but a lot of the complaints that he or she was voicing really come from just not understanding how the system works. that's because it's not a system that's used day in and day out. >> what would you suggest, if anything, maybe that -- part of the problem is part of the problem in this area is always want to help. sometimes all best intentions have ugly endings in government. to believeinning that this reporting requirement is a good example. all best intentions where we will try to keep track of contractors hiring veterans, but no one is doing due diligence to make that effort meaningful in any way. what could we do that would help this group find veterans in a way that is more efficient?

these are great folks and they kept working at it until the made it because they want to hire veterans. i am not sure of very many businesses -- that would have spent time and effort. what can we do to make this easier? i am surprised or website would not come up as one of the first if you went on to hire veterans -- >> -- >> is it clear on your website that all of the veterans are identified? >> yes. people put their veterans of that were not veterans and we take them up. some suggestions to help improve the system are to have ed inveterans represent workforce centers.

>> i speak that foreign language now. i can do the acronym dance with you. >> the military is full of acronyms. having more of them familiar with what goes on, i am outspoken. you have a lot of people in the dol who are keeping down a wonderful job. they do not take the initiative. i will give you a good example. we had a veteran down in georgia who needed a job. he had been sitting at the office for three days trying to get help to get a job. each day they would say, we have you in the system. welcome back. you are in our system. he could not care about being in the system. he wanted a job. if someone had not called us and we found out where he was living

and he did not have a car -- we search for his apartment and found a public supermarket, a target, and walmart all within walking distance. we called the managers of the stores and all three of them said, send him over. they interviewed him and made him a job offer. he took one of them at target because it paid more. we did all the inside of 20 minutes. why can you not have the $50,000 a year bureaucrat sitting on their butts to the same thing? there is no penalty or incentive to do it. i know that is not politically correct but that is the reality. we deal with that day in and day out in our office. but, having the better educated as to what the real resources are and the -- for their local

area and being able to direct somebody to where the good side is -- we put out legitimate job search is on the internet because there are some new ripoff sites, especially targeting veterans. that would be a big move forward if they would do that. >> i think we have to figure out a way to try to remove as much of this as possible from the federal government and put it in the state and local offices where -- they will be the ones that will have the best years to the ground. let me ask about the great record. you both told us that reporting requirements were not burdensome on your company. i am not sure that they are providing much value, but you did say they were not burdensome. let me ask you this about the national guard problem.

are the people you are hiring those weren't leaving active service as opposed to national guard? >> i know that we capture statistics and i can look through my files here and see what those numbers are. i was thinking about congressional mandate programs and one of the programs we love and know it has a high impact and it makes a difference has to do with those who are separating from the military. that is the tab program. they may call it something different but this is where you can really work with them and help them think through how to write a resùme name. i will look for our numbers and i may not be able to comment here but i do not think that the majority of them are national guard or reserves.

they are typically ones who are separating from the military. >> if he would get the numbers, that would be helpful. has in the same thing is true that the majority are those who are separated from active service? >> about 11% of our 30% of our higher self identified as having recently separated. it indicates that these individuals are coming directly from the military from active duty. i do not have the numbers for the reserve but we do capture them. i can provide that to you. >> i think it is important to get those numbers. i think the national guard situation is a crisis. i think it is something that we

are kind of sweeping under the rug and not paying close attention to. when i was elected prosecutor in kansas city, i remember looking at resonates and thinking the national guard was a really good thing. that was before it became an operational reserve. i think the testimony that was given here today demonstrates the problem. these companies are not hiring people just because they want to hire a veteran. they are hiring them because they need them for their this is operations and it -- you cannot blame them for not wanting to hire somebody and train them thinking they will be gone a few times over the six or seven years timeframe or even over a 10-year timeframe. i know we are drawing down in afghanistan and we have gone down in iraq.

i think we have permanently injured the ability of national guard to get employment in our country by the way we have made these changes. i do not think they were well thought out. we did not have enough boots and around force was not big enough but what i do not think they anticipated was there would be this problem. i think that is one reason we have had some of the problems with suicides and some of the other issues we are seeing in our military. what would you recommend we could do short of convincing our military leadership that they need to go back to the old way in terms of utilizing the guard in the reserve? what can we do to help? >> you really hit on the big crux of the matter. the national guard and reserves have been used in unprecedented fashion and the conflicts overseas. they have been used as an

operational reserve. the army has talked about their first generation model which envisions units activating at least once every five years. out of every five years, you can expect to be deployed out of the national guard or reserve. more often if you are switching units and you happen to catch the unit at the right or wrong time, depending on your opinion in the cycle. that will be a continued issue, particularly with smaller employers who can stand to absorber that lost less well. we have heard from our membership that they are not getting hired because they are in the guard or reserve and

employers -- is one of the questions they are often s. there are some bills in the house and the senate that are designed to strengthen protections and make that law a little bit tougher. really, -- >> those are protections put into the law that prohibits discrimination against members of the guard and reserve in connection with the military service. >> yes. having those employment rights and a little bit stronger is always a good thing. we think incentivizing employers is -- it is better to dangle the carrot and break up the stick. we believe less employers want to hire veterans. there are concerns of missing out on an employee who you

anticipate having. it is a tough question and we have been trying to work with employers to convince them of the value of a gourd or reserve member. but they may be gone for one year out of a five-year time frame but their skills as managers and leaders will be sharper and -- i deployed with a reserve unit to iraq. we had heavily mechanical people in the civilian world who, i would say, after the nine months of caring engines out and rebuilding them in sand in the rocky desert without any electricity or lifts, basically improvising all of this,-- that

made them much better and more efficient at their jobs once they return home. that is really a job of selling that to potential employers because the army and marine corps will not change that because of the operation of commitment we have and what they need to fulfil. >> let me turn to questions and then i have some, also. >> thank you very much. first, i appreciate you all being here and giving us some insight on what we need to do about employment for our veterans. my state has about 11% of the population of veterans per capita. we have a lot of needed and a lot of issues that come up. when i was mayor, esgr, we

always signed up because we wanted to make sure people were taken care of, no matter what they were. i have a couple of questions, one specific. to create an incentive for the businesses -- they know they will be gone for a certain amount of time. how long can you keep those kind of jobs open? is there a tax policy or an opportunity to create incentives to incentivize them to hire and keep that space open in creating flecks schedules? >> i will answer that. i have testified about this several times. tax incentives do not drive getting people higher.

employers love getting people off active duty but they would be more than willing to support members of the national guard and reserve if it were compensated for wind their employees taken away. if a man works for me and he gets called up, i want a stipend so that i can hire a contractor to do his job until he gets back. that is the cost of doing business. i cannot spend the tax credit. one of the big problems with a lot of tax credits is that once the department of labor ways on all the tracking requirements, i may be getting $9,600 back but it is costing the $1,100 to keep track of it. i am not going to make it up in volume. >> the better approach is if there is an opportunity to do a differential for the time frame deployed so you can keep the

work flow moving -- >> yes. you have a bigger problem. that this was written for when people are gone on an active two weeks. it was not designed for people who are gone for 18 months. it is an anachronism. what is happening now -- in iowa, they had 700 people that were unemployed. they did not lose their jobs when they work over in afghanistan. they lost their jobs before they left because it was announced. the employers realize that if i lay you off under the guidance of a recession, i am not subject to the law because you have orders in hand. if you say that we are going to

make this law effective the love you announce it, nobody will ever hire anyone in the national guard. you have a systemic problem. the way the guard and reserve our use. and you fix it, everything else will just be a band-aid. >> i agree in large part with what was said. but, one of the things that has to be considered is that less than 1% of the population has served in these conflicts. this is not a situation where you had the 11% and so everybody had a brother, cousin, husband or wife -- there was a relative or neighbor or someone who was close to you. everybody had sacrifice. there was rationing of sugar and gas stamps. my grandmother -- my grandfather

went away and all of his brothers and it is interesting to hear my grandmother talked about silk stockings and not being able to have them. that is something that is not a -- i have been in the marine corps for 14 years and that is something that doesn't enter my mind. i think employers have to understand that there is sacrifice associated with the war's that have been fought. what tax incentives or direct side pins -- if those are the best solutions and we can afford to do them, that would be great, but it is also a matter of -- >> it is a moral obligation. >> the reserve that i took over -- a lot of them lost their jobs

before we left. hard economic times. under this law, if the job disappears, you do not have to find another position. so, employers understand that this is part of the shared sacrifice. hopefully as afghanistan winds down, this becomes less of a problem. as senator mccaskill mentioned with the on president army force generation model i was talking about, it remains to be seen exactly what affect that will have in the future. we really feel that it is a moral obligation. it is a small percentage of the population that has been doing a lot of the fighting with multiple deployments -- >> let me hold you there because i have one quick question. it is a big question. in g january ao -- in january,gao reported

the training programs. i am coming more and more to the feeling that we need to consolidate them and put them all in the department of veterans. focus in that arena. give me a couple of quick thoughts. i just think there are so many people who are trying but understanding veterans -- we should share shifted all, streamline it. focus on what we should be doing and that is implying and retraining and having the veterans administration doing it to along with their benefits programs. thoughts? >> take your time. >> ok. >> there is legislation in the house that is currently working its way through. that is designed to take the

department of labor and veterans programs and transfer it to be the a. -- va. we subscribe to the same thinking that you left. veterans affairs is what a veteran things of when they wanted go somewhere for help. the fact that legislation is written to just basically make an address change is a good thing because it is not diminishing any of the functions of the veterans programs. >> if you are a veteran, it seems like you are coming in. you are trying to figure out whether you need more education or if you want to be in this job and if you need medical assistance with some of the issues i might add or may not have had. >> yes. there are employment outreach programs. having veterans move and become

a veterans affairs veterans and to the employment for veterans at va makes sense because it removes the duplicative effort that is over at va. i talked about this with the numbers and the outreach for veterans and all businesses. we feel that dol should be a conduit. they should go to the veterans are -- sba. that is the same thing we feel with dol. >> were you about to say something? >> -- >> i appreciate it. let me and there. you answered my second question on the small business. i think the same thing here want to make sure to streamline it. they're good efforts being done in trying to move entrepreneurship.

the tap has a lot of work to be done. the mind of this soldier going into and having to take that program and figure out how -- they are not focused on that. they're focused on not doing x, y, z. entrepreneur ofs seems like a huge opportunity for veterans. i just met some small companies in alaska comprised of all veterans. they do great work. small manufacturing business but very precise. they took their skill and turned into a business that' struggle but enough of them get together so they have some capital. it seems like that is an incredible track for veterans. if someone comes from the small- business world, this is a huge opportunity. >> i would like to add that i

have submitted 11 different ideas on how to help the national guard and reserve and one of them was for the government to put up a pool of money where they can draw no interest or low interest so they can buy a franchise. there are a lot of it vintages to that because veterans tend to hire other veterans. if they are in the guard, you cannot follow it yourself. while they're gone, their families can be running at full they are deployed. when they come back, there is no employment problem. no loss of income. it will only help 10% of them. there are a lot of things to help the others but entrepreneurship -- some of the

best entrepreneurs are veterans because they have leadership qualities and they can understand risk. if i made a mistake out there that cost some money life, i have to make a decision very quickly. entrepreneurship is a big part. there is no silver bullet. everybody is looking for the one syllable bullet. the problem is multi-faceted. none of these things are cheap. >> thank you for the chance to ask questions and thank you for doing what you are doing. you are right on the franchise peace. i have seen good reports and franchisers -- they look for veterans because of what you just said. they know that is like a

mission. they are on it. they figured out how to move through. the issue is capital. it is always because of capital. it is a thousand dollar issue. >> the international franchise corporation funds that. some others are getting involved. we think that is a good solution, but it is a piece. it is a piece to the puzzle. >> thank you. >> maybe we could do with the bureaucracy around this issue and take the savings and put it into a fund for low-interest loans. >> we could take that savings -- >> more than just the department of labour. something touching veterans in almost every agency of government. all for the right reason because people want to help veterans. we have -- this hearing has

shown that we have exposed this report. you guys are doing a great job and you do not have your data. the data from the department of labor show that one company hired 400% veterans more than they employed. clearly, the data is like a joke. a joke. a bad joke. the certification -- if this was something that was scandalous that the sba dealt with where someone was claiming to be a veteran and was not an even worse, in the example that brought this to life, they were claiming a service disabled veteran and they were not even a veteran. first, how can we certify that

rents for advantages that we try to put into law for them in a way that does not hinder the entrepreneurship of them and what about fronting? how many veterans are being hired to front for companies to get the benefits that are associated with a veteran-loan business? in your experience, have you seen that? if so, do you think the government even scratches the surface of getting the funding? >> i can tell you that i have heard of fronting. we have not heard anything anecdotally. i have talked to folks at sba and dol on those issues. the process that the virginia goes through to certify -- va goes through to certify veteran

contractors -- the intent was to eliminate some of those issues and abuses. but, it has made it very difficult for a veteran-owned companies, whether they are small not, to get into the system. you are talking about some of the bureaucracy. there is vetbiz.gov and others. there are multiple touch points and that makes it difficult for veterans to understand where they need to go and what they need to do. i have heard several veterans who heckled gone through the va's process and think they can do business with the federal government only to figure out they did not have to go through that process.

we certainly have heard through the media and news about instances like s.p.a. and veterans fronting for companies complaining -- claiming to be sdbo's that aren't. sba talking to the folks over there said that historically, e rate is very low. we think the self-certification that is used by sba is probably the way to go. maybe at some small barriers. you have to produce a certificate of incorporation that shows a veteran. something that is a little bit more than self-certifying. what would that be and how best that would be done, i cannot say off the top of my head but i think adding some small hurdles while still allowing the small

business to have a low barrier to entry into business is probably the way to go and i think he would we doubt most of the fronting. at that point, taking somebody to the woodshed judicially speaking is probably the way to end that. i wonder -- >> i wonder if we are doing the oversight necessary to find a fronting. this hearing has taught me that we are not really paying attention. we are passing laws but we are not paying attention. that is why we will try to stay on this from a contract in standpoint and try to continue to pay attention to see if we cannot i will bet you it is going on out there but it has not been uncovered. i am fascinated by your

organization. it is win-win. i assume that all this is being done with by charitable organizations. are there any government funds involved? >> nel. -- no. >> what is the amount of stipend? if somebody is on a fellowship with your organization, can you do a year and how big is your organization's budget because this is a great example of where the private sector -- not-for- profit sector does better than government in trying to assist veterans and the community at large as it relates to the various organizations that you get fellowships in. how does this work? are there various organizations providing the money or you provide the money for this item? >> our lives planning figure

for a fellowship is $10,000 for a fellowship. that fund six months of living stipends for the fellows so that he or she can work in a volunteer capacity within whatever organization. all of that money comes from private dollars. either corporations or individuals who have seen the value of placing veterans with in these non-profit and community service organizations. the living stipend, we pay them so they can serve as a volunteer capacity. there represents $7,000 of that $10,000. we have pegged it on something that is out there. it varies by location and the cost of living in that location. the intent is so they can serve in the volunteer capacity, reconnecting to emission, while

they are also working towards a long-term outcome for the veteran, whether that is full time employment with the organization in which they are serving more when they have targeted as a place they would like to serve or they segue into continued education or placing them in that ongoing roll of service in their community. >> are you a united way agency? >> and ulder. >> how many veterans are you serving? >> this year, we have targeted somewhere between four and 500 fellows. most recently, we have organized these fellows into classis, so we have brought 114 feliz together in san diego and started them as a class and then after the orientation -- >> how do you find these veterans or how they find you? let us see the most prolific

source of recruitment for us is 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? >> yes. >> it seems like this might be a good fit for the national guard because if you are talking about six months, someone who has been deployed and has come back and is serving in the national guard, maybe this model is something we could try to promote in the private sector to actually focus on the national guard population because it seems to me that the flexibility is that not for profit represents in terms of not being as worried about future deployment upsetting the entire business model of a not-for- profit makes a lot more sense than maybe some of the other kinds of work debt a guard or reservists could look for. >> i can tell you that the

organizations in which our fellow served deeply respect what they have brought to the organizations in terms of the skill sets and the experiences and plus, they are getting a volunteer who is bringing all of the skill sets and experiences to the table. they keep coming back to us. we have placed more than one fellow at habitat for humanity and i believe that is due to the impact that these veterans are having on those organizations. >> add that they really get a sword is a sent a shot in the arm in terms of morale and passion and focus. -- i think they really give those organizations a shot in the arm in terms of moral and passion and that this. focus. >> i am ready. welcome. a very nice to see you. we welcome each of our witnesses.

thank you. here we are. i want to express my gratitude. we have a situation -- i may fall veteran. the idea of being able to pursue a degree or a secondary program while on active duty, that is great. that is a great model. that is the nature of the work you do in the military. it unfortunately, -- these people are doing a great job of screening people and repairing these people.

they are being prepared for jobs to be productive citizens and pay off their loans or debts. not everybody is that fortunate. we have been working on legislation. let us go back and actually revisit the way the law used to be. used to be if 15% of the revenues of proprietary squirrel had to come from the federal government. 85% could come from the federal government. that was changed to 90% could come from the federal government. 10% had to cover mother -- come from other places. 100% of our institutions income

can come from the federal government. we're trying to address these issues and go back to a 90-10 rule. i wanted to just ask q-- employers are not sent to the veterans. even those who completed the college degree using gm benefits. why is that? could there be correlations between the quality of the post secondary training that folks are getting? and whether or not it is doing very much in terms of job preparation? >> i will start by saying that

if we did not have the national guard problem, we would not be sitting here talking about better in unemployment today. -- veteran unimplemented day. the bulk of the veterans are getting employed. or they go back to school and then began employment. when they are separated, employers do not get a hold of them. if we are talking about 20 years ago, it was the over 50 veterans that could not get a job. deale well that one of the best programs, put into the workforce center's computer training programs. the unemployment rate changed. it they have the skills so they just -- they just did not know how to use a computer. today's environment, you are illiterate if you cannot use a computer. the real unemployment problem --

7.7% right now. young veterans in the national guard run into problems. to your question, employers want to hire them. we have 6000 companies who use veterans. i can only think of one i ever dealt with -- >> out of how many? >> over 5000. the government contractors for the most part, when there are problems in companies because seven individual making stupid judgments, it is not corporate policy.

overall, they do want to hire them. we have to fix the systemic problem. if you fix the problem -- change the policy. in 2006, the unemployment rate was only about 10%. in 2008, it was 23%. employers said wait a minute, i'm not willing to keep them if they are leaving. most of the members of the national guard are 18 to 29. get rid of the problem and you of money a hearing like this today. >> any other comments? i am looking for a correlation between folks using the gi bill and tuition assistance and not preparing for a real job.

>> the g.i. bill is working. they go in and get people in schools. they're preparing them. a lot of great companies are bringing people in and training them. >> in thinking about any stones left unturned, certainly your as network does anybody. it is part of our culture and our current -- there is one thing that i heard universally from people within side of this organization. i am no expert on this but

something for all of us to consider is, is there a way for veterans who are leveraging the gi bill and try to improve their skills said so they become more employable, something we see is veterans who are leveraging that gi bill and are in the process of getting more training and they lose their security clearance. for an employer like ours serving the intelligence community, that ability to have a security clearance is a very necessary component. that part of the market is still a good market. it has competitive pay. anything that can be done to help preserve that clearance, may be putting it in a different mode versus just canceling it all right, i think could be a real great move. >> thank you. >> thank you for your leadership

on this with trying to change the 90-10 rule. we think we have plenty of examples and there are statistics to back up the idea that in trying to take advantage of the best career-ready training program that is out there, the gi bill, especially the post-9/11 gi bill that can be used for professional degrees in trades and everything else -- >> transferable? >> yes. i remember children and spouses. awesome program. there was a big differential

between the post-world war ii gi bill and the gi bill for the vietnam veterans. the post-9/11 gi bill restore parity on the level of the post- world war ii gi bill and can be a game changer. a lot of institutions sprang up to take a vintage of that and take advantage of some of the loopholes. from our membership, we have found that has been an issue for them with not completing degrees because they have exhausted the gi bill on really expensive degrees that were not going to prepare them for the jobs they were taking. criminal-justice technology, for instance. i had a small business before i got a ploy. -- deployed. i was reviewing some of the online university's courses in construction management technology and i could not

figure out how that would apply to any of my subcontractors that i use for me as a project manager for fortune 500 construction company. if you go to school and then you go out and look for the job or start a business as a small contractor in construction, those sorts of things -- that will not impress -- [inaudible] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] october >> when you step out of

the bill, you are no longer clear. unheard you have six months to get back into a job otherwise, you to start all over again with a brand new special background investigation. that is why i make jokes that when one government contract were hire someone, they have to create a vacancy someplace else. when they try to get back to work, they have to start over again. the solution is to keep -- created bill -- is the bill leaves me at a security clearance, i go to apply for a job and irt have my degree into place because i would be switching to that bill to work for that company. a lot of the unions went to

fight that because then you cannot do the background checks and everything else. there are the same problems with the certifications of veterans. we have talked for years about if a guy drives a truck in the military, he should be able to get a license in the civilian world. people say no, no, no. we're not going to have him compete with us. that would be a simple way to fix the problem. >> we passed that? >> we did. there is a program that is called helmets to hard hats that the units organized -- unions organized because the workers may need to be replaced quickly. one group against -- the legislation opened up the doors. i know that program has been

somewhat successful. when i walked out of here, i talked with the labor union about what they are doing. >> the program reduced people into the union. that is great. let us not stand in the way. if you are an electrician in the army and you come out and you have been in the army 25 years, you are not going to detroit and start as a general electrician. that is what the union wants to -- you to do. you're going to go to a right to work state and not started $8 an hour. that is a brute reality. >> do you want to say something? >> yes. where do you think the vehicle service of the reintegration strategy is going? we are finding that is leading to employment and continued education. currently, we are not receiving

any federal funding to do that. i believe that the gi bill represents an opportunity to expand what we allow veterans to focus funding on. into choose the training programs are the education program that they want to use as a vehicle to further implement. that vehicle service funding one year in service might just be possible within the gi bill itself. >> ok. thanks. thank you for holding this hearing. captain, nice to see you. >> my last question was about the act that was passed. i know one potential might be -- the goal of it is to start making sure that if you are an electrician in the military, you can make that transition into the private sector without having to retrain, recertified,

-- that legislation was pretty significant. maybe it is a question we need to ask, how that helps. that is one of the biggest complaints. we see people -- if you are a truck driver in afghanistan, you can be a truck driver anywhere. that is the way i look at that. if they need to get legislation passed -- they need to get legislation passed. >> let me finish up with this vet 100 form. do the two businesses represented, do you feel like going through the requirement of filling out the form has been beneficial to your company, even though the department of labour is not paying any attention to it? >> we aggregate so much

information because we are publicly traded. any information that we collect or report comes up to management attention. i do not think we have ever looked at the vet 100 a as a management tool or resources to that end. typically because we are a publicly traded company. there are reports we have to .ile relative to compliance cu i am not sure we have ever step back from that and thought about it in that sense. >> i am wondering if making these public would help. if the data was publicly available, would you notice they did not have your data? >> we think providing public access to all of the data would encourage other companies to step up their practices and

provide contractors with more information about the government to detect internal use of the data and that will be two news solutions. we think transparency is the right approach. >> i think one of the reasons 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 to be publicly posted, perhaps the agency would feel -- 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. and they are not checking this data. validating the data. sharing the data. it is just a check that someone is making in a box somewhere in taking energy from companies that are doing in. if you are not doing what you are supposed to be doing, i do

not think anybody would ever know it. the the weight is being operated now. perhaps the way we do it is 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 tried to say, let us -- unwinding legislation put in place because people were trying to help a real problem is hard. look at sarbanes oxley. it has become ingrained in our business world. i am not sure it has accomplished what we wanted it to other than providing full employment for a whole lot of lawyers and accountants. i realize some of the questions might come from reporting. when i talk to people inside who are more closely tied to compliance reporting, at the end of the day, from a practical

sense of being an employer and doing the work that we do, it does not change our behavior. we are so mission-focused. he worked the we have -- the work that we have is for missions that are very mission- focused. we will do what we do it anyways. one way or the other, it is not wanted change. >> i think it is time that we step back and see what does it mean for the government to impact the problem? there are meaningful ways we can. the new gi bill is one way we can get our act together and figure out that he will have a special place -- the people that will have a special place. organizations and web sites,

those are the things that will make a difference. and cackling the guard problem. focusing on the guard problem. that is what is driving these unemployment numbers. those that wanted to the right thing because it is important to their company will do it. those that do not will not. i am not sure turning in a report to the government will have one bit of impact on that. we will go forward from here. if you would get us your information on guard reserve hires. that would be instructive to us. if there is anything you can add to the record about things that we should unwind, that the federal government is doing now, programs that should be consolidated. there is a big controversy about moving all of these programs. some of that is turf. some of that is legitimate.

there are those who think we should move the fca functions around the veterans' programs. the jury is out on that. 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. unfortunately, the government's incompetence made that impossible for us to know. we have two good examples of companies that are doing the right thing. by the way, a pleasure for me to complement contractors. most of the time, i am not doing that. most of the time, i am doing the opposite. it is pleasant for me to compliment you on the work that you're doing. thank you all for being here today and we will continue to focus on this problem in a meaningful way that does not cause businesses to much of a had a and helps veterans get

where they need to be, gainfully employed where their leadership has a chance to shine. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next, your calls and comments on the "washington journal." then, senators discussed the

status of the farm bill. after that, cbo director talks about the long-term outlook for the economy. >> they often referred to as the conscious of the congress. i cannot think of a better name. it is the heart beat of the people. >> executive director of the congressional black caucus r, blackye, on the role of today -- angela rye, on the role of the congressional black caucus. we can come together where they can find commonality. we can find legislative solutions to advance the cause of people that do not have a voice. >> more with her tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> this