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 appreciate it. Secretary MARTIN. I 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 included, but we are not excluded, we have a lot of experience in this area under 503 for 20-some years, and we would be glad to help and provide that kind of assistance. And I would like to work with 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 of that letter too?

Senator HARKIN. All right. Well, I will give it to Senator Specter, and when he is on judiciary committee then he can go. [Laughter.]

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.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Senator HARKIN. I talked in my opening statement about thisthis study "America's choice," and the fact that other nations invest more in work force training. Employers in other countries do much more. Perhaps our employers are not keeping up their investment in work force training: A policy question. Has it come time to require employers to set aside a certain percentage of their payroll for education and training of their workers?

Now, before you answer that, again, you pointed out something I did not know, that people now will change jobs, what, up to six times in their lifetimes.

Secretary MARTIN. Careers, not just jobs.

Senator HARKIN. Oh, it is careers six times. So again, that is not like it was 30 or 40 years ago, and so if this is what we are looking at, perhaps we need to provide a set-aside just like we set aside unemployment compensation, things like that right now, workmen's compensation, all that kind of stuff. Perhaps we ought to set aside a certain percentage for education and training.

NEW YORK PORT AUTHORITY

Secretary MARTIN. Your question is, are we ready, and the answer is no one is totally sure exactly what works. I think what might be better, rather than talking about what we should mandate employers to do to make them even less competitive, is how do we make sure our proposal seems so attractive that it gets done. It is in an employer's long-term and short-term best economic self-interest to have a fully trained work force. What would surprise you, Senator, is that employers really are beginning to hear this message. Just for a moment, rather than talking about what we should mandate doing, I wonder if you would let Secretary Jones tell you about a meeting with the New York Port Authority that he went to last week. I find it fascinating, as I think you will.

Mr. JONES. I think you have put your finger on it, Mr. Chairman. It is a significant change here that employers are beginning to figure out themselves how to move this from a cost to an investment. And the whole structure, both of the tax system and their whole management system, continues to look at training as a cost rather than in investment. New York Port Authority employs thousands of people in probably every occupation that you and I can imagine. Their necessity is to step beyond bureaucratic structure and begin to work with unions and businesses and the schools to link the three, not just for what goes on in the work place, but also in the schools, the work system, and the education system. It really is bizarre that there in that labor market, as you both have mentioned, we have unemployment at very high rates and we have jobs in almost every occupation going unfilled because of the lack of skills and the lack of investment in the structure.

The second part of the issue that they are dealing with which we find in every one of these discussions is that training can no longer be functional training. We cannot keep training people to do a thing. If they are going to change as many times as you and the Secretary indicate, people have to be prepared to be adaptable and

flexible so companies do not just remove them and then hire a new work force or try a one-time fix. This is a significant change.

The issue is whether we use tax credits or training funds for people to make an investment and to increase funding above the current 1 percent of payroll, which is the general American experience. Resolution of this issue will require a joint effort of the American Society for Training and Development and probably even more groups than the Secretary and I could even mention today. This issue will get significant research and insight this next year. Secretary MARTIN. That is why I find this an incredibly fascinating job. I mean, this is the future, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about change in the best sense of the word.

BASIC SKILLS

Senator HARKIN. I know, and there is always the question you do not really know what works. What may work one place-but may I submit one thought? The basics always work. Knowing how to read, knowing how to write, knowing how to speak-these basics always work, I do not care what job it is. And I-again, just from my own limited viewpoint and having chaired this committee now a few years-been on it now for 6-in looking at these issues, many times it is only functional training, like you say. You train someone functionally.

And I can understand the business aspect of it. They are meeting the bottom line. They do the functional training. And if it changes then they move them out and the train someone else functionally. And there is not much thought given to the basics. So somehow this has got to be put back into the work place.

I had talked a couple years ago about requiring this and using tax incentives to do it. That is the stick; the carrot is the tax incentive. Because it is a national problem, we need to require that, for those people who are hired for minimum wage jobs or within 150 or 175 or whatever percent of the minimum wage, that there be a component to that job of every day the employer requiring certain basic skills training; reading, writing, things like that.

Because this is especially true of entry-level jobs, where young people are going—and I have done a few little tests myself at some of these establishments. You know that these are some-not all the time-but many times, functionally illiterate people working there. Well, anyway, that is just a thought.

Secretary MARTIN. It is an exciting thought, though, and I think you will want to read the SCANS report. This is a product of the Department due early in the summer, which is going to address the workplace and-

Senator HARKIN. SCAN?

Secretary MARTIN. SCANS, S-C-A-N-S. It is the Secretary's Commission on

Mr. JONES. Achieving Necessary Skills.

Secretary MARTIN. Yes; Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. One of the important parts of SCANS is looking at what we need nationally. That does not mean we are going to necessarily agree on everything. But starting the intellectual ferment, making sure the discussion takes place here and everywhere