready. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
To our witnesses, welcome. It is very nice to see Ted
Daywalt again, and we welcome each of our witnesses.
Senator McCaskill. Just put your sign up here so the people
watching on C-SPAN know who you are.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Who is that guy, anyway, sitting
next to Claire McCaskill? [Laughter.]
Just, like, airdropped in from the Finance Committee. Here
we are.
But I just want to express my thanks. Some of you, and I do
not know if you have talked about it here today, we have a
situation going on where I am a former veteran, Navy guy like
Ted, and the idea of being able to pursue a degree or post-
secondary program while on active duty, being detached,
deployed around the world, I mean, that is great. That could
be--it is a great model, because the nature of the work you do
in the military is you are gone a lot and it is just great.
Unfortunately, and we have some folks whose distance
learning colleges and universities, some of them do a great job
in screening people, preparing people for these programs,
making sure that they get the tutoring that they need and a lot
of support and they are actually being prepared for jobs that
will enable them to be productive citizens and pay off whatever
their loans or debts might be that relate to their education.
Not everybody is wearing a white hat, though, in that industry,
as we know.
As Mr. Daywalt knows, some of us have been working on
legislation that says, let us go back and actually revisit the
way the law used to be. It used to be that 15 percent of the
revenues of a proprietary school had to come from sources other
than the Federal Government and 85 percent could come from the
Federal Government. And then that was changed to 90 percent
could come from the Federal Government but 10 percent had to
come from other places. Now the rules are such that 10 percent
that can come from other places can come from the G.I. Bill and
from tuition assistance for folks that are on active duty. So
we have literally got 100 percent of a college's or
institution's income can come from the Federal Government, no
skin in the game. Not a good situation. So we are trying to
address this and work our way back to a real 90-10 rule where
10 percent of revenues have to come from someplace other than
the Federal Government.
I wanted to just ask, if I could, of Mr. Daywalt, and
others if you want to jump in here, employers, we know, are not
readily snapping up some of our veterans. Some, they are, but
some, they are not. But even those that have completed their
college degrees using G.I. Bill benefits. And I guess one of
the questions is, why is that, and could there be some
correlation here between the quality of the post-secondary
training that folks are getting from the G.I. Bill or from
tuition assistance and whether or not it is doing as much in
terms of job preparation as we think it ought to be getting?
Could you just speak to that, Ted?
Mr. Daywalt. Sure, sir. I will start by saying that if we
did not have the National Guard problem, we would not be
sitting here talking about veteran unemployment today because
what we see, overall, the bulk of the veterans coming off
active duty are getting employed, or they go back to school and
then they get employed. But when they are totally separated,
employers want to hire you. It is that National Guard issue
where the real veteran unemployment issues lies.
If we were talking about this problem 20 years ago, it was
the over-50 veteran that could not get a job. And then DOL did,
I think, what was one of the best programs it ever did, was put
in these computer training programs in all the workforce
centers, and within 6 months, the unemployment rate went from
the 20s down to, like, 4 or 5 percent.
Senator Carper. Is that right?
Mr. Daywalt. Because they have the skills. They just did
not know how to use the computer. In today's environment, if
you cannot use the computer, you are illiterate. But the real
unemployment problem--the overall unemployment rate for all
veterans right now is 7.7 percent, using the CPS numbers. It is
that young veteran that is in the National Guard is where your
real problem is at.
But to your question, employers want to hire them. We have
what, 5,000, 6,000 companies that use VetJobs on a regular
basis. I can only think of one company I have ever dealt with
that I would say was anti-military.
Senator Carper. Out of how many?
Mr. Daywalt. Over 5,000.
Senator Carper. Whoa.
Mr. Daywalt. Only one that I would call anti-military.
Now--and the government contractors, I know there is going to
be a big stink about what The Weather Channel did with a major
here recently, but for the most part, when there are USERRA
problems in a company, it is because an individual made a
stupid judgment, not--it is not corporate policy. But, overall,
they do want to hire them, sir.
You have to fix a systemic problem. If you fix the
problem--go back to the change of policy on January 11, 2007--
in 2006, the unemployment rate for your 18 to 24-year-olds was
only about 10 percent, thereabouts. In 2008, it went up--I
mean, at the end of 2007, it went to over--like, 23 percent.
And the employers started saying, wait a minute. If you are
going to take my employee away for up to 48 months out of any
60, I am not going to keep them, and that is why it doubled,
and it doubled in the young ones because that is where most of
the members of the National Guard are your 18-to 29-year-old
veterans.
You get rid of that systemic problem, you will not need a
hearing like this today.
Senator Carper. OK. Any other comments on the issue? What I
am looking for is the correlation between folks that are using
our G.I. Bill and maybe tuition assistance and it is not
preparing them for a real job.
Mr. Daywalt. Well, it does prepare them. The G.I. Bill is
working. It gives people--they go in--Student Veterans of
America and IAVA both have been very active helping people to
get into the schools. When they come out of the schools on the
other side, it prepares them. And a lot of great companies--
ManTech is a good example, where they bring people in and they
train them. They do not want to hire veterans, but they do not
want them taken away. It is a simple problem.
Senator Carper. Yes. Ms. Sullivan?
Ms. Sullivan. So in thinking about any stones left
unturned, and I was glad that you brought up the G.I. Bill, so
certainly ManTech is as networked as anybody. We have a
successful program. Our numbers speak for themselves. It is
part of our culture. It is a part of our company, how we
operate.
But there is one thing that I heard universally from people
with inside of ManTech of, is there some stone unturned that
really could make the difference, really move the needle in a
significant way, and certainly I am not expert on this, but
something for all of us to consider is, is there a way for
veterans who are leveraging the G.I. Bill and trying to improve
their skill set so they become more employable, something that
we see is many times veterans who are leveraging that G.I.
Bill, in the process of getting their education or more
training, they lose their security clearance. And for an
employer like ManTech, and most of our work is mission oriented
so it serves the Department of Defense or serves the
intelligence community, that ability to have a security
clearance, an active one, is a very necessary component, and
that part of the market is still a good market and it has
competitive pay.
So anything that could be done to help preserve that
clearance, maybe, I do not know, put it in a deep freeze or a
deferral mode versus just cancel it outright, I think could be
a real needle mover for everyone.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks.
Senator McCaskill. That is a great idea.
Senator Carper. Yes. Thank you very much.
Any other comments on this issue? Yes, sir.
Mr. Sulayman. Yes, sir. I know you are probably used to
hearing Tom Tarantino talk about the G.I. Bill issue on IAVA's
behalf, but that is something that, definitely, we thank you
for your leadership on with trying to change the 90-10 rule,
and we have heard anecdotally, and we think we have plenty of
examples and there are plenty of statistics to back up the idea
that veterans, in trying to take advantage of the best career-
ready training program that is out there, which is the G.I.
Bill, especially the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill now that it can be
used for licenses, certifications, not just for post-secondary
education, but professional degrees and trades and everything
else, basically----
Senator Carper. It is even transferrable, I believe.
Mr. Sulayman. And transferrable to----
Senator Carper. Family members.
Mr. Sulayman [continuing]. To children and spouses and, I
mean, it is----
Senator Carper. What a deal.
Mr. Sulayman. It is an awesome program. But we----
Senator Carper. I think when we came back from Southeast
Asia at the end of the Vietnam War, I think we have about $200,
$250 a month.
Mr. Sulayman. Right, and there was a big differential
between the post-World War II G.I. Bill and the G.I. Bill for
the Vietnam era veterans. And this, the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill,
really restored some parity more on the level of the post-World
War II G.I. Bill and can be a game changer, and a lot of
institutions sprang up, as they did after World War II, to take
advantage of that and take advantage of some of the loopholes.
And we have found from our membership that really has been an
issue for them, with not completing degrees because they have
exhausted the G.I. Bill on, quite frankly, really expensive
degrees that were not going to prepare them for the jobs they
were taking--criminal justice technology, for instance.
I had a small business before I got deployed in
construction. I was reviewing some of the online universities'
courses in construction management technology and I could not
figure out how that would have applied to any of my
subcontractors that I used or me as a project manager for a
Fortune 500 construction company. It was really--and that is
one of those things, where if you go to school and you get that
degree and then you go out looking for the job or you try and
startup a business as a small contractor and want to do
business with Federal, State, or local governments in
construction, those sorts of things, that is not going to
impress anybody and help you out, and that is one of the things
that we have found as we have looked at the issue.
Senator Carper. All right. Anybody else?
Mr. Daywalt. To Ms. Sullivan's issue about security
clearances, we hear that all the time, and there is a solution
but it is going to take a change of paradigms over at DOD. In
our country, unlike in Europe, the individual does not have the
security clearance. The billet or the job has the security
clearance. And then when you step out of that billet, you are
no longer cleared. Now, at the TS/SCI level, you have up to 6
months to get back into a job at the TS/SCI level. Otherwise,
you have to start all over again with a brand new special
background investigation, very expensive, which is why we
always make jokes that when one government contractor hires
someone at the TS/SCI level, especially with polygraph, they
have not filled a job, they have created a vacancy someplace
else.
When the person goes to school, when they get out to go
back to work, they have to start all over again. So the
solution is to create some billets that would be holding
billets so that, like when I stepped out of the Navy, I had a
TS/SCI, since I left Naval Intelligence, and if I wanted to go
back to school, I would be put into a billet that leaves me at
that security clearance, even though I am not working at it,
now when I go to apply for a job, I already have my TS/SCI in
place so that I can go into a job requiring a security
clearance because I would be switching from that billet to
whatever billet I go to work for in that company. That would be
a solution.
Now, a lot of your unions want to fight that because then
they cannot do the background checks and everything else at
DSS, but--and the same problems with the certifications of
veterans. We have talked for years about if a guy drives a
truck in the military, he could get a commercial driver's
license (CDL) or be able to get an emergency medical technician
(EMT) license or whatever in the civilian world, and everybody
says they are in favor of it until it gets on the floor of the
House and the unions say, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We
are not going to have them come out and compete with us. But
that would be a simple way to fix part of that problem.
Senator McCaskill. I think we passed that, did we not?
Senator Begich. We did, and also, there is a program that--
I am not sure 100 percent agree with you, because there is a
program called Helmets to Hardhats that the unions actually
organized, because they are in huge needs because the trades
are averaging 52 to 55 years old and they need replacements
very quickly. And so I am not sure that old paradigm of one
group against is there because the legislation we passed starts
opening up the doors.
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Senator Begich. But I know the Helmets to Hardhats program,
at least in my State, has been somewhat successful. That is
why, when I walked out of here, it was with the labor union
about what they are doing.
Mr. Daywalt. And the purpose of Helmets to Hardhats is to
recruit people into the unions, which is great. I mean, unions
are good. But let us not stand in the way of--if you are an
electrician in the Army and you come out, you have been in the
Army 25 years, you are not going to go to Detroit and start as
a journeyman electrician, but that is what the union wants you
to do. You are going to go to Right to Work States where you
can make a decent wage and not start at $8 or $9 an hour and
work your way up through some union bureaucracy. That is brute
reality. I come from Realsville. I am sorry.
Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Kympton, do you want to say
something, and then I am done. Thank you.
Mr. Kympton. Yes. Thank you, Senator. At The Mission
Continues, we are using the vehicle of service as a
reintegration strategy for veterans and are finding that it is
leading to employment, it is leading to continued education.
Currently, Madam Chairman, as you asked, we are not
receiving any Federal funding to do that. I believe that the
G.I. Bill represents an opportunity to expand what we allow
veterans to focus that funding on and to choose the training
program or the education program that they want to use as a
vehicle to further employment. And that vehicle of service,
funding a 6-months in service or funding a year in service,
might just be possible within the G.I. Bill itself.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks.
All right. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Thanks very much. Thanks
for holding this hearing and letting me slip by and ask a
couple of questions.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Senator----
Senator Carper. Captain, nice to see you.
Senator Begich. I do not. Actually, my last question was
just on that, the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, which is the one we
passed. I know one potential might be, and maybe it is here,
maybe it is in the Veterans Committee, is kind of see where
that is going, because the goal of it is to start making sure
that if you are an electrician in the military, that you can
make that transition into the private sector without having to
retrain, recertify, going through the process. That legislation
that was passed last year, or this last several months ago, was
pretty significant.
So it may be that it is a question we need to ask, I do not
know if it is here or given to the Veterans Committee, kind of
where that is at and how that is progressing, because that is
one of the biggest complaints I hear, that we see people who
are--if you are a truck driver in Afghanistan, you can be a
truck driver anywhere is the way I look at it. But they need to
get the legislation that is passed and what DOD is doing on
that, so just a little side note there.
Senator McCaskill. Let me finish up with this VETS-100
form. Do the two businesses represented here, do you feel like
going through the requirement of filling out this form, has it
in any way been beneficial to your company, even though clearly
the Department of Labor is not paying any attention to it?
Ms. Sullivan. We aggregate so much information because we
are publicly traded, so any information that we collect or
report, it comes up to management's attention. I do not think
we have ever looked at, to my knowledge, the VETS-100A as a
management tool or resource. To that end, typically, because we
are publicly traded, there are a lot of reports that we have to
file relative to compliance, such as the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting and other things.
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Ms. Sullivan. So I am not sure that we have ever stepped
back, the compliance part, and really thought about it in that
sense.
Senator McCaskill. I am wondering, if we made these public,
if it would help. I mean, if the data was publicly available,
would you all not notice that they did not have your data?
Ms. Hardy. Madam Chairman, we think providing public access
to all vets data would encourage other companies to step up
their practices and provide contractors with more information
about the government's internal use of the data will lead to
new and creative solutions. So we think transparency is the
right approach.
Senator McCaskill. Yes. I think one of the reasons that
this data has been such a waste of time is because no one has
been paying attention to the fact that they are not paying
attention to it, whereas if it had to be publicly posted,
perhaps the agency would feel--and they are not here today, but
they will hear from us. We will make sure that they are aware
that we have discovered that no one is paying attention. They
are not checking this data. They are not validating the data.
They are not sharing the data. It is just a check that someone
is making in a box somewhere and taking energy from companies
that are doing it. But, frankly, if you are not doing what you
are supposed to be doing, I do not think anybody over there
would ever know it, the way it is being operated now.
So perhaps the way we do it is to before we try to do away
with it, we try to make it public and see if it could come to
some good and make it transparent before we actually try to
say, let us--unwinding legislation that was put into place
because people were trying to help a real problem is hard. I
mean, speaking of SEC companies, look at Sarbanes-Oxley, right?
I mean, it has become ingrained in our business world, and I am
not sure that it accomplished what we wanted it to accomplish,
other than providing full employment for a whole lot of lawyers
and accountants.
Ms. Sullivan. So I realize that some of the questions might
come on reporting, and when I talk to folks inside of ManTech
who are more closely related to compliance reporting and this
report and everything, at the end of the day, from a very
practical sense of being an employer and doing the kind of work
that we do, it does not change our behavior any because we are
so mission focused. The work that we have are for positions
required by the government that are very mission focused. So we
are going to do what we need to do anyway, and it is--so it is
not--one way or the other, it is not going to change our
behavior.
Senator McCaskill. Yes. I think it is time that we step
back from all of this and look and see what is a meaningful way
for the government to impact this problem, because I do not
think this is a meaningful way to impact it. There are
meaningful ways we can. I think the new G.I. Bill is one way,
if we can get our act together and ferret out these people that
will have a special place where for taking advantage of
veterans and their families to cabbage up their benefits
without giving them one iota of educational benefit.
But organizations like Mr. Kympton's and Web sites like Mr.
Daywalt's, those are the things that are going to make the
difference, and tackling this Guard problem, really focusing on
the Guard problem, since that is really what is driving these
unemployment numbers. But those that want to do the right thing
because it supports who their company is will do it. Those that
do not will not, and I am not sure turning in a report to the
government is going to have one bit of impact on that.
So we will go forward from here. If you would get us your
information on Guard and Reserve hires, because I think that
will be instructive to us. If there is anything that you all
can add to the record about things that we should unwind that
the Federal Government is doing now, programs that should be
consolidated, there is a big controversy about moving all of
these programs into VA, and some of that is turf. Some of it
may be legitimate. There are those even, Mr. Sulayman, that
think we should move the SBA functions around veterans'
programs over to VA. I think the jury is out on that. But I
want you all to feel comfortable continuing to give information
to this Subcommittee as we track this.
I wish I could tell you that government contractors are
doing a good job of hiring veterans, but unfortunately, the
government's incompetence in this area has made that impossible
for us to know. We have two good examples here today of
companies that are doing the right thing, and by the way, it is
a pleasure for me to compliment contractors. As you might know,
most of the time when I sit in this chair, I am not doing that.
Most of the time I am sitting in this chair, I am doing the
opposite of that. So it is pleasant for me to compliment you on
the work you are doing in this regard.
Thank you all for being here today and we will continue to
try to focus on this problem, and in a meaningful way that does
not cause businesses too much of a headache and ultimately
helps veterans get where they need to be, and that is gainfully
employed in a career where their leadership has a chance to
shine.
Thank you all very much. The Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5216.050
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
