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

48–115 2009

HIRING OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

AT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 1, 2007 

Serial No. 110–35 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK MEEK, Florida 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

WALLY HERGER, California 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PAT TIBERI, Ohio 

JON PORTER, Nevada 

Janice Mays, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

Brett Loper, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York, Chairman 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of April 24, 2007, announcing the hearing ............................................ 2 

Advisory of April 26, 2007, announcing a change in time of the hearing ........... 4 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration ........................................................................................................................ 7 

The Honorable Linda M. Springer, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ...................................................................................................................... 11 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Association of Administrative Law Judges, statement ......................................... 33 

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, statement .......................................... 35 

Edgardo M. Rodriguez, letter .................................................................................. 37 

Margo A. Yhap, statement ...................................................................................... 38 

National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, statement ...................................................................................................................... 39 

Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, statement ..................................... 41 

Social Security Administration Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 43 

The Federal Managers Association, statement ..................................................... 44 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

(1) 

HIRING OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

AT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:04 a.m., in 

room B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael McNulty 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–9263 

May 1, 2007 

SS–2 

Chairman McNulty Announces a Hearing on 

the Hiring of Administrative Law Judges 

at the Social Security Administration 

Congressman Michael R. McNulty (D–NY), Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine the Social Security Administration’s 

(SSA’s) ability to hire Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to address the growing disability claims backlog. The hearing will take place on May 1, 2007, in room 

B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

Nationwide, more than 700,000 people are currently awaiting hearings on their 

Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability claims appeals. Because of this large backlog, severely disabled individuals often must wait years to 

get the benefits they need for basic economic survival. 

A significant contributor to this backlog is a shortage of SSA ALJs to conduct the 

hearings. According to the Social Security Advisory Board, from 1999 to 2005 the 

number of disability claims hearings pending nationwide more than doubled, while 

the number of ALJs on duty remained about the same. 

A number of Federal agencies employ ALJs, but SSA is the largest employer. The 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is responsible for developing qualification 

standards for ALJs, conducting examinations for ALJ candidates, and developing a 

register of candidates from which agencies can hire. 

The Social Security Administration’s hiring of ALJs in recent years has been limited by several factors. First, administrative funding shortfalls have limited SSA’s 

ability to hire across all positions, including ALJs. In addition, litigation filed in 

1997 disrupted Federal hiring of ALJs for several years. In August 2003, OPM announced that it would develop a new examination for ALJ candidates. Until this examination was developed and a new register created, SSA and other Federal agencies could hire only from a register from the late 1990s. OPM issued new final regulations on the ALJ program in March 2007, but a new examination has not yet been 

announced. Therefore, a new and up-to-date ALJ register is not yet available for 

SSA to use in hiring. 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on the importance of having an adequate number of ALJs 

to address the growing disability claims backlog; barriers to SSA’s hiring of ALJs; 

and the steps that must be taken to remove these barriers. In particular, the Subtjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

3 

committee will explore the need to develop an updated register of ALJ candidates, 

the steps involved in this process, and the time frames in which it will occur. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman McNulty stated, ‘‘The Social Security 

Administration needs Administrative Law Judges to help clear the backlog, 

so that persons applying for disability benefits can get the support they 

need as soon as possible. This Subcommittee is committed to ensuring that 

SSA has the resources to hire ALJs and that relevant government agencies 

move rapidly to eliminate other barriers to ALJ hiring.’’ 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘110th Congress’’ from the menu entitled, 

‘‘Committee Hearings’’ (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=18). 

Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, 

‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, completing all informational forms and clicking ‘‘submit’’ on the 

final page, an email will be sent to the address which you supply confirming your 

interest in providing a submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to the email 

and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business Tuesday, May 

15, 2007. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. 

Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. 

For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–1721. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

f 

[The revised advisory follows:] 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

4 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–9263 

May 1, 2007 

SS–2R 

Change in Time for Hearing on 

the Hiring of Administrative Law Judges 

at the Social Security Administration 

Congressman Michael R. McNulty (D–NY), Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee hearing to examine the Social Security Administration’s ability to hire 

Administrative Law Judges to address the growing disability claims backlog, previously scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, in room B–318, Rayburn 

House Office Building, will now be held on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. 

All other details for the hearing remain the same. (See Social Security Advisory 

No. SS–2, dated April 24, 2007). 

f 

Chairman MCNULTY. The Committee will come to order. Welcome, everyone. Today’s hearing focuses on the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) hiring of Administrative Law Judges, commonly referred to as ALJs. 

ALJs play a critical role at SSA, conducting hearings on appeals 

filed by persons applying for disability benefits. A few months ago, 

this Subcommittee held a hearing on the large and growing disability claims backlog. Testimony at that hearing dramatically illustrated the tremendous human costs of the long delays so many 

applicants face. 

For example, we heard from a woman from Troy, New York, 

someone in my own congressional district, who lost her home, was 

hospitalized, and even lost custody of her children, while she waits 

for her case to be resolved. 

Testimony at that hearing also starkly pointed out the role of resource and staffing shortages in creating this unacceptable situation. 

For the past several years, the President’s request for SSA’s administrative budget has been lower than the amount requested by 

the SSA Commissioner, and the amount actually appropriated has 

been lower still. As a result, SSA has been unable to hire all the 

staff needed to process disability claims and conduct hearings. 

I worked with my friend, Ranking Member Sam Johnson, to urge 

the Budget Committee to address SSA’s lack of resources. Many 

stakeholder organizations did the same, and I am very pleased to 

report that the House-passed Budget Resolution assumes additional funding for SSA—$400 million beyond the President’s request. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

5 

These funds would allow SSA to begin working down the disability claims backlog, and also perform critical program integrity 

activities. I will continue my efforts in this area throughout the appropriations process. I hope that the result will be significantly 

more funding for SSA next year that will enable SSA to hire more 

staff to address the backlogs. 

What we don’t want to face is another obstacle to hiring essential 

staff. Today’s hearing will explore other barriers to SSA’s hiring of 

ALJs, and in particular, the need to insure that an up-to-date register of ALJ candidates is available for SSA from which to hire. 

The existing register of ALJ candidates was developed by the Office 

of Personnel Management, OPM, in the 1990s. For several years, 

hiring from that register was disrupted, due to litigation. In the 

summer of 2003, the litigation was sufficiently resolved that OPM 

could reopen hiring from the register. 

At that time, OPM announced that it would be developing a new 

examination for ALJ candidates, which would be used to put together a new register. Now, close to 4 years later, we still do not 

have this new register. The Subcommittee has raised concerns 

about this repeatedly over the past few years. 

Following our last hearing, Mr. Johnson and I sent a letter to the 

directors of OPM and the Office of Management and Budget, requesting a time line for which the register would be completed, and 

urging OPM to expedite this process. I am pleased to note that we 

have seen some recent progress. OPM published a final regulation 

in March. In the last 2 weeks, the Agency has taken other measures to move this process forward, including issuing a new qualifications standard. 

However, I am, frankly, concerned that the process has taken 

this long. We cannot afford a repeat of past delays. 

I truly appreciate having both the SSA commissioner, Michael 

Astrue, and the OPM director, Linda Springer, here today to address this important topic. We would like to learn what SSA’s 

needs are for ALJ hiring, and what barriers to hiring SSA faces. 

We would like to know the steps OPM needs to take to develop the 

new register, and OPM’s time line for these steps. If there are any 

obstacles to getting this done, and done rapidly, we would like to 

know about them today. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Michael McNulty follows:] 

Opening Statement of Chairman Michael R. McNulty 

Subcommittee on Social Security 

Hearing on SSA’s Hiring of Administrative Law Judges 

May 1, 2007 

Today’s hearing focuses on the Social Security Administration’s hiring of administrative law judges, commonly referred to as ALJs. ALJs play a critical role at SSA, 

conducting hearings on appeals filed by persons applying for disability benefits. 

A few months ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the large and growing 

disability claims backlogs. Testimony at that hearing dramatically illustrated the 

tremendous human costs of the long delays so many applicants face. For example, 

we heard of a woman from Troy, New York—someone from my own district—who 

has lost her home, been hospitalized, and even lost custody of her children while 

she waits for her case to be resolved. 

Testimony at that hearing also starkly pointed out the role of resource and staffing shortages in creating this unacceptable situation. For the past several years, the 

President’s request for SSA’s administrative budget has been lower than the amount 

requested by the SSA Commissioner, and the amount actually appropriated has 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

6 

been lower still. As a result, SSA has been unable to hire all the staff needed to 

process disability claims and conduct hearings. 

I worked with my friend, Ranking Member Sam Johnson, to urge the Budget 

Committee to address SSA’s lack of resources. Many stakeholder organizations did 

the same. And I’m very pleased to report that the House-passed Budget Resolution 

assumes additional funding for SSA—$400 million beyond the President’s request. 

These funds would allow SSA to begin working down the disability claims backlog 

and also perform critical program integrity activities. I will continue my efforts in 

this area throughout the appropriations process. I hope that the result will be significantly more funding for SSA next year that will enable SSA to hire more staff 

to address the backlogs. 

What we don’t want to face is another obstacle to hiring essential staff. Today’s 

hearing will explore other barriers to SSA’s hiring of ALJs, and, in particular, the 

need to ensure that an up-to-date register of ALJ candidates is available for SSA 

from which to hire. 

The existing register of ALJ candidates was developed by the Office of Personnel 

Management—OPM—in the 1990s. For several years, hiring from that register was 

disrupted due to litigation. In the summer of 2003, the litigation was sufficiently 

resolved that OPM could reopen hiring from the register. At that time, OPM announced that it would be developing a new examination for ALJ candidates, which 

would be used to put together a new register. 

Now, close to 4 years later, we still do not have this new register. The Subcommittee has raised concerns about this repeatedly over the past few years. Following our last hearing, Mr. Johnson and I sent a letter to the Directors of OPM 

and the Office of Management and Budget requesting a time line for when the register would be completed and urging OPM to expedite this process. 

I am pleased to note that we have seen some recent progress. OPM published a 

final regulation in March. In the last 2 weeks the agency has taken other measures 

to move this process forward, including issuing a new qualification standard. However, I am frankly concerned that the process has taken this long. We cannot afford 

a repeat of past delays. 

I appreciate having both the SSA Commissioner, Michael Astrue, and the OPM 

Director, Linda Springer, here today to address this important topic. We’d like to 

learn what SSA’s needs are for ALJ hiring and what barriers to hiring SSA faces. 

We’d like to know the steps OPM needs to take to develop the new register, and 

OPM’s time line for these steps. And if there are obstacles to getting this done— 

and done rapidly—we’d like to know about them today. 

f 

With that, I would like to yield to my friend, the distinguished 

Member from Texas, and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Sam Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your comments. 

You know, this hearing is about real people. In need of help and 

answers. With disabilities that deserve a decision as soon as possible. I’m going to stray from this, because you brought up a good 

point. 

I mean, the fact of the matter is that since 2003, 4 years ago, 

your agency has defaulted on getting those judges to the Social Security Administration so they can get them. I think it’s criminal— 

I will repeat that; it’s criminal—that you’re waiting until the end 

of this year to get it done now, after he and I have written you. 

I am sure my colleagues agree with me. 

I would like to know—there ought to be an emergency process 

that you can convert judges, and give them the names they need 

immediately. Like right now. I would like to know why you can’t 

do that. You know, we just don’t have enough judges. 

I mean, there was an article in the New York Times today on 

this very issue. Four years is too long. Another year is too much 

longer. So, I would like to hear your answers. I am going to close 

with that. Thank you, sir. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

7 

Chairman MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I will remind 

other Members that, without objection, they will be able to submit 

statements for the record. With that, I would like to introduce our 

special guests, Commissioner Astrue, and Director Springer. We 

look forward to your testimony, and to possibly answering some 

questions for us. 

We will begin with Mr. Astrue. I would remind you that your entire statements are submitted for the record. We would ask you to 

try to summarize the main points, so that we can get to the questioning as soon as possible. Commissioner? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Social 

Security Administration’s (SSA’s) disability determination process, 

and the importance of administrative law judges (ALJs) in that 

process. 

Before I go any further, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

all the Members of this Subcommittee, for your support. We fully 

understand how important that support has been, and we are 

grateful for it. 

I would like to start with some strategic context. Since 2001, Congress has appropriated, on average each year, about $150 million less than the President has requested. The dollar value of this 

differential is equivalent to processing an additional 177,000 initial 

claims, and 454,000 hearings. 

The added money in March’s continuing resolution allowed us to 

avert 6 to 10 days of furloughs, and to slow the rate of attrition. 

But it is important to remember that we will still end this year 

with substantially fewer employees than we had when we started 

the year. 

During this same time period, our workloads have increased, 

both due to demographics and new statutory responsibilities. The 

baby boomers not only start retiring in January, they are increasingly filing for disability, as they age. 

Moreover, Congress has asked SSA to engage in new responsibilities in Homeland Security, Immigration, Medicare part B, and 

Medicare Part D. With so many of the Agency’s activities mandated 

by law, other activities have suffered disproportionately. We went 

from 790,000 medical continuing disability reviews (CDRs) in 2002 

to 290,000 medical CDRs last year, a shift that makes a permanent 

negative impact on the trust fund. Field offices are harried. Hearing offices have lost support staff and productivity, and we have 

not hired sufficient administrative law judges to handle a caseload 

that has doubled in the past 5 years. 

As you know, in 2006, SSA revised the disability determination 

process to increase accuracy, consistency, and timeliness. The new 

Disability Service Improvement, DSI, process was rolled out in the 

Boston region in August 2006, and builds upon SSA’s electronic 

disability folder. In February and March, we engaged in an intensive review of DSI. We found mixed results. 

Early accomplishments include the success of QDD, the Quick 

Disability Determination program. Using a computer model to 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

8 

identify the cases most likely to be allowed, the States have decided 97 percent of these cases within the required 21 days, and 

they have a mean decision time of 11 days. About 85 percent of 

these cases have been allowed during the initial review, and more 

have been allowed with additional documentation. This is good 

news. 

We plan to build on the success of the QDD tool by greatly improving our ability to make decisions, so that claimants with conditions such as a confirmed case of pancreatic cancer or ALS, 

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis—Lou Gehrig’s Disease, are approved 

for disability within the 11 days that we have proven we can do. 

It is both efficient and compassionate for us to do this. 

Another electronic program developed as part of DSI is a decision 

tool for use by ALJs called the Findings Integrated Template, commonly known as FIT. About 80 percent of the ALJs are now using 

it voluntarily, and the ALJs who use it have a significantly lower 

rate of remands from the Appeals Council. These remands cause 

significant costs and delays, and thus, we are in the process of requiring all ALJs to use this new tool by the end of this year. We 

expect that this change will bring good news. 

We have also accelerated and expanded recent efforts to address 

the ‘‘aged’’ cases, those cases that involve waiting for 1,000 days or 

more for a hearing. This is America, and an American should not 

have to wait 3 or 4 years for his or her day in court. We have established as our goal the elimination of these cases to a negligible 

level by the end of this fiscal year. 

I am pleased to report that this number has already dropped 

from 63,525 on October 1 of last year, to 17,966 as of last week, 

and we are on target toward our goal to eliminate this particularly 

embarrassing backload. This is long overdue good news. 

We have found areas of DSI that are not performing as expected, 

and have taken prompt action to make corrections. We found that 

two of the new electronic systems developed for the DDSs, Disability Determination Services, were not ready for real-world use, 

and were, in fact, causing considerable delays in processing caseloads. While one of these systems has great potential over the long 

run, both have been pulled for now and will be developed further 

before we try again in a pilot study, most probably in 2009. 

We are focusing on refining our primary two systems for making 

us fully electronic, and have used an additional $25 million over 

what was planned from our technology reserve fund to accomplish 

that goal this year. 

Under the broader DSI review I mentioned earlier, we are evaluating the Federal Reviewing Official, or FedRO, and Medical and 

Vocational Expert System, MVES, for these components’ effects on 

processing time, the cost of handling a claim, and the program cost 

to the Social Security trust fund. 

With regard to the Disability Review Board (DRB), we have limited actual experience to date, due to the time required for claims 

to reach this stage, but I am concerned about potential for confusion and reprocessing of cases if we have two different bodies 

issuing conflicting decisions on my behalf over the next 10 years. 

We are currently evaluating the DRB, consulting with OMB, Office 

of Management and Budget, with these concerns in mind. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

9 

I am overdue on the main subject of this hearing, ALJs. Let me 

make two brief points. First, we need to use our ALJs in a smarter, 

more efficient way. Posting all our ALJs in our 141 hearing offices 

does not give us enough flexibility to address the worst backlogs. 

Electronic hearings have been a successful method to address 

backlogs on an ad hoc basis, and it is time that we reserve a percentage of the ALJs in a central office and use them exclusively to 

address the worst backlogs through electronic hearings. 

Second, we need more ALJs, and we’re aiming at a net increase 

of about 150 ALJs. With support staff, that means we’re looking at 

about 750 to 850 FTEs, full-time equivalents, a significant reallocation of our discretionary FTEs. With rising numbers of appeals 

being filed, we simply cannot reduce the backlog with fewer ALJs 

than we had in 1997. Last year, our ALJs made a record number 

of decisions, almost 559,000, and we still fell behind. 

Let me conclude by saying that I very much appreciated the bipartisan support that we have received from both Members and the 

staff of this Committee, and I am looking forward to continuing our 

regular candid discussions until we have a system in which we can 

all take pride. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Astrue follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Social Security Administration’s 

(SSA) management of the disability determination process for the Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income programs, and the importance of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in that process. 

Before I go any further, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members 

of this Subcommittee for your support. I fully understand how important that support has been, and I am grateful for it. In addition, I want to recognize the hard 

work and service of the employees of SSA and the State Disability Determination 

Services (DDSs). They understand the importance of our programs and provide the 

best service they can. 

We recently passed an important milestone; for the last 50 years, the Disability 

Insurance program has helped disabled workers and their dependents cope with the 

loss of income due to severe disability. Along with SSA’s stewardship of the Supplemental Security Income program, SSA employees work every day to provide vital 

service to disabled Americans. While the accomplishments in SSA’s disability programs are many, today I would like to discuss several areas of concern and our 

planned solutions. 

I’d like to start with some strategic context. Since 2001, Congress has appropriated on average about $180 million less than the President has requested. The 

dollar value of this differential is equivalent to processing an additional 177,000 initial claims and 454,000 hearings. The added money in March’s continuing resolution 

allowed us to avert 6–10 days of furloughs and to slow the rate of attrition, but it 

is important to remember that we will still end the year with substantially fewer 

employees than we had when we started the year. 

During this same time period our workloads have increased both due to demographics and new statutory responsibilities. The baby boomers not only start retiring in January, they are increasingly filing for disability as they age. Moreover, 

Congress has asked SSA to engage in new responsibilities in homeland security, immigration, Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D. 

With so many of the agency’s activities mandated by law, other activities have 

suffered disproportionately. We went from 790,000 medical Continuing Disability 

Reviews (CDRs) in 2002 to 290,000 medical CDRs last year, a shift that makes a 

permanent negative impact on the trust fund. Field offices are harried. Hearing offices have lost support staff and productivity, and we have not hired sufficient ALJs 

to handle a caseload that has doubled in the past 5 years. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

10 

The Members of this Committee have been great about making our case with others in Congress, and I ask you not only to continue your efforts, but to expand them. 

We need your help. 

Timely passage of the President’s requested appropriation for SSA is a key first 

step towards addressing our disability caseload backlog. However, I want to acknowledge that we have not addressed the backlog problem as quickly as we need 

to, and that we are moving as fast as we can toward providing more efficient and 

compassionate service to the public. 

As you know, in 2006 SSA revised the disability determination process to increase 

accuracy, consistency, and timeliness. The new Disability Service Improvement 

(DSI) process was rolled out in the Boston region in August 2006, and builds upon 

SSA’s electronic disability folder. 

DSI was implemented in a way to allow us to monitor the effects that the changes 

are having in the Boston region, on our entire disability process, and the Federal 

courts. The lessons that we learn in the early stages of implementation will help 

SSA as we continue to evaluate changes needed to improve the disability determination process. 

In February and March, we engaged in an intensive review of DSI. We found 

mixed results. 

Early accomplishments include perhaps the best news so far out of DSI, the success of QDD—the Quick Disability Determination program. Using a computer model 

to identify the cases most likely to be allowed, the states have decided 97 percent 

of these cases within the required 21 days and they have a mean decision time of 

11 days. About 85 percent of these cases have been allowed during the initial review, and more have been allowed with additional documentation. We plan to build 

on the success of the QDD tool by greatly improving our ability to make decisions 

so that claimants with conditions such as a confirmed case of pancreatic cancer or 

ALS are approved for disability within the 11 days we have proved we can do. It 

is both efficient and compassionate for us to do this. 

Another electronic program developed as part of DSI is a decision-tool for use by 

ALJs called the Findings Integrated Template (FIT). About 80 percent of the ALJs 

use it now voluntarily, and ALJs who use it have a significantly lower rate of remands from the Appeals Council. These remands cause significant costs and delays. 

We are in the process of requiring that all ALJs use this new tool by the end of 

this year. 

We also found areas of DSI that are not performing as expected, and have taken 

early steps to make course corrections. 

I am committed to making the changes internal to SSA and in SSA’s policies that 

are needed to continue our dedicated service to disabled Americans. We are going 

to reorganize the Office of Disability and Income Support Programs to better align 

our organizational structure with this mission, and we have already received some 

helpful advice from the Inspector General, who, at my request, has completed a first 

draft of an organizational audit. 

We found that two of the new electronic systems developed for DDSs were not 

ready for real-world use, and were in fact causing considerable delays in processing 

caseloads. While these systems have great potential over the long-term, they have 

been pulled until they are more developed. We are focusing on refining our primary 

two systems for making us fully electronic, and have used an additional $25 million 

from our technology reserve fund to accomplish that goal. 

We have also accelerated and expanded recent efforts to address the ‘‘aged’’ 

cases—those cases that involve waiting for 1000 days or more for a hearing. This 

is America, and an American should not have to wait 3 or 4 years for his or her 

day in court. We have established as our goal the elimination of these cases to a 

negligible level by the end of this fiscal year, and I am pleased to report that this 

number has already dropped from 63,525 on October 1 of last year to 17,966 as of 

last week. 

Under the broader DSI continuous-monitoring implementation strategy I mentioned earlier, we are evaluating the Federal Reviewing Official, or FedRO, and 

Medical and Vocational Expert System (MVES) for these components’ effects on 

processing time, and accuracy, and the costs of handling a claim, and the program 

costs to the Social Security Trust Funds. 

With regard to the Disability Review Board, we have limited actual experience to 

date due to the time required for claims to reach this stage, but I am concerned 

about potential for confusion and reprocessing of cases if we have two different bodies issuing conflicting decisions on my behalf over the next 10 years. We are evaluating the DRB, and its counterpart—the Appeals Council—under the current process, with these concerns in mind. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

11 

I am overdue on the subject of this hearing—ALJs. Let me make two brief points. 

First, we need to use our ALJs in a smarter, more efficient way. Posting all our 

ALJs in our 141 hearing offices does not give us enough flexibility to address the 

worst backlogs. Electronic hearings have been a successful method to address backlogs on an ad hoc basis, and it is time that we reserve a percentage of the ALJs 

in a central office and use them exclusively to address the worst backlogs through 

electronic hearings. 

Second, we need more ALJs, and we’re aiming at a net increase of about 150 

ALJs. With support staff, we’re looking at about 750–850 FTEs, a significant reallocation of our discretionary FTEs. With rising numbers of appeals being filed, we 

simply cannot reduce the backlog with fewer ALJs than we had in 1997. Last year, 

our ALJs made a record number of decisions—almost 559,000—and we still fell further behind with a total number of 730,659 cases pending as of March 30 of this 

year. This kind of commitment, however, means we need to evaluate the costs of 

other changes in the disability determination process. 

Let me conclude by saying that I have very much appreciated the bipartisan support we have received from both Members and the staff of this Committee, and I 

am looking forward to continuing to have our regular candid discussions until we 

have a system in which we can all take real pride. 

f 

Chairman MCNULTY. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Director Springer? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINDA M. SPRINGER, 

DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. SPRINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have 

the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the 

role of the Office of Personnel Management, with respect to the hiring of ALJs, and our most recent activity with respect to this issue. 

I do want to begin with an assurance to everyone here that OPM 

is committed to working with both the Social Security Administration and our other Federal partners to be sure that we have a full 

register of ALJs. 

I want to begin by describing how we got to this point. Consistent with our civil service law, the Veterans Preference Act, and 

the APA requirements, OPM is responsible for establishing ALJ 

qualifications, for administering the examination, and for maintaining a register of qualified ALJ candidates. By law, OPM cannot 

delegate that examination to any other agency. 

In 1999, that register was suspended, following an adverse ruling 

in litigation before the MSPB, referred to as the Azdell litigation. 

Azdell had brought suit in 1997, arguing that the candidate evaluation process gave unfair advantage to veterans. OPM disagreed 

with that, and petitioned for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal circuit. OPM ultimately prevailed. 

As a result, in July 2003—6 years of time from when the suit 

was first brought—the Federal circuit mandate was issued, implementing the court’s decision in our favor. Immediately, in August 

of 2003, OPM refreshed the register by verifying that candidates on 

the existing register were still actively interested in ALJ positions. 

We removed those that were not, or were not reachable. 

Between 2003 and 2007, OPM also added over 100 new applicants: eligible veterans, and other persons who had completed applications pending during the litigation. When the reconstituted 

register was made available for Agency use in 2003, there were 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

12 

1,730 ALJs on the list. Subsequently, we resumed work on a new 

regulation and examination. 

It’s important for you to understand that agencies have been hiring ALJs, both during and after the Azdell litigation. Because OPM 

was particularly sensitive to Social Security’s needs for ALJs, in 

2001, during this stay, we litigated a motion to lift the stay, just 

for Social Security, so that they could continue to hire off the register. 

As you can see from the chart, Social Security received ALJ hiring certificates from OPM in 2001, in 2004, and in 2006, leading 

to hires of 126, 200, and 37 ALJs, respectively, for a total of over 

560 between 1997 and 2007 ALJ Social Security hires. 

At the end of 2005, OPM published a proposed rule to streamline 

existing ALJ regulations. We received a large number of comments 

with extensive recommendations. We undertook a careful review of 

all those comments, and subsequently published the final rule in 

the Federal Register on March 20th of this year. The rule took effect on April 19th. 

During this same period, we also revamped the qualifications 

standard. Concurrent with publishing the new rule, we posted draft 

a qualifications statement on OPM’s website. We received comments on that, took them into account, and posted the final version 

of the qualifications standard on April 20th. Throughout this process, the register never had fewer than 1,000 candidates. 

As you can see on our next chart, we expect the ALJ vacancy announcement to be open on our usajobs.gov website, and this addresses the timeframe that we are now under for refreshing the 

registry. New ALJ candidates will need to submit their accomplishment records, which OPM will review and score, followed by written demonstrations that are also part of the process. We will have 

structured interviews with ALJ candidates. 

My expectation is that we will be able to complete the process 

and proceed to final scoring and a new register by this fall. So, it 

is not a year. We’re talking months, not a year to have the register 

refreshed by this fall. 

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to work closely with your Subcommittee. I appreciate your interest. I will also work closely with 

our Federal partners, and very specifically, SSA, as the new register is established during the balance of this period. 

I would be happy to address any questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Springer follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Linda M. Springer, Director, U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss 

the role of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with respect to the hiring 

of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), and our most recent activity with respect to 

this issue. Let me begin with an assurance to everyone here that I am committed 

to working very closely with the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) and our other Federal partners to ensure the Government has an effective 

Federal civilian workforce, which includes ALJs. I certainly recognize and appreciate the importance of the work ALJs need to do with respect to Social Security 

disability cases. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

13 

Background 

By way of background, the ALJ position, originally referred to as ‘‘hearing examiner’’ was first authorized by Congress in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

more than 60 years ago. The APA was designed to ensure fairness and due process 

in Federal agency rulemaking, and the hearing examiner positions were established 

to provide aggrieved parties an opportunity to have their concerns heard on the 

record through a hearing. The APA also provides statutory protections to ensure 

that ALJs have decisional independence from undue agency influence. Some of these 

protections included making the positions independent of the employing agencies 

with respect to appointment, tenure, and compensation. 

The most recent data available to OPM show there are over 1,400 ALJs serving 

in the Federal Government, 1,100 of whom work at SSA with the remainder primarily at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, 

and the National Labor Relations Board. The data show that most ALJs tend to remain in their positions longer than most Federal employees—ALJs retire on average 

with 32 years of service at age 70—this is in contrast to other employees who, on 

average, retire with 28 years at age 59. 

Role of OPM 

Consistent with civil service law, the Veterans Preference Act, and APA requirements, OPM is responsible for establishing ALJ qualifications, for administering the 

ALJ examination, and for maintaining a listing of qualified candidates for ALJ employment by Federal agencies. By law, OPM cannot delegate the ALJ examination 

to any other agency. 

In 1999, the current register was suspended following an adverse ruling in litigation before the Merit Systems Protection Board, then referred to as the Azdell litigation (now referred to as Meeker v. OPM). OPM petitioned for review by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and ultimately prevailed. After the 

Federal Circuit mandate was issued, in July 2003, OPM refreshed the ALJ register 

by verifying that candidates on the existing register were still actively interested in 

ALJ positions (removing those who were not interested or were not reachable). Between 2003 and 2007, OPM also added over 100 new applicants (these applicants 

included veterans who were 10-point preference eligibles, and other persons who 

had completed applications pending during the litigation). 

After the conclusion of the Azdell litigation in 2003, we closed the ALJ examination to new applicants, (with the exception that we continued to accept applications 

from 10-point preference eligibles as allowed by law), reconstituted the ALJ register, 

and made that register available for agency use. At that time, there were 1,730 

ALJs on the register. Subsequently, we resumed work on the examination, which 

as you may know, is a complex multi-step examination process. 

A Look at ALJ Hiring 

It is important for you to understand that agencies have in fact been hiring ALJs 

both during and after the Azdell litigation. In the case of the Social Security Administration, 562 ALJs have been hired since 1997. Because OPM was sensitive to the 

Social Security Administration’s need for ALJs, we litigated a motion to lift the stay 

expressly for the purpose of allowing SSA to hire off of the register. As a result, 

SSA hired 126 ALJs in 2001. After the Azdell litigation concluded, from 2003–2005, 

OPM issued 7 certificates of eligibles to SSA in the 2003–2005 period, and as a result, SSA hired another 200 ALJs. More recently, in 2006, SSA hired an additional 

37 ALJs. 

The New ALJ Examination/Assessment Process 

At the end of 2005, OPM published a proposed rule to streamline existing ALJ 

regulations by removing redundant procedures and outdated information, clarifying 

bar membership requirements, and ensuring that the ALJ examination process operates in a manner similar to other OPM competitive examinations. As a result, we 

received a large number of comments from a variety of sources with extensive recommendations. We undertook a careful review of all comments received. Subsequently, we published the final rule in the Federal Register on March 20, 2007. The 

rule took effect on April 19, 2007. During this same time period, we revamped the 

qualifications standard. Concurrent with the publication of the proposed ALJ rule, 

we posted a draft qualifications statement on OPM’s website. We received comments 

on the draft qualifications and took them into account in drafting the final version, 

which was posted on OPM’s website on April 20, 2007. Throughout this process, the 

register never had fewer than 1,000 candidates. 

OPM has also now published its new qualification standards for ALJs, and we expect to open the ALJ vacancy announcement on our USAJOBS.gov website within 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

14 

the next few days with the goal of completing our initial reviews early this month. 

New ALJ candidates will need to submit their accomplishment records which OPM 

will review and score, followed by written demonstrations, which are also part of 

the scoring process. Structured interviews with ALJ candidates will then be scheduled and my expectation is that we can complete that interview process and proceed 

to final scoring and establishment of a new ALJ register by late fall. This sequence 

of events is presented in the attachment to my statement. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to work closely with your Subcommittee and with 

Commissioner Astrue to ensure we meet the needs of SSA and our other Federal 

partners—through the existing ALJ register and the new register being established 

this year. I would be happy to further address any questions the Subcommittee may 

have. 

f 

Chairman MCNULTY. Thank you to all of our witnesses. Commissioner Astrue, let me just start with you. I just—I want to 

spend more time with Director Springer, but I just want to get one 

set of facts on the table at the very beginning. Will you just remind 

us? How many ALJs does the Agency currently employ right now? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Chairman MCNULTY. What’s the number? 

Mr. ASTRUE. The number of judges we have today in active status, meaning those judges who are on duty and processing cases, 

is 1,082. We have, between disability—the chief administrative 

judges, who have primarily an administrative role, do not count— 

my understanding is if you add disability, those who have been detailed, those who are in management positions, we’re at 1,108. So, 

depending on how you choose to define it, it’s between 1,082 and 

1,108. 

Chairman MCNULTY. How many do you feel as though you need 

to adequately address the backlog? 

Mr. ASTRUE. For the next fiscal year, we are targeting at about 

1,250. It may be that after that we are going to need additional 

judges, but that’s a lot of judges for us to absorb in a short period 

of time. 

That is fairly consistent with all of Commissioner Barnhart’s testimony in recent years. She generally cited numbers between 1,200 

and 1,300. 

Chairman MCNULTY. Thank you. Director Springer, let me just 

say that it’s really difficult to accept the proposition that everything is okay with the old list. The list is outdated. I am glad that 

you are moving now, with all deliberate speed, to try to get a new 

list out there. But I am concerned about past performance, that it 

took the Agency more than 31⁄2 years, since the Register was reopened in 2003, to issue the final regulation. 

How can this Subcommittee have confidence that we won’t have 

a repeat of the past delays? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I think that the Subcommittee is right to hold 

us to a high standard of timeliness, and it’s certainly one that I 

concur with. In my tenure here, which is less than 2 years, I have 

tried to speed this up. So, I share your concern about getting this 

back on the right track. 

I think that what caused the—the very deliberate, methodical 

process that took so much time in constituting the new regulation 

was probably driven by the fact that there were so many on the 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

15 

list, and it was never below 1,000, 1,300, 1,200 during that timeframe, prior to—or subsequent to 2003, when the list was last updated in a remedial way, if you will. 

I don’t think that’s a good reason, but—to have been that deliberate in all those comments—but I think you can have confidence 

going forward, because we have a very definitive time line. The 

steps are happening quickly. You have—can see that the ones have 

already taken place in closing this comment period down, getting 

the new standards out. 

In a matter of just days, we will begin the process. So, you will 

be able to see. We’re not giving you a promise, I’m giving you a set 

of steps that you will be able to see, very transparently, that we 

are taking to get this done. 

Chairman MCNULTY. Okay. Within the Agency, have you actually established a work plan, staffing levels, work hours, and so on, 

on this project to make sure that we stay on schedule for October? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes. Yes, I have. As a matter of fact, after I got 

the call—after the last hearing of the Subcommittee—from Congressman Pomeroy, I immediately, when I hung up the phone, got 

our leaders together and told them I wanted to see the time line 

very definitively. I shortened it, so it would get to the fall, because 

I knew it was a concern you have. 

So, that actually was—without you realizing it—helped me to get 

this moved along faster. 

Chairman MCNULTY. Okay. I will just make one final question. 

Just to make sure that we keep on track, and that the congress is 

fully informed, I would like you to commit to having your staff brief 

the staff of this Subcommittee on a monthly basis, starting now, to 

make sure that we keep this on track. Can you make that commitment to us? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Absolutely. 

Chairman MCNULTY. Okay, thank you. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask 

permission to enter my full opening statement into the record. 

Chairman MCNULTY. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Rep. Sam Johnson follows:] 

Statement of Rep. Sam Johnson 

Subcommittee on Social Security 

Hearing on the Hiring of Administrative Law Judges 

at the Social Security Administration 

May 1, 2007 

(Remarks as Prepared) 

Thank you, Chairman McNulty, for holding this hearing on the hiring of administrative law judges at the Social Security Administration. 

This hearing is about real people in need of help and answers. Those with disabilities deserve a decision on their appealed claim as soon as possible. 

Over the past 7 years, the backlog of disability appeals has more than doubled 

in size. Something must be done now. 

One answer is having enough judges to do the job. Today, the agency has about 

1085 judges, just five less than in 1999. Then the number of pending claims per 

judge was 286. Today, it’s 673, an increase of over 230 percent. 

Yet, when it comes to hiring, Social Security has been forced to use a register of 

judge candidates that has not been substantially updated since the late 1990s. 

Those relying on disability benefits deserve better! 

It’s the job of the Office of Personnel Management, also known as ‘‘OPM,’’ to assemble this register, and they have been slow to act before now. In fact, it’s taken 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

16 

close to 4 years for OPM and the Office of Management and Budget to publish a 

final regulation updating their administrative law judge program. 

OPM has now promised to move quickly and has taken steps to begin the recruitment process. However, because of the expected volume of candidates, a new register is unlikely to be available until late fall. 

Of course hiring more judges is only one answer to fixing the backlog. Social Security has already implemented a number of changes, including electronic claims folders, the use of video-conferencing, and disability case processing reforms. 

Commissioner Astrue should, and is, reviewing the effectiveness of these initiatives to determine whether further improvements are needed, and we look forward 

to hearing about his work to address the backlog. 

Sufficient funding for Social Security to effectively serve the public is another important answer which this Subcommittee continues to support and pursue. 

Other answers lie in the amount of support staff who assist the judges in preparing their decisions, continuously improving the way work is processed and how 

offices are managed, and finding new policies to increase program effectiveness. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on all these issues today. 

f 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. It seemed to me, in your comments, 

Ms. Springer, that you were accusing the Social Security Administration of not taking advantage of a list that is huge, in your estimation. Is that what you were doing? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I would say that I was trying to point out that 

over 560 hires were, in fact, made off of that list since—in relatively recent times, so that the list which has been characterized 

as stale actually was being used, and hires were being made in significant numbers by SSA. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, wasn’t it true that most of those names on 

the list were added in the 90s, and not viable? 

Ms. SPRINGER. The—no, I would not say it was true that they 

were not viable, because, first of all, they had to be reinterviewed 

when they were taken off of the list by the hiring agency, so that 

the 560 would have had to have met a certain acceptable standard 

before they were hired, and that is in relatively recent time. 

Additionally, the people on this list are practicing professionals. 

They need to meet certain standards, certain professional requirements. They are not just sitting there since the original exam was 

given, doing nothing. 

So—but ultimately, the hiring agency has to reinterview them 

before they take them on. And 560 were hired, over 560. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you agree with that statement? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Substantially, yes. If you look at the recent history, I think that the fiscal considerations have been the biggest 

barrier on hiring. As the list has aged, we have expressed concerns 

about the list, but we have continued to hire. 

It is easier to do the hiring and find candidates that meet our 

standards in the bigger metropolitan areas. As the list ages, it gets 

harder in some of the more remote areas, because some of the people don’t want to relocate. It’s not that we fell off the cliff, and not 

that there weren’t any qualified candidates on the list. We have 

hired 27 this year. That was early in the year. 

So, the biggest constraint for us has been fiscal, as I understand 

it from the history. Certainly for me, on my watch, since I have 

been here we haven’t had the luxury of hiring ALJs, because we 

were worried about being in a furlough situation. So, we weren’t 

in a position to do that. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

17 

But, I am very pleased that the list is going to be reopened. I 

have spoken directly to Director Springer. We have offered anything that she wants, in terms of our staffing resources, to help design the test, grade the test, and anything else that she needs to 

move this along. She has responded, I think, very positively to that 

offer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think we are going to try to fix the funding operation, aren’t we? 

Chairman MCNULTY. Yes, we are. We were in the budget process, we had success there. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You didn’t answer the question, though. What 

are you doing to speed up the process in the Agency? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Well, to speed up the process, what we did 

was—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. You have given us an outline and, you know, a 

schedule. But can you speed it up more? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I think that October, the October date, is as fast 

as we can go, reasonably, with all of the steps, because you need 

to give applicants enough time where the announcement is open, 

you need to give them time to submit their applications, to have 

interviews, to have written review, to have scoring. Between now, 

beginning of May, and October, is only a few months. I think we 

will need all of that time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you claim there is a large number on the 

list already. Is that true or false? 

Ms. SPRINGER. There is. There are currently over 1,100 on the 

list. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Well, what are you doing to try to, you 

know, pick them off? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We would prefer at this point, given Office of Personnel Management’s assurance that the list is going to be open 

this fall, in terms of the permanent commitments, to hire off the 

new list. 

The average length of tenure right now for our ALJs is 20 years. 

Getting the absolute best and most dedicated to public service is 

really important. 

So, while we did hire off this list earlier in this fiscal year, in 

the shorter run, we have been looking at the senior judge list as 

a stop-gap, to the extent that we have a little bit of resources that 

we can squeeze out, to hold on until we get the reinforcements. 

Right now, our preference has been to look at the retired judges, 

bring some of them back, and do our best to hold on until we get 

to the list in October. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, you didn’t convince me the other day that 

your judges are working a full day. Are they? 

Mr. ASTRUE. There is a report that came out last Friday from 

our Advisory Board that looked hard at this and some other issues. 

Since it came out last Friday, we haven’t had a chance to fully go 

over that. I went over some of those numbers with the Chairman, 

though, when I last met with the Board about 10 days ago. 

Some of the numbers on productivity are disturbing. Most of the 

ALJs are working hard and putting in a solid effort. There clearly 

is a group of outliers, where you look at the statistics and you have 

to be very concerned about the level of productivity. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

18 

Mr. JOHNSON. What are you doing about them? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, we are taking a look at that, Mr. Johnson. 

We have some constraints. These are civil service appointees. We 

also have the independence of the ALJs layered on top of that. 

But we are looking at that and trying to see if there is anything 

new and different we can do to try to make sure that people are 

not performing the way someone in a lifetime entitlement position 

should be expected to perform. We’re looking really hard to see if 

there is anything new and different that we can—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you write performance reports on all of 

them? 

Mr. ASTRUE. No, I don’t. You mean, me, personally? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, but your people. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I don’t believe that we are allowed to. I will check 

for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Federal personnel law prohibits SSA from rating ALJ performance or granting 

ALJs any award or incentive. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. 

Mr. ASTRUE. My understanding is, certainly when it comes to 

anything related to the decisionmaking itself, we’re not allowed to 

do performance reviews. With regard to productivity and personal 

conduct issues, I believe that we are. 

We have been doing counseling in some of those cases. In some 

of the behavior cases, we have taken ALJs to the Merit Systems 

Protection Board, and I believe some brief suspensions have been 

withheld. I am not fluent with all the details on that. We will provide that for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Unlike other Federal employees, adverse actions against ALJs must be evaluated 

and decided by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board). An 

agency may remove, suspend, reduce in grade, reduce in pay, or furlough an ALJ 

for 30 days or less only when the MSPB has established and determined on the 

record after a hearing that there is good cause. Therefore, in order to take any of 

these adverse actions against an ALJ, SSA must file a formal complaint with the 

MSPB and prove, at a full due process adversarial hearing, that there is good cause 

for taking the action. The MSPB determines the action the Agency can take, and 

only after the MSPB has issued a final decision may the Agency take the action. 

The Board has found that various types of ALJ misconduct constitute good cause, 

and in many cases has authorized an adverse action against ALJs. For example, the 

Board has authorized removing ALJs for misconduct that includes the following: 

long-term tardiness (120 absent without leave charges) that led to hearing delays; 

harassing the Acting Chief ALJ and disrupting office mailing operations; retaliating 

against representatives who filed recusal motions; using profane language and making demeaning remarks to employees; and refusing to comply with supervisory instructions. The Board has sustained 30- to 150-day suspensions for conduct including: refusing to hear cases on travel dockets; falsifying an employment application; 

refusing to comply with case processing procedures; and making derogatory remarks 

to co-workers. The Board has sustained 1- to 20-day suspensions for time and attendance abuse and leave violations. 

Regarding ALJ performance, the Board has found that there was good cause to 

take action against an ALJ who disregarded Appeals Council rulings. As for productivity, the Board has not specifically authorized taking an adverse action against 

ALJs for poor productivity, but it has determined that agencies may bring such actions. 

The Agency, without obtaining Board approval, also may issue formal reprimands 

to ALJs. Recently, the Chief Judge reprimanded an ALJ for his continued failure 

to follow the Agency’s time and attendance policies and procedures. Further, the 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

19 

Agency has addressed misconduct issues by orally counseling ALJs or issuing written counseling letters to the ALJ. 

SSA has taken six ALJ conduct cases to the MSPB since 2002. Four of these cases 

are final, and have resulted in sanctions. The MSPB authorized SSA to remove one 

ALJ from his position and suspend three ALJs, as follows: 

• 60-day suspension 

• 14-day suspension 

• 1-day suspension 

Two cases still are pending at the MSPB on charges filed in fiscal year 2007. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCNULTY. I thank the Ranking Member. Mr. Pomeroy may inquire. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner 

Astrue, has the number of pending claims ever been higher? 

Mr. ASTRUE. No. 

Mr. POMEROY. Director Springer, how old is the present list 

today? 

Ms. SPRINGER. There are people who are on the list that date 

back into the 1990s. There are others that have been added subsequently, in 2003, in the period where we were able to start to add. 

So, some are a few years old. We have been able to add—— 

Mr. POMEROY. But this is 1,000. So, the ones you added were 

the ones that came on because of the veterans preference issues. 

The others, how many of the 1,000 do you estimate came on this 

decade? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I would say that probably about—I’m going to 

guess somewhere around 10 to 15 percent. 

Mr. POMEROY. So, most of them go back to the 1990s. 

Ms. SPRINGER. There are many that probably—most probably 

do go back to the 1990s, the later 1990s. 

Mr. POMEROY. Some as early as 1993. 

Ms. SPRINGER. I believe that’s possible, yes. 

Mr. POMEROY. So, basically, this would be a candidate pool for 

employment that submitted their application for a job somewhere 

in the years 1993 through 1999. Although you indicate, ‘‘Well, we 

got some this decade,’’ that’s probably less than 10 percent. 

So, as a potential employer, Social Security is looking at a job 

pool where the application came in 10 years ago. 

Ms. SPRINGER. With the one understanding that in 2003, every 

one of the ALJs who were on that registry at that time were contacted. If we couldn’t contact them, they were taken off. When we 

did contact them, we wanted to be sure that they still wanted to 

be on the list. We didn’t readminister a test, but there was some 

refreshment of the list at that time. 

Mr. POMEROY. You refreshed—— 

Ms. SPRINGER. But there was no full—— 

Mr. POMEROY. You mean you called people whose job application had been pending for several years and said, ‘‘Do you still 

want to be considered,’’ and they said, ‘‘Yes’’? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I believe that’s essentially correct, yes. 

Mr. POMEROY. Why we are so concerned—I wish I had this in 

a larger fashion—but we think that this chart, which documents 

pending Social Security claims, shows a very stark correlation betjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

20 

tween the number of ALJs processing claims and the extent of the 

backlog. 

What we had happen in the 1990s, we had a rapidly accelerating 

backlog. Among strategies brought to bear on reducing this backlog 

were hiring a higher number of ALJs. The backlog decreased dramatically, as you can see. Hiring stops and the number soars to, 

where the commissioner says, the highest ever. 

So, we think that there is a direct relationship between the number of ALJs and the backlog. We are mightily frustrated that the 

process of getting a candidate pool for ALJs more recent than 10 

years old has been such an insurmountable task for the OPM. 

Let me just go through some hearing testimony that this Committee has received over the last several years, as we have tracked 

this with great interest. In each instance, I will be quoting from 

former Commissioner Barnhart, and I will submit this to the 

record. It’s just excerpts of a review of the record. 

On July 24, 2003, almost 4 years ago, the commissioner was testifying that that day, the case had been ruled in favor of OPM. I 

quote, ‘‘We should be able to begin hiring administrative law judges 

within 6 months, at the outside. That’s very important. We have 

been frozen for over 2 years, almost 3 years.’’ 

By the way, I should tell you that I have the highest regard for 

Commissioner Barnhart, so I don’t submit her quotes in any way 

as indicative of bad information she is bringing the Committee. It 

is, indeed, the information that we have that has brought us to this 

high frustration that the list has been closed. 

A couple of months later, September 25, 2003, asking about the 

ALJs, she says, ‘‘Well, I wish I could give you a better report. It’s 

true the issue has been resolved, but now the Office of Personnel 

Management has to develop another register, a new administrative 

law judge register, and go through the whole process. I was advised 

just this week it probably looks like the entire process is going to 

take a year.’’ So, she is frustrated in 2003. It could take as far as 

a year, into 2004. 

Well, a year later, almost a year later to the day, September 30, 

2004, ‘‘We have been advised by OPM that they need to redo to the 

examination, they need to pilot it. Therefore, we cannot expect a 

brandnew register until the end of calendar year 2005.’’ 

So, apparently nothing has been done in the year between her 

testimony, because it’s the same old list of things that OPM has 

to do that haven’t been begun yet. 

Later—another year passes. So, it’s September 27, 2005. Commissioner Barnhart states, ‘‘We are, in think, about 100 to 150 

short. The Office of Personnel Management now has to recast the 

entire test, and the factors for eligibility. They have not developed 

a test. Once they develop the test, they have to test it, pre-test it.’’ 

In May of 2006, she indicated that the Office of Personnel Management did publish a notice of proposed rule in December. ‘‘They 

tell us regulation will be final in about 3 months.’’ 

Well, then, of course, in February of this year, we learn that 

after all the years you took to get a rule out there, you left the rule 

open for well over a year. It’s published in December of 2005, and 

it’s—we find out on Valentine’s Day of this year that that rule is 

still open. So, we are deeply concerned that years have passed betjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

21 

fore the rule is published, and then the rule is just left to sit out 

there forever. 

In the meantime, the claims mount. This is the bottom line on 

our concern. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Right. 

Mr. POMEROY. This isn’t like we can fly speck every agency’s 

performance for competence—I wish we could, with the oversight 

dimensions of congress, but we don’t have enough resources to do 

that. 

So, what really has attracted us to this fatal flow of OPM’s management is that the case—the backlog is skyrocketing. In 1998, we 

had 1,153 ALJs. We had a backlog of 334,524. Today, we have, as 

the Commissioner indicated, 1,082? 

Mr. ASTRUE. 1,082. 

Mr. POMEROY. Maybe 1,100, maybe 1,108 ALJs, in the 1,100 

range. So, we have fewer number today than we had in 1998, and 

our backlog is 716,000 and rising. 

What I fear has happened is that you have got people that—history shows 65 percent are going to be found to be entitled to disability benefits when the ALJ stage of the appeal is completed, 65 

percent. Yet, they are forced to wait. They can’t work, that’s why 

they have applied for disability. So, they are waiting without income, in despair and in deep poverty, and they can’t get their cases 

settled. That’s the reality on the ground. 

A reality downtown is the Office of Personnel Management is fiddling around, years go by before they can even get around to all 

the things they have to get around to, and then they put a rule out 

and it sits for a year, and you still can’t hire an ALJ today. 

So, I think that this is a deeply disturbing record by the Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, in particular. It 

goes back to your predecessor, but it also includes your 2 years 

there. The bottom line is, in my view, people are being hurt, some 

of the most vulnerable people in this country are being hurt every 

day because of bureaucratic bungling at OPM that has not given 

Social Security a qualified list of applicants to adjudicate these Social Security appeals. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has long since expired. I would be happy 

to have the director’s response to what I have said, but I want to 

commend you and the Ranking Member, Mr. Johnson, for holding 

this hearing, so that we can bring this situation to light. I hope 

something is done very quickly. 

Chairman MCNULTY. We have time. The director may reply. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a few 

things. 

Certainly we, along with the commissioner and the Members of 

the Subcommittee, hope to see that number go down. To the extent 

that we participate in that directly, it is with respect to ALJs, as 

you say. The other aspects of the adjudication process and the review process that are other than ALJ, I can’t speak to. 

But with respect to the ALJ, there is no question that I think 

everyone at OPM—certainly me, coming in and inheriting this— 

would have wanted to see a compressed, a faster process, to getting 

to that updated list, as Commissioner Barnhart expected when she 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

22 

testified. That certainly would have been my expectation, and a 

reasonable expectation. 

That is why, after I got your call, I shortened the timeframe for 

the balance of the steps that needed to be taken, which is the only 

thing I can do. I can’t go back and change what happened. But 

what I can do is fix, going forward, and make sure that that happens with all due haste. 

Now, the only thing I can say about this interim period from 

2003 until now, with respect to the quality of ALJs, and ALJs 

available to Social Security and the other Federal agencies, is that 

I know the numbers speak for themselves, that over 560 were hired 

by SSA. 

Now, in many cases, people were not hired. Sometimes that’s because of geographic constraint. If you need the ALJ in a certain geographic area, they may not be willing to relocate for that. So, if 

the numbers had shown that only 5 were hired, or 10 were hired, 

I would have said, ‘‘Oh, shame on OPM, particularly, for not having 

paid attention to that.’’ 

But the fact that 560 were hired leads me to think that OPM felt 

they could take a more deliberate process in reconstituting the 

exam and the regulation. I don’t think that’s a good reason, but I 

would imagine that that was what they took comfort in. But 560 

were, in fact, hired. So, I think they felt that the current list, even 

as old as it was, was servicing the community. 

That doesn’t mean it should have taken that long, and that’s 

why, going forward, we’re on a much faster path. 

Mr. POMEROY. If I might respond, Mr. Chairman? 

Of course, that would assume that—your testimony would assume that we are holding the existing pool steady. People retire 

every week. So the number is dropping. So, in replacing 500 and 

hiring 500, you’re replacing some significant number. Your contribution to the system, in terms of total number of ALJs, is not 

nearly an addition of 500. 

Additionally, if the people working in OPM are only looking at 

how many names are on a 10-year-old list, and paying no attention 

to the information brought to them by Social Security on a skyrocketing backlog, we have really got people working in silos, and 

not aware of a broader picture, because we’ve got a—since 2000, we 

have got a spiraling number of disability claims pending, taking us 

to the highest point ever. 

A final point I would make, in terms of where we go from here. 

I appreciate the commissioner’s thoughts of hiring some 150 more. 

That would bring us to 1,263. That—but I want you to think more 

aggressively than that. 

In her September 30, 2004 testimony, the commissioner is quoted 

as saying, ‘‘I believe we need to have around 1,300.’’ You would 

bring it to 1,263, if I’ve got my math right. I would just say that 

right now, the case log, the pending backlog, is 21 percent higher 

than it was in 2004, when the commissioner wanted to bring it to 

1,300. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Mr. POMEROY. So, if she needed 1,300 in 2004, you need a 

higher amount to deal with the greatest backlog ever in this disability adjudication. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

23 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. Mr. Pomeroy, let me respond. Before I do, I 

would like to ask the Chairman for permission to correct the 

record. In the pressure of the moment, I confused my fiscal year 

and my calendar year in an earlier response. 

So, we have, in fact, not hired any ALJs this fiscal year. We 

hired 38 in fiscal year 2006. So, I feel better, having corrected the 

record. 

Mr. Pomeroy, I agree that we probably are going to need more 

in the subsequent years. I think one of the important things is to 

use them effectively, and smarter than we have before. I want to 

make sure that we don’t rush. This is going to be a big group, in 

terms of systems, training, and placement. There is some limit on 

our system, in terms of how many we can absorb in any 1 year. 

I am not suggesting that the 1,250 is a cap for even the year after. 

To get to that 1,250, we are going to need to hit the President’s 

budget, plus we’re going through a zero-based budgeting exercise to 

try to free up FTEs, because we’re going to need roughly 800 FTEs 

when you add in the support staff. That’s a lot for us, in our situation. When we see what the budget situation is, when we have got 

this next group of ALJs trained, it is probable that we will come 

back the following year and ask for more. 

One of the things I think we want to test and see what we do 

in subsequent years is how effective is a centralized group of ALJs 

doing electronic hearings, set up primarily to deal with the backlog. 

We have got some systems and procedures work we need to do to 

get a slightly different system in place. That may be part of the answer, over the long run. So, I would like to pilot that well, not rush 

it. 

We have a history of rushing some of our best ideas, and not implementing them well. Unfortunately, I think that is part of the 

issue with DSI we’re seeing right now. So, if an idea is a good one, 

it is good enough to do it right. 

So, what I would like to say is, it may very well be that the trend 

in outyears is we have fewer ALJs in the hearing offices and more 

in the central office. We want to test that concept, make sure we’ve 

got it right, make sure claimants are happy, make sure you’re 

happy, before we go out and unroll that in a much bigger way. 

I think there is a reasonable chance that we will come back to 

you in the subsequent year’s budget, and ask for more ALJs, based 

on the success of that experiment. I want to make sure that it’s a 

success before we go forward. 

Chairman MCNULTY. Ms. Tubbs Jones may inquire. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, 

Madam Director, I, unfortunately did not hear all of the questions 

from my colleagues. I have actually, however, read both of your 

statements. 

You know, my constituents out there in Cleveland. They don’t 

really want to hear all this craziness you all are talking—I hate to 

call it craziness, I should call it government mumbo-jumbo—about 

why their cases are not being heard. You know, it sounds like, ‘‘In 

the outyears, we’re going to do this, and we’re going to examine 

whether or not the administrative judges are being used appropriately.’’ 

How old is your—how old is the Agency? 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

24 

Mr. ASTRUE. The Agency—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Yes, the Social Security Administration. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Was founded in 1935. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. How long have you been using administrative law judges? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I would have to go back. A long time. Decades. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Turn around. Maybe one of your staff can 

answer. How long—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Let me say, first of all—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. No, no, no. 

Mr. ASTRUE. No—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. You’re not going to take up my time. I’m 

going to ask questions, and you’re going to answer my questions. 

How long—how many administrative—how long have you been 

using administrative law judges? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We will submit that answer for the record. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I would—I think your staff can tell me the 

answer right now, sir. What’s the problem? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, if you would hold on, and let me consult—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. No, I don’t want to hold on. I want to know 

how long you have been using administrative law judges. It’s a 

simple question. 

Mr. ASTRUE. If you want to give me a moment to consult with 

my staff, to make sure that the answer—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. That’s what I asked you to do, sir, turn 

around and talk to them. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Then that’s fine. Then I will do that. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Thank you. 

Mr. ASTRUE. There is some question of definition. We have been 

using what we would call hearing examiners since 1940. Since 

some time in the early 1970s—and we will provide the exact date 

for the record—we started using what the government would call 

ALJs. 

[The information follows:] 

SSA has employed administrative law judges (ALJs) and their predecessors, hearing examiners and referees, since creating the hearing process in 1940. The Civil 

Service Commission began using the term ALJ in 1972, and the term was statutorily adopted by Congress in 1978. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Great. This is your second time here, and 

we seem to have some complication in dealing. But the reality is 

that I am happy that you have the opportunity to be the head, the 

commissioner of this agency. But more importantly, I want my constituents to be happy that they are getting what they are entitled 

to, as recipients of disability. 

But the point we are trying to make here, sir, is at this point, 

this agency, after all these years, ought to have it right. They 

ought to be able to process claims, and deal with these workers 

who are losing their houses, going bankrupt, being—because we 

can’t manage to get through the disability process in a timely fashion. 

What all of us are looking for, as Members of this Committee, 

both the Republicans and the Democrats, is a means by which we 

have administrative law judges who are processing cases quickly— 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

25 

or maybe I shouldn’t say quickly—they are processing them in a 

fashion that allows the disability claimants to get a fair, impartial 

hearing in a timely manner. 

I want to talk to Ms. Springer for a moment. This—where is 

this? It’s on the end of your statement. This chart represents what 

you are going to do to help us get to a larger number of ALJs to 

process our claims, right? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Early May. Late May to mid-July. Mid-July 

to early September. Mid-July to mid-October, late October. There 

is so much uncertainly in those early/late/mid, that the people out 

in America, who are waiting on their claims probably would like a 

little more certainty. Can you give me an explanation of what early 

May means for ‘‘announcement open and minimum qualifications 

review’’? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Early May means—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Today is May 1. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. That is early May, right? 

Ms. SPRINGER. In the next few days. I will be glad to get back 

to you, and I committed to the Chairman that each month we will 

give you a very specific update on exactly what we’re doing. But 

that first one is in a few days. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. But—and all the preparatory work that you 

have need to do, you have already taken care of? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. In terms of we’re through questioning 

whether or not you can hire. We’re through the case that kept you 

from hiring. We’re through the processing and the publication of 

regulations, and all that kind of stuff? 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. So, it’s all left to your department, or your 

agency, for us to make sure that we get ALJs coming up. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. So, when we’re back here in late October, 

and we want to find out how many judges you have hired, and 

what the process is in, you will be able to give it to us with some 

certainty? 

Ms. SPRINGER. That is my goal, and I don’t want to wait until 

then, I want to give you updates each month on—as we finish each 

of these steps, so that you know that we’re on track, and we’re entirely transparent. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. How much input does the commissioner 

have in your process? 

Ms. SPRINGER. I discussed the time line with the director, to 

make sure that this—that he is aware of it, number one, and also 

to request that he could help us to provide some support for the 

judging process, and he has agreed to do that. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Commissioner, you were with Social Security previously. Is that correct, sir? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that’s true. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. How long ago was that? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Decades ago, from 1986 to 1988. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

26 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. 1986? What were you doing then? I’m out 

of time, okay. Can I get just—what were you—what did you do, 

1986 to 1988? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I was Counselor to the Commissioner. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Okay, great. Thank you. 

Chairman MCNULTY. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Levin, 

who is a long-time Member of this Subcommittee and the former 

Ranking Member, may now inquire. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief, 

because while I had to do something else for a few minutes, I did 

hear some of it, and I heard both your opening statement and Mr. 

Johnson’s equally eloquent opening statement. 

So, let me just say, you know, when we have cases like this in 

our district offices, it is hard to live with this. It is hard to tell people that—who are disabled, and in the majority of cases would be 

adjudicated disabled, who are without resources, we tell them that 

the U.S. Government has months, years before we’re going to get 

to their case. 

For them, this is like Katrina. I think there has been a combination of incompetence and insensitivity in this—in the government. 

These last years, Congress did not act. To the benefit of this congress, we decided to do something. 

I will close with this. I don’t know how you people can continue 

doing your work with these results. I don’t know how you live with 

yourselves. If you met—what is it—700,000 people, they came into 

your offices all at once, and you looked, and two-thirds of them 

were going to get benefits, that’s more or less—and now they have 

nothing? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Let me try to answer that, because I think that 

is directed more at me than at Director Springer. I am as unhappy 

as any of you with the situation and the disability backlog process. 

This is why I came back to Washington. There is really not much 

else that’s high profile happening at the Agency right now. This is 

a longstanding historic interest of mine; it’s a professional interest, 

and it’s a personal interest. I took my father through this process 

in 1985. 

Mr. LEVIN. So, are you going to speak out when there is inadequate money? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I already have. That’s part of my testimony, it’s 

been part of every single visit I’ve taken to the Hill. I made three 

visits last week to Members of the Appropriations Committee. I’ve 

got one this afternoon. I am doing everything I know how to do to 

move this along. 

I spent 60 percent of my time in the first 6 weeks on this disability review. We start every single weekly senior staff meeting 

with a report from Jim Winn, my Associate General Counsel, on 

proposed regulatory and legislative changes. 

At the end of the 6 weeks, we had specs. We have had the drafting begin. We are sending things over to OMB. We’re not trying to 

package things together for Public Relations purposes, the way 

these things are often done. At every single meeting, we ask the 

question, ‘‘Is there anything we can do to move this along faster?’’ 

I’ve only been back a couple of months. I am doing everything I 

know to move this along. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

27 

Mr. LEVIN. You are going to meet with the staff every month, 

is that—— 

Chairman MCNULTY. Director Springer has committed to 

monthly staff updates between her staff and the staff of the Subcommittee, and we are going to keep on schedule with that. 

Mr. LEVIN. I think it is a tribute to what you are doing. I think 

you can expect full fury from these two gentlemen. They’re good at 

it. They will have the back-up of all of us. 

I don’t—there aren’t very many people more vulnerable that we 

have treated more shabbily. You have been here a few years, doing 

this. 

Ms. SPRINGER. If I may? Congressman, for my part, I want to 

acknowledge that the call that I got from this Committee after the 

last hearing helped me to push the OPM process faster. That has 

resulted in our faster time table for getting new ALJs. So, our contribution to fixing that backlog, the—just specifically, the ALJ 

piece—will go much faster, as a result of the oversight of this Subcommittee. 

So, I appreciate that, and you have got my commitment, not only 

to making the date, but to keeping you updated each step, as we 

go along. 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, good luck. There will be more on your case. 

Ms. SPRINGER. That’s fine. 

Mr. LEVIN. Congratulations on this hearing. 

Chairman MCNULTY. I thank the gentleman. With the agreement of the Ranking Member, we would like to invite distinguished—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Thank you. 

Chairman MCNULTY [continuing]. Member Stephanie Tubbs 

Jones to continue to inquire. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Commissioner, you said the reason you 

came back to Washington is to deal with the disability problem? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that’s correct. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Where were you? You said you came back 

to Washington. Where were you? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I was in Boston, which is—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. What were you doing in Boston? 

Mr. ASTRUE. For 14 years, I was working with biotech companies, mostly working in the orphan drug area. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Okay. So, now, let me hear what you’re 

going to do. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Again, I’m somewhat constrained here, because we 

have got a package of things that we either have sent to OMB, or 

are in the process of sending to OMB. Therefore, I am not free to 

discuss those packages. 

You can see some of the directions in which we are heading from 

the testimony. You can see that we have made significant systems 

changes, which I discussed in my testimony. We have made 

changes to promote the productivity of ALJs by the use of the FIT 

template that I have discussed. 

We have done what we can do extremely quickly, and administratively, there is precious little that I am allowed to do. So, I am 

working the process as fast and as hard as I can, to the extent that 

we have administrative things that we are doing. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

28 

We have accomplishments. We have made a target of reducing 

those ‘‘aged’’ cases. If you had been here during the testimony, you 

would have heard that—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I read your testimony. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I didn’t have to hear it. 

Mr. ASTRUE. All right. So, we were up at 63,000—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Don’t challenge me about whether I was 

here or not, okay? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We were up at 63,000 ‘‘aged’’ cases as of October 

1. We are on track to get rid of that by the end of the year. In fact, 

we are ahead of that pace. We are doing what we can, 

administrativly, as fast as we can. To the extent that my hands are 

tied until I go through procedures and processes, that is what I am 

doing, and I am moving as hard and—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Well, what can we do to help untie your 

hands? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. What can we do—since you say you’re so 

constrained, tell us what we, as Members of Congress, can do to 

help untie your hands, sir. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. The most important thing that you can do 

is make sure that we come in at least at the President’s budget. 

That hasn’t happened in 5 years. 

There is some joint responsibility for this problem. If Congress 

had appropriated the money requested in the past 5 years, we 

would be in a much better situation. We would have been able to 

hire administrative law judges, and make other changes. Also, 

when we go through—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Well, you know, in response to that, there 

are a lot of issues that we can talk about, why there is no money 

to appropriate. But I accept that. 

Mr. ASTRUE. If I could—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. We could appropriate a lot of money. 

Mr. ASTRUE. If I could—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. What else can I do? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay. When we’re going through the DSI process, 

it is a very complicated set of proposals. Everyone has things they 

like, and things they don’t like. 

One of the concerns that I have going through it is that some of 

the things that are popular in the Congress require an awful lot 

of FTEs. If I have to keep spending those FTEs on aspects of DSI 

that have very little connection with reducing the backlog, that is 

going to tie my hands in doing the things that I need to do to reduce the backlog, the most important thing being getting a significant number of additional ALJs online and using them better and 

smarter than we have before. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. So, are you suggesting that DSI is not a 

good idea? 

Mr. ASTRUE. No, that’s not what I said. What I have said many 

times before is that it is a complicated package of ideas. Some of 

them are terrifically good ideas. Some of them are good ideas that 

need modification. Some of them appear to me that they are not 

as good as they thought they were, and some of them may actually 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

29 

harm the backlog problem, if we were to roll them out nationally—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Are you suggesting, then, that we need to 

set aside some of the DSI proposals in order to hire administrative 

judges? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We may need to do that. Again, we are working 

very hard to come up with the numbers to try to come up with the 

consensus to do this. I have briefed—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. So what have you got to say that I—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. If I could finish? We have briefed your staff, the 

Committee’s staff, on a bipartisan basis about this, as this is a 

work in progress. OMB came up and did a 3-day site visit, so that 

we could try to come up with numbers, so that we could come up 

with solid, agreed-upon costs for some of these things so that we 

could have a conversation, not only internally, but with the Committee staff and the Members about what’s most important, what 

is the priority, going forward. 

Unfortunately, this was set up as an ‘‘initiative,’’ not as a demonstration project. It has been harder, therefore, to pull numbers 

out of this that everybody can rely on, than if it had been done differently. That’s too bad. I am stuck with it. We are doing the best 

we can, as fast as we can. We have been as transparent as possible, 

with staff both on this Committee and the Finance Committee 

about where we are, what we are doing, and how we are trying to 

move quickly to fix this. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I am so happy that you are working so hard 

in order—in your new job. But I am confident that you are not 

working any harder than I work every day. So, you don’t get sympathy about the work hard. 

But let me say this to you, Mr. Commissioner. I would like to invite you to Cleveland, Ohio, to talk to my constituents who are 

claimants, who are waiting in line. I invited Commissioner 

Barnhart to Cleveland, she came to Cleveland. She had a chance 

to speak to the staff from your own agency and then hear from the 

people. 

Because we all work hard. All of our goal is to make sure that 

the people of America get what they pay for, meaning the money 

that they put into the process. I look forward to having a relationship with you, Commissioner, and having the opportunity to work 

on behalf of the people of America. 

But understand, unfortunately, you took this job in the situation 

that it is in, and you’ve got to wear it, just like all of us wear whatever else happens in the job. So, you know, get some thick skin and 

come on and hang with us. We’re ready to make a difference. 

Mr. ASTRUE. With all due respect, if I didn’t have a thick skin, 

I wouldn’t be here. I responded to the implication that we weren’t 

doing enough, and I wasn’t doing enough, because that’s not true. 

If the suggestion is that we don’t get it, and that we’re not focused on what the priorities are, that is simply wrong. That’s not 

true. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Well, you know, Commissioner, in life—I 

know your mother probably told you this—‘‘Don’t say it, show it.’’ 

Mr. ASTRUE. With all due respect, this is an extraordinarily 

complicated process. It takes time to change some things. We have 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

30 

changed what we can in the short run. We have listed that for you. 

We have gone through with the staff in detail about what we’re 

thinking of, what we’re trying to do, and how we’re going through 

the process. You know, I don’t have unilateral—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. That sounds good. 

Mr. ASTRUE [continuing]. Power, you haven’t given it to me. 

You haven’t—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. It sound good. Show me. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Fine. We are going to show you. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Thank you. 

Chairman MCNULTY. The Ranking Member may inquire. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, both of 

you, Social Security employs over 80 percent of all Federal administrative law judges. Yet, Social Security has almost no say in how 

those judges are recruited, or under what standards. 

I wonder how your agencies work together in drafting a new regulation. 

Ms. SPRINGER. If I may, sir? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Ms. SPRINGER. Yes. Social Security gave us comments along 

the way several times, and we—when the proposed regs were out, 

when they were becoming final, when they were being drafted. We 

also gave them additional opportunity to comment beyond what the 

typical community would be allowed to have. 

So, we have worked very closely, not only on the regulations, but 

also on the qualifications standards, because, as you say, they are 

the biggest customer we have in this whole process. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have a separate register for Social Security? 

Ms. SPRINGER. No, we don’t. We don’t. It’s all one register, because the qualifications are designed to be a—meet a threshold 

that should apply to all agencies. We want all ALJs to be at a certain level of qualification. So, the same test, the same exam, and 

the same register is available for all agencies, whether they are a 

large customer or a small customer. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You feel like your ideas have been included in 

the process? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. I think that while Director Springer and I are 

just getting to know each other, we have talked by telephone on 

these issues, and our staffs do talk with some regularity on all of 

these issues. As I said, I think that the working relationship on 

most issues at the staff level is fine. 

As I said, we are planning on sending a whole slew of our people 

over there to work to try to move this process along. From everything I can see, at the staff level, things are working just fine. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you both for being here. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman MCNULTY. Thank the Ranking Member. Mr. Becerra 

may inquire. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here. I apologize for having gotten here a little late. 

I know you have been asked a number of questions about where 

we are going, and I appreciate some of your responses, in terms of 

trying to bring on the staff that are needed to address the backlogs. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

31 

Do you have a level of confidence that you are going to receive 

the dollars from the Administration, through their budget request, 

that you need? I know you have said that you have—if you get 

what the President has requested in his budget, that you would be 

happy with that. But getting what the President has requested in 

his budget, is that enough to get you where you need to go to try 

to markedly reduce this backlog? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I think so. I think it will make a significant downpayment. I am holding open the question of what we might need 

in the outyears, and whether we need to make some adjustment. 

We’re not there yet. 

I think that getting that budget, though, is important. I am trying to make a personal commitment. We are trying to visit as many 

Members of the Appropriations Committees as possible. I think 

perhaps we have been guilty of relying too much on all of you and 

your colleagues over at the Finance Committee, and I don’t want 

to make that mistake. 

So, I’m going on a regular basis to plead my case more broadly 

and am doing it again this afternoon. 

Mr. BECERRA. Now, do you believe—give us a sense, in a year— 

May 1, 2008. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Mr. BECERRA. What will you have accomplished, if you get the 

moneys that you—that the President requested? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I know people are impatient, and I sympathize 

with that. But it is going to take a little time to turn this around. 

Assuming that we get the President’s budget, and we can hire 

ALJs on schedule, and there isn’t a sudden turn in the economy 

that changes the number of applications in disability filers. We 

don’t have precise numbers now—but, in general, we think what 

we’re looking to, essentially, hold the line about where we are now 

until early next year. 

We think with the regulatory and legislative proposals we’ve got 

that hopefully will be out, with further progress on the system side, 

with additional ALJs, we will actually start to drive those down 

some time early next year. I can’t give you a precise date. 

Our hope is that we can get it going down almost as fast as it 

went up. That’s our goal. We think that if we can squeeze out of 

our budget room for the FTEs and the ALJs, and we get the budget, we can hire on time, we think that’s an attainable goal. 

Mr. BECERRA. There were a lot of ‘‘ifs’’ in what you said. 

Mr. ASTRUE. There are a lot of ‘‘ifs’’ there, that’s right. 

Mr. BECERRA. Okay. Is one of the ‘‘ifs’’ that, even if you get the 

money, you may not be able to hire the ALJs that you need? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I am assuming that that’s going to go forward. 

There is pending litigation, and I think my main concern is the 

pending litigation might somehow interfere with our hiring of the 

ALJs. I am hopeful that that won’t happen. 

Mr. BECERRA. You’re hoping to at least not have the backlog 

increase. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that’s right. We have actually taken some 

risk here. I had some concern—I was very clear with Deputy Commissioner deSoto when I came on, that I wanted to make reducing 

the ‘‘aged’’ cases a top priority. I understood, because those typitjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

32 

cally take, I believe, an average of 17 hours to clear up, that that 

might have a negative impact on the caseload, overall. 

Fortunately, we have been able to bring down those aged cases 

without too bad of an effect on the caseload, overall. When we have 

gotten rid of those ‘‘aged’’ cases, hopefully, it will be that much 

easier to keep it approximately level until the cavalry comes over 

the hill. 

Mr. BECERRA. So, do you think you’re going to reduce the days 

that it takes to get these cases in and out the door? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Absolutely. I don’t think we can do it any other 

way. That’s the goal. 

Mr. BECERRA. Okay. But so, what—how many days will you reduce the wait, or the time it takes to process a case? What are 

some numbers? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes—— 

Mr. BECERRA. Next year, May 1, 2008. Tell us, what will disability applicants find in a year? 

Mr. ASTRUE. What we are focused on, in terms of the metrics 

right now, is the overall numbers of dispositions, the overall number of cases pending, and the number of ‘‘aged’’ cases pending—— 

Mr. BECERRA. You have had to have projected out—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Mr. BECERRA [continuing]. What the dollars will give you. If— 

again, there are lots of ifs—but if things fall in place, you hire the 

ALJs, you don’t have problems with the litigation—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. I don’t want to misspeak. We have metrics for 

translating caseload data into average time. I don’t think I can do 

that on the top of my head, and I don’t want to get it wrong. So, 

if I could, I would submit that for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

The FY 2008 President’s budget assumes hearing receipts in FY 2008 will exceed 

the number processed in that year, resulting in increases to the number of hearings 

pending and average processing time. In FY 2008, with full funding of the President’s budget, SSA expects to process 548,000 hearings. The number of hearings 

pending is expected to increase from 738,000 in FY 2007 to 768,000 in FY 2008. 

The President’s budget assumes that the average processing time for hearing decisions will increase to 541 days in FY 2008, from an estimated 524 days in FY 2007, 

and an actual level of 483 days in FY 2006. 

Mr. BECERRA. If you could, please submit it for the record. It 

would be nice to know, for the money that you get, what the American public gets. I think it’s important, because of the dire situation 

that you are in, and because of the growing caseload that you have, 

what could be expected. 

It could be that what the President has requested doesn’t do us 

enough good, and that we have to go beyond that. If you don’t tell 

us that—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Mr. BECERRA. If you’re just going to stay stagnant at where you 

were before, that doesn’t help all those applicants who are waiting 

hundreds and hundreds of days. 

Mr. ASTRUE. You will know, because as you undoubtedly recall, 

under the independent agency statute, the Congress and the public 

get to see my request, not just the President’s request. I haven’t 

had a chance to make that first budget request yet. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

33 

So, you will be able to see, for this next one and the years after, 

what we are requesting, and presumably have an understanding of 

why. If there is a difference, then you will be able to have a dialog 

with me and the Administration. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCNULTY. I want to thank all of the Members for 

their inquiries. We are deeply appreciative to both the commissioner and the director, for coming here personally. 

I just wanted to make a final comment. Any time that I am 

interacting with someone to try to address a serious problem, I try 

to put myself in their position. I have tried to put myself in your 

position, in assessing how difficult and complicated this particular 

problem is. 

I also ask, as we move forward, that you try to put yourself in 

our position, as representatives of the people, and what it’s like for 

us when someone comes in to our office with what appears to be 

a very legitimate case for their application for a Federal program 

like this program. They say to us, ‘‘Representative, how long is it 

going to take to get an answer?’’ We have to tell them, ‘‘Maybe a 

couple of years.’’ 

This must stop. This is unacceptable. It is a national embarrassment. I want to thank you for committing to what you have committed to today. As I see it, there are a number of parts to the puzzle. 

But the two major ones are the funding issue, where I think, 

with the help of some of these Members, and with your help, we 

have made significant progress. In the House budget resolution, we 

are $400 million over the President’s request. I think we are going 

to get a similar number in the Senate. So, we are making progress 

on that. 

I thank the Members, and I thank you for what you are doing 

with regard to the appropriations process. That is the next step. 

That is what we are working now, to make sure that we have a 

good outcome, as far as the resources are concerned. I think we are 

going to do that. 

The other major part of the puzzle is getting this new register. 

That is why I am thankful, Director Springer, for your commitment 

to stick with this schedule, to give us monthly reports, so that we 

make sure that we’re on track. 

If we do those two things this year, we have a reasonable chance 

to do what the commissioner just referred to, and that’s reversing 

this trend on the backlog, getting it going in the downward direction, and getting the people, the resources, that they need and deserve. The hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

Statement of Association of Administrative Law Judges 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement regarding the backlog of 

disability cases at the Social Security Administration, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. My name is Ronald G. Bernoski. I am an administrative law judge 

who has been hearing Social Security Disability cases in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for 

over 25 years. 

I also serve as President of the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ), 

a position I have held for over a decade. Our organization represents the administrative law judges employed at the Social Security Administration and the Departtjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

34 

ment of Health and Human Services. One of the stated purposes of the AALJ is to 

promote and preserve full due process hearings in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act for those individuals who seek adjudication of program entitlement disputes within the SSA. The AALJ represents about 1100 of the approximately 1400 administrative law judges in the entire Federal Government. 

In 1946 the Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act to reform the administrative hearing process and procedure in the Federal Government. The 1930’s 

had seen a rapid growth of administrative law with hearings being conducted by 

hearing examiners appointed by the agencies. The tenure and status of these hearing examiners were governed by the Classification Act of 1923, as amended. Under 

this Act, the classification of these hearing examiners was determined by ratings 

given to them by the agency and their compensation and promotion depended upon 

their classification. This placed them in a dependent status. Many complaints were 

voiced against this system with allegations raised that the hearing examiners were 

‘‘mere tools of the agency’’ and subservient to the agency heads in their proposed 

findings of fact and recommendations. 

With the adoption of the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress provided that 

hearing examiners (now administrative law judges) be given independence and tenure within the existing Civil Service system. By making this change, Congress made 

hearing examiners ‘‘ a special class of semi-independent subordinate hearing officers’’ by vesting control of their compensation, promotion and tenure in the Civil 

Service Commission (now U.S. Office of Personnel Management) to a much greater 

extent than in the case of other Federal employees. This change removed hearing 

examiners from strict compliance with the Classification Act and transferred some 

of the agency controlled functions (pay, promotion and tenure) to the Civil Service 

Commission to protect the American public by giving administrative law judges 

decisional independence. Congress also gave the Civil Service Commission oversight 

authority for the hearings system provided under the Administrative Procedure Act, 

which included providing an annual report to Congress and appointing needed advisory committees. [See Ramspeck v. Federal Trial Examiners Conference, 345 U.S. 

128 (1953).] 

Before discussing OPM’s management of the ALJ program, I would like to note 

that Commissioner Astrue, immediately after his appointment, invited us to meet 

with him to discuss important issues he would be facing as the new Commissioner. 

We did meet with him during the first week of April. The principal issue we discussed was the backlog. During this discussion we both agreed that in order to reduce the backlog it would be necessary to hire additional best qualified applicant 

judges as soon as possible. We mutually agreed to work closely together toward this 

important goal. 

We believe OPM has defaulted on its responsibility to regulate the Federal administrative law judge program. It has failed to maintain a current register for the 

agencies to use for hiring new administrative law judges (ALJ), and the current register has been closed to most new applicants since 1999. It has also abolished the 

OPM Office of Administrative Law Judges leaving no single office or person in 

charge of overseeing this function. 

OPM is solely responsible for the current crisis with the administrative law judge 

register and the hiring process for the various agencies, including the Social Security Administration. Director Springer, in her written testimony, conceded the current ALJ hiring register at OPM has been closed since an adverse ruling by the 

Merit Systems Protection Board in 1999. In that case the plaintiffs had challenged 

the legal sufficiency of the ALJ examination. An appeal of the case was taken to 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and OPM prevailed in 

a decision issued by the court in 2003. At that time, OPM had a register found to 

be legally valid by a court and it could have immediately started to receive and 

process all new applications for the ALJ position. This would have allowed OPM to 

provide the agencies with all the new judges needed to meet the existing demand, 

while it worked on developing a new examination process for placing names of applicants on a new register. OPM instead created the current problem by not resuming 

the processing of applications after the litigation had ended. In fact, OPM has acted 

as if it had lost the lawsuit and not like a party that had prevailed in the litigation. 

According to the data submitted at the hearing by OPM, it has provided only 363 

new administrative law judges for SSA since 1999 when the register closed. That 

is only 45 judges per year, no more than enough to keep up with normal attrition. 

OPM is now attempting to establish a new ALJ hiring register, and according to 

its written and oral testimony at the hearing the process will not be completed until 

late October 2007. We fully anticipate that the ‘‘time-line’’ for the new register will 

not be strictly adhered to and the register will not be completed until January 2008. 

Social Security will then need to request a ‘‘certificate’’ of applicants for a new judge 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

35 

class. After receiving the certificate, Social Security will need to complete its hiring 

process which consists of interviewing, selecting and placing the new judges in hearing offices. This process will be followed by a five week ‘‘new judge training course.’’ 

We anticipate that this hiring process will delay the starting date for these new 

judges and they will not be hearing cases until June 2008, which is over a year from 

the date of this hearing. We believe that this time period could have been shortened 

by OPM processing new applications for the existing register and thereby providing 

new ALJs to SSA in a more timely manner. This approach would provide OPM with 

ample time to establish a new ALJ examination and register, while continuing to 

meet the needs of agencies with new judges. 

We anticipate additional litigation which may cause more delay. There are several 

grounds. Since applicants on the existing register will be required to qualify under 

the new ALJ exam, an individual harmed by the transition to the new register may 

challenge the fairness of the new procedure. Subsequent to the hearing OPM announced, on May 4, 2007, that it was only opening the new register for the first 

1250 applicants or until May 18, 2007, whichever occurred first. We feel applicant 

1251 may protest. We have just learned that OPM closed the new register at midnight May 8, 2007. This means that after being closed since 1999, the new register 

was opened for just 4 days. We believe that this short time period has denied many 

best qualified applicants the opportunity to complete for a position on the ALJ hiring register. 

We believe OPM, by abolishing its Office of Administrative Law Judges, directly 

led to this crisis. This office had been in existence in OPM for many years and at 

one time was headed by an administrative law judge. It was through this office that 

OPM administered the ALJ program in the Federal Government, including maintaining the hiring register. Several years ago, OPM abolished this office and dispersed its responsibilities throughout the agency on a functional basis. There is now 

no office or person in OPM that we know of who is responsible for oversight of the 

ALJ function in the Federal Government. This is of great importance, because the 

Administrative Procedure Act gave OPM an oversight and regulatory responsibility 

over ALJs that it does not have for other Federal employees. With this office now 

abolished, there is no effective system in OPM to carry out this vital function. This 

responsibility was entrusted to OPM by the Congress to protect the American public 

by ensuring the decisional independence of administrative law judges. Congress in 

enacting the APA was determined to provide a full and fair hearing for the American people that was free from undue agency influence over the decision maker 

judge. OPM has breached this trust. At one time OPM was required to file an annual report with Congress on the state of the ALJ function in the Federal Government. We feel Congress should reinstitute this reporting requirement. 

We agree with the statement provided for this hearing by the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), that ‘‘the fact that a new ALJ register has not yet been established in and of itself raises questions about whether the ALJ recruitment process, 

as currently constituted, serves the best interests of the Social Security program 

and the public who look to the program for adjudication that is both impartial and 

efficient.’’ To paraphrase another SSAB conclusion, OPM has shown that it is incapable of providing the American public with the ‘‘best qualified’’ administrative 

law judges. We recommend that this program be reformed and that the functions 

formerly performed by the OPM Office of Administrative Law Judges be removed 

from OPM and placed in a separate ‘‘Administrative Law Judge Conference of the 

United States’’ modeled after the Judicial Conference of the United States which administers the U.S. Federal courts. Legislation providing for this change was introduced in the 106th Congress (H.R. 5177). The Administrative Law Judge Conference 

was to be headed by a Chief Administrative Law Judge who would administer and 

oversee the administrative law judge function in the Federal Government. Therefore, we respectfully ask the Chair of this Subcommittee to request the Chair of the 

House Judiciary Committee to investigate the need for this reform and for the need 

for legislation, such as that introduced in the 106th Congress, to establish an ‘‘Administrative Law Judge Conference.’’ 

f 

Statement of Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities 

The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is a working coalition of national organizations working together to advocate for national public policy that ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion 

of the 54 million children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

36 

CCD Social Security Task Force focuses on disability policy issues in the Title II 

disability programs and the Title XVI Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 

People with severe disabilities who apply for Social Security disability benefits or 

SSI disability benefits must wait months for an initial decision. And, if it is necessary to appeal an unfavorable decision, they may wait years to get benefits to 

which they are entitled. As revealed in the recent hearing held by this Subcommittee on February 14, 2007, some people lose their homes and families while 

they wait for decisions. Others deplete their resources and cannot afford critical 

medications and treatments, resulting in increased disability and even death. 

The current processing time to get a decision after filing an application averages 

about 3 months. A first level appeal adds, on average, 2 more months. If an appeal 

is filed for a hearing, the average wait to get a decision is now an additional 545 

days, or more than 11⁄2 years. In some places, the average wait is 900 days or almost 21⁄2 more years. And, there are thousands of cases that are approaching the 

3-year mark. The average processing times for hearings have increased dramatically 

since 2000, when the average waiting time was 274 days. The President’s budget 

proposal for fiscal year 2008 indicates that average waiting times will continue to 

grow. 

Reducing the backlog and processing times must be a high priority. We urge commitment of necessary resources and personnel to the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) in order to reduce delays so that the process is more responsive to claimants 

and their families. This includes hiring additional Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJs) and the staff needed to support them. 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Title II disability program cash benefits, 

along with the related Medicaid and Medicare benefits, are the means of survival 

for millions of individuals with severe disabilities. Under the current budget situation, people with severe disabilities have experienced long delays in accessing these 

critical benefits. 

We have long-supported the critical role played by the ALJ in the disability claims 

process. A claimant’s right to a hearing before an ALJ is central to the fairness of 

the adjudication process. This is the right to a full and fair de novo administrative 

hearing by an independent decision maker who provides impartial fact-finding and 

adjudication. For claimants, a fundamental principle of this right is the opportunity 

to present new evidence in person to the ALJ, and to receive a decision from the 

ALJ that is based on all available evidence. 

The need to hire additional ALJs is beyond dispute. As noted at the May 1, 2007 

hearing, there are two main reasons why additional ALJs have not been hired: (1) 

inadequate funding for SSA’s administrative budget; and (2) the failure of the Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM) to develop a new examination for ALJ candidates. 

We are optimistic that both issues will be addressed in the near future. Both the 

House and Senate Budget Resolutions recommend funding for SSA’s fiscal year 2008 

administrative budget that exceeds the President’ request. And, only a few days 

after the May 1 hearing, OPM issued a new ALJ vacancy announcement. 

At the May 1, 2007 Subcommittee hearing, SSA Commissioner Astrue referred to 

a recent report on ALJs, issued by the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB). Recruiting SSA Administrative Law Judges: Need for review of OPM role and performance (Apr. 2007) (available online at: www.ssab.gov/documents/ALJ_Issue_ 

Brief_3.pdf). This issue brief discusses OPM’s role in the SSA ALJ selection process 

and finds that SSA has unique ALJ needs that differ from other Federal agencies. 

These factors include the ability to handle higher caseloads, the responsibility to develop the record, and protecting the interests of the parties, since the SSA process 

is not adversarial. As a result, the SSAB concludes that ‘‘[c]onducting Social Security hearings therefore requires certain skills that go beyond those needed by government ALJs generally.’’ SSAB Issue Brief, p. 5. 

The SSAB recommends that Congress consider three options that would give SSA 

a larger role in the ALJ selection process and would make ‘‘the demonstrated ability 

to manage a large docket’’ a selection factor. SSAB Issue Brief, p. 5. The three options recommended by the SSAB are: 

(1) A separate OPM register that would use characteristics derived from identifying characteristics of current ALJs ‘‘with high quantity and quality of work’’; 

(2) A single register with supplemental qualifications data, which would include 

the ‘‘candidates’ demonstrated ability to manage a large docket . . .’’; and 

(3) Transfer management of the selection process to SSA. Under this option, SSA 

would be allowed to ‘‘conduct its own selection process’’ so that it could ‘‘establish 

criteria that give credit for experience with its particular workloads.’’ 

We urge Congress to proceed with extreme caution on these options. The ability 

to manage a large docket should not necessarily become a prime characteristic for 

selection of an ALJ. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

37 

Further, in order to maintain the critical importance of ALJ independence, the selection process should not be transferred to SSA. The SSAB recognizes that ‘‘the 

public . . . has an interest in a hearing process that is demonstrably fair.’’ We believe that the independence of the ALJ system must be preserved. While OPM’s recent history in the ALJ selection process has not been optimal, continued oversight 

by SSA and Congress should ensure that OPM will be able to maintain a current 

ALJ register that meets the needs of SSA and the other Federal agencies that employ ALJs. 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit this statement for the record on the important issue of hiring Administrative Law Judges for the Social Security Administration. 

f 

Edgardo M. Rodriguez, Esq. 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902–2287 

May 15, 2007 

Committee on Ways and Means 

U.S. House of Representatives 

1102 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Honorable Chairman Michael McNulty and Members of the Subcommittee on Social 

Security: 

I am a failed applicant for the 2007 Administrative Law Judge Examination, who 

could not submit the application within the exaggerated time constraints imposed 

by the Office of Personnel Management (‘‘OPM’’). 

After almost 8 years of being closed, the announcement for the ALJ Examination 

which is administered by OPM reopened under Vacancy Announcement Number 

2007ALJ–134575. This announcement was issued on May 4, 2007 and would close 

on May 18, 2007 or until the day on which 1,250 completed applications were submitted, whichever came first. Despite the complexity of the ALJ application, OPM 

closed the announcement because it allegedly received 1,250 applications and closed 

the announcement on May 9, 2007. 

In my case, on the same day that the announcement opened, May 4, 2007, I 

opened an OPM account to work with my ALJ application on-line. It took me a lot 

of time and effort to complete the quality, neat responses that OPM was expecting 

of all applicants. During the week following the reopening of the Examination, I met 

with and secured the endorsement of four United States District Judges. I did my 

best effort during the limited time constraints imposed by OPM. As a matter of professionalism and respect for the position for which I wanted to be considered, I put 

in a lot of hours in my application process. As I tried to complete my application, 

I also had to deal with my work demands. By the time that I completed my application, the examination announcement was closed, making it impossible for me to submit my application. Four or five days was not enough time to complete the ALJ application if OPM wanted to create a new register with highly qualified candidates. 

State and Federal judges have to fill out applications that take no less than a month 

to complete. 

I wrote a letter to OPM Director Linda M. Springer to suggest a summary remedy 

in the form of an extension of time to those applicants, who, like myself, invested 

substantial resources to complete the application and who were suddenly left out 

without the possibility of submitting our completed applications. But, on second 

thoughts, I have to conclude, however, that I cannot look up to this process as a 

serious thing, and that, with all due respect and fairness, the process lacked any 

legitimacy. For instance, on Friday, May 4, 2007, OPM made the announcement 

only in its USAjobs’ website. Some potential candidates may have been gone for the 

weekend without learning of the announcement; some potential candidates may 

have been out of the country; some may have been hospitalized; some could have 

been in the middle of an intense litigation, etc. Others may have been gathering information not at-hand, such as the required e-mail addresses from verifiers and references, etc. I also can imagine that, since the on-line application process was an 

innovative feature, many applicants under pressure could have submitted their application by mistake, or could have made any other type of mistake in the application process, thus foreclosing possibilities for other qualified applicants. Perhaps, all 

applicants would have received the lacking due process had OPM provided a specific 

closing date rather than a speculative, uncertain event to close the examination. Unfortunately, I think that the whole process was vitiated and that if OPM does not 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

38 

set aside its ill-attempt to reopen the Register or if Congress does not intervene to 

provide the leadership needed, this wrong can only be remedied through legal action, which will further delay the ALJ needs of many agencies. I trust that Congress 

can assist to solve this troubled situation. 

Sincerely, 

f 

Edgardo M. Rodriguez 

Statement of Margo A. Yhap, Rodeo, New Mexico 

I am submitting this testimony on behalf of Margo A. Yhap, just one of a reported 

700,000–1 million American citizens waiting for a hearing/appeal for adjudication of 

their disability claim, which in fact, is no different than filing a claim for benefits 

afforded under a health care or car insurance policy which the claimant paid money 

out of pocket for said insurance policy. 

Ms. Yhap’s claim was originally filed on 05/27/04, with reconsideration denied 07/ 

11/05. The hearing request was noted by SSA and notification was postmarked on 

9/08/05. No hearing as yet. 

As the recently published New York Times article dated 5/01/07 elucidates, the 

backlog in processing claims hearings and appeals on denials take an average of 515 

days, Ms. Yhap has now exhausted her life savings, and now is forced to turn to 

the State of New Mexico General Assistance and food stamps, slipping into poverty 

with no health insurance or income since her last date of employment on 3/31/03, 

waiting approximately 1095 days, almost doubling the national backlog average, 

with no hearing in sight. Her paperwork was ‘‘lost’’ between Nevada and New Mexico after an address change was filed but not noted. . . . SSA admitted that error 

in 2005. 

Considering that it is reported that slightly more than one-quarter of all approved 

claims are awarded after an appeal hearing, and nearly two-thirds of the people who 

appeal ultimately prevail, for this claimant, should she ultimately prevail, the suffering and further loss of health and stability would be particularly egregious. The 

prospect of an appeal is at this point, traumatic. 

I think I have an idea how bureaucracy works and many of the issues. I was in 

health care administration and the health insurance business for 15 years prior to 

my own disability in 1991, which thankfully was won on reconsideration with no 

attorney. I know that if we had habitually treated customers like this, likely the 

insurance commission or some such regulatory agency would have been available for 

recourse or redress. It sure was in my case! 

It appears if this editorial is correct, it is incumbent upon our Congress to remedy 

this unconscionable situation for your constituents, who paid into this involuntary 

system, yet fairly and in good faith. 

In this regard, I believe all state residents should be outraged that their own state 

budgets are stretched, covering what the Federal program is intended to, but way 

scaled back. New Mexico does not offer Medicaid to persons involved in adjudication 

with SSA for disability, thus depriving worthy applicants of any ability to state their 

case. The treating physician that actually spends some time with the client is allowed to have heavier weight than an IME paid interview. But how does one pay 

for it? 

How fair is this? Sick people, most of whom are found eligible years later, if they 

live, are eking it out on $263.00 general assistance and food stamps. . . . Grateful? 

Yes. 

That does not mean in any way it is acceptable. It’s classic ‘‘Catch 22.’’ 

At least accused criminals are assigned public defenders when forced to defend 

their rights or innocence and have rights to a speedy trial. All we did was get sick 

and try to access our disability program, let alone maintain medical stability and 

care with no income or medical insurance. Then we pay our own attorneys for the 

privilege of accessing our paid insurance policy after starving for years—some homeless, some always on the verge. 

Surely, there are priority problems here. What is mirrored back to those endlessly 

mired in this morass is that now that we are unable to contribute to the GNP, we 

are low priority and perhaps disposable. 

Her attorney has no answers . . . the SSA office recently informs her that the 

backlog is due to ‘‘Katrina’’ and that to appear she now needs to travel across the 

state to Roswell, but she is disinclined to do that, losing her opportunity to be heard 

in person, as her health would not allow such a trip now, and it took her almost 

1 year to be reimbursed (calling 13 times) for travel to the IME, required by SSA 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

39 

well over 2 years ago, making any IME examination pretty irrelevant at this point, 

and as one of her providers who have now written to New Mexico Senators, she has 

worsened as a result of the stress of this protracted ordeal. 

Mostly we become so exhausted and find ourselves ‘‘fenced out’’ of political process—the cost of self-defense too high. For instance, though previously perfectly capable of writing this letter, she is not able to participate in her ‘‘defense’’ of her rights, 

and to effectively express outrage of the systemic neglect we are suffering. I took 

over a week to form this, and a difficult task, but we believe the only government 

worth having is participative, and thus a responsibility. 

Her treating psychologist is a Senior Disability Analyst, and the treating physician a certified medical examiner. What more could you want? At 3 dollars a gallon 

for fuel, she cannot even afford the trip or the wait for travel reimbursement, and 

will have a telephonic hearing. . . . Whenever. Maybe, could someone just look at 

the file? 

I would appeal to you to provide an appropriate good faith effort to Ms. Yhap, and 

the others like her, many as she is, without spousal or family support ‘‘to carry her 

through.’’ Perhaps you are unable to conceptualize this, or are not tied to this system, but I can hope you would never want to see your friend or loved ones treated 

in such a manner. Please remedy this by hiring enough ALJ’s to do the job for the 

system we have put our trust in. Many of our lives depend on you. 

f 

Statement of National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ 

Representatives, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 

Founded in 1979, NOSSCR is a professional association of attorneys and other advocates who represent individuals seeking Social Security disability and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits. NOSSCR members represent these 

individuals with disabilities in proceedings at all SSA administrative levels, but primarily at the hearing level, and also in Federal court. NOSSCR is a national organization with a current membership of nearly 3,900 members from the private and 

public sectors and is committed to the highest quality legal representation for claimants. 

The Subcommittee’s focus on issues related to the disability claims backlog is extremely important to people with disabilities. Title II and SSI cash benefits, along 

with the related Medicaid and Medicare benefits, are the means of survival for millions of individuals with severe disabilities. They rely on the Social Security Administration (SSA) to promptly and fairly adjudicate their applications for disability 

benefits. 

As revealed in the Subcommittee’s February 14, 2007 hearing and news articles, 

people with severe disabilities have experienced increasingly long delays and decreased service in accessing these critical benefits. Processing times have continued 

to grow, especially at the hearing level where the delays have reached intolerable 

levels. In some hearing offices, our members report that claimants wait more than 

2 years just to receive a hearing, which does not count the time for a decision to 

be issued. And, according to SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue, thousands of cases 

are approaching the 3-year mark. 

It is undisputed that SSA needs more ALJs if there is any hope of reducing the 

disability claims backlog at the hearing level, which is now as high as it has ever 

been. Current statistics demonstrate this need: 

• The current average processing time at the hearing level is nearly twice as long 

as it was in 2000. 

• The number of pending cases is more than two-and-one-half times the number 

in 2000, despite increased productivity by ALJs. 

• About the same number of ALJs is currently hearing cases as heard cases in 

1999, even though there are more than twice the number of pending cases. 

We are encouraged that the situation regarding SSA’s ability to hire additional 

ALJs will improve over the next year. First, we are optimistic, based on the House 

Budget Resolution, that SSA will receive funding for its administrative expenses 

that more accurately reflects its service delivery needs. We applaud the Subcommittee for its efforts to increase SSA’s Limitation on Administrative Expenses 

(LAE). These efforts have had a very positive impact to date—The House Budget 

Resolution recommends that SSA receive almost $500 million more than the President requested. 

In addition, on May 4, 2007, just 3 days after the Subcommittee hearing, OPM 

issued its new ALJ vacancy announcement. The job announcement was open for 2 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

40 

weeks or until 1250 applications were received, whichever occurred first. According 

to the OPM website, the job announcement closed on May 10, 2007, after the requisite number of applications was received. Despite OPM’s delay over the past 4 

years in making this announcement, we are encouraged that ongoing oversight by 

SSA and Congress will prevent a similar situation from recurring. 

At the May 1, 2007 Subcommittee hearing, the issue of ALJ productivity was 

raised. Commissioner Astrue referred to a recent report on ALJs issued by the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB). Recruiting SSA Administrative Law Judges: 

Need for review of OPM role and performance (Apr. 2007) (‘‘Issue Brief’’) [available 

at: www.ssab.gov/documents/ALJ_Issue_Brief_3.pdf]. 

This April 2007 SSAB Issue Brief discusses OPM’s role in the ALJ selection process and finds that SSA has unique ALJ needs that differ from other Federal agencies. Specifically, the SSAB focuses on the fact that ‘‘SSA ALJs handle many more 

cases and make many more decisions each year than ALJs in regulatory agencies.’’ 

SSAB Issue Brief, p. 5. As a result, the SSAB concludes that a ‘‘demonstrated ability 

to manage a large docket’’ should be a selection factor. We believe that this emphasis on productivity is misplaced. 

Over the past 5 years, the backlog has continued to grow as receipts have exceeded dispositions, despite a significant increase in ALJ productivity. Factors other 

than productivity, such as an increase in applications filed and reduced SSA funding 

for its administrative budget, have contributed to the increased backlog. Nevertheless, dispositions by ALJs have continued to grow. 

In a September 2006 report, Improving the Social Security Administration’s Hearing Process (Sept. 2006) (‘‘SSAB report’’) [available at: www.ssab.gov/documents// 

HearingProcess.pdf], the SSAB examined the productivity of ALJs from fiscal year 

2002 to fiscal year 2005. While noting that there was some variation in productivity, 

as with any group of workers, the SSAB ‘‘appreciate[d] the strides that SSA has 

made in increasing production.’’ SSAB Report, p. 13. And the numbers bear this out. 

The SSAB’s review of the data from 2002 to 2005 shows: 

• The productivity of the middle 50 percent of ALJs (those between the 25th and 

75th percentile) increased: 

• 2002: The middle 50 percent issued between 254 and 444 decisions. 

• 2005: The middle 50 percent issued between 291 and 478 decisions. 

• The productivity of the 10 percent of ALJs with the lowest number of decisions 

increased: 

• 2002: ALJs in this category issued fewer than 185 decisions. 

• 2005: ALJs in this category issued fewer than 206 decisions. 

• The productivity of the 10 percent of ALJs with the highest number of decisions 

increased: 

• 2002: ALJs in this category issued 537 or more decisions. 

• 2005: ALJs in this category issued 579 or more decisions. 

• The median ALJ productivity increased: 

• 2002: The median ALJ produced 350 decisions. 

• 2005: The median ALJ produced 383 decisions. 

SSAB Report, p. 13. The report makes several other notable points about factors 

that may affect the number of dispositions. First, dispositions may be low for some 

ALJs because, during that period, they concentrated on handling Medicare claims, 

which have now been transferred to HHS. Also, some ALJs may have fewer dispositions because of other assignments or details, e.g., management or union duties. 

However, overall, the SSAB finds it ‘‘striking’’ that fewer ALJs had low production 

numbers and more had high numbers in 2005, compared with 2002. 

Increased productivity is not, in and of itself, the panacea for reducing the backlog. Pressure to dispose of cases may affect the quality of decisions, which, in turn, 

can lead to more appeals to the Appeals Council and to the courts. And, the SSAB 

also was concerned that ‘‘there is a small correlation between production levels and 

allowance rates’’ that requires monitoring by SSA. SSAB Report, p. 13. 

In addition, low production numbers may not be totally within the control of the 

ALJs. In a point that is directly related to SSA’s budget concerns and staffing 

issues, the SSAB recognizes that productivity depends not only on the number of 

ALJs, but also on the number of support staff. In 2005, the median office had 4 to 

4.5 staff members per ALJ. This represents a significant decrease from the 5.4 staff 

per ALJ in 2001, at a time when the caseload was much lower. 

Finally, the September 2006 SSAB Report addresses the fiscal reality of the current backlog situation, as it relates to productivity. Even if the bottom 25 percent 

of ALJs had increased their production to that of the ‘‘median ALJ,’’ receipts still 

would have exceeded dispositions. ‘‘It is not reasonable to expect to reduce backlogs 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

41 

without adding resources, reducing the influx of hearings, or using technology to increase productivity.’’ SSAB Report, p. 13. 

Despite the increased production of ALJs over the past few years, the SSAB recommends, in the April 2007 Issue Brief, that Congress consider three options that 

would give SSA a larger role in the ALJ selection process and would make ‘‘the 

demonstrated ability to manage a large docket’’ a selection factor. SSAB Issue Brief, 

p. 5. We have serious concerns about these options. 

The three options recommended by the SSAB are: 

(1) A separate OPM register that would use characteristics derived from identifying characteristics of current ALJs ‘‘with high quantity and quality of work’’; 

(2) A single register with supplemental qualifications data, which would include 

the ‘‘candidates’ demonstrated ability to manage a large docket. . . .’’; and 

(3) Transfer management of the selection process to SSA. Under this option, SSA 

would be allowed to ‘‘conduct its own selection process’’ so that it could ‘‘establish 

criteria that give credit for experience with its particular workloads.’’ 

We urge Congress to proceed with extreme caution on all three of these options. 

The first two options elevate the ability to manage a large docket as one of the 

prime characteristics for selection of an ALJ. The SSAB suggests that data could 

be obtained from current ALJs to ‘‘identify characteristics of judges with high quantity’’ of work and that these characteristics could be made part of the SSA ALJ selection criteria. Whether such information can be ascertained is uncertain, at best. 

Would such criteria lead to many capable applicants failing to make the ALJ register? And, as noted in the September 2006 SSAB Report, the majority of ALJs, 

hired under the current process using a single ALJ register, have met or exceeded 

productivity goals. 

The third option would transfer much of the ALJ selection process to SSA. We 

believe that this option poses the most danger to infringing, or being perceived as 

infringing, ALJ independence and impairing the fairness of the process. ALJs play 

a critical role in the disability claims process. A claimant’s right to a hearing before 

an ALJ is central to the fairness of the adjudication process. We strongly support 

efforts to reduce unnecessary delays for claimants and to make the process more efficient, so long as they do not affect the fairness of the process to determine a claimant’s entitlement to benefits. We believe that this option would affect the fairness 

of the process. 

In the April 2007 SSAB Issue Brief, the SSAB recognizes that ‘‘the public . . . 

has an interest in a hearing process that is demonstrably fair.’’ SSAB Issue Brief, 

p. 6. We believe that retaining OPM’s current role in the selection process best satisfies this goal. While OPM’s recent history in the ALJ selection process has not 

been optimal, we are optimistic that, with continued oversight by SSA and Congress, OPM will be able to maintain a current ALJ register that meets the needs 

of SSA and the other Federal agencies that employ ALJs. 

Conclusion 

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this issue of importance to claimants. The delays caused by the disability claims backlogs have reached intolerable 

levels for claimants. One of the reasons the backlog has increased so dramatically 

in recent years is the need to hire more ALJs. With the prospect of an improved 

administrative budget situation for SSA in fiscal year 2008 and of a new ALJ register, we are encouraged that the dire circumstances faced by so many claimants 

with disabilities who are waiting for decisions will improve in the upcoming months. 

f 

Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37929 

May 1, 2007 

Subcommittee on Social Security 

Committee on Ways and Means 

Dear Committee Members: 

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently announced it will begin replacing its current register of Administrative Law Judge candidates. In light of this 

fact and the recent history, I ask you to encourage the Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration to request a large certificate of candidates from the current 

register immediately. There are several compelling reasons to take this action now. 

First and foremost, the Social Security Administration needs many more Administrative Law Judges and support staff now if it seriously intends to begin reducing 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

42 

1OPM’s avowed argument for ignoring subject matter expertise and grading litigation experience higher than administrative experience is that agencies, other than SSA, have adversarial 

hearings. This argument might sound valid, but only if the following critical facts are ignored. 

1. SSA hires over 80% of all ALJ’s. SSA’s needs should weigh more. It hires 25–200 ALJ’s 

at a time. ‘‘Other agencies’’ typically only hire one or two at a time. 

2. When the ‘‘other agencies’’ select ALJ’s administrative subject matter expertise outweighs 

general litigation experience. The NRC will not hire an ALJ who has no experience in nuclear 

regulation. FLRB does not hire neophytes in labor law as an ALJ. 

3. It is my understanding the ‘‘other agencies’’ typically request and receive ‘‘selective registers’’ of candidates with subject matter experience, or they hire incumbent ALJ’s from other 

agencies in order to avoid hiring off the register. Justice (then Professor) Antonin Scalia commended agencies that sought ‘‘selective registers’’ of candidates with specialized experience. (The 

ALJ Fiasco—A Reprise, 47 University of Chicago Law Review 57 (1979)). He explained in some 

depth how subject matter expertise should be the overriding factor in selecting ALJ’s. 

Thus, OPM’s argument should carry no weight. Their initial premise that litigation experience 

is critical to ALJ performance is suspect. Even assuming it had some validity, the policy is irrelevant to the ‘‘other agencies’’ that would allegedly benefit from it. They do not select candidates 

from the standard register. 

the disability backlog. If we wait to select from the promised ‘‘new’’ register, the 

wait is more likely to be measured in years rather than months. OPM has been 

promising this new examination and register for over 5 years. Is it reasonable to 

think they will have a new register ready any time in the immediate future? I find 

it very difficult to believe that it will. I do not claim to have any inside information 

regarding the inner workings of OPM, but it appears they were still contacting people to obtain basic data and asking permission to employ retired ALJ’s to serve as 

additional staffing in grading portions of the ‘‘new’’ examination. Even if they finally 

begin this new process at the end of the month, it is very likely it will take many 

months to prepare the new register. OPM, like SSA, is short staffed and would have 

to pull personnel from other projects and/or bring in new people on a large scale 

to handle thousands of applications. Organizing this team would likely not be complete before the end of summer. Then they would need a period of time for training. 

OPM has not processed large numbers of new applications since the 1990’s. I suspect their new workgroup will take time to get up to speed. All these factors lead 

me to believe that the best case scenario for expecting a ‘‘new’’ register is closer to 

the end of 2008 rather than 2007. 

I am not confident the ‘‘best case’’ will come to pass. I suspect there is a high likelihood of delays within OPM due to their own staffing problems that could easily 

run into many more months. Even more critical may be the specter of litigation that 

could postpone implementation of the new examination. Given the length and bitterness of the Azdell/Meeker litigation, I suspect that some litigation-related delays are 

more likely than not. 

Next, contrary to suggestions occasionally made by Commissioner Barnhart, the 

candidates on the current register are generally as qualified as the majority of selectees since 1996. Compare the scores of those selectees, subtracting the veterans’ 

points they received from their total scores, to those of the top 500–600 candidates 

on the current register. The scores are generally in the same range! It is also important to note that this top group of current candidates includes a much higher percentage of candidates that actually have significant experience in Social Security 

disability law than any of the last several certificates. Therefore, it is perhaps the 

best opportunity SSA has had to hire candidates with such experience at a rate 

higher than the handfuls hired over the past 15 years. I believe the records will 

show that less than 10 percent of Administrative Law Judges selected since 1990 

had any significant experience in Social Security disability law before being hired 

by SSA. I do not impugn the abilities of those judges. They eventually learn the system and become productive, but there is no denying that they had a significant 

learning curve. Hiring more candidates who are already ‘‘up to speed’’ on Social Security law, would undoubtedly result in a more immediate impact on the backlog. 

It has been very difficult for SSA to hire candidates with subject matter expertise 

because so few made it on to ‘‘certificates’’ for selection. A certificate is a list of the 

top scoring candidates with the number determined by multiplying the number of 

ALJ vacancies by at least three. Thus, a certificate for 50 vacancies would have at 

least 150 candidates and likely a few more. As a group, attorneys with extensive 

Social Security disability experience have received lower scores than those with experience in many other areas. In spite of the fact that Administrative Law Judges 

are supposed to be ‘‘experts’’ in their field of administrative law, the ‘‘old/current’’ 

OPM examination generally gave higher scores for litigation rather than administrative law experience. Subject matter expertise was irrelevant to the scoring process.1

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

43 

The second major factor that pushed most candidates with subject matter expertise lower on the register was the impact of OPM’s 1996 change in the application 

of the veteran’s preference. The Association of Attorney-Advisors and I fully support 

our veterans and do not oppose its application as it was intended. It was intended 

to provide veterans with a 5–10% boost in their scores, giving them ‘‘a leg up,’’ but 

not a ‘‘near lock’’ on a job. A comparison of the scoring systems makes the real impact of the change clear. Assume the following hypothetical candidates: 

A. A non-veteran with 75 base points. 

B. A non-veteran with 73 base points. 

C. A non-veteran with 71 base points. 

D. A 5-point veteran A with a base score of 71. 

E. A 5-point veteran A with a base score of 67. 

F. A 5-point veteran A with a base score of 61. 

G. A 10-point veteran A with a base score of 66. 

H. A 10-point veteran A with a base score of 61. 

I. A 10-point veteran A with a base score of 55. 

Under the pre-1996 system the final scores added 10.9 points and then added 5 

or 10 veterans’ points. The final scores, from highest to lowest, would be D and G 

tied at—86.9; A—85.9; B—83.9; E—82.9; H and C tied at—81.9; F—76.9; and I— 

75.9. OPM’s 1996 change in the scoring system markedly increased the impact of 

those veterans’ points. Under the 1996 formula, the base score is multiplied by .3 

and 70 points are added. The final scores of those same candidates, from highest 

to lowest, would be G—99.8; H—98.3; I—96.5; D—96.3; E—95.1; F—93.3; A—92.5; 

B—91.9; and C—91.3. 

The decision in the Azdell/Meeker litigation ruled that OPM had the authority to 

implement the 1996 policy. I do not question OPM’s authority to implement it. I ask 

whether shifting the impact of the preference from a 5–10% boost to almost a 15– 

30% boost is appropriate in selecting ALJ’s. It has had the practical effect of making 

veteran’s status by far the most important single selection criteria. Veterans deserve 

good treatment and should receive an advantage on re-entering the civilian workforce, but the preference was not really aimed at senior positions in government. 

It was certainly not intended as a near guarantee of selection. 

If the ‘‘new’’ process follows this pattern with an extraordinarily heavy emphasis 

of veterans’ points and no ‘‘extra credit’’ for subject matter expertise it will probably 

be a surprise if more than a handful of new Administrative Law Judges have any 

Social Security experience. There will be hundreds if not thousands of new candidates without significant Social Security experience with higher scores than those 

of the vast majority of candidates with Social Security experience. 

Common sense suggests that OPM should change its policies, at the very least 

to give subject matter experience the equivalent of bonus points to provide such candidates a reasonable opportunity for selection. 

Sincerely, 

James R. Hitchcock 

Senior Attorney-Advisor 

President 

f 

Association of Attorney-Advisors 

Statement of Social Security Administration Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review 

I am an attorney with the Social Security Administration Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in Kingsport, Tennessee. I am on the current ALJ register. 

I have over 22 years experience working as an attorney with this agency. I wish 

to encourage the Committee to direct Mr. Michael Astrue to proceed with immediate 

hiring of candidates from the current register and not to wait until a new register 

is available. 

As the Committee is aware the need to hire new judges and to get them into hearing offices is immediate. There need be no concern regarding the qualifications and competence of candidates on the current register. Many of us 

would have been hired years ago were it not for the lack of veteran’s preference 

points. I believe all of us can agree that being a veteran does not address the issues 

of qualifications and competence but is a means of recognizing the contribution of 

these individuals to our country during a time of need. 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

44 

I understand the reason that only 37 judges were hired in 2006 and that none 

have been hired in 2007 is based on lack of funding and not on the desire to await 

a new ALJ register. To that end, I encourage the Congress to provide adequate 

funding to hire at least 100 judges in this fiscal year. I don’t think U.S. taxpayers 

understand why the Congress has billions of dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan and 

not a few hundred million to employ judges and staff to process disability claims 

in the Social Security Administration. 

f 

Statement of The Federal Managers Association 

Chairman McNulty, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the House Ways 

and Means Subcommittee on Social Security: 

On behalf of the Federal Managers Association and the nearly 1,000 managers in 

the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

(ODAR), please allow me to take a moment and thank you for this opportunity to 

present our views before the Subcommittee. As Federal managers, we are committed 

to carrying out the mission of our agency in the most efficient and cost effective 

manner while providing those necessary services to millions of Americans. 

Established in 1913, the Federal Managers Association is the largest and oldest 

association of managers and supervisors in the Federal Government. FMA was 

originally organized to represent the interests of civil service managers and supervisors in the Department of Defense and has since branched out to include some 

35 different Federal departments and agencies including many managers and supervisors within the Social Security Administration (SSA). We are a non-profit professional membership-based organization dedicated to advocating excellence in public 

service and committed to ensuring an efficient and effective Federal Government. 

FMA members and their colleagues in the SSA Office of Disability Adjudication and 

Review are responsible for ensuring the success of the administration of Social Security’s disability determination process and in providing needed services to American 

customers. 

As you are keenly aware, the Social Security Administration plays a vital role in 

serving over 160 million American workers and their families. Each month, SSA 

pays out benefits to 48 million beneficiaries. Over 7 million low-income Americans 

depend on the agency’s Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to stay afloat 

in a cost-inflating world, and nearly 7.2 million disabled Americans receive benefit 

payments through Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In her May 11, 2006 

message to the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, former-SSA Commissioner Barnhart testified that SSA’s productivity has increased 12.6 percent since 2001. Considering the magnitude of its mission, the Social Security Administration does a remarkable job administering critical programs. 

In the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, however, there currently exists a backlog of over 737,910 requests for a hearing, an increase of over 20,000 

since the start of the calendar year. In the last 3 months alone (February, March 

and April), ODAR received 161,722 new cases, while disposing of 140,469 cases, 

translating into a growing backlog of 7,000 new cases a month. By the end of the 

current fiscal year, this would mean an increase of 35,000 cases added to the backlog. It already takes over 500 work days to process a typical request for hearing and 

these delays tarnish SSA’s otherwise strong record of service to the American public. 

At the beginning of 2002, SSA had 468,262 pending hearing requests. In 5 years, 

that number increased to almost 738,000, despite the fact that dispositions are at 

record levels. Unless something is done to reverse this trend, the backlog could realistically reach 1 million by 2010 with the aging Baby Boom generation. 

As managers and supervisors within ODAR, we are acutely aware of the backlogs 

and the impact these backlogs are having on our ability to deliver the level of service the American public deserves. We are here to confirm what you’ve heard several 

times before—that the ongoing lack of adequate staffing levels and resources have 

contributed to these backlogs. If these inadequacies continue, clearing the backlogs 

will be impossible and service delivery will continue to deteriorate. In September 

2004, we appeared before this Subcommittee to testify on the challenges and opportunities facing implementation of a new electronic disability process at SSA. At that 

time, we testified that the backlog will not decrease until staffing levels are increased and stated a desperate need for additional staffing, a warning which went 

unheeded. We returned in February of this year with the staffing situation unchanged and the backlogs significantly larger. 

We at FMA appreciate the attention the Subcommittee has placed on examining 

the reasons for the backlog and addressing remedies to the problem. Several Memtjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

45 

bers of the Subcommittee expressed their concerns with the list of available Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) for hire at SSA at a hearing on May 1, 2007. The Social 

Security Administration employs over 80% of the available ALJs for hire and like 

you, we find it unconscionable that the Office of Personnel Management has not updated the registry of ALJs available for hire since 2003. However, we would be remiss if we did not express our concerns that the backlog cannot be addressed by 

ALJs alone. Without adequate support staff to prepare cases for the judges, both 

existing and new, we will not achieve an increase in hearing dispositions—the only 

solution to reducing the backlog. 

ODAR began fiscal year 2007 with 419,972 pending cases awaiting preparation 

for a hearing. In all likelihood, those cases will realistically wait at least 1 year before any action is even initiated to prepare the case for review and hearing in front 

of an Administrative Law Judge. Although clericals in hearing offices prepared 

477,816 cases in FY06, claimants submitted almost 558,000 new requests during the 

same period. As such, the backlog of files simply awaiting preparation for review 

by an ALJ at the close of January 2007 totaled 413,260 cases; an increase of 19,088 

cases since the beginning of fiscal year 2006. ODAR’s processing time at the end 

of January was an embarrassing 499 days. The American public deserves better 

service. 

Within ODAR, production is measured by the number of dispositions completed 

per day by an Administrative Law Judge. In FY05 and FY06, this record-level figure 

was 2.2 dispositions per day per ALJ. A work year is approximately 250 work days, 

yielding a reasonable expectation that an ALJ can produce an estimated average of 

550 dispositions a year given the current staffing level limitations. At the end of 

January, SSA employeed 1,088 ALJs, resulting in a best case scenario of 557,150 

dispositions for FY07, which is about the same number of new cases filed in a given 

year. 

Commissioner Astrue said in his testimony on May 1st that he would like to add 

150 ALJs in fiscal year 2008. That could translate into an additional 82,500 dispositions, but only if adequate staff is available to prepare the cases for review. While 

this is certainly a step in the right direction, Administrative Law Judges alone will 

not solve the problem. Without additional staffing, the current level of prepared 

work would be distributed among more judges, essentially resulting in the same 

dispositional outcome. We were encouraged by the Commissioner’s plan to increase 

full time equivalents (FTEs) by 750–850. 

Undoubtedly, adequate clerical support is necessary to prepare cases for hearing. 

As it stands, hearing offices do not even have the staff to accommodate the current 

judges, let alone enough staff to process the new 46,500 cases the Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review receives each month. If receipts remained flat, the backlog 

will remain at over 700,000 cases, almost one-third of which are over 365 days old. 

At the beginning of FY07, ODAR had over 63,000 cases which were over 1,000 days 

old; a number which is both unacceptable to the agency as well as the American 

people it serves. Commissioner Astrue identified these cases as ODAR’s number one 

priority and the backlog has since been reduced to just over 14,500. The Commissioner is committed to reducing this critical workload to a negligible level by the 

end of the fiscal year. FMA applauds the Commissioner for his efforts and we are 

committed to working with him to achieve this goal. 

With the aging Baby Boom population, it is reasonable to assume that receipts 

will continue to out-pace dispositions. As the requests for hearings continue to rise, 

more is demanded from ODAR staff on all levels. The bottom line is that the hearing 

offices lack sufficient staff to process the work on hand much less even begin to 

work on new cases. It should be evident that under the best case scenario, the current staffing levels in ODAR barely maintain the status quo. That means that the 

backlog stays the same and processing times continue at an estimated 515 days. 

The existing staff must make room for the new cases as they attempt to address 

the backlog. In recent years, however, budgetary constraints have forced the agency 

to hire additional Administrative Law Judges without providing adequate support 

staff to prepare the cases for hearing. Last year, then-Commissioner Barnhart repeatedly stated that she hoped SSA would hire 100 ALJs in FY07, but funding 

shortages only allowed for less than 40 new hires. We recognize that the Commissioner was trying to address the backlog by adding these judges; however, additional 

ALJs without the supporting clerical staff to prepare cases in a timely manner will 

not solve the problem. By following in his predecessor’s footsteps, Commissioner 

Astrue will encounter the same problems—no matter how many new judges come 

on board, without clerical staff to prepare cases for them, the backlog cannot be addressed. 

As you know, there is currently insufficient support staff to ensure optimal ALJ 

productivity and to handle the backlog. The accepted staff to ALJ ratio has been 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING

46 

four-and-one-half production staff per ALJ. However, this only ensures productivity 

necessary to handle incoming work, not the backlog. For offices with heavy backlogs, 

the four-and-one-half to one standard is inadequate. Management and administrative employees should not be included in these figures, as they are not the employees performing the production work on hearing requests. And, of course, staffing 

shortfalls cannot be remedied without adequate funding. 

The solutions to the backlog problem are simply adequate staffing levels and timely budgets which will allow us to address the pending cases. As of last month, the 

backlog was at 737,910 requests for a hearing. As noted earlier, a trained, productive ALJ, with adequate support staff, should be able to produce about 550 dispositions in a given year. Approximately 1,000 additional ALJs and 5,000 additional 

support staff would allow ODAR to work down the backlog in 1 year while providing 

timely processing of new cases as they arrive. We at FMA recognize that these numbers present a large funding challenge for Congress. As such, we support the Commissioner’s initial request of adequate funding to support 750–850 FTEs in the coming year. 

To enable SSA to meet the goals set forth in the previous Commissioner’s service 

delivery plan, Congress must approve a sufficient level of funding for the agency. 

The Continuing Resolution (CR) which was signed into law earlier this year was severely inadequate to address both the staffing and backlog problem at SSA for fiscal 

year 2007 despite the meager increase SSA received above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. As the Commissioner stated in his testimony, since 2001, Congress has 

appropriated on average $180 million less than the President has requested. The 

dollar value of this differential is equivalent to processing an additional 177,000 initial claims and 454,000 hearings. Without a doubt, this has had a devastating effect 

on the services provided to the American public, as evidenced by the situation we 

are in today. 

The President requested $9.494 billion in FY07; an amount which Commissioner 

Barnhart repeatedly stated was vital to sustain the agency. Even if the agency had 

received full funding, SSA would have faced a loss of 2,000 positions, a number 

which will now be far greater due to the CR. The amount approved in the CR will 

undoubtedly cause a profound disruption of service to the American public, including significant increases in waiting times at field offices and added delays in the 

processing of appeals. 

To remedy this unfortunate situation, Congress should begin by passing the President’s 2008 budget request of $9.597 billion for SSA’s Limitation on Administrative 

Expenses account. Commissioner Barnhart felt the agency was in even greater need 

and before her term expired, she had asked the President to request $10.44 billion 

for SSA in FY08. In addition to having an immediate impact on the current backlog, 

inadequately funding the Social Security Administration for an eighth straight year 

will negatively impact every service area of the agency. 

While the President’s budget request for FY08 is a start, it is certainly not a cure 

all solution. Throwing money at the problem will not fully solve it without a welltrained, dedicated staff of Federal employees willing to avert a crisis in the coming 

years. I believe this is the workforce we have now, strengthened under the leadership of Commissioner Barnhart in the last 6 years. As Commissioner Astrue stated 

in his testimony, we must ensure any new influx of staff is qualified and properly 

trained so the agency can continue to provide an exceptional level of service to the 

American people. By fully funding the President’s request, we can continue this tradition. 

In this era of shrinking budgets, SSA has attempted to maximize its use of scarce 

resources to provide the best possible service to the American public. The challenges 

faced by the managers and supervisors are not short term; they are a demographic 

reality. The same citizens putting stress on the Social Security trust fund because 

they are approaching retirement are also entering their most disability-prone years. 

ODAR is struggling to handle the current workload and will be hard pressed to 

manage the anticipated increase in hearing requests without additional staff. 

We are the men and women who work with disabled Americans every day. We 

see people of all ages come in and out of our offices seeking the services they depend 

on for survival from the Social Security Administration. We are committed to serving a community of Americans in need, but we need you to provide us with the necessary resources to help them. Thank you for your time and consideration of our 

views. 

Æ 

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING