About the Chairman | About the Committee | Committee News | Committee Hearings | Committee Documents | Committee Legislation | VA Benefits | VA Health Care | Veterans' Links | Democrat's Home Page | Contact the Committee

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for allowing me to give testimony on the "21^st Century Veterans Employment

and Training Act, H.R. 4765". As with my earlier testimony on October 28, 1999, at which time you solicited comments on a draft similar to this proposed legislation, there are elements of this bill which I strongly support and others that raise questions in my mind as to their value and wisdom with regards to their operational necessity and/or soundness of approach.

As I was a member of the work group you established after the October 28 hearing, I will not revisit all of the objections I voiced to the committee staff during the past 8 months. Rather I will concentrate my efforts on issues raised by this Bill that I believe will have a direct negative effect on field operations of the Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) and the corresponding Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER) and Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) grants, which we in VETS administer.

Firstly, my review of H.R. 4765 indicates that your committee has decided that major changes to Title 38 were needed with regard to the creation and maintenance of VETS Federal field positions and VETS funded State LVER and DVOP positions. As you know, Title 38 has used a funding formula since the creation of these positions. The Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training (ASVET) must use this formula in assigning Federal and grant staff to states. It has been my understanding through the years that your predecessors in Congress decided to use these formulas in order to: (1) Have a national employment and delivery system for veterans based on their incidence in a given State’s population; (2) Ensure continuity in the delivery of these services regardless of changes in Federal or State Administrations; (3) Maintain a Federal/state partnership that was based on workload as determined by the number of veterans seeking services in each state and being served at a local delivery point.

H.R. 4765 removes these formulas and replaces them with an overall ASVET budget allocation, which in turn gives latitude to any new Administration with regards to the funding and assignment of personnel. I believe this is flawed for the following reasons: Without a funding formula established by Congress, funding of staff positions in States could very well be subject to change without any notice to veterans, and would not provide continuity of services. Secondly, the bill would jeopardize the concept on which the national employment and training delivery system for veterans is based--that veterans’ benefits are a national issue and not a state issue.

As an example, with the passage of Section 168 of the Workforce Investment Act, States most recently had an opportunity to apply for employment and training money specifically targeted to veterans. If successful in their application, states would receive approximately $850,000 to provide intensive service to veterans with a promise of a second year of funding if they performed up to standard. Mr. Chairman, New York State simply chose not to apply for the money. I believe it is this type of inaction that H.R. 4765 is in danger of supporting and that I further believe will result in inequitable treatment to veterans across the country.

My second issue is with your recommended change to Title 38 that would eliminate the requirement that VETS supervisory field staff have veteran status. The terminology you use in this bill i.e., "the secretary shall, to the extent practicable, appoint qualified veterans as supervisory personnel," I believe opens a door that neither needs to be opened nor should be opened. We are a small agency, Mr. Chairman, and have only a little over 100 field supervisory positions in the country. If we as a veterans’ advocacy agency cannot take steps that would ensure the hiring of qualified veterans in the few positions we have, how then can we argue strongly that other Federal agencies, employers, and grantees should take steps to hire veterans? As a reminder from some of our previous discussions, when I took over as Director in New York State in 1987, over 65% of the LVERs in New York were non-veterans. The only way we were able to change this mixture was for Congress to pass a law requiring veteran status for LVER positions.

My third and final issue, Mr. Chairman is the elimination of all job duties of LVER and DVOP grant staff, specifically the provision that these full-time staff must serve veterans only. The reason I believe the "veterans only" criteria is so important stems from my over 23 years of monitoring services provided by these grant staff in New York. To me it is simply a numbers issue, i.e., traditionally veterans represent around 13% of the intake in any given State Employment Security System, in New York this has meant through the years around 800,000 non-veterans registering for service and a little over 100,000 veterans. Currently in New York there are approximately 150 veterans grant staff to service these 100,000 veterans. That is a case load for each LVER and DVOP of over 600 veterans, and that is if the veterans only visit the office once (many have numerous visits). If with the passage of H.R. 4765 these staff members will also be allowed to service non-veterans, I simply do not know how veterans would receive the individualized service the great majority of those who visit our offices need.

Mr. Chairman, my years of reviewing veteran applicant files in the over 60 Job Service offices in New York State tell me that our registrants need our services. As I said in my October 28, 1999 testimony "I have concluded that for the majority of the veterans we register for service, the Job Service is not their first stop, it’s their LAST!"

Thank you once again Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to address you and your colleagues on such vital issues of importance to our veterans community. I remain available to answer any questions you may have.

Back to Witness List