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? >> madam chairman, our loose planning figure for a fellowship is $10,000 per fellowship. and what that funds is six months of living stipends for the fellow so that he or she can work in a volunteer capacity within whatever organization, whether that's habitat for humanity or the boys and girls club. and all of that money comes currently from private dollars, either corporations or individuals who have seen the value of, you know, placing veterans within these non-profit and community service organizations. so the living stipend we pay them so 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've 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 they can serve in a volunteer capacity, reconnecting to a mission while they are also working toward a longer-term outcome for the veteran. whether that's full-time employment either with the organization in which they're serving or one that they've 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. >> are you a united way agency? >> no, we're not. >> so how many veterans are you serving on an annual basis in that capacity? >> this year we've targeted internally somewhere between 400 and 500 fellows. most recently we've organized these fellows into classes, cohorts of military concepts. so we brought 114 fellows together in san diego and started them as a class. and then after their three-day

orientation in person, a very kind of military-flavored orientation -- >> how do you find these veterans, or how do they find you? >> you know, 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 foalos are capable of. >> have you done national guard folks? >> we have. yes. >> it seems like to me this might be a good fit for the national guard because if you're talking about a six-month fellow, you know, someone who has been deployed and has come back and is serving in the national guard, i mean, maybe this model is something 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. >> madam chairman, i can tell you both anecdotally and with data that the organizations in which our fellows serve deeply deeply respect what they have brought to those organizations. in terms of their skill sets and the unique experiences. and plus they're getting a volunteer who are bringing all those skill sets and experiences to the table. so they keep coming back to us. you know, we've placed more than one fellow at habitat for humanity. and i believe that's due to the impact that these veterans are having on those organizations. >> i bet they really give those organizations a shot in the arm in terms of morale and passion and focus. you know, i just -- i think it's a terrific organization. i want to give senator carper a chance.

>> i'm ready. >> okay. senator carper. >> thank you, madam chairman. to our witnesses, welcome. very nice to see you. and we welcome each of our witnesses. >> put your sign up here so people watching you on c-span know who you are. >> thank you. who is that guy anyways sitting next to claire mccaskill? just like air-dropped in from finance committee. here we are. but i just want to express my thanks. some of you -- i don't know if you've talked about it here today. we have a situation going on where i'm a former veteran, navy guy like ted. and i -- 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's great. it's just a great model. because the nature of the work you do in the military is -- you're gone a lot. and this is just a great -- unfortunately.

and we have some folks, distance learning colleges and university. some do a great job, screening people, preparing people for these programs, making sure they get the tutoring that they need. a lot of support. and they're actually being prepared for jobs. that 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. and i -- as mr. daywalt knows, some of us who've been working on legislation say let's go back and revisit the wait law used to be. it used to be that 15% of the revenues of proprietary school had to come from sources other than the federal government 1k38 5% could come from the federal government. and then that was changed to 90% could come from the federal government but 10% had to come from other places.

now the rules are such that that 10% that could come from other places could come from the g.i. bill and from tuition assistance from folks on active duty. literally you've got 100% of college or an institution's income could come from the federal government. no skin in the game. not a good situation. we're trying to address this and work our way back to a real 90-10 rule, where 10% 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 aren't readily snapping up some of our veterans. some they are but some are not. 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's doing as much in terms of job preparation as we think it ought to be getting? could you just speak to that, ted? >> sure, sir. i'll start by saying that if we didn't have the national guard problem we wouldn't 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're totally separated, employers love to get a hold of you. it's that national guard issue. if we were talking about this problem 20 years ago, it was the over-50 veteran that couldn't get a job. and then d.o.l. did i think what was one of the best programs they ever-d putting in these computer training programs in all the work force centers. and within six months the unemployment rate wen from 20s down to like 4% or 5%.

>> is that right? >> because they had the skills. they just didn't know how to use the computer. today's environment if you can't use a computer you're illiterate. but the real unemployment problem -- you know, the overall unemployment rate for all veterans right now, 7.7%, using the cps numbers. it's that young veteran that's in the national guards where the problem's at. but to your question, employers want to hire them. and we got, what, 5,000, 6,000 companies use vet jobs on a regular basis. i can only think of one company i've ever dealt with that i would ever say was anti-military. >> out of how many? >> over 5,000. and only one i would call anti-military. government contractors, i know there's 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 with a company it's because an individual made a stupid judgment, not -- it's not corporate policy. but overall, they do want to hire them, sir. you've got to fix a systemic problem. if you fix a problem with -- go back to the -- change of policy with us on january 11th, 2007. in 2006 the unemployment rate for your 18 to 24-year-olds was only about 10 point -- 10%, thereabouts. in 2008 it went up -- at the end of 2007 it went to nearly 23%. and the employers started saying wait a minute, if you're going to take my employee away for up to 48 months out of any 60, i'm not going to keep them. and that's why it doubled. and doubled in the young ones because that's 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 won't need a

hearing like this today. >> okay. any other comments on the issue? what i'm looking for is the correlation between folks that are using their g.i. bill or maybe tuition assistance, and it's not preparing them for a real job. >> well, it does prepare them. the g.i. bill is working. it gets people -- they go in. student veterans of america, i.v.a. have both been very active helping people get in the schools. when they come out the schools on the other side, it prepares them. and a lot of great companies, mantech's a great example, where they bring people in and they train them. you know, they want to hire them, but they don't want them taken away. it's a simple problem. >> so in thinking about any stones left unturned, and i was glads you brought up the g.i. bill. mantech has a successful program. our numbers speak for ourselves. it's a part of our culture, part of our company how we operate.

but there is one thing i heard universally from people within side of mantech is there is some stone unturned that could make the difference, really move the needle in a significant way, and certainly i'm no 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 as many times veterans who are leveraging that g.i. bill and 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's got competitive pay. so anything that can be done to help preserve that clearance,

maybe, i don't know, put it in a deep freeze or deferral mode versus just cancel it outright, i think could be a real needle mover for everyone. >> okay. thanks. >> that's a great idea. >> thanks very much. any other comments on this? would you just pronounce your last name for me? >> sulayman. >> i know you're used to hearing tom tarrantino talk about the -- that's certainly something we thank you for your leadership on to try 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's 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, post-second -- not just the post-secondary education but professional degrees and, you know, trades and everything else basically. >> even transferrable, i

believe. >> and traveler to children and spouses. i mean, it's -- >> what a deal. >> i came back from southeast asia at the end of the vietnam war, i think we got about 200 a month. >> and there was a big differential between the post-world war ii g.i. bill and the g.i. bill for the vietnam evora veterans. the post-g.i. bill restored some parity on the post-world war ii gi bill and can be a game changer and a lost institutions sprung 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 that really has been an issue for them with not completing degrees because they've exhausted the g.i. bill, you know, on quite frankly really expensive degrees that weren't going to prepare them for the jobs they were taking. criminal justice technology. you know, for instance. i had a small business before i got deployed in construction,

and i was reviewing some of the online university's courses in construction management technology, and i couldn't figure out how that would have applied to any of my subcontracts that i used or me as a project manager for a fortune 500 company. that's 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 start up a business as a small contractor and want to do business with federal, state, or local governments in construction, you know, those sorts of things that's not going to impress anybody and help you out. that's one of the things that we have found as we've looked at the issue. >> anybody else? >> to miss sullivan's issue about security clearances, we hear that all the time. and there is a solution, but it's going to take a change of paradigms over at d.o.d.

in our country unlike in europe the individual does not have the security clearance. the job has a security clearance. and then when you step out of that bill, you're no longer cleared. at the tssci level you have up to six months to get back into a job at the tssci level. otherwise, you have to start all over again with a brand new special background investigation. very expensive. which is why -- we make jokes that when one government contractor hires someone at tssci level especially with polygraph they haven't filled a job, they've create a vacancy someplace else. when the person goes to school, when they get out to go back to work, they've got to start all over again. so the solution is to create some billets that would be holding billets so like when i stepped out of the navy i had a tssci. since i retired from naval intelligence. and if i wanted to go back to school, i'd be put into a bill that leaves me with that security clearance even though i'm not working at it. now when i go to apply for a

job, i already have my tssci in place so that i can go into a -- because i'll 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 can't do the background checks and everything else at dss. and the same problem is with the certifications of veterans. you know, we talked for years about doing -- if a guy drives a truck in the military, got a cdl license or be able to get an emt license or whatever. in the civilian world everybody says they're in favor of it until it gets on the floor of the house and the unions say no, no, no, no, no, we're not going to have them come out and compete with us. that would be a simple way to fix part of that problem. >> i think we passed that, didn't we? >> we did. and also, there's a program that i'm not sure i 100% agree with you because there's a program called helmets to hard hats that the unions actually organized because they're in huge needs because the trades are an

average of 52 to 55 years old and they need replacements very quickly. so i'm not sure that old paradigm of one group is there because the legislation we passed starts opening up the doors. but i know the helmets to hard hats program, at least in my state, has been somewhat successful. that's why when i walked out of here it was with the labors union how they're doing. >> unions are good. let's not stand in the way of -- if you're an electrician in the army and you come out, you've been in the army 25 years, you're not going to go to detroit and start as a journeyman electrician. but that's what the union wants you to do. you're going to go to right to work states where you can make a decent wage and not start at $8, $9 an hour and work your way up through union bureaucracy. that's a root reality. i come from realizeville. i'm sure. >> mr. kympton, you want to say something? then i'm done.

>> yes, sir. at the mission continues we're using the vehicle as an integration strategy for veterans. we're finding it is leading to employment. it is leading to continued education. currently madam chairman, as you asked, we're 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 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 six months in service or funding a year in service, might just be possible within the g.i. bill itself. >> okay. thanks. all right. thanks. madam chair, thanks. thanks for holding this hearing and letting me slip by and ask a couple questions. captain, nice to see you. >> 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 --

maybe it's here. maybe it's in the veterans committee. is to kind of see where that's going. because the goal of it is to start making sure that if you're an electrician in the military that you can make that transition into the private sector without having to retrain, recertify, go through the process. that legislation that was passed last year or several months ago was pretty significant. so maybe it's a question we need to ask. i don't know if it's here or in the veterans committee. where that's at and how it's progressing. because that's one of the biggest complaints i hear. that we see people who are -- if you're 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's passed and what d.o.d. is doing on that. just a little side note there. >> 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 in any way been beneficial to your company even though clearly the department of labor is not paying any attention to it? we -- any information that we collector report, it comes up to management's attention. i don't think that we have ever looked at, to my knowledge, the vets 100-a as a management tool or a resource. to that end, typically, because we are publically traded, so, i'm not sure that we have ever stepped back from that and really thought about it in that sense. >> i'm wondering if we made these public if it would help. i mean, if -- if the data was public cally available, wouldn't

you all notice that they did not have your data? >> we think that providing data access would encourage companies to step up their practices and provide more information about the internal use of the data, and that will lead to new and creative solutions. so we think transparency is the right approach. >> yeah, i think one of the reasons that this data has been such a waste of time is because no one is paying attention to the fact that they are not paying attention to it. if it had to be 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 a -- if you are not doing what you are supposed to be doing, i don't think anybody over there would ever know it. the way it's 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 can come to some good and make it transparent before we actually try to say, let's -- you know, unwinding legislation that was put into place because people were trying to help a real problem is hard. i mean, speaking of fcc companies, look at oxley, i'm not sure it accomplished what we wanted it to accomplish, other

than provide a lot of employment for lawyers and accountants. >> i realize that some of the questions may come on reporting, and when i talk to folks that are more closely related to compliance reporting, at the end of the day, from a practical sense, it does not change our behavior any. 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's -- so, it is not one way or the other it's not going to change our behavior. >> i think it's time that we step back from all of this and see what is a meaningful way for the government to impact the problem. i do not think it's 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 farret out who are taking advantage of military and their families, you know, organizations like mr. kympton's, those are the things that will make the difference and tackling the guard problem, really focusing on the guard problems, 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 don't won't and i'm 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, i think that will be instruct i ha instructive to us, if there's anything that you can put on record about things we should unwind, and programs that should

be consolidated, you know, there's 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 that think we should move the sba functions around veterans programs over to va. and the jury is out on that. but, i want you all to feel comfortable continuing to give information to this committee 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 incompetence has made that impossible to know. it's a pleasure for me to compliment contractors as you may know, most of the time i'm not doing that. most of the time i am doing the

opposite of that, so it's pleasant for me to compliment you on the work you are doing in this regard. thank you for being here and we will try to focus on this problem in a meaningful way that will not cause businesses too much of a headache and helps veterans get where they need to be and that is gainfully employed in a place where their leadership has a chance to shine. thank you all very much. up next on c span-3, a look at cyber threats to financial

markets and then after that the future of european debt and the future of the euro. tomorrow a hows ways and means panel will look at at the expiring federal tax provisions, 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 wayne brady are the featured speakers, live coverage is at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. now cybersecurity threats to financial industry. the importance of information

sharing between the public and private financial sectors this hearing is two hours. my goodness. formality, please sit. so, today's hearing, called to order, today's hearing entitled, cyber threats to capitol markets and corporate accounts and i appreciate the entire panel being with us today, look forward to a interesting, allbeit at times somewhat technical hearing. so, i look forward to the entire

testimony of the witnesses and the questions that will follow. at this time, we will move to opening statements. and i yield myself three minutes or four minutes. >> you and again, we are talking about cyber attacks today and the threat of cyber attacks against our economic interest as we learn from the panel and those that visited our office in the media, issued as a growing concern from here on the committee. a better understanding of the potential dangers that cyber criminaling will pose to us will help improve the chances to avoid disruption in the final markets. there's been a number of high profile cyber attacks over the last few years. and no one intrusions have occurred in the department of defense, in december of 2011, the u.s. chamber of coce