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

not to get anybody in trouble. i think one family in dhs being hurt is enough, and i think there needs to be corrective action. i lost my train of thought. did that answer your question? >> it does. thank you, mrs. johnson. senator carper. >> thank you to all of you for being here and sharing your stories with us. on veteran's day i went up and down the state of delaware and there were a number of places where we met with veterans young and old and their families, and families of people that died serving our country, and it was a wonderful up lifting of their service. one of the things that delaware is noted for, we are the first state to ratify the constitution, and one of the gatherings that we had was in dover, delaware. the constitution of our country was first ratified in dover, delaware, on december 7th, 1887,

-- 1787, over 200 some years ago, and as you close down the streets, the main streets in town, and the intersection of state street and lockman street, we had veterans and their families in a big circle around the intersection, and we were gathered about 200 yards where the golden fleece tavern once stood, and i invited the folks that were there that day, i invited other people in assemblies that day, i invited to join me in doing something a lot of us did when we were in school, and that's to recite the preamble to our constitution. i would read a few words and they would repeat them, and we did this up and down the state. i love doing it and i think people loved doing it as well, and it starts off with these

words, we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union -- think about that. in order to form a more perfect union, and it doesn't say in order to form a perfect union, but a more perfect union. and one of my core values is everything i do i know i can do better. they realized it was not perfect and they realized the future generations had to do better and better and better. as mrs. divine notes, we have been working at this as a whistle-blower protection. it was first adopted in the 1980s, and i don't recall who was president when it was signed into law.

make sure your mic is on? >> president reagan was in office when congress first passed it but bush signed it. >> we have been working on this a while, signed into law by our current president. i want to ask you if you would mr. divine, thinking about the enhancements we adopted in 2012, why they are an improvement over what existed before that, and could you walk us through a few more other changes you believe are needed and give us a couple real-life examples of how those changes would improve whistle-blower protections? >> i think the most significant

are following through and completing the structural reforms would help the rights to be implemented. the congress had to pass the law four times because there was not normal access to the appeals court in the one court that handled all the cases, it was extremely hostile, and the lack of healthy competition was an achilles' heel. the wpea structurally had a five-year experiment with access to the appeals law. that needs to be made permanent. the second structural reform is if there is not a speedy administrative ruling, like all the corporate whistle blower statutes, being able to start fresh in court, and this district court access is

particularly significant, get the politics out of the cases when it's a politcally charged dispute or an extremely high stakes one, or when it's highly complex or technical and you need the resources of the district court. it was set up to resolve office disputes not to deal with major issues of national policy. with respect to the administrative agencies, i think that there needs to be some very intensive training of the administrative judges at the merit system's protection board. we have to train all the government managers and bureau kratz and the people conducting -- bureaucrats and the people conducting the administrative hearings, they need to get up to speed on the law, too. unfortunately the decisions have been very, very uneven. at the u.s. office of special council rblgs i council, i think

the area that congress, besides just oversight, the area congress could make the most difference is by giving them the authority to issue stays or temporarily relief. the -- in my experience, the most significant factor, and it was a long-term marathon nightmare or whether the agencies decide to get serious and have a resolution that both sides can live with and move on from, is whether there is temporary relief, and that will make a huge difference. finally the issues of the national security loophole in retaliatory investigations which threatened every witness this morning for which they have very uncertain rights and that's the menu of work to be done. >> thank you for all of that. several of you today are wearing uniforms and others have worn them, some in the army and navy.

what branch of service did you serve in, mr. ducos? >> the department of homeland security. the component is u.s. custom and border protection. >> i thought you served on active duty? >> yes, the united states army aviation. >> i spent five years in southeast asia, and another 18 years in a cold war and i was a naval flight officer, and retired navy captain and commander in chief, and i have huge respect for you particularly those of you that have worn those uniforms and thank you for your service in that regard. >> the slogan back then really helped me a lot, be all you can be. >> that's good. that's good. take a minute and tell us, just a minute, and tell us with respect to how we treat whistle

blowers who are civilians as opposed to those that are military personnel. since we have both civilian and military personnel on the panels today, can you briefly discuss the differences between whistleblower protections between the two. >> it's the lowest common denominator in the lowest code -- u.s. code for accountability through whistleblower protection. the key differences between the civilian and military law is first the military law does not have the fair burdens of proof that give whistle blowers a fighting chance in their hearings, and the second is there is no right to a administrative due process hearing. everything is enforced by the department of the office inspector general. again, we have numerous whistle blowers from that unit whose disclosures are it's operating as a plumber's unit, to finish off the people, and we need due

process and there is no judicial review there. there is outstanding legislation which is the service members justice act which has been introduced by senator boxer and vetted by all the whistleblower supported organizations that could even the playing field. >> i would just share, mrs. johnson, this is pertinent to what you said earlier, for years the department of homeland security has called on congress to make changes. earlier this month there was an eb5 program and senator grassly and leahy introduced legislation that reflects changes, and i am encouraged by that.

>> i saw that, sir. i think that's great. >> senator carper, thank you. our next is senator urnst. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for being here today. i appreciate it so much. i want to take a moment and thank you for your service to this nation and to all of you as well, but you have been in very difficult circumstances, and i appreciate you being here today. as somebody that has served i take this very seriously, in my new role as a senator and somebody that made a commitment to protect our men and women that surferved in the united states armed forces, whether they are still serving or in the past, and whether it's through proper medical care or through the va and whether it's in your circumstance, we will make sure that is a priority.

i will take just a little bit of issue with your testimony. in here, sir, you say you have failed, and you have not failed. i will never accept that because what you have done is raise an issue that is extremely important to this nation and making sure that we receive those hostages back, so you have not failed. we have just not yet succeeded. so that day will come. we will make sure that that day comes. so to you, thank you so much for all of your efforts, and we will continue working on this. i look forward to working with you, senator johnson, on some of the very specific issues especially with the good colonel. to the rest of you, i do want to

ask very briefly, my time is very limited here today, but those of you, and i know you have recent cases, but have there been any repercussions for those that came after you and retaliated against you? have you seen any correction from that end, if you could just briefly, mr. ducos-bello, can you start just very briefly, can you see those retaliation against you be disciplined. >> it started in 2012, and to this day it's ongoing. i was disarmed for no reason like my fellow law enforcement officer here, illegally. they turned every single stone they could find during my 20

years career and could not find anything. my review performance is fully successful throughout the years. i don't have this because somebody gave it to me as a gift. i earned them. this one is the blue eagle award that i received for meticulously searching and researching a container coming from columbia with 8,000 pounds of cocaine and when i was in the field, i was very diligent doing and discharging my duties, and i move up the chain of command the right way, not by making a network of friends, but by earning my rank, my position and to this day, the agency treats me with no respect and for the past six months i have been sitting in a folding chair with no desk, no duties, no program to manage, nothing, i just show my face for eight hours and all my talents are going to waste.

>> no correction on the retaliators? >> no correction. they are fixated that they have not done anything wrong, and as a whistleblower i committed the worst crime by taking the aul away from the border control and the cbb officers that changed their series from 1895 to 1801 in order for them to be seduced by the border patrol in drawing that aul, and now, you tell me i am an 1895, abide by the constitution to obey and discharge the law, and how come in less than an hour in the library of congress i came upon the regulations and the law that

governs the use of auo. and for those who don't know what auo means, it's the uncontrolled overtime they draw out at 25% of their nearly salary. >> thank you. i would like to move to just very briefly to some of the other members on our panel. thank you very much for being here. mr. keegan? >> thank you, senator. i have absolutely no knowledge there's been any accountable repercussion any way involving senior leadership -- i'm sorry. senior leadership at the social security administration. i can quickly characterize this in two areas. if you recall my testimony, i testified that my supervisor mr. spencer, testified at a deposition under oath that he cannot categorically agree that misrepresenting facts to congress was not ethical. the second thing i'll tell you

is there's a mentality at the social security administration concerning bad information stays in the house. we do not air our dirty laundry to congress. we protect our leadership at all costs. third, i would just say in my 44-year career in the military private sector and senior executive of four agencies, the social security agency has the worst track record of accountability and taking responsibility for their actions that i've ever seen. i do not mean that in a flippant manner, but i mean that sincerely. >> ms. johnson? >> [ inaudible ]. >> i appreciate that. and colonel, yours is a very special case. any specifics that you would like us to know? >> no, ma'am. >> thank you very much for your testimony today. thank you, mr. chair. >> senator portman. >> thank you to chairman johnson and ranking member carper for having the hearing.

mostly to thank you all for being here and being willing to share your sometimes very personal experiences and troubling experiences. i saw mr. devine's testimony before i came in today. he repeated it. in his remarks he said this is one of your highest risk audiences. i hope at the end of the day you're glad you shared your testimony and we don't end up being a high risk to you. we need the information. and, you know, this committee in particular is an oversight committee. our job is to ensure our community works better for all the hard-paying taxpayers we represent. it's really important you're here today. to put some context around it.

what really happened to you, and to your responses a moment ago as to -- from senator ernst as to what has happened that's changed in the department. it's discouraging. i do think ms. johnson that the legislation that you mentioned earlier affirmatively, you thought it was a good idea to move forward on some reforms. maybe congress is able to move on some legislative changes. i want to talk about that for a second and maybe talk about the military side. there's been some discussion. mr. devine was asked about the military whistleblower protections versus other departments and agencies. it's the lowest common denominateor denominator. talked about the burden of proof and lowest common denominator. he was concerned about due process hearing. one of my concerns is about what the gao has said. in may of this year they issued a report. it was about investigations into retaliation complaints from military whistleblowers. they took three times longer than the legal requirement of

180 days. so that alone seems to me to indicate we have a problem on the military side. it also talked about the chain of command issue that service members are to report wrongdoing outside the chain of command but that conflicts with other military guidance and that's difficult, therefore, to go outside the chain of command and have an independent process. so i guess, if i could, colonel, to you, the ig responded to the gao report by saying they concurred with the recommendation and were committed to requiring service investigators to attest they were outside the chain of command but both service members submitting the individual were alleged to have taken retaliatory action. is this sufficient to ensure

independence from the chain of command in your view? >> i believe it is. i mean, the dod ig has a very difficult job and their treatment of me as i filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint with them was first class. it is a slow process. but i haven't hit the 180 days yet. so the investigation is ongoing and they are working it as hard as they can. >> i'm glad to hear that in your case. and in terms of the complaints that have taken almost three times longer than the legal requirement of 180 days we talked about, why do you think that is, and what should the ig do to respond to that? what should we be doing legislatively in terms of the overall instruction of the whistleblower retaliation? >> some of that is beyond anything i claim expertise in.

so i have to scope it down to what i'm seeing. in my case, i had a retirement date of june 1st that everybody was aware of. the dod ig reviewed my complaint that included the information that supposedly was at -- is a security violation of representative hunter and through the joint staff they determined that my complaint was not classified, which would pretty much make the information i spoke to hunter about, which by design was meant to be unclassified, was actually unclassified. >> it was the fbi that said they thought it was classified, correct? >> the fbi filed a complaint and even, you know, in a session

representative hunter basically said that, well, we had to put him in his place. they felt it was one of those things where it's a shot across the bow. they did that with a criminal allegation. so they kind of underestimated the effect of telling the army that i'm leaking secret information, and that led to the situation i'm in right now. on the positive side it allowed me to share with you aspects of the broader dysfunction i was dealing with, but in terms of resolving this, it should have been resolved with a simple conversation before the fbi complained, i notified my chain of command what was happening and they told me you did nothing wrong. and someone more senior for unknown reasons demanded this be thoroughly investigated. ok. that's fine. but in five months, nobody has spoken to me about what actually occurred.

and that's where i think you run into the issue is, the only organization that, to me, is actually kind of effectively run through this so far is dod ig. everything they did i felt was first class, regardless of how they ultimately conclude this in the end. then getting out to interview everyone involved is very difficult because they'll approach someone and in the interview, who is going to incriminate themselves. the dod ig has an enormously difficult task, and the time lines are the things that really they have to be in force. 180 days is actually kind of hell for someone trying to retire from the military and start a new career, but from what i've seen, i understand why it is 180 days. but the chain of command on top of that needs to have a role in this where i don't understand why when the army heard that there's an allegation of me speaking to representative hunter that they didn't think that maybe they ought to dig

into it a bit before they started criminal charges. and when they deleted my retirement they can only do that with an eye toward court-martial. all i could take away from this is they are seeking to court-martial me under allegations of sharing sensitive information with a representative on the house armed services committee. it's ridiculous in my mind but, obviously, i'm the criminal in this case. the chain of command should have stepped up and realized they needed to handle this a little more smartly than going after me with cid investigation. >> and had a conversation with you at the outset, which you indicate they didn't have. they didn't ask you. is that correct? >> my chain of command never spoke to me. the only time i was spoken to was on january 15th when this began when i was told i'd be escorted out of the pentagon because i'm under criminal investigation.

>> thank you, colonel. we've discussed the igs and office of special counsel. maybe ms. johnson you can talk about your experience with the ig. has the inspector general been responsive to your concerns? >> yes, they have. two investigations have been opened. not really at libertiy to talk about that. they were able to open an investigation into the personnel actions and the whistleblowing complaint. in addition to some other investigations related to that criminal investigation. they were -- they have a lot more authority as far as subpoena powers that i think the osc -- in my case the osc had a really tough time getting my agency to cooperate with the documents giving them what would make them look good versus what was requested.

the opr system for us, at least at the dhs level was awful. it's my opinion that that needs to be made permanent. the asac, the rac and the sac are all agents from los angeles under sac los angeles. for me going through that opr process on the numerous allegations that came up after the cb-5 and during was -- it was an awful process. the sac communicating back and forth. but the osc was initially good at finding that and so was the oig in seeing the communications and conflict of interest. but the ig was probably above and beyond the best one so far as investigating. >> so helpful in trying to figure it out, but they didn't have the subpoena powers. the authority to get the information in a timely basis, where the ig was able to be more effective.

>> right. they kept running into walls. >> thank you, mr. chairman and appreciate you all being here and willing to testify before us. >> mr. devine in your testimony, again, i was looking at these laws ahead of time. for me it started back in 1978. i guess it is with the civil service act. but in your testimony, you enlightened me that it started with the act in 1912. and you said it was an anti-retaliation law created a no exceptions right to communicate with congress. >> yes, sir. >> really the point we're talking about here with lieutenant colonel amerine. an absolute no exception right to communicate with congress. what's gone haywire? in particular, the question i asked earlier, i keep asking myself why? coming from the private sector i am always looking for individuals to know what's going

on so i can address problems. so, again, we should be pinning medals on these people's chests as opposed to retaliating. tell me about that law but also is there some very common, very universal answer to the question why? >> the lloyd act is a principle but it's tempered because there's no procedure to enforce it and no remedies even if you found a violation somehow. so it's just a symbolic law. it's been waiting a long time to get some teeth in it. as far as the more fundamental question, i've asked myself that for a long time, senator, and i think my own insights are that the federal agencies and some private organizations, too behave this way almost as the

institutional equivalent of an animal instinct. an animal's instinct is to destroy anything that threatens it. and organizations behave the same way. in fact, i do. maybe there's a lesson to be learned from that and we should talk this through. what's the cause of that. i want to flatten that person that attacked me because i'm angry, they hurt me and i don't want to give them a chance to do it again. this is the way institutions react to whistleblowers. snuff out the threat. it's unfortunate. very shortsided. whistleblowers are like the bitter pill that keeps you out of the hospital. bad news in the short term. don't kill the messenger. >> that's awful general as i listen to the four witnesses here. in my mind i can at least assume

some specific lives, somebody being protected. some piece of information that we didn't want to have disclosed, like for lieutenant colonel amerine. there was a deal of seven marines for one taliban. there might have been a ransom paid that was stolen. i'm going to get back to the other witnesses to find out their specific why. isn't it -- i'm looking for your knowledge because you've been dealing for this. is it protecting an individual or people in power? >> part of it is the structure of the communications. when a whistemblower works up the chain of command, sooner or later you reach someone who is maybe responsible for the wrongdoing and a conflict of interest kicks in by someone who has power over the messenger. that's why it's so important when there is that confluct, it's not just a mistake that everyone wants to fix but

someone has engaged in wrongdoing. but they have access to safe clear access to congress to circumvent the conflict of interest and get some independent response to their concerns. >> that's why we set up our whistleblower at ronjohnson@senate.gov. i'm assuming that for individuals here will have some protection for coming forward. i want to pick up with you. can you point to a why? i'm going to ask the other whistleblowers, what does it cost? i understand in terms of this retaliation, there's reputational harm. that's a cost. it's a grave cost. having a hostile work environment in all kinds of ways. sitting on a folding chair, not having a desk, all those types of things. i want the dollar cost. i really want you to let us know how has this cost you financially. first, mr. keegan, i want to give you an

answer of why. why in your case. >> why i think it was done? >> yeah. was somebody trying to protect themselves? was it just this general overall we want to protect the social security administration? >> well, i believe, senator, having sat in a number of high-level meetings at social security in the months prior to this debacle that happened to me, acting commissioner colton was in the beginning stages of -- colvin was in the beginning stages of believing she was going to be nominated and then finally being nominated. in at least three meetings, the chief of staff, james kisco made the statement. nothing is going to leave this agency that is going to embarrass carolyn colvin. i can't make a direct connection between that and what happened to me, but it certainly makes some sense to me. to answer your question of what

it cost me. i had a 44-year career military, 12 years in the private sector and 12 years. -- 12 years senior executive service. i had awards and promotions until my very last performance review at the social security administration which capped off my 44 years and basically destroyed everything i worked for in my career. it cost me practically my marriage, to be perfectly frank. one year of sitting in an office staring at four walls and watching a clock tick, being a very high energy results oriented person for me was a death by a thousand cuts. what it cost me financially, i finally could not take it anymore and i retired. i retired five years early. i was not financially prepared to retire. i've not been able to git a job for two reasons. i can't get a reference. and how do i explain how i went from a member of the senior executive service to a nonsupervisory adviser with no

accountability and no duties. i think my wife would tell you the cost has been inordinate and enormous. >> mr. decos-bello. >> the biggest cost has been watching my son jump out of his high school roof because he saw his father lost his uniform, his weapon. he's always been very proud of my career and the way i perform my duties. not only at work but off duty. i have raised three excellent children, but it was the most costing and emotionally devastating thing that i had to do, receive that phone call that no father wants to receive that your son is on the roof of his high school getting ready to

jump because his father is going through a whistleblower retaliation action. luckily, i was there. i got in time. police was there. and the fire department was there with the jumping blanket. he finally jumped, and he was held by county police and wouldn't let nobody arrest him. he has to be arrested by his father. and with great pain, i picked my son, who is autistic, to come down to the office, put the handcuffs on him and then followed in my vehicle and spent two days in the hospital talking to him. my problem was going to be resolved eventually. that patience will pay off.

financially, it has cost me over $41,000 in lawyers fees, just to keep my job. i'm in debt up to my neck, but as a responsible citizen, i pay all of them and waiting that hopefully one day i can be compensated for all the troubles that financially i have put myself into because i did the right thing. this is very hard for me. i'm reliving something that no father wants to relive, but it has put a strain, like mr. keegan said, a big strain on my 26-year marriage. luckily for me, i have a very supporting wife that i can talk to. i used the employee assistance program, went to therapy and talked to a counselor, and she told me, you haven't done

anything wrong. you should be proud of yourself. and why did we create this new enhancement whistleblower protecting act in 2012? if we are not going to clear the air and punish the guilty and protect the whistleblower. >> thank you. ms. johnson? >> yes, sir. i think a few things that folks said just about protecting people in power, the lieutenant here -- is it colonel or lieutenant? lieutenant colonel, i'm sorry. just having common sense and starting a conversation could just -- there wasn't that communication there. but i think ultimately as far as reasons it is protecting people. maybe our leadership not having the courage to stand up and say, ok, these are our people.

we need to take care of them. it's supposed to be a family. and that's not all their fault. there's been a lot of people with them. we're all dealing with a number of things. >> i was looking for the cost. >> oh, i'm sorry. i thought you said the cause. there's always that financial cost with legal fees. i had a great job so i adopted my two little girls. so i have two older ones from -- so i have four kids and i'm in the middle of an adoption. my salary was affected. i didn't get a step increase. not only did i add two kids to my household but i didn't get my increase. they finally fixed that. the phone calls. there's a huge cost to being an active member to your family. the joy is sucked out of your life. i'm pretty fun.

i like to work hard and go home and play hard. you lose a little bit of that because it really just sucks it out of you. >> lieutenant colonel? >> i mean, for me, i had to burn two months of leave that i had intended to use for retirement leave. that was about $18,000 because initially when my security clearance was suspended they moved me out of a top secret facility to a secret open storage facility where they -- my presence in and of itself would have represented a security violation while i'm rnd -- under investigation for a security violation. so, i mean, i took two months leave just to get out of there and not to further incriminate myself. and thanks to my jag lieutenant colonel bill ruling, i was able

to finally get assigned to a position where i wouldn't be committing a security violation by going to work. there's some legal fees. we'll see how far that goes. the broader cost to me is what it shows the younger erer -- younger soldiers and officers in the army. we always have difficulty with our junior officers and junior noncommissioned officers showing them that, you know, remaining in the military, working your way up the ranks is something you ought to aspire to do. and all these officers that i knew as cadets see what's happening to me and the example set for them is terrible. what does it do in the army? the army is killing itself with things like this. when you go after people reporting significant issues and crimes. when you go after people who are whistleblowing, although i still loathe the term, you end up setting a terrible example for all the people seeing the retal retaliation. that's the cost to me that matters, what it's doing to my army.

>> lieutenant colonel, i think that really is, in the end, the final answer of why. whether it's organizational or protecting somebody else, it's trying to make an example of somebody so the next person doesn't step forward. isn't that kind of the bottom line? senator carper? >> several of you, again, thank you so much for being here, for sharing your stories with us and for your service, past and present to our country. several of you have said things that reminded me of a sad chapter in our state last week when we buried the son of joe biden. and joe biden has this saying that i've heard him use any number of times when he's spoken

at funerals. and he has said, talking to the family of the deceased, that his hope was that some day would come when the thought of that individual would bring a smile to their face before a tear to their eye. several of you said the word whistleblower is not a term of endearment. my hope is that you live long enough and we do, too, that just like vice president biden talked about the thought of a loved one bringing a smile to the face of the surviving family members, my hope is that, in the future, people in our government, our country when they hear the term whistleblower, it will bring a smile to their face before it brings a tear to their eye. that's one thing.

second thing, i want to say, i want to go back to dover air force base. dover air force base is one of the finest air force bases in the world. some of you have been there. they are the best air base we have in the world. they had a sacred duty there that involved not so much airlift as it did a mortuary and receiving the bodies, the remains of fallen heroes. and there were things going on in that mortuary that were inappropriate. they were wrong. and some folks who work there knew about it. and tried to get a change from within. were not successful. and they ended up going on the outside. they came to our senate office. and we were not sure initially if this was credible, but they won us over. they convinced us.

they were there for the right reasons. the office of special counsel got involved. and i want to tell you, i was impressed. i didn't know a lot about the office of special counsel, but they were like a dog with a bone trying to make sure that justice was done. i go to the air force base a lot. important constituent of ours, our delegation. and one of the last visits i went over to the base last year. i went back to the mortuary. incredible facility. some of the hardest work done by anyone that's served in the u.s. military is the work done with the folks there with the remains.

if you've ever been there. it's incredible work they do. i applaud them for the work that they do. but some people did not adhere to the high standards they should have. i went back to the mortuary last year. when i walked in, the first couple of people i saw were the whistleblowers. and i looked around to find the colonel who used to run the place, long gone, and i looked around for the civilian personnel who reported to the colonel. long gone. and you know who were running the place? the team that included the whistleblowers. more committed than ever to doing the right thing. the right thing. i want to ask you to talk a little bit about the -- the

entity counsel that -- the special counsel that actually got involved in this case in dover. i'm sure they're not -- it's not the only instance where they did the large work and made sure that justice was done, but talk about the work that they do throughout the government. in this case it was in a military installation. talk about the work they do, and how can we help them do a better job? >> i think the office of special counsel is probably the best agency in the federal government for whistleblowers to seek justice. it's a low bar, but they're doing their best there. and it's particularly impressive because just four years ago, they were coming out of chaos where they were subject to fbi raids and the previous special counsel was kwuctconvicted of -- convicted of criminal misconduct. they've come a long way. the area we're most impressed is the alternative dispute resolution, probably the most

effective unit at getting a speedy resolution with just results for whistleblowers. they've been aggressive in using their new authority to file amicus curie briefs that have been outstanding. they've increased their corrective actions significantly there. they've overhauled their disclosure unit for whistleblowers to try to make a difference so it's more employee friendly and can hold the agencies accountable for following up and acting on the problems confirmed. those are all positive developments. we think that they can do better in their complaints examining unit. the quality of the reviews for screening these cases for investigations extremely uneven in my experience in reports that we received. we think that they need to go for temporary relief more frequently.own in recent years. and that's the single most important factor there is for

whistleblowers to get an acceptable ending. finally, we think they need to litigate some cases. the osc has told me that the reason they don't litigate is they always surrender when they -- >> the agencies what? >> they've said that they never really have a chance to go to trial and defeat a retaliation case because the agencies always surrender. i think they are picking the wrong enemies or wrong issues. we can help them foond some -- find some whifrtleblower cases where the agencies will fight back on disputes that make a difference. >> a closing thought, if i could. our thanks to each of you for joining us today and for your service to our country, past and present. i would note as i did earlier in my opening statement, i think the chairman did as well, we have before us five very impressive people. but missing at the table are

those who have another perspective on the stories that you've told. and i think we need to keep these in mind. these are matters still being adjudicated. and we'll have to let that process go forward. i'm encouraged by what you said mr. devine, about the changes that flow from adoption of the whistleblower enhancements act that we passed in 2012. with my support, that may be before chairman joint is here. i'm encouraged that it's working. i am also thankful to those of you who turned off your cell phones before you came in. [laughter] the last thing i want to say is, you all talked about your core values. you have. and i have my own. the chairman has his own.

actually, they're pretty similar. i'll close with these. number one, figure out the right thing to do. just do it. not the expedient thing. what's the right thing to do? we all need to do that including the folks who run these agencies where you feel you haven't been treated well. second is golden rule. treat people the way we want to be treated. and third i've referenced it already. the idea is to focus on excellence in everything we do. everything i do, i know i can do better. all these agencies we have, we can do better. we need to focus on it. in order to form a more perfect union. and the last one, just don't give up. if you know you're right, think you're right, don't give up. never give up. and i think those are some of the core values that i hear sounded here today. and good values for us as individuals and for congress and for our country. thank you again.

god bless. >> thank you, senator carper. i'd also like to thank all of our witnesses for your thoughtful testimony, your thoughtful answers to our questions. your courage for coming forward. i want to thank every whistleblower that has the korge -- courage to come forward to tell the truth. i agree with the goal of the act. an anti-retaliation law that created a no exceptions right to communicate. whistleblower@ronjohnson.senate. gov. i want to encourage others of courage to come forward. it's the only way we'll reform it is if we know about it. if the public has the light of day shown upon abuse and corruption. again, thank you all for your testimony and coming forward. the hearing record will remain open until june 26th at 5:00 p.m. for submissions of statements for the record. this hearing is adjourned.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indiscernible]

>> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member. also, to strict maps, a foldout map of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees, the president's candidate, federal agencies. order your copy today. >> coming up tonight on c-span new york city police officers testifying on the 9/11 victims'

fund. more about the trade bill later from luke messer. on the next washington journal kevin yoder discusses the vote on the trade commission authority bill. then the president's request for authorization to use military force against isis. "washington journal" is live and you can join them on facebook and twitter. on thursday, members of the house debated a rule governing to trade bills. members approved the rule by a close vote. a democrats voted yes and 34 republicans voted no. votes on those two trade authority bills on friday. the trade promotion authority would grant president obama authority to submit on a member

-- an immovable -- an amendable trade agreements to congress. the taa helps employees who lose their jobs because of free trade. >> on c-span's "road to the white house" more candidates announce their campaigns. former secretary clinton will talk about her goals for her campaign. at monday -- on monday, we are live it miami-dade college where jeb bush will announce his candidacy. donald trump announces whether he will make a bid for the presidency. you can watch all of these events online any time at c-span.org.

>> next, a look at reauthorizing the 9/11 victims' fund. it would also eliminate caps for victims and their families. the hearing is about two hours. mr. pitts: 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. 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 who were injured 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 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 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 new jersey. we also provide them with additional training. we're working with medscape 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 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 helpful for the efficiency and the 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 life in college and grad school and metro 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 my 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 -- place, disability insurance and so forth. so i think a lot of us that aren't, you know, in new york continuously and the surrounding areas, like my friend 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 seeing 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 seeing 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? 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

duration 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 to volunteer as responders. similarly in the section of the act that deals with survivors, there are eligibility, five levels of eligibility requirements 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 -- i might add in which all of that information is solicited 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 these 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 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 have been involved since 2001 and in the nationwide provider network have that capability. 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 71,942 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 -- when it happens 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 -- 90-day time 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, this disaster on 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 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 details but 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 -- and a lot 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 and the department of energy. 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 -- who 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 endeavor, 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 related health conditions between fiscal year 2011 and 2014. the program funded 35 projects to investigate questions about 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 cancer 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 $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 findings from research. all our papers 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 in 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 -- retain them so that is 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. 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