additional evidence is needed in connection with his claim. And often, an explanation by a worker in the local Social Security office is not completely clear.

It would seem that another way to reduce the backlog of hearing requests would be to upgrade the ALJS now only able to hear black lung claims, from GS-14 to GS-15. Most of the black lung judges are familiar with the Social Security disability regulations and with some additional training could hold concurrent hearings on both disability and black lung claims.

I hope that the Subcommittee will carefully consider the legislation submitted to reduce the backlog of hearing requests, and report its findings to the full committee as soon as possible. It's time we quit regarding the disabled and aged as merely Social Security numbers and start showing compassion, zeal, interest and understanding and speed up their appeals.

Mr. BURKE. Thank you. Are there any questions?

On this recommendation by Congressman Pepper, do you think it might be helpful if the Social Security Administration put out an instruction sheet to applicants for total disability? Of course, I am always afraid of the way they print these instruction sheets by the Federal Government. You read the instruction sheets of the IRS and they become quite confusing. Do you think it is possible for them to put out a simplified summary of information about what an applicant needs to do to protect his rights.

Mr. HECHLER. That is certainly a helpful step, but it is just the beginning. I think it is just an attitude more than anything else. There are so many claimants who tell me they come into the office and they get the impression after several months of hassling back and forth that this is a case of the Government of the United States versus John Jones and the people on the other side are adversaries rather than individuals who are seeking the public interest by getting the maximum amounts of information, the maximum amount of help that can be given to the claimants. This is why the claimants frequently have to run to lawyers because they don't get the sympathetic ear they need.

I think such an instruction sheet would be helpful but beyond that it needs an attitude of complete cooperation, assistance, and a desire to get these cases out of the way just as fast as possible.

Mr. BURKE. There being no further questions, the committee wishes to thank you for your appearance.

Our next witness is the distinguished William F. Goodling, Congressman from Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ACCOMPANIED BY NANCY NEWCOMER, CASEWORKER-SECRETARY

Mr. GOODLING. I am Congressman William F. Goodling, and I have with me Nancy Newcomer, who has been a caseworker-secretary, handling situations such as this for the last 12 years.

I appreciate having the opportunity to appear here today on behalf of many of my constituents and thousands of citizens throughout the Nation who have been frustrated, mistreated, and in many cases impoverished because of the present disability claim system.

Although I recently cosponsored legislation introduced by Congressman Seiberling, entitled "The Social Security Rights Act," I believe that a total overhaul of the claim process may be needed. I hope that this subcommittee will move in that direction quickly, and not be satisfied with intermittent measures which may, in the long run,

only compound the problems of the system and result in further aggravation to those in need of benefits.

Since Congressman Seiberling and several other cosponsors of the legislation have already testified as to the provisions of the bill, I will not reiterate what they have said. I would, however, like to add my name to the number who have already expressed their grave concerns about the delays which are inherent throughout the system, but particularly gruesome at the hearing and appeals level.

In the background material prepared by the staff of the subcommittee issued on September 17, 1975, I note that the median time period from a hearing request to disposition for the Philadelphia region-which serves my constituents is now 266 days. This delay represents only a portion of the total time for processing a claim since the average time from the initial application for a disability claim to an award or a final denial is about a year and a half.

During the last several months I have asked my staff to keep a tally on the delays experienced by persons contacting me. I have been appalled at the number of potential beneficiaries who have been waiting years to get their cases out of limbo. These people may be statistics to some, but witnessing their lifestyles and listening to their exasperating experiences have left me distressed. If these persons are not eligible for benefits, such a decision should be reached as expeditiously as possible so that they may find some other way to put their finances and lives in order. I'm sure that just about every Congressman has cases which had the unfortunate experience of being closed because the potential beneficiary dies after waiting years for his case to be heard. Surely the anxiety caused to the claimant by long waiting periods has contributed to such a result in some instances.

When the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration testified before this subcommittee earlier this month, he stated that the backlog of cases is slightly less than 107,000 and indicated that progress had been made in reducing the backlog by some 6,000 from April of this year. I commend this slight reduction, but obviously it just isn't enough. The bold and creative steps which Commissioner Cardwell said had been taken by the Social Security Administration since January of this year to reduce the backlog will have to be increased. In addition to new steps, however, I believe we are going to have to witness better performance and coordination at the prehearing and appeals level if we are to get to the real root of this immense problem. I am sure that this subcommittee could recommend the appointment of several hundred new administrative law judges, and staff support, to get rid of this backlog. I would not recommend this approach. This is the usual Federal approach to solving problems. I would much prefer to see that fewer cases need to get to the appeal level. Inadequate review at the lower level results in a reversal of initial denials of disability in 60 percent or 65 percent of the cases. In my opinion, this high rate indicates that something is definitely wrong with the whole system if determinations of disability can be so different at different levels. Either the decisions resulting from the hearings and appeal level are too lenient, or the initial decisions are too strict. More likely, it is a combination of both. But it is clear to me that a higher correlation between similar decisions at all levels of this system is necessary. I would hope we would not promote incompetence.

According to many of my constituents, better trained employees at the local level would be a great improvement. At the present time, the information which is passed on to potential beneficiaries is lacking in many instances. This is, of course, not the case with all those at the local level, but certain local offices have much higher rates of reversal at the hearing and appeal level than is normal. Such offices should receive close scrutiny by the regional offices. Better coordination between the different offices at all levels would eliminate practices which waste time and money such as duplicate replies which my office finds often. These replies are often conflicting, which only frustrates claimants further.

Even if a claim is finally solved, and the claimant promised a check, the delays and goofups in the issuing of these benefits are atrocious. The Social Security Rights Act addresses this problem in that it provides for the reissuing of a check to those already receiving benefits. I think that this provision would go a long way to ease the financial nightmares often associated with the current dilemma for those who don't find that expected check in the mailbox at the beginning of the month. Oftentimes these people have nowhere to turn. Instances of duplicate checks and intent to commit fraud would be readily identifiable in the majority of cases.

While my comments have been primarily directed at the appeals process, it is apparent that throughout the social security bureaucracy there are serious problems. The following are some specifics I would like to emphasize and reemphasize, called to my attention by Nancy. Burden of work at all levels increased by illogical actions such as random mailing of notice of 8-percent increase to all recipients when those on special minimum primary insurance were not eligible to receive it. We have people who have come back three or four times for explanation of why they didn't receive this increase after they had gotten a notice with their June check saying it was coming.

Backlog is further complicated by telephoning a favorable report, and then sending a letter giving the same report about a month after the phone call. The telephonic report was allegedly to close out the case without taking time to write the letter, but then they write the letter anyhow.

In some instances we submit one inquiry, but we get an answer from the Baltimore office, the regional office, as well as the local office. One response would suffice and would eliminate the possibility of conflicting reports which confuse the constituent. Unfortunately, where we have received several responses, they are not always identical.

My district is served by four local offices. It seems significant that 90 percent of our cases come out of one local office. This would seem to indicate that certain areas of local operations bear improvement. If the personnel in local offices were more carefully screened, the burden of cases requiring special inquiry might be reduced.

The backlog at the appeal level is generally recognized as the greatest headache. However, simple matters such as address change, tracing of a missing check, or reissue to an estate of a check when the recipient is deceased are matters in which local office personnel seem ill-prepared to advise the public. Frequently, constituents make several visits to a local office about the same matter only to find that there is no record of their previous efforts in existence. Each time they will file anew,

only to return and have to repeat filing. This again would seem to indicate that the backlog at the top may result from incompetence at the bottom.

Hopefully, there will not be serious consideration of adding large numbers of additional personnel to handle the workload. It may be that adequate training and careful selection could streamline the system and thus reduce the number of people involved in processing each claim. It is interesting to speculate on the dollar cost for personnel to handle each dollar received by beneficiarics. I am thoroughly convinced that the general public's impression of those who are elected to the Congress of the United States are based primarily on their contracts with the bureaucracy. I think it is very important that we insist that the bureaucracy handle these people as if they are what they are supposed to be, in fact, public servants. Many times the manner in which a constituent is handled is directly a reflection upon the Congressman because it is probably the only contact that this constituent has with the Federal Government. They probably don't even know the name of their Congressman.

So I think it is important that we make sure that these people understand that they are public servants, not policemen, not there to harass.

I hope that this subcommittee will have the opportunity to find solutions to many of these problems which affect millions of beneficiaries of the system but I would urge the members to tackle the appeals process as quickly as possible.

Thank you again for permitting me to testify.

Mr. BURKE. Thank you.

Are there any questions? The committee appreciates your testimony. The next witness is the Honorable Thomas N. Kindness.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS N. KINDNESS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. KINDNESS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity of appearing before the committee today. The problem you are investigating is obviously one that affects all parts of our country and one that is unfortunately growing.

To give you a better idea of the delay faced by my constituents who become involved in the hearing process, let me briefly mention three cases that have recently moved through my office.

The first involves an injured worker who contacted my predecessor in September of 1974 for assistance in obtaining disability benefits. His request was denied in October and in November of that year he requested a hearing. Even though he had detailed medical evidence of his injuries, it was not until August of this year-9 months laterthat he received approval of his claim; and that approval was from the State agency, not the administrative law judge to which it had been referred.

This came about only because a group of claims examiners from the Bureau of Disability Insurance went to the offices of the regional administrative law judge, reviewed his voluminous backlog, and, where they found that additional evidence had developed, sent many cases back to the State agencies.

The second gentleman I will mention has not been so fortunate. He had originally applied for benefits in April of 1974. His request was denied, and so he requested a consideration in August of 1974. As of this date-11 months later-his claim is still pending before and administrative law judge in Cincinnati.

The third case involves a gentleman who originally applied for benefits in January of this year, was denied, and requested reconsideration in February; was denied again, and so requested a hearing in May. The current status of his case is summarized in a letter which I received from the administrative law judge in charge of the Columbus office dated September 9, 1975. It states:

*** We have a backlog of 631 cases. This backlog is in addition to the cases actually already assigned for hearing to the administrative law judges.

The assignment of cases to judges for hearing is based on the date of the request for hearing by the claimant. At the present time the next case to be assigned is one in which the request for hearing was filed May 8, 1975. You can, therefore, determine as readily as I how soon his cases will be assigned for hearing.

We deviate from our strict rule of chronological order only under unusual circumstances. If there is dire need, extreme hardship, impending death, or some other cogent reason, the case will be advanced for immediate hearing. If you have some basis that would justify advancing the foregoing claim for hearing. I shall be glad to do so.

In addition to the 3 cases I have detailed, I currently have 26 more very similar cases that have been pending at the administrative hearing level for from 4 to 7 months-this does not include the time the claimant has waited since he originally applied for benefits.

The causes and the cures for these delays are unquestionably complex topics, as I am sure your previous witnesses have attested to. I would like to emphasize three points.

First, it would be appropriate for this committee to examine the procedures followed by the State agencies. With a reversal rate of 50 percent there must be some points in the process of consideration which are subject to improvement. Perhaps if there was opportunity for more face-to-face contact at the initial stages of the appeal, State agency personnel could gain a more complete understanding of the

case.

Second, much of the controversy centers around the abilities of the very limited number of administrative law judges to handle the cases assigned to them. I have been told that in some areas of the country, such as California, Puerto Rico, or even here in the District of Columbia, the problem is not in filling positions, but rather in these areas being authorized for enough positions to quickly rule on the referred

cases.

In other more rural areas, the problem is finding enough judges to fill the positions which are open. It is my understanding that to qualify as an administrative judge for SSI cases, an applicant must be an attorney with bar membership and 4 years' experience. To handle black lung cases, the applicant must have 6 years of experience. And to handle social security cases, the applicant must have 7 years' work experience.

The pay level for these Social Security judges is GS-15, or $29,818. I think you will agree that finding a competent attorney with 7 years' trial experience who would leave his position for such a salary is not