[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LACKING A LEADER: CHALLENGES FACING THE SSA
AFTER OVER 5 YEARS OF ACTING COMMISSIONERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 7, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-SS08
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-796 WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman
SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
DEVIN NUNES, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida MIKE THOMPSON, California
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
LYNN JENKINS, Kansas EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota RON KIND, Wisconsin
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
TOM REED, New York DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania LINDA SANCHEZ, California
JIM RENACCI, Ohio BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota SUZAN DELBENE, Washington
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina JUDY CHU, California
JASON SMITH, Missouri
TOM RICE, South Carolina
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois
David Stewart, Staff Director
Brandon Casey, Minority Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
SAM JOHNSON, Texas, Chairman
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JASON SMITH, Missouri LINDA SANCHEZ, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of March 7, 2018 announcing the hearing................. 2
WITNESSES
Elizabeth Curda, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security, Government Accountability Office..................... 8
Valerie Brannon, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research
Service........................................................ 31
Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare................................... 44
(Truth in Testimony)......................................... 50
Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service..... 51
(Truth in Testimony)......................................... 61
MEMBER SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Reuters: Banks scramble to fix old systems as IT `cowboys' ride
into sunset, by Anna Irrera.................................... 65
Wall Street Journal: Cobol is Dead. Log Live Cobol!, by Gary
Beach.......................................................... 69
Daily News: Feds' bureaucratic hellscape gnaws at New Yorkers'
Health, hope, by Glenn Blain................................... 83
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Questions from The Honorable Sam Johnson, to Valerie Brannon..... 87
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Mary L. Jones, statement......................................... 92
LACKING A LEADER: CHALLENGES FACING THE SSA AFTER OVER 5 YEARS OF
ACTING COMMISSIONERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Social Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Sam Johnson
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning and welcome to today's
hearing.
Americans count on Social Security to provide important
benefits. In fact, Social Security pays benefits to more than
60 million people a year, totaling nearly $1 trillion. It is
the largest single program in the Federal budget responsible
for a quarter of all Federal spending.
When Social Security became an independent agency in 1995,
Congress created the position of a Social Security Commissioner
to run the agency. This position has a fixed 6-year term that
must be Senate confirmed, just like the Department Secretaries
and heads of other high level Federal agencies. But Social
Security has been without a Senate-confirmed Commissioner since
the most recent term expired on January 19, 2013. That is more
than 5 years. This is the largest single period of vacancy for
the head of a department or major Federal agency since Social
Security became independent. And that is not right. Not only
has Social Security been led by Acting Commissioners, but for
over 3 years we haven't even had a nominee for the Senate to
consider. The President needs to nominate a Commissioner
without further delay. And once he does, the Senate should move
quickly because the American people have waited too long.
Yesterday GAO announced the Social Security Administration
is in violation of the Vacancy Reform Act. Without objection,
the opinion will be made a part of the record.
Chairman JOHNSON. This is a big deal and a reminder that
Social Security needs a nominee now. Acting Commissioners can
keep an agency on a course that is already set, but they don't
have the same authority to lead as a Senate-confirmed
Commissioner. You will hear today an Acting Commissioner just
isn't empowered to make strategic decisions regarding the long-
term operation of the agency. The Social Security
Administration needs the strong and consistent leadership of a
Senate-confirmed Commissioner to keep the agency focused on
providing the service Americans expect, need, and deserve.
We are now more than 5 years into a 6-year term. The
American people can't afford to wait any longer. Mr. President,
we need you to nominate a Commissioner now.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Larson for his opening statement.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
our witnesses as well for joining us here today. And I want to
associate myself with the remarks of our chairman.
This is a travesty that this position with so vital an
agency hasn't been filled. And as I think everyone will
remember--and I want to commend the President. I recall vividly
when he stood among 16 other candidates for office in his own
party and spoke forthrightly about the need to not only
preserve but to expand Social Security. So we know where his
heart and his sentiment lies. But what we need, I think, as the
chairman has underscored, is the need for us to take action and
a need for us to put a commissioner in that position.
I think what makes the sense of urgency for this, and I
think as everyone in the audience knows, and certainly the
people on this committee, that 10,000 baby boomers a day--let
me repeat that, 10,000 fellow Americans a day become Social
Security eligible. So with 10,000 becoming eligible a day, it
is paramount that we put somebody in charge at the head of an
agency, an agency where we have seen a 15 percent increase,
almost, of the number of people who are in need of Social
Security and prevailing upon it while it has been cut 11
percent. We need to address that as well. And this committee is
the appropriate place to do that.
Both Mr. Johnson and myself have bills to address this. It
is my hope that we will be able to have had a hearing on those
bills and be able to address the underlying concerns that so
many Americans who depend upon Social Security and for way too
many the only source of retirement that they have.
And so this is a vital lifeline to the American citizens.
This is why it is paramount. I commend the chairman for calling
this meeting. And I further commend him for his call of urgency
to make sure that we install and confirm--nominate and confirm.
Now, I have several suggestions as well for the President
including amongst them Max Richtman, who is--you are going to
hear from today, who heads-up the national committee that
preserves Social Security and Medicare.
And Nancy Altman, or Judith Stein, or Bill Archer, the
former fellow Texan who is still quite active himself. Earl
Pomeroy the former insurance commissioner from South Dakota.
John Tanner. Or my predecessor Barbara Kennelly.
I want to commend Nancy Berryhill for her work that she has
been doing in an acting capacity. But truly, as the chairman
has indicated and underscored, we need to make sure that we
both nominate and confirm and put somebody at the head of this
vital agency for all of America.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back and anticipate
the--glad to participate in the questioning and listening to
what our witnesses have to say.
Chairman JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate
your statement.
As is customary, any Member is welcome to submit a
statement for the hearing record. And before we move on to our
testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to please limit your
statements to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all of the
written testimony will be made a part of the hearing record.
We have four witnesses today. Seated at the table are
Elizabeth Curda, Director of Education, Workforce, and Income
Security, Government Accountability Office. Valerie Brannon,
Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional
Research Service. Max Richtman, President and CEO, National
Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. And Max
Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service.
Ms. Curda, welcome. Thanks for being here. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH CURDA, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE,
AND INCOME SECURITY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. CURDA. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Larson, and
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here to discuss
the significant demographic, technological, and management
challenges facing the Social Security Administration's
leadership as they seek to deliver timely and accurate services
to Americans.
In fiscal year 2017, SSA paid out nearly 1 trillion dollars
in retirement and disability benefits to 67 million
beneficiaries, and an average of 420,000 people call or visit
one of its 1,200 field offices every day. However, with the
baby boom generation entering their disability prone and
retirement eligible years, workloads will continue to increase
just as SSA faces a depletion of institutional knowledge and
leadership from waves of retiring employees.
SSA also faces rapidly changing demands from Americans
increasingly seeking virtual access to services while it
continues to rely on antiquated systems to process claims. GAO
has issued numerous reports on these challenges with
recommendations to address them and placed SSA's disability
programs on GAO's high risk list.
A common theme that cuts across our work is the need to
modernize how SSA does business, which SSA has acknowledged.
While SSA has agreed with and taken action on many of our
recommendations, many also remain un implemented including some
we have suggested are a high priority for top leadership
attention.
The challenges I will discuss today fall into three areas.
First, managing disability workloads and program integrity.
Second, modernizing physical infrastructure and service
delivery. And third, modernizing information technology.
With regard to managing disability workloads and program
integrity, while SSA significantly reduced the number of
pending initial claims over the past 7 years, pending appealed
claims rose from 770,000 to 1.1 million over the same period.
And these claims now take an average of 605 days to process.
Although SSA has a plan and initiatives underway to reduce
its appeals backlog, we reported that some of SSA's appeals
initiatives are either contingent on additional funding, such
as hiring, or have met with limited success when tried in the
past. Our work has also shown that SSA faces challenges
ensuring the integrity of its disability programs. For example,
one case of fraud reported by the SSA's inspector general
involved 70 individuals and 14 million in fraudulent benefits.
In 2017, SSA established an office responsible for
coordinating antifraud programs across the agency and gathered
information on some fraud risks. However, we found that SSA had
not fully assessed its fraud risks, had not developed an
overall antifraud strategy, and did not have a complete set of
metrics to determine whether its antifraud efforts have been
effective. SSA has agreed to our recommendations and begun to
take action on some of them.
Turning to modernizing service delivery and infrastructure,
advances in technology have the potential to greatly improve
SSA's service delivery while reducing its reliance on costly
office space. For example, individuals can now apply for some
disability benefits online rather than in person. However, we
found that SSA did not have readily available data on problems
customers had with online applications or why. In addition, the
agency had not established performance goals to determine
whether these new service delivery options, such as off-site
kiosks, are succeeding. We also found that SSA has not
developed a long-term plan for right-sizing its office space to
reflect these types of changes in service delivery. We
recommended that SSA improve its building space plans and do
more to monitor and assess online and remote service delivery.
And SSA agreed to take action.
Finally, regarding the modernization of SSA's information
technology, SSA's legacy information technology systems are
increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. We identified
SSA's spending on the operations and maintenance of its IT
infrastructure as among the 10 largest IT expenditures of
Federal agencies in fiscal year 2015. We recommended that the
agency identify and plan to modernize or replace legacy systems
in accordance with OMB guidance. SSA agreed and reported that
it is finalizing an information technology modernization plan.
In summary, the actions SSA's executive leadership will
need to take to modernize the management of its disability
programs, its physical infrastructure, its online service
delivery and information technology assets will require vision
and sustained long-term attention.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I am happy to
answer the committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Elizabeth Curda follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Brannon, welcome. Thanks for being here. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF VALERIE C. BRANNON, LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY, AMERICAN
LAW DIVISION, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Ms. BRANNON. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Larson, and
members of the subcommittee. My name is Valerie Brannon. I am a
legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the
Congressional Research Service. Thank you for inviting me to
testify today on behalf of CRS.
I will be addressing the statutes that may authorize
someone to serve as acting commissioner of Social Security in
the event of a vacancy in the office. There are two statutes
that may authorize a governmental official to serve as acting
commissioner. The first is the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of
1998, or the Vacancies Act, which generally governs acting
officers serving in vacant advice and consent positions in the
executive branch. The second statute is Section 702 of the
Social Security Act which contains a provision pertaining
specifically to a vacancy in the office of the commissioner.
The first statute, the Vacancies Act, generally governs
vacancies in executive branch positions that require
appointment through the advice and consent of the Senate. It
usually provides the exclusive means for temporarily
authorizing an acting official to perform the functions and
duties of any such position. The Vacancies Act places two kinds
of limitations on acting service. First, the statute only
allows certain classes of employees to perform the duties of a
vacant position. And, second, it specifies that such employees
may perform these duties for only a limited period of time.
The Vacancies Act allows three classes of officials to
serve as acting officers. First, as a default rule, once the
office becomes vacant, the first assistant to that office
automatically becomes the acting officer. Alternatively, the
President may direct two other classes to serve as an acting
officer instead of that first assistant. Either a person who is
currently serving in a different advice and consent position or
certain senior employees working in the same agency.
The Vacancies Act also limits the amount of time that a
vacant advice and consent position may be filled by an acting
officer. There are two independent time limits. The first is a
fixed term of days that runs from the date that the vacancy
arose, and the second allows an acting officer to serve while a
nomination to the position is pending in the Senate.
The second statute that may govern a vacancy in the
commissioner's office is Section 702 of the Social Security Act
which creates the positions of the commissioner and the deputy
commissioner. Section 702 states that in the event of a vacancy
in the office of the commissioner, the deputy commissioner
shall be acting commissioner unless the President designates
another officer of the government as acting commissioner.
Section 702 does not explain who these other officers that may
be directed by the President are, and it also doesn't contain
any expressed time limitations on acting service.
As mentioned, the Vacancies Act usually provides the only
way for an employee to temporarily perform the functions and
duties of a vacant office. However, on its own terms, it is
only exclusive unless another statute expressly designates
someone to serve as an acting officer. Section 702 does
designate another government official, the deputy commissioner,
to temporarily perform the commissioner's duties as acting
commissioner.
But just because the Vacancies Act does not apply
exclusively to the position of the commissioner, that does not
necessarily mean that it does not apply at all. It is possible
that both the Vacancies Act and Section 702 could apply to a
vacancy in the commissioner's office. If the two statutes are
consistent, then this doesn't present any problems. But if
there are inconsistencies between those two statutes, this
could lead to challenges to an acting officer's authority.
Imagine that one statute authorizes acting service but the
other prohibits it. An acting commissioner might take an action
under the more permissive statute, but someone could argue that
the limitations of the other statute prohibited that action. If
such an action was challenged in court, the judge would have to
figure out not only whether this first possibly more permissive
statute actually did permit the action, but also it would have
to figure out which of the two conflicting statutes should
prevail.
With respect to the commissioner's office, such a conflict
is possible. The Vacancies Act creates a detailed scheme
setting out who may serve and how long they may serve. On the
other hand, Section 702 is silent on a few issues and could
possibly be read as more permissive. However, it is also
possible to read these two statutes as consistent.
There is very little case law interpreting these two
statutes, so ultimately it is hard to reach any definite
conclusions on this issue.
Thank you very much, and I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Valerie Brannon follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
What is the one thing you want us to get out of that
comment?
Ms. BRANNON. There are some complicated statutes that
govern this vacancy.
Chairman JOHNSON. And you follow the statutes?
Ms. BRANNON. I do.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you very much.
Mr. Richtman, welcome. Thanks for being here. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF MAX RICHTMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL
COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
Mr. RICHTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Larson, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I
want to thank you for inviting me to testify at this morning's
hearing regarding the challenges faced by Social Security after
being led for 5 years--over 5 years by a series of acting
commissioners.
Before I present my statement, I just want to say on behalf
of the millions of members and supporters of the national
committee, I would like to express my thanks to you, Chairman
Johnson, for your many years of leadership on matters involving
Social Security and, of course, for your distinguished service
to our country for many years prior to that.
Turning to the subject of today's hearing, I believe that
extended periods without a confirmed commissioner is obviously
not desirable. When Congress decided to make the Social
Security Administration an independent agency back in 1994, one
of the goals of the legislation was to provide the agency with
continuity of leadership. In fact, I am told the Senate-passed
version of the bill required the President to nominate a new
commissioner within 60 days of enactment.
While desirable, we do not believe that the problems
confronting Social Security can be fixed simply by nominating
and confirming a new commissioner. Congress must also provide
the new commissioner with the resources he or she will need to
do the job, and that means adequate funding for this important
agency. Unfortunately, what we have seen in recent years is a
steady decline in funding for the agency at exactly the same
time the workload has soared.
Mr. Larson mentioned 10,000 people being added to the roles
every day. It is about a million additional people added every
year for the last few years. This is not a time to be reducing
funding. In fact, the Social Security Administration's budget
has been cut by a total of about 11 percent adjusted for
inflation. These cuts have forced the closing of field offices,
shortening of office hours, reductions in overtime, shrinking
of staff. And automation has helped some but not enough to
prevent the deterioration in levels of service.
So it is not surprising that the quality and timeliness of
the service has declined. Getting an appointment to file a
claim can take weeks, and some offices--and those who visit an
office without an appointment have to wait hours in many cases.
Service on the 800 number line has declined as well. Currently
it takes about 20 minutes to reach a service representative. In
2010 it took about 3 minutes. Many seniors simply hang up--give
up and hang up. In fact, we called the 800 number when you
gaveled the hearing to order. We are still on hold. We are told
it will be about an hour.
So I wanted to also make a comment about how disturbing it
is when you look at the disability hearing situation. Over the
past few years, a historically high backlog has grown. There
are over a million cases waiting to be heard. Right now it
takes about 600 days on average for a decision to be made. The
human hardship caused by these delays is enormous. People are
losing their homes, delaying healthcare declaring bankruptcy.
And they are dying. About 10,000 people die each year while
waiting for a decision.
If this hearing goes for about 2 hours, two people will die
during the course of the hearing waiting for an appeals
decision. Social Security's administrative funding has been
neglected for far too long. I believe it is time for Members of
Congress to adequately fund Social Security so it can provide
the vital services that American seniors expect and deserve.
During the debate on the 2018 omnibus appropriations, the
national committee urges members to provide the agency with 560
million additional dollars over this year's appropriated level
of $12.4 million. This will increase and help restore some of
the cuts that were made since 2010, and cover--or begin to
cover inflation. We believe similar increases should be in the
2019 appropriations bill.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we agree completely that having
a confirmed commissioner is important, but it is also important
that the agency has adequate funding. These two must be united
if the special--if the Social Security Administration is able
to meet its obligations to the American people.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Max Richtman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stier, welcome, and thanks for being here. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PARTNERSHIP FOR
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. STIER. Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ranking
Member Larson, members of the committee. My name is Max Stier.
I am the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public
Service. We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working
to make the Federal Government more effective.
This hearing is a terrific hearing to focus on a critical
issue. We have a broken system. No other democracy on this
planet has a new administration walking in with the requirement
of putting in 4,000 political appointees, 1,200 of them
requiring Senate confirmation. So this is an issue that
actually extends beyond Social Security but clearly is a big
issue here as well. And your hearing is critical to make sure
that the spotlight is placed on it.
The problem is a big one. No administration has staffed
quickly. This administration is well behind prior
administrations. We tracked the top 630-some-odd appointments
of those 1,200 that require Senate confirmation. Of those, only
274 are actually filled. And you are looking at 218 where there
is no nominee. That is a big problem. There are big chunks of
government where a critical leader is simply not in place.
Mr. Chairman, you made a great point in your opening
comments. It matters. To have a temporary or an acting
individual, in my terms, it is the equivalent of a substitute
teacher. They may be a wonderful educator, but they get no
respect. Everyone knows they are not there for the long-term.
People understand that they are not going to take on the tough
issues or think about long-term solutions. And their decisions
aren't going to be viewed as final. It is a real problem. Great
people may be operating in those positions, but they are
operating with two hands tied behind their back. That is no way
to do things.
At SSA, it is not just the commissioner. You are talking
about three Senate-confirmed positions, and all three don't
have a permanent person in place. You only have one nominee for
the IG. That is a big problem. And then it cascades through the
rest of the organization where you have acting individuals in
critical spots. So you have an acting deputy commissioner for
operations, an acting deputy CIO, acting chief information
security officer. And three of the ten regional commissioners
are also acting.
Having acting leadership at the top has consequences
throughout the organization. Hard to recruit people, hard to
make decisions for full-time folk if you don't know who the
real boss is going to be. That is a big problem. These
positions are critical to all kinds of issues that are
fundamental to the operations of SSA. And we need to make sure
we get folks in there.
A couple of facts about SSA that are worth focusing on for
a second. Note: Only about 4.3 percent of the SSA population
workforce itself is under the age of 30. There are six times as
many people in the IT workforce over the age of 60 than under
the age of 30. You are not going to get done the critical work
you need to do without the right workforce, and you don't have
it there right now.
So, one--so what can you do about it? This committee
hearing is fundamental. So kudos to you for doing it. Five
ideas for you. I am going to run through them fast.
Number one. It is not just getting someone in place. That
is fundamental. But you need to find the qualities and
competencies needed for these roles that are open. It is not
good enough just to have someone in the seat. You need to make
sure you have got someone who has got large management
capabilities, can deal with the IT transformation that needs to
take place. So identify those capabilities.
Number two, you need a job--that is a job description.
Number two, you need a performance plan. You need to make sure
that they are actually being held accountable for specific
things that need to be changed, and that needs to be
transparent in real-time so you understand whether they are
doing the job and it is being done well.
Number three, use the data that you already have. The
Federal employee viewpoint survey is a powerful tool to tell
you what is going on in these agencies. Not a good story at
SSA. In 2012, it was number six in our best places to work
rankings. Today it is number 12 out of 18. That is a big drop.
And if you look at the numbers themselves, there are some big
issues. So on the question, for example, employees are
encouraged to find better ways of doing things, at SSA, that is
only 55 percent of the employees would say yes. That number is
18 points lower than our private sector benchmark. On the
questions about are my talents being used while in the
workplace at SSA? Again, that is 54 percent. That is 23 percent
below a private sector benchmark.
Fundamentally, though, you have an incredibly mission-
driven workforce. So one area where their numbers are better
than the private sector to the question, I am willing to put in
the extra effort to get my job done. You have got 95.6 percent
of the employees that are saying that. They care about what
they are doing.
So now number four recommendation, consider tying the 6-
year term to confirmation. The chairman noted that you are 5
years into a term. You do need a long tenure if you are going
to get real work done and to do real transformation. You know,
average tenure of an ordinary public political appointee is 18
months to 2 years. That is one of the big problems for
government. You have got short-term leaders not aligned to the
long-term needs of the organizations they run. A 6-year term
makes sense, but only--it makes sense only if it is real, if
the person walking in has that full tenure. That is not what
you have right now.
And then you all have responsibility for more than the
Social Security Administration. Please do this for the other
agencies you are looking out for as well, because these same
issues play out across the board.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Max Stier follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
We will now turn to questions.
As is customary for each round of questions, I will limit
my time to 5 minutes and will ask my colleagues to also limit
their time to 5 minutes.
Ms. Curda, yesterday GAO confirmed what we all know--Social
Security has been led by an Acting Commissioner for too long.
What does it mean for an agency to be in violation of the
Vacancies Reform Act?
Ms. CURDA. Chairman Johnson, after the expiration of an
official's allowed period of acting duty, the position is to
remain vacant. And the nondelegable functions and duties of
that position can only be performed by the head of the agency.
To determine any impact, the agency would need to determine if
any actions that were taken by the acting commissioner after
November 17 were nondelegable. In other words, they could only
be performed by the commissioner and nobody else. Any such
action taken in violation of the act would have no force or
effect and may not be ratified. Where violations have occurred
in the Vacancies Act, it is the agency's responsibility to
determine if any actions that were taken were nondelegable.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Ms. Brannon, right now we are more than 5 years into the
current 6 year Commissioner's term. Knowing how long the Senate
can take sometimes, if the President wanted to, could he
nominate someone for the next term right now? And if not, why
not?
Ms. BRANNON. The President could probably nominate someone
for the next term. I think the Social Security Act, however,
would prohibit--while there is still a vacancy in the office, I
don't think someone could be appointed to that next term
because the statute says that if a commissioner is appointed to
the term of office after the commencement of that term, they
may only serve for the remainder of that term. So so long as
there is a vacancy in the office, anyone who is appointed in
the middle of a term can only serve for the remainder of a
term.
Chairman JOHNSON. So do we need to change that rule?
Ms. BRANNON. You could.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you very much.
Mr. Larson, I recognize you.
Mr. LARSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the witnesses as well.
I am struck by a number of things, and I will start with
what Mr. Richtman had to say, and that is that by putting
somebody in place is not going to solve, at least listening to
all your testimonies, the problems that Social Security faces
long and short-term. And, Mr. Stier, I especially liked the
example where you say we put somebody in for a short-term
period to solve what are long-term problems for the country.
Ms. Curda, you elaborated a lot on the technology aspects
of this and said while, on one hand, that Social Security was
addressing some of these issues, that they failed to follow
through. That failure, is that based as Mr. Richtman said, on
lack of resources, or is it technical ability? Is it because of
what Mr. Stier said? Because the age of people is different and
people with different capabilities aren't in those positions?
Could you elaborate more on what GAO's findings were?
Ms. CURDA. Certainly.
I think the main issue with SSA's information technology is
the size of the legacy IT operations that they have. They have
systems that are running on software that uses a programming
language that was most prevalent in the 1950s and the 1960s
called----
Mr. LARSON. Wonderful.
Ms. CURDA [continuing]. COBOL.
Mr. LARSON. Is it radioactive?
Ms. CURDA. I don't think they even teach it anymore. And so
they are dependent on people----
Mr. LARSON. So we are operating in the--and Social Security
takes great pride in saying that its loss ratio is like 99
percent, which makes it one of the most--and the envy of the
private sector insurance world would love to have that kind of
loss ratio, and yet we see these glaring failures. You know,
wait times, 600 days, as the chairman was saying, to me, that
is totally unacceptable, 4-hour waits. Are they still on hold
waiting for your call, Max?
Mr. RICHTMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. LARSON. This is just--we cannot, as an institution, as
government, you know, sworn to serve our constituents, to allow
this to go forward.
What improvements could be made and does it need the
funding of these resources to overhaul a system that has been
in place since the 1950s?
Ms. CURDA. We would recommend that they--we have
recommended that they modernize their legacy systems.
Mr. LARSON. Well, when you recommend that, what does that
mean? Do you suggest a specific remedy? Do you--specific
technology?
Ms. CURDA. Well, let me just break it down for you.
They spend currently $1.8 billion on information
technology, and that is split into two major categories. 1.1
billion is spent on operations and maintenance of those legacy
systems.
Mr. LARSON. Oh, wow.
Ms. CURDA. And only 0.7 billion is spent on development,
which is essentially where you get to create new and better
systems.
So a focus on shifting more resources into the development
side is needed. They have 66 total systems, of which six are
major systems.
Mr. LARSON. So let's take it as a given based on what you
are saying, and we can gather this from the written information
as well, that we are woefully negligent on the technology side.
But as Mr. Richtman pointed out, still for that human contact,
and as Mr. Stier pointed out with the age of the agency people
there, what will we have to do there as well?
Mr. Richtman, you know, it seems to me like we have a----
Mr. RICHTMAN. I think the resources are inadequate across
the board. I don't have a specific number. I did point out that
we have written to the appropriators asking for an addition of
about $460 million for fiscal 2018 and about that much for
fiscal 2019.
You know, I mentioned to Mr. Larson when--before the
hearing started that I was in Florida for a townhall meeting
with one of your colleagues last Friday night. And a woman
asked a question. She started by saying she waited for 4 hours
to talk to somebody in a Social Security office. And then she
said, ``Don't you people in Washington understand what it means
to have to wait 4 hours or to wait 600, 700 days to get a
hearing?'' And she included me in ``those people in
Washington'' when she said that.
And she did want to understand why Members of Congress
don't appreciate all of that, and I didn't really have a good
answer for her.
Mr. LARSON. Well, I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman, but I
would like, in a second round, to come back to Mr. Stier.
Thank you for your five recommendations, because I would
like to explore those further. And, Ms. Brannon, we both
commented when you were speaking that, wow, did Congress really
write that? Based on how you were explaining it, we could
barely follow it.
But one thing we would like to see is what your
recommendation would be to improve it. This happens frequently
at hearings. I don't know if my other colleagues feel the same
way. But oftentimes we get people who tell us very specifically
what they think is wrong but then don't offer a suggestion as
to how we should improve it or how we could make it better. So
in the next round.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[Member Submission for the Record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman JOHNSON. No. Thank you for the questions. And
thank you for your responses.
Mr. Holding, you are recognized.
Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stier, I am going to follow up a little bit on my
friend Mr. Larson's line of questioning. This subcommittee has
talked a lot about the critical need for SSA to update its
seriously aging IT systems. What is it called? Thought it was
Cobalt, COBOL from the 1950s? And even SSA has stated that
their previous strategy of incremental modernization isn't
going to get the job done, and there is a critical need to
undertake a large multiyear approach to updating its aging IT.
In 2016, GAO testified before this subcommittee about SSA's
struggles, the strategic planning and long-term planning when
it comes to IT.
So, Mr. Stier, maybe you could speak to the importance of
having a confirmed commissioner in place to implement and
execute a long-term multiyear task like IT modernization which
seems to be a big issue not only for SSA but a lot of other
government agencies as well.
Mr. STIER. Yeah. Absolutely. And I think you put your
finger on something vital there.
It is across government. The Federal Government spends $80
to $90 billion in IT. The overall numbers are even worse across
government than in SSA. It is about 70 percent in operations
and maintenance. And the workforce challenges are also spread
across government.
You do have to have long-term leadership to--not only to be
able to see a project like that through but also to make the
commitment to prioritize it, because it is so hard and so
difficult. No one in their right mind is going to do it if they
are going to be around just for the first year of paying and
not see any benefit later on down the road. I would say that
GAO is one of the best run organizations in government, not
in--substantially because you got a 15-year term. And whether
it is Dave Walker or Gene Dodaro, you know, they know that,
when they make the investments in their people, their systems,
whatever, they are going to see that pay off for themselves.
So, again, you have a better alignment.
Here is what I think--what I would argue that you need to
do in addition to the resource question here. One, it is not
just the amount of money. It is actually having multiyear money
and certainty. One of the big challenges, you know, you think
about a business that you are running. You have capital
budgets. You have the ability to actually think longer term
about the kinds of investments that you are going to make. And
agencies don't have that. When you talk about these IT system,
large investments, very, very hard to actually see them through
when you have very short-term money.
Number two, you need executives that actually understand
technology. It is not just your IT workforce. You need
executives themselves that understand how to drive these
transformation projects. When the IRS had its major
transformation the last go-around, for the first time in maybe
ever, and certainly a long time, they didn't hire a tax expert.
They hired a technology guy, Charles Rossotti. And he was able
to change the IRS in a pretty dramatic way. Different model.
You had someone who understood the large scale transformation
that needed to take place the technology around the IRS.
Problem being that once you do it, you know, 15, 20 years ago,
it is not good enough.
One of the challenges for government is we are catching up
to the past. And you see these big long projects that
fundamentally aren't agile, that are not actually using the
techniques that the best in class companies do, because they
are thinking about a 10-year project, or whatever it might be,
rather than the more iterative ``We can make mistakes, but we
are going to get better and better.'' And that kind of
development is fundamental, especially as the shelf life of
technology is getting shorter and shorter.
It is not good enough to build these long-term systems,
expect them to live 30 or 40 years. They ain't going to do
that. You have to look at more commercial, that is practice,
off the shelf stuff. You need a very different level of
technology. You need different kinds of people like what you
will see in the United States digital service, which I think is
a good resource.
But I think this is a great topic for you. You know,
absolutely it begins with leaders. If you don't have leaders,
none of this other stuff is going to matter. But it doesn't end
with leaders. You need to have the technology transformation to
change the capability of the organization.
Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Stier.
Now, I want to switch gears really quickly to Ms. Bannon.
And if this is beyond your brief, you can get back to me in
writing.
I understand there is a lawsuit pending at the Supreme
Court related to the appointment of a handful of SEC
administrative law judges. And in response to the case, the SEC
commissioners have recently ratified the appointment of all the
ALJs to ensure their legitimacy. But the Supreme Court's ruling
in the case could have a serious--could have serious
consequences for all of SSA ALJs appointed by an acting
commissioner.
If you are able, could you walk me through these possible
legal ramifications?
Ms. BRANNON. So the concern in that case is that these ALJs
are officers of the United States within the meaning of the
appointment clause of the Constitution. If they are officers of
the United States, then they have to be appointed in accordance
with the constitutional procedures. The ratification was an
attempt to appoint them in accordance with those procedures.
The situation I think is analogous to the ALJs in Social
Security. There are possible differences. And I think that was
recognized by the courts that are considering this issue.
I would be happy to--there are a lot of complex issues
involved in this, so I would be happy to explore that more at a
later date.
Mr. HOLDING. Right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Mr. Pascrell, you are recognized.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. All of you are experts, really, in this area.
You did a terrific job. I am very interested in your testimony,
Mr. Stier, because I think it is really a pass for us. You are
demanding more of us, and we should have oversight that fights.
Right now it is kind of vague, foggy. And that is how a lot of
people like it. So thank you for holding this meeting, Mr.
Chairman, ensuring we have leadership in this critical area of
Social Security and the Social Security Administration.
There is no way an organization can effectively do its job
without someone at the top planning for the long-term. We heard
from Mr. Richtman the long-standing problems at the
Administration, Social Security Administration. And that simply
is not going to be remedied by appointing, confirming a new
commissioner. We don't even have a nominee yet let alone a
person to take the job. That is unacceptable. We need to
provide the Social Security Administration with more resources
to reduce wait times for paying benefits, approving benefit
applications, and responding to inquiries from the public.
You can do go down many lists whether you are talking about
transportation, educational technology, regardless of what you
are talking about. Trade negotiations. We don't have people to
do the job. We just don't. And you can't ignore that issue.
This is a pattern, a plague on both parties. No one is
individually responsible. No party is individually responsible
for this. We go along to get along here.
Across the country there have been a closure of 64 field
offices. Disability hearings backlog with an average of 605
days. I am just thinking of all the folks that I have come to
my office for help for this, 605 days.
In New Jersey, wait times in Newark average 668 days. That
is almost 2 years. I mean, how long do we have to live? That is
an interesting question. In Jersey City, 703 days. The South
Jersey hearing office has one of the worst processing times in
the Nation, 739 days. And we talk about our responsibility to
our veterans. What about our responsibility to our seniors?
They served the country. They gave it the best. They made it
the greatest country in the world.
You know, this amounts to nearly 25,000 cases waiting to be
heard. It sounds like the VA. These types of numbers are
outrageous, and they are unacceptable, and we cannot argue them
away. They didn't happen overnight. It is not a Republican
problem. It is not a Democratic problem. It is our problem,
lack of oversight. They happen when congressional Republicans
choose many times to starve the agency. Fewer resources mean
fewer staff and tools which means more people are left out in
the cold waiting for help.
Adjusted for inflation, the Social Security Administration,
the budget has declined 11 percent in the last 7 years. During
this same period, the number of Americans receiving Social
Security benefits has climbed by 15 percent, 8 million people.
We are going backwards.
Mr. Richtman, let me ask you this question. Can you talk
about the enormous service delivery challenges facing Social
Security in future years as baby boomers reach retirement age?
What impact is that going to have?
Mr. RICHTMAN. I think the problems that you have outlined
will be aggravated. There will be more people brought into the
system. If the trajectory of funding continues, there will be
less money to help more people. So I think it is pretty
obvious, as you said, we are going the wrong direction.
Mr. PASCRELL. And what that does is increase the lack of
credibility in government. And it seems to me that that may be
an objective of some people who get elected to come to this
House.
Just one more question, Mr. Chairman.
Will these service delivery challenges be helped or hurt if
the Social Security agency receives the additional $560 million
Ranking Member Neal and Larson and Davis have requested? Is
that going to help it? Hurt it? What? What is it going to do?
Mr. RICHTMAN. Absolutely help it. We sent a letter to the
House endorsing the legislation you just talked about. And we
think it would make an enormous difference.
We are trying to catch up now, and that is what this
additional funding would allow.
Mr. PASCRELL. I want to thank the honesty of all the panel
members and thank the chairman again for bringing this subject
to the American people.
Thank you.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Mr. Schweikert, you are recognized.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And forgive me if I take a slightly one-off. I absolutely
agree with everything that has been said here about, you know,
the time for revolution and technology, you know, the
mechanisms, if it is--and I think the actual number is, what,
10,300 baby boomers functionally retiring a day now since 2008.
So if you--10,300 is 3.7 million a year. But my fear is--
and some of this is going to be to you, Mr. Richtman. I
actually think we are whistling also by the crisis. If I sit
here and do math, Medicare Social Security will be adding 130
billion a year in additional entitlement spending. Okay. Think
of that. Every 5 years that is the value of the entire Defense
Department. So every 10 years, just the increased spending is
two defense departments. Since 2008, Social Security Medicare
account for 72 percent of all the inflation adjusted growth and
spending here in government.
Today, someone retiring in Medicare, inflation adjusted
dollars, like-for-like dollars, put in $140,000 and takes up
$420,000. My little girl, when she is a teenager, there will be
only two workers, so one couple supporting a single retiree.
Yeah, we have problems in their IT system, problems in their
budget, problems in the outreach and the quality of customer
service. And we have a crisis that becomes one of the greatest
systematic threats ever to this Nation, and it is not decades
away. It is in a dozen years.
And so, Mr. Richtman, first, is there something wrong in
anything I just said mathwise?
Mr. RICHTMAN. Well, you know----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Is there anything wrong I just said
mathwise?
Mr. RICHTMAN. What is wrong with what you said is that
these programs, Social Security, and a good part of Medicare is
paid for by the payroll tax. And that is money that is
dedicated to these programs.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. And your point is?
Mr. RICHTMAN. My point is, you know, we are not a group
that has our heads buried in the sand. We realize if nothing
happens in 2034 there will not be enough money to pay every
beneficiary every penny that they are supposed to be paid. We
are not saying don't do anything, ignore the problem. First of
all, it is not a crisis. The crisis was 1983 when we were
looking at six months.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. So the----
Mr. RICHTMAN. So my--if you can let me answer.
The answer is not to start talking about cutting benefits,
cutting the COLA, raising the retirement age. The answer is
looking at ways, reasonable ways, to bring more revenue into
the program.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay. So your solution is the additional
tax revenues.
Mr. RICHTMAN. My answer is to make--the payroll tax----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Let me finish. Let me finish.
Over the next 30 years--and, now, this is not inflation
adjusted dollars, just Medicare adds $40 trillion in debt. Just
Social Security adds 19 trillion. I think the greatest
systematic threat to seniors is almost what you just said, the
unwillingness to actually either get leadership at this agency,
leadership from all of us, leadership from the advocacy groups
to actually do math, because, Mr. Chairman, math always wins.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly, you are recognized.
Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you all for being
here.
Ms. Bannon, you had talked about the SSA being in violation
of the Vacancies Act. If the President were to nominate a
commissioner, would the SSA still continue to be in violation?
Ms. BRANNON. So the Vacancies Act says that someone can
serve either for a 300 term of--term of days starting from the
vacancy. That is gone. Or can serve during the pendency of a
nomination. So Ms. Berryhill would likely be serving in
compliance with the Vacancies Act if she meets the criteria for
a senior official who is permissively directed by the President
to serve and if a nomination other than her is submitted to----
Mr. KELLY. Okay. I want to make sure we are doing that.
Now, the other thing--question I want to ask, because I
think we are all on the same topic and the same concern, and
that is the viability of what it is that we put out for folks
and the fact that it is funded by people in the workforce,
because it is that--the wage taxes that fund us.
I want to ask you something, because sometimes it comes
down to how do we spend the dollars we get in. In 2008, the
previous administration decided to develop an in-house software
program to replace the commercial off-the-shelf disability
determination system. The goal was to save money, right, and
improve efficiency. However, to date, we spent hundreds of
millions of dollars, missed all the deadlines, and don't still
have the project complete. SSA has spent well over $420 million
on this project even though a commercial off-the-shelf program
has existed for decades at a cheaper cost. And, unfortunately,
under an interim director, this effort for an in-house program
has continued.
Are any of the witnesses familiar with the issue? And do
you think not having a confirmed SSA commissioner has been part
of the problem?
Mr. Stier, I think you are spot on with this. So if we had
somebody there--and I think the thing that we lack, and I think
we all talk about this, Social Security can continue on this
type of a program because it is not in the private sector. And
what I am wondering about is, is it the process that is the
problem?
Mr. STIER. So I think that, unfortunately, there is a--and
I am answering the question----
Mr. KELLY. No. It is okay. Because you are all--we are all
concerned about the same thing.
Mr. STIER. I mean, I think the--there are multiple
contributors to the challenge here and----
Mr. KELLY. But my question, if you are in the private
sector and you have a problem that you have to solve; and the
reason you have to solve it, because if you don't solve it, it
means you go out of business. Unfortunately, there is no
deadlines for any of this. There is no possibility this ever
going away. And we keep saying what we have to do is find more
revenue somewhere.
And so I look at this, and we say we sent $420 million on a
project even though there was an off-the--there was already a
commercial off-the-shelf piece available. But we decided not to
do that. And you could only do that if it is not your own
money. But if it is your money and you have to stay open, you
do what is in the best interest of the people you serve and the
money that you have to work with. So I have always wondered is
it a lack of money or is the fact that we don't spend money the
right way?
Mr. STIER. So my view is you are going to have, again, a
combination of multiple things here. It actually is more
complicated. So sometimes the model for folks in thinking about
how you run a government agency is just run it like a business.
The answer is you cannot run the government like a business.
You----
Mr. KELLY. I understand that. We are $20 trillion in the
red.
Mr. STIER. There you go. Correct. But you can apply
business principles. It is not sufficient simply to look at----
Mr. KELLY. Okay. Can I ask you? Because you just said we
could apply business principles.
Mr. STIER. Yes.
Mr. KELLY. There is no CEO serving on any private entity
right now that would be looking at this and say ``I still
deserve to be in charge.''
My concern is, as we go through this--we have been waiting
5 years, right, for a commissioner? So it just didn't start
now. But this process of getting through--and I have got to
tell you, if somebody from the private sector who is looking to
come on and somehow help his country or her country by serving
in government and then looking at the process they have to go
through and be on the sidelines waiting to be approved, you
would have to be a damn fool to sit there waiting for that to
happen. I just think we lose so much enthusiasm, so much
passion. The fact that we leave people sit on the sideline and
say, ``Some day you will get a chance to get on the field, but
not yet.''
Mr. STIER. Yes. And your proposition is absolutely correct
for the political appointees. It is also true for the career
folks as well. So you have a lot of great talent that actually
would like to serve their country. The process of hiring is
overly complex. It is too long.
Mr. KELLY. That is my point.
Mr. STIER. You are entirely right. There is opportunity to
bring great talent in. And the process itself is dissuading
really good people from pursuing those options. And that is
something that ought to be changed, and it is something that,
you know, frankly, again, that you have some opportunity to
change.
So when you would think about the rules that govern the way
our government operates were largely created in a different
era. You have a legacy government that hasn't kept up with the
world----
Mr. KELLY. One of the things I have noticed since I have
been here is, you know, when you ask somebody, So why do we do
it this way? They say, well, that is the way we have always
done it. And I said, well, that that is not a good process
going forward.
I find your testimony really good. And I just--and I know.
There are so many really patriotic people that serve in the
government. It has got to be very frustrating to be watching
this and say ``I know it could be better if we could just get
this process changed and make it more--make it something that
makes sense.
So I appreciate you being here. Mr. Chairman, thanks for
having this. I think we all want the same thing for all our
people because we know who funds it. It is the people who are
working and the people who pay them to work.
Mr. STIER. Yep.
Mr. KELLY. That is at a wage tax.
So thanks for being here. Thanks, to all. I really
appreciate everything you all are doing.
Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Rice, you are recognized.
Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am struck by the
continued testimony we hear about various government agencies
and their inability to modernize their IT. And I think that,
you know, certainly it is not going to solve all the problems
but it is going to go a long way toward solving a lot of these
problems. I think it would definitely affect the 600A wait
time. I think it would probably cut down on the need for some
of the employees and probably cut down on some of the needs for
funding.
So Mr. Stier, I want to ask you. This, today, is about
Social Security and--I guess, Ms. Curda. You said they have how
many systems running on legacy programs?
Ms. CURDA. They have a total of 66 systems.
Mr. RICE. Sixty-six systems.
Ms. CURDA. Yes.
Mr. RICE. That seems like an awful lot. Do they really need
66 systems?
Ms. CURDA. That, I don't know. But someone had referred to
the modernization of their disability case processing system,
and that is a case of where you have got 54 disparate systems
operating across the States that are used to process the
disability claims. And the point of the modernization is to
bring all those together.
Mr. RICE. So right now there are 54 different systems
across 50 States?
Ms. CURDA. Yes.
Mr. RICE. So some States have more than one system, and
they can't necessarily talk to each other?
Ms. CURDA. Probably not.
Mr. RICE. Do you know how many of those are these legacy
programs that have been around for 50 years?
Ms. CURDA. I am sorry. Could you repeat that?
Mr. RICE. Do you know how many of those are these legacy
programs that have been around for 50 years?
Ms. CURDA. No, not specifically.
Mr. RICE. Okay. You know, we met with the IRS a month ago,
and they said that they had 300 points of failure, which means
that--over 300. It was like 320. Which means that they have
programs that they are running, 300 different systems, where
they have just one guy who knows how to program it because it
is so old. And if he dies or he retires, they are in trouble.
Ms. CURDA. Yes, there is the same problem at the Social
Security Administration. They have had to rehire people who
have retired who have the knowledge to do the programming of
the COBOL systems.
Mr. RICE. You know, Mr. Larson likes to say that Social
Security is a really good insurance policy. It is the most
effective insurance policy you can buy. So just think of an
insurance company, say MetLife or Aetna. Do you think they are
all running these legacies programs, any of them?
Ms. CURDA. Probably not.
Mr. RICE. Probably not.
Mr. Stier, why is it that, you know, it is not just Social
Security, it is not just the IRS. CMS, they testified in front
of us last week about the opioid crisis. And I asked them, can
they track the prescriptions? You know, we are paying for it. I
mean, the Federal Government is the biggest drug dealer in the
world. I mean, we are the source of the money that buys these
opium prescriptions.
Medicare and Medicaid. And I asked them if they could track
those prescriptions and tell how many pills people are buying.
She said, We could in 40 States. Well, we have 50 States.
Air traffic control, we are working on a system that is
developed just after World War II. They are handing slips of
paper back and forth. Why is this a systemic problem in
government. Why is it that, you know, you look at every private
agency, and they have all long, they don't even know how to
spell COBOL. That is long forgotten. Why is this a systemic
problem in government?
Mr. STIER. Three answers: Number one, when you look at the
top of the House, the leadership, you have got the short-term
leaders that are not aligned to the long-term needs of the
organizations they run. That is the fundamental here. Very hard
to get, you know, you get the exception. You will get someone
who comes in, who is willing to make all the hard calls, take
all the lumps, even knowing that they are not going to get any
of the benefit on their watch. But that is number one.
Number two, is you have real challenge around realtime
performance information in government. In a private sector
organization, you have clarity of outcome because you have a
financial metric you are trying to achieve. Government is
trying to seek public goods----
Mr. RICE. In other words, it is not their money.
Mr. STIER. I am sorry?
Mr. RICE. It is not their money.
Mr. STIER. No, it is not----
Mr. RICE. The people who are running it----
Mr. STIER. It is a different point. It is not that it is
not their money, it is that their performance goals are not
about money. Their performance goals are about a public good.
So if you are working at the State Department, it is about
national security.
The measurement in government in the public sector is
harder. So I am trying to give you what I think are the root
causes. And the third one is--I am going to say this and I am
hoping that it will be taken in--is you. And it is Congress.
And the reality is Congress has a fiduciary----
Mr. RICE. Amen.
Mr. STIER [continuing]. Responsibility for the executive
branch in four different ways. Number one, is the budget. You
are not giving budgets--you talk to me about any private sector
executive out there, they could not run their organization.
They had everything else that they needed with the kind of
runway you give them. And it is not the amount of money, it is
the fact that they don't have a budget. You have 21 CRs, or
rather 21--yeah, it has been like 21 CRs in the last, whatever,
how many, years. It is nuts. Can't be.
Number two, and this is on the Senate, is they have a role,
to play obviously, in the confirmation process. Number three,
it is your oversight. This is a rare kind of hearing that you
have here. You need more of them. You need to be holding the
leadership and the executive branch accountable.
And number 4, you need to look at the underlying
authorization laws. Because, again, you have legacy
organizations. You have legacy understanding of what the
mission and goals are, and that work hasn't been done by this
body. So with all due respect, those are my three reasons.
Mr. RICE. I am glad you said that. I am making it my goal
in the immediate future to try to drag some of these agencies
into the 21st century.
Mr. STIER. I would love to be of any assistance that I can
possibly be on that goal.
Mr. RICE. Thank you, sir.
Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Crowley, you are recognized.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. Let me yield a
minute to my colleague from Connecticut.
Mr. LARSON. You know, I just wanted to followup on what Mr.
Stier had to say. And I think the line of questioning here is
great. I think there is some great common ground here that we
can find. But I want to go back to another point. And I do
believe that this is an insurance issue, and this is an actuary
issue.
Mr. Stier, have any of your insurance premiums gone up
since 1983?
Mr. STIER. This sounds like it is going to be an ugly line
of questioning. That sounds like a rhetorical question to me.
Mr. LARSON. It is----
Mr. STIER. Yeah.
Mr. LARSON [continuing]. A rhetorical question, because
they have.
Mr. STIER. Yeah.
Mr. LARSON. But to your three points, one, and I think you
also mentioned lack of a capital budget, but with this kind of
oversight and with some of the people that we have here on this
committee and some of their knowledge, I think with a capital
budget, getting those kind of improvements that CEOs of a
private sector company would do would come automatically. But
when Mr. Richtman was asked before, I mean every, you know,
everyone in America understands, whether it is your homeowners,
your automobile, your health, whatever, it has risen
actuarially. That hasn't happened since 1983, so it is no
wonder without any kind of investment on our part that, you
know, we find ourselves in this situation. And yet, what is
Social Security but the full faith and credit of the United
States Government.
I make this point because I think this is easily addressed.
But if we just address, and this is a point my colleague was
making, if you just address the spending side but we don't
address the technology and capital improvement side, and do
that in terms of the revenue, then, you know, I think that we
have a balancing out in a way that we could phase this in and
work through this in a way where all Americans would benefit.
And we could take Social Security off the list of concerns
that we have here and let Americans all take a deep breath,
including millennials and Gen-X's know that----
Mr. CROWLEY. One minute.
Mr. LARSON [continuing]. We have solved the future. I am
sorry, Joe. Go ahead.
Mr. CROWLEY. That is a long minute. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. LARSON. I was a former chairman. You know how that is,
Joe.
Mr. CROWLEY. You are killing me here.
Let me thank you for this hearing today.
And Social Security is what keeps millions of Americans
from abject poverty. It ensures that if you are injured on the
job and you can't return to work, you have the affordability of
disability insurance. And it really affects the neediest, the
most vulnerable amongst us.
It is something that they have earned. It comes out of
their paycheck each and every month. And that is why, this is
what makes what has been done to the administrative part of the
program so unconscionable, in my opinion.
I agree with the chairman that we need a Social Security
commissioner who is permanent. I appreciate the bipartisan work
on this. And I really don't understand why the President hasn't
even nominated one to be the Social Security commissioner, but
the main problem is that the administrative funding for SSA has
been seriously hurt since my Republican colleagues have taken
office. As a result, we now have a wait time in Queens and the
Bronx of over 700 days. That is 700 days wait time. That is
nearly 2 years. And Americans are quite literally dying while
they were waiting for their benefits to be approved. Thousand
of Americans.
And, again, we are talking about benefits that they have
earned. I have a Daily News article that I would like to enter
into the record, Mr. Chairman, that talks about the ridiculous
wait times, including for a man who has spinal cord injuries.
And he waits for his disability. It shows why we need to make
sure that people actually get the benefits that they have
earned. But the article also shows how this is a manmade
crisis.
[Member Submission follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. CROWLEY. There is a simple fix to the problem, which is
to provide funds to help process benefits and adjudications.
But the Congress has kept SSA administrative budget basically
flat. And when you add in inflation, we are talking about
massive cuts. Is it really too much to ask for proper funding
so people can get through on the 1-800 number? Is it really too
much to ask to hire more staff so people can get their benefits
on time? It shouldn't be. So let's make it happen.
I know over 100 of my colleagues have joined myself and my
good friend from Connecticut, Mr. Larson, in sending a letter
to the administration urging a fix for this problem. And if
this Congress can afford to cut trillions in taxes for the
wealthiest, can't we also ensure that people get the Social
Security benefits that they have earned and they deserve.
Mr. Richtman, I have just a quick question for you. Would
additional funding allow Social Security to hire judges,
attorneys, decision-writers and clerks needed to reduce the
delays in disability appeals hearings? And would additional
funds help Social Security decrease wait times in places like
my district in Queens and the Bronx?
Mr. RICHTMAN. The answer is yes. Before you arrived at the
hearing, I commented that the National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare has endorsed increasing the
funding by $465 million this year, and about the same next
year.
It is not only the points that you raised, but there are
people who actually develop and write the opinions. There
aren't enough of them. That is part of the delay. And waiting
700 days is not unusual.
And, you know, I just wonder how many Members of Congress
would be willing to wait 700 days to have a decision that
important made, or to wait 4 hours to talk to someone in a
Social Security office. Four hours, that is how long a lady
that I met with in Florida last Friday had to wait. There is--
and I may not make any friends, but there is a Social Security
office in the building next door, and there are two people
there that serve everybody. And anybody can use it, but hardly
anybody knows about it. And you don't have to wait 4 hours to
talk to someone. You can talk to someone immediately. I have
been in that room. I worked for a Congressman here, I worked
for Sid Yates years ago, and I know where that office is. You
don't wait at all.
So I think it is important for Members of Congress to
understand the reality of having to deal with these kinds of
waits, or having to sell your home because you are waiting so
long to get a benefit that you deserve. So the short answer was
yes. The long answer I just gave you.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me once again thank you for
holding this hearing and in a bipartisan spirit as well. I
think there are things we can do to reduce this wait time and
to help our constituents. This is not a Republican or a
Democratic cause. It just so happens you all are a majority
now. The responsibility here is more incumbent upon you all,
but we want to help. Democrats and Republicans want to work
together on this issue to address the waiting period. It is
just unconscionable, as I mentioned earlier.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. You are welcome. You know, as we have
heard today, Social Security has been without a Commissioner
for 5 years. We have also heard that Social Security is facing
critical challenges that aren't going to get any better without
real leadership. Social Security is just too important to
continue to leave on autopilot. And that is why today, I once
again ask the President to please nominate a commissioner
without delay.
Mr. President, we need a nominee, and we need one now.
America deserves nothing less.
Thank you to our witnesses out there. We appreciate all of
you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you to our members for
being here.
With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Member Questions for the Record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]