number of applications filed. the number of applications granted or denied. even that number doesn't break down betwe down. you don't know how many programs have been authorized. you don't know how many have been approved. you don't know how broad those programs have been. you don't know how many americans have been wiretapped and you don't know what's been done with the communications acquired. all sorts of, in our view, crucial facts are still being with held, at least from the public. on top of that there's this question of the legal authority. this is a complicated statute. there are legitimate questions about how it ought to be interpreted. we don't know how the obama administration is interpreting this statute because it hasn't disclosed the office of legal counsel memos.

we don't have the opinions. i should have said this earlier, but there was a process put in place a couple of years ago by the obama administration to declassify other opinions. there was a recognition on the part of the obama administration at that time that more of these opinions needed to be released and the public had a right to know more about how the court was interpreting the law. two or three years later, the result of that process is the release of no opinions. we don't have anything out of that process. it's not clear why nothing has come out of that process. it might be something that the committee could consider looking into it. >> thank you, sir. >> the floor recognizing the gentleman from south carolina, i notice that the gentlewoman from texas ms. jackson was in the room and stepped out. i will recognize her following the conclusion of the gentleman

from south carolina's questioning. i intend to be the last questioner. i would ask the democratic staff if she wishes to ask questions to have her be brought back in the room. gentleman from south carolina. >> you made a reference to the clapper case. i don't have my notes in front of me. what was the break down? >> it was 6-6. in total eight judges agreed that our plaintiffs had standing and six disagreed. >> i thought it was six and six. it just threw me off when you said the second surrogate agreed with you the some people claim ties as victories and some people thought. i guess if you prevailed in the three judge panel, you're entitled to claim victory. >> the full court decided not to

re-hear the case. there were eight judges that agreed with us. of the full court, two of them didn't participate. >> does the fourth amendment apply to foreign targets in foreign lands? >> i don't think that's the question presented by -- >> that's my question. promise you it's the right question because that's my question. does it apply? >> i don't think it does. >> when you say you don't think it does. >> in the circumstance of the statute, i don't think it does. we haven't made the argument that it does. >> does the fourth amendment, i'm not talking about a statute. does the fourth amendment apply to foreign nationals in foreign lands? >> it does not. >> does the second amendment apply? >> i don't know be the law, but. >> second? >> no. >> eighth?

>> no. >> women suffrage? >> no. >> we're not talking about surveillance of foreign nationals in foreign lands. that's my second point. if you'll let me get to it. professor roddenburg was quoted and it was not the first time somebody was quoted incorrectly so i'll give you a chance to say if you were quoted incorrectly that there was a constitutional problem with monitoring foreign targets. i'm trying to understand what that constitutional problem might be of foreign targets in foreign lands or the third alternative is you were quoted incorrectly. >> congressman, i think the, i'm not sure of the context but i'm sure the concern i had was the constitutional problem was in the targeting of a foreign target in a foreign land. you would also acquire the communication of a u.s. person. >> which leads to my next

question. in a domestic setting, title three where there an unintentional interceptee, is there understanding? >> probably not. this goes to my recommendation before the committee. you would have a great deal of information about the percentage of communications in the course of an investigation that were nonimcriminating. >> how do we handle it with nontargets in the title three arena? >> through minimumization. >> they don't have standing. if it's an american citizen who is intercepted unintentionally on a domestic wire, they don't have standing to challenge? >> it's an interesting point. if people of the united states

were concerned they may take steps to try to protect them. >> i'm just asking you what the law is. >> i think you're asking a standing question. >> the answer is no, they don't have standing. >> i'm not sure the answer is no. >> has any court said they hand standing? >> i don't think any court has answered. there was standing based on the possibility of injury and the steps the plaintiffs had taken to try to protect their communications. i think they did find they had standing. >> i thought in the white case they find they do not have standing. >> i think in that case the parties did not engage in any activity to try to prevent that type of interception. that's the problem here. the problem is the government engaging in a surveillance activity. neither you or me knowing if we're targets.

>> we can't make legislation by episode. is the government routinely targeting american citizens in foreign land and what protections are in place? >> the statue says if it's going to target a person in a foreign land, the first time the government notifies the court and get an individualized order. you can't target somebody overseas with the real purpose of trying to get communication with a person inside the united states. >> gentlemen's time has expired. in the absence of the gentlewoman from texas, i'll recognize myself as the last question. i think that we have already established that the fourth amendment does not apply to foreign targets overseas. you agree with that? >> i agree with that, sir.

>> what's the difference between probable causes that applies to title i and the requirements for foreign surveillance approval until title vii of the faa? >> you have to establish probable cause that the power is a target of a foreign power and you have to lay evidence of that out. there has to be probable cause of that showing. >> okay. that was my next question. you said that it's different. professor rotenberg. i think as a goal we want to have more transparency in all of the laws that we have except when dealing with national security. people wish to do our country and its citizens harm and end up

being able to connect the dots and get away with the terrorist strike. this is something this committee has had to wrestle more acutely since 9/11. how are we able to make any sense if the laws amended to require the government's release to numbers of people who are incidentally monitored without identifying the individuals that you don't want identified. >> i think statistical reporting based on the current statute, you do get numbers as to how many orders were authorized under 702, 703. none of that information would jeopardize any information. the suggestion that the legal

reasoning of the court that it can be released with appropriate sections redacted. >> following up on my question, say we release the number of people who are incident monitored. you can pick a number from one to whatever, then how would that number mean anything to the public if we don't release the number of targeted individuals to compare it to? >> my own experience having read the reports if many years is it's helpful to evaluate trends in the use of surveillance authority. it was significant that in 2003 the number of warrants for the first time exceeded the number of title iii warrants in the united states. i think that information would

be available, helpful not only to the committee but the public. >> okay, next question is that say we release the actual number of people who are targeted. does that give the other side an indication as to the extent of what the operational strength of our national security agencies? >> i don't seep how it would. i imagine someone could make the argument. we're talking about aggregate numbers. you could choose, for example, which numbers to disclose. the main point, i think, and maybe there is disagreement on this point, the current numbers that is provided are inadequate. we don't know from the information that's made available from the court how this legal authority is being used. i don't think that's where you would want to leave this as you're considering r considering renewal of the act.

>> my guess is rather than playing the numbers game either with the actual targets or the people who are incidentally surveilled, perhaps decisions, or review are appropriately redacted would be able to give us the answer to that question rather than saying there were x number of people who were incidentally surveilled and y number of people who are actual targets. i've always been one that's favored disclosure. on the other hand, i know that there is a danger involved in that particularly looking at what was disclosed during the trial of the twin towers bombers that michael mccasey is federal judge presided over. there was information disclosed

during that trial that was used by al qaeda to pull off 9/11. i don't think we want to change the law so that that happens ever again. my time is up. i'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing. this has been very useful hearing. let me say the thursday of next week, we will have a classified briefing where many of the members of this committee who have had questions can ask and yet to be determined representative of the justice department, whatever they want. that will be a classified briefing. i would encourage the members to come and re-ask the questions they don't think they got an answer to today. without objection, the hearing is adjourned.

tonight, john skipper on the network's expansion to media platforms the john king on the ways technology has changed cnn and cox business senior vice president phil meeks and the small business focus on the communicators tonight at 8. tomorrow morning attorney general eric holder testifies before the senate judiciary committee. be move comes as part of an investigation into operation fast and furious. you can watch live coverage at

10:00 a.m. eastern on cspan. on wednesday, j jamie dimon testifies. the house financial services committee will hold its hearing on the public policy implications of jp morgan's recent trading loss.

the head of a major veterans employment website said they need to do more to help veterans find jobs. he was testifying into a hearing looking into the employment of veterans into contractors. there's still no accurate accounting of the number of veterans employed by government contractors. this is an hour and 45 minutes. 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 bush 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 collected 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 employer's perspective, there are three groups that comprise the post-military service veteran employment picture. the first group would be those who are transitioning off active duty with no further military obligation, who are most frequently referred to just as veterans. this group is the most desirable of the veteran groups from which employers prefer to hire since candidates have no further military obligation and 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