During the course of your opening statement, Secretary Martin, you said that while this was not your budget, you had come to love it. You have also emphasized what we already know about caps and the fact that to make changes in one direction will require corresponding changes in another direction.

Can you give me a brief overview of the philosophy of the budget you have grown to love? Has it taken almost all of the programs under your jurisdiction and either kept them level or given them an inflation-related increase; or, does it show any value judgments in having substantial increases in particular programs under your jurisdiction with corresponding cuts in others? And if so, what are the ones that are going up and why, and what are the ones going down, relatively speaking, and why?

Secretary MARTIN. It is-like most budgets—a combination of philosophy and reality that drives what the Department of Labor does. Unlike most other Departments of the Government, we have an extraordinary mission in enforcement. That is the reality, and that enforcement has to be firm and fair. Therefore, there are costs that go with it that must be maintained. That is the area of MSHA, OSHA, and equal opportunity. These costs are part of this budget, and I think you will see a consistent level of funding, a funding level that would mean we can get our jobs done. In a case like MSHA where more people will be coming on line because of decisions made 1 year ago or 2 years ago, we hope to be able to do the job better.

The budget has other substantial philosophical changes with appropriate resources to support them. What might be perceived as a small change, but one that is extraordinarily important, is a very big increase in the area of labor statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics within the Department of Labor is viewed, I think, objectively, as having not just some of the best statistical data in the world, but data easily understood, without pointing at other kinds of data available. You can actually understand it. That is why it is so widely used. This effort is part of a Presidential push-also certainly Dr. Norwood, Michael Boskin, and others, and I do not think it matters the political tenor of the administration-to improve the data-gathering and to move into other areas where we know we need data and just do not have it. So that people such as the Senate of the United States can make even better decisions because of the data base they will have. Therefore, you will see some differences in the budget request in that area.

We cut back TAA, but not cutting it back to imply, we do not care about those workers. It was really members of the Senate who pushed EDWAA forward, a whole new program with a strong philosophical base. In other words, you do not just give somebody fish. You give them the fishing line and show them some new streams. That is what EDWAA does. Of course there is some maintenance, but there is also training; there is change.

So the philosophy in the nonmandated and important programs that have to do with OSHA and MSHA, those kind of programs, the philosophical base in the job training and in helping people is of course there is going to be unemployment insurance. We are already seeing in programs that if it is just unemployment insurance it does not work as well as when there is job service review.

But I would say the budget also puts its emphasis on the belief in people, that if they are given the chance and they are given some training, they will want to work. That is the philosophy, a belief in the working people of America. If circumstances push them out of a job, to try and give them the chance to get another because we think they are that good. That is the driving force in that other half of the budget.

Senator GORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Gorton.

I just have a few other questions I wanted to cover with you, Madam Secretary.

Secretary MARTIN. Certainly.

Senator HARKIN. One being the ADA, and I appreciate your talking about that in your opening statement, and the timetable on your proposed rules of October of this year. I hope that that deadline is met.

Secretary MARTIN. You know you have my commitment to try. And once it has been said publicly it makes it pretty sure you are going to give it your all. If we do not meet that commitment, I suspect I am going to hear from the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Senator HARKIN. But I know of your deep feelings about this legislation also, so there is no problem there.

I did want to cover one thing, though, and that has to do with providing technical assistance under the Americans Disabilities Act. I had written you a letter. Where is my letter? Just a minute here. Anyway, I had written a letter-

Secretary MARTIN. I believe you. [Laughter.]

Senator HARKIN [continuing]. About using the Department of Labor to fulfill the technical assistance. I am sorry, this was a letter that I had written to the President. Sorry about that. Wait a minute. Oh, I am sorry, I am sorry. I am getting apples and oranges mixed up. I had written the letter, but I submitted a question to you on the confirmation hearing in writing.

Secretary MARTIN. And we answered it, sir, I think.

Senator HARKIN. Yes; and this had to do with the section 506(b) in providing technical assistance. It says, basically, the attorney general may obtain the assistance of other agencies in providing technical assistance. Then it says, it may include several agencies, including the Department of Commerce. It does not specifically mention the Department of Labor. But it does not say, limited to these agencies. It may include these others.

And I admit to you it may have been somewhat of an oversight on our part not to have included the Department of Labor. But the language itself, in the law, in section 506(b) does not limit the number of agencies. It just says, "may include." It just did not specifically mention Department of Labor.

In looking at this-and I will admit it may have been an oversight on our part-oh, yes. It states that such other agencies include the National Council on Disability, the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Commerce.

Quite frankly, your Department has a long history of providing this kind of technical assistance, and while we may not have specif

ically included you, you are not excluded. And I would hope that you would take a strong leadership position of going ahead and providing that kind of technical assistance which you have a long history of providing.

Your response to my question at the confirmation hearing, which was submitted in writing, basically just reiterated that it did not include the Department of Labor. And so what I am saying to you is that it is not exclusionary. I would hope that you would provide that kind of assistance, and, again, under 503 you have done that for a long time.

If we gave the Department money to provide technical assistance, could you come up with a workable plan in coordination with EEOC and Department of Justice to provide the technical assistance to the contractors that you have experience working with?

Secretary MARTIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Department will always obey the mandate of Congress. You know if we are told to do something, we will do it. We are working under some budget constraints. But you are absolutely right. We are not precluded and we will attempt to do everything we can. It is in the Nation's best interest to have such able people as those covered under the ADA in the work place, so we want it to work. There is no question about that.

Senator HARKIN. I appreciate that. Well, again, we can go back and try to amend the law and put in that little phrase, Department of Labor, but-

Secretary MARTIN. Well, it might be helpful. I am not familiar with what you have sent to the attorney general or to the President. But certainly, the attorney general, based on my conversations with him about some other areas where we wanted to have some mutual work, would be interested in hearing that. And I assure you there is no reason-there is no personal reason-why we would not want to help in any way we can within the usual constraints. The important thing is to make something go. It goes back to my statement, I believe, and I could see you nodding with it. This really is not a question of turf it is a question of getting the job done.

Senator HARKIN. In your letter to me, you stated that the Department of Justice, had not consulted with you.

Secretary MARTIN. Well they have not yet. So perhaps maybe we could make sure a notice is sent saying we are available in case you want to consult. Because, again, they would be following the law too.

Senator HARKIN. If you would do that I would sure appreciar a Secretary MARTIN. Í do not have a problem with that Done. We will send you a copy. Would you like a copy?

Senator HARKIN. Just send it over and say, look, we are not cluded, but we are not excluded we have a lot of experience in this area under 508 for 20-some years, and we would be glad to be.p and provide that kind of assistance. And I would like to wOTK WILL you perhaps and see what we might have to do to put it in.

Secretary MARTIN. I'll be glad to. But would you like a copy d that letter too?

Senator HARKIN. All right. Well I will give it to Senator Specer. and when he is on judinary samice ten he can go. La gra

One other thing. OK, shifting from that.
Secretary MARTIN. Yes.

FUNDING FOR OLDER AMERICANS PROGRAM

Senator HARKIN. The proposed cut in jobs for older Americans. Secretary MARTIN. Yes.

Senator HARKIN. There is a―your budget calls for $47.5 million reduction for the Senior Community Service Employment Program. Now, I know as a former Member of Congress you have worked with that in your district, I am sure, just like I have in mine in Iowa. And I can say without any hesitation that every place I have seen it work the elderly people who are involved in it love it.

It gives them a chance to work with people and get out of their homes. We have actually seen, I think, a cutback in things like food stamps or Medicaid, other types of assistance that they might get because they have this type of employment. Well, here is what happens. Now, $47.5 million reduction is a 12.2-percent cutback, translation to 7,844 fewer jobs for low-income older Americans. In Iowa this would mean the number of jobs would decline by 102, from 839 to 737. Anyway, that is what my data says.

Again, to repeat what I said earlier, this enables elderly persons, low-income elderly, to help themselves. They help others in the community. We have statistics showing that there has been a cutback in other public assistance costs and ask if you have any data on that, if you could provide some estimate. In other words, these are low-income elderly who otherwise might be on SSI, Medicaid, food stamps, other kinds of public assistance programs. But because they have this, they are not on those programs.

So I am wondering if by cutting back on this we might not be increasing outlays in other areas, in addition to losing the sort of social integration you get when the elderly are working. They feel better about themselves, they are out of the house, that kind of thing. So I am really concerned about this cutback.

Secretary MARTIN. Right. Again, just to put the numbers in perspective, we are asking for the same amount as we did in 1991. So then one can argue what is a cut and when is a cut not a cut. But for a moment, putting those arguments to the side, we do not have empirical data. We might have some anecdotal data, but we do not have specific data available on that. We have made the best judgments we can on this budget. There are many of these programs that those in them and those who work on them would tell you work well. But there are limitations within the budget constraints passed by the House and Senate. This is what we believe is the best combination. Now, your subcommittee and indeed the full committee will make your judgments too.

Senator HARKIN. Could you help us out? Would you have the ability or maybe some of the people sitting at the table with you would be able to answer this better-the ability to give us some estimate on how much public assistance costs might be increased from this cutback? Is there any way of compiling any data on that at all? You see what I am talking about?

Secretary MARTIN. I see what you are talking about. I do not know the answer.

Mr. KOMAREK. I think that would be very, very difficult to do in the short-run. I think that is the kind of project that would take a considerable length of time to do and some study, because of the complexity of the issue.

OLDER AMERICANS DATA

Senator HARKIN. In this program-now here is where I would like a little knowledge. In this program-when a person signs up and is paid under this program, are there any records kept at the local offices as to whether or not they were on some kind of assistance?

Mr. JONES. No, Senator, there is not.

Secretary MARTIN. Can you even ask?
Mr. JONES. No.

Secretary MARTIN. We might be even precluded from asking

that.

Mr. JONES. Some of those questions we cannot even ask, although I understand the basis of your question. By definition, they are lowincome, so one would assume there may be some connection, but we would have to go case by case to determine whether they in fact went back or were on food stamps or SSI or anything else. There is no direct connection.

Senator HARKIN. Yes; make sure we are talking about the same thing. You are right. The request this year is the same as your request last year. We upped it last year.

Secretary MARTIN. That is correct.

POSSIBLE FUNDING OFFSETS

Senator HARKIN. So it is a cutback from what we put into it last year. Let me ask you this. The staff informs me that there is $100 million unused summer youth employment funds carried over from 1991. Would you support using those funds to restore this cut?

Mr. JONES. That is the figure that was put into the budget and pointed to as a potential offset if it was needed for the $100 million unemployment insurance supplemental we asked for. In fact, if the committee, in its whole process, not just on UI, is looking for offsets, obviously that situation is there. To claim that money, you would have to rescind it from the system in order to bring it back into the budget count.

Senator HARKIN. Yes; we might want to-we might want to claim that.

Secretary MARTIN. Just a note of caution. It can only be claimed once. If we use it somewhere, it cannot be used somewhere else by the next subcommittee.

Senator HARKIN. I understand.

Secretary MARTIN. I try to keep my testimony constant. Otherwise, it makes it a little more difficult.

Senator HARKIN. A policy question.

Secretary MARTIN. Yes, sir.