Question. Your budget for the Employment and Training Administration indicates that there will be 236,000 fewer participants enrolled in fiscal 1992 than are currently being served in fiscal 1991. This represents a 14 percent reduction in enrollees below the current level. Why are you cutting back on job training at a time when unemployment is rising?

Answer. We are not cutting back on job training. In fact, we are emphasizing more intensive, better quality training for JTPA participants which will enhance their future success in the labor market. The basic change is to provide for year-round support for participants who have traditionally only received program support during the summer. The decrease in the number of

new participants is due to the projected higher cost per participant due to the increased services that will be provided and the longer program stay predicted.

Question. If the Federal government de-emphasizes job

training, how can we expect the private sector to do more?

Answer. We are not de-emphasizing job training. We are doing just the opposite by providing individualized, intensive and comprehensive services to the at-risk adults and youth.

CONTINUATION OF NATIONAL DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS NETWORK

Question. The National Displaced Homemakers Network has provided intensive training and technical assistance to local programs in ten states each year for the past two years. The Network also provides assistance to numerous state and local agencies, policymakers, employment and training providers and individual women seeking the services in local programs. How will

these efforts be continued?

Answer. Since we have not received our FY 1992 budget, we are unable, at this time, to determine what flexibility we will have to continue to fund the National Displaced Homemakers Network. Specific funding for this project is not included in the 1992 request. However, displaced homemakers may be eligible for services under the Job Training and Partnership Act and may receive job search assistance from the employment service.

ELEVATING THE ROLE OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT

Question. The importance of women in the labor force now and in the years to come has been clearly documented in research about the future of the American workforce. To assure a workplace where women are productive contributors requires attention at the highest levels of government policy. To accomplish this goal the Women's Bureau should be elevated within the Department on a level with other agencies and assistant secretaries. What action will you take to assure that the Bureau the only federal agency with responsibility for addressing the needs of women workers -- is elevated within the Department?

-

Answer. Because of the Bureau's Congressional mandate to promote the welfare of wage earning women and its being the only Federal agency with such a mandate, its responsibilities extend across the spectrum of concerns of Department of Labor (DOL) and, in addition, require cooperation and coordination with other government agencies. Its international activities are increasing

as well.

More importantly, women's role in the labor force continues to increase and change. The Bureau has taken a leadership role with the private sector to promote family oriented employment policies, i.e., child care, elder care, flexible hours, leave, and benefit plans. While the recognition of the benefits of such policies comes from the Bureau's knowledge of women workers, policy changes benefit men with families as well. As the Bureau expands its role not only within the Department but throughout the public and private sector and internationally, not only women and women's organizations, but also employers and employee groups look more and more to the Bureau for leadership and assistance.

While I agree that we may want to explore whether the Women's Bureau should be elevated within the Department to a level with other agencies which are directed by Assistant Secretaries, I don't believe the office's position is any less important because the position is not an Assistant Secretary slot. The Director of the Women's Bureau functions as an assistant secretary, participating in Departmental meetings, activities, etc. at the same level of the Assistant Secretaries.

FEWER JOB TRAINING ENROLLEES

Question. According to GAO, only 20 percent of job training enrollees are in "higher skill" occupational training, such as electronic technician, auto mechanic, and computer programmer.

Should job training resources be redirected toward high skill

training, and away from lower skill jobs such as custodians and food service workers?

Answer. Our policy approach in our legislative proposal emphasizes the need to serve those with significant barriers to employment and skills deficiencies, and to provide participants with the services and training which will give them the opportunity for long term labor market advancement. This suggests that we will need to do both more remedial training in basic skills and more occupational training with advancement opportunity.

Question. Is a greater emphasis on higher-skill training consistent with targeting resources on the most disadvantaged clientele?

Answer. As noted in the previous question, we will need to undertake more basic skills and remedial training, but our objective is to provide more access to higher skills occupational training when possible.

FISCAL YEAR 1992 SHORTFALL IN UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICES

Question. According to the State Unemployment

administrators, your fiscal 1992 budget is $357 million below what is needed to process mandatory benefit claims. Do you have a revised estimate of the unemployment insurance claims load?

Answer. The Department has not revised its estimated total UI claims workload for FY 1992. I believe that the figure quoted by the State UI administrators refers to an enhanced funding level for the same projected workload. We are not familiar with how they arrived at the $357 million estimate.

Question. What additional dollars do the States need to address this increased workload?

Answer. The President's FY 1992 budget request for UI administration is $178.4 million above the proposed FY 1991 level. Based on the Administration's current economic assumptions for FY 1992, we believe it includes sufficient funds to meet all the projected workloads and increased costs due to general inflation. However, if the unemployment forecasts for FY 1992 change, this could impact on the level of funds needed.

UNEMPLOYMENT LINES

Question. How are the States coping with longer lines and inadequate staffing?

Answer. Several of the States are able to handle the increased workloads only through the staff working overtime, including Saturdays, and by extending office hours. States have curtailed "up front" integrity-related activities in order to meet workload demands and issue prompt payment of benefits. On-site mass claimstaking is being performed at union halls and job sites.

Question. Are there any innovative approaches to dealing

with diminishing resources, or are States processing claims the same old way?

States

Answer. States continue to automate manual systems. have increased utilization of optical character recognition in order to speed up processing time. Voice response technology is being adapted to respond to inquiries from the claimants and employers. Lap-top computers are being utilized for itinerant claimstaking. On-line terminal usage has increased at the initial claimstaking stage.

PLAN TO CANCEL NEW JOB CORPS CENTERS

Question. Madam Secretary, I realize this decision was probably made before you came to the Labor Department, but let me ask you about the Administration's decision to seek cancellation of four new Job Corps centers. Congress appropriated money for six new centers back in fiscal 1989 more than two years ago. While you still plan to open two new centers in 1991, you have asked Congress to take $20 million set aside for the remaining centers and use it for repairs of existing facilities.

Now I'm all for rehabilitation and repair, but why should we finance maintenance work by killing an expansion plan that we've committed ourselves to?

In

Answer. Reflecting the declining federal deficit envisioned in the recent budget agreement, our proposal addresses the need to limit the growth of federal expenditures in future years. The Administration believes that available resources should be used to improve the quality of training at existing Job Corps centers. Upon activation in 1993, the four centers in question would add nearly $20 million per year to Job Corps operating expenses. addition to deleting these expenditures from future federal budgets, our proposal also includes a recoupment of $20 million in capital funds that can be redirected to existing facilities. Our proposed redirection of capital funds will further result in a direct dollar for dollar reduction in the budget authority that we would otherwise have requested for 1992.

Question. Don't you think our country can effectively use an expansion of Job Corps centers?

Answer. We do not agree that the Job Corps should be expanded beyond the opening of the two new centers reflected in our 1992 budget request. Current budget constraints imposed by the deficit reduction agreements preclude major spending increases.

Question. As military facilities are deactivated, why couldn't they be turned into Job Corps centers?

Answer. For the reasons I just mentioned, we do not agree that additional new Job Corps centers should be opened on deactivated military sites or anywhere else. I would also like to mention that moving a Job Corps center onto a deactivated military facility is not a turnkey operation. We have had experience with these situations, and the needed renovations and facility

modifications are usually very involved and very costly.

EXCESS SUMMER YOUTH FUNDS

Question. The President's budget indicates $100 million of FY 1990 Summer Youth funds were never utilized, and could be rescinded. Why were these funds never used?

Answer. The unspent balance at the end of the 1990 summer program is not unusual. Comparable amounts have been carried over from previous years and spent during the succeeding summers. The proposed rescission was offered as an offset for the $100 million supplemental requested for the Unemployment Insurance program, if one were required. If one were not, the rescission would not be recommended.

The Department examined a number of alternatives which could provide outlay savings of $100 million. A reduction in the summer program was considered the least disruptive of the choices available. Rather than proportionately reduce summer program funding for all States and service delivery areas, the decision was made to propose that allocations be reduced by whatever amount remained unspent last year. This would protect those areas which traditionally had high expenditure rates while penalizing those areas where balances were carried over from one year to another.

The rescission would have minimal impact on planning and start-up activities. However, because total resource availability would be reduced, fewer participants could be enrolled.

Question. Would rescinding these funds in any way adversely affect planning and start-up activities for this year's summer youth program?

Answer. Possibly. The funds may be used for planning and start-up activities before the summer begins. Each year, funds for the summer program are released in April. In response to requests that the funds be made available earlier for planning and start-up purposes, the Department has indicated that unexpended funds from the previous summer may be used for such purposes. The Department has no firm data as to the amount of funds needed for such activities during non-summer months, as contrasted to administrative activities during operation of the program during the summer. There is an overall 15 percent cost limitation on administrative activities, so that, overall, no more than approximately $120 million could be expended for administrative purposes during both summer and non-summer months for the 1991 summer youth program.

Question. If these funds are not rescinded couldn't they be used to augment this summer's youth jobs program?

Answer. Yes, and in prior years unexpended funds from one program period have been carried forward and used to augment the program in subsequent program periods.