I might say that I have the equivalent of one full-time caseworker who does nothing but work on social security cases alone. I am sure many of you have the same backlog.

On numerous occasions over the past 4 years, I have brought my concerns to the attention of Social Security officials, and I have consistently received empty assurances that they were doing everything possible to reduce the backlogs.

As the "Committee Staff Report on the Disability Insurance Program" documents, Social Security has paid little attention in the past to reports and recommendations of the Ways and Means Committee and of the General Accounting Office with respect to improvements in their claim processing operations. An atmosphere of bureaucratic inertia, pervasive in the higher ranks of the Social Security Administration, has prevented any major changes in operations which would improve the situation. I have been dismayed by the lack of any deep concern for the plight of the benefit recipients and claimants shown by social security officials in my contacts with them.

I don't intend to imply criticism of individual officials or administrative judges. Many of them are operating without adequate supporting personnel, and they are operating in a system that itself is a model of inefficiency and archaic procedures.

The victims of this Social Security maladministration are many thousands of disabled workers who may use up all their savings, lose their homes, and end up on welfare while they wait for decisions on their claims.

Clearly, Congress cannot continue to rely on the Social Security Administration's promise that tomorrow will bring reform. It is time for Congress to take action to require the Social Security Administration to live up to the intent of the diability insurance program, which is to provide timely, efficient service.

To achieve this goal, I have introduced the Social Security Rights Act of 1975 which 59 other Members have joined in cosponsoring. The bill places limitations on the amount of time the Social Security Administration can spend in processing social security benefit claims at all levels of the determination and appeals process as follows: Initial claims, 90 days; reconsideration requests, 90 days; hearing requests, 120 days; and appeals council reviews, 120 days.

The act gives claimants the right to request and to receive emergency payments within 10 days, based on their earnings records, if they have not received notification of decisions on their claims within the specified periods of time. It also establishes emergency payment procedures for recipients whose monthly benefit checks are missing and for claimants whose monthly benefits are late in starting.

Time limits on the processing of Government benefit claims is not a new concept. It has worked well under the food stamp program where applications for benefits must be reviewed and decided in 30 days and in the aid to dependent children program where the limit is 45 days. If we can justify time limits for these programs, how can we not provide the needy social security claimant with similiar rights? Census Bureau records show that approximately 25 percent of families with incomes below the poverty level are social security recipients. Most claimants have contributed regularly with every paycheck to

their social insurance and they deserve to have their cases considered promptly.

The establishment of the extensive new programs of black lung benefits and supplemental security income (SSI) imposed heavy burdens on the Bureau of Disability Insurance and the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals and caused disruptions in the normal operations of the processing of benefit claims and payments. Passage of the Social Security Rights Act or similar legislation would prevent such processing dislocations in the future in the event that these agencies are given the responsibility of administering a national health insurance or other new program.

In addition, the bill would extend emergency payments rights to recipients of retirement and survivors insurance. Certainly, claimants under all social security programs deserve to have their payment problems and claims resolved in a timely manner.

Understandably, the Social Security Administration, like all Government agencies, has been under heavy pressure to cut costs. Unfortunately, this has happened at the expense of their program beneficiaries. For example, in early 1973, a decision was made to reduce the number of employees to be hired to administer the new SSI program from 19,000 to 12,000. As a result, many personnel had to be diverted from the Bureau of Disability Insurance to help implement the SSI program, and the processing times for disability claims grew longer.

By improving processing operations to enable decisions on claims to be issued within the periods specified under the act, unnecessary payments to ineligible claimants would not be made. Money could also be saved by insuring that as many claims as possible are properly determined at each level so that only the most difficult borderline cases would end up going through the expensive hearing procedures. Legislation requiring faster claim processing will eventually save taxpayers money. Perhaps the committee can come up with proposals to write into law provisions to protect against people who drag their feet in supplying information where the delay is the fault of the claimants. Mr. Chairman, on September 19 Commissioner Cardwell outlined the measures the Social Security Administration is taking to solve the hearing crisis. These measures include increasing administrative law judge productivity and reducing a number of cases which reach the hearing level. The hiring of more administrative law judges has also been discussed. I support these measures.

However, in his remarks before this subcommittee on September 19, Mr. Robert Trachtenberg, Director of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, projected that even with the implementation of these measures the current backlog of 107,000 hearing cases can only be reduced to some 80,000 cases by June, 1976.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that the severity of the situation calls for more extreme and immediate steps to reduce the backlog to an acceptable level at the earliest possible date. I believe that the enactment of the Social Security Rights Act or similar legislation would bring about the kind of changes needed to reduce the backlog substantially.

I might say that I have read the statement of Mr. Ralph Abascal, deputy director of California rural legal assistance, given to this

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 him 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