One point I hope that I get across to this committee is the problem is not solely with OWCP; it is the attitude of the agency. Obviously in these cases where you have an adverse attitude to start with, the case in all probability is not going to be processed, so somewhere there has to be an oversight by OWCP. Immediately if they do not process the case or if they try to make sure their safety records stand at 100 percent this year-and that is a real factor in this-especially in DOD—there is a lot of competition between the military types and the different units and the bases, and this safety record is one thing that goes into their ERs. I would fear many of those cases would be swept under the rug where we had a bad attitude.

Mr. BUCHANAN. When the letter carriers testified, they testified as to a very strong attitudinal problem on the part of the Postal Service. If you throw in the Postal Service and DOD and GSA, you have a pretty good whack of the Government.

Mr. BLAYLOCK. That is true.

Mr. BUCHANAN. The third recommendation in the task force report was, "Amend section 8117 of the FECA to provide for a waiting period of 2 workdays of wage loss at the beginning of disability for entitlement to compensation or continuation of pay ..

I understand that before the 1974 amendments law, before that you had a 3-day waiting period and then you had 21 days. All I know is in the present situation, you do not have a waiting period at the beginning.

Mr. BLAYLOCK. Right.

Mr. BUCHANAN. They recommend you have a waiting period of 2 workdays". with provision that no such deduction will be made where disability lasts longer than 14 calendar days or is followed by permanent disability."

They, of course, have a rationale, their anticipated results, "By providing a wage loss disincentive, this proposal for a 2-workday waiting period at the beginning of disability should discourage the filing of minor or frivolous claims and prevent potential abuse of the COP provision."

Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. BLAYLOCK. Yes, sir. I do not subscribe to that method of control really. What is a frivolous claim? You talk to the medical people and they say there is no such thing as a frivolous claim. I know personally an example where an individual got a finger scratched-no report. He wound up getting blood poisoning and some other type of contamination, and the end result was they amputated his hand above his wrist.

There is a conflict there. But I do not subscribe to the fact that we penalize the individual at least 2 or 5 days' pay and by doing that maybe he would not file a claim. I think it is necessary that the claims be filed. I think it is necessary that the accident be reported, and from those reports hopefully efforts will be made to eliminate those situations where people do get injured on the job.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you very much. Your testimony has been most helpful.

Mr. GAYDOS. Thank you, Mr. Buchanan.

I want to thank Mr. Blaylock and also Mr. Vann and Mr. Lynch for appearing and giving pointed and informative testimony as they have in the past. The American Federation of Government Employees has always been most cooperative, and I am sure I can assume if we need additional information it will be forthcoming upon request.

Mr. BLAYLOCK. Rest assured it will, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to make one comment on something we have not discussed here. I think it is important also that the committee look at the part of the program whereby disabled employees are reemployed. Maybe he cannot be reemployed at a WG-10 but he could be at a 4 or 6 or 3. Most of these people do seek some type of employment outside.

We find there are very few employees who once they go on compensation, ever come back on the rolls. We could reduce costs of this program tremendously if we brought them back at $6,000 less than what they left, the end result between the 75 percent, we are probably going to be paying the man $2,000 instead of $12,000.

Mr. GAYDOS. I think you make a good point. It has been discussed in the past. We have some supporting documentation and other observations.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what kind of rehabilitation OWCP now has. What percentage of disabled employees are able to be rehired under the program and any information that is in your possession will be most helpful.

Mr. BLAYLOCK. We will develop that, some of that information from our records and get it back to you, sir.

Mr. GAYDOS. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Long. We are sorry we missed you at 9 o'clock. I know you are going to give us a meaningful statement as you have in the past.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE D. LONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND, ACCOMPANIED BY JEAN O'NEIL, SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR

Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, your subcommittee is to be applauded for taking active oversight with regard to the Office of Workers' Compensation, Department of Labor, and its mismanagement of the Federal Employees' Compensation Program. The agency's track record is appalling. Most of the complaints I receive are about claims filed by civilian Federal workers, rather than by workers covered under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act.

At this moment, I have 17 case inquiries pending with the Office of Workers' Compensation. Some of these cases have been pending 2 or more years-one for 4 years. The causes of delay vary, but all delays result from the malfunctioning of the least_responsive bureaucracy I have encountered in my 15 years in Congress.

The Office of Workers' Compensation refuses to answer claimants' letters, occasionally and tardily acknowledges Congressional inquiries, and repeatedly brushes off telephone calls-sometimes rudely, usually with an unkept promise to "get back" with information on the claim.

Of my 17 active cases, 9 involve unwarranted delays and problems, well beyond what might be expected in the normal course of business.

I submit for the record copies of my correspondence with Secretary of Labor Marshall and Regional Employment Standards Administrator Charles Angell, regarding my efforts to press resolution of these long-delayed claims. I spoke personally February 5 with Secretary Marshall whom I know as a fellow economist. He advised me that he is distressed by the Office of Workers' Compensation's performance and suggested that improvements in that performance would be one of his high priorities as Secretary.

That was 42 months ago.

Although I wrote Mr. Angell over 1 month ago, it was only Friday that I received a brief note on two of the nine cases I brought to his attention. My letter was written in direct response to Mr. Angell's request for information on badly mishandled claims, but my staff had to telephone his office even to be sure he had received the letter. A call last week-3 weeks after the letter was receivedelicited the comment that "We-the regional office-hope to have the files pulled by the end of this week."

What types of complaint are my constituents voicing? How ineffective is the agency? Here are a dozen examples in which the agency is entirely to blame for delays:

Ms. M.K.: Injured in 1970, this lady is confined to a wheelchair. She asked my help in January 1976 after the Office of Workers' Compensation had failed to respond to any of the six letters she had written throughout 1975. It took exactly 3 months for the department to advise that it needed "additional information"-information which had been provided in the 1975 letters-to "determine further entitlement." Although the information was once again provided, the department after 2 months could promise only "further study."

In January 1977, Ms. M.K. advised me that she had had to enter a nursing home because of her condition, but that the home was not receiving payments from the Office of Workers' Compensation. One year and 4 months after my initial inquiry, it seems that all payments are at last current.

Mrs. H.P.: She was told in June 1976 that the Office had sent her "papers" to someone in Virginia with the same name, and that the "papers" were now lost. After my inquiry in that same month, the Department decided that the papers had not been "lost" but simply could not be located-a distinction I fail to grasp.

Mrs. H.P. was told in July 1976 that her claim had been denied. She was advised informally by a Department of Labor employee that she ought to hire an attorney, as "they're the only ones who get anywhere.'

You can imagine what soothing effect that has on me as a Congressman.

As of May 19, 1977, even with her attorney's and Congressman's help, Mrs. H.P. still has not obtained reconsideration of her claim. Mrs. A.R.: In March 1976, Mrs. A.R. was placed on leave without pay, pending settlement of her claim for compensation. In July, she

asked for my help because her claim had still not been decided. In the space of 2 weeks, my staff placed at least seven calls to the Department of Labor attempting to locate the file.

We have a tickler system in my office and we keep pushing things.

One call was to Seattle, Wash., where we were assured the file had-for some unknown reason-been sent. Finally, at the end of September-6 weeks later-the department reported that "further information" was needed-information Mrs. A.R. had already sent twice. Mrs. A.R. has had to cash her Government bonds in order to live. As of this moment, 1 year and 2 months after Mrs. A.R. began leave without pay, her claim has not been resolved.

Mr. W.B.: He was injured in February 1973, reinjured in September 1973, August 1974, and February 1975. He received no acknowledgement whatsoever from the Department that his claim even existed. He learned of his claim number through Blue Cross.

In my office we have a standing rule that every letter is answered, or at least acknowledged, within 24 hours. I find it a little difficult to see why it should take an agency 300 or 400 times as long to answer or just acknowledge a letter than it takes a Congressional office, which probably receives a far heavier load in relation to the number of staff.

Finally, in July 1975, Mr. W.B.'s claim was approved-but payment took another 6 months, largely because of the department's delay in sending Mr. W.B. the proper forms. In contrast, Mr. W.B.'s parallel claim for disability retirement through the Civil Service Commission was approved in just 3 weeks.

This gives a benchmark of what another Government agency can do-3 weeks compared to 1 year at a minimum, and 4 years if you want to take it from the initial claim.

Mrs. B.N.: This Federal worker had already hired an attorney to help her with her 1973 claim for compensation when she asked my help in June 1976. She and the attorney had gotten no responses, despite over 12 years of written and telephoned inquiries. The department claimed in August 1976 that the case was resolved, but as of today payment amounts are still incorrect and the issue of permanent partial disability for Mrs. B.N.'s arm injury has not even been addressed. This case has been "hanging fire" for 4

years.

Mr. T.L. Injured in April 1974, Mr. T.L. was placed on leave without pay, with only an $89 per month Veterans' Administration disability check for World War II wounds to support him and his family. Mr. T.L.'s claim was not new-it was based on job-related injuries dating to 1955. In order to get any action to help my constituent, I had to call the Secretary of Labor, John Dunlop, whom I also know personally as a fellow economist.

By this time, Mr. T.L. was on welfare and was about to lose his home. The excuses offered for delay were varied and amazing: "We are acting as quickly as possible . . . the department is moving to a new building . . . the case has been misfiled under a wrong claim number."

Mrs. S.N.: She was injured in 1971. In April 1976 she asked me to assist her in getting bills paid by the Office of Workers' Compensa

tion. It was August 1976 before the department notified me that $836.97 worth of bills were approved for payment. Mrs. S.N., normally enough, wanted to know which bills were actually approved. After 7 months of her own effort to get this information-which the department certainly should have had because it paid the moniesMrs. S.N. again asked for my help. I asked for the list of approved bills February 10, 1977. I have yet to receive it.

Mr. W.W.: He filed a claim in March 1976 and was told by phone in October that the claim had been approved. He did not receive official noification until January 1977. He did not even get a check in partial payment until May. It was only this past Friday that I got word that Mr. W.W.'s questions about sick leave had been answered. This case took over 2 years to settle.

Dr. F.: This doctor has spent over a year trying to collect $1,186 in bills the Federal Government owes for treatment of Federal employees. I wrote on his behalf March 31 of this year. To date, I have received nothing beyond a brief acknowledgement.

Mrs. B.C.: This lady had a simple complaint. The department had made an error in a letter to her describing her compensable injury. She wanted to be sure the file was not in error. I wrote in December 1975, provided additional information in January 1976, and requested speedy handling of this simple inquiry. When the department finally answered my letter, in June 1976, it advised me of something I already knew-that the claimant had "died in the interim."

Mrs. J.B.: Her attorney told me in March 1975 "I am writing you as a last resort . . . I have written numerous letters and received no reply. "The Department of Labor, at my prodding, finally forwarded key reports the attorney needed. In January 1976 the attorney again asked me to intercede to help him secure a hearing for Mrs. J.B. I again wrote the department-more than once. As of today, no hearing has even been scheduled.

Mr. W.N.: This claim was filed in 1971, which is 6 years ago. Mr. W.N.'s employer, the Army, became sufficiently concerned in 1975 to write the Department of Labor complaining about the lack of action. World War II lasted about the same amount of time. Mr. W.N. got in touch with me in February 1976, when the Army had gotten no response to its 4-month-old inquiry. In July 1976, I received word that part of Mr. W.N.'s claim had been settled. To date, I have no word on the remainder-6 years after the claim was filed.

These claims are handled for the most part by the district 25 office. Working with this office-or attempting to-has been a most distressing experience for Federal workers whose claims allegedly get processed there, as my examples show.

As you may know, Mr. Chairman, an ad hoc staff-level group has been meeting with district 25 and region III officials to investigate the causes of the delays and mismanagement. I believe we have been working with your staff people on this. Much of the information reported to me from these meetings has been alarming.