Indeed, if this legislation were to reach the President's desk, I would recommend that he veto it.

In regard to benefit statements, we are working to find ways to provide reliable statements to as many workers as possible. Therefore, we do not think legislation in this area is needed at this time. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I am very pleased to have this opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Sullivan appears in the appendix.]

Senator MOYNIHAN. We thank you, Doctor, and we are more than sensible of the claims on your time, so we will not keep you at length. But I do want to ask a couple of things.

First of all, and sensible, as is the practice and has been for more than a half century, testimony of this kind is cleared with the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget, but sir, on Page 16, you say to us that "Any attempt to limit executive branch oversight of SSA's statutory duties and responsibilities by restricting the President's removal authority raises serious separation of powers concerns. Restrictions on the President's removal power over such officers impede the exercise of the President's constitutional obligation to 'take Care the Laws be faithfully executed.' Article I, Section 3."

Now I do not want to start a panic on Wall Street just before the end of the closing hour, but are we to understand the President wants to take away the fixed terms of members of the Federal Reserve Board? Is this the beginning of an assault upon independent agencies? Does Alan Greenspan know that his tenure is in jeopardy?

Do not answer, sir. [Laughter.]

I mean quite seriously, is this a new position from OMB because I suppose, you know, it can be made, that no one should serve in the Executive Branch, save at the pleasure of the President. But if the Federal Reserve Board members are not going to serve-they are appointed for 12-year terms. The chairman is appointed for a 4year term.

Is it the view of the Bush Administration that they serve at the pleasure of the President?

Secretary SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could comment, my comments, frankly, are limited to the Social Security Administration here, and we do feel that it is very important that this administrator, which is a very important agency, as you have indicated and Mr. Pryor has indicated also, be a person nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. So there is really that executive and legislative oversight process concerning the selection of that individual.

Senator MOYNIHAN. I am not a lawyer, and of course, neither are you, but I do know that the law of certain persons, such as my distinguished colleague, is keep your case very narrow before the judge. You have been walked up here to tell us that a common administrative arrangement in Twentieth Century American government, national government, is unconstitutional.

Senator Pryor?

Senator PRYOR. I have no questions of Dr. Sullivan. I tell you what I am tempted to do, Mr. Chairman, is one of these days-and do not answer this--[Laughter.]

One of these days, I want to find out when witnesses come before this or other committees in the House or Senate, what impact OMB has on your positions or your ultimate statements that you read to committees of the Congress. Now I am not going to ask that now, but someday I think that would be an interesting hearing. I thank Dr. Sullivan-

Secretary SULLIVAN. Senator, I will not-

Senator PRYOR [continuing]. And I thank you, too, Mr. Chairman. Senator MOYNIHAN. Why don't you make up a question you would like to answer? [Laughter.]

Secretary SULLIVAN. Well, I would like to comment, Mr. Chairman, on the perspective that the agency is lost within HHS or is not given

Senator MOYNIHAN. Yes.

Secretary SULLIVAN [continuing]. Sufficient attention to indicate the following. We take our responsibilities in oversight of the Social Security Administration very seriously, and let me recite for you some examples of that.

First of all, we have weekly meetings of our senior staff, which includes our Social Security Commissioner, where there is active discussion of various issues. We do have an office for the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration within the Humphrey Building, though as you have noted, the majority of our employees are in Baltimore.

As you know, I was confirmed before the Senate on March 1. Within the first 2 weeks of my confirmation, although we have, as you know, a large number of things that we must address attention to, I visited Baltimore, visited our employees in the Social Security agency.

I have also, thus far, of the 10 regional offices that we have scattered around the country, have visited seven of those offices thus far and have in those visits talked with and met with our regional Social Security Commissioners. In our policy discussions, issues concerning the Social Security responsibilities play a very active role. So we do view our role in the Department as really representing vigorously those interests of the Social Security Administration.

We are very much aware this is our largest agency. It has a number of issues that are of concern to all Americans, older Americans as well as children, as I indicated in my statement. We believe that because our Department is concerned with a number of income security and health and welfare programs that there is inevitably many cross-linkages and many coordinating programs between those. And we do believe that being part of one department where we have task forces within the Department to provide that coordination that this really serves very well, and we do believe that this would disrupt those coordinating functions if this were to

occur.

I am not sure what has happened with your telephone service since AT&T broke up. But I can tell you, I have had personally many problems, which fortunately are getting better, but as a

result of our disruption of that for the legal and antitrust reasons, and also, of course, the Post Office Commission has not been exactly a model of the result of, you know, plural executive, their commission.

So we think that we have a good system. I also indicate that we have not closed any Social Security offices. We do not intend to. We have installed the 800 line as another option that is available for those people who may, for a variety of reasons, either infirmity at home or other reasons, may choose to use that telephone system. But we still have our offices open and our employees there so that an individual client has the option available to them as to whether they want to go in person to an office, or whether they want to use an 800 number. So that is a new option.

So we feel that there have been many things that I could cite more where our administrative efficiencies have increased, and therefore, we believe that we are not frankly given credit for those things which we have worked hard to provide to the American people and also be aware of trying to operate as efficiently as possible.

Senator MOYNIHAN. Sure. That is a very fair-minded statement and I appreciate it. I do not want to presume on my time around this place, but we welcome you to Washington. You have made such a marvelous impression. I do hope you do not think there is any credit to be got for what you do in this city. [Laughter.] It is honor. [Laughter.]

Senator Pryor?

Senator PRYOR. Are we about to have a nominee for Commissioner of Social Security, SSA?

Secretary SULLIVAN. Yes, we are. The precise date, I frankly cannot give you because, as you know, the tedious background checks and financial disclosure reviews, et cetera, that all of our individuals have to go through, that is underway now. But we have indeed recommended an individual to the White House, and that name, I believe, will be coming forward as soon as that process

Senator PRYOR. Well, I am sure that notwithstanding what happens to Senator Moynihan, I know I can speak for all of us, in saying that when that nominee comes, we want to expedite his or her confirmation process.

Secretary SULLIVAN. Yes.

Senator PRYOR. Because I need not remind you, Mr. Secretary, that one-eighth of the Bush Administration is over, you know. We are into June. I am talking about if there is a 4-year term. [Laughter.]

So time is running and▬▬

Secretary SULLIVAN. Do you want me to comment on that, sir? Senator PRYOR [continuing]. And we see this throughout the Department of Treasury, the Department of Commerce. We see these huge holes out there, and I think it is critical that those be filled. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary. Secretary SULLIVAN. Thank you.

I would also point out that indeed while we will have a new name coming forward, our present Commissioner is still in place, still working-

Senator MOYNIHAN. Sure, sure.

Secretary SULLIVAN [continuing]. And still participating in all of the administrative activities and policy development.

Senator MOYNIHAN. And may I just say in closing that I appreciate your reference to Ms. Hardy's, Dorcas Hardy's, initiative in making the income earnings and records available. That was an admirable and very nicely carried out exercise, and she has done her best in difficult circumstances and that deserves to be acknowledged by this Committee as it was by you and it was very gracious of you to do so.

And Doctor, thank you very much, and we will look forward to the nominee, and as Senator Pryor said, we will hold a hearing immediately, and I cannot imagine you will have any difficulty at all. Secretary SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Pryor.

Šenator MOYNIHAN. Now we are going to move on to a very distinguished panel of persons who have between them almost a century of involvement with this subject and our guest from Canada. Our panel of wise men consists of-we will just read down; we just took the alphabetical order; it does not matter-Hon. Robert M. Ball, who is former Commissioner of Social Security, Mr. Robert J. Myers who was present at the creation, as the saying has it, and Mr. Donald Walsh, who is the Director of the Record of Earnings and Contributor Information Services of the Canada Pension Plan. Mr. Walsh, this is the first time that I am aware that a Canadian official has appeared before our Committee, and I see that you are accompanied by Mr. Michel Belanger, who is your assistant, and behind you is Ms. Colette Beauregard.

Ms. Beauregard, would you come to the witness table, too. We would like to have you there, or unless Mr. Walsh prefers you to be behind him so you can whisper in his ear? [Laughter.]

Sure, we want to have you here just to welcome you. This is something that has not happened before. I hope it will happen again soon.

Bob Ball, set to.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. BALL, FORMER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. BALL. Mr. Chairman, this morning in addition to testifying for myself, I am representing the Save Our Security Coalition-Senator MOYNIHAN. Yes.

Mr. BALL [continuing]. SOS, as it is known. It represents over 100 organizations that have about 40 million members, roughly divided evenly between those who are currently contributing to the program and those who are drawing the benefits. The Coalition has a large number of labor unions, senior citizens groups, disabled groups, church groups, and charitable organizations.

Senator MOYNIHAN. A group well and favorably known to this Committee, sir.

Mr. BALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a rather long statement that I would like to submit for the record, and

Senator MOYNIHAN. All statements will be placed in the record as if read, and then you can read it as you wish.

Mr. BALL. And I will try to summarize rather quickly the major points and leave for questioning—

Senator MoYNIHAN. Yes.

Mr. BALL [continuing]. Other things that you may want to bring

out.

Let me say first that I think the case for an independent agency, regardless of how it is set up, whether a single administrator or a board, can be made entirely on administrative grounds. As the Grace Commission pointed out, an agency of this size, affecting just about every American home and with over 60,000 employees and 1,300 district offices around the country, is large enough to have its own services of all sorts. It has personnel, budgeting, financial services and so on.

But if you have at the Secretary's level also the same sort of services, the better the people are at the Secretary's level, the more they will want to be involved in the decisionmaking process of the lower-echelon agency. Duplication, therefore, is almost an inevitable result of the kind of organization that now exists. So I do not want to spend time on that basic issue; the case for an independent agency is quite overwhelming just in administrative terms.

But, Mr. Chairman, the importance of the board setup as compared to a single administrator goes way beyond the question of the most efficient form of organization. I believe it would make a big contribution to the restoration of confidence in the system to have the responsibility for policy development and the administration of this program under the direction of a bipartisan board.

The board form of organization emphasizes the trustee character of Social Security. It emphasizes the fact that people are building today rights that in many instances will be not be exercised for 40 or 50 years in the future. With both parties represented the board form emphasizes that day-by-day administration will be completely separated from political considerations. Instead of having a direct line of political appointees you have the kind of independence that emphasizes the separateness of the program from partisan political considerations.

I would say, though, that I do not believe you would want to push-and the bill does not-the degree of independence of the board to such a point that it would be comparable, say, to the Federal Reserve Board. I believe that a board form of organization for the Social Security Administration should still leave the President in charge of the approval of legislative recommendations, for example.

Senator MOYNIHAN. Yes, yes.

Mr. BALL. And the relationship with the control agencies in general can be much as with a department. I do think that Social Security can do a better job of its own space procurement and its

own

Senator MOYNIHAN. May I stop you there? That is important.
Mr. BALL. Yes.

Senator MOYNIHAN. Should that be provided in statute?

Mr. BALL. In your bill, Mr. Chairman, as you know, you have provided for demonstrations of a considerable degree of independence in personnel and space management, and although I am ready to say it would be okay to move now, I think your idea of a demon