Answer. OSHA does not separately identify resources devoted to enforcement of specific OSHA standards. Instead, the agency will continue to respond to all referrals and complaints of alleged violations of the lead standard. Plammed inspections are based on the previous history of serious OSHA violations. Generally, these are not specifically targeted to address any one specific standard. Consequently, programmed inspections concerning violations of the lead standard are expected to continue at about the same level.

In addition, two regions are planning special enforcement programs focused on violations of the lead standard. OSHA's New York region is working with the New Jersey Department of Health to create a referral system whereby physicians and blood lab workers will notify OSHA of cases of elevated blood lead levels. OSHA is anticipating approximately 48 referrals as a result of this agreement in FY 1991. OSHA's Kansas City region has initiated a special enforcement program of radiator repair shops. Fifteen inspections are targeted with a focus on lead and cadmium exposure.

FUNDING FOR LEAD ACTIVITIES

Question. Did OSHA request any additional funding for lead activities in the FY 1992 budget, as HHS and HUD did? If not. why not?

Answer. OSHA did not specifically request additional funding for lead activities in FY 1992. The Department of Labor's budget request for FY 1992 reflects funding priorities for all of the Department's programs within the spending limits worked out between Congress and the Administration. It is the Department's position that lead-related activities of OSHA can continue to be handled within the current mix of programs and resources available to OSHA.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ADAMS

-

OLDER AMERICANS ACT

Question: What is the rationale for the proposed decreased funding and resultant loss of nearly 8.000 job slots for the Title V program (of the Older Americans Act), especially in view of the fact that the Committee recommended last year that two national organizations serving American Indians and Pacific Asian Americans receive increased funding from the FY '91 appropriation. which did not happen?

Answer: The proposed budget is constrained by the limitations imposed by the Deficit Reduction Act. The amount proposed for the SCSEP is consistent with last year's DOL budget proposal. Nearly all of the ETA programs are reduced or maintained at their prior year levels.

The SCSEP budget must be

considered in the context of the total DOL budget and the needs that must be met given the Federal deficit and the spending cap on domestic discretionary programs.

38-710 - 91 4

Question: The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that for program year 1991-1992 the Department increase the level of funding to national grantees serving American Indians and Pacific Islanders/Asian Americans by $2.5 million each. According to the budget justifications, DOL has apparently decided not to increase funding for these two groups.

The President's budget calls for a more than 12 percent reduction in the Title V program. For FY '91, Congress appropriated $390.36 million for the program, and the Administration proposes to reduce the funding to $342.814 million

in FY '92.

Given the increase in the Federal minimum wage that is to take place in April 1991, is the Department recommending any future increases in the job slot cost for the Title V program, beyond what has been scheduled for the program year 1991-92?

Answer: No. The current unit cost estimate for PY 1991 is $6,061. Our computation of this unit cost incorporates the minimum wage increase that is to take place in April 1991, as well as the earlier increases..

Question: To what extent will increases in unsubsidized job placements compensate for the loss of employment positions?

Answer: The Department does not expect a marked increase in unsubsidized job placements. However, turnover rates in this program are very high. Combined with private sector job placement, turnover should enable program participation to shrink through attrition. No current participants will lose their job.

Question: What is the anticipated unsubsidized job placement rate for program year 1992-93? And how does this rate compare to recent prior years?

Answer: We anticipate that the unsubsidized placement rate for program year 1992 will be approximately 22 percent, the same or near the placement rate for recent years.

Question: Last year I questioned how the DOL was defining "family-of-one" in determining eligibility for JTPA (Job Training Partnership Act) programs. I plan to continue to pursue this matter. My concern is that DOL's narrow definition of "family-ofone" adversely affects many older women. For example, married older women who do not have access to their spouses' finances and are in abusive situations may not be eligible for JTPA programs according to DOL's definition. Before the two directives which were issued by the DOL last year, the States' governors were given the flexibility to define "family-of-one." And some 40 states had used a "family-of-one" definition for persons 55 years and older. Will the DOL consider returning the authority to define "familyof-one" to the governors?

Answer: The Department is very much aware that there are individuals in need that cannot be served immediately under the normal process of eligibility determination for JTPA. However, the Act does establish a definition of "economically

disadvantaged" for eligibility purposes which is based, in part, upon family membership and family income. The Department cannot ignore this statutory provision by allowing the governors to establish artificial family definitions which are inconsistent with the Act.

The Department's policy interpretation, that the basic definition of family "should be based upon relationship (blood, marriage or adoption) in the immediate family unit", and that "such a unit would, at a minimum, include a husband, a wife and their dependent children living under the same roof", still stands.

The Governor still retains flexibility in the definition of family under the regulations and States may request a review of definitions of family. A State policy that "persons aged 55 years or more, single, divorced or widowed, and living alone or with adult children or relatives, or in communal living quarters" might be considered a family-of-one is consistent with the Department's policy interpretation. Likewise, a State policy providing that an individual, 55 years or older, single, divorced or widowed, "who was living with a family but is not the head of household or the spouse of the head of the household" be considered a family-of-one would be consistent with the policy.

Of course, the Act does provide a window under which up to ten percent of those served by JTPA may be individuals who are not economically disadvantaged but have specific barriers to employment. Some of the individuals about whom you express concern could be served under this provision.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SPECTER

DECLINE IN COAL MINE INSPECTIONS

Question. Madam Secretary, I am concerned about the continued elevation of fatalities and injuries in the coal industry. Why did coal mine inspections in FY 91 decline by over 20 percent?

Answer. Due to budget uncertainties at the end of FY 1990 and the beginning of FY 1991, vacant inspector positions were not filled as originally planned. While MSHA now has an aggressive hiring plan in place to increase the inspector presence to the budgeted level, these inspectors will be in training during FY 1991 and will not be authorized to conduct inspections until FY 1992. Therefore, nonmandatory inspections will decline in FY 1991, but all mandatory inspections will be completed.

Question. How will you increase inspections in FY 92 with the same level of enforcement staff?

Answer. The inspectors hired in FY 1991 will complete their training and begin inspecting mines independently in FY 1992.

COAL ENFORCEMENT STAFFING

Question. Wouldn't it be prudent to restore coal enforcement staff to at least the FY 90 level?

Answer. Since the FY 1991 coal enforcement staffing level provides sufficient resources to complete all mandated inspections, this same level is proposed for continuation in FY

1992.

Question. How much would be necessary to restore the 18

positions in coal enforcement in FY 92?

Answer. A total of $868,000 would be necessary to restore the 18 positions in coal enforcement in FY 1992.

JOB CORPS SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION ACTIVITIES

Question. Madam Secretary, last years budget proposed

extending the Corps drug testing and treatment pilot project from 20 sites to all Job Corps centers. Will this be completed in the 1991 program year?

Answer. The Substance Intervention Program (SIP) is

currently in operation at 20 centers. It involves testing for drugs, individual and group counseling for those testing positive, and preventive education for all students. This program will be implemented in all remaining Job Corps centers by December 1991.

Question. What is the data showing about the incidence of

drug and alcohol abuse among incoming Job Corps students?

Answer. Results of the pilot SIP program showed that over 90 percent of all incoming students admitted to alcohol and drug abuse prior to entering Job Corps. Approximately 30 percent tested positive for at least one illegal drug (entry screening for alcohol is not done since alcohol is metabolized at a faster rate than other drugs and renders such screening impractical). results have shown that 27.6% of all students tested used marijuana, 4.4% cocaine, and 1.4% PCP, opiates, amphetamines and/or barbiturates.

Test

Question. Are you aware of any Job Corps Centers accessing other federal substance abuse prevention programs?

Answer. We are not aware of any Job Corps centers accessing other Federal substance abuse prevention programs. However, since August 1990, the Job Corps has been working with the Office of Treatment Improvement, Alcohol, Drugs and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA), Department of Health and Human Services, to develop a research and demonstration project to evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of an intensive program to be funded by that office.

The demonstration, expected to last three full years, will be implemented in six Job Corps centers and provide for drug testing, specialized counseling staff and specific medication to counteract drug-related depression.

JOB TRAINING FOR THE HOMELESS

Question. The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1990 authorizes the Job Corps to provide services to eligible homeless individuals and families. Does the Department have plans to provide services under this new authority? If so, how will it be implemented? If not, why?

Answer. The Department plans no programmatic or design changes in Job Corps in response to this new legislative authority. Even without these legislative amendments, Job Corps has been able to provide residential training and education services to homeless young people, ages 16 to 21. For example, we have a longstanding agreement with the City of New York under which homeless youth are being enrolled in the Job Corps center in Glenmont, New York. Under this agreement, the City reimburses the Department of Labor for the provision of special counseling services and clothing allowances that are not normally available from Job Corps. Otherwise, these youth are treated as normal Job Corps enrollees. We plan to promote similar arrangements between Job Corps centers and other State and local agencies.

As to meeting the needs of entire families in a residential setting, we believe that this would go well beyond the current institutional expertise and physical capabilities of the Job Corps program. Apart from the fact that we have dormitory style residences that are not suited or adaptable as family housing units, the Job Corps has not been structured or staffed to provide the comprehensive range of social services that are needed by homeless families.

Question. Would a separate appropriation be necessary for

this new authority to be implemented?

Answer. No special appropriation is needed to serve homeless youth who are otherwise eligible for Job Corps services. However, if the intent is to restructure Job Corps centers to provide residences and comprehensive services to entire families, it is clear that a special appropriation would be needed. The authorizing amendment contains the phrase "subject to the availability of appropriations therefor", which implies that a specific appropriation is needed in order to implement the broader range of program services discussed in the amendment.

Question. The budget proposes "transferring" funding for the Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration program to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in FY '92. How will this impact upon the existing demonstration projects? Will they continue to receive support in FY '92 even though the funds are transferred to HUD?

Answer. The Administration has decided to consolidate McKinney Act homeless responsibility and funding into a smaller number of demonstration programs that will fund local programs to develop innovative comprehensive service strategies that hold promise of helping people to leave homelessness. This consolidation will build upon what we and other Departments have learned in our demonstration program.