committee last week, where he commented upon my bill and suggested some possible changes and additions, and I subscribe to his comments. I think they were excellent suggestions. I would be happy to answer any questions I can.

Mr. BURKE. Are there any questions?

Mr. Pickle?

Mr. PICKLE. I am intrigued with the cutdown on time to a time certain. Would this be in violation of due process, would the individual rights be protected if this became law?

Mr. SEIBERLING. I don't think it would unless the individual was in some way deprived by this deadline of his right to present his case. I am advised by people who are experienced in trials that they feel that this amount of time is adequate as far as their part of the job is concerned, the administrative law judges.

I think that there is no real reason why in 120 days, for example, a claimant couldn't collect whatever material is necessary.

It might be desirable to provide some escape clause in the law that the time could be extended at the request of the individual claimant if he could show good cause. But I don't think there is any other way that he could be denied due process.

Mr. PICKLE. Suppose you say the case must be enacted on in 90 days or 120 days unless the administration in writing notified the claimant that a decision could not be reached for the following reasons, one, two, three. Would that be a safeguard?

Mr. SEIBERLING. I would be concerned, Mr. Pickle, that that kind of way out would be an invitation to the officials to delay and would be used to circumvent these time limits.

I think we must have the pressures on the Administration to come up with decisions within these time frames and possibly in shorter time frames. But where the claimant shows that he cannot provide the documentation in time, I think he should be allowed to get an extension. In such case the right to get a substitute check, because the decision has not been reached, as my bill would provide, would have to be extended to a later date.

Obviously if the delay was at his request he should not profit by his own delay.

Mr. PICKLE. Thank you.

Mr. BURKE. In the Administration's testimony it was indicated that the appointment of additional administrative law judges in addition to other changes that they were contemplating might reduce the caseload by an average of about 1,000 cases a month. Now, with the present backlog of 107,000 cases that would mean that it would take about 6 years to get down to a reasonable number of cases.

Don't you believe that is too long a time to wait?

Mr. SEIBERLING. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman. I think that if necessary they should go on a crash program to clean up this backlog. I see no other way out of it.

Mr. BURKE. In the testimony by Congressman Heinz it was indicated that a part of the slowdown may have been the result of imposing administrative controls as a way of reducing expenditures in order to counteract revenue reductions. Do you believe that a slow

down was justified by any bureau of the Government for those reasons?

Mr. SEIBERLING. I certainly do not, no, sir.

Mr. BURKE. The committee wishes to thank you for your appearance here today.

Mr. SEIBERLING. I thank you.

Mr. BURKE. Our next witness is the Honorable Congressman Edward Beard, State of Rhode Island. Congressman Beard has been very active in the social security area. He has been constantly in touch with me, pointing out many of the problems that the people talking

to hiin have had.

Mr. Beard, you may proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD P. BEARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. BEARD. Thank you very much. In joining my colleague, Senator Pell, today in discussing the Social Security Act, there are approximately 22 million elderly Americans in this country. Like my mother, they depend on social security checks to come in at the first of the month, and sometimes if the check is lost or in some cases stolen, this may mean weeks of delay. When they have to pay their rent and pay their bills that have to be met it is very, very difficult.

Basically, this Social Security Fairness Act and the bill Senator Pell introduced into the U.S. Senate would cut down the bureaucracy and the time that an elderly person would have to wait in order to receive their check. Can you imagine what would happen in this Congress if our checks, our own checks came in late? Let's say if we were expecting the checks at the end of the month and all of a sudden there is a delay of 2 or 3 weeks, that telephone would be ringing to every agency in the Government that has jurisdiction over our pay. When we realize the hardship and how tough it is for an elderly person to live on a social security income, it is extremely difficult when the check is late, it is extremely difficult when it is stolen and they have to wait weeks in order to obtain that check. I think this legislation is the answer and I certainly would hope that the committee would give favorable consideration and really move and get this bill over to the Senate where I know Senator Pell will go all out to see it passed in the Senate.

Mr. COTTER [presiding]. Have you completed your testimony, Mr. Beard?

Mr. BEARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. COTTER. Thank you very much.

Just 1 minute, the chairman is returning.

Mr. BURKE. Your bill is related to lost or stolen social security checks?

Mr. BEARD. This is a constant problem. My mother was a recipient of this basic problem, having her check lost and she had to wait weeks. There were weeks gone by before the check was issued. Believe me it is an extreme hardship on our elderly people when they have to wait. The fellow collecting the rent and the grocery bills are due, and some of these old people have to go to welfare to get some kind of help or some charitable organization. I can't urge strongly enough that I really

would hope this committee will move as fast as possible, and with Senator Pell pushing this bill, it would be good for Americans, certainly good for our elderly residents.

Mr. BURKE. Thank you. We appreciate your appearance here today and I know you keep the pressure on me all the time. The State of Rhode Island is fortunate to have a young man like you in there carrying on the battle.

Mr. BEARD. Let me say this for the record, I have had arguments with politicians, particularly at home, but I have the highest respect for the chairman of this committee because he has proven himself to be a champion of the people, and the State of Massachusetts is very lucky.

Mr. BURKE. Our next witness is the Honorable Dave Evans of Indiana. You may proceed, Congressman Evans.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID W. EVANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to come before this Subcommittee on Social Security and the chance to enter testimony regarding social security and our Nation.

The sharp increase in social security complaints reaching my office causes me great concern for the procedures involved in solving those problems. This case load requires two persons in my office to handle social security complaints on a daily basis.

The appeal process is causing the major problems according to constituents. An appeal on a local hearing level can take as long as a year for just the appointment of a hearing date alone.

I do not wish to indicate that the Social Security Administration should answer my congressional problems more promptly, or that I should expect special treatment. What I do wish to state is that the problems should be acted on more quickly. All in all we are working for the people and act merely for and on their behalf.

The Social Security Administration has trouble with their computer when a person, who is previously receiving disability benefits, turns 65 years of age, and is transferred to retirement benefits. There is often a delay in the arrival of his checks.

After an individual is awarded his disability benefits, there next occurs a delay before they receive their checks on time. This delay is often 3 to 4 months.

Currently, children are dropped from social security on their 18th birthday. If the 18th birthday falls during the school year, and before graduation, there seems to be no problem. When the 18th birthday falls after graduation or the child is already 18 and then graduates, the benefits are dropped regardless of whether or not the child will continue his or her education. It takes 5 to 8 months for the child to begin receiving his or her benefits again.

Presently, the mother collects as long as a child is considered a dependent under 18 years or over 18, if the child is continuing his or her education. However, if the child is dropped because of a mixup regarding his 18th birthday, the mother does not receive her monthly checks until the problem is solved and the child begins collecting

monthly checks again. This, too, hurts the child who desires to continue his education, and has no support check for that education.

Service might improve if social security complaints from constituents in my district could be directed to the local office where the person's file is usually kept, instead of sending them to Woodlawn, Md., thus causing a further time lag.

It is my opinion that efficiency standards for social security need current and continuing review. That is not to say that the Social Security Administration necessarily should be enlarged and more personnel employed.

To simply complain about the Social Security Administration service is not the answer. The quality of our decisions following these hearings and subsequent laws amending the present system must be forthcoming. I would like to be a part of a solution to this increasing problem.

Mr. BURKE. Thank you, Congressman Evans. Our next witness is the distinguished Member of Congress from the State of West Virginia, Congressman Ken Hechler. We welcome you, Congressman Hechler, and you may proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN HECHLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the spirit of the occasion, I would like to add my commendation to you and all the members of this subcommittee for holding these hearings and for taking the leadership on this legislation.

I would like to submit my statement for the record and proceed informally.

Mr. BURKE. You may summarize if you wish and your entire statement will appear in the record, without objection.

Mr. HECHLER. You were asking about the number of letters that were received by another Member that testified. I would say that there are approximately 5,000 cases pending in my office which relate to black lung and disability appeals. This is a rather large number. In addition to that, one of the previous Congressmen who testified indicated that he had one person working full time. I have three people working full time and two part time on these appeals. The main problem appears to be the long delay and the large backlog.

I was interested in the suggestion that our colleague, Mr. Pepper, made about setting up an ombudsman within the social security local offices. I am not entirely sure that this would solve the problem, because we as taxpayers pay our taxes expecting all the officials to protect the public interest and to move these cases with the utmost speed. I am disturbed, however, by the necessity that many black lung claimants and those who have appeals that are filed feel the necessity of relying on lawyers in order to process their claims, particularly if they appear before administrative law judges. It just seems to me that there must be a better attitude, from top to bottom, on the part of those officials that we pay our taxes to support, to try to assist the claimants in assembling the necessary evidence, medical and otherwise, so it won't be necessary for many of these claimants to run out and hire lawyers, many of whom just write to their Congressmen and ask the

59-762 O 75 17

Congressman if he would help. Then, of course, you don't hear anything more about it and the lawyer sends a fat bill to the claimant.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the approach taken in the legislation that is pending before the subcommittee would alleviate this lawyers, many of whom just write to their Congressmen and ask the situation in setting certain time limits in speeding up the hearing process and in reducing the backlog.

I concur with you, Mr. Chairman, that 6 years is too long to wait to reduce that backlog, that it must be done quickly, it must be done expeditiously, yet it must not be done in a manner to have wholesale rejection of claims simply for the purpose of getting rid of them and getting them off the social security desk.

That completes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I thank the committee for its interest in this area and trust that the committee may move expeditiously to get legislation out that will alleviate this very serious problem.

[The prepared statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN HECHLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr Chairman, approximately one-half of the letters I receive from my constituents concerning their Social Security disability claims relate to the delays in processing their requests for hearings on their claims. The same delay is being experienced by those who have requested hearings on their black lung claims. Nearly two-thirds of the black lung mail I receive deals with this delay in the Bureau of Hearings & Appeals.

These people have waited at least nine months to a year, and sometimes much longer, before being notified about a date for their hearing.

In many cases, these people have no other income. But they do have families to clothe and feed, children to keep in school, and monthly obligations to meet. A great many of them do not own their own homes, and consequently must live from month to month, wondering how they will pay the next month's rent or mortgage. The small life savings they had has been used, from the time they first became disabled and applied for benefits.

As you may know, I requested an investigation by the General Accounting Office, into the delays in processing requests for hearings. The final report is not yet completed, but I'll be glad to provide it to the Committee when received. Hopefully, this report will help to pinpoint the causes for the delays and pave the way for new and better methods of processing the claims.

Some causes for the delays are clearly evident in the responses I receive from the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, or from the Administrative Law Judges themselves. In many cases, the medical information in the file is not current and the hearing, or final decision must be delayed until additional medical information is obtained. Also, I have noted that a written decision is sometimes issued as long as four to five months after the hearing has been held. Could these problems be alleviated by enlarging the staffs of the ALJs? The staff could screen the files to determine if additional medical information is needed and obtain this prior to the hearing. Once the hearing has been held, and a decision issued by the ALJ, the staff could immediately prepare a final decision to be mailed to the claimant.

Also, if the ALJ determines, at the time of the hearing, that the claimant is eligible for benefits, he could tell the claimant, and thereby eliminate the length of time it takes to prepare a complete written approval.

Also, the ALJs feel that because of the increase in the number of approvals at the hearings level, a greater number of the claims should have been approved at a lower level. If so, the claims should be more carefully reviewed at the initial and reconsideration determination levels.

H.R. 8018 provides that a statement of the case and an informal conference be afforded the claiment when a request for reconsideration is made. Many times, after receiving the first denial notice, the person files a request for reconsideration without really understanding the reason for the denial, or knowing what