empore: if members please take your conversations out of the chamber so we can get started. member -- member -- members and staff please clear the well. for what purpose does the member from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the newly announced partnership with florida international university -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in ordered. the gentleman from florida. mr. curbelo: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of the newly announced partnership with florida international university, a nationally respected institute of higher learning in my district and florida power and light. they are working to provide cleaner energy solutions to south florida, something i whole heartedly support. it involves the installation of solar panels on 23 canopy light structures that will be constructed in f.i.u.'s engineering center parking lot. f.i.u. students will directly monitor the amount of energy generated from these solar

panels and the effect they have on the electricity grid. it was announced that f.p.l. is expected to triple its presence in the business by 2016. such an undertaking is only possible with talented and capable students and i'm glad to see f.p.l. is helping train a new generation of engineers that will help create fresh solutions for our energy needs. with that, i want to congratulate f.i.u. and f.p.l. on their partnership and wish them successism look forward to visiting the campus soon and seing the progress being made. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute.

ms. duckworth: this is a budgeting gimmick that's an end around sequestration. oko -- oco funds are supposed to be used for war operation and their use in that way misleads the american people. the sequestration cuts continue to have devastating impacts on our schools infrastructure and research. now is the time to fix the sequester, not deceive the american people about defense spending. our service members and their families deserve to know their future more than just one year at a time. as a nation, we need to base our military strategy on an appropriate long-term defense spending plan, not a budgetary womenic. mr. speaker, i voted for this legislation because we cannot lee our troops who are currently in harm's way without funding. but as the appropriations process moves forward, i urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to provide our military with the long-term support it needs and the american people with the transparency they deserve.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. tonight i rise in fond memory of a friend from nevada county, lowell robinson. mr. lamalfa: a community icon who passed away recently at the age of 9 . he was entrepreneurial career started in 1949 when the designed equipment for a local saw mill. a few years later he began a logging business known as robinson and sons he also started a business that included gold mining and distribution and sales. he was a supporter of the nevada county community. he was a kind gentleman liked by everybody and his legacy will be felt for many, many years in the work he did for helps united

way, h--- 4-h, just about anything worth doing he was involved with in nevada county. including my own personal travels. a small indian springs school still stands where he attended. i join nevada county in mourning his loss, a great friend a kind hearted person who you just get along great with. our condolences go out to wanda and his family. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. mcdermott: i have generally admired president obama's bold policy decisions, however, the

announcement to send another 150 military advisors to iraq and arm the shia forces and kurdish peshmerga is a grave misjudgment. arming the sunni tribes could undermine iraqi prime minister abecause dee and the central government -- abadi and the central government the u.s. is trying desperately to prop up. sunni assistance may in turn push iran to more aggressively arm their shia militias in iraq. worse still arming the shia fighters will further inflame iraq's deep sectarian divide which isis has exploited so skillfully. the kurdish peshmerga is perhaps the most only reliable and ready force deserving u.s. military assistance but no amount of heavy weaponry will defeat isis without a concerted political settlement both in baghdad and damascus. all of this comes just days after president obama said yet

again, we do not have a complete strategy to defeat isis in iraq or syria. the u.s. has few palatable options when it comes to entangling the re's current -- untangling the region's current chaos. however the current strategy to arm everyone and let god sort it out is a serious miscalculation. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. sherman is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority -- of the minority leader. mr. sherman: mr. speaker, thank you. i'm going to address the issues that we'll be voting on tomorrow. trade adjustment assistance and

the trade promotion authority or fast track. i know that a number of my colleagues are within the sound of my voice and i hope that if they share my views on these issues, they'll come down to the floor and invite me to yield them time. until then, i'm going to first focus on the trade adjustment assistance bill that will be -- that will be before us tomorrow. there are so many reasons to vote against trade adjustment assistance in this form. even if it was a free standing bill. first, it's inadequate. it's got roughly $450 million. and there's no assurance that that money will be available next year or the year after that. we know that the majority of this house is opposed to funding this program at all. they're doing it in an effort to

pass fast track. once fast track is passed, every effort will be made on this floor to cut this program to zero. bait and switch, you've been warned. but second, this amount of money , who is supposed to be eligible? the proponents of fast track have said, well we've expanded those who are eligible. not just those who lose their job because of the transpacific partnership trade deal we're planning, not just those who lost their job because of nafta but everybody who has lost their job. because of globalization in any of its forms. well, that is also a bait and switch. they're able to tell tens of millions of americans you're going to be eligible for this program, but the program has only $450 million in it

nationwide. so it's like, you win because we give you a lottery ticket. and then you -- we determine whether you'll be one of the very small percentage of those who have lost their job due to globalization who benefit from the program. this program is inadequate. it also explicitly contains language excluding any public sector employee from a benefit. imagine that great unfairness. if you're at a public university and somehow grading of tests is offshored, you can't benefit. but if you're at a private university same job, same offshoring whether it be a call center or any other services that can be offshored, you could possibly, probably not going to get anything but you can at least apply for a benefit. the exclusion of the public sector may have made sense 40 or

50 years ago when only manufacturing jobs were subject to foreign competition. but today anything that's done on the internet, anything that's done on a phone, anything that is part of the information economy is a job that can be taken offshore. and it's going to be very difficult for members of this house to explain that they voted for a program that slapped in the face those who lose their jobs because it's a public sector job. but the biggest problem with t.a.a. is that it cuts medicare two different ways. one way we're told -- one way we're told is an acceptable way to cut medicare, and the other we're told isn't going to really happen. it's actually two cuts to medicare. the first that they say they've ironed out is the $700 million

cut to medicare that will under the rule just passed in this house by a small majority, graft itself on to the trade adjustment assistance bill if that bill unfortunately passes. so you will be in a position to explain why you voted for a bill, knowing full well that as soon as it passed, a $700 million cut to medicare was grafted on it and that the president would get a chance, would have on his desk and intended to sign, a bill that cut medicare by $700 million. now, you can present a complicated chart showing how you voted for trade adjustment assistance but you didn't vote for the rule and the cut for medicare was supposed to be undone by the other bill that you voted for before you voted against it. and if you're able to make that explanation, more power to you. but if you're a democrat, you will be in a particularly weak position to make that

explanation. because the afl-cio announced -- issued a letter today that said a vote for trade adjustment assistance in this form with this rule in this here you see it now you don't, we'll take it away don't worry about it medicare cut is a cut to medicare. so you're going to be explaining why your opponents' attack on you is unfair when you're a democrat and you say it's unfair but the afl-cio says it's not only fair, it's absolutely true. a special problem for democrats. republicans will not have the difficulty in explaining that an attack is -- that -- why they disagree with the afl-cio. but then there's a medicare cut that is supposed to become law. this is the dialysis cut. and here's the thinking. medicare will be more efficient in dealing with dialysis.

we will pass -- we pass a statute that allows them to make use of clinics instead of hospitals. so through new procedures and new technology medicare will save roughly $250 million. ok. does medicare keep that savings? no. it's used to buy votes for fast track. now, how is medicare going to be sustained if every time new technology allows medicare to save money, we take the savings and use it for something else. but every time new technology creates new medical costs, new things for medicare to pay for, well medicare has to pay for them. if we establish a principle that every new technology that saves medicare money is money to be spent on something else and every medicare -- every change in technology that increases

medicare cost estimate, medicare will be brank bankrupt and go bankrupt more quickly as we change medicine. and that cut is supposed to become law if you vote for t.a.a. but t.a.a. is on this floor for only one reason. it's a way to put a band-aid on a giant decapitation of the american middle class. . a tiny trade bill that will govern 40% of the world's g.d.p. don't be an enabler. do not go back home and say you opposed fast track but that you voted for the bill that will enable fast track. if you're against fast track then you got to vote no on

t.a.a. well what about fast track? what about this new asia deal that's being negotiated? in the past, the proponents of these trade deals have come forward and said that they were going to reduce our trade deficit, create more jobs than will be lost. for this deal they don't even make that assertion. their bait and switch is to say it will create some jobs in exports, but they're so arithmetically challenged they don't subtract the jobs that will be lost to imports. the fact is that time and again the proponents of our current trade policy have wildly misestimated the job effect of each action. for example, on this floor we were told that the trade agreement with north -- with

south korea would reduce our trade deficit. that deficit has skyrocketed. we were told that permanent -- most favored nation status for china would increase our trade deficit by only $1 billion. the proponents were off by 30,000%. so now they don't even say that we're going to get more jobs than we'll lose. they simply say the jobs we lose don't count because that involves subtraction. the fact is this is bad for the american middle class as has our policy over the years. since nafta, we have hallowed out the middle class, we've hallowed out american manufacturing. since nafta, we have had a stagnation of wages in this country and now as we begin to recover from the catastrophe of

2008, now as there begins to be the possibility that employers are going to have to pay more in wages to compete for employees, we have a giant trade deal that guarantees that wages will decline or stagnate for another decade or longer. so the economics are against the trans-pacific partnership and the fast track that's designed to carry it. so there's a shift. the argument now is well, it may be bad for our economy but it's a great anti-china alliance great geopoliticks -- geopolitics disguised as a bad trade deal. i've been on the foreign affairs subcommittee for 19 years, i tell you this deal is not only bad economic policy

it is bad -- it is bad geopolitics as well. let's look at how china benefits from this deal. first and foremost, we are told that this deal is going to set the terms of trade in asia, and then you go to a basement and you look at this deal and as reported in the press, there is a statement that there will not be anything in this trade deal about currency manipulation. so china, if this deal goes forward, wins without even having to sign it. china gets a new approach to world trade which is currency manipulation go to it. it will be applauded. it will not be countered. but china gets something even more. go deeper into the basement and

look at the rule -- at the rules of origin provisions. now, what are these rules of origin provisions? you would think that under this deal goods made in vietnam, goods made in japan goods made in the other countries that are part of the deal come into our country duty-free, that this deal benefits goods made in japan vietnam, etc., but only to the countries that sign the deal. but then you get down to the details and you see that goods that are 50% or 60% made outside the countries that are parties to this deal goods that are 50% or 60% made in china are eligible to be fast tracked into the united states with no tariffs, no limits. and goods where the manufacturer admits that it's 50% or 60% made in china may

actually be 70% or 80% made in china. so goods that are chiefly chinese made gets the benefit of this agreement with china not even having to sign it. our trade deficit will balloon, not only from goods that are really made in japan and really made in vietnam, and these are the two countries made by the agreement. we have others part of the trans-pacific partnership. those are the two main countries. not only goods made in those countries but goods that are kind of polished in vietnam finished in japan but made in china. so we're told this is part of some clever system to contain china when in reality we establish the international principle that currency manipulation the number one

tactic of china to run up the largest trade deficit in history with the united -- we have the largest trade deficit. they have the largest trade surplus in history. that becomes the norm, and then second goods made in china -- chiefly made in china finished in japan, get duty-free into the united states. but finally, think of what an insult it is to our men and women in uniform to be told that in order -- that our allies in asia are so disdainful of our help as they fight china over the islets that are in question that we have to give away our jobs and enter into a bad trade deal just to have the honor of deploying our troops and our navy to defend the islets claimed by korea japan and

vietnam. you would think that the willingness of america to put its blood and treasure on the line to defend not only our allies but even vietnam would be enough, not that we would be told that in order to have that honor we have to enter in this trade agreement. and finally and mr. speaker, i will end with this. there is the issue of admitting vietnam into this deal. we're told that the purpose of this deal, the upside is that we get free access to vietnam's markets free access to their markets. the only problem is that vietnam doesn't have freedom and it does not have markets. so yeah, this deal is great for nike. they can manufacture shoes in vietnam and pay 30 cents, 40 cents an hour. they can then add a few jobs in

oregon as they hire the marketing skill necessary to push off the shelves the last remnant of american-made shoes. they can add some jobs in oregon where they can find the tax lawyers to make sure that they don't pay any u.s. taxes on the enormous profit ruck get for making a shoe -- profit for making a shoe for 40 cents an hour and selling it for $100. a few jobs which will lead to pushing off the shelves all the american-made shoes. and so that's what we get on the import side. the jobs we get are tax lawyers making sure that the importers don't pay any taxes. and by the way, it's already been revealed nike will save several hundred million dollars in taxes on this, chiefly tariffs. but what access do we get for our exporters? well, right now vietnam does have some tariffs.

the tariffs go to the government. the entity paying the tariff is whoever's doing the importing. those importers are owned and controlled or at least controlled by the government. so right now if vietnam imports anything from the united states, the vietnamese government pays itself a tariff . if this bill -- if this deal goes forward, that tariff will be lower. so they'll pay themselves less. paying themselves money is an irrelevancey. we don't have access to the vietnamese market just because vietnamese government or government-owned enterprises will be a big a smaller tariff to the vietnamese government of which they are part to begin with. tariffs are not the limit on what we export to vietnam. vietnam makes a political decision, a nationwide economic

planning decision which products to import from the united states. they are importing what they choose to import. they are not importing what they choose not to import, and they're going to keep doing it. we to assume that just because lowering tariffs means you sell more goods in the united states means lowering tariffs means you sell more goods in vietnam, we are required to imagine that the vietnamese economy, a communist economy, is just like ours. that is an absurd assumption. the vietnamese's economy will or will not import from the united states whatever they choose to. their published tariffs are an irrelevancey. the promise to change those tariffs are a promise to change an irrelevancey. we are a nation of free markets when we change our public

tariffs that opens up our markets to all the tennis shoes that can be made for 40 cents an hour. so this is a terrible deal for the american people. it has -- it is part of a continued policy of, quote, what they call free trade. what america needs is fair trade. what america needs is to say that those that want access to the u.s. market must be willing to buy u.s. goods and services. what america needs is an understanding that we need results-oriented trade agreements. we're in the deepest hole ever. we are the largest debtor nation in the world. we have the largest trade deficit in the world. we would expect that the dollar

will crash -- not this decade but next decade. and the first thing you do when you're in a hole that deep is to stop digging. the first step is to stop this fast track and then the next step is to deploy our trade negotiators with the power to say we can -- we don't -- the issue isn't whether we're going to lower our tariffs. we're a sovereign nation. we can increase our tariffs. if you want access to the u.s. market, everything is on the table and a fair balanced trade result is the requirement if you want access to the one thing that the entire world wants and that's access to the u.s. market. so i see no one seeking time, and i yield back to the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

does the gentleman have a motion? mr. sherman: what? the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. sherman: i would move that -- oh -- does the -- there's not another -- not another speaker and i know in these cases the last member to speak usually makes a particular motion. i believe that motion would be to recess or to adjourn. then the motion is to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the motion is adopted. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: i rise today in defense of ronald reagan republican free-trade principles and in support of trade promotion authority which is known as t.p.a. since the days of president ronald reagan, republicans have supported free trade because we know that when america competing, america wins.

t.p. samplet a vital piece of our free trade agenda because it creates the process that we need to secure trade agreements that grow our economy, create good-paying jobs, and the lowest prices for american consumers. for america to continue to determine the rules of the economic, the global economic world, we need to lead by crafting free trade agreements and thus the house is here today to provide to the president the parameters under which he should negotiate, or he show she should negotiate a trade promotion authority. free trade means more good-paying american jobs. it means -- free trade means that american workers make american products at american businesses to be sold all across the globe. more than 38 million american jobs are tied to trade and these jobs pay well. in fact, job trade -- trade

related jobs on average pay 18% more than jobs that are not trade related. mr. speaker, the republican party is here today with ronald reagan's -- with ronald reagan watching from heaven down on taos say that we are continuing what he really began and that is a process of american exceptionalism around the world. mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you very much mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time and yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: shortly after midnight tuesday night the rules committee learned we would consider the senate package of three sweeping trade bills. we convened an hour later and considered hundred of -- hundreds of pages of new text rewriting our trade laws and the rule the house. part of that package includes

what is called fast track a procedure that has outlived its purpose and circumvents congressional authority because it does not allow for committee debate or the members to be able to amend it or change it or up and down. at least that's what happens over here in the house. the -- this silences debate of the members of the chamber and by doing that americans who send us here don't have a voice. we're being asked to push this transpacific partnership through by using fast track and we're being asked to push fast track through with a closed rule. now we've been very concerned about what's in this fast track. as you know, we really aren't allowed to know. only allowed to vote up or down on the trade bill itself. so once the fast track is passed. i realize how awful it was for us here, if we wanted to go see it we had to take someone with us with security clearance and would not be allowed to talk

about it. i learned something this morning that's even worse, an article in the "new york times" about the australian government, members of parliament there who say if they go down and read the trade bill they have to sign an oath that they will not speak of it for four years. now if that doesn't ask the question of who runs these democracies the representatives of the people of the united states or the corporate giants who write the trade bills? we are not -- that we are not able to see. that makes it pretty plain here who runs it here because from what we have heard, that his leaked out through wikileaks it's that the major parts of this bill have been negotiated by big pharma, pharmaceutical industries of america, and the financial district. neither one of those have shown any capacity to put the members of the public first. australia is so concerned

ability pharma asking for 12 more years of patents on their inventions that it would ruin their medical system. so far, according to the leaks, nobody much likes it. instead we could have had transparent debate about the bill we had seen and a bill we know, all we do is know what happened in the rule committees yesterday. yesterday new york member of the rule committees or any member of the house who came before it were allowed to have amendments approved. now, the senate did. and it allowed amendments to change the bill considerably, but not us. amendments were offered in the rules committee to provide for transparency so that we will know what these things are all about. this to the change the investor state what we need to bear down on, and the australians are also aware of is that disputes from any of the 12 countries in this

trade agreement, if they do not approve of or believe they are losing money because of our clean air act, or our clean water act they can go to the three-person tribunal of corporate lawyers and act against us. we know that that's a concern in this congress because just yesterday, they voted away the country or origin labeling because they were concerned that -- about the w.t.o. now, we -- as i pointed out we had those amendments, we also had one on currency manipulation which is of major concern. we lose lots of jobs and lots of money because of currency manipulation and we simply allow it to happen. we will not do anything everybody says that should be in the bill, that the president would veto it. all this american public once again, those of us who are standing here trying to take care of them, are not going to be able to do it because we only know by word of mouth or what we

may read in the newspapers what's in there. let me tell you what's in the rule. that's a very important piece. most of the discussion in the house has been around what we call the pay-for, for part of the trade bill which is called trade adjustment allowance. that is supposed to take care of all the people who are laid off, or lose their jobs. the fact that we have asked for such a large number indicates to me that they expect an awful lot of jobs lost in this country system of what we -- what the t.a.a. was paid for as it came from the senate were the $7 million cut in medicare. nancy pelosi is working along with john bayner to change what the cuts that will be paid for with the t.a.a. but i need to make it very clear and i want everybody to understand that the bill we voted on this morning the african growth bill which

contains the new pay-fors other than medicare are not valid until after the senate acts on that bill. so if tomorrow on the floor trade adjustment allowance and the fast track authority pass, they will go to the senate with the pay-fors coming from medicare. i think it's very important that we make that point because many of the people that served with us here are confused about exactly where that is coming from. let me repeat that. the pay-fors that substitute for the use of medicare to pay for trade adjustment allowance will not be valid until after there is senate action, or when that takes place. we were told that the speaker said over in the senate that we would do this under unanimous consent but we have also been told that unanimous consent will not be given. so anyway mr. speaker, the advocates of the fast track, the t.p.p. are tells us that this is going to be a wonderful trade

deal. now we know that it's not going to create jobs because none of them have. those of us in upstate new york after nafta were told that we would get at least 250,000 new jobs. instead, as the speaker probably knows, we lost a great deal. so if we members of congress, as i pointed out wanted to view the deal, we could not talk about it. and that by itself should be enough to have us not do it. in a seminal sose yo logical discussion of our early american democracy called democracy in america, alexis de tocqueville said of our nation in 1835, and i quote, the surface of american society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old arest co--- aristocratic colors breaking through, end quote. this is one of those times, mr. speaker, because this bill, this trade bill that affects every person in the united states and

will for maybe a generation to come, is not being written by members of the house of representatives or of the senate, but in a closed, back room deal and as we are told by major corporations in the united states to benefit themselves. . by giving away the role of congress, we give away our ability to safeguard america's jobs. and most importantly again, the american laws meant to protect the citizens, such as the clean water act. i have never seen a bill come out of this congress on trade that benefited either the american manufacturer or american worker. any lawmaker thinking about voting for a job-killing trade agreement should look at nafta and our growing trade deficit with south korea and think about whether they want to be responsible for shipping their

constituents' jobs overseas. we know this bill has been modeled after failed policies that shuttered store windows and closed factories all across the nation. that is the legacy, ladies and gentlemen, of free trade. what we are to demand in our trading bills is fair trade. america should not be the supplier of jobs to the rest of the world to improve their economies at the cost of ours. from food safety to clean air and labor standards, to environmental protections, this trade deal would impact every facet of our daily lives. 90% of the seafood now that is consumed by americans is imported. less than 3% of it is inspected. tons of it has been sent back of that small amount being inspected. we will not be able to investigate them coming in here

under this free trade act. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and carefully consider the trade package before us. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: you know, the gentlewoman originally is from kentucky and she would recognize when i tell this awesome story about how important a free trade agreement is. a couple of years ago we did a free trade agreement with the country of korea. within a year, mr. speaker, as a result of that trade agreement, the number one selling car in korea came from georgetown kentucky. and is a toyota camry, made in the united states. the koreans love it, a kentucky-made product. if we didn't have free trade agreement with korea, the people in georgetown, kentucky, couldn't claim to be the number

one car in korea. mr. speaker i would like to yield two minutes to the young gentleman from auburn washington dave reichert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. reichert: i'm rising today in support of today's rule which will allow us to proceed in consideration of trade promotion authority, trade adjustment assistance and customs legislation. passage of trade promotion authority is absolutely critical to our economic growth and global leadership. without t.p.a., we will not be able to bring home the benefits of a high standard trade agreement. now what are the benefits? job creation, selling american products across this globe to 96% of the market, which exists outside of this country. selling american. that's what we want to do. and we not only create jobs but

create jobs that are higher paid wages, which we are struggling with across this country and raising the minimum wage. we can do this in this prayed adjustment. and this is counter to what communities across the nation need right now. and again, more opportunities more good-paying jobs. and that leads to a promising future to our families, to our children to better paying high tech jobs and manufacturing jobs across this country. i'm proud to be the co-sponsor house sponsor of legislation to renew trade adjustment assistance because i understand the necessity of t.a.a. not only is this a great trade initiative here, but we are also taking into consideration as we move ahead in this global economy that there may be people who do have opportunities to look at other jobs and this

t.a.a. bill provides training and education for people to have and gain better jobs higher paying jobs. so i would encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and in support of the t.p.a. and t.a.a. ap customs legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the georgia a yields and the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i appreciate my friend, mr. seeings giving a good kentucky story. that factory has been in three decades and it's toyota, which is japanese. korea has 26 car dealers in the country. and we buy japanese cars that are made here but they don't buy ours in japan. two years ago we sold 8,000 american cars to japan that

entire year and i imagine we sell that many cars in the united states on a daily basis. i appreciate the story and georgetown would love to be mentioned, but we got to get it right. now i'm going to yield to the the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank the ranking member for yielding me. i rise in opposition to this rule because america's middle class and our workers have been under economic attack. and i rise to voice my opposition to the restrictive process being used to shove these job outsourcing trade deals through congress. the republican leadership has denied our house any amendment even on currency manipulation on legislation that is sure to impact every single american turning our oversight role into more than a rubber stamp. this makes a mockery of the

house's clear constitutional authority on trade and commerce. this limitation is being sued because republican leaders do not want to go to conference with the senate. this belies every american, every member their right to be represented and have a voice in this process. hundreds of multinational corporations and lobbyists helped to write and amend and draft the t.p.p., the transpacific partnership line by line. but today years into the process and negotiation and final stages, members of congress were only recently given our first access to read it. you have to go to a secure room deep in the visitors' center and we are supervised and the notes we take are confiscated and we can't discuss it with anyone unless they have top secret clearance. the trade deal is a secret deal and fast track it through congress hoping that congress won't understand what's in it.

and i find hard to imagine a more dangerous approach than fast tracking another trade deal through congress. t.p.a. the authority to fast track is the gateway to the transpacific partnership. both will further harm workers and communities through a faster global rate to the bottom with more outsourcing of jobs, more lowered wages more dropping benefits, more lower standards for compensation and environment. we have seen that in nafta 30 years ago. for years i fought destructive provisions -- might i have additional time? ms. slaughter: i yield another minute. ms. kaptur: over this period of time, every time one of these so-called free trade deals is signed, america moves into deeper and deeper trade deficits, deeper and deeper red ink as more of our jobs get

shift jobs. i remember in mexico and looking at a windshield factory. it seemed like a movie set. it was real. last year alone, our trade deficit cost us 20% of our g.d.p. is anybody here paying attention or are we all apart of the 1% and forget about the 99% who had to bear the brunt of this terrible, terrible outsourcing of jobs. average american wages across my region have dropped by $7,000. this trade deficit didn't happen by accident. some people got filthy rich off of it. this is the time for america to say no more. no more. we are going to do it right and create trade deals that create jobs in our country and create a stronger middle class improves wages and improves the environment no more taking it

out of the hide of america's workers. we are here because we stand on their shoulders. i yield back. vote no on this rule and no on t.a.a. and month on t.p.p. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i love our colleagues who come down here and argue japan's the problem you can't talk about the trade agreement that we have with korea where it works. japan japan, japan. good gosh this is about getting a trade deal with t.p.p. of which japan would be included. this is a deal where my colleagues come down and don't like where america -- our are our trade deficits. the bottom line is that the united states has a trade surplus with its 20 free trade partners. surplus. we are trying to take people

from nontrade agreements where we run a deficit and they close their market, to a trade deal where we run a surplus where people want to buy american-made products. we have a good deal for them today. and one of those good deals is agriculture so that our men and women in agriculture can sell their products around the world. and i yield three minutes to the chairman of the agriculture committee, michael quay. -- conaway. mr. conaway: i thank the chairman in bringing us the underlying legislation. everyone in the room knows farmers and ranchers are the most productive and meet rapidly growing and ever changing demands here at home and reach stretches well beyond the shores of america. exports account for one-third of total u.s. farm income. in the case of commodities like

cotton tree nuts, rice and wheat, over one half is exported. in 2014, u.s. agricultural exports set a record, highlighting the growing demand for quality food and fiber around the world. in a recent hearing, the united states exported as much beef pork and poultry with the 20 countries as they did to the other 170-plus nations in the world. beyond the other benefits trade supports almost one million -- american jobs like food processing and transportation. as a result, it's crucial not only to american agriculture but to the u.s. economy as a whole to maintain and increase access to the 7 billion consumers. to obtain that access it's imperative we work to reduce and eliminate barriers to trade so farmers and ranchers can compete in the global market. but negotiations in the world

trade organization languishing, free trade agreements represent our best opportunity to expand trade opportunities for u.s. agriculture. history has shown that trade promotion authority in one form or another has been vital incompleting and implementing past agreements. congress has granted t.p.a. since every president since 1974. t.p.a. will provide the correctness to conclude the effective trade agreements as possible by making it clear that congress and this administration are serious about this endeavor. legislation before us today empowers congress to move the aggressive trade aep agendaa and includes the strongest measure to make sure the president sticks to the negotiating objectives laid down by congress with the ability to turn t.p.a. off. congress will decide the fate of each agreement. i'm a strong proponent of free trade and the benefits it provides. however, if we are not going to

expand american markets to other countries with lower standards will step up to the plate and fill that demand. markets are not won after they have been lost and billions around the globe want america's food and fiber. we can boost our economy and meet these demands by showing we are a strong and reliable trading partner and we can make that happen bypassing this rule and the underlying agreement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. seeings, reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. . ms. lee: i rise in strong opposition to this rule. our country has already lost too many good-paying american jobs because of past trade deals and we should be clear about what

this rule would do. this rule is really a vote to extend medicare sequestration and provides for no amendments in the fast track bill, trade adjustment assistance and the customs bill. we've seen what happens when bad trade deals are passed without congressional oversight. american jobs are shipped overseas. many come from communities of color. dangerous food makes its way to our meals. human rights are violated. labor standards are ignored. and the effects of climate change get worse. the american people do deserve better. the american people deserve a trade policy that creates american jobs and an open process for passing trade deals that gives them a strong voice. passing this rule and passing fast track does neither. this is a bad deal for american workers, it's bad for american jobs and it needs to go back to the drawing board. a draw board that's public and that gives the american people a voice in trade policy, not just big corporations and hedge funds

-- hedge fund managers. between 2001 and 011, the growing trade deficit with china cost our nation more than 2.7 million jobs. nearly one million of these jobs mind you, came from communities of color. after these workers lost their job they situation went from bad to worse. these workers saw their wages fall nearly 30% or more than $10,000 a year. the total economic cost of this job loss to these communities is more than $10 billion. that's $10 billion each and every year. we cannot allow another bad trade deal to ship millions more american jobs overseas. we can't allow another bad trade deal to strip billions from struggling communities. we cannot allow this rule or flawed p.a.a. or fast track to pass. make no mistake i support trade. i have the honor of representing the port of oakland and i understand the critical role that trade plays in the economy

of my district. in california and also in our country. however, let me just say, trade only grows our economy -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lee: may i have an additional 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: i'm sorry, we'll be out. ms. lee: this bill is in the fair, not open, not transparent. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: the bottom line is that where there is trade with other countries, we have a trade deal, america wins. we get more jobs. as an example, three million jobs in lone star state of texas and we have -- we have that are related to trade and jobs are growing nearly twice as fast as nontrade jobs. this is what's happening. it's the vie brancy of america. at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman, the chairwoman of the -- ok, you

can have three minutes to the gentlewoman from -- who is the chairman of our house admin committee, the gentlewoman from harrison township, congresswoman miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. miller: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i tnt want to use everybody else's time. i rise in strong support of this rule. i come from southeast michigan which of course is the heart of american manufacturing. michigan manufactures -- manufacturers, especially the big three automaker companies, have all had concerns for years about the unfair competitive disadvantage they face by nations that manipulate their currencies, such as japan or south korea china. so it was very important to me that if congress moved forward with legislation to give trade promotion authority to this president and others, that the package must also include strong new tools allowing north korea fight back against those nations

that unfairly manipulate their currency and those that harm american manufactures -- manufacturers. so mr. speaker, i am very, very thankful that chairman ryan and house leadership agreed to work with us to craft an approach which i believe is a strong step forward. for decades, administrations of both parties have refused to identify foreign currency manipulators to take any action to stop it. the manager's amendment put forward by chairman ryan that we worked with him to develop gets very, very tough on currency manipulators. for the first time ever mr. speaker, it puts in place a three-part test to define currency manipulation with specific guidance requiring nations that manipulate their currency to be named publicly. also for the first time the focus will be shifted from reporting and monitoring to actionable items and to steps that will show the impact of currency manipulation on the american economy as well, mr.

speaker, as requires remedial action to be taken. these tough steps will impact every nation that we trade with. not just those that might be included in the t.p.p. but every nation that we trade with. including south korea and china. as i mentioned. japan. and certainly while these are steps in the right direction more needs to be done. absolutely more needs to be done. and here in congress, every member of congress continues to reserve the right to oppose any t.p.p. agreement that does not meet the needs of the american economy and the american manufacturing industry. and with these changes that i've outlined here that are going to be in the manager's amendment i support and am proud to support this trade package that will provide an opportunity to drive our economy forward. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter spm i'm pleased to

yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, prior to coming to congress i worked for a while as an ironworker at the quincy ship yart in quincy massachusetts. i was a welder. unfortunately, because of bad trade policy that shipyard closed down and thousands of workers were laid off. later on, i also worked at the general motors facility in framingham, massachusetts and the company decided to close that plant down and while they opened three new ones in mexico. so i have seen what lousy trade policy can do. the fundamental problem with our trade policy is that it is negotiated in secret by multinational corporations who basically hiring foreign labor at very low wages move the jobs overseas and then export the products back into the united

states. if you look at some of the minimum wagers in countries that we're dealing with in this trade agreement for ma lay shah and vietnam, it's less than $1 an hour for the minimum wage in those countries and thain maintain those low wages so that they can attract business. it's a race to the bottom. i do want to say that as part of my job with the oversight committee, i have had a chance to go to south korea and japan to see how our trade agreements have been working out there. i was in south korea for several days and just on my own and with my staff, i looked for an american car. for several days. i saw we were in traffic a lot. south korea is a booming industrial country. major highways. i saw hundreds of thousands of cars. i saw two, two, united states cars. one was the one i was driving in from the embassy and the second

car was my security detail behind me. those were the only two u.s. cars. only two u.s. cars. our trade with japan. i was in japan as well. you need a detective to find a u.s. car in japan. that's the plain and simple fact. they import $1 billion worth of u.s. manufactured products in auto and the air industry. we import $25 billion. $1 billion -- may i get another 30 seconds? or are we out of time? ms. slaughter: we are. the chair: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i would like to ask one simple question. what was that trade deal that you were talking about. mr. lynch: the korea-u.s. trade agreement two years ago. mr. sessions: i thought you said you lost your job. mr. lynch: what's that? no no, no. the job i lost, you were talking to people, the job i lost, 2,00

workers lost at the g.m. plant those plants were reopened in mexico. mr. lynch: when was that? mr. lynch: right after and a half tafment another bad trade agreement. mr. sessions: we gave you good job and you came to congress. i think the gentleman makes a point i'd like to make and that is we need a trade deal with japan to level the playing field and that's exactly what we are going to do. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, the gentleman who sits on the ways and means committee, the gentleman, congressman holding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. but i would like to remind everyone that the comments should be directed to the chair. mr. holding: mr. speaker, i'd like to thank chairman ryan sessions tiberi, for their tireless efforts to move us closer to realizing trade deals

to unlock new markets and bolster our national security. mr. speaker, i rise in support of both the rule in front of us today and the trade promotion authority legislation we will consider tomorrow. the benefits of increased free and fair trade are well established and undeniable. for companies in my state, the pending trade deals would remove tariff barriers and unlock doors for businesses such as morris associates who export the world's best poultry chilling equipment. o a company like cummings engines in my state that export u.s. made engines and allow countless farms to export chickens tobacco, and sweet po tai lows across the globe. this means increased productivity, better wages and more jobs. more importantly t.p.a. is about empowering congress, making sure that this body and people's elected representatives

keep tight reins on this president. now i'm certainly no supporter of the president's laundry list of unconstitutional actions from immigration to the administration's unilateral attempts to salvage the sinking ship that is obamacare which is why t.p.a. is needed. the president is going to negotiate trade deals whether or not we pass t.p.a. why wouldn't we want to make this president's negotiators more accountable? the deals themselves more transparent? and make our oversight more effective? here's how it works. president disregards the parameters congress sets out or fails to consult members at every stretch. congress can turn off t.p.a. the president comes back with a bad trade deal, congress can vote it down. but mr. speaker, we need t.p.a. to not only get the best deals possible but also need this authority to check the president. so i urge my colleagues, support

the rule, support t.p.a. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from michigan, land of cars, mrs. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. speaker. s considering today represents everything for me that's wrong with politics. we're currently debating the most important package of trade legislation in a generation. yet despite how critical this issue is to american jobs, this rule does not allow any amendments. currency manipulation, the mother of all trade barriers has cost this country as many as five million jobs. a bipartisan group of 20 members, 10 republicans, 10 democrats proposed an amendment

to address this. and it is vital that congress debate and vote on how to address currency manipulation as we set u.s. trade policy for the next decade. with nothing but the deepest of respect for the care of the rule -- for the chair of the rules committee, i want to give you the facts about the korean free trade agreement. the reality is before it passed, after it passed, we increased exports to korea from 14,000 to 34,000. by comparison korea imported into this country 800,000 to the u.s. before the trade agreement and now exports 1.3 million. we increase our exports to korea by 20,000 they increased their exports to this country by 461,000. toyota made more money last year in currency manipulation in this country than ford motor company did in its worldwide operation.

the american people deserve a full and open debate on trade policy. not procedural gimmicks and political games that shut out amendments and avoid the tough questions. let's defeat this rule and have a real debate on the issues that the working men and women of this country have sent us here to consider and that our -- and that are so critical to the livelihood and backbone of this american economy. ame [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> on facebook, we're asking you if you support or oppose

fast track thade authority for the president. dozens have already weighed in with their opinions. including ernesto who says -- >> we want your reaction. go to facebook.com/c-span to join the conversation. >> on c-span's road to the white house, more presidential hopefuls announce their candidacy for president. live saturday on c-span. former secretary of state hillary clinton will kick off her campaign with a speech that will outline her agenda as a candidate. live from the f.d.r. for freedoms park in new york city at 11:00 a.m. eastern. we're live at miami-dade college where former florida governor jeb bush will officially announced his candidacy. and on tuesday, on cspan.org

businessman donald trump announces whether or not he'll make a bid for the presidency at new york's trump towers at 11:00 a.m. eastern. you can watch all of these events online at cspan.org. c-span's road to the white house 2016. >> earlier today house speaker john boehner discussed trade promotion during his weekly briefing with reporters at the capitol. the house plans to hold financial passage votes tomorrow on trade policy. this is 10 minutes. speaker boehner: another week has gone by without long-term plan from the president to fix the problems that the -- at the veterans administration.

recently the v.a. admitted to congress it spends billions of taxpayer dollars on care with no contracts. really? no contracts? and the agency has no intention of changing this. so we keep passing reforms but only the administration can make the culture change that's necessary from within. here in the house it's been a big week for the people's priorities. we voted to make internet access tax-free permanently, protecting jobs and opportunity. we passed more reforms to rein in red tape on america's farmers. and today we'll pass a defense bill that gives our troops the resources they need and the pay raises that they deserve. for their part, washington democrats are doing all they can to block this pay raise for our troops. their plan is to block filibuster, veto everything, starting with a pay raise for our troops, in order to extract

more funding for the i.r.s. and the e.p.a. now, if they all get what they want democrats appear willing to shut down the government. what this comes down to is real simple. do democrats support our troops or don't they? do democrats put our troops first or do they put the i.r.s. and the e.p.a. first? because on one hand right now we've got the president saying he doesn't have a strategy to defeat the great threat from isil. and on other hand, we have his party holding up funding for our troops and their mission. so whatever game the democrats are playing, it's dangerous and frankly it ought to stop. another area where republicans are leading is where it comes to free trade. we've worked to address the concerns of members on both sides of the aisle and we've accepted both substantive and procedural changes proposed by house democrats.

this vote is about doing what's right for the country. it's about china out there writing the rules for the global economy and if we stay on the sidelines, our allies will graphictate back toward china, away from us and away from our workers. so we're doing our part to pass trade promotion authority, i'm hopeful that our friends on the other side of the aisle will do theirs. if we work together it will be a big win for american jobs and american leadership. questioner: i wondered if you could talk about t.a.a. a little bit, how much support do democrats need -- [inaudible] speaker boehner: we'll do our part, we hope they'll do their part. questioner: what's your part? speaker boehner: i don't do numbers. i wouldn't know. questioner: on defense for a second. there's an argument to be made that democrats seem to be thinking pretty aggressively, undercutting the caps that were

agreed to in 2011 b.c.a. and a discussion about what to do with those caps. this seems to be the beginning of an unraveling. i'm curious who's to blame for that. you guys or the president? speaker boehner: the budget caps were put in place, it was an agreement between the president and myself and ratified by the congress. those budget caps have been in place and they've worked. one reason why the deficit is half of what it was five years ago. having said that, the president asked for more money for defense. and in this bill we provide the president with exactly what he asked for, for our troops. he doesn't like the way we do it. all right. what's his plan? we've passed bill after bill over the last three or four years to help replace part of the sequester. it never went anywhere in the

democrat-controlled senate. if they want to change the caps where's the discussion to do it? where's their plan? they don't have a plan. we do. we put ours forward. questioner: are you confident that this trade bill will pass t.p.a. will pass? speaker boehner: i'm encouraged. we've had good discussions this week on a bipartisan basis. we've addressed the concerns raised by our members and frankly by the democrat members of the house. and we're going to continue to work to try to get there. questioner: will you guarantee it by the end of the month? speaker boehner: i'm no the guaranteeing business. -- not in the guaranteeing business. we're working hard to get there. questioner: by all accounts, at least 20 democrats will vote for t.p.a. that would let you lose as many as 48 republicans. given this is such an important priority for you and your team, isn't it reasonable to think that republicans can hold their losses to that? speaker boehner: it would be

reasonable but it's not. [laughter] i wish it was that easy. they've turned their fire on conservative republican households and shoving mails into thighs districts -- mail into these district, raising other concerns from the right. we've got members on both sides of the aisle who have got concerns about this. and they've been -- we've been working our way through this process and i feel good about it. questioner: mr. speaker, have you spoken with the president in the last few days about this trade bill? are you satisfied with the efforts he's making to pass it? speaker boehner: i have talked to the president. i know he's working at this. i hope his efforts are successful. questioner: what's your reaction to the president's plan to send 450 more troops to iraq for training purposes? is this a p.r. move or do you think it will really help? speaker boehner: i think it's a

step in the right direction but it's a tactical move. because there are needs in that part of iraq. what's still lacking is an overarching strategy to deal with it. i've outline what had i think an overarching strategy looks like and i'm hopeful we'll see one. questioner: mr. speaker going back to the trade deal for a second. speaker boehner: there is no trade bill. questioner: what's agreed upon, you have ryan saying once it's agreed upon, it will be made public, it will be made declassified. back in 2009, you were making fun of the obamacare bill. can you talk about that? once it passes, then people can actually see what's in it? speaker boehner: there's a trade negotiation going on. like any other negotiation that goes on, you know, you don't want to air out what

everybody's positions are. that's not what we're voting on. by passing trade promotion authority we'll actually give congress more openness, more involvement in what the trade agreement may look like if we ever get one. and goal post along the way. and so if in fact there's going to be a trade agreement with the asians or with the europeans, trade promotion authority allows us in the congress to outline what those goal posts should be. what the objectives should be. and gives us a part in helping advise the administration in the development of our position and in those discussions. without trade promotion authority, we're never going to know what's there. questioner: mr. speaker, you said that the capps have held well and that the president -- [inaudible] -- there was a deal between patty murray and paul ryan to lift the capps the last

two days -- caps the last two days. and the president has asked for higher caps on both domestic and defense. so what he wants is for to you sit down with him and start negotiations again. will you do that? speaker boehner: he hasn't asked. he hasn't asked. it's as simple as that. we've got a plan. we've got a plan because everybody wants for defense and keeps the caps in place. he wants to have a budget negotiation, all he has to do is ask. i'm a pretty reasonable guy. questioner: do you believe you have enough votes from both democrats and republicans to pass both t.p.a. and t.a.a.? and can you describe, i guess, how you feel about the votes on t.p.a.? do you believe you're in striking distance, do you believe you have -- [inaudible] speaker boehner: i'm not the whip so i don't do vote counts but we're workinging -- working toward the passage of both of these. questioner: where would you identify the outstanding issue

you you have right now with leader pelosi? she's recently addressed concerns about public sector workers not being able to receive pay through t.a.a.? speaker boehner: i think this is a red herring being raised by some of her colleagues. i don't understand where public workers would fall in the trade adjustment assistance in any way shape or form. even when this was part of the law, no public sector worker ever qualified for these benefits. and it hasn't been part of the law since 2011. we've addressed all of the substantive and procedural concerns that she's raised and i'm hopeful that democrats will do their part in helping to get this over the line in the next day and a half. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> next, a look at re-authorizing the 9/11 victims fund through 2041.

on thursday, new york city police officers testified before a house subcommittee. this portion of the hearing is an hour and 35 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, if you will take your seats we'll begin. i'd like to ask all of our guests today to please take their seats. the subcommittee will come to order. the chair will recognize himself for an opening statement. mr. pitts: today's health subcommittee hearing will examine the world trade center, w.t.c., health program that was created in the health and compensation act enacted in 2011. the act allocated $4.2 billion to create the health program, which provides monitoring,

testing and treatment for people who worked in response and recovery operations as well as for other survivors of the 9/11 attacks. the authorization of the health program ends on september 30, 2015. another part of the law, the september 11 victim compensation fund, is under the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee. it will continue to accept applications until october 3 2016, over a year after the health program authorization ends. the w.t.c. health program funds networks of specialized medical programs. and these programs are designed to monitor and treat those with 9/11-related conditions. for responders, the world trade center medical monitoring and treatment program, for

survivors, the n.y.c. health and hospitals corporation w.t.c. environmental health center, for nyfd personnel, the fire department of new york responder health program the national program, the w.t.c. health program has a nationwide network of clinics with providers across the country for responders and survivors who live outside the new york city metropolitan area. these programs provide free medical services by health care professionals who specialize in 9/11-related conditions. our colleagues, representatives carolyn maloney, peter king and jerrold nadler, have jointly introduced legislation h.r. 1786. the 9/11 health and compensation re-authorization act.

which re-authorizes the act. this legislation has begun an important conversation that will lead to a timely and fully offset re-authorization of the health program. today's hearing will allow us to learn more about how the program is working and whether changes are needed. we will hear from the director of the national institute for occupational safety and health who is responsible for administering the program, as well as from the medical director of the robert wood jops medical school and two first responders who are enrolled in the world trade center health program. i look forward to the testimony today and i would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new jersey, representative lance. mr. lance: thank you mr. chairman. it is my honor to welcome david howelly, a constituent of mine in new jersey's seventh congressional district, to the committee this morning.

david, thank you for making the trip from new jersey to share your story and advocate for those who cannot be with us today. we look forward to your testimony. i first met david several months ago when he came into my office in westfield, new jersey, to discuss the bill before us today. this re-authorization act is i think critically important. david has been a tremendous advocate for the legislation, because, as he will detail in his testimony, he knows firsthand the importance of these programs for him and his fellow first responders and survivors. david joined the new york police department in 1985 and served in various departments over his 20-year tenure. he's a third generation law enforcement official, following the tradition of his father and grandfather. he was serving in the nypd operations division on september 11, 2001, and spent the next several months in the

dust and rubble of ground zero. i'm proud to have david here with us today and i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this critical legislation. it is my hope, mr. chairman, that we can work in a bipartisan fashion to move this legislation forward quickly, and i look forward to voting for it not only here and in full committee but on the floor of the house of representatives. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman. i also would note that some of our colleagues from the new york delegation who are not on the committee but very concerned of this issue and sponsors of the legislation have requested to sit on the dias and we welcome them this morning. mr. green: thank you mr. chairman, for holding the hearing on this important program. i thank the witnesses today and to the first responders in the audience who for their bravery and service both on and after the tragic day of 9/11. thank you for coming today to

share your personal experiences to the committee and shed light on the significance of the world trade center health programs. no one here can forget the horrific attacks perpetrated upon our country at the world trade center in new york, the pentagon and washington, and at the field in shanksfield, pennsylvania. during and after the attacks, tens of thousands of first responders, including police, firefighters, emergency medical workers, jumped into action to assist and to rescue, recovery and cleanup. as a result of their service, these responders were exposed to dust, smoke toxins such as concrete glass, par tick late matter and asbestos. this caused many of them to develop a spectrum of debilitating diseases including respiratory disorders and cancers. a g.a.o. report on the 9/11 health program suggested that firefighters who responded to the attack, quote, experienced a decline in lung function equivalent to that of which produced by 12 years of aging.

in addition to the physical ailments these heroes now, many have suffered posttraumatic stress syndrome psychological trauma. nearly one decade after the september 11 terrorist attacks the 9/11 health and compensation act was signed into law in 2010. this act created the world trade center health program within the department of health and human services. the program provided a evaluation, monitoring and treatments to first responders and certified eligible survivors of the world trade center-related illnesses. it also established a network of clinical centers of excellence and data centers. for these responders and survivors who reside outside of new york, the act created a national network of health providers who provide the same types of services for world trade center-related illnesses. while cancer was not originally listed among the statutory w.t.c. related health

conditions, 60 types of cancer were eated in 2012 after a petition by members of congress. as of may 5 of this year, 3,700 members of the health program had cancer. the act also established the victims' compensation fund that provides compensation for harm service suffered as a result of debris removal. without action by congress funding for the current health program will terminate on september of 2016. the authorization will re-authorize the critical world trade center health program and the victims' compensation fund. as required under the current program, new york city will continue to pay 10% of the total cost. it's important to note that w.t.c. health program serves our heroes nationwide and extends far beyond new york area. both these and currently enrolled and future enrollees live in all areas of the country. in fact, as of august, 2014, 429 of the 435 congressional

districts were home to at least one 9/11 responder or survivor. we've not abandoned those who were bravely sacrificed their own well-being in the wake of the terrible attacks. we have a duty to serve our first responders and survivors and heros with complex health care from 9/11. it's important that we support the health compensation re-authorization act. i'd like to thank the first responders for their gallant self-service on and after 9/11. i'd also like to thank the doctors and administrators of the program for their efforts to treat the conflicts illnesses afict -- afflicted on our first responders and continue the research. mr. chairman someone on our side of the aisle would like a minute, i'd be glad to yield to them. i'd like to yield to my colleague from new york. >> i thank the ranking member of the subcommittee as well as the chairman and welcome my

witnesses here today. mr. clarke: while not a member of -- ms. clarke: while not a member of the subcommittee, i am a member of the full committee. congresswoman clarke of new york. i wanted to thank chairman pitts and ranking member green for holding this hearing and allowing me to sit in this very important hearing. also i want to thank our panelists. it's good that you've shared your experiences and remind america of the importance of renewing this very important program. this is a great first step toward re-authorization in a time when the american people, the scept-- are skeptical about the work of congress, i'm happy that this committee is working in a bipartisan fashion to move expeditiously to renew this important health program. congress must move forward to ensure first responders and survivors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the world trade center, the pentagon and shanksville, pennsylvania, continue to receive the care they deserve and they so sorely need. with that, mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, i yield back

the time. mr. green: mr. chair, i yield back. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman. now i recognize the gentleman, mr. upton, five minutes. mr. upton: thank you mr. chairman. back on september 11, 2001, the world as we knew it was turned upside down by the unthinkable acts of terrorism, which took the lives of nearly 3,000 individuals in new york, pennsylvania and virginia. left a mark on every american. everyone -- every one of us was impacted. from the smoldering ruins of the twins towers and the pentagon, to the wreckage of united airlines flight 93, the painful images and heartbreaking personal stories of that day, every minute, will not be forgotten. we remember the thousands of innocent lives lost and the communities and loved ones they left behind and many of us met with those. we also honor the countless actings of heroism and leadership shown by the brave american men and women during those hours of pandemonium and

in the days, weeks, months and now years that have followed. then for me, as chair of the telco subcommittee and this keb, i led a bipartisan delegation both to new york and to the pentagon. where we witnessed firsthand the valiant efforts of our first responders who were certainly exhausted, overwhelmed, but still working 24/7. first responders spent hours, days in the air that was thick with dust and smoke, digging through the rubble, searching for survivors. when i visited ground zero new york's finest were still working around the clock in impossible conditions for the recovery aforethoughts -- efforts. their selfless work took a toll on their health. we know that. the federal government provided aid to those individuals and the families of those who were killed in the attacks through a discretionary grant program. as we should.

2011, the 9/11 health and compensation act established the world trade center health program and the victim compensation fund. ranking member frank pallone and our new york colleagues, rementsive maloney, king nadler, jointly introduced now h.r. 1786. the 9/11 health and compensation re-altogether zakes act, which would re-altogether -- re-authorization act, which would re-authorize both of these programs. today we're going to focus on the world trade center health program as it is the program that falls in this committee's jurisdiction. the authorization for the world trade center health program ends at the end of september. just a few months from now. while the victims' compensation fund remains open to applicants into october of 2016. the w.t.c. health program funds networks, specialized medical programs designed to monitor and treat those with 9/11-related conditions.

the members enrolled in the program are not just from the greater new york area. in 2014 there were 71,942 individuals in the world trade center health program from 429 of the 435 congressional districts. in fact, there are 75 michigan residents currently enrolled in the w.t.c. health program. today's hearing is yes, an important opportunity to learn more about how the world trade center health program has operated since its authorization in 2010. and what is needed for it to successfully operate and meet the needs of its members in the future. i want to thank all of the witnesses today for taking the time to be here. especially thank officer holly and detective burnett for their service to our great country, for sharing their personal stories and struckles with this subcommittee. the bill needs to be passed. and i will look to consider every effort to make sure that

we get it to the house floor prior to its -- prior to the end of september. so we'll have an opportunity to make sure that these victims are taken care of. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman. now the chair is pleased to recognize the ranking member on the full committee the gentleman who has many constituents impacted by this issue, mr. pallone, five minutes, for opening statement. mr. pallone: thank you, chairman pitts, and also chairman upton. i particularly want to thank chairman upton for the comments he just made. you know highlighting how we need to perceive this as a national program and impacting people who came and helped out on 9/11 and the aftermath, from all parts of the country. my staff probably is tired of my telling this story, but i remember within a few days after the attack we went up to new york city with president bush and i was standing next to

this big yellow fire engine that said, high leaf, florida. i said, what is this truck doing? i think it was only one or two days after. and i wondered how it even got there so quickly. i talked to the fireman from florida and they said, we just -- as soon as this happened we just got in our fire truck and we drove up from florida. because we wanted to help. and it just struck me at the time about how so many people responded from all over the country and so many people were injured because of the fact that they were there for a few days or a few weeks or a few months even. so this bill is a critical first step in ensuring that the 9/11 health program is extended as soon as possible. as you both already know, this is one of my top priorities for 2015 and i'm grateful for chairman pitts and upton for your willingness to work with us to ensure the timely passage of this bill. i have to recognize all the

first responders who are here and to whom we owe a depth of gratitude. i also want to acknowledge the doctor who runs the new jersey 9/11 health clinic. thank you for being here to share your expertise and experience with us today. and let me also mention all of the new yorkers representative maloney, the sponsor of the bill, i don't know if representative nadler is here, but certainly he's been involved from the beginning. representative king i see, who joined the committee today as well as our representatives, yvette clarke, eliot engel and my colleague from new jersey, leonard lance, who is the co-sponsor. since day one you've all fought tirelessly to ensure that our nation's 9/11 responders and survivors are cared for and i'm proud to fight alongside you. beyond the immediate loss of life of 9/11, we know with great documentation that thousands of first responders and survivors of the attacks are now suffering debilitating illnesses from its aftermath. in fact, more than 100 firefighters and 50 law enforcement officers have

reportedly lost their lives to w.t.c.-related health conditions. additionaly, more than 1,500 active duty firefighters and e.m.s. personnel and over 550 law iners -- enforcement officers were forced to retire due to w.t.c.-related health conditions. we now have a deep understanding of how the tons of dust, glass fragments and other toxins released into the air affected both responders and survivors. illnesses include respiratory diseases, mental health conditions and cancer. that's why the 9/11 health and compensation act signed into law in 2011 is so critical, it established a program to monitor and screen eligible responders and survivors and provides medical treatment to those who are suffering from world trade center-related diseases. what is so important to note is that this program isn't there to provide health insurance. these are complicated conditions that are chronic in nature and require special expertise to appropriately diagnose and treat. that is why the program

includes a network of clinics and providers specifically trained to treat these diseases. it also ensures that providers and survivors bear no out-of-pocket costs associated with these particular health conditions. the w.t.c. health program currently provides monitoring and treatment services for more than 71,000 responders and survivors. they reside in every state and in 429 of the 435 congressional districts. as some of you don't know, the law is named for james zadroga a new jersey hero who responded on 9/11 and spent hundreds of hours digging through world trade center debris. he died in 2006 from pulmonary disease and respiratory failure after his exposure to toxic dust ated the world trade center site. like him thousands of people across our country came to the aid of our country and helped others at ground zero. those survivors should not be abandoned. i hope we can extend the health program without delay.

i only have 30 seconds left for mr. engel. i apologize. but i yield to him. mr. engel: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding and let me agree with everything you said. in the aftermath of september 11, it's estimated that up to 400,000 americans were exposed to copeous amounts of smoke and toxic substances. as a result many of our heroes now suffer from these debilitating conditions. acute respiratory disorders, cancer depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, it goes on and on. it's heartbreaking that the 9/11 survivors and first responders who have already given so much must now carry the burdens of these long ailments. i was proud to be an original co-sponsor of the 9/11 health and compensation act and i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of the re-authorization we're discussing today. a failure on conditioning's part to pass this -- congress' part to pass this legislation

would be an egregious affront to americans. i specifically say americans because the population of those who will benefit from this re-authorization spans the entire united states. it's 429 of the 435 congressional districts that benefit from these programs. so this is an issue of national performance. the first responders who rely on the world trade center health program did not hesitate to risk their lives for fellow americans on 9/11 and we should not hesitate to care for them now. it's critical importance that we permanently re-authorize the 9/11 health and compensation act. thank you, mr. pallone, thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman and, as usual all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. that concludes our time for opening statement. i have a unanimous consent request i'd like to submit the following documents for the record.

statements from representative peter king, new york second district from the international association of firefighters from the sergeants benevolent association, from the national association of police organizations and an article from the new york city's patrolmen benevolent association. without objection, so ordered. we have two panels today. on our first panel we have dr. john howard. director of national institute for occupational safety and health. thank you very much for coming today, dr. howard. your written statement will be made part of the record. you'll be recognized for five minutes to make your opening statement at this time. you're recognized. dr. howard: thank you, mr. chairman and distinguished members of the committee. my name is john howard. i'm the administrator of the world trade center health program. i'm very pleased to appear before you today to discuss the

program and those it serves who responded to or survived the september 11 2001, terrorist attacks on new york city. and those who responded at the pentagon and in shanksville pennsylvania. the program's members responded to an epic disaster and as a result suffer mental and physical injury, illness and the risk of prema muir death -- premature death. the program's members responded to the 9/11 disasterer from all 50 states and, it has been stated from 429 of the 435 congressional districts. the original effort to care for those affected by 9/11 toxic exposures operated as a series of cooperative agreements and grants. as a discretion arly funded program, it depended on year to year appropriations, making it challenging to plan adequately for the members' ongoing health needs. in january 2011, as has been stated, the 9/11 health and compensation act became law. stabilization of funding allows

the program to more adequately care for 9/11 responders. in calendar year 2014, of the 71,942 current members enrolled in the program 20,883 members received treatment for health conditions arising from hazardous exposures from 9/11 and 28,059 received health monitoring, to ensure early medical intervention for any developing health condition that is specified for coverage by the program. since the program's implementation, members have been treated for a number of different health conditions. for example, 11,473 members have been treated for asthma. 6,672 members have been treated for posttraumatic stress disorder. and 6,497 members have been treated for chronic respiratory disorders. the majority of our members suffer from multiple mental and physical health conditions and

take multiple medications for these conditions. certain types of cancer were added to the list of health conditions covered by the program in late 2012. since then the program has certified 4,265 cases of cancer. the world trade center health program fills a unique need in the lives of our members and for our society. first, members are evaluated and treated by medical providers who have a depth of experience dating back to september 11, 2001, and the physical and mental health needs of 9/11 responders and survivors, they are very familiar with. their extensive clinical experience with the responder and survivor populations, as well as their understanding of the role of exposure in causing disease exceeds the training of providers unfamiliar with the types of exposures and health conditions common to the 9/11 population.

and how to make the connection between exposure and illness that this act requires. second, our members are receiving health care that cannot be provided or only provided with great difficulty by other types of insurance plans. for example, health insurance plans do not routinely cover work-related health conditions. leaving such coverage to workers' compensation insurance. however, worker compensation insurance often presents coverage challenges to members because their 9/11 health conditions often first manifest after 9/11, many years later. beyond the statute of limitations found in most state worker compensation laws. the world trade center health program serves a vital role in overcoming the difficulties that members might otherwise experience in its absence. without the program 9/11 responders and survivors might

end up in limbo instead of in treatment. third, by providing evaluation and treatment for those most affected by 9/11 as a unified could he hort, the program -- cohort, the program greatly aids not only the individual members but also our national understanding of the long-term health affects of 9/11, including its affects on children. the program helps us better prepare for the medical needs arising from large scale, long duration disasters that might not hopefully occur ever in the future. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman and i will begin the questioning and recognize myself five minutes for that purpose. dr. howard, would you continue to elaborate a little bit on the history of the world trade center health program? how it came to be, how it has

changed over time? dr. howard: thank you. the program started as an immediate response to what doctors were seeing, especially with the new york city fire department, in what was called at that time, a world trade center cough. and those doctors and others that were recruited to the effort began to observe that individuals who were responding were becoming ill from inhalation of the dust and the toxins contained in the dust. so immediately through fema appropriations c.d.c. and then the national institute for occupational safety and health was able to offer grants and cooperative agreements so that those doctors could begin now, many, many years later their first work in trying to articulate, characterize the issues that responders were facing as survivors.

mr. pitts: another question. what are the consequences of letting the world trade center health program expire in september of 2015? how would it effect the operation of the centers of the excellent a-- of excellence across the country and the patients who use these facilities and services? dr. howard: certainly any of us that receive health care from a particular health plan, if we're notified that that plan no longer exists, creates great stress in our life. we have to adjust to new providers and other changes. our efforts to help those who may be part of our discontinued program, let's hope that does not happen, would have to receive other providers of care and it would be our responsibility to make sure they did. the centers of excellence would not operate any more as a coordinated care operation for responders and survivors.

mr. pitts: thank you. we're aware that special master sheila burnbahm administers the fund which is housed at the department of justice. is there coordination between the operations of the victims' compensation fund and the world trade center health program? dr. howard: yes, sir there is. we have a data sharing and medical review agreements with the victims' compensation fund. we regularly meet with the staff. our staff is imbedded with their staff to assist in the medical review. the victims' compensation fund has adopted our program requirements for their medical review. to date we have provided information to them on 18,262 of their v.c.f. claim ants. we continue to work -- claimants. we continue to work very

closely with the victims' compensation fund. mr. pitts: how much higher is the federal employee compensation act rate compared to medicare parts a and b reimbursements for hospitals? dr. howard: the statute the act sets the reimbursement rate according to the workers' compensation rates of the federal government. the feca rates. medicare rates are lower but maybe by 10% to 20% lower. so they are -- the feca rates are higher and our reimbursement rates for providers are higher than medicare. mr. pitts: dr. howard, i can imagine that it is a logistical challenge to provide care for the responders and survivors who are scattered all across the country. what can you do to ensure that

a physician in another part of the country, seeing only a few world trade center patients benefits from the clinical experience over the physicians in the new york metropolitan region who have more experience treating these w.t.c.-related health conditions? dr. howard: the nationwide provider network that we have, which is currently seeing about 8,287 individuals, we have total coordination with that provider network. on the one hand, all of those individuals who do monitoring for our survivors and responders that are in the nationwide program are trained occupationally trained physicians, so that they are equivalent to the physicians that we have in our senters of excellence in new york and -- centers of excellence in new

york and emergency. we also provide them with -- new jersey. we also provide them with additional training. we're working with medscape right now to have online training available for all of our providers. we work is with -- we work with our contractor who has the nationwide provider network. and that physician, their medical director sits in all of our groups and committees and we engage actively with those physicians. so i would say that for our relationship with the national -- the nationwide provider network, those physicians republican on par with our physician -- are on par with the physicians. mr. pitts: good. thank you. my time is now expired. mr. green is recognized. mr. green: dr. howard, prior to the passage of the 9/11 health compensation act of 2010 you administered the c.d.c. grant program that funded medical monitoring and treatment services for 9/11 survivors and

responders. that program was funded through discretionary dollars and there's always uncertainty about whether and what amount of discretionary funding would be appropriated for the grant program. can you describe how the creation of the world trade center health care program through this act has improved your ability to ensure that responders and survivors get the quality of medical services that they need? dr. howard: i would respond in two ways. one, on behalf of the members it's very stressful to constantly be told on a year by year basis that your care may go away. your doctor and the institution, the facility that you go to, may change. so it created a pervasive sense of stress. mind you, in our population, we have many thousands of individuals that suffer from ptsd. and some highly resist ant ptsd.

i'm sure -- resistant ptsd. if they were here with me, they'd say how stressful year by year funding is to the program. from the administrative perspective, it's very difficult because we are always up to the last minute, thinking should we start preparing for the program not to be funded? and that was certainly something that we did not want to happen. but it requires a long process of preparation. so we were never sure about that. mr. green: so the dedicated mandatory fundings helped you not only plan better but also the reaction from the patients. dr. howard: it's like night and day. when the act passed, i think all of us, members and us that were administrating the program, breathed a sigh of relief that we had five years. we never had that before. mr. green: the 9/11 health compensation re-authorization that would permanently extend the program, could you explain how a permanent extension of the program would ensure that

responders and survivors have that peace of mind? you talked about that medical monitoring and treatments that they've come to rely on will continue to meet their needs. dr. howard: as i say i think that the assurance of having the same provider, especially for our patients that suffer from very serious mental and physical conditions, is a peace of mind that can only be bought from mandatory funding, without an end date. for us and the program, it really helps us do long-term strategic planning. it's very hard to do contracts when you can only provide a year or two or five years. but being able to look beyond that five-year horizon is extremely hemful for the efficiency and the -- helpful for the efficiency and the sbeg rift of the program -- integrity of the program. mr. green: it seems the patients provide a great deal of understanding from the doctors and providers in the program.

how do you think this affects the patient outcomes? dr. howard: without doubt. the providers that i first met in august of 2002, when i became first involved in this program, are the very same providers that i see now in june of 2015. their dedication to this population has been worthy of note. mr. green: so the doctor-patient relationship is important, because of the continuation of the program. dr. howard: the trust that our members have to the providers that we are fortunate to have cannot be duplicated anywhere else. mr. green: do you think continuing the program is so important to ensuring the same level of knowledge and expertise? dr. howard: very definitely. our providers have a wealth of clinical information that other providers would take them years to develop. mr. green: ok. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time.

mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman. now recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, five minutes, for questions. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, dr. howard, for being here. i spent six years of my spent six years of my life in college in new york. i spent a lot of time at the u.s.o. off times square. it was all uniforms and public servants there, i always enjoyed talking to them there. you said something, i wasn't going to go this direction, but it's opened by eyes. i live in bowling green, kentucky. we take care of our servants, if there's a fire, and someone in the fire house gets injured, we have systems in placing disability insurance and so forth. so i think a lot of us that

aren't, you know, in new york continuously and the surrounding areaings like my friends here is, are the programs already in place. i know it's unique in the massness of it but why is it unique in terms of other injuries people might receive that requires its own system, other than just the volume. could you hit the challenges? because you've opened my eyes to some things, but hit the challenge some of what you've already said but why this is this completely unique, why diseases are different if you're in a normal -- i don't know if normal is the right word but a somewhere standard situation that firefighters or other people would be in? dr. howard: i'd be happy to. i think the best way to answer the question is by looking at some of the findings that we have gotten from the investment that the act has allowed us to make in research.

looking at this population and the conditions. and i'll just mention a few issues. on the mental health issue. we have seen delayed onset of ptsd. that's not normally seen in other types of situations. that's something that we're seing in this population. it's -- we've also seen a worsening of ptsd despite conventional treatments. so that's something that's new in this population. in terms of respiratory disease we're seeing a onset of obstructive airways disease beyond five years after exposure. we're also seeing bronchial hyper reactivity persist over a decade, and that's something new. in terms of asthma, we have seen patients in our program who have asthma who have lost full-time employment because of their

asthma, more than we've seen in the general asthmatic population. so there are a number of findings that we're seing from a clinical perspective this population that we would never have learned had we not had the group together. mr. guthrie: if it was just normal workers comp you said there's 71,000 people in the program. what's the criteria? did you have to be on site for so many days? i mean, well -- did you have to actually be in the rubble? what's the -- dr. howard: the simple answer is the zadroga act is highly specific about eligibility for the program and it includes, for let's say new york city police officers, location the dureation of their exposure, and other factors. so eligibility criteria are pretty well spelled out in the act.

mr. guthrie: what about nonpublic safety personnel that can be in the program? dr. howard: there are criteria for eligibility for volunteers that came from all over the country that came to volunteer as responders. similarly in the section of the act that deals with survivors, there are eligibility, five levels of eligibility rirptes for survivors. so if someone comes to our program, wants to be a member, the first step is filling out an application in which they -- a lengthy application, unfortunately, i might add new york which all of that information is solicitted so we can establish whether or not their experience meets the eligibility requirements of the act. mr. guthrie: i think some concerns, as we've debated before, in terms of health care, people getting care they deserve, i know i remember asking why it's a separate,

unique program, but you've given me some new information and i thank you. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes mr. pallone for five minutes for questions. mr. pallone: thank you. doctor they rely on the world centers of excellence that have the knowledge base and experience to treat the needs of 9/11 responders. i think you've already talked about this, i'm following up on what mr. guthrie said. i know the patients in the new york city metropolitan region continue to see their personal physicians for the general health care needs. but often obtain monitoring and treatment services for their conditions at thees centers. i also understand that, you know, if somebody is in another part of the country they can go to a network of doctors provided through the program but some of them also come to the centers. i know at the new jersey centers, we get people from all

over the country that will travel because of the expertise that exists. if you can comment on the treatment benefits of individuals using these centers rather than their personal physicians for their 9/11-related health conditions or even, you know, traveling when they can see someone who is part of the w.t.c. network, they come to the centers? dr. howard: i'd be happy to. i think it boils down to the difference in physicians in terms of their expertise, as you said. occupational environmental physicians who are schooled in that particular subspecialty know how to connect and -- an exposure with a health condition. when i went to medical school, i did not learn that. i learned how to take care of a health condition, i didn't learn to go back and do an extensive history to try to figure out what are your exposure was that exposure related to this health condition i see? that's a specialty of occupational and environmental medicine where we try to correlate the exposure and

health condition. so physicians that we use both in the c.c.e.'s that are -- that have been involved since 2001 and in the nationwide provider network have that capeability. physicians that don't have that capability would not be able to listen to the patient's symptoms and be able to say yes, your exposure, i'm going to make a determination that your exposure caused that health condition or contributed to that health condition or aggravated that health condition. mr. pallone: i'm trying to speed up because i wanted to ask a few more things. has there been any problems with misdiagnosis or improper treatment of 9/11 conditions when individuals have relied on their personal physicians? dr. howard: not that i'm aware of. within the program we have a quality assurance where we look at all the care they receive. mr. pallone: can you discuss how the clinical centers of excellence deliver care to responders at the centers with

care delivered by personal medical providers outside the centers. dr. howard: as many of you know the world trade center health program is not your normal health plan where you go in and everything that you may complain about relative to your body, a physician takes care of. we have limited number of conditions system of many conditions we don't cover. so you have to see an additional physician, your personal physician system of that coordination is done in the c.c.e.'s so if those c.c.e. physicians see a condition that we do not cover, that appropriate referral is made. mr. pallone: let me -- i'm going to try to summarize the last question my concern is that i don't want this program terminated before we have an opportunity to re-authorize it. that's why we're having this hearing and trying to move quickly. but in preparation, you know if re-authorization legislation is not signed into law by september of next year, the program is terminated. and in preparation for

termination or possible termination, i understand that h.h.s. has certain notice requirements you have to follow. can you just tell us, you know, what you'd have to do? obviously this is what we want to happen. i want to stress that there's always that danger. dr. howard: it would be a nightmare for me personally and for our members and it would be a nightmare for our c.c.e. physicians. you cannot abandon a patient ever as a care providers. so we must ensure that that patient is taken care of somewhere. and finding a place for each of our 71,000 -- 71,942 members would be a gargantuan task. mr. pallone: and notice requirements? dr. howard: we have to inform our patients ahead of time that this may happen, even though we may not be sure it is happening and certainly when it maps and all the efforts we can make to help them support their efforts

in finding additional -- mr. pallone: when does that process begin? dr. howard: the 90-daytime limit is sort of an unwritten notice requirement now. it can vary state by state because these are often state laws. but we have to go back and look at, since we have members from every state, we would have to look at every state's abandonment requirements. mr. pallone: thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes mr. whitfield for questions. mr. whitfield: thank you and thank you, dr. howard, for being with us this morning. when we think about health care system frequently, people work with some company that provides health care or medicare, you've got to be over a certain age, medicaid income below trio or tricare. so here the common element is

people from around the country whether emergency responders or volunteers, came to respond to this emergency in new york, disaster of 9/11. and you touched on the criteria, i think you indicated there are 71,000 plus members enrolled in this program. and if it's still eligible, if i'm someone that worked there during that time, would i still be able to enroll today? if i'm not enrolled right now? dr. howard: yes, sir, you would be. and we hope that anyone listen og -- listening who is not enrolled in the program and who may be eligible will call the eligibility line and sign up for the program. mr. whitfield: i won't get into the detail bus criteria for eligibility, i'm assuming you had to have been there x days, is that correct? dr. howard: right, there are very detailed eligibility

requirements spelled out in the act itself. mr. whitfield: does your office make the decision on whether or not a person is eligible or not? dr. howard: yes, sir. mr. whitfield: of the patients you are caring for right now, what percent of them would you say, or maybe you don't have this information had an insurance program already, they were already covered under? dr. howard: first of all, even if you had health insurance as a responder, you would not be able to use that insurance because health insurance does not cover work-related issues. if you've ever gone in for an m.r.i. or c.t. scan at the bottom of the form it will say is this the result of an auto accident, is this a result of the work accident? if it is, the health insurer won't pay for it. for survivors health insurance could be an issue and we recoup as much as we can from the

health insurer. mr. whitfield: what percent would have been covered under, say, workers compensation program? dr. howard: theoretically, work-related injuries and illnesses would all be covered but there are great difficulties for responders in accessing worker compensation benefits because oftentimes, their condition, not the original conditions where on the event someone had an acute injury and it happened within a short period of time, but some of our diseases in our program, their onset are years later and a will the of statutes draw a line and say, no. that's beyond our statute of limitations. we will not cover something that started five years later. so many of our members are in that situation. mr. whitfield: would it be unusual that workers comp may pick up part of it and then this program would pick up sort of

playing a supplemental role? dr. howard: it's not unusual. many of our members have had worker compensation benefits given. and we are in the process of recouping from workers compensation. but it is not the majority or even near the majority of our members. mr. whitfield: some people indicated early on, i remember when there was first discussion about this, that this was a unique program but i know there's health programs in effect for employees at savanna river, paducah, oak ridge and so forth which is kind of similar to this because those workers were exposed to certain elements, many of them were not even aware of, and they came down with a lot of different cancers and so those programs are similar to this program, wouldn't you say? dr. howard: yes, sir. in fact, we administer the energy employees occupational

illness compensation program together with the department of labor -- labor and department of nrning. it's a program that bears a lot of similarities to our program at the world trade center. mr. whitfield: so if you worked at the world trade center and you're covered and you have one of say 12 or 14 illnesses that you all have set out is there a presumption that since you were there and exposed that you would be covered under this program? dr. howard: not a presumption. a physician, not in the administration of the program, but in our centers of excellence, would examine you, take your history and make the connection between the exposure history that you give that physician and that health condition and they, and they alone, say i think the two are connected. mr. whitfield: thank you very much for the great job you do. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the

gentleman and recognizes the gentleman, mr. schrader, for five minutes for questions. mr. schrader: my questions have been answered, mr. chairman, thank you. mr. pitts: the chair recognizes the gentlelady, ms. castor, five minutes for questions. ms. castor: i want to thank you, mr. chairman for calling this hearing. i'd like to thank all of the first responders and survivors and the medical professionals to take care of them for traveling here to capitol hill to encourage the congress provide some continuity and certainty in the world trade center health program. i'd like to thank my colleagues especially from new jersey and new york, congressman pallone and congressman lance, you all have been champions on this committee for this, along with congresswoman clarke and congresswoman maloney. i see congressman king, i think is still here. and the entire new york

delegation especially. i strongly support the james zadroga 9/11 health compensation re-authorization act because it will provide that important certainty and continuity of care from this point forward. it's interesting to see the list and understand that there are first responders and survivors from the world trade center terrorist attack all across america now. and florida comes in right behind new york and new jersey. so it will be very important, and i think that the folks that i represent back home will be strongly in support of taking care of their neighbors who were there on september 11 and the weeks and months and years afterwards. it is vital that we continue this specialized care for all of our neighbors and all the great

folks who were there on september 11. so dr. howard, thank you for being here today. one of the important parts of the world trade center zadroga health initiative that often gets overlooked is the funding provided for research into 9/11 46 related health conditions between fiscal year 2011 and 2014. the program funded 35 projects to investigate questions about 9/11-relate -- 9/11 related to physical and mental health conditions. could you provide examples of the research that's been funded by the zadroga act. dr. howard: i'd be happy to. we're very grateful for the original drafters of the legislation to provide money for research into the health conditions that our members face and as i mentioned before, we've already learned quite a bit from that research. and i'd like to highlight just one aspect of it, in addition to mental health and respiratory and cardiovascular and cans er

research research in autoimmune diseases and others is the research we've done on individuals who were children at the time of the 2001 attacks. there were a number of elementary schools and a high school for instance that were immediately impacted and we have a number of those projects that are going on now about seven that are funded and we're learning the effect -- effects on developmental issues in the children's population. to date, we've funded delrs 88.5 million worth of research and we have a significant body of research that is published in peer-reviewed journals, the world trade center registry alone has published about 60 papers and our various clinical researchers at our clinical centers have published the other

papers. our pivotal papers in cancer, auto immune diseases, asthma, and other respiratory disorders have allowed us to provide better care, more focused care for our members. ms. castor: and are the results of the research disseminated in an organized way to providers and families so they have access? dr. howard: yes. we have membership newsletters that highlight find frgs research. all our painers are published on the world trade center health program's website and of course these are all peer-reviewed publications so they appear in science journals and i'm happy to say that the new york media picks up on those papers and reports them, probably more effectively and more widely than we can on our website. ms. castor: if the zadroga act

is not re-authorized, would these research efforts come to an end and explain why that would be harmful. dr. howard: they would cease altogether and we would lose i think, one of the most important advantages to our society is looking at the long-term health effects from 9/11. ms. castor: you testified earlier that health conditions often manifest themselves years later. the zadroga act provided funding for outreach efforts to individuals who may be eligible. we're now several years into the existence of the program and you have successfully enrolled more than 71,000 responders and survivors. it seems to me that in addition to outreach, the continuity of care and retention of members will be important to protecting the health moving forward. that's why the re-authorization act here clarifies that funding may be used for continuity of care and retention.

give me your opinion on why efforts on continuity of care and retention of members will be important moving forward. dr. howard: as you say, our program overall, since its inception of july, 2011, with the zadroga act has grown about 18% overall in membership. we credit that to the wonderful contractors that we have who have done recruitment. but, the other side of that is, once you recruit a patient into our program, we want them to remain in our program. every health plan loses members because we do not go and do outreach to retain them system of that's, on balance now, after our first five years, we hope to emphasize in what we hope is our second phase that retention of our patient population is as important as their original recruitment. ms. castor: and how do you propose to do that for first responders and survivors outside of the new york-new jersey area,

say in the state of florida? dr. howard: first of all, we do things as a team. we sit down with our representatives from survivors and responders we have a responder steering committee which is very active, meets every month. and we have a survivor steering committee that is very active and meets every month. all our ideas, suggestions, we go to them and say, how are we going to do this? together as a group, we figure out how to do it. there are many modalities that we could use and oftentimes we're told by our members what is the most effective. ms. castor: thank you, i yield back. the chair: the chair reck -- mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentlelady and recognizes mr. burgess of texas for questions. mr. burgess: thank you mr. chairman, thank you dr. howard for being here and our witnesses on the second panel, thank you for your participation and the people hearing testament to the

work that you've done. i also feel obligated to recognize the work of one of our colleagues, a former member who was on this committee with us who was responsible for my early interest in this shortly after i arrived in congress in 2003. because of that interest i did become an early supporter of representative king's work on this. in fact, i was the one who ran the bill on the floor in the waning days of the 111th congress in that late lame duck session in december when the bill finally did pass on the floor of the house. dr. howard, i'm interested in, you said in your testimony that you provided for us today that certain types of cancer were added to the list of health conditions covered under this act. could you share with us what those cancers, what types of cancers these were? are? dr. howard: yes. currently covered in the program

are every type of cancer, is the short way to approach this, every type of cancer except uterine cancer. mr. burgess: are there those that are -- if you were to pick the top three malignancies, what would those be? dr. howard: i think if you looked at our 4,000 or so cases right now probably the top ones would be thyroid cancer, there are five common cancers that americans get, skin being the one, that's our top cancer, there's breast cancer, that's also a top cancer for us, there's colon cancer which is a top cancer for us, thyroid cancer is another cancer for us, but we've seen a lot of very common cancers like that and we've also seen some very rare type cancers and oftentimes,

from ep deem yo logical basis the -- from an epideiological basis that can be interesting, about the rare cancers. mr. burgess: sure. and that speaks to the value of having people with the expertise in treating the injuries encountered because an uncommon cancer can be a difficult diagnosis at which to arrive. dr. howard: exactly. and if this were distributed we would not -- this if this group were distributed, it would be hard to find those rare cancers if the patients were not seen in our clinical centers and rather they were seing their own personal physicians throughout the united states. it would be very difficult to do that. mr. burgess: it provides a focus that otherwise would not be available. just a brief comment on the observed versus the expected cancer rates of the population that you're following, is this

number i guess i calculate it to be 6% based on the number of patients you're following and the cancers you reported, how does that stack up to the general population? dr. howard: that comparison i'm afraid we can't do at this time. that would be something we would have to wait and see what our researchers would come up with in giving us that kind of number. we're now looking at, and the fire department -- in the -- and the fire department of new york city is doing some research using as a reference population to compare our world trade centers -- center firefighters to another cohort established by the institute of firefighters not involved in world trade center so we hope that line of research could answer your question someday. mr. burgess: it would give a better control if you age match for people in similar occupations. dr. howard: yes, sir. mr. burgess: switching gears a

little bit you mentioned you're trying to aid not just individual members but help grow the body of evidence and the body of information. so that you can help in other situations. are you going to be able to provide feed fwook municipalities and boroughs as to the type of workers compensation coverage that may be provided to members of the fire fighting community or the type of health insurance that's provided? some of the shortcomings you mentioned were within the workers compensation system. are there lessons you have learned that can be extrapolated to other communities? dr. howard: certainly. i think new york city state -- new york state itself, its legislator and governor have responded to this issue by providing a mechanism by which responders survivors, can sign up to a program, they don't have

to actually make a claim but they can register and then if they should develop a condition later on that their claim would not be beyond the statute of limitations. so other states have also looked at that and we hope that people will learn especially from these long dureation disasters. mr. burgess: thank you and i yield back. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman, and yields to ms. schakowsky, five minutes for questions. ms. schakowsky: thank you and i would like to thank the survivors, for the first responders and survivors, i'm sure in addition to some health conditions that may be more visible, that the trauma of the incident and the loss of friends, co-workers, family is something that lingers on forever, really.

in illinois, dr. howard, there -- there are 13 first responders and between one and nine survivor the way the data is capped, between one and nine, enrolled in world trade center health program. clearly there's no concentration of those individuals in any kind of program of nationwide providers. so i imagine there's physicians that have one or two, etc. so how do you maintain that, the cohesiveness of that network? dr. howard: i think that's a very good question. i think there's a couple of ways that we do this. first of all our nationwide provider network is headed by very capable physician who is a part of our new york-based centers, new york and new jersey-based centers of clinical excellence. so he participates in all of our

meetings and is a great educator and teacher for the ka dray of physicians that do monitoring and evaluation of that population, as you point out, a physician may have only one or two. those physicians themselves are occupationally trained so they have the same kind of training to be able to connect exposure and health conditions as similarly situated physicians at our clinical centers. as i mentioned, we're also trying to, we are pleased that medscape is helping us put constant train, so to speak, 24-7, you can go to their website and get information about the latest findings from the program that may influence your practice. so even though we have a distribution network and even those physicians in the nationwide provider program may have one or two patients they're see, we want them to be a similarly -- to be similarly situated knowledge wise as the rest of our physicians.

ms. schakowsky: thank you. so my understand og then data there are a total of 700,000 people enrolled in the program and it says that more than 30,000 responders and survivors have at least one world trade center related health condition. so there are some people in the program, i gather that are more than -- that are simply, not simply, but that are being monitored? is that the difference in number? dr. howard: we offer monitoring and treatment. if you're in the monitoring program and you do not have a health condition that is included for coverage in our program, then you come on a periodic basis for monitoring. so you're not in treatment there's no condition that a world trade center physician has connected to your exposure. so they are continuing to

monitor. ms. schakowsky: but the monitoring is done within the network and there's not an additional cost to that individual for the monitoring? dr. howard: no, our members bear no cost. ms. schakowsky: so the population that you serve includes some number of families of, or spouses of firefighters. some are in that program. survivors that may be, workers in the area, residents, students darek care participants, etc. i'm wondering what the breakdown is between first responders and then survivors. dr. howard: in terms of enrolled members in our program? currently, total enrollment of the population as you say is 71,942. genre sponders, which would be police -- general responders, which would be police

construction workers firefighters, that came from all over the united states is about 38,953. our firefighter members are $16 -- are 16,169. which leaves 18,301 survivors. ms. schakowsky: does anybody leave the program? aside from the issue of re-enrollment, do they have to re-enroll every year? dr. howard: no, you're enrolled once in our program. ms. schakowsky: does anybody leave? dr. howard: i hope not but i do not know that for a fact. we have members who have passed away but leaving they may go to their, as has been said, by representative pallone, they may go to their private physician to obtain health care for other non-related conditions. ms. schakowsky: thank you very much. mr. pitt: the chair recognize --

thanks the gentlelady and recognizes mr. lance for questions. mr. lance: thank you. i don't have any questions but i want to thank you for what you're doing, dr. howard. i want to thank congressman pallone who has worked on this issue over the course of the last more than a decade and all of the members of the congress who recognize the importance of re-authorization of this legislation. this is a bittersweet hearing for me. new jersey lost more than 700 residents. my son was playing freshman high school football and he had a teammate whose father didn't come home. i lost a princeton classmate in the south tower. and my story is similar to the stories of many.

i think the best speech that the younger president bush ever delivered was on september 14 at the national cathedral, where he said that this world god created is of moral design, brief -- grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time, love and remembrance have no end he concluded by paraphrasing st. paul to the row monos that no elve eel -- no evil can separate us from god love. what you have done is based on goodness remembrance, and love and that's certainly true of the -- true of the first responders. i thank all the first responders and i am sure this legislation will pass unanimously here and on the floor of the house. i yield back. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, five minutes for

questions. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. none of us who represent the new york, new jersey and surrounding area that wasn't deeply affected. there are 1, 51 people in my district who are program beneficiaries of all you do, dr. howard. we're very appreciative of it. you've answered some of my questions but i want to try to bring out certain other things. many of us in the aftermath, mr. lance just mentioned the friday after the tuesday of the attacks, many of us in the delegation went to the site of the attacks. it was surreal. you just scratched your head and you couldn't believe you were really, it's like a nightmare you couldn't believe you were living it and then you realized every few seconds, this is real. and so we walked around, other people walked around, we really weren't wearing a mask.

they did give us masks but didn't really make it seem as if it was that important. i've had a lot more people got exposure, i men, i went back several times, i don't have any ill effects, thank god, but people who are now starting to get effects, do we have trouble tracing it back to, is it -- is it difficult for people to prove so many years later that their illnesses are a result of exposure they got at the world trade center site? dr. howard: it is difficult. it's difficult for any of us to recall exact details of what we did a month ago a year ago, let alone this many years ago. so for new members coming in our program a lot of the questions that we ask about their exposure, they're very difficult to answer. recall is imperfect in all of us. but we take that into consideration. in terms of the questions we ask

and the answers they give us. mr. engel: dr., thank you for the great work you do really great work. makes me proud to have been an original co-sponsor of this legislation and i think in all the years i have been in congress, i have never seen our delegations more united on one thing particularly the new york delegation. since the program has been continuing, obviously when things continue you see what works, what doesn't work, you make adjustments. what would you change in the program? what are some of the things you found difficulty with that perhaps we should consider modifying or changing to make it more efficient? dr. howard: i don't think that we found anything in the act that has been a show stopper for us in administering the program. we look at all of the items in the act as helping us and we consider the act to be well a

well written document that's given us a road map and as for so many year, for over a decade, we had no authorizing language so we made it up as we went along, together with our clinical centers of excellence, so we're extremely happy to have have this authorizing outline for us. mr. engel: how much flexibility exists with regard to the world trade center health programs eligibility requirements? for example, if someone meets nine out of 10 benchmarks but is desperately in need of care can exceptions be made to ensure care gets to those who need it? dr. howard: we look at every case on a case by case basis. as i said, recall is not perfect this many years later and we take that into consideration. we only decide that somebody is not eligible when we're absolutely certain that they do not fit any of the stated

criteria in the act. if we err at all, it's on the side of including someone in the program. mr. engel: in your written testimony, you note the work that's been done through the world trade center health program. work has been done to understand the impact that 9/11 had on children. i understand that the program has funded research projects to specifically examine the effect of 9/11 on the physical and mental health of children and adolescents. can you talk about that? dr. howard: first of all, we're very privileged to have a number of researchers in new york who are interested in this area of pediatric research for 9/11. as i say we have seven projects that are funded in this area. they have not been completed as yet. so we're looking forward to those findings. so i can't report today about what those studies are showing. but it's important that they -- that we have them and they

continue and we're privileged to have a very -- a couple of very good researchers working on that. mr. engel: thank you doctor and thank you for all you do. we're grateful to you it affects those of us in the new york area every single day and our constituents are grateful. thank you. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentleman. i understand -- the chair recognizes ms. brooks for five minutes for questions. ms. brooks: i'm a former deputy mayor of indianapolis in the late 1990's, we hosted the world police and fire games in the summer of 2001, before the 9/11 attack. and there were many new york, new jersey firefighters and police officers who perished in the attack, new york firefighters who perished that had participated in those games. but we also had a group called task force one that traveled

from indiana to world trade center and we've since learned, because of this hearing, that we have 53 people in the state who responded. i have 12 in my particular district and i want to pay particular tribute as other colleagues have done, not only to all of those from new york and new jersey but people like individuals from task force one, engineers and technical experts and their search dogs, traveled immediately that day and continue to operate around the clock with all their brothers and sisters in new york. there was a story several years ago about an indianapolis fireman and member of task force one, charlie gleason, who was deployed. he said in that tv story he, said, and i quote, he got a little bit of that world trade center cough. from that mix of the fumes.

but he said that he would gladly answer the call again and that you understand the risks but we have to take care of the men and women that are going and that continue tai in and day out to risk their lives for fellow citizens. i want to thank you and all of the men and women who were here today for their service and all the men and women around the country who did answer that call. i'd like to ask you what you lose sleep about with respect to this program, what are your greatest challenges. you've answered incredibly well so many questions posed to you, but what would you say are the greatest challenges facing this program that we must re-authorize? and how do you plan to respond to those programs? those challenges? dr. howard: the biggest thing that worries me is that i would have to spend any amount of time , waste my time, closing the program. as opposed to growing the

program. ms. brooks: and the manner in which you plan to grow the program, how do you plan to do that? dr. howard: one of the issues we faced in the program and i think i can speak for all of our clinical centers of excellence directors and our national, nationwide provider network is, when the bill passed, the president signed it on january 3, 2011, we had to be up and running, july 2011. it was a very short implementation time. by a lot of work by a lot of people we were able to open our doors on july 1 2011. but i think what we've done over the last five years and we hope to continue to do is quality improvement of the services we offer.

our pharmacy benefit plan, for instance, and other support for our members. we want to receive their input so we can continue to improve the program. ms. brooks: thank you. thank you for your service, i yield back. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentlelady and recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. collins, for questions. mr. collins: thank you mr. chairman. i too want to recognize our first responders here. i think any time you come, as you have, it helps members of congress in what we know is going to be bipartisan support as previously stated to unanimously pass this re-authorization. but first of all mr. chairman, i'd like unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from representative dan donovan who represents staten island and a portion of brooklyn. mr. pitts: without objection, so ordered. mr. collins: i'd also like to recognize representative peter king who is with me today and

thank dr. howard for all you've done. you've pretty much answered, i think, most of our questions. i represent 105 towns in western new york, in the buffalo and finger lakes area. i believe that most of our volunteer fire departments, we're mostly volunteer we have one paid fire department in my district, sent individuals down to ground zero. that's what firefighters do and first responders. it's a community a brotherhood. and i'm just happy to have learned more today about how those individuals are more than likely in your program being monitored and i think again in a bipartisan way we're with you and you're doing great work. i don't believe you're going to have to lose any sleep about shutting this program down. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield the remainder of my time to representative king, he would have any comment he is would like to add. mr. pitts: the chair recognizes the gentleman.

mr. king: i thank you for allowing me to sit in and take part in the hearing, i thank the gentleman from new york, mr. collins, for yielding time. i'd like to say there's probably no more important bill to be passed in the time i've been in congress than the 9/11 zadroga act. i had about 150 fatalities from my district and more than that, i see every day, to this day, people with rare lung disease respiratory illnesses, blood cancers. this is something that's absolutely necessary to continue and i know that people may find, this might be wrong or that might be wrong, but the fact is, this is as effective as any program i've seen in all the time i've been in congress. it provides a need it's essential to go forward. i i want to thank all the men and women, the first responders, fdny nypd, the construction contractors, i saw mr. nadler come by before. everyone who answered the call that day and those who were suffering these illnesses,

people in the prime of life who have again lost their jobs, have these debilitating illnesses which have changed their lives so radically all because they did what had to be done. again, i thank the chairman for holding this hearing. i thank the committee for taking this issue up. i thank all of you for being here and i certainly thank mr. collins for yielding me the time and yield back. mr. pitts: the chair recognize thinks gentlelady from north carolina, mrs. ellmers, five minutes for questions. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you dr. howard for being with us. i too want to thank the first responders who are here today. a very emotional subcommittee hearing. i'm going to try hard to stick to the information and get into some of these questions. along the lines of where we are today, and i know that you have already stated, dr. howard, that as the number of affected first

responders have come forward, those who have been determined to have cancer, how many are in existence right now? how many are with us? what number do you have of potentially affected patients who have a diagnosis of cans her dr. howard: right now we have -- of cancer? dr. howard: right now we have about 400 cases of cancer. some of those cases may represent an individual that may have more than one cancer but generally speaking that's the number of members that we have who we're -- we have certified with cancer. mrs. ellmers: as far as the certification process i'm just curious as to how you determine approval or denial? and do you have numbers that play out as far as the possibility of being approved or

denied? dr. howard: sure. let me just briefly explain the process. the physician who is seing the patient makes the connection between their exposure and the health condition in this case, cancer. so they can say that it's caused by contributed to, or aggravated by their exposure. that's the determination made by the physician. we don't make it in the program. that's an independent view that the physician has. then they submit it to us and we make sure that all of the supporting information is there and then we certify it. if the supporting information isn't there, we have a question, we go back and forth unless we're all absolutely sure, including the determining physician and us, that this is a case to be certified. certification then means that you get your cancer covered for health care. mrs. ellmers: having the concentration on cancer leads me to the next question, which is, do you anticipate adding other possible diseases outside of the

cancer rem? dr. howard: we have received to date seven petitions for requests adding conditions. two of those were cancer. the original cancer petition chairman pitts referred to 001 and then soon after that we had a petition with regard to prostate cancer and then five others. with the five others, we did not find sufficient scientific evidence to support their addition. we get quite a few requests for adding conditions. it's hard to estimate whether -- what conditions we would add in the future. but we evaluate each of those requests on their scientific basis. mrs. ellmers: in regard to autoimmune diseases, i understand that you have made a determination that those would not be identified or added. can you expand on that?

dr. howard: we received our last petition to add a large number of autoimmune diseases to our statutory list. we reviewed all the information including the very excellent study that had recently stimulated that petition by fdny and we found it was insufficient at this time. it doesn't mean that, and this is why we're emphasizing so much the importance of research funding in this program is the additional work that is going on by other c.c.e.'s and our world trade center health registry to look into that issue. it doesn't mean that forever and ever it will not be added but at this time it will not be added. mrs. ellmers: thank you, dr. howard. i appreciate all the information you have helped us with and i'm glad to know that this is considered to be an ongoing process into the future because we don't know what the future

holds for this. again, god bless all the first responders who are here and your families. thank you so much, i yield back. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentlelady. now that all the members of the subcommittee have had an opportunity to ask questions, we can -- with unanimous consent i ask that the member of the full committee, ms. clarke, be given five minutes for questioning. the chair recognizes ms. clarke. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. chairman. we have been joined by congressman nadler of new york, original sponsor of the zadroga act and i wanted to yield some time to him. mr. nadler: i thank you for yielding. i thank the chairman for holding the hearing and the members. i simply wanted to say as someone who, along with mr. king and mrs. maloney was one of the three original sponsors of this this bill, we struggled for years and years to pass it, i'm glad and history has proven the necessity of this bill. i wanted to thank dr. howard for

his wonderful service. i'm glad that the chairman has called this hearing and that judging from the comments at the hearing, there seems to be a lot of bipartisan support for extending this bill. we know the necessity of that. so i just want to urge that that be done and that -- i thank the chairman of the committee again. extension of this bill is essential because the diseases won't go away. this is for both the first responders and survivors in the community and so i urge the extension of the bill and thank ms. clarke for yielding and i yield back to her. ms. clarke: thank you. dr. howard just following up on a couple of the questions that mrs. ellmers asked about the conditions, for the record what is the process by which you can add new conditions to the program? dr. howard: well, first of all, the administrator has the ability to add a condition on

his or her own motion. the other very common route that we have seen so far is the public can petition the administrator to add a condition. as i said, we received seven petitions so far. two of those we added the condition, the first one being cancer the second one being a particular type of cancer, prostate cancer. the other five we have found insufficient evidence for. ms. clarke: i understand the statute outlines specific timing requirements to respond to those petitions. could you describe that for us? dr. howard: the administrator has 60 days to respond to a petition unless the administrator refers the petition to our scientific and technical advisory committee and then the time frame is 180 days system of for instance in terms of the first petition on cancer we referred this to our science and technical advisory

committee, they had 180 days to make their decision. ms. clarke: do you have any concerns with the statutory time frame to respond to petitions? dr. howard: one of the things the g.a.o. report pointed out in their review of our cancer petition and our addition of cancer was that there was no external peer review of our science that we used to justify the addition of cancer. we believe in peer review very, very much and we want to do external peer review but the time frame of 60 days was just, given the enormity of the task of adding all that, all those numbers of cancers that was a very short period of time so we were unable to engage in external peer review. ms. clarke: very well. can you briefly tell us about the registry? it's our understanding it was created to follow individuals who were exposed to environmental toxins related to the world trade center terrorist

attacks. tell us a bit more about the registry and why it's important -- an important tool for studying the w.t.c. related health effects? dr. howard: the world trade center health registry, operated by the new york city department of public health and mental hygiene is a vital participant in the research aspects of the program. they started very soon after 9/11, they have interestingly enough about 71,000 members also and i might add i was told by the director last week that they have registrants in the registry from every congressional district all 435. and they have produced almost 60 papers in this area. they follow the same people over periods of time, they every so many years they study them to figure out what their experience is.

so their research is vital to this program. ms. clarke: do we have a sense of any of their findings so far? dr. howard: all their findings are not only on their website but also on ours. i think some of the things we have learned already, the issues about asthma, mental health, persistent ptsd, etc., have come largely from the world trade center health registry studies. ms. clarke: you think it's important that we consider that work? dr. howard: i think it's vital. ms. clarke: thank you, dr. howard. i yield back. mr. pitts: the chair thanks the gentlelady that concludes questions from members who are present. i'm sure we will have follow-up questions from members, we'll send you those in writing and ask that you respond. thank you. that concludes our first panel. we'll take a three-minute recess as the staff sets up the witness table for the next panel. committee stands in recess.

[ >> coming up on c-span, a senate hearing on retaliation for federal workers. new york city police testifying on the victims fund. and a debate on trade bills in the u.s. house. the moment of truth arrives for the obama trade deal. after a procedural hurdle, it still faces stiff opposition. john boehner's attempt to bring the bill to the floor is proving to be a big gamble as they are wondering whether they will be able to pass the portion for assistance with workers who wind up losing their jobs because of free trade deals. next, a look at whistleblowers from several federal agencies

who testified on the retaliation they faced after reporting government wrongdoing. they testified earlier today. the hearing ran about two hours.

>> this hear willing come to order. good morning, everybody. i want to welcome our witnesses, say how much i appreciate your thoughtful testimony. i've read it all. there's so much pretty compelling stories. this is, from my standpoint, a very important hearing. as i've looked back at the laws written designed to protect people have that the courage to

come forward within government to blow the whistle, to tell the truth, to highlight problems of waste and abuse and corruption and potential criminal activity within departments and agencies, we have a number of laws. they date back quite a few years. i added a new one. i didn't realize it wept back as far as 1912 the whistle-blower protection act of 1989. then the whistle-blower protection enhancement act of 1989. and the whistle-blower protection enhancement act of 2012. yet, we still have problems. my own experience with this, having come to government pretty late in life, started really with the events with secret service in cartagena. then we looked at the reports being written by the office of inspector general, the fact there was retaliation or certainly evidence of retaliation against members of that inspection team for being forthright.

then followed up just recently with our board of security hearings. we had a customs and border protect agent, chris cabrera testify before this committee, contradicting some of the announcer: of the information from department of homeland security but also testifying under oath , as all of you will be doing here today. a few weeks later, a couple months later, he testified on march 17, 2015. a few months later, right before another hearing on may 13, 2015, this committee was made aware that agent cabrera was being scheduled for a hearing in front of the internal affairs. now, i raised the issue with then-deputy -- still deputy chief of u.s. border patrol ron batello. i stated because of my lutheran background, i'll put the best construction on things. i was assuming that hearing with internal affairs was all about being concerned about what he was bringing to the table and wanting to correct any errors within the customs and border protection agency.

i'm not so sure that was the case. fortunately, because we highlighted in our hearing that that internal affairs hearing with mr. cabrera was canceled that same day, rather abruptly. i have a certain sense that maybe that wasn't so innocent, they really had something else in mind with that hearing. so these issues are very serious. as a result, my office has set up a website. we've already had over 130 whistle-blowers throughout the government contact our office. what we have here today are four of the individuals that did contact our office. i'm also mindful through mr. devine's testimony that probably the greatest risk any whistle-blower incurs is when they contact congress. it sounds like that is where the greatest retaliation can occur. so again, i want to thank all the witnesses for coming here. the purpose of this hearing is

not to adjudicate the issues you have raised. that will occur through a process, a procedure. the purpose of this hearing is to highlight so the american people understand, so this committee understands that once an individual steps forward and puts their career at risk, exposes themselves to the type of retaliation that is unfortunately all too common, we want to hear what type of retaliation is inflicted on individuals and what forms retaliation takes. so that's really the purpose of this hearing. i want to caution people, there may be some areas where some testimony might come close to revealing classified information or law enforcement sensitive. i want to make sure we don't breach those restrictions. but with that, i want to welcome all of our witnesses. appreciate your courage.

appreciate the courage of anybody willing to step forward and risk that kind of retaliation. and i'm looking forward to hearing your testimony and your answers to our questions. >> thanks, mr. chairman. pleasure to meet all of you and welcome you here today. thank you for your service in different arenas, particularly those of you who serve in uniform and who have served in uniform for our country in the past. mr. chairman, i appreciate your efforts to highlight the retaliation that too many of our federal employees have faced over the years, even today. when they've blown the whistle on waste, blown the whistle on fraud, abuse, and misbehavior within their agencies, you've heard me often talk about how invaluable the work is of the inspector generals. the general accountability office and others are to this agency and this committee as we work together to get better results for less money and continue to reduce our federal debt.

i'm reminded today that many times it's actually federal employees and contractors within the government that first draw attention to issues or wrongdoings in their agencyies. they're just as vital a part of our team as we work together to make this government of ours even better. without people who are willing to stand up and say something is wrong when they see it's wrong, it would be much harder to root out waste, root out fraud and abuse. in order to encourage people to stand up, we need to ensure when they do, they'll not be pun -- punished for doing so. a few years ago a whistle-blower from the dover air force base within my state contacted my dover office with information about mismanagement base mortuary, the air force mortuary. actually, the mortuary for our country where we bring home the remains of our fallen heroes. my office was able to draw

attention to both of these issues. the retaliation that the whistle-blowers were facing. at the end of the day, the office of special council and their investigation led to disciplinary action not against the whistle-blowers but against several people in leadership positions at the base within the mortuary itself, their top officer at the mortuary, to the reinstatement of whistle-blowers others there. i was struck by the courage of these brave whistle-blowers. i was also struck by the good work done by the office of special council, whose responsibilityings include looking out for the whistle-blowers, making sure they get a fair shake as well as the taxpayers. this committee as a whole also has a strong history of working with individual whistle-blowers to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. for example, in our last congress, testimony from whistle-blowers was critical to a hearing and investigation led by former senator tom coburn former senator carl levin, into an administrative office in west virginia which is responsible

for reviewing thousands of applications for social security programs. that hearing was powerful and proved critical to improving accountability and oversight into the disability program. these whistle-blowers performed an important role in both the investigation and in the hearing. very brave, courageous women really to put everything on the line, their jobs, livelihood their lives, in order to be able to tell us the truth. and without them, there would have been no investigation there would have been no hearing, and the fraud the committee shined a light on may have never been uncovered. so i believe in whistle-blowers. i'm grateful for whistle-blowers and make sure they're treated like we would want to be treat. those are just two recent examples of the critical role whistle-blowers can play. i was pleased to learn that the office of special council has made significant progress in the last couple of years under the leadership of special counsel carolyn learner. in fact, i was told it's increased not by 100%, not by

200%, not by 300%, but by 600%. it's a huge turnaround. a great improvement. that's an impressive statistic. congress and the administration have additional work to do to ensure that individuals feel free to speak out without fear of retaliation. in fact, we've passed the most recent law i think three years ago in 2012. i was happy to support that legislation to further strengthen the role of this special council to enable them to encourage whistle-blowers to muster the courage and make sure when they do that they're not retaliated against. before we go any further though, i would be remiss if i didn't also note as the chairman already has that the whistle-blowers here today have re retaliation claims have not yet been fully substantiated. having said that on the one hand, i'm glad we have the opportunity to hear from all of you. we welcome you today.

to be honest, i have some concerns about publicly discussing cases that involve ongoing investigations and litigation. congress has established, as you know, a pass for whistle-blowers to obtain independent, objective review of their complaints. i hope today's hearing is not seen as interfering with or somehow prejudging the reviews related to our witnesses' claims under way today. there are some prospectives on the issues today that we will not hear today, that would better help us understand these issues. as we continue our oversight on this subject, i hope we'll have the opportunity to hear from the agencies involved, especially from the office of special council. that said, i nonetheless hope that we can learn some valuable lessons here today about the experiences that our whistle-blowers face, what we can do to better support them, and how we can improve the climate and process for which whistle-blowers in the future.

again, i appreciate the hearing, mr. chairman. especially pleased to join you as a member of the newly created senate whistle-blower caucus. we look forward to working on these and other important issues. thank you. >> thank you, senator carper. i can assure you this is just the first step. this is the first hearing. again, the purpose is to highlight the form of retaliation and what happens. we will continue to dealtlve into the subject with multiple hearings. with that, it is the tradition of this committee to swear in witnesses. if you could all rise and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. please be seated. our first witness is lieutenant colonel jason amarine. he serves in the united states army and led a special forces team in afghanistan in 2001 for

which he received a purple heart and bronze star which denoted participation in acts of heroism involving an armed enemy. he's raised concerns about hostage recovery efforts to congress. lieutenant colonel. >> thank you, sir. warren weinstein is dead. colin rutherford, josh boyle katelyn coleman, and the child she bore in captivity remain in pakistan. one of my constitutional rights was to speak to members of congress. after i made protected disclosures to congress, the army suspended my clearance, removed me from my job, and sought to court-martial me.

as a soldier, i support and defend the constitution of the united states in order to have a government in which the voices of the people are heard. my team had a difficult mission, and i used all legal means available to recover the hostages. you, the congress, were my last resort. but now i'm labeled a whistle-blower, a term that's both radioactive and derogatory. i'm before you because i did my duty, and you need to ensure all in uniform can go on doing their duty without fear of reprisal. let me be clear, i never blamed my situation on the white house. my loyalty is to my commander in chief, as i support and defend the constitution. whatever i say today is not as a republican or a democrat, but as a soldier without allegiance to any political parties. in early 2013, my office was asked to help get sergeant bergdahl home.

we audited when we were asked to get sergeant bergdahl home and we determined the reason the effort failed for four years is because our nation lacked in organization that can synchronize our efforts of all the government agencies to get the hostages home, and there was hostages in pakistan so we added them to our mission. the department of defense faces problems in the '80s as they operated independently of one another, leading to the goldwater-nichols act, and transformation on that scale literally takes an act of congress. get the hostages home, my team worked three lines of effort to develop the viable trade and get the taliban back to the negotiating table.

my team was equipped to do the two first tasks, and recovering sergeant bergdahl was a critical step to carrying out our commander in chief's objective to ending the longest war in history. i went to congress to repair a dysfunctional bureaucracy to support our president. it caused the army to place me under criminal investigation. i spoke to representative duncan hunter because he is a member of the house armed services committee, and i needed him to buttress our efforts with two simple messages, the hostage recovery was broken and because of that five hostages had little hope to escaping pakistan. it started to work. his dialogue with the department of defense like quickly to the appointment of deputy lumpkin as a hostage cornet for the pentagon.

this step help the department of defense when the taliban sought a deal. the fbi formerly complained to the army information i was sharing with them was classified, and it was not. the department of defense inspector general since reviewed the information through my dod complaint and confirmed it was not classified under joint staff review, and still i am under investigation. a terrible irony is that my security clearance was suspended on january 15, the day after warren weinstein was killed. we were the only effort trying to free the civilian hostages in announcer: pakistan and the fbi succeeded in ending our efforts the day after a u.s. drone strike killed warren weinstein.

am i right, is the system broken? layers upon layers of bureaucracy kid the extent of our failures from our leaders. i believe we failed the commander in chief by not getting critical information to him. now i am considered a whistle-blower for raising these issues. there has been no transparency to the army's investigation in my protected communications with representative hunter and the army would not confirm why i was being investigated for the last five months until this week and they only did that because of today's hearing. daniel brian and smithburger has been a god send and representatives hunter and jacky spear stood up for me. i am truly grateful for the opportunity to testify before you. the outpouring of support from fellow service members has been humbling. worst for me is that the cadets

i taught at west point now officers in the ranks are reaching out to me to see if i am ok. i fear for their safety when they go the war and now they fear for my safety in washington. is that the enduring message we want to send? we must not forget, warren weinstein is dead while there are remaining hostages. who is fighting for them? thank you. >> thank you lieutenant colonel. thank you for your service to our nation. i will point out representative hunter is in the audience here so welcome, sir. our next witness is mrs. taylor johnson.

she is a senior special agent with homeland investigations, a component for customs enforcement and she raised concerns about national security and criminal risks in the eb5 program to her management and the dhs office of the inspector general. thank you, mrs. johnson. >> chairman johnson, ranking member carpenter, i appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. i am a special agent. i have been responsible for investigating large transnational organized crime groups involved in narcotics and smuggling. i have received some of the highest honors of our department and my opm file reflects yearly promotions. after disclosing gross mismanagement, waste and fraud

that threatened the eb5 project, announcer: i was subjected to a significant amount of harassment and retaliation. i began investigating the eb5 regional center, and some of the violations investigated surrounding the project included bank and wire fraud and i discovered ties to organized crime and high-ranking officials and politicians who had received contributions and promotions that appeared to facilitate the program. i disclosed this to my management and then specific examples of national security risks, and some of the security risks coincided with what the fbi and cia already discovered as well. during the course of the investigation, i discovered

eb five applicants from china, russia, pakistan, malaysia had been approved in as little as 16 days and the files lacked the basic and necessary law enforcement enquiries. i found over 800 operational eb5 regional centers throughout the u.s., and this was a disturbing number for me since the u.s. only allows 10,000 applications per year. i could not identify how they were holding each regional center accountable or how they were tracked once they were inside the united states. in addition the complete detail of the funds that went into the project was never completed or produced after several requests related to that investigation. it became evident that there was serious and significant national security risks to that program. from the onset of the investigation, there were complaints and as a result i was

removed from the investigation and it was ultimately shut down and closed. shortly after i was escorted by three supervisors from my desk and i was not permitted to access my case files or personal files, and i was moved initially over 50 miles in direct violation of title 5. my weapon and credentials were taken against the firearms policy and my government vehicle was confiscated, and access to the building and all government data bases was revoked, and i was told i could not carry my announcer: own weapon, which was a constitutional violation. when an adoption social worker tried to contact and verify employment she was told i had been terminated for a federal -- criminal offense and i almost lost my when your own child.

i am continuously placed in dangerous situations with no way to protect myself or others. management has willfully obstructed me from promotions and injured my prospects to promote. lastly, after being contacted by the office of inspector general on the case and designated as a witness the agency falsely accuse me of misconduct in 2011. it resulted in termination recommendation. the allegations surrounding the termination have since been proven unfounded by osc and the agency has recognized that. opr produced a report to terminate by employment.

this is a direct conflict of interest. the 2011 complaint was used after the agency was unable to substantiate any allegations against me and as a tool to insure that i could not testify for an oig or continue the investigation for the eb5 program. there are no policies in place which limit the disciplinary actions against agents. agents are placed on restrictive positions for years at a time. i was slandered to the point where i could not perform my job because of the malicious and false gossip, and took away the time and happiness from my family. it's demoralizing to myself and agents to have directors and senior leaderships to ignore the reports of undue influence, and the agents wanting to do their jobs and being unable to because

of leadership. it condones and encourages bad behavior within the department of homeland security. agents and officers need to be valued by management and not punished when they disclose factual and important information to our leadership. in closing, it's important to have agents at your front line coming forward on issues that affect the safety of our nation, and to this committee i look forward to listening to your insight and answering any questions you may have. thank you, sir. >> thank you, mrs. johnson. our next witness is mr. michael keegan. he works at the social security administration. he raised concerns about waist -- waste within the administration. >> distinguished members of the

committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss my demotion reassignment and retaliation during my tenure at the social security administration. in july 2011, i was recruited by a former deputy, michael gallagher, specifically to assume management and announcer: responsibility for the facilities and supply management, an organization of 500 employees and contractors operating and administering management and real estate actions for hundreds of facilities across our country. in january of 2012, i was assigned as the project executive for the construction of a replacement computer datacenter. this project was funded via a $500 million appropriation. congress had been briefed by ssa officials that the appropriation was needed to replace the existing ncc located on the ssa headquarters in

maryland. most notably a replacement datacenter occupied only one floor of the entire national computing center with 75 employees, and an additional 925 employees work in the buildings other three floors. the center these of -- the centerpiece of the justification presented to congress was the ncc was beyond economic repair and had to be replaced in totality. my duties further required attendance at quarterly meetings. the ssa was to brief the congress and i was an important member of the delegation. in the course of performing these duties i discovered a number of serious problems and i brought the problems to the attention of mrs. tina waddell, who did not act on my recommendation and instructed

me to brief the new incoming commissioner of budget finance management. in february of 2013, mr. peter spencer was brought out of retirement by acting commissioner to assume the duties of deputy commissioner. soon after his arrival i gave him a detailed briefing on serious issues that i believe included misleading congress waste and abuse, and further raised employee over time and travel abuse issues, however the most significant issues i raised involved ssa's representations to congress when only part of the ncc that held the datacenter needed replacement. as an example of the lack of candor, testimony on the record from patrick o'carol, page three of that testimony notes that ssa representative was monitoring

announcer: and improving ncc plumbing conditions, foundations and monitoring ductwork as examples. this was no mistake or misunderstanding. ssa was specifically advised by an independent assessor to resize a jacobs engineering report to directly address the enquiries on the cost. ssa refused to follow the recommendation and chose not to be forthright with congress. further there was no mistake, at depositions it was said they never had any plans to replace all four floors on the center, and attached for review are the deposition transcripts that show the lack of candor. i asked the committee to pay special attention to ms. coleman's deposition transcript.

she testified she never saw the reassignment letter that ruined my career, a letter in which she signed, and notably her testimony that her chief of staff made the critical decisions against me, which was squarely contradicted that stated that she made those decisions. i asked the committee to read pages 41 to 46 of mr. spencer's testimony as in the exhibit which he dances around questions about misleading congress. he could not asay purposely misleading congress is something necessary. i was cleared from the hostile work environment allegations, i was removed from my position and left to lang wish in an empty office. -- to languish in an empty

office. to this day after 22,000 pages have been turned over by ssa and discovery and ten depositions by my attorneys, nothing has been shown by as as a that i deserve the retaliation. in after blowing the whistle july 2014, again on ms.: for misrepresenting to congress, i finally made the difficult decision to retire from government service five years earlier than planned which caused significant hardship. i would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have for me. thank you. >> thank you, mr. keegan. our next witness is mr. jose belo. he has raised concerns about overtime abuse to the office of special counsel. >> good morning to all.

chairman johnson, and ranking member carper, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to help you blow the whistle on retaliation. i am a former member of the united states army aviation, and i serve with dignity and honor for over six years until honorable discharge because during an operation in 1993 i suffer a injury which incapacitated me from doing my duties for 60% of my physical ability to continue flying. of my duties, after my recuperation i decided that i would like to continue serving

the government, as i dream when i was a child raising up next to the air force base where i enjoyed watching all the b52s, and i said one day i am going to be up there, and god gave me that opportunity. moreover, i spent a year in a body cast recuperating from my injuries and with the help of my wife and the physical therapists i started walking again. i am proven testimony that to this day i can do law enforcement work with all my pains and aches. when i was early discharged in 1995, i immediately took a position as a u.s. custom

inspector in san juan, puerto rico, where i made a lot of good things for this nation and i continue serving with pride, honor and dignity to this day. when i joined in 1995, i completed to this day 20 years of active service with the service that is now the department of homeland security. sadly, because i did the right thing i suffered retaliation , from people i would have expected to receive support and complete admiration for doing the honorable thing, because i remember in 1986, as i did just now when i raised my hand and

swear to tell the truth, i also swore to protect the constitution of the united states against all foreign and domestic enemies. well, members of the committee we are dealing right now with domestic enemies, enemies that have no intention of respecting the whistleblower act and protect the people that do the right thing by reporting wrong doing in the government. i reported the fraud, waste, abuse, and abuse of authority of more than $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money, and all of us in here are taxpayers, and i am an american citizen and i am proud to be that and i am proud of serving this nation as a public servant.

all of us are public servants. we are not entitled to anything but to do our job for future , generations so that this nation prosper and continue for many years to come. we don't want to see the united states end, burned up like rome did hundreds of years ago. i don't want to say that i am swinging for republicans or for democrats, that's not the issue at stake over here. this is bipartisan. and my duty from the moment i got this badge and a weapon to fight for america in a war in -- and two conflicts is to defend the constitution of the

united states and to kiss old glory every time i can, because that's my pride and that's my legacy to my children. if i am here, it's for a reason to leave a legacy to my children. as senator carper was saying earlier, we have to protect the way that we spend federal funding. nobody is entitled to say, well, forget about it, it's the government money. no, it's my money. it's your money. every time you file your taxes every year, it's your money. i have to say that cbp should avoid wars that they cannot win and never raise your flag for an asinine cause like fraud and

corruption. i have been made the villain the black sheep, and that has to stop. i know we have many provisions in our system to protect whistle blowers, but the agencies, they don't care and they try to cover it up as much as i can. my situation is well known. i have been suffering. i love my job, but i cannot go back. and gladly with the help of the senate and the office of the special council, i am getting there. i am going to get my job if it's the last thing i do. i worked there 11 years and never did anything wrong to deserve what is coming to me. i also, with the help of this

committee and the help of the osc, i'm trying very hard, very hard to have the osc gain more power over their investigation because the agencies do not , respect the way they handled their investigation. i want to end with a quote that president obama, our leader in charge of this great nation, when he said, democracy must be built throughout open societies that share information. when there is information, there is enlightenment and when there is a debate, there is solutions.

when there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse corruption subjugation, and indignity. i have been called many things and people laugh about my spanish and people may say i am a colorful character, and people may think i am just a second-class citizen, and i remember senator john mccain telling me, if you are, mr. ducos, a second class citizen because you were born in puerto rico, then i am right on the bus with you because i was born in panama. there is no place in our government and society to reprise, to discriminate against people that do the right

thing. i am one against many, and look what i did. i am still standing. i am still here. i have a job. and i want to do my job with your help. also, i would like to cite something that helps me go by every day. honor is simply the morality of superior men. believe that you can do something and you are halfway there. like theodore roosevelt said speak softly and carry a big stick. so in conclusion, let me find my

paper -- i have everything in order here. my professional reputation has been tarnished in public and social media, and my family has suffered the ill affects to my well-being. these are the facts and the evidence that i have provided to the staff of the committee. it will be much, much, much more, and i will never do my six minutes if i tell you all the retaliation things that my agency have done to me. it's in writing, and it's accessible to you as evidence. but more now than ever, i will insure that all federal employees feel secure to report

acts of corruption, waste, or security concerns that can bring grave danger to our national security. when it comes to federal agencies committing acts of wrong doing, we are the undercover cops on the lookout to prevent uncle sam from being pickpocket. thank you very much. i am looking forward to answer any questions that you may have for me. >> thank you, mr. ducos-bello. thank you for your service to this nation and patriotism. i don't think there is anybody in his room who does not think you are but a first-class

citizen. our next witness, mr. tom divine. he is a legal director of the government accountability project a nonprofit to assist whistle blowers. mr. divine. >> thank you. the testimony from the last four witnesses personifies why i spent the last 35 years working at gap instead of getting a real job. today's hearing is welcome much needed oversight for the marathon struggle to turn paper writes into reality. working with over 6,000 whistle blowers since 1979, one of the primary lessons i've learned is passing these laws is one step in a very long journey. today's witnesses that just a great job of sharing lessons learned based on their personal experiences. i would like to extend that to the bigger picture. the first lesson to be shared is one that i think is pretty obvious. whistle blowing through congress can have the greatest impact making the difference against

abuses of power that betray the public trust. no other audience comes close. the second lesson is that this next congress, -- that this congress is the highest risk audience for whistle blowers and that's because there's a direct relationship between the severity of the threat posed by a disclosure and the viciousness of retaliation. the third lesson is that retaliation doesn't end, and after blowing the whistle employees face-off often a lifelong struggle for professional survival. this is a life's crossroads decision. the fourth lesson that i think is were sharing is that since the wpea was passed, a creative harassment tactics are circumventing its mandate.

the most and conferencing is the sensitive jobs loophole. this is a national security loophole that would assume the entire civil service rule of law that kept the labor force nonpartisan and professional since 1883. there has been no empirical studies or basis for scrapping the civil service system and no structure in place for government alternative to it but the federal circuit court of appeals, the same court that had the passage of the wpea approved it, and there was final last regulations, and it's full steam ahead. the government has uncontrolled power to designate almost any position as national security sensitive. once that happens, sensitive employees no longer have the right to defend themselves in a hearing and don't have a right to know what they were charged with of doing wrong to lose

their designation to work for the federal government. that's very disingenuous. the agencies still have the authority to present unreviewable independent justification for their actions. even if her television is proven -- even if retaliation is proven. that means by definition every whistle-blower will lose a case who has a sensitive job. we can still have the whistle blower projection act to turn the wpea into a bad joke, unless congress acts. we are on the verge of replacing the rule of law with a national security spoil system and taxpayers will be the big losers. the second creative tactic i would like to highlight is criminalizing whistle blowers. as we have seen from this morning's testimony, a new tactic, instead of just trying to fire somebody, put them under criminal investigation and give

them the choice of resigning or facing a prosecutive referral. it's much easier, much less muss and fuss than litigation. you don't have to prepare all kinds of things, and all you need is one good investigative bully. second, you can't lose. the worst that will happen is the agency will have to close the case and then next month they can open up a new case under a new pretext. i have one whistle-blower facing 30 years of criminal investigations and fighting bribery in the chicago meat yards. the third factor is the the chilling affect of facing jail time is much more severe than the chilling affect of possible loss of your job. the fifth lesson learned is the whistle-blower protection act is a work in progress. the two most significant structural reforms have not been finalized.

gao must recommend whether every other group of employees in the u.s. labor force, federal government whistle blowers can enforce their rights through district court jury trials if they don't get a timely ruling and access to the appeals court, the circuits review the prevision is just an experiment. senators, these are the structural cornerstones for the wpea to work. the report is due in a year and a half and it's time to get started on that. the sixth lesson learned, we are overdue reauthorizing of the merit system agencies, the office of special council and the mspb, and the good news is the leaders of these two agencies have really an unquestionable commitment to the merit system in their agency missions. it would be silly to challenge their good faith.

in both agencies, their performance is probably the highest in the history since they have been created in 1978. the bad news is that this is a very low bar. at the mspb, the board has been very evenhanded and the administrative judges are extremely hostile to the whistleblower protection act and i can't honestly tell employees they have a fair chance of justice in an ms pb hearing. it means that although they are doing a lot better, whistle blowers still don't have a fighting chance at justice when they try to act on the rights under this law. the bottom line, the wpea was a great first step. the commitment of the agency leaders charged with enforcing

it is an outstanding second step, but we have got along way to go before we achieve the act's purposes, and there is a lot of work and thank you for holding this hearing to get started. >> thank you for your testimony. let me start by saying, as i was reading the testimony, as i am listening to it, coming from the private sector, when you are at the top of a company it's hard to get, you know, the information not filtered so you really get the truth. as i am hearing what was brought to the attention of the superiors, i am thinking you ought to be having medals pinned to your chest and not have retaliation inflicted upon you. so what i would like to ask the whistleblower's here, i want you to as easy as possible describe to me why, why were you retaliated against. i would like to start with lieutenant colonel -- i

appreciate you meeting with me in my office yesterday. you told me an awful lot yesterday, which i appreciate. i think i have your why, i think. i want you to confirm this. you told me in the course of your attempts to gain the freedom of these hostages in afghanistan and pakistan, you were made aware to your belief that the government did pay a ransom and the ransom money was stolen. secondly that you believed you , were pretty close to potentially having a deal where we would get seven hostages in exchange for one taliban leader, and instead we got one hostage in exchange for five taliban leaders. is that information, is that why you have been retaliated against or what is the reason? >> yes, sir. i think there are layers of this, as i said, in terms of layers of the bureaucracy.

on december 1, 2014, representative hunter submitted a complaint to the ig alleging an illegal or questionable ransom possibly being paid for sergeant bergdahl. there was a good deal of evidence that it occurred and a lot of questions as to how it occurred. that complaint implicated both the dod organization and the fbi. so part of what lit the fuse was the same folks in the fbi that were basically implicated and the dodig complaint of one december were the ones that later complained to the army i was sharing sensitive information with representative hunter. another aspect of it on the fbi's side was the general frustration with representative

hunter pushing them hard on civilian hostages and their awareness that i was speaking to representative hunter about all of this. he even set up a meeting between my office and the fbi to help them out with some of this, and after the meeting they responded by contacting caitlin coleman's father and threatening not to talk to representative hunter again or he would stop being supported by the fbi. i mean just atrocious treatment of family. so the fbi complaint to the army and for reasons to be seen, there is a bit of a debate within the army whether i actually did anything wrong, and my understanding is one party, who i just don't want to be speculative, but there was a big debate within the army over whether i did anything wrong and that led to the investigation. >> can you tell me a little bit about what deal you thought you had for the release of the hostages?

>> so, my office worked options. we looked at a whole variety of options. one of the options that we developed was a, you know, i mean, we called it, you know the one for seven option. it entailed six hostages and a seventh i would rather not discuss today. so the six hostages, and it was five hostages and a prisoner of war, so when we saw that nobody else was trying to get them home, we, you know, we were working every initiative possible. one was the one for seven and in that we were looking at norzi, and he was described as the pablo escobar of afghanistan and we realized he was just another war lord who was an ally of the

karzai regime, and we lured him to the u.s. under the false promise of safe passage and then put him in jail for life. some thought he was a wretched human being, and others thought he was wronged. for us it was we are not getting bergdahl, let alone the other hostages back for free, and every option was going to be painful, so the norzi option was one that was at least less painful. we were able to reach out to the tribe itself that we believe could free the hostages, and we made a lot of progress on it. i briefed it widely, but in the end when the taliban came to the table, the state department basically said it must be the five for one, and that's the only viable option we have and that's what we went with.

>> i can see how members of the government, if there was an option for seven -- six americans for one taliban and the deal ended up being five taliban for one american, they probably would not want that too highly publicized. mbarka: that makes sense to me. mrs. taylor, can you say why? what was threatened? who was threatened? >> sorry, guys. i think that because of the people that were involved with the investigation, it may was -- maybe put a different light and there was extra outside influences and back and forth with the different members and different agencies, so we are all kind of -- as police officers the last thing you want to be is listed as a whistle blower and you usually ride the wave and keep your head down and mouth shut.

i did that in this case until i was contacted by the instructor general's office. we are required to cooperate with them and i think breaking that silence, i add everything -- i had everything in my 12-year career thrown at me and it was stuff that was not factual. i think there was a lot of issues surrounding that. >> you said as an investigator the last thing you want to be known as is a whistle blower and is that because of the retaliation? >> there is a brotherhood, you don't want to see your colleagues hurt, and what i have seen is significant problems at a leadership level, and that's