[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                 DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN
               SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2002

_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________
  SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 
                    EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      RALPH REGULA, Ohio, Chairman
 C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida           DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma     STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 DAN MILLER, Florida                 NANCY PELOSI, California
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi        NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky           ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,          JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
California                           PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
 KAY GRANGER, Texas
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
 DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania         
                   
 NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full 
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
       Craig Higgins, Carol Murphy, Susan Ross Firth, Meg Snyder,
             and Francine Mack-Salvador, Subcommittee Staff
                                ________
                                 PART 6

                            RELATED AGENCIES
                                                                   Page
 Institute of Museum and Library Services Testimony...............    1
 Railroad Retirement Board........................................   11
 Corporation for Public Broadcasting..............................  135
 National Labor Relations Board...................................  229
 Social Security Administration...................................  519
 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission Testimony...................  701
                                ________
         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 74-578                     WASHINGTON : 2001





                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                  DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 JERRY LEWIS, California             JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky             NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
 JOE SKEEN, New Mexico               MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia             STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 TOM DeLAY, Texas                    ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
 JIM KOLBE, Arizona                  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama             NANCY PELOSI, California
 JAMES T. WALSH, New York            PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina   NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio               JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma     ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 HENRY BONILLA, Texas                JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan           JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 DAN MILLER, Florida                 ED PASTOR, Arizona
 JACK KINGSTON, Georgia              CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi        CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,          ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., 
Washington                           Alabama
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,          PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
California                           JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                 MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa                    SAM FARR, California
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky           JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama         CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri            ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire       CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
 KAY GRANGER, Texas                  STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey    
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
 JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
 RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
 JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
 DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
 DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
   
 VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia     
   
                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)


              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                                            Thursday, May 24, 2001.

                  CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

                                WITNESS

ROBERT T. COONROD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC 
    BROADCASTING
    Mr. Regula. We will take a short break while the next panel 
comes up.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Regula. Next is the appropriations for the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting. We are pleased to welcome you, Mr. 
Coonrod, the President and CEO of the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. Your full statement will be made a part of the 
record. We will appreciate if you will summarize for us.
    Mr. Coonrod. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be 
here this morning to present the budget request for the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting and several key public 
broadcasting initiatives. Your predecessor, John Porter, who I 
testified before him many times, was a good friend of public 
broadcasting. He supported us and challenged us both, and that 
was a good combination.
    Mr. Regula. I hope to challenge you.
    Mr. Coonrod. Maybe I can convince you to do both as well. 
Public television continues to have the benefit of his counsel 
on the PBS board, as you know.
    Mr. Chairman, you take the helm of the subcommittee at an 
exciting time. We look forward to working with you and the full 
subcommittee. For public broadcasters, the next several years 
hold both the challenge and the promise of great opportunity as 
we work to improve service to the American people.
    CPB is charged with facilitating the development of public 
broadcasting services that deliver creative, diverse, high 
quality programming to all Americans. My goal today, Mr. 
Chairman, is to provide you with an overview of the public 
broadcasting system and explain how continued support from 
Congress will help us further our mission to deliver services 
that meet the educational, cultural and civic needs of the 
American people.
    There are more than 1,000 public television and radio 
stations. They represent the backbone of the Nation's public 
broadcasting system. Each is as individual and creative as the 
community and people it serves.
    Public stations, which are often the only locally owned and 
operated stations in their communities, are in a unique 
position to address local needs. They help students meet their 
State's educational standards, they prepare potential employees 
to enter the workforce, provide teachers with resources that 
improve their teaching, and create forums to address important 
civic issues.
    With the transition to digital broadcasting, public 
broadcasters will provide even more of these valuable services 
to their communities and to the American public at large. This 
expansion of services will be possible because digital 
technology enables stations to broadcast or multicast several 
channels simultaneously. Stations may then devote these 
additional channels to single purpose programming, such as 
children's educational programs, Lifelong Learning or local 
civics programs, while continuing to broadcast popular public 
television programs such as the Civil War, NOVA, and the 
American Experience.
    Mr. Chairman, this is a little primer on digital 
broadcasting which you have before you, and it has a number of 
things in it:, a digital time line and some other pertinent 
facts. But I would also refer you to the sample schedule. The 
stations in Youngstown and Akron, WNEO and WEAO, have laid out 
what their multicast schedules would look like after the 
conversion to digital. It is a useful way, to get a sense of 
how digital television will change what we do.
    You can see, for example, on the left column is the current 
broadcast schedule, and then what the digital broadcast 
schedule would look like after 2003. They continue to have the 
same programs, but then you have the Lifelong Education 
channel, the Civics channel, and a special channel for kids. So 
it is an attempt to try and present graphically what the change 
will look like.
    Stations will also have the ability to provide what is 
called enhanced television. This allows viewers to access extra 
information while watching a program. It makes it possible to 
transmit data to schools or provide reading services for the 
visually impaired.
    Two years from now, all public television stations will be 
broadcasting a digital signal, and the preparations for this 
change present a significant challenge. While many are 
receiving financial support from their State governments and 
from local and private donations, Federal support is essential 
to insure the conversion in all communities.
    Mr. Chairman, we are requesting $395 million in fiscal year 
2004. Congress has supported the practice of advance 
appropriations for CPB for 25 years. While we appreciate the 
goals of the administration to impose budget reform, we believe 
that the advance appropriations provided to CPB are critical to 
achieving our mission. We greatly appreciate the fact that the 
concurrent budget resolution recently approved by Congress 
exempts the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from the 
advance appropriation restriction, and we hope that the 
Appropriations Committee will continue to support this 
exemption.
    The $30 million increase that we request for FY2004 for a 
total of $395 million, will be used to keep pace with 
inflation, to meet the technological challenges I am outlining 
here today, and to expand valuable services in the community. 
My written testimony details how in accordance with our 
statutory formula the funds will be distributed tostations to 
support their current programming and services and help them prepare 
for the digital future.
    Mr. Chairman, we do unconditionally support the 
administration's request for $20 million for digital content 
that is essential to shepherd the research, development and 
distribution of new programming for digital transmission. We 
need your support and cooperation to prepare public 
broadcasting for the technological revolution that I think this 
program schedule exemplifies.
    We hope that the $20 million for 2002 can be combined with 
$20 million that was appropriated in 2001 contingent upon 
authorization. It is critical to our effective planning time 
line to secure the support now so that our stations will be 
able to take full advantage of digital technology and offer the 
public the wealth of educational, civic and cultural 
programming and other services that have always been the 
hallmarks of public broadcasting.
    Much of the infrastructure that supports public 
broadcasting has received Federal support through the Public 
Telecommunications Facilities Program, PTFP, at the Department 
of Commerce. We have projected the cost of converting all 
public broadcasting stations at $1.8 billion. States have 
already contributed $400 million to this effort, and our total 
request of the Federal Government is $699 million over several 
years.
    I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the PTFP funding is not 
under your subcommittee's jurisdiction, but I would ask you and 
others on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and State to 
consider the request of the stations for the $110 million in 
2002 for PTFP support. It is critical to the stations making 
this successful transition to digital.
    Your subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, looks at another area that 
is vitally important to public broadcasting as well, and you 
must make some critical decisions about the needs of education 
in this country. As you struggle with these decisions, I would 
ask you to continue the Federal support for children's 
educational programs in public broadcasting that are credited 
with increasing children's reading skills and providing 
critical training for teachers across the country.
    Specifically, the Ready to Learn program is a cooperative 
effort between the Public Broadcasting Service and the U.S. 
Department of Education that supports children's educational 
television programming focused on reading and school readiness 
skills and workshops for parents and caregivers. Ready to Learn 
has been proven to help kids learn.
    Similarly, TeacherLine is a comprehensive, professional 
development resource designed for college instructors, K-12 
teachers, and future teachers. Public television is seeking 
continued funding in 2002 for these successful programs in the 
amounts of $24 million for Ready to Learn and $8.5 million for 
TeacherLine.
    Mr. Chairman, for more than 30 years, American public 
broadcasters have provided the American public with the highest 
standards of broadcasting and services. The American public 
supports our efforts, as documented by a recent Roper poll, 
which shows that Americans in every generation group consider 
public television and radio among the five best values received 
in return for their tax dollars.
    Our stations have pioneered the use of telecommunications 
to provide services and education to the American public, and 
we remain committed to this goal. We see the new digital age as 
one filled with opportunities, and we look forward to it with 
true excitement.
    We ask for your help, and guarantee that you and our other 
viewers and listeners will share in the rewards that follow.
    I would be happy to take whatever questions you have, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                           DIGITAL TELEVISION

    Mr. Regula. Thank you. The practical effect, I notice this 
is 1, 2, 3, 4, okay, you have a digital TV set. You get on to 
45-49. How do you select 1, 2, 3 or 4?
    Mr. Coonrod. On your remote, you will click between--say it 
was channel 49, it will be 49-A, 49-B, 49-C and 49-D.
    Mr. Regula. You just click one, click two?
    Mr. Coonrod. Right. And you will be able to choose then the 
program that you wish. But because digital also allows for 
datacasting, you will also have access to take an electronic 
program guide, so you will be able to go through and look at 
what time programs are going to be available on the various 
multicast channels.
    Mr. Regula. Won't this increase the workload of the 
producers because they have got to produce four sets of 
programs instead of one?
    Mr. Coonrod. Well, to some degree it would increase the 
workload of the producers, but it provides us an opportunity as 
well. One of the things that public television has noted is 
that it has been constrained by the medium. We serve multiple 
audiences, such as children and adults. Many stations engage in 
educational activity. But by and large, they have had a single 
channel on which to provide these services.
    In this case, they can multicast. So at the same time that 
they are providing a Ready to Learn service for preschool kids, 
they can also be providing the Educational service for other 
ages so those services don't have to compete with each other. 
Much of that programming is available.
    Part of what the $20 million we are requesting would enable 
us to do would be to make sure we can catalogue and digitize 
those programs that they would be available for multicasting. 
So on the one hand, there is programming that could be multi-
purposed, but on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, you are 
absolutely right, this is a challenge for producers. It is a 
challenge not just in the need to produce more programming, but 
also to learn how to use the digital equipment and the digital 
technology effectively.
    We have been supporting a number of workshops around the 
country for producers to help them become a partner in the 
transition. Part of the $20 million for digital that we are 
requesting would be to extend those services to provide 
training at the station level for producers so that they could 
genuinely be a partner in using this new technology and taking 
full advantage of it.
    Mr. Regula. They would just have one studio and one 
transmission tower which would be sending out four different 
programs?
    Mr. Coonrod. That is right. In other words, the four 
programs would be embedded in a single signal. You would have a 
single transmission facility.
    Mr. Regula. I am sorry you don't have Little Bear here. I 
will have to report to my grandson. Maybe he will write a 
letter. He likes Little Bear.
    Mr. Coonrod. I see.
    Mr. Regula. A lot of these channels or these production 
facilities are connected to colleges, aren't they?
    Mr. Coonrod. Yes, sir. About a third of the stations are 
licensed to colleges and universities.

                           EDITORIAL CONTROL

    Mr. Regula. Now, what is your policy on editorial content? 
Because it is public radio, it is financed by the taxpayers in 
part. What kind of a policy do you have in terms of making sure 
that news distribution is news distribution, not editorial 
content?
    Mr. Coonrod. If you mean the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, we don't have any direct role in editorial 
decision making. The editorial decision making is the purview 
of the local licensee. We have what I would describe as two 
responsibilities under the law. On the one hand, our job is to 
protect public broadcasting from any undue interference--the 
heat shield role. The other role is to assure objectivity and 
balance in programs of a controversial nature.
    We can't do that directly since we don't have any editorial 
responsibility, but we have a feedback loop where we provide 
feedback to producers and to stations when we hear criticism. 
We have 800 numbers and Web sites and that sort of thing.
    In addition, National Public Radio, for example, has 
established an ombudsman, which is a direct channel that the 
people have if there is something on National Public Radio that 
they object to. There is an ombudsman who can look into the 
question. That is in the last year and a half that that 
ombudsman has been established. That has been a very positive 
step.
    Finally, I think we employ what are traditional and well-
established editorial guidelines for the programming. Part of 
what we have done at CPB is helped to ensure that station 
staffs are familiar with standard journalistic procedure and 
editorial guidelines, especially since many stations are doing 
local news. It is kind of an educational role as well. But to 
reiterate, we do not have any direct responsibility for the 
editorial content.
    Mr. Regula. What percent of programming is originating with 
the studio, like 45-49 in my case, and what portion of it is 
simply transmission services that they get from a central 
source?
    Mr. Coonrod. It is hard to generalize, so the statistics I 
give you will be general in nature and subject to a lot of 
exceptions. But probably between 5 and 10 percent of television 
programming is generated locally. The rest comes from several 
central sources, not a single central source.
    In radio, about 48 percent of all programming is locally 
produced.
    Mr. Regula. CPB Federal funds, are they used for operations 
or programming or both?
    Mr. Coonrod. Well, both. We could go through how the money 
flows, but stations use them for both. In fact, we also support 
the development of new programming.

                            DIGITAL FUNDING

    Mr. Regula. The $20 million would be used for conversion?
    Mr. Coonrod. The $20 million, Mr. Chairman, would be used 
for four important categories. First is to continue the R&D 
work that has been started; secondly, to make sure that we can 
manage the digital assets well, which is to take advantage of 
the incredible libraries of programming that are already 
available; third would be for the necessary training at the 
station level and for producers; and, the fourth element would 
be to actually support the production of new digital content, 
primarily educational content. Educational content would be K-
12, Lifelong Learning, and other kinds of content that would be 
used on these multicast channels. So those are the four 
elements.
    Mr. Regula. Mr. Kennedy.

                         ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS

    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask 
you about the Workplace Essential Skills series. We found that 
in Rhode Island this series, a 25-part series for teenagers and 
adults to learn skills they need to find and keep a job, was 
very useful. So I wanted to know how you planned to get these 
series out if the advanced appropriation is not available, or 
would that not be possible?
    Mr. Coonrod. Well, if the advance appropriation were not 
available, it would make it very difficult for stations around 
the country to plan the acquisition of programs.
    The program you cite is a good example of the kind of thing 
we are talking about in a multicast environment; here is a 
program that is produced in Rhode Island and has proven to be 
very effective there. In a multicast environment, other 
stations that have similar kind of workforce issues could take 
that program and broadcast it on their stations in their 
markets. So it is a way of multipurposing a program that has 
already proven its value and effectiveness.
    If the stations were not able to have the predictability of 
the advance appropriation, it would affect their ability to 
plan and to make the kind of acquisitions long term that are 
important.
    But there is another issue here that I would like 
tomention, and that is the ability to leverage other dollars. The 
Federal dollar leverages about $8 from other sources. When it comes to 
things like Lifelong Learning or Education for Adults, there is usually 
a funder who is willing to underwrite the cost of that kind of 
programming. Sometimes it is the State government, sometimes it is an 
educational institution. The symbol that the Federal support provides 
is a very important one in helping to secure those other sources of 
underwriting revenue.
    Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify for me the part of the CJS 
budget that you were speaking about in your testimony?
    Mr. Coonrod. Yes. It is the Public Telecommunications 
Facilities Program, which is part of NTIA, within the 
Department of Commerce. It is the program that has 
traditionally provided support for public telecommunications 
facilities. By that we mean equipment that stations use for 
production and transmission of programming.
    It is done on a matching and a needs basis. So stations in 
larger markets, for example, get their grants matched at a 
different percentage than stations in smaller markets. It has 
proven to be extremely successful. The people there have a lot 
of experience in this area, and while it would be possible for 
us to run a program like this, there is one that exists within 
the Federal Government and it would seem redundant to try to 
replicate those services.
    Mr. Kennedy. So that is where the pot of money comes from?
    Mr. Coonrod. Exactly.
    Mr. Kennedy. So if you could identify that, I would like to 
keep an eye out for it, because I happen to serve on the other 
subcommittee of CJS.
    Mr. Coonrod. Terrific. That is very important for the 
stations around the country. They are familiar with the 
procedures, and the procedures work quite well.

                      NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMMING

    Mr. Kennedy. I also wanted to ask you about the American 
Indian Radio on Satellite Network, AIROS Network, the national 
distribution program for native programming on tribal 
communities. For example, your group awarded a $1.2 million 
grant to Alaska's KUAC Broadcasting Corporation to continue 
production of the daily talk service, Native America Calling.
    But there are only currently 18 States where AIROS stations 
are located, only five east of the Mississippi. Given the fact 
that many native tribes are located in isolated rural areas, 
can you explain the process of deciding where AIROS stations 
are located?
    Mr. Coonrod. AIROS stations that take down the service are 
stations that choose to take down the service. They tend to be 
native stations, often on reservations. There are no barriers 
to entry, so to speak. There are no fees that are charged or 
anything like that. So essentially the local station management 
determines that this is programming that would be of interest 
or value to the audience.
    I think what we can do is a better job of promoting the 
service in communities around the country. Native America 
Calling is a show that has proven to be very helpful in 
identifying key issues among Native Americans and in helping to 
articulate views on those issues. By combining those services 
with the work that Koahnic has been doing in Alaska, I think 
what we have done is we have created a kind of critical mass 
for native programming in one place under the management of 
Koahnic Broadcasting, which is very capable.
    I hope what you are going to see in the years ahead, is an 
expansion, a better take-up of the service. I think we have 
gotten the programming where it works. I think that the 
satellite distribution is in place. Now it is a matter of 
promoting it around the country.
    Mr. Kennedy. Well, I would certainly like to have your 
input into how to assist in that. The Chairman and I and other 
members were down at the Centers for Disease Control, and they 
had a very archaic broadcasting system. Yet their whole mission 
is to educate the public about the overall public health and 
how to prevent the kinds of epidemiology that we see in this 
country, especially with obesity and diabetes, and, of course, 
with Native American people diabetes is an enormous problem, 
four times the national average. It would seem to me having 
these programs, these facilities that you offer, would be very 
useful to transmit public health messages as well.
    Do you work like with the CDC at all in terms of getting 
some information from them?
    Mr. Coonrod. I know that the producers of the program have 
regular health segments, and I presume that the CDC is part of 
the groups that they work with, because those are critical 
issues.
    Mr. Kennedy. Well, I hope that your $1.5 million increase 
in additional projects may include some Native American 
projects.
    Mr. Coonrod. The other service that is on satellite, in 
addition to Native America Calling, is National Native News, 
which is a daily news program, a Native American news program. 
That often deals with health-related issues as part of the 
regular news coverage.
    Mr. Kennedy. Great. Well, I look forward to working with 
you. I know the chairman has a lot of understanding and deep 
knowledge of these issues, and I certainly will look forward to 
working with you and the chairman to see that your $5.2 million 
increase in technological services and radio stations also 
includes technology needed by the Native American radio 
broadcasting system. Thank you.
    Mr. Regula. I think Mr. Kennedy has touched on an 
interesting point though, and that is the dissemination of news 
of a health nature. I have concern that NIH's activities, and 
they have a Web site actually, and CDC likewise, do not really 
reach the vast public. I was just looking through this chart, 
and with the exception of Anxiety Disorders in Children, there 
isn't a whole lot on here of a health nature.
    Mr. Coonrod. I am sorry, which chart?
    Mr. Regula. The digital TV that has the four choices.
    Mr. Coonrod. This is illustrative. I am sure every day 
wouldn't be directed to Anxiety Disorders in Children. I think 
when it comes to health-related topics, public broadcasting, 
both at the local level and the national level, has been a 
leader in providing information, both in terms of the news, but 
also the kind of news you can use.
    There is a series, for example, that was widely praised 
last winter about Gray Matters, which was a whole series about 
the brain and brain disorders, which won several awards. Those 
kinds of in-depth documentary series can be very valuable.
    National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation, actually the 
Friday program is called Science Friday, and the subject is 
science, but medical topics are frequently the topics thatare 
discussed.
    So my sense is that public broadcasters are sensitive to 
those needs, and one of the reasons for doing both Native 
America Calling and a similar program we do for Latinos, called 
Linea Abierta, for the Latino call-in show, is so that we can 
also provide health-related issues and others that are specific 
to those communities.
    Mr. Regula. I think, just as a suggestion, if you did a 
special on CDC, sent a team down there, likewise on NIH, it 
would probably be an eye opener for a lot of people, because 
there is a real listening and viewing audience out there.
    Mr. Coonrod. Yes. The work they do is extraordinary.
    Mr. Regula. It is extraordinary. If I walked down the 
street in my little town and asked somebody about CDC, they 
would think it is probably--they wouldn't know what it was.
    Mr. Kennedy. It would belong in a music store.
    Mr. Regula. All right, that is right. Likewise, and I have 
tried this out, National Institutes of Health. I find very few 
people really have an understanding of how important these two 
agencies are. That is what Mr. Kennedy was suggesting, and you 
may want to take that back to your producers.
    Mr. Coonrod. I would be happy to do that, because it is a 
subject of key interest to the American public.
    Mr. Regula. It is as important to know about as baseball.
    Mr. Coonrod. Well, maybe not. Yes, sir, it is extremely 
important, and I will take that back.

                           STATUTORY FORMULA

    Mr. Regula. As I understand it, 25 percent of your funding 
goes to public radio and 75 percent to public television, is 
that right?
    Mr. Coonrod. In effect, that is right.
    Mr. Regula. That is statutory.
    Mr. Coonrod. Under a statutory formula.
    Mr. Regula. Does CPB do preparation of programming, or are 
you just an administrative agency?
    Mr. Coonrod. We do two things when it comes to the--I will 
use radio as an example. We provide a community service grant 
to stations that qualify. For example, we consult regularly 
with the station community to develop the criteria for those 
grants. Recently we have established criteria that put emphasis 
on rural service, so stations in rural areas get their NFFS, 
their non-Federal financial support, matched 25 percent higher 
than stations in urban areas, as a way to promote stations in 
areas not well served by radio.
    In addition, we provide stations with funds to purchase 
programming, either from NPR or Public Radio International or 
from other sources.
    Finally, about a small percentage of our money goes to 
support the development of new programming. So we make the 
programming calls as to what the new programs might be.
    Mr. Regula. But the actual production is done----
    Mr. Coonrod. By someone else.
    Mr. Regula. By someone else. So you tend to be in an 
overarching administrative function?
    Mr. Coonrod. Right. We give the grant to someone. We run 
the competition and then at the end give the grant to someone.
    Mr. Regula. What percent of the cost of the production in 
both TV and radio is Federal money and what percent, of course, 
would be private and/or other State or local public sources?
    Mr. Coonrod. Once again, these are general averages.
    Mr. Regula. I understand.
    Mr. Coonrod. But we are almost never a majority funder, and 
generally we are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 percent, 
15 to 20 percent of the total funding. The advantage of the CPB 
money is that it is kind of a seal of approval. If you get that 
initial commitment, then you can go out and raise money from 
foundations and from other sources.

                              UNDERWRITING

    Mr. Regula. Which raises another interesting question, and 
that is what is the policy on advertising? Do you limit it to 
certain types of advertising, or anybody that walks through the 
door and wants to advertise on either television or radio?
    Mr. Coonrod. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we don't call it 
advertising.
    Mr. Regula. Well----
    Mr. Coonrod. Under the FCC guidelines, it is called 
underwriting.
    Mr. Regula. Okay.
    Mr. Coonrod. All stations, all public broadcasting stations 
are licensed as noncommercial educational stations under the 
FCC guidelines, and they have their regulations.
    What the public stations do is voluntarily establish 
guidelines that are more restrictive than those that are 
permitted by the FCC, so that, for example, in television the 
length of the underwriting credit is limited. Programs are not 
interrupted and a number of other more restrictive guidelines 
than what is permitted by the FCC. So those are the guidelines 
that both stations follow and producers follow.
    But we come back to a central point, and that is by law we 
must identify all sources of revenue. It starts from the basis 
that these are noncommercial education licensees and they must 
identify to their listeners and viewers all of the sources of 
revenue they have. So that is one of the essential reasons for 
underwriting.
    Now, some people are more creative with their underwriting 
techniques than others.
    Mr. Regula. I have noticed that. We have law firms and they 
do get all the names in. The Smucker's Company is in my 
district, and they are really public spirited people and they 
underwrite a number of programs, and I am sure you have other 
public spirited companies that do likewise. But I see what you 
are saying. It is not advertising per se, it is support.
    Mr. Coonrod. I am not allowed to use the A word.
    Mr. Regula. We are being good neighbors. Okay, Mr. Kennedy, 
do you have anything further?

                             READY TO LEARN

    Mr. Kennedy. Just finally, I am concerned about the 
Administration's proposal to eliminate funding for the Ready to 
Learn Program, which supports the development of high quality 
programming for children. The budget zeros out the $16 million 
provided last year for this program which CPB and PBS 
administer.
    What children's programs have been produced with these 
funds in the past and what would be the impact on your ability 
to support high quality children's programs if these funds are 
eliminated?
    Mr. Coonrod. The programs, the signature programs, Arthur, 
Dragon Tails and Between the Lions, three very important 
programs, have received funding from the Department of 
Education. But the other thing that is important about that 
fund is that it provides outreach money for stations to do 
outreach into their communities. Part of the new plan that has 
been worked out with the Department of Education would be to 
increase those station grants from $25,000 to $50,000. So that 
each station that was a Ready to Learn station would have this 
grant to do outreach in their communities. By that, we mean do 
workshops for parents and caregivers to help them understand 
how to use the reading programs on television. It is a very 
important part of what we do.
    Some of the research from both the University of Alabama 
and the University of Kansas recently indicate that the 
programs really do work. If parents go through the seminars, 
one of the things that we find is that the kids in those 
families read more, they read more with their parents, and it 
is a very constructive thing. It is a very useful program, so 
we obviously support it at CPB, but we think the Department of 
Education support is critical going forward.
    Mr. Kennedy. So you are saying you are upset that the 
Department of Education budget zeros it out and would like to 
see it supported and restored?
    Mr. Coonrod. Well, I would certainly like to see it 
supported and restored. But to be clear, every year we have had 
to make this argument, and every year the Congress has come 
forward and helped get this money into the Department of 
Education budget for us.
    Mr. Kennedy. Well, it certainly helps to have your 
testimony. If you can provide us with any additional 
information with regard to that, we will try to send it over to 
our colleagues to make sure we keep this funding going through 
the Department of Education budget as well.
    Mr. Coonrod. Thank you.
    Mr. Kennedy. I was about to say send it over to someone 
else, and I realized no, send it over to us. I am not used to 
this, Mr. Chairman. We have a broad scope of responsibility 
here.
    Mr. Coonrod. This committee and subcommittee and the 
comparable subcommittee in the Senate have been strong 
supporters of this program in the past. We think the research 
shows it is really working.
    Mr. Regula. Well, we thank you for coming and for your 
testimony. So I think you get to wind up our public hearings. 
Now all we have to do is decide how much to give to each of the 
many supplicants that have come our way over the last several 
months.
    Mr. Coonrod. Does being last help at all?
    Mr. Regula. I thought maybe that was coming. Well, thank 
you for being here.
    Mr. Coonrod. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Kennedy.
    Mr. Regula. The committee is adjourned.
    [The following questions were submitted to be answered for 
the record:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                            Thursday, May 17, 2001.

                     NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

                               WITNESSES

PETER J. HURTGEN, CHAIRMAN
JOHN E. HIGGINS, JR., ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL
JOHN C. TRUESDALE, BOARD MEMBER
HARDING DARDEN, JR., BUDGET OFFICER

                       Introduction of Witnesses

    Mr. Regula. Mr. Hurtgen.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Right.
    Mr. Regula. Have I got it right?
    Mr. Hurtgen. You do.
    Mr. Regula. Mr. Hurtgen, I understand you are rather new at 
this responsibility.
    Mr. Hurtgen. I think it is about 15 hours.
    Mr. Regula. Fifteen hours, well--so no questions, yet. We 
will wait for your testimony. We will put the entire testimony 
in the record and you can summarize as you choose.
    Mr. Hurtgen. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is a pleasure and an honor to be here to present the 
budget to you of the National Labor Relations Board. It is not 
an unalloyed honor, frankly, though, because, as you just 
alluded, I became the Chairman last night.
    Seated to my right is the esteemed person I changed places 
with, Former Chairman John Truesdale.
    Mr. Regula. Oh, we had an election? Is that the idea?
    Mr. Hurtgen. Well, there was one.
    Mr. Regula. Right.
    Mr. Hurtgen. And to my far left is our new Acting General 
Counsel, who also was appointed last night, and he is here to 
present the bulk of our budget to you. No, I am kidding.
    The man to my immediate left, Harding Darden, Jr., is our 
budget officer, and he is representative of the outstanding 
career employees that we have at the NLRB and he is the most 
knowledgeable person, of course, about our budget.
    We have submitted remarks for the record which have been 
changed at least to reflect my name on the title, but the text 
of them reads as though they are being presented by former 
Chairman Truesdale, and so there is some awkwardness there.
    Mr. Regula. I suspect this is somewhat of a nonpartisan 
operation.
    Mr. Hurtgen. It is very much nonpartisan, and I have only a 
few remarks I would make which are set forth in the remarks of 
record, and they are as follows:

                           Opening Statement

    We are seeking from you a budget of $221,438,000 that is a 
2.3 percent increase over the current year budget. We believe 
that will adequately provide us with the funds to pay the 
mandated increases in employee compensation, rent increases 
that come with every year, it seems, and provide us with the 
necessary funds to continue to work our inventory down, our 
case inventory down, both in the field from the General 
Counsel's side as well as from the Board's side. It will also 
allow us to continue the training effort that we have 
undertaken under Former Chairman Truesdale's guidance a couple 
of years ago--something that had lagged in prior years, but we 
are able now, with funds in this year's budget and the funds 
sought from you for next year, to continue that effort, and 
that is an important----
    Mr. Regula. Training of employees?
    Mr. Hurtgen. Training of employees. Yes.
    And we are certain that we will be able to do that if 
funded as we have requested.
    Chairman Truesdale then led the effort of the Board to 
reduce the inventory of cases. We set out for a goal for 
ourselves of the current year of deciding all representation 
cases over 20 months old and all unfair labor practice cases 
over 30 months old. We achieved 100 percent of that goal for 
the representation cases. We achieved 78 percent of that goal 
for the unfair labor practice cases. So we need to work a 
little more on the unfair labor practice cases, but I am 
confident that we will do that.
    We are presently four on the Board--myself, Member 
Truesdale, Member Liebman, and Member Walsh. We are down one 
quart, if you will, in terms of Board members, and that does 
affect the case production from the Board's side. So we are in 
a transition time, and, of course, it is impossible to know as 
we sit here today how long that is going to take, but we are 
confident that this budget will provide us with the funds we 
need to do the work of this agency. And I and Mr. Truesdale, 
Mr. Higgins, and Mr. Darden will answer any of your questions 
that you have.
    [The prepared statement follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
                            BOARD DECISIONS

    Mr. Regula. Now, you have heard the old phrase, ``Justice 
delayed is justice denied,'' and so I assume that you make 
every effort to move these cases as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Hurtgen. We do. We do.
    Mr. Regula. I would be curious. Do you often or 
occasionally have a three-two vote? Does it become a political 
vote?
    Mr. Hurtgen. I would not say often, but occasionally we 
have a three-two vote. We have perhaps a little more often a 
two-one vote.
    Mr. Regula. Yes.
    Mr. Hurtgen. The vast majority of our decisions are still 
three-zero. Almost all our cases are assigned to us on a blind 
rotating case basis, and the vast majority of them are decided 
by three of the five Board members. And, as I say, the vast 
majority of those go out three-zero.
    Mr. Regula. So you do that to expedite cases, so three of 
you will act on a case and----
    Mr. Hurtgen. Well, by law----
    Mr. Regula [continuing]. It is a sub-panel?
    Mr. Hurtgen. Exactly. It is like an appellate court, if you 
will.
    Mr. Regula. Right. I understand.
    Mr. Hurtgen. By law, only three of us need to decide a 
case.
    Mr. Regula. Yes.
    Mr. Hurtgen. And that is the most expeditious way to do it.

                             AGENCY WEBSITE

    Mr. Regula. I notice that you maintain a website----
    Mr. Hurtgen. We do.
    Mr. Regula [continuing]. For employers, union members, 
individuals. I assume that this information on the website 
gives them some sense of the direction the Board might take, 
and would result in cases perhaps getting resolved after people 
evaluate the standards.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Yes, or, hopefully more likely, prevent a 
problem from occurring, which might otherwise have occurred. We 
have been given a lot of positive remarks about our website, 
and it is something, of course, that we continue to adjust, but 
we provide a great deal of information to the public on our 
processes, on our personnel, on where we are located, and where 
you can find our decisions, our advice memoranda, our opinions, 
etc. So there is an awful lot that we do provide to the public, 
and it is our information, noted by the number of hits that we 
take to the website, that is being used extensively.

                      INFORMATION OFFICER PROGRAM

    Mr. Higgins. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that last year we 
received over 170,000 contacts from members of the public to 
our regional offices. This is another way we serve the public, 
often without unfair labor practice charges being filed. In 
fact, of those 170,000 contacts, only about 5 percent of them 
resulted in a case being filed. In the rest of them the 
individual was told either he or she does not have a case or 
was directed to the proper agency.
    So, in addition to all of the hits that we get on that 
website, there is an extraordinary number of contacts with the 
public that do not end up becoming an NLRB case.

                     BODY OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

    Mr. Regula. Procedurally, are you a body of original 
jurisdiction, or is there--if somebody has a complaint, do they 
come directly to the Board?
    Mr. Hurtgen. The National Labor Relations Board is the 
original jurisdiction of all disputes pursuant to the National 
Labor Relations Act, and it is the fundamental broad, basic 
labor law of the Nation in respect of the employer/employee 
relations. Whether employees will be represented by unions or 
not, whether one or both parties are bargaining in good faith 
or not, whether unfair labor practices are committed or not, we 
are the agency of original jurisdiction. Our orders are final 
orders, and the parties may appeal them to a United States 
Court of Appeals, but otherwise they are final and binding.

                       APPEALING BOARD DECISIONS

    Mr. Regula. I am curious. Do you get overturned very often?
    Mr. Hurtgen. Well, I guess that depends on your 
perspective. I think historically the agency has not been 
overturned very often. I do not have those figures, but I 
suspect that the rate at which our decisions are upheld and/or 
overturned today would be very close to what it was ten, 
fifteen, twenty years ago. I do not know what that is, but I 
would--in my view, we get upheld in the vast majority of the 
cases.
    Mr. Regula. Theoretically, it could go to the Supreme 
Court, I assume.
    Mr. Hurtgen. It can. Certiorari can be sought from a court 
of appeals decision----
    Mr. Regula. Right.
    Mr. Hurtgen [continuing]. Involving our cases, and, again, 
this is simply anecdotal and in my own opinion, but I think a 
fair number of cases that originate with us do wind up with the 
Supreme Court.
    Mr. Regula. Probably with big policy issues.
    Mr. Hurtgen. That is correct, sir. Absolutely.

                             SALTING CASES

    Mr. Regula. I know salting, and I do not know all the 
minutia that goes in that. It has been a controversial subject.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. Have you dealt with that at all?
    Mr. Hurtgen. We have. Salting, in the sense of a union 
having its paid members or officers seek employment at an 
employer----
    Mr. Regula. Right.
    Mr. Hurtgen [continuing]. For the purpose of organizing 
that employer, that is the definition that we work with. It is, 
of course, a lawful approach for a union to take, but it does 
yield and lead to claims of unfair labor practices, and we get 
a fair number of those cases. I could not tell you what the 
percentage is. It is less now than it was a few years ago, I 
know that. But they do come to us on a regular basis.

                             BUDGET REQUEST

    Mr. Regula. Do you think this budget will enable you to 
promptly deal with the complaints, the cases? Will you have 
adequate funding to----
    Mr. Hurtgen. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. Because it is important to people that their 
cases be adjudicated.
    Mr. Hurtgen. We all feel that this budget will adequately 
allow us to continue the reduction of pending cases, to even 
more-expeditiously decide them, and, as I say, to pay the rent, 
to increase the salaries of employees, and to continue our 
training efforts.

                            IMPACT ANALYSIS

    Mr. Regula. As I understand it, and I am new to this, but 
you place cases in three different categories; is that correct?
    Mr. Higgins. The General Counsel does in terms of----
    Mr. Regula. Is that for purposes to determine how 
quicklythey will be heard?
    Mr. Higgins. Yes. It is a procedure called ``impact 
analysis.''
    Mr. Regula. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. All cases are initially filed in our regional 
offices. Those regional offices are under the supervision of 
the General Counsel.
    Mr. Regula. Okay.
    Mr. Higgins. At that stage, an assessment is made: is this 
a case that is a high priority? Is the impact on the public in 
this case great, moderate, or less? And then it is put in that 
category and a time target or goal assigned to the 
investigation of that case.
    Mr. Regula. So that if it does have a wide public 
involvement, you would get it----
    Mr. Higgins. It would get priority.
    Mr. Regula [continuing]. Moved more expeditiously?
    Mr. Higgins. It would be in the category of high priority 
cases. That is correct.

                  REGIONAL OFFICES/REGIONAL DIRECTORS

    Mr. Regula. In terms of actually getting a case before you, 
the complainants would start at the regional office?
    Mr. Higgins. That is correct.
    Mr. Regula. How many of those do you have?
    Mr. Higgins. In fact, nearly 90 percent of the cases that 
are filed with the NLRB never really see the light of a 
Washington day. They are investigated and either dismissed or 
settled in the regional offices by regional office staff.
    Mr. Regula. So the regional office managers, if you will, 
or whatever term you use, have some ability to deal with these.
    Mr. Higgins. Absolutely.
    Mr. Regula. And then they are subject to appeal from that 
decision if the complainants want to get it up to your level?
    Mr. Higgins. Right. The regional directors, who are the 
people you are talking about, the regional directors have 
delegated authority from the General Counsel to decide whether 
or not to prosecute an unfair labor practice.
    Mr. Regula. Now, does your Board decide who will pick the 
employees, directors?
    Mr. Hurtgen. Yes, we do.
    Mr. Regula. So they are speaking, in a sense, on your 
behalf?
    Mr. Hurtgen. They are. Absolutely. They are career members 
of the Senior Executive Service, and they are quite able and 
adept.

                            DECERTIFICATION

    Mr. Regula. It mentions here in my notes that you 
overturned a precedent on what would be de-listing; am I 
correct? If a union wants to become a representative body, they 
have to have an election, which you supervise, if I understand 
it correctly.
    Mr. Hurtgen. That is correct.
    Mr. Regula. All right. And you certify the results, which 
determines whether or not they become the bargaining agent for 
that particular industry.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Right.
    Mr. Regula. What is the procedure for de-listing? Suppose 
the employer says, ``Well, my sense is that a substantial 
majority of my employees have decided they do not want to 
belong to the union,'' what procedure--as I understand it, you 
have changed that somewhat.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Very recently the Board issued a decision in a 
case named ``Levitz,'' and it overturned prior Board authority 
upon the issue of when may an employer withdraw recognition 
based on a reasonable good faith showing that the employees----
    Mr. Regula. Right.
    Mr. Hurtgen [continuing]. No longer want the union. The 
Board held in this case that an employer could no longer 
withdraw recognition lawfully unless there was an actual loss 
of majority; that simply having a good faith belief that there 
was--or being uncertain as to whether there still was--was not 
sufficient to simply withdraw recognition; that if the employer 
were uncertain but did not know that there was an actual loss, 
what the employer should do is file a petition with our agency 
to have an election and have the employees vote to decide 
whether they still want the union or not.
    That did overturn prior law, to some extent.
    Mr. Regula. Well, it does seem reasonable that there ought 
to be a vote, because otherwise it is based on a hunch, if you 
will, or something approaching that for an employer to 
determine it.
    Can an employee of a union--and most of this is for my 
edification, because all we deal with is the amount of money 
you are going to get.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Right.
    Mr. Regula. I am just curious.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Happy to edify you.
    Mr. Regula. Okay.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Very few people ask us to do that.
    Mr. Regula. Well, suppose an employee feels that--and it is 
the employee's sense that perhaps his colleagues do not want to 
pay dues, for example. Can an employee request an election for 
decertification?
    Mr. Hurtgen. He can, but he needs to get some of his 
coworkers to support him in that effort.
    Mr. Regula. Okay.
    Mr. Hurtgen. And then he needs to come down to our region 
in his area and file a petition.
    Mr. Regula. Okay.
    Mr. Hurtgen. And if he does, if he comes in with something 
signed by some of his coworkers saying that they want to change 
whether they are represented or not, our agent in that office, 
our Board agent, will assist that person in going forward with 
their petition, if it is timely and that is what they want to 
do.
    Mr. Regula. And your Board then could order or the regional 
officer could order an election?
    Mr. Hurtgen. Absolutely.
    Mr. Regula. And are the elections conducted at the expense 
of your Board?
    Mr. Hurtgen. Yes. Right. We conduct the election with our 
agents and our equipment.
    Mr. Regula. And there is no charge to either the employer 
or the union?
    Mr. Hurtgen. Not at all.
    Mr. Regula. Sounds like it is a fairly democratic 
procedure.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Oh, it is very democratic. I mean, it is like 
any democracy, however--some of the issues that arise out of it 
get one side or the other claiming foul.
    Mr. Regula. I have heard that happen even here.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Which is where we come in.
    Mr. Regula. Right. As Churchill said, it is better than 
whatever is second best.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. It is true, too.
    I think that covers the information I would be interested 
in.
    As you point out in your budget, the increase just covers 
your fixed cost, essentially.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Right.

                        CASEHANDLING TIME FRAME

    Mr. Regula. What is the average time? An employee comes in 
and says, ``We want to have an election at Plant A,'' and the 
employer says, ``Well, I do not want it,'' but, of course, 
under the law they are eventually going to have it. What is the 
time frame?
    Mr. Hurtgen. I am going to defer to General Counsel, but 
start by saying I think it is, after the petition--between the 
time of the petition being filed and the time the actual 
election occurs is 42, 43 days.
    Mr. Higgins. About six weeks.
    Mr. Regula. So it is fairly prompt?
    Mr. Higgins. There is an enormous amount of pressure to get 
to that election quickly.
    Mr. Regula. I can understand.
    If an employee could file a complaint for themselves saying 
that, ``I feel that this employer is doing something that is an 
unfair labor practice,'' the employee would be the aggrieved 
party; am I correct?
    Mr. Hurtgen. That is correct.

                            MERITORIUS CASES

    Mr. Regula. And you then adjudicate the merits of the case?
    Mr. Hurtgen. General Counsel's personnel in the regional 
office will investigate the complaint.
    Mr. Regula. Right.
    Mr. Hurtgen. If they believe some merit is presented by the 
employee, they will try to settle it with the employer. And if 
they cannot settle it with the employer satisfactorily to us 
and to the employee, then a complaint will issue and a formal 
trial will then proceed, after which a decision is rendered. 
And if the employee or the employer does not like it or the 
General Counsel who prosecutes it does not like it, it is 
appealed to us.
    Mr. Regula. When you say ``tried,'' it is not a jury, 
obviously?
    Mr. Hurtgen. No. It is a bench trial.
    Mr. Higgins. It is before an administrative law judge.
    Mr. Regula. That is what I assumed.
    Mr. Higgins. And the prosecutor, if you will, is an 
attorney working for the General Counsel in one of our regional 
offices.
    Mr. Regula. And the aggrieved party can have their own 
counsel?
    Mr. Higgins. The aggrieved party, as well as the charging 
party. So if the charging party--let us say it was a union--it 
could have its lawyer there, and the charged party or the 
respondent would have its lawyer there.

                              CASE INTAKE

    Mr. Regula. How many cases a year get filed? I am not 
talking about votes or elections for representation, but just 
individuals that have----
    Mr. Higgins. Somewhere between 27,000 and 30,000 unfair 
labor practice cases a year. And I might add that, of those 
30,000 or so cases, about two-thirds of them are investigated 
and a decision is made not to prosecute. Of the remaining, let 
us say, 10,000 or so cases, the regional offices will settle 
about 95 percent of those.
    So what goes to the Board is really the tip of the filing 
iceberg, if you will. The Agency really depends very much on 
voluntary compliance.

                          REPRESENTATION CASES

    In representation cases, for example, the election cases, 
over 85 percent of those cases go to an election because the 
employer and the union agree to the date, place, the time, and 
those eligible to vote. It is an agreement without the 
necessity of litigation.
    So we depend very much on and we have had a very good 
record of obtaining voluntary compliance from employers and 
unions and from employees.
    Mr. Regula. That is very interesting, and I assume that, 
where the employer is not sure whether it is a majority nor the 
union not sure, that this provides them a forum to ascertain.
    Mr. Higgins. That is correct.
    Mr. Regula. And I assume it is a secret ballot.
    Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir. It is. It is a very carefully 
guarded process, too.
    Mr. Regula. Well, it is----
    Mr. Hurtgen. We do not use voting machines.
    Mr. Regula. No chads? [Laughter.]
    I understand Florida now has the best election law in the 
country.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Well, they are going to have it if they do 
not.
    Mr. Regula. The governor just signed it?
    Mr. Hurtgen. Did he?
    Mr. Regula. A complete redoing of their law.
    I see none of my colleagues are here, so obviously you must 
be doing a pretty good job or you would have generated a little 
bit of greater degree of interest.
    I appreciate your being here this morning. I do not have 
any further questions. We might have a few for the record, but 
we will submit those. I do not know if you have anything 
further you would like to offer us?
    Mr. Hurtgen. No. We will answer questions, of course, Mr. 
Chairman. Otherwise, thank you very much.
    Mr. Regula. Maybe some of my colleagues will have questions 
for the record. I do not know.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Sure.
    Mr. Regula. But we will submit those.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Okay.
    Mr. Regula. Well, thank you very much for coming.
    Mr. Hurtgen. Thank you.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The following questions were submitted to be answered for 
the record:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                            Thursday, May 24, 2001.

                     SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                               WITNESSES

LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
PETER D. SPENCER, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR FINANCE, ASSESSMENT 
    AND MANAGEMENT

                       Introduction of Witnesses

    Mr. Regula. We will get started this morning and we will 
welcome Mr. Spencer and Mr. Massanari.

                TELEPHONE ACCESS AT CANTON FIELD OFFICE

    We are pleased to welcome you this morning on a topic that 
is important to people, because I know in my district office we 
get lots of calls from individuals concerned about their Social 
Security or their benefits, and I will say your agency has been 
very responsive. The base problem is not enough phone lines. 
And if I hear one criticism of the local agency, which is 
Canton, Ohio, it is that they just can't get through. There is 
only one line in reality. I think they have maybe two lines. 
One is using outgoing and incoming and they will try for maybe 
half a day and in final desperation they call our office, but 
still they need to get through. And this is important to 
people. The check doesn't get there on time or there is some 
type of mistake. I don't have to tell you to tell you that 
those checks, 39 million of them----
    Mr. Massanari. More like 50.
    Mr. Regula. 50 million.
    Mr. Massanari. 50 million.

                             DIRECT DEPOSIT

    Mr. Regula. And if they are not there the day they are 
supposed to be there our phone starts to ring. It is amazing. 
And of course I don't think there is a lot of enthusiasm for 
electronic deposits. They like to hold that check and see it. 
So I don't know what has been your success rate in getting 
people to go with electronic.
    Mr. Massanari. Well, we have had a fair degree of success, 
Mr. Chairman, but we would like to achieve more. Right now in 
the title II program, which is the Old-Age, Survivors and 
Disability Program, about 79 percent of our beneficiaries are 
on direct deposit.
    Mr. Regula. Really? I am amazed that you got that many.
    Mr. Massanari. SSI is not that high. It is about 50 
percent. But with new beneficiaries, as they come in and apply, 
of course we do encourage electronic funds transfer and we are 
running at about 80 percent. It is something that is not only 
good business from our standpoint, but we think it is good 
customer service.
    Mr. Regula. What do you think? You save----
    Mr. Massanari. Yes, it is substantial. An individual check, 
in terms of the processing of an individual check, costs about 
42 cents. Electronic funds transfer is 2 cents. So we save 40 
cents on every payment that is direct deposit.
    Mr. Regula. Very interesting. And perhaps somewhat related 
to this, but one of the airlines that you use if you use e-mail 
instead of a paper ticket they give you 200 extra miles. So 
that is the same idea. And I suppose with SSI particularly you 
have people that just simply don't have a bank account or are 
not used to using a checking account.
    Mr. Massanari. That is true in some cases, and in some 
remote locations financial services aren't available to folks. 
So there are reasons that some people choose not to use direct 
deposit. But we think it is a much better choice for customers 
because it avoids checks being lost. It avoids theft of checks 
and we don't have to worry about check replacement if they have 
direct deposit.
    Mr. Regula. Are you set up that on the first day of each 
month it goes on the account?
    Mr. Massanari. Yes.
    Mr. Massanari. Actually the electronic fund transfer 
transaction takes place before that, but it is normally 
credited on the first of the month for SSI and on the third of 
the month for most title II beneficiaries.
    Mr. Regula. That would be Social Security?
    Mr. Massanari. Social Security, yes.
    Mr. Regula. Why the third?
    Mr. Massanari. Up until May 1997, it had always been that 
way from time immemorial I think, from the beginning of the 
program. The check that you receive on the third of the month 
is actually the check for the prior month, so if you are 
getting a check or benefit for November you will receive that 
payment on the third of December.

                        BENEFICIARIES BY PROGRAM

    Mr. Regula. Now you said you have 50 million checks, give 
or take. Is that in SSI?
    Mr. Massanari. That is both.
    Mr. Regula. What portion of that is social security?
    Mr. Massanari. Dollarwise or numbers?
    Mr. Regula. Numbers.
    Mr. Massanari. For Retirement and Survivors Insurance, we 
have 39 million beneficiaries. We have 7 million Disability 
beneficiaries. So about 39 million are Old-Age and Survivors 
Insurance, and for SSI we have 6.4 million. We know that there 
are current beneficiaries who receive both a Social Security 
check and a Supplemental Security Income check.

                           OPENING STATEMENT

    Mr. Regula. Okay. Well, your statement of course in the 
entirety will be made part of the record, and we welcome a 
summarization of it. I don't know how many committee members we 
will have, but if you would like to summarize.
    Mr. Massanari. I will be happy to do that. Let me say, Mr. 
Chairman, at the outset I am extremely pleased to be here today 
to present the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for 
the Social Security Administration (SSA). As you know, I am 
accompanied this morning by Mr. Pete Spencer. Mr. Spencer is 
our Acting Deputy Commissioner for Finance, Assessment and 
Management.
    Our total budget request for fiscal year 2002 is $490 
billion. More than 98 percent of our request will be paid out 
as monthly benefit payments. However, most of this amount is 
permanently appropriated for Social Security benefits and 
therefore, of course, is not before the committeethis morning. 
The appropriation requests that are before you total about $40 billion. 
They include the Office of the Inspector General, Supplemental Security 
Income, Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners known as Black Lung, 
Payments to the Social Security Trust Funds and our Limitation on 
Administrative Expenses, or what we refer to as our LAE account.

                               BLACK LUNG

    Mr. Regula. If I could interrupt you. You mention Black 
Lung. That is a special situation, isn't it?
    Mr. Massanari. Yes, it is. It is a special program.
    Mr. Regula. I remember I was chairman of Interior and I 
think we have put the authorization to extend the program on 
the Interior bill last year that Senator Byrd was quite 
interested in.
    Mr. Massanari. That is probably true. The program is really 
administered by the Department of Labor. Although----
    Mr. Regula. Staff reminded me it was health insurance. But 
that would still----
    Mr. Massanari. That is another provision that we did have 
some involvement in in terms of supporting that provision by 
providing information for health insurance coverage purposes.
    Mr. Regula. But you don't administer the payments?
    Mr. Massanari. No, we don't. In terms of Black Lung, most 
of the administrative work is done by the Department of Labor. 
They reimburse us for part of the work we do in terms of taking 
claims. They do the work after people are on the rolls. It is 
the Department of Labor that administers that part of it.
    Mr. Regula. Thank you. Go ahead.

                     OPENING STATEMENT (CONTINUED)

    Mr. Massanari. These five appropriations that I just 
mentioned cover our program administration costs and our 
general fund-financed programs. I am providing statements for 
the record regarding each of these requests. What I thought I 
would do if I might, Mr. Chairman, is to discuss several 
aspects of our administrative budget request. That request 
totals $7.679 billion and it consists of $7.574 billion for the 
Limitation on Administrative Expenses (LAE), $75 million for 
the Office of the Inspector General, and $30 million for 
research.
    The LAE request represents an increase of 6.3 percent over 
the enacted level for 2001, and, as we have discussed earlier 
this week, this increase reflects the importance that the 
President places on our delivering high quality Social Security 
service to the American people.
    Next year, in fiscal year 2002, our agency will pay monthly 
benefits, as I already mentioned, to more than 50 million 
people. We will also issue 16 million new and replacement 
Social Security cards. We will handle approximately 59 million 
calls to our 800-number. We will process more than 3 million 
retirement and survivors claims and more than 2 million initial 
claims for disability benefits, and we will issue 136 million 
Social Security Statements to covered workers.
    The President's budget request will allow us to maintain 
stable staffing, which we will need to carry out those services 
that I have just outlined. This request will also allow us to 
continue our efforts to safeguard the public's investment in 
Social Security. And finally, it will enable us to modernize 
our computer infrastructure.
    What I would like to do is focus on three particular areas 
in this budget request, first, our expansion of electronic 
service delivery, then our anti-fraud and program integrity 
initiatives, and third, our future workforce challenges. 
Customer demand for online services of course is growing very 
rapidly. Last year, visitors to our website rose to an all-time 
level of 13.2 million. But this year, by the end of April, we 
had already exceeded that number. To meet this demand, we are 
increasing the electronic transactions that we are making 
available to the public, while at the same time emphasizing 
customer choice and customer convenience, whether customers 
visit us in our field offices or whether they call the 800-
number or whether they visit the Internet site. We are also 
being attentive to customers' online privacy concerns as we 
seek to expand electronic service delivery.

                               800-NUMBER

    Mr. Regula. If I could interrupt, you mention the 800-
number. Could we advise our constituents if they can't get 
through to the local office to use the 800-number?
    Mr. Massanari. We would encourage them at the outset to use 
the 800-number rather than call their local office. The point 
of entry, the gateway into Social Security, is to call the 800-
number. In fact, we discourage people from calling the local 
office because we believe they can get better service through 
the 800-number, and get a much higher level of access.
    Mr. Regula. We will so advise them.
    Mr. Massanari. One of the things we will be testing in 
2002, one of the things that is in our budget request, is to 
begin piloting an approach when the customer calls into the 
local office and they get a busy signal, we want to be able to 
transfer them to the 800-number if they choose to avail 
themselves of that service. So rather than hang up and redial, 
we will forward it.
    Mr. Regula. In your judgment, the 800-number is usually 
accessible?
    Mr. Massanari. The objective we have set based upon this 
budget is that 92 percent of the time when you make a call, you 
will be able to access us within 5 minutes.
    Mr. Regula. We want to be sure we have enough money for 
that.
    Mr. Massanari. Yes. Thank you. That is critical for us to 
be able to carry that out.
    Mr. Regula. It is critical for our office, too.

                     OPENING STATEMENT (CONTINUED)

    Mr. Massanari. Returning to my discussion of electronic 
service delivery, our first major online business process where 
we are actually carrying out a transaction with the public was 
brought up earlier this fiscal year. We call it the Internet 
Social Security Benefit Application service. It allows 
customers to file their claims for retirement benefits on the 
Internet.
    We have also, within the past several weeks, brought up a 
facility which enables both wives and husbands to file for 
spouse's benefits online on the Internet site. And very soon 
beneficiaries will be able to review their account status, 
change their address, change their direct deposit information, 
and also inquire about missing checks online at our Internet 
site. Our vision is to offer comprehensive Internet services 
with the very best available privacy and security safeguards. 
Not only does electronic service delivery benefit our 
customers, but as SSA workloads increase, greater customer 
access to online transactions will help us absorb some of this 
rising workload that we are anticipating over the coming 
decades. I especially believe that it is absolutely critical 
that we continue to move ahead with this very important service 
if we are going to continue to improve service delivery to the 
American people.
    A second area of significance and of emphasis for us at 
Social Security is our anti-fraud and program integrity 
activity. With this budget request, we will be able to 
vigorously pursue debt, strengthen our representative payee 
program, complete our multi-year Continuing Disability Review 
plan and, by the end of fiscal year 2002, eliminate that 
backlog.
    Continuing disability reviews or, as we call them, CDRs are 
vital to ensuring disability program integrity. They help 
determine whether beneficiaries continue to be entitled to 
benefits because of medical conditions. To remain current in 
future years, we will need to continue processing a comparable 
number of CDRs. We expect to obligate about $633 million in 
fiscal year 2002 to process these periodic CDRs. Over the next 
decade, we estimate an average savings of $7 for every $1 that 
we spend in processing CDRs--a significant return on 
investment.
    A third area of emphasis is one that I personally champion, 
and that is valuing and investing in our most precious 
resources at Social Security--our employees. During my 35 years 
with SSA, I have seen firsthand the dedication and the talent 
of our workforce. However, the challenge that we face is that 
with the coming decade, we will face a tremendous loss of 
expertise and a tremendous loss of institutional knowledge as a 
retirement wave looms before us. More than half of our current 
workforce, in fact, may be gone by the year 2010. This loss of 
experienced employees will coincide with a dramatic increase in 
our workloads, as the baby boom generation reaches their peak 
years of disability risk and then begins to retire. We have, 
therefore, developed a long-range vision for our agency to meet 
this actual challenge and to avoid deterioration in public 
service.

                          COLLEGE RECRUITMENT

    Mr. Regula. Curious, do you recruit at colleges like the 
industry does?
    Mr. Massanari. Yes, we do. We have very active college 
recruitment programs, although one of the things we have found 
in the past few years is that it is becoming increasingly 
difficult to recruit young people out of college. We find 
ourselves literally recruiting all age levels. We are also 
recruiting folks in a second career.
    Mr. Regula. What would the average salary be for an entry 
level person?
    Mr. Massanari. I would have to defer to my staff. $30 
thousand-plus.
    Mr. Spencer. We can get you that number for the record.
    Mr. Massanari. Between $24 thousand and $30 thousand, 
depending on what grade level they actually start at, but we 
will get you that information.
    [The information follows:]

                       Average Entry-Level Salary

    The average salary of a college graduate entering the SSA 
workforce, typically at GS-5 or GS-7, ranges from $23,600 to 
$31,800. The salary rates vary around the country because of 
differing locality pay amounts.

    Mr. Regula. That will be a factor because college graduates 
today have a little more in the way of options than has been 
historically true and we are hearing a shortage of teachers in 
this committee, a shortage of any number of different 
professions, and so that becomes a significant factor, and I 
think you are right, because I know our local office they are 
probably a little bit short-handed because there is going to be 
a wave of retirement.
    Mr. Spencer. There is a number here, Larry. $24,192 would 
be the starting salary in the D.C. Area. We have locality pay--
--
    Mr. Regula. But for D.C. that is not excessive.
    Mr. Spencer. GS-7 would be $29,966.
    Mr. Regula. Okay.

                     OPENING STATEMENT (CONTINUED)

    Mr. Massanari. I wanted to summarize just one other SSA 
appropriation request that is before you this morning, Mr. 
Chairman. That is the $75 million budget request for our Office 
of the Inspector General (OIG). That represents an increase for 
the OIG of 8 percent. We have found since becoming an 
independent agency that a strong OIG, working closely with our 
employees in the local offices, is truly the most effective 
means we have to detect and prevent fraud and abuse. This 
funding level, this 8 percent increase, will enable the OIG to 
maintain current staffing levels, and it will also enable them 
to increase their investigative resources on two key 
initiatives: combating disability fraud and also combating 
Social Security number misuse and identity fraud.
    In conclusion, I am very proud to say that for 65 years, 
SSA has served our nation well in providing economic security 
to the American people. We at SSA recognize our continuing 
obligation to be responsible and careful stewards of the 
programs we administer. We also recognize the challenges that 
we face in managing for results in the decade ahead. The fiscal 
year 2002 administrative budget request of $7.679 billion will 
provide the resources that we believe we need to help respond 
to these challenges. The increase in our administrative budget 
will support stable staffing and it will also enable us to 
maintain performance in key areas of service delivery.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for the opportunity 
to present SSA's budget request for the next fiscal year. With 
your approval, I will submit for the record a full written 
testimony discussing the appropriation requests in full.
    Mr. Regula. Without objection, that will be made a part of 
the record.
    [The information follows:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    
    Mr. Massanari. Certainly, I will be very pleased to answer 
any questions you might have.

                          DISABILITY STANDARDS

    Mr. Regula. I guess one of the areas we hear about is 
disability, whether it is rejected. What are your standards for 
allowing it? I know we went through a period some years ago and 
it got, I think, a little bit lax in the sense that there is 
perhaps an excessive approval for disability and then perhaps 
the pendulum swung a little bit the other way, and this is 
based on our own office experience, because every week when I 
go home I am signing a letter or letters to local judges to 
take good looks, et cetera. What kind of standards do you have?
    Mr. Massanari. The standard itself has not changed. It has 
been in the statute for many, many years. A person's impairment 
must be expected to result in death or to last at least 12 
months, and it must prevent them from engaging in--the term we 
use--``substantial gainful activity.'' What that means is a 
worker cannot work in any type of job, not just the job that 
they held at the time that they became disabled. So it is a 
very rigorous standard. Through our quality assurance programs 
and our ongoing review of policy, we try to ensure those 
standards don't change--that we continue to meet the intent of 
Congress.

                     CONTINUING DISABILITY REVIEWs

    Mr. Regula. How often do you review a case because maybe 
the individual gets some improvement in his physical condition?
    Mr. Massanari. Those are continuing disability reviews, 
CDRs, that I mentioned earlier. We conduct CDRs depending on 
the nature of the apparent disability. We profile those cases 
where medical improvement is possible. We review those at least 
every 3 years and that is why that whole review process becomes 
so important--to be sure that we are making proper payments to 
persons who continue to be impaired.

                 TREASURY SECURITIES AND PRIVATIZATION

    Mr. Regula. Are all of our reserves in treasury bills?
    Mr. Massanari. Yes, they are all in treasury securities, 
yes.
    Mr. Regula. I won't pursue with you the possibility of 
privatizing a portion because I think that is a whole new 
subject, I think.
    Mr. Massanari. As you know, the President has indicated 
that one of the principles that will guide the Commission's 
work is that the trust funds would not be invested in private 
equities.

      PILOTING ROLLOVER OF FIELD OFFICE PHONE LINES TO 800-NUMBER

    Mr. Regula. I like your idea on the rollover to the 800-
number because, well, all of us are familiar with it, a lot of 
people aren't used to using 800-numbers and if it is an 
automatic rollover that will reduce calls back to the 
congressional offices.
    Mr. Massanari. We will begin piloting that and we will 
certainly report back to you, Mr. Chairman, on our success with 
that task.

                           PROGRAM INTEGRITY

    Mr. Regula. One of the things I hear is fraud. You get 
these egregious examples that usually make the press, and I 
assume you diligently try to pursue to ensure that one is not 
cashing deceased people's checks.
    Mr. Massanari. We take very seriously our stewardship 
responsibilities and our responsibilities for program 
integrity. In fact, in this budget request $1.7 billion, almost 
$1 in every $4 in this request, is intended for program 
integrity. And we have found that perhaps the most effective 
tool for detecting fraud and for preventing fraud is the Office 
of the Inspector General and its agents working in very close 
relationship with our local folks.
    Mr. Regula. If you find it, do you prosecute?
    Mr. Massanari. Very aggressively.
    Mr. Regula. That is often the best deterrent.
    Mr. Massanari. Our Office of the Inspector General has been 
very aggressive in pursuing fraud and we are seeing greater and 
greater success as we work with the U.S. Attorneys around the 
country in pursuing it.
    One of the other things that we do, as a matter of course, 
is we very actively publicize prosecution to assure that there 
is a deterrent.

                    RETURN ON TRUST FUND INVESTMENTS

    Mr. Regula. That is a good idea. What is your average 
return on your investments?
    Mr. Massanari. In terms of----
    Mr. Regula. Two percent, 3 percent.
    Mr. Massanari. I am sorry? Investments in?
    Mr. Regula. They are in treasury bills, but there are 
various kinds.
    Mr. Massanari. It depends. I think they are running now 
around 7 percent, but we can get you that number for the 
record.
    [The information follows:]

                         Annual Rate of Return

    By law, assets of the OASI and DI Trust Fund are invested 
in Treasury Special Issue long-term bonds and short-term 
certificates of indebtedness available only to the Social 
Security trust funds.
    The effective annual rate of interest earned during 
calendar year 2000 was 6.9% for the assets of the OASI Trust 
Fund, and 6.6% for the assets of the DI Trust Fund.

    Mr. Regula. So you can go to long terms obviously.
    Mr. Massanari. Oh, yes. They are special issue securities.

                          TRUST FUND SOLVENCY

    Mr. Regula. Do you have a number where it is a crossover, 
that the inflow is less than the outflow?
    Mr. Massanari. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. In terms of calendar number?
    Mr. Massanari. For 2002, in fact it is included in our 
budget request for 2002, trust fund income will definitely 
exceed outlays by about $175 billion. And by the end of fiscal 
year 2002, the reserves will be up to $1.34 trillion. We are 
continuing to build that reserve each year.
    Mr. Regula. Is there any point out, 2020 or 2030?
    Mr. Massanari. 2016. I can step you through that. Trust 
fund income will exceed expenditures until the year 2016, and 
at that point we will begin to draw on the interest that we 
will receive on those securities and we will begin to use that 
along with the income. Then, 2025 is the year we begin to draw 
down the assets. The year 2038 is the point at which the trust 
fund is no longer fully solvent, and we will only be able to 
pay about 72 cents on the dollar. That is the key date. 
Although what is interesting is that the year keeps moving into 
the future. Last year, according to the Trustees' report, the 
year was 2037.
    Mr. Regula. What pushes it ahead, the demographics?
    Mr. Massanari. Demographics and the economy. The growth in 
the economy has had a very, very significant impact in the last 
several years.
    Mr. Regula. In the short term inflation has been beneficial 
because it increases the flow of revenues?
    Mr. Massanari. Yes. And when lots of folks are working and 
employment rates are high, of course, the income into the trust 
fund extends its solvency.

                      INCREASING BENEFICIARY ROLLS

    Mr. Regula. Right. Well, we touched on the workload and I 
think you are very aware of the need to recruit people and to 
meet the need.
    What is the increase that you experience each year in 
beneficiaries?
    Mr. Massanari. The greatest growth right now is in our 
disability program. In terms of intake, that is the number of 
claims we receive, we are experiencing a growth rate right now 
of about 3 percent a year over the next decade. This is very 
worrisome. This is the enormous challenge that we face. The 
growth in disability receipts between now and the end of the 
decade will be about 32 percent. In the Retirement and 
Survivors Programs, beneficiary growth will be about 15 
percent, and in the Supplemental Security Income blind and 
disabled program about 15 percent. So by the end of the decade 
our beneficiary rolls will increase more than 17 percent. The 
largest percentage will be disability, literally 43 percent 
growth in our disability rolls. That doesn't only mean at the 
front of the process. There is also all the activity at the 
back-end, the program integrity work--those continuing 
disability reviews that will have to be done.
    Mr. Regula. Why would you think that would happen?
    Mr. Massanari. It is largely the result of the aging of the 
baby boomers, that large cohort of 76 million people. In the 
next 8 to 10 years they are reaching their highest disability-
prone years and, of course, they will begin retiring in the 
year 2008. In the year 2008 the first group will become age 62, 
turn 62 years old. So it is really that cohort moving through 
the population.

             SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND ADVISORY BOARD

    Mr. Regula. The President just named a bipartisan 
Commission on Social Security. How does this differ from the 
Social Security Advisory Board? It seems like there is an 
overlap of function there.
    Mr. Massanari. Well, the Advisory Board is a particular 
group that meets and provides advice not only to the Congress 
and the Administration, but even to SSA in a wide variety of 
areas including both program as well as operational. The 
purpose of the Commission has been very well defined by the 
President. President Bush has asked the 16-member Commission to 
make a series of recommendations to him on modernizing the 
program and restoring long-term fiscal stability to the 
program.

                       GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET

    Mr. Regula. Do you get into the offset problem of where a 
spouse is getting benefits by virtue of being a spouse and has 
a history of her own in Social Security, but has a history, 
let's say, in the Ohio retirement system? Does that offset the 
amount you pay under spousal benefits?
    Mr. Massanari. It can, under the government pension offset.
    Mr. Regula. Yes.
    Mr. Massanari. We do get involved in that, yes.
    Mr. Regula. That creates some unhappiness, I will tell you 
that.
    Mr. Massanari. It creates considerable unhappiness. It 
creates a large measure of unhappiness in this location in 
Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Regula. Yes. Well, we have in Ohio because we have a 
very extensive retirement system--you are talking about all 
public retirement system, teachers, policemen. The offset would 
be any type of governmental benefits.
    Mr. Massanari. It depends whether they are also covered by 
Social Security.
    Mr. Regula. Yes, if they have a spousal benefit then and 
not their own history.
    Now, just a clarification. If the spouse has his or her own 
Social Security maybe at let's say 10 years of Social Security 
coverage, that would not be impacted by the other government 
pension, would it?
    Mr. Massanari. No, it is not affected by government pension 
offset, but it may be affected by the windfall elimination 
provision. I'll provide additional information for the record.
    [The information follows:]

                       Explanation of GPO and WEP

    The government pension offset (GPO) may reduce or eliminate 
the Social Security benefit payable to a spouse if the spouse 
receives a pension based on his or her own employment that was 
not covered under Social Security from the Federal Government, 
a State, or a political subdivision of a State. A person's own 
Social Security benefits are not affected by GPO. However, they 
may be affected by the windfall elimination provision (WEP). 
WEP may affect the worker's retirement or disability benefit if 
the worker also is entitled to a pension based on work not 
covered by Social Security. In that case, the formula used to 
figure the Social Security benefit amount is modified, yielding 
a lower Social Security benefit.

    Mr. Regula. Mr. Kennedy, do you have any questions?

       QUALIFYING AND REQUALIFYING INDIVIDUALS FOR SSI DISABILITY

    Mr. Kennedy. Please. Thank you. Welcome. I am really facing 
a lot of issues back home in Rhode Island with regards to the 
incredible caseload that your workers are undergoing, and also 
how backwards the policy of the SSI administration is in terms 
of trying to requalify people, and how you are 
misappropriating--and maybe it is because it is congressional 
statute directed, it is not you, but this needs to be corrected 
on the statute side--but you are misappropriating all these 
funds that should otherwise go into qualifying people for SSI 
that are certainly eligible for SSI. Instead, you are wasting a 
lot of money requalifying people because of this hysteria in 
Congress about the cheating and fraud.
    If you can be qualified initially for being disabled, it is 
a protracted process, and a very high bar to reach in the first 
place. It is hard for me to think that you are going to be 
miraculously nondisabled again. And yet we spend so much time 
trying to requalify these people when that money could be 
better spent qualifying people who now wait over a year to be 
qualified. In some cases these people are in desperate 
situations andit is unconscionable that they are put through 
the bureaucratic process of delay, deny, deny, deny, deny, and then 
have to get lawyers to sue SSA so that they can get some benefits, when 
you and I both know if any one of them came into this room you could 
tell right away that they were disabled.
    Now, I spend a better part of my time back in my District 
just trying to get people through the bureaucratic process of 
getting them on SSI, and it is wrong and it is a major, major 
problem. I would like you to answer for me whether you agree 
that it is a major problem, that this is a huge misdirection of 
funds, and that the caseload is way too high, and whether you 
agree with me that people are waiting way too long and are put 
through too much bureaucratic process in order to qualify for 
disability at SSI.
    Mr. Massanari. Let me perhaps pick first on your reference 
to two program integrity workloads which do represent a 
significant challenge for the agency in terms of the size of 
those workloads. The first refers to the reviews that we do to 
determine whether or not individuals continue to be disabled. 
They are called continuing disability reviews and they are, in 
fact, required by statute. They are conducted on a periodic 
basis and we do find that for large numbers of people who are 
on the disability rolls, their medical condition does improve. 
You have to be able to show medical improvement before 
individuals are removed from the rolls. We had talked about 
that earlier.
    Mr. Kennedy. What percentage are removed from the rolls?
    Mr. Massanari. I have to commend the Congress for this, the 
monies that have been devoted to continuing disability reviews 
(CDRs) really aren't diverted from processing initial claims 
because when we undertook the 7-year plan starting in 1996, the 
Congress provided an adjustment to the discretionary cap and 
that is how we have funded these CDRs.
    Mr. Kennedy. But you would agree that when you are looking 
at caseloads of people waiting over a year and a half to get 
disability who have to go through the protracted process of 
being qualified, and you and I know what we are talking about. 
Anyone who has been to any one of the Social Security offices 
and have seen what people go through in order to get qualified 
for disability should be outraged. The notion that this 
Congress would raise the cap so we can requalify people who 
have already been disabled instead of putting money into trying 
to expedite the process of qualifying people is unconscionable.
    I am not arguing with you the caps were raised and the 
discretionary funds were appropriated for that purpose alone 
and weren't taken out of existing purposes. But in a sense they 
were taken out of them because they should be going to caseload 
problems, not requalifying people. In a perfect world, yes, I 
would like to have people requalified. But when you are looking 
at the dire situation right now with caseloads as high as they 
are, why spend all this time and energy requalifying people 
when you are having the caseloads that you have just qualifying 
people in the first place.
    Mr. Massanari. It is a matter of balancing two missions of 
this agency, one of which, obviously, is to provide good, sound 
customer service to folks who apply for benefits, but we also 
have a stewardship responsibility to ensure that we are making 
proper payment on behalf of the taxpayers.

      RETURN ON SSA's INVESTMENT IN CONTINUING DISABILITY REVIEWS

    Mr. Kennedy. Then answer the question, how many people do 
you get----
    Mr. Massanari. Let me give you a sense over the past 7 
years. For every one dollar we have invested in carrying out 
those continuing disability reviews, we have gotten a return of 
$10 in benefit savings. So we can get for the record the actual 
number who have been removed from the rolls, but in terms of 
the return on dollars spent it is running $10 to $1.
    [The information follows:]

                          CDR Cessation Rates

    The following table provides information on estimated ultimate 
cessations (after all appeals) and the estimated savings resulting from 
these cessations, for all CDRs processed in fiscal years 1996 through 
1999. While the figures shown in the table represent the total overall 
impact of the CDR work done by SSA, many of these agency-wide results 
such as cessation rates and benefit-to-cost ratios will vary by (1) 
program (OASDI vs. SSI), (2) type of beneficiary within program, and 
(3) likelihood of medical improvement identified at the time of a prior 
disability decision. Changes from year-to-year in the distribution of 
CDRs processed by these categories will result in a corresponding 
variation in these yearly outcomes. The overall cessation rate and 
benefit-to-cost ratio is expected to decline in the future since cases 
where there is a high likelihood of medical improvement are expected to 
make up a smaller percentage of total CDRs processed.

    ESTIMATED CESSATIONS AND SAVINGS FOR CDRs PROCESSED FISCAL YEARS 1996-1999, AS REPORTED TO CONGRESS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF CONTINUING DISABILITY
                                                         REVIEWS, FISCAL YEARS 1996 THROUGH 1999
                                                       [Numbers in thousands, amounts in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         CDRs processed                    Estimated ultimate
                                                       ------------------                      cessations
                                                                                     -----------------------------   Present    Administrative  Ratio of
                                                                            Initial               Percent of--       value of    expenses for    savings
            Fiscal year of initial decision                        Full   cessations          --------------------   Federal      processing       to
                                                         Total   medical                                  Full       benefit         CDRs       expenses
                                                                 reviews              Numbers  Total    medical    savings \2\
                                                                                                CDRs  reviews \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996..................................................      498     202        41.9      26.5    5.3       13.1        $2,450           $208        11.8
1997..................................................      690     368        81.3      49.7    7.2       13.5         4,180            330        12.7
1998..................................................    1,392     607       113.3      70.3    5.1       11.6         5,575            462        12.1
1999..................................................    1,703     718       131.5      87.3    5.1       12.2         6,100            547        11.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These counts reflect only CDRs initiated as part of SSA's centralized scheduling process. Due to the unavailability of appellate information,
  ultimate cessations for the relatively small number of full medical reviews initiated outside SSA's centralized processes have not been estimated.
  Therefore, data for these ``other'' full medical reviews are included with the total CDRs processed but excluded from the numbers of full medical
  reviews processed and estimated cessations.
\2\ Present value of OASDI, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid savings as of the end of specified year, resulting from intital CDR cessations occurring during
  the year.

                    DISABILITY DETERMINATION PROCESS

    Mr. Kennedy. Explain the proposals of qualifying people and 
answer me the question I initially asked you about the 
protracted delay and incredible bar that people have to reach 
in order to get qualified for disability in the first place.
    Mr. Massanari. Well, the standard for disability in this 
program of course is very rigorous. It does require that a 
person have an impairment that is expected to result in death 
or to last for at least a year, and the impairment must prevent 
a person from doing any type of work. It is a rigorous 
standard.
    Mr. Kennedy. That is pretty rigorous, this standard. 
Explain this standard to the chairman.
    Mr. Regula. Well, we went through that, but go ahead.
    Mr. Kennedy. No, you might not understand it, the notion 
that we have people that are meeting this standard that can't 
get it and are dying. I mean, this is life and death for my 
constituents. I will give you the names of people who have died 
waiting to get on SSI who you and I both know should qualify 
for it tomorrow, who have to hire lawyers and by the time they 
get through the process, which is a year and a half, 2 years, 
they are dead.
    Mr. Massanari. There are various stages to this process, as 
you know, Mr. Kennedy. And in the State of Rhode Island right 
now I think at the front-end of the process we are probably 
allowing about 40 percent, and there are multiple stages of 
appeal beyond that. You are right, it is a fairly lengthy 
process because of the medical evidence that has to be 
assembled in support of the claim. The growth in the disability 
intake right now is running about 3 percent a year. That is why 
in our budget request we are requesting an additional 400 
workyears for the State disability units in order to better 
equip them to process disability claims.
    Mr. Kennedy. I will support that. In fact, I will support 
even more than that for our local offices to qualify people for 
SSI. It is a major problem, and people are really being hurt 
because it is not expedited.
    Tell me, you said it is a rigorous process. Why does it 
have to take so long? You know, if I have Kathy Hinckley come 
in here, she qualifies, why does she have to wait a year and a 
half before she gets her check?
    Mr. Massanari. After the decision is made?
    Mr. Kennedy. When she walks in here why does it take a year 
and a half to qualify her as disabled when she could walk in 
this door and we could have a physician who may be qualified to 
examine her and discuss her conditions and say this woman 
clearly meets the criteria? Why does she then have to wait a 
year and a half?
    Mr. Massanari. Well, if a decision is made at the initial 
stage that a person is disabled, it is not taking a year. I 
have here the data for the State of Rhode Island. For a person 
applying for Disability Insurance benefits, that is Social 
Security disability benefits, on average, from the point their 
claim is received in the State Disability Determination office 
until the State makes its final decision for payment, it is 
running 82 days. SSI is running a little longer.
    Mr. Kennedy. SSI is what I am talking about.
    Mr. Massanari. It is running 90 days, just over 3 months.
    Mr. Kennedy. You will have to give me the figures on how 
many, because obviously I am getting at the percentage that are 
not getting it in 3 months. What percentage do not get it in 3 
months?
    Mr. Massanari. I am giving you a mean or an average 
processing time. We can certainly get you some information for 
the record.
    [The information follows:]

                        Average Processing Time

    In fiscal year (FY) 2001 through April 2001, the average 
overall processing time for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
blind and disabled claims, from the point at which the claim is 
filed in the local Social Security office until the final 
payment decision is issued, is running at about 134 days in the 
State of Rhode Island, including 99 days for processing in the 
State Disability Determination Services (DDS). The difference 
between DDS processing time and overall processing time is 
largely due to requirements for development of nondisability 
factors of entitlement including income, resources, and living 
arrangements. For FY 2001 through April, just over 40 percent 
of initial SSI disability claims in Rhode Island have been 
processed to completion, including development of disability 
and nondisability factors of entitlement, within 90 days of 
filing. Therefore, this year, about 60 percent of these initial 
claims have taken longer than 90 days to process.

    Mr. Kennedy. I am not here to criticize you. I am here to 
advocate on behalf of my constituents. Your agency is charged 
with trying to get these people on SSI that qualify for it. I 
just want to make sure you get your job done as expeditiously 
as possible because we have peoples' lives depending on it. I 
am not trying to browbeat you on this. I am just trying to get 
through the bureaucracy so people can get what they need right 
away.

                     RHODE ISLAND'S ALLOWANCE RATE

    Mr. Massanari. I understand, Mr. Kennedy. It is an issue 
that is of significant concern to us. It is clearly the 
greatest challenge in terms of our claims processing; that is, 
the disability claims. Let me just share with you one other 
number that might be helpful. So far this year through the end 
of April, what we call the allowance rate, which means the 
percentage of cases that are approved or where folks are found 
to be disabled, within the State disability unit in Rhode 
Island, is running 48 percent, which is higher or a little 
higher than the national average. So about 48 percent of the 
folks who file are allowed or approved through the State 
process, and those are what I have talked about taking 3 
months. That is about how long it is taking at least for those 
folks.
    Mr. Regula. We have a vote. Do you want to come back and 
continue your questions?
    Mr. Kennedy. Yes, that would be nice.
    Mr. Regula. Okay. We will recess for about 10 minutes.
    Mr. Kennedy. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Recess.]

             FIELD OFFICES WORKING WITH CONGRESSIONAL STAFF

    Mr. Kennedy. I know the chairman is not here, but I don't 
think he needs to hear me.
    I wanted to thank you for putting up with my critique of 
your SSI process because I just feel for a lot of my 
constituents who are in this difficult situation, and I look 
forward to having my office working close with your office. I 
know they already work closely with you. But can you do 
anything to facilitate the congressional office working closer 
with your branch Social Security offices--are there things that 
you are doing to try to facilitate that?
    Mr. Massanari. We will certainly do that. Our hope is that 
in each case our local offices are working closely in any 
supportive way with local congressional staff.

              ESTIMATED RETURN ON STOCK MARKET INVESTMENTS

    Mr. Kennedy. Right. With the recent appointment of the 
Social Security Privatization Commission, the issue of 
individual accounts is obviously front and center in the Social 
Security debate. In evaluating reform proposals, the Office of 
the Chief Actuary has generally assumed a 7 percent real return 
for investment in stocks. According to an analysis by MIT 
economist Peter Diamond, however, the current high stock prices 
and the Office of Chief Actuary's own projections of the GDP 
growth are inconsistent with the 7 percent return. For a 7 
percent return to materialize the ratio of stock value to GDP 
would have to increase more than twentyfold in the next 75 
years. Either the stock market is overvalued and would have to 
fall sharply before then growing at 7 percent of GDP or the 
market is correctly valued at the 7 percent estimate, should be 
revised downward or some combination of the two. Is the 
administration intending to lower its estimate on the return of 
stock investments so it comports with your economic growth 
projections?
    Mr. Massanari. Our Office of the Actuary, our Chief 
Actuary, will be working very closely with the members of the 
Commission in providing analytical support. I can't say right 
now what the outcomes will be in terms of any estimates that 
they might provide. Our Office of the Actuary will be doing its 
analytical work, but I can't comment specifically. I simply do 
not know what will happen in terms of those estimates.

                PRESIDENT'S PLAN FOR INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS

    Mr. Kennedy. The President has obviously made it clear that 
he wants to reduce Social Security's guaranteed benefits and 
place that portion of Social Security with a nonguaranteed, 
carved out individual account program. We know that the 
administrative costs associated with individual accounts 
significantly exceed the cost of maintaining the trust fund 
currently, which are under 1 percent of annual revenues or 
benefits. Moreover, we know that many people are not well-
prepared to make investment decisions. Poll results show that 
more than half of Americans do not know the difference between 
stocks and bonds, and of course individual accounts do not 
guarantee benefits. The urge to increase the return on the 
trust fund is certainly understandable and warranted, but if 
that were the primary goal behind the President's plan, the 
trust fund should invest in stocks directly using an 
independent board that was restricted to index funds that are 
run by private managers paralleling what is currently being 
done for Federal civil servants. Not only would the 
administrative costs be significantly lower, but the risks of 
these more volatile investments would be pooled.
    Given these facts, can you explain how the President's plan 
for individual accounts looks at these economic realities when 
it seems that it may be entirely different by ideology and is 
not the main purpose of individual accounts (like the tax cut), 
to do away with redistributive effects so that those who are 
better off can keep more of their wealth for themselves?
    Mr. Massanari. I think the issues that you raise, Mr. 
Kennedy, are issues that the Commission itself will be taking 
up and assessing. I would say, though, that when the President 
outlined the series of six principles that would guide the work 
of the Commission he did indicate that one of the 
considerations was personal accounts--voluntary, individually 
controlled accounts. But there is no constraint imposed upon 
the Commission to either look at those accounts as carve-outs 
or adds-ons, and I think that was very carefully done.
    So I think the Commission will need to work through that 
whole question of what form might those personal or individual 
accounts take.
    Mr. Kennedy. Well, I am in favor of them being add-ons. I 
am in support of legislation much like what Mr. Blair and Great 
Britain has done in terms of the baby bonds, where individuals 
at birth are given a set of money, like we have the Federal 
Employees Retirement System. I contribute, the Federal 
Government matches it, but we do it on a sliding scale, much 
like the Earned Income Tax Credit, so those with the lowest 
income can get a savings account they can use for lifetime 
needs, not just retirement needs and also can get an education 
in terms of the importance of our investment in stocks and our 
economy in general. But that should not replace, obviously, the 
insurance program that we currently have known as Social 
Security. I just wanted to use this opportunity to say if we 
are going to do index funds we ought to do it like the former 
Administration decided on doing, and that is open it up enough 
to invest in index funds that can be managed by your 
Administration, but not have the carve-outs, but have the 
benefit of the increased return ofthe stock market, just do not 
have it in individual accounts where people won't know what to do with 
them, and the cost of administering those accounts will be prohibitive.
    Mr. Massanari. I believe the bipartisan Commission will 
look at a wide range of options and will also be looking at 
systems, including the system in the United Kingdom, as they go 
about their work.
    Mr. Kennedy. Great. Well, I thank you for your answers, and 
I look forward to working with your local offices and yourself 
in what you are trying to do.
    Mr. Massanari. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate that.

                          SSA Does a Good Job

    Mr. Regula. Thank you for coming. We have, I think, covered 
a pretty wide area this morning and on balance your 
administration does a good job. Obviously with 50 million 
clients you are going to have a few people that probably won't 
agree with everything that is done. But our offices are good 
lightning rods as to whether it is working or whether it is not 
working.

             RECAP OF PLAN TO ROLLOVER CALLS TO 800-NUMBER

    You weren't here, I don't think. Getting phone calls 
through is always a tough problem and they are contemplating 
putting an automatic rollover, so if your constituent or mine 
calls the local office it automatically rolls over to the 800-
number, because that is one of the points of distress we are 
going to run into.

                          BACKLOG OF HEARINGS

    Just a couple of things. The backlog, what type of claims 
are backlogged? Any particular group of claims that tend to be 
backlogged?
    Mr. Massanari. Well, the most serious backlogs, as Mr. 
Kennedy suggested, exist in our disability process right now, 
particularly in our hearing offices, and that is an area that 
we are concerned about and that we are dealing with.
    Mr. Regula. One of the problems of course is somebody is 
disabled and therefore their paycheck stops and they have maybe 
a 3-month gap. They do get the money back if their claim is 
allowed in a lump, most of which the lawyers get, but in any 
event they say to me or my staff, well, what do we do in the 
meantime, we do not have any reserves to pay our bills with? 
And I guess the only answer for that is for you to, as Mr. 
Kennedy is suggesting, expedite these claims as much as 
possible.
    Mr. Massanari. That is why we are so concerned, Mr. 
Chairman, about the backlogs in the hearing office and we are 
trying to attack that issue. There are times of course when we 
will refer applicants who find themselves in the situation that 
you described--refer them to the State and local organizations.
    Mr. Regula. I assume United Way probably does help them 
out?
    Mr. Massanari. Some States still have general assistance 
that can provide some money to help carry them over.
    Mr. Regula. Okay. Any further questions, Mr. Kennedy?

             HELPING WITH THE HOMELESS ISSUE IN PROVIDENCE

    Mr. Kennedy. No. I just want to make an observation. We had 
a situation where Travellers Aid is doing a lot of work and it 
is obviously a result of the deinstitutionalization of the 
mentally ill and there is really a desperate situation with 
homeless people, and we are trying to deal with it in 
Providence right now, and obviously if your office can be of 
any assistance in helping us figure out a good system to 
coordinate all the services that may be out there for them, 
that would be very helpful.
    Mr. Massanari. We will talk to our folks in the regional 
office in Boston to see if we can't provide some assistance and 
work together to deal with this issue.
    Mr. Kennedy. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Regula. Well, thank you very much for coming.
    Mr. Massanari. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regula. It has been a productive hearing. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [The following questions were submitted to be answered for 
the record:]

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Coonrod, R.T.....................................................   135
Darden, Harding, Jr..............................................   229
Higgins, J.E., Jr................................................   229
Hurtgen, P.J.....................................................   229
Kever, J.F.......................................................    11
Massanari, L.G...................................................   519
Sheppard, Beverly................................................     1
Speakman, V.M., Jr...............................................    11
Spencer, P.D.....................................................   519
Thomas, C.T......................................................    11
Truesdale, J.C...................................................   229
Wilensky, G.R....................................................   701

 
                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Advance Appropriations....................................157, 165, 185
Advance Appropriation: History and Justification.................   171
Appropriation History............................................   170
Biography of Robert T. Coonrod...................................   139
CPB's Appropriation Request and Justification, FY 2002 and FY 
  2004...........................................................   194
Digital:
    Conversion...................................................   184
    Funding...............................................156, 164, 168
    Television...................................................   155
Digital Conversion...............................................   184
Digital Funding...........................................156, 164, 168
Digital Television...............................................   155
Distribution of Funds............................................   166
Editorial Control................................................   156
    News/Editorial...............................................   163
Educational Programming..........................................   168
ITVS.............................................................   167
Native American Programming......................................   158
News/Editorial...................................................   163
Programming:
    Educational..................................................   168
    Native American..............................................   158
    News.........................................................   163
Public Radio.....................................................   186
Ready to Learn............................................161, 172, 186
Statement of Robert T. Coonrod...................................   140
Statement of Kevin Klose.........................................   188
Statutory Formula................................................   160
    Distribution of Funds........................................   166
TeacherLine......................................................   177
Underwriting.....................................................   160

                     National Labor Relations Board

Agency Website...................................................   238
Appealing Board Decisions........................................   239
Board Decisions..................................................   238
Body of Original Jurisdiction....................................   239
Budget Request...................................................   240
Casehandling Time Frame..........................................   242
Case Intake......................................................   243
Chairman's Opening Statement.....................................   230
Chairman's Prepared Statement....................................   231
    Administrative Law Judges....................................   235
    Board Members' Staffs........................................   233
    Conclusion...................................................   236
    Justification for Budget Request.............................   236
    NLRB's Statutory Responsibilities and Role...................   232
Decertification..................................................   241
Impact Analysis..................................................   240
Information Officer Program......................................   238
Introduction of Witnesses........................................   229
Meritorious Cases................................................   243
Questions Submitted for the Record...............................   245
    Representative Ernest J. Istook..............................   252
    Representative Nita Lowey....................................   247
    Representative Anne Northup..................................   249
    Representative Nancy Pelosi..................................   245
Regional Offices/Regional Directors..............................   240
Representation Cases.............................................   243
Salting Cases....................................................   239

                     Social Security Administration

800-Number.......................................................   522
Administrative Request...........................................   562
Annual Rate of Return............................................   551
Average Entry-Level Salary.......................................   524
Average Processing Time..........................................   557
Backlog of Hearings..............................................   560
Beneficiaries:
    By Program...................................................   520
    Increasing Rolls.............................................   552
    Preparing for Agency's Workloads.............................   562
Beneficiaries by Program.........................................   520
Biography:
    Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner......................   547
    Peter D. Spencer, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Finance, 
      Assessment and Management..................................   548
Black Lung.......................................................   521
Budget Requests:
    Administrative Request.......................................   562
    Justification of Estimates...................................   575
    Opening Statement................................520, 521, 523, 524
Collaboration with Department of Labor...........................   568
College Recruitment..............................................   524
Combating Fraud and Abuse........................................   568
Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs):
    CDRs.........................................................   550
    Cessation Rates..............................................   555
    Program Integrity Work.......................................   564
    Return on SSA's Investment in................................   555
    Seven-Year Plan..............................................   564
Continuing Disability Reviews....................................   550
Continuing Disability Reviews Cessation Rates....................   555
Direct Deposit...................................................   519
Disability:
    Average Processing Time......................................   557
    CDR Cessation Rates..........................................   555
    Continuing Disability Reviews................................   550
    Determination Process........................................   556
    Qualifying and Re-Qualifying Individuals for SSI Disability..   554
    Research Related to Ticket to Work...........................   566
    Return on SSA's Investment in Continuing Disability Reviews..   555
    Rhode Island's Allowance Rate................................   557
    Seven-Year CDR Plan..........................................   564
    Standards....................................................   550
Disability Determination Process.................................   556
Disability Standards.............................................   550
Estimated Return on Stock Market Investments.....................   558
Expanded Use of Social Security Numbers..........................   562
Explanation of Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination 
  Provision......................................................   553
Field Offices Working with Congressional Staff...................   558
Funding:
    Administrative Request.......................................   562
    Justification of Estimates...................................   575
    Opening Statement................................520, 521, 523, 524
Government Pension Offset (GPO):
    Explanation of GPO and Windfall Elimination Provision........   553
    Government Pension Offset....................................   553
Government Pension Offset........................................   553
Helping with the Homeless Issue in Providence....................   561
Increasing Beneficiary Rolls.....................................   552
Integrity:
    CDRs.........................................................   550
    CDR Cessation Rates..........................................   555
    Combating Fraud and Abuse....................................   568
    Program Integrity............................................   551
    Program Integrity Work.......................................   564
    Return on SSA's Investment in CDRs...........................   555
    Seven-Year CDR Plan..........................................   564
    SSN Misuse Statistics........................................   563
    SSNs and Identity Theft......................................   563
Introduction of Witnesses........................................   519
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees.........   575
Limited English Proficiency Issues...............................   565
Medicare Appeals Process.........................................   573
Opening Statement....................................520, 521, 523, 524
Piloting Rollover of Field Office Phone Lines to 800-Number......   550
Preparing for Agency's Workloads.................................   562
President's Plan for Individual Accounts.........................   559
Privatization:
    Estimated Return on Stock Market Investments.................   558
    President's Plan for Individual Accounts.....................   559
    Social Security Commission...................................   571
    Social Security Commission and Advisory Board................   553
    Treasury Securities and Privatization........................   550
Program Integrity................................................   551
Program Integrity Work...........................................   564
Qualifying and Re-Qualifying Individuals for SSI Disability......   554
Questions for the Record.........................................   562
Reaching Out to Younger Workers..................................   569
Recap of Plan to Rollover Calls to 800-Number....................   560
Research Related to Ticket to Work...............................   566
Return on SSA's Investment in Continuing Disability Reviews......   555
Return on Trust Fund Investments.................................   551
Rhode Island's Allowance Rate....................................   557
Seven-Year CDR Plan..............................................   564
Social Security Commission:
    Commission and Advisory Board................................   553
    Estimated Return on Stock Market Investments.................   558
    President's Plan for Individual Accounts.....................   559
    Social Security Commission...................................   571
    Treasury Securities and Privatization........................   550
Social Security Commission.......................................   571
Social Security Commission and Advisory Board....................   553
Social Security Numbers (SSNs):
    Expanded Use of SSNs.........................................   562
    SSN Misuse Statistics........................................   563
    SSNs and Identity Theft......................................   563
Social Security Number Misuse Statistics.........................   563
Social Security Numbers and Identity Theft.......................   563
SSA Does a Good Job..............................................   560
SSA's Recruitment and Training...................................   570
Staffing:
    Average Entry-Level Salary...................................   524
    College Recruitment..........................................   524
    Preparing for Agency's Workloads.............................   562
    SSA's Recruitment and Training...............................   570
Statements:
    Full Statement for the Record................................   526
    Limitation on Administrative Expenses........................   543
    Office of Inspector General..................................   545
    Opening......................................................   520
    Payments to Social Security Trust Funds......................   536
    Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners....................   538
    Supplemental Security Income.................................   540
Telephone:
    800-Number...................................................   522
    Access at Canton Field Office................................   519
    Piloting Rollover of Field Office Phone Lines to 800-Number..   550
    Recap of Plan to Rollover Calls to 800-Number................   560
Telephone Access at Canton Field Office..........................   519
Treasury Securities and Privatization............................   550
Trust Funds:
    Annual Rate of Return........................................   551
    Return on Investments........................................   551
    Solvency.....................................................   551
Treasury Securities and Privatization............................   550
Trust Fund Solvency..............................................   551
Women's Social Security Benefits.................................   571

                                
