U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

63–828 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 111–871 

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY FRAUD: 

CASE STUDIES IN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND 

COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

AUGUST 4, 2010 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ELISE J. BEAN, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LAURA STUBER, Counsel 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Counsel to the Minority 

DAVID W. COLE, Professional Staff Member to the Minority 

MARY D. ROBERTSON, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 1 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 39 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 43 

Senator Carter .................................................................................................. 45 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010 

Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................................................... 7 

Hon. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration ............ 20 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Astrue, Michael J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Kutz, Gregory D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

EXHIBIT LIST 

1. GAO Report, Social Security Administration—Cases of Federal Employees 

and Transportation Drives and Owners Who Fraudulently and/or Improperly Received SSA Disability Benefits, GAO–10–444, June 2010 ................... 73 

2. a.-d. Submissions for the hearing record to the testimony of Hon. Michael 

J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration ..................... 122 

3. Letter from Senator Carl Levin and 35 other Senators to Chairman Tom 

Harkin and Ranking Minority Member, Thad Cochran of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Service, Education and 

Related Agenceis, dated July 23, 2010, requesting full FY2011 funding 

for Social Security Administration’s administrative expenses ........................ 129 

4. Responses to supplemental questions for the record submitted to Gregory 

D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations, 

Government Accountability Office ..................................................................... 134 

5. Responses to supplemental questions for the record submitted to Hon. 

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration. [Note: 

A portion of the response to Question 36 has been Sealed and will be 

retained in the files of the Subcommittee.] ...................................................... 138 

(1) 

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY FRAUD: 

CASE STUDIES IN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND 

COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSES 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010 

U.S. SENATE,

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Levin, Carper, and Coburn. 

Staff Present: Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; 

Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk; Laura Stuber, Counsel; Nina 

Horowitz, Detailee (GAO); Christopher Barkley, Staff Director to 

the Minority; David Cole, Professional Staff Member to the Minority; Andrew Dockham, Counsel to the Minority; and Lindsay Harrison, Fellow; Michael Wolf, Law Clerk; Joshua Nimmo, Intern; 

Jeffrey Goldenhersh, Intern; Peter Tyler (Sen. Carper); Russell 

Sloan and Shannon Lovejoy (Sen. Pryor); . 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Good afternoon, everybody. The Social Security 

Administration (SSA) manages two programs that together provide 

a critical safety net for millions of Americans with disabilities. The 

first is the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program, 

which provides benefits to disabled individuals who can no longer 

work. The second is the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, a portion of which provides support to disabled persons and 

their families based upon financial need. In 2009, these two programs provided disabled Americans with financial benefits totaling 

about $160 billion. 

One hundred sixty billion dollars is a big number even by Washington standards, and the purpose of today’s hearing, which was 

initiated at the request of Senator Coburn, is to strengthen stewardship of our disability programs to ensure that the benefits are 

going to those who really need and are entitled to them, and that 

precious dollars are not spent unwisely, erroneously, or wrongfully 

in these important programs. 

2 

The Social Security Administration has long acknowledged that 

its disability programs are not infallible. Sometimes the programs 

overpay the benefits owed; sometimes they underpay. Overall, the 

Social Security Administration has overpaid, and the total amount 

of uncollected overpayments has grown from about $7.6 billion by 

the end of 2004 to $10.7 billion by the end of 2008. And while the 

overpayment rate in the Disability Insurance program has been 

quite low, about 1 percent in 2008, the overpayment rate in the 

Supplemental Security Income program has been far higher—10 

percent, approximately. In 2009, the SSI program reduced its overpayment rate to 8 percent. That was a reduction from the prior 

year, but that is still, obviously, way too high. 

To help bring down that overpayment rate, today’s hearing focuses on a Government Accountability Office report evaluating disability payments made to persons who work. While most disability 

recipients are unable to work, the government does allow disabled 

individuals to undertake a 9-month trial work period, without losing their benefits, to see if they can manage a job. When a disability recipient takes a job, they are required to notify the Social 

Security Administration about their employment status and whether they are earning in excess of program limits. 

The GAO report focuses on the extent to which disability recipients may be abusing that work program. To do so, the GAO conducted two data matches. First, the GAO matched a database of 

Social Security disability recipients against Federal payroll databases covering about 4.5 million persons who worked for government agencies for varying periods of time from October 2006 to December 2008. Of those 4.5 million Federal employees, the GAO 

identified about 24,500 who received disability payments while also 

earning Federal paychecks. Since disabled persons are encouraged 

to work, and most of those 24,500 workers were paid less than the 

disability program limit of $1,000 per month, many may have been 

in compliance with the program rules. However, 1,500 of those Federal employees were paid more than the program limit of about 

$1,000 per month, which means that they may have been improperly receiving disability payments. While 1,500 out of 4.5 million 

represents a small percentage—about 0.03 of 1 percent of the 

total—those 1,500 employees received disability benefits totaling 

$1.7 million per month. 

The second match that GAO performed compared the disability 

rolls to a database of 600,000 persons holding a commercial driver’s 

license, as well as another database, and identified 62,000 individuals who received their commercial driver’s license after their disability start date. That data match, like the Federal employee 

match, raises questions about whether those workers may be improperly receiving disability payments worth millions of dollars. 

The GAO used the data matches to select 20 individuals for additional analysis, 18 of whom were Federal employees and 2 of whom 

held commercial driver’s licenses. The GAO concluded that all 20 

were improperly receiving disability payments, finding that in 5 

cases fraud was involved on the part of the individual, 11 involved 

potential fraud, and 4 did not involve fraud but administrative errors on the part of the Social Security Administration. Those 20 

cases were not randomly selected; the GAO picked them because 

3 

they had facts suggesting fraud. Those 20 cases illustrate some of 

the abuses that are occurring and that need to be stopped 

The fraud cases involved individuals who received disability payments, were later able to land a job, and then failed to tell the Social Security Administration about their employment. The administrative error cases involved workers who told the Social Security 

Administration to stop their disability payments or where the Social Security Administration determined that the payments should 

stop, but the payments kept arriving anyway. In one case, the GAO 

reported that an individual told the agency to stop making payments when he first landed a job and again 2 years later, but kept 

receiving funds. The GAO wrote: ‘‘[A]fter 2 years of full-time work, 

[the individual] again contacted [the Social Security Administration] and implored the agency to stop paying him because he knew 

something was not right and that he would have to return the 

money.’’ That person must now repay the $12,000 erroneously sent 

to him. 

More can and must be done to stop improper disability payments 

to workers. As a first step, the Social Security Administration 

should investigate the 1,500 Federal employees and 62,000 commercial driver’s license holders identified by the GAO. Resolving 

those cases alone could save millions of dollars in overpayments. 

Second, the Social Security Administration needs to set up additional data matches to identify improper payments going to workers. Right now, the Social Security Administration undertakes a 

data match three times a year comparing its disability rolls to 

wage data compiled by the IRS from W–2 forms submitted with the 

prior year’s tax returns. While useful, that approach provides the 

Social Security Administration with wage data that is 12 to 18 

months out of date. The Social Security Administration should supplement this approach by performing regular data matches with 

more timely Federal payroll data, which is compiled every 2 to 4 

weeks. The Social Security Administration should also investigate 

other wage databases that could be used to root out overpayments 

to employed individuals, especially in the SSI program. 

Third, the Social Security Administration needs to strengthen its 

internal controls to halt payments that a disability recipient says 

should stop. 

Now, Congress also has a role in stopping the overpayments. The 

Social Security Administration currently uses two mechanisms to 

police disability payments: Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) 

in the Disability Insurance program, and Supplemental Security 

Income redeterminations. Those are SSI redeterminations. Both 

evaluate whether payments should be discontinued because a person is no longer disabled. Studies show that CDRs save $10 for 

each dollar spent while the SSI redeterminations save $8 for each 

dollar spent. 

Now, despite these cost savings, until recently there has been 

limited funding for these reviews. According to the SSA data, 10 

years ago, in 2000, it spent about $600 million on CDRs. By 2007, 

the funding had dropped to less than half to about $300 million. 

By 2009, funding was back up to $400 million; still, that is a third 

less than was available for enforcement and policing less than 10 

years ago. Similarly, funding for SSI redeterminations dropped to 

4 

less than half from the year 2000 to the year 2007 and has only 

slowly regained ground since then. 

Now, the current Administration has proposed increasing funding for CDRs and redeterminations in the fiscal year 2011 budget, 

which I hope Congress will support. We need to invest in oversight 

and enforcement to stop the abuses. There is little point in criticizing SSA for failing to reduce billions of dollars in overpayments 

if we deny them the enforcement funds needed to do just that. 

Finally, I would be remiss not to mention one other longstanding 

disability issue that has plagued my home State of Michigan as 

well as other States, and that is the huge backlog in processing applicants who were denied benefits. Some individuals now wait as 

long as 3 years for a complete review of their disability applications, undergoing enormous financial pressures in the meantime. 

While this backlog is down from its height, hundreds of thousands 

of people are still caught up in the system, most waiting for appeals hearings. The Social Security Administration has a plan to 

eliminate this backlog by 2013, but it requires Congress to approve 

the Administration’s funding request for that purpose as well. 

Federal disability payments provide an essential safety net to 

millions of disabled Americans. Application backlogs deny critically 

needed benefits while improper payments reduce the funds available to those who truly need them. The Social Security Administration needs to strengthen its internal controls to address both problems. 

Senator LEVIN. I commend Dr. Coburn for his leadership on this 

issue, and I now turn to him for his opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to 

hold this hearing. I also want to thank the witnesses that will testify today. I have a statement for the record, and I will just make 

a few points that I think are important for us to look at. 

I also would say that I agree with everything that you just said, 

Chairman Levin. The greatest responsibility does not lie at the Social Security Administration for the problems that we see. They lie 

right here with Congress. First, there has been a failure to do oversight, to direct and see what the problems are. There has also been 

a failure to effectively fund the Social Security Administration to 

make sure they have the assets, the systems, and the rules within 

the law to make sure that we support and help those who need us, 

but do not have a system that can be gamed. 

I think this is a phenomenal number, Mr. Chairman—that 1 in 

20 Americans in this country are on a disability program. That 

does not include veterans. It is unbelievable that 1 in 20 Americans 

are truly disabled under the Social Security Act. And if you read 

the definitions in the Act, you will be astounded because one of the 

requirements is that you cannot perform any job that exists in the 

U.S. economy. 

So this is not Social Security’s problem. This is Congress’ problem because we created a program that has been difficult, if not 

impossible, for them in many ways to manage effectively. 

I will not repeat what the Chairman has said. Although I am disappointed with the Social Securities statement that overpayments 

5 

are unavoidable. I do not think overpayments are unavoidable in 

the Federal Government. I think if that is our attitude, that overpayments are unavoidable, we will never solve, never refine, and 

never make sure the programs that we have are working. 

I want to commend the GAO for the work they have done. I have 

never found an area where they were not thorough and exemplary 

in how they carried out their investigations. I do want to make 

sure that we find out what we need to know as we go through 

these hearings and studies on these disability programs so that we 

can actually make the changes both in the law and in oversight to 

help Social Security. The SSA disability programs must be the tool 

that not only supplies this benefit for the rest of the disabled 

Americans, but also do so in a way that does not throw billions of 

dollars away every year through fraudulent schemes or inappropriate bureaucracies that delay the time at which we recognize 

when programs should be ceased for individuals. 

I would say, Mr. Chairman, I think the reason we find this 

study—and you mentioned it—is because we have failed to do our 

job, and had congressional oversight been effective and frequent, I 

do not think we would have some of the findings we have today. 

With that, I would like unanimous consent to introduce my opening statement to the record, and I yield back. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Coburn. Of course, the 

full statement will be made part of the record. 

Senator LEVIN. Senator Carper has an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here 

with you and Dr. Coburn. Welcome to Mr. Kutz and others who are 

coming to testify today. 

Overpayment and fraud within the Federal Government’s disability benefits program is an important topic to me, and I know 

to my colleagues to my right, and deserves the attention not just 

of this Subcommittee, but it deserves the attention of Congress. 

And the idea, the notion of overpayments is getting a lot of attention, not just from this Subcommittee, not just from the Congress, 

but from the Administration, and that is good news. 

I should note that in July we celebrated the 20th anniversary of 

the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act. This anniversary reminded me of the many people in my State of Delaware and 

across the Nation who face the challenges of physical and mental 

disabilities every single day of their lives. Social Security disability 

programs are a critical lifeline for many who are facing huge challenges in their life, economic challenges among them. 

As the witnesses’ testimony is going to show us today, the Supplemental Security Income program and the Disability Insurance 

program, these are very large. In 2009, these two disability programs provided benefits totaling, I think, about $160 billion. By 

April 2010, I think there were some 18 million people enrolled in 

the two programs, and nearly 1 in 20 Americans is receiving disability benefits of some kind. In fact, the number of individuals applying for disability apparently continues to grow. The Congressional Research Service estimates, I believe, the current backlog of 

pending applications waiting an initial determination by the Social 

6 

Security Administration exceeds 1 million people. And with programs of this size and complexity, oversight is, as we know, very 

important for ensuring that our taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately. 

Unfortunately, the two disability payment programs managed by 

the Social Security Administration make very large amounts of 

overpayments. According to the Social Security Administration’s 

latest report, improper payments total more than $10 billion, and 

there is also fraud, I think, on top of that. And given the amount 

of money that is involved, we should not be surprised that there 

are significant overpayments. There are overpayments in almost 

every agency, and this is a lot of money, so the amount of the overpayments is not going to be insignificant. 

But last year, I joined with Dr. Coburn, Senator McCain, and 

others to request GAO examine the two disability payment programs for improper payments. The resulting audit underscores the 

need for reforms and improvements to the oversight of these two 

Social Security disability programs. 

I think we can draw many useful conclusions from the work that 

GAO has done and their recommendations. I also understand that 

the Social Security Administration’s Inspector General has conducted audits and that their findings are along similar lines. 

My staff in Delaware work with many constituents who receive 

benefits from the Social Security disability program. I am sure my 

colleagues in the other 49 States have staff who do the same thing 

for their constituents. The constituents report many problems that 

further illustrate the challenges of improper payments, including 

how the constituents must work with the Social Security Administration to straighten out errors. 

Due to the complexity and the size of the two disability payment 

programs, I do not think that there is a single silver-bullet solution. I wish there were, but I do not think there is. There are likely 

many ideas that ought to be heard, debated, and some of them implemented. However, one idea I would like to explore is if Congress 

is being penny-wise and pound-foolish. I understand that the Inspector General noted that we could easily avoid billions in overpayments with a fairly small increase in oversight investment, and 

that is something I want us to drill down on today. 

Again, we thank GAO for helping us with this, and the IG as 

well. Mr. Chairman and Dr. Coburn, I am happy to be your partner 

in this effort to do our job and to help make sure that we are not 

wasting money; by the same token, we are trying to make sure that 

the folks who have a disability are getting the help that they need. 

Thanks very much. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Carper, and also 

thank you both. You sponsored a bill called the Improper Payments 

Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010. The two of you took that initiative. I think it was recently signed into law, and that should be 

helpful, and you two have devoted a lot of time, and we and the 

taxpayers should appreciate that effort. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Senator LEVIN. Mr. Kutz, let me call you now as our first witness. Gregory Kutz is the Managing Director of Forensic Audits 

and Special Investigations at the Government Accountability OfVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:41 Feb 23, 2011 Jkt 063828 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\63828.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kutz appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

fice. We appreciate your being with us. We also appreciate all the 

work that you do at the GAO. It is a critical part of our effort to 

have the essential oversight which we engage in. 

Pursuant to Rule VI, as you know, all witnesses who testify before this Subcommittee are required to be sworn, so at this time 

I would ask you to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you 

swear that the testimony that you are about to give will be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, 

God? 

Mr. KUTZ. I do. 

Senator LEVIN. We will be using a timing system today. About 

1 minute before the red light comes on, you will see the lights 

change from green to yellow, so you can conclude your remarks. 

Your written testimony will, of course, be printed in the record in 

its entirety, but we would ask that you try to limit your oral testimony to no more than 7 minutes. 

Mr. Kutz. 

TESTIMONY OF GREGORY D. KUTZ,1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

FORENSIC AUDITS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. KUTZ. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Coburn, and Senator 

Carper, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Social Security 

disability programs. Today’s testimony highlights the results of our 

investigation into Federal workers and commercial drivers improperly receiving disability benefits. 

My testimony has two parts: First, I will discuss our macro analysis; and, second, I will discuss our specific 20 case studies. 

First, our analysis identified 1,500 Federal workers that appeared to be improperly receiving disability benefits while working. 

For Disability Insurance, this included individuals that received 

more than 12 months of pay above the $940-per-month threshold. 

For Supplemental Security Income, this included individuals receiving more than 2 months of pay above the $1,400-per-month 

threshold. We also identified about 600,000 commercial drivers 

that were receiving full disability benefits. 

To refine this analysis, we obtained current information from 12 

States on 144,000 of these individuals; 62,000, or 43 percent, had 

their commercial licenses issues after Social Security determined 

that they were fully disabled. 

So why should we be concerned about these 62,000 individuals? 

Because every 2 years, a licensed medical examiner must certify 

that these individuals are mentally and physically able to operate 

a commercial vehicle. Does this mean that all 62,000 cases are disability fraud? No. In fact, our past investigations found that workers with disqualifying disabilities were still driving. These individuals were driving without medical certifications or had forged the 

medical examiner’s signature. In other words, they should have not 

been on the road. In contrast, those that passed the medical exam 

and are gainfully employed are likely fraudulently receiving disability pay. 

8 

Moving on to my second point, we validated 20 cases of fraudulent and improper payments from this overall analysis. As you 

mentioned, this was not a statistical sample and cannot be projected. Examples included a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security screener that fraudulently received $108,000. 

Social Security improperly paid her for 5 years, each year increasing the amount of disability pay by her reported Federal salary. 

A home improvement contractor also fraudulently received payments. This individual told our investigator that he puts everything in his wife’s name because he is on disability. 

A legal assistant that worked for the Social Security Administra- tion improperly received $11,000. Social Security was not aware of 

this until we informed them. 

And a Postal Service clerk fraudulently receiving $19,000, told us 

that she did not report that she was working because she needed 

the money. 

As you know, Social Security has downplayed the extent of the 

problems that I am discussing today. However, I want to mention 

that the numbers of potential fraudulent and improper cases here 

is significant, and the evidence for these 20 cases is irrefutable. 

Here is the evidence we have that Social Security does not: Video 

of people working that Social Security should not have paid; admissions from some to Federal agents that they committed fraud; 

interviews with supervisors; biweekly payroll records from Federal 

agencies; Florida and Texas roadside inspections for a truck driver 

that Social Security says was not working; and a job description 

that says, ‘‘stooping, bending, and arduous physical labor.’’ This 

was for a Veterans Administration (VA) worker on disability with 

a bad back. 

As our report makes clear, nobody will ever know how many Federal workers and commercial drivers are improperly being paid. To 

conclude beyond the 20 cases, you need to have the video, the faceto-face interviews, and the payroll records, among other things. 

In conclusion, I understand that SSA faces significant pressure 

to reduce the backlog and get needed payments to millions of 

Americans with disabilities. However, with our Nation’s fiscal troubles, workers that are not entitled to these benefits should be 

stopped from being paid. Thus, it is important, as you have mentioned here, that Congress hold Social Security accountable and 

provide them with sufficient resources to minimize fraudulent and 

improper disability payments. 

Mr. Chairman, that ends my statement, and I look forward to all 

of your questions. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kutz. 

Let us try a 7-minute round for questions. 

First, about the 20 cases in the GAO report, most involved a person who got a job, started owing money in excess of the program 

limit of $1,000 per month, as I understand it, did not tell the Social 

Security Administration about the change in their employment status or that they were earning more than the program limits. 

How do you select those 20, first of all? 

Mr. KUTZ. Some of it had to do with geography. Some of them 

had characteristics of large overpayments. As I mentioned, it was 

not a statistical sample. You cannot take these and project them 

9 

to the 1,500 or the 7,000 or, as you mentioned, the 24,000. But they 

are cases that I think identify certain issues that need to be addressed, such as the AERO system that we have recommended to 

them, or the fact that payroll data, as several of you have mentioned, is better data than IRS data 12 months later. 

So it does raise legitimate issues, but I think that they were not 

representatively selected at all. 

Senator LEVIN. Nor do they purport to be. 

Mr. KUTZ. No, we do not purport that at all. 

Senator LEVIN. And you mentioned the 1,500—and I think we 

mentioned that figure as well—and the 24,000. So are you able to 

give us an estimate of the percentage of the 1,500 in the one case 

and the 24,000 in the other case, what percentage of those are likely to involve fraud? Are you able to do that at all? 

Mr. KUTZ. No, because—let us use the 1,500. There are certain 

numbers of those 1,500 that are not improper payments. There are 

certain conditions that would mean that they are not improper. 

However, there are other people that would be improper payments. 

For example, some of the 5,500 people, 500 more of those were SSI 

cases. Well, the threshold for earnings for those is $85, so very likely many of those are improper payments. So there are some that 

would increase it and some that would decrease it, so we just cannot be more precise without conducting a full investigation of each 

case. 

Senator LEVIN. Now, the Disability Insurance program had an 

overpayment rate of about 1 percent in 2008; the SSI program had 

an overpayment rate of about 10 percent in 2008 and 8 percent in 

2009, according to our calculations. Does that sound about right? 

Mr. KUTZ. Those are the reported numbers by Social Security, 

correct. We have not audited those ourselves. The IG probably 

looks at those. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. Now, what explains—and I will ask, obviously, Social Security about this as well, but what explains that 

huge difference in the overpayment rate between the Disability Insurance program and the SSI program? 

Mr. KUTZ. I do not know. I think the Commissioner can answer 

that better, but certainly they are different programs. The SSI program is a means-tested program versus the Disability Insurance 

program. So it would be the nature of the programs. We have not 

looked at the difference as to why one was higher than the other. 

The 1 percent to me sounds suspiciously low, given the investigation we have done here. But it is improper payments, so that does 

not necessarily include fraud, as one of you all have said that. So 

we would look mostly here at disability cases, although 300 of the 

1,500 Federal workers were getting SSI. 

Senator LEVIN. Do you recommend that the Social Security Administration investigate these 20 cases? 

Mr. KUTZ. The 20 cases, I think they have already looked at 

them. We shared those with them many months ago, and I believe 

most of them —they represent that they identified 10 themselves, 

although they still got overpaid. They are aware of the other 10. 

I think that the payments have been shut off for most, if not all 

of them, and the IG is investigating several others, although with 

10 

the U.S. Attorneys you are not going to get many of these cases 

ever prosecuted. 

Senator LEVIN. Now, of the 4.5 million Federal employees that 

you matched, about 1,500 received disability payments while also 

receiving Federal paychecks over $1,000 a month. Is that correct? 

Mr. KUTZ. For Disability Insurance, it was over $940. That was 

2008 information. But, correct, they received payments, Federal 

pay for more than 12 months while getting the disability because 

the threshold—there is the trial work period and other grace periods. So everybody above 12 months was a potential improper payment. 

Senator LEVIN. And you recommended that the Social Security 

Administration investigate all of those 1,500 cases? 

Mr. KUTZ. We could not give those to them because we had certain agreements with the people that gave us the payrolls, so they 

are going to have to probably get the payroll records themselves. 

We are not authorized to share that payroll information necessarily. But certainly I think it is something that Social Security 

could do with a very small investment periodically, because, again, 

this payroll information is every 2 weeks. So you could see, for example, workers working every 2 weeks for 12 months, 18 months, 

24 months that were on disability. That would be more useful than 

getting IRS information, certainly. 

Senator LEVIN. And why aren’t you able to give the information 

to the Social Security Administration? 

Mr. KUTZ. Because usually when we get data agreements—we 

have data agreements with the agencies. When we get them, we 

get them for the purpose of doing the work for you. If it is a fraud 

case or a specific case we drilled down on, we typically can refer 

those. When we have the larger numbers and payroll data, we typically do not give that information, because we did not investigate. 

As I mentioned, the other cases are not necessarily improper payments, but some probably are. But we did not actually thoroughly 

vet those. But, again, it is payroll data that they should be able to 

get through data agreements with other agencies as part of their 

internal controls. 

Senator LEVIN. Yes, I am just wondering, though, why, if you selected 1,500 where at least there is some evidence—it may not be 

ultimate evidence; it may not be evidence that is absolute or anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt, but at least it is some significant evidence that there is an overpayment. Shouldn’t we allow 

you to forward those to the Social Security Administration? 

Mr. KUTZ. We would be happy to. It is the Postal Service, Treasury, and the Department of Defense. If you would like us to work 

with Social Security to make sure that we can actually share that 

information, we would be happy to try to do that, Senator. 

Senator LEVIN. I think when you go as far as you have gone with 

the matching—I do not see any reason why you should not be able 

to share that information. 

Mr. KUTZ. All right. Well, we will agree to speak to those agencies and Social Security, and if they allow us to share that information, we will do it. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. That would be good. And if not, tell us 

if there needs to be a change in the law. 

11 

Mr. KUTZ. We will let you know if we cannot. 

Senator LEVIN. When you go to the extent that you have gone, 

this is not talking millions or hundreds of thousands. This is after 

all a weeding-out process. 

OK. I think I will turn now to Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Of the 1,500 Federal employees who could have received—and I 

say ‘‘could have received’’—payments improperly, was there evidence in any of those cases of true fraud taking place, not just 

bookkeeping errors but true fraud? 

Mr. KUTZ. Sixteen of the 20 we looked at. Beyond that, we really 

cannot tell. The 16 of the 20 had not reported their work activity 

to the Social Security Administration. The five that we say are 

fraud cases basically either admitted to us or made acts of deception that make those, in our judgment, fraud cases. 

Senator COBURN. How does somebody know they have to report 

that to the Social Security Administration? 

Mr. KUTZ. The Commissioner can surely talk about that, but I 

think there are certain disclosures. It is any information the people—we interviewed all 20. They all knew they were supposed to 

tell Social Security. 

Senator COBURN. So Social Security had done a good job in advising them what their requirements were to advise back to Social Security when the beneficiary returned to work? 

Mr. KUTZ. Very few said they did not know they were supposed 

to report. Virtually all said they had. But when we checked with 

Social Security, only four had actually done it according to Social 

Security’s records. 

Senator COBURN. OK. The 20 case studies, were those individuals aware that you were investigating them? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, we interviewed every one of them, absolutely— 

except there is one we did not. The Social Security employee we did 

not because the Social Security IG Office asked to do the interview. 

So we interviewed 19 ourselves, and then the Social Security IG 

interviewed the other worker that worked for them. 

Senator COBURN. After these interviews were conducted, did you 

get any sense of what those individuals thought about the degree 

of difficulty to defraud the Social Security disability system or SSI? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, I think that they believe, which is probably true, 

that the consequences of getting caught here are not significant. 

The chances of any of these people ever getting prosecuted is probably very slim. Most cases would be below a declination level for 

a U.S. Attorney. So from a prosecution standpoint, the risk is low. 

If you get caught, you may have to pay back the whole amount 

with no interest, so that is not a big consequence. And you may get 

to pay back pennies on the dollar. 

So the consequences do not seem to be for the beneficiaries that 

are committing fraud or getting improper payments that significant. And to be fair, a lot of these people are in serious financial 

trouble, so I understand Social Security has to be very understanding of these Americans with disabilities, some of them have 

terminal cancer or other things. So there are other factors, I am 

sure, that play into this. 

12 

Senator COBURN. For a number of cases, GAO provided an estimate of the SSA overpayments. Were there other costs to the Federal Government that are not captured in your estimate? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. For example, the two truck drivers get Medicare, 

so if you are fraudulently getting Social Security Disability Insurance, you get Medicare after a certain period of time. And then 

once you are on the rolls, you get it for 93 months, or something 

like that; whereas, SSI, I think Medicaid is what covers them. 

Senator COBURN. So you get Medicare for 93 months once you get 

on the roll? 

Mr. KUTZ. It is 90-some months, I believe, once you get into the 

rolls beyond the time that you are in there, yes. It is a long time. 

Senator COBURN. In my other life, I practice medicine, and I 

have filled out hundreds of these commercial driver’s license physical exams. I have also read both the law and the regulations on 

eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance and SSI. I know 

what I believe, but can you give a comment on your thoughts about 

if somebody can actually pass this physical exam, whether or not 

they would meet the requirements of the program? 

Mr. KUTZ. Absolutely. Here is my view. These are mutually exclusive populations. You cannot really technically be on one and 

the other at the same time. And I am sure as a physician, a doctor, 

you know that. I mean, the requirements to drive a vehicle are significant. And so I think they are a mutually exclusive—maybe with 

some exceptions and footnotes, but for the most part, if you can 

drive a commercial vehicle, you should not be getting disability 

payments. 

Senator COBURN. Was there anywhere in your study where you 

looked at the decisionmaking to allow people to qualify for the disability programs based on the criteria that Social Security sets up? 

Mr. KUTZ. No, we did not look at the front end of this. No. 

Senator COBURN. After looking at the back end, do you think 

there is any reason that the criteria ought to be reviewed or looked 

at? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, certainly, the mental disabilities, bad backs and 

stuff are the ones—there are certain types of conditions that seem 

to be more subject to fraud, and I am sure that the Social Security 

Commissioner can tell you those. He probably knows them much 

better than I do. But there are certain conditions that would lend 

themselves to this, and I think that is just something that we noticed when we looked at this. 

Senator COBURN. I had the frequent experience of any new lawyer that came to town, if, in fact, you would not write the physical 

exam for Social Security the way they wanted it, they never came 

back and asked you to do it again because they could not get what 

they wanted, even though you gave an honest exam. You all have 

not looked at any of those areas? 

Mr. KUTZ. No. I mean, from an internal control standpoint, that 

front end is probably the most important part of the process. Once 

someone gets in the system—and it is hard to get in; there is a 

backlog—it is harder to get out. And that is where we have some 

of the problems here. Once they are in, it is harder to get out, and 

that is where you get a lot of the improper payments. 

13 

Senator COBURN. In your assessment—and this may be premature—does SSA have an effective system to prevent overpayment fraud within the two disability programs? 

Mr. KUTZ. We have not looked at it overall. There are certainly 

some things that we think they can do better. The data matching 

things that several of you have mentioned are things that we believe they should look at. They do certain matches now, for example, with the new-hire database. I believe that is for SSI only. Why 

they do not do it for DI, I do not know, but that is actually an excellent database. It is the information on payroll, so it gives you an 

indication. So things like that, that they do utilize at least for SSI, 

are good things. But we have not taken a comprehensive look, but 

I think with the backlog issues at the front end, it seems like the 

CDRs and some of the things they do have suffered a little bit from 

a resource perspective, which is—— 

Senator COBURN. Which is our fault. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes—well, I do not know. I am not going to blame you. 

I work for you. [Laughter.] 

Senator COBURN. Well, I have already said I blame us, and—— 

Mr. KUTZ. I will let you say that. 

Senator COBURN [continuing]. Senator Levin has also noted that 

we have not funded it appropriately. 

Do you believe it would be difficult for SSA to use the AERO 

computer program to determine if individuals have returned to 

work? 

Mr. KUTZ. I do not know if it would be difficult, but they have 

said that they are going to look at the feasibility of it, and I think 

it would be very useful for them to attempt to do that. 

Senator COBURN. That was, by the way, one of the recommendations you all made? 

Mr. KUTZ. That was one of them, and they have agreed in the 

recommendations to look into that. 

Senator COBURN. You all did make other recommendations. 

Would you summarize those rather quickly? 

Mr. KUTZ. It is really the AERO system and to periodically 

match data records at Social Security against Federal payroll 

records. We asked them to look at the feasibility of both of those, 

and they have agreed to do both of those. 

I would say this, though: I think the other one that needs to be— 

we did not make a recommendation, but the truck driver one, as 

you and I just talked about here, is certainly a population that is 

potentially a high-return-on-investment population, so I think you 

may agree with me that is something that they should probably 

consider. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if we are going 

to need to go to another round. If I had about maybe another 

minute and a half, I would be fine. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, Senator Carper has graciously said, ‘‘Of 

course.’’ 

Senator COBURN. All right. [Laughter.] 

I was watching CNBC this morning, and Commissioner Astrue 

stated that your study was hopelessly flawed, it has no useful data 

and has no actual recommendations for change. 

14 

How do you respond to that? Have you ever heard anything like 

that on anything GAO has ever put out before? 

Mr. KUTZ. Not quite that clear, no. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Were those concerns raised to you—— 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. 

Senator COBURN [continuing]. Prior to today? 

Mr. KUTZ. Absolutely. 

Senator COBURN. In those same terms? 

Mr. KUTZ. Probably in harsher terms. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. Did you ask the Social Security Administration 

to comment on the methodology you all used? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, we sent them methodology information in December 2009. 

Senator COBURN. OK. And what was their response? 

Mr. KUTZ. They never did respond until I guess—the ‘‘hopelessly 

flawed’’ is probably the response. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Just share with us, if you could, Mr. Kutz. You 

were asked by Congress to do this analysis. GAO does the analysis. 

You come up with your findings and your recommendations. I presume when you engage with the Social Security Administration, 

the key people, that there is a meeting, a dialogue, a discussion to 

indicate to them what you have been asked to do. Is that the way 

it works? 

Mr. KUTZ. That is correct. The initial step was we had to get— 

we have an entrance conference. We have requests for the larger 

databases, and then we pulled case studies from which we picked 

these 20. Those 20 are not representative, again. They were aware 

of those, and so they knew who the 20 were quite a while ago, 

which is why I believe they have taken action on most of those 20. 

So at a staffing level, we had a pretty constructive, I think, dialogue with them. They never denied us any access to the case files 

or the databases or anything. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Going back to my experience in State 

government, we have a State auditor in Delaware, an elected State 

auditor, and sometimes agency heads would feel that the State 

auditor, particularly as we got closer to his or her reelection, was 

interested in—I will not say ‘‘gotcha’’ investigations and reports, 

but you get the drift. And you are not running for reelection at 

GAO, so that is not a concern. 

Mr. KUTZ. I would not win if I was running in the Executive 

Branch, that is for sure. 

Senator CARPER. Well, you might. You are pretty good at this. 

But is there some feeling within the Social Security Administration 

that GAO was on a ‘‘gotcha’’-like mission? 

Mr. KUTZ. No, I do not think so. They have put money into their 

budget, for example, as I understand, to get additional authority or 

resources to do these CDRs and some of the other internal controls. 

So I think they themselves believe—it may be that they do not— 

I cannot explain the rest of it, but I think constructively, going forward, this can be useful to them. Certainly these case studies, I 

think, showed them that this AERO system could be used for more 

15 

than increasing the disability payments but actually to flag people 

that should not be paid. 

So if anything comes from it—and I think the truck driver, as 

Senator Coburn was saying, his doctor—he has seen this before. He 

apparently has signed many of those forms. Those two populations 

are very much mutually exclusive if you actually understand the 

DOT regulations. 

Senator CARPER. The Chairman was nice enough to mention the 

legislation that Dr. Coburn and I worked on for a number of years. 

It is a follow-on to 2002 legislation which called on Federal agencies to try to identify improper payments. It did not call on all the 

Federal agencies but some to let us get started. The legislation the 

President signed last month says not only do we want some Federal agencies, we want all Federal agencies to identify improper 

payments. We want them to stop making improper payments to the 

extent that they can, and that to the extent we have improperly 

paid money, overpaid money, or there is money that has been defrauded from the government or from the trust funds, we want you 

to go out and get that money. 

We are trying to create almost—I do not know what Dr. Coburn 

calls it—but I call it within the Federal Government almost a culture of thrift, the idea that we have these huge deficits and we 

have to look in every nook and cranny and under every rock to see 

what we can do better. Everything I do I know I can do better. And 

I think that is true of all of us. 

I would say the folks at Social Security should not be defensive 

about this. Just use this as an opportunity to try to do better what 

they are already charged with doing. And to the extent that we can 

be helpful, one of the things I hope to come out of this hearing 

today is some constructive advice for us, what we could on this side 

of the dais be supportive. 

Let me ask, if I can, Mr. Kutz, was it difficult or relatively easy 

to obtain access to the Federal salary and other databases used 

that the auditor did? Did your team experience difficulty in gaining 

access? Just a short answer. 

Mr. KUTZ. No. Probably the most reliable data in the Federal 

Government is payroll data. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. KUTZ. The quickest and most reliable, I would say, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Are there additional databases that your GAO 

audit team considered for comparison to Federal disability payments or that you would recommend the Social Security Administration might consider for its oversight work? 

Mr. KUTZ. Certainly Medicare and Medicaid providers, for example, might be a population or the Central Contract Registry (CCR), 

which has government contractors. There are 500,000 or 600,000 of 

them. One would think that if you are a government contractor and 

you are the principal, you may have gainful employment and income. So there are potentially a lot of databases, and I think you 

and I have talked about this at other hearings before, the importance of data sharing in the government. We are one government, 

but we are thousands of stovepipes. And so you know as well as 

I do that there is a lot of potential out there that these agencies 

have that is not tapped, and really it is a matter of reaching out 

16 

and getting data-sharing agreements. It is too bad we have to do 

data-sharing agreements, but that is kind of how it ends up working, as you know. 

Senator CARPER. Yesterday I chaired a hearing literally in this 

room—it was the Subcommittee of Federal Financial Management, 

the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia—and we 

looked at a topic that is kind of similar to what we are talking 

about here today. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is pursuing some innovative ideas to try to reduce improper payments, 

including fraud. They are using modern information technology 

ideas, some very clever stuff. 

For example, the White House recently announced an initiative 

to establish a nationwide Do Not Pay List so that all agencies can 

check the status of potential contractors or individuals, and we applaud them for that. 

Also, Medicare will soon establish a demonstration program 

using a cutting-edge fraud-mapping tool that was pioneered by the 

Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board relating to the 

stimulus program. Some of those ideas rely on access to private 

sector databases to either corroborate the data or to gain additional 

insights. 

Do you have any thoughts on private sector partnerships that 

might prove useful, including accessing commercially available 

databases, to confirm the employment status of disability program 

recipients? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, the new-hire database, as I mentioned—that is 

not a private sector database, but there is private sector information feeding into that from employers across the country. That is 

a mother lode. I mean, that is something that if they have access— 

I think they have access to that. That is something that has employment data presumably for anyone getting a W–2 or pay if the 

States properly fill that. So that certainly is something that is an 

important database, and there are probably others out there besides that. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to ask you to answer that for the 

record, if you would. 

Mr. KUTZ. Sure, that would be fine. 

Senator CARPER. If you would, please. 

The last thing I want to ask, I have talked to people before—and 

my colleagues may have as well, and you all may have, too—who 

are on disability who have the opportunity to go to work, but they 

are reluctant to go to work because they would lose their disability 

payments. In some cases, they think they deserve both. In other 

cases, they have said to me, ‘‘Well, it really works as a disincentive. 

I go to work, and I lose all or most of my disability payments.’’ 

In trying to think about human nature and how we think, any 

ideas on how we might modify the incentives so that when people 

go to work—eventually if they make enough money, they lose their 

disability payments, but there is a way to structure it so that 

human nature does not keep people on the sidelines not working, 

just continue to be dependent on the rest of us. I think we have 

probably tried to do that in the law. I do not know if we do it perfectly. But if you have some thoughts on that at this time, I would 

welcome those. 

17 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, I think the Commissioner is going to talk about 

it. There are lots of work incentives out there. They encourage people to go back to work. They have got the trial work period where 

you can be paid a 9- and 12-month grace period at the same time 

you are getting your disability payments. So I believe there is 

some. Whether there is more out there that can be done, I am certainly not an expert at that. But certainly we want to encourage 

our Americans with disabilities to work. 

I have done a lot of work with service-disabled veteran entrepreneurs, for example, the contracting program for them. And there 

are a lot of possibilities for us as a government to help people in 

those situations get employment gainfully. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Mr. KUTZ. And those are entrepreneurs. They are good people. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe I can follow up with our next panel on 

that. I would just say to my colleagues, I do not know if you all 

have heard the old saying, ‘‘Without dreams, there is no reason to 

work. Without work, there is no reason to dream.’’ What we do, the 

work that we do, is a big part of our lives. People say, ‘‘Well, what 

do you do?’’ You meet somebody and say, ‘‘What do you do?’’ If they 

are on disability, they may say that. But a lot of people are very 

proud of the work they do and want to be able to say, ‘‘This is what 

I do.’’ And part of what I hope comes out of this is a way we can 

incentivize more people to do work if they can and to realize their 

dreams. 

Thanks very much. 

Mr. KUTZ. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LEVIN. Along that line, Senator Carper, some people say 

that the unemployed can find work if they want to, and I come 

from a State with a 14-percent unemployment rate, and I have 

known of very few people who are not desperately looking for work 

who are unemployed. 

Senator CARPER. I was pleased to hear that some of the folks are 

going back to work building cars, trucks, and vans, and very good 

ones as well. It was a new announcement on one of the Chrysler 

plants reopening. 

Senator LEVIN. Indeed. Sterling Heights. Thank you. 

We talked about working with database providers with the Federal employees. Can you also work with the database providers to 

see if you could share the 62,000 names in the other piece of your 

effort with the Social Security Administration? 

Mr. KUTZ. That would be the Department of Transportation. Actually, there were 12 States, Senator, that we got that data from, 

so we will have to work through that situation. But there were 12 

large States. 

Senator LEVIN. But you could do that? 

Mr. KUTZ. We will look into that, yes. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. And then Dr. Coburn raised a question 

which is, I think, troubling to all of us, and that is what the quoted 

response is of the Social Security Administration. I always had 

thought that the GAO gave agencies an opportunity to comment on 

their findings, and that is a very important part of your process. 

So in terms just of the chronology here so that we can go over 

that with the Social Security Administration when they testify, 

18 

how much time did they have? Was that a reasonable length of 

time to respond? Or was that just provided to them a few days ago? 

Or how does that work? 

Mr. KUTZ. They had two chances to respond. The first report 

went to them and we actually met with them in March, and that 

was when they—I would say ‘‘disagreed’’ is an understatement with 

everything, and we agreed to actually go to Baltimore, and we went 

to Baltimore. I went myself with several staff and met with them 

and went over each of these 20 cases and discussed the issues. 

And then we gave them a second chance to respond, and that 

was their formal written comments that went into our report. And 

then to the extent we had any disagreements—there were not quite 

as many disagreements in that written letter as there were with 

the ‘‘hopelessly flawed.’’ That was not the term in the letter necessarily. 

So I think that we took our best shot. We spent several months 

working through the issues, and at some cases at the end of the 

day, I stand behind those 20 cases. Those are slam-dunks in my 

view. They may disagree with that, and I do not know what else 

we can do. I mean, I told you the evidence we had. We have people 

admitting to Federal agents that they committed fraud. I am not 

sure what more you need to prove a case. 

Senator LEVIN. Yes. I think the issue is whether or not—we will 

wait to hear from them, but whether or not there is an overstatement. And I think you were careful here to say you cannot project 

from that. 

Mr. KUTZ. No, and our report says that. These are indicators. 

These are things for them to consider, as you have talked about, 

in a constructive manner. Should we look at a database of truck 

drivers who receive their commercial driver’s license after Social 

Security said that they were 100-percent disabled? That seems to 

me to be a reasonable thing for them to consider. 

Senator LEVIN. Do some States allow you to renew a driver’s license without a test? And could it be that—I am just speculating 

here—some people may want to just keep their current driver’s license alive and current so when they recover from their disability 

they will have a license there? Is there something like that that 

could explain that? 

Mr. KUTZ. Absolutely. You have to get one every 2 years. You 

have to pay a fee. You have to pay for a doctor to actually sign. 

I do not know, Dr. Coburn, what you charge from that, but there 

certainly is a charge to have that certification. 

Senator LEVIN. In other words, you must in all the States, have 

a doctor look at you every 2 years. 

Mr. KUTZ. Every 2 years. 

Senator LEVIN. It cannot be that you just send some money and 

get a driver’s license—— 

Mr. KUTZ. No. 

Senator LEVIN [continuing]. Renewed without a physical exam. 

Mr. KUTZ. You need a medical examination by a certified professional every 2 years. 

Senator LEVIN. In all the States? 

Mr. KUTZ. Every one. 

Senator LEVIN. Is that a Federal requirement? 

19 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, Senator, that is a Federal requirement. 

Senator LEVIN. Very good. Thank you. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. You looked at 12 States’ commercial driver’s licenses. Were those the 12 most populous? In other words, you are 

saying we cannot extrapolate it, but I am sitting here thinking 

60,000 in 12 States. Were these the most populous States? And is 

that why the number is so high? 

Mr. KUTZ. Some of the big ones, California, Florida, Texas, but 

not necessarily all the big ones. So they were ones that we had 

worked with before on other work we have done on commercial 

drivers, so we had a relationship. They had good data, and they 

gave it to us. It is not necessarily the biggest, but some of the very 

biggest are in there. So it may represent 40 or 50 percent. 

Senator COBURN. So we will not try to extrapolate it, but we may 

come back and ask you to look at that for all of them. You have 

worked with all the States before. 

Mr. KUTZ. We have worked with many of the States. Not all, but 

many. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Well, let me go back again. Having been 

a practicing physician who has filled out this form—and you have 

read the regulations. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, I have. 

Senator COBURN. Both in Social Security and for commercial 

driver’s licenses. 

Mr. KUTZ. Correct. We have done work for Chairman Oberstar 

over in the House on the transportation site, yes. 

Senator COBURN. And your statement was if you are qualified to 

get a commercial driver’s license, you are absolutely unqualified to 

receive Social Security disability. 

Mr. KUTZ. I am sure there are exceptions, but they seem to be 

mutually exclusive populations, yes. 

Senator COBURN. And we are not talking about the time period 

where somebody is getting better over the 9 months or 12 months, 

where they still get their payment. But if, in fact, you can pass this 

physical exam, there is nothing in the Social Security law or regulations that would say you are excepted from that, to your knowledge. 

Mr. KUTZ. Not to my knowledge, but these 62,000 all passed, presumably, one of these exams after Social Security said that they 

were fully disabled. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Now, it is important that we note this is 

not Social Security’s problem necessarily. 

Mr. KUTZ. Not necessarily. I agree. 

Senator COBURN. Because what it means is either we have accurate exams or we have inaccurate exams. Social Security cannot 

make that judgment. 

Mr. KUTZ. No, and I mentioned we found people that were driving that should have been receiving Social Security benefits, but 

they were a hazard to the road. 

Senator COBURN. Right. 

Mr. KUTZ. People blacking out, people on anti-seizure medication, 

people who were blind, who could not hear—not that they should 

not have a certain type of job, but 18-wheeler driving is not one of 

them. 

20 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Astrue appears in the Appendix on page 57. 

Senator COBURN. Right. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Coburn. And, Mr. 

Kutz, thank you. 

Mr. KUTZ. Thank you again, Senator. 

Senator LEVIN. You are excused, and we will now call our second 

witness for this afternoon’s hearing. 

Our second witness this afternoon is Hon. Michael Astrue, the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. We warmly 

welcome you, Commissioner. We thank you for coming. We know 

that this required a scheduling change for you, and we are appreciative of your making that change so that we could have this hearing this afternoon. 

Pursuant to Rule VI, all witnesses who testify before this Subcommittee, as you know, are required to be sworn, so please stand 

and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you 

are about to give to this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I do. 

Senator LEVIN. We thank you very much, and if you can, also 

give us your oral testimony in no more than 7 minutes. That will 

leave a lot of time for questions. Your entire statement will be 

made part of the record, and please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,1 COMMISSIONER, 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for this opportunity to discuss the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent investigation of Federal employees and other 

workers who receive Social Security disability payments. I appreciate your stewardship of Federal resources, and I strongly share 

your commitment to the taxpaying public. 

We pay about 58 million Americans who deserve to receive their 

benefits timely and accurate, and we deliver on that responsibility 

in nearly all cases. While we certainly make some payment mistakes, fraud in our programs is exceptionally rare. Nonetheless, we 

work with our Inspector General (IG) to prevent it. For example, 

we work with our IG, State disability partners, and local law enforcement to identify and combat fraud through 21 disability investigation units across the country. This important new effort has already saved nearly $1.5 billion for our disability programs and 

$891 million for programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. We expect to open our 22nd unit by October. The agency and our Office 

of the Inspector General (OIG) would welcome support for these efforts. 

GAO spent 21 months investigating these cases. Beginning with 

a large sample of over 600,000 individuals, it selected 20 cases it 

classified as having egregious overpayments. So far, none of the six 

cases that have been closed by the OIG—four of them in consultation with the Department of Justice—has resulted in an actual 

finding of fraud. 

21 

There is no question that some of these cases are problematic, 

and my review of each raised a number of issues. 

First, when paying as many people as we do—about 12 million 

people get disability benefits—we do make mistakes. These mistakes are often due to the mind-bending complexity of our programs. 

Second, insufficient resources to review cases compound incorrect 

payments. 

Third, it is nearly impossible for us to know about work that is 

not reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While it is difficult for us to find these cases, our IG has cost-effective ways to 

identify and pursue some of them—a point that is not addressed 

in the GAO report. 

Finally, the lag time for annual wage reports from IRS makes optimal enforcement actually impossible. Congress has passed complex laws to encourage disability beneficiaries to work. The Social 

Security Act allows some beneficiaries to work and collect benefits 

at the same time. It would be irresponsible and inappropriate for 

us to presume fraud and cut off benefits at the first sign of work. 

Instead, we must go through a lengthy process to identify a person’s unique circumstances and apply the complex rules accordingly. 

It is important to remember that these are real people who often 

struggle with mental as well as physical disabilities. Very few of 

them are out to defraud the government. 

Program simplification would dramatically improve the quality of 

self-reporting and would improve the quality of our enforcement. 

We do have a thorough training program, but it takes years for employees to fully understand and implement the complexities of our 

work. Senator Grassley has noted that because of that complexity 

it takes longer for us to train field employees than it takes NASA 

to train an astronaut. And, sadly, he is right. As importantly, we 

simply do not have enough employees to handle all these cases on 

a timely basis, particularly in urban areas. 

Between 1992 and 2007, Congress appropriated less than the 

President’s budget request, and we could no longer fulfill many key 

responsibilities. Hearing backlogs rose dramatically, and program 

integrity work dramatically declined. Since 2007, we have been reversing these trends. With the support we have received from Congress and President Obama, we have hired employees who are 

gradually gaining the experience needed. Even with rising workloads, we have steadily increased our program integrity efforts in 

the last 3 years. 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget includes additional resources for two major efforts to prevent overpayments: Continuing 

Disability Reviews (CDRs) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 

redeterminations. We estimate these reviews will save more than 

$7 billion over the next 10 years. 

While there is room for improvement, our current processes for 

identifying improper payments are effective. We use electronic data 

matching to flag cases that warrant review. We match IRS records 

against our disability rolls to identify beneficiaries with earnings, 

but there has been a long lag time getting those records since 1977, 

22 

when Congress changed the law and moved from quarterly to annual wage reporting. 

We are making it easier for beneficiaries to report their return 

to work. We plan to extend the existing SSI wage-reporting process 

to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries. We will 

offer a Web site for disability beneficiaries to report their wages. 

We are developing a predictive model to help us prioritize cases for 

action. We also will be matching our payroll records against the 

disability rolls to identify agency employees earlier. 

Despite our efforts to prevent improper payments, they do occur 

and we have a comprehensive debt collection program to recover 

them. In fiscal year 2009, we recovered over $3 billion at a cost of 

only 6 cents for every dollar collected. While we make every effort 

to preserve taxpayer dollars, we must follow the congressional requirement to balance compassion with stewardship. We understand 

the importance of properly managing our resources and program 

dollars, and we take that responsibility very seriously. Congress 

can help by providing timely, adequate, and sustained funding. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Commissioner. 

How much a part of the problem here that exists between you 

and the GAO has to do with the definition of fraud? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I think you are in the right zone, Mr. Chairman. I 

will acknowledge we have had a lot of tension with GAO, and my 

concern is that by grossly oversimplifying fraud, GAO could mislead the Congress and the American public. The draft report came 

to us with some conclusions that were just flat wrong, and we were 

told that they were nonnegotiable. So at that point, as I discussed 

with you earlier, I went to Acting Comptroller General Dodaro and 

expressed my concerns, as Mr. Kutz said, very forcefully. To Mr. 

Dodaro’s credit, he agreed with us and he told his staff that they 

needed to make some changes because there was some real risk of 

misleading the Congress and the public if there was not a lot more 

accuracy and a lot more precision in the report than was in the 

first draft that was sent to us. 

Senator LEVIN. Now, give us some examples of the conclusions 

that are flat wrong in the final report. 

Mr. ASTRUE. In the final report, Mr. Kutz is very clear that these 

are cases of fraud, but Mr. Kutz has refused to go through the 

whole statutory analysis in these cases to come to those conclusions. For instance, the 1,500 Federal employee match did not account for the separate, much higher standard of substantial gainful 

activity for the blind, nor did it account for the wage exclusions, including all the periods for extended work and trial work. GAO just 

wanted to do a simple match and say, ‘‘That is fraud.’’ And that 

was GAO’s initial position. 

I complained, and the response was the language was changed 

to ‘‘may be fraud.’’ But the truth is that GAO does not have any 

idea what percentage of those cases are fraud. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, they made that clear, I think, today. Did 

they not? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right, but we had to go through a substantial backand-forth to get GAO to—— 

23 

1See Exhibit No. 2a. which appears in the Appendix on page 122. 

Senator LEVIN. But that is the purpose of the back-and-forth, to 

go through the back-and-forth—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. But at the—— 

Senator LEVIN. If you will wait just one second. I am saying in 

the final report, after the back-and-forth, what are flat-wrong conclusions? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, the conclusion that a lot of the world is already taking is—— 

Senator LEVIN. No, excuse me. Not the conclusion that the world 

is taking, because that is a filter which is not necessarily the GAO 

filter. What conclusions in the report are flat wrong? 

Mr. ASTRUE. There are no data in the report that gives you or 

me any idea of the incidence of fraud in our programs, the incidence of improper payments in our programs. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, that is a shortfall in the report, maybe. 

Mr. ASTRUE. That is right. 

Senator LEVIN. Maybe. But that is not a flat-wrong conclusion? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, the flat-wrong—— 

Senator LEVIN. You made the allegation. There may be a flatwrong conclusion. 

I am just saying here you said that some of their conclusions are 

flat wrong. I am asking you, in the final report what conclusions— 

give us some examples—are flat wrong? 

Mr. ASTRUE. In the report, GAO said 16 of the 20 cases were potentially fraud. If I am misremembering the report, because I remember I am under oath, I apologize and I will correct it for the 

record. Mr. Kutz said quite vigorously that is absolutely undeniable, or words to that effect. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. Now, I want to get to that definition of 

fraud, because I do think that—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right, and we have had difficulty getting timely evidence from these investigations from GAO. I would like to submit 

for the record 1 from our OIG some of the concerns it has had about 

the data not being turned over to us on a timely basis. The OIG 

has been able to review six of these cases, and so far there is not 

one case of fraud in the cases. There are overpayments to be sure, 

but no cases of fraud yet. And four of those were done in conjunction with the Department of Justice. 

Senator LEVIN. OK, that is what I want to get to, the definition 

of fraud. Here is what the report says: ‘‘Our investigations found 

that five individuals committed fraud in obtaining SSA disability 

benefits because they’’—and here are the words—‘‘knowingly withheld employment information from SSA. Fraud’’—and I am reading 

from their report—‘‘is a ‘knowing misrepresentation of the truth 

or’ ’’—and here are the key words—‘‘‘concealment of a material fact 

to induce another to act to his or her detriment.’ ’’ 

Do you accept that definition of fraud? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I think that is substantially correct. In my opinion, 

GAO has been too quick on the basis of the evidence to label something fraud. And I just do not think that we actually have fraud 

in a lot of these cases. 

24 

Now, in a couple cases, it may just simply come down to the 

mental capacity of the individual at the other end. You will note 

that approximately half of the cases, if I recall, involve people that 

at one point we determined to be so mentally ill that we did not 

believe they could work. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. But I want to go back to these words. 

There is an obligation to notify the Social Security Administration 

if somebody gets employment, and apparently, when they talked to 

all of these folks, they were aware of that requirement. 

Is the failure in and of itself to notify the SSA of the fact that 

somebody is now employed, is that failure by itself fraudulent? 

Mr. ASTRUE. No. It appeared to me that GAO originally started 

from that conclusion. It is just not accurate. 

Senator LEVIN. Doesn’t that get to the heart of this issue? When 

they say fraud is the ‘‘concealment of a material fact,’’ they then 

say that if you do not inform the SSA, that in and of itself is fraudulent. Is that possible that is the conclusion that they have reached 

and you do not accept that? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Again, I am a little reluctant to speak for GAO—— 

Senator LEVIN. No. Is that possible that explains the difference? 

You do not accept the failure to notify you per se in and of itself 

is fraudulent. But I think they might say that is fraudulent. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I think that may 

be part of the difference between the agencies. Another major difference is GAO’s failure to consider the complexities of all our return-to-work rules, which I do not think I could fluently explain to 

you. In fact, Congress appropriates about $23 million a year just 

to hire contractors to explain the return-to-work rules to claimants. 

It is that complicated. We have charts to give you more of a visual 

on this. The SSI program and the SSDI program have different return-to-work rules. Some people qualify for both, and those are the 

mind-bending complicated cases. Also, some of these claimants 

have mental disabilities; some of them are not very well educated. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. Let me just ask Mr. Kutz a question. 

Is the failure to notify—forgive me for going back and forth, but we 

may be able to—you can just stand where you are at, if it is OK. 

Is the failure to notify SSA that you are now working, is that 

fraudulent in your study? 

Mr. KUTZ. When they said that they did that in order to get the 

money, they knew it was wrong. In our judgment, yes, that—— 

Senator LEVIN. You have to add that piece, that they did it knowing that they had to notify the SSA. 

Mr. KUTZ. ‘‘I needed the money.’’ That is a justification, that was 

the reason why—— 

Senator LEVIN. I understand. And they said—— 

Mr. KUTZ. Right. 

Senator LEVIN. Would you agree now—and then I will finish because I am over my time here. Would you agree that if somebody 

said, ‘‘I knew I had to report, I did not because I needed the 

money,’’ would you agree that constitutes fraud? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. 

Mr. ASTRUE. If somebody confesses to fraud, which in our experience I think is very rare, absolutely, I agree that constitutes fraud. 

25 

Senator LEVIN. OK. Thank you. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Let me just note for the record, in the official 

response to the GAO report that Mr. Astrue sent to the GAO, SSA 

agreed with the two GAO recommendations. In their formal response to the report, SSA agreed to the recommendations GAO 

made. 

Now, what I am having trouble understanding—and this really 

gets to how do we help you. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Senator COBURN. That is what this hearing is about. This hearing is not to beat up Social Security. It is not to say you are not 

working hard. It is how do we find the problems that will most effectively help those people who need our help, but not help people 

who are gaming the system. I will tell you, I am biased when we 

have 1 in 20 people in this country on disability. I do not believe 

it. As a practicing physician in a poor area of the country with lots 

of problems, I do not buy it. So I think there is a lot of fraud out 

there. We may disagree on the level of fraud. 

So the whole purpose of the hearing is how do we change, to 

make it easier for you all to administer the disability programs. I 

have been through all the breakdowns of everybody that is getting 

disability. I know all the factors. I know the amount of schizophrenics; I know the amount of psychotics. I have it all right here. 

I also know the number that are disabled based on anxiety. 

I will just relate a story to you. The guy that bricked my medical 

building was on full-time Social Security disability, and he was on 

it because he had a bad back. But he heave-ho’s those bricks and 

that concrete and everything else, and he did it to every building 

in town and continued to get Social Security disability. And he 

knew he was supposed to report that he could work, but he did not. 

Now, that may not be fraud to the Social Security system, but 

it is to the average American in this country. Mr. Chairman, I 

thank you for that, because we have to help you make it to where 

it is easier to help people and at the same time prevent fraud and 

abuse with the system. 

We are just starting down this area. This is something I am 

going to work on over the next 2 or 3 years, if I am here. We are 

going to clean this up. We are going to make it easier for Social 

Security to do its job. We are going to give you the tools that you 

need, and we are going to give you the money. So there cannot be 

a reason for us not doing it, but we have to know what the real 

problems are. 

Look, if I was running this and read this report, I would not like 

it either, and I know it is a difficult area to administer because I 

know my staff helps people get Social Security disability every day. 

I have two people that work on it full-time as a U.S. Senator. I 

know the first review is normally that you do not qualify. And I 

know the system and how it is gamed. 

I want to go back. The AERO program could be helpful, correct? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, I agree, but with a qualification. I think the 

sense that I got from GAO—and, again, you have a lot of people 

here. It may be that I misunderstood. I do not mean to be unfair 

to GAO. The AERO system, as it is, generates such a huge amount 

of information that we cannot possibly follow up on the leads that 

26 

would come from it—certainly not in my professional lifetime in the 

agency. 

What I think we can do—— 

Senator COBURN. Let me stop you right there for just a second. 

Save your second thought. It generates so much information we 

cannot follow up. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. But let me—— 

Senator COBURN. Let me go on with that, because I hear that all 

the time up here, what we cannot do. We have technology available 

today to do all sorts of things that we could not do last year. 

Mr. ASTRUE. That is the point I was trying to get to. 

Senator COBURN. OK. So I think it is important. The fact is if 

there is data out there and if we may have a problem—and that 

is what you are saying, there may be a problem. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Senator COBURN. The fact that somebody was not prosecuted, 

that does not mean anything because the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) is not going to prosecute them if they fall under a certain 

dollar amount. They are not going to even get referred. When the 

agency refers a case to the Justice Department for $10,000, they 

know it is not going anywhere. They do not even refer anymore. 

Why waste their time? They know it is not a priority. 

The other thing, the IRS data you are using is old. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right, absolutely. 

Senator COBURN. The new-hire database is quarterly. But SSA 

states that using that is not cost-effective, I do not understand why 

that would not be cost-effective for you. Does it require too much 

more investment to be able to effectively use it? Or is it not costeffective because it does not give you new data? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Let me go back to AERO first. I would like to complete the thought. 

Senator COBURN. OK. 

Mr. ASTRUE. What we are doing increasingly when we have these 

millions of pieces of information, which has worked quite well for 

us in recent years, is utilizing predictive models. So we do not 

think a simplistic response to the AERO information is going to 

work. We think that we may be able to build computer programs 

that can screen through the system to identify patterns from the 

data that might be high predictors of fraud. 

Now, we are doing that already with representative payees. We 

have 5 million people who take care of our recipients who are not 

competent, and we do have some fraud in that area. We have 

worked with the National Academy of Sciences on the predictive 

models. They are not perfect, but they really do allow us to do a 

lot better. 

Senator COBURN. You are better than you were. 

Mr. ASTRUE. One of the things that we have done is to address 

a lot of the concern from Congress on why it takes so long for the 

easy cases. There are certain people who are really disabled. So we 

use computer models now to scan the cases, and we can pull out 

with a high degree of accuracy the cases that really should be allowed, including certain types of cancers and rare genetic diseases. 

Senator COBURN. Pancreatic cancer. 

27 

1See Exhibit No. 2c. which appears in the Appendix on page 126. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Pancreatic cancer, those kinds of things. And we 

always have a human review, because you could go through a medical report and the doctor could say, ‘‘Thank God it is not pancreatic cancer,’’ and that would just show up as pancreatic cancer 

in the model. 

So we think that we are going to be able to do that with AERO. 

We are not sure. It is a long and complicated project. I would guess 

that maybe by sometime toward the end of next year we would 

have a much better sense of whether that is going to be beneficial. 

For the new-hire database, my understanding is that my staff 

has come to the conclusion that it is not cost-beneficial. I think 

there are a lot of things that go into their assessment. I do not 

want to get that wrong or inaccurate, so I would like to submit that 

for the record, if I could. 

Senator COBURN. So you do not think it will be beneficial. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I know that my staff thinks that it is not. 

Senator COBURN. Would you do us a favor and submit to the 

Subcommittee an analysis of why you think utilizing this data will 

not be cost-effective. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure.1

If I remember correctly, we now allow claims representatives to 

use it on a discretionary basis when they think they see an issue. 

As I understand it, we get about a 2.7:1 return when we use it on 

a discretionary basis. When we use it on a more aggressive basis, 

it is just above break even, about 1.4:1. 

If you look at all the other matches that we have and all the 

other leads that we cannot follow up on because we do not have 

the staff, the return to the taxpayer is much higher following up 

on some of the other matches. So that is my understanding of the 

staff’s position. 

Senator COBURN. That gets back to one of the things the GAO 

testified about today, the after-the-fact stuff. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. Where you are like Medicare. You pay and 

chase. 

Mr. ASTRUE. To some extent, Senator Coburn. Not entirely. 

Senator COBURN. OK. But the point is, how do we help you on 

the front end? The phenomenon—we know every time we have a 

recession we have a big jump in disability claims. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Senator COBURN. Now, did everybody get hurt because we have 

a recession? Or did people get more disease because we have a recession? Or is it because here is a source of revenue because we 

have a recession? 

Both the Chairman and myself are committed to making sure 

those people who have true disabilities that need this country’s 

help, we are going to help make sure that gets there. Are we going 

to allow what we think may be—not is, may be—significant and I 

will use the word ‘‘fraud?’’ You and I obviously have a very different definition of what fraud is. Are we going to allow fraud to 

steal the future from our kids? 

28 

1See Exhibit No. 2c. which appears in the Appendix on page 126. 

With a large deficit that is the fault of everybody in Congress the 

last 20 years, not one Administration or not one President and not 

one party, what are we going to do together to solve the problems 

to get our country out of the hole we are in? 

Mr. ASTRUE. First of all, I want to go—— 

Senator COBURN. One of the things we want to know is how do 

we go on the front end to make it better. My observation, in the 

medical field, is there are certain doctors that do Social Security 

disability exams. Correct? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. They do a lot of them. 

Mr. ASTRUE. They do. 

Senator COBURN. That is right. Do you ever allocate those with 

the ones that are truly eligible and are not? In other words, have 

you ever done a statistical analysis? Because here is the way it 

works out there in lots of instances—not all. A lawyer hooks up 

with a doctor: You give me what I need, I give you a big payment 

for—not a bonus payment on getting disability, but you give me 

what I need, and you can make two and a half or three times on 

this physical exam versus what you were spending with some other 

patient. So have you all looked at that? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. Multiple questions, let me try to answer them. 

Senator COBURN. Sorry. 

Mr. ASTRUE. As I understand it, in the mid-1980s the courts interpreted the Act as creating something called the treating physician rule that basically said we have to give deference to the doctor 

chosen by the patient. That is not our choice, so we cannot dictate, 

and we do not really—— 

Senator COBURN. If you think there is a questionable mal-distribution of approvals, you are inhibited by law to have a second 

exam by somebody, the choice of the Social Security Administration? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We can get second consultative exams. But as I understand—again, if I get this a little wrong, we will correct it for 

the record—we have to basically overcome the presumption that 

the treating physician’s conclusions are correct, and that can be difficult in some cases.1

Senator COBURN. OK. That is fair. Again, that is exactly the 

thing we need to know if we are really going to help you fix it on 

the front end. We need to ensure we are accurately helping those 

people who need help, but not helping those that do not need help, 

because one thing that was not mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is the 

trust fund is going belly up in 61⁄2 years for SSDI. There is no way 

we change it without doing something major in terms of 

supplementing it from the rest of the Federal budget. So what we 

have to do is be very accurate. 

Would you just sit down with your key people and say—you all 

know the regulations better than anybody in the country; nobody 

else knows them like you do—‘‘What is it that Congress could do 

for us that would help us meet the goals of the programs, but limit 

the need for us to pay and chase?’’ 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. I have a backlog of answers here for you. 

29 

Senator COBURN. OK. 

Mr. ASTRUE. First of all, I do not think that we are as pay and 

chase as most other Federal programs. By statute, we do a 50-percent quality review by our quality performance people—not the 

original reviewers—of all allowances. That is a statutory requirement that a lot of people overlook called pre-effectuation review. 

And we probably end up saving the trust funds, if I remember correctly, about $800 to $900 million a year through those pre-effectuation reviews. 

On my watch, we are in the process of rolling out the Assess to 

Financial Institutions (AFI) program. We now have arrangements 

with banks to track assets for the Title 16 program, and we will 

be able to find assets that are hidden. 

Senator COBURN. You are talking about SSI now. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. That is also a back-door way of getting at earnings because if you have inappropriate earnings, you are going to 

be hiding inappropriate assets. 

I also think that we have tried to get the Congress’ attention on 

the fine work the Office of the Inspector General has been doing 

with the Continuing Disability Investigations (CDI) programs. I 

have been out to look at those programs personally. I think they 

are a great investment for the public, and part of what they do is 

to develop these teams for the people who are looking at these 

cases on the front end. So if there is a real concern, an uneasiness, 

they can go and they can tap into the expertise of people with experience combating fraud. 

So I think we really do a lot. I am not saying we are doing everything we could conceivably do, but I think that we do a lot on the 

front end to make sure it is not pay and chase. 

In terms of ways you can help us, I think, with all due respect 

to GAO underestimates the difficulty and cost, particularly for us, 

of setting up matches if the other organizations are not required 

to do so by law. When GAO comes knocking on the door and says 

it wants to look at another agency’s data to do a match, I think 

that agency jumps much more than when the Social Security Administration—— 

Senator COBURN. That is a way we can help you. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that is right. I am on the same wavelength 

with you, Senator. I am making your point. And I think that could 

be helpful. 

As I prepared for this hearing, one of the things that I learned 

is that we have statutory barriers to prompt collection. So if we 

think that there is an overpayment and we are trying, for instance, 

to collect it from a Federal employee, we cannot fully access on a 

timely basis the Treasury Offset Program, which is one of our big 

tools for collecting those debts because of waiting periods that have 

been established by the Congress in statute. 

So at least one good thing that came out of the GAO report is 

that I learned about debt collection barriers by preparing for today’s hearing. And so there are subjects like that that I would have 

liked to seen this report go into in more detail to give specific concrete things we can do—— 

Senator COBURN. I promise you, they are coming back. 

Mr. ASTRUE. OK. 

30 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Chairman, are you going to want to ask 

more questions. 

Senator LEVIN. I am. 

Senator COBURN. Let me yield back to you, and then I will follow 

up. 

Senator LEVIN. First of all, I am not sure there is a definition 

of fraud that is different between you and the GAO, because when 

I asked Mr. Kutz whether per se not reporting that you are back 

at work is fraudulent, his answer was no, there had to be something more than that, like an acknowledgment from the people 

they interviewed that they did not report it because they needed 

the money, which I would consider also to be fraudulent because 

there is a knowing non-statement there, knowing that someone is 

relying upon your failure to report. So I am not sure it is different 

once he said that it is not per se fraud not to report. I am not sure 

of that. It seems to me you are a lot closer in that than I frankly 

thought you might be. 

Second, I guess there are two major ways of finding out who is 

receiving benefits who is not supposed to be receiving benefits. One 

is through these checks, these computer checks, and there are various ways of doing it. Some you are continuing to explore, some you 

may not think are worth the investment, but some I think may be 

worth the investment. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator LEVIN. And you get much more current information, and 

you are exploring that, as I understand it right now, and we would 

like you to report back to this Subcommittee on those explorations 

which you are undertaking on these matches. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, we would be glad to do that. 

Senator LEVIN. Another way, though, I assume, is that sometimes you get reports from people. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, and our lead on that and our lead on fraud 

generally is the Office of Inspector General, and it does very important work in the process. People call our 800 number to report 

fraud, which is very similar to the HHS fraud line. People see 

someone like Senator Coburn’s landlord, and they call and report; 

unhappy ex-spouses report. We get lots of different types of reports 

from the public. And probably one of the things that we can and 

should do better, which I will commit to try to do, is we can probably try to raise the profile of that line better than we have before. 

It is really the best tool that we have for getting at things like the 

under-the-table payments and things like that, because we cannot 

get that through matches. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. Now, there is also in the Improper Payments Act that I referred to, that Senators Carper and Coburn took 

the lead on, authorizes, as I understand it, to hire recovery audit 

contractors to identify and recover overpayments. Are you going to 

be using that authority? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We expect to, yes. We are discussing it with the 

lawyers. As I understand it, we are not quite sure of the application of the statute to certain types of things that we do. But we 

do think that a lot of the practices that are in the statute are 

things that we already have done. We have been the leader in some 

31 

1See Exhibit No. 3 which appears in the Appendix on page 129. 

of these areas for fighting improper payments. I was there when 

the bill was signed, and we take it extremely seriously. 

Senator LEVIN. There was an IG report in July 2009, a Social Security Administration IG report, that found that the number of SSI 

redeterminations conducted over a 6-year period from 2003 to 2008 

had dropped by more than 60 percent, while the number of SSI recipients increased by nearly 9 percent. And the IG found that by 

2008, the Social Security Administration was conducting redeterminations for only 12 percent of the recipients, down from a 36-percent redetermination in fiscal year 2003. Was that a funding issue. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, I suppose a funding issue, and it was also a 

will issue. When I joined the agency in 2007, I reversed the trend 

in declining program integrity work. We are doing substantially 

more redeterminations, we are doing more continuing disability reviews, and we are doing it with enormous pressure from the Congress to reduce the backlogs and in the biggest recession since the 

Great Depression. 

So I think it is a sign of my commitment on reducing fraud and 

reducing improper payments that the agency was reducing the 

commitment to these areas in easier times, and in hard times we 

have made the tough choices, and we have upped our commitment 

in these areas. And I think it is important that we do that. 

Senator LEVIN. Is there also a funding issue that goes to this? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Absolutely. We do not have the people that we need 

to get up to the standards of 10 years ago when that was approximately, for instance, the right number of continuing disability reviews that were done. And the Congress is going to have to make 

a choice when the economy improves and unemployment goes 

down. We have significantly staffed up the disability determination 

services to handle 650,000 extra disability cases each year, more 

than we orginally projected. Before the recession, we were projecting 2.65 million; we are seeing last year and this year about 3.3 

million. And we have done quite a good job of staffing up and keeping new backlogs from developing—not perfect, but a pretty good 

job. 

Senator LEVIN. So one of the ways that Congress can be helpful 

is to provide the funding requested for these enforcement activities. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Congress will have a choice when unemployment 

starts to drop: Do we maintain these people? Do we move them 

over into CDRs? Or do we just let them attrit down and reduce the 

administrative budget? 

Senator LEVIN. But we also have a choice this year as to whether 

we put in the budget request—whether we adopt the budget requested by the Administration, I assume, for these efforts. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Senator LEVIN. A number of us signed a letter—it is a bipartisan 

letter—on this funding issue on the staffing levels.1

Mr. ASTRUE. And it has been enormously helpful, and we are extremely grateful. 

Senator LEVIN. All right, but that is not a done deal yet. 

Mr. ASTRUE. No. And it is one of the difficulties in planning 

when you go into a fiscal year and you do not know what you are 

32 

going to be able to spend. It does make it harder to spend the dollars that are being appropriated in a wise and cost-effective way. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. You have had better luck on the percentage 

of—on your success rate in getting down the erroneous payments 

in the SSI program, which is down to about 1 percent, in the DI 

program. The DI program is down to 1 percent. The SSI program 

I think is at 8 percent. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Senator LEVIN. What explains that difference? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I think the biggest difference has been the drop in 

redeterminations that went from a high of, if I remember correctly, 

2.4 million and change down to 600,000 and change. And at that 

level, a lot of things happen that should not be allowed to happen. 

And this year we are just a few tens of thousands of cases under 

the all-time high for the number of redeterminations we are doing. 

We are doing 2.4 million and change, if I remember correctly. 

We think that is going to make another substantial improvement 

next year. I know that my operations people believe that. I also 

think that the AFI program is going to be very important. So I am 

optimistic that our numbers are going to be improving significantly 

in the next 2 years, but we will have to wait and see what happens. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Talk to me for a minute about the CDR reviews 

and the statistical sampling you all do for their accuracy. Having 

done Social Security disability exams before, what background information helps you know that this is accurate? You all obviously 

have studied this for a long time. You know what works. What is 

the statistical model that supports your assertion that medical CPR 

mailers are 85 percent accurate. Isn’t that what your numbers are? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, let me give you my understanding of this, but 

again, I will supplement my answer for the record. 

You can debate the exact percentage, but there is probably a little over half, maybe 60 percent, of the beneficiaries where in any 

fair look you cannot reasonably expect them to go back to work. My 

Dad was a disability beneficiary. He had a massive cerebral hemorrhage, same form of brain cancer as Senator Kennedy. There was 

no way he was going back to work. There are many people in that 

category. Maybe 40 percent would be my number where it is a closer call, and so my understanding of what the staff does is, as I 

mentioned before, they develop models to try to figure out the reviews that will give the maximum return to the trust funds. 

And so there are certain types of cases that are more error-prone, 

more fraud-prone than others, and those are weighted. Because of 

the cost of lifetime entitlement, not just for our programs but really 

more significantly for Medicare, the younger people tend to draw 

closer scrutiny whereas someone who is already 61 is not going to 

draw as much scrutiny. 

So we use these screens. The psychiatric cases, the muscle tissue 

cases, those are the inherently difficult ones. 

Senator COBURN. I agree. 

Mr. ASTRUE. We try not to do CDRs for people with head and 

neck cancer and pancreatic cancer and ALS and diseases like that, 

and we try to focus—— 

33 

1See Exhibit No. 2d. which appears in the Appendix on page 127. 

Senator COBURN. No, I agree. You all have done statistically significant studies to show you are modeling on where you need to go. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, and that is how we get the 10:1 return. It may, 

in fact, be true that the return is a little higher right now because 

we have not been doing them as often. But in an optimal system, 

my understanding is it is about a 10:1 return. 

If we did them randomly, we would not get a 10:1 return. We 

would get a much smaller return for the trust funds.1

Senator COBURN. Would there be any benefit if there was statutory guidelines for a larger penalty for not complying with notification, one, that you are working; and two, notification that you are 

working and you know you are not entitled. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I think that is possible. In my preparation for this 

hearing, it is a question I have asked myself. I know that the staff 

perspective generally is that a lot of these people are economically 

marginal. There is a real limit to how much you can get from these 

people. 

On the other hand, when you read through the case studies, 

there are certain patterns, particularly on non-cooperation, where 

I am looking at the cases and saying: ‘‘You know what? Maybe we 

should be more aggressive with our existing tools. Maybe we need 

some new tools.’’ 

So I think that is a fair point, and certainly on the review that 

I have done so far, that is high on my list. 

Senator COBURN. But the real important thing is how do we help 

you up front. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Correct. 

Senator COBURN. How do we create a system where people who 

are getting on—first of all, that 60 or 65 percent that are unlikely 

to recover, we know—there is no question, we do not really even 

have to do a CDR. We know the outcome is not great. We know 

that. How do we help you with the other 35 percent? 

I am going to tell you a story about a family that is collecting 

in excess of $50,000 a month from your organization by teaching 

children how to pass the test for autism and having multiple children so that they game the system. This happened about 18 

months ago in Oklahoma. What we have to do is fix it up front, 

because if we can really make significant changes that make it 

easier for you up front, the chasing later does not have to be as 

complex. 

What I hope our hearing will generate is real good communication with this Subcommittee on what is it that you see as the problem, you and your staff; what is it that you see that needs to be 

changed. 

Mr. Chairman. I heard a couple of times—which bothers me, 

which is kind of cultural within SSA, the statement was made multiple times to my staff that, ‘‘we are an entitlement agency, not an 

enforcement agency.’’ If, in fact, that is the culture, then SSA is biased against the balance that needs to be there. I just wondered 

if you would comment. You were put there to be a compassionate 

agency. There is no question. But you also were put there to be an 

34 

enforcement agency of the rules and regulations that you have 

written and the laws. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I do not know what was said. All I can say, speaking for myself, I do not see any tension between the roles, and particularly where we have been given clear guidance by Congress. 

And Congress has told us, for instance, in the Title 16 program, we 

are only allowed to recover a relatively small percentage of the debt 

annually because of the situation of the individuals. And so there 

is a tension between the public mission and the stewardship mission that sometimes Congress has told us to not be as tough as we 

could be on the stewardship mission. 

But as I said, I came here under extremely difficult circumstances, national media and the Congress all over the agency saying, ‘‘What are you going to do about this horrible backlog problem? 

You are horrible people.’’ And then the recession hit. OK? And despite all that, every single year—— 

Senator COBURN. You have improved. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, we have increased the effort, and I think that 

we are improving generally. It is sporadic in places, but I think 

that the investment is paying off. And I think that the key here 

is for the Congress to stick with us. We are worried because there 

are tough budgetary times ahead. And this has been something 

that at times in the past Congress has lost interest in. So I think 

it is very important for Congress to continue to be persistent in its 

support of these activities. 

Senator COBURN. I would tell you, I do not think Chairman 

Levin, once he gets an interest in anything, loses interest. I do not 

think I do, either. I will commit to you to make sure that we follow 

up. We really do need the communication coming from you of what 

are the problems you see, what are the recommendations that will 

make SSA more effective. But, again, even with the Title 16 program, if it was not overpaid in the first place, you would not have 

a problem with slow collection. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Senator COBURN. So the key is eliminating the problem rather 

than allowing a problem to be created and then spending money 

solving the problem. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Senator COBURN. I am with you. I thank you for coming and testifying before us today. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, Commissioner Astrue, thank you again for 

coming. The only comments that I would add to Dr. Coburn’s is 

that I think that the compassion is clearly appropriate in many 

cases, obviously. There are also many cases, though, where, in fact, 

people are not notifying you and know they should, and the reason 

that they are not is because they need the money. That is not good 

enough. 

Senator COBURN. That is what Willie Sutton said. 

Senator LEVIN. That is not going to cut the mustard. And so in 

those cases, I would think that there ought to be interest owing on 

money that is wrongfully paid. Apparently, you are not allowed— 

if I heard your testimony correctly, you cannot recover interest 

on—— 

35 

Mr. ASTRUE. Let me say, we do penalties and interest I believe 

in a relatively small— 

Senator LEVIN. That is OK. As long as you have the power to do 

that—— 

[Pause.] 

Mr. ASTRUE. I stand corrected. We do administrative penalties. 

We do not generally exercise our authority on interest. In general, 

the perspective has been it is tough enough getting the base payment out of these people. I think the sense has been that it makes 

it that much harder to actually collect what they promise to pay 

with the interest on top of it. But I think it is a fair question, and 

it is something that we should go back and reexamine with an open 

mind. 

Senator LEVIN. You may have a lot of situations where it is going 

to be counterproductive to pile on the interest, but you are going 

to have a lot—there is a deterrent effect here, too. According to Mr. 

Kutz, we have people that the GAO talks to who say, ‘‘Yes, I know 

I was supposed to report, and I did not.’’ ‘‘Why didn’t you?’’ ‘‘I needed the money’’? That is not compassion. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I agree with that. 

Senator LEVIN. To the taxpayer, that is—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. And what I want to make sure is that in the effort 

to catch those people whom we very much want to catch, I just 

want to make sure that we do not catch the people who are trying 

and hopelessly confused by one of the most confusing systems that 

we inflict on the American people. 

Senator LEVIN. That is fair enough, and we should give you the 

waiver authority. It is not something that should be automatic. But 

unless people know that they cannot just simply say, ‘‘I needed the 

money so I did not report’’—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. 

Senator LEVIN. And my final comment has to do with you and 

the GAO. You both perform essential services, one you do for the 

public, the GAO for us. We need that watchdog. And so what we 

need you to do, where there are disagreements—those are going to 

happen all the time, but we should not have disagreements over 

definitions. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. 

Senator LEVIN. Fraud ought to be commonly defined or told to us 

that there is a difference on this. And it makes a huge difference 

in terms of those numbers. I think part of the problem here probably was that there was an exaggerated statement about what they 

found, not by them but possibly by somebody in the media. It is 

rare that there is an exaggeration like that. But once in a blue 

moon it does happen. This may have been the blue moon. But we 

cannot allow that remote possibility to get in the way of two agencies that are so important, yours for the millions of people, the 

GAO for the millions, too, but through the Congress. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I agree, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. Finally, a request which kind of goes in the opposite direction of trying to make sure we do not overpay folks who 

are able to work, and that is, we have this backlog in processing 

applications, and I know you get this a lot. I just want to let you 

know it is an important issue. We hope we get enough funding in 

36 

here to reduce that backlog for the people who are entitled and 

should be given disability. We do not want them waiting in line 3 

years. I think you have cut down that backlog, and I give you credit for that. But I just want to mention that because it is an issue, 

and it is an issue which cuts in the other direction. But as both 

of us say, we want the right people to get the help. We do not want 

people who are not entitled to help to get it for two reasons: The 

law does not allow it; equally significantly, if not more, we cannot 

afford the resources that way. We have to put the resources where 

they should be going. 

Mr. ASTRUE. So, Mr. Chairman, I rarely have the opportunity to 

give unadulterated good news to Members of Congress, so if you 

could indulge me for a moment. 

Senator LEVIN. That is a good note to end on. 

Mr. ASTRUE. So in addition to having each year pretty much 

steadily reduced the backlog for all five of the offices, I believe you 

are on the verge of the big change. So in Livonia, Michigan, next 

week we will open a new hearing office. I will not be able to make 

it—because of a commitment to Senator Baucus—to the Mount 

Pleasant opening on August 23. There is also a satellite office 

planned for Marquette. I believe the General Services Administration (GSA) still has to finalize some things, but it will open probably next spring. So there is significant additional capacity coming 

to Michigan. 

Senator LEVIN. And I assume that is true around the country 

that you are trying to get these backlogs down. 

Mr. ASTRUE. We have 25 offices opening in an 18-month period 

over the base of 142. We have looked at the demographics. We have 

looked at the economics. We have looked at the filing patterns. And 

what we have tried to do is take the pressure off the most backlogged offices. 

So in the beginning of fiscal year 2007, Atlanta and Atlanta 

North were at 900 days and 885 days as an average processing 

time. We only have two offices left in the country that are over 600 

days. They will be under 600 days and probably under 500 before 

long with the new offices. So I think we are making very substantial progress. 

We also keep a focus on the aged cases, which the agency was 

not doing before, and we have raised the standard every year. So 

when I started, an aged case—— 

Senator LEVIN. A what case? 

Mr. ASTRUE. An aged case. 

Senator LEVIN. We call that seniority around here. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ASTRUE. A vintage case. We had 65,000 cases that had been 

waiting a thousand days or more. We had people in this country 

who had been waiting 1,400 days for a hearing. So in addition to 

trying to improve the average, we have insisted on going after the 

outliers. In every single year I have been on the job, we have raised 

the bar on the agency. So this year the bar is 825 days, which is 

the longest anyone is going to be waiting for a hearing. We are 

ahead of goal on that. We will make it. We will adjust that goal 

downward, probably around 750 or 775 days for next year. And 

each year, in addition to bringing down the average times, we are 

making sure that there are not those outliers out there. We are 

37 

making steady progress, and we are grateful for the support of you 

and the Congress for that effort. 

Senator LEVIN. And Dr. Coburn, of course, points out that the 

quality of those reviews, to make sure we get it right up front, is 

important as well as making sure we do not keep people waiting 

for 3 years. And I agree with his sentiment on that as well. 

We thank you. We thank our witnesses. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. I think it has been a very useful hearing. 

Senator COBURN. Again, I thank both of you. I would note, ear- lier in your testimony you said, I think, you spend $20 million on 

contractors for educating people on this information. I think one of 

the things that GAO did find out, although I do not think they put 

it in their study, SSA is doing a pretty good job of telling people 

what they are supposed to do. The problem is compliance, once you 

know what you are supposed to do versus doing what you are supposed to do. So I think you have a good contractor regarding educating the recipients. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I agree, and I think the challenge is generally making sure the obligation to report is understood. Where we run into 

difficulty is the trial work period, the extended period of eligibility, 

and the complexities of the ticket-to-work program. I think if you 

survey claimants, they are baffled by it, and that is really where 

the contractor has the issue—getting the claimants to understand 

those difficulties. So I think a lot of the time where there are goodfaith mistakes made by claimants, it really does derive from the 

complexity of the program. And if we simplify the program, we will 

have fewer of those mistakes up front. We are working on a simplification proposal for next year’s budget, which we will see whether we can get approved. 

Senator COBURN. Send it to us. 

Mr. ASTRUE. That is exactly what you are asking us to do. 

Senator COBURN. You have bipartisan agreement. We want to fix 

the problems. 

Mr. ASTRUE. OK. 

Senator LEVIN. Does most of that complexity come from regulation or from legislation? 

Mr. ASTRUE. It is from legislation, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. Send us recommendations. 

Mr. ASTRUE. We are working on it. We have been working on it 

for a long time. We are hopefully towards the tail end. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you both again. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 


63828.001
40 


63828.002
41 


63828.003
42 


63828.004
43 


63828.005
44 


63828.006
45 


63828.007
46 


63828.008
47 


63828.009
48 


63828.010
49 


63828.011
50 


63828.012
51 


63828.013
52 


63828.014
53 


63828.015
54 


63828.016
55 


63828.017
56 


63828.018
57 


63828.019
58 


63828.020
59 


63828.021
60 


63828.022
61 


63828.023
62 


63828.024
63 


63828.025
64 


63828.026
65 


63828.027
66 


63828.028
67 


63828.029
68 


63828.030
69 


63828.031
70 


63828.032
71 


63828.033
72 


63828.034
73 


63828.035
74 


63828.036
75 


63828.037
76 


63828.038
77 


63828.039
78 


63828.040
79 


63828.041
80 


63828.042
81 


63828.043
82 


63828.044
83 


63828.045
84 


63828.046
85 


63828.047
86 


63828.048
87 


63828.049
88 


63828.050
89 


63828.051
90 


63828.052
91 


63828.053
92 


63828.054
93 


63828.055
94 


63828.056
95 


63828.057
96 


63828.058
97 


63828.059
98 


63828.060
99 


63828.061
100 


63828.062
101 


63828.063
102 


63828.064
103 


63828.065
104 


63828.066
105 


63828.067
106 


63828.068
107 


63828.069
108 


63828.070
109 


63828.071
110 


63828.072
111 


63828.073
112 


63828.074
113 


63828.075
114 


63828.076
115 


63828.077
116 


63828.078
117 


63828.079
118 


63828.080
119 


63828.081
120 


63828.082
121 


63828.083
122 


63828.084
123 


63828.085
124 


63828.086
125 


63828.087
126 


63828.088
127 


63828.089
128 


63828.090
129 


63828.091
130 


63828.092
131 


63828.093
132 


63828.094
133 


63828.095
134 


63828.096
135 


63828.097
136 


63828.098
137 


63828.099
138 


63828.100
139 


63828.101
140 


63828.102
141 


63828.103
142 


63828.104
143 


63828.105
144 


63828.106
145 


63828.107
146 


63828.108
147 


63828.109
148 


63828.110
149 


63828.111
150 


63828.112
151 


63828.113
152 


63828.114
153 


63828.115
154 


63828.116
155 


63828.117
156 


63828.118
157 


63828.119
158 


63828.120
159 


63828.121
160 


63828.122
161 


63828.123
162 


63828.124
163 


63828.125
164 


63828.126
165 


63828.127
166 


63828.128
167 


63828.129
168 


63828.130
169 


63828.131
170 


63828.132
171 


63828.133
172 


63828.134
173 


63828.135
174 


63828.136
175 


63828.137
176 


63828.138
177 


63828.139
178 


63828.140
179 


63828.141
180 


63828.142
181 

Æ 


63828.143