definition of "permanently laid off" than those servicemembers
who are being discharged. Yet these servicemembers are not
identified as a target group in this legislation. We believe
these servicemembers should have priority in any dislocated
worker program and the DOL should immediately restructure its
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to include concepts
incorporated in the Reemployment Act. Some of these concepts
should include:
o Provide rapid response activities at military sites
with large numbers of discharges.
o Establish career centers to provide a comprehensive
array of reemployment services.
o Develop a reemployment plan for each servicemember
with input from the individual and a career counselor.
o Provide education and training services to those
servicemembers who have a less than adequate
transferable skill.
o Provide a new unemployment insurance option to
servicemembers in the form of a "bonus" for those who
obtain new jobs quickly.
Mr. Chairman, as we stated in our testimony on May 25,
1994, TAP is working relatively well but just does not go far
enough to provide the needed skills for these servicemembers to
compete. They need intensified services and/or should be
targeted as dislocated workers. Without this approach their
ability to compete in a changing labor force will continue to be
significantly diminished.
Mr. Chairman, virtually since its inception, the DOL has
been an intrinsic part of this country's mobilization and
demobilization efforts. In fact, within three years of the
creation of DOL, the Secretary of Labor headed the War Labor
Administration established during World War I. The Secretary
was responsible for the coordination of all labor functions
distributed among the various agencies of government.
During war time the Employment Service (ES) has been a
prime force in mobilizing the civilian workforce for war
industries and in assisting in the transition of military
personnel into the civilian workforce during demobilization.
The Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 established the ES as we know it
today and included language citing veterans as a group to be
provided special priorities and preferential treatment as
recognition of their service to the country.
Mr. Chairman, last week, we commemorated the 50th
anniversary of the invasion of Normandy. President Clinton
and high-profile members of the print and electronic media could
say nothing but good about the sacrifices made by our men and
women in uniform, including those who made the ultimate
sacrifice - the laying down of their lives in order for our
country to be free and to prosper. Yet, when it comes to
developing and implementing programs and policies 50 years
later, the rhetoric of last week does not translate into the
action of this week.
In keeping with the DOL's historical mission, the DAV
believes first and foremost that any labor exchange system,
either as presently constituted, or as may be restructured, must
include veterans' preference requirements as well as priority of
services for our nation's veterans. These individuals were good
enough to be given "priority" to enter the military service, and
28
(3)
they should be granted similar priority in obtaining civilian
employment .
Because of the changing political climate in the world
certain things have happened and continue to happen. They are,
in part:
o A reduction in contracting for military eq\iipment and
supplies resulting in major defense industry lay
offs.
o A decrease in the number of military personnel.
o A reduction in the Department of Defense (DoD)
civilian labor force.
Regrettably, we do not have any data showing unemployment
rates among recently separated veterans. However, when we look
at existing data for Vietnam Era veterans, we find they are
doing relatively well in comparison to the national average.
However, when you compare male Vietnam Era veterans to male
nonveterans in the same age category, we find that Vietnam Era
veterans are not doing nearly as well as nonveterans. The
following chart showing unemployment rates for April 1994
illustrates this difference. These data are official DOL
reports taken from the Current Population Survey (CPS).
Age V ietnam Era veteran s Nonveterans
40-54 4.5% 4.0%
40-44 5.2% 3.8%
45-49 4.4% 4.1%
It is clear from these data 21 years after our last troops
left Vietnam that it is a disadvantage to have served in the
military during the Vietnam Era.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow this to continue to happen to
our servicemembers from the Persian Gulf and the 1990' s. We
believe current policies and programs including those proposed
in the Reemployment Act will perpetuate this problem.
Almost 22 years ago, a study was released which assessed
how well the ES and the DOL were meeting veterans' employment
and training needs. This report prepared by Kirchner cS
Associates titled Nation a l Evaluatio n of Ma npower Sources for
Veteran s was released in October of 1972. The Conclusion and
Policy Implication section of the report (page 37, Volume I)
stated:
It is evident that we do not have a comprehensive policy or
a set of policies designed to deal with the employment
problems of returning veterans, particularly during periods
when those problems are the most pressing - near the end
of major military actions. Great effort is expended by
the mi litary service s to assure the tran s itio n of recruits
f rom c i vil i an torn i l ita ry life . Relatively little effort
is ex pe nded , howe ve r ^ to a ssure the transition in the
reverse direction , since of course military missions and
goals necessarily are the first concerns of the military
establishment. (Emphasis added.)
There has been insufficient effort in all recent wars to
attend these major problem areas:
The decline in aggregate demand that tends to
accompany the winding down or demobilization period;
29
(4)
The conversion of military skills to related civilian
skills;
The removal of institutional and personal barriers
that confront many returning veterans seeking
employment, and;
The lack of significant incentives for employers to
hire veterans over nonveterans.
Although improvements can be made, it is vinreasonable to
expect that the Federal -State Employment Service System can
solve these problems; in large part, it cannot even
address them. (Emphasis added.)
While this information is taken directly from a study
conducted almost 22 years ago, it is sad but true that the same
statement can be used in 1994, both in the oversight hearings on
TAP on Hay 25, 1994 and in today's hearings.
Mr. Chairman, current congressional mandates for employment
services to veterans have come into being largely as a result of
the lessons learned through the poor treatment this country gave
returning troops from Vietnam. This is not the time to return to
those policies which will put America's veterans who have
sacrificed so much for their country in the back of the line.
We believe that the "Reemployment Act" will do exactly that.
In expressing its "Findings" (Section 4100, Title 38 USC)
Congress stated in part: "Because of the special nature of
employment and training needs of such veterans and the nationa l
r esponsibility to meet t ho se needs , policies and programs to
increase opportunities for such veterans to obtain employment,
job training, counseling, job placement services and assistance
in securing advancement in employment should be effectively and
vigorously implemented by the Secretary of Labor and such
impl ement ation should be accomplished through the Assi stant
Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Empl oyme nt an d Train ing . "
(Emphasis added. )
Our government has put thousands of military personnel in
harms way in the Persian Gulf, Somolia, and other parts of the
world. Many of these individuals are dying and becoming
disabled as a result of this service.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot acquiesce to the administration's
proposal contained in the Reemployment Act that would give the
Secretary of Labor the authority to waive, in whole or in part.
Chapter 41 of Title 38 USC.
Our experience tells us that if this waiver authority is
granted it will be used and it will be the first and final step
in abolishing the Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(VETS) as we know it.
Mr. Chairman, in response to concerns expressed to the
Secretary of Labor, we received a letter on February 25, 1994,
stating in part:
Let me assure you that our view of a comprehensive
reemployment system of labor market information and
employment, education, and training services provided by
One-Stop Career Centers will fully meet the needs and
desires of our nation's veterans. The concerns of all
veterans, particularly disabled and the organizations which
represent them, will continue to receive our attention as
we develop the One-Stop Career Center proposal.
84-812 0-95-2
30
(5)
We realize that veterans will continue to need assistance
from the DOL, particularly recently separated veterans and
those affected by base closures, reduced defense
contracting, and the reduction in size of our military
forces. The Reemployment Act of 1994 will assist in
solving many of the employment and training problems of
veterans arising out of those actions.
Mr. Chairman, we see nothing in the administration's
Reemployment Act that remotely resembles Secretary Reich's
comments. On the contrary, the aforementioned waiver provision
tells us the opposite is true.
If the DOL is not interested in having an effective and
efficient VETS, perhaps it is time to transfer this service to
the department set up to provide services to veterans - the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) .
Mr. Chairman, the DAV has long stood alone in its efforts
to transfer the functions of the VETS from the DOL to the VA .
Our proposal would:
o Transfer the entire staff of the VETS currently housed
in the DOL to the VA, making them employees of the VA.
o VETS would be renamed Veterans' Employment and
Training Administration (VETA) and would be at the
same level as the Veterans' Benefits Administration
(VBA) and Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) .
o The current Assistant Secretary of Labor would become
the new Under Secretary for Veterans' Employment and
Training. The incumbent of the position would be
grandfathered into the transfer.
o Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) personnel
and Local Veterans' Employment Representatives (LVERs)
would continue to be state employees.
All employment and training services would be
consolidated under the new VETA (education, vocational
rehabilitation, employment, and reemployment.) This
will particularly benefit service-connected disabled
veterans under vocational rehabilitation.
Employers and veterans would have one department
coordinating benefits and services that they can go to
for help and direction. Employers who are interested
in hiring veterans can go to a true "VETS."
VA services to veterans would be streamlined making
them more cost effective and more efficient. This
benefits veterans, employers, and taxpayers.
Employment should be part of the continuum of services
and benefits the VA currently provides to enhance the
readjustment of military personnel.
The Under Secretary for VETA would advise the
Secretary of VA directly on education, vocational
rehabilitation, and employment and the coordination of
these programs.
The agency charged with monitoring employment services
would be housed in the same federal department having
overall responsibility for our nation's veterans.
31
(6)
o All existing employees of VETS would be transferred to
VA at the same grade level they currently hold. Their
status as federal employees would not be affected by
this proposal .
o This proposal would also help employers meet their
obligations as federal contractors under Section 4212,
Title 38 use.
Mr. Chairman, critics of our proposal say such a transfer
would not work because the VA "can't do it." Mr. Chairman,
there is a history of failure by the DOL dating back at least to
1972 that shows that the DOL "can't do it." If we are looking
to reinvent government and effect change, now is the time to
transfer this function to the VA .
Mr. Chairman, in President Clinton's campaign literature
entitled " Putting People Fir st - How We Can All Ch ange
America , " under the section dealing with "veterans" it is
stated: "We have consistently supported veterans. We deeply
appreciate the sacrifices of those who were called to serve our
country and fight for the ideals for which it stands. Our
veterans deserve only the bes t." (Emphasis added.)
Earlier in that same document it is stated that "For
decades American's struggled and sacrificed to defend a freedom
and democracy and to win the Cold War. Our nation owes a great
debt of gratitude to the soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and
women whose talent and dedication led to our victory."
Is this rhetoric, or is the President sincere? Given the
current proposal, we believe it is rhetoric.
Mr. Chairman, we continue to be concerned that the DOL has
yet to convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterans
Employment and Training (ACVET) established by Public Law
102-16 signed into law on March 22, 1991. This authorizing
legislation required the Secretary of Labor to appoint, within
90 days f ollowing an e nactment of the le gislation , at least 12
individuals to serve as members on this committee. Mr.
Chairman, as of next week this committee should have been in
existence for three year s yet it has still not met.
Many of the issues mentioned earlier in this testimony are
issues that should be reviewed by this advisory committee. This
advisory committee can play a significant role in the
development of policies, programs, and procedures for an
effective employment and training system for our nation's
veterans.
Mr. Chairman, we have had an opportunity to comment on some
of the restructuring plans ongoing at the VETS. I have attached
to my statement a copy of a letter we sent to Assistant
Secretary Preston Taylor on March 24, 1994.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
32
Moii^ "3{ auuuU dffoi food »/ — y o«»«a r/., 9 mtU mot t^mmk iU oi tu^"
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
NATIONAL SERVICE and LEGISLATIVE HEADQUARTERS
807 MAINE AVENUE, S.W.
WASHINGTON. DC. 20024
(202) SS4-3S01
March 24, 1994
Mr. Preston Taylor
Assistant Secretary
VETS/DOL
Room S-1315
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
ATTN: Stanley A. Seidel, Desk Officer
C©FY
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Thank you for the informative March 14, 1994 briefing
regarding the efforts of the Veterans' Employment & Training
Service (VETS) Reinvention committees.
Clearly the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the VETS
cannot ignore the impact of reduced budgets in the face of
continuing veteran service needs. In a climate of reduced
staff, less testing, relaxed or no standards for counselors or
worse yet no counselors, reduced employer market penetration for
job orders and the increasingly diminished employer perception
of the Employment Service (ES), providing veteran services
cannot continue in a business as usual atmosphere. Something
must be done. Your staff has obviously dedicated tremendous
thought and effort to their assigned areas.
These comments will focus on the "Draft Policy and Program
Paper (Phase II)" which we received at the March 14, 1994
meeting.
The graphs at Exhibit I-l,
through 1991 are very telling.
1-2, and 1-3 for the period 1986
The number of veteran applications taken by ES staff
dropped nearly one-third while combined Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans'
Employment Representative (LVER) numbers increased
dramatically. Importantly, LVER activities, which
were less than 550,000 in 1986 climbed to
approximately 800,000 by 1991.
A number of veteran referrals by ES staff, which was
already below LVER and DVOP staff referrals, dropped
by approximately 75,000 while DVOP and LVER staff
33
Mr. Preston Taylor
March 24, 1994
Page 2
referrals increased. LVER referrals increased
dramatically. Interestingly, an anomaly in 1990 shows
ES staff increased veteran referrals while DVOP
referrals dropped.
o The number of veteran placements by ES staff showed a
dramatic decline while DVOP placement showed a decline
until 1991 when DVOP placements increased. LVER
placements steadily increased from nominal to
approximately 160,000 in 1991.
A superficial analysis indicates that 1) VETS grants staff
has taken over more responsibility for what was once ES grants
activities; 2) LVERs have increasingly become intake and
referral resources; and 3), DVOPs have replaced ES grants staff
as the mainstream veterans' service providers of the ES agency.
o What impact did increased LVER direct referral
placement activities have on VETS ability to ensure
veterans priority of services by all ES staff?
o Is there a relationship between the decline in veteran
services by ES staff and the changes in activities of
the LVER?
o With the drop in veterans' services by ES staff, what
did VETS do to monitor, and where feasible, reverse
these trends?
o Will the proposed changes institutionalize what may
have become an accomplished fact?
Our review of the "Draft Policy and Program Paper" leaves
us with the following general concerns:
1) Whether intended or not, the proposal creates a
veterans' unit which may lend itself to becoming
more isolated from the very service system on
which it depends to provide services and may have
the following results:
a) Veterans' priority of service by ES staff
will not be monitored with a continuing
decline in veterans' services by ES staff.
b) The VETS grants staff, in a typical office,
will be the sole provider of services to
designated veterans. This may actually
result in a drop in services to the
34
Mr. Preston Taylor
March 24, 1994
Page 3
designated veterans where previously ES
staff provided priority of services to these
veterans.
c) While the proposed VETS unit concept may be
more transportable, as a practical matter,
their basic tools, the computer, job orders
and employer network systems are associated
with ES system.
2) The proposed system does not address veterans
priority of service to be provided by ES staff.
a) Who will provide an ongoing monitoring and
training role?
b) If the ES grant staff fails to provide
veteran priority service,
i ) How wi 1 1 anyone know?
ii) What actions will be taken to bring the
agency into compliance?
3) While the proposal indicates that disabled
veterans will receive the highest priority of
service:
a) Service connection is not mentioned as a
factor in the decision to include the
veteran in caseload management.
b) Disabled Transition Assistance Program is
never mentioned.
c) While the title of DVOP is changed and their
duties are assimilated into other job
functions, the targeted services required to
place disabled veterans and the caseload
management systems, which resulted from the
need to track the provisions of those
targeted services, is not mentioned with the
new job titles.
My general concern is that as the VETS redefines its role
as an exclusively VETS activity and reduces it legislative
responsibility of ensuring veterans' services across the agency,
the current trend of services being increasingly provided by
VETS staff will continue and probably increase with concomitant
reduced services by other DOL activities.
35
Mr. Preston Taylor
March 24, 1994
Page 4
VETS is currently dependent on ES systeme (computers, etc. )
to perform its direct service functions. It is unclear how VETS
will obtain the financial resources to duplicate these existing
systems and employer contacts if this staff is funded by grants
to agencies other than the ES .
^^incerely,
/ RONALD W. DRACH ^^
National Employment Director
36
Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc.
Chartered by the United States Congress
STATEMENT OF
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA
Presented by
Brenda Glenn
Chair, Ek:onomic Affairs Committee
Accompanied by
William F. Crandell
Legislative Advocate
Before the
House Veterans Affairs Committee
Subcommittee on
Education, Training and Employment
on
Veterans Programs Administered by
the Department of Labor
and H.R. 4050,
the Reemployment Act of 1994
June 15, 1994
1224 M Sireec. NW. Washinglon. DC 20005-5183
A nol-for-proni veterans service organization
•^»-® Telephone (202) 628-2700 • General Fax (202) 628-5880 • Advocacy Fax (202) 628-6997 • Finance Fax |202| 628-5881
37
Table of Contents
Discussion
Job Counseling, Training, And
Placement Services for Veterans 1
Organization of VETS 1
Erosion of Veterans Preference 2
Eimploynient Crisis for Vietnam-era Veterans 2
A Problem That Has Not Gone Away 3
Toothless Enforcement 4
Conclusion 6
38
DISCUSSION
Mr. Chairmaxi, members of the Subcommittee, Vietnam Veterans of America
welcomes this opportunity to present our views on the Department of Labor (DOL)
and its programs to serve the needs of veterans. Because of the gravity of the
threat it poses, we shall focus upon the Reemployment Act of 1994 (H.R 4050),
and the choices it offers for veterans employ.nent and training services through
State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs). The first is the "voluntary" one-
stop career centers that would allow waivers on specific statutory and regulatory
requirements that protect services for veterans. TTie second, a rewrite of chapters
41 and 42 of Title 38 U.S.C, meets the objectives of the National Performance
Review in reducing the number of Federal employees, but ignores the needs of
veterans. No matter which option a state adopts, Vietnam-era veterans lose. This
is another attempt by the fourth branch of government — the federal agencies —
to overturn the laws of the land and decisions of its courts. These attempts by
agencies will continue until Congress takes action, which we hope will be before
the last veterans program is gone and the last veteran is fired.
In reviewing the process used to develop the Reemployment Act of 1994, it
becomes painfully obvious that many special interest groups were involved in its
development. Veteran organizations, however, were not among them. We can
only wonder why. This hearing is being held as the world observes the 50th
anniversary of the landings at Normandy. The people of this country have paid
homage to the men and women whose military service insured the survival of this
nation. We therefore find it ironic that while they honor to one group of veterans
they cast aside another.
Job Counseling, Training, And
Placement Services For Veterans
Title II of H.R. 4050 establishes a national program of grants and waivers
of federal statutory and regulatory requirement to allow states to voluntarily
develop and implement a network of one-stop career centers. Under sec. 233
(c)(l)(fl one of the statutes subject to the waiver authority is chapter 41 of title 38
United States Code.
Under sec. 233 (d) H.R. 4050 states that the secretary may not waive: (1)
the basic purpose or goals of the effective programi; (2) maintenance of effort; (3)
allocation of funds under the formula: (4) eligibility of an individual for
participation in the effected program: etc.. The question then is what would be
the overall impact of this waiver on chapter 41?
Such a waiver would allow states to eliminate all DVOP/LVER positions in
those states that choose the one-stop career center option. This waiver would
have the potential for the elimination of up to 3,500 positions, the majority of
which are held by disabled Vietnam-era veterans who would then themselves face
unemployment. Veterans who share a similcir experience are more likely to
understand and relate to the issues faced by other veterans that impact on
obtaining or sustaining meaningful employment. The second issue is that the
sub-state grantees would then receive these funds with no requirement that the
positions funded go to disabled Vietn£mi-era, disabled veterans, or any veterans
at all, for that matter.
Vietnam Veterans of America is vehemently opposed to any provision that
would allow a waiver of chapter 4 1 . First, it is totally unnecessary and secondly,
this provision shows a callous disregard for the sacrifice made by the men and
women who serve in this program and who are disabled because of their service