February 16, 2012
Thursday, February
16, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the political crisis continues,
another prep meeting for a national conference is scheduled for this
weekend, Tareq al-Hashemi turns out to have been right about the Baghdad
judiciary, US Senator Patty Murry gives an important speech about
veterans, veterans groups wonder where the budget money goes, and more.
Big news out of Iraq today and apparently it's so big that the press can't handle it. Doubt it? Here's Sinan Salaheddin and Lara Jakes (AP) reporting,
"An Iraqi judicial panel said Thursday the country's Sunni vice
president and his employees ran death squads that killed security
officials and Shiite pilgrims. The findings offer the first independent
assessment of accusations that have thrown the nation into political
chaos and threaten to re-ignite sectarian tensions." Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) misses it too.
Here's al-Salhy's opening, "A panel of Iraqi judges detailed Thursday
150 attacks they said were carried out by death squadsunder the command
of Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, in accusations likely to
reignite political conflict."
What follows is how the announcement could have been covered:
IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT PROVEN CORRECT
After many claims that he could not receive a fair trial, Tareq al-Hashemi's
assertions were backed up today by the Iraqi judiciary.
BAGHDAD
-- Today a nine-member Iraqi judiciary panel released results of an
investigation they conducted which found the Sunni Vice President of
Iraq was guilty of terrorism. Monday, December 19th, Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant for Vice President
Tareq al-Hashemi who had arrived in the KRG the previous day. Mr.
al-Hashemi refused to return to Baghdad insisting he would not receive a
fair trial. Instead, he was the guest of Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani.
During
the weeks since the arrest warrant was issued, Mr. al-Hashemi has
repeatedly attempted to get the trial moved to another venue stating
that Prime Minister al-Maliki controlled the Baghdad judiciary. Mr.
al-Maliki insisted that the vice president return and that he would get a
fair trial.
Today's events demonstrate that
Mr. al-Hashemi was correct and there is no chance of a fair trial in
Iraq. This was made clear by the judiciary's announcement today.
A
judiciary hears charges in a trial and determines guilt; however, what
the Baghdad judiciary did today was to declare Tareq al-Hashemi guilt of
the charges and to do so before a trial was held.
Not
only do the events offer a frightening glimpse at the realities of the
Iraqi legal system, they also back up the claims Mr. al-Hashemi has long
made.
Get it? You can't
be the judiciary and declare -- before a trial -- that someone is
guilty. Tareq al-Hashemi is absolutely correct. He has been proven to
be correct. Whether he was or was not guilty isn't an issue because
there's been no trial yet. But what is known is that the judiciary has
already issued a finding of guilt before a trial took place. There is
no reputable legal organization in the world that would support Nouri's
argument that al-Hashemi can have a fair trial in Baghdad. The court's
own actions have demonstrated that will not be the case.
The
Iraqi Constitution is very clear on this point -- and it's really past
time that Iraqi officials started following their Constitution.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The judiciary chose to
skip the trial and just declare him guilty. They violated their own
Constitution. They didn't hem and haw and treat it like an indictment
where they found cause to hold a hearing. No, they declared him guilty.
That is in violation of the Iraq Constitution. If they had a
functioning Parliament, Iraq should be moving to impeach everyone of
those nine judgesand remove them from the bench. Clearly, they do not
understand the Constitution that they are supposed to be interpreting.
Article
19th's fifth clause is very clear: "The accused is innocent until
proven guilty in a fair legal trial. The accused may not be tried on
the same crimefora second time after acquittal unless new evidence is
produced." The judiciary issued a finding today publicly declaring Tareq
al-Hashemi guilty. In doing so, they violated his right to a fair
legal trial and if they'll violate his legal rights -- a vice president
of Iraq -- they'll violate any Iraqis legal rights. Today the judiciary
of Iraq has given the Iraq legal system a black eye.
We're
being very remedial and highly redundant in an attempt to make clear
that what just took place demonstrates that Tareq al-Hashemi cannot have
a fair trial in Baghdad. There are other points that can be made -- Mike made some this afternoon
including that the judiciary releases their finding and provides no
evidence -- but in terms of the news value of these events, the news
value is that Tareq al-Hashemi's repeated assertions that he would not
receive a fair trial in Baghdad have been proven to be correct as
evidenced by the fact that, without a trial -- without even a defense,
nine members of the Baghdad judiciary have declared him guilty.
So
what's going on Iraq? How did a vice president (now in his second
term) end up charged with terrorism? Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's
[PDF format warning] " The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) offers a few clues. From the opening summary:
Within
days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in
Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President
Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime
Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political
crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocratic country
governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by
institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up
again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i tragets
reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.
But
there is more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous
political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of
2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped
functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous
powers comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the
central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon,
Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.
To
conservatives in the United States, particularly the architects of the
war and of the ensuing state-building exercise, the crisis into which
Iraq plunged after the U.S. withdrawal was final proof of the ineptitude
of the Obama administration in failing to secure an agreement with
Maliki that would have allowed a residual U.S. force to stay. But the
lesson is more sobering: Iraq demonstrates the resilience of domestic
political forces in the face of even an eight-year occupation, thus the
futility of nation-building and political engineering efforts conducted
from the outside. The U.S. occupation tried to superimpose on Iraq a
set of political rules that did not reflect either the dominant culture
or the power relations among political forces. And while cultures and
power relations are not immutable, they do not change on demand to
accomodate the goals of outsiders.
For the
second timethe 2003 U.S. intervention brought down Saddam Hussein and
his regime, Iraq is facing a real threat of political disintegration.
In 2007, the United States held the country together forcibly, but the
infusion of new troops could not secure a lasting agreement among
Iraqis. This time, the outcome depends on whether the political factions
that dominate Iraq and tear it apart find it in their interest to forge
a real compromise or conclude that they would benefit more from going
in separate directions.
Whether you
accept their conclusions or not, the observations should make you wonder
if the US is effectively using money in Iraq with the 'diplomatic'
brigade or if more US taxpayer money is being wasted?
Al Mada reports
State of Law MP Salman al-Musahwi states that the issue of Vice
President Tareq al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq
will be discussed but outside of the national conference in a side
meeting between State of Law and Iraqiya. Aswat al-Iraq notes,
"Iraqiya bloc MP Itab al-Douri stressed today that both cases of
vice-president Tariq al-Hashimi and deputy premier Saleh al-Mutlaq will
be within the discussions of next Sunday national conference preparatory
meeting." Al Sabbah reports
that the next prep meeting is supposed to take place Sunday and that
one of the goals is to resolve the written plans various blocs have put
forward. Kitabat notes that there's a climate of fear taking hold in Iraq as it appears that Nouri is building a dictatorship.
In other political news, Parliament is supposed to review the case of Sabir al-Issawi, Mayor of Baghdad, today. Al Sabaah reports they are supposed to consider whether or not to withdraw confidence in him. Kitabat explains
State of Law's Shiran Waeli has brought forward charges of financial
and administrative corruption. Parliamentary sources tell Kitabat that
Parliament is expected to vote in favor of keeping al-Issawi on as
mayor. On the potential targeting of politicians, Aswat al-Iraq notes,
"Legal expert Tariq Harb said today that lifting immunity against the
MP should be done with the majority of votes, pointing out the formation
of a committee to lift the immunity is illegal and intervention in the
judicial system." Lastly, CNN is reporting,
"A leader of an exiled Iranian opposition group said Thursday that
members living in a long-standing camp in Iraq are ready to begin moving
to a new temporary site, under a plan agreed to with the United
Nations."
Small protests took place in January and early
February of last year in Iraq. February 25th, however, marked the
national protests around the country with an emphasis on Baghdad's
Tahrir Square and Friday protests have followed since. The anniversary
is coming up. As plans are underway to observe that anniversary, Al Mada reports
that Zuhair Muhsin -- member of Parliament's Human Rights Commission --
is calling for peaceful events and for no one to distrupt the work of
the government. Muhsin states the hope that all Iraqis are aware of
their right to demonstrate in a peaceful manner. Iraq Detainees notes
that there will be a protest Friday, February 24th at 2:00 pm in front
of the Iraqi consulate in Frankfurt, Germany to note the firt year
anniversary of the February 25th protests. This will be a protest
against corruption and wrongful arrests, against stealing food from the
people, against the international intervention in Iraqi affairs, against
the puppet government, a protest to support human rights and the rights
of all Iraqis.
Violence continued today. Reuters notes
a Baghdad attack in which two police officers were left injured, a
Baquba raodside bombing which claimed the life of a shop owner (shop
sold mobile phones) and, dropping back to last night, 2 Ramadi roadside
bombings left six people injured.
In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the first panel of the Wednesday House Veteran s Affairs Committee hearing. Last night, Kat offered her thoughts on the first panel in " Like Corrine Brown's grandmother's sweet potato pie."
The hearing was about the 2013 budget and two panels appeared before
the Committee. The first panel was Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric
Shinseki (with the VA's Robert Petzel, Allison Hickey, Steve Muro, Roger
Baker and Todd Grams). Paralyzed Veterans of America's Carl Blake, VFW's Ramond Kelley, Disabled American Veterans' Jeff Hall, AMVETS Diane Zumatto and the American Legion's
Timothy Tetz. US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the Committee,
US House Rep Bob Filner is the Ranking Member. We'll emphasize some
remarks regarding budget concerns.
Carl
Blake: [. . .] What is more troubling to me is the discussion that I
believe you raised, Mr. Chairman, this excess of resources that
apparently they have identified to the tune of approximately $3 billion
in 2012, about $2 billion I think they say in 2013. It sort of begs the
question: How has the administration determined that they have $3
billion too much for 2012 when we have seven months of this fiscal year
still to finish? If they came back after the fact and said we have all
this extra money, that would be one thing. But in midstream, it is
certainly a concern for us. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't necessarily
be realized but it's certainly a concern. They identify health care
services, in particular, which is a big chunk of it, they identify
long-term care. I wonder, where are those savings for long-term care?
Does that mean that there are fewer veterans taking advantage of VA's
long-term health care programs? This given the fact that the veterans
population is actually aging? So we have some concerns about that. And
the fact that they don't even meet what they're mandated to meet as far
as their capacity requirement for long-term care. We also have
concerns about this roller coaster ride of medical care collection
estimates. I would note that two yars ago, the Fiscal Year 2012
collections estimate was $3.7 billion. Last year, when they submitted
the 2012 budget, it was revised to 3.1 billion. And I would note that
this year's budget's estimate now shows that there are 2.7 billion so
that's a one billion dollar change over the course of the last two years
and I understand there are factors that play into those changes but the
fact is that that difference in resources which they factor into their
ability to provide services has to have some sort of an impact on the
delivery of services in a timely fashion and quality services to
veterans. So I think those things need to be teased out. I go back to
the excess resources they have as important as I would consider that
issue, I think that there would be more than a couple of bulleted
points in a four-volume document explaining that. That might be the
most important fact that they outline in their entire budget cause that
certainly has an impact on everything going forward. So we certainly
hope that the Committee will pursue that and the VA will come forward
with more information about it. Lastly, I would direct my comments
towards the 2014 advance appropriation. While the -- while the
independent budget does not offer specific budget recommendations for
that for any number of reasons, a couple of things that jump out at me
about the 2014 recommendation, given our concerns about whether 2013 is
actually a sufficient budget put forward, it could arguably be a fairly
small increase for 2014. Additionally, they predict a very huge jump
in medical support and compliance over previous years' funding. I would
point out that I believe that's a part of the administrative arm of the
medical side of the VA so that would certainly give us pause. At the
same time, there's an even larger decrease projected for medical
facilities. While I know they project some transfer in resources and
staffing in facilities to medical services, I'd also note the budget
shows a substantial decrease in non-recurring maintenance in 2014, a
very substantial decrease.
This thread is picked up at the very end of the hearing.
US
House Rep Timothy Walz: The president's budget and the VA budget is a
suggestion. Constitutionally, we hold the purse strings. We hold the
final decision. So this is where democracy works its best and works its
will. And it's very important that we have this so I want to thank you
for that. Again, I would be the first to say members of Congress are
experts at gross generalization so I want to be very careful on what I
do on this. But I do concur and I think some of you brought up some
things I'm hearing personally and I go out and talk to people in the
field, I talk to those directors and I talk to the nurses and I talk to
the people that are cleaning the rooms to hear what's going on and one
of the things that I am hearing and this came from one of my areas, we
have a -- out in Minnesota, to just give one of them -- we have dental
equipment and the space needed ready to stand up three new dental
facilities -- our ability to deliver that care -- however, we haven't
hired anybody to do it, so it's boxed up and sitting there and that's
what's going. Does that surprise any of you? Maybe I'm just looking at
where you are at? If that's the case again where our intent was to fund
and put it out there. How are we making sure it happens? And I'm
wondering -- and I think Carl brought up a good point along with the
Chairman -- of how do we account? Is not standing those dental clinics
accounting for some of the money that's not spent, that's going back to
go elsewhere because I wanted the dental clinics, that's what I voted
for and that's what I wanted to see. So I'm just curious to get with
you on this. And I say that being very careful of a gross
generalization and being very careful of the dreaded disease around here
"Somebody Told Me And We Did It." It needs to be more accurate than
that. I'm hearing it from you somewhat echoed. If somebody can give me
just your feeling on that, is that kind of what's happening here? Are
we not given the ability to follow through on some of the things that
we're doing or intended to do?
Timothy
Tetz: Mr. Walz, the System Saving Task Force that the American Legion
stands up and sends around to facilities nationwide has made their
visits this year and they continue to do so. And it's not uncommon for
us to come across empty facilities like this or empty rooms or 'Hey,
when we have the right people we can have this tele-health center.' The
problem with tele-health -- and it's a great program and I agree with
Dr. Petzel on the future that it has tele-health requires somebody to be
there to open up the office on the one end, the rural end, and somebody
to be there, professional, on the other end to take it. If you don't
have those people, all the infrastructure in the world doesn't do
anything for veterans.
US
House Rep Timothy Walz: Yeah and I think it's, for me it's about
following through and I think, best laid plans and good intentions, I'm
pretty certain if those three dental services were up, they would be
full. We could keep them full if we had the dentists, the dental
hygenists, everything else that goes with it. So I'm concerned and that
brings me to my next question. Again, don't want to over-generalize but
this comes from a claims processor out there. They're being asked to
do 20 hours of overtime each month, pressures incredibly high, they lost
three mid-range folks, they just simply didn't want to do it anymore.
And that happens in every business -- again, I don't want to
over-generalize. But I heard you mention it. I'm hearing it and it's
kind of if: "If there's smoke, there's fire." Is this a problem you're
seeing? I think, Mr. Hall, you mentioned this in yours and I know this
directly from the person who came to me and, again, said it but with
the disclaimer on that, if you're hearing it too?
Jeff
Hall: We are hearing it, we're hearing it as an organization. I think
other members of the IB [Independent Budget -- the VFW, AMVETS, Disabled
American Veterans and Paralyzed Veterans of America], maybe. I
personally have heard it because I have friends who work for the VA in
various places and it was just basically said as mandatory overtime.
There is no choice. It's not --
US House Rep Timothy Walz: That's the way it's being described to me.
Jeff
Hall: So the mandatory, however they get the 20 hours -- two and a half
Saturdays, an hour extra a day, whatever it may be. The biggest
concern to those individuals and shared by us is not necessarily the
mandatory overtime, it's, to quote them, "Where are we getting the money
for this if we're cutting training? How are they requiring this for me
to come in on a Saturday to do this but we're cutting the training?
We're already disenchanted by the training that we 'don't receive'." So
--
US House
Rep Timothy Walz: I want to give them the flexibility if they need to do
overtime but I just don't think it's a good model to rely on. It always
makes me question
Jeff Hall: I think it's certainly sending the wrong message.
US House Rep Timothy Walz: It's unsustainable too.
There
was a budget hearing today -- veterans -- and I'd like to cover that in
tomorrow's snapshot. We have something else to include today. And to
try to squeeze that and the hearing in would mean giving very little
attention to the hearing. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. There are a number of veterans
issues that aren't being addressed in the national press -- either by
reporters or by columnists (including veterans writing columns).
(Regional and local press have been very good about covering these
issues.) So when Senator Murray speaks in public about those issues,
it's news and it's needs to be noted. One of the issues is employment
and when she's speaking to potential employers, what she says is
especially important and news worthy. We're noting the speech in full
and closing out with it.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Murray Press Office
Thursday, February 16, 2012
(202) 224-2834
Murray Delivers Keynote Address on Private-Public Partnerships to Help Hire Veterans
Murray tells business leaders and veterans "we stand at a cross roads" moment in hiring and transition efforts
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray delivered the following
speech on efforts to improve veterans employment through public-private
partnerships. Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee, delivered the remarks in front of a gathering of national
business leaders and veterans seeking employment. The event,
which was sponsored by GE and included members of the National Chamber
of Commerce, included a workshop for veterans seeking employment.
Senator Murray is the author and sponsor of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act which was signed into law last November and provides a comprehensive approach to improving veterans hiring.
Senator Murray's full remarks follow:
"Thank
you Jean for that kind introduction. I also want to thank GE for
putting this wonderful, and critically important, event together. And
for the tremendous commitment that they have reaffirmed today to hire
our nation's returning veterans.
"You know, this gathering today
of business leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, veterans in need of work,
and Congressional leaders could not come at a more pivotal moment for
our nation's veterans. As Secretary Shinseki no doubt discussed, we are
facing a tremendous influx of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan with
new and unique needs, and I want to commend him for putting out a budget
on Monday that reflects that reality.
"But while the needs are
often new with more women veterans, more complex medical devices and
technology, and more understanding of the invisible wounds of war. The
moment is not.
"Today, we stand at a cross roads our nation has stood at before.
"We
are at the end of a conflict that was bruising, but one that also
reaffirmed the courage and strength of our service members. We are at a
point where we as a nation have to come together to really examine what
every single one of us can, and has, been doing to aid those who were
asked to make the sacrifices.
"It's a moment that in the past we
as a nation have responded to well -- such as in the era that built the
greatest generation. And one where we as a nation have stumbled -- as in
the aftermath of Vietnam when far too many veterans slipped through
the cracks.
"But it's those moments that must our guide our work today.
"I
can certainly say that they guide my own work as Chairman of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee. And that's because those pivotal moments
played such an important role in my own life.
"As many of you may
know, my father was a World War II veteran who was one of the first to
storm the beaches of Okinawa. I can remember as a little kid the
reverence those in my little town of Bothell, Washington had for his
service.
"The way he was treated -- not just by neighbors and
community members -- but also by the federal government -- that provided
him with a GI bill. And that was there with worker training programs
for my mom many years later when he was diagnosed with Multiple
Sclerosis and could no longer work. And that helped him and his fellow
veterans prosper.
"But my experience with those returning from
war was much different decades later when as a college senior I
volunteered at the psychiatric ward of the Seattle VA at a time when
veterans were coming home with the invisible wounds of war which they
didn't yet call PTSD.
"I can remember the faces of the veterans,
many of whom were even younger than me, who were being told they were
shell shocked. I can also remember -- like many of you -- the lack of
answers during that period. The feeling that we were not a nation firmly
at the back of those who had served. The feeling that as a nation we
were quickly turning the page on that war -- and those who fought it.
"Those moments have taught us.
"And
one of the most important things they have taught us is how critically
important it is for us to partner with the common purpose of supporting
our veterans between the private and public sector. And nowhere is that
more true than in the effort to find our veterans good, stable
employment.
"Now I know that finding work today is a problem
our veterans face along with nearly 13 million other Americans....but
for our veterans many of the barriers to employment are unique. That's
because for those who have worn our nation's uniform -- and particularly
for those young veterans who have spent the last decade being shuttled
back and forth to war zones half a world away:
"The road home
isn't always smooth, the red tape is often long, and the transition from
the battlefield to the work place is never easy.
"Too often our
veterans are being left behind by their peers who didn't make the same
sacrifices -- who spent their early careers in internships or
apprenticeships. Too often our veterans don't
realize that their time in the military provided them with similar skills both tangible and
intangible
that give them tremendous value in the workplace. And too often they
are discouraged by a job market that is unfamiliar to them after their
service.
"But as all those here today who know the character
and experiences of our veterans understand, this shouldn't be the case.
Our veterans have the leadership ability, discipline, and technical
skills to not only find work, but to excel in the workforce of the 21st
century.
"But despite that being the case -- the statistics have
continued to paint a grim picture. According to the Department of
Labor, young veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 have an unemployment
rate that is over 20%. That is one in five of our nation's heroes who
can't find a job to support their family, don't have an income that
provides stability, and don't have work that provides them with the
self-esteem and pride that is so critical to their transition home.
"And so the question becomes: How could this be?
"How
could these young men and women who have performed so admirably, who
know how to lead and know how to get a job done be struggling so
mightily?
"Well over the last few years, that's the question
that I set out to answer in preparing my bill to overhaul veterans
employment efforts on the federal level. And it's a question that I knew
I had to get answered first-hand from those veterans struggling to find
work like the veterans with us today.
"So I spent a longtime
crisscrossing my home state, which as many of you know has a tremendous
number of young veterans -- and I visited worker retraining programs, VA
facilities, and more than a few veterans' halls. And in discussion
after discussion -- I heard from veterans about the roadblocks they
face.
"What I heard was heartbreaking and frustrating.
"I
heard from veterans who said they no longer write that they're a
veteran on their resume because of the stigma they believe employers
attach to the invisible wounds of war. I heard from medics who returned
home from treating battlefield wounds and couldn't get certifications
to be an EMT or to drive an ambulance. I spoke with veterans who said
that many employers had trouble understanding the vernacular they used
to describe their experiences in an interview or on a resume. I talked
to veterans who told me that the military spent incalculable hours
getting them the skills to do their job in the field, but little time
teaching them how to translate those skills into the workplace.
"The problems were sometimes complicated and sometimes simple. Most importantly though, they were preventable.
"But
strangely, when I relayed the concerns of my home state's unemployed
veterans to some back here in the other Washington for solutions, none
came.
"What did become clear is that for too long we have
invested billions of dollars in training our young men and women with
skills to protect our nation -- only to ignore them once they leave the
military. For too long, at the end of their career we patted our
veterans on the back for their service and then pushed them out into the
job market alone.
"So in May of last year, I introduced a
bipartisan veterans employment bill that takes the challenges I heard
and translates them into solutions to ease the transition from the
battlefield to the working world.
"For the very first time, my
bill required broad job skills training for every service member as they
leave the military as part of the military's Transition Assistance
Program. It allowed service members to begin the federal employment
process prior to separation in order to facilitate a truly seamless
transition from the military to jobs in government. And it required the
Department of Labor to take a hard look at what military skills and
training should be translatable into the civilian sector in order to
make it simpler for our veterans to get the licenses and certifications
they need.
"All of these are real, substantial steps to put our veterans to work.
"And
late this year they were combined with a tax credit for employers that
hire veterans and help to train older veterans for in-demand jobs in the
VOW to Hire Heroes Act. And I'm so pleased to note that late last year I
joined with Secretary Shinseki -- right next to President Obama when he
signed my bill into law.
"But while that bill is a critical
first step -- it should only be that: a first step. The next step is why
I'm here today -- to help continue or work of building partnerships
with you -- the business leaders who know our military community better
than anyone.
"Now, I do have to mention, you are already ahead of
the curve. The Chamber of Commerce, working with companies like GE on
the Hiring our Heroes initiative, has lead the way on veterans hiring.
But we all know that more can be done by businesses large and small
across the country.
"We can better utilize our workforce
training system to get veterans the skills they need to fill the jobs
that are open in their areas. We can build upon the relationships we
have across the country with community colleges and universities.
"But
in the here and now, we also need to spread the word on what all
businesses can do to help. So, as I do whenever I'm given the
opportunity to stand in front of so many big wigs that make the hiring
decisions, I need to make my pitch.
"And I don't want to just
encourage you to hire veterans -- because I know many of you are already
doing that -- I also want to pass along the things that are working to
sustain veterans hiring so that you can pass it along.
"First,
please help to get the word out to companies to educate their human
resources teams about the importance of hiring veterans and how skills
learned in the military translate to the work a company does. I can't
tell you how often I hear from veterans who tell me that the terms they
use in interviews and in resumes fail to get through to interviewers.
"Second,
please help companies provide job training and resources for
transitioning service members. This is something I've seen done at large
organizations like Amazon and Microsoft but also at smaller companies
in conjunction with local colleges. In fact, the most successful of
these programs capitalize on skills developed during military service
and on the job training.
"Third, let business leaders know how
important it is to publicize job openings with Veterans Service
Organizations and at local military bases to help connect veterans with
jobs;
"Fourth, develop an internal veterans group within your company to mentor recently discharged veterans,
"And
finally, if you can, please reach out to local community colleges and
universities to help develop a pipeline of the many, many veterans that
are using GI bill benefits to gain employment in your particular area.
"If
we can spread the message on just a few of these steps, I'm confident
that we will be able to continue to build on the success you all have
had in hiring veterans.
"But there's one other -- even more
important thing you can help get the word out on. And that's the often
difficult issue of the invisible wounds of war some potential employees
face.
"As I mentioned earlier, I have heard repeatedly from
veterans that they do not put their military service on resumes because
they fear it stigmatizes them. They fear that those who have not served
see them all as damaged, or unstable.
"We must understand what mental health challenges are, and what they are not.
"As
we seek to employ more veterans, we need future bosses and coworkers to
understand that issues like PTSD or depression are natural responses to
some of the most stressful events a person can experience. We need them
to understand that these illnesses do not afflict every veteran.
"And
most importantly, we need them to understand that for those who are
affected by these illnesses they can get help, they can get better, and
they can get back into their lives.
"I know GE is doing good work
in this area. But we need to let businesses know that if they have a
veteran who is facing some challenges, please, do the right thing and
encourage him or her get help and get back to their lives.
"They
need to know it is okay to reach out. Help them take advantage of the
excellent mental health care that I know Secretary Shinseki and VA are
capable of providing.
"The veteran will be better, and they will be an even stronger member of your team.
"You know, our veterans don't ask for a lot. Often times they come home and don't even acknowledge their own sacrifices.
"My own father never talked about his time fighting.
"In
fact, I never saw his Purple Heart, or knew that he had a wallet with
shrapnel in it, or a diary that detailed his time in combat until after
he had died and my family gathered to sort through his belongings.
"But our veterans shouldn't have to ask. We should know to provide for them.
"When
my father's generation came home from the war -- they came home to
opportunity. My father came home to a community that supported him. He
came home to college, then to a job. A job that gave him pride. A job
that helped him start a family. And one that ultimately led to me
starting my own.
"That's the legacy of opportunity we have to
live up to for today's veterans. And it's one that we can only deliver
on if we work together.
"You know, it's no secret that here in
Washington D.C. we are sharply divided on any number of economic and
political issues facing average Americans right now.
"But this
is one issue we are rarely divided on. It unites even the most unlikely
partners, even Speaker [of the House John] Boehner and I, because we
realize that:
"We have all made a promise to those who have
signed up to serve. And we all need to keep it because so much is on the
line. Because we are once again at that defining moment in how we treat
our veterans. And the truth is that we stand perilously close to
repeating some of the same mistakes of the past.
"But we don't
have to. There is a sea of good will in this country. Non-profits,
community leaders, and companies like GE who don't just talk about
helping -- who actually roll up their sleeves and do it.
"Let's
continue to take advantage of that support. Let's work together to
ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Let's make sure
that at this crossroads for our nation's veterans we come together as a
nation to help them down the path of opportunity.
"Thank you for inviting me to join you today. I look forward to continuing this work together will all of you."
|
