Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20140922

Otherwise. The adaptive pathway that some are using did so many to have appeal because we live in the information act. The rapidity in which something can come to fashl approval with the Information Systems we have. It seems this would be a reasonable direction. I hope we can consider it in our legislation and we would be receptive to in the licensing. Its very much a topic of discussion. We have been involved deeply with the authorities that are looking at this as well as the Scientific Community to look at the opportunities to get robust answers from a range of approaches designed and innovative. At the time the fda has an array of tools and regulatory flexibility thanks to work in congress including the breakthrough designation. In fact our approaches are not in the sense that accelerated approval, for example, can use them in that enables us to move a product in the market place that collects data in a continuing way to then assure the final approval if it works and provides an overall benefit for patients. How can we stream line and best adapt the bath ways to make a difference. The secretary mentioned that they use various methods for expedited approval and that is making a huge and being a real by. One of the most important things to emerge in terms of all this work is what makes the most difference in actually reducing times from discovery to the bed side. Its the amount for the researchers and the companies and fda to all Work Together early and in a continuing way to shape the Development Process to identify what is the data that is needed to move us as swiftly as possible over the finish line and i think that is really the most important work needs to be done to make the most difference for patients. I have to add the comment was ready this morning and someone is working with someone in the fda and getting to a point where perhaps the next steps will be taken in. Back to square one. I hear this all the time. This is not new. Thats a huge concern for us. It reflects that people are stretched too thin and worked too hard and challenging. And they are very competitive in other sectors. They need to address the issues that thank you very much. I wanted to commend the conferences and round Table Discussions. They have been very valuable and come home many days. There is a promise of a lot of new innovations. This is an exciting time in medicine. Its the sense of the nih and fda having the ability to do the work in a new fashion. We gave fda a lot of authority to be more nimble and work more collaboratively with those who are developing pharmaceuticals and medical devices. I heard a lot of praise for that. With the nih, there is so clear how dependent the future is going to be on a stable and appropriate funding for biomedical research. If we had a 10year decrease downhill in funding, its not just the people who work at it. Its the whole Health Care System that pays a very heavy price. If we are determined to do anything and i think reflecting the will of the American People overwhelmingly, lets adequately fund nih research and the administrati administration. We have to fund the work through user fees. This is a government function. Those who are trying to develop new breakthroughs have to figure out how to pay the user fees. To set up the user fees, we have to do what we have to do. We shouldnt see the constant decreasing or flattening out of the funds which erode over the years. I also am proud to have my constituent friend here and i thank you for his presentation and the work of this whole panel very much relied on the work of your organization that they have done in the 2011 discussions about barriers that prevent progress. I was struck by the fact that you talked about the cap and trade program for the acid rain to get rid of acid rain which i authored. It seems to me we need to do that to unleash the Market Forces. I dont think the government we need to give the right incentives and step aside and let Market Forces dictate the creation of the infrastructure to accomplish the goals we want. We need to do it more in the environmental area and especially in the health area. Part of that infrastructure must be and because of the areas. That was a blunt instrument. We heard about the and the report of all the other things that will make things easier and instead they make had harder. They would welcome legislations to reform that area. If we come in with a blunt instrument, suddenly recreating the fda authorities. Mandating things or looking for the department of health and Human Services they are not equipped to do and dont fund him to do it, we have to be cautious about the legislation that may be proposed. More than anything we want government to be there to work collaboratively and they still have to recognize the safety and efficacy that American People and most people here would certainly think is necessary for a new product. We want those products out as quickly as possible. I remember the days when we had the first evidence of the aids epidemic and the people that brought home the reform and fda to get some of these therapies out quickly were the groups of the gay community. They studied the law of the fda and argued you dont need to take so long and wait to the end result to show that a therapy is and effective. You can have markets and get the products out more quickly. I think the collaboration between the private sector where the Market Forces were pushed to move forward and we want government not to stand in their way by under mining them with less stability for their work. The private sector and the disease groups and most representatives of disease groups know more about the diseases than anybody else. They have worked so hard to try to understand whats at stake. Pressing the government to be as flexible as possible. I think its important for the infrastructure for the 21st century. I want to say i would be cautious about thinking we can solve big problems with legislation with all the unforeseen consequences that can sit in a panel here years from now. I guess thats not a question, but comments. I thank the witnesses and particularly my friend ask constituent for all that he has done. Thank you, mr. Chairman for convening this round table and thank you to the expert witnesses for your insights. Every time we have one of these hearings or round tables, we learn a lot. We had an excellent round table with the doctors and our chairman. Dr. Burgence and frank was there. Its very, very important. Its important and meepingful. Doctor, let me ask you, you have forcefully made the case that its imperative for congress to prioritize funding for nih. While i understand the importance of ensuring that funning remains stable and predictable. Congress is at a cross roads where federal dollars are already committed, particularly as they relate to federal entitlement and safety net programs. If we are going to find resources to stabilize and or potentially increase nih funding, congress is going to have to work hard at prioritizing resources that are focused on on advancing science and research to spur the next generation of cures. Are there existing sources of Research Funding. This attempts to find federal dollars to help advance the next generation of cures. Your thoughts . I dont envy the position all of you members of congress are in with our nation in a very difficult fiscal deficit. Circumstance trying to figure out how to balance the needs to support important government activities and i would submit that medical research is a very penitentiary government activity that doesnt support the basic science that wont get done. At the same time i know you have to figure out how not to have a circumstance where we bury our heads in the sand. One of the things we have been trying to do. Its to identify other ways to support medical research other than the traditional nih appropriation. Money has gotten started about months ago. A partnership between nih and ten Large Pharmaceutical Companies called the accelerating partnership. Thats really unprecedented in this. The goal here is to try to identify that next generation of drug therapies that we know is waiting to be discovered. That will again get out of it and the expertise doesnt reside in the sector alone, but putting them together, the researchers and the companies could be pretty exciting. The companies recognizing much to their credit, they are willing to engage in a partnership where the data is made accessible. It is not hidden. We would have a hard time participating. This partnership which is being equally supported financially by both the companies and the nih, 5050 split in an unprecedented way is moving forward on diabetes and alzheimers and rheumatoid arthritis. I wanted to be sure it doesnt run off the rails. I think they are quite gratified by how far its come. Thats an example of creative ways to try to identify partnerships. A number of exciting initiatives putting cells on a check to allow you to investigate their way. I got a lung over here. These are basically amazing technologies, bringing together the engineering skills with the biology skills of our investigators to move things forward in a fashion that could be great for identifying drug toxicities as well as effectiveness. Of all the various parts, im on the board by statute. The board of governors includes the director. The patientcentered outcomes is what they are. They are working hard to identify in a research, evidencebased ways, what are the interventions that work and which dont work for patients in the real world. Issues that we need to know about. Its a hardworking organization that only has been around for two or years. I dont know how to balance those kinds of decisions. People are struggling to make. I want to promise the group that we are not just at nih saying give us money and we will keep doing things the way we have. I get it. We have to be creative and make reforms in which we administer our own funds that we have through the public give to us. Woo are looking at every nook and cran tow come up with ways to be more efficient. I promise you this is not just researchers with their hands out saying leave us alone. We understand the obligation to be incredibly creative about what we do and productive. We are willing to put ourselves under the microscope. Can i suggest a couple . One, i would say scoring. When we look at how things are scored, we need to totally reevaluate. I will quickly cite one example. A board member of mine and close friend was diagnosed with cancer and given a short president to live. He engaged in every known Clinical Trial, in this case for prostate cancer. He recovered and over 11 years, i would say ten extremely productive. He led two tours of duty where he led the medical efforts in iraq. One was chemotherapy. They had everyone in the dod. When we had issues, he was called on to solve the problems at walter reed and founded two Bioscience Companies and was previously the doctor for in the scoring, everything he accomplished in the 11 years, not the least of which was 11 years more than his Young Children had with him. They were 3, 4, and 6 at the time. All of them will remember their father and their lives will be different and childrens lives will be different. His score was zero. Of any benefits of the treatments he got. We just count the cost and we dont count the benefits of this Great American patriot. In the 11 years, he got approximately 16 years before their normal lifespan. I would say scorning. Two international lives. The first was supported by henry kissinger. They put up 20 of the money and others put up 80 in the u. S. And they managed 100 of the money. If we focus as part of the state department and other international efforts, other countries on a per capita basis are far wealthier than the u. S. Today. Norway many years ago set up a fund for the north sea. Its kind of a rainy day fund. Their goal is 500 million u. S. That fund today approaches 900 billion. They overshot that fund. That would be like if you had a fund of 60 trillion sitting there. They can play as many other nations can an active role in activities if we had the structure here to get Financial Support from them today. Third is the young scientists. Many are encouraged to work in the field and if you go and get teaching degrees from universities and work in inner cities or difficult areas, we forgive their Student Loans they have. Almost all nobel prizes have been issued for ideas within five years. You might have been 60 years old when you received it, but the idea is generated when you were 25 and 30. Today the average age im assuming is in the low 40s. 42, 43. The first time an individual received a grant. How discouraging can that be for a person with new ideas . Today all of us who had children grow up and go to college and leave are challenged when our teens leave the house and go away to college as to how something works. This is the same technology, but we havent found a way to encourage people and to stay in science and research and stay with the nih. One of them might be easily to forgive their Student Loans that they accrued being a doctor or a scientist, etc. If they work in these fields. There is benefit the same as a teacher in the inner cities. Lastly matching to challenge the American Public and philanthropies. We have funded over 500 young scientists. Its amazing how little the money is. 100 young scientists and 100 young scientists for the nih and others around the country. Lets challenge the American Public where you need matching grants for the scientists. I think we can accrue billions of dollars and matching grants here to keep young people and further their careers. I have a thank you. I have seven people on my list. Thank you all again for those of us who serve on the step committee, its easy to have these exchanges. Doctor, i want to thank you and appreciate the fda and what you have done with the gain we had last session. We have a followup that is more authority to unload the future of antibiotics and hopefully we will do that. My main question, july 30th and 31st joined the nih meeting. You mentioned that the u. S. Government should launch a publicprivate partnership. That would work to establish a master Clinical Trial and protocol for antibiotics. They indicated that they have new drugs for bad bugs. In europe they like acronyms there. It is crucial for bringing together the government acadecaa industry for the challenge. Thats an important opponent and the efforts to revitalize anybody. They feel more about the u. S. Publicprivate partnerships and the master trial protocol. Certainly can and thank you for the question, congressman. The industry got together at that meeting july 30 and 31. We worked closely. Its a very important issue when you see the see infections in hospitals and patients who are very sick, they turn out and they have to be on a trajectory and new antibiotics has been slow. They are slow for what mostly is in financial reasons. Thats not seen by most companies is something that can be profitable. Its delivered with a lot of liability concerns. They are increasingly through revolutionary processes and way too much drug prescribing going on and developing the resistances that we have at the present time the strategy. They will have a preexisting network of Clinical Trials. You want to use that on people who are infected with the nichls. You have to find fortunately right now, you can find them everywhere. They tend to happen in outbreaks if you dont have a preexisting network with staff on the ground and consent and irb approvals and the company has their drug and there is no way to check it out and see if it works in less than many, many months. The idea is to have a master protocol in nih through the allergy and infectious disease. They are very invested in making this happen. In order to provide industry with that platform, its a great example of a partnership where we all have a lot in common. A lot more information. Thats about how to take a look at the problem. Coming from the Council Adviser and a bunch of the rest of us. We hear a lot about ebola and the doctors who are able to get something. An mra is in every hospital in the country. We have loved and constituents. Hopefully we can move forward. 30 seconds. I had the opportunity to go through your wonderful facility a number of times this last year and see the advances of what you have done as it relates to animal testing that can help the drug industry. Tell us about this. As we think about traveling at the same speed and the cracks are the same. The testing and expedite the approval of what you are able to do. Thats what they do with the broad use that is gaping momentum daily. In regular basis, the regulations havent kept up with this. For example, there is no fda imaging approved for biomarkers. And yet when another client and sponsor go for approval, the fda in a great way talks about the ways of working through that and what not and efficacy work and said we know that its not required to do, but do you have any . We do and that results in it. What that says to me is its our fault. In the case of the Regulatory Environment in which we work. Its hard for regulations to keep pace. Its hard for regulations to really help allow for new innovative methods to be tested and used. Maybe there is a way to have an emerging issues task force. Technologies are being used perhaps not in the approval, but being used to supplement and with imaging in particular for Clinical Trials, its incredible what has been achieved as a result of looking at biomarkers, etc. If there were emerging issues and task forces the sponsors in this case and the researchers and innovators can work with the regulators and work with the specialists and the subject Matter Experts so we can have some of this happen. We are breaking new science and risk is part of it. You saw what you saw. There is a lot more advance technology than just imaging. Its coming of age today and it can add insight and reduce cost. Speed as you saw and you know. I would encourage that part of your legislation that would allow us to work to be able to allow to experiment. Allow to work and let the new technologies help us meet the goals and objectives that you would find. One speaks to a broader opportunity that builds on the notion of the partnership and research in critical areas. Computer models or simulations and approaches where no one company is necessarily going to want to take the risk of trying to there is a lot of risk and a lot of cost, but if they could be taken and we can identify the new research and review tools, classes would benefit and we need to be able to find ways to take the Research Dollars and make sure they are targeted to the critical areas that are gaps in the Research Funding that require the kinds of new public and private partnership to get the best minds around the table working on the projects that often are really complicated and involve technologies and how best to use them. We have seen the benefit already in the biomarkers area. These are under developed models with the public and private partnership and collaborative research. They are really under resourced in terms of Research Funding at the present time. Its a critical need and its one where we know that if we develop it, it will make a huge difference. The other thing is the regulatory process is really cumbersome. Congressman waxman noticed the Congress Gave us new strategies and authorities to be more nimble and flexible. Putting that into place takes years and the process is important for getting input. It is lengthiy, etc. Thinking about what are the models for how to work in more responsible or collaborative and flexible ways in ways where you have an emerging opportunity there is a challenge. I dont know if it will be fixed by legislation at the present time, but i think its an area that we need to definitely more deeply into because it matters. I know in the end that one of the things we have to do, its our proprietary information and we are not going to share it with others. There is not a drug that gets developed that hasnt been developed by somebody that crossed license with somebody else. There is collaboration and the movement is under foot. We have to provide the courage that happened at the 21st century with the public much sooner than we do. Its all there, but collaboration is clearly the key. Good morning. All of my colleagues who are focused on the 21st century effort and to our expert panel, thank you for taking the time to be here. Since this effort was launched, i have been hearing the Academic Research snuds across florida are great researchers at the Cancer Center and the robust and growing field in florida. Their top issue in congress if it provides sustained funding to the nih, that is the number one. When you begin to talk about what the congress should be doing. That is number one. It is followed closely on the shortage of physician residents. And these young scientists. I heard great ideas here today, but we have this issue as well with how medicare pays for physician residents and there is a shortage in the number of states we are supposed to look at nationwide to help the workforce and we havent done that yet. I think hopefully it could be incorporated into what we are doing. I would like to fall into the last exchange. Here come very costeffective tests through biomarkers and others that would be they would give folks quicker information that they need on their health. They would be a substitute for an invasive type and the folks want to know, why when we get these approved do i have to go back to start all over again to get something approved for medicare to pay for or is this a problem that you are all hearing about . Maybe doctor addressed you and they can talk about that. There seems to be the emerging costeffective tests that would give the answers. Thank you very much for that question. I think its a really important issue and i think we are in the middle of three revolutions. When the genomics et cetera when the big Data Revolution and we are in the middle of a health care revolution. I think i would like to answer your question with two answers. And i think we need to enhance the richness and the potential and the attractiveness of the data that the federal government provides to pharmaceutical partnerships and really providing a data set of all Clinical Trials that are supported. That will make mining that data set by companies and the examples that Arthur Collins gave would make the cooperation with the federal government more attractive. Thats how they can enhance things in terms of biomarker work as well as industry partnerships. The other issue that would facilitate is to support. To support the Smaller Companies that cannot afford to do the biomarkers with expanding the coverage. The program at the hhs. Thats a good way to potentially cover some of these biomarkers as we are gaining the knowledge through registry to beat the effectiveness. They launched a joint venture with them. Thats the system or the types of care that they are going to pool together to push forward the discovery and the validation of that in the large data sets. It comes down to managing and leveraging big data across multiple institutions to not only develop that, but val dade them and part of that is the coverage with evidence development. It thab could be expanded. As well as support iing and makg those very attractive. Let me thank you all for the good work. Congress created a lot of problems. At least the federal government has. Its obviously part of the Affordable Care act. I guess i had two questions, but along that thing, i am a fellow who formerly did research. We wrote ours in 6th great and not eighth grade. It was the office of protection that is part of rrs that required this. I was told we were required to have a local representative. For whatever reason, my institution did not allow that because they felt like the federal government required and they said you had to have it. There was a report coming out about how they need more funding. There was an article out of ucsf. Speaking about how there was a poor correlation between disease however define and where nih puts their money. This fellow wrote and said years ago this was a critique and as he reviewed it years after that, there had been no change. There was a little bit of wiggle room in terms of moving them around. At one point, they were spending a billion on hiv and like 60,000 on hepatitis, even though the number of deaths was at least as great as that and the disease was greater. There seems to be a lousy correlation between where we are spending our doctors and disease. When it am cans to the complexities and secondly to what degree are our federal agencies not taking the doctor we have and moving it to things like the balloon and what things that they had a great deal of success with. Perhaps you first. That we are working on and we spent a lot of time discussing the value of the irbs and more broadly the importance of reducing the time, cost, and cumbersomeness that makes trials more accessible to patients. That is a barrier to advancing the trials and the delivery of opportunity and science. This is that ultimately is the 21st century cures that will likely take on in way or another. It is an area where it has to be done right. It will make the situation better and not worse. There many others that need to be engaged. You are right. There is a Critical Office that is involved in this. Work has been done and work needs to continue to be done and we are ready. On a much smaller scale with respect to fda, they can do that quickly that would enable Clinical Trials in the device area. That would be more efficient and effective and that is that the food and drug act has a requirement in this right now that mandates review of a Clinical Trial boy a local irb. We think that if that could be amended and i think its a simple fix. We could do some good. Done. There has been an effort for about five years to revise the common rule. To emphasize the need for central irbs instead of having every institution have their own tinkering with the consent form and adding another paragraph that costs you a year of time and a lot of pages, it is irrational. We need to stop this whole approach. Nci, the Cancer Institute for their large scale Clinical Trials is using central irbs. There were objects to that that might be liable, but they have been overcome. We need to get on with that. I ark appreciate you raising the issue. In erm its of the correlation. One of the jobs that i in the 27 institutes at nih talk about and we gather around the table. If you look at the current plot and i would be glad to send it to you, it is not that out of whack from what i might think. If you look at various measures of disease whether you are talking about deaths or the measurements of what the impact is and thats reasonable to what you think with a couple of out liars like this. Its a threat to the global circumstance. My dad dies of it and we all have a parent. When i look at the funding for that and with the expense, with the near future expense to medicare and medicate. Im deeply concerned and actually have spent my own efforts to try to do adjustments. The current portfolio supports that research. This is a major threat to the future of our nation and the world. An enormous burden upon the individuals and their families. They have been touched by that and i take your point. We have to be careful with the way in which science developed and coming from insights from the genome, we discovered that there connections between diseases that we never knew about. It would not surprise me that the next breakthrough we are waiting for in alzheimers came from a researcher who we would not say is working on that disease, but other areas and the connections between the pathways surprise us. I think we have to be careful not to be so targeted that we miss out where they come up. Its great dividends and targeted research cannot be replaced. We need both and the research is critical when we see a pathway for disease. Serendipity is not too connected to a disease and one of the reasons that america has been so successful for the last 50 years. Is this an iphone . Good. I want to thank all the members of the panel. The representative and chairman initiative and round Table Discussions have been invaluable. There are a number of physicians, of course, on our committee. There are a number of people on our committee that have knowledge far beyond my limited medical knowledge. But it has been a great effort as we go forward in the 21st century. Dr. Hamburg, im going to address my question to you, representative green, my colleague on the committee from texas and the coauthor of the gain act. We are now, of course, as you know, working on the adapt act to take that a step further for limited population anti bacterial drugs. You didnt get a chance to he diverted his question back to dr. Collins. You didnt get a chance to discuss that. I would like for to you discuss the adapt act and what that model maybe can be an example for other efforts and bringing other drugs to market and medical devices in these highly specialized need areas, resistant antibiotics, limited populations. Thank you for the question. Thank you for your leadership on the critical issue of how can we ensure an adequate pipeline in terms of new Drug Development in the anti bacterial arena. I think dr. Collins did address a critical part of why the gain act was important in terms of needing to create new focus and incentives for Drug Development in this area. It has been a hard area in terms of companies wanting to really invest, because Market Forces dont make it just irresistible in terms of return on investment, especially when you have to take risks. I have to be honest and say fda didnt make it irresistible either because we were really asking for very elaborate, large Clinical Trials that were timely, costly and hard to recruit patients for all the reasons that we talked that dr. Collins mentioned in terms of the complexity of doing these studies and being able to have the Clinical Trial ready to go when the patient appears sometimes deathly ill with an infection. What we are trying to think about now, how can we really design regulatory pathways that enable us to get meaningful answers as quickly as possible and reduce the risk for developers and a special population approach enables us to look at the highest risk end of a spectrum of patients that might be treated and really narrow the focus so that we can ask and answer questions where risk benefit falls out as clearly as possible and enable us to move forward more swiftly. And i think, you know, that thats really what were thinking about there. It applies in anti microbial resistance and new microbial development. It applies in other areas that are important to Public Health as well, including a category like obesity where you can narrow the indication, the Development Process can be sped. Joe barton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman . Joe brought his own expert with him. Yeah. I didnt think we had enough fire power here with the head of nih and hhs and one of the billionaires who has put a lot of money into medical research. So i brought my own. This is my volunteer staff assistant, vice chancellor for research at the university of california San Francisco who calls dr. Hamburg peggy. Peggy is down there. I want to say hi. We were meeting you can call me peggy, too. I am very impressed, mr. Chairman, with the panel you have put together today. Obviously, that have these eminences here is amazing. My question is similar to mr. Pitts but with a different twist. We brought the deficit down from a trillion and a half to half a trillion but its still a half a trillion. With all the good intentions in the world i have introduced nih reform bills and double the funding of nih back in the gingrich era. I introduced authorization bill that increased funding for nih every year. But the reality is, you are going to get what you get plus a little bit. Thats just given that, i want to ask mr. Milken, is there anything we can do to incentivize the private sector to give more to match some sort of a special tax break for medical research or perhaps some sort of a government match if the private sector puts up so much, the government will match it dollar for dollar or maybe one for two or something . Because we obviously i think the chairman is with me on this. In a perfect world, we would want to increase across the board. But in the real world, were going to have to find ways to do better with what we have right now. Are there things we could do next year in terms of giving incentives to the private sector that might actually result in measurable increases in private funding in these areas . Thank you. I want to thank you for your work that you do. Im excited to see my good friend with you today. As he is aware, there are a number of efforts right now on the potential for match. Where you would go to private citizens, foundations, corporations and the government would challenge them by offering to put up a dollar if they were matched for a dollar in the philanthropy standpoint. In the United States today, you are limited on your deductions to you can use 30 of your income for public foundations and 20 for private. In some other countries they have allowed you to have a Tax Deduction up to 50 if its for medical research, science, etc. I think as we saw in the efforts in acid rain and so2, that you can direct funds. I think a risk we are aware of is a number of the people that have accumulated wealth are not as focused on inheritance taxes because theyre planning to give their money when they pass away to foundations. The opportunity to accelerate that. One example i might give you is iras and 401 ks, but when iras, when you are 75 and a half you pull money out and are potentially taxed. Many people if we afforded the opportunity to give money to charity now instead of waiting 20 years or ten years would give the money in their ira and 401ks. There was an experiment where could you give up to 100,000 without tax out of your ira. It ran for two years. I think 140 million was given. But if you took the limit of 100,000 off and tried it for a couple years, you might be surprised how much of private sector money is willing to go. If you decided it needed to go into medical philanthropy or whatever the decisions were, i think you could tap that. Third, i think today the issue of young scientists i think if we had a formal program initiated, you would have a lot of funding Foreign Policy individuals, whether its through their own academic institutions that they felt loyalty or they went to, to support these young scientists. We have spoken to dr. Collins and also commissioner hamburg about the possibility through their private foundations could we help augment the funding. Many years ago i was touring the nih and saw a young scientist. There wasnt going to be funding for the scientist. And sent a check to cover the funding for the scientist. Nine months later, they figured out how to cash the check. Were better now. But told us not to ever do that again. I told them there was another agency, the irs it bounced. They are Getting Better, as dr. Collins said. I think we have not appealed to the American Public enough to incentivize them. We see initiatives such as recently with a. L. S. And putting an ice bucket on your head that raised 100 million and they used to raise 2 million. In the area of men cancer, the growing of a mustache in november, worldwide now raises 150 million a year. How do you communicate one of the challenges has been, how do you get small amounts of money from large numbers of people . This has been a challenge. Companies like safeway, through their checkout program, probably have raised a half a billion dollars for different diseases, breast cancer, prostate cancer, muscular dystrophy and others. Average donation, 2. If you send a check in to a medical Research Foundation it would probably cost us 15 to process it. So these other mechanisms, which safeway did at the checkout counter rounding up, allow you to get millions of people involved with small contributions. I think you can, through some policy changes, run some tests here and maybe run them for a year or two and see what happens. I think the risk is in an area i spoke of early, scoring. Theyre going to tell you that its going to cost, you know, billions of dollars in future taxes in the next 40 years. But i come back to the statement that, 50 of all Economic Growth has come from advances in extension of life and increasing the quality of life. I think by accelerating the giving, we have young people in our country today that are in their 20s that are worth 30 billion. Should they wait until they are 70 or 80 years old or should we try to tap into their intellect and their funds today by incentivizing them to support it today . Theres a number of areas that we could test. Theres trillions of dollars in these iras. Should we wait . If you wait until you pass away, you can give it to your Foundation Tax free. No estate tax. Why dont we encourage them today to participate . I think theres a number of things we could do with private industry. I think theres another factor. We have surveyed cancer patients. We have set up so many regulations and collection of data and accessing of data. We are protecting people that dont want to be protected. 600 Million People on this planet go to facebook every day. They put information and secrets up on line that anyone in the world can access that you cant even believe that theyre saying that or putting it up on their website. More than 70 of all cancer survivors will be willing to make all their data public, all their tests public, so that any graduate ph. D. Md student could access that data. How do you waive hippa . How do you give up the rights to protect information you dont want to protect . I think theres a lot of work that could be done in data collection. When i was at berkeley in the 1960s and was focused on how do we access capital, for small and medium businesses, as a student with little to no money, i was able to access free the chris tapes which summarized Financial Transactions in markets under the guidance of the university of chicago covering the previous 50 years at no cost. To try to create these data sets sometimes could cost 100 million. Who has access to this data . We could provide enormous data. But i do think one of the elements is, how do you waive your privacy rights if you dont want that privacy . Well said. That buzzer means its 12 00. We are going to have a hard stop at 12 00. So we are. I want to really thank really thank everybody here that was involved in the thoughtful discussion. Not only today but in recent months as well. Your ideas have triggered us to move. I want to commend our staff. [ applause ] were not done. This is the last formal meeting this month because were getting out of session i think next week. But i know that during the next couple weeks, i know this weekend im going to oregon and Washington State and were going to have an event. I think theres an event or two in texas, in florida and other states. I would encourage our members to do that, to reach out, to continue to listen, because when we do come back, were going to start writing. Were going to try to do our best to do it right. As i said at the beginning, our goal is to move this early next year. Have a draft proposal done early next year. In all likelihood it wont be done this year. We will miss you dr. Gingrey. We really do want to do this right. Lots of shoulders were going to be leaning on to make sure that it happens. Were most grateful for the administrations support, too. Peggy, you have done a good job. You realize constructively where we need to go. Sylvia burwell today confirmed the administrations support for this. Were reaching out to the senate. Dr. Collins has been a super star not only in this room but traveling to different parts of the country as well. Of course, michael, your work, again, we stole a lot from you over the last couple years. Just outstanding work that you have done and committed in the foundation and the organization that you have has truly helped us. Great entrepreneurs, last two two weeks ago in colorado but now were very grateful for that assistance. We are going to turn the green light on in this green room. Thank you. [ applause ] this afternoon at 5 00 eastern, live on cspan 2, a preview of the Upcoming Supreme Court term that begins in october including the racial gerrymandering of Congressional Districts and the religious will bes of prisoners. And at 5 30 on cspan, cbs news chief correspondent will moderate a discussion on combatting isis and other terrorist groups. Thats hosted for the center of strategic and international studies. Thats live on cspan. Cspan Campaign Debate coverage continues at 7 30 eastern with the pennsylvania governors race between tom corbett and tom wolf. Thursday at 9 00, nebraskas second Congressional District between lee terry and senator brad ashford. And then iowa senate. Cspan campaign 2014, more than 100 debates for the control of congress. The inspectors general with the peace corps, justice department, and epa say delays to access to records and information not only impedes their investigations but also wastes taxpayer dollars. The i. G. S testified before the Government Reform Committee wednesday in reference to a letter sent to members of congress outlining their concerns. 47 i. G. Signed that letter. Representative darylist oois daryl issa chairs the committee. The committee will come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. The oversight committees Mission Statement is we exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent. Efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty is to protect these rights. Taxpayers have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent. Its our job were tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs and, yes, the i. G. Watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American People and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. This is our Mission Statement. On august 5th, 47 inspectors general, 2 3 of the i. G. Community sent an unprecedented letter to Congress Describing serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work of the inspectors general. Section 6a1 of the Inspector General act of 1978 requires agencies to provide, and i quote, full and timely access records to their respective Inspector General. These government watchdogs play a key role in improving efficiency, honesty and accountability. They conduct oversight and investigations and audits to prevent and detect waste, fraud and mismanagement within government agencies. Their work often protects life of federal workers and the American People. They help congress shape legislation and target our oversight and investigative activities. But let there be no doubt, they are executive branch employees who, in fact, were created by an act of congress and signed by a president so the tools they provide are available to the president of the United States to run our government better. In the last fiscal year, the i. G. Community used their 2. 7 billion budget to identify potential cost savings to taxpayers totaling about 46 billion. That means that for every dollar in the total i. G. Budget, they identified approximately 17 in savings. Access is key to that kind of savings. Let me make it clear that many of the investigations, including some you hear about today are not about money, theyre far more valuable. Theyre about liberty. Theyre about your government not trampling on your rights. So agencies withhold information and their records from these watchdogs, it impedes their ability to conduct their work thoroughly, independently, and most of all, timely. It runs up the cost to both sides of the ledger, the inspectors general spend many, many, many millions of dollars simply trying to get access, while your government, the same agency spends millions and millions of dollars on lawyers trying to impede. This is one of the greatest wastes we could possibly have. When agencies refuse or deny i. G. s access, it undermines the intent of congress and the i. G. s ability to effectively oversee these respective agencies. Today, we are going to hear from three widely respected i. G. S who have faced serious challenges from their agencies to access the necessary records to what they do in their work. At the justice department, the Inspector General cannot gain access to grand jury documents or National Security related documents without approval and delay from the Deputy Attorney general of the federal courts. Requiring such permission compromises and impedes i. G. s investigations. At the chemical safety board, they have denied the e. P. A. Inspector general, mr. Elkins who is with us today. Access to certain documents on the basis of Attorney Client privilege. But who is the attorney and what is the privilege . Mr. Elkins, is, in fact, the same entity that is the client. He is, in fact, part of the defined client. Several offices within the e. P. A. Itself, within the office of Homeland Security have interfered with the oigs investigations themselves. And perhaps most disturbing to me personally, and i spoke to the Vice President last night, and i believe he was equally disturbed at the peace corps. They have refused to provide the Inspector General access to information related to Sexual Assaults on peace corps volunteers absent a memorandum of understanding. Lets understand last night we honored and celebrated the 20th anniversary of the enactment of violence against women. Designed to do just the exact opposite. To ask women to come forward and report their assaults. If, in fact, the i. G. Cannot oversee a possible pattern of failure to protect women, then are we to ask women to come forward with the record of their assaults . But in all instances, it is the committees position that these agencies should and must cooperate with the inspectors generals request for information. The committee has investigated several instances, including the ones facing these watchdogs in which Agency Leadership undermined the effectiveness of the inspectors general. The committee has held several hearings on this issue and facing these inspectors generals over the last over the past year. The committee has also conducted a deposition of the peace corps General Council to address the access the access issue at the peace corps. It has not been resolved. And quite frankly, i look forward to the departure of the General Council as part of the problem. Neither this committee nor the i. G. Committee should be wasting time or resources gaining access to records in which the i. G. S have not just legal entitlement to but a sworn obligation to under the i. G. Act. For nearly six years, we have seen this administration make unprecedented efforts, it says to fight transparency by congress. But thats not what were here for today. Were not here because the press wants to snoop. Were not here because article 1, the congress is trying to look over the shoulder of the president in his administration. Were here because the more or less 12,000 men and women who work for the i. G. S and others not here today. Part of this president s team for efficiency, transparency, and, in fact, an Honorable Service by all has not been getting what they wanted. It is my intention upon the end of this hearing to write with my Ranking Member if at all possible a letter to the president urging him to use his executive order capability to resolve this question once and for all. Notwithstanding that, i want to thank our three witnesses here today. And i want to assure you of one thing. After you testify here today and for all 47 i. G. S who wrote, i will be looking, i know my Ranking Member will be looking to make sure that, in fact, no retribution, no punishment is allowed for your coming forward and expressing your concerns under your responsibility in the i. G. Act. With that, i would ask just one thing. We do have a response from the executive office from the president , the office of management and budget in response to mr. Cummings and my letter. Ill place it into record without objection. And we recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. And i want to thank our witnesses for testifying here today. I want to also thank chairman for calling this hearing. Let me start off by saying that what the chairman said with regard to retribution, i agree with. You do a phenomenal job. An important job. And every member of this committee, both sides of the aisle. If we hear about any repercussions from you being here, we will be on it and deal with it effectively and efficiently. Rooting out waste, fraud and abuse is a central tenant of this mission. And we take this mission very seriously. The i. G. S and the authorities, and for example, in 2013, i sent a bipartisan letter to the president and i was joined by chairman issa as well as representative tierney, the chairman and Ranking Member of the National Security subcommittee. In that letter, we press the president to finally nominate an Inspector General at the state department, a position that had remained vacant for five years. Ive also supported legislation to help i. G. S do their job more effectively and efficiently. Such as the i. G. Reform agent of 2008. Last month, after receiving the letter from 47 i. G. S, i cosigned with coburn and the Homeland Security and the Government Affairs committee as well as chairman issa. In that letter, we express our bipartisan concern to the office of management and budget about access issues raised by three i. G. S testifying here today from the peace corps, the department of justice and the Environmental Protection agency. When Congress Passed the Inspector General act in 1978, section 6 of that legislation authorized i. G. S to have very broad access to agency records. This provision was intended to give i. G. S wide latitude to conduct their audits and investigations. But Congress Also included certain exemptions on the legislation. Some of which are an issue today. In addition, some contend that other federal laws make conflict with this broad brand of authority and that that is also a concern that we will be discussing today. First, we have the peace corps. In 2011, Congress Passed and the president signed the volunteer protection act. This law requires a peace corps to establish a confidential system for volunteers to report Sexual Assault crimes. When the i. G. Sought access to this data in order to prepare report also mandated by congress, the peace corps raised a question about providing the personal personally identifiable information of Sexual Assault victims which was supposed to be confidential. On may 22nd, the agency and the i. G. Signed a memorandum of understanding providing the i. G. With access to all information, except personally identifiable information and explicit details of the Sexual Assaults. I understand the disagreement does not address all the i. G. s access concerns, but i believe it is a very good start when we have two potentially conflicting statutes like this. Next, the department of justice Inspector General has expressed concern that when he seeks access to sensitive Law Enforcement information, such as grand jury and wiretap information, he must go through a lengthy approval process at the highest levels of the department. The i. G. s testimony for today says the department has granted access to the records in every case. But, he contends that the lengthy delays erodes his independence. According to the department, several other statutes restrict the release of Sensitive Information such as grand jury and wiretap material. So they must be carefully analyzed and we have to look at that. My understanding is that the department has now asked the office of Legal Counsel to review the issue. I applaud the i. G. For working through this process with the agency. And i look forward to olcs review. Finally, the Environmental Protection agency, i. G. , has raised two concerns. The i. G. Reports that the e. P. A. s office of Homeland Security has been denying the i. G. Access of classified threat material and failing to recognize the i. G. Statutory authority over intrusions into e. P. A. Computer networks. Democratic staff has been working with both sides to mediate this issue. And on june 19th, e. P. A. Administrator mccarthy proposed a framework for better cooperation. At this point, my understanding is that the i. G. Still. Lastly, the dispute between the e. P. A. , i. G. And the chemical safety board seems, at least to me to be the most problematic. The i. G. Has been trying to obtain documents from this csv chairman, but the csv still has not produced all of the requested documents. This week, the i. G. s office sent a letter explaining that although the csv had compiled substantially complied substantially with requests, documents still remain outstanding. I hope we can work with you closely on a bipartisan basis to solve this issue. Let me close by making one observation. As we have seen, many of these issues involve several laws that appear to conflict. And some have raised the possibility of legislative fixes. I believe this idea should be considered very carefully. Although i will not hesitate to pursue statutory clarification if necessary. The last thing the i. G. S need is for legislation to be introduced and fail. Which could have the unintended effect of diluting their authority. For these reasons, mr. Chairman, i appreciate your commitment to work with me and my staff in developing bipartisan and widely supported legislative reform proposals. My staff and i have devoted tremendous efforts to helping i. G. S do their work. And my goal has always been to try to solve the challenges constructively. And with that, i yield back. I think the Ranking Member, all members will have seven days to submit Opening Statements for the record. We now welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. The Inspector General of the u. S. Department of justice. The honorable author a. Elkins jr. Is the Inspector General of the u. S. Environmental protection agency. And the honorable miss kathy a. Buller is the Inspector General of the peace corps. Lady and gentleman, pursuant to the committee rules, will you please rise to take the oath . And raise your right hand . Do your solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give today will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth . Please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. Since youre all skilled professionals and, mr. Horowitz, since youre less than 24 hours from a similar event, you know that wed like you to keep your Opening Statements to five minutes, summarize in any way you can and your entire statements will be placed in the record without objection. And with that, mr. Horowitz, youre up. Thank you, mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing. Access by inspectors general to information and agency files go goes to the heart of our mission to provide nonpartisan oversight. That is why 47 inspectors general signed a letter late last month to congress expressing their concerns about this issue. I want to thank the members of this committee for their bipartisan support in response to that letter. The i. G. Act adopted by congress in 1978 is crystal clear. Section 6a of the act expressly provides an inspectors general must be given complete, timely and unfiltered access to all agency records. However, since 2010, the fbi and other Department Components have not read section 6a of the act in that manner and therefore have refused our requests during our reviews for relevant grand jury, wiretap and Credit Information in its files. As a result, a number of our reviews have been significantly impeded. In response to the objections, the attorney general granted us permission to access the records by making the finding that our reviews were of instance to them. They also stated their intelligence to do so in future audits and reviews. However, there are several significant concerns with this process. First and foremost, the process is inconsistent with the clear mandate of section 6a of the i. G. Act. The attorney general should not have to order Department Components to provide us with access to records that congress has made clear we have a right to review. Second, requiring the Inspector General to obtain permission from Department Leadership seriously compromises our independence. The oig should be deciding which documents it needs access to, not the leadership of the agency being overseen. Third, while current Department Leadership has supported our ability to access records, Agency Leadership changes over time. And our access to records should not turn on the views of the departments leadership. Further, we understand that other Department Components that exercise oversight over Department Programs and personnel, such as the Departments Office of professional responsibility continue to be given access to the same materials without objection. This is unjustifiable and results in the department being less willing to provide materials to the oig, presumably because the oig is statutorily independent while o. P. Is not. This highlights the lack of independence from the departments leadership, which can only be addressed by granting the statutorily independent oig with jurisdiction to investigate all alleged misconduct at the department. Indeed, the independent nonpartisan project on government oversight made the same recommendation in a report issued in march of this year and Bipartisan Legislation introduced in the senate would do just that. This past may, the departments leadership asked the office of Legal Council to issue an opinion addressing the legal objections raised by the fbi and other Department Components. It is imperative that the olc issue its decision promptly because the existing practice at the department seriously impairs our independence every day we do our work. In the absence of a resolution, our struggle to access information in a timely manner continues to seriously delay our work. It also has a substantial impact on the morale of the oigs auditors, analysts, agents and lawyers who work extraordinarily hard every day. Far too often, they face challenges getting timely access to information, including even with routine requests. For example, in two ongoing audits, we had trouble getting organizational charts in a timely manner. We remain hopeful theyll issue an opinion promptly manner. Have substantial consequences for our work. That lead to incomplete, inaccurate or significantly delayed findings or recommendations. I cannot emphasize enough how critical it is to get these questions you may have. Thank you. And youll yield back the one second. Ill yield back the one second. Thank you. Mr. Elkins . Good morning members of the committee. I am arthur elkins, Inspector General for the Environmental Protection agency. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I would like to take this opportunity to publically commend the office of Inspector General staff across the federal government who work hard each day to carry out our important mission. As the committee is aware, for more than a year this oig was confronted with the denial of access by the csb. The csbs leadership asserted that the denial was based on Attorney Client privilege. We countered that such denial violated section 6a1. With that impairment, we resorted to the rarely invoked seven day letter. This Committee Held a hearing on june 19th at which you stated the csb to turn over the documents to the oig within a week. The csb since has produced several sets of documents. We have determined but they have not fully complied with our document request. However, the evidence we have gathered demonstrates that there are additional documents within the scope of our request the csb officials have not provided. In addition, to the csb matter, the epa office of Homeland Security continues to impede the investigations of this oig. We provided testimony on may 7. While there are multiple facets, the crux is this. The epa asserts a belief that there is a category of activity defined as intelligence to which the oig may have access only if the epa determines the oig access is permitted. This impairment by the epa was ongoing when i arrived four years ago and it is still not resolved. Now, i would like to discuss how well the ig act is serving the taxpayers of this country in plushing goals that congress set more than 35 years ago. On august 5, i joined with 46 other igs in sending a letter to this committee as well as other congressional members discussing the troubling push back many of us have been experiencing from our respective agencies when we seek mandated access. We asked congress for a strong reaffirmation of the original and we believe still existing intent of the ig act that oigs have access to all information to assist us in obtaining prompt and complete agency cooperation. Mr. Chairman, questions about whether the ig act is accomplishing congresss goals and whether it needs clarification are not hypothetical to me. They are questions with real world impact on my ability to carry out my mandated functions. You might think, therefore, that i would say without reservation that the ig act requires some enhancements on access and agency cooperation. However, i want all of us, igs and congress included, to be very careful about what i am saying and what i am not saying on this issue. The act as written is quite strong and quite clear. It provides access to all Agency Information and all agency employees. There are no exceptions. Not for material that an agency has searched cannot be further released and not for some piece of Agency Activity that might happen to involve classified information. No courts, no congressional committees and no opinions from the department of justices office of Legal Counsel have given any cause for concern that the requirement for access to all information means anything other than all. In the attempt to clarify or strengthen that authority could suggest that it is not suggest and fully encompassing. The ig act hinges on the cooperation of agency with its ig. If there is not prompt and complete cooperation, the work is stifled. In this regard, the ig act can be compared to a house of cards. If you pull out the cooperation card, the entire act collapses. I therefore urge this committee to look at Enforcement Mechanisms for the access and cooperation already required. The ig act is fine as written. The agencys ability to ignore the act is the problem. This oig will be happy to work with your staff on integrity and efficiency on seclusions to address or access concerns. I believe that congress can send a strong and needed message through legislative enhancements and other means such impairment will not be tolerated. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement and i will be pleased to answer any questions you or the committee may have. Thank you. You yield back four seconds. Yes, i will. Thank you. Miss buller. Chairman issa, Ranking Member cummings, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today and allowing me to summarize my prepared statement. You have asked me to testify about my offices difficulty in obtaining access to agency documents. I testified about this issue before your committee on january 15th. While progress has been made, thanks in part to your efforts, some challenges remain. Our access issues stem from the peace corpss interpretation of the volunteer protection act of 2011, which congress enacted after serious reports that the agency failed to adequately respond to victims of Sexual Assault. To enhance the response, it mandates the reporting so that volunteers may disclose details and receive the services they need without dissemination of their personally identifying information. Unfortunately, peace corpss General Council has written a legal opinion concluding the act overrides the ig act causing the agency to establish policies and procedures that deny access to information. In the case of restricted reports, they argue the act prohibits the agency from disclosing to oig any details of a Sexual Assault or the victims pii. However, the act authorizes disclosure when required by law and the law mandates an extensive oversight role to my office. In may, my office entered into a formal agreement with the agency to obtain some information from restricted reports. The agreement can be terminated by either party at any time but we signed it so we could get some information while continuing to seek agency to congressional action. Although the agreement improves access, i am concerned about my office having to enter into an agreement to get information we are entitled to by law and that we need to do our job. I am also concerned that the agencys legal opinion authorizing it to withhold information from the oig remains in place. This legal opinion sets a dangerous precedent where an agency may interpret a law as overriding the act forcing them to spend limited resources and time wrangling with the agency to obtain information. Many have asked why we need full access to restricted reports. The answer is simple. Without full access, we cannot properly inform the agency or congress whether the agency is complying with the act and whether the agencys response to Sexual Assaults is Getting Better or worse. Further more, the act mandates that my office conduct a case review of the number of cases without full access to information, its very difficult for us to complete this review and ensure that volunteers are receiving the services that they need. On august 5th, 47 igs signed a letter to congress expressing concern over our access issues. Recognizing the implication of agencies refusing, restricting or delaying i. G. Access to agency documents. In response to inquiries about the letter, peace corps told the Washington Post it is committed to working with the Inspector General to ensure rigorous oversight while protecting the confidentiality and privacy of volunteers who are sexually assaulted. Suggesting that privacy and oversight are mutually exclusive. They are not. My office is bound by the same rules. It is trained and experienced in handling Sensitive Information. And there is no sighted record of my office ever mishandling such information. The agency has also suggested that fewer volunteers would report Sexual Assaults if oig had access to the information. When pressed for a factual basis for this, the agency had none. As the daily beast reported, its hard to imagine a case where volunteers declined to report Sexual Assault because the agencys internal watchdog will be provided information to determine there is no negligence or wrongdoing. The agency argues policies and procedures are victim centric. We ask that congress reaffirm what it said in the ig act. The ig act we also believe is very plain on its face and the legislative history strengths that intent. But there are individuals like our general counsel who have taken it upon themselves to interpret the act. We request you look at reaffirming what the ig act says and make sure everybody is on the same page. I thank you for asking me to testify before you. And i am prepared to answer any questions. Thank you. And you yielded back 12 seconds. I have never had a more professional panel. I commend you all. We do a lot of hearings here that are partisan. As you know, this isnt one of them. So one of the challenges here is asking the first and most difficult question, which is, from each of your experiences, when did this begin and what do you think the source is . And i just to the extent that you can say time and date and if you will, accountable individual who you think is the Decision Maker or the impediment, i would like that answer as succinctly as possible. Miss buller . In my case its very easy to pinpoint the time and the person. The passage of the act mandating the restrictive reporting was the impetus. The person was the general counsel. Basically, he has taken the opportunity to interpret the act to impede our access. Mr. Elkins . In my case, you know, i have two agencies that i oversee, the csb and Environmental Protection agency. In both cases, i have to say that issues relative to access starts at the top with a clear message from the top that access will be granted, it will be granted. To the extent that there is a muddled message or the message is not clear, you end up in situations that we have here today. Some of the on the csb side of the house, the issues started back in 2010, 2011. On the epa side of the house, some of the issues that were dealing with today actually started before i even came on board. So this has been an ongoing sort of matter. To answer your question directly, it starts at the top. Clear message from the top what the expectations are. Thats the way the rest of the troops will march. Thank you. Mr. Horowitz . Our issues starts in 2010, have continued. It started in 2010 with the fbi raising objections. Theres a list of them that have said me too in terms of section 6a of the act doesnt mean what it says. What youre saying is is it began with the fbi thinking they could beat your oversight but like any infection, particularly a popular one, you are being shut out systematically . Correct. If theres a way to do that, thats what happened. Yesterday, you and i were together. I think you testified that on six occasions the attorney general or the Deputy Attorney general has intervened when you have been denied and ultimately allowed you to get some of the information. Is that correct . Thats correct. Approximately six. So in your case, its delay and impeding and, in fact, some of the benefits of expedient . You continue to not get information and that is a decision being made by the agency head, is that right . Well, i cant say emphatically that its coming from the agency head. I should say, the agency head has not intervened in some of these letters, ask her to do so. Thats what i was saying. I think thats a fair characterization. But ultimately, thats the person who could intervene . Absolutely. Absolutely. Miss buller, in your case, you site the general counsel. But the general counsel is a referral point. There is an agency head that also has not intervened . Yes. And i think if i can take mr. Elkins and miss buller and bring your two statements together, which i think are important for mr. Cummings and myself both, mr. Elkins you cautioned us not to attempt to clarify, if you will, and maybe come up short and diminish what already is the law. Miss buller, you clearly said, this review, which is also going on at justice, begs the whole question of, is 6a, does it notwithstanding other laws mean what it says it means. Now, mr. Elkins, im coming back to you for that reason. If you either through executive action of the office of the president or through congressional action if we say, because we believe, that notwithstanding other laws 6a means what it says it means, does that both meet your test of not writing new law on top of already good law but at the same time clarify the question so there not be endless review by agency heads, general counsels and referrals to legal review . I think that would be i think that would be quite helpful. I think coming that message clearly without any wiggle room coming from the president would help. Absolutely. Thank you. With that, i have used 12 seconds. I want to go back to what the chairman was asking. Miss buller, as i listen to you and i read your testimony i thought about the issue here, personally identifiable information, it just seems like we should be able to work that out some kind of way. I mean, have you gotten any further than the memorandum of understanding . We have the memorandum of understanding in place. And we are hopeful that we can continue to do our work with that memorandum of understanding. But theres weve with the legal opinion thats still in place, if theres another dispute that comes up regarding what pii is, or what explicit details of the Sexual Assault is, were going to be right back where we started, going back and forth with the general counsels office trying to figure that out. Mr. Elkins, you worked with the epa, to identify the ways the agency can improve its management. For example, your office, at least three reports in the past month, that identified where the epa can save money by improving the contracting processes and oversight, is that right . That is correct. Your recommendations have led to many successful reforms. On july 22nd, 2014, your office reported that the epa implemented actions regarding the epa Monitoring System that protects us from exposure to radiation, is that right . Thats correct, sir. Congress has also charged you with overseeing the chemical safety board, which i want to ask you about. You discuss in your testimony a longterm dispute with the csb. You also identified, and testified before the committee in june about that issue. Your office is investigating the use of perm email accounts by senior csb officials to conduct official business. Is that right . That is correct, sir. September 5th, 2013, you sent a letter to the csb seeking email records. The csb refused to provide this is the only sevenday letter you have issued in your tenure as Inspector General, is that right . Thats right. How long have you been Inspector General . Over four years now. After the committees hearing, some documents were provided, but on july 8th you informed the committee that csb still had not fully complied with your request. You said the documents they provided were not fully responsive, the attachments were not provided, and some documents were redacted, is that right . That is correct. More recently, csb has provided additional documents, including unredacted copies, and on september the 8th, 2014, you sent a letter to the committee saying, and i quote, oig includes that the csb has substantially complied without document requests. However, the evidence we have gathered demonstrates there are additional documents within the scope of our request, which csb officials have not provided to the oig, end of quote. It seems like the csb, following the committees hearing in june was cooperating, but even that was like pulling teeth, is that a fair statement . Thats a very fair statement. Ive got to tell you, i think this is totally unacceptable. Can you tell us now specifically how you know the csb is withholding documents . Well, id like to think ive got a crack team of investigators that ask good questions, and, you know, we track the documents, we track the questions. Its really just matching it up. We ask certain questions. We take a look to see if we got the response. If the response is not there, theres a void. Thats pretty much what weve got. Can you identify the categories of documents that you believe that are being withheld so that we can follow up directly . I can give you somewhat of a characterization. For instance, there was, you know, of course, the instance of use i using, you know, email thats not government email to conduct agency business. At one point in the process, it was conveyed to us that there was a directive to csb staff not to do that. And then subsequently we found emails that suggested that after that date, it was still going on. So in our mind, that suggests that theres a disconnect there. So thats one example. The last question. In the letter you sent on tuesday, you said you will be issuing a report of investigation in the near future. What will the scope of that report be, and when do you expect to issue it . Well, it will be a compilation of what we have determined, you know, based on the facts. Of the case. At this point, it appears to us that the csb leadership was using means other than federal communication means to conduct agency business. So thats where the report is, is likely the head. In terms of when that report is going to be issued, i cant give you an exact date, but i would say very shortly, maybe within the next 90 days or so. I thank you very much. We will follow up. Will the Ranking Member yield . To clarify, miss buller, did you ever ask on this identifiable information and the details of the Sexual Assaults, did you ever ask for in camera review for your people to look at the documents without receiving them . No, that wouldnt have been permitted under the general counsels opinion. The question is, did you ask . No. Did you attempt to ask that you wouldnt take possession, but at least review them . No, we did not. Just a followup. As i listen to your testimony, one of the key when i think about the conflict, the and you said that your agency has been used to handling very Sensitive Information and keeping it confidential. Im sure you made those same arguments to the peace corps. Yes. And what was the response . I mean, weve got government, Public Servants who want to do the right thing, and the last thing your agency would be doing would be going against yourself by revealing information, identifying somebody who may have been sexually assaulted. So im just wondering what happened there . Is it that they dont is there a distrust . The way that its drafted, there are two exceptions on the disclosure. One is for one of the exceptions that is enumerated. And the other is that if the person files a restrictive report, it wont automatically trigger an investigative process. Our general counsel basically interpreted the receipt by my office from a restricted report as doing that, automatically triggering an investigative process, even though we assured him that we are required to follow the law. That if we got any restrictive reported information, we would not use it to trigger an investigation. It didnt seem to make an impact on him. And hes the only person who has concluded that the two laws conflict. When you read the two laws, theres a way to interpret them that they dont. Very well. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Mica . Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i thank you for holding this hearing. And i appreciate the Inspector Generals testifying. I guess with being the Senior Member of the committee, and having gone through almost all the half a dozen or so chairman, and hundreds of members who are on the panel, you get a little bit institutional insight. I have never seen an instance in my 21plus years, 47 Inspector Generals coming together and saying that their oversight was being obstructed. Mr. Horowitz, do you know of any incidents similar to this . I dont. Mr. Elkins . This is the first of my recollection. Ms. Buller . I dont recall any. Each of the instances which youve come here to cite before us have different parameters. Some of them, you know, there could be questions. And ive seen some of your recommendations for possible changes, and legislation. And that would be one way to resolve some of the issues. I think mr. Horowitz, you have some recommendations about some exemptions that are currently allowed that should be excluded. I think you, ms. Buller, is that correct . Just answer yes. Yes. Okay. Mr. Elkins, with the epa, it appears that the actions taken by the epa in really ignoring you and allowing whistleblowers and others to be intimidated, this has undermined your position as Inspector General to conduct your legitimate investigative oversight responsibilitieses. Would that be a fair statement . Yes, that would be a fair statement. The other thing that would concern me is, using some language, or exceptions that are in the law, in the case of justice, and the peace corps, to obstruct an investigation, or even worse, to cover up. Particularly concerned about the sexual abuse instances. Now, some of these cases, the staff had told me, may be like peace corps worker, or some locals on peace corps volunteers, is that the case . Yes. A