Page images
PDF
EPUB

State Student Incentive Grants (SSIG), tend to be more responsive to the needs of dependent students from working or lower-middle-income backgrounds. They also tend to be awarded to traditionally aged students working toward a baccalaureate degree. For example, in 1988-89, 62 percent of all SEOG funds were awarded to dependent students, while, as noted above, more than 60 percent of all Pell Grant awards go to independent students. SEOĞ funds are awarded only to needy students. In 1988-89, 72 percent of SEOG funds granted to dependent students went to those coming from families with incomes of less than $24,000. Clearly, these are not even "middle-income" students.

The majority of Simpson students are traditionally, aged eighteen to twenty-one year olds, single, living on campus, and classified as dependent. They pay a much higher tuition rate than our part-time students, who are mostly classified as inde. pendent.

As mentioned, the campus-based programs provide great assistance to students pursuing baccalaureate degrees. In 1988–89, 76 percent of SEOG funds went to students enrolled in four-year programs, while more than 90 percent of Perkins Loans were awarded to individuals at four-year colleges.

NAICU believes that the federal government needs to put more emphasis on helping students obtain a baccalaureate degree. It is the attainment of a baccalaureate degree that makes the difference economically for most Americans. College graduates have consistently earned higher wages than those who do not graduate from college, and this spread has grown over the last two decades as our nation's manufacturing base has contracted. In 1987, individuals who had completed four or more years of college received a significantly higher annual wage than those whose education was limited to high school (43.8 percent higher for men, 56.7 percent higher for women).

For these reasons, we wholeheartedly urge you to support fiscal year 1992 increases for the campus-based programs that are endorsed by the higher education community: $250 million more for SEOG; $55 million more for CWS; and $44 mil. lion more for Perkins Loans. An increase of $36 million for the SSIG program will also achieve the goal of providing enhanced federal support for traditionally aged college students who have limited means or hail from working families. NAICU also supports an increase in the Pell Grant maximum to $2,000. Pell Grants are the bedrock federal student assistance program. They merit continued support, despite the fact that large amounts of funding are needed to raise the maximum award even modestly.

NAICU also strongly supports funding for non-Title IV programs supported by the entire higher education community. This includes $12 million more both for Part A and Part B of Title III, and a $7 million increase for Part C endowment grants. NAICU also urges the subcommittee to provide $50 million in Title VII in facilities grants in fiscal year 1992.

Finally, we support an increase of $13 million for the graduate and professional degree programs in Title IX. These programs are increasing in importance as an impending facility shortage booms, and the percentage of minorities in the population grows.

I appreciate this opportunity to testify, and would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Jennings.

Again, my congratulations to you on running a really great institution, Simpson College. Of course, I am a little biased. It happens to be in my home county where I was born and raised. It is an outstanding institution of higher learning.

Dr. JENNINGS. We are proud that you are up here, too.

Senator HARKIN. It is an institution that had some tough times and has come back. I think your enrollment is probably up again.

Dr. JENNINGS. We have a record enrollment of 1,700 this fall.

Senator HARKIN. Well, as you know, as I will mention to everyone else here today—I just might as well get a record and play it here-because of that budget agreement last year we have some really tough situations facing us in terms of funding. Last year, as you know, we were able to get the Pell grant up by $100. We did the SEOG's and the SSIG's.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Again, this subcommittee is very supportive of all three of those. I particularly am interested in the SSIG and seeing how much more we can do there, because that is more bang for the buck because the States match it. For every dollar we put in, the States have to put in $1. They do not have to if they do not want to, but if they want to utilize it they can match it dollar for dollar, and it works out pretty darn well. So it is good leverage.

We will do our best, Dr. Jennings.
Senator Gorton.
Senator GORTON. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Dr. Jennings.

Dr. Carlo Mainardi, accompanied by Mary Martin, American College of Hematology.

(No response.) STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA EISENHAUER, DIRECTOR, IOWA DEPART.

MENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INTERSTATE CONFERENCE

OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES Senator HARKIN. How about Cynthia Eisenhauer, the Director of the Iowa Department of Employment Services, here for the Interstate Commerce of Employment Security Agencies.

Ms. EISENHAUER. Good morning. I am Cynthia Eisenhauer, director of the Iowa Department of Employment Services, here representing the front-line workers across the country who are administering the Nation's Unemployment and Employment Security Programs.

We are grateful for your support and that of the committee in the past for the administration of the Unemployment Programs and Employment Security Programs. Your support of the most recent supplemental appropriations for unemployment insurance has enabled us to make timely payments to the growing numbers of unemployed workers across the country.

The written testimony that we submitted to you substantiates the State's requested level of funding for fiscal year 1992. We believe that our requests are responsible and consistent with the provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act.

With respect to unemployment insurance funding, we support a base staffing that would be sufficient to handle an average of 2 million claims per week. That is an increase over the current funding level that enables us to handle 1.8 million claims per week. Since 1975 the level of unemployment claims filed per week has never been below 2.2 million.

For employment service operations, we are requesting a modest inflationary increase to $838 million. Americans have been bombarded with studies projecting dramatic changes in the work force and the workplace, and we believe our Employment Security agencies are key in helping employers and workers cope with these changes. In Iowa, for example, large employers are proclaiming a labor shortage while the number of unemployed exceeds 80,000. It is our job to make the match.

In December Iowa's local job service offices were able to fill 97 percent of the job orders that were placed in the job service offices. În January when the unemployment rate jumped a full percentage point, our local offices only filled 40 percent of the job orders that were placed with the offices. The reason was because no one had

time to match the job with the job seekers. They were all out in front taking unemployment claims.

There is one element of the request that in my view will encourage responsible spending, enhance the delivery of services to the unemployed, and keep us from coming to you each year for a supplemental appropriation. Best of all, it will not increase spending. That is the establishment of a contingency reserve fund to make funds available for unanticipated increases in unemployment.

Unemployment projections, as you know, are made 9 months before the beginning of a fiscal year, and the related appropriations are set at that time as well. If actual unemployment as in recent years exceeds projections, then States must come to Washington to beg for a supplemental appropriation in order to pay timely benefits.

Senator, I have had 18 years executive experience in public financing. I was director of business and finance for the Iowa Public University system and worked in the executive branch Budget Office overseeing complex State budgets. Never until I came to the Department of Unemployment Services had I met with a system of public financing so dysfunctional as this unemployment insurance financing mechanism. A contingency reserve fund would not increase spending. It would make funding available when it is most needed.

Finally, you should know that those of us in Employment Security Administration are consistently, and constantly developing unique and innovative approaches to becoming a valuable resource to employers and to workers.

In Iowa on May 2 in Marshalltown we will open our pilot project, Office of the Future. It is a one-stop shop to get answers on all work force issues. It is not going to be called a job service office any more. It is going to be called a work force center. It is highly automated, user friendly, and the cornerstone is a joint intake form that combines over 100 Government intake forms into one fourpage

document. Automation funds have allowed us to do that, we have been the recipient of a couple of automation grants. We would encourage continuation of automation grants for both employment services and unemployment insurance funding.

PREPARED STATEMENT To summarize, our requests are an increase in the base for UI funding, $30 million for UI automation, $838 million for employment service functions, $25 million for employment services automation, and the establishment of an important contingency unemployment insurance reserve fund.

Thank you very much.
(The statement follows:

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA EISENHAUER, DIRECTOR, Iowa DEPARTMENT OF

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Cynthia Eisenhauer. I am Director of the lowa Department of Employment Services, and am here today representing the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies (ICESA). ICESA is the national organization of state officials who administer the nation's unemployment insurance laws, public Employment Service, and labor market information programs.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE First, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for the support that you and this subcommittee have shown for the unemployment insurance system in the past. Most recently that support was evidenæed when this subcommittee provided supplemental funds to meet the shortfall in appropriations for the current year. The appropriation of supplemental funds in early April, although not the full amount of the shortfall, has brought some measure of relief to the overcrowded conditions in offices throughout the country.

In past years, we told you of our concern that unemployment insurance base staff had been reduced during the years of low unemployment to a level at which it would be impossible to handle recession level workloads without serious disruptions in service. As you know, in this recession, there have been long lines in local offices throughout the country, some unemployed workers have waited up to 6 hours to file claims, and in some states unemployment checks have been delayed for weeks. We believe that the only way to ensure that adequately trained staff are available dur, ing a recession is to maintain a larger number of base staff throughout ups and downs in the economic cycle. ICESA supports increasing the base staff in fiscal year 1992 from the current level, sufficient to process 1.8 million claims per week, to a level sufficient to handle an average of 2.0 million claims per week. This increase would cost approximately $45 million above the President's request. A chart is attached to our written statement (Attachment 1) which displays the history of unemployment insurance workloads since 1975. It shows that the actual average weekly claims level has never been less than 2.2 million. Thus a base staff level sufficient to process 2.0 million average weeks insured unemployment will not leave staff idle during years when unemployment is low, but will ensure a core of trained staff to respond to recession-level unemployment.

The chart also displays a comparison of projected and actual average weekly insured unemployment. In some years, the projections are lower than the actual work. load, and in other years the projections are higher. This is not surprising since these estimates are made nine months before the beginning of the fiscal year. When the projections are too high, appropriated funds in excess of the amount needed to process the actual workload are held by the Department of Labor, not allocated to the states, and revert to the Employment Security Administration Account at the end of the fiscal year. However, when the projections and the appropriation based on those projections are too low, the shortfall in funds results in overcrowded offices, long lines, and payment delays such as we are now experiencing.

Currently, supplemental appropriations are the only means to make more funds available when unemployment projections are too low. A second chart attached to our written testimony (Attachment 2) illustrates the history of unemployment insur. ance supplementals. In ten of the last eighteen years, supplemental appropriations, averaging close to $200 million each, have been necessary to provide additional funds for unemployment insurance administration. Although the Congress has provided funds to help the states handle greater workloads, the time consumed by the supplemental appropriations process has meant that unemployed workers have been subjected to long waits for service and unconscionable delays in payments for months before supplemental funds have been available.

In order to make additional funds available when they are needed, rather than after substantial damage has been done, ICESA urges you to consider establishing a contingency reserve fund, as part of the fiscal year 1992 and subsequent appropriation bills, which would make funds available for unanticipated increases in un. employment. The administrative funding arrangements for other state-administered entitlement programs are structured in ways that permit additional monies to be spent without action by Congress. Federal entitlement programs, such as Social Se. curity, have appropriated contingency reserve funds which can be made available when workloads increase unexpectedly.

Unemployment insurance is by far the most volatile of these entitlement programs. As we have seen just this past year, unemployment and claims for benefits can increase dramatically in just a few months. The need for a contingency reserve mechanism for unemployment insurance, to provide additional funds when they are needed, has been demonstrated for the past two years. Such a mechanism would not increase spending, but would make monies available when they are needed, without the time consuming necessity for a supplemental appropriation.

Providing a base staff level sufficient to process an average of 2 million claims per week and establishing a contingency reserve fund for unanticipated increases in unemployment would provide the stability and certainty in funding that this program needs if it is to fulfill its mission to alleviate personal hardship and stabilize

[ocr errors]

the economy during economic downturns. We urge you to give favorable consideration to these requests.

Since fiscal year 1984, Congress has appropriated $18–20 million each year for unemployment insurance automation. These dollars have been used to build a basic unemployment insurance automation infrastructure, so critical to the effective and efficient payment of benefit claims and collection of unemployment taxes.

A recent survey of unemployment insurance automation, conducted by the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies, shows that computer-related hardware needs through the first half of this decade would require funding at $31 million annually. Additionally, the survey reveals unemployment insurance software enhancement needs, both long-term and short-term, total $63.5 million.

To better address these unmet needs, we urge you to increase appropriations for unemployment insurance automation grants in fiscal year 1992 to $30 million.

THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT SERVICE In today's economy, American workers are much like trapeze artists. The unemployment insurance system serves as a safety net to catch them when they fall, and the Employment Service provides a ladder that enables citizens to climb back into the workforce. The current condition of both the net and ladder are of grave concern. The holes in the safety net have been apparent during this recession. Unfortunately, there are also missing rungs in the ladder.

Mr. Chairman, once again the Administration has proposed a draconian cut in funding for the public Employment Service. The President's proposed funding level of $750 million for fiscal year 1992 would be a $55.1 million reduction from the fiscal year 1991 level of $805.1 million. We have attached a third graph to our written statement (Attachment 3) that illustrates the funding levels for the Employment Service since fiscal year 1984, and, more importantly, the buying power of those dollars.

The public Employment Service assesses workforce trends and employer needs; provides assessment, counseling, testing, and referral to training for job seekers; and ultimately matches out-of-work Americans with available jobs. In program year 1989, the latest year for which figures are available, 1872 million job seekers were served by the Nation's Employment Service.

The states' ability to provide these vital services for employers and workers has been hampered by more than a decade of diminishing resources. As appropriation levels have remained relatively static, and the buying power of dollars available has continued to erode, the states have experienced dramatic increases in the size of the workforce which the system is designed to serve, as well as major increases in the costs of operation.

The realities of a world economy, global competition, changing technology, and new national priorities have resulted in dislocations in the workforce. What this means is that more workers are being dislocated permanently from their former employment, and new jobs are being created that require different skills. The need for an efficient and effective public Employment Service has never been greater than it is in the 1990's.

On behalf of the states, ICESA urges you to appropriate $838.1 million to support state Employment Service operations. This would provide only for an inflationary increase over last year's appropriation. We believe this is a responsible position under the Budget Enforcement Act provisions.

Further, the states have not been able to tap into the vast array of information technology available to perform more effectively and efficiently many of the job matching functions, because dollars to automate the Employment Service system have been grossly insufficient. Again this year, the Administration has failed to res quest any automation dollars. Congress has begun an investment in Employment Service automation, with $12.5 million appropriated for Employment Service automation grants each of the last two fiscal years. We strongly recommend that $25 million be appropriated in fiscal year 1992 to expand the Employment Service's ca. pacity to provide job placement and job counseling assistance to job seekers as well as applicant assessment and applicant screening for employers.

ICESA is also very concerned about the Administration's decision not to fully fund the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program, despite passage of H.R. 180, now Public Law 102–16, which extends the program for another three years. This program helps to ensure that disabled veterans across America receive priority treatment from the state Employment Service staff. We recommend restoration of full funding for the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program, a level of $80.4 million, and funding of its companion program for Local Veterans' Employment Representatives at $74.0 million.

« PreviousContinue »