businesses or just veteran-owned businesses to get into the system. and you were talking about some of the bureaucracy. if you look at -- you know, there's vetbiz.gov, which is the v.a.'s site. and then there's fedbizop.gov which i guess is the business side. there are multiple touch points, and i think that makes it difficult for veterans to understand where they need to go and what they need to do. anecdotally on that point i've heard several veterans who have gone through the v.a.'s credentialing process and think, okay, now i can do business with the federal government, only to find out that they never had to go through that process to do business with the other arms of the federal government. and we certainly have heard not necessarily from our membership but through the media in news about instances like sba and veterans either fronting or companies claiming to be sdvos or veteran-owned businesses that

aren't. and sba, talking to the veterans outreach focus over there, they said that historically the rate is very low. so we think that the self-certification that is used by sba is probably the way to go. but maybe add some small barriers. you know, you've got to produce a certificate of incorporation. you've got to produce incorporation documents that show a veteran and, you know, the veteran's dd-214. something that's a little bit more than self-certifying. what exactly that would be and how best that would be done, i couldn't say off the top of my head. but i think adding some small hurdles while still allowing that small business to have a low barrier entry into business with the federal government is probably the way to go. and i think you would weed out most of that. fronting i think really at that point, you know, i mean, just

taking somebody to the woodshed judicially speaking is probably the way to end that. >> i just wonder if we're even doing the oversight that's necessary to find the fronting. what this hearing has taught me is that we're not really paying attention. we are passing laws and then we're not paying attention. and that's why we're going to try to stay on this from a contracting standpoint. and try to continue to pay attention to see if we can't -- i just dollar bet you a dime that it's going on out there, but it has not been uncovered. in any way. let me ask you, mr. kympton. i am fascinated by your organization. it is a win win win win win win win. and i assume that all this is being done with charitable donations. are there any government funds that are involved in your organization whatsoever? >> madam chairman, there are no government funds at this time, no.

>> and what is the amount of stipend -- i mean, if someone is on a fellowship with your organization, how many can you do a year, and how big is your organization's budget? because we should -- this is a great example of where the private sector does -- the not-for-profit sector does much better job than government in trying to assist not only the veterans but the community at writ 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 towards a longer-term out come 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 this capacity? >> this year we've targeted internally somewhere between 400 and 500 fellows. most recently we've organized these fellows into classes, cohorts, a very 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 fellows 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 - profit represents in terms o- 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 them again 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 universities. 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 actually revisit the way the 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, 85% could come from the federal government, and then it 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 and 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 did was putting in these computer training programs in all the workworse centers, and within six months the unemployment rate went from the 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 real 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. now -- and the 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 in 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, iava 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. >> miss sullivan. >> so in thinking about any stones left unturned, and i was glad you brought up the g.i. bill. certainly mantech is as network ed as anybody. it's 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.training, they lose their security clearance.training they lose their security clearance.training, they lose their security clearance. they lose their security clearancclearance. 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? >> sure. >> ramsey sulayman. >> would you just pronounce your last name for me? >> sulayman. >> i know you're used to hearing tom tarantino 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 transferrable 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-era veterans. the post-g.i. bill restored some parity on the post-world war ii

g.i. bill and can be a game-changer and a lot of 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 subcontractors that i used or me as a project manager for a fortune 500 construction 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. >> all right. anybody else? no? >> 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 billet 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 no, no, no, no, we are not going to have them come out and compete with us. >> i think we passed that didn't we? >> we did. >> i'm not sure i 100% agree with you. there is a program called helmets for hard hats. there are huge needs, they need replacements very quickly. i'm not sure that paradigm of one group against the other is there. i know that program at least in my state has been successful. when i walked out of here with the union was what they were doing. >> the purpose of that program is getting people into the unions which is great.

if you are an electrician in the army and you come out. you are not going to go into detroit and start as a journeyman's electrician. you want to make a descent wage and not start at $8 or $9 an hour. that is the brute reyackity. >> thank you. >> thank you senator. we are using the vehicle of service for veterans and are find that go it is leading that it is leading to employment and continuing education. we are not receiving federal fund i funding to do that. i believe that the gi bill represents a chance to expand what we allow veterans to focus that funding on and to choose the training program and

education program that they want to use and that vehicle of service funding a year of inservice might just be possible within the gi bill itself. >> all right thank you. thank you for holding this hearing. let me slip by and ask a couple of questions. nice to see you. >> the question i had was the vow to hire heros act. maybe it is here or in the veteran's committee. the goal is to make sure that if you are a electrician in the military that you can make that transition without retraining. that legislation was pretty significant. maybe it is a question that we can ask kind of where that is

at, because that is one of the biggest complaints that i hear. if you are a truck driver in afghanistan, you can be one anywhe anywhere. but they need to get the legislation that is passed and what dod is doing on that. so just a little sidenote there. >> let me finish up with this vet's 100 form. do the two dizes represented here? do you feel like going through the requirement of filling out this form has been beneficial to your company even know clearly the department of labor is not paying attention to it? >> um we ago gre gate so much information because we are publicly traded. it comes up to management's attention. i don't think we have ever looked at the vet's 100 a as a

management tool or resource. to that end, typically because we are publicly traded. there are a lot of reports that we have to file such as sec reports. i'm not sure that we have stepped back and thought about it in that sense. >> i'm wondering if we made these public if it would help. i mean, if the data was publicly available. would you notice that they didn't have your data? >> we think providing public access to all vet's data would encourage other companies to step up their practices and provide more information about the government's internal use of the data lead to the right approach. >> i think one of the reasons that this data has been such a

waste of time is because no one has been paying attention to the fact that they are not paying attention to it. if it had been publicly posted, 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 or validating the data. it is a check that someone is making in a box somewhere and taking energy from companies that are doing it, but frankly, if you are -- 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 is being operated now. so, perhaps the way we do it is before we try to do away with it

is make it public and do some good and make it transparent before we try to say, unwinding legislation that was put into place because people were trying to help a real problem is hard. i mean speaking of sec companies, look at sarcane oxley. i'm not sure that it accomplished what we wanted it to other than providing employment for lawyers and accounta accountants. >> i realize that some of the questions might come on reporting and when i come up to folks inside of mantics, at the end of the day from a practical sense, it doesn't change our behavior any because we are mission focused. the work that we have are for

positions required by the government that are mission focused. we are going to do what we need to do anyway. it is not one way or the other going to change our behavior. >> i think we need to step back from all of this and see what is a meaningful way to impact this problem. there are meaningful ways that we can. i think that, the new gi bill is one way. i think if we can get our act together and fair out people in a special place to package up their benefits without giving them one iota of educational benefit. but those are the things that are going to make the difference and tackling this guard problem and focusing on the guard problem since that is what is driving the 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 an impact on that. if you would give us your information on guard hires. if there is anything that you all can add to the record about thing that is we should unwind about what the federal government is doing now. there is a big controversy about moving these programs into va and some of that is turf, some of it may be legitimate. there are those that think we should move the sba functions over to va. and you know 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 cra contractors are doing a good job of hiring veterans but that is impossible for us to know. by the way, sitit is a pleasurer me to complement contractors. most of the time i am doing the opposite of that. it is pleasant for me to do that. thank you for being here today. we will continue to focus on this problem and in a meaningful way to weapon the veterans get where they need to be and gainfully employed in a career where their leadership has a chance to shine. thank you all very much.