that has economic consequences as well as safety consequences. if one looks at the whole cyberissues, again, these are national security issues, the ability of foreign countries or organizations to have an impact on our infrastructure, to use cybertools to ferret out secret information from the united states, all put our nation at risk and is worthy of the attention, i think, of this committee, the congress, and the executive branch. and i would hope we would be able to work together to come up with a way in which we can craft tools to deal with what is truly a 21st century problem. >> i thank you. and at the risk of going -- not going over time like some of my colleagues have, i'll just stop there, because any other question i could ask would be well over into the next person's time. so i'll yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. watt. the gentleman from california, mr. issa is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general, december 14th, 2010, brian terry was gunned down, and we began knowing more about fast and furious shortly thereafter. but you have said people representing you have said repeatedly you didn't know about it before that. i've sent you a number of letters. senator grassley sent you a number of letters. you mentioned in your opening statement the speaker's letter. the speaker did not limit the scope of the subpoenas you're under an obligation to respond to. he simply asked you for response to two key areas. he did not revoke any subpoenas. however, you implied that we were working together when in fact since may 18th, nothing, nothing has come from your department. not one shred of paper. i want to ask you first of all today, have you and your attorneys produced internally

the materials responsive to the subpoenas? >> we believe that we have responded to the subpoenas -- >> no, mr. attorney general, you're not a good witness. a good witness answers the question asked. so let's go back again. have you and your attorneys produced internally the materials responsive? in other words, have you taken the time to look up our subpoena and find out what material you have responsive to it, or you have simply invented a privilege that doesn't exist? >> you're saying internally? >> internally. have you pulled all that information? >> we have looked at 240 custodians. we have processed millions of electronic records and reviewed over 140,000 documents and produced to you about 7600. >> so 140,000 documents. how many documents are responsive but you are withholding at this time? >> well, we've produced 7600. >> look, i don't want to hear about the 7600. >> mr. chairman, i would beg to allow. >> the lady is out of order. >> excuse me, mr. chairman, i

would beg to allow the attorney general to be able to finish his answer. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> i thank you the chairman. >> and the attorney general will have more time to do that if we don't have interruptions. >> and i would like my time reclaimed that was taken by the young lady. >> mr. chairman, i suggest we take back the time mr. lundgren used, the two minutes over his time that he used and -- >> you want to give me an additional two minutes, i'm fine with it. >> no, i'll give you the 45 seconds i yielded back. but we're going to apply a rule on one side of this aisle -- >> let's get back -- >> and apply -- >> let's get back to order. the gentleman from california as the time and the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> isn't it true, mr. rag you have not produced a log of records withheld even though our attorneys have asked for it? >> i'm not sure about it. >> okay. i'm sure you didn't. so let's move on.

march 15th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down, april 19th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. may 7th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down, may 17th, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down, june 2nd, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down, july 2nd, the real date of our independence 2010, obviously earlier, before brian terry was gunned down. these wiretap applications which we did not subpoena, but which were given to us by a furious group of whistle-blowers that are tired of your stonewalling indicate that a number of key individuals in your administration in fact were responsible for information contained in here that clearly shows that the tactics of fast and furious were known. they were known and are contained in these wiretaps. i understand you have read these wiretaps since we have brought them to your attention.

is that correct? >> i have read them, and i disagree with the conclusion you have just reached. >> so let me go through a very simple line of questioning if i may, mr. attorney general. james cole, deputy attorney general, has written that the department has a greater obligation than just checking the legal sufficiency in approving wiretap application. he thinks that applications also have to comply with doj policy. that correct? >> applications have to agree with doj policy? >> that's what he said. >> sure. >> okay. during a transcribed interview, deputy assistant attorney general jason weinstein testified that senior officials approving the wiretap applications do not read the right wiretap applications. is this practice acceptable to you? >> they read summaries of the applications that is a process that has been used by this administration and by all previous administrations. it is the way in which the office of enforcement -- >> and are you aware that a

federal judge judge -- >> can i answer my question? >> no. you have given me a sufficient answer considering the amount of questions i have and the amount of time i have. you're okay with that practice? you have already answered that. so would you agree that senior officials are responsible for documents they sign? i would assume the answer is yes. so now let me ask you the question. jason weinstein, is he responsible for what is in these wiretaps? >> is he responsible? >> he is a responsible officer under statute. is he responsible for them even if he only read a summary? >> he did not create those affidavits. he did not create that material. he would have been a person as a deputy assistant attorney general who would review. >> so when congress writes a statute requiring that certain individuals be responsible such as jason weinstein, lanny brewer and yourself -- >> regular order, mr. chairman. >> i'm in the middle of a question. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer this question. >> he hadn't asked the question.

>> i'm halfway through it if you'll quit interrupting. if in fact the statute says they're responsible, and if in fact they're not read, then in fact -- >> regular order, mr. chairman. >> how are the american people to understand who is responsible for what is contained in these. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer this question. >> because anyone of ordinary reading including the atf director, former director meson, anyone reading these according to him would have him sick to the stomach. >> does he have a question, mr. chairman? >> so who is responsible, mr. attorney general? >> all right. you really conflated a bunch of things here. the responsibility -- >> you have delivered so little. >> regular order now, mr. chairman. will he be allowed to answer the question now? >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. but i would appreciate no more questions so the ag can answer the question. >> the responsibility about what you speak is in fact the responsibility of a deputy assistant attorney general looking at those summaries to make sure that there is a basis

to go into court and to ask that court that -- to grant the wiretap based on a determination that a responsible official makes that probable cause exists to believe that a wire facility has been used in the commission of a crime. they do not look at the affidavits to see if in fact, to review all that is engaged, all that is involved in the operation. i have read those, now. i have read those. have i read those. have i read them from wide receiver as well. and i can say what has happened in connection with fast and furious was done in the same way as wiretap applications were done under the previous administration in wide receiver. i've looked at the summaries. and they acted in a way that is consistent with the practice and the responsibility that they have as defined by the statute. >> thank you, mr. issa. the gentleman from california, mr. lofgren, is recognized. does the ranking member wish to speak out of order? >> if i may, please. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i think that the previous

questioning was the first note of hostility and interruption of the witness that i think has been uncharacteristic of what we've been doing here so far today. and i'd like to ask the chair to admonish all the witnesses from here on out to please try to -- all the members from here on out to please allow the witness to finish his question -- his answers. >> would the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> you know, i appreciate that there was hostility because the attorney general and myself. i would hope that the ranking member would understand that in fact most of it was produced by the fact that i have a great many questions and a relatively little period of time in which to get answers, and that for a year and a half, my committee through subpoena and interrogatories has been attempting to get answers for

which this witness has basically said he asserts a privilege without -- >> the gentleman from michigan has the time. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> can i just make a point? >> would i'd like to yield to the attorney general at this point, please. >> well, with all due respect to chairman issa, he says there is hostility between us. i don't feel that. i understand he is asking questions, i'm trying to respond as best i can. i'm not feeling hostile at all. i'm pretty calm. i'm okay. >> and let me assure the gentleman from michigan that the attorney general will be allowed to answer future questions, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, is recognized for her questions. >> attorney general eric holder testifying today at the house judiciary committee. a reminder that you can watch this hearing in its entirety at our website, c-span.org and later tonight on our companion

network, c-span2. >> they're often referred to as the conscience of the congress. and after having working there almost two years, i can't think of a better name. it is really the heart beat of the people. >> executive director and general counsel of the congressional black caucus, angela rye on the role of today's caucus. >> it is designed to ensure that members of congress who are african-american can come together on issues that are plaguing the community at large, issues that may be plaguing their districts where they can find commonality, but really come together to discuss legislative solutions, legislative proposals to advance the causes of people that don't have a voice. >> more with angela rye, sunday at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. up next on c-span3, a hearing on the hiring of veterans by federal government contractors. then a look at cyberthreats to financial markets. and later, a discussion on european debt and the future of the euro.

tomorrow, a house ways and means panel will look at and evaluate the expiring federal tax provisions. the tax director of the government accountability office will testify. that begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern, live on c-span2. and tomorrow night it's the radio and television correspondents dinner. house speaker john boehner and actor and comedian wayne brady are the featured speakers. live coverage is at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. now a senate panel looks at the employment of veterans by federal government contractors. we'll hear from veterans organizations and government contractors. this senate homeland security subcommittee is 1:45.

this hearing of the subcommittee on contracting oversight of the senate committee on homeland security and government 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. the hearing today, we're 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 has historically been an advantage in seek 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 released its latest unemployment figures, which show that the employment rate, the unemployment rate in the united states is currently 8.2%. those same figures show that veterans who have served on active duty since september of 2001 have an unemployment rate of 12.7%. the unemployment rate of veterans has 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 we must take new and urgent steps to improve our national efforts to make sure that 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 veterans face in seeking employment. veterans are finding 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 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 isn't 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 happen is just not enough. many different federal agencies, including the defense department, the veterans administration, 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 veteran, and many are. contractors are also required by

law to take affirmative action to hire veterans. since 2002, president obama signed into law a provision that requires companies with government contracts over 100,000 are require -- over $100,000 are required to post job listings at nationwide unemployment offices to report their unemployment numbers to the department of labor through the vets-100 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 collecteder from contractors for the last ten years. the department was only able to provide data for 2009 and 2010 because it only just became electronically available.

the staff prepared a fact sheet and i ask unanimous consent this fact sheet be included in the hearing record. what this fact sheet shows, 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% 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 lane they're are responsible for collecting the data and overseeing, enforcing compliance that is the office of

the assistant secretary for veterans employment and training, the vets office at the department of labor, and the office of federal contract compliance programs, which is known as 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 doesn't make any sense to me. it's almost like we're going through the motions and don't care what the result. it is called make work that 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're here today to learn from some of the nation's leading veteran services organizations about the challenges facing veterans. we will also hear from two large and well-known businesses about the excellent work they're 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 vet by not doing everything in our power to make sure they have access to employment.

we can continue to waste businesses' time demanding a file report which nobody pays any attention to, and currently don't 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 that the department of labor is listening, because i plan to follow up with them about the issues that we discuss here today. i thank the witnesses for being here, and look forward to their testimony. i will now -- i know senator carper is on his way, and i 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, he will go ahead and introduce our witnesses, and we will begin your testimony today. ted daywalt is the president and ceo of vet jobs.

vet jobs was founded in 1999 and has become one of the leading internet job boards for veterans and for employers. mr. daywalt served in the navy and navy reserve for over 30 years. he has worked in the private and public sector and is also chairman of the atlantic regional 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 websites 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 of the mission continues, which is based in st. louis, missouri. i'm 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 and not for profit organizations within 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 mckenzie and company and held the position of vice president of recruiting for teach for america. ramsey sulayman, am i saying that correct? i'm glad i got it right. ramsey sulayman is a legislative associate for iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. iraq and afghanistan veterans of america was founded in 2004 to bring together and empower the newest generation of war-time veterans. they have helped countless returning veterans with programs focusing on physical and mental health, education, and careers. mr. sulayman was a former marine officer, is a former marine officer who served in operation iraqi freedom as an infantry platoon commander and company executive officer. pamela hardy is a senior manager in the diversity inclusion team at booz allen hamilton. ms. hardy has a masters in human

resources management and has worked in various recruiting positions and specializes in recruiting strategies and techniques. sally sullivan is 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 base and secured infrastructure at bechtel national and sector vice president for business development at northrop grumman. you've hung out in the defense sector, haven't you. it is the custom of this subcommittee to swear in all witnesses that appear before us. so if you don't 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? >> i do. >> thank you. and let the record reflect that the witnesses have all answered in the affirmative. we'll be using a timing system today. we won't be strict, so be

comfortable. don't worry that we're going to hit a buzzer or a gong. we would ask that your oral testimony try to be around five 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. >> thank you, madam chairman. appreciate you having me here. and i want to thank the staff here as well. vet jobs has unique vantage point in this discussion as by the nature of our business over the last 13 years, vet jobs has dealt with veterans and their family members on a daily basis for pursuing employment with government contractors. a big part of our membership base are government contractors. vet jobs assists all veterans and their family members to find work. 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 employers' perspective, there

are three groups that comprise 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 comes with many skills and attributes wanted by employers. the second group is comprised by the federal reservist of the army, navy, coast guard, marine corps. while these veterans have the same attributes as transitioning military, they're 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 distinction 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 aren't problems, but there are. of the three groups, the national guard has unique problems and is the least preferred source of veterans. unlike active duty component members when active components return from war, they 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 policy 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, whatever. for example, the national guard in georgia, which is where we're headquartered, has had six one-year plus call-ups in the last ten years. now that makes it really hard to keep a job, even if you're 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, all have done studies that show upwards of 70% 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% of our total fighting force. it is important to understand why employers make hires. some department of labor officials like to out the how many unemployed people there are for each job opening the country and bemoan the fact that employers, those horrible profit-making companies, are not hiring the unemployed. 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're standing and breathing or they're 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 the company, you would have huge very large negative numbers in disciplines like health care, engineering, maintenance, electricians, welders. right now they're paying $45 an hour with all the overtime you can get for welders in the upper midwest, and they can't find enough welders. it's probably going to 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. for that reason they like to hire veterans as generally they have excellent skill sets and they have the attributes they want. in my written testimony i use an

example of a stellar government contractor being sf railroad. they are to be commended for their proactive hiring of veterans. also, 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's not relevant, it's not timely, it's not actionable. the federal compliance program actually disincentivizes companies that want to hire veterans, and there is huge problems in the transition importance sta program. all need to be reviewed. and in the case of 100, i would recommend you get rid of it. thank you for your time. i trust the information presented will be of assistance. i'd be happy to answer any questions you have, ma'am. >> thank you very much. i welcome senator begich from alaska here. thank you, senator begich, for joining us. mr. kympton? >> madam chairman and members of the