The 16 September 1992 conciliation agreement between OFCCP and UY that resulted
from the congressionally mandated compliance review was obtained by CSVS from a
member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. UY was cited for seven major
violations: (1) no affirmative action programs for veterans or the disabled; (2) no one in
charge of implementing affirmative action for veterans or the disabled; (3) jobs not listed
with the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services; (4) data not adequately collected or
used; (5) information about affirmative action benefits not disseminated internally or
externally; (6) no review of employment practices to insure affirmative action; and (7) a
climate of harassment, intimidation, and coercion for veterans. As a result, UY and
OFCCP have entered into a conciliation agreement.
However, UY veterans report that OFCCP has not enforced the terms of this
agreement. They were told by OFCCP that alleged violations of the conciliation
agreement would not be investigated as part of a veteran's individual complaint.
Rather, the allegations would be considered during a future compliance review.
Regulations: The federal statute 38 USC 4212 specifies that contractors "shall take
affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified special disabled
veterans and veterans of the Vietnam era." The federal regulations promulgated in
1 978 to implement the requirements therein state that the affirmative action shall apply
"at all levels of employment, including the executive level," and that the affirmative
action "shall apply to all employment practices, including, but not limited to: hiring,
upgrading, demotion or transfer, recaiitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or
termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training,
including apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs under 38 USC 1787"
[summarized in Table (1), CSVS Analysis, page 3). Since the employment practices are
neariy identical to those listed for the other groups the Department of Labor is charged
with protecting [women, minorities, and the disabled), it would follow that the affimiative
action programs for the groups should be roughly equivalent.
The Department of Labor's OFCCP agreed in 1988 that affirmative action for veterans
should be in parity with the other protected classes [Department of Labor Response, page
3]. However, the stance taken by OFCCP in 1993 changed. Officials now argue that
the regulations mandate significantly different affirmative action programs for veterans
compared to the other protected classes. It's not clear what changed between 1988
and 1993. The statutes, the executive orders, and the regulations themselves appear
relatively unchanged during that period. Furthermore, the new rationale focuses
exclusively on "substantive regulatory differences" necessitating "substantive
differences in the administration of these programs," yet. Labor promulgated the
regulations for each. Why did OFCCP impose substantive differences?
The burden of proof should be on OFCCP to demonstrate that Congress intended
affirmative action to be different for veterans than for other protected classes. Cleariy,
its new position on affirmative action taken in 1993 leads to other questions: What are
the criteria for this new form of affirmative action? Does this new form of affirmative
action give veterans more or less protection than other protected groups? The fact that
an outdated $25,000 ceiling exists for the recaiitment of positions with state
employment services suggests that veterans enjoy less protection than other affirmative
action classes. Why?
Also of concern is the OFCCP contention that the Department of Justice has no role in
the enforcement of 38 USC 4212. The CSVS has solicited input from the civil rights
division of Justice regarding this matter, but no response has been received. However,
if this contention is tnje. it could go a long way towards explaining the apparent
disparity in affirmative action programs for the various protected groups
Data: The issues surrounding data collection and utilization by the Department of
Labor were considered pnmary shortcomings by the GAO m its 1974 review of
employment services targeted to veterans of the Vietnam era As a result. CSVS
researched these areas in depth
The dramatic increase in federal contractors failing to file the VETS-100 report between
1990 and 1991 (Figure (1), CSIS Analysis - Contractors' Failure to File, page 4) is
cunous in light of the 1974 GAO finding that Labor officials failed to "take action against
firms not submitting reports as required " CSVS was unable to find aggregate data
used or gathered by OFCCP that OFCCP would defend as accurate indicators of its
performance or of contractor behavior For example. CSVS consulted Labor's annual
reports such as Veteran Employment Totals by State However, when CSVS pointed
out that this data showed contractor noncompliance. OFCCP replied that the
Department was in the process of generating more accurate data of contractor
compliance [Blackwell letter, July. 1993).
OFCCP has declared that it does not use VETS-100 data [Department of Labor
Response, page 6] This raises questions about whether OFCCP uses any aggregate
data to inform its decision making and to influence which federal contractors it
penalizes and sanctions If alternative forms of aggregate data are utilized, what are
they? The absence of aggregate data depnves OFCCP of any broad indicators of
contractor compliance as well as feedback about its performance.
The 1991 employment statistics for Vietnam-era veterans are also troubling [Figures
(2)-(4), CSVS Analysis - Veterans' Employment, pages 4-5). The US. Bureau Of Labor
Statistics value for Vietnam-era veterans in the civilian labor force is almost certainly an
under-representation of the actual number of era veterans. The civilian labor force
value of slightly over seven million Vietnam-era veterans is between one and two
million less than the number who served during that time Homeless veterans and
those chronically out of work would not be counted in the Labor statistics (they are not
actively seeking employment). Hence, there are probably 6 5 to 7.0% available to
work, not 5.6%.
Remarkably, few states hired Vietnam-era veterans at a level even approaching 5.6%.
While 38 use 4212 does not mandate goals and timetables with regard to the hiring of
veterans, as amended Executive Order 11246 does for women and minorities, the
5.6% figure does provide a yardstick by which to measure success If affirmative action
for veterans was a reality, most covered veterans would self-identify If affirmative
action for veterans was a reality ("at all levels of employment, including the executive
level"), the 5.6% figure would be routinely surpassed in federal contractor employment.
The CSVS review of data also uncovered an additional, significant deficiency in the
information requested on the VETS-100 form The total number of workers employed
by a federal contractor (veteran and non-veteran) is not requested Thus, there is no
way of knowing the relative percentage of Vietnam-era and special disabled veterans in
the contractor's work force. Such information, by job category, is imperative if
meaningful conclusions are to be derived concerning veteran employment This type of
data is provided by federal contractors to meet Executive Order 1 1246 provisions.
Management and Implementation: CSVS relied on two types of evidence to
evaluate OFCCP management and implementation: case studies and OFCCP
penalties and sanctions The absence of aggregate data makes it necessary for
research efforts such as those conducted by CSVS to turn to case evaluation as a
performance indicator The evidence suggests tensions between individual veteran
expectations and OFCCP output. CSVS was unable to find one case where a veteran
was satisfied that his or her rights had been protected OFCCPs refusal to publish
summary data on its cases makes systematic evaluation difficult. CSVS evaluation of
the existing cases indicated that a climate of distrust exists between veterans
attempting to pursue their affirmative action rights and OFCCP.
The employment practices listed in Table (1) [CSVS Analysis, page 3] suggest that
affimiative action for veterans should require federal contractors to make an extra,
positive effort to recruit, hire, train, promote, compensate, and retain those individuals
granted such rights. The case studies presented [CSl'S AnalysLs - Veteran Cases, pages
6-7] illustrate difficulties with OFCCP management and implementation in almost all of
these areas. And according to RH's congressional representative (page 7), OFCCP
has admitted that "no regulations have been written to provide affirmative action (for
veterans) . . except when applying for an employment position" Why? The
employment practices appear to require much more than that and the statute clearty
does with regard to advancement.
Finally, the focused case studies by CSVS of UX and UY demonstrate the real-worid
problems confronting veterans in a hostile work environment; a premise validated when
OFCCP cited UY for a climate of harassment, intimidation, and coercion for veterans in
1992. However, had the employment data depicted in Figure (5) [CSVS Analysis -
OFCCP Uses of Penalties and Sanctions, page 7] been generated for any other affirmative
action protected group, would stiffer penalties and sanctions have been imposed?
Would OFCCP tolerate "a climate of harassment, intimidation, and coercion" for other
protected groups? Would it have taken almost two decades to discover that a
contractor had no affirmative action program? The agency culture encountered by
veterans makes such questions relevant as there appears to be little understanding or
concern for veterans' employment within OFCCP.
â€¢ OFCCP has declared that federal contractor affirmative actk>n programs for veterans
cen be different than those for other protected classes. Yet, it cannot be derrxjnstrated
from the statute or regulations that Congress intended that these differences stioukj
â€¢ OFCCP does not have conndence in nor does It defend the accuracy of Labor data
concerning federal contractor affirmative actton for veterans. As a result, it is difficult
â€¢ Measure OFCCP and federal contractor performance and progress.
â€¢ Hokj OFCCP and federal contractors to an accountability standard.
â€¢ The cases that CSVS examined Indicate management and implementatton problems
within OFCCP. The evkjence available to CSVS also shows that OFCCP has not used
its power to penalize and sanction federal contractors on behalf of veterans.
1 . Congress and the Department of Labor stwuld review and revise existing regulattons to
specify whether affirmative action programs for veterans shoukl provkje benefits and
protecttons In parity with that extended to other protected classes. Congress and the
Department of Labor shouU review whether affirmative action shouki be extended to
cover all veterans.
2. The administrative controls and reporting requirements specified by 38 USC 4107 stiouU
be extended to Title 38, Chapter 42 programs. Title 38 USC 4212 shouki be nxKJified to
require the implementing agency to generate or utilize aggregate data to inform its
decisk>ns. Title 38 USC 4212 shoukj also be modified to specify that the agency
enforcing 41 CFR 60-250 shoukJ publish performance data on contractor compliance.
3. Congress and the Department of Labor shoukJ evaluate OFCCP's intemal management
and lmplementatk>n procedures to determine whether it effectively and efficiently serves
veterans. This review shouki conskjer alternative agencies that couM rrrare effectively
arxj efficiently provkje this service.
On behalf of the CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF VETERANS IN SOCIETY,
submitted into testimony by,
A.H. MUler, Ph.D. J.A. Stever, Ph.D. R.W. Trewyn, Ph.D.
statement by Robert E. David, Executive Director, South Carolina Employment
MR. CHAIRMAN, DISTINGUISHED COMMITTEE MillBERS , LADIES AND
KY NAME IS ROBERT E. DAVID. I AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OP THE SOUTH
CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION AND CHAIRMAN OP THE
GOVERNOR'S MILITARY ASSISTANCE COUNCIL. I AM ALSO THE SENIOR STATE
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR IN THE NATION WITH ALMOST 20
YEARS IN MY CURRENT POSITION.
MY TESTIMONY TODAY WILL REFLECT THAT EXPERIENCE AND THAT POINT O?
VIEW; BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I AM A VETERAN MYSELF, AND HAVE
SERVED IN THE AMERICAN LEGION AS NATIONAL VICE COMMANDER,
DEPARTMENT COMMANDER, AMD IN MANY OTHER CAPACITIES. I KNOW THAT I
AM "PREACHINCi XU ftUi caOIR" WHEN 1 SAT THAT THIS NATIOK OWn3 ITQ
VERY EXISTENCE TO OUR VETERANS. NOTHING IS TOO GOOD FOR THEM.
IN THE PAST YEAR THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION ABOUT
REINVENTING THE NATION'S EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SYSTEM. THE STATE
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES SEE CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE
ADMINISTRATION'S CALL TO INVEST IN LINKING UNEMPLOYMENT,
EMPLOYMENT, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS TO CREATE AN IMPROVED
"REEMPLOYMENT" SYSTEM. HOWEVER, IT IS MY BELJ.Bi' XttAT xae BASIC
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A "REEMPLOYMENT" SYSTEM ALREADY EXISTS. THE
CORE SERVICES AND INTENSIVE SERVICES OUTLINED BY THE ADMINISTRATION
IN ITS WORKFORCE SECURITY INITIATIVE (REEMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1994) ARE
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IN APPROXIMATELY 2,300 EMPLOYMENT SERVTCE/JOB
SERVICE OFFICES ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY. FEDERAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BUILD UPON THIS FOUNDATION.
THE BASIC MISSION OF THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE SHOULD NOT CHANGE, BUT
SHOULD EXPAND ITS CUSTOMER BASE - BOTH EMPLOYERS AND JOB SEEKERS.
WE BELIEVE IN STAYING FOCUSED ON THE MISSION OF THE EMPLOYMENT
SERVICE, GETTING PEOPLE BACK TO WORK WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED AND HELPING
EMPLOYERS FILL THEIR JOBS WITH THE BEST QUALIFIED APPLICANTS. OUR
VETERANS PLACEMENT UNITS IN OUR JOB SERVICE OFFICES THROUGHOUT THE
NATION ARE GETTING THE JOB DONE. THIS ELEMENT DOES NOT NEED
FIXING. IT ISN'T BROKE!
NUMEROUS EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE OVER THE YEARS TO PROVIDE
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ASSISTANCE TO VETERANS. THEY FREQUENTLY
NEED SPECIAL HELP IN TRANSITIONING FROM MILITARY TO CIVILIAN LIFE,
AND AS A GROUP, SUFFER DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATES.
AFTER TWO DECADES OF VOLUNTARY MILITARY SERVICE, VETERANS CONTINUE
TO LAG IN SENIORITY AN AVERAGE OF FIVE YEARS BEHIND THEIR NON-
VETERAN COUNTERPARTS. TO OBTAIN EQUALITY, VETERANS MUST BE
GUARANTEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE JOB TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT
ASSISTANCE. EVERY VETERAN MUST BE GUARANTEED A REFERRAL TO AN
APPROPRIATE CAREER JOB TRAINING AND JOB OPPORTUNITY.
THE VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN
THERE TO ASSIST VETERANS IN TRANSITIONING FROM THE MILITARY TO THE
CIVILIAN WORKFORCE. SEVERAL HUNDRED VETERANS EMPLOYMENT BUREAUS
AND A PUBLIC PLACEMENT SERVICE FOR VETERANS WERE SET UP AT THE END
OF WORLD WAR I TO EXPEDITE JOB PLACEMENT FOR RETURNING SERVICEMEN.
TODAY OVER 2 MILLION VETERANS ARE SERVED IN 2,3 00 PLUS LOCAL
OFFICES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. POSSIBLY NO SEGMENT OP THE
AMERICAN WORKFORCE IS EXPERIENCING AS MUCH CHANGE AND FACES AS MUCH
JOB INSECURITY AS THE AMERICAN MILITARY. YET THE RE-EMPLOYMENT ACT
OF 1994 DOES NOT RECOOHIZE VETERANS AS A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP I
IN FACT, VETERANS ARE NOT RECOGNIZED AT ALL IN THIS ACT! IT
APPEARS THAT ALL RIGHTS FOR VETERANS HAVE BEEN WAIVED.
OUR VETERANS' SERVICE PROGRAMS, IN PLACE THROUOHOOT OUR NATION, ARE
SERVING THE NEEDS OP OUR VETERANS. A REWRITE OF TITLE 3 8 IS NOT IN
ORDER. IN PACT, LITTLE NEEDS TO BE DONE BECAUSE THE LAW IS CLEAR,
EASILY UNDERSTOOD AND PROVIDES COMMON SENSE GUIDANCE TO THOSE
AGENCIES WHICH MUST IMPLEMENT AND EXECUTE.
SOME WOULD SAY THAT NEW POLICY IS REQUIRED. I WOULD SAY THAT ALL
VETERANS SHOULD BE PROVIDED THE MAXIMLTI OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
OPPORTUNITIES, THROUGH EXISTING PROGRAMS, COORDINATION AND MERGER
OF PROGRAMS, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW PROGRAMS.
THE FOCUS MUST BE TO FIND VETERANS JOBS, ASSURE THEIR EDUCATION AND
TRAINING NEEDS ARE MET, AND ASSIST IN SETTLING THEIR CLAIMS.
"CUSTOMER SERVICE" SHOULD BE THE MOTTO AND WE NEED TO GET SERIOUS
TODAY. OUR NATION, MUST ALSO RESPOND TO THE EFFECT OF MILITARY
DOWNSIZING, PLANT CLOSURE, TRADE -ADJUSTMENT, AND INCREASED
AS A RESULT, CURRENT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR VETERANS
MUST BE FOCUSED TO MEET THE CURRENT NEEDS OF OUR VETERANS . THE
FOCUS MUST BE TO ASSIST THOSE VETERANS IN NEED TO REGAIN THEIR
SELF-RELIANCE SO THAT THEY MAY AGAIN BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
NATION'S GENERAL WELFARE THROUGH ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE
THERE ARE CURRENTLY 27 MILLION U.S. VETERANS, OP WHICH 2.3 MILLION
ARE DISABLED VETERANS. IN ADDITION, BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND
JUNE OF 1993, 84 9,6 07 VETERANS AND 1.5 MILLION VETERANS WERE LIVING
BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL. THESE FIGURES SERVE AS INDICATORS OF THE
STATUS OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED AND DISLOCATED VETERANS.
RESPONDING TO SPECIFIC VETERANS NEEDS BY CHANGING PRIORITIES FOR
VETERANS SERVICES HAS BEEN A CENTRAL COMPONENT OP POLICY MAKING FOR
OVER 60 YEARS. LOCAL VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT REPRESENTATIVES (LVERS)
AND DISABLED VETERANS' OUTREACH PROGRAM (DVOPS) PERSONNEL HAVE
SERVED OXm VETERANS WELL.
BETWEEN 1934-1987, 10.3 MILLION VETERANS WERE SERVED.
BETWEEN PROGRAM YEAR 1988 AND 1992, 7.9 MILLION VETERANS WERE
SERVED BY LVER/DVOP STAFF.
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO FOCUS RESOURCES IN RESPONSE TO THE CHANGING
NEEDS OF VETERANS IS CLEAR AND THIS FOCUS SHOULD REMAIN. IN FACT
THIS POLICY SHOULD BE MADE PERMANENT BY LAW.
ALSO, FULL FUNDING OF 100% OP LVER/DVOP POSITIONS IS REQUIRED TO
HANDLE THE GROWING NEEDS OF OUR VETERANS.
WITH REGARDS TO THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT TITLE IV C AND
SINCE THE INCEPTION OP VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS, THE FUNDING
AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THE STATES UNDER A FORMUUi. BASED
SYSTEM HAS DECREASED. ONLY 3 8 STATES PARTICIPATING IN THE JOB
TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT IV C PROGRAMS DURING 1993. MANY SMALL
STATES ELECTED NOT TO PARTICIPATE RATHER THAN RECEIVE THE MINIMUM
ALLOCATION OF SSS,O00.
THE PROPOSED PROCESS TO STREAMLINE THE JTPA TITLE IV C PROGRAM WILL
ALLOW STATES TO COMPETE FOR LARGER GRANTS THAN THEY WERE ELIGIBLE
FOR IN THE PAST. GRANT AWARDS WILL BE IN AN ANTICIPATED RANGE OF
$400,000 - $850,000.
WHILE THIS NEW POLICY MAY HAVE MERIT; I SEE NO NEED TO CONTINUE TO
CENTRALIZE THE PROCESS, FUNDS NEED TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE REGIONS
BASED ON VETERAN POPULATION, SO STATES IN THE CLOSE PROXIMITY CAN:
COMPETE FOR FUNDS AVAILABLE
COMBINE TO WORK TOGETHER AS GRANTEE /SUB -GRANTEE
THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY TO DECENTRALIZE
FINALLY, WITH REGARDS TO ASVBTS REINVENTION PROGRAM, IT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED THAT THE FINDINGS LISTED IN SECTION 4100 AND PURPOSE IN
SECTION 4102 TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE ARE STILL VALID. THE
TITLE 3 8 FOCUS, AS STATED, IS EXACTLY RIGHT. RESULTS TO ACCOMPLISH
VETERANS NEEDS CAN BE ACHIEVED IF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND, MORE
IMPORTANTLY, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR VETERANS'
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING COMPLY.
THE INTENT OF THE LAW IS TO HAVE VETERANS' PROGRAM DIRECTED BY AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND AN ORGANIZATION STRUCTURED TO PROMULGATE
POLICY SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED TO EXECUTE THE LAW AND RESOURCES
SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO EXECUTE THE PROGRAMS.
DOCUMENTATION AND REGULATIONS TO SUPPORT AND PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO
THE FIELD STAFF SHOULD BE SIMPLE AND NOT RESULT XH BUREAUCRATIC
TIME CONStraiNG PROCESSES AND REPORTS.
THE REGIONAL VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING (RVET) DISTRICT
VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE (DVET) NEEDS CLEAR POLICY
TO FOLLOW AND PROPER RESOURCES TO EXECUTE VETERANS PROGRAM. THE
TEXT BOOK/ "COOKIE" CUTTER APPROACH AS OUTLINED IN THE REINVENTION
PROPOSAL DOES NOT PROVIDE SOLUTIONS. IT CONTINUES TO BUILD ON A
PROCESS THAT PRODUCES LITTLE. SIMPLY STATED, THE VETERANS NEEDS
HELP TO FIND A JOB, GO TO SCHOOL, OR SETTLE A CLAIM. THIS IS THE
IN CONCLUSION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD URGE YOU TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OP
WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE, PROVIDE ADEQUATE FUNDING, AND INSIST
ON COORDINATION OF EFFORT. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE
MY THOUGHTS AND EXPERIENCES WITH YOU. AND THANK YOU. MOST
SINCERELY, FOR YOUR CONCERN AND CARE FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS.
TO PRESTON TAYLOR
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT
JUNE 15, 1994, HEARING
Ouestion 1 ; What impact, in your judgement, would H.R. 4050 have
on the provision of quality employment and training services for
We expect that the Reemployment Act will benefit veterans through
such features as:
o The one stop centers' emphasis on streamlined and
easily accessible services, focusing on what the worker
needs to get the next job, not on why he or she lost
the last job.
o Labor market information on where available jobs are
and vocational guidance as to the associated new skills
o Financial support to help dislocated workers complete
meaningful retraining courses.
o Information on the success rates of education and
training providers, to help workers choose appropriate
provider for the services they need.
In addition, services delineated in chapter 41 of title 38,
United States Code, are to be mandatory in the One-Stop Career
Center system, which provides a common point of access to
employment, education, and training information and services.
This means that in States electing to establish One-Stop systems,
the intensive services prescribed for certain veterans in
sections 4103A and 4104 of title 38 must be available at each
One-Stop Career Center. Veterans will continue to receive the
priority service under One-Stop that they receive under current
law. Additionally, transitioning servicemembers will continue to
be afforded the opportunity to participate in Transition
Assistance Program workshops delivered by veterans' specialists.
Question 2 ; We heard from the Disabled American Veterans that
former service members should be identified as a target group
under Title I of H.R. 4050 and should have priority in any
dislocated worker program. Would you and Secretary Reich support
this proposal? If not, why not?
Service members who have been involuntarily separated under
Department of Defense procedures would be eligible for services
under Title I of the Reemployment Act as they currently are under
the Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act's
Defense Diversification Program.
Title I consolidates current programs for dislocated workers into
a single, comprehensive program that is available to all eligible
dislocated workers, regardless of the cause of the dislocation.
These workers will be afforded access to a common set of enriched
information and services at career centers. With the increased
funds for dislocated workers that the President has requested, we
expect to be able to serve all dislocated workers who are in need
of Federal assistance. Therefore, we do not believe Title I of
the Reemployment Act should give priority to any particular group
of dislocated workers.
In States that elect to establish One-Stop Career Center systems,
veterans will continue to receive the same priority for service
that they do under current law.
Question 3; Section 233 of H.R. 4050 authorizes the Secretary of
Labor to grant waivers of certain statutory requirements,
including chapter 41 of title 38, United States Code.
How would this provision improve enforcement services to veterans
since veterans are now provided priority in employment services?
Wouldn't authorizing a waiver of chapter 41 reduce service to
veterans who now receive special consideration for employment and
The Reemployment Act authorizes waivers of statutory and
regulatory requirements that would impede implementation of one-
stop career center system. Chapter 41 of title 38 is one of the
mandatory participating programs in the one-stop system, and one
of the programs for which waivers may be requested. These
waivers are intended to provide more flexibility, facilitate
consolidation, promote coordination, improve efficiency, and
better serve one-stop customers, including veterans.
Veterans will continue to receive priority for service in one-