Good afternoon.

Madam Chair, our oversight agenda has covered many subjects during the 111th Congress, but this may be the most important.  It is no secret that the recession has hit America hard and that unemployment rates have stood at record or near-record numbers including the rates for veterans.

The March 2010 data from BLS shows that about 50 thousand or about 25 percent of 18 to 24 year old veterans were unemployed.  At the same time, about 955 thousand or about 9.5 percent of veterans between 25 and 64 years old were unemployed.  While any unemployed veteran is worthy of our assistance, I see significant differences in these two age groups in terms of financial resources and financial obligations.

For example, while our younger veterans are likely eligible for either the Montgomery or Post-9/11 GI Bill and have fewer financial obligations, most of the older group has likely passed their delimiting dates for the GI Bill or only have access to the less generous Montgomery GI Bill or have used up their entitlement.  Older veterans are also more likely to have significant financial obligations such as mortgages and tuition payments.

So these differences raise the policy question of where to focus whatever scarce resources we may have.  Regardless of where we choose to place those resources, they must be efficiently and effectively applied.

During this recession, Congress has extended unemployment benefits at least twice.  And while softening the blow of losing one’s job is important, I believe that we should view this as an opportunity to reshape the workforce by retraining the unemployed in skills that will be in demand as the economy recovers.  And that should begin with our veterans.  It makes no sense to pay people to remain qualified only for jobs that may never reappear in the economy.  For example, it is no secret that the manufacturing sectors such as auto industry has contracted over the past couple decades.  Assembly jobs have moved out of the traditional manufacturing states to states with lower labor costs or moved overseas.  That means that if workers want to  remain in the industry where their skills are needed, they must be willing to relocate.  Madam Chair, that was the whole idea behind HR 1168 which I introduced and passed under your leadership.

So how do we fix the issue because without a massive reversal of the outflow of jobs, those who have worked in downsized industries must gain new and relevant skills to once again be fully and adequately employed.

Madam Chair, according to the Conference Board, an organization that tracks a variety of business-related data, national employment peaked in the summer of 2008 at about 138 million and online help wanted ads totaled about 4.9 million.  In February 2010, national employment totals about 130 million with help wanted ads running at about 4 million.  Clearly, there are jobs out there and our challenge is to provide veterans with the skills to fill them.  Here are the Board’s top ten in-demand occupations:

1. Healthcare practitioners and technical
2. Computer and mathematical science
3. Management
4. Sales and related
5. Office and administrative support
6. Business and financial operations
7. Architecture and engineering
8. Healthcare support
9. Transportation and material moving
10. Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media

We have all read the gross statistics and what we now need to know more about are the “why’s”, as in why are our younger veterans experiencing such high rates?  To that end, I look forward to hearing solutions from our witnesses on how to invest in our workforce.  Madam Chair, I yield back.