easy in many sections of the country, even with the attractive benefits of civil service employment.

The last and perhaps most important point relates to our colleagues. They must be made aware of the fact that each new piece of black lung or social security legislation we pass adds to the backlog of the review and appeals system.

I only hope that these hearings will generate that understanding. I would be happy to entertain any questions that the subcommittee may have.

Mr. BURKE. Without objection, your entire statement will appear in the record.

[The prepared statement follows:]

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

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 3 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 later that 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 gentlemen 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 reconsideration in August of 1974. As of this date-11 months laterhis claim is still pending before an 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 on November 28, 1974. Mr. 's Request for Hearing was filed May 8, 1975. You can therefore determine as readily as I how soon his case 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 three cases I have detailed, I currently have ten 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.

Secondly, much of the controversy centers round 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 four 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 easy in many sections of the country, even with the attractive benefits of civil service employment.

The last and perhaps most important point relates to our colleagues. They must be made aware of the fact that each new piece of black lung or Social Security legislation we pass adds to the backlog of the review and appeals system.

I only hope that these hearings will generate that understanding.

Mr. BURKE. Are there any questions?

Mr. PICKLE. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I welcome Mr. Kindness to the hearing, and I enjoyed your testimony.

Mr. BURKE. Thank you very much.

The committee now will be in recess until 1:30. We will transfer the hearing to room H-208 in the Capitol. So at that time the hearing will reconvene in room H-208 and we will hear the rest of the witnesses.

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. in room H-208, the Capitol.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. BURKE. The committee will be in order.

Our next witness will be the Honorable Robert C. McEwen.

We welcome you here to the committee. You may proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. MCEWEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. McEwEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate coming before your subcommittee this afternoon.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you some of the delays that my constituents have encountered in the processing of their social security appeals cases.

I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling hearings to focus attention on this problem at a time when the full Ways and Means Committee is devoting its time and energy to the complex problems of tax reform.

I know that the work that has gone into preparing and holding these hearings has been an extra effort, and I am speaking for scores of my disabled constituents when I express my appreciation for your

concern.

It has been my policy to give top priority to constituents who are seeking the resolution of a Federal matter which has become entan

gled in the bureaucracy. I am especially concerned with cases involving people who, by reason of disability, age, or illness, are at their means' end as well as their wits' end. Since I came to Congress in 1965, my office has been concerned with hundreds of cases involving disability claims. Delays and errors have not been uncommon in disability cases, but the length of the delays and the frequency of errors have been increasing for the past year and a half.

A survey of the cases handled in my office revealed that the amount of time required to process a disability claim was more than a year in most cases. A great many of these claimants are heads of households and their diminished earning power resulting from illness or disability severely affects their families.

In one case, a 25-year army veteran, who had contracted cancer, contacted me after he had received no acknowledgment of his claim for 6 months. He was forced to support his family of four on a $400 month army retirement check until the award was finally made 10 months after his initial claim. He was given some retroactive benefits, but unfortunately he passed away less than a month after his claim was approved.

In another case, a man who had been unable to work since January of 1974 applied for social security disability and SSI in March of that year. His claim was finally approved in June of 1975. A case that is still pending involves a man who was forced to stop work after an automobile accident in 1973. He requires further surgery and will not be able to return to his job until the spring of 1976, at the earliest. He has been able to support his wife and four children with his employer's benefit plan but those funds will run out in December and he will undoubtedly be forced to apply for welfare benefits.

This is only a small sample of the disturbing cases I have seen but it illustrates the point that justice delayed is justice denied. I have no idea how many claimants are forced onto the welfare rolls as a result of protracted disability applications, but any number would be too

many.

In February of this year, I met with some 80 citizens, and a number of county legislators, at a public meeting to discuss social security problems. Most of the complaints centered on problems with the social security disability system, and the cases I explained above typify the frustrations that these people had experienced.

I do not believe that these problems are confined to the people from the 30th Congressional District of New York. This belief is reinforced by the number of my colleagues who signed a letter to Chairman Ullman requesting these hearings and the number of members who testified before this committee.

Although we may have different ideas about the reasons for the delavs and errors, I believe most of the Members who have been disturbed by these problems would agree that an average of more than 18 months from application to award or final administrative denial is too long.

A recent study reported by the staff of this subcommittee states that a year and a half delav is average and also points out that roughly half of this time is attributable to hearings. I hope that this subcommittee will carefully explore the role of the hearing process in the

social security disability and SSI disability system and the procedural rules governing hearing schedules.

My own congressional district covers the northern tier of New York State and its rural character presents additional problems for my constituents. Our largest city has a population of 31,000 people and does not qualify as a hearing center. The hearing examiners must travel to the claimants.

In one case, a claimant who had requested a hearing had to wait several months because the hearing examiner could not travel until a sufficient number of claimants were scheduled for hearings in Northern New York.

I brought this matter to Commissioner Cardwell's attention, and he informed me that claimants are not customarily given the option of having their hearings at the hearing office rather than in the vicinity of their home. There probably are claimants who are unable to travel, but I believe those who are willing and able should be given the opportunity to expedite their case by having the option of traveling to a hearing office rather than wait for the administrative law judge to come to them.

Notwithstanding the delays that I have spoken of, I must candidly admit that I do see a genuine and sincere effort on the part of Social Security Administration district offices to assist the applicants. Their efforts are frustrated, however, by what often appears to be a faceless but frightful monster in Baltimore. That creature is "the system." I know of Social Security Administration employees at the district office level having to plead with computerlike voices at the other end of telephone lines in Baltimore for some kind of identification in the hope of being able, perhaps, to speak with that same person sometime again in the future on the same case. These employees, I know, are often as frustrated with the bureaucracy of "the system" as the applicants themselves.

My district office in northern New York is in daily contact with at least one of the five Social Security Administration district offices in my congressional district. I am pleased to report that our dealings have left us with the highest regard for the directors, acting directors, and staffs of those offices. And likewise, our dealings with the administrative law judges serving my district have been favorable.

As recently as Wednesday of this week, one of the judges met with my special assistant and informed him that the three judges in his office each have a caseload of approximately 150 cases, but, thanks to the addition of clerical and legal assistance, he foresaw improvement. Assuming that his prediction of progress in this regard extends beyond northern New York, it would appear to me that some emphasis should be placed at solving the Baltimore-related delays.

I know that a wide variety of recommendations have been made to this committee and I look forward to studying any legislative initiatives you may develop as a result of these hearings.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I pledge to work with you to implement any budgetary changes which you believe may be appropriate. I applaud your initiative in calling these hearings and I thank you for this opportunity to appear. Mr. BURKE. Thank you, Congressman McEwen.

It seems that your story is the same as that of all the other Congressmen that have come before the committee. Everyone seems to be experiencing the same problems. We do appreciate your appearance. Thank

you.

Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURKE. I notice that Congressman Paul Rogers is here. We will be pleased to recognize you now, Congressman Rogers. STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the chairman of the committee allowing me to testify this afternoon. First of all, I want to commend the subcommittee for holding this set of hearings. I think it will be helpful in developing a record for action and hopefully resulting in some action on a very serious problem that affects so many people today.

I know you have heard from a lot of experts, from a lot of our colleagues as well, and it really is difficult to convey the frustration I think a Member of Congress feels in dealing with these problems.

I know when I started to come over here I looked at a few cases I felt we must get a lot of and the first two I thought were sufficient to show the frustration we are feeling in Florida.

A constituent came to my district office in January and requested a hearing, a claim had been denied for disability benefits.

He was advised it would be 7 months before a hearing could be scheduled and he explained, of course, that he did not have the resources to sustain himself with that long a delay.

I intervened in his behalf, hoping that that might expedite the case but maybe he would have been better off not coming in because it ended up that the administrative law judge took 9, not 7 months, although he found for him, he was due it all the time, but he had to wait 9 months to get it.

Then the second case, a constituent who was a 100-percent disabled veteran. He applied for his social security disability benefits on May 22. On July 31 he was denied benefits after reconsideration, then in August he requested a hearing, in September he was advised it would be 2 or 3 months before they could even get to hearing.

It would be 512 months later, February of this year, the hearing was held March 6, 2 years almost after the application. He was informed then that he was entitled to be classified as disabled under social security. So these two cases, I think, point up the problem in Miami where we have to have our cases handled. They are presently pending some 954 cases awaiting hearing by administrative law judges.

The appellants have been waiting almost 200 days from the time of application and then, of course if it is appealed, that's another almost hundred days there.

So I would like to emphasize to the subcommittee that each of these delays does mean severe hardship and I am sure you are very much aware of it, vou have heard of case after case.

So I would not presume to offer any answer, but I would hope that this committee can address itself, and I know you will, to solution of these problems.