funded. I don't know what the Senate plan had in it. Both the Senate and the House side had title V in it. So that program is preserved at full funding. You won't be impacted as of September. That is current information.

Mr. O'SHAUGNESSY. Thanks very much. That is all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Mr. GREGG. Betty, did you wish to make a comment?

STATEMENT OF BETTY MCGOWAN, LEBANON, N.H.

Ms. MCGOWAN. I am very grateful that the program is to be refunded, because I am working under that also. I sort of depend on that to supplement my income. I think there are a great many other people that do also. So that is very encouraging. And I do think that we should continue to see that the social security program is stabilized and that we don't have to worry that we are not going to receive our social security, like we always have.

Mr. GREGG. I certainly appreciate you and Frank coming here today, Betty, because you represent to me the type of people who I think the programs benefit, and you give back as much as the program gives to you. In fact, you give back more.

One of the reasons I have been a strong supporter of title V is because people like you are involved who are hard workers and committed to helping out other senior citizens in your area, through participating in the program in Lebanon.

So thank you for coming this afternoon.

Mr. GREGG. Is there any other person from New Hampshire who wishes to testify?

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH L. CRORY, REPRESENTATIVE, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Ms. CRORY. Thank you for this opportunity. I am representative Elizabeth Crory, from Hanover, N.H. I would just like to briefly make one point that I did not hear mentioned from any of the other concerns this morning that have been expressed and I am very much concerned about. But one point that I would like to make is that I think many senior citizens, particularly widows, but also widowers, currently are left with reduced social security benefits, and they are also, if they are fortunate to own a home, they live in a home and the home still requires practically the full cost of maintenance of a home that they had when both husband and wife lived there together.

There are two things that adversely affect women keeping their homes. And that is after 2 years, 21⁄2 years to 3 years, they lose their status under the income tax law, where they can file a joint return, because they no longer have a joint return, and they also cannot file as a head of household. So they are taxed if they do have anything beyond social security at an unjust rate as a single taxpayer. And they also have the reduced social security benefits they would have received because they are a woman that survives the husband. I did not hear any specific mention of that area today.

I would like to say that I hope you are working to equalize the predicament of both the widow and the widower who is left with

maintaining a home, not having to sell it. It is often the least expensive housing they have available to them. But they often have to give up their homes. And I think that is an additional predicament of the elderly.

Mr. GREGG. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you.

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing the New Hampshire people to come down and testify.

I have the good fortune of having the head of the Office of Science and Technology down in Nashua to meet with some small technical firms down there to see how we can support the expansion of small technology activity. So I have to head to that meeting. Again, I want to thank you and congratulate you for putting this together and being a leader in the Congress on this issue.

Thank you very much.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you. I want to thank you for being here. I want to point out that your constituents, one of the reasons we have title V being reauthorized and money appropriated for it is your leadership. You have been a strong advocate of the program. I certainly think your people ought to know one of the big reasons we have that is for your work in that area.

I also want to thank Will Abbott of your staff who has been very helpful in setting up these hearings. We really appreciate your coming over here. I know some day I might have the opportunity to come over and share in your good State similar hearings.

Mr. GREGG. We look forward to it. And we will give you some maple syrup when you get there, because I know you are running out of it.

Mr. JEFFORDS. We have a number of other witnesses.

I would like to use the same system. I will call three people down to the witness table, and then as each one finishes, I will mention one other name and keep on rotating.

The first three are Lynn McGrail, Chris Phelps, and Representative Edgar May.

STATEMENT OF LYNN MCGRAIL, VISTA VOLUNTEER,
BURLINGTON, N.H.

Ms. MCGRAIL. Congressman Jeffords, I just would like to say a few words about the work I do. I am a VISTA volunteer, working in Burlington, with people over the age of 50. I assist them in all aspects of their employment search. I do job development with employers. I also provide public awareness as to the value of employing older workers.

The job market is highly competitive. Employers are being really selective these days. They often ask a person's age, when people call for an interview. If they don't ask it on the phone, they ask it when they get to the interview. That seems to be used as a criteria for hiring at least that is an implication. The reasons for job rejection include overqualification, overexperience, underskilled, or underexperienced, undereducated, and a lot of times a high school diploma is needed to apply for jobs now. You see that commonly. Often people in this age group find it necessary to make career changes for medical reasons or for lack of work in their fields. Displaced homemakers are also in that category. They find themselves

thrown into a labor market in which they have had no recent, if any, contact. There are very limited training opportunities available to these people.

When providing information to employers as to the advantages of hiring older workers, I found some support being given through job sharing which seems to work out when it is tried. Regular parttime and full-time positions have been offered. Some employers are generally supportive of older workers because they have discovered they are highly productive, dependable, reliable, loyal, and dedicated employees. And they provide a strong work ethic and a positive role model for other workers. And they also miss little or no time for illness.

When considering the above-mentioned issues, I would like to encourage Congress to lift the upper age limit of the 40- to 70-year guideline in the Federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act, and specify no upper limit, and make it the ability to do the job rather than the age. Also, to provide readily available training opportunities or retraining including education to older Americans. To provide employers with additional incentives to hire employees over the age of 50 and/or 65, tax incentives such as the TSTC, job sharing incentives and some provisions for health and pension plans. Also, to implement a means of expanding the awareness of the business community and the public in general with regard to the importance of providing employment opportunities for older workers and recognizing the value of these people as employees.

In conclusion, I have found the people I work with are a very diverse group of skilled and motivated individuals. Over the past years as opportunities in the labor market have continued to diminish, inflation has continued to rise, and I have observed these people finding it more and more difficult to provide adequate support for themselves and their families. Older Americans do need to work. Often the age 50 to 65 group needs to provide total support for themselves and their families. And they are finding it more and more difficult to do so. Also, those receiving social security need to provide supplemental income.

Either way there is a need and a desire to be a productive contributing member of society. As rejections continue, people become more and more discouraged, causing a whirlpool effect. Self-esteem is diminished as is the ability to cope with the failures. This promotes isolation and personal deterioration as well as a giving up within themselves.

In my opinion, there is a great deal of knowledge, skills and experience which could provide a plentiful resource for employers and society as a whole. It is a resource now not being utilized to its full extent. With support and encouragement I have seen many individuals over the age of 50 performing very productive roles in society and their own lives through achieving positive employment. In addition, there are currently, as of June 10, 1982, 6,728 applicants for employment over age 50 registered with the Vermont Job Service as having actively looked for work over the past 2 years, throughout the State of Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you very much. I think you have focused attention on a very important problem, and that is discrimination

against the more senior citizens. I agree a lot of work has to be done to correct that.

Ms. McGRAIL. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify here.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine, thank you.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS PHELPS, COALITION OF VERMONT
ELDERLY, MANCHESTER, VT.

Ms. PHELPS. Congressman Gregg just effectively wiped out my whole prepared statement when he made the announcement title V would be fully funded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. There is sometimes a long way between what is suggested to be funded and the actual funding of the program. You will find in a year where there is a lot of pressure on other programs, if you don't keep the pressure up, somebody else is pressuring and they end up with money and you don't. So I want to warn everybody don't relax and sit back and expect everything is fine. Keep the pressure up.

Ms. PHELPS. My reason for coming to this committee is to express my concern about the senior community service program and that it continue this year and expand in the future.

I have worked with many seniors in SCS programs and heard their anxieties lately about the program shutting down. I have put together a couple of fictional cases to illustrate the financial importance of this program.

Sam Senior is a single man, in excellent health, and I can assure you that the reason for his getting up in the morning is to come to his job. And he is employed at a senior center. Because he is working he is not eligible for the food stamps, fuel assistance, medicaid and other programs that are currently available to many of the seniors. And he then gets funded for all of these Federal programs. Mr. and Mrs. Elderly, he has been working for 14 years for the Forest Service; their main income is SCS and social security. Take away his job and this couple becomes eligible for all State and Federal assistance programs available. Multiply these people by hundreds, and I fail to understand how by cutting SCS programs the Government is going to save any money.

With all due respect for the Hawkins-Jeffords compromise, some SCS people simply would not last a week in the private sector. No one there is going to keep an eye on their social security or is going to be concerned that they need the extra breaks during the day to help them get through.

We in the public nonprofit sector, where concern for people is our job, need the special talents and skills of these older people. We understand their special problems and are grateful to have them deployed in our agencies, in many instances without them we would simply have to shut down many programs enjoyed by seniors and much needed by seniors.

I strongly urge this committee and Congressman Jeffords to continue to allow the private sector to employ SCS participants and finally to allow the elderly employed by these programs to maintain their dignity and self-worth by working and don't force them to stay home and accept welfare programs.

Thank you.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you very much. I understand your concern. Of course, as you know, the CETA program is being rewritten substantially. My main concern there now in the areas you are talking about is not so much the program, but the funding levels. Yesterday, for instance, I was very disappointed to see that a bill we in the House-I voted against it-would reduce the funding, of what is left of the CETA program, by a third again, having already reduced it previously by 60 percent. So we have gone from an $11 billion program, and I would agree there are some excesses there, to about a $4 billion program this year, and according to what we did. yesterday then down to $3 billion. So the program is going to be competition among those that will be eligible at reduced funding levels.

The Senate is higher. We came out worse in a lot of areas than the Senate. They are about $750 million higher.

Ms. PHELPS. There are many, many seniors who can work in the private sector, but there are many who cannot. And we in the public sector would just love to have them.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I know you would. There are a lot of good parts of the program which unfortunately got swept away with some of the bad parts.

Ms. PHELPS. Thank you.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It is a pleasure to have with us Representative Edgar May, who is one of our leading members of House of Representatives here in Vermont, who has done tremendous work in this particular area. I am pleased you are here.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR MAY, CHAIRMAN, HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMITTEE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF VERMONT

Mr. MAY. Thank you very much, Congressman.

I am speaking here as chairman of the Health and Welfare Committee of the House of Representatives of the State of Vermont, on behalf of the members of my committee who share most of these views. It is always dangerous to try to talk for members of your committee. We have a certain amount of unanimity in these areas. As you know, our committee has taken a great interest in some of the subjects you are covering here from a Federal perspective. I don't think that we can talk about retirement pensions and social security without talking about the fundamental concern that we find and I find is held by the 80,000 Vermonters who are over 60 years of age. And that is in the area of health and the lack of the capacity to pay for it if you get sick. Any retirement program, any pension program that is going to be adequate in this country or in this State must take those issues into consideration.

Those are the realities of life in our little State, and they are certainly the realities of this country.

Pension reform must include in my view a reform of the health component that must be a part of any pension plan. People consistently walk out of 30, 40 years of employment with a gold watch, too often with no pension, sometimes with a pension, and very often with a reduced or disappearing health insurance program. And the