and that is that the top 65, which are the revenue generators, what we don't want to jeopardize are the other thousand or so that aren't, and put them in a situation where they won't be able to fulfill title ix or the level of sports that give so many young people opportunities to participate and get a college education at the same time. >> yes, mr. chairman and senator coats, i think you're asking two of the most important questions. the first is a recognition that 100 or so years ago when the ncaa was created, it was as mr. branch pointed out, with some impetuous from the white house and congress because of all the challenges in college sports. at that time, it was determined that college sports should be appropriately self-governed, that the universities themselves were capable of providing the right kind of structure and guidance and oversight to make

college sports work effectively for young men and young women. we're at a point now where we're going to see yet again whether or not that self-governance system works. i have confidence, because i know most of these presidents as colleagues, and i know their interests and considerations and concerns that that provides me with confidence that they want to move forward on the agendas that i describe plus more in the coming weeks and months. now, i think, mr. chairman, this hearing is a useful cattle prod, if you will, to make sure that everyone understands that the world is watching. the u.s. senate is watching. and everyone is paying attention to what universities are going to do to address these real and significant issues. i think all those things combined give me some very positive belief that we're going to wind up in the right place in a matter of months. if not, we'll have another

conversation, i'm sure, and i have no doubt that you and your successors will make sure we have that conversation. i have no concerns about this body or any other trying to hold universities accountable for the things they need do and should be doing. >> i wanted to note for the record senator coats out in the hallway just found out he had his tenth grandchild. >> and i heard he cried -- >> oh, i didn't tell her that. >> we love that. >> a guy who cries over his grandchildren is very cool. >> we like that. >> another form of cartel. >> i hope this doesn't get you in trouble also calling on my next. i have a couple of things for the record. i would like to submit an opening statement.

your staff has that. >> so ordered. >> as a usc alum, who spoke with pat hayden just before this hearing, i'm pretty sure we usually watch the trojans beat notre dame on nbc, and not espn. sorry, mr. branch. i wish i could say that. having said that, i have a couple of questions. the seven points you brought up, i think, are what you say you're trying to achieve are more weaknesses todaynd they are strengths. if you have to talk about students having scholarships for life, today you don't have one and i think that is a weakness. if you have to talk about men and women having full and actual coverage of their costs while they're in college is a weakness because it's something that you don't have today. if you're talking about leading in the area of safety, you're not doing it today.

if the ncca is talking about taking the lead in sexual assault, they are not doing it today. gap in insurance coverage means it's not happening today. we can go on, managing times and demands on these men and women in school means it's not happening today. i'll share with you every once in a while the chair and i agree on something. i call that lightning in a bottle. maybe it's -- >> care. >> maybe the stars are aligning, i'm not sure, but needless to say i agree, and that is that we do have jurisdiction in this conference over the ncaa. my question is, if tomorrow there is a bill in the front of the united states senate that would disband the ncaa and for all discussions and hearings that wits necessaries spoke today give me a reason why i shouldn't vote for that bill.

>> i'm happy to. the fact is we've been focused already on the things that aren't happening, but the reality also is that an enormous amount of very, very good things are happening -- >> good, i want to hear those. >> that we haven't talked about. so when we focus on the issues of college sports, the vast majority of them, as many of you have noted, the vast majority of those issues are really focused on men's basketball and football, as it's played in the top handful of institutions. if you look at bcs football and men's basketball, you are looking at less than 5% of all of intercollegiate athletics. you're missing 95%. for that other 95%, there are very few of those challenges or problems that are occurring. indeed it is serving -- i'm not very good at math in my head, but if it's 95% of 460,000 students, let's say it's 450,000

or 425,000 students for whom this is working amazingly well. they are graduating at a higher rate than the rest of the student body on their campuses. they're graduating at a higher rate of the rest of the students in the united states. yes, we can in fact have a very good learned discussion about how we measure graduate rates, but if you use the federal rate, student athletes in division i graduated higher than 1% of all nonathletes across campuses in america. if you look at men's and women's basketball, if you look at football, the graduation rates, as mr. bradshaw pointed out have been steadily growing for more than 15 years now, each and every year. if you look at african-american men, the african-american men on any given campus have a 9% higher probability of graduating if they happen to be an athlete than if they're not an athlete. the fact is that student athletes make very good students.

yes, there are many issues that our two former athletes have pointed out very nicely that need to be addressed, but for the vast majority of students, being an athlete also goes along with being a better student and more likely to graduate, and also we believe, though the data is not well done and i just learned that the doctor is working on a study that i think would be very useful. we believe there's good reason to see that they are more successful in life as well overall. so one of the things that we all need to work on together is to make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water here. intercollegiate athletics, as you pointed out is a wonderful part of our society and provides extraordinary opportunities for the vast majority of student athletes. i focus my comments on the things i would like to see fixed. you just elaborated on them. that should not be interpreted as everything's wrong in college sports. indeed, even if you look at scholarships, in fact, no one is

giving a guarantee for no one. most schools are not giving guaranteed four-year commitments. usc has just committed to do that. university of indiana just committed to do that. a handful of others are looking at that, but the reality is that almost no student ever loses their scholarship. >> wasn't that prohibited by the ncaa? >> it was. >> when did that change? >> well, we -- that's one of the things that i think will occur in the coming months. >> in other words, schools did offer four-year scholarships until the ncaa prohibited. >> they did, and i have no idea why that was put in the rules. i have my own notions, but i have no idea. i don't know when that occurred. a number of years ago. >> 1974. '73. >> no reason as to why? >> bill, do you know why? >> i really don't know. >> none of us was in the room. >> in recruiting, it's not a good idea not to give multiyear scholarships. >> i trust the historian. >> i would like to hear it. >> the historical record was that it was driven by the

coaches at the biggest universities precisely the 65 biggest schools, because they wanted more control over their athletes. they are driven to win. you have a better chance of winning if you control the athlete and what time he gets up and how much time he spends in the weight room, so on and so forth. if you can yank their scholarship, then you have more control. >> but you can't do that anymore? >> yes, you can. >> the ncaa in 1973 at the behest of the big school athletic departments and coaches put in a rule that you could not offer more than a one-year scholarship, in other words guaranteeing the coaches that control over the athlete. that survived over 40 years. they're trying to repeal that law so you could at your option offer more. >> excuse me for interrupting. it has in fact been repealed. it's one of the first things i insisted on. >> but it lasted for four years at the behest of the same 65 schools that are now proposing to do these reforms that you're

talking about. i think they're good, but it's because they can afford them and because the gap between the level of money involved and the needs of athletes has gotten so obscene, they can do it on their own. >> allow me, because this is such an important point. it has not changed. a student athlete right now who, for the reasons of a coach at any time, can revoke that scholarship so that student is no longer able to stay at the university. dr. emmerit, that's are you right now, right? >> it's variable. >> starting last year, schools were provided the option. in other words this prohibition was repealed so that a school today can offer a multiyear scholarship, and many do. as i just mentioned, the university of southern california and indiana, for example, have recently announced that that is precisely what they are going to do is offer full

four-year scholarships. many schools have been doing so since the prohibition was lifted. i don't know the extent to which it -- >> but it's not uniform. >> it is most certainly not uniform. >> it's not even the majority of schools. >> senator booker, your turn will come. >> do we need to remind him he is junior on this committee? i think somehow he forgot about it. >> i'm calling on senator mccaskill. >> thank you, i would like to offer into the record the roll call of the institutions who voted to re-establish the one-year rule. after it was voted in in 2011, that you could have the option of giving a four-year scholarship. the very next meeting, there is an attempt to overrule that decision. they needed a two thirds vote to overrule the decision to go back to the one-year requirement. i think it will be very interesting for the members of this committee to look at the institutions that voted to go back to a one-year requirement

in to 2012. they need 62 1/2.. they got 62.12. to go back to the one-year. and i think you'll be surprised. it's counterintuitive. some of the institutions that voted to go back to the one year, like harvard, voted to back to one year. yale was strong, they abstained. we had institutions like texas all wanted to go back to one year, but then there were smaller schools that wanted to go back to one year. one missouri school did, but the university of missouri did not. i was willing to offer this into the record and i was nervous when i got this, because i was afraid my university might have voted to go back to one year, but it's very telling that in 2012 -- now, i guess my question, dr. emmert, why wasn't this made public at the time? i think most of the universities

would be embarrassed if they were publicly called out that they were unwilling to give a four-year scholarship to an athlete. why did it take a request from congress for this roll call for this to ever reach the light of day? i would ask for this list to be made part of the public record. >> so ordered. >> well, the data were made available to all of the membership -- >> i'm talking about to the public. why didn't you put it on the website? >> i'm not debating the fact. i don't simply know whether it was not put on the website. the debate was very public. it was obviously very disputed case. it's a very interesting debate. i was quite stunned by some of the argumentation. one of the things i didn't mention about change that i anticipate in the coming weeks, mr. branch pointed out something that's part of the olympic

movement, olympic tradition now that in the united states that student athletes have to have a very -- not student athletes, olympic athletes have to have a substantial vote and voice in all of the deliberations of the olympic bodies. i certainly advocate for a model much like that, and indeed the proposal that's going to be voted on in -- later in august will include full representation of students as voting members alongside the presidents and athletic directors on all of the legislative bodies, but we currently have student athlete advisory committees that we turn to -- >> doctor, that's all great. >> if i might, ma'am, the student athlete advisory committee advised against putting in multiyear scholarships, because they happen to agree with coaches that it was a good incentive for their colleagues to remain engaged. so some universities voted to overturn this because their very own student athlete advisory committee said, no, no, don't give multiyear scholarships, we

like one-year scholarships. my point is simply, ma'am, it was quite counterintuitive on many levels. >> fair enough, i would like to talk to the students, because i think they probably felt pressure. i have a hard time imagining any student thinks it's in his best interest to get a one-year scholarship than four-year scholarship. >> i was quite surprised. >> i would like to get to the rape accusations. in one of the responses to one of the letters i sent you, you indicated that you provide an online title ix legal and best practices material and video classes. my question is, in that material, do you make the recommendation to your institutions that they not be allowed to handle the adjudication of title ix complaints involving sexual assault against student athletes? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> well, we've done a survey. the results came out today. i was shocked to find out that 30% of the division i, ii, and iii schools allow their athletic

departments to handle the allegations against their athletes. now, we have a big problem with victims being willing to come forward. i assume you've read the long cover story about the investigation that did not occur with mr. winston at florida state. >> i have. >> that there was no investigation of that allegation. we will never know whether he was guilty or not, because nobody ever investigated because of who he was. if you're a victim and know your alleged will be handled by the@let sick department by any other student on campus handled in a different system, why in the world would you think the process was going to be fair? >> i read your data this morning, and i was both it sounds like equally surprised and dismayed by that fact. i think the concern you're raising is spot on. i think it creates, first of all, conflicts of interest.

i think it creates the kind of enormous apprehension that you are describing right now on the part of a victim as somebody who has spent most of his life on campus and in several jobs, had responsibilities to campus safety whenever i was a president, i had to deal with victims and family members of victims, and people who had suffered egregious harms. i found its most difficult problem i ever wrestled with. i think this is something that needs to be addressed. i think your data is shining a very important light on a phenomenon i think most of the members are going to be very surprised to know exists. >> well, i think that my sense, and i have a lot of questions about transparency about money and whether or not things are made public. i feel for you, because part of me think that is you're captured by those you are supposed to regulate, but then you're supposed to regulate those you are captured by.

i can't tell whether you're in charge or whether you're a minion to them. the notion that you can't forcefully state, i will go after this and i will make sure no university allows our athletic department to handle a sexual allegation against one of their team members, you know, i don't sense that you feel like you have any control over the situation, and if you have no control, if you're merely a monetary pass-through, why should you even exist? >> well, i think the -- the reality is that while the issue we are talking about here i don't have a vote on, and i don't get to set those policies, i can certainly set the tone on it, and i can certainly be someone who voices a very loud opinion and says this is not right, this is inappropriate, these are the conflicts that exist when you have a policy and a practice like this on on your campus. when i first took the job, the very first summit i held in

indianapolis was a summit on sexual violence, a summit that led to the creation of a working group of experts, not college athletic folks, but of experts from across the country to create a working group and a think tank. we'll be issuing the results of their work this summer as a working book, a workbook and guide to best practices. i'm now, thanks to your work, going to go in and mick sure this issue is addressed in that handbook. i'm going to talk to the leadership at our very next meeting in august that we need to find ways that athletic departments are not the ones that are responsible for adjudication of these issues because of all the concerns you raise. >> thank you. i'm over my time. i hope somebody else covers the questions about young people from families that can't afford to even travel to see their children play in the games. >> yes.

>> because meanwhile, the universities are making millions off their children, but their parents can't even get a stipend to attend the game to watch their child play. there is something wrong with that scenario. and it's going on college campuses across this country every single week. >> i agree with you. thank you. i want to start with one of my favorite stories of the year. the coach is the coach for the university of minnesota football team who has epilepsy. as you know, had a number of seizures during games, during stressful moments of games. the university president said we're not going to get rid of him. our record has been rocky, the gophers, they kept the coach on. he had to coach from a box, he couldn't coach on the field because of his condition. during the entire season he coached from a box, and i was

there when we beat nebraska with him in a box. it was a great moment. it was a great story, but it does make me think, as i hear all of this, that that kind of compassion, what was so captivating about the story is it kind of defied what had been become of so many of these big sports games and the cutthroat competition and how people were treated. so i think what you're hearing up here today is the hope that these are deliverables, these are things that can happen, when you talk about changing the sexual assault policy, making sure the players have the health care insurance, making sure they have the time to do these internships. they aren't crazy hard things to do. that we have another hearing, whether it's six months from now or a year from now to check up on what's happening with these

things. these are things we don't have to pass a law to change when i listen to these commitments and the possibilities. i want to go to one of the things we haven't talked about as much. that is the issue of concussions. we had several players, whether they're at the high school level or college level. i know that senator tom udahl co-sponsored his bill. we had hearings on this specific topic already. i understand there is work being done here. i know there's a lawsuit that's going on, but i wondered if you could comment, dr. emmert and with your medical focus just your opinion of it, but if you could talk about what's being done with this issue. i think it's an important level in all levels of sports. >> i think it's a critical issue and most heavily identified. it occurs in virtually every sport. it's also leading cause for concussions in young women in soccer, for example. it occurs in virtually every sport. there are a number of things going on. first of all, as i had mentioned

in my opening comments, we created -- when i first came into the office, i was a bit surprised to find there wasn't a chief medical officer position in the ncca. i created that job and went out and we hired a wonderful doctor who is a neurologist. he's working unbelievably hard. to pull together the best science. we don't have good science on concussions. it's not as well understood as we all might think. once they've done that, just this past handful of days they released the first-ever consensus among all the medical community on the treatment and the prevention of concussions, especially around football, a new football practice guidelines around contact and a variety of other things. we signed with the department of defense about two months ago, an agreement to do a $30 million project. we're putting up $15 million, dod is putting up there 15 million to attract

longitudinally young men and women and try to get a legitimate history of the occurrence and treatment of the concussion. so we understand them better. we're working with youth sports, all of the youth sports organization to try to get better practice guidelines working with the nfl to try to get their heads-up program, trying to get coaches trying to teach young men and boys how to tackle properly. we have issues with soccer. there are girls' soccer coaches saying we need to ban any heading until girls and boys are at least 12 years of age. so we're looking at trying to lend our support to those kinds of efforts. we're making -- pardon the pun -- headway, but the facts, we need a lot more understanding of where this disorder. i'm pleased where we are, and i'm proud. >> part of the reason why i stopped playing in the nfl to pursue medicine and go into a

particular speciality of neurosurgery was because i saw a lot of my teammates with early onset dementia or some of these traumatic brain injury, things that you often associate with several concussive episodes. i saw it in the nfl, and now as an aspiring neurosurgeon, i would love to add expertise to that discussion, but one thing i noticed in the locker rooms was a lot of my teammates, fellow athletes, we want to be fast, right? we want to be quick, we want to be nimble, we want to be agile. so the protective equipment we wear, a lot of guys would choose and select equipment that's lighter and maybe not as protective. so that may lead to more concussive episodes. i think education is incredibly important. we do have some athletic trainers and doctors that come and speak to us as collegiate athletes and talk to us about the dangers of concussion. if you are concussed as a player, sometimes you feel

pressured and forced to get back on the field as quickly as possible. and then if you have a risk of getting a second concussion, your likelihood of getting a third, fourth and fifth goes up exponentially. the pressures of trying to be on the field, trying to compete, not losing your position all at the same time as devon said earlier, if you're not on the field, nfl coaches can't see you, you're not exposed perhaps you lose the opportunity of getting drafted high and getting to the next level. along with education, it's just to perhaps change the culture, change the focus of the big collision, high-velocity hits in football and the idea that that is a part of the game. it is not a part of the game. if you look at the rule book, it's to take a player to the ground similar to how rugby is performed, but you see the highlights and exposure on the big high velocity hits where guys are spearing into another player.

that's what gets highlighted. that's what gets celebrated, and i think that's the wrong path. as i said, hopefully in a few years or so, i can add more knowledge to this discussion, but from my anecdotal knowledge, it is an issue. that's not only in the nfl, but also college and even before that, high school and primary school football, as well. >> i'll ask questions on the record of the internships of you mr. ramsey. i thought that was fascinating, when you look at the numbers dr. emmert gave us on what a small proportion of the student athletes end up going into pro sports, that's most likely not going to be their career. they have to have that ability to pursue, and if it's supposed to be 20 hours, then we have to find some way to measure that and enforce it so it's across the board. that is one thing i'm interested in hearing a follow-up in a year. thank you for bringing that to our attention. thank you. it has to go down as we discussed yesterday, to the high school level. we put some of this in perspective. i do think there are ways to change cultures.

we've changed cultures in this country before and still have great sports games. thank you. >> thank you. i want to say something about you. to me this hearing so far has been a lot of talk about a lot of things which have been around for an awfully long time, which we all think should be solved, but they're not solved, and i think there are very clear reasons for it, and that is decision-making is flawed, fragile and useless. florida, which has -- everybody recruits from florida, they have a law which you would know, senator blumenthal, that transparency, how much money is spent, has to be made public because they have a law. and so, you know, in the contributions and when ncaa

comes in, only a small portion goes to education and all kinds of things go to the stadium, that is all available to the public. so i commend them for coming from a state like that, and i just think that's the path with so many answers, which we just otherwise seem to be unwilling to deal with. excuse me. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. and i think a lot has come out of this committee hearing that should enable and help dr. emmert to continue with the reforms that he's trying. so much has been said about many of these issues. let me just high light some, a couple. i happen to know because i was mesmerized with mr. rolle as a

player at florida state. for him to do his interview for the rhodes scholarship, which was in the south, on a saturday, his president t.k. weatherall had to get special dispensation so that they could get someone to donate a private jet for him that could fly him somewhere in the northeast when florida state was playing up here, and even so, he made it only in the second half. but the emphasis -- you know, that's something that's so commonsense that you would want a player to interview for the rhodes, and yet it was a big deal. it shouldn't have been.

the fact of so many of these players that are coming from families that are dirt poor, and they don't have the opportunities that others do. it seems to me it's commonsense we ought to have stipends or scholarship, whatever you want to call it so it equalizes the playing field of the financial ability if those student athletes are contributing to the financial well-being of that university. so too with health insurance. that ought to be commonsense. if a player is hurt and that is a career-ending injury, the best of medical care ought to be given to that player and for it to last for some period of time in the future. and of course, concussions

just add a whole other dimension to this thing. i thought it was very interesting in another committee that i have the privilege of chairing, we did a hearing on concussions, and -- including professional athletes they would not recommend to their children that they play football. so times are changing. the ncaa has got to get with the times. so whatever this committee hearing has done to enable you as a reformer to get those schools to give you the votes that you need to do a lot of these things that we're talking about, the family travel. why should they have to

sneak around in the shadows in order to get money to be able to buy a ticket to come to the game and where to stay in a hotel and so forth? i mean, it just -- it defies commonsense. mr. rolle, you want to make any final comment? >> sure. one thing that i'd like to say is that when you think about the four-year scholarship discussion and the one-year renewable, a lot of players i was on teams with, it kind of feld like it was us versus them. it wasn't a team. we didn't feel like the ncaa was protecting our best interests, was looking out for us, one to see us succeed and thrive and flourish. it was almost as if we had to do everything we could to promote ourselves and better ourselves against this big machine that was dictating and ordering the steps we took. maybe that's not true. maybe it's just a miscommunication, maybe the

information wasn't getting you disseminated well enough, but that's how we felt. i think another thing quite bothersome today going back to the economic struggles, a lot of my teammates, as you know, senator nelson, come from poor areas in florida. they come to florida state as the first person in their family to be a college student. they don't have a lot of other money to lean back on from their families. that leaves them open to unsavory things. these are agents and nfl runners who knock on our doors and say, i can take you out to a night club, i can buy you a meal, i can give you a suit to wear, i can take you and your girlfriend out to eat and they accept it, because they don't have much else, then they become ineligible, and they have no future because they have a black mark or just don't play anywhere so they end up back in

liberty city, miami, or polke county, florida. it's frustrating and discouraging. i saw it often. >> that is the exact example that we need to use. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. is not senator corey booker in attendance today? it's his turn to ask a question. five minutes. i apologize. you could have run for the senate ten years ago. >> i don't want to be disrespectful to senator blumenthal who i think was here before me earlier. would you like to? no? >> i will ask my questions now only because i have to preside, and if you would yield for five minutes, i would really appreciate it. >> i've already been put in my place once. you're more senior than me. i will yield. >> yeah, but you're bigger than i am. so -- [ laughter ] >> let me thank you, mr.

chairman, for having this hearing, which very sincerely i think is a very important one or a significant for the future of academic institutions. i want to thank all of the folks who have come to enlighten us and thank you to senator nelson. for having that hearing on concussions. that was very enlightening. and i want to begin by saying, for what it's worth, i think the law here is heading in a very unfortunate direction. as dr. emmert and i have discussed, i think the law is heading in the direction of regarding athletes at university more and more as employees, and that is because of the grow iin asymmetry and inequality of bargaining positions, financial benefit, energy, time, sweat, blood, injury that is involved. that is classically the reason

why labor law protections have applied to individuals who potentially are victims of exploitation. whether in garment factories or construction sites or universities. so i think the challenge here is to diminish that acemetery to reduce the inequality and to return, truly, to the model of student athletes which i think many of us want to be the prevailing model, but increasingly is not so. therefore the laws will move to protect them as the nlrb ruling reflects. and i say that with regret, because i too, as dr. emmert has articulated well value the student athlete model rather than the employee/employer model, but the more the reality

is that athletes in effect function as employees, the more the law will recognize that fact. my opinion is worth what you're paying for it. i'm just a country lawyer from connecticut, but i sincerely believe that that's the direction of the law. i want to first ask you, dr. emmert, i was absolutely astonished and deeply troubled by the revelation that athletic departments on many campuses investigate campus sexual assaults. i would like your commitment that you will work to change that practice as soon as possible and as effectively as possible. >> you have my commitment. i obviously want to understand the data more. i simply read a summary. i'm not sure what the facts are on those campuses. as i said earlier, the data that senator mccaskill's staff

brought forward was shocking to me. >> well, i am shocked and outraged by you apparent practice on many campuses with the effect of revictimizing survivors who may be in effect victims. i want to focus for the moment on health insurance. you know, individual colleges and the ncaa made billions on the talents of these young men and women, and i want to ask you, couldn't the ncca offer health insurance for athletes for a certain amount of time after they leave college? that seems imminently fair. making them better athletes and students while they are there. so i would ask for your commitment that you will work towards providing for health insurance for these needs and injuries that may extend beyond their playing years on campus or

even professional settings, and i'd like to know what more -- assuming you are committed to that cause what more your organization can do to encourage schools to provide this kind of coverage for its student athletes. >> yes, sir. well, today the coverage that exists right now is provided either by the campus itself or by the student athlete's family, depending upon university policies at most of the high resource schools, they provide the insurance so the student doesn't have to. we need to do several things. one, we need to make sure, in my opinion, we need to make sure there aren't co-payment requirements of a young man and woman in a low-income family have an injury and suddenly they have a $2,000 or $5,000 co-payment. that seems grossly inappropriate. since the was a sports-related

injury, why be on the hook for that? we have right now at the ncaa level catastrophic insurance, so if there is long-term disability issues. if there are injuries that require treatment over the course of a lifetime, there is a policy in place. we have some individuals that have been on the policy for 20 or more years. we have taken a number of steps to make sure that is as strong as it possibly could be. that policy doesn't kick in until you have $90,000 worth of bills. we need to make sure that, to your point -- i'm saying yes, i guess, senator, you have my commitment. >> i'm glad to hear the yes. >> there are complexities in all this we need to work our way through. but i agree with you that no one should have to pay for an injury they suffered as a student athlete. >> thank you. i welcome and accept your yes to both the sexual assault and the insurance questions. i would ask further for your

commitment to work with us on sensible legislation that will impose a higher level of responsibility in both areas. thank you. >> certainly. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> go ahead. thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i'm grateful, we talked about this in my first days as united states senator that this was an issue you wanted to cover. you saw my excitement for doing that. a lot of my stimt was that i was in the '90s an ncca division i football player. i want to first say, it's very important for me to say, i probably wouldn't be here right now if it wasn't for that experience. i am deeply grateful. i joke all the time i got into stanford because of a 4.0, and 1600, 4.0 yards per carry and 1600 yards receiving in my high school years. and had lifetime experiences frankly that i could never, ever replace. it opened up extraordinary doors

for me. so we could have a hearing that could go on for hours if not days about all the good things that are happening with the ncaa, so please forgive me if i'm not giving that appropriate light. what concerns me and what you and i have talked about chairperson for quite some time are the egregious challenges we have. i want to publicly thank dr. emmert, he was gracious not only to come here, which he did not have to do, but took special time to come see me as a former athlete to sit down and hear my concerns. i was taken aback that you agreed with me across the board. let me just reiterate those for the record and make sure we are in agreement. so number one, you agree the big problem that athletes don't get scholarships to get a b.a.? >> yes. >> that is a big problem that we have, athletes that pour their lives, 40, 50 hours a week, and then end up having gone through their eligibility, but don't have a b.a. that is a problem? >> yes.

>> you agree it's a problem that we have athletes, often very poor coming onto college campuses restricted from working, they can't shovel driveways for extra spending money, can't meet the needs of travel, can't buy toiletries, clothing, if they're restricted from working, you know that's a problem we have to address? >> a minor correction, not banned from working. they can in fact work, and in many cases do, but the biggest challenge is they simply haven't the time. >> so in other words they can't work because of whatever reason, you know that's the problem that the scholarship does not cover the full costs at the same time they're being expected, whether by law or not, to work 40, 50, 60 hours a week. >> completely agree. >> that's a problem. >> you agree it's a problem with the health coverage is inadequate and that we have people, many of whom i know and you know, who have blown-out knees, and even though they have graduated now, they're having to go into the pockets for co-pays and the like to deal with

medical injuries that were occurred, really the root was the challenges they had when they were a athletn athlete? >> i agree the insurance today is much better than most people think, but there's certainly areas that need to be closed. >> and it's costing some athletes thousands into their lifetimes. >> yes. >> you agree there's a real problem still with time, that as as the two athletes at the end of the table, they're not much different from me, it's not just the practice time. guys, how many hours would you show up before practice to get your ankles taped, get treatments, an hour? two hours? sometimes three hours, depending on how bad the injuries? we have athletes putting in upwards of 60, 70 hours a week, that's a problem? >> a huge problem. >> you agree that there is a -- at least an issue that has to be dealt with to improve the issue of sexual assault that has to be improved in terms of the way we investigate? >> yes, and i think the way we educate young men and women, and the way we educate people on

campuses to handle those issues. >> right. this we didn't cover, so it might not be a simple yes or no, but in terms of the due process, when a young man like mr. ramsey, not even knowing he had, could get a lawyer, not even getting help, that there are breakdowns in process that are not clear. would you say that process could be improved? >> it certainly could, especially on most campuses, yes. >> i guess i just turn to you, mr. chairman, not having the time to go through more rounds and deeper questioning, to just say clearly this is my problem. this was a challenge for when i was an athlete, some 20 years ago, and athletes after athletes are going through and facing what i consider the exploitation of athletes. let me be very clear. it is exploitation when you have an athlete working 60, 70 hours a week, yet still not able to afford the basic necessities.

not just having your parents fly back and forth, but being put in horrible situations, where they see their jersey with their name on it being sold, making thousands and thousands of dollars, but they can't even afford to get the basic necessities of life. and if they try to sell their jersey for 50 bucks, they get penalized. that's exploitation of an athlete. to me it's exploitation when you give your body -- gentlemen on the end, how many linemen do you know that played with you that have gone through four, five, six surgeries for their knees? a lot. and if they're going into their own pocket after given up their knees to make millions of dollors for the university, then the universities aren't even compensating them appropriately, that's an exploitation of a college athlete that has to be addressed. if we have guys like was testified by the two gentlemen on the end, who i know this,

because we spent hours, we did the math, my teams, because so many players feels an assault on your dignity, that you're putting 70, 80 hours a week. giving up internships, you know more about your playbook. i can still tell you stone break curve, tod light, chris zorich, that's what you're studying, and then your university is not ensuring that you get a degree in the end in something like engineering or political science. that they're not honoring the fact that sometimes, hey, when you're working full time you can't finish your degree in four or five years. in fact, when they could lord over you the removal of your scholarship, because it does still happen. athletes are still exploited. if they blow out their knee, if they somehow don't meet the mandates of a coach, they lose their scholarship, they don't get their degree.

so to me this is plain and simple the dark side of the ncaa where athletes are being exploited. this is why i love that taylor branch is here, because occasionally -- and you used these words, it may work as a cattle prod to get us moving. this hearing may be a cattle prod. i wrote that word down. because i have seen the ncaa move quickly when there's money and reputation on the table. for example, you mentioned his name, shabazz nappier. on the higher exaltation of victory, he says on national tv what we know athletes -- what coaches know is a truth -- that some guys don't even have the money to buy shaving cream. to eat at night. but he says it on national tv, and within seven days, because of the shame and embarrassment,

within seven days, if i'm correct, the rules changed and guys can actually eat. >> yes though i'd like -- >> hold on, because i'm already over my time. let me give you another example. cam newton was going through the same problems you were at the over my time. cam newton was going through the same problems you were at the same time, hi eligibility was being challenged mr. ramsay, cam newton a guy that brings millions into the university, his adjudication happened quickly. yours did not. you're not a name athlete, names on the jerseys and the like, so it didn't. i want to say in conclusion, mr. chairperson, and really why i love that taylor branch is here, because one of the morse seminal books in my life about the civil rights movement -- that when there's a class of individuals who are being exploited and there's millions of dollars being brought in and guys can't even afterward health care, can't afford to finish their degrees, then we have a problem. and i respect dreamt emmert in saying we're going to try to

address that, but where is the urgency this has been going on for decades in america? so i don't trust, like the supreme court, when they said we're going to integrate schools, they want do it with what? with what kind of speed? >> deliberate. >> it took them a long time to get around to doing the right thing -- these aren't just people, they're young people in the united states of america. we can't afford to wait for all deliberate speed. there's got to be a level for accountability for fast action for things on the head of the ncaa says is a problem. that next season when football season starts, there will be kids suffering from the same list of unfair things that somehow someday will be addressed. i think we need another hearing with the real rule makers, with college presidents lined up, a ask them how fast will they address the exploitation of college athletes. mr. chairman, thank you. >> dr. emrid, respond?

>> i have a sacred obligation to senator ayotte. she's next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. let me just say up front on the issue of athletic departments investigating sexual assault allegations. that is ridiculous. you've got to get in and fix that right away. i'm a proud graduate of the penn state university. and it's -- obviously, we're -- it was so troubling and disappointing to see what happened at my university. i love the university but the athletic department is nowhere you handle these kinds of allegations so you got to fix that. walk out this door and fix that. what i'm troubled about when i hear the testimony today and i just need to understand, senator blumenthal asked about the change to an employer/employee model. we talked about compensation, potentially for athletes today.

i don't want to see any athletes mistreated. i want them to be able to have a quality of life that's important as they serve and get the education and be able to be an athlete the student athlete model. but as i think about for example, what the nlrb did in its ruling, i know know it applies to private universities but i think about the compensation model, what does this do in terms of the schools where we're not talking about the top athletes that may go on, that are the revenue-generating sports? what will that do to women's athletics? if we start down the road of a compensation model what h happen in the schools in terms of the schools that -- or the sports that aren't at the top where those athletes? you can sell the jerseys and make money, but are still very important to student life? and when i think about title 9 in women and the opportunities

women have gotten because of title 9, if you're on scam puts and this suddenly becomes an employer/employee type of model, what is that do for women's sports if they're not revenue-again rating and how do we sustain them if this model changes? that's a big question but i'd like you to comment on it because the last thing i want to see is for -- i want to make sure that our athletes are treated well and certainly, what you've done is really inspiring to see what you've done. and thank you, mr. ramsey, as well, for your inspiration and being here. but there's a whole category of athletes that were not quite at your level but are participating in college sports and it's been an opportunity for them to getten education and for women, as well. that are at your level but don't

always generate the same amount of revenue and i want to make sure that women still have the opportunity that they've had because of title 9. so if you could comment on that i'd appreciate it. >> i would love to comment on that. i think it's not a zero sum game. if some athletes are profit athletes who have a higher market value than the cost of their grand and aid, then we should treat them differently than athletes who are not profit athletes. it's not either/or or they must be. if they're employees, as the nlrb found, we should treat them as employees. that does not mean that college athletics or athletes and other sports, women or -- it doesn't -- >> can i tell you -- >> it's not an either/or -- >> doctor, my university said if the unionation rule was applied, university of new hampshire, they feellike this will diminish the athletic program and it will diminish it for women and nonrevenue-generating sports. i understand what you're saying but that's not what i'm hearing

from other universities. >> i would say that probably a university president by the name of chicken little, might have been the first one to say that. because the sky will not, in fact, fall. by denying profit athletes just compensation in the market, does not preclude colleges and universities from supporting intercollegiate athletics as an educational opportunity. if they're employees they should have all the rights of employees. title 9 does not apply in an employee setting. >> i would like to see what mr. bradshaw has to say about what i just said as well. thank you. >> we probably don't have time but i'd certainly like to hear that model that works. i believe it's going to be devastating to all those student athletes including women who don't produce revenue. who aren't seen as -- athletes

or student who is create that revenue. i would like to see that model work because as we all know that's going to mean those that can afford to pay for that, will. and those that can't won't. >> thank you. >> again, if i could reiterate and i appreciate the question and i'm trying to articulate it as clearly as i can. if the athletes are, in fact, employees, then we have a moral obligation and an obligation under the law, to treat them as such. if they're not, it does not preclude them from participating. title 9 does not have to be held hostage by this because we're only talking about 5% of the athletes. >> i know my time is up so we'll have a distinction. some are employees and some won't?

some are student athletes and some aren't? >> they already are employees. so by being opened and honest about what we're using and exploiting these athletes for, honesty is a very good thing. >> so as a woman athlete, if i'm not a revenue-generating athlete i'm not eligible for the employee/employer relationship. so there's a second category of athletes on campus. that bothers me. >> they already have that. we refer to them as athletes and revenue sports and olympic sports. that's fine. it does not mean that if we compensate athletes according to the market, that everyone else has to go away. that is not what has to occur at all. so if the universities find that that opportunity is very important, they will still support it. they will still support it. i see no way that women's

athletics or olympic athletics is going to go away. it's not going to happen. it just isn't. mr. chairman? >> dr. emrid, as i listened to kelly's questions about the cost structure and the likely impact of creating some unions or some employees and some not employees, they ultimately, the cost structure itself would have impact in universities and have impact in athletic programs. i just wonder how significant that impact would be. and let me say this before you answer the question so you can think about your answer. to mr. suddall, good to have you here from columbia, south carolina, i would be remiss if you went to the right place, the gamecocks, ilike that a lot, being a south carolina fan myself. my story is very different than cory's story and these road scholars on the end who have done very well academically and

i'm proud to see your success off the field as well as on the field. i'll say my story, i think, really plays an important part of why i'm asking the questions about the cost structure. i'm a kid that grew up in a single-parent household. had it not been for football i wouldn't have been able to go to college football at all. i played come football for a year and i earned a christian leadership 'scholarship and i realize that the responsibilities and the burden of before and after and the labs and the challenges i face and made a decision to go a different route but the fact of the matter is had it not been for the scholarship opportunity i would not be sitting here today because i wouldn't have had the opportunity to even start my education so when i think about -- and i went to a small school, presbyterian college, so when i think about the cost structure of this conversation on athletes that

are not in those top tier schools, there's a significant unintended consequence i think we're looking at that kelly really brought to the surface that's hard to deny and, perhaps, even harder to figure out how to fix it. >> well, i happen to agree with you. i think that the implications of converting student athlete model to an employee/employer model would utterly transform college sports into something that doesn't begin to look like what it looks like today. the impact on the -- with all due respect i agree with the interpretation of all this. if you simply look at the definition of an employee as has been provided by one nlrb add administrator. if they work more as a student athlete than they are as in

their academic work, then they're working. if they are subject to the oversight of a coach then they have a boss. i'm not a labor lawyer but that's in summary, the definition of a student athlete. that would apply to every student athlete that has a scholarship. men, woman, it doesn't matter. a woman soccer player. the difference between a woman's basketball player and a men's basketball player isn't that the men's basketball player works harder it is president that through more or less talented. the difference is there's more people in the stand. that's it, in terms 06 their time commitment and their competitiveness, everything. one plays in front of a lot of people and one doesn't. the difference between a volleyball play or and a soccer

player is exactly the same. the only difference is whether they're playing on tv or whether they're not. >> yes, sir. >> so that completes the relationship. title 9 has nothing to do with employee/employer relationships, so that has nothing to do with a student athlete that is no longer an employee. it would be an irrelevant si for college sports. >> mr. bradshaw, a know you played sports i couple of years go. it says four or five years ago, not 45. but my question is -- as you've had a lot of experience and you looked at this opportunity as well as the challenges that come with the opportunity from multiple angles, what kind of progress have you seen over the last three decades or so as we wrestled with some of the challenges that are going to be future challenges and certainly our present challenges, sometimes we miss the progress that we've made along the way. >> certainly, all of us think we

can do better. no question about it. we spend most of our time talking about how we can be better and not patting ourselves on the back. i would say as a former assistant coach back in the day, and head coach and student athlete, that it's night and day. the changes, the quality of physicians, the trainers, i mean, we didn't know what a dietician was when we were student athletes or a head coach. the changes are enormous. they're compelling. and i think one of the things i would recommend is that you get some student athletes to talk to. there's a -- there's a balance. obviously there's outliers. there's some horrible stories that have happened and none of those is too many, whether it's assault or date rape or whatever it might be, that i would love to see a panel of student

athletes come in and talk about everything. a balanced panel of that. it's been significant across the line. and i'm retired now. i can talk about it very objectively and be concerned about a college president or a faculty or a board of trustees. it's really an incredible profession we're in. and the changes that the ncaa is trying to make and again, mark's got to deal with votes. he's got to deal with the institutions. the college presidents. the board of trustees that pressure the college presidents. i think you got something when you want to bring the presidents in here. i think that would be a good move and something that could help everyone. but the changes that have happened, they are just by leaps and bounds, particularly in the last decade. >> final question, mr. chairman? do i have time for a final question? >> sure. >> my gamecocker, bob southhall. as you look at the opportunity for collective bargaining and its impact on the academic environment realizing that most institutions or all institutions, primary objective

is to cultivate an environment that's conducive for academic achievement. how do you see the impact of the collective bargaining opportunity, though i have grave concerns with it personally on college campus us and its environment? >> i don't see that it would have any affect. >> good enough. thank you, sir. >> okay thank you. i want to make a -- and coach, i know the question you want to ask and dr. emrid has answered most of the questions and i know you feel a duty to ask the question. there's not going to be a second round. i'll make a closing statement. and then at 5:15 we'll be through this very long hearing. i want to say this. i have two impressions. one is superficial and the other, i think, is worrisome of this hearing. and i want each of you to either agree or not agree with me as kind of your closing statements. that on one level this has been an opened conversation. we've brought up all kinds of issues. and those issues have been discussed.

to a small degree or a large degree. but my real feeling from this hearing is that we haven't accomplished much. and that people have laid down their sort of protective -- i'm not talking about you two gentlemen. but that there's been a sort of a self-protection mode. either for one's self or on behalf of others. your point about getting the board of trustees and that would be kind of interesting. because they have a big influence over college presidents. but all i know is coming out of this hearing, i don't think i've learned anything particularly

new except some anecdotes is that i haven't been hearing for 50 years. which is how long i've been in this business. and that the answers, you know, of course, there's progress. of course there's progress on concussions and of course there's progress in other thing. but is it in any way concommitant and effect of progress in what we should have been doing, all of us, including this committee and this congress, by not exercising our oversight rights? the head of the ncaa at one point said, one of the first things i did was to make sure that -- and i forget the example -- but this was a statement -- i got something

done. i i don't believe that. i don't believe that. i think the system is rigged so that you are separated from the possibilities of getting something done except as you testify or, you know, you probably couldn't write articles. you probably would get blow-back on that. i don't think you have the power and i think it's i had constructed for that purpose. i'm cynical. i'm cynical about it. it's too easy to complain in senate hearings or any other forum, what progress has been made or of course, there's always progress that's been made but does it keep up with what needs to be done?

and the answer is, absolutely not. and this country is now so soaked in the culture espn and other station and watching football and baseball, world soccer, all the rest of it. i mean, it's -- i think it's -- my own view is it's undermining our values. i'll tell you one thing for sure. i think it's undermining our commitment to education. and dr. southall, i think that you're talking about the different ways of jiggering the students who are not athletes, actually doing the better job academically. than those who respect to. it was said by the head of the ncaa that that was true and it was in his testimony. i don't believe that. i just don't believe it.

now, i may be wrong but -- and then the different formulas you use. it was very interesting to me and something lied ike to know more about. to me it's been, in essence, an important hearing but not one that points to progress. and because i think everybody is going to leave this hearing and they're going to go right back. i'm not. i don't think senator booker is and i don't think a bunch of others are. go back to doing what they do. we got that one out of the way. nothing -- no harm there. nosh did themselves any great damage. nobody did themselves any great damage. congress doesn't usually follow through. congress doesn't get that much done. that happens to be true the last three or four years and then there's always the question of getting people from, you know,

either trustees or heads of colleges and universities from states and then members here that are co-related to that might not want to have that happen. the world works in ways that protects itself. but this is a particularly ugly one. the question of rape and having -- i mean, i voted not to allow the department of defense to settle rape questions. i think that's ridiculous. it passed, what i didn't want to pass passed by a margin, but not a great margin so, yes, that's progress. but what we wanted to do is get there. and i don't have a feeling that that we're on that path. yank this hearing symbolizes that we might be. but the substance is that we probably won't be. react to that. anybody who wants to and then i'll close the hearing. >> mr. branch, i think you had some --

>> well, senator, that's a -- i think that some differences have been -- and they're big differences in talking about the way things work and how to reform and the whole underlying structure. frankly, i think some differences have been diminished. i agree wholeheartedly with one thing dr. emrid said, that a lot of these economic restrictions and ncaa rules, if they were vacated our abolished or somehow vacated for athletes as they were for coaches, it wouldn't make a particle of difference for 90% of athletes. and a small -- an athlete or a recruit at a small division 3 school would be able to ask for better health coverage or a salary and the university, the little school would be free to laugh at them and say, we don't do it. go somewhere else. just like if the picky lo player said, i want to march in the

band. the schools with free to bargain that way but it would make an enormous difference in precisely these 65 schools we're talking about where there was gigantic money if an athlete can bargain for better health care coverage and more time to study for a longer scholarship, it would change things. right now the model is that the schools do that solely at their dispennation. the coaches in these schools want to give money out of their own pocket to the players like a tip, because they know they don't have enough money to eat. so a model that recognizes that these athletes are trying to manage two very demanding careers at once, that are in separate is spheres is a step forward but to me right now the least hopeful thing i heard today is we're looking to these same 65 schools that are the most commercialized as the engine of reform and the ncaa, i don't see it. they might give higher compensation and more tips, but

they're the ones that created most of these problems in the first place. i don't think the big schools are going to do anything other than be driven more and more by the market and athletics and quite frankly, those schools exploit their athletes both as players and as students, because i go around to all these big schooling and the athletes tell me they're pushed into -- they're pushed into certain majors that are easy. they're not allowed to take certain courses. the sad thing to me, i think that some differences are outlined and may be diminished. but i don't think see the big 65 schools as an engine for much reform in the future because their record doesn't show that. >> any other comments? mr. chairman? >> i'd ask before, i know -- >> i know you want dr. emrid to

reply to everything he says? >> i think he deserve es the opportunity to do that when someone takes an extra 2350i6 minutes and senator booker had every right and he was passionate about what he said but he leveled some accusations at the ncaa. i think at least, they deserve to be able to respond to that. >> he'll have ample chance to do that. i've been bent over backwards, annoyed some of my members to give you a particular break because you come from indiana where ncaa is headquartered and i've done that. >> i don't think you gave me a particular break. i was the first one here and that's the normal procedure. yet, i had my -- >> if you hadn't been you made it very clear to me on the floor you wanted to be able to be the first one to ask the questions and i said, it was okay. it was senator thune -- so i'm not going to bend on that. this is the closing statement and mr. emrid is free to answer in any form he wants.

he can write every member of the congress committee a letter. anybody else want to say anything? >> i've spent the last 15 years of my professional career examining intercollegiate athletics. after this hearing today, i, like yourself, am very disheartened because i'm not sure that we collectively, are willing to take a cold, hard objective look informed by research and informed by data at the collegiate model of athletics. >> all right. that being said, i want to thank everybody for this. this has been a long and interesting hearing. everything is the first step as neil armstrong said and we got a

lot of steps to make and as others pointed out, the world is changing. you know, it's like that jackie robinson "42" movie. and the player comes in and he says, i want to be traded. and then a couple of weeks later he comes back and says, i don't want to be traded. what about -- you willing to play with robinson? he said, the world is changing and i can change, too. now, i think there's an element of that in all of this progress, has its own sort of duties and i think there's been progress. my question is, in that for my entire adult life i've been hearing about this and that still so many problems are there, i think calls into question the way decisions are made and carried through within the upper ranks of the football and basketball community. and that's on my mind and i'm chairman so i'm going to say

that and i'm also going to say that that's the last thing i'll say and this hearing is adjourned. today the house rules committee meets to consider the rules for debate on the highway and transportation funding act. the bill would provide nearly

$11 billion for highway projects. our live coverage begins at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. we are at the henry a. wallace country life center, which is 50 miles south and west of des moines. and this is the birthplace home of henry a. wallace. the wallaces of iowa consistent of three generations of wallaces. the patriarch was known as fondly as uncle henry. he was the founder of wallace's farmer magazine. his son henry c. wallace was u.s. secretary of agriculture under woodrow wilson. and henry c.'s son was born on this farm in 1888. he went on to become editor of wallaces' farmer magazine. he was then asked by franklin roosevelt to serve as u.s. secretary of agriculture, which he did for eight years from 1933

to 1941. and 1941 to 1945 he was roosevelt's vice president. as u.s. secretary of agriculture, he's known for the agricultural adjustment act, which was the first time that farmers were asked not to produce. at first, people couldn't believe the things that he was proposing regarding that, but then as prices went up, they started to listen to him. and people still refer to him today as the genius secretary of agriculture. >> explore the history and literary life of des moines, iowa, saturday at noon eastern on c-span's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3, we complement that coverage by showing you the most

relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv, with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history's bookshelf. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series "reel america," featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. last week veterans affairs whistleblowers told a house committee about the increasing number of complaints coming from employees of veterans affairs

centers and allegations of va retaliation against those who speak out. the va special counsel announced her office is currently investigating 67 retaliation complaints from employees who report health and safety concerns. >> this hearing will come to order. i want to welcome everybody to tonight's hearing entitled va whistle blowers, exposing inadequate service provided to veterans and ensuring appropriate accountability. i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that representative tom price from the great state of georgia be allowed to join us

here and participate in tonight's hearing. without objection, so ordered. oh, i think i heard an objection. tonight we'll hear from a representative sample of the hundreds of whistleblowers that have contacted our committee seeking to change the va to improve patient safety and better serve veterans who have served our great nation. we'll also hear from the office of special council regarding its work protecting whistleblowers and the vital information they provide. representatives of va will also be here to answer for the department's reprisals against whistleblowers and its continuing failure to abide by its legal obligation to protect employee rights to report waste, fraud, and abuse and mismanagement to the inspector general, to the council, to congress, and to this committee. it's important to emphasize that the national scandal regarding data manipulation of appointment

scheduling did not spring forward out of thin air at the department of veterans affairs. deceptive performance measures that serve as window dressing for automatic ses bonuses have been part of the organizational cesspool at the department for many, many years. instead of being a customer-driven department dedicated to veterans, the focus instead has been on serving the interest of the senior managers in charge. the manipulation of data to gain performance goals is a widespread cancer within the va. we have often heard that va is a data-rich environment, but when data is exposed as vulnerable to manipulation, it cannot be data that is trusted. until recently, va would continue to trod out the tired canard that patient satisfaction exceeds the private sector. that may be true at a few select

va centers. however, as our colleague mr. o'roerk demonstrated through local polling, such results have been overgeneralized. moreover, during the course of the past year, this committee has held a series of hearings showing a pattern at va of preventable patient deaths across the country from pittsburgh to augusta, to columbia, to phoenix. va satisfaction results are refuted by these tragic outcomes. and every one of these locations whistleblowers played a vital role in exposing these patient deaths at the department. whistleblowers serve the essential function of providing a reality check on what is actually going on at the department. a great risk to themselves and their families, whistleblowers dare to speak truth to power and buck the system in va designed to crush dissent and thereby alter the truth. tonight we're fortunate to have

three distinguished positions testify with regard to their experiences in the va. we'll also hear from a conscientious program manager in va's national health eligibility center, who will show that the disease of data manipulation may have read to the initial eligibility determination for medical benefits. none of these whistleblowers lost sight of the essential mission of the va. that mission to serve veterans. they understand that people are not inputs and outputs on a central office spreadsheet. they understand that metrics and measurements mean nothing without personal responsibility. unlike their supervisors, these whistleblowers have put the interest of veterans before their very own interests. unfortunately, what all of these whistleblowers also have in common is the fear of reprisal by the department. they will speak of the many different retaliatory tactics

used by va to keep employees in line rather than pushing whistleblowers out, it is time that va embraces their integrity and recommits itself to accomplishing the promise of providing high-quality health care to america's veterans. in order to make sure there is follow through at va, i've asked my staff to develop legislation to improve whistleblower protections for va employees. i invite all the members of this committee to work with us towards the end. with that, i now yield to my good friend and ranking member, mr. ma show, for any opening remarks he may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this committee has held many hearings over the last years on problems with access to va health care. at each of these hearings, problems were disclosed and the va promised to improve.

but little has changed. va is widely known to have a culture of denying problems and not listening to feedback. be it from congress, veterans, or its own employees. the department of veterans administration has had a reputation as being intolerant of whistleblowers. so far in this fiscal year, nearly half of the matters transmitted to agency heads by the office of special council, 7 out of 15 involved the va. according to the osc, it currently has 67 active investigations into retaliation complaints from va employees and has received 25 new whistleblower retaliation cases from va employees since june 1st of 2014. a recent "new york times" article stated that within the va, there was a culture of silence and intimidation, end of

quote. acting secretary gibson recently stated that he was deeply disappointed, not only in the substantiation of allegations raised by the whistleblower, but also in the failures within the department to take whistleblowers' complaints seriously. within vha, the problem of intimidation and retaliation may be magnified by what some consider a protective culture of the medical profession. it is often thought to be against the code to point out colleagues' mistakes or where a nurse or attendant is told it is not appropriate to question a physician or surgeon. the natural tendency is to close ranks, to deny that problems exist or mistakes were made. so after we listen to the

testimony before us this evening from the whistleblowers, the office of special council and the va will, you know, anything change after we hear what the whistleblowers have to say, and how do we fix this culture and encourage all va employees to step forward to identify problems and work to address those problems. changing a culture is not easy. it cannot be done legislatively, and it cannot be done by throwing additional resources at it. talk is cheap. real solutions are hard to find. it is clear to me that the va, as it is structured today, is fundamentally incapable of making real changes in the culture. i know that acting secretary gibson announced today that he was taking steps to restructure the office of medical inspector by created a, quote, strong internal audit function which will ensure issues of the quality, care, and patient safety remains at the forefront, end of quote.

this is an improvement, but it raises additional questions regarding how these restructures will be better enabled omi to undertake investigations resulting from whistleblowers' complaints forward by the osc, or how will it also have the authority to ensure that medical actions will be taken to the appropriate components of the va. time and time again as the june letter from osc demonstrates, the va found fault but determined that these grave errors did not affect the health and safety of veterans. anyone reading the specifics of any of these cases will find that this harmless error conclusion as stated by the osc to be a serious disservice to the veterans who receive inadequate patient care for years. i agree that the osc june 23rd letter, and it quotes, this

approach has prevented the va from acknowledging the severity of the systematic problems and from taking the necessary steps to provide quality care to veterans, end of quote. we also seem to have some goals this evening. we all want the va employees to feel comfortable raising problems and having them addressed without fear that raising their voices will mean the end of their careers. the va has stated that it wants to make fundamental changes in its culture so that the work force intimidation and retaliation is unacceptable. talk is cheap. real change is difficult. i would propose that the very first order of business at the va is to take accountability seriously. if any va employee is shown to have been intimidated or retaliated against another va employee, then that employee should be fired. the va should have zero

tolerance for policies that would harm whistleblowers and intimidate whistleblowers or retaliate against whistleblowers. as i see it, effective leadership and real accountability is the only way to begin the process of institutional changes. i hope tonight is the beginning of that change. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much to the ranking member. i would ask all members would waive their opening statements, as is the custom of this committee. thanks to the witnesses that are here at the witness table tonight. our first panel that we're going to hear from is dr. jose matthews, former chief of psychiatry at the st. louis va health care system. dr. christian head, associate director, chief of staff, legal and quality assurance at the greater los angeles va health care system. dr. katherine mitchell, medical director for the iraq and afghanistan post-deployment

center at the phoenix va health care system. and at this time, i'd like to introduce our colleague dr. price to briefly introduce his constituent, who will be the fourth witness on the panel this evening. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and the ranking member for allowing me to offer this introduction. this is a remarkably important topic, and i commend the committee for the work that you've done. as a physician, i worked at the va hospital in atlanta, as a matter of fact, for a number of years during my training. i know how important it is to have honest and real information for our veterans to honor their service, which is why i'm so very pleased to welcome scott davis. mr. davis, who will be on the panel today, is a resident of my district. his father served in vietnam. mr. davis is a program specialist at the va's national health eligibility center in atlanta. he's been in contact with my office for a number of months outlining his concerns. he's come forward with the allegations and concerns that he has in a very brave and

courageous manner. he's put his career and reputation on the line. i've no doubt his testimony tonight will help shine a light on the situation at hand. we must know the facts on the ground in full before we can begin to truly fix the untenable situation at the va. so i welcome mr. davis, and i thank you for allowing me to join you for this introduction. >> thank you very much, dr. price. we appreciate you joining us here this evening. i would ask the witnesses if you would please rise. raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. please be seated. all of your complete written statements will be entered into the record, and dr. matthews, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> honorable chairman and distinguished members of the committee, i'm honored to appear before you today to speak about my experiences while serving in the capacity as the chief of

psychiatry with the department of veteran affairs in st. louis, missouri, and in the capacity of the detail when i was removed from this position. i just wanted to very briefly outline the goals i had when i took this position as the chief of psychiatry, leaving my full-time faculty position at washington university. i had very simply wanted to create the very best care possible with the resources i had. and very soon i realized that the metrics i had, that the va was putting out, was not reflecting what i was actually seeing. i had made it a point that i review every veteran complaint. the majority of the veteran complaints i had, had to do with their inability to obtain care at a reasonable time. the long wait times, having difficulty even contacting the clinic to schedule an appointment. so i started out with a very simple question as to how busy are we really at the outpatient

clinic? and the answer i got was not very good. i got the answer that i verified, that the psychiatrists were only spending approximately 3.5 hours in direct patient care. i could not account for the rest of their time. i verified this. i put this data transparently as prospective data where any psychiatrist could challenge me and ask me questions whether that was accurate or not. i did not get one valid question. so i knew that the data was accurate. i discussed this with the chief of staff. i wanted to change this. there were two things that i wanted changed. one was that the veteran has easy access to care, timely access to care. the second was that no veteran would be turned away if they come to the clinic. i had a very sad veteran complaint about a disabled

veteran who had requested his friend to drive because he does not drive. he drove approximately an hour and a half to come to the clinic. he had two requests. he wanted to see his provider earlier because he was not doing well, and he wanted his medications refilled. unfortunately, that veteran had neither of these requests met. he was sent away with another appointment 48 days later. he is medications were not refilled. just before this meeting i checked. unfortunately, that veteran has not come back to the clinic since last may. his description of that event includes how disappointed and how upset he is at the va for not providing him care. so that was the context of how i started out. i discovered that the physician time was not being utilized properly. there was long wait times. and one of the metrics that's very important is, especially in

mental health, is engagement in care or the drop-out rate. what i found is 60% of the veterans were not coming back for their visits in the outpatient setting. there was 60% attrition rate. there were only four pieces of information i needed to provide very good care. one was the wait time to care. the second was the utilization of expertise, or what amount of time does a physician actually expend in direct patient care. the third was the retention in care, or how many veterans actually follow up with care, are dropping out of care. the fourth metric that was not existent is the veteran satisfaction with care. like the chairman miller talked about, these surveys not being complete and may not be reflective of all places. i wanted this survey to be a complete set. i talked to some donors who i knew from washington university, and they pledged $60,000 over two years to institute a

real-time veteran satisfaction survey. so i had the contract, you know, with the educational contract for ipads. i had locked in people to program valid questionnaires in it. my intent was that while a veteran is waiting in the waiting area to be seen, would be able to complete this questionnaire using touch screens, which would be automatically compiled, and i would have information on whether a particular clinic or a particular health care professional i need to focus on. so this last bit was very concerning to the staff. shortly after i made these disclosures, including two avoidable deaths that i wanted root cause analysis on and an in-patient suicide attempt while the joint commission was reviewing our hospital, which was completely covered up. you know, i did not go along with that. so very shortly i was put on detail. i was told that there would be an administrative investigation and that i was put to

compensation and pension -- doing compensation and pension evaluations. now, i took this job also, you know, it was dealing with veterans. i filed the complaint with the osc. while they were processing my complaints, i took this very seriously to evaluate the veterans for whether they had compensable mental disorders related to their service. what i found again here was that in many instances, the veteran was not even heard properly. i had doubts whether the prior evaluation report was the same veteran or not. and this was a serious concern, so actually started to look at their i.d.s again to make sure that this was not some other person. and the problem here was that the veteran did not have enough time to explain their situation. it was a hurried conveyor belt-like system where i was specifically told i was spending too much time with the veteran, that i should hurry up and see the veteran and just check a few

boxes in my evaluation because it's meant for some rater somewhere to rate the disability. but that's not how i saw my job, and i think that's not the right way to do it. three components need to be accomplished in these evaluations because these are disability evaluations. you have to make sure the veteran is heard properly. the second thing is i review the prior records properly to make sure i capture a full history. the third is to make sure that my report reflects some of the inconsistencies in the record. i speak to it so that the very next person, if it becomes an appeal issue, can determine how i made my decision. now, there were few egregious errors that were there. and that really bothered me. as i was in detail to the -- under proi mare care. so i wrote to the chief of primary care recently about these examples, about why this

was really unfair to the veteran and how it affected the life of the veteran. just two weeks ago on the 26th of june, i'm detailed now to another place. so from my perspective, i have always put the veterans' interest first. and i have disclosed -- i have disclosed the wrongdoings i found promptly to the chief of staff and to the chief of mental health with the expectation that they would address it. and what i've found is nothing has really changed. as late as june, just two weeks ago, the response to my finding about these evaluations that are not done properly was to just detail me elsewhere. so this seems to be an ongoing practice. you know, when it's detailed, i don't have any responsibility as a chief of psychiatry. that's the position i accepted.

the two people who had really worked hard on recruiting, both excellent psychiatrists, one trained at hopkins, the other at harvard. they both did not -- they declined to join the va i have to disclose i'm no longer the chief. i've been removed. there's a sense of mission that's lacking. i'm really hoping that this committee with its powers will take aggressive actions to really make sure that this retaliation stops and that the people responsible are held accountable because, really, with the data being so cooked up and so unbelievable, it's extremely important that, you know, while we work on data integrity to make sure the data reflects reality, it's extremely important people step forward and are able to speak the truth and talk about what's really happening at the patient

interaction level. i think that -- i'm really hoping this committee will do that. i'm really honored that i have this opportunity to be able to answer questions and to be here. >> thank you, dr. mathieus. we'll have an opportunity, each of us, to ask questions and get into specifics a little later on. next i'd like to recognize dr. head for five minutes. >> thank you very inviting me to testify today. i'm honored, congressman, and i think it's a very important topic, our veterans. we shouldn't lose focus of that. associate director chief of staff at the west los angeles va hospital. i'm very proud of my position, and i can't think of a better job than serving our veterans. but retaliation is alive and well across our country, especially within the va administration. my first encounter was a number of years ago. i was subpoenaed by the inspector general to investigate time card fraud involving two

surgeons in my area. i was among close to 30 individuals who gaveme testimon. i gave honest and true testimony. during that testimony i said i feared retaliation. i outlined how i felt they would retaliate against me. every aspect i outlined came true. the person who did the deposition was inspector solomon from the inspector general's office. she promised i would be protected both in the state and federal government. three months after they came out with the final results, one of the individuals paid back a year's salary to the federal government and resigned. another individual, who they recommended immediate termination, was allowed to stay in her supervisory role. there was an end of the year party, because we're affiliated with the university that's nearby. at that party, this slide was

shown. i know. that actually is me. i'm much younger back then and i had hair. you see, i'm flipping the bird and it says, if all else fails, call 1-800-488-vaig. in front of close to 300 individuals, i was labeled as a rat. i was labeled as the person who ratted out this person. the slide that followed this is so heinous that i can't even show or discuss it today. i could discuss it under subpoena. that person, by the way, is still in this supervisory role at the va. no apology, nothing. i somehow survived that. retaliation has been relentless. the problem my real eye to bes have is that i think the va and

the veterans deserve far better. no matter what happens to me, i think the focus still should be on the veterans of this country. somehow i survived that process. again, i was retaliated again later when i gave my opinion on the investigation of a physician who was wrongly terminated. i was asked to change my testimony. my salary was -- i stopped getting paid for two weeks. and because of a number of other factors, my house went into foreclosure. i didn't lose my house, but the harm it causes the family members of federal workers who are being retaliated against cannot be measured. i have two young girls who i would be proud if they decided to join the armed forces or even work for the va. i think the va has the potential to be one of the finest institutions in the world.

we've seen certain aspects. the pharmacy cannot be matched. very efficient. there are many different things that are efficient within our system. but what we should ask ourselve when someone came up with the idea of seeing a veteran in 14 days, that sounded like a good idea. the veterans would be seen promi promptly. how come people's names disappeared off list. how come hundreds of thousands of veterans electronically no longer existed? that should be the question. retaliation exists because of the retaliation.

most physicians and nurses who work in the hospital are disgusted. did that happen here? people care. when i heard some of the testimony i heard from the phoenix va it was gutt wrenching. i couldn't sleep. and i believe there are a lot of people within the va system that feel the same way but there exists a cancer that compels us to stand up and do the right thing and be honest. everyone makes a mistake but when you make a mistake and try to conceal it, that is really the question we should be asking. i've been receiving text messages all day from veterans, be careful, dr. haden.

be careful of what might happen to you. if you get labeled as a whistle-blower, oh, my god, they'll take you out. i'm not afraid to be taken out. i do hope if i am taken out someone will take care of my family, but i think people need to speak up. and we shouldn't be isolated, ostracized. you notice that every time there's a whistle-blower there's an e-mail that follows. well, this person's not getting a bonus so they're upset. this person didn't get the raise, this person didn't do this. they always defame. they defame, they isolate. usually they transfer you to another position. why? because they're slowly building a case if they don't have one already to say that you're crazy. i would hope. i apologize for running over.

i would hope that i have given you close to 176 pages, 276 pages i think of evidence and a number of other statements from other individuals that will be helpful in trying to improve the system. i would hope and especially the press, i challenge you also to be a real reporter and also report the truth. and also to the congressmen and women, this is very important that we try to focus on what's really important here, and that's the veterans. >> thank you very much for your courage, dr. head. dr. mitchell, you're recognized for five minutes. >> good evening. i want -- i am deeply honored by the committee's invitation to testify tonight. as a phoenix va employee i have suffered retaliation for

routinely reporting health and safety records. in addition section 4 and section 5 of my written testimony outlines specific tactics that the va uses for whistle blowing and to retaliate within its ranks even without whistle blowing. the va, in my opinion, has routinely intimidated any employee who brings forth information that is contrary to the public image that the va wishes to project. in 2013 i submitted a confidential oig complaint regarding a life threatening issues within the phoenix va system. approximately ten days after the national va received my report i was placed on administrative leave. i was placed on probation because of my information provided to the oig. eventually i would receive a

written counseling stated that i violated the specific patient policy but to this day my human resources department refuses to tell me the name of the policy i violated. this is relatively minor retaliation considering what happened during my last three years as medical director in the emergency department. during that time we were grossly understaffed in physicians and nurses. there was insufficient staffing to wash beds, answer the phones, wash beds, and doctors and nurses got pulled away. when the number of patient visits increased, the number of mistakes as well as near misses in our nursing triage skyrocketed. symptoms such as stroke, heart attack, pneumonia, blood infections and other serious medical issues were routinely missed by inexperienced triage

nurses or experienced triage nurses that were overwhelmed by the flood of patients hitting our e.r. i started reporting this to the chain of command. in the process of reporting this, 120 of the nurses retaliated against me. they would not give me verbal reports. administration was made aware of this and they were asked to intervene and stop this behavior that was interviewing with my care for patients. they ignored my repeated requests for additional resources for the e.r. and they would never institute the comprehensive standardized nurse triage training that we needed in order to prevent future mistakes in care being made in our e. rmp. this is not to say they were idol, however. they did ban me from reporting any cases to the risk management department. my proficiencies dropped each year that i worked. i was forced to work two years of unlimited scheduled shifts to

fill in holes in the physician staffing because hr was too slow at credentialing emergency room physicians to fill in. eventually things reached a critical mass when the new oncoming medical director sharon held man arrived, i told her the e.r. was too dangerous and we should be closed unless additional vitally needed support was given. unfortunately the administration's response was to call me into a meeting within about a week and a half and tell me that the only problem in the e.r. was my lack of communication skills. the nursing backlash would never be investigated. i was involuntarily transferred. i was in a clinic that houses a social work program. i do very useful work but it's certainly not what i intended when i started reporting patient safety health and concerns.

the veterans need and care presented to the e.r., d-day. iwogima. desert storm, kosovo, croatia, the battle of fallujah. it is i a bitter irony that i could not guarantee their health and safety in a va facility within the cosmopolitan phoenix. administrators who place their own personal gain above the welfare of veterans need to face consequences for so doing. however, in the process it's very important that employees of any pay grade who truly care about veterans and their welfare, they protect it. they're being forced to follow orders or else permanently lose their livelihoods. most importantly, the ability to

positively influence the patient care and safety of any veteran should not be considered a democratic or republican stance or a uniquely american problem. the ability to freely advocate for the health and safety of any patient is a human issue and it has ethical implications for all of us. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much, doctor. mr. davis, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the committee for providing a platform so that the voices of va whistle blowers can be heard. i urge you to take prompt action as time is running out. every day a window of opportunity closes oen a veteran to receive quality health care because of the inaction of senior va officials. some veterans even face the burden of being billed for care their service has earned them.

as noted in the office of special counsel report va leadership has repeatedly failed to respond to the concerns raised by whistle blowers concerning patient care at va. despite the best efforts of truly committed employees at the hec and the veteran health administration who have risked their careers to stand up for veterans, management at all levels have ignored them or retaliated against them for simply exposing the truth. some of the critical issues reported by whistle blowers at the hec include mismanaging critical veteran health programs and wasting millions of dollars on an affordable care act direct mail campaign. the possible purging and deletion of over 10,000 veteran health records at the health eligibility center. a back log of